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.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Capt. Camping wrote:
No, GW have to do their job with better rules. The reason we are paying high prices for the minis.

You pay high prices because you choose to and they are a model company, not a games one

Exactly right, Fenrir. We pay high prices for miniatures because that's what GW does. The price of the miniatures as very little to do with the rules.

We pay a high price for the rule books, codeces, supplements and other gaming related texts like that because it's a huge effort to write them, format them, play-test them and then re-write them to account for any changes. Also, I think GW have done a solid job with the rules. If you don't like a rule and think it needs to be changed or removed, or you think a rule should be implemented, then you're more than welcome to House Rule it. People get so caught up in sticking to the rules like their life depended on it (and 95% of the time, I do that as well) that they seem to forget that the rules are a guideline. You can play the game however you want.

Imateria wrote:Yes, I certainly would so long as I got a chance to read through the rules first to see if anything is so obvously broken or not (and despite what some people here have said, it's very easy to come up with something far more broken than anything GW has out there at the moment).

As long as people remember that a minor change (like - for example - +1S on a Chainsword) can have a dramatic affect on play. So I think what people need to realise is that when making custom rules and units, small changes can have a big impact. This is also why it needs to be heavily play tested.

It all depends on what was written to be fair, if it's clear it's balls to the wall mad, then no, if it's good, then yes, there is simply no other way to do it.

I would be happy to play and play against custom codexes with friends, but I would be very hesitent to try it with a stranger. I think it would be a bit 'off' to ask to play a custom codex against someone you dont know.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I would be happy to play and play against custom codexes with friends, but I would be very hesitent to try it with a stranger. I think it would be a bit 'off' to ask to play a custom codex against someone you dont know.

I agreed - but I'm a little more flexible (not trying to toot my own horn haha). I feel you at least need a certain level of rapport with your opponent when using custom codeces. I wouldn't use one with a complete stranger, but there are people at my local GW who I'm only know from and see there, but I'd still use it in a game with them if they were OK with it.

I don't play against custom stuff because it is a waste of my time. I'm never going to face it again when I move, or at a tournament, or even against a different player. A big part of getting better at 40K is experience, and I'm not going to gain any playing a custom codex.

 greyknight12 wrote:
I don't play against custom stuff because it is a waste of my time. I'm never going to face it again when I move, or at a tournament, or even against a different player. A big part of getting better at 40K is experience, and I'm not going to gain any playing a custom codex.

I might be inclined to agree with you if you were talking about the core rule set, but this is a custom codex. I would say it isn't a waste of time, but in this case we're talking about your time, so who am I to say?

Here's why I feel I have to disagree in general about it being a waste of time:

(i) Generally most custom codeces will be a sub-codex of another (most likely GW-written) codex. So a custom codex isn't going to be hugely different to another army you might face. So the experience from playing a custom codex which has been balanced is likely to be akin to playing against an army drawn from the codex the custom codex is based off of. So the experience of the game(s) against this custom codex will carry over.

(ii) As implied by earlier comments on this thread, too much deviation from an existing codex (assuming it's based on a codex) will cause severely over-powered or under-powered units and/or make an army too powerful (or too weak, in which case why have this custom codex at all?). So a truly balanced custom codex isn't likely to be all that much different from the one it's based off of. So, same as above, it will likely be akin to the codex it's based off of.

(iii) If it is vastly different but has been balanced, then I honestly don't see your issue either. Think of it this way: What if you play a game against a Space Wolf army and then never play a game against Space Wolves again. Was that game against the Space Wolves a waste of time? Or does the game only qualify as a waste of time if the army you face use a custom codex?

The only possible exception I can think of is tournament and/or competitive games, and only if that's your predominant game type of choice (where only official rules and codeces are allowed). For many people whose games aren't dominated by competitive play and/or play against a regular group of people, then playing a game with or against a custom codex is not a waste of time and may prove to be a valuable experience.

 Brother Armiger wrote:
At one time, I'd welcome it.

However, these days I've seen too many people that get into Mary Sue and OP territory with their Codex.

This. What I read in the OP was "I'm buffing melee and anti psyker and the downside to balance this is that I'm going to limit my ability to take a bunch of things that I wasn't going to take anyway."

Maybe I'm just being cynical...

The cynicism is real. If my way of doing is is cause for such cynicism, might there be a better way to do it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
What I read in the OP was "I'm buffing melee and anti psyker and the downside to balance this is that I'm going to limit my ability to take a bunch of things that I wasn't going to take anyway."

Also, before what I say what I have to say next, I do appreciate that most custom rule sets tend toward Mary Sue-ness and an over-powering quality, but that doesn't mean that all are. Now:

I resent both the implication that I will fail in creating a fair (and eventually balanced) codex based on a typical result. I also resent on being told I'm buffing some things and excluding others on the basis of what I do and don't, and will and won't use. What I'm trying to do is create a themed codex centered around close combat, and trying to at least base that in fluff even if it's not entirely keeping with fluff.

 IllumiNini wrote:


Also, before what I say what I have to say next, I do appreciate that most custom rule sets tend toward Mary Sue-ness and an over-powering quality, but that doesn't mean that all are. Now:

I resent both the implication that I will fail in creating a fair (and eventually balanced) codex based on a typical result. I also resent on being told I'm buffing some things and excluding others on the basis of what I do and don't, and will and won't use. What I'm trying to do is create a themed codex centered around close combat, and trying to at least base that in fluff even if it's not entirely keeping with fluff.

Yeah its like calling all written work bad fan fiction because sometimes people end up writing bad fan fiction (and sometimes that mess gets published like 50 shades of gak). I mean not everyone is as infallible as GW and their codex writing team. Just look at the Eldar codex to see a prime example of a high quality and thoroughly play tested set of rules that in no way is imbalanced, broken, or biased in any way .

The thing that separates a good user made codex from an ego fluff piece is taking the time to play test and refine things to achieve some degree of balance, workable rules, and a fun play experience for both players. Nobody is going to be able to put together a bunch of codex ideas and create a perfect result on the first try but instead needs to try it out, make adjustments as needed, and improve upon things until they are in a good place. I think if you put in the work to create a well written codex and put it through its paces then more people will be open to trying it out. Having others being willing to vouch for its quality (after having played with/against it) will give it validity in the community.

This seems to have good intentions behind it and it could turn out to be a wonderful project, but I am worried that it will devolve into yet another Mary Sue list. This especially gave me pause:

 IllumiNini wrote:

oldzoggy wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm making an attempt to write my own Black Templars Codex based off what I believe to be fluff accurate information as well as on the current Space Marines Codex ...

Please don't copy paste and some snowflakyness.
Just make a file that refers to the original book with the following changes.
This would be my approach.

Delete the following units:
*Librarian
* All named non Black templar characters
* Tactical squad
* All Scout squads
* All Centurions
* Landspeeder Storm
* Devestator Squad
* Hunter
* Stalker
* Whyrlwind
* Thunderfire cannons

Delete the following special rules
*Combat doctrines
*Chapter tactics

Replace the Space marine relics with the Relics and Vows in the 4th edition codex. With the exception of Relics and Vows that reference to rules that no longer exist.

Add the following special rules
* come at the apocalypse to any detachment containing a psyker except Grey knights.
* Add Righteous Zeal from the 4th edition codex
* Add Kill them all from the 4th edition codex
* Add No Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! from the 4th edtion codex
* Add Vows from the 4th edition codex.

Give them their own faction Symbol
* Allow only the formations and detachment in the Codex and only as long as they don't contain any forbidden units. These have now the Black templar faction symbol.
* Disallow all supplement space marine formations to be used as black templar formations.
* Only allow FW stuff if it is also allowed in a Dark Angels and Space Wolves list.

There you have it a modern Black templar codex that fits on a single page and doesn't suffer from all the usual pitfalls. I would play against a codex / list like this but I would refuse to play against anything that is a mixture of copy and pasting + some of your own unique snowflake rules mixed in there.

Sounds fair. Though (as will the getting into CC), that just needs a buff.

It seems that you are trying to remove your shooting capabilities while increasing the close combat capabilities of the BTs. It is important to remember when writing these kinds of rules that not all stats are created equally, especially when it comes to lists like these. Custom lists will buff specific traits that are part of the faction's lore, but it is also important that you take drawbacks equal to the amount of buffs given taking into account how these buffs will affect your lists. It is important that when you nerf your list it has to be a nerf that your opponent can see and exploit. No one likes it when the powergamer declares that their DnD character gets buffs because they added aquaphobia as a flaw when you are playing in a desert.

To use an extreme example in a hypothetical world where shooting and close combat are about equal, marine army I decide that I want to create super close combat marines. I decide to do this by increasing the marine's weapons skill by 1 and decreasing their ballistics skill by 1. There is also some minor equipment shuffling to give marines access to pistol and close combat weapon. On paper this seems like a fair trade off because the +1/-1 should balance out, but when I make my list, I only use marines that are strong in close combat while avoiding any long range weapons or tanks. Now the -1 to hit hardly matters because I am only shooting with bolt pistols while I charge and the +1 to hit in close combat is a big deal. The opponent cannot see that you have nerfed your list because all they are presented with is the fact that you have buffed everything that you are using.

Applying this to your proposed BTs, make sure that any nerfs you give them are obvious to your opponent. By the looks of it, you are doing this by removing your capacity for long range firepower and psyker support. I would suggest that you avoid any long range heavy weapon and limit yourself to having to get close to take out tanks and heavily armoured foes. If you plan on limiting yourself against psykers, don't take allies to fill in the gaps. These weaknesses might be enough to offset the buffs and convince your opponent that they are playing a fair game.

Finally, I would suggest that you error on the side of caution when it comes to writing this codex. If you playtest it and get stomped, your friends are more likely to let you have another go at balancing the book. If you stomp them in the first few games that you play using your custom list, then people will be much less likely to try it again, even in friendly settings. Start off below where you think the codex should be and make gradual changes as you discover what combinations are open to abuse.

Good luck.

I can really see where people are coming from regarding the "you're buffing a certain area and getting rid of a redundant one". I'm not saying that's what you are doing, but it could easily become that. After all, your custom marines claim to be experts of melee combat and have a resistance against psykers. There are plenty of Marine sub-codexes for you to play with. Literally, Space Marines have this easiest - you can field a chapter in a custom scheme, and then pick and choose any codex to represent it. What changes will be so drastic that you need another new codex to represent it?

Also, regarding close combat, think about the other close combat specialists in the game. CC in general is rather bad, not just for marines as a base. Therefore, a better change would rather be to change the base CC rules so that other other armies who claim to be melee experts get to shine.

Of course, I really can't make a judgement without seeing the codex. There's no way I can have an opinion on it unless that opinion is either "I'll accept anything, even if it's broken as hell" or "I'm not accepting anything that isn't made by GW". Could you post your rules on dakka so we can review them?

the Signless wrote:...Applying this to your proposed BTs, make sure that any nerfs you give them are obvious to your opponent. By the looks of it, you are doing this by removing your capacity for long range firepower and psyker support. I would suggest that you avoid any long range heavy weapon and limit yourself to having to get close to take out tanks and heavily armoured foes. If you plan on limiting yourself against psykers, don't take allies to fill in the gaps. These weaknesses might be enough to offset the buffs and convince your opponent that they are playing a fair game.

Finally, I would suggest that you error on the side of caution when it comes to writing this codex. If you playtest it and get stomped, your friends are more likely to let you have another go at balancing the book. If you stomp them in the first few games that you play using your custom list, then people will be much less likely to try it again, even in friendly settings. Start off below where you think the codex should be and make gradual changes as you discover what combinations are open to abuse.

Good luck.

The changes I plan to make won't involved very many actual buffs. Marines are already fairly good in CC quarters. The problem (at least in my experience) is that a fluffy BT list (at least the way I interpret it) is that BTs don't run with a huge amount of long range to back up the advancing CC troops. My primary area of buffing will be in regards to allowing the transports and soldiers to advance. Whether that's more HP on all types of Land Raiders, or charge distance bonuses on Crusader Squads, I haven't quite figured that out.

As for not overpowering the changes, I get the feeling that will be exactly the case since I'm definitely trying to stand on the side of caution when adding buffs. For example, I've made (but not playtested since I've only just started this project) a boost of and Sword Brother's WS in a Crusader Squad from 4 to 5 (which is just one Infantry Character), but I'm worried that will have more of a profound effect than I would like.

And cheers for the luck. I might very well need it haha.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I can really see where people are coming from regarding the "you're buffing a certain area and getting rid of a redundant one". I'm not saying that's what you are doing, but it could easily become that. After all, your custom marines claim to be experts of melee combat and have a resistance against psykers. There are plenty of Marine sub-codexes for you to play with. Literally, Space Marines have this easiest - you can field a chapter in a custom scheme, and then pick and choose any codex to represent it. What changes will be so drastic that you need another new codex to represent it?

Also, regarding close combat, think about the other close combat specialists in the game. CC in general is rather bad, not just for marines as a base. Therefore, a better change would rather be to change the base CC rules so that other other armies who claim to be melee experts get to shine.

Of course, I really can't make a judgement without seeing the codex. There's no way I can have an opinion on it unless that opinion is either "I'll accept anything, even if it's broken as hell" or "I'm not accepting anything that isn't made by GW". Could you post your rules on dakka so we can review them?

I would argue than I'm buffing one area and severely restricting what is undoubtedly a strong area of the Space Marine Codex (long range weaponry). I'd hardly call Predator Tanks, Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons anything but useful and powerful - and most definitely not redundant. Also, by "Sub-Codeces", do you mean Codeces for the DA, SW, etc? Or other codeces? And I'm not entirely sure Black Templars need their own codex, but assuming I can do it right, I doubt it would be a detriment for them to have one.

Close Combat isn't necessarily the problem. It's getting there. That's part of what I plan to buff with the little project of mine.

I cant give you too many changes because most of what I've done so far is copy out essential information in a format I can manipulate to make my planned changes. Here's an overall list of the changes I plan to make:

-- Remove all HQ choices that are not Black Templar characters.
-- Buff High Marshall Helbrecht and turn him into a Lord of War.
-- Make minor buffs to CC abilities, which so far only includes buffing the WS of squad sergeants from 4 to 5. I also considered buffing Chainswords to give +1S or having a special rule (as well as giving them a points cost), but I feel that would be too much of a buff.
-- I plan on removing or nerfing all long range weaponry. So far that's included Thunderfire Cannons and reducing the BS of Predators from 4 to 3.
-- I've given Rhinos the option of becoming Assault Vehicles (at a points cost).

Other changes I've made include the exclusion of the Legion of the Damned and Devastator Squads. I'm also toying with the idea of introducing a squad called the Zealot Sqaud akin to cultists, but this is a more advanced idea that I may have to scrap.

Since I've only really just started this project, I can't currently give you more than that. Do these changes sound good? Bad? I really can't tell and am probably extremely biased haha

 IllumiNini wrote:
The cynicism is real. If my way of doing is is cause for such cynicism, might there be a better way to do it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
What I read in the OP was "I'm buffing melee and anti psyker and the downside to balance this is that I'm going to limit my ability to take a bunch of things that I wasn't going to take anyway."

Also, before what I say what I have to say next, I do appreciate that most custom rule sets tend toward Mary Sue-ness and an over-powering quality, but that doesn't mean that all are. Now:

I resent both the implication that I will fail in creating a fair (and eventually balanced) codex based on a typical result. I also resent on being told I'm buffing some things and excluding others on the basis of what I do and don't, and will and won't use. What I'm trying to do is create a themed codex centered around close combat, and trying to at least base that in fluff even if it's not entirely keeping with fluff.

So what is your downside to counter the increased melee effectiveness and increased anti-psyker abilities?

I'm seeing assault vehicle rhinos (a huge buff) and the removal of units that you wouldn't find in a fluffy black templars army anyway (therefore a pretty inconsequential nerf). Nerfing or removing Predators and Whirlwinds? In this edition, who cares?

Assuming that removing things that didn't fit the theme anyway somehow cancels out a bunch of bonuses is pretty classic bad fan codex stuff.

 IllumiNini wrote:
Sounds fair. Though (as will the getting into CC), that just needs a buff.

You are already getting the following rules from the 4th edition codex special rules.

-Righteous zeal -> If shot at make a full move to the enemy
-No pitty no remorse ->Fearless in assault
-Vows: Choose one pay for it in points and get an army wide buff
*+1S -1I
* 6++ & immune to pinning
*Must charge if in range but gain preferred enemy
*Powers are nullified on a 5+



This is more than most close combat armies have, blood angels would kill for this. I would be very cautious to add any buffs at all.
Righteous zeal alone is wild enough to raise eyebrows. The argument that you just updated the 4th edition codex by replacing all marine bits with 7th edition marine bits might convince your opponents, additional buffs could be too much for most of them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:

-- I've given Rhinos the option of becoming Assault Vehicles (at a points cost).

These are the kind of buff you should avoid at all cost if you want a book that is widely accepted.
It is ok to conservatively use some elements of similar codexes but adding new unique rules should be avoided, especially if they are as powerful as this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
A good test would be to look at the Blood angels codex.
Your codex is too strong if your codex is obviously better than that codex on other grounds then that it is based on the 7th edition marine codex.