SydonianDragoon404 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 To me BT close combat has always been driven by sheer numbers and weight of attacks. I want a stratagem for 2 CP that allows wounds of a 6 in close combat to a mortal wound in addition to normal damage. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5115876 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokugawa Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Black Templar armed with power weapons get +1A. A pretty small tweak which will in my opinion will immediately make BT great again. Nothing else needed honestly. Yes, to invest power weapons on 1A models is the most ridiculus over-luxury in the game. Or to give crusader squad twice fight in the turn they charging. But... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5116177 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medjugorje Posted July 2, 2018 Author Share Posted July 2, 2018 the rule "sword masters" add +1 attack to all black Templar models with a power sword. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5116252 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaronTuman Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 but Dark Angels are the same... and a lot of other fractions... I dont think thats the point. No, they are not. Look at this heraldry https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/d/d1/Blood_Angels_Livery.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20161110121028 And look at this heraldry https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/9/9c/DAB3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160103051635 Search for an example which is not a games-workshop intellectual property. Now look for a Maltese cross, there are plenty of examples that have been around much longer than GW. Intellectual property is why I think BT are not being supported. It has nothing to do with game balance or fairness. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5116517 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sword Brother Adelard Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 I think the Baron makes an interesting point, I don't know if that is the real reason behind it, but you can't say that the Blood Angels heraldry is based on a real knightly order. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5116625 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medjugorje Posted July 3, 2018 Author Share Posted July 3, 2018 If that would be the case... why they change eldar into aeldari (dark eldar into drukari) but BT dont get this treatment? It would have been much more easier... If GW get Primaris into this system and name changes of a whole fraction... why not BT into something new? Could be a simple change by fluff... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5116634 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal_Roujakis Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 If that was the case, then the entire Chaos army should not be supported by GW, the Chaos insignia which is an eight pointed star, arrow, thing, is not an intellectual property of GW... sure it was named a symbol of chaos before GW started using chaos, but originally it was used in a book to depict the symbol of Chaos and was originally used in DnD... if IP was the case, then Chaos symbol would have been a much more harder thing to use, since it is much more modern and the people who actually originally used it are either still alive, or their company or those that own their IP are still around... GW would actually need to either buy them off or have legal actions taken against them for using the eight pointed arrow... But that's completely different for the fleur-de-lis and the Maltese cross, those who would actually own those symbols and their IP have passed away centuries ago, nobody would actually be able to claim that they were the ones who actually designed such symbols and there would be no legal issues with using such symbols as the ownership of such symbols have been lost ages ago... I reckon that the Matlese Cross isn't really the cause as to why GW isn't pouring any love for the Templars, but mainly because despite how much we argue against it, Templars are a minority... they have placed us in a location that is beneficial and efficient for GW to throw us stuff without having to cost them thousands... if they give C:SM new toys, that would mean we'd get new toys... they have practically done the same thing with Blood Angels and Dark Angels, throwing them C:SM stuff to enable them to have new items, but necessarily enabling GW to spend too much on making new plastic sets... its really ingenious in a business point of view... but it hurts us BT players was left in the dust during the dark days of 5th edition... the only reason BA and DA have more stuff is because they were given new kits from 6th and 7th, but if you look at their new books, there are practically no new units there, but they did give them access to Primaris, units that were already available since the C:SM release... We are just victims of 6th and 7th ed. and continue to be so on 8th... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5116644 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Reinhard Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 The Maltese cross and Fleur-de-lis are public domain and pretty much predate the concept of owning intellectual property. Noone can ever own them. GW are pretty comfortable with us being part of the Space Marine Codex. This extremely unlikely to change again. Now that we're part of it, having our unique rules and always up to date access to the latest new toys for space marines they feel this ties all neatly together. The old problem they heard from our tiny vocal minority that we were left in dust because our aging codex wasn't updated. This was fixed. We were fixed. That's likely how they see it. There's also been a change in philosophy with regards to the handling of space marines. This new philosophy is consoldiation and streamlining of the quite frankly bloated space marine model line, and Primaris expresses this quite well. They likely don't want a bajillion unique kits for a great many variations of the same army. It's one of the reasons they haven't really updated the different Imperial Guard regiments (but of course not the only reason). With Space Marines, since the introduction of Primaris there hasn't really been any new chapter specific modells at all (The sole exception is pretty much the Girlyman himself, and he was used to kick off the entire Primaris thing). But you say, it wasn't that long ago that the big 3 did get unique toys, like the SW half-assault-ram, the BA terminators, the DA Deathwing knights, etc. They even threw out a new codex Deathwatch from nowhere. GW has been changing heading for a while now, and it didn't happen over night. I'm willing to bet the old GW still had new releases down the pipeline and those didn't just go away when the change in leadership took place, they still had to be released, the sunk costs for them were already paid. The introduction of Knights, Mechanicum etc isn't just only because of the 'new' GW. We had a strange new codices left and right, a codex for the renewal of stormtroopers, Tempestus Scions. That codex obviously hasn't survived to 8th edition, its just part of Astra Militarum again. Heck even the knight's codex when it first was introduced in 2014 was a bit excessive and if the knight kit hadn't been GW's most sold kit ever, I'm not convinced they wouldn't have been baked in with Mechanicum and largely forgotten. But boy did it sell. But I'm digressing. Since Primaris, there hasn't really been any new chapter specific kits aside from aesthetic kits. There hasn't really been any focus on non-primaris marines period. When the recent DW codex got its 8th edition upgrade the only new thing was primaris. The new Lieutenants Castellans in the space marine codex, are pretty much just there so there's a normalmarine equivalent to the Primaris Lieutenant which does get a model. I wouldn't hold my breath to see any new non Primaris plastic kits for space marines of any chapter, besides possibly characters. TL DR; My point is: from GW's point of view, our rules issue was fixed when they put us back in the codex and gave us our own chapter tactics and let the codex retain data sheets of our unique things. From a modelling stand point we're probably not gonna see any new chapter specific things, or possibly even non-primaris things. Yes they know they must keep the Space Marine player base happy with new toys. As far as they are concerned Primaris are these new toys right now. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5116692 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medjugorje Posted July 3, 2018 Author Share Posted July 3, 2018 b2t... how we should write the letter. Just put a few ideas to them? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/348498-open-letter-to-gamesworkshop/page/2/#findComment-5116775 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.