Black Templar: My (or Your) Crusaders

[Schlitzaf]

(This below is an opanion derived from my years of playing templars and how our rules evolve):

 

I was once by someone in early 8th Edition why Templars? This is what I said:

 

We are not the fastest like Scars Of White or Angels of Blood, nor are we Stealthiest like Gaurdians Raven, and lack the have the durability of the Hands of Iron nor do we fire power of our fellow Scions of Dorn.

 

Nor the ingenuity of Salamanders or the Cunning of the Wolves. And lack of the tacticall brilliance of the Sons of Gulliman. But once battle is joined, we never surrender. We never stop fighting. We will keep shooting and punching, until our bones themselves crack. And even then.

 

We will never take a step back.

 

And even when our blood runs dry, we will not falter, unlike those who thirst.

 

And they might not have witchcraft of prowess of Titans, but we need it not. For our faith alone is all we need to shield us.

 

We hit not the hardest, but we always will hit, We move not the fastest, but we will finish the race. We shall never falter. We are not the best anything but we can do anything. For Jack of All Trades Master Of None. Is Better than Master of One.

 

———

I invite everyone to make their little plurb about defining who we are Fulkes did a little one one Medju thread. If you want add why. For me the chapter has never been hitting the hardest but always hitting. Always enduring any punishment inflicted. Not surviving it enduring it. That a distinction to Iron Hands. We don’t move as fast White Scars or Blood Angels but we have always had movement shannigans to make sure we reached our destination.

 

And we lacked the tactical flexibility exhibited by Ultramarines or Wolves on the table top. But our armies were always strategically flexible giving us in list building stage units that were very customizable to be focused on specific tasks. And we never had biggest or best guns like Salamanders and Fists. But our guns were never to sneeze at. From Faux Devi Crusaders or other abilities. We always had some hileruous shooting gimmicks.

 

And I feel the codex hits all of of this in more ways than one. With Uphold and Grimaldus we have strong ability to endure punishment but loss cover or otherwise. Accept but also our new strategems, while focused on generally speaking individual model buffing gives us ability to use punch. And our Warlord traits actually are useful for making combat characters. Do we punch as hard as Angels or Wolves. Not really no. But we do punch.

 

We have Devout, Abhor, Grimaldus and Will. Giving us strong movement abilities are we as fast as Angels or Scars? No but we are still pretty fast relatively speaking

Edited October 13, 2021 by Schlitzaf

[Medjugorje]

we are the masters of a bunch things. We are the greatest duellists, we are the most zealous and we are the most passionate

[Marshall Bretton]

We are Knights, we follow a strict code of honour, we do our duty to the emperor no matter the cost and we keep fighting until either we achieve victory or are destroyed.

 

In battle we fight like Knights, calculated, measured and strategic, but able to unleash our fury and rage when appropriate.

 

We relish melee combat but will use whatever weapons are required and will wait for the right time to commit to a charge, not just run headlong into a fight.

 

We also endure (TANCRED ENDURES!). We do not rely on speed to survive, or extremely powerful weapons to destroy the enemy before they can strike, we use our armour and our faith to endure the worst the enemy can throw at us and only when the time is right do we strike back with the killing thrust.

 

Yes we are the best duelist, but this isn't because we are faster or stronger or even more skilled than our opponents, it is because we are calculated, we endure the assault of our opponent, taking hits that may hurt but won't kill us, wearing the enemy down and waiting for the perfect time to strike with the holy strength of the emperor and deliver the killing blow.

[Medjugorje]

Yes we are the best duelist, but this isn't because we are faster or stronger or even more skilled than our opponents, it is because we are calculated, we endure the assault of our opponent, taking hits that may hurt but won't kill us, wearing the enemy down and waiting for the perfect time to strike with the holy strength of the emperor and deliver the killing blow.

 

Thats not true. We are the sons of Sigismund and we learned his teachings. We are better skilled then our opponents. !!!!!

Maybe not faster or not stronger. 

[Marshall Bretton]

 

 

Yes we are the best duelist, but this isn't because we are faster or stronger or even more skilled than our opponents, it is because we are calculated, we endure the assault of our opponent, taking hits that may hurt but won't kill us, wearing the enemy down and waiting for the perfect time to strike with the holy strength of the emperor and deliver the killing blow.

Thats not true. We are the sons of Sigismund and we learned his teachings. We are better skilled then our opponents. !!!!!

Maybe not faster or not stronger.

As op said, this is just individual opinions so please don't say something isn't true, its just not your opinion.

 

From my interpretation we are not necessarily "more skilled" than our opponents (although I'm also not saying we aren't more skilled), there are plenty of expert swordsmen etc who are incredible with weapons. It's the combination of all of it that makes us the best.

 

Sigismund wasn't necessarily the best swordsman in the imperium, he was the best duelist though because he took everything his opponents threw at him, endured it, waited for the perfect opportunity and struck. Read or listen to "Templar" for a perfect example when he duels the white scars champion, takes an absolute beating (at one point is blinded by his own blood) but endures it all and waits for his opponent to make a mistake before striking and claiming victory.

 

We could probably go in to a debate about what we mean by most skilled regarding dueling, actual best weapons skills or ability to fight and win a duel? The two are not necessarily the same but again it's all personal opinion

Edited October 14, 2021 by Gaius Maximus

[Marshal Reinhard]

Endurance & knowing when to strike is also skill. Nothing there suggests the white scar is more skilled, just more flashy and aggressive.

 

It's all semantics anyway.

 

Except Sigismund was the best. Fight me.

[Marshall Bretton]

Endurance & knowing when to strike is also skill. Nothing there suggests the white scar is more skilled, just more flashy and aggressive.

 

It's all semantics anyway.

 

Except Sigismund was the best. Fight me.

I will never deny he was the best, he was undefeated (incidents of cheating aside), the point I'm making is that he wasn't necessarily the best with a blade, although he was clearly amazing, it was all the factors, endurance, patience, calculation etc that made him the best fighter. Just as templars aren't necessarily the most skilled warriors out there, although again clearly amazing, it's the combination of everything that makes them the best and able to win

 

However this is definitely just semantics I think so how about we agree to agree and just say templars and Sigismund are the best? :P

[Marshall Bretton]

Duplicate post Edited October 14, 2021 by Gaius Maximus

[Medjugorje]

Black Templars are knights. Knights used to be perfect with the sword. 

Other chapters train more on Bolters, other more on tactics etc... There is always a difference in skills. And imo it should be able to see that on the table.

 

And like I always said. The White Scars are not more aggressive. The templars have a far more hatred and more aggressive fighting style. The Sons of Khan are Hunters. They loughing while they attack. Rightous Zeal used to be a rule which made us that aggressive back in 3rd to 6th edition where we run towards the enemy when we got shot. That is pure Angression....

 

 

you should watch TTS the secound episode. I know thats not correct lore but its not a conicidence that they are shown as the most angry hateful chapter.

And the stories in the new book doesnt say anything else!!!

[Marshall Bretton]

Black Templars are knights. Knights used to be perfect with the sword.

Other chapters train more on Bolters, other more on tactics etc... There is always a difference in skills. And imo it should be able to see that on the table.

 

And like I always said. The White Scars are not more aggressive. The templars have a far more hatred and more aggressive fighting style. The Sons of Khan are Hunters. They loughing while they attack. Rightous Zeal used to be a rule which made us that aggressive back in 3rd to 6th edition where we run towards the enemy when we got shot. That is pure Angression....

 

 

you should watch TTS the secound episode. I know thats not correct lore but its not a conicidence that they are shown as the most angry hateful chapter.

And the stories in the new book doesnt say anything else!!!

Personally I disagree, yes Knights were expert warriors but being a knight was never about being perfect with a sword. They were skilled in the use of all weapons, be that sword, axe, Lance, crossbow etc, particularly crusaders as they had to be able to adapt. Agreed many chose to focus on a specific weapon and were experts but not all. In addition a knight also had to have a thorough understanding of tactics, logistics, administration etc as they were the leadership and management element of any army. Thus is what templars are to me, all round warriors who live by their code of honour and can adapt to any situation but who ultimately prefer and Excell at melee combat.

 

I also never said that templars weren't the most zealous or angry chapter, however I believe it is highly controlled, never allowed to cloud judgement and tactical sense and harnessed so that in combat it adds strength and elevates them above their opponents. We are not mad bezerkers like the world eaters. That is a knight to me, calm, calculated and patient but with a tightly controlled and harnessed core of rage, aggression and belief which makes them stronger.

 

 

 

As I said in my first post though this is my opinion. Just because it is not the same as yours doesn't mean I am wrong, I am also not saying you are wrong. This is just how I see the templars, you don't need to try and and persuade me that what I'm saying is wrong but I'd like to hear more detail about why you see the templars how you do. This is what I have built up over years of reading every bit of black templar lore I can find, as well as a significant amount of historical research into the medieval era particularly focussed on crusaders as well as considerable number of fictional stories focussed on Knights and a long time love and obsession with the bretonnians from fantasy.

[Medjugorje]

Maybe the new lore is different in some publications but older lore was just AAHHHHH and run into the opponent. And not calculated - it was always into the next opponent.

 

If you dont believe me then look into the 4th editon book.

but to be honest-.... GW changed our theme a bit. We used to be loyal World eaters and now we are a more loyal Word Bearers.

Remember which legion introduced the devotion chain orignally and who took this because spend a long time there ( this storyline is very old - and used to be a showcase why BT are like they are).

Edited October 14, 2021 by Medjugorje

[Marshall Bretton]

Maybe the new lore is different in some publications but older lore was just AAHHHHH and run into the opponent. And not calculated - it was always into the next opponent.

 

If you dont believe me then look into the 4th editon book.

but to be honest-.... GW changed our theme a bit. We used to be loyal World eaters and now we are a more loyal Word Bearers.

Remember which legion introduced the devotion chain orignally and who took this because spend a long time there ( this storyline is very old - and used to be a showcase why BT are like they are).

That's never the way I interpreted the 4th edition book but at the same time I can understand why others would see it that way so fair enough. They definitely did change the theme for us and pushed the faithful side considerably more than it ever used to be which I really didn't like at the time as it contradicted alot of previous lore. I know with the chains but I've always viewed that as purely a practical addition as it has always been in reality. For a very long time swords have been able to be strapped to the wrist of their user to prevent them being lost, most modern day militaries attach their weapons to their bodies in some way or another for the same reason.

[Medjugorje]

I remember when our community was that angry about becoming loyal word bearers. I loved it from the beginning - but I dont want to loose the other part. Like Boldemort said - just a BT can stand a Blood Angel in close combat.

[Marshall Bretton]

I remember when our community was that angry about becoming loyal word bearers. I loved it from the beginning - but I dont want to loose the other part. Like Boldemort said - just a BT can stand a Blood Angel in close combat.

I will admit I grew to like it very quickly, the issue for me was the way they changed the attitude to psykers as part of of it so once I separated the two parts in my head I actually really liked the religious change.

I agree a bt should be able to take a BA in cc for a number of reasons though and whilst the fluff might reflect this at least in part sadly the rules don't, but there will always be limitations in a game system like this :(

Edited October 14, 2021 by Gaius Maximus