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 was playing around with trying to create a new Codex specifically pertaining to the Black Templars. I soon discovered this was a bit beyond me as well as that some of the bigger changes I planned to make (like this disallowment of certain vehicles) wouldn't work. So - in lieu of that - I've created a first pass at what I believe to be a decent enough little supplement (albeit a little overpowered - probably). I'm looking for people's thoughts and suggestions, not "You're bad, you're supplement is bad; go home!" sort of comments (ya know, Rule #1 and everything haha), because I know Fandexs and Fan-Made Supplements tend to be frowned upon (at least the theory of them is) and I do want to make this better and balanced.

I do know that the new supplement for Space Marines - Codex Supplement: Angels of Death - just came out, but hopefully this doesn't clash with that (I haven't read through it, but I know it at least contains the same Warlord Traits Table I have).

So have a look (PDF's are attached), and let me know what you think and what could be improved!

Cheers Guys

Why the (incredibly minor) nerf to Dreadnought Lascannons? Are they underpriced or overly powerful?
Why is the Dreadnought Missile Launcher reduced in range?
Why is the Flakk Missile one shot as opposed to the Frag or Krak?
Unstable Guidance seems fiddly, minor, and easy to forget. Is it needed to keep the weapon in balance?
Why does the HK missile need a special version of Rending?
Why did you make the HK missile less effective against vehicles?
Why does Zealous Be Your Hearts have both a flat and random bonus? Why not one or the other? Would Fleet work just as well?
Why does Purposeful Movement allow you to re-roll the test OR ignore it on a 5+? Isn't re-rolling both more likely to succeed and more beneficial when it does succeed?
Why does the Dreadnought Pod assault rule only work 1/6 of the time? If a Dreadnought assaulting out of reserves is broken, it is broken no matter what the chance of it happening.

Black Templars have been able to take Grey Knights as Psyker allies since 3rd Edition, did you consider making an exception for them?
Allowing all of your jump troops to assault the turn they come in is incredibly potent. Are you sure you've thought through the balance implications in an army that can take them and take Locator Beacons, and can do so cheaply?
Why does the Terminator Deep Strike assault rule only work 1/6 of the time? If a Terminator Squad assaulting out of reserves is broken, it is broken no matter what the chance of it happening.
Why does consolidation into CC ignore Overwatch bonuses?
There appear to be no changes to the Warlod Trait table. Was it your intention to reprint the GW rules?
Who determines if an army is a suspected Ultramarine, White Scars or Raven Guard successor?
Again I'd like to re-iterate that Grey Knights and Black Templars should probably be on good terms.
Why is Chapter Tactic: Hatred (Psykers) not listed in the Chapter Tactics section? Did you feel you had too many Chapter Tactics?
Why is Abhor the Witch's army-wide Preferred Enemy not listed in the Warlord Traits section? Did you feel the Warlord Trait was too long?
Why is the Shatterer's secondary profile so anemic?
Why is the Witch Biter Blade AP4, when most power swords are AP3?
Why does the Witch Biter Blade add 1d2 attacks? I can't think of a single effect in Warhammer 40k that uses a 1d2 die. Maybe random allocation.
The Dornshard states that " If the bearer and the unit they are attached to (if applicable) charge, the bonus does not nullify the +1 Charge Bonus to Attacks." This line is redundant.
Why are all of your relics weapons or armors? Most codices tend to have a smattering of utility items, was this a purposeful decision?
Do you really feel like master-crafting a BS5 Meltagun is worth fifty points?
Why is Helbrecht's sword AP4?
Why does Helbrecht only have 3 wounds? Every other Chapter Master has 4. The generic Marshall HQ has 4.

 raverrn wrote:
Why the (incredibly minor) nerf to Dreadnought Lascannons? Are they underpriced or overly powerful?
Why is the Dreadnought Missile Launcher reduced in range?

The answer to both:

I feel that Dreadnoughts are powerful enough already without being able to sit at the back of the board with weapons that have 48” Range, hence the nerf.

 raverrn wrote:
Why is the Flakk Missile one shot as opposed to the Frag or Krak?

Having more than one shot for Flakk Missiles would, I feel, make the Dreadnought more powerful than it needs to be. Plus I feel that having more than one shot would defeat the need for other units like Hunters and Stalkers.

 raverrn wrote:
Unstable Guidance seems fiddly, minor, and easy to forget. Is it needed to keep the weapon in balance?

That was the idea. I’ll admit: I included the rule to try and balance it out and add an extra dynamic to the weapon. The problem is I’m not sure what would be better for capping the weapon’s power so it’s not overpowered.

 raverrn wrote:
Why does the HK missile need a special version of Rending?

It was an attempt to give it a bit of “Umph!” without being overpowered. Looking back at it, I’m thinking that reducing the Strength Characteristic by one and having Rending work as normal.

 raverrn wrote:
Why did you make the HK missile less effective against vehicles?

I don’t think I have (but that might be just me). Here’s why: HK Missiles are currently S8, AP3, Single Use Only and Infinite Range, which, despite being a solid profile, is not worth the 10 points you pay for it. Granted the profile I’m suggesting may not be as strong, but it’s not Single Use Only, so it allows you to fire it more times and this have a greater chance of actually doing damage. The reduction of the Strength Characteristic and the introduction of Rending is designed to make sure it’s not overpowered.

 raverrn wrote:
Why does Zealous Be Your Hearts have both a flat and random bonus? Why not one or the other? Would Fleet work just as well?

Possibly. I'd have to look into it, but I cant see why not.

 raverrn wrote:
Why does Purposeful Movement allow you to re-roll the test OR ignore it on a 5+? Isn't re-rolling both more likely to succeed and more beneficial when it does succeed?

With the 5+ roll, the vehicle still suffers the loss a Hull Point, but ignores the Immobilised affect.

 raverrn wrote:
Why does the Dreadnought Pod assault rule only work 1/6 of the time? If a Dreadnought assaulting out of reserves is broken, it is broken no matter what the chance of it happening.

So taking this out of the rule is what you’re suggesting?
I thought that it only working one sixth of the time would make it less a less powerful rule and prevent it being abused too much. I also thought I’d introduce the chance of a serious failure to balance it out, but I might be overlooking this being too powerful (though I can’t say for sure whether or not this is actually overpowered because it hasn’t been play-tested).

 raverrn wrote:
Black Templars have been able to take Grey Knights as Psyker allies since 3rd Edition, did you consider making an exception for them?

Under Desperate Allies, I’ve only included Successor Chapters [Suspected or Confirmed] and all of their Successor Chapters under that list, and not the Grey Knights themselves. Also, under Come the Apocalypse, I’ve listed the Grey Knights as one of the Factions that can take Psykers without being classified as anything other than Battle Brothers.

 raverrn wrote:
Allowing all of your jump troops to assault the turn they come in is incredibly potent. Are you sure you've thought through the balance implications in an army that can take them and take Locator Beacons, and can do so cheaply?

I haven’t thought through the Locator Beacon issue, but I have tried to nerf their ability to be Death Star units on Deep Strike by introducing the other restrictions (no Psykic Powers or Shooting allowed on the same turn). I’ll definitely give the Locator Beacon issue some thought.

 raverrn wrote:
Why does the Terminator Deep Strike assault rule only work 1/6 of the time? If a Terminator Squad assaulting out of reserves is broken, it is broken no matter what the chance of it happening.

Same sort of idea with the rule pertaining to Dreadnoughts deploying by Drop Pod: I wanted the possibility with a relatively minimal potential for it to be abused. Also, this was born out of an attempt to actually make Deep Striking Terminators with no ranged capabilities (e.g. Terminator Assault Squads) a viable option. I have never seen a Terminator Assault Squad been successfully deployed by Deep Strike and be anything but a bullet sponge (which is a really bad what to spend 175+ points).

 raverrn wrote:
Why does consolidation into CC ignore Overwatch bonuses?

I assume you’re talking about Ferocious Combatants from my Chapter Tactics list, in which case the answer is two-fold:
(i) I didn’t want to be overpowered against the consolidating unit.
(ii) It’s technically not an assault move, it’s a consolidation move.

 raverrn wrote:
There appear to be no changes to the Warlod Trait table. Was it your intention to reprint the GW rules?

Your implication being I’m infringing copyright, a need for me to change them, or both? Because I’d be more than happy to change them, simply add in a reference to the GW material rather than re-listing it, or come up with a whole new set if you think that’s the better course of action.

 raverrn wrote:
Who determines if an army is a suspected Ultramarine, White Scars or Raven Guard successor?

Well, all cannon Chapters will say if they are suspected or confirmed to be a Successor Chapter of another (e.g. one of the three listed). If it’s a fan-made and/or non-cannon Chapter, then, like with many rules, the onus is on the players.

 raverrn wrote:
Again I'd like to re-iterate that Grey Knights and Black Templars should probably be on good terms.

They are. It’s just I felt it was appropriate for the Black Templars to not feel the same way about Successor Chapters [Suspected or Confirmed] of the Grey Knights. Is this wrong?

 raverrn wrote:
Why is Chapter Tactic: Hatred (Psykers) not listed in the Chapter Tactics section? Did you feel you had too many Chapter Tactics?
Why is Abhor the Witch's army-wide Preferred Enemy not listed in the Warlord Traits section? Did you feel the Warlord Trait was too long?

I assume you’re referring to the page titled Psykers, in which case this is more about the treatment of Psykers rather than Chapter Tactics per se, but these details having their own page as opposed to being under the heading of the Chapter Tactics makes no functional difference.

 raverrn wrote:
Why is the Shatterer's secondary profile so anemic?

I felt that given the capabilities of its primary profile, it didn’t need to be any more powerful than it is. What should I be changing about the profile(s) specifically?

 raverrn wrote:
Why is the Witch Biter Blade AP4, when most power swords are AP3?

Well the fact that I never actually specified that it’s a Power Weapon or variant of, I made it AP 4 because of the Special Rule that makes it AP3 when fighting against psykers. I also feel like if I make it AP 3, I either need to change the rule (e.g. make the rule turn it into AP 2) or remove it.

 raverrn wrote:
Why does the Witch Biter Blade add 1d2 attacks? I can't think of a single effect in Warhammer 40k that uses a 1d2 die. Maybe random allocation.

I didn’t want it to have the potential to add too many additional attacks, hence D2 instead of D3 or higher. And just because it isn’t used elsewhere in the 40K rule set doesn’t mean it can’t be used, but it will be an oddity.

 raverrn wrote:
The Dornshard states that " If the bearer and the unit they are attached to (if applicable) charge, the bonus does not nullify the +1 Charge Bonus to Attacks." This line is redundant.

Fair enough. Sometimes I find myself being a stickler for clarity haha.

 raverrn wrote:
Why are all of your relics weapons or armors? Most codices tend to have a smattering of utility items, was this a purposeful decision?

Laziness combined with the fact that this is the first attempt. So far, a lot of the things I tried to do with this are heavily based on the current edition of the Space Marines Codex, so there are a lot more similarities than I’d like. That being said, I would like more deviation, and the Chapter Relics I hope will be no exception to this.

 raverrn wrote:
Do you really feel like master-crafting a BS5 Meltagun is worth fifty points?

Are you saying that the weapon should be removed? Or the weapon should not have the Master-crafted Special Rule? Or…?

 raverrn wrote:
Why is Helbrecht's sword AP4?

Because the weapon as you can find it in the Space Marine Codex has Strength User and is AP3. I made it Strength +2 instead of Strength User, so making it AP 4 as opposed to AP 3 seemed like at least a mildly appropriate counter-measure.

 raverrn wrote:
Why does Helbrecht only have 3 wounds? Every other Chapter Master has 4. The generic Marshall HQ has 4.

An honest mistake that I haven’t corrected yet. I’ll get on that.

Black Templars:

I agree with raverrn on deep striking Terminators being allowed to charge on a roll of 6. Additionally, it doesn't really add anything; it's far too random to rely on as a tactic.

Just allow consolidations into Close Combat. The Feroucious Combatants rule is long-winded and complicated when it doesn't have to be.

Witch Biter Blade is strange. Just make it a Power Sword that grants D3 extra attacks against Psykers; it'll hardly break the game.

Why is there a limit on the number of dice the Shield of the Marshals lets you roll?

Why has Helbrecht lost a wound compared to his current incarnation?

Why on Earth does Helbrecht have weapon options, let alone one that could be a contender for worst weapon upgrade in the game?! 50 points?!!

Helbrecht certainly does not need a worse Relic Blade when it's one of the weapons in the Imperium that most closely matches the description of a Relic Blade.

Why do only Crusader Squads, Zealot Squads, and whatever squad Helbrecht is attached to benefit from Crusader Zealotry? Did the Honour Guard suddenly forget that they're paragons of all it means to be Black Templars? Did the Sword Brethren have a brain fart?

Why are Marshals unique?

Why is the Relic Blade upgrade for Terminator Castellans the full 25 points? You're already paying for the Power Sword, remember.

The Zealot Squad makes no sense. They're worse Cultists. Why would the Chapter ever waste their valuable Land Raiders driving mere mortals around?


C: SM changes:

Dreadnoughts do not, under any circumstances, need a nerf. They're one of the worst units in the Codex. Why would a simple twin-linked Lascannon somehow be too good? Further, how does overcharging REDUCE the AP? That just makes no sense.

Why does the Dreadnought need to have a Missile Pod when you could just replace the Dreadnought Missile Launcher with the Cyclone Missile Launcher if you wanted it to be better?

Why is the HKM nerfed? Nobody takes them as it is, why did you feel the need to make it worse? Further, how does a missile lose penetrating power over distance? That's not how a missile works!

Why do we need Assault Marines as Troops when there's the Crusader Squad that does literally the same thing?

Just give Land Raiders Move Through Cover. You don't have to make up new Special Rules just because you can, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Why do you hate Dreadnoughts so? (See above comment on Dreadnoughts)

Again, agreeing with raverrn about the randomness of assaulting from Deep Strike. See comment on Terminators above.

Version 2 is now up!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I agree with raverrn on deep striking Terminators being allowed to charge on a roll of 6. Additionally, it doesn't really add anything; it's far too random to rely on as a tactic.

Fair enough. Got rid of it for Terminators and Dreadnoughts. Also, in relation to reverrn's point on Locator Beacons and the like, hopefully the little extra condition I added with help wit that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just allow consolidations into Close Combat. The Feroucious Combatants rule is long-winded and complicated when it doesn't have to be.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Witch Biter Blade is strange. Just make it a Power Sword that grants D3 extra attacks against Psykers; it'll hardly break the game.

Done and Done!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is there a limit on the number of dice the Shield of the Marshals lets you roll?

Because it's allowing the bearer to Deny the Witch on a 4+, so I figured that imposing a limit on the number of dice that can be rolled was a good way to balance that out.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why has Helbrecht lost a wound compared to his current incarnation?

Honest mistake which has now been fixed.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why on Earth does Helbrecht have weapon options, let alone one that could be a contender for worst weapon upgrade in the game?! 50 points?!!

I added in the option (now I've added in a bit more to it haha) because I thought it would add a bit of flavour to the unit. Also, I didn't know how much to cost it when I initially wrote this, so I just put in 50 haha. What are your thoughts on the updated incarnation of it?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Helbrecht certainly does not need a worse Relic Blade when it's one of the weapons in the Imperium that most closely matches the description of a Relic Blade.

Bumped it back up to AP3. Should I return it to the default profile found in the current Space Marines codex?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why do only Crusader Squads, Zealot Squads, and whatever squad Helbrecht is attached to benefit from Crusader Zealotry? Did the Honour Guard suddenly forget that they're paragons of all it means to be Black Templars? Did the Sword Brethren have a brain fart?

I changed the rule so it's a bit more encompassing. Is it OK now? Or should it be further refined?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why are Marshals unique?

I feel that during any given crusade, there isn't going to be more than one additional Marshal to Helbrecht (i.e. there'll never be more Marshals than HMH and another Marshal). Also, my reasoning has roots in the fact that when you upgrade a Captain from the current SM codex to a Chapter Master, it doesn't really make sense that he is not a Unique Character. I mean, Chapters can't have more than one Chapter Master, can they? haha

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is the Relic Blade upgrade for Terminator Castellans the full 25 points? You're already paying for the Power Sword, remember.

Another honest mistake. It has been fixed.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Zealot Squad makes no sense. They're worse Cultists. Why would the Chapter ever waste their valuable Land Raiders driving mere mortals around?

I think I'm going to need slightly better reasoning than "High Command doesn't want to spare the Land Raiders" to change or remove this squad hahaha.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dreadnoughts do not, under any circumstances, need a nerf. They're one of the worst units in the Codex. Why would a simple twin-linked Lascannon somehow be too good? Further, how does overcharging REDUCE the AP? That just makes no sense.

Fair enough. I have removed the weapon all together.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why does the Dreadnought need to have a Missile Pod when you could just replace the Dreadnought Missile Launcher with the Cyclone Missile Launcher if you wanted it to be better?

I could simply use Typhoon Missile Launchers, but I wanted to see if I could come up with a cool, interesting and balanced idea that specifically pertained to Dreadnoughts.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is the HKM nerfed? Nobody takes them as it is, why did you feel the need to make it worse?

What can I say? I dared to try and change it! haha. Seriously though, I didn't like the idea of a Single Use Only weapon with Infinite Range, So I tried to balance out the absence of Single Use Only with some nerfing. Now I've changed it back to Strength 8 and AP 3, but I've limited the Range to 48" and currently toying with the idea of the weapon having the Tank Hunters Special Rule. I mean, it is a Hunter-Killer Missile after all haha.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why do we need Assault Marines as Troops when there's the Crusader Squad that does literally the same thing?

Fair call. Removed those changes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just give Land Raiders Move Through Cover. You don't have to make up new Special Rules just because you can, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Again, fair call. What do you think of the Violent Power Special Rule?

Much better (at the risk of tooting my own horn ).

Much as I like getting a chance to actually get to assault from Deep Strike, letting all our Jump Infantry do it risks encroaching on the theme of the Raven Guard and Blood Angels.

BS1 no matter what for Overwatch against consolidate-into-combat feels like a fair compromise.

Regarding the shield, there's no limit to how many dice a Mastery Level 2 Psycher can throw to try to nullify an enemy power. Limiting the shield that way just doesn't seem right.

Just realized you've probably made a typo on Helbrecht; I'm assuming he shouldn't be 280 points?

The upgraded combi-weapons on Helbrecht are much better, but I'm not sure there should be wargear options for Special Characters at all. The exceptions tend to be things like Calgar, where there's a legacy model that GW doesn't want people to not be able to play.

I think a slightly cooler Relic Blade is fine for Helbrecht, it's not like he'll break the game with it.

You've not actually written what's affected by Crusader Zealotry, only who doesn't get it. Further, you've not written anything about the rule going away; the way it's written now, if Helbrecht confers the rule to someone at the beginning of the movement phase of turn 1, that person will keep the rule for the rest of the game, which I'm assuming isn't your intention?

The Zealots still feel out of place; why would the Black Templars be OK with random angry dudes following them around? I get the whole "mob of the faithful" angle, but it stands in stark contrast to stuff like Helsreach, where Grimaldus didn't give a damn about most of the humans except for those that had proven themselves and won the right to use the Templar Cross as their insignia.

Tank Hunters applies to units, not weapons, but a similar effect would make sense on the HK Missile.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Much as I like getting a chance to actually get to assault from Deep Strike, letting all our Jump Infantry do it risks encroaching on the theme of the Raven Guard and Blood Angels.

I can see how that might, but I figure the ability to charge into close combat is one of the definite combat doctrine features of Black Templars.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
BS1 no matter what for Overwatch against consolidate-into-combat feels like a fair compromise.

Good good, because I didn't want to have to re-write that haha.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the shield, there's no limit to how many dice a Mastery Level 2 Psycher can throw to try to nullify an enemy power. Limiting the shield that way just doesn't seem right.

The way I see it is that the Black Templars player is trading the ability to throw down a greater number of dice than the ability succeeded on to have a 50% chance to deny a Psykic power on the exact number of dice. Essentially, it's trading the ability to use extra dice for better probabilities.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just realized you've probably made a typo on Helbrecht; I'm assuming he shouldn't be 280 points?

That wasn't a typo haha. I tried to account for the boosts to his profile as well as his weapons and skills by increasing his points cost. I put 280 because I was looking at Calgar's page in the SM Codex and thought "275 points is about right, and 280 is a nice, round number." Though, like with all other points costs, I have no idea if that's anywhere close to appropriate haha.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The upgraded combi-weapons on Helbrecht are much better, but I'm not sure there should be wargear options for Special Characters at all. The exceptions tend to be things like Calgar, where there's a legacy model that GW doesn't want people to not be able to play.

I see your point, but it's a single upgrade worth 10 points. Calgar has only one upgrade, so to me, it didn't sound unreasonable that HMH could have one (and only one) as well.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You've not actually written what's affected by Crusader Zealotry, only who doesn't get it. Further, you've not written anything about the rule going away; the way it's written now, if Helbrecht confers the rule to someone at the beginning of the movement phase of turn 1, that person will keep the rule for the rest of the game, which I'm assuming isn't your intention?

Whoops! haha. I'll get on that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Zealots still feel out of place; why would the Black Templars be OK with random angry dudes following them around? I get the whole "mob of the faithful" angle, but it stands in stark contrast to stuff like Helsreach, where Grimaldus didn't give a damn about most of the humans except for those that had proven themselves and won the right to use the Templar Cross as their insignia.

Fair enough. As you mentioned, it was the whole "Mob of the Faithful" sort of idea that would charge in and give no feths about anything else haha.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Tank Hunters applies to units, not weapons, but a similar effect would make sense on the HK Missile.

Yeah, I gotta figure out exactly what I want from HKM's and then if there's a rule that does that specifically, then I'll apply it, otherwise MOAR CUSTOM RULEZ! haha

 IllumiNini wrote:

Good good, because I didn't want to have to re-write that haha.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the shield, there's no limit to how many dice a Mastery Level 2 Psycher can throw to try to nullify an enemy power. Limiting the shield that way just doesn't seem right.

The way I see it is that the Black Templars player is trading the ability to throw down a greater number of dice than the ability succeeded on to have a 50% chance to deny a Psykic power on the exact number of dice. Essentially, it's trading the ability to use extra dice for better probabilities.

But the Mastery Level 2 Psyker in the example would also deny the witch on a 4+, and he's not got any sort of limitations.

 IllumiNini wrote:


That wasn't a typo haha. I tried to account for the boosts to his profile as well as his weapons and skills by increasing his points cost. I put 280 because I was looking at Calgar's page in the SM Codex and thought "275 points is about right, and 280 is a nice, round number." Though, like with all other points costs, I have no idea if that's anywhere close to appropriate haha.

Honestly, he wouldn't break the game at 180 points with your suggestions, because he's ultimately buffing a melee army in an edition where you either shoot or go home. 280 points is far and away too much.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the shield, there's no limit to how many dice a Mastery Level 2 Psycher can throw to try to nullify an enemy power. Limiting the shield that way just doesn't seem right.

The way I see it is that the Black Templars player is trading the ability to throw down a greater number of dice than the ability succeeded on to have a 50% chance to deny a Psykic power on the exact number of dice. Essentially, it's trading the ability to use extra dice for better probabilities.

But the Mastery Level 2 Psyker in the example would also deny the witch on a 4+, and he's not got any sort of limitations.

Where does an ML2 Psyker get a 4+ Deny the Witch roll? The default is 6+ and Adamantium Will turns that into a 5+, but I don't think I've ever heard of a 4+ Deny the Witch in the actual rule set (this supplement aside).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
That wasn't a typo haha. I tried to account for the boosts to his profile as well as his weapons and skills by increasing his points cost. I put 280 because I was looking at Calgar's page in the SM Codex and thought "275 points is about right, and 280 is a nice, round number." Though, like with all other points costs, I have no idea if that's anywhere close to appropriate haha.

Honestly, he wouldn't break the game at 180 points with your suggestions, because he's ultimately buffing a melee army in an edition where you either shoot or go home. 280 points is far and away too much.

Fair enough. I just figured with the buffs, 180 points might have been a bit cheap haha.

I'm misremembering; you get a 6+ Deny the Witch per default, having a Psyker in the targetted unit ups that to 5+ and you get one additional point per Mastery Level that you've got above the one targetting you. The only psykers I've played have been ML1, so ML2 Psykers have denied me on a 4+ in the past.

Straight from the old codex:


The Shatterer still doesn't make much sense. Against anything T4 and above it causes 1.4 wounds, while the Hell Fire mode causes 1.6. I don't feel that's enough of a difference to be worth anything.

For the Shield of Marshals, consider the Tau Talisman that gives a 5++ save and also gives Deny the Witch on a 4+ to all models within 12". It has no restriction on how many dice you can use.

Tank Hunter is a rule that applies to a model, not a weapon. You want the Sunder rule on your HKM.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'm misremembering; you get a 6+ Deny the Witch per default, having a Psyker in the targetted unit ups that to 5+ and you get one additional point per Mastery Level that you've got above the one targetting you. The only psykers I've played have been ML1, so ML2 Psykers have denied me on a 4+ in the past.

Fair enough. Despite being sure that's no longer a rule, I reckon that actually makes a lot of sense.

raverrn wrote:Straight from the old codex:

What's your point?

raverrn wrote:The Shatterer still doesn't make much sense. Against anything T4 and above it causes 1.4 wounds, while the Hell Fire mode causes 1.6. I don't feel that's enough of a difference to be worth anything.

So the Hellfire profile could be improved how? Also, how did you come to those two numbers exactly?

raverrn wrote:For the Shield of Marshals, consider the Tau Talisman that gives a 5++ save and also gives Deny the Witch on a 4+ to all models within 12". It has no restriction on how many dice you can use.

Fair enough. Maybe (just maybe haha) I need to rethink it haha

raverrn wrote:Tank Hunter is a rule that applies to a model, not a weapon. You want the Sunder rule on your HKM.

Where can I find the details on that rule?

It's from 30k; it's literally just Tank Hunter but cannot re-roll glances to fish for pens.

 IllumiNini wrote:

What's your point?

My point is Grey Knights shouldn't be at the same ally status as Thousand Sons.

So the Hellfire profile could be improved how? Also, how did you come to those two numbers exactly?

Normal fire at BS5 hits 5/6 of the time (1.7 hits) and then wounds 5/6 of the time (1.4 wounds)
Hell Fire at BS5 hits 5/6 of the time (3.3 hits) and then wounds 1/2 of the time (16 wounds)

Where can I find the details on that rule?

It's a Forgeworld rule, like on this model. You can't say 'Tank Hunter' because that rule specified a model, not a weapon. As-is all of a model's guns would be able to re-roll.

raverrn wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

What's your point?

My point is Grey Knights shouldn't be at the same ally status as Thousand Sons.

Take a look at this (an excerpt from the document):

Grey Knights Successor Chapters [Suspected or Con-firmed] [And all Successor Chapters — Suspected or Confirmed]

I'm not sure if this doesn't convey what I want it to, but it is supposed to mean that all Successor Chapters of the Grey Knights [Suspected or Confirmed] (e.g. The Exorcists) fall under this category, but not the Grey Knights themselves.

And again, I'll point out one of the exceptions listed for the use of Psykers:

A Faction is considered to be allies under Come the Apocalypse if one or more detachments from the given Faction takes one or more Psykers, units of Psykers, or units containing Psykers.
To be an exception to this rule, a given Faction must adhere to at least one of the following conditions:

-- The Faction is the Grey Knights, or any Sub-Faction thereof.

So therefore, I'm only excluding Successor Chapters, not the Grey Knights themselves.

raverrn wrote:

So the Hellfire profile could be improved how? Also, how did you come to those two numbers exactly?

Normal fire at BS5 hits 5/6 of the time (1.7 hits) and then wounds 5/6 of the time (1.4 wounds)
Hell Fire at BS5 hits 5/6 of the time (3.3 hits) and then wounds 1/2 of the time (16 wounds)

Well Ballistic Skill will depend on the user, so that's relative. As for "Wounds 1/2 of the time", or "Wounds 5/6 of the time", depends on the weapon's strength and the target's toughness. Also, that doesn't translate into a profile for the weapon.

Swampmist wrote:It's from 30k; it's literally just Tank Hunter but cannot re-roll glances to fish for pens.

raverrn wrote:

Where can I find the details on that rule?

It's a Forgeworld rule, like on this model. You can't say 'Tank Hunter' because that rule specified a model, not a weapon. As-is all of a model's guns would be able to re-roll.

Ah, fair enough. I'd probably write it in as a custom rule since this supplement and general changes are designed for 40K, so not everyone playing will have access to 30K and/or FW rules. What I mean is: It's safe to assume that 40K players have access to the standard 40K rules only.

Well Ballistic Skill will depend on the user, so that's relative. As for "Wounds 1/2 of the time", or "Wounds 5/6 of the time", depends on the weapon's strength and the target's toughness. Also, that doesn't translate into a profile for the weapon.

Which is why I said T4, right there in the post. The points stands, the difference between the two is so small as to be ignorable.

Version 3 is up!

I've made a few fixes and changes. Hopefully the Allies Chart combined with list of Inquisition Forces isn't too hard to suss out. I am also attempting to re-write the Warlord Traits table with my own Warlord Traits (as evidenced by the fact there's only 3 since I can't figure out what the other three should be).

Other relatively minor changes have been made.

raverrn wrote:

Well Ballistic Skill will depend on the user, so that's relative. As for "Wounds 1/2 of the time", or "Wounds 5/6 of the time", depends on the weapon's strength and the target's toughness. Also, that doesn't translate into a profile for the weapon.

Which is why I said T4, right there in the post. The points stands, the difference between the two is so small as to be ignorable.

You said:

...T4 and above...

So I did have to back track your math to double check to be sure you were using Toughness 4 as your benchmark and thus suggesting the Hellfire profile should be Strength 6 (not that it was particularly hard, I was just wandering why you didn't just say Strength 6 to begin with? haha).

Regardless, I've changed it in Version 3.