i will call it crusade

[Medjugorje]

https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-love-for-my-black-templars

[Blindhamster]

I agree that the black templars could stand to get a bit more of their uniqueness back.

 

However, to suggest that "the deep strike" was a strength of the black templars is not really accurate.

Blood Angels have often suffered the same issue Templars are feeling this edition - feeling like they lost a lot of their identity to allow other chapters to get more exciting (an obvious example being that Raven Guard got a fancy movement based jump pack rule last edition). However, blood angels have always been the masters of deep strike, be it via the fact they had more assault marines than anyone else in 3rd and 4th ed, or the rules to allow more accurate deep striking of 5th to 7th, their other strength has always been that they were stronger and faster (they had furious charge before anyone else - and retained a bonus to strength and/or initiative through every edition since 3rd ed).

Blood angels always had death company, which used to be the premier melee marine unit in the game, but has progressively gotten worse each edition, till we get to now where the general feeling of a lot of BA players is that Vanguard are better except in the case of massed thunder hammers. Blood Angels only other unique melee unit being sanguinary guard, which are effectively honour guard with different rules and (now) a larger unit size.

Basically, the idea that blood angels took anything from black templars seems pretty silly, and probably isn't a good argument to make to GW if you want to see a change.

 

 

Templars have a very versatile and quite efficient troop choice that can be kitted out for melee (to be point for point as good at Melee as a normal vanguard squad in terms of attacks to points ratio, but with more wounds). They also have the absolute premier character hunter in the form of the emperors champion - who punches waaay above the weight his points or power level would suggest.

Templars could get a sword brethren unit, but what should it realistically be? When compared to vanguard veterans it's hard to say. Sword brethren would have the same or similar weapon options to vanguard, perhaps they could be WS 2+ for the unit to represent their skill in melee above and beyond other marine veterans? But then... why would they be 2+ and things like Honour Guard or Sanguinary Guard are not?

I think a simple thing like saying templars have a strategem that effecitvely gave "death to the false emperor" against any unit they were in melee with would be good and would couple pretty well with crusader squads and vanguard (which really are all sword brethren are).

Anyway, yeah, I think it'd be great to see more fleshed out stratagems and warlord traits and even relics for BT, It'd also probably be cool to see Sword Brethren come back as a unique unit, I just cant imagine how they'd actually look.

 

[Medjugorje]

its just about GW has to see that we want a change. However this works, i dont want to be in the space marine codex.

We are unique and if GW think that a other way to the templar would make enough profit than they will decide to work on it.

 

There are more options i would accept.

 

- Old 3rd/4th/5th Edition background and playstyle

- more religious way to come closer to sisters of battle

- a very new way.

 

 

(still the most background story and closecombat-affinity should remain)

 

but all this would be better then being a black ultramarine. If it GW release a full codex or just a supplement or a codex ecclesiarchy (were sisters and bt would be together) is not the case  - it should be still change how to play and being different.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Medjugorje

[_luca_93]

I agree that the black templars could stand to get a bit more of their uniqueness back.

 

 

 

 

 

However, to suggest that "the deep strike" was a strength of the black templars is not really accurate

Blood Angels have often suffered the same issue Templars are feeling this edition - feeling like they lost a lot of their identity to allow other chapters to get more exciting (an obvious example being that Raven Guard got a fancy movement based jump pack rule last edition). However, blood angels have always been the masters of deep strike, be it via the fact they had more assault marines than anyone else in 3rd and 4th ed, or the rules to allow more accurate deep striking of 5th to 7th, their other strength has always been that they were stronger and faster (they had furious charge before anyone else - and retained a bonus to strength and/or initiative through every edition since 3rd ed).

Blood angels always had death company, which used to be the premier melee marine unit in the game, but has progressively gotten worse each edition, till we get to now where the general feeling of a lot of BA players is that Vanguard are better except in the case of massed thunder hammers. Blood Angels only other unique melee unit being sanguinary guard, which are effectively honour guard with different rules and (now) a larger unit size.

 

are you telling the blood angels story, or the black templars? haaahahah seems the same !

Basically, the idea that blood angels took anything from black templars seems pretty silly, and probably isn't a good argument to make to GW if you want to see a change.

 

Guys. I can understand that petition can seems hard to understand, ( i admit that italian community found some problem about writing in a proper english ahahaha ) or not enough clear in certain points, we're workin hard to adjust it while gathering feedback.

No one here, is saying that Blood angels is a copy-paste of Black templars, Blood angels are simply a comparison size. Without them the comparison size could easily be World eaters. WE and BA are both ideas of efficient-melee oriented army.

 

 

Templars have a very versatile yep. and quite efficient NO. troop choice that can be kitted out for melee (to be point for point as good at Melee as a normal vanguard squad in terms of attacks to points ratio, but with more wounds). They also have the absolute premier character hunter in the form of the emperors champion - who punches waaay above the weight his points or power level would suggest. YES. That's true , is important to recnogize it

 

Templars could get a sword brethren unit, but what should it realistically be? When compared to vanguard veterans it's hard to say. Sword brethren would have the same or similar weapon options to vanguard, perhaps they could be WS 2+ for the unit to represent their skill in melee above and beyond other marine veterans? But then... why would they be 2+ and things like Honour Guard or Sanguinary Guard are not? in the past edition past codex  sword brethren can choose between furious charge, infiltration, counterattack.

 

I think a simple thing like saying templars have a strategem that effecitvely gave "death to the false emperor" against any unit they were in melee with would be good and would couple pretty well with crusader squads and vanguard (which really are all sword brethren are).

 

Anyway, yeah, I think it'd be great to see more fleshed out stratagems and warlord traits and even relics for BT, It'd also probably be cool to see Sword Brethren come back as a unique unit, I just cant imagine how they'd actually look.

 

Black templars army have so much to say, to tell.

Our old codex was full of indepence : relics , special rules , exclusive units with their rules , VOWS , RIGHTEOUS ZEAL special rule... and so on.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by varg_vikernes

[_luca_93]

its just about GW has to see that we want a change. However this works, i dont want to be in the space marine codex.

We are unique and if GW think that a other way to the templar would make enough profit than they will decide to work on it.

 

There are more options i would accept.

 

- Old 3rd/4th/5th Edition background and playstyle

- more religious way to come closer to sisters of battle

- a very new way.

 

 

(still the most background story and closecombat-affinity should remain)

 

but all this would be better then being a black ultramarine. If it GW release a full codex or just a supplement or a codex ecclesiarchy (were sisters and bt would be together) is not the case  - it should be still change how to play and being different. as said in the letter, also a SINGLE pdf page could make the difference. We aren't asking for a full new codex. But simply  " SOMETHING ".

[Blindhamster]

I was 100% talking about blood angels, and they had those traits I mentioned before any other loyalist marine army, so I stand by the fact it's not a good approach to suggest that the Templars lost out because of the BA (hell, last edition the Templars and wolves both got a detachment that gsve them the one special ability the BA had going for them over 6th and 7th - furious charge).

 

But anyway, as I said, this is an edition of fewer special rules, the reroll charges is your modern equivalent to righteous zeal, and it allows all your close combat units to more efficiently get into combat. I can't imagine them giving sword brethren a choice of special rules any more than I can imagine them giving chaos chosen a choice of special rules (they too had that for a long time).

 

I agree that Templars could regain more of their identity simply by getting a selection of unique relics, warlord traits and stratagems.

 

Some stratagem ideas:

 

Take the fight to them: +2 to charge distances

Purge the heretic, slay the witch: extra attack when rolling a 6+ to hit, increase to 4+ if the heretic is also a psyker.

The emperor protects: unit gains a 5+ invulnerable save till their next turn

Champion slayer: use on a character, Grant them rerolls to hit and/or to wound against other characters.

 

Plus their existing abhor the witch.

[_luca_93]

I was 100% talking about blood angels, and they had those traits I mentioned before any other loyalist marine army, so I stand by the fact it's not a good approach to suggest that the Templars lost out because of the BA (hell, last edition the Templars and wolves both got a detachment that gsve them the one special ability the BA had going for them over 6th and 7th - furious charge).

 

Oh gosh. I repeat : I'M NOT SAYING templars lost out because of Blood angels ahahahhahahah

 

But anyway, as I said, this is an edition of fewer special rules, the reroll charges is your modern equivalent to righteous zeal, again. i'm sorry but absolutely nope. and it allows all your close combat units to more efficiently get into combat. I can't imagine them giving sword brethren a choice of special rules any more than I can imagine them giving chaos chosen a choice of special rules (they too had that for a long time).

 

I agree that Templars could regain more of their identity simply by getting a selection of unique relics, warlord traits and stratagems. agree with you with this point.

 

Some stratagem ideas:

 

Take the fight to them: +2 to charge distances

Purge the heretic, slay the witch: extra attack when rolling a 6+ to hit, increase to 4+ if the heretic is also a psyker.

The emperor protects: unit gains a 5+ invulnerable save till their next turn

Champion slayer: use on a character, Grant them rerolls to hit and/or to wound against other characters.

 

Plus their existing abhor the witch.

 

I agree with your ideas, as you can see, within certain points with think about it in the same way.

[Blindhamster]

Sorry, regardless of if you accept it or not, reroll charges absolutely is your replacement for righteous zeal - it's your army wide special rule. If you got a different army wide special rule, you'd need to lose rerolls to charge

[_luca_93]

 

I was 100% talking about blood angels, and they had those traits I mentioned before any other loyalist marine army, so I stand by the fact it's not a good approach to suggest that the Templars lost out because of the BA (hell, last edition the Templars and wolves both got a detachment that gsve them the one special ability the BA had going for them over 6th and 7th - furious charge).

 

Oh gosh. I repeat : I'M NOT SAYING templars lost out because of Blood angels ahahahhahahah

 

But anyway, as I said, this is an edition of fewer special rules, the reroll charges is your modern equivalent to righteous zeal, again. i'm sorry but absolutely nope. and it allows all your close combat units to more efficiently get into combat. I can't imagine them giving sword brethren a choice of special rules any more than I can imagine them giving chaos chosen a choice of special rules (they too had that for a long time).

 

I agree that Templars could regain more of their identity simply by getting a selection of unique relics, warlord traits and stratagems. agree with you with this point.

 

Some stratagem ideas:

 

Take the fight to them: +2 to charge distances

Purge the heretic, slay the witch: extra attack when rolling a 6+ to hit, increase to 4+ if the heretic is also a psyker.

The emperor protects: unit gains a 5+ invulnerable save till their next turn

Champion slayer: use on a character, Grant them rerolls to hit and/or to wound against other characters.

 

Plus their existing abhor the witch.

 

I agree with your ideas, as you can see, within certain points we think about it in the same way.

 

Sorry, regardless of if you accept it or not, reroll charges absolutely is your replacement for righteous zeal - it's your army wide special rule. If you got a different army wide special rule, you'd need to lose rerolls to charge

Reroll is our actual chapter tactics. But it isn't our righteous zeal.

 

Righteous zeal is an old special rule simply : 25% or less dead > test > success > move on toward nearest enemy.

Edited December 7, 2017 by varg_vikernes

[Blindhamster]

Yes i know what it was. But that was your army wide special rule along with ATSKNF.

 

Your new one is reroll charges. You aren't going to get reroll charges AND another rule. You might see old righteous zeal come back as a strategem though

E.g.

 

Righteous zeal (1CP): when the squad suffers a casualty during the opponents shooting phase they can move 3 inches toward the nearest enemy.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Blindhamster

[_luca_93]

Yes i know what it was. But that was your army wide special rule along with ATSKNF.

 

Your new one is reroll charges. You aren't going to get reroll charges AND another rule. You might see old righteous zeal come back as a strategem though and it seems the best thing... we will accept it Righteous zeal, or Vows like stratagems they would be ok.

Edited December 7, 2017 by varg_vikernes

[allegedlynerdy]

I'm not sure about asking GW to make new kits. I wouldn't want all the cool new Black Templars stuff to be primaris.

[Kallas]

The Chapter Tactic is literally called Righteous Zeal. Whether you like it or not, it is the replacement

[Blindhamster]

Out of interest, if you got new black Templars relics, strategems etc, what standard marine ones would you give up? Likewise, what standard marine units would you give up (keeping in mind, that giving up primaris won't be an option as that's what they're pushing)

[_luca_93]

The Chapter Tactic is literally called Righteous Zeal. Whether you like it or not, it is the replacement

I give up.

AHAHAHHAHA

 

 

 

Let's stay in topic my Swordbrothers :  https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-love-for-my-black-templars ;)

[Medjugorje]

Sorry, regardless of if you accept it or not, reroll charges absolutely is your replacement for righteous zeal - it's your army wide special rule. If you got a different army wide special rule, you'd need to lose rerolls to charge

 

no,... we need much more difference. chancel the possibiltiy for Devastors and give us a bonus to close combat.

 

You are right if you say Blood Angels arent our problem. But we still have a problem to be solved.

[_luca_93]

 

Sorry, regardless of if you accept it or not, reroll charges absolutely is your replacement for righteous zeal - it's your army wide special rule. If you got a different army wide special rule, you'd need to lose rerolls to charge

 

no,... we need much more difference. chancel the possibiltiy for Devastors and give us a bonus to close combat.

 

You are right if you say Blood Angels arent our problem. But we still have a problem to be solved.

 

What i'm asking my self. Is how can a Black templars ( an assault oriented army ) army hold now the comparison against other melee/assault oriented army ?  :D

[Bryan Blaire]

What i'm asking my self. Is how can a Black templars ( an assault oriented army ) army hold now the comparison against other melee/assault oriented army ? :D

The same way that the Ravenwing army players did when the White scars stuff was fleshed out better in 6th/7th - you deal.

 

All armies have had their themes absorbed/adjusted throughout the years, the Black Templars certainly aren’t the first, and likely won’t be the last.

[Medjugorje]

Yes i know what it was. But that was your army wide special rule along with ATSKNF.

 

Your new one is reroll charges. You aren't going to get reroll charges AND another rule. You might see old righteous zeal come back as a strategem though

E.g.

 

Righteous zeal (1CP): when the squad suffers a casualty during the opponents shooting phase they can move 3 inches toward the nearest enemy.

 

it should be a Chapter tactic but  called:

 

Righteous zeal : You can re roll any chargemoves if you have casualties in overwatch and in addition when the squad suffers a casualty during the opponents shooting phase you can move

2w6 inches (with rerolls) towards nearest enemy (unless it is a flyer)  and if you come into 1" of an enemy unit you can fight first.

[Blindhamster]

Reroll charges is a good army wide rule, it gets you into melee easier, which is what you want. You then should have a few strategems that enhance your melee abilities (such as the ones I listed above), obviously, for each one you gain, you should lose a generic marine one. You probably should have a unique sword brethren unit as well, but you should also probably lose a standard marine unit (possibly sternguard and vanguard). You should have unique warlord traits and lose some of the standard ones, and unique relics but lose the standard ones.

[Blindhamster]

 

 

Yes i know what it was. But that was your army wide special rule along with ATSKNF.

 

Your new one is reroll charges. You aren't going to get reroll charges AND another rule. You might see old righteous zeal come back as a strategem though

E.g.

 

Righteous zeal (1CP): when the squad suffers a casualty during the opponents shooting phase they can move 3 inches toward the nearest enemy.

it should be a Chapter tactic but called:

 

Righteous zeal : You can re roll any chargemoves if you have casualties in overwatch and in addition when the squad suffers a casualty during the opponents shooting phase you can move

2w6 inches (with rerolls) towards nearest enemy (unless it is a flyer) and if you come into 1" of an enemy unit you can fight first.

Why though? Because it did that before? But that logic blood angels should have had +1 strength and always strikes first (because init isn't a thing anymore). And imperial fists should hit on 2s with bolt weapons.

 

Your new rule is nice and simple, is useful for any melee unit and non conditional, it's a well thought out rule.

 

Also, interrupts in opponents turn are bad for game flow.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Blindhamster

[SydonianDragoon404]

Just to be pedantic, I want to point out that our Chapter Tactic to re-roll failed charges is not an army-wide rule. It only applies to infantry and Dreadnoughts. 

 

Seems to me like everyone wants something, and nobody can come to satisfactory agreement or consensus on what that something is. Universal support will be difficult to obtain for an initiative like this. There's no way for our message to be coherent unless there's some kind of very general consensus on what ought to be said to GW. Also, the person drafting the letter should probably speak English as their first language or at least can write it on a native level. Sorry, but that's just how it is no offense. 

 

I'll toss my hat in the ring once I actually have some idea as to what the hell we're actually doing. 

[Marshal_Roujakis]

tbh, the argument that Templars should not have 2 Chapter Tactics is both unbalanced, and invalid...

 

Other Chapters from C:SM have 2 Chapter Tactics standard... without any backdrop on why they should have 2... same applies for Legion Traits, without any prior background, lore or identity on why they would have those 2 rules... same applies to some Hive Fleet Adaptations, which are just newly invented...

 

They should just come as a standard 2 or 1 Trait for each faction, not imbalance it by having 1 on one army and 2 on another... especially after claiming that this edition would be all about balancing the game... I see favoritism majority of the time I look at the Chapter Trait Section of the new Codices...

 

maybe, reroll in charge distance, in addition a consolidation move bonus for Infantry and Dreadnoughts... maybe +D3" consolidation move... we had that with Righteous Zeal in 6th ed. Codex...

[Blindhamster]

its based on relative power level I believe. For whatever reason, stuff to do with charging is deemed more powerful, where a leadership bonus is less so (and therefore gets a further bonus on top).

 

but thats just a guess.

[_luca_93]

Just to be pedantic, I want to point out that our Chapter Tactic to re-roll failed charges is not an army-wide rule. It only applies to infantry and Dreadnoughts. 

 

Seems to me like everyone wants something, and nobody can come to satisfactory agreement or consensus on what that something is. The general message is " love for our templars " leaving to gw some freedom. But we're also gathering feedback for an e-mail ! So, don't worry ! Universal support will be difficult to obtain for an initiative like this. There's no way for our message to be coherent unless there's some kind of very general consensus on what ought to be said to GW. Also, the person drafting the letter should probably speak English as their first language or at least can write it on a native level. Sorry, but that's just how it is no offense. No offense :) We're not english... we will provide for a better translation !

 

I'll toss my hat in the ring once I actually have some idea as to what the hell we're actually doing.