Black Templar: Flavor And Mechanical Identity

[Schlitzaf]

With the news of SM Supplement and our (potential) box set. The v2 codex thread was derailed by our “identity” discussion. I am writing this thread ostensibly to recreate that discussion and not derail that thread.

 

As a Templar I have three rules for me mechanical identity

1) Never Take Tactical Squads (and lesser extent Devi/Assault)

2) Never Take Scout Squads

3) Never Pyskers

4) Always Take EChampion

 

In the order of mutableness is 1, 2, 3 and 4. 4 was because of the issues of 6th-7th, and start of 8th to a degree overcosting. The side concept of this identity to me is the Crusader Squad and what it represents. The ad hoc less disciplined look of other chapters, and the Scout/Power Armor mix, alongside not having the unit related size restrictions. That is why 1&2 are most immutable and can never be changed.

 

1&2 to me is core to Templar Identity, sense any use of 1&2 and naturally moves away from the Crusader Squad which is the Templar identity more than anything else espacially on the tabletop. One of the most notable cases in 7th was us not using Crusader Squads in Battle Companies began as a non-starter for us.

 

3 is mutable but not mutable. I will take Pyskers, notably Inquistors and Astropaths, I will NOT take Primaris Pyskers or Astartes Pyskers. Notably it should be iterated even in our codex is never illegal to have Pyskers allied, but was illegal to have Physic Powers aside from Grey Knights in the army. Which is why I feel/okay with taking those Pyskers. Our lack of librarians I think is a corner stone element of both our flavor and mechanical identity.

 

It represents our puritanness to the point of radicalism while highlighting imperial contradiction or hypocrisy. And the 4th the EChampion is if the Crusader Squads represents a chapter formed in brotherhood, and the EChampion represents the nobility and knightly qualities of our chapter.

 

We’re we believe in “honorable” conflict and our drive to serve and maintain our heritage as Scions of Sigismund. It more than anything represents our divergence from Imperial Fist. In that the Templar “Face” Character, the EChampion is a call or a heritage from Sigismund not Dorn. It’s also the most mutable because it’s heavily dependent on our chapter being a Scion of Dorn following the style of Sigismund or a Scions of Sigismund who himself is a Scion of Dorn

[Marshal Wolfhart]

Coming from the 4th Ed codex, i'd say identity from a game mechanic standpoint was the inclusion of the Emperor's Champion and (more importantly) vows. Not using certain unit types is something i personally always found awkward (especially after everyone got our toys, but we shouldn't get theirs?) outside of psykers. Astropaths are a necessary evil and not to be found on the battlefield to me (and yes, i am of the secular kind of Templar, the Emperor is not a god to my crusade) and Inquisitors are of such station that it might be impossible to circumvent deployment along their witches. But it's to be avoided if possible.

An old 4th ed mechanic was having to charge. It would be stupid in today's meta, but it was super flavourful.

Then again of what makes Templars unique to me isn't even seen on the tabletop, like the crusade nature, the open organization and the ad hoc squads and fighting companies that come with it... i'm not sure that can be captured by rules.

[Schlitzaf]

Wolf; that exactly what Crusader Squads are mechanically. We have no minimums for heavy and special. We can take any number of Initaites alongside any number of Neophytes. Alongside the mixed armor units in the squad. The Crusader squad imho a perfect representation of the ad hoc nature of Templars. Hence my personal desire for Biker Crusaders

[redmapa]

To me the Black Templar identity will always be summed up to two simple ideas, no psykers and a focus on close combat. Now regardless of what units you like or dislike I personally will always try for all my lists to have 2-3 units all geared for close combat and the strategy will always be to get those units into combat and the rest of the army will be there to support those units and that tactic, everything else is up in the air which to me is also a very Templar thing, to never truly disregard anything and, despite all the dogma within the chapter, to be adaptable to any threat and essentially there wont ever be any sacred formation as the only thing thats truly sacred is victory.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I will occasionally take a Scout sniper squad, because there is fluff precedent for it.

 

But, I don't like the idea of taking three bolter scout squads just to generate CP. That's beyond the pale!

[Zeller]

I still go by the 4th ed book too. No devs, no pyskers from our chapter, very agressive, and always prioritize destroying your enemy above most any other objective.

[Schlitzaf]

And? I keep hearing tactics. Let me expand on this question, why is not having these things definitionally Templar. Blood Angel’s and Wolves are melee focused. How does what these mechanics and our units represent both us mechanically on the tabletop and thematically represent. Why is not having librarians a key part of our chapter identity, why would eschewing Devies, when a very common Crusader squad setup is five man Special/Special/Heavy important. What does having these various aspects or “rules” army building make our chapter, our chapter.

 

To pick on poor Red, how what you describe be different than a Scar, Wolf or Blood Angel player? What makes your list a Templar list. If having no Librarians such a key element of our identity why? What I find remarkable right now not one player mentioned the Crusader Squad. Generally Emperor’s Champion, Melee and no Librarians. To expand on everything if as a chapter identity, the Crusader Squad for many beside being “ours” represents nothing or has no importance or reflection in our list building. Is our chapter just named characters? And insert melee murder squad here?

[Medjugorje]

hmm... If I play a narrative storybased game (most times i play competitve - mostly for Tournaments) I have very different understanding what Templar like to be...

 

at first Scouts are probably a part of a crusadersquad in a special mission.

The old Crusadersquad used to be a tactical squad - just possilbe to equip different - so a Tactical squad is nothing else like a crusadersquad.

 

BUT there are things in the old codex they used to be much more important not to play:

 

- Whirlwinds and Devastors. (thats a unit I would never play).

Then for me its very important to play aggressive unit choices like Sternguard, Vanguard, Terminators, Assaultsquads and Company Veterans

[redmapa]

And? I keep hearing tactics. Let me expand on this question, why is not having these things definitionally Templar. Blood Angel’s and Wolves are melee focused. How does what these mechanics and our units represent both us mechanically on the tabletop and thematically represent. Why is not having librarians a key part of our chapter identity, why would eschewing Devies, when a very common Crusader squad setup is five man Special/Special/Heavy important. What does having these various aspects or “rules” army building make our chapter, our chapter.

 

To pick on poor Red, how what you describe be different than a Scar, Wolf or Blood Angel player? What makes your list a Templar list. If having no Librarians such a key element of our identity why? What I find remarkable right now not one player mentioned the Crusader Squad. Generally Emperor’s Champion, Melee and no Librarians. To expand on everything if as a chapter identity, the Crusader Squad for many beside being “ours” represents nothing or has no importance or reflection in our list building. Is our chapter just named characters? And insert melee murder squad here?

 

I think a lot of what makes an army be your army is what the player puts into making it THAT army, if someone wanted they could certainly make a BT force without Crusaders, unique characters or units and it would be just as valid if the army acted in a way that was aggressive or in line with what the Black Templar character, which to me can be summarized as "aggressive". Yes there might be overlap with other "aggressive" marine armies but that doesnt take away from anyone. So as long as your list is aggressive and willing to get close with the enemy then its certainly a valid army to be called a Black Templar army if the player wanted it because it fits with our character and our mechanics.

 

Trying to marry lore and mechanics you can do a lot of configurations of our tools to create all sorts of armies and I think all are valid, from horde Crusaders to Demi-Devastators and a more defensive gunline with counter-charging units or even and all out drop pod force. They all have assault elements, they all want to get close with the enemy or are willing to let the enemy come to them, that to me is our identity, unique units and characters are just cherry on top and unnecessary to have an identity in the tabletop.

[MarshalMittermeier]

WALL OF TEXT: 

to understand Black Templars identity, we must understand why and how they were created from a metagaming perspective, i.e. why and how the original rules came about. now i haven't been here much, but i play BT ever since our creation. *I WAS THERE at the time*, and i remember how it all happened.

 

it is important to recount it for some of you guys are confused over what is really our identity and what is leftover from old rules, rather than BT identity.

 

it is late 3rd/early 4th edition and the state of the game is the following:

1) vehicles are bad, unless its a wave serpent or falcon with a specific overpowered upgrade that made it functional. transports in particular are garbage, because after destroying a transports, the passengers are auto pinned, which ruins their whole next turn making them sitting ducks. note that much fewer mobile units exist at this point, ergo 40k armies are kinda slow.

2) cc units , after winning a combat, can consolidate into new close combats, which means if a SINGLE cc unit contacts a unit from a shooting army, it can keep wiping out shooty units forever and it will be illegal to shoot at the unit for the rest of the game. the enemy wont even be able to maneuver away.

 

this butchered every single shooting army right there. tau and guard were worthless, and space marines (traditionaly a "shooting army with some cc units") also fell back.what allowed space marines to keep playing was a rule about successor chapters (about how you now pick chapter tactics). "take the fight to them" allowed to swap bolters for bp & ccw (sound familiar?) and another allowed up to 6 assault squads. so space marines became a "functional but B-tier or C-tier" army.

 

in this state of the game, Armageddon hits the shelves. perhaps to help some disgruntled SM players, GW releases a space marine faction that can finaly function as top tier in this meta: the black templars.

-the tactical squad is given bp & ccw, like in the main SM codex "chapter tactic", and invents a new way to withstand shooting since transports were useless: they add wounds vie adding scout squads.

-additionaly, taking casualties moves them closer to the enemy (again, to have a way of reaching the enemy without the useless, back then, transports)

-the emperor's champ provides additional cc option.

-cenobite servitors allow for GREATER consolidation moves, to further take advantage of the frankly overpowered consolidate mechanic of the time.

-to add flavor, they dont use psykers or devastator squads(indeed, no devastators at that codex, BTs had to use vehicles for shooting, which at their time were underpowered; but this wasnt important because building a shooting list meant playing to lose). also, to add some drawback, the BT could only consolidate to fixed, dumb directions (no need to explain old rulesets) unless a chaplain was present.

 

 

-important: at this point, ALL the other currently considered "unique to BT " things, such as free minmaxing special/hvy weapons on 5-man troops, special rules on veterans, etc. WERE PRESENT IN THE MAIN SM BOOK. they are not unique to BT, every SM codex had them.

 

flash forward, 5th edition. a new SM codex hits the shelves. tactical squads must now take 10-man units to gear up, and SM veterans lose their special rules. but it is functional, for 5th edition is ALL ABOUT TEH VEHICLES. however, BTs dont get a supplement and keep our same codex for years. hence, we retain the 5-man lasplas ability of old, as well as veteran special skills as well as other things. players that started playing here often mistakenly believe that such things are BT-specific: again, they are not, they are just leftovers, references to previous rulesets. to throw us a bone, GW buffs our E.champion vows, giving us rerolls in cc for the first time (vows were much subtler and less important before).

 

from 5th edition forward, shooting became prevalent in the game- and BTs never really recovered. a product made for another time.

 

what makes BT identity is much simpler.

-no psykers

-use  vehicles instead of dedicated shooty units like devastators for shooting (this was also a trend that led to many BT players, having gone through shooting editions, play mechanized armies)

-use tacticals AND/OR crusader squads (again, the crusader squad is just an old tacsquads layout with some added scouts, they just recently gained the "swap heavy for cc" ability, wasnt iconic or anything), but not solo scout squads.

-use unique characters (servitors, champ, often multiple chaplains, scouts on tacsquads)

 

 

pretty simple really. most of the other stuff are really more like old rules remnants, rather than BT flavor. so, using 5-man lasplas isnt any more BT than using sternguard veterans. its something BT could do  like everyone else, but isnt actualy BT-flavoured.

[Medjugorje]

absolut correct.

Like i said. the flavour of Black Templars have been to being a aggressive type of army. Dont Forget the rule that we had to shoot the closest enemy.

[MarshalMittermeier]

 

And? I keep hearing tactics. Let me expand on this question, why is not having these things definitionally Templar. Blood Angel’s and Wolves are melee focused. How does what these mechanics and our units represent both us mechanically on the tabletop and thematically represent. Why is not having librarians a key part of our chapter identity, why would eschewing Devies, when a very common Crusader squad setup is five man Special/Special/Heavy important. What does having these various aspects or “rules” army building make our chapter, our chapter.

 

To pick on poor Red, how what you describe be different than a Scar, Wolf or Blood Angel player? What makes your list a Templar list. If having no Librarians such a key element of our identity why? What I find remarkable right now not one player mentioned the Crusader Squad. Generally Emperor’s Champion, Melee and no Librarians. To expand on everything if as a chapter identity, the Crusader Squad for many beside being “ours” represents nothing or has no importance or reflection in our list building. Is our chapter just named characters? And insert melee murder squad here?

 

I think a lot of what makes an army be your army is what the player puts into making it THAT army, if someone wanted they could certainly make a BT force without Crusaders, unique characters or units and it would be just as valid if the army acted in a way that was aggressive or in line with what the Black Templar character, which to me can be summarized as "aggressive". Yes there might be overlap with other "aggressive" marine armies but that doesnt take away from anyone. So as long as your list is aggressive and willing to get close with the enemy then its certainly a valid army to be called a Black Templar army if the player wanted it because it fits with our character and our mechanics.

 

Trying to marry lore and mechanics you can do a lot of configurations of our tools to create all sorts of armies and I think all are valid, from horde Crusaders to Demi-Devastators and a more defensive gunline with counter-charging units or even and all out drop pod force. They all have assault elements, they all want to get close with the enemy or are willing to let the enemy come to them, that to me is our identity, unique units and characters are just cherry on top and unnecessary to have an identity in the tabletop.

 

 

 

indeed. an army (lets not be detailed about points here) of 5-man tacticals plus lots of sternguard, aggressors, invictors etc. getting "in your face" is much more "black templars" than an army of 5-man las/plas crusaders plus devastators/static shooting units plus e.champ/helbrecht, despite the latter using more bt-exclusive stuff. heck, even the classic "thunderbubble" of lots of shooty elements + tons of assault terminators , despite being a pure codex space marine force, can be said to be very BT-esque (and makes good use of our current chapter tactics, i just dunno if a thunderbubble would be viable in current meta)

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Your historical summary is mostly accurate Mittermeier, but I think you've conflated Codex: Armageddon and Codex:BT in places. (Not that I think it matters, your arguments are very interesting, and I think your argument for why BT were so good in 3rd is spot on.)

 

The thing is Schlitz, you talk about never taking tactical squads, and taking MSU shooty Crusaders over devastators. But those are crunch things, not fluff things.

 

Let me elaborate, BT players in 3rd or 4th edition, couldn't take tactical squads, because we had Crusader Squads, Tacticals weren't in our army list. Now, we can take either data sheet, but, even if you took a tactical squad crunch wise, fluff wise it would still be a Crusader Squad. The datasheet doesn't change the fact that BT Battleline squads are called Crusader Squads, (even the Primaris ones if the image in the last two codexes is anything to go by.)

 

The question as to whether you would take a tactical squad over a crusader squad has been largely moot for ages however. You wouldn't. Crusader Squads were always better. They could take 5 man special/combi/heavy, tacs can't. They can have more flexible armaments that Tacticals, and can be larger. You can also take a CC weapon as a heavy weapon. They were just better. However, there is now one problem: Tactical squads are currently cheaper, and as we have seen since the new codex dropped, some players are choosing them, data sheet wise, for that very reason when all they want is ranged initiates. But, that doesn't stop that squad, fluff wise, being a Crusader Squad.

 

A different problem attaches to things like Scout Squads and Devastator Squads. Do we take them, when before we couldn't? I say yes. Fluff wise we've always had heavy weapon brothers. Crunch wise the player base invented the concept of the 'faux-devi' squad to compensate for their absence. It's almost laughably hypocritical to look down your nose at devastator squads, because 'BT don't like fighting at range' whilst loading up your backline with MSU 'faux-devi' squads.

 

(As an aside, I think my view on Devastator Squads may also stem from how long I had this army. I collected Black Templars BEFORE Codex:Armageddon and I was given a box of metal devastators as a present one birthday or Christmas, only to find when the Codex came out that I couldn't play them!) In fact, I'm painting one at this very moment. Because, I want to stick 4 grab cannons and a combi-grav in a drop pod and land it in my opponent's face. In line with your 'aggressive play' argument. I think that's pretty Black Templar!

 

Edit: I think an example is pretty useful here: Link2Edition's list contains no Crusader Squads for cost reason, has tacticals and Devastators, crunch wise it's not very BT. But the fact he dropped nearly all of them on turn one in the enemy's face and kicked arse? Now, THAT'S pretty Black Templar.

 

The Librarian issue is completely moot. We can't take them. It's the price you pay for everything else. If you don't like it, play another chapter.

[Marshal Reinhard]

Fantastic writeup, MarshalMittermeier, very educational. When I first came here, as someone who actually more or less completely missed 3rd and 4th edition, I recall feeling that a lot of older forum posters, were essentially locked into one way of playing and one way only.

 

Take the crusader squad as an example, you can give any number of models in it bp & ccw. In 3rd edition, the optimal way of playing may well have been to always give everyone bp & ccw all the time, but you didn't _have_ to do it that way. In all my years here on the forum, I've seen many a frater who seemed to think that all bp & ccw (before special weapons anyway), was what you took with crusaders, period, which I always felt was taking something away from them. The Crusader squad is more than just a jump-pack-less assault squad. The option to take bolters was always been there, the option to mix and match, the option to take a Heavy weapons guy in a squad that's likely gonna wan't to get stuck in close combat. The use of Neophytes as essentially extra ablative wounds for the squad, also might be optimal 3rd edition play (or any edition really, since you're incentivised to kill off your weaker units first) but it would reflect poorly as an 'identity'. 

 

To me templars feel like an army that's all about aggressively advancing, pushing up relentlessly to the enemy, with a mixture of shooty and stabby models in the same squads (or all stabby, or even all shooty) Never afraid to get to stuck in, in fact always seeking it, but not doing it unquestioningly, always ready to give a bolter salvo when the situation calls for it, but ultimately aiming to rev that chainsword.

 

Editions change, but one of the crusader kit's strength to me was always that it seemed remarkably flexible in my eye. It's why I tend to view Templars as adaptive and "flexible" in their own style of combat. Not like Ultramarine "strategy masters",  but more along the lines of "there are many possible roads up to striking distance of the enemy"

[Marshal Vespasian]

I think aggressive, short to mid range elements are what makes a templar army a templar army.

From the primaris side of things assault boltrifles and agressors would fit that very well.

That being said, a bunch of guys with bolters and/or lascannons supporting your advancing CC elements just make sense tacticly speaking and the templars did use heavy weapons on armageddon for example. They didnt like it, but they understand the need to do so, even if it is against their nature, because they are zealots, yes, but not stupid.

 

I always try to build my lists around a number of melee equipped crusader squads and I like putting these in rhinos. Just because I love the idea of a mechanized force. I like to add dreadnoughts in, because I prefer those opticly to most of the marine tanks (aside from the sicaran and land raider but thats a matter of points costs).

[Sword Brother Adelard]

See I don't see that just because the chapter has a preference for close combat, that they wouldn't like using heavy weapons. On the contrary, I imagine that they don't really care how the enemies of the Imperium die, as long as they do. I can also imagine that the Heavy Bolter marine positively loves watching heretics explode and take out the heretics next to them in the process. Repeatedly.

[Marshal Wolfhart]

Remember that heavy weapons moving and shooting wan't a thing back when. So in a big squad of Crusaders a single heavy weapon was a poor excuse for a whole squad not to move and use those bolters and special weapons (or bolt pistols and chainswords). Swapping that heavy weapon for a close combat weapon was golden (it had been in the 4th SM codex for the successor rules iirc, as well as for sure in the 4ed Black Templars book).

It's sad those old mechanics (vows, proceeding when taking casualties, fearless in CC, yaddayadda. Couldn't we even take any number of Chaplains back then? I hardly dare touching my old dex, it's starting to fall apart :D ) are gone. It mattered more than what we get these days.

I really like this thread, there's a lot of good ol days feelings here :D Even made me start to paint another BT terminator, though i intended to shelve them until i'm done with other things...

[Sete]

I think this is one of those that everyone should run as they see fit.

 

Personally I prefer a crusade mechanized force, with drop pod support.

[Smirnov]

Yay, a separate thread!

 

With the news of SM Supplement and our (potential) box set. The v2 codex thread was derailed by our “identity” discussion. I am writing this thread ostensibly to recreate that discussion and not derail that thread.

As a Templar I have three rules for me mechanical identity
1) Never Take Tactical Squads (and lesser extent Devi/Assault)
2) Never Take Scout Squads
3) Never Pyskers
4) Always Take EChampion

 

To me the one thing missing is the (self) restriction on heavy weaponry. Back when our Codex was released, there was a series of articles in White Dwarf from the authors about army composition of BT. There it was stated that Tamplars are favouring fast, ruthless assault tactics as in opposed to methodical siege. That was the reason whe they have no Devastators or Whirlwinds - as these units are too slow for the overal battle strategy of the templars.

 

I think this is very important part of Templar identity, one of those that sets us apart from, say, Imperial Fists. As  Isee it, the rule of thumb about validity of heavy weapon platform would be 'if it can move and shoot, then it gets a pass, otherwise nope'

[Crimson cowboy]

I just want to point out one thing....it itches away at me and I keep my mouth shut most of the time

 

There are too many people crying over things instead of enjoying what it is we have

 

I pull from our codex....yet I’m most likely to run 2-3 tides and 3 faux Devi as my troops at all times and fill in with ethier my LRCs Helbrecht and champion....and most likely since I’ve been successful with vanguard hammer and terminators

 

But what eats at me is people who don’t comprehend....we don’t use librarians......zip nodda.....I say this because people talk about wanting or is getting to use them....the Black Templar’s are clearly based on the Templar knights....who were mortal men who burned and slayed anybody heretical and possessed witchcraft.....yet they believed in god to the highest order.....as for Astro paths and such.....there is a difference of pulling from chaos and pulling from faith.....yes they don’t pull from faith....and it’s still heresy unless from god/god emps but they are still needed for navigation end of story

 

Another thing is that people complaining we aren’t as strong as others such as BA and SW obviously....who don’t see a bigger picture....blood thirsty vampires....and wolves.....the templars were again just human....albeit we arnt the strongest in close combat......but we arnt super-super human like those mixed with mythos creatures......I honestly believe a rule we should have is not extra attacks but extra defense....due to the over zealous and barbaric rage we have in the heat of battle...,we have shock now how about a plus to toughness when charged into close combat....it’s a thought

 

All in all we have the ability to run 20 man squads that’s our strength....shear numbers relentless attacks.....get across the board and slay everything in sight......but this is the future....I believe a spear head tactic with a flanking hammer of wrath is what the templars were always meant to be

 

I’m pulling a lot out of nowhere right now....but I think people lost sight of who we were based off of wanting so much that others get altering who we actually are....were not blood thirsty....were not primal savages.....we are barbaric war veterans who zeal and faith is enough of a shield to ignore any blows and continue fighting till death

[Medjugorje]

We ARE on the same Level like Blood Angels and Space Wolves. As we are KNIGHTS.

 

Dont Forget that wolves are not really strong in realtiy - they normally dont attack humans and are not hold candle to some other predators like bears.. (in 1 vs  1)...

And Vampires are just mythology - the real Vampire (bat) has to fear so much other lving beings.

 

As from a cinematic/phantasy Point of view - we have to compare the Vampire, the Monster Wolf (Werwolf) and the mediieval / phantasy stereotyp Knight which always Plays the good guy who would win no matter the Odds OR being the "Black Knight" -  the Antagonist of all.

 

From this Point of view Black Templars are as strong as others in Close combat. I mean Sigismund was the best swordsman in the whole Imperium at this time... next to primarchs.

[Closet Skeleton]

- Whirlwinds and Devastors. (thats a unit I would never play).

Then for me its very important to play aggressive unit choices like Sternguard, Vanguard, Terminators, Assaultsquads and Company Veterans

 

Whirlwinds were in the fluff even in the 4th ed codex, there was no justification for them not being in the rules. Codex Armageddon disallowed Devastators but allowed Whirlwinds.

 

 

Your historical summary is mostly accurate Mittermeier, but I think you've conflated Codex: Armageddon and Codex:BT in places. (Not that I think it matters, your arguments are very interesting, and I think your argument for why BT were so good in 3rd is spot on.)

Feels completely wrong to me but I skipped straight from 3rd ed to 5th ed.

 

In 3rd ed the dominant marine army was rhino rush Blood Angels. Black Templars weren't infantry based to get around transports sucking. The whole point of the Land Raider Crusader was to provide a way to mechanize large squads (it was one unit and attached characters in those days).

 

Chapter tactics didn't exist in 3rd ed except for first founding chapters in the index astartes articles (which included some reprints from Codex Armageddon). Chapter customisation rules that opened up pistol and chainsword for tactical squads were introduced in 4th ed years after Black Templars had their Armageddon Codex rules.

 

Emperor's Champion was in the core 3rd ed marine codex back when Black Templars were a fully codex chapter in organisation. A errata made it available to everyone until 4th ed brought out a new marine codex with company champions in command squads.

 

Veterans only had choosable skills in 4th ed after BT had their Armageddon rules. In 3rd ed they were locked into taking infiltrate. 5th ed swapped the choosable skills for either heroic intervention (charge and deepstrike for jump pack veterans) or special issue ammunition.

 

 

It's sad those old mechanics (vows, proceeding when taking casualties, fearless in CC, yaddayadda. Couldn't we even take any number of Chaplains back then? I hardly dare touching my old dex, it's starting to fall apart ) are gone. It mattered more than what we get these days.

 

We could take slotless chaplains in command squads but they weren't independent characters until every non character died.

 

 

But what eats at me is people who don’t comprehend....we don’t use librarians......zip nodda.....I say this because people talk about wanting or is getting to use them....the Black Templar’s are clearly based on the Templar knights....who were mortal men who burned and slayed anybody heretical and possessed witchcraft.....yet they believed in god to the highest order.....as for Astro paths and such.....there is a difference of pulling from chaos and pulling from faith.....yes they don’t pull from faith....and it’s still heresy unless from god/god emps but they are still needed for navigation end of story

 

I’m pulling a lot out of nowhere right now....but I think people lost sight of who we were based off of wanting so much that others get altering who we actually are....were not blood thirsty....were not primal savages.....we are barbaric war veterans who zeal and faith is enough of a shield to ignore any blows and continue fighting till death

 

Monastic Military orders didn't go around killing heretics and witches, they were defenders of pilgrim roads and bankers. The Knights Hospitlar ended up as pirates stuck on an island but still operated their hospital for pilgrims while the Teutonic Knights fought pagans and only ended up fighting heretics when they ran out of pagans and it was treated as a sign that they were redundant and vulnerable.

 

The Teutonic Knights had their territory stripped during the protestant reformation which is when witch hunts and heretic burning really 'heated' up. The Templars were disbanded three centuries earlier and were mostly bankers and farming estate managers but also defended territory in the Holy Land (but didn't do much conquering, the brief period of crusader territorial expansion mostly finished before they got the numbers to do anything).

 

The historical Templars were formally disbanded on charges of Heresy and only survived by playing the local Muslim rulers off against each other, so pretty far from heretic hating fanatics.

 

The crusaders were violent horrible thugs and arguably Steven Runciman was correct to call them "the last wave of the barbarians who destroyed the Roman Empire" but unlike the heretic hunters of the reformation period they were seeking absolution of their own sins not trying to protect their holiness by stopping the sins of others from spreading.

 

The Black Templars are based more on enlightenment myths of the middle ages. In order to create a background for new ideas about progress, the preceding 1000 years were divided into 'the middle ages' where all the bad religious things happened and 'the renaissance' where all the good things happened and protestants could coverup their flaws by blaming Catholics for everything.

[Sete]

That's a very broad description of the Orders and what they did, and does not make them justice.

 

Hospitalers and Templars were quite active in Portugal and effectively did the Reconquista in Iberia.

If we go dwelve deeper into the subject, when the Templars were persecuted, Portugal did not follow, and the Order changed to the Order of Christ.

 

Portuguese Ships sported the Crimson Cross back to the red sea, and believe me, they didn't go there for sightseeing.

 

In fact the Order is quite close to Portugal founding, with estates granted to them even before they were officialized.

There are a lot to read about them, and their shaping of the kingdom, for history buffs.

 

The Orders have quite a lot to them outside the holy land.

[Medjugorje]

we talk about a fantasy setting. Dont get me wrong,.. i like the discussion but in point of our topic we have to see the templars from a more stereotype, mythological and common point of view.

[MegaVolt87]

I think aggressive, short to mid range elements are what makes a templar army a templar army.

From the primaris side of things assault boltrifles and agressors would fit that very well.

That being said, a bunch of guys with bolters and/or lascannons supporting your advancing CC elements just make sense tacticly speaking and the templars did use heavy weapons on armageddon for example. They didnt like it, but they understand the need to do so, even if it is against their nature, because they are zealots, yes, but not stupid.

 

I always try to build my lists around a number of melee equipped crusader squads and I like putting these in rhinos. Just because I love the idea of a mechanized force. I like to add dreadnoughts in, because I prefer those opticly to most of the marine tanks (aside from the sicaran and land raider but thats a matter of points costs).

 

This right here, is how BT to me come across. Sure BT like the epic close combat, but not complete nut cases who forgo ranged combat. If anything BT are closest to old aggressive legion front line battle tactics, over the more codex surgical strike style of modern space marines. I don't see how the heavy weapons guy is going to be having less enjoyment killing heretics than the chainsword guy honestly. In my head cannon, WB are the CSM version of BT zealots knights, except they are currently worse off rules wise than BT currently.