Black Templars FAQ thread (1st post updated 10/20/21)

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Ace, your answer to the EC crusade relic Q, is that missing a 'Not'?

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Oh, I see you've edited it now, I agree. There's no way he should be able to get even better gear.

 

But, now he's not a named character, does that mean he can gain other crusade abilities?

[BitsHammer]

 

In an effort to get GW to answer some question I felt it was a good idea for us to collectively pool them so everyone submitting questions to 40kfaq@gwplc.com can hit the same points so we can hopefully see some of them answered. My intent is to collect questions through the week and send them in when the codex officially releases next weekend.

 

I put off actually sending this in due to a lot of people not having full access to the rules, so I feel continuing to collect FAQs for a mass submission by multiple people is still the correct action, though we definitely have longer thanks to the codex's wider release not coming for around a month. 

 

In an effort to get GW to answer some question I felt it was a good idea for us to collectively pool them so everyone submitting questions to 40kfaq@gwplc.com can hit the same points so we can hopefully see some of them answered. 

 

WARHAMMER 40,000

Q: Does the Emperor's Champion Holy Wargear rule prevent him from gaining Crusade Relics?

They are considered relics, so no

 

Q: If I use the Shock and Awe stratagem from Codex: Space Marines does it prevent me from using the Shock and Awe stratagem in Codex Supplement Black Templars and vice versa?

You can't. The rules are specific about stratagems of the same name

  

Q: Paragon of Fury reads that the character who makes a charge gains +1 strength. Is this correct? 

I fail to see why this is ambiguous 

 

Q: If so is the strength increase from the warlord trait Paragon of Fury permanent for the rest of the battle?

RAW yes, but I believe this does need a FAQ

Q: Is strength increase from the warlord trait Paragon of Fury cumulative?

 

Q: Do Grimaldus' Cenobyte Servitors count as Character models for the purposes of rules such as Look Out, Sir! or secondary objectives such as Assassinate?

Again RAW yes but I think it's not intended so needs a FAQ

 

Q: Do Relic Bearers upgrades count as relics for the purposes of the Master-crafted Relic rule?

No, they are upgrades, despite the name. Same exact thing as Cryptek upgrades in Necrons

 

Q: For clarification: does an enemy shooting through dense cover suffer the -1 to hit when targeting a Black Templars unit under the Uphold the Honour of the Emperor Vow?

This also does actually need a FAQ because it's listed differently in two places of the codex

 

Q: As Devout Push is written it allows units affected to embark onto a transport at the end of their normal move. Is this working as intended?

 

Q: Sword Brethren have access to Astartes chainswords, but the Sword Brother in the Primaris Crusader can not. Is this intentional design despite their being enough Astartes chainswords in the kit?

 

Q: There are extra power swords and power axes in the Crusader kit left over after building the Sword Brethren. Is it possible for these to be made available to the Initiates in the squad in addition to the weapon options they already have access to?

 

KILL TEAM

Q: Is there plans to include a Crusader Squad or Sword Brethren Squad in Kill Team to reflect the updated models?

 

Answered most of your questions for you. Most of them do not need a FAQ 

 

The last two aren't FAQ material either tbh. They specifically gave us the options we did for a reason. There are "leftover" weapons because you get 2 sets of the same sprue. 

 

KT is a completely different game, why are we emailing the FAQ team about this?

 

So we don't end up with a rainbow of colors for replies:

 

EC: It's more of a clarification thing that came from some of the early reviews, so I can drop that one.

 

Shock and Awe: I don't ever see them actually being used at the same time but it'd be nice if GW realized they doubled the names up and changed one since they affect different units entirely.

 

Paragon of Fury: I asked that to establish a "This is RAW, is that coorrect?" to lead into the following questions about it so there is context.

 

Master-crafted Relics: They're called relics so it's worth asking in my book just so there isn't any "gotchas" if someone does it later.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Fulkes

[redmapa]

I just sent these questions to GW email, if people are going to do it later I'll probably just send it again at that time. 

 

Here's the email if anyone wants to send it 

 

 

40kFAQ@gwplc.com

Edited October 19, 2021 by redmapa

[Mandragola]

Captain in Gravis armor and WL Iron Resolve W8 T5. With Damage reducing to 1 via Tannhausers Relic - do we can take the Stratagem which gives him +1 to saving throws against dmg1 attacks?

I don’t think this needs a FAQ, as it pretty clearly works. The bones change the damage characteristic of the attack to 1. The strat works against attacks with a damage characteristic of 1. Same exact wording for both, and a cool spot.

[BitsHammer]

Alright, I've been working with the Black Templars discord to refine questions further and add more questions. As such, I've got everything in a Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlwoerwBFtF4BP_IFaZsSZy_5nXOhNo9Ypw1uSnHrA4/edit?usp=sharing and have submitted the list to GW because I think it's pretty well dialed in now.

 

I will be putting together a second collective list of things for feedback after this regarding the new kits and the options within for later submission.
 
But for the sake of ease here:

WARHAMMER 40,000
Q: Does the Emperor's Champion Holy Wargear rule prevent him from gaining Crusade Relics?
 
Q: If I use the Shock and Awe stratagem from Codex: Space Marines does it prevent me from using the Shock and Awe stratagem in Codex Supplement Black Templars and vice versa?
  
Q: Paragon of Fury reads that the character who completes a charge gains +1 strength. Is this correct? If so, is the strength increase from the warlord trait Paragon of Fury permanent for the rest of the battle?
 
Q: Is strength increase from the warlord trait Paragon of Fury cumulative?
 
Q: Do Grimaldus' Cenobyte Servitors count as Character models for the purposes of rules such as Look Out, Sir! or secondary objectives such as Assassinate?
 
Q: When selecting a combi-weapon that has two profiles or a weapon such as a Flamestorm Gauntlet that has both a melee and ranged component for the Master-crafted relic do both profiles get the benefit?
 
Q: Do Relic Bearers upgrades count as relics for the purposes of the Master-crafted Relic rule, or the ability to take relics or special-issue wargear on the same model? For example: is a single model able to be a Relic Bearer carrying something like Holy Grenade and still be equipped with a Relic such as Pyrebeast?
 
Q: Does the wargear granted by "Relic Bearers" count as a relic for the purposes of warlord traits, stratagems, and other relics that may affect an enemy unit's relics?
 
Q: Can a unit embark on a transport at the end of the normal move granted by Devout Push?
 
Q: When a unit is under the effects of the Litany Fervent Acclamation, are they under the effects of both the Passion and the Vow, or just the vow?
 
KILL TEAM
Q: Are there plans to include a Crusader Squad or Sword Brethren Squad in Kill Team to reflect the updated models?

Edited October 20, 2021 by Fulkes

[BitsHammer]

Also, units under Uphold don't lose the benefit of Dense cover. The reference section of the supplement calls out light and heavy cover specifically.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The sixth question has already been officially answered - nope.

[Brother Kraskor]

The sixth question has already been officially answered - nope.

 

So Master-Crafted Fist of Balthus is on the table? 

[a_typical_hero]

 

The sixth question has already been officially answered - nope.

 

So Master-Crafted Fist of Balthus is on the table? 

 

That's the 7th question :p

 

I would keep the question about cover and Uphold the Honor vow.

 

Unless somebody got a valid argument why one part of the book should trump another part of the book and the stratagem card...?

[Sword Brother Adelard]

The later pages explain the rule, in the section designed to aid interpretation.

 

I thought that was pretty clear. Those pages are the bullet point sections which the Core rules have below the relevant rules.

[Halvatore]

Quick question from a returning player.

 

"Q: Is strength increase from the warlord trait Paragon of Fury cumulative?"

For what reason should it be cumulative? The rule - text block is divided into two points.
1. he gets +1 strength
2. when he charges into melee...

For what reason should point 1 connect to point 2?

 

EDIT: Found it! The German translation was worded differently here. In the german version the first sentence "After this Warlord finishes a charge move" is missing.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Halvatore

[a_typical_hero]

The later pages explain the rule, in the section designed to aid interpretation.

 

I thought that was pretty clear. Those pages are the bullet point sections which the Core rules have below the relevant rules.

Disagree. The reference section does not explain the rules any further, it is just a summary. There is no reason why it should be worded differently on page 44 (Templar Vows) and on page 80 (Reference). There definitely is enough space to spell out heavy and light cover on page 44 as well.

 

It does not explain why the stratagem card would have the "shorter, lesser detailed" version either.

 

I think what happened is that one of those versions is from an earlier draft of the codex and the other part wasn't updated accordingly.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

In the interim, I will continue to use the very clear wording in the reference, which explains the meaning of the rule in clear terms.

 

I also think that that's the correct interpretation as well.

[a_typical_hero]

Neither version is more clear than the other. In the Rare Rules section it is defined precisely what it means to "ignore the benefits of cover".

 

The only reason people want the reference version to be true is that it is more beneficial for them, let's call a spade a spade here. There is no indication or precedence at all that either version is more right than the other. And the argument would be reversed, if the reference only spelled "can't benefit from cover".

Edited October 20, 2021 by a_typical_hero

[Sir Clausel]

Just sitting with the codex and reading the litanies again and i noticed that most of them doesnt specify how long the buff lasts! Is there something Im missing here? I assume its only for a battleround the buff is on?

I dont have the Space marine codex atm so it might say something about litanies only lasting for a battleround there.

[a_typical_hero]

No litany specifies how long it lasts, even the basic SM don't.

 

The special rules for a Chaplain tell you, though:

This model knows the Litany of Hate and one other litany from the Litanies of Battle. In your Command phase, if this model is on the battlefield, it can recite one litany it knows that has not already been recited by a friendly model this turn. Roll one D6: on a 3+, the recited litany is inspiring and takes effect until the start of your next Command phase.

 

That some people think all of a sudden our litanies last forever because it isn't stated specifically in the litany is - again - wishful thinking because it is more beneficial.

Edited October 20, 2021 by a_typical_hero

[Sir Clausel]

I knew that would be too powerful so i was sure i was missing something! Thank you for clearing that up for me!

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I don't actually approach it from a position of bias. I just think it makes logical sense when you abstract the game out.

 

If my enemy is on the other side of a copse of trees, it is harder to see them, aim at them and, because there are more chances my rounds will hit an intervening object, hit them. Hence the -1 to represent that in game.

 

 

That doesn't change simply because my enemy is on the other side of that copse screaming prayers to their makers. The effect is also neutral, as it means it's harder for them to hit me too.

 

Whereas, Light and Heavy cover benefits are an abstraction of the idea that units in cover, are actually TAKING cover. Getting in low and using it to their advantage. (A concept that the Clones in The Clone Wars never quite got, they shout about it a lot, just never do it.)

 

I can imagine that zealous Templars, confident in their faith in the Emperor are not 'taking' cover, because they are certain, rightly or wrongly, that the Emperor will protect them from harm.

 

Therefore it makes perfect sense to me, as a player, that Dense cover 'benefits' are unaffected by this rule.

 

Moreover, as a lawyer, it all makes perfect sense because of the doctrine of implied repeal, whereby if a new law conflicts with an old one, the new one takes precedence, and plain old statutory interpretation. If a law says in one section that 'W' happens in certain situations, and could cover X,Y and Z situation. And says clearly in another section that it only applies to X and Y situations, and not Z. Then the answer is clear.

 

Therefore, I am entirely satisfied in my position that Uphold doesn't apply to Dense Cover, and will play it as such.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

The sixth question has already been officially answered - nope.

 

So Master-Crafted Fist of Balthus is on the table? 

 

That's the 7th question

 

I would keep the question about cover and Uphold the Honor vow.

 

Unless somebody got a valid argument why one part of the book should trump another part of the book and the stratagem card...?

 

Because references is like the detailed rules version versus the summary from the vows page:

[BitsHammer]

Quick question from a returning player.

 

"Q: Is strength increase from the warlord trait Paragon of Fury cumulative?"

 

For what reason should it be cumulative? The rule - text block is divided into two points.

1. he gets +1 strength

2. when he charges into melee...

 

For what reason should point 1 connect to point 2?

 

EDIT: Found it! The German translation was worded differently here. In the german version the first sentence "After this Warlord finishes a charge move" is missing.

In English it's worded "When the Warlord charges:" and then gives the two bullet points.

[Mmmmm Napalm]

If you don't mind me asking, why has the question about the Sword Bro squad leader getting access to the weapons from the sword brethren kit been deleted? I feel that one is a fair inquiry to make so we might as well ask. It's silly we can't give the guy a chainsword.

 

If it's possible to give intercessor (shooty) sergeants a plasma pistol even though it's only available in the assault intercessors kit, I think it's reasonable to ask about the crusader squad leader getting access to a power maul.

 

Note that I am not suggesting initiates getting power swords or anything like that.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Mmmmm Napalm

[BitsHammer]

If you don't mind me asking, why has the question about the Sword Bro squad leader getting access to the weapons from the sword brethren kit been deleted? I feel that one is a fair inquiry to make so we might as well ask. It's silly we can't give the guy a chainsword.

 

If it's possible to give intercessor (shooty) sergeants a plasma pistol even though it's only available in the assault intercessors kit, I think it's reasonable to ask about the crusader squad leader getting access to a power maul.

 

Note that I am not suggesting initiates getting power swords or anything like that.

I'm working on making a seperate feedback list for anyone wanting to share feedback with GW regarding the limited options based on certain kit compositions.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

 

 

 

The sixth question has already been officially answered - nope.

 

So Master-Crafted Fist of Balthus is on the table? 

 

That's the 7th question

 

I would keep the question about cover and Uphold the Honor vow.

 

Unless somebody got a valid argument why one part of the book should trump another part of the book and the stratagem card...?

 

Because references is like the detailed rules version versus the summary from the vows page:

 IMg snipped

He doesn't like that answer.

 

Despite it being, you know, the answer.

[a_typical_hero]

Let me go through both your arguments one by one:

 

- References are the detailed rules version versus the summary from the vows page.

Where is this ever stated? To my knowledge, such a phrase does not exist. Reference pages in every 9th edition codex repeat some rules from the same book in a bullet point fashion. There never has been a difference between both versions in how a rule was actually played. If so, please point me towards it.

 

- It makes more sense, narratively (to quickly summarise your post, @Brother Adelard)

Yes and no. The game is abstract. Fluff influences the rules, but it has no say over how the game's rules work at the end. This goes into RAI territory and that doesn't help with finding an answer. One of both versions is correct. Only GW knows.

 

- Doctrine of implied repeal

Both versions were published at the same time in the same book. Who is to say which page was written earlier? Can you say if the stratagem card was done earlier or later than the book? I honestly doubt implied repeal is even applicable here. There is a new law, you have it fully written with all the bells and whistles on one page and later a contradictory version in the short summary section. Would you really advise a client on a 50/50 chance which version is correct, instead of just asking whoever published the law paper?

 

 

I know I want the reference section to be the real rule, but let's not pretend there is any argument why one version is supposed to be more correct than the other. Imho the only objectively seen point to be made here, is, that the stratagem card got the same text as the Vow page. So we have 2 instances to 1.

 

If we are so confident about our interpretation, surely it doesn't hurt to ask GW to clear things up? Personally, in case of doubt, I take the lesser beneficial version in the meantime.

Edited October 21, 2021 by a_typical_hero