PDA

View Full Version : Codex: Black Templars



UltimateNagash
13-10-2008, 19:19
Using the old stlye of referring to another Codex, here's my take on the Black Templars as an army. A few things might be iffy, like the Righteous Zeal rule (and Terminator Squads), so those are things I really would like comments on. Thanks :)

atlantis
16-10-2008, 21:20
good work on it. now lets do a BA one (yea despite there is a temp one alreay)

Burakai
16-10-2008, 23:45
For every casualty a Black Templar unit takes in your opponent's turn, during your next Movement Phase, that unit may move 1 extra inch towards the nearest visible enemy unit. A unit may not move more than 4" in this manner each turn.

This seems a bit clunky. I'd just give them Fleet and Rage if they suffered a loss the last turn.

Lord Malorne
16-10-2008, 23:59
The current rules are fine, you should give some of the tacticas a look, they do need a FAQ but not badly.

UltimateNagash
17-10-2008, 12:26
This seems a bit clunky. I'd just give them Fleet and Rage if they suffered a loss the last turn.
Admittedly, it is quite clunky. I hadn't though of that myself. Hmm...
(Just to let you know, I don't have the new rulebook so can't see the rulings on Rage... Do they have to move towards the nearest enemy Infantry unit or nearest enemy full stop?)

The current rules are fine, you should give some of the tacticas a look, they do need a FAQ but not badly.
It's not an FAQ they need, it's a way to put them into the same mold as the new C:SM are...

Lord Malorne
17-10-2008, 12:30
Same mold? they are better than the current codex marines, heck they kick ass.

UltimateNagash
17-10-2008, 12:35
No, they don't. They can't hold objectives, etc. And personally, Emperor's Champion sucks... I like the background of him, and the Chapter in general, but I find the rules kinda lacking...

Lord Malorne
17-10-2008, 12:36
How can they not hold objectives? you move upto D6 inch. Emperors champion gives accept any challeng no matter the odds to the army, he is worth it for that alone IMO.

UltimateNagash
17-10-2008, 12:50
Yes, you move D6", but you have to. A clever foe will just shoot you, get you to move off the Objective and/or keep it contested for the game.
Yeah, he gives good benefits, but he himself sucks...

Lord Malorne
17-10-2008, 15:49
He is good and has good stats for the points you pay...he is all a matter of taste though, most Templar players happen to like him. You move upto D6 inch, you do NOT have to, it does not say 'move full ditsance' or 'using maximum movement' the only thing the Black Templars codex needs is for RZ to go back to assaulting into enemies and not dancing in front of them.

Egaeus
17-10-2008, 17:38
Using the old stlye of referring to another Codex, here's my take on the Black Templars as an army. A few things might be iffy, like the Righteous Zeal rule (and Terminator Squads), so those are things I really would like comments on. Thanks :)

I suppose it really depends on whether you're just attempting to tweak things to bring them more in line with the current rules or giving the army the "full treatment"...I am going to assume the former since a full update would likely see things changed a bit more severely.

Righteous Zeal as is stands should work just fine...except a clarification is needed that in the the BT's case it can be used to move into assault...this has been the case since their 3rd edition incarnation but used as written now you can't move into assault which makes it wholly a liability.
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing it get a total overhaul. The suggestion for Rage and Fleet was interesting...I am assuming that these would just replace the current consolidation move?

I'm all for increasing the cover save from UtHotE...with 5th edition being heavyly reliant on cover saves this vows seems much more a hindrance than an advantage (in truth this was one of my favorite vows previously as most of the time you otherwise had a 5+ woods cover save, so my Templars didn't have to skulk about). Not sure whether you want to prevent them from using a better cover save or not...seems like it needs a few more words to be completely clear on intent.

On that note it appears that you are charging a single price and making the vows equal value? If that's the case it seems the EC should be a bit more expensive than what you have listed, although trading out his bonus strength power weapon for a Relic blade means he loses an attack although MCing the Black Sword offsets this a tiny bit...it seems maybe 120ish might be a better price for him. Unless I missed something else and you are completely decoupling the Vows from the EC...something that wouldn't be that hard to do by "exchanging" the Combat Tactics rules the Templars don't have for a Vow...or linking them to a Commander somehow.

Those are just a few things I noticed offhand. I may look at it a bit more later and give more feedback.

Looks like some good work there.

UltimateNagash
18-10-2008, 23:48
He is good and has good stats for the points you pay...he is all a matter of taste though, most Templar players happen to like him. You move upto D6 inch, you do NOT have to, it does not say 'move full ditsance' or 'using maximum movement' the only thing the Black Templars codex needs is for RZ to go back to assaulting into enemies and not dancing in front of them.
In Black Templars, it says you must move using RZ...

I suppose it really depends on whether you're just attempting to tweak things to bring them more in line with the current rules or giving the army the "full treatment"...I am going to assume the former since a full update would likely see things changed a bit more severely.
Personally, I just feel a few things need changing while everything is put inline with the new rules...

Righteous Zeal as is stands should work just fine...except a clarification is needed that in the the BT's case it can be used to move into assault...this has been the case since their 3rd edition incarnation but used as written now you can't move into assault which makes it wholly a liability.
Yes, that is something that needs to be done. If the rule were to stay the same, but that little bit was added, would be nice.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing it get a total overhaul. The suggestion for Rage and Fleet was interesting...I am assuming that these would just replace the current consolidation move?
Yeah, that does seem like an easy solution - it just seems to be missing something, as that means they're only running the same speed as everyone else...

I'm all for increasing the cover save from UtHotE...with 5th edition being heavyly reliant on cover saves this vows seems much more a hindrance than an advantage (in truth this was one of my favorite vows previously as most of the time you otherwise had a 5+ woods cover save, so my Templars didn't have to skulk about). Not sure whether you want to prevent them from using a better cover save or not...seems like it needs a few more words to be completely clear on intent.
Right, will do...

On that note it appears that you are charging a single price and making the vows equal value? If that's the case it seems the EC should be a bit more expensive than what you have listed, although trading out his bonus strength power weapon for a Relic blade means he loses an attack although MCing the Black Sword offsets this a tiny bit...it seems maybe 120ish might be a better price for him. Unless I missed something else and you are completely decoupling the Vows from the EC...something that wouldn't be that hard to do by "exchanging" the Combat Tactics rules the Templars don't have for a Vow...or linking them to a Commander somehow.
I like it being tied up to the Champion, and admittedly, I actually forgot to adjust his points... Whoops...

Lord Malorne
18-10-2008, 23:51
Yes you must move...but not the full distance, that is clear.

UltimateNagash
19-10-2008, 00:00
Really? Huh, I always thought you had to go the full distance...

Lord Malorne
19-10-2008, 00:04
So did I before another member pointed it out and I checked thinking he was a fool!...

Turned out I was the fool ;).

UltimateNagash
19-10-2008, 00:05
Although they gotta move a little, right?

Lord Malorne
19-10-2008, 00:09
Yep...so move 0.000000001 as the same member pointed out to me...heehee if they are not letting us Zeal into combat then I will move an insignificant amount...petty vengeance!

UltimateNagash
19-10-2008, 00:13
Yay for rules like that... But yeah, the rules for RZ definitely need some changes - what do you think the best idea is?

Lord Malorne
19-10-2008, 00:16
Go back to 3rd ed with 2D6 inch towards units and you count as charging (I think) heck I would be happy with 4th ed consolidate in and not count as charging...stupid new consolidate rules (in regards to RZ) !!!.

UltimateNagash
19-10-2008, 16:22
How about they can consolidate, but can charge in but get no charge bonuses (including FC and Chaplain bonus)?

Egaeus
19-10-2008, 16:56
How about they can consolidate, but can charge in but get no charge bonuses (including FC and Chaplain bonus)?

I think it gets to the point where one would just as soon do a complete re-write on the rule. I think they used "consolidation" just to make things simpler rather than have to reiterate those rules. The problem is that since the rules changed they really don't apply properly anymore.

So here's my suggestion (using the current conditions for RZ):

"If an Infantry unit....passes...then the unit must move d6" towards the nearest visible enemy unit. This move ignores difficult terrain. If the move is sufficient to contact an enemy unit then it is treated as an assault move except that the enemy does not react and the Templar unit does not get the bonus attack for assaulting."

A few additional thoughts:
--I chose to make it "must move"...if one wants, "up to" could be included for clarity if that is the desired effect. If it is left off then I suggest it is the madatory full move.

--Included the bit about terrain for clarity

--Not sure if one would want to allow the defenders to react or not, since RZ is in itself a reactionary move, so it feels a bit of a cheat not to allow a unit that could have assaulted on its turn to not react, although it does well represent the shock of having the target come rushing at you.

--May want to replace the "Templar unit does not" with "neither unit will" since again this is an out-of-phase move.

Alternatively, if we wanted to think more of reconstructing the rule it could be something like this:

Righteous Zeal

Blah blah blah...fluff

If an Infantry unit (not Jump Infantry) fails a Morale Check from shooting it will not fall back, but remains in place. On its next turn the unit will have the Rage and Fleet USRs.

[Edit: Actually this should probably be "until the end of its next turn" or even "until the end of the opponent's next turn". This means if assaulted on the turn they failed the check and won the Rage would kick in immediately.]

Note that this would completely replace the current rules.

Actually, I rather like this. It is incredibly simple but I'm sure would need some playtesting to ensure balance. To me, it does a few things:

1. No more "fall forward". It means Templars aren't significantly faster than any other unit.
2. No more excessive Morale checks for every casualty so there isn't as much possibilty of units yo-yoing around the board.
3. This particular combination of USRs should encourage the BT player to go ahead and chargeif possible (especially if they have Accept any Challenge)...but they don't absolutely have to.

What do other people think?

Oneofmany
19-10-2008, 18:49
Hallo,

I think it is rely not that hard for the FAQ team.

The RZ move is now a consolidation move.

They should make it a pile-in where they can contact units not involved in that assault

They should include the Assault ramp for the land raiders

And they should say that we can ignore the deydicated transpor rules in the codex.

That's al.:cool:

Thanks One

avatar of kaine
20-10-2008, 13:12
personally i'd keep it as it is (with the offcial codex) and just tweak things

Egaeus
20-10-2008, 15:46
Hallo,

I think it is rely not that hard for the FAQ team.

The RZ move is now a consolidation move.

They should make it a pile-in where they can contact units not involved in that assault

They should include the Assault ramp for the land raiders

And they should say that we can ignore the deydicated transpor rules in the codex.

That's al.:cool:

Thanks One

The problem is a Pile-In move has the same limitations as the Consolidation, it's just the full 6" rather than d6. One would still need to clarify that the move allows contact and an ensuing assault.

So at that point you might as well simply reword the whole mess and decouple it from anything in the rulebook, which is what I did in my previous post. I don't think my rewording was too long or intricate...it just spells out fundamentally what RZ is supposed to do.

Actually the rule would be "Assault Vehicle" as the codex does list an "Assault Ramp" but there aren't any rules for what that means, as the "Assault Vehicle" rules were part of the core 4th Edition ruleset.

All they really need is to tell us to simply disregard the "can't transport other units" sentence altogether, since the rules for "dedicated transports" are in the main rulebook.

One other thing I would like to see would be free grenades. 3 points a model is a pretty hefty price tag when you've got large squads and other armies get them for free. Heck, I wouldn't neccessarily mind if they made it an extra point for frag & krak grenades.