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.

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 (which is what I currently use for my Black Templars). I hope to complete it relatively soon and play test it with my friends and/or some other open-minded players at my FLGS's. This, combined with the fact that I have a friend who plays Blood Ravens (who, as far as I'm aware, don't even have official Chapter Tactics), made me think about the creation, play-testing and balancing of codeces in the wider W40K community.

Is this something people would consider being allowed in games (for the purposes of just playing a game or play-testing and tweaking the rules)? Because my personal hopes for my little project aside, I reckon it's a really cool idea for people to be able to modify, add and remove rules from a baseline rule set in order to customise their army and make it more unique and/or more fluff-adherent. Whether it's a Space Marine Chapter like mine, an Ork WAAAGGHH!, a CSM Warband, or even a set of rules for Exodite Eldar, I reckon it adds a whole extra dynamic which brings an interesting new element to the tabletop. Not to mention I find the idea of play-testing and tweaking rules to be, at least in theory since I've never done it before, to be quite interesting.

To give you an idea of exactly what I mean - I'm basing the Black Templars Codex heavily on the current Space Marine Codex with the intention of buffing the Black Templars in melee combat and against psykers while placing a relatively big limit on the amount of long range fire power they have access to, allowing for a slightly more fluffy, more close-combat-orientated approach to the army as a whole. Another example could be someone writing a supplement or codex for feral Orks, which focuses less on guns and cannons, and more on melee weapons and the use of Squigoths (which - according the the sources I've read - are more common in Feral Ork tribes and WAAAGGHH!'s).

I'm just curious to know your opinions on this as an idea as well as how you would got about it if you were all for this idea on some level or another.

Cheers Guys

I voted yes - no problem at all, although I might have a quick read through and make a few suggestions/queries before playing.

I think Homebrew rules do best when they are kept simple. The more options/changes there are the more room there is for problems.

I wouldn't mind a custom codex specifically designed for a campaign, such as a Genestealer codex or the like, but I wouldn't accept a player turning up with his own fan made snowflake codex.

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.

nareik wrote:I voted yes - no problem at all, although I might have a quick read through and make a few suggestions/queries before playing.

I think Homebrew rules do best when they are kept simple. The more options/changes there are the more room there is for problems.

Yep, sounds fair. I'm definitely having doubts about the balance of some of the changes I'm trying to implement. As you said, keeping it simple seems to be the key. And as far as reading through the codex, I totally get that and would almost insist on it. It is a custom rule set after all, and I think it's fair that if you're going to house rule anything, run it by the other player(s) first.

ChazSexington wrote:I wouldn't mind a custom codex specifically designed for a campaign, such as a Genestealer codex or the like, but I wouldn't accept a player turning up with his own fan made snowflake codex.

Fair enough. I can see how it being just for a campaign would reduce the risk of ridiculousness, but why would you not accept a player-made codex? What if it was play-tested and at least relatively balanced?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Yeah, fair call. I'm trying to avoid 'Mary Sur-ing' my codex haha

I have a deep hatred for most homemade codexes, but I do enjoy playing community based stuff such as the heralds of ruin kill team rules.

Why? well most home made codexes are crap.

Personally I think there's enough variation with the space marine codex that homebrew ones aren't needed. You have the option of what six or seven standard chapter tactics, then on top of that you have all of the forgeworld stuff, all of the non standard marine codices like dark Angels, wolves, and blood angles, the flesh teasers from the exterminatus book, the white scars and ravenguard rules from Kauyon, oh and grey Knights too.

So I don't think there's a real need, couple that with homebrew rules usually getting incredibly op and Mary Sue, and I would likely ask you stick to one of the many many many options that us marine players already have.

Ask me when 7th came out and I would of said no but now I would be game for a properly tested and balanced codex worked on by people who are both fans of the faction and also those who don't play them to keep it fair.

Yes-ish? I'd be willing to at least consider playing against a homebrew codex, but I'd want to have a look at it first to make sure it's not ridiculous.

That said, I agree with General Kroll. There ought to be enough SM variant rules already in publication that you shouldn't have much trouble finding one that fits your vision of your army. Sometimes it takes more creativity to adapt an existing set of rules to your vision (and your vision to the rules) than it does to just make up rules. Plus, that way you avoid the pitfall of going overboard with your personal rules.

Also, I think the Black Templar's straight rules already make them respectably better in close combat that most armies in the system. The problem is getting there, since most means of getting into close combat have been neutered to allow the opponent to get to shoot at the incoming close combat units at least twice (once during the opponent's turn plus overwatch). What close combat armies really need are some adjustments to the main rules to make assault easier to get into. Being able to disembark from a transport and assault if the transport hasn't moved in its previous movement phase would be a big boost. Plus, I think assaulting out of outflank and coming in from reserves on your own table edge ought to be allowed too.

Home brew codexes I'd like to see:

Each of the chaos legions.

Dog Soldiers.

Brain boyz era orks

Chaos Squats

Codex: Death World Jungle planets (where you have to fight against the world's flora and fauna)

Yeah, sure do what you like. No spoon fed gamers here. DIY

 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.

I would never play a custom codex. That is just asking for someone to cheat. If you think GW can't write rules then try other players writing the rules. One example I had was some guy ran a custom codex for a lemun russ variant that had a commander on top. If you shot the tank you had to get through its armor but if you got into melee with it you had to fight the commander... What made it worse was if you actually hit him in melee you then had to get through the lemun russ armor... It was like trying to melee a tank and the tank meleeing you back... dumbest **** I ever saw...

I played AdMech-fandexes for years(because GW did nothing), so no, I wouldn`t have any problem with that.

I voted yes, with friends.
Would be rather awkward to vote no considering I'm currently working on custom chaos dexs...

I voted yes in that I'd happily help balance, review, and playtest. Then, if it turns out to be a good book, I'd play it within a club, but never at a pick up with somebody I hardly know.

 Blacksails wrote:
I voted yes in that I'd happily help balance, review, and playtest. Then, if it turns out to be a good book, I'd play it within a club, but never at a pick up with somebody I hardly know.

This.

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

No. No matter how cool and balanced you think you are making a book, someone out there will think exactly the opposite. We use the codex rules the same reason different towns don't have completely different legal systems. They are universal. You can have a pickup game or grand tournament all with that set of rules everyone is familiar with and forced to agree on out of necessity. Your best chance at good change is writing gw and hoping they bother to address your issues in the upcoming FAQ's.

I was trying to convince my friends to play One Page 40K rules based on FUBAR. I dont think they will, they are GW brainwashed.

The problem with making up your own codex is that everyone values different weapons and upgrades differently. One person may make a unit that is exactly the same as your (by sheer luck) but yours costs 15 points more than his. Also making your own codex will bring out the WAAC player in us all.

 Xerics wrote:
The problem with making up your own codex is that everyone values different weapons and upgrades differently. One person may make a unit that is exactly the same as your (by sheer luck) but yours costs 15 points more than his. Also making your own codex will bring out the WAAC player in us all.

Which is precisely why you get other people (and/or sites like Dakka) to review it, provide feedback, and then playtest with willing participants.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
The problem with making up your own codex is that everyone values different weapons and upgrades differently. One person may make a unit that is exactly the same as your (by sheer luck) but yours costs 15 points more than his. Also making your own codex will bring out the WAAC player in us all.

Which is precisely why you get other people (and/or sites like Dakka) to review it, provide feedback, and then playtest with willing participants.

This. We have an entire forum for it!

Yes, although only if I know and trust (to a certain degree) the person I'm playing with.

I'm currently writing a Squats codex for one of the guys in my gaming group. He really wants to try them. If you have a decent grasp of how the game works, it's not that difficult to write a balanced codex. In the worst case scenario, it won't be more broken than some of the codices and formations GW has published in the last year.

Uhh, my first, last and only attempt at a homebrew Codex was an unmitigated disaster that I have never attempted to repeat.

It was back in like 2005 or so, and I themed it on the Hammer's Slammers guys from David Drake's books.

I made the basic infantry's powerguns S5 AP2 and probably Assault 2 with a 24" range. Also a basic trooper cost about as much as an IG Veteran and had a better statline than a Sororitas (maybe with a 4+ armor save, but knowing me, I probably gave them all those special breastplates that could take a hit from a plasma stream).

My younger brother never played a game with me ever again.

Don't be like me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
I would never play a custom codex. That is just asking for someone to cheat. If you think GW can't write rules then try other players writing the rules. One example I had was some guy ran a custom codex for a lemun russ variant that had a commander on top. If you shot the tank you had to get through its armor but if you got into melee with it you had to fight the commander... What made it worse was if you actually hit him in melee you then had to get through the lemun russ armor... It was like trying to melee a tank and the tank meleeing you back... dumbest **** I ever saw...

That sounds like a fantastic Unglued version of that iconic 40k image with the Leman Russ and the Commissar in the cupola shouting, "Drive me closer! I want to hit them with my sword!"

I would've added bonus points if it had a Ld value and upon failing a morale check, the Commissar executed a random crewman, rendering a random weapon permanently destroyed (for the duration of the game of course, but can't be repaired by any means as the crewman operating it is in fact no longer in possession of a head or most of his or her torso) or the vehicle immobilized, depending on whether he killed a gunner or the driver.

 IllumiNini wrote:

ChazSexington wrote:I wouldn't mind a custom codex specifically designed for a campaign, such as a Genestealer codex or the like, but I wouldn't accept a player turning up with his own fan made snowflake codex.

Fair enough. I can see how it being just for a campaign would reduce the risk of ridiculousness, but why would you not accept a player-made codex? What if it was play-tested and at least relatively balanced?

I just can't see what codices would be required to be fan-made, even balanced ones, bar Exodites and Genestealer Cult. Between FW and GW, they have most codices sorted. I understand people's reasoning behind wanting to tweak their own codices for friendly matches, but I don't think I'd ever be truly comfortable doing it.

At one time, I would have been totally against this - official rules only please.

But nowadays, considering how bonkers armybuilding has become even within a single official codex - before worrying about allies, FW, 30k, and so forth - I doubt playing against someone's homebrew codex would feel that different to facing off against armies of scatbikes, WKs, Decurions, or SM/Admech with all their free BS.

So sure, I'd probably do it among friends.

General Kroll wrote:Personally I think there's enough variation with the space marine codex that homebrew ones aren't needed. You have the option of what six or seven standard chapter tactics, then on top of that you have all of the forgeworld stuff, all of the non standard marine codices like dark Angels, wolves, and blood angles, the flesh teasers from the exterminatus book, the white scars and ravenguard rules from Kauyon, oh and grey Knights too.

So I don't think there's a real need, couple that with homebrew rules usually getting incredibly op and Mary Sue, and I would likely ask you stick to one of the many many many options that us marine players already have.

Just because there's a lot of variation out there already doesn't mean there shouldn't be more. What this level of variety in Adeptus Astartes codeces and rules tells me is that GW needs to focus more on adding more to other factions (on top of making the appropriate balancing changes as well).

Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:Yes-ish? I'd be willing to at least consider playing against a homebrew codex, but I'd want to have a look at it first to make sure it's not ridiculous.

That said, I agree with General Kroll. There ought to be enough SM variant rules already in publication that you shouldn't have much trouble finding one that fits your vision of your army. Sometimes it takes more creativity to adapt an existing set of rules to your vision (and your vision to the rules) than it does to just make up rules. Plus, that way you avoid the pitfall of going overboard with your personal rules.

Also, I think the Black Templar's straight rules already make them respectably better in close combat that most armies in the system. The problem is getting there, since most means of getting into close combat have been neutered to allow the opponent to get to shoot at the incoming close combat units at least twice (once during the opponent's turn plus overwatch). What close combat armies really need are some adjustments to the main rules to make assault easier to get into. Being able to disembark from a transport and assault if the transport hasn't moved in its previous movement phase would be a big boost. Plus, I think assaulting out of outflank and coming in from reserves on your own table edge ought to be allowed too.

I can respect that, but as I said about: Lots of variation isn't an excuse not to have more. As far as the Black Templars specifically, I do agree that they can do quite well in melee combat, but I feel like they need a minor buff to differentiate them as well as demonstrate their incredible prowess in CC. And I definitely agree with the getting into CC thing - that needs a buff (whether that's just for BTs or everyone).

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.

Xerics wrote:I would never play a custom codex. That is just asking for someone to cheat. If you think GW can't write rules then try other players writing the rules. One example I had was some guy ran a custom codex for a lemun russ variant that had a commander on top. If you shot the tank you had to get through its armor but if you got into melee with it you had to fight the commander... What made it worse was if you actually hit him in melee you then had to get through the lemun russ armor... It was like trying to melee a tank and the tank meleeing you back... dumbest **** I ever saw...

Well that is part of why a quick review of the rules is always required before playing with any house rules. A quick review will prevent playing with the cheese and cheating you described. And if worse comes to worse, you just don't play them. Reviewing house rules is no different to making sure the player your playing against isn't a sore loser or bringing something in their army they know you can't possibly deal with.

ChazSexington wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

ChazSexington wrote:I wouldn't mind a custom codex specifically designed for a campaign, such as a Genestealer codex or the like, but I wouldn't accept a player turning up with his own fan made snowflake codex.

Fair enough. I can see how it being just for a campaign would reduce the risk of ridiculousness, but why would you not accept a player-made codex? What if it was play-tested and at least relatively balanced?

I just can't see what codices would be required to be fan-made, even balanced ones, bar Exodites and Genestealer Cult. Between FW and GW, they have most codices sorted. I understand people's reasoning behind wanting to tweak their own codices for friendly matches, but I don't think I'd ever be truly comfortable doing it.

Fair enough. It's not for everyone.

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).

 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