Holla,

i have a question to the List..

I played a 1000P game with my Siegemasters against Black Templars and now i was snoppy for them.

Now i have a question.

Why should i use a Neophyte units?

-they have no transport option and that restrict the Tactical unit to garison.
-they got worse stats in Armor and FF.
-they have no shooting Attacks.
but
Six of them (i know that i can take only 4) cost 225 Points, only 50 less than a Crusader Formation.

I pay 50 points more and get a second Formation wich is harder to kill + Transport Option + an ativation extra.

Ok, the advantage is a Formation with more hard-to-break units.. is that the reason for the high point costs?

Good to hear you got a game in, what were your army lists and who won? Were you using the Minigeddon rules if you were only playing 1,000 points?

Ah oops, sorry about the lack of transport! I seem to have missed it out accidentally when writing up the new version of the list but the intention is that Neophytes should have free transports and all the same transport options as Tactical Marines (notably including Drop Pods unlike SM Scouts). Neophyte Bikers should be transportable in a Thunderhawk and Landing Craft too.

Neophytes add numbers to their formation and are as good in CC as the Tactical Marines for a cheaper cost. They could be added to a formation in a Thunderhawk to fill up the extra space. You would try to have the Tactical Marines in the formation be in the front to take the hits most of the time and would try to get them both into CC to apply regular hits first to the Tactical Marines and CC MW hits to the Neophytes first. They are something I would like to see playtested a lot to see how they perform and how worth their current points they are (4 for 125 is always a possibility should they prove sub-par).

I've uploaded a new version of the list in the first post.

Changes for version 4.1:
Assault Terminators replace Terminators to focus the list more on assault.
Thunderhawks are moved to being a support detachment rather than being in the air 1/3 - I tried to write an all airbourne list and quickly found it too limiting currently andmyself spending more than 1/3 on aircraft (TH, 2 THT, LC and ST fighters = 1025). I am fine with there being a 1/3 to limit the fighters, bombers, ect in the list but all airbourne lists should be allowed.
Neophytes are corrected to have 'plus transport' and count as Tactical Marines for transport purposes. Neophyte Bikers count as Bikers for transport purposes.
MW removed from the Emperor's Champion's CC sniper attack (shouldn't have had it)
Land Speeder Typhoon upgrade cost reduced to 15 points after the discussion here but also limited it to 0-1 per formation, to further limit shooting in the list.

The list should be pretty stable from here, I don't have any other changes planned and hopefully we can test it and just adjust points slightly if needed anywhere.

We played Minigeddon.

he have no specific Templar units.

He used 2 Crusaders in Rhinos, 1 Land Speeder, 1 Predator (all Annihilator).

I used Baran Siege Masters. 1 HQ, 1 Siegecompany, 2 Artillery, 1 Ragnarök heavy Tank.

He won 2:0.

He played without the Champion of the Emperor, because we wanted 4 Formation. With 3 Formationen you have no Chance to gain all Victory points.

if you can a little bit german oder want just looks some pics:

http://www.tabletopwelt.de/forum/showth ... p?t=167780

that battle had me made snoopy.

Maybe i start a Black 1000 Templar Starterarmy...i have enough Scouts for a lot of Neophytes

Castellan GlynG,

Please accept these notes with humble recommendations for updates to the 4.1 version of the BT army list:

Reference the Black Templars Space Marine Army List v4.1 Sub-Army Champion: "GlynG"

i ) The 'Dreadnought' line entry under "Black Templars Upgrades" has no cost listed. Recommend adding "+50 points each"; also, there is no restriction listed in the entry as to a cap and therefore some uncouth player could field as many dreadnoughts as he could fit on a table at zero cost! (Obv only a former Space Wolves player would try such shenanigans!) I believe the "going rate" is to list the Dreadnoughts at "Add 1-2 Dreadnoughts..."

ii ) 'Crusaders' under "Black Templars Detachments" is missing a 'Vindicator' upgrade option under "Upgrades". Recommend adding a vindicator upgrade option to a Crusaders detachment as these are specifically designed by the Adeptus Astartes as close combat support and we have found them to be especially balancing when facing other Chapter Tactical detachments who also have Vindicators. Assaulting hardened positions without our Vindicators is reliably less effective/balanced.

(Special note, have play-tested ground-based Crusader detachment-heavy armies such as we saw in the lore-strong Armageddon Campaigns and they need Vindicators as part of their assault/close-combat "tactical detachments.)

Reference the Black Templars Space Marine Army Reference 4.1

iii ) Thunderhawk Transports are missing the "Planetfall" which I have outlined in more detail in the THT specific thread in this forums. Short version: the THT write-up in the Armies Compendium dropped Planetfall for our army write-up and we have carried forward the oversight (I believe) whereas other armies (see Scions and Grey Knights) of course still have it included as it should be given the TH characteristic.


Finally Castellan GlynG, while I do not like the absence of "firefight-capable" termies, I have found the new cost of the THT and the addition of Stormtalons to be balanced if not de-facto eliminating the need for Hunters in a thunderhawk chassis -heavy army:

* that is, if it is a traditional Armageddon Campaign lore BT army -- heavily footsloggers (most of the army is Crusaders detachments) -- you need Hunters; however, if you are using a pair of THT to drop Assault Termies with 2x LRC, combined with TH Inderdictor and Stormtalon for AT support, you have more than enough AA and can leave the Hunters off planet.

Respectfully!

-Ironhelm

Castellan GlynG,

I'm playtesting BT army lists (technically, it is the army I have painted and so the army I play all the time!) Presently trying to find more players in my region so that I can test against diff types of armies and even diff configs of the armies.

One thing I am definitely finding is that there is merit to elements in the EpicUK BT list which I miss from the 4.1 NetEA list - specifically that add the ability to ranged engage the enemy as you move forward (e.g. devastators, dreadnoughts with AV, WW, and having option of both assault termies as well as "generic" termies).

Especially now that 6th edition 40k is out, the BT codex has changed dramatically giving serious consideration to elements of the EpicUK list. 6th Ed giving BT the same general underlying structure as Codex Astartes yet with their own flavor. There are dramatic changes however in the new codex, for example: no sword brethren.

However, there are elements in the NetEA list that are significantly enjoyable/fluffy to play without causing imbalance - yet no longer aligned with the retcon of the new BT codex.

Over the course of the next 4 months, I will keep track of which army list I use (NetEA 4.1, EpicUK, Composite variation that includes elements of NetEA 4.1 EpicUK and 6thEd 40k influences), which armies I battle, and outcomes - including fun factor!

Cheers,
- Ironhelm

I will need to spend some time crafting a longer update, however I can report that the list has gone too far "cc-oriented" and is getting steam-rolled as a one-trick-pony (6x games so far with the v4.1 list - of which 3x were eldar, dark eldar, and necron [proxy army units to use the list]). The EpicUK list is being reported as very balanced and fun (both sides of the table) and I am finding this to be true (3x games so far with the EpicUK army list).

Case in point as one example: play against any army with skimmers guarding objectives, now try to take an objective with assault terminators, or assault units, or sword brethren, or neophytes (if the tacticals are mostly dead) -- but most especially try it with assault terminators: you cannot.

You cannot assault skimmers with assault terminators (well unless your opponent is dumb like a barn door!)

Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Necron armies have the win in the bag from Turn 0. You will not get BTS, Blitz, DTF, nor T&H. You may not break skimmers in your half of the table either. On the other hand, those three armies easily capture win conditions once they whittle down your units from afar and send in the skimmers.

Skimmers declare using FF in an assault, and you must then use FF also, except assault terminators have no FF in v4.1.

The list already comes (as it should) without titans and scouts (arguably based on playtest data and tourn info the two strongest elements now in the SM army), and without Imp navy flyers - however, the dial seems to have turned way too far by eliminating (unlike EpicUK balance tested list):

ranged devastators
ranged dreadnoughts
ff-capable terminators
vindicators to support tacticals

We have done some great things with the direction of the list, however we have tuned it too much towards CC as 'mandatory' rather than allowing the player to set it up that was as an 'option'.

We have in essence, forced one strategy to be applied in all cases, rather than representing a Chapter that due to its nature is solid at operating independently and therefore is versatile enough to adjust to the situation.

With v4.1, we are forced to bring many Thunderhawks OR lose to a skimmer army by default. (I played both sides of that versus skimmer battle so I feel rather comfortable asserting that.)

In the absence of many Thunderhawks (which is NOT the character of the Army at all -- there isn't a single book that includes Thawks as an intimate part of the feel of the army for every engagement - this isn't the Air Cav; note that the fluff has THawks dropping them off and then going away and then the BTs hike their way into position, or drop pod in), you would teleport Termies with no way to target the formation units defending the objective, or you could drop pod in the army with no way of handling the enemy armor.

At first blush, it would seem you could just spend a lot of points and mount everyone in LRs or LRCs and AT4+ the enemy, however at the end of Turn 2 when all your LRs and LRCs are dead from a shooty skimmer army, your now-foot-sloggers with virtually no AT weapons and no ability to engage skimmers effectively, will lose on win conditions in T3.

In 4.1, the only cost-effective AT weaponry you have are Predators and Thunderhawks -- so you'll be taking a lot of those -- which isn't really a BT-flavor feel army.

I want to re-iterate that none of this is a problem with the EpicUK list.
It also isn't a problem (only tried two games so far) with a hybrid of the v4.1 and the EpicUK - so far this one has the overall direction the NetEA v4.1 list was headed in without the wholesale imbalance injected by going too far on the 'cc' theme.

Black Templars: they "PREFER" close combat - however they are not restricted to just that. Nor can they be effective in their crusades if they cannot be adequately versatile to meet the diverse foes of the Emperor.

I'll assemble notes and recommendations reference the BT army list and post over the next week or so. And I will get some playtest reports in (several) by the end of May (work will be keeping me busy busy next couple weeks!)

If we're dead wrong here in Virginia, I'd love to hear more experiences with the v4.1 list. Anyone else taking point with the list and getting it some rough loving?

This makes a lot of sense to me at least.