Interesting thought on WC Facebook regarding BTs

[Yodhrin]

I don't think it's much of a surprise I would like things to slant towards our original niche ;)

 

That said, BT chapter tactics already lean (weakly) towards assault. Making it better wouldn't make it any less nasty to run 5 man blasty squads, superior to Tacticals. As it stands the latter is still better than the former even with our CT. Making it better would just make both options good.

 

But again, don't expect any change regardless.

That's the thing though, for me the "original niche" was never as an assault-focused army - them becoming that to my eye is much like Raven Guard becoming "the jump pack chapter" or White Scars "the bike chapter", it's a Flanderization - and it's not MSU spam I'm interested in fielding it's "proper" Crusader squads with a mixture of ranged, melee, & special weapons as the mood and modelling takes me, units of individuals with their own preferred panoply. The problem was that the game never allowed Crusaders to live up to their fluff in prior editions because the only *functional* loadouts were all-melee or MSU spam, but in 8th they can at last freely mix almost any of their options without making the unit total garbage; boosting melee further would just swing us back to where we were before where only the two laser-focused extremes make any sense on the table, because the rough parity between a Marine firing a bolter then charging and a Marine gaining an extra attack from their chainsword would be gone and the chainsword would be the clearly superior choice again. IMO anyway.

[Lysere]

Don't forget we have the armor of contempt stratagem which can be combined with our land raiders for some actual smite defense. It's not perfect but making your opponent roll just a few more dice to kill a unit can make all the difference.

 

I do agree we need more ways to shut down psykers on our own but for now some minor allies or some creative plays can help. At least this is an edition of rapid patching and updates so we shouldn't have to wait several years for that to be fixed.

[Medjugorje]

I honestly don't know what you guys are griping about. I've gotten plenty of victories with my Templars, and I've successfully charged thanks to that re-roll multiple times. Our CT is fine, and our Stratagem is fluffy and can be extremely clutch. Our warlord trait and relic is meh, but all of this is WAY better than what we had in 6th and 7th edition. Does nobody here remember "must take casualties first before you get +1 attack" bull:cuss? I mean seriously people come on. 

 

hahaha... its the opposite.

 

Our CT is not really good, its quite okay.

Our Stratagem is good. But our Relic is the best we have^^

 

But he,... waiting one year, maybe we get a few new things.

[Medjugorje]

that thing what i am most sad about is that it was easy to give us a bit more punch in closecombat.

 

Many other Units like Orks get a bonus if they are more than <Number>...      lets give these rule to crusaders if they are more then 10. Then it would make a difference and it would be make sense to take a land raider crusader as transport to Crusaders in gameplay - not just in terms of fluff.

[Gerhard]

The thing bugging me is not so much the Close Combat or no Close Combat. It is more that BT are completely locked out of Psykers, but at the same time only have a partial defense for it, at the expense of a CP. Not even a baseline defense integrated in our base, but something we have to use that is only 50% reliable.

 

This is a serious flaw I would much rather see fixed, then getting a buff in CC or anything else.

[Aegir_Einarsson]

As Great as simple.... brillant idea!!

[Firepower]

 

I don't think it's much of a surprise I would like things to slant towards our original niche

 

That said, BT chapter tactics already lean (weakly) towards assault. Making it better wouldn't make it any less nasty to run 5 man blasty squads, superior to Tacticals. As it stands the latter is still better than the former even with our CT. Making it better would just make both options good.

 

But again, don't expect any change regardless.

That's the thing though, for me the "original niche" was never as an assault-focused army - them becoming that to my eye is much like Raven Guard becoming "the jump pack chapter" or White Scars "the bike chapter", it's a Flanderization - and it's not MSU spam I'm interested in fielding it's "proper" Crusader squads with a mixture of ranged, melee, & special weapons as the mood and modelling takes me, units of individuals with their own preferred panoply. The problem was that the game never allowed Crusaders to live up to their fluff in prior editions because the only *functional* loadouts were all-melee or MSU spam, but in 8th they can at last freely mix almost any of their options without making the unit total garbage; boosting melee further would just swing us back to where we were before where only the two laser-focused extremes make any sense on the table, because the rough parity between a Marine firing a bolter then charging and a Marine gaining an extra attack from their chainsword would be gone and the chainsword would be the clearly superior choice again. IMO anyway.

 

 

This is an argument that's been going around in circles since 5th edition.

 

In short: Kill Them All, Accept Any Challenge, mandatory Emperor's Champion, Smite the Unclean, Righteous Zeal, no Devastators or Whirlwinds, Troops that could take swords, the LRC.  Practically everything from the very beginning* of the Templars was geared towards 'this is a melee army.'  It's not Flanderization if the character of the Chapter starts out that way.  It would be like saying "Blood Angels are an assault army" is Flanderization.

 

Even the current CT says 'this is a melee army.'  It just doesn't do a good job of making that true.

 

Making Templars better at melee wouldn't make the big shooty units "total garbage."  It doesn't take anything away from the big shooty units.  They'd be just as good then as they are now.  And that's the answer- they're "good" now because nothing we have is particularly good.  It's good because it's an average choice from a pool of completely average options.  Now when focused on making a top-tier Templar army, instead of a choice between melee or MSU**, we have MSU or...?

 

*technically Armageddon was the very beginning, but it was also melee focused, while the 4th edition stand alone codex fully fleshed the Chapter out into a unique style of army

 

**and melee Templars haven't really been a top-tier way to build the army since 5th edition, either.  The only reason MSU became a Templar thing is because, while our Codex was left wallowing in the 4th edition template of C:SM squad composition (Sergeant and 2 weapon choices standard), C:SM lost the option to do that unless they took a 10 man squad.  It wasn't ever part of our identity, but an accident of power creep.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Firepower

[Ciler]

The thing bugging me is not so much the Close Combat or no Close Combat. It is more that BT are completely locked out of Psykers, but at the same time only have a partial defense for it, at the expense of a CP. Not even a baseline defense integrated in our base, but something we have to use that is only 50% reliable.

 

This is a serious flaw I would much rather see fixed, then getting a buff in CC or anything else.

To be honest, that's not just a BT problem, that's an all-around problem.

 

Against a brimstone or GK list, no one has enough psykers to remotely deny enough of the damage dished out. The issue, if any, is with smite, not with BT lists.

[Sete]

*re roll charges...

 

I would rather have immune to morale tests in close combat.

 

Unless GW is planning something for BT in the future (which I seriously doubt) like a vow or oath that adds a second bonus for 1CP.

 

 

"Lead us from death to victory, from falsehood to truth.

Lead us from despair to hope, from faith to slaughter.

Lead us to His strength and an eternity of war.

Let His wrath fill our hearts.

Death, war, and blood;

in vengeance serve the Emperor and the name of Dorn!"

- "Suffer not the Unclean to live"

 

 

"Trust in the Emperor at the hour of battle.

Trust to him to intercede, and protect his warriors true as they deal death on alien soil.

Turn their seas to red with the blood of their slain.

Crush their hopes, their dreams

And turn their songs into cries of lamentation."

- "Uphold the honour of the Emperor"

 

 

"Smite now the scions of the Witch!

Grant us the strength to pierce their unclean flesh!

To cover their fields with the pale form of the blasphemous dead!

To drown the thunder of guns with the shriek of their dying!

To lay waste to their citadels with hurricanes of fire!

To wring the hearts of their kin with unavailing grief!

To send them into the waste of their desolate land in rags and hunger, broken in spirit, worn with travail and begging for the refuge of the grave.

We ask it, in the spirit of wrath, O Master of Mankind!"

- "Abhor the Witch, Destroy the Witch"

 

"O Emperor, in wrath rejoicing at bloody wars, fierce and untamed,

whose mighty power doth make the strongest walls from their foundations shake.

All-conquering Master of Mankind, be pleased with this war's tumultuous roar.

Delight in swords and fists red with alien blood, and the dire ruins of savage battle.

Rejoice in furious challenge, and avenging strife, whose works with woe embitter human life!"

- "Accept any challenge, no matter the odds"

Edited August 24, 2017 by Sete

[Gerhard]

 

The thing bugging me is not so much the Close Combat or no Close Combat. It is more that BT are completely locked out of Psykers, but at the same time only have a partial defense for it, at the expense of a CP. Not even a baseline defense integrated in our base, but something we have to use that is only 50% reliable.

 

This is a serious flaw I would much rather see fixed, then getting a buff in CC or anything else.

To be honest, that's not just a BT problem, that's an all-around problem.

 

Against a brimstone or GK list, no one has enough psykers to remotely deny enough of the damage dished out. The issue, if any, is with smite, not with BT lists.

 

 

 

That's a pretty valid point. Thanks for changing my perspective on that one. 

 

I do hope GW will do something to fix that though...

[AlmightyWalrus]

Having competetive rules is not just an issue for fighting tough-as-nails lists. Balanced rules makes the game better for everyone, not just for those of us that want to be competetive. I don't understand this extreme aversion to having decent rules that some people seem to have.

[Yodhrin]

 

 

I don't think it's much of a surprise I would like things to slant towards our original niche

 

That said, BT chapter tactics already lean (weakly) towards assault. Making it better wouldn't make it any less nasty to run 5 man blasty squads, superior to Tacticals. As it stands the latter is still better than the former even with our CT. Making it better would just make both options good.

 

But again, don't expect any change regardless.

That's the thing though, for me the "original niche" was never as an assault-focused army - them becoming that to my eye is much like Raven Guard becoming "the jump pack chapter" or White Scars "the bike chapter", it's a Flanderization - and it's not MSU spam I'm interested in fielding it's "proper" Crusader squads with a mixture of ranged, melee, & special weapons as the mood and modelling takes me, units of individuals with their own preferred panoply. The problem was that the game never allowed Crusaders to live up to their fluff in prior editions because the only *functional* loadouts were all-melee or MSU spam, but in 8th they can at last freely mix almost any of their options without making the unit total garbage; boosting melee further would just swing us back to where we were before where only the two laser-focused extremes make any sense on the table, because the rough parity between a Marine firing a bolter then charging and a Marine gaining an extra attack from their chainsword would be gone and the chainsword would be the clearly superior choice again. IMO anyway.

 

 

This is an argument that's been going around in circles since 5th edition.

 

In short: Kill Them All, Accept Any Challenge, mandatory Emperor's Champion, Smite the Unclean, Righteous Zeal, no Devastators or Whirlwinds, Troops that could take swords, the LRC.  Practically everything from the very beginning* of the Templars was geared towards 'this is a melee army.'  It's not Flanderization if the character of the Chapter starts out that way.  It would be like saying "Blood Angels are an assault army" is Flanderization.

 

Even the current CT says 'this is a melee army.'  It just doesn't do a good job of making that true.

 

Making Templars better at melee wouldn't make the big shooty units "total garbage."  It doesn't take anything away from the big shooty units.  They'd be just as good then as they are now.  And that's the answer- they're "good" now because nothing we have is particularly good.  It's good because it's an average choice from a pool of completely average options.  Now when focused on making a top-tier Templar army, instead of a choice between melee or MSU**, we have MSU or...?

 

*technically Armageddon was the very beginning, but it was also melee focused, while the 4th edition stand alone codex fully fleshed the Chapter out into a unique style of army

 

**and melee Templars haven't really been a top-tier way to build the army since 5th edition, either.  The only reason MSU became a Templar thing is because, while our Codex was left wallowing in the 4th edition template of C:SM squad composition (Sergeant and 2 weapon choices standard), C:SM lost the option to do that unless they took a 10 man squad.  It wasn't ever part of our identity, but an accident of power creep.

 

 

Maybe it was your beginning mate, for me the Black Templars began with the incredible 3rd Edition box art & its contents and was refined by IA and Armageddon not into all-black Blood Angels or loyalist Khrone Berzerkers but an army of crusading knights each with their own preferred set of equipment and plenty of unique heraldry. Just because the previous rules didn't live up to the fluff or the photos of big mixed squads and a lot of people(sadly, it seems, including GW) reinterpreted the fluff based on the minmax monobuilds encouraged by said rules doesn't mean BT have always been a melee army - that's as alien to me as this nonsense about BT loving some psykers and hoping to one day be "blessed" with a Librarius again.

 

And again, since you keep sailing past this with a fair wind - I don't want to make "shooty units", I want to make proper Crusader Squads, ie units with a good chunk of bolters, a few BP+CCW, a special weapon or two, a power weapon here or there, maybe some shotguns even, and not have it be total **** on the table. In 8th, for once, that's possible because there is a rough parity when considering the aftermath of a combat between a marine with a bolter who shot and then charged, and a marine with a chainsword getting an extra attack after they charged. If you make the guy with the chainsword better, then the parity is gone, and we go back to the only rational choices when constructing a list are mono-loadout units with all-CC or all-ranged.

 

If people want exclusively melee units, that's what Assault Marines are for, Crusaders were supposed to be about that fluffy mixture of inividuals. So yes, regarding them and BT overall as a melee-focused army is absolutely a Flanderization.

[Marshal Arthur]

I love the idea of mixed crusader squads but at the moment boltguns and chainswords just aren't enough. It's the special and heavy weapons that make most squads viable unless you're going for a huge blob. What about introducing a detachment mechanic similar to what Empire troops had in warhammer fantasy? You could pair state troop units together to support one another and allowed for some interesting tactical options. It's not ideal but if I could pair a shorty squad with a stabby one and allow them to offer fire support and counter charges to each other it could encourage more mixed play.

[Marshal Laeroth]

 

 

The thing bugging me is not so much the Close Combat or no Close Combat. It is more that BT are completely locked out of Psykers, but at the same time only have a partial defense for it, at the expense of a CP. Not even a baseline defense integrated in our base, but something we have to use that is only 50% reliable.

 

This is a serious flaw I would much rather see fixed, then getting a buff in CC or anything else.

To be honest, that's not just a BT problem, that's an all-around problem.

 

Against a brimstone or GK list, no one has enough psykers to remotely deny enough of the damage dished out. The issue, if any, is with smite, not with BT lists.

Aye, GW could easily fix things by changing smite. But...i have seen it mentioned on their Facebook page that they like how smite currently works.

[Castellan Doren]

My second game was against a thousand sons mortal wound army with magnus.

 

After losing hard to it, and thinking over it long and hard, the answer to me is black tide with standard bearers.

 

Go cheap on everything including HQ choices. Ignore running heavy weapons except on venerable dreads. A lascannon is worth two marines before attatching it to a marine.

 

For vehicles, rhinos and venerable dreads. Only vens because they can ignore wounds on a 6, it's not much but it helps.

 

Spend your points on vet sgts with lightning claws. Lt's should have claws too. I say lieutenants because you can get 3 in a single choice to spam those rerolls of 1, and invulnerable saves are useless against a mortal wound army.Drown them in volume of attacks.

 

Deepstriking VV with plasma pistols would also be good to force their hand and distracting. Storm shields would also make the unit a greater target for mortal wound spam, giving your greatest threats being lightning claw vets time to get up the field to properly lay some hate.

 

Mortal wound armies all suffer from the same problem. They're very expensive. Try to outnumber them 3+ to 1.

[Ciler]

To be honest, I don't think smite needs to be "fixed", as often the problem arises from spamming more than anything else. If you think about it, from a purely statistical point of view it's essentially a heavy plasma incinerator. The problem is that whereas HPI are 35 pts apiece (including base model) and limited to a specific unit, smite can be obtained fairly readily and/or for much cheaper than that on some models. For the price of a hellblaster squad, you get 3 squads of horrors that do not lose in efficiency when losing members.

[Ebon Hand]

I hope I'm not the only one that sees our weakness to psykers as a GOOD thing. I've always longed for the days when factions had real drawbacks. We gave up Librarians when we choose Black Templars and that means something. We shouldn't be good at everything!

 

What we should be doing is calling in specialists if we really have a problem with our weakness bring exploited. Culexus, Grey Knights, even Inquisitors should be our go to psyker defense. Aside from that our defense has always been to seek out and kill the psykers.

 

I also agree with the idea that we shouldn't be pigeonholed into melee style of play. We have 2 of those chapters already, Blood Angels and World Eaters. We should be much more like Space Wolves, good at melee and shooting, but more about their individual style and character with some unique units. I think we could stand to have 1 more special rule (Uphold the Honor of the Emperor in nature) but aside from that I think we are in a pretty good spot all things considered.

[AlmightyWalrus]

Blood Angels are the Blitzkrieg specialists to our attrition warware specialists. There's room for two melee specialist Chapters, we play nothing alike anyway (or, well, shouldn't).

 

The Blood Angels show up unexpectedly and punches you in the face. The Black Templars announce their presence, get shot by a security guard and still go on to punch you in the face. The end result is face-punching, the road there is different.

Edited August 24, 2017 by AlmightyWalrus

[Schlitzaf]

I want to second what Almighty Walrus said and add on to what others have said. We are an attrition chapter, we based on our Codex eschew long range Weaponry (no Devi Squads, no Whirlwinds and for 6th-7th our chapter master had no orbital). Instead we utilized FireFight Tactics (Land Raider Crusaders), the Crusader Squad having the option to replace a Heavy Weapon with a Pow Weapon, and our Bikers being the only Biker Units that could take triple power weapons.

 

This was complimented by our Neos lacking the option for Bolters until 8th Edition. Forcing Shotgun or BP. So if we "horde" Marines incentivizing us to get closer. Furthermore our vows, our interaction with target priority, and Zeal. The vows only worked in melee combat, save two. And the anti-pysker vow, forced us to move forward. Target priority favored us shooting closer targets. Firefight level weapons like Bolter/Plasma Gun/Pistols instead of Lascannon etc and Zeal got us closer to magic and charge range.

 

And finally our Land Raider Crusader having 6 Bolters over something two Lascannon. It wanted to get up close and personal into magic range. And then for us to charge afterwards. If we complain to Warhammer Community that is what we should emphasis, attrition based army heavily focused on firefight and melee combat.

 

Then focused not the unique elements of C:BT that were unique because we were the last 4th Ed Space Variant but were unique as published. Also Biker Crusader Squads and getting Neophytes into Primaris Units. Also getting Neophytes a point deduction. Demostrate how and why we aren't "Blood Angels but Black".

 

That said just complaining and ranting, is just rude and solves nothing.

[Medjugorje]

The problem about smite is not the smite rule but the points your pay for these unit who cast that power.

Horrors for 2 points ( 3 now) with 4++ is just ....

They should cost 6 points!!!

 

I wont say that we are just cc - focussed, but as Sigismund (the greatest swordsman in the imperium ever saw) its clear that ithe division into close combat and shooting like the ultramarines does to 30:70 percent and the blood angels (who used to have THE close combat primrach) 80:20 should be a thing about 70:30 or like 60:40. But in terms of being in the Ultramarinesbook but having just this small CT its still wrong.

[Marshal Laeroth]

To be honest, I don't think smite needs to be "fixed", as often the problem arises from spamming more than anything else. If you think about it, from a purely statistical point of view it's essentially a heavy plasma incinerator. The problem is that whereas HPI are 35 pts apiece (including base model) and limited to a specific unit, smite can be obtained fairly readily and/or for much cheaper than that on some models. For the price of a hellblaster squad, you get 3 squads of horrors that do not lose in efficiency when losing members.

I would be much more okay with Smite if it was like plasma. Unfortunately, it auto-causes mortal wounds...which bypass all saves, including invulnerable. Combine that with dirt cheap units, you have a very big problem for all armies...not just the BT.

[Ebon Hand]

Mortal wounds is more a problem for elite armies (pretty much all Marine armies). Guard, Tyranids and Orks aren't really going to care as long as their HQs aren't the ones getting hit.

 

I think as Templars we have to get creative with fighting smiters. At least we have Neophytes to pawn hits off on, but even 11 point Neophytes aren't really throwaway wounds, just preferable to removing your Initiates.

 

So that leaves us with Armor of Contempt (as was mentioned earlier) as a defense for vehicles and Abhor the Witch for clutch powers like Warp Time. As a defense for Characters, cheap company vets. Grey Knights have great denial capability.

 

But why wait for them to smite you? You can endeavor to kill them: Snipers are one relatively cheap way to get at their Psykers. Dropping in a Culexus assassin (or even several) is another way to shut them down.

 

Failing all of that, you can simply avoid los to the witches or take it into account and present units as a sacrifice to take the Smites.

 

Now if we are talking competitive play, it will require some play testing playing both against and as the psyker army to really understand how to counter it.

 

I know all this is obvious stuff but I think it's worth mentioning because the topic is about Black Templars needing something more, but I don't think they do. I think there are plenty of tools at our disposal, but I don't think we can counter everything, nor should we be able to, but we can at least learn to play around our weaknesses.

[Stemplar]

Did anyone here choose Black Templar because we have the best rules?

 

Or was it, like me, because you love the lore and the characters. I chose the Templars because of the way we play, because the imagery is frikkin cool, the stories are inspiring and the black armour and tabbards look awesome.

 

The rules will change and tactics will come and go, but we should remember why we chose this in the first place.

[Marshal_Roujakis]

Did anyone here choose Black Templar because we have the best rules?

 

Or was it, like me, because you love the lore and the characters. I chose the Templars because of the way we play, because the imagery is frikkin cool, the stories are inspiring and the black armour and tabbards look awesome.

 

The rules will change and tactics will come and go, but we should remember why we chose this in the first place.

 

This should answer that question...

http://i.imgur.com/jX8rbXA.jpg

 

But GW also promised us a balanced gameplay for 8th edition, where my Templars aren't left in the carry case whenever the game gets competitive... I should not be rofl-stomped into submission by turn 2, not steam-rolled into black armored pancakes by Khorne Berzerkers and not shoehorned into melee by my rules... that's what they promised us, and so far we have had a lackluster Chapter Tactic that is only usable when we want to go into melee, unlike the other Tactics which are usable in almost any circumstance, and not to mention that the said Chapter Tactic is also only efficient if your charge distance is close enough for you to just consolidate into melee... our strategem is decent, and it is also only usable against a few psykers, but then again, all other armies suffer against psyker heavy armies, so it would be more of a global balance to fix psykers and the smite rule in general to make gameplay against psyker heavy armies fair...

 

But, the main reason of a lot of people's complaints here is that, unlike most other Chapters that could actually compete in hardcore competitive games (Ultramarines w/ +1 Ld, White Scars with extra movement and IF with Ignore Cover) Tempars gained a rule that not only forced us into melee, but it is also very circumstantial and underwhelming in comparison to so many others... we should atleast be on the same level of competitiveness with the other Chapters, be capable to hold our own against competitive builds and not always be handicapped against playing with a non-handicapped list...

 

I understand that 40k isn't chess, you can't really have a completely balanced game where both sides would always be equal to the other, but we were promised that it would really be close to balanced as possible, where I won't feel like a three legged horse racing against Gandalf's Shadowfax all the time...

[Gerhard]

We're not discussing why we picked Templars though. We're talking how to deal with Psyker spammy lists which started when the Chapter Tactics were discussed.

 

Anyway, the only really viable thing I see right now would be to ally with Psyker defense. Which means something like Grey Knights. Goes slightly against the Fluff though but hey... if we're going to be killing heretics together....