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.

Howdy folks,

Just because DCM's can now easily attach Word files to posts, and because I've updated the codex to be compatible with 4th edition, and because my previous version went away with the old incarnation of Dakka, and just because I want to:

Codex Townsfolk returns!

Yes, that's right. My home brew codex for creating scenario games involving small towns being picked on by the forces of the 41st millenium has returned. Please note that this is not a balanced list in any way, nor has it been thoroughly playtested.

If you like these kinds of ideas (archers vs. Space Marines, etc.) then this codex is for you. If not, then no big deal.

Anyway, click on the link below to download a Microsoft Word document of Codex Townsfolk.

Comments, questions, criticisms, etc. are always appreciated.

 

"It can be imagined that the townsfolk hurl their bodies in a vain attempt to clog an intake valve"

I'm loving that line, pure genius! :-)

You could change Weapons: Rocks on the Mob entry to Improvised Weapons instead, allowing all manner of picks, chair legs, saws, hammers, rocks, sticks etc to be modelled

Posted By SuperJohn on 03/03/2006 5:28 AM
You could change Weapons: Rocks on the Mob entry to Improvised Weapons instead, allowing all manner of picks, chair legs, saws, hammers, rocks, sticks etc to be modelled

That is a fine suggestion and I have already made the change (although you won't see it until I post an updated version of of the codex).

Thanks for the feedback.

 

No probs! Just thought it would mean you could use straight Warhammer miniatures a tad easier, or conversely go to town modelling angry chair-leg-wielding peasants!

Moridheim human models would work out quite well for this.

Oh man, I can't imagine anything funnier than a townsman taking down my Monolith with a "For the Revolution...now!" attack.

I think I would wet myself laughing.

Is it just me or did you pull some ideas from M:TG?

Wet yourself laughing in a good way or in a bad way?

I agree its a pretty silly idea. . .but if enough bodies pile up around the Monolith, perhaps it can get stuck.


What is M:TG? Magic: The Gathering? If so, I've never played it. If I pulled any ideas from that source it was entirely coincidental.


I drew my inspiration from old Westerns, Tarzan, etc.

Last time I posted this some people asked why there weren't like bulldozers with machine guns on them, and more technological gobble-dee-[see forum posting rules] in the army.

My point was that for the majority of the Imperium technology is an unknown that they use but don't trust. On less populated worlds (or even less populated areas of some worlds) I imagine towns in the 41st millenium would have, in many ways, reverted to something close to the 19th century frontier lifestyle.

That clash of super technology (and deadly aliens) vs. peasant folk seems interesting to me.


By keeping most of the technology found in the game out of the townsfolk's hands it really emphasizes the wide divide between the common folk of the Imperium and the super bad-ass warriors we normally play with.


So anyway, there's some of the reasoning behind why I wrote it in the first place and why it is what it is.

Heh...yeah I'm a once and future Magic player. M:TG = Magi the Gathering, correct. I suppose they likely drew quite a bit of inspiration from the same sources as you. There was a creature called Angry Mob, quite a number of cards representing creatures (=all "units" in M:TG) who sacrifice themselves to hurt enemy creatures, and Townsfolk creature type, ranging from religious fanatics to devoted scholars to just ordinary folks. "For the Revolution...now!" is quite reminescent to M:TG players recalling a whole variety of effects typically best against strong attacking creatures.

I like the Codex. Just different enough from IG, and lots of options. All-cavalry, Guard-esque Infantry with the militia commander and nine krak missiles but sacrifice the melee backbone of women and children and mobs, or feral for the Shaman...and some very nice special characters to boot! Very nice, GW should pay you.

edit - my only complaint is if I ever post Codex: Feudal Worlds, I'll now be accused of copying you!

Generally I like it but it has some flaws I see right off the bat. First off there are some bizzare point costs like 5 points for a bolter/bolt pistol.

It also has a bit of codex overload, 2 kinds of bows? 3 kinds of mounts? Generally a homemade codex should not go into any more level of detail than the main ones, if all assualt rifles are 'autoguns' then all bows and crossbows should be bows. Also instead of adding a point to saves they should probably just be S2.

Those are my general thoughts.

I really like the gunslinger and tarzan, I like the town set up rules and mission ideas. It just needs to be simplified.

You should change milita leader to warlord, it fits better for an independent unalligned military leader.

And add some kind of symbol to the gunslinger stats..it says he only gets one attack. So are his guns twin linked?
And if he does get two attacks is it too cheesy to make let him call his shots? Like target an IC or seargent?

Sorry didnt say how much I liked it... I like it alot.

The mission ideas are good, another one could be a Seven Samurai style mission , with a small group of troops 500 points or so, having to defend the village against a larger force with only villagers as their back-up.

yakface - on Magic, yeah that's what I meant, and as said above there are some cards that are almost word for word what you had in there, like the mobs and their strength/toughness. I thought it was a very good way to represent that though and even more so if you just happened to think of the same thing!

On the laughing, oh my definitely in the "good" way. I would seriously enjoy the hell out of some peasant folk stopping my Monolith, that would be a hilarious batrep!

Posted By Kid_Kyoto on 03/05/2006 9:08 PM
Generally I like it but it has some flaws I see right off the bat. First off there are some bizzare point costs like 5 points for a bolter/bolt pistol.

It also has a bit of codex overload, 2 kinds of bows? 3 kinds of mounts? Generally a homemade codex should not go into any more level of detail than the main ones, if all assualt rifles are 'autoguns' then all bows and crossbows should be bows. Also instead of adding a point to saves they should probably just be S2.

Those are my general thoughts.

I really like the gunslinger and tarzan, I like the town set up rules and mission ideas. It just needs to be simplified.

You bring up some fine points Kyoto.

The cost of some abilities and wargear is intentionally high because they are so much better than other choices in the list. For example, if a Bolt pistol is only 3 points, why would anyone ever think to give a town leader any of the lesser weapons?

Within the context of the list (compared to what the other weapon choices cost) it is appropriately priced IMO.

That said, the codex hasn't been thoroughly tested. I've only played a few games with it, so the points values are mainly based on my general concepts rather than real world experience.

If anyone wants to try some fun games out with their friends and give me details of the experience, I would absolutely love it.


As for too much detail in the codex, you have a good point. Perhaps having two bows is redundant. I originally only had one type of bow, for the bowman unit. . .which is generally just based off of the midieval "stand in ranks and fire" concept of  bowfire.

However, when I split the list into 3 parts (Townsfolk, Feral and Militia), I realized I needed some sort of basic unit for the Feral army that could shoot. The obvious choice (to me) was rather than to create a seperate unit type was to share similar army list entries with slight rules modifications for different army types.

So I made the Hunting Party into a Feral Choice, but I obviously couldn't give them bows, and the stats that I had come up with for bows (Heavy weapons) didn't really fit well with a unit that is supposed to infiltrate, move and shoot. . .so I came up with the light bow concept (something like those natives in the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark. A light bow that can be quickly shot, although without much accuracy either).

I can (and probably will now) change the bow into a single weapon type. I will perhaps make it rapid fire, as it could now fufill both rolls at once (long range standing still or multiple short ranged attacks).

And you don't like the positive Armor save modifier for bows? People before commented on how much they liked that. I also think it captures the feeling of bowfire well (at least in my mind) as they are still lethal projectiles, but the kinetic energy needed to pass through armor is much less than even a lasgun.


Thank you so much for you feedback!

Posted By Smoke3 on 03/06/2006 9:38 AM
You should change milita leader to warlord, it fits better for an independent unalligned military leader.

And add some kind of symbol to the gunslinger stats..it says he only gets one attack. So are his guns twin linked?
And if he does get two attacks is it too cheesy to make let him call his shots? Like target an IC or seargent?

The mission ideas are good, another one could be a Seven Samurai style mission , with a small group of troops 500 points or so, having to defend the village against a larger force with only villagers as their back-up.

Warlord, huh?  Doesn't that name imply someone who is using their power to gain territory or control things? My concept of a militia leader harkens more back to a John Wayne type character who has retired from the military but wants to make sure that his town is protected from the Indians (aliens).

He wouldn't literally be controlling the town; It's just that his presence is inspiring enough to impress the local youth into joining his force and training with him. They wouldn't be off attacking people or living in barracks, they'd just be training a couple times a month on the weekends.

So please, tell me more about why you think he should be named Warlord in your opnion.


The Gunslinger does only have one attack, and his guns aren't twin linked. However, if you take a close look at his rules you'll notice several important factors:

A) He can fire two weapons instead of just one (i.e. both his pistols at once).
B) His pistols have a longer range than most pistols (18" instead of 12").
C) He always counts as being stationary, even when he's moved (which means he can fire 4 shots up to 18").
D) He has a BS of 5 (which means he's hitting on a 2+).
E) He gets a bonus round of shooting anytime an enemy unit targets him with shooting or charges him.


Besides that, once you actually get him into combat, he's only got the one attack (although he would get a +1A for having two single-handed weapons in close combat).

The Gunslinger is already a pretty tough nut to crack, making him good in close combat too would be a bit much, IMO.

I really, really, really like the Seven Samurai idea. Almost enough to make "them" a special character. At the very least I will certainly make up a scenario idea based off of your suggestion. Fantastic!

Thanks for your feedback and input!

Posted By flyins on 03/06/2006 1:49 PM
yakface - on Magic, yeah that's what I meant, and as said above there are some cards that are almost word for word what you had in there, like the mobs and their strength/toughness. I thought it was a very good way to represent that though and even more so if you just happened to think of the same thing!

On the laughing, oh my definitely in the "good" way. I would seriously enjoy the hell out of some peasant folk stopping my Monolith, that would be a hilarious batrep!

Interesting. . .

Nope. Never played Magic.  They're pretty universal themes, so I'm not very surpised, actually.

A lot of my comments come from some general principles of homemade rules. I should nail them down as a 10 commandments type thing one of these days. They're not specific to your codex but to serious houserule writers everwhere.

Rule #1, always forever is: keep it simple. Whenever possible use universal rules and stats from existing armies. Less to remember and people will accept it more.

Rule #2, don't rewrite the game in your new codex. if you want to rewrite this game do it. If you want to add a new army, do that, don't do both.

"The cost of some abilities and wargear is intentionally high because they are so much better than other choices in the list. For example, if a Bolt pistol is only 3 points, why would anyone ever think to give a town leader any of the lesser weapons?"

So I guess rule #3 is, if you want to limit something limit it, make a 0-1 pick or eliminate it entirely. Overcosting a none-too-effecti pick just means no one will take it.

"As for too much detail in the codex, you have a good point. Perhaps having two bows is redundant. I originally only had one type of bow, for the bowman unit. . .which is generally just based off of the midieval "stand in ranks and fire" concept of bowfire."

Goes back to not rewriting the rules, bows are rapid fire weapons a notch below lasguns is a good move, uses a universal rule. Y'know I may retract my earlier remark, there is room for 2 kinds of sub-lasguns. 1 can be S2 rapid fire, the other S3, heavy 1. 1 for bows, 1 for crossbows and muskets.

"However, when I split the list into 3 parts (Townsfolk, Feral and Militia), I realized I needed some sort of basic unit for the Feral army that could shoot. The obvious choice (to me) was rather than to create a seperate unit type was to share similar army list entries with slight rules modifications for different army types."

I have to say this is where you started to lose me. reading the list when I tried to tell the differences among the various redundant riders, warriors and mobs. Keep it simple.

Rule #4, don't throw in the kitchen sink. Limit yourself to 2-3 choices per category. Less for opponants to remember, less to go wrong. Think of the eldar and how terrible their rules have always been becasue GW decided they had to have everything from killer clowns to loyal citizens to gods. You can always go back and write codex feral tribes later.

"And you don't like the positive Armor save modifier for bows? People before commented on how much they liked that. I also think it captures the feeling of bowfire well (at least in my mind) as they are still lethal projectiles, but the kinetic energy needed to pass through armor is much less than even a lasgun."

Actually I do like it but... there are no save modifiers in 40k. While we might want them and while there are good arguments for them, there aren't. So even a cute one like this should instead use a general rule like S2.

All that being said, I really liked the rules for women and children, that's a fluffy, intuitive and useful unit.

Is it just me, or does the poison mount seem a touch cheap (I'm thinking of the townsfolk retinue - 7 pts to make them fleet with an I6 2+wound power weapon?).

I wonder if the suicide squad should allow armour saves? Just a thought. I'm also wondering how combat resolution would work - detonating models don't count as casualties for combat resolution, but always count as striking silmoultaneously with the opponent - does that mean his models could still get wounding hits, which would count to resolution (although it doesn't say this, I assume it's what is implied)?

As to the armour modifier on the bows, how about leaving them at S3 but allow the target to re-roll failed armour saves. Makes them still lethal but non-penetrative, and about as cruddy as a shortbow should be compared to a laser-rifle. (A hit from the cursed staff would cancel this out. It would also cancel out the Eldar power Guide, presumably, but again it's something you need to address)

Definately switch the two types of bow back to one, It's just confusing.

For the minister, surely 'Blessed by God' should be either 'Blessed by the Emperor' or 'Blessed by the Gods'

The Militia squad - is the veteran sergeant 5 points or six (conflicts on stats and description)

I'd suggest making cocktail bombs one use only, like demo charges.

 

 

Nice list.

And becuase this is the best, and probably only, chance I will ever get to propose this rule, I put forward the Terminator-Tipping rule:

If, at the end of the combat phase, a unit of townsfolk (but not miltia or tribal warriors) is engaged with and outnumbers an opponent with any 2+ saves by 2:1 or more, all enemy engaged models with a 2+ save take one extra wound (with armour saves as normal). This represents the miltia using strength of numbers and the old 'kneel down behind them while I push' trick to take down some of their less agile opponents. Remove one townsfolk as a casualty for each unsaved wound (you don't kneel down behind a falling terminator and get out with your spine intact). Taking place after the combat phase, these wounds do not count towards combat resolution. If these wounds kill all enemies engaged with the townsfolk, they may consolidate 3" as if they had won combat.

I think the bow distinction is valid. AS per rule wise though I think various troop types should have access or better stats with certain types of weapons. I am drawing on what I know of Hisotric Plains Indian tribes of North America. Most of these groups had developed technology that was, although not necessarily designed for warfare, was a superior weapon to most other "bow" technology of any period. An example is the plains short bow. These were sometimes made of wood, but the real ingenuity came with the sinew backed bow. This bow was made of softened strips of elk antler then wraped and bent tight with sinew then left to dry. It is said that these bows could often draw at 90 lbs. There are lots of stories of plains indian getting in close on horse back and firing a arrow THROUGH a buffalo, and I think the average Sioux warrior for instance could fire off 3 to 4 accurate bow shots in approximately 30 seconds.

Now to the point. It could be that bows have a base set of stats, then specific units get modifiers. For instance a feral troop choice would be an expert bowman and likely have access to better bow technology then a villager or townfolk. At the same time you might put a modifier on all higher tech weapons, Feral units would have limited acces to bolters and lasguns and would have lower stats if equiped with them. Just an idea.

Ok, Im dropping my Warlord idea, dont rename the milita leader to warlord, you are right about the distinction. But...you could make it an alternative army leader for a militia. Im thinking of the Afgan "warlord" type. A relatively wealthy, well resepected (or feared) man/woman with a small sphere of influence but likely armed way better then anyone else in the area. He draws other "armed" followers due to his wealth and status.

Kid Kyoto wrote:

A lot of my comments come from some general principles of homemade rules. I should nail them down as a 10 commandments type thing one of these days. They're not specific to your codex but to serious houserule writers everwhere.

Rule #1, always forever is: keep it simple. Whenever possible use universal rules and stats from existing armies. Less to remember and people will accept it more.

I am in complete agreement of the KISS philosiphy of rules writing. It may not seem like it from this codex, but along the way it became completely apparent to me that the list needed 3 parts to create the ideas I was thinking of.

Essentially a Town (the Townsfolk list), the Indians (Feral list) and the Cavalry/Militia (Militia list).

I could have split the codex into three seperate parts (duplicating units that were used in multiple lists), but I chose to put it all together and just put limitations on the list depending on which type you are playing.

The beasts may seem like too many types, but this is really a unique list in that it doesn't come from a particular planet or place, but rather from ANY planet. Again, I considered for a while making the codex based on a single planet. . .but I liked the DIY concept of allowing a wide variety of modeling and stats to be taken from nearly any planet type.

The types of beasts I included are all very general, but they are the main archtypes I could think of to represent nearly any type of creature (basic, fast, big/strong, poison/venom).

It's fairly obvious that you think I should opt for the formrer choice (that of making three seperate lists) to make it more clear to the reader what options are available to them.

 

I also know the argument about overcosting an item to limit its choice vs. a basic limit on availibility. I'm really not trying to make a bolter/bolt pistol a bad choice (points-wise) in the list, but rather GW has set a standard by making weapons so cheap in other codexes that any lesser weapons created would all have to be essentially equal (0 points).

However, as I said in my previous response, within the context of the list, charging a bit extra for the few weapons choices that are actually effective is appropriate. The units in the list are SO cheap that paying a bit extra for the premium weapons is actually a balancing factor, IMO. I'm not saying its perfect, but I think the system might work well in this particular circumstance.

Actually I do like it but... there are no save modifiers in 40k. While we might want them and while there are good arguments for them, there aren't. So even a cute one like this should instead use a general rule like S2.

Well, there are few examples of armor modifiers (of a sorts): Choppas/Chainaxes have their 4+ modifier and Tau are now introducing modifiers based on markerlights.

I don't think it is unreasonable to have a very specific and isolated weapon type have a modifier. Most importantly it seems to make sense to people. That said, I'll consider what you've said and perhaps change it.

Thanks again for the feedback.

SWOne wrote:
Is it just me, or does the poison mount seem a touch cheap (I'm thinking of the townsfolk retinue - 7 pts to make them fleet with an I6 2+wound power weapon?).

No, you're probably right. They are only WS2 and it is only a single attack, though. I would need to make an army with as many poision attacks as possible and see how powerful it really is en masse.

I wonder if the suicide squad should allow armour saves? Just a thought. I'm also wondering how combat resolution would work - detonating models don't count as casualties for combat resolution, but always count as striking silmoultaneously with the opponent - does that mean his models could still get wounding hits, which would count to resolution (although it doesn't say this, I assume it's what is implied)?

No you actually have to cause wounds on the models for combat resolution. The only thing the simultaneous rule really does is that it forces the Townsfolk player to detonate all the suicide squad members in the "kill zone" because they are going to get killed by their opponents otherwise.

If the detonation didn't ignore armor save, the unit would be fully useless. Remember that they only move 6" a turn and have no armor. Its a very specific unit with a very specific goal: Hop out of a building, assault a unit and cause signifigant damage before evaporating.

I'll try to think of a way to make the simulatneous rule more clear.

As to the armour modifier on the bows, how about leaving them at S3 but allow the target to re-roll failed armour saves. Makes them still lethal but non-penetrative, and about as cruddy as a shortbow should be compared to a laser-rifle. (A hit from the cursed staff would cancel this out. It would also cancel out the Eldar power Guide, presumably, but again it's something you need to address)

Re-rolling passed saves takes some time to do, so I'd like to keep it to a minimum if possible (just the cursed staff). Adding it into a basic weapon I think would slow the game down quite a bit.

BTW, there is no conflict between fortune and the Cursed Staff. One has you re-roll successes, and the other failures. No dice can be re-rolled more than once either way. So if a unit had Fortune and the Cursed Staff used on it, it would roll saves, put the successful rolls in one pile, and the failures in another. Then each would be rolled and whatever results occur stand at that point. Essentially they cancel each other out, but its not really a conflict that can't be resolved by following the rules (its just a bunch of extra rolling that will only happen on a very rare ocassion).

Definately switch the two types of bow back to one, It's just confusing.

I am definitely going to do something like that. . .or at least make one type a crossbow or something clearly different.

For the minister, surely 'Blessed by God' should be either 'Blessed by the Emperor' or 'Blessed by the Gods'

Sounds like a good idea.

The Militia squad - is the veteran sergeant 5 points or six (conflicts on stats and description)

Five points. I'll get that fixed.

I'd suggest making cocktail bombs one use only, like demo charges.

That's a good suggestion too. I'll likely make that change.


Thanks for some great feedback.

Here are a few more ideas I am thinking of implementing. I know that Kyoto thinks there is too much in the codex already (and he may well be right), but bear with me.

First off, do you think the list should be split into three distinct parts (Feral, Townsfolk and Militia) with common units shared between them appearing twice (or three times if in all three lists)? Or do you like the codex the way it is with one list, but with a bunch of restrictions depending on what leader you take.

The former selection would make the entire codex MUCH longer, but it would be more clear within each particular list.


Now onto the new ideas, tell me what you think:

1) With bows being reduced to a single type, making feral bows tipped with poison that either: re-roll failed wounds, or always wound on a 4+. Do you like that concept (poisoned feral arrows), and which rules method do you prefer?
2) Adding appendix rules for making a tribe that worships Chaos. The Rogue Psyker rules from the Witch Hunters codex may be used. Feral tribes could be dedicated to Khorne.
3) Special Character(s): The Seven Sisters. A squad of Seven battle sisters helping out a village to protect itself. They have a whole bunch of Faith points to burn (seven seems like a good amount), so that they will perform exceptionally.


Lemme know what you all think, if you'd be so kind.

Possibly the best layout would be as an appendix list like you had in the EoT codex, whereby you go:

Army lists (listing units and restrictions)
Armoury/Wargear
Unit description

Means you only have to describe each unit once (along with any special rules related to which army you take), but the actual lists are a lot easier to make out.


point 1) Sounds good. Simplifies the bows but still makes feral units more useful with them. Use the wounding on a 4+ (sticks with the Universal Special Rule treatment of poisons)
point 2) You might want to set up a rule that says you have to choose a religion while making your army list, be it Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Undivided or Cult of the Emperor. But I think that just makes things too damn confusing, if we've already got three seperate lists from this codex (effectively). Possibly just a note saying it could represent various religions, and a quick guide on how (khorne has no shamans or priests, slaanesh have no militia etc. as suggestions rather than rules).
Point 3) Nice. make them 7 Independant characters as 1 HQ choice, can only be taken with Town Leader. One sister with flamer, one sister with meltagun, one sister with bolter, one sister with heavy-bolter, one Seraph with twin-linked bolt pistols, one redemptionist (not the word I'm looking for. Penitent? No, that's the psyker. The scantily clad ones with eviscerators... Redemptia?) and one Veteran Sister with a Power Weapon.

Some great minis for your townsfolk here...

http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=99111102056&orignav=300808

Posted By yakface on 03/07/2006 10:51 PM

I wonder if the suicide squad should allow armour saves? Just a thought. I'm also wondering how combat resolution would work - detonating models don't count as casualties for combat resolution, but always count as striking silmoultaneously with the opponent - does that mean his models could still get wounding hits, which would count to resolution (although it doesn't say this, I assume it's what is implied)?

No you actually have to cause wounds on the models for combat resolution. The only thing the simultaneous rule really does is that it forces the Townsfolk player to detonate all the suicide squad members in the "kill zone" because they are going to get killed by their opponents otherwise.

If the detonation didn't ignore armor save, the unit would be fully useless. Remember that they only move 6" a turn and have no armor. Its a very specific unit with a very specific goal: Hop out of a building, assault a unit and cause signifigant damage before evaporating.

I'll try to think of a way to make the simulatneous rule more clear.


How about you just say the entire unit either explodes before any blows are struck, or none of the unit do?

I'm not sure why, but I dislike the S6 Power Weapon theme going in this list (sure, they only have two units that can touch MEQs, but both are S6 power weapons that can't be attacked back, as it's either I6 or dead). If you have to kep the no armour saves allowed, then perhaps reduce the strength, but increase the number of hits (makes them quite useful against things like 'nid swarms, which I imagine would have equally cool imagery - against Marines they just run up and hug 'em, against 'nids they just let the enemy swarm over them). Possibly a rule along the lines of:
When they try to detonate, roll a D6 for each model. On a 1, nothing happens. The explosiuves are dud,  thei arm was ripped off before they could detonate, or they're just slow or unlucky. On a 2+, the enemy unit takes this many S4 wounds, with no armour saves allowed.
If you do this, though, make sure to limit the unit (3-6 sounds good). And make them expensive too.