Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have finally gotten my Arbites codex to a state where I am ready to share it with the masses. I have been working on this thing off and on for over two years. This is the culmination of all my thoughts and hopes and desires for the Adeptus Arbites, and it has been shaped greatly by many fantastic ideas from various members of the online 40K community, especially those over at the Adeptus Arbites Garrison on Yahoo Groups.

One thing I want to make clear - this has been in progress for a very long time, and nothing in the list was tossed in lightly. I have spreadsheets with data on weapon effectiveness, and I have done some playtesting with certain units to make sure they work well. Please keep that in mind when you are making comments. That said, constructive criticism is not only allowed, but greatly encouraged, as I want this thing to be the best that it can be. (I plan to update it to fit with 6th Edition once it is released - hopefully that will be less work than putting this together in the first place!!!)

My vision for the Arbites army is for one that has to either get into medium to close range with the enemy, or else allow the enemy to come into such range, and then unload a ridiculous amount of short-ranged firepower, potentially pinning or otherwise slowing/hampering many of the enemy units before choosing a few key targets to charge into assault with - and hopefully either crush them utterly or send them packing. They are not as shooty as armies such as the Imperial Guard or the Tau, nor as nasty in close combat as Tyranids or Orks. They are more of a well-rounded force, though a bit short-ranged in shooting and reliant on careful planning for close combat. (Their rules make them most effective against enemies that have already been softened up and pinned down.) They even have one unit - the Suppression Team, which actually excels at receiving a charge as they have Counter-Attack, defensive grenades, an invulnerable save and the ability to cause enemy units to strike at Initiative 1. Of course, that requires you to actually coax your enemies into charging them in the first place...

So please have a look, have a think, then come back and tell me what you like, what you don't and what could be better.

Unfortunately, the file is rather large and I can't upload it directly, but I have set up two different hosting options. You can get it at either Scribd.com or box.com.

(Codex Version 1.2 - updated 4/16/2012)

Beautiful and well done. Certainly something I will play with. I'll say more once I've had a chance to experience how it plays.

I'll definitely be swinging a couple games with this on vassal.

Thanks guys. If and when you do any playtesting, PLEASE come back here and share your experiences! I only have limited opportunity for playtesting on my end as I am a father of 3 small children, work full time and have very little time for actual gaming. (There has been playtesting done with this list - after all, it is over two years in the making, but not nearly enough for me to be satisfied with the balance.)

Issues on first reading:

Aedile and Chastener appear redundant, they've got almost the same selection of rules and stats as an Arbitrator Senioris.

If Pursuit Teams are supposed to be adept at moving their bikes through difficult terrain, shouldn't they have Skilled Rider?

Your soldiers in general appear to be underpriced; they've got better statlines across the board than Fire Warriors, a worse weapon, and better special rules; I'd advise going 9pts or possibly 10pts a model.

S3 AP- Assault 2 12" range on the shotguns makes them almost comparable to a bolt pistol. Most fan attempts at an Arbites Codex I've seen make them S4 and have 18" range, since the Arbites would probably have access to better shotguns than random underhive gangers or Imperial Navy marines would.

This is a fantastic piece of work - hugely detailed, and it's obvious that you've gone through the entire of the current Arbites lore and found a way of including everything. We're going to have some tester games when I get back to London, so I haven't playtested it yet. However, I have a question about it's intention.

It's an amazingly detailed codex - as detailed as a current 5ed GW one, with as many special rules, new weapons, special squad, etc as a current codex. All good for 'creating a good 5ed codex'. I feel, though, that there may be too many new rules, squads, exceptions, weapons, for it to be very useable.

While I could playtest this at home, with friends who I patiently go through the rules with, I don't think I could convince anyone at a FLGS to play me with this codex.

I'm currently using the BOLS Arbites codex on occasion, and while more restrictive, it uses relatively few army-wide rules to give the whole list a different feel. All of the special rules, special equipment, and special weapons fit on one A4 page, which is a huge advantage when convincing people at the club to let you use it.

General points

- Generally seems a bit undercosted.
- Would like to see less Special Rules which do more. Would suggest Stubborn across the board rather than a combination of Supression Tactics and Stubborn depending on which unit.
- Everyone has all the special rules they ever need. So, Fire Support teams are Stubborn, Detectives have Move Through Cover, Stealth AND infiltrate. Supression Teams have Counter Attack. Can seem a bit wishlisty...
- Not sure what the disadvantage is. Every faction has something they're not good at, or handle differently. It seems like this list has no disadvantages anywhere.

Specific suggestions for simplification ( i realise that you may not want to simplify at all, of course, for the sake of a 'full' codex. These are just suggestions to make it easier for opponents to understand)

- Too many new weapons. Cyberhounds, Grapplehawks, Riot Guns, Web Guns, Web Cannon, Mancatcher, Riot Shield, etc. I think a lot of these could be combined/lost.
- Too many different Task Teams, all of which have different special rules, despite being the same Arbitors. I'd suggest simplification of this into Patrol Teams (standard Troops with Shotguns, Grenade Launchers), Combat Teams (limited Troops with Boltguns, Special Weapons), and a generic 'Response Team' (fast attack with more special weapons, option to DS or to Scout in a vehicle). All with the same rules, just different equipment.
- I like the switch to the old two-man Sniper teams, but you could roll Fire Support teams into this too.
- Why do Supression Teams have so many special rules? They're just Arbitors with different weapons.
- There are three different units with a 'court-building' option, the Personal Staff, Operative Assembly and Inquisitorial Henchmen. Are all of these really neccesary? The concept of the Operative Assmebly could easily be represented by a Local Gang from the auxiliary list
- Chasteners seem redundant, and whole squads of them seem to be unfluffy - could you roll single Chasteners into the Personal Staff?
- Aediles are redundant - the trend for most modern codexes is to get rid of low-level commanders.
- Judges could easily be an Upgrade for Arbitor Generals...

AnomanderRake wrote:Issues on first reading:

Aedile and Chastener appear redundant, they've got almost the same selection of rules and stats as an Arbitrator Senioris.

If Pursuit Teams are supposed to be adept at moving their bikes through difficult terrain, shouldn't they have Skilled Rider?

Your soldiers in general appear to be underpriced; they've got better statlines across the board than Fire Warriors, a worse weapon, and better special rules; I'd advise going 9pts or possibly 10pts a model.

S3 AP- Assault 2 12" range on the shotguns makes them almost comparable to a bolt pistol. Most fan attempts at an Arbites Codex I've seen make them S4 and have 18" range, since the Arbites would probably have access to better shotguns than random underhive gangers or Imperial Navy marines would.

Please don't try to balance with an overpriced troop choice from an outdated codex.

Lord Magnus wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:
Your soldiers in general appear to be underpriced; they've got better statlines across the board than Fire Warriors, a worse weapon, and better special rules; I'd advise going 9pts or possibly 10pts a model.

Please don't try to balance with an overpriced troop choice from an outdated codex.

That's a fair point for balancing with Tau. For comparison (and I know these are outdated as well) both the WH and DH books had Inq. Stormtroopers at 10pts per model, and weren't considered 'overpriced'.

However, the closest thing to Arbites we currently have in 5ed is IG Veterans with the Grenadiers option. This is 10pts per model with no special rules other than the ability to receive orders.

8pts for model for the Arbites in this codex still seems undercosted.

AnomanderRake wrote:Issues on first reading:

Aedile and Chastener appear redundant, they've got almost the same selection of rules and stats as an Arbitrator Senioris.

Yeah, redundancy seems to be a common theme in the comments. I will look to reducing it a bit.

AnomanderRake wrote:If Pursuit Teams are supposed to be adept at moving their bikes through difficult terrain, shouldn't they have Skilled Rider?

Pursuit Teams can pick up Hit and Run, Move Through Cover or Skilled Rider. I didn't want to just give them one and be done as I figured the ability to customize your Pursuit Teams was a good thing. In my opinion, more options = good, less options = bad.

AnomanderRake wrote:Your soldiers in general appear to be underpriced; they've got better statlines across the board than Fire Warriors, a worse weapon, and better special rules; I'd advise going 9pts or possibly 10pts a model.

Fire Warriors are a bad thing to compare to, seeing as they are a fairly old Codex. Looking at a comparison between IG or Space Marines seems to make more sense to me. For 2 pts more than IG, I add +1 BS, +1 Save, a different weapon (which is better in some ways and worse in others) and two special rules, and swap assault grenades for defensive grenades. They also have less weapon options overall, notably in the Heavy Weapon department. Perhaps a little cheap compared to Guard, but not much. For 7 points less than SM Scouts, I gain +1BS, lose -1S, -1T, -1Ld, Krak grenades, and swap 6 special rules for 2, and again have less weapon options. Again, maybe a little cheap compared to them, but not much. If I up them, it won't be by much. Not sure if they really are overcosted though, as they operate in very different armies. I don't really have the armoured might of lots of IG tanks backing me up, nor do I have super-soldier Space Marines holding the line and breaking through. In my playtests, the Arbites don't seem to overrun their opponents in any way, so they seem to be about right thus far. More playtesting may be required to confirm or deny this.

AnomanderRake wrote:S3 AP- Assault 2 12" range on the shotguns makes them almost comparable to a bolt pistol. Most fan attempts at an Arbites Codex I've seen make them S4 and have 18" range, since the Arbites would probably have access to better shotguns than random underhive gangers or Imperial Navy marines would.

I have done quite a bit of work on the shotgun, with various iterations over time. I have a spreadsheet full of Mathhammer data comparing the current shotgun (both scatter and executioner) to various other weapons. They fare pretty well as written, and the great thing is that the difference between 12" S3 AP- Assault 2 and 18" S4 AP5 Heavy 1, Twin-Linked forces some serious consideration on the part of the player as to which one they want to use. Do I want to use saturation fire and be able to Assault, or do I want to stay in cover and use better S, AP and re-roll less shots, but let the enemy charge if they are still standing? Choices are good.

ArbitorIan wrote:This is a fantastic piece of work - hugely detailed, and it's obvious that you've gone through the entire of the current Arbites lore and found a way of including everything. We're going to have some tester games when I get back to London, so I haven't playtested it yet. However, I have a question about it's intention.

It's an amazingly detailed codex - as detailed as a current 5ed GW one, with as many special rules, new weapons, special squad, etc as a current codex. All good for 'creating a good 5ed codex'. I feel, though, that there may be too many new rules, squads, exceptions, weapons, for it to be very useable.

While I could playtest this at home, with friends who I patiently go through the rules with, I don't think I could convince anyone at a FLGS to play me with this codex.

I'm currently using the BOLS Arbites codex on occasion, and while more restrictive, it uses relatively few army-wide rules to give the whole list a different feel. All of the special rules, special equipment, and special weapons fit on one A4 page, which is a huge advantage when convincing people at the club to let you use it.

This is definitely a fair comment. The people I play with have no issues with lots of new rules, but I can definitely see a complete stranger balking at the idea of facing this without at least a few days to read it over. With the help of you and some others though, maybe we can work on that a bit.

ArbitorIan wrote:General points

- Generally seems a bit undercosted.

See my notes above on that. This may be true, but so far in my testing it doesn't seem that way to me.

ArbitorIan wrote:- Would like to see less Special Rules which do more. Would suggest Stubborn across the board rather than a combination of Supression Tactics and Stubborn depending on which unit.

There may be too many special rules, but I don't think Stubborn across the board is the way to go. Suppression Tactics adds a really interesting mechanic to the army, giving them their own little niche (that of pinning down the enemy more than anyone else) but one that is fairly easily countered (lots of high Ld or Pinning-immune troops). I really want to try and keep that niche. However, I may look to reduce the overall complexity a bit as I mentioned. Some special rules are definitely expendable (Special Weapons and Tactics, Sieze Them!, Units Inbound, Shoot to Kill, etc) and may be dropped moving forward.

ArbitorIan wrote:- Everyone has all the special rules they ever need. So, Fire Support teams are Stubborn, Detectives have Move Through Cover, Stealth AND infiltrate. Supression Teams have Counter Attack. Can seem a bit wishlisty...

As above, some of this might go away. I am very close to being persuaded on this.

ArbitorIan wrote:- Not sure what the disadvantage is. Every faction has something they're not good at, or handle differently. It seems like this list has no disadvantages anywhere.

I think they do have a few disadvantages.

1) They lack a lot of long-ranged firepower. Most of their weapons are in the 12" to 24" range, with a few examples reaching out to 36" or 48". They have very little that go beyond that. For the most part, they either have to advance on the enemy, or wait for the enemy to come to them.

2) They don't really specialize anywhere. For example: they don't have anyone who is absolutely killer in close combat, and even their best dedicated CC unit (the Suppression Team) requires specific setup and forcing the enemy to charge to make full use of their power. They also don't have anything that just truly decimates with shooting - no big pie-plates of doom, no massed fire from numerous heavy weapons, etc.

ArbitorIan wrote:Specific suggestions for simplification ( i realise that you may not want to simplify at all, of course, for the sake of a 'full' codex. These are just suggestions to make it easier for opponents to understand)

- Too many new weapons. Cyberhounds, Grapplehawks, Riot Guns, Web Guns, Web Cannon, Mancatcher, Riot Shield, etc. I think a lot of these could be combined/lost.

Again a fair comment, but I am not sure what I could lose without losing something, if you get what I mean. I really want to retain the flavor of the Arbites, and make them different enough to warrant using them instead of Guard or Space Marines or Sisters of Battle. I think their wargear is the most important place to make that distinction. I also want them to be playable at both low and high point levels - which is why there exists a difference between Shock Mauls and Power Mauls, Riot Shields and Suppression Shields. If all Suppression Teams had only Power Mauls, Suppression Shields and Riot Armour as standard and at their current power level, they would be too expensive to even consider taking in a 500 point game since they are 20 points per model. But allowing them grades of effectiveness through Shock Mauls, Riot Shields and Carapace Armour, which can all be upgraded, lets them stay attratcive through the various point levels. Other things, like the webbers, are easy to explain to people by just saying "they are basically flamers, but with worse AP and the Suppressive rule".

ArbitorIan wrote:- Too many different Task Teams, all of which have different special rules, despite being the same Arbitors. I'd suggest simplification of this into Patrol Teams (standard Troops with Shotguns, Grenade Launchers), Combat Teams (limited Troops with Boltguns, Special Weapons), and a generic 'Response Team' (fast attack with more special weapons, option to DS or to Scout in a vehicle). All with the same rules, just different equipment.

I think you about have me convinced here. I just have to decide where I want to combine things, and what I want to drop for simplicity. What scares me here is getting to a point where I only have a single Troops choice, which I think gets a bit too restrictive, even if that unit has lots of options. Maybe I am just making too much out of that though?

ArbitorIan wrote:- I like the switch to the old two-man Sniper teams, but you could roll Fire Support teams into this too.

That is an interesting thought, but the Fire Support Team also allows you to make a good old-fashioned Executioner Team, which really wouldn't work as two-man weapon teams. Maybe they could be rolled up into the Response Team by letting them take Heavy Bolters as one of their options? Then I could have Fire Support Teams have Missile Launchers, Sniper Rifles or Plasma Cannons and give them a special rule to match (Tank Hunters for ML's, the Spotter Scope for Snipers, not sure what for PC's).

ArbitorIan wrote:- Why do Supression Teams have so many special rules? They're just Arbitors with different weapons.

See, the could be "just Arbitors with different weapons", but I think that shield/maul wielding troops are very iconic of police forces, and that they deserve to be more than that in a force so focused on police-type actions. I see them as a cut above, the ones called in when the fighting is expected to be close and the foe many. Notice I gave them a different stat-line (WS4 rather than BS4) to represent their different training. The combination of Defensive Grenades, Counter-Attack, Shield Wall and Suppression Tactics makes them a very unique unit in Assault. They are decent on the charge, but they are even better when they can tempt the enemy to charge them.

ArbitorIan wrote:- There are three different units with a 'court-building' option, the Personal Staff, Operative Assembly and Inquisitorial Henchmen. Are all of these really neccesary? The concept of the Operative Assmebly could easily be represented by a Local Gang from the auxiliary list

Probably not necessary, but they sure are fun! I like lots of options, which is why the Personal Staff and Operative Assembly both exist. They let you tailor your command squad and your Detective's backup unit to various functions based on what you think you need more of. As for the Inquisitor and Retinue, that is just there so that people can toss an Inquisitor in their forces as we often see Inquisitors and Arbitrators interacting. As always, feel free to ignore any part of the Auxiliary list, or the whole thing, as you see fit.

My thoughts on complexity and especially on the Auxiliaries list can be summed up in this bit I posted as a reply to the sister thread over on Warseer:

"There is a lot of stuff in this codex that adds complexity, and the Auxiliaries list is at the top of that heap.* They also add quite a bit of redundancy and potential confusion. However, they exist for one key reason: nobody quite agrees exactly what the Adeptus Arbites should really have access to. There were countless debates in years gone by on the Arbites Garrison Yahoo Group as to whether Arbites Precincts would have access to Landspeeders and Leman Russ Tanks, over whether they would use Abhumans and Mutants as cannon fodder or special agents, and whether they might take to the field alongside Penal Legions to further the cause of The Law. I decided rather than pick and choose and alienate people in these multitudinous camps, why not give them the ultimate comprimise? I just let them choose, through the Precinct Auxiliaries rules, what additional equipment and troop types their local Precinct has access to and will make use of. As the note on the Precinct Auxiliaries List header page says "Feel free to use or ignore the Precinct Auxiliaries List as you see fit.""

ArbitorIan wrote:- Chasteners seem redundant, and whole squads of them seem to be unfluffy - could you roll single Chasteners into the Personal Staff?

I think Legacy had Calpurnia leading full squads of Chasteners, didn't it? Anyway, the Chasteners will probably be the first victims of unit consolidation. Perhaps their Sieze Them! rule might make it into the Personal Staff, but I may just leave it out altogether.

ArbitorIan wrote:- Aediles are redundant - the trend for most modern codexes is to get rid of low-level commanders.

I really just wanted a cheaper commander for smaller games. Might try to work that into the Arbitor General entry.

ArbitorIan wrote:- Judges could easily be an Upgrade for Arbitor Generals...

They could be, but I think Judges need their own unit entry as they are big and special.

Ambience 327 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:- Too many different Task Teams, all of which have different special rules, despite being the same Arbitors. I'd suggest simplification of this into Patrol Teams (standard Troops with Shotguns, Grenade Launchers), Combat Teams (limited Troops with Boltguns, Special Weapons), and a generic 'Response Team' (fast attack with more special weapons, option to DS or to Scout in a vehicle). All with the same rules, just different equipment.

I think you about have me convinced here. I just have to decide where I want to combine things, and what I want to drop for simplicity. What scares me here is getting to a point where I only have a single Troops choice, which I think gets a bit too restrictive, even if that unit has lots of options. Maybe I am just making too much out of that though?

ArbitorIan wrote:- I like the switch to the old two-man Sniper teams, but you could roll Fire Support teams into this too.

That is an interesting thought, but the Fire Support Team also allows you to make a good old-fashioned Executioner Team, which really wouldn't work as two-man weapon teams. Maybe they could be rolled up into the Response Team by letting them take Heavy Bolters as one of their options? Then I could have Fire Support Teams have Missile Launchers, Sniper Rifles or Plasma Cannons and give them a special rule to match (Tank Hunters for ML's, the Spotter Scope for Snipers, not sure what for PC's).

I see what you mean. If you were to give Heavy Bolters as an option for Combat Teams, that might separate their role a bit more from Patrol Teams and Response Teams. You could then include ML, Snipers, etc as a 'fire support' team which uses the current sniper rules. This gives the Arbites a unique thing - that each heavy weapon can choose it's own target, without needing any special rules for it.

This would give you four teams with very different roles. Patrol Teams with light weapons (shotguns, grenade launchers, stubbers?), Combat Teams for serious static war-level defense (bolters, heavy bolters, plasma), fast attack Response teams with special weapons (combines Response and Drop troops), and then all of these are supported by heavy support 'sharpshooters' with man-portable heavy weapons (combines Snipers and Fire Support)

Not sure where plasma cannons fit, though - as a weapon designed for anti-heavily armoured infantry they seem quite a strange option for Arbites compared to, say, Autocannons.

That is the direction I am leaning at the moment, yes. I am glad you mentioned the autocannon, as I may think about including that as an option for Fire Support Teams. What I am thinking now is possibly keeping the two-man team, and allowing them to either take a single special rule to go with their weapon, or make the spotter's scope confer your choice of one of various rules each turn. Basically, these rules would be things like Tank Hunters, Twin-Linked, Choose Target Model (Sniper Only, basically the current Spotter rule) and maybe reduce cover save by -1. You would either pick one of those per team at army selection, or be able to pick one each turn. The rule would only apply if the Spotter is alive and does not fire.

Thoughts?

Beasty effort !!

Im really enjoying reading it atm, I like the feel of it - the way daemon hunters should of been

... I have found myself referring to Suppresion Tactics as ' pin and pummel' I have more too say but I am in the middle of moving and my only Internet access is through a phone...

"Pin and Pummel"...

I LIKE IT!!!!!!

That really sums it up I think. Combined with the Suppression Team's "Come Get Some" formation, I think it really helps define a specific niche for our fighting style, don't you?

So my thoughts on... 
Special rules;
I like call for backup,  adds to the feeling of  the army, the specific function of the rule could be different (ie +1 to reserve rolls) but it would take some playtesting to determine the best method. 
Not such a big fan of disciplined fire. I just can't help but feel the arbites aren't anymore skilled in this respect than many of the other 40k armies. 
Suppression tactics is great! Good rule, gives a real unique police-y feel
I think thin blue line needs to be tweaked. It seems like deploying first and automatically going second would be a disadvantage and unduly limits the arbites strategic options. I would suggest making it optional for the arbites to use this rule and keeping the deployment order linked to the first turn, so the arbites get to choose the deployment zone but don't automatically deploy first. 
Stubborn seems overused across the army. Again I just don't feel the arbites stand out in this respect compared to other armies
Units;
I like the personal staff. I think the book of law should be simpler maybe just giving stubborn. This is mainly just to get away from needing to reference a special table during play. 

Aedile and master chastener could use some special rules...

Weapons and equip
Power maul seems overpowered and power ram seems underpowered
Riot shield seems weak, maybe needs '+1 to armor saves' and I want to be able to fire a gun through the shield like in the fluff
Good job using so many arbites toys but I want more I can give my characters
Choke grenades should pin, probably automatically if they hit. I feel pretty strongly about this one, it adds so much synergy and is more in line with the original rules for choke grenades from necromunda and 2nd edition.
Executioner rounds should be better. In necromunda there is no min range and theyre not heavy, I see no reason to hobble them so much. There are iconic for arbites and should be so good you see them all the time.
Also, I miss bolt/scatter/solid for shotguns, although maybe its too much for 40k

I haven't finished digesting the whole thing yet (I discovered the BoLS version and read it first as its so short) but I really like it. It will likely heavily influence my adeptus arbites team list for my necro-quisitor game.

mossman jones wrote:So my thoughts on... 
Special rules;
I like call for backup,  adds to the feeling of  the army, the specific function of the rule could be different (ie +1 to reserve rolls) but it would take some playtesting to determine the best method. 

Lots of armies have "+1 to reserve rolls". I wanted something a little more unique. With this rule, they don't get things any faster, but they get to pick and choose what they get instead.

mossman jones wrote:Not such a big fan of disciplined fire. I just can't help but feel the arbites aren't anymore skilled in this respect than many of the other 40k armies. 

This was actually based on some of the training scenes in the Shira Calpurnia books. It also goes a long way to helping solidify their effectiveness in mid-range shooting without giving them lots of longer-ranged weapons, as you can form up a firing line several squads deep and let loose, but their short-ranged weaponry keeps it from being too effective. Basically, I like it because it allows them to play just a bit different than other forces (who have to be more discerning when setting up firing lines) without making it too overpowered. It seems to work well in my testing.

mossman jones wrote:Suppression tactics is great! Good rule, gives a real unique police-y feel

Suppression Tactics? Oh, you mean "Pin and Pummel"...

mossman jones wrote:I think thin blue line needs to be tweaked. It seems like deploying first and automatically going second would be a disadvantage and unduly limits the arbites strategic options. I would suggest making it optional for the arbites to use this rule and keeping the deployment order linked to the first turn, so the arbites get to choose the deployment zone but don't automatically deploy first. 

Actually the disadvantage was kind of the point. The idea here is that, combined with Call For Backup, the Arbites get to dictate quite well where and when the fighting will take place, but the enemy gets the initiative most of the time. Again, it makes them army play differently than what is already out there. I didn't want to just reinvent the wheel, but to create a whole new way of driving!

mossman jones wrote:Stubborn seems overused across the army. Again I just don't feel the arbites stand out in this respect compared to other armies

Yeah, special rules overall were a bit heavy. That is being addressed in the next revision.

mossman jones wrote:Units;
I like the personal staff. I think the book of law should be simpler maybe just giving stubborn. This is mainly just to get away from needing to reference a special table during play. 

I might look into simplifying it, but I think it works well and adds a bit of character as it stands. Still, I am trying to un-complicate things a bit to make this more user-friendly overall, so I will consider it.

mossman jones wrote:Aedile and master chastener could use some special rules...

Aedile and Master Chastener are going away. Too many HQ units spoil the soup and all that.

mossman jones wrote:Weapons and equip
Power maul seems overpowered and power ram seems underpowered

Why does the power maul seem OP? It is a poisoned weapon, and gets a free power weapon wound once per round. All it is really doing is cutting out a bit of randomness for reliability (as the end effect is no worse than a successful Rending attack or Melta Bomb hit). You still have to hit the target, so it is not guaranteed damage. It might be slightly better than a re-roll, but not much, and re-rolls are a dime a dozen these days.

mossman jones wrote:Riot shield seems weak, maybe needs '+1 to armor saves' and I want to be able to fire a gun through the shield like in the fluff

Riot shields are supposed to be weak, while still allowing the unit carrying them to worry just a little bit less about cover and power weapons. That is why they are so cheap and widely available. Riot armour is your source of +1 Armour save - albeit in CC only, and at the cost of reduced Sweeping Advance effectiveness.

mossman jones wrote:Good job using so many arbites toys but I want more I can give my characters

What more do you think they should have access to? I don't know that they really need any other toys beyond what they have already.

mossman jones wrote:Choke grenades should pin, probably automatically if they hit. I feel pretty strongly about this one, it adds so much synergy and is more in line with the original rules for choke grenades from necromunda and 2nd edition.

Maybe, but we have other options for pinning (especially with webbers moving to pinning with "Suppressive Weapons" going away in the next revision). Too many units are immune to pinning as it is, and this gives us another option for slowing those units down a bit.

mossman jones wrote:Executioner rounds should be better. In necromunda there is no min range and theyre not heavy, I see no reason to hobble them so much. There are iconic for arbites and should be so good you see them all the time.

The complete shotgun rules have gone through quite a bit of playtesting and thought. I want them to be powerful, but not to completely overshadow bolters. I want there to be an actual choice between using standard shells and Executioners. My Mathhammer data suggests that the current stats really foster this dichotomy, as Executioners outperform standard shells against most (but not all) targets, but don't allow you to move or assault, so you end up with a choice of "Do I move up and shoot standard shells so I can assault, or do I hang back and hit them a little harder with the Executioners?" I like choices. Choices make the game more fun.

mossman jones wrote:Also, I miss bolt/scatter/solid for shotguns, although maybe its too much for 40k

Yeah, me too, but the 40K setting is a bit more abstract and not the place for all that.

Wow.... this is great! I love new feels to this somewhat drull game where the only difference between many armies is the armor they wear and what guns they have :l

Bravo!

When I first read the above post I was very tired and I think I misread it as sarcastic, but on rereading it now I think it is sincere. My apologies for mistaking your intent if you read this post before I edited it. (Not that my reply was rude, just off-base I think.)

I think power mauls are op because they were originally the same as power swords, also since they would be much better than power weapons I don't see why all imperial forces wouldn't use it. I don't see how poison really fits them either. I think the power ram should be the one that gets the improved rules.
Aedile and MChastner have a role as FoC changers and I'd be sad to see them go. More choices...
As for the toys, I was feeling like my characters should be able to take some things the staff can take...
If I seem overly critical it's only because I am working on my own arbites rules. I am really enjoying this codex. My playtesting so far has been rudimentary and only with arbites units. I have found them a little weak but it may just be the newness of the strategy involved...
Also I think they should get the leman exterminator (that's the ac one, right?) instead of the mbt

mossman jones wrote:I think power mauls are op because they were originally the same as power swords, also since they would be much better than power weapons I don't see why all imperial forces wouldn't use it. I don't see how poison really fits them either.

The poison was an idea from the BOLS Codex, I imagine. We have the issue that we have to have Power Mauls and Shock Mauls.

I think you're right that Power Mauls can't be better than power weapons. But then, we don't want Power Mauls and Shock Mauls to have completely different rules.

The BOLS codex solved this by having Shock Mauls as Poison 4+ (to represent that it's the shock that does the damage, not the Str of the user). And then they made Power Mauls Poison 2+, which made logical sense, but always feels a bit off that Power Mauls weren't Power Weapons..

If the intention is that Power Mauls should be Power Weapons, then maybe it makes sense for Shock Weapons to be something that is like a low-powered Power Weapon? Maybe it reduces armour saves, or has an AP value?

mossman jones wrote:I think power mauls are op because they were originally the same as power swords, also since they would be much better than power weapons I don't see why all imperial forces wouldn't use it. I don't see how poison really fits them either. I think the power ram should be the one that gets the improved rules.
Aedile and MChastner have a role as FoC changers and I'd be sad to see them go. More choices...
As for the toys, I was feeling like my characters should be able to take some things the staff can take...
If I seem overly critical it's only because I am working on my own arbites rules. I am really enjoying this codex. My playtesting so far has been rudimentary and only with arbites units. I have found them a little weak but it may just be the newness of the strategy involved...
Also I think they should get the leman exterminator (that's the ac one, right?) instead of the mbt

I don't see you as being overly critical - just another passionate Arbites fan like me. All of your comments are taken in that light.

I think, as far as the Power Maul goes, we need to consider something: casualties taken out in a game do not always represent dead things. The 2nd Ed wargear book made a very important distinction that models taken as casualties via a power maul weren't killed, merely knocked unconscious. I think that would be enough of a distinction to warrant most people using power weapons, where the Arbites stick to their power mauls (so they can try and execute the criminals publicly in a more controlled setting). Of course, other fluff sources mention the power maul as being able to blow through heavily armoured doors on its highest setting (which I decided to represent with the free power weapon wound per round, giving it a "cool-down" to represent the time needed to build up a charge of that magnitude.) The poison rule was to represent the shock to the system rather than physical damage. Might just require a bit of rewriting/clarifying of the fluff portion. Thoughts?

With the reduction of the number of Task Teams, the Aedile/Master Chastener altering the FOC won't even be necessary. I put them in originally because I thought as you do, but I see now the wisdom in reducing complexity and redundancy, especially in the primary army list. They will sadly go away.

I will consider giving Arbitor Generals and Judges access to some of the kit available to the Personal Staff, but I don't know if I really want to go down that route or not. Definitely something to think about. (Anyone else want to weigh in on this?)

ArbitorIan wrote:

mossman jones wrote:I think power mauls are op because they were originally the same as power swords, also since they would be much better than power weapons I don't see why all imperial forces wouldn't use it. I don't see how poison really fits them either.

The poison was an idea from the BOLS Codex, I imagine. We have the issue that we have to have Power Mauls and Shock Mauls.

I think you're right that Power Mauls can't be better than power weapons. But then, we don't want Power Mauls and Shock Mauls to have completely different rules.

The BOLS codex solved this by having Shock Mauls as Poison 4+ (to represent that it's the shock that does the damage, not the Str of the user). And then they made Power Mauls Poison 2+, which made logical sense, but always feels a bit off that Power Mauls weren't Power Weapons..

If the intention is that Power Mauls should be Power Weapons, then maybe it makes sense for Shock Weapons to be something that is like a low-powered Power Weapon? Maybe it reduces armour saves, or has an AP value?

At one point, I had power mauls as poison (4+) power weapons, and shock mauls as rending weapons that couldn't affect vehicles. It worked, but it didn't really feel right, as it made them proportionately MORE effective against heavily armoured foes, something I wanted to avoid at the very least for the shock mauls. I think the current rules work, and work well, as well as feeling right (to me at least). They aren't really poisoned - they just work with the same mechanic.

So I'm currently working on a combined Planetary Defense Force/Chaos Cultist/Genestealer Cult codex, and I'm providing a decent selection of Arbites units as unique options for an Imperial aligned force. You're welcome to look it over if you want another take on some units, although your list is much more detailed and covers a broader scope than my list.

For the shock maul and power maul, I considered that the shock maul's main effect would be to stun or paralyze weaker units, without being any more effective against, say, a carnifex. I gave it a re-roll to wound. I wanted the power maul to actually be a power weapon, and I looked to the Dark Eldar's agonizer, which I figured would be similar. So the power maul ended up as a power weapon that always wounds on a 4+ (I may change this so that it re-rolls to wound like the shock maul, so you aren't killing wraithlords with your power maul).

However, I think the real trick is to limit access to the power maul. The shock maul is already a good close combat weapon for your line Arbites. Restrict the power maul to characters and you don't have to worry about how much better it is than a standard power weapon, you can always call it a rare and sacred badge of office for Arbiter Generals and Judges.

Anyway I like your codex, it's definitely how I'd envision a dedicated Arbites army! Not trying to compete or anything, my codex makes for a much more limited Arbites army and relies on a core of local PDF forces for support. I think our two codices complement one another (Arbites need enemies to fight against!) and if you don't mind I might tweak my own Arbites units some to get them more in line with yours, once you finish your next revision (with proper credit of course).

In my mind...
Power maul- rending power weapon, no bonus for 2ccw
Shock maul- ccw rerolls wounds
I see how the first power maul hit has the most power but I don't like rolling each power maul models attacks separately

Another quick suggestion for Disciplined Fire. I assume you're intending to have ranks of well-trained Arbites firing together like a Napoleonic army. I like the spirit of the rule and I think it's almost perfect, but I think you should require that neither unit moved in that turn. It places an additional restriction that also fits with the intent - the units are carefully lined up and firing together in a coordinated fashion, rather than running around ahead of or behind one another and somehow not hitting each other. Otherwise I think you end up with a rule that doesn't make sense - Arbites can fire through one another while on the move, but Astartes can't? This way it's nothing to do with superior skill and more to do with training to use one specific tactic that space marines wouldn't normally employ, i.e. lining up like it's 1812.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:So I'm currently working on a combined Planetary Defense Force/Chaos Cultist/Genestealer Cult codex, and I'm providing a decent selection of Arbites units as unique options for an Imperial aligned force. You're welcome to look it over if you want another take on some units, although your list is much more detailed and covers a broader scope than my list.

For the shock maul and power maul, I considered that the shock maul's main effect would be to stun or paralyze weaker units, without being any more effective against, say, a carnifex. I gave it a re-roll to wound. I wanted the power maul to actually be a power weapon, and I looked to the Dark Eldar's agonizer, which I figured would be similar. So the power maul ended up as a power weapon that always wounds on a 4+ (I may change this so that it re-rolls to wound like the shock maul, so you aren't killing wraithlords with your power maul).

However, I think the real trick is to limit access to the power maul. The shock maul is already a good close combat weapon for your line Arbites. Restrict the power maul to characters and you don't have to worry about how much better it is than a standard power weapon, you can always call it a rare and sacred badge of office for Arbiter Generals and Judges.

Anyway I like your codex, it's definitely how I'd envision a dedicated Arbites army! Not trying to compete or anything, my codex makes for a much more limited Arbites army and relies on a core of local PDF forces for support. I think our two codices complement one another (Arbites need enemies to fight against!) and if you don't mind I might tweak my own Arbites units some to get them more in line with yours, once you finish your next revision (with proper credit of course).

Thanks, and I will definitely take a look at your efforts as well. I have no problem with you tweaking your stuff to match or reflect mine - I have done a lot of borrowing from others for my own work! I like where you are going with the re-roll To Wound. That is something I will give serious thought to.

mossman jones wrote:In my mind...
Power maul- rending power weapon, no bonus for 2ccw
Shock maul- ccw rerolls wounds
I see how the first power maul hit has the most power but I don't like rolling each power maul models attacks separately

You know, now that you mention it, that is a big problem with the Power Maul as written... I haven't had a chance to playtest it since I switched it to that rule, so it hadn't come up in my mind yet. It would really only affect Power Maul wielding Suppression Teams, because squad leaders and IC's often roll their attacks separately anyway, but yeah, rolling up to 30 Suppressors' attacks separately each turn would suck. I will definitely look into re-working the Mauls now. THANK YOU!!!

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:Another quick suggestion for Disciplined Fire. I assume you're intending to have ranks of well-trained Arbites firing together like a Napoleonic army. I like the spirit of the rule and I think it's almost perfect, but I think you should require that neither unit moved in that turn. It places an additional restriction that also fits with the intent - the units are carefully lined up and firing together in a coordinated fashion, rather than running around ahead of or behind one another and somehow not hitting each other. Otherwise I think you end up with a rule that doesn't make sense - Arbites can fire through one another while on the move, but Astartes can't? This way it's nothing to do with superior skill and more to do with training to use one specific tactic that space marines wouldn't normally employ, i.e. lining up like it's 1812.

That is a good idea, and I think I may add it in. Thanks!

I have just uploaded the first revision! Version 1.1 is now available from the links in the first post.

Here is a summary of the changes made:

Change Log:

Updated Shira Calpurnia's "Legacy of the Calpurnii" rule to allow her to take a Leadership Test to avoid being required to Assault. This means she still may be forced to Assault when she doesn't want to, but not without "thinking it over" first via the Leadership test.

Replaced non-40K imagesSpartacus) with more appropriate images.

Added options for various kit for the Judge to represent the various specialisations he could have risen up from. Also added Combi-Weapon options.

Removed Aedile and Master Chastener entries to reduce redundancy in HQ choices.

Removed the badge of office as mandatory gear for an Arbitor General and added it as an option instead, thus allowing for a cheaper HQ choice to replace the Aedile/Master Chastener.

Tightened up the options on many entries to combine lines with the same cost.

Renamed the Personal Staff "Deputy" to "Aedile" since the name was now freed up and more fitting. Also added the "Precinct Auxiliaries" note to the Personal Staff so as to still give the Aedile a chance to unlock an Auxiliary.

Changed the Book of the Law to only affect a single unit within 12", but able to choose which effect it will confer.

Removed Chastener Teams as an option, and included a slightly modified version of the "Seize Them!" rule to the Chasteners found in a Personal Staff.

Rolled Shock and Response Teams together into the Response Team entry.

Rolled Sharpshooter and Fire Support Teams together into the Fire Support Team entry, changing up their weapons options and updating the Spotting Scope wargear. (Executioners were instead rolled into Response Teams option wise, and lost their "Shoot To Kill" rule.)

Moved the Arbites Detective and Operative Assembly entries to the Precinct Auxiliaries list. They were just a bit more complex than what the standard army list could contain.

Incraesed the base cost of Patrol, Combat and Response Teams by +1 point per model, and Suppression Teams by +2 points per model.

Patrol Teams were given the option to take power rams.

Combat Teams now have bolters as standard kit, with no option for Combat Shotguns.

Updated Senior Proctor Martaugh to lead the new Response Team. He now replaces Disciplined Fire with his special Lethal Weapons rule.

Removed Disciplined Fire from Suppression Teams. I figure they are too busy making their shield wall to adopt good firing formations with other Arbites units.

Re-worked Shock Mauls, Shock Lances, Power Mauls and Power Rams. As it stood, the Power Maul was far too complex to use with a full unit of Suppressors, and I think the new version makes a bit more sense as to their primary functions.

Reduced the Stub Gun's AP to 6 to match the Heavy Stubber and further distance it from the Bolt Pistol stat-wise.

Removed the Riot Gun.

Updated Webbers/Web Cannons to have the Pinning rule, but lowered their Strength by 1 point each to keep them from being too powerful or too expensive.

Added an option for Rhinos to be open-topped. (Reference in Execution Hour, and precedent in older 40K fluff and rules.)

Added Hurrican Bolters as an option for the Castigator.

Removed the "Suppressive Weapons" rule.

Tentatively added a Gryo-mount to give us a bit more mobility when shooting. (Based on something from Dark Heresy.) I gave it to Response and Fire Support Teams, but not Patrol or Combat Teams, to keep it a bit more rare and specialised. I also tossed it in as an option for Local Gangs (changing the name to "bulging biceps" as a further nod to Necromunda). I am not really sure if we need this, but it was suggested and I thought it sounded interesting, so I tossed it in to see what people thought.

Added a no-movement requirement to Disciplined Fire, to make it a bit more situational and slightly less useful and non-sensical.




Additional Notes:

It has been noted that the Halligan may be just a bit too weak, what with a combination of rhino-scale armour and a short-ranged, single-shot missile launcher. Should I improve the Strength/AP of the missile, increase its range, add to the armour on the front (and sides?) of the vehicle, or what?

What I don't want to do is give it Tank Hunters as it really isn't meant to hunt tanks but dug-in hidey holes. I am also leary about increasing the range for that same reason - it typically wouldn't need long ranges for its "fluff-intended" role. I think maybe increased armour and/or improved Strength/AP may be the way to go. Thoughts?


It has also been suggested to allow the Leman Russ to be upgraded to one or more of the variants - most notably the Punisher. I don't know if this is really necessary, but I wanted to toss that idea out to the masses as well and see what the consensus was.


I really want a better name for the "power ram". I don't want it to be something like "power mace" or "power hammer", but "power ram" just seems a bit lacking somehow.

jt.glass over on Warseer had an interesting suggestion:

I can't remember where I saw it, but recently I've seen "Entangling", which is like Pinning except that it doesn't care about Fearlessness - seems like that'd be appropriate for a webber.

To which I replied:

I have considered the thought of making some of my pinning rules ignore those who ignore pinning (since there is obviously precedent for things like that - I'm looking at you "Instant Death", "Eternal Warrior" and "Removed from Play"), but I don't want to overemphasize the pinning aspect of the army so much that the enemy basically doesn't get to take a turn.

What do others think? Now that Suppressive Weapons have gone away, is Suppression Tactics good enough on its own, or do I need to allow the Webbers the ability to bypass Fearless and require a pinning test? One thought - instead of a normal pinning test, they could require a check against Strength, and force the unit to go to ground. If so, what Strength would I use - base strength only? Majority strength of CC attacks? (i.e. SM Terminators with Power Fists would be testing on an 8, so only 6's would fail.)

It could be very characterful, but might require a slight points hike. Also, I don't want to venture too far into OP pinning as I said. If the enemy never gets to move or shoot, and only fights in close combat when and where the Arbites dictate, I don't think it would be much fun for them.

I just wanted to toss this out here as well, since so much good advice has come from the fine DakkaDakka crowd.

Did you intent for the halligan to reroll it's AP dice for ordnance? And just the first d6 or both? Also I've been working on a repressor-spam with halligans list that seems tourny-worthy. Maybe more front armor for the halligan or range but I thought it was a good anti-armor choice already, reminds me of the exorcist. Webbers aren't that great but webcannons are, maybe they should wound against str instead of toughness, I would go with pinning

In my Codex I have a warhead option for the Black Maria's missiles called "heavy webber". It's low strength and no AP, but any infantry unit hit by it moves as though in difficult terrain in their next turn. That gets around problems with Fearless troops, and it isn't really a huge deal-breaker for any army, as far as I can see.

mossman jones wrote:Did you intent for the halligan to reroll it's AP dice for ordnance? And just the first d6 or both? Also I've been working on a repressor-spam with halligans list that seems tourny-worthy. Maybe more front armor for the halligan or range but I thought it was a good anti-armor choice already, reminds me of the exorcist. Webbers aren't that great but webcannons are, maybe they should wound against str instead of toughness, I would go with pinning

The Halligan does not re-roll anything. It rolls 2D6 and chooses the highest as normal for Ordnance weapons, then rolls an additional D3. This gives a total Armour Penetration roll potential of 8+D6+D3 (up to 17) with the D6 portion being "roll 2D6 and choose the highest". It only gets one shot, but if it hits it often causes damage.

I thought about the whole "Wound vs Strength" and I really don't want to go down that road. Too many variables to consider (do power fists count? etc). I am leaning away from that option for its pinning rules as well, for the same reason. I think maybe just Pinning which ignores Fearless (so everyone has to pass a Ld check) would work, and not be overly powerful (wouldn't affect the lower Ld non-fearless folk at all, just gives a slim chance of tangling up normally Fearless troops who would never go to ground).

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:In my Codex I have a warhead option for the Black Maria's missiles called "heavy webber". It's low strength and no AP, but any infantry unit hit by it moves as though in difficult terrain in their next turn. That gets around problems with Fearless troops, and it isn't really a huge deal-breaker for any army, as far as I can see.

I already use something very similar for my Choke Grenades.


I am also thinking of moving the Response Team to Elites instead of Fast Attack, as right now the only Elites are Suppression Teams and the Special Character/Unit Detective Nash and her Untouchables. Aside from the Response Team, Fast Attack has Pursuit Teams (plus the special characters), Sentinel Pursuit Teams and the Castigator. With the Response Team now being a combination of the old Response and Shock Teams, I thought it might do well to move it to Elites for a more balanced Force Organization Chart.