Veteran Sergeant wrote:It's punishment for Heresy.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Hi DakkaDakka,


I wanted to openly discussion about the Black Templars being horribly weakened by the best rule they ever had given to them, preferred enemy. After 6th ed dropped, preferred enemy changed and the vow made Templars have rage. I did some mathhammer and figured out when it comes to a 10 man crusader squad with the build listed below against marine equals, it has around a 1 to 2 wound difference comparing it to preferred enemy. Even with such a small difference, there is just something wrong now with the Templars. Rage is just not reliable and effective like preferred enemy was. We used to have this edge over other marine armies in CC. Except Grey Knights. I used to be able to crush 30 man ork boy squads with 7 assault terminators with 5 lightning claws. Isn't the case anymore. Even with the extra 5 LC attacks. Templars have just turned into a marine army with overpriced razorbacks, 2 required HQs for warlord, and horrible special rules. I heard the codex will be updated soon, but rumors are rumors. Guess we have to suffer for now. Anyone agree with me? Thoughts?


Crusader Squad
10 initiates
1 meltagun
1 powerfist

Panzerboy26 wrote:When the Black Templar codex was first written, all preferred enemy DID was allow you to hit your opponent on 3's regardless of WS. When they changed it to 're-roll misses all the time every time', Black Templars got an UNGODLY army-wide buff with that vow.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that changing, and I honestly think that even Rage is a little TOO good as things stand.

Lobukia wrote:To me its a double nerf... furious charge and AAC got much worse

Stormtrooper520 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:To me its a double nerf... furious charge and AAC got much worse

I was kind of sugar coating my thoughts when I posted this. Didn't want people thinking I was whiny, to be honest I feel like the Black Templar codex got pick up by GW and smashed and shredded on the ground. GW has really screwed over the Templars for now. Lets hope for an update soon man.

KGatch113 wrote:

The sad thing is, at one point in the early - mid 2000's, Templars were one of the most popular armies out there. You'd see more Templars at a tournament than wolves and blood angels.

Yes they got nerfed. I've heard they even lost the Typhoon double missiles in the FAQ, so now they are back to twinlinked missile launchers.

I used BT Termies as allies today. Didn't get a chance to charge, so the skills were useless, but being able to shrug off power weapons was hotness.

Panzerboy26 wrote:When the Black Templar codex was first written, all preferred enemy DID was allow you to hit your opponent on 3's regardless of WS. When they changed it to 're-roll misses all the time every time', Black Templars got an UNGODLY army-wide buff with that vow.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that changing, and I honestly think that even Rage is a little TOO good as things stand.

Mannahnin wrote:75pt Typhoons are still pretty awesome. Especially as they're standoff shooters, so aren't screwed by being easily killed in assault or by multiple glances from bolters like other vehicles which need to get close.

Fearless in HtH just got even BETTER with the removal of No Retreat.

I see a lot of folks complaining that their armies have been nerfed; I have seen this complaint from players of almost every army out there. I think a lot of it is just change, which isn't always nerfing, especially in relation to other armies.

Now, that being said, the BT vow change from Preferred Enemy to Rage is a genuine nerf. But I don't think it's so bad it ruins the army.

Panzerboy26 wrote:I'm just saying, this is much closer to what it should be, what the Codex was when it was first written. 5th ed gave Templars a MASSIVE buff. Taking away that MASSIVE buff does not deflate the army, it puts them back where they should be.

It's the same thing with Necrons. Suddenly they are AMAZING at killing tanks. This is NOT new. This is how things were in 3rd and 4th edition. 5th edition came along and took it away from them, and now 6th edition has given it back to them.

Templars never were gods of CC. They were special because they got to take HUGE marine units kitted for CC, got across the table faster, and once they were stuck in, they were utterly Fearless with no downsides, you had to kill them to the man, they didn't fall back. All of these things are still true.

Them spending an edition with twin-linked close combat attacks is a quirk that was NEVER meant to be the unified field theory for the army. Templars are back to what they were before 5th, which is as they should be.

Movac wrote:

Panzerboy26 wrote:When the Black Templar codex was first written, all preferred enemy DID was allow you to hit your opponent on 3's regardless of WS. When they changed it to 're-roll misses all the time every time', Black Templars got an UNGODLY army-wide buff with that vow.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that changing, and I honestly think that even Rage is a little TOO good as things stand.

Hmm, I guess "UNGODLY" means 2nd to last in placement at Ard Boyz and Nova, I didn't see Adepticon results. Your lack of intelligence has provoked my ignore button.

Panzerboy26 wrote:I'm just saying, this is much closer to what it should be, what the Codex was when it was first written. 5th ed gave Templars a MASSIVE buff. Taking away that MASSIVE buff does not deflate the army, it puts them back where they should be.

It's the same thing with Necrons. Suddenly they are AMAZING at killing tanks. This is NOT new. This is how things were in 3rd and 4th edition. 5th edition came along and took it away from them, and now 6th edition has given it back to them.

Templars never were gods of CC. They were special because they got to take HUGE marine units kitted for CC, got across the table faster, and once they were stuck in, they were utterly Fearless with no downsides, you had to kill them to the man, they didn't fall back. All of these things are still true.

Them spending an edition with twin-linked close combat attacks is a quirk that was NEVER meant to be the unified field theory for the army. Templars are back to what they were before 5th, which is as they should be.

Movac wrote:
Hmm, I guess "UNGODLY" means 2nd to last in placement at Ard Boyz and Nova, I didn't see Adepticon results. Your lack of intelligence has provoked my ignore button.

RxGhost wrote:

Movac wrote:
Hmm, I guess "UNGODLY" means 2nd to last in placement at Ard Boyz and Nova, I didn't see Adepticon results. Your lack of intelligence has provoked my ignore button.

Lol to using those as a metric for army worth.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

RxGhost wrote:

Movac wrote:
Hmm, I guess "UNGODLY" means 2nd to last in placement at Ard Boyz and Nova, I didn't see Adepticon results. Your lack of intelligence has provoked my ignore button.

Lol to using those as a metric for army worth.

Yes, using big, well-known and respected tournaments as a measurement of how good an army is in a tournament environment is silly. Except it's not.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

RxGhost wrote:

Movac wrote:
Hmm, I guess "UNGODLY" means 2nd to last in placement at Ard Boyz and Nova, I didn't see Adepticon results. Your lack of intelligence has provoked my ignore button.

Lol to using those as a metric for army worth.

Yes, using big, well-known and respected tournaments as a measurement of how good an army is in a tournament environment is silly. Except it's not.

Dark Scipio wrote:Templars were among the weaker armies.


Simple put:

Rage is much worse than Preferred enemy. MUCH worse.
However it can a bit compensated with chaplains, with are a bit better on the templar side.



Strenght:

- Characters can have eternal warior
- Chaplains can have equipment
- Tactical Termonators (2 heavy weapons+Tank hunter)
- 5 Man Tactical Marines wiht heavy weapon
- Dreads with tank hunter
- Assualt Terminators with Rage and Furios Charge
-18% cheaper Landspeder-Typhoon
- Vindicator & Predatorwith machine spirit
- AAC and With vow
- Cheaper all lasers Predator Annihaltor
- Droppod 5 points cheaper

Weakness:

- Special characters
- No Psy
- Must take champion
- Tactical Marines/Iniates costs
- No Sergeants
- No Scouts
- Bikes and assualt Marines are expensive, bikes have no Boltpistol
- No Devastators
- Whirlwind and cheap Rhino only thgrough IA
- No flyers
- Predators mostly more expensive



(read on GW-Fanworld)

J99Pwrangler wrote:Wow, I cant believe this fourm. I think Templars are more competitive then ever! I honestly dont even think we need a new codex. Our FAQ brings us up to date with normal Marines. AAC is not broken what so ever. So, on the charge youll have 2 power fist attacks with 5ed rules? Now we have 3 attacks. Its not like its 10x better, but its still a great VOW.

Plus if we still had preferred enemy, we would be a worse army then GK. re-rolls to shoot? you know how many typhoons, cyclone ML we would have rocking the board? then the Templars would be OP. Our Chaplin actually have power now, we have a use for them. With 5th ed ACC i never ran one, it didnt pay to. Plus our bikes, terminators, techmarines, typhoons are all great models that give us an advantage in this edition.

5 bikes, 3 power weapons in there, plus an attack bike. then throw in a techmarine with another 2 PW attacks, plus a PF attack? Nobody else gets that.

Last night i ran a 20 man blob squad, with my techmarine leading it. The deployment was the "Big guns" and i thought i was screw(setting up on the long side of the table edge). I ran that squad across the whole board (36+") only losing 3 total guys with my techmarine up front. He had his 2+, 3+inv.

I think Black Templars are still a great army, with a TON of options for army lists in 6th edition.

Movac wrote:Bad post, kind of a waste of time responding but o well.

juraigamer wrote:Getting rage instead is amazing, don't listen to the fools.

+2 attacks means your lack of having sargents means you get double normal attacks that you used to get on those special weapons.

IF YOU GET THE CHARGE Please do some high school level stats before you say something is amazing. Against competent CC fighters, not being satisfied with smashing Guardsmen and Firewarriors as I'm sure you do whilst stroking your neckbeard, the reroll on the 4+'s at all times is much better than just the 1 extra attack you won't always get vs good players

juraigamer wrote:Furthermore the standard setup for players that actually knew how to play BT didn't involve the need for more than 2 blobs, and they normally put 2 chaplins in each unit, solving the other problem of rolling to hit that you currently have. Adding in some vindicators and tank hunting terminators with cyclones and BT were and still are amazing. Of course the vindicators can be swapped out for something else if need be.

20 man hobo squads were more fun than effective, they crumbled vs any other competent CC unit and could take a pathetically long to to kill another ws4 t4 a 3 unit. Run 2 Chaplains eh? So now I'm running 3 HQs, which is a big sunk cost. AGAIN, LITANIES OF DERP IS ONLY ON THE CHARGE.

juraigamer wrote:Their speeders are amazing, and tank hunting venerables with TL lascannons can solve your flying problems easily.

BT still shoot well compared to other marines, they definitely shot better than CC back in 5e considering GK, BA, and SW all passed them in CC capability during that time. In 5e, the only BT CC unit that was at all viable and feared were the Sword Brethren Assault Terminators. They packed PE, a mix of 2/3 attack LCs and TH/SSs, and FC. I admit that a unit with these traits combined with the new power of terminator armour in CC would probably be too powerful, but they were hit exceptionally hard by the changes to the traits that made them strong. They have become unplayable as a CC army for the time being, but the new codex will probably change that.

Movac wrote:Bad post, kind of a waste of time responding but o well.

juraigamer wrote:Getting rage instead is amazing, don't listen to the fools.

+2 attacks means your lack of having sargents means you get double normal attacks that you used to get on those special weapons.

IF YOU GET THE CHARGE Please do some high school level stats before you say something is amazing. Against competent CC fighters, not being satisfied with smashing Guardsmen and Firewarriors as I'm sure you do whilst stroking your neckbeard, the reroll on the 4+'s at all times is much better than just the 1 extra attack you won't always get vs good players

Furthermore the standard setup for players that actually knew how to play BT didn't involve the need for more than 2 blobs, and they normally put 2 chaplins in each unit, solving the other problem of rolling to hit that you currently have. Adding in some vindicators and tank hunting terminators with cyclones and BT were and still are amazing. Of course the vindicators can be swapped out for something else if need be.

20 man hobo squads were more fun than effective, they crumbled vs any other competent CC unit and could take a pathetically long to to kill another ws4 t4 a 3 unit. Run 2 Chaplains eh? So now I'm running 3 HQs, which is a big sunk cost. AGAIN, LITANIES OF DERP IS ONLY ON THE CHARGE.

Their speeders are amazing, and tank hunting venerables with TL lascannons can solve your flying problems easily.

BT still shoot well compared to other marines, they definitely shot better than CC back in 5e considering GK, BA, and SW all passed them in CC capability during that time. In 5e, the only BT CC unit that was at all viable and feared were the Sword Brethren Assault Terminators. They packed PE, a mix of 2/3 attack LCs and TH/SSs, and FC. I admit that a unit with these traits combined with the new power of terminator armour in CC would probably be too powerful, but they were hit exceptionally hard by the changes to the traits that made them strong. They have become unplayable as a CC army for the time being, but the new codex will probably change that.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Also, the hell GW, why did you feel like you needed to revert Land Speeder Typhoons to only firing S5 small blasts? That's like one of three good units in the Codex and they had to kill it. AAARGH!

Mannahnin wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Also, the hell GW, why did you feel like you needed to revert Land Speeder Typhoons to only firing S5 small blasts? That's like one of three good units in the Codex and they had to kill it. AAARGH!

Where the heck are you getting this? It's not in the BT FAQ. It's not in the rulebook. I cannot understand how anyone could hear such a rumor and repeat it without taking the very basic and simple and obvious step of checking those two places to find out that it's untrue.

Movac wrote:

Panzerboy26 wrote:When the Black Templar codex was first written, all preferred enemy DID was allow you to hit your opponent on 3's regardless of WS. When they changed it to 're-roll misses all the time every time', Black Templars got an UNGODLY army-wide buff with that vow.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that changing, and I honestly think that even Rage is a little TOO good as things stand.

Hmm, I guess "UNGODLY" means 2nd to last in placement at Ard Boyz and Nova, I didn't see Adepticon results.

Mannahnin wrote:

Movac wrote:

Panzerboy26 wrote:When the Black Templar codex was first written, all preferred enemy DID was allow you to hit your opponent on 3's regardless of WS. When they changed it to 're-roll misses all the time every time', Black Templars got an UNGODLY army-wide buff with that vow.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that changing, and I honestly think that even Rage is a little TOO good as things stand.

Hmm, I guess "UNGODLY" means 2nd to last in placement at Ard Boyz and Nova, I didn't see Adepticon results.

14th place in the team tournament was the high placing for BT at Adepticon. Nick Rose won both Feast of Blades and Da Boyz GT with them last year. Dave Fay went top 10 with them at both KingdomCon and Comikaze last year. They're an old book that still has a few NASTY tricks and advantages. The tricks you can pull with Righteous Zeal can blindside people very badly.

monolythic wrote:My gut says they will roll us into the smurf book.... they'll make more money because the C:SM book is more expensive and they know we'll buy it if there is a special section in there for us. it'll happen that way, and like a lemming i'll get it. hate myself for that.

But I think Panzer brought up a good point about how we got a little OP when the PE rule changed and TH/SS got FAQ'd. FC termies with PE? that particular unit was kind OP and I won more than a few tournaments with people scratching their heads thinking about how LC termies were rerolling hits and wounds at init 5 for 45 pnts a model....

reason it feels like a nerf though is because the rest of the dex is so terrible by comparison to our marine cousins. BA can take a TLLC razor for 55 points and i'm paying 90+? we're an old dex and that's life. I think when they release the new dex (in whatever form it comes) we'll get a huge boost with updated special rules and new models that come with white hoods.

Were we viable in 5th but not an elite dex... still won a lot... but no one would would put us on the top shelf. (still better than those Dark Angel scrubs though!)

Templars are too popular to be put into vanilla marine codex. Dark Angels seem like that would. They are not that popular. But I know a good amount of people who play templars.

juraigamer wrote:Cry me a river guys, if you can't get the charge you're playing BT wrong.

A list with 2 chappys, champion, 2 blobs of 20 troops, 2 units of 5 terminators with tank hunters and 2 cyclone missiles and 3 POTMS vindicators was, and still is, a balling 1850 point list (you have to peel off a few of the neophytes to add in weapons on the blobs)

Furthermore, the chaplins are there for one reason: to make your power blobs fearless, because failing a rightous zeal hurts bad, not noticing that makes it seem like you don't even know the army.

Now POTMS vindicators may not be the best for this edition, but changing the list is the players job. You can easily make a massive landspeeder list for BT that works very well, as can you put tons of excellent terminators on the table. As a tau player, I know one thing to be true when it comes to playing 40k, adapt or get left behind. Crying doesn't solve the problem.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Templars are one of the most devoted space marine chapters in all of Warhammer 40k. They are even described as beyond fanatical.

fishy bob wrote:

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Templars are one of the most devoted space marine chapters in all of Warhammer 40k. They are even described as beyond fanatical.

And there you have it. They're gonna end up with the Word Bearers.

Mannahnin wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Also, the hell GW, why did you feel like you needed to revert Land Speeder Typhoons to only firing S5 small blasts? That's like one of three good units in the Codex and they had to kill it. AAARGH!

Where the heck are you getting this? It's not in the BT FAQ. It's not in the rulebook. I cannot understand how anyone could hear such a rumor and repeat it without taking the very basic and simple and obvious step of checking those two places to find out that it's untrue.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Also, the hell GW, why did you feel like you needed to revert Land Speeder Typhoons to only firing S5 small blasts? That's like one of three good units in the Codex and they had to kill it. AAARGH!

Where the heck are you getting this? It's not in the BT FAQ. It's not in the rulebook. I cannot understand how anyone could hear such a rumor and repeat it without taking the very basic and simple and obvious step of checking those two places to find out that it's untrue.

Exactly: It's not in the FAQ. I.e. we use the profile in our Codex, which is S5 AP5 Small Blast Twin-linked. I DID take the basic and simple and obvious step of looking in the FAQ; that part of the update isn't there anymore. The Cyclone Missile Launcher is still updated (thank the Emperor), but I can't see the Typhoon Multiple Missile Launcher anywhere in there.

Mannahnin wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Also, the hell GW, why did you feel like you needed to revert Land Speeder Typhoons to only firing S5 small blasts? That's like one of three good units in the Codex and they had to kill it. AAARGH!

Where the heck are you getting this? It's not in the BT FAQ. It's not in the rulebook. I cannot understand how anyone could hear such a rumor and repeat it without taking the very basic and simple and obvious step of checking those two places to find out that it's untrue.

Exactly: It's not in the FAQ. I.e. we use the profile in our Codex, which is S5 AP5 Small Blast Twin-linked. I DID take the basic and simple and obvious step of looking in the FAQ; that part of the update isn't there anymore. The Cyclone Missile Launcher is still updated (thank the Emperor), but I can't see the Typhoon Multiple Missile Launcher anywhere in there.

Doesn't this follow the clause under "Amendments" in the FAQ, so the weapon profile will be replaced by the one on page 416 of the rulebook?

I can understand the confusion now though, thanks.

Glorioski wrote:Use Codex Space Marines?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Use Codex Space Marines?

And be forced to shelve half my army? I think I'll just stick to Templars anyway.

Glorioski wrote:Use Codex Space Marines?

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Use Codex Space Marines?

And be forced to shelve half my army? I think I'll just stick to Templars anyway.

Shelve half your army? How did you work that one out then? Can't think of a BT model you can't use as something in the SM dex.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Yeah there are. Templars were one of the first chapters to not be in the SM codex. Many years ago. Templars are getting updated after Chaos which is first or after Tau which would be 2nd. They will not be a forgotten codex..

Dark Scipio wrote:

You'll also find that some of the weapons in this codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document

It's not noted in the FAQ so it's identical to the one in the BRB

Glorioski wrote:

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Yeah there are. Templars were one of the first chapters to not be in the SM codex. Many years ago. Templars are getting updated after Chaos which is first or after Tau which would be 2nd. They will not be a forgotten codex..

If you believe that then quit whining.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:As for your challenge: Cenobyte Servitors!

Standard servitors no good for you?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Seriously there are too many marine codexes, any hopes you have for them bringing out anything more than a white dwarf codex should be forgotten.

So if I get this correct: "I don't like your army and would rather see it rolled into another army so that the armies I like get more time."

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Seriously there are too many marine codexes, any hopes you have for them bringing out anything more than a white dwarf codex should be forgotten.

So if I get this correct: "I don't like your army and would rather see it rolled into another army so that the armies I like get more time."

No not correct, you fail at basic reading comprehension.

If you want my opinion on the matter I believe there should be more time spent on other codexes outside of marines. BT never needed more than the rules supplements they got in Armageddon.

Dark Scipio wrote:We still have the heavy 2 launchers, no worries.

You'll also find that some of the weapons in this codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document

It's not noted in the FAQ so it's identical to the one in the BRB

Mannahnin wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:We still have the heavy 2 launchers, no worries.

You'll also find that some of the weapons in this codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document

It's not noted in the FAQ so it's identical to the one in the BRB

I think this is the intent. I can understand AM's thinking, though. The problem is that "these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document" isn't very explicit. It SEEMs to be saying that any longform weapon profiles in the codices will match the ones in the rulebook. But they don't match, in this case.

I think the best way to play it is that all TMLs use the profile from the rulebook.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Seriously there are too many marine codexes, any hopes you have for them bringing out anything more than a white dwarf codex should be forgotten.

So if I get this correct: "I don't like your army and would rather see it rolled into another army so that the armies I like get more time."

No not correct, you fail at basic reading comprehension.

If you want my opinion on the matter I believe there should be more time spent on other codexes outside of marines. BT never needed more than the rules supplements they got in Armageddon.

That dodges the issue though; now that Black Templars have a Codex, what would you prefer GW did with them as a playable faction?

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Seriously there are too many marine codexes, any hopes you have for them bringing out anything more than a white dwarf codex should be forgotten.

So if I get this correct: "I don't like your army and would rather see it rolled into another army so that the armies I like get more time."

No not correct, you fail at basic reading comprehension.

If you want my opinion on the matter I believe there should be more time spent on other codexes outside of marines. BT never needed more than the rules supplements they got in Armageddon.

That dodges the issue though; now that Black Templars have a Codex, what would you prefer GW did with them as a playable faction?

I see no problem with Chapter Approved style supplementary rules like you had in third. I'd rather that than they devote several months to them in the codex cycle. 5 marine codexes (6 if you include grey knights) is overkill.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:We still have the heavy 2 launchers, no worries.

You'll also find that some of the weapons in this codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document

It's not noted in the FAQ so it's identical to the one in the BRB

I think this is the intent. I can understand AM's thinking, though. The problem is that "these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document" isn't very explicit. It SEEMs to be saying that any longform weapon profiles in the codices will match the ones in the rulebook. But they don't match, in this case.

I think the best way to play it is that all TMLs use the profile from the rulebook.

I wouldn't say no to that, I'm just brainstorming arguments against us, and as you note the Codex DOESN'T match up, and as I said, Codex>Rulebook these days.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:So no new Black Templars Codex but rather a Chapter Approved article adding Black Templars to Codex: Space Marines?

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:So no new Black Templars Codex but rather a Chapter Approved article adding Black Templars to Codex: Space Marines?

Yes. Rules for the basic units which represent the basic BT structure in the fluff then Helbrecht, Grimaldus and Emps Champ as special characters who let you field other units in different ways, just like how the special characters in the SM codex work.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:Seriously there are too many marine codexes, any hopes you have for them bringing out anything more than a white dwarf codex should be forgotten.

So if I get this correct: "I don't like your army and would rather see it rolled into another army so that the armies I like get more time."

No not correct, you fail at basic reading comprehension.

If you want my opinion on the matter I believe there should be more time spent on other codexes outside of marines. BT never needed more than the rules supplements they got in Armageddon.

That dodges the issue though; now that Black Templars have a Codex, what would you prefer GW did with them as a playable faction?

I see no problem with Chapter Approved style supplementary rules like you had in third. I'd rather that than they devote several months to them in the codex cycle. 5 marine codexes (6 if you include grey knights) is overkill.

So no new Black Templars Codex but rather a Chapter Approved article adding Black Templars to Codex: Space Marines?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:So no new Black Templars Codex but rather a Chapter Approved article adding Black Templars to Codex: Space Marines?

Yes. Rules for the basic units which represent the basic BT structure in the fluff then Helbrecht, Grimaldus and Emps Champ as special characters who let you field other units in different ways, just like how the special characters in the SM codex work.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:So if I get this correct: "I don't like your army and would rather see it rolled into another army so that the armies I like get more time."

Guess my reading comprehension is just fine.

timetowaste85 wrote:I do think that blob squads of BT got hit hard, but how about those bikes I mentioned before? 12" move, 2D6 charge, throw chaplains in and have +2 attacks for charge, plus re-rolls. Small squads that hit hard and ignore the panic checks for each wound caused. I do wanna try it. The list I'm thinking is as follows at 2500-tell me whatcha all think:
Emperor's Champion 140pts
Accept Any Challenge, No Matter the Odds
Master of Sanctity 175pts
Bike
Storm Shield
Artificer Armor
Master of Sanctity 175pts
Bike
Storm Shield
Artificer Armor

Crusader Squad 86pts
Plasma Gun
Crusader Squad 86pts
Plasma Gun

Tech Marine 180pts
Servo Harness
Bike
Lightning Claw/Storm Shield
Terminator Honors
Tech Marine 180pts
Servo Harness
Bike
Lightning Claw/Storm Shield
Terminator Honors
Tech Marine 180pts
Servo Harness
Bike
Lightning Claw/Storm Shield
Terminator Honors

Bikers x5 251pts
Attack Bike: Multi-melta
Power Sword x2
Plasma Gun
Bikers x5 251pts
Attack Bike: Multi-melta
Power Sword x2
Plasma Gun
Bikers x5 251pts
Attack Bike: Multi-melta
Power Sword x2
Plasma Gun

Detachment: Captain 345pts
Bike
Artificer Armor
Lightning Claw/Combi-Plasma
Command Squad: Bikes
Storm Shields x2
Power Sword
Power Axe
Melta Gun x2
Detachment: Scouts x10 150pts

Detachment: Attack Bike w/ Multi-Melta 50pts

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:So no new Black Templars Codex but rather a Chapter Approved article adding Black Templars to Codex: Space Marines?

Yes. Rules for the basic units which represent the basic BT structure in the fluff then Helbrecht, Grimaldus and Emps Champ as special characters who let you field other units in different ways, just like how the special characters in the SM codex work.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:So if I get this correct: "I don't like your army and would rather see it rolled into another army so that the armies I like get more time."

Guess my reading comprehension is just fine.

Right? So the fact you have gathered the I have a dislike for black templars and that is what my opposition to them having a codex is based on comes from something I have said? Don't think so.

Glorioski wrote:Try "I don't think that Black Templars should have their own Codex and would rather non-marine factions got more share of development time."

AlmightyWalrus wrote:On an unrelated note: The Emperor's Champion's Black Sword is an unusual Power Weapon. Model as Mace, get a total of +4 Strength, swing with S8 AP3 (due to being unusual) at I5. Hilarity ensues.

timetowaste85 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:On an unrelated note: The Emperor's Champion's Black Sword is an unusual Power Weapon. Model as Mace, get a total of +4 Strength, swing with S8 AP3 (due to being unusual) at I5. Hilarity ensues.

I...what? Is that allowed? If so, the 'Black Mace' may become quite commonplace...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:On an unrelated note: The Emperor's Champion's Black Sword is an unusual Power Weapon. Model as Mace, get a total of +4 Strength, swing with S8 AP3 (due to being unusual) at I5. Hilarity ensues.

I...what? Is that allowed? If so, the 'Black Mace' may become quite commonplace...

Unusual Power Weapons are AP3 and use their own rules. The Black Sword is a Power Weapon that adds 2 to the user's Strength. Power weapons come in a variety of versions, including Power Maces that are AP4 and add 2 to the user's Strength. A "Black Mace" would thus be both AP4 and AP3 and add 4 to it's user's Strength. 100% legal, trolololol.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:On an unrelated note: The Emperor's Champion's Black Sword is an unusual Power Weapon. Model as Mace, get a total of +4 Strength, swing with S8 AP3 (due to being unusual) at I5. Hilarity ensues.

I...what? Is that allowed? If so, the 'Black Mace' may become quite commonplace...

Unusual Power Weapons are AP3 and use their own rules. The Black Sword is a Power Weapon that adds 2 to the user's Strength. Power weapons come in a variety of versions, including Power Maces that are AP4 and add 2 to the user's Strength. A "Black Mace" would thus be both AP4 and AP3 and add 4 to it's user's Strength. 100% legal, trolololol.

Lobukia wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:On an unrelated note: The Emperor's Champion's Black Sword is an unusual Power Weapon. Model as Mace, get a total of +4 Strength, swing with S8 AP3 (due to being unusual) at I5. Hilarity ensues.

I...what? Is that allowed? If so, the 'Black Mace' may become quite commonplace...

Unusual Power Weapons are AP3 and use their own rules. The Black Sword is a Power Weapon that adds 2 to the user's Strength. Power weapons come in a variety of versions, including Power Maces that are AP4 and add 2 to the user's Strength. A "Black Mace" would thus be both AP4 and AP3 and add 4 to it's user's Strength. 100% legal, trolololol.

It's either an AP 3 weapon with its own rules, or it's a maul. Can't be both.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:On an unrelated note: The Emperor's Champion's Black Sword is an unusual Power Weapon. Model as Mace, get a total of +4 Strength, swing with S8 AP3 (due to being unusual) at I5. Hilarity ensues.

I...what? Is that allowed? If so, the 'Black Mace' may become quite commonplace...

Unusual Power Weapons are AP3 and use their own rules. The Black Sword is a Power Weapon that adds 2 to the user's Strength. Power weapons come in a variety of versions, including Power Maces that are AP4 and add 2 to the user's Strength. A "Black Mace" would thus be both AP4 and AP3 and add 4 to it's user's Strength. 100% legal, trolololol.

It's either an AP 3 weapon with its own rules, or it's a maul. Can't be both.

It's an AP3 weapon that adds 2 to the user's Strength and counts as a Power Weapon. A Power Maul is a Power Weapon. Yes, it can.

timetowaste85 wrote:Also, anyone thinking about running 2 ECs over 2000pts? FAQ says that you can, and it gets you 2 abilities too. I'm surprised nobody is running this yet, to be honest...

Anyone who wants to argue, see the bottom of the FAQ-second question from the end on the left.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:2 emperors champions... Makes no sense but then again most fluff doesn't make sense.

timetowaste85 wrote:

Stormtrooper520 wrote:2 emperors champions... Makes no sense but then again most fluff doesn't make sense.

Not really-there are crusades instead of chapters and each crusade has an EC. If two crusading groups come together, two ECs. It does work. And since you have two FOCs, each FOC can be considered a crusading group. It does work, fluff-wise. Fully fair and fluffy.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

Stormtrooper520 wrote:2 emperors champions... Makes no sense but then again most fluff doesn't make sense.

Not really-there are crusades instead of chapters and each crusade has an EC. If two crusading groups come together, two ECs. It does work. And since you have two FOCs, each FOC can be considered a crusading group. It does work, fluff-wise. Fully fair and fluffy.

I thought there was only one Emperor's Champion. Only one marine gets a vision and he becomes the Emperor's Champion. Thought how that worked.

culsandar wrote:Templars absolutely caught nerf, although not as bad as some armies (Kan Wall got reamed).

5th Edition Preferred enemy was powerful, but it is what made that book playable at higher levels. That was the balancing factor for everything being priced for 4th edition, and unnecessary restrictions on choices.

Now with it being removed (for what reason?) BT are now just an army that pays too much for everything. Half of a Blood Angel book can get rage, yet everything they have is updated prices, better characters, and blanket FNP. Rage only works if you can get the charge, unlike preferred enemy which happens all the time. Which they can no longer do out of the rhinos that they pay too much for.

Against a competent opponent, the only times Rage can be a sure thing is Assault marines (which BA have in spades, and BT pay too much for), Bikes (which BT pay too much for), or Land Raiders for assault ramps.

Their heavy hitting CC unit (Assault termies with LC) took a huge hit. While most Marine players already were using TH/SS, most Templar players had a mix, usually with more LCs. Now those LCs don't ignore all armor, and also don't get an initiative bump from FC.

But wait, you get FC! Oh yeah, they nerfed that too.

Another loss is with their old rule of no psykers and the new ally rules. While they haven't ever been able to ally with them, psykers were less of a presence in older editions. Now with allies they will be all over the place, and the one codex BT can ally with that can take psykers (Grey Knights) are not battle brothers.

The change to tank hunters is arguable, but now all those people who scoured for cyclones will now want Assault cannons on their terminators.

The BT did get nerfed, and those that say "well PE was too powerful and this is how they should be" haven't looked at the prices inside that codex lately.

I considered PE = the tax I paid on all comparable units. Rage is not worth that tax.

culsandar wrote:Templars absolutely caught nerf, although not as bad as some armies (Kan Wall got reamed).

5th Edition Preferred enemy was powerful, but it is what made that book playable at higher levels. That was the balancing factor for everything being priced for 4th edition, and unnecessary restrictions on choices.

Now with it being removed (for what reason?) BT are now just an army that pays too much for everything. Half of a Blood Angel book can get rage, yet everything they have is updated prices, better characters, and blanket FNP. Rage only works if you can get the charge, unlike preferred enemy which happens all the time. Which they can no longer do out of the rhinos that they pay too much for.

Against a competent opponent, the only times Rage can be a sure thing is Assault marines (which BA have in spades, and BT pay too much for), Bikes (which BT pay too much for), or Land Raiders for assault ramps.

Their heavy hitting CC unit (Assault termies with LC) took a huge hit. While most Marine players already were using TH/SS, most Templar players had a mix, usually with more LCs. Now those LCs don't ignore all armor, and also don't get an initiative bump from FC.

But wait, you get FC! Oh yeah, they nerfed that too.

Another loss is with their old rule of no psykers and the new ally rules. While they haven't ever been able to ally with them, psykers were less of a presence in older editions. Now with allies they will be all over the place, and the one codex BT can ally with that can take psykers (Grey Knights) are not battle brothers.

The change to tank hunters is arguable, but now all those people who scoured for cyclones will now want Assault cannons on their terminators.

The BT did get nerfed, and those that say "well PE was too powerful and this is how they should be" haven't looked at the prices inside that codex lately.

I considered PE = the tax I paid on all comparable units. Rage is not worth that tax.

timetowaste85 wrote:I do think that blob squads of BT got hit hard, but how about those bikes I mentioned before? 12" move, 2D6 charge, throw chaplains in and have +2 attacks for charge, plus re-rolls. Small squads that hit hard and ignore the panic checks for each wound caused. I do wanna try it. The list I'm thinking is as follows at 2500-tell me whatcha all think:
Emperor's Champion 140pts
Accept Any Challenge, No Matter the Odds
Master of Sanctity 175pts
Bike
Storm Shield
Artificer Armor
Master of Sanctity 175pts
Bike
Storm Shield
Artificer Armor

Crusader Squad 86pts
Plasma Gun
Crusader Squad 86pts
Plasma Gun

Tech Marine 180pts
Servo Harness
Bike
Lightning Claw/Storm Shield
Terminator Honors
Tech Marine 180pts
Servo Harness
Bike
Lightning Claw/Storm Shield
Terminator Honors
Tech Marine 180pts
Servo Harness
Bike
Lightning Claw/Storm Shield
Terminator Honors

Bikers x5 251pts
Attack Bike: Multi-melta
Power Sword x2
Plasma Gun
Bikers x5 251pts
Attack Bike: Multi-melta
Power Sword x2
Plasma Gun
Bikers x5 251pts
Attack Bike: Multi-melta
Power Sword x2
Plasma Gun

Detachment: Captain 345pts
Bike
Artificer Armor
Lightning Claw/Combi-Plasma
Command Squad: Bikes
Storm Shields x2
Power Sword
Power Axe
Melta Gun x2
Detachment: Scouts x10 150pts

Detachment: Attack Bike w/ Multi-Melta 50pts

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Considering the Codex says "may exchange their Bolt Pistol" I'd say they have one, even if it's been FAQ'd to "take one of the following".

To any who are interested in the Typhoon Missile Launcher: It has not been nerfed.

I would like to put this issue to rest. This is an error in the English codex. In every other language version there is an entry for page 39 and 48 which clearly indicates that, yes, the Black Templars Typhoon is still a Heavy 2 Missile Launcher, and yes, this is an error only. This is definitive proof, unless non-English speaking Typhoons are supposed to be somehow better??

Praise the Emperor.

I fully expect this oversight to be corrected in the next version of the FAQ. The same stat line is also included in the other language versions of the FAQ. If you don't believe me, look for yourself:

German:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420325a_Black_Templars_FAQ_6Ed_v1.pdf

And the most positive proof:

French:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420374a_FAQ_Black_Templars_6%C3%A9d_version_1_0_-_juillet_2012

Which was updated on the 2nd of July, making it much more recent than the English codex. If it was an error with the other language FAQs, wouldn't they have fixed it with the newer updates?

J99Pwrangler wrote:

To any who are interested in the Typhoon Missile Launcher: It has not been nerfed.

I would like to put this issue to rest. This is an error in the English codex. In every other language version there is an entry for page 39 and 48 which clearly indicates that, yes, the Black Templars Typhoon is still a Heavy 2 Missile Launcher, and yes, this is an error only. This is definitive proof, unless non-English speaking Typhoons are supposed to be somehow better??

Praise the Emperor.

I fully expect this oversight to be corrected in the next version of the FAQ. The same stat line is also included in the other language versions of the FAQ. If you don't believe me, look for yourself:

German:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420325a_Black_Templars_FAQ_6Ed_v1.pdf

And the most positive proof:

French:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420374a_FAQ_Black_Templars_6%C3%A9d_version_1_0_-_juillet_2012

Which was updated on the 2nd of July, making it much more recent than the English codex. If it was an error with the other language FAQs, wouldn't they have fixed it with the newer updates?

Well in the ENGLISH FAQ says we dont get that. I am not sure how we are going to use a french, or German FAQ in the USA. I have a friend who has an e-mail in to GW about this. As of right now the Black Templar Typhoon ML is Heavy 1. I hate to say that, but I need proof proving this otherwise.....

My thoughts are that we won't be seeing a codex for Black Templars for much longer, they don't get their own showcase in the models section of the new rulebook.

Also on page 187 it shows examples of SM chapters, Ultramarines (vanilla codex), Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels and Grey Knights all get a paragraph but no Black Templars, instead we have Imperial Fists.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Hi DakkaDakka,


I wanted to openly discussion about the Black Templars being horribly weakened by the best rule they ever had given to them, preferred enemy. After 6th ed dropped, preferred enemy changed and the vow made Templars have rage. I did some mathhammer and figured out when it comes to a 10 man crusader squad with the build listed below against marine equals, it has around a 1 to 2 wound difference comparing it to preferred enemy. Even with such a small difference, there is just something wrong now with the Templars. Rage is just not reliable and effective like preferred enemy was. We used to have this edge over other marine armies in CC. Except Grey Knights. I used to be able to crush 30 man ork boy squads with 7 assault terminators with 5 lightning claws. Isn't the case anymore. Even with the extra 5 LC attacks. Templars have just turned into a marine army with overpriced razorbacks, 2 required HQs for warlord, and horrible special rules. I heard the codex will be updated soon, but rumors are rumors. Guess we have to suffer for now. Anyone agree with me? Thoughts?


Crusader Squad
10 initiates
1 meltagun
1 powerfist

J99Pwrangler wrote:

To any who are interested in the Typhoon Missile Launcher: It has not been nerfed.

I would like to put this issue to rest. This is an error in the English codex. In every other language version there is an entry for page 39 and 48 which clearly indicates that, yes, the Black Templars Typhoon is still a Heavy 2 Missile Launcher, and yes, this is an error only. This is definitive proof, unless non-English speaking Typhoons are supposed to be somehow better??

Praise the Emperor.

I fully expect this oversight to be corrected in the next version of the FAQ. The same stat line is also included in the other language versions of the FAQ. If you don't believe me, look for yourself:

German:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420325a_Black_Templars_FAQ_6Ed_v1.pdf

And the most positive proof:

French:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420374a_FAQ_Black_Templars_6%C3%A9d_version_1_0_-_juillet_2012

Which was updated on the 2nd of July, making it much more recent than the English codex. If it was an error with the other language FAQs, wouldn't they have fixed it with the newer updates?

Well in the ENGLISH FAQ says we dont get that. I am not sure how we are going to use a french, or German FAQ in the USA. I have a friend who has an e-mail in to GW about this. As of right now the Black Templar Typhoon ML is Heavy 1. I hate to say that, but I need proof proving this otherwise.....

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:On an unrelated note: The Emperor's Champion's Black Sword is an unusual Power Weapon. Model as Mace, get a total of +4 Strength, swing with S8 AP3 (due to being unusual) at I5. Hilarity ensues.

I...what? Is that allowed? If so, the 'Black Mace' may become quite commonplace...

Unusual Power Weapons are AP3 and use their own rules. The Black Sword is a Power Weapon that adds 2 to the user's Strength. Power weapons come in a variety of versions, including Power Maces that are AP4 and add 2 to the user's Strength. A "Black Mace" would thus be both AP4 and AP3 and add 4 to it's user's Strength. 100% legal, trolololol.

It's either an AP 3 weapon with its own rules, or it's a maul. Can't be both.

It's an AP3 weapon that adds 2 to the user's Strength and counts as a Power Weapon. A Power Maul is a Power Weapon. Yes, it can.

Having asked in YMDC and being directed to the right part of the Rulebook I'm afraid I was wrong; it can't. :(

Dark Scipio wrote:The rules are pretty simple. Its just S6 SP3 weapon, no matter wich type of powerweapon.

Dark Scipio wrote:

J99Pwrangler wrote:

To any who are interested in the Typhoon Missile Launcher: It has not been nerfed.

I would like to put this issue to rest. This is an error in the English codex. In every other language version there is an entry for page 39 and 48 which clearly indicates that, yes, the Black Templars Typhoon is still a Heavy 2 Missile Launcher, and yes, this is an error only. This is definitive proof, unless non-English speaking Typhoons are supposed to be somehow better??

Praise the Emperor.

I fully expect this oversight to be corrected in the next version of the FAQ. The same stat line is also included in the other language versions of the FAQ. If you don't believe me, look for yourself:

German:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420325a_Black_Templars_FAQ_6Ed_v1.pdf

And the most positive proof:

French:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420374a_FAQ_Black_Templars_6%C3%A9d_version_1_0_-_juillet_2012

Which was updated on the 2nd of July, making it much more recent than the English codex. If it was an error with the other language FAQs, wouldn't they have fixed it with the newer updates?

Well in the ENGLISH FAQ says we dont get that. I am not sure how we are going to use a french, or German FAQ in the USA. I have a friend who has an e-mail in to GW about this. As of right now the Black Templar Typhoon ML is Heavy 1. I hate to say that, but I need proof proving this otherwise.....

Sorry thats a bit silly. Every language has the fix execept english, that is common sense.

Skriker wrote:

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Hi DakkaDakka,


I wanted to openly discussion about the Black Templars being horribly weakened by the best rule they ever had given to them, preferred enemy. After 6th ed dropped, preferred enemy changed and the vow made Templars have rage. I did some mathhammer and figured out when it comes to a 10 man crusader squad with the build listed below against marine equals, it has around a 1 to 2 wound difference comparing it to preferred enemy. Even with such a small difference, there is just something wrong now with the Templars. Rage is just not reliable and effective like preferred enemy was. We used to have this edge over other marine armies in CC. Except Grey Knights. I used to be able to crush 30 man ork boy squads with 7 assault terminators with 5 lightning claws. Isn't the case anymore. Even with the extra 5 LC attacks. Templars have just turned into a marine army with overpriced razorbacks, 2 required HQs for warlord, and horrible special rules. I heard the codex will be updated soon, but rumors are rumors. Guess we have to suffer for now. Anyone agree with me? Thoughts?


Crusader Squad
10 initiates
1 meltagun
1 powerfist

Boohoo you can't walk all over other armies in CC anymore. You still have an advantage, but you are complaining your advantage isn't as awesome as it used to be. Hard to feel bad for you, mate. Your own comments admit the difference is small, but somehow that means you army is now no better than basic marines and they are "horribly weakened". Time for some perspective methinks.

Skriker

d3m01iti0n wrote:GW completely screwed BT in the new rule book. They must have noticed (as it seems to be on purpose), and its EXTREMELY rude to the fanbase that dedicated their time and money to GW's product. But customer service seems to be back burner to them.

With that being said.........to hell with them. Were still playing BT and making viable lists. Over at B&C were constantly experimenting and you see a lot of great tactica over there. Dont ever drop BT, you make do, and you kick ass. Its that simple.

Skriker wrote:

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Hi DakkaDakka,


I wanted to openly discussion about the Black Templars being horribly weakened by the best rule they ever had given to them, preferred enemy. After 6th ed dropped, preferred enemy changed and the vow made Templars have rage. I did some mathhammer and figured out when it comes to a 10 man crusader squad with the build listed below against marine equals, it has around a 1 to 2 wound difference comparing it to preferred enemy. Even with such a small difference, there is just something wrong now with the Templars. Rage is just not reliable and effective like preferred enemy was. We used to have this edge over other marine armies in CC. Except Grey Knights. I used to be able to crush 30 man ork boy squads with 7 assault terminators with 5 lightning claws. Isn't the case anymore. Even with the extra 5 LC attacks. Templars have just turned into a marine army with overpriced razorbacks, 2 required HQs for warlord, and horrible special rules. I heard the codex will be updated soon, but rumors are rumors. Guess we have to suffer for now. Anyone agree with me? Thoughts?


Crusader Squad
10 initiates
1 meltagun
1 powerfist

Boohoo you can't walk all over other armies in CC anymore. You still have an advantage, but you are complaining your advantage isn't as awesome as it used to be. Hard to feel bad for you, mate. Your own comments admit the difference is small, but somehow that means you army is now no better than basic marines and they are "horribly weakened". Time for some perspective methinks.

Skriker

BTNeophyte wrote:I agree that GW did a disservice to the fanbase, especially since BT players seem to be some of the most loyal to the faction. Regardless of any nerfs/boosts, remember brothers, it is called the ETERNAL crusade.

Lobukia wrote:I really hope that if (when) the BT are rolled into the new SM codex, they are given a huge section (or, dare I dream, they are on the cover) that lets their fluff, nomenclature, and such survive for another edition.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Well then, let me reply on a nicer note than you did.. You don't seem like a templar player. So let me explain it to you simply. We are a 4th edition army that is limited in our units. Some are very overpriced (razorbacks and bikers). Our only advantage was the 5th edition preferred enemy. Which gave us a small advantage in CC. and some other rules if we were footslogging. We are now required 2 HQs and another 1 (Chaplain) for a dedicated assault unit (Assault Teminators). We do have few smaller things like tank hunters and furious charge on our terminators and dreadnoughts.

We have things like a 5 man squad can a heavy weapon or a power weapon, and giving our vindicators and predators POTHMS, but it is expensive. Thats our most common differences. But if you look at other MEQs. They can bring more units because they are cheaper and they have better HQs. The only thing people were most afraid of in a templar army was an Assault Terminator Squad in a LRC with Furious Charge and Preferred Enemy. That was our "deathstar" you could say.

Taking that away made us seem more like overpriced vanilla marine army, but with squads with CCWs and Bolt pistols.

And I wouldn't care if you felt bad for me, I'd still slaughter your guys in the name of emperor. lol

Skriker wrote:

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Well then, let me reply on a nicer note than you did.. You don't seem like a templar player. So let me explain it to you simply. We are a 4th edition army that is limited in our units. Some are very overpriced (razorbacks and bikers). Our only advantage was the 5th edition preferred enemy. Which gave us a small advantage in CC. and some other rules if we were footslogging. We are now required 2 HQs and another 1 (Chaplain) for a dedicated assault unit (Assault Teminators). We do have few smaller things like tank hunters and furious charge on our terminators and dreadnoughts.

We have things like a 5 man squad can a heavy weapon or a power weapon, and giving our vindicators and predators POTHMS, but it is expensive. Thats our most common differences. But if you look at other MEQs. They can bring more units because they are cheaper and they have better HQs. The only thing people were most afraid of in a templar army was an Assault Terminator Squad in a LRC with Furious Charge and Preferred Enemy. That was our "deathstar" you could say.

Taking that away made us seem more like overpriced vanilla marine army, but with squads with CCWs and Bolt pistols.

And I wouldn't care if you felt bad for me, I'd still slaughter your guys in the name of emperor. lol

Apologies for the tone of my original post was really getting my fill of "6th edition ruined my army" posts by that point. Sorry for being an ass...

That said you did admit that the difference in the rules as small, but then went on as if it was the end of the world anyway. BTs are still marines and as such are still a decent army. Just reading some of the other posts in the thread shows that they aren't useless, even when put up against one of the big power gamer offenders, the Blood Angels. Marines are marines, even when they are somewhat overpriced marines. Eldar and Tau have more room to complain about overpriced units for their abilities.

And your last line is the key anyway...you got a little nerf, but your Templars will still do the job...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormtrooper520 wrote:Yeah honestly, we are a 4th edition codex and we still have a nice sized and extremely loyal fanbase. What GW did was uncalled for. I know people who went to armies like Grey Knights because they were top tier last edition, but before then. I saw almost no people play as DaemonHunters. Black Templar players in my opinion are some of the most loyal to their faction.

I loved the Daemonhunters and Witchhunters books. The armies you could build were so varied and interesting, but definitely not ludicrously high powered by any means. I found the grey knights rules in that incarnation to be some of the best to me. Initially grey knights were so over priced and highly specialized against daemons they couldn't really succeed against other armies very well. The Daemonhunter's book brought their points more in line with their general abilities and the aspect that gave chaos forces buffs against the GKs to counter balance their extra abilities against them instead of hamstringing the GKs with over costed points was a really great idea to me. I loved playing my GKs with the never ending hordes of lesser daemons and beasts returning to the field. It always made the games feel the GKs really needed to be there. Now we've come full circle and now they are over powered against everyone. Blah... I sold my daemonhunters and witchhunters off before the new GK book appeared due to not really having time to play them as much any more, but was kind of glad I did after I saw the changes...they just don't fit my play style anymore.

Skriker