BT core rules in 5th, need update? No kidding ...

[Konrad_SS]

Hi to all,

I was just reading through the 5th ed rulebook, together with the new Black Templars faq on gw website and discovered SERIOUS & glaring faults (as I see it, pardon me for the caps). Searched around to see if anyone had posted the same issue up for discussion (in this forum & others), apparently not. I have heard there will be FAQs released with 5th ed Space Marines codex to update other marine codices, but there are some sources who dispute that rumour after 'speaking with key GW staff such as Jervis etc'. So anyway, here I go.

Issues of contention:

A ) Righteous Zeal - Any with access to a legal copy of the BT codex can check pg 23. Now if you read the exact wording on righteous zeal rule (I can't quote the codex here obviously), it says basically zeal is identical to a CONSOLIDATE move, refer to the rulebook. Under 5th ed, we know that you can't consolidate into close combat anymore. So technically, templars can't contact an enemy unit and deny them of charge benefits anymore. So now whenever they take casualties, assuming they pass their leadership check, they WILL run forward and MUST STOP at least 1 inch away from the closest enemy unit (also the new 5th ed rule that says you can only contact enemy units via assault move), & get charged...... by the enemy (running in lieu of shooting doesn't help either as it just means you move even closer to more enemy units to be charged by more units, LOL?). The latter scenario (falling LD tests) is rather embarassing so I won't elaborate. Thats one of the core rules of BT being screwed, rather brutally.

B ) Kill Them All - pls refer to BT codex pg 23 & new BT FAQ (dated 12/07/08 ). BT under 4th ed had to test at -1 LD to shoot past closest unit, unless you declare shooting at large targets. Now in 5th ed, target priority along with large targets is gone. However according to most recent FAQ, that rule still works as written, meaning BT units MUST still test at -1 LD in order not to shoot at nearest target. Just imagine a scenario where a BT lascannon or missile launcher sqd has to test (with penalties) to shoot at an enemy tank behind screening infantry. And if that fails ..... ladies & gentlemen, I leave it to you to imagine the hilarious but tragic scenario that will unfold.

These are the key rules that I strongly believe need updating. Pls feel free to correct me if my interpretation is wrong. I actually have more personal issues to raise but I believe I have whined on for too long (and I don't like whining in forums). When 5th ed came out, general opinion was that BT would be buffed & benefit strongly from taking the preferred enemy rule (refer to B&C 5th ed guide), & its now 'worth its weight in gold' (for the hefty price, see BT codex). Rumours are that FAQs are gonna be published to update but again there's conflicting opinions about it. As far as i understand, if i have read & interpreted the above CORE rules correctly, BT is almost un-playable & non-competitive for now, til if and when the FAQs come out.

I'll leave the other personal issues to raise in later replies.
Apologies for whining.

[onlainari]

A) BT can't righteous zeal into close combat. However righteous zeal is still up to D6", just like it was in 4th edition. You can chose not to move. You do not have to move into charge range.

B) BT don't test to shoot units further away. They still get -1ld if they take the test, but they can't take the test. There are many examples of obsolete rules, this is one of them.

[Konrad_SS]

Originally Posted by onlainari

A) BT can't righteous zeal into close combat. However righteous zeal is still up to D6", just like it was in 4th edition. You can chose not to move. You do not have to move into charge range.

I see what you're trying to say, onlainari. However thats still a long shot, and difficult to justify to people.

Let me explain, in 4th ed, consolidation due to massacre is D6 inches (which righteous zeal uses). It doesn't state 'may' at all. The 'may' only applies to normal consolidation of 3 inches. Check 4th ed pg 44, if you don't believe me.

In 5th ed, I believe what you mean is like a combination of MUST move (from BT codex) but UP TO (from 5th ed rulebook on Consolidation, so you can choose not to move). Also, BT codex does state clearly that you must move towards closest visible enemy unit. While the consolidation rule (5th ed pg 40 ) states that you 'may move up to D6" in any direction'. Do you see a problem here? Going by your interpretation (no offense intended, just academic discussion), its like BT players choosing to justify their actions to their own advantage (ie. not moving when shot) by quoting a self-interpreted combination of rules from here & there, while discarding elements that contradict. It does smell a wee bit of nachos cheese.

Originally Posted by onlainari

B ) BT don't test to shoot units further away. They still get -1ld if they take the test, but they can't take the test. There are many examples of obsolete rules, this is one of them.

Beg to differ, but if you read the exact wording on the FAQ, it does state that the Kill Them All rule still works as written & the test must be taken, and thats specific to 'questions arising from new editions of Warhammer 40,000 (5th ed).

[onlainari]

Originally Posted by Konrad_SS

Let me explain, in 4th ed, consolidation due to massacre is D6 inches (which righteous zeal uses). It doesn't state 'may' at all. The 'may' only applies to normal consolidation of 3 inches. Check 4th ed pg 44, if you don't believe me.

I checked the rule and it doesn't say 'may'. It says 'up to'. This is the 4th edition rules.

The 5th edition rules also say 'up to'. So clearly in 5th edition you don't have to move for righteous zeal.

[Konrad_SS]

Yea, so. I get your view on my 1st point quite clearly, onlainari. Templars MUST MOVE ( from righteous zeal rule ) UP TO (from 5th ed consolidation rule ). And a smart templar player when shot, MUST MOVE UP TO (insert ZERO) inches to avoid the disadvantages.

Thanks for replying and sharing your views on the 1st issue, onlainari. I appreciate it.

Anyone else has any opinions to share on the issue(s) i raised?

Please feel free to comment.