https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/ Warhammer 40K & Wargaming Blog Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1 By: abraxas3d https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3627 abraxas3d Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:41:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3627 I enjoy playing Sisters/Templar as allies. I don’t mind the desperate allies rule. it makes the games fun for me.

Having said that, I wouldn’t mind a change to remove the penalty.

]]> By: Kevin Sherrell https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3625 Kevin Sherrell Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:07:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3625 I agree with this. I think the designer note is pretty clear. But I would have no problem with someone using the SM matrix as long as they told me up front. That said I would glare at them very disapprovingly if they brought out ork allies. but then again, I don’t care what the rules books says, no self respecting loyalist space marine should tolerate orks.

]]> By: damaddok https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3624 damaddok Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:38:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3624 Yes, because Librarians don’t exist in the Chapter anymore. The new Codex doesn’t state why, and in fact notes that, if there were Librarians, the Black Templars might have better records for why they didn’t.

However, fluffwise now, it’s fine that there are allied Librarians, because the Black Templar don’t mind them (they’re sanctioned just like any other “good” psyker).

I still don’t understand why Eldar can be allies, though.

]]> By: Bobthemim https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3623 Bobthemim Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:34:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3623 except in the rules where it says Librarians can’t be taken for BT Chapter Tactic based armies.

Fluffs matters jackshit to GW anymore.

]]> By: damaddok https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3622 damaddok Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:21:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3622 Well, that’s one theory about the Black Templars in the Codex. However, it also notes that, if Black Templar Librarians existed, the Black Templars would accept them with open arms… except there are no Librarians, and nobody knows why.

Personally, I think the whole change in how Black Templars view Librarians is silly, but it does justify how you can ally them in.

]]> By: NagaBaboon https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3621 NagaBaboon Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:55:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3621 I think the rule that you pointed out in section 1 (about replacing the term black templar with space marines using black templar tactics) is fairly clear, they still count as black templars in the ally matrix.

Saying that I only think that should be the official line, frankly if someone wants to use the column from the matrix for space marines instead of black templars it wouldn’t particularly bother me.

]]> By: Zweischneid https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3619 Zweischneid Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:54:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3619 I don’t see the problem. There were ambigious and/or unclear rules in past Codexes too.. Chaos Space Marines. Dark Angels, etc..

Now there’s a bit that raised some questions in the Black Templars part of the Space Marines Codex. Trying to get things sorted doesn’t imply a judgement for or against the addition of Templars to the Codex in the first place.

]]> By: andracozx https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3618 andracozx Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:38:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3618 Just as my friend who plays Bts said, they are the only sucessor chapter with its own rule set, whats there to be so angry about. Its better that they got an update than to have nothing at all. Too many people bitching is my opinion.

]]> By: Bobthemim https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3617 Bobthemim Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:24:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3617 They hate unsanctioned psykers. Navs, astropaths and the IG Psykers are all controlled vehemently.. they took Nikaea Edict very seriously, well the ones that would become BT.

Which is why i find it funny that libbys can be allied in or even eldar.

]]> By: Archatorex https://pinsofwar.com/rules-conundrum-black-templars-and-allies/#comment-3616 Archatorex Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:01:00 +0000 https://pinsofwar.com/?p=20247#comment-3616 I perceive BT to be a very arrogant chapter who take pride in their purity of purpose and spirit and perhaps follow closer to the ideals and principles of the legions during the HH (after the decree of Nikea) than the the space marine chapters of the 41st millennium. Therefore I would assume that any alliance with xenos is abhorrent to them. However I would imagine they would (grudgingly perhaps) ally with other space marine chapters who do use sanctioned psykers. I believe that fluff wise this would make more sense. After all allies within the forces of the imperium would make sense because although they may not approve of another chapters methods (primarily the employment of psykers)I believe that an imperial victory would take presidency over their abhorrence of the witch.
For rules sake I would assume that the BT are a codex within a codex (as I think was the general idea with the new SM codex; allowing different chapters and rules within one book) I would therefore assume the ally list referred to the black Templars specifically instead of the SM codex as a whole

]]>