DIY and the New Codex

[Commissar Molotov]

With the new Codex released, and inspired by this thread, how are your DIYs faring? Has the loss of traits affected you seriously? What about the new toys? What do you make of the special-character-rules-unlockers?

 

I'm really just interested to see what you guys think. The Castigators have really only benefited from the new Codex, in my eyes - being close to the Codex has ensured they're able to pick up all the new toys, and my new list includes a Sternguard Squad along with the new Thunderfire cannon.

 

I, for one, won't shed a single tear for the loss of the traits. I think that the majority of DIY Chapters should be relatively homogenous, with no difference in the rules. The key is their character - what makes them distinct rather than different. The traits system, in a sense, covered up a lack of imagination in a lot of people - they began using terms like "Major Divergence" and "Minor Divergence" in their posts as though people in the 40k universe measured Chapters in such a specific way.

 

If you were attracted to traits as a gameplay mechanic, you might be disheartened. If you used traits to theme your fluff, then it's not such an issue. I know people who've had one Advantage (a minor one) and then three or four of the disadvantages, because they were characterful and helped shape their army. It's entirely possible to replicate a lot of the traits just by limiting yourself. For example, Have Faith in Suspicion - Just make the decision to not take Librarians. Have Pride in your Colours - Don't infiltrate. (Or do we only lament the loss of the advantages? :huh:) It really depends on your DIY, but I think 99.999999% of Chapters really don't have to worry about the loss of traits. Especially given the huge options available in the new Codex.

 

I'd love to hear how your DIY Chapters are faring. Here in the Liber we often stick to the fluff and the theoretical, without realising that we also play a game with these Chapters! :P

[The_Chaplain]

well i for one scrapped my old DIY and started work on a new one for 5th edition.

It's actually kind of fun to work some of the new units or the reasons your army wouldnt take them into a DIY to add to the character of a chapter.

 

Table top wise, the traits got boring for me; so this new codex gives me an opportunity to make a unique army using a "vanilla" list.

[Commissar Molotov]

Do you find that (in your opinion) the process of crafting a DIY is different under the new Codex?

[Nash Trickster]

Well, for me the biggest loss is the prefered enemy rule, which was the central "pivot" of two of my three DiY...

 

For my Doom Bringers, I know have three different choices to pick from for my "Ghost Hunters" squads, Sternguard, Vanguard and Legion of the Damned (a choice I'll probably make since being able to deep strike a "tough" unit fits well with my fluff)... However, I'll regret the complete removal of the "Tyranic War Vets" and particularly their "can use grenades in CC against monstruous creatures" rule. I'll probably use several of the UM special characters as "Count as", namely Sicarius and Telion (which is quite ironic for a chapter which hates its UM lineage :P )

 

For my Paladins of Dorn, I'll really mourn the loss of prefered enemy: Orks which was their only "advantage". I'm thinking about including Kantor, to make the vet units scoring and use a lot of vanguard vets to reflect this chapter's preferance for close combat, but that will not replace what they've lost...

 

And for my (WiP) Venators, well, I should have tried to work a bit quicker on them since, except for the prefered enemy: Eldar rule, they are a perfectly Codex chapter... :huh:

[Commissar Molotov]

I think 'Preferred Enemy' was an odd trait. The loss of it as a gameplay mechanic for DIY Chapters may well hurt, but I think fluff-wise you can definitely still represent it. The trophies taken from your enemies (mandated under the trait, interestingly enough) would help give your Chapter a 'theme'. Plus, by taking weapons like flamers and heavy bolters against Orks, you're showing your Chapter's preponderence to fit their tactics around their hated foe.

 

I guess under the Trait system,I never really found any of the advantages that really and truly fit the 'feel' of the Castigators. Even traits like Purity Above All were a little awkward, I felt. Add that to my philosophy that it's the drawbacks and disadvantages that really add character to a Chapter, and I was always left a little cold by the traits. That's half the reason I've weathered their loss so well. I do think that some of the traits could still be represented using 'counts-as' (and I'll write up an article on that later today, hopefully) but some of it may just be down to force selection and imagination.

[The_Chaplain]

Do you find that (in your opinion) the process of crafting a DIY is different under the new Codex?

 

short answer yes.

 

long answer: Yes because in my opinion, too many people in my area with DIY's wrote their IAs around their armie's traits. Although it gave the army character, as they all had a specific reason why- it made the IA fall a little short of the mark, like there was something missing.

 

That something was army character. A good IA in my mind is one with a solid core and established history with a reason for the army composition woven into the IA, creating one smooth, easy to read and unique army-- instead of a haphazard justifcation for why you spam devastators.

[Morte]

I suspect there's going to be a lot more BT converts when people realise they can no longer use squads armed with BP/CCWs in Codex: Space Marines.

[Nash Trickster]

The loss of it as a gameplay mechanic for DIY Chapters may well hurt, but I think fluff-wise you can definitely still represent it.

Oh of course, and that's as far as game mechanics are concerned that the loss of this trait really bothers me... It's not because the trait doesn't exist anymore that my three chapters will cease to be anti-xenos specialists!

 

In fact, the complete removal of any customization possibility wouldn't bother me, as far as fluff is concerned. It's not because you can't really represent a given "specificity" of a chapter on the tabletop that it'd keep me from writing about it...

Being able to make what you've written have an impact on the game itself is only a plus.

[Prtyjedi]

The new Codex provided some inspiration towards fine-tuning my DIY Chapter, but I'm pretty sure that newcomers to DIYing will have an easier time of it thanks to the new Codex. The loss of traits is fine by me, because I neither really ever cared much for them. Maybe now people can follow that old Liber motto, let fluff dictate traits and not the other way around (well, since the traits are gone we'll be following the idea behind the motto rather than the literal message...). If the traits had been less vague and more defining I might've felt differently about losing them.

[Commissar Molotov]

Do you find that (in your opinion) the process of crafting a DIY is different under the new Codex?

 

short answer yes.

 

long answer: Yes because in my opinion, too many people in my area with DIY's wrote their IAs around their armie's traits. Although it gave the army character, as they all had a specific reason why- it made the IA fall a little short of the mark, like there was something missing.

 

That something was army character. A good IA in my mind is one with a solid core and established history with a reason for the army composition woven into the IA, creating one smooth, easy to read and unique army-- instead of a haphazard justifcation for why you spam devastators.

 

I actually wrote an article back in February called 'Validating Traits' which tried to encourage people to use their traits characterfully as a powerful tool to aid them in DIY creation and give some thought as to why their Chapter had such-and-such-a-trait, but it was received quite poorly by the DIY community.

 

I do think that we in the Liber put too much of an emphasis on the IA article. It's a desirable end-goal, certainly - but it shouldn't get in the way of crafting a Chapter's themes. After all, those themes should be extant before the IA article is created. After all, the IA article is simply a way of summarising the themes and history of your Chapter. As I mentioned in that other thread, there are many reasons to create a DIY Chapter - some motivated by fluff, but others motivated simply by a desire to win - and all such approaches are equally valid. We all have different reasons for playing/painting/contributing to the hobby.

 

But has this new Codex fundamentally altered the process of DIY Chapter creation? Will the 'special character spam' affect DIYs? I don't know if it will - I don't think the Codex has been out for long enough yet - but it's certainly something interesting.

 

I suspect there's going to be a lot more BT converts when people realise they can no longer use squads armed with BP/CCWs in Codex: Space Marines.

 

Codex: Blood Angels and Codex: Black Templars both provide a distinctive close-combat slant, definitely. Useful for portraying Chapters that have diverged from the general Codex-accepted norm. :P

 

The loss of it as a gameplay mechanic for DIY Chapters may well hurt, but I think fluff-wise you can definitely still represent it.

Oh of course, and that's as far as game mechanics are concerned that the loss of this trait really bothers me... It's not because the trait doesn't exist anymore that my three chapters will cease to be anti-xenos specialists :P

 

In fact, the complete removal of any customization possibility wouldn't bother me as far as fluff is concerned. It's not because you can't really represent a given "specificity" of a chapter on the tabletop that it'd keep me from writing about it... ;)

 

Being able to make what you've written have an impact on the game itself is only a plus ;)

 

That's certainly true, but I guess what I was saying in my last post is that you can make the preferred enemy trait have an impact, even without it. After all, that trait only had an impact in close-combat; if a Chapter truly had a preferred enemy, and had altered its combat doctrines to face that particular enemy, I feel that it would be felt on a much larger scale - heavy bolters and flamers against Orks being one particular example. You can make those thematic decisions on a grander scale and still have it be "fluffy".

 

The new Codex provided some inspiration towards fine-tuning my DIY Chapter, but I'm pretty sure that newcomers to DIYing will have an easier time of it thanks to the new Codex. The loss of traits is fine by me, because I neither really ever cared much for them. Maybe now people can follow that old Liber motto, let fluff dictate traits and not the other way around (well, since the traits are gone we'll be following the idea behind the motto rather than the literal message...). If the traits had been less vague and more defining I might've felt differently about losing them.

 

Interesting that you follow a similar philosophy to me in your rejection of the traits. Why do you think that the DIY process will be easier under the new Codex?

[The_Chaplain]

I do think that we in the Liber put too much of an emphasis on the IA article. It's a desirable end-goal, certainly - but it shouldn't get in the way of crafting a Chapter's themes. After all, those themes should be extant before the IA article is created. After all, the IA article is simply a way of summarising the themes and history of your Chapter. As I mentioned in that other thread, there are many reasons to create a DIY Chapter - some motivated by fluff, but others motivated simply by a desire to win - and all such approaches are equally valid. We all have different reasons for playing/painting/contributing to the hobby.

 

yeah but liber is also a good starting point for people like myself who only have a rough idea of how they want their IA to match up to the grand army thats served them well on the tabletop. A lot of people post the bare bones of an IA and through the positive c&c add or detract from their IA and flesh it out. Granted that takes a long time, but the results can be quite good.

 

btw mol, i'd love your input on the *new* bare bones I posted for my 5th ed confessors.

[Morte]

If anything, DIY is getting more complicated with the new Codex because you're going to have to explain why Chapter Master Kedro Pantor is leading your merry band of Maroon Hands in a 1000 pt skirmish for the coke-can objective just so you can have scoring Sternguard.

 

It depends on how involved you actually are with your DIY. If DIY is nothing more to you than a paint scheme and a good fluff background, you could pretty much do that under any set of rules, in any codex. If you want DIY to translate to the way an army runs on the tabletop, you might try artificially restricting yourself to certain choices (my Templar army is mainly flamer-melta based and I refuse to use las/plas squads). The loss of traits translates well to some themes and not others. A heavily infantry-based army is still just that, and the loss of traits has done it no harm. Other, more specialised traits would probably be missed more.

 

In terms of how you're perceived, and how you perceive your army however, you're nothing more than a Space Marine army with some choices and not others. It's not the absence of things that make an army, or every army without a Librarian or Whirlwind would be a Black Templar crusade. You miss out on defining aspects - things that are instantly recognisable as unique, rather than merely "optional" or "strategic choices". Those would be your bike troops, your scoring assault squad troops, your terminators that can mix and match weaponry between squads, your CCW/BP armed marines that zealously charge everything etc.

 

A space marine army with a ton of heavy bolters and flamers isn't an army that specialises specifically in hunting orks; it's just an anti-infantry army. Another guy could write exactly the same list for facing down horde tyranids. The only thing differentiating the two was the (hopefully) severed and mained ork bodies adorning marine bases and banner poles representing the preferred enemy: orks trait.

[Commissar Molotov]

yeah but liber is also a good starting point for people like myself who only have a rough idea of how they want their IA to match up to the grand army thats served them well on the tabletop. A lot of people post the bare bones of an IA and through the positive c&c add or detract from their IA and flesh it out. Granted that takes a long time, but the results can be quite good.

 

btw mol, i'd love your input on the *new* bare bones I posted for my 5th ed confessors.

 

Certainly, but I think by that point you've achieved what I was talking about. You already have an idea of the Chapter - you have a name, a colour scheme, an idea of how they work on the battlefield, and a knowledge of the broad themes you want to apply. By that stage, you're mainly looking for people to suggest alternate ideas or to refine your themes. What I'm saying is that a lot of people start off with the IA article because they think that's what they have to do. Whereas some of the most compelling GW canon Chapters are just a name and a colourscheme. It was just an interesting dichotomy that I was pointing out. :blush:

 

If anything, DIY is getting more complicated with the new Codex because you're going to have to explain why Chapter Master Kedro Pantor is leading your merry band of Maroon Hands in a 1000 pt skirmish for the coke-can objective just so you can have scoring Sternguard.

 

It depends on how involved you actually are with your DIY. If DIY is nothing more to you than a paint scheme and a good fluff background, you could pretty much do that under any set of rules, in any codex. If you want DIY to translate to the way an army runs on the tabletop, you might try artificially restricting yourself to certain choices (my Templar army is mainly flamer-melta based and I refuse to use las/plas squads). The loss of traits translates well to some themes and not others. A heavily infantry-based army is still just that, and the loss of traits has done it no harm. Other, more specialised traits would probably be missed more.

 

In terms of how you're perceived, and how you perceive your army however, you're nothing more than a Space Marine army with some choices and not others. It's not the absence of things that make an army, or every army without a Librarian or Whirlwind would be a Black Templar crusade. You miss out on defining aspects - things that are instantly recognisable as unique, rather than merely "optional" or "strategic choices". Those would be your bike troops, your scoring assault squad troops, your terminators that can mix and match weaponry between squads, your CCW/BP armed marines that zealously charge everything etc.

 

A space marine army with a ton of heavy bolters and flamers isn't an army that specialises specifically in hunting orks; it's just an anti-infantry army. Another guy could write exactly the same list for facing down horde tyranids. The only thing differentiating the two was the (hopefully) severed and mained ork bodies adorning marine bases and banner poles representing the preferred enemy: orks trait.

 

Just curious, Morte, but do you have a DIY Chapter, or do you only play Templars? I'm curious, because I find some of your ideas very interesting. The new 'plug-and-play' characters have raised a lot of ire through the 40k community, but I think they can prove useful. I intend to use Captain Sicarius as my Captain, Anteas, in larger lists. You're right that explaining some of these characters in smaller skirmishes can be difficult, but there are ways around it. Assume that the table that you're playing on is just part of a larger battle (or even a battle that's being waged across a whole planet or planetary system).

 

"It depends on how involved you actually are with your DIY. If DIY is nothing more to you than a paint scheme and a good fluff background, you could pretty much do that under any set of rules, in any codex. If you want DIY to translate to the way an army runs on the tabletop, you might try artificially restricting yourself to certain choices."

 

My DIY is a paint scheme and a good fluff background - but not all rules would suit it. I couldn't use them under Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Space Wolves or Codex: Black Templars. I think I might be misunderstanding you a bit there, though, so I don't want to press the point. As to "artificially restricting yourself" - it's what people had to do before the traits! It also revealed some of the disadvantages as being laughable - "We Stand Alone" was a case in point.

 

"It's not the absence of things that make an army, or every army without a Librarian or Whirlwind would be a Black Templar crusade. You miss out on defining aspects - things that are instantly recognisable as unique, rather than merely "optional" or "strategic choices". Those would be your bike troops, your scoring assault squad troops, your terminators that can mix and match weaponry between squads, your CCW/BP armed marines that zealously charge everything etc."

 

Perhaps it's not the absence of things that completely define an army, but I would argue that the absence (or presence) of certain units in conjunction with supporting fluff can do so. A space Marine army with heavy bolters and flamers may not be one that specifically hunts Orks, but it's those modelling touches that really make the army what it is. Perhaps an anti-Tyranid and anti-Ork army might share the same list, but there's an intangible 'other' that makes them distinct. That's in the fluff and the aesthetic touches. Which suggests that with the same (army) list, you could make two radically different Chapters, and that's a key tenet of DIY for me. I think perhaps the best way to sum it up might be to imagine a triangle, with the points labelled "FLUFF", "AESTHETICS" and "RULES" - we all sit somewhere within that triangle, veering towards some of those points more than others.

[Swordlord]

I think the new Codex is a boon to those DIY-ers that center their Chapters around the Codex Astartes. The 5th edition Codex is obviously written with the Ultramarines frame of mind. Nothing wrong with that, and they clarify that 3/5ths of the Chapters out there are based on Roboute's gene-seed in one form or another. In game play terms, this also keeps the rules simpler and cleaner, although I'll admit traits were fun.

 

I think for those that want to create a DIY based outside the Ultramarines/Codex Astartes, the new Codex poses a bit more of a challenge. For game-mechanics, it's not such a hardship, as you can take any of the special characters and paint them in the colors of your Chapter. But for those folks that want to be characterful in their own right - regardless of how the Codex describes those self-same characters - the DIY-ers are going to have to dig into their imaginations to make their Chapters' heroes unique. Everyone can have a Scout-Captain like Telion for a game, but how do you describe your 10th Co. captain so that he follows game-mechanics, but is unique in his fluff for your chapter? Therein lies the challenge. If DIY-ers choose to cookie-cutter these special characters, it's not really DIY, it's blue vanilla killer cookies.

 

As for myself, I wouldn't mind seeing new FAQs or Chapter Approveds for the other 2/5ths of the Chapters out there. The Imperial Fists especially would be an excellent new sub-Codex (aka Black Templars, Dark Angels, etc), imho. The official fluff surrounding Dorn's arguements with Guilliman regarding the Second Founding, if done in depth, would be especially interesting to me. But to be fair, you can write and play a DIY fluffily just by the units you choose or choose not to field. That's what I'm attempting with my DIY, and why it's still a DIYWIP.

 

Historical fluff has proven that the Codex Astartes/Ultramarines model works to create a well-rounded Space Marines force. But there are those of us out here who don't really care if we can spit toxins or enter suspended animation. :blush:

[Commissar Molotov]

Historical fluff has proven that the Codex Astartes/Ultramarines model works to create a well-rounded Space Marines force. But there are those of us out here who don't really care if we can spit toxins or enter suspended animation. :blush:

 

"Do we bemoan such losses? No! We crush our foes!"

 

 

I think the new Codex is a boon to those DIY-ers that center their Chapters around the Codex Astartes. The 5th edition Codex is obviously written with the Ultramarines frame of mind. Nothing wrong with that, and they clarify that 3/5ths of the Chapters out there are based on Roboute's gene-seed in one form or another. In game play terms, this also keeps the rules simpler and cleaner, although I'll admit traits were fun.

 

Yes-and-no - I think there is a degree of scope to be quite radical. Taking an entire bike army, for example. That's as radical as giving every Marine BP+CCW, to my mind. But I do agree the Space Marine Codex is geared to fit Codex-adherent Chapters. I mean, in Second edition it was called 'Codex: Ultramarines'. It's broadened its scope somewhat, but still, it's important to remember that 60% of Space Marine Chapters do follow the Codex, but 90% of DIY players seem to want to be that final 40%. :tu:

 

Something I've argued for a long time is that you can make a distinct Chapter without it being different. I don't think you could call the Castigators 'red Ultramarines' - I mean, you could condense down their fluff to that two-word epithet, but that would be discounting a lot of the work that's been done to make them distinct.

 

I think for those that want to create a DIY based outside the Ultramarines/Codex Astartes, the new Codex poses a bit more of a challenge. For game-mechanics, it's not such a hardship, as you can take any of the special characters and paint them in the colors of your Chapter. But for those folks that want to be characterful in their own right - regardless of how the Codex describes those self-same characters - the DIY-ers are going to have to dig into their imaginations to make their Chapters' heroes unique. Everyone can have a Scout-Captain like Telion for a game, but how do you describe your 10th Co. captain so that he follows game-mechanics, but is unique in his fluff for your chapter? Therein lies the challenge. If DIY-ers choose to cookie-cutter these special characters, it's not really DIY, it's blue vanilla killer cookies.

 

I think that Telion and Chronus, as squad upgrade characters, are a little different. I think all Chapters are going to have hardcore Scout-Sergeants. All Chapters will have accomplished Tank Commanders. Will all Chapters have a Master with twin power fists? No.

 

But then again, if I create a Captain with power sword and bolt pistol, what makes him unique? I, as the player, need to 'dig into my imagination' to make my Captain different from other power sword-and-bolt pistol Captains used by other players. In that sense, Special Characters aren't that different.

 

As for myself, I wouldn't mind seeing new FAQs or Chapter Approveds for the other 2/5ths of the Chapters out there. The Imperial Fists especially would be an excellent new sub-Codex (aka Black Templars, Dark Angels, etc), imho. The official fluff surrounding Dorn's arguements with Guilliman regarding the Second Founding, if done in depth, would be especially interesting to me. But to be fair, you can write and play a DIY fluffily just by the units you choose or choose not to field. That's what I'm attempting with my DIY, and why it's still a DIYWIP.

 

See, I don't think the Imperial Fists are different enough from the Ultramarines (in game terms) to require a seperate Codex. Broadly, they're "Yellow Ultramarines" - but there's the intangible other that makes them stand out. That other draws a lot of people to the Imperial Fists, not 'stubborn' or 'bolter drill'.

[The_Chaplain]

it's important to remember that 60% of Space Marine Chapters do follow the Codex, but 90% of DIY players seem to want to be that final 40%.

 

not that there's anything wrong with that ^_^

 

I think that Telion and Chronus, as squad upgrade characters, are a little different. I think all Chapters are going to have hardcore Scout-Sergeants. All Chapters will have accomplished Tank Commanders. Will all Chapters have a Master with twin power fists? No.

 

But then again, if I create a Captain with power sword and bolt pistol, what makes him unique? I, as the player, need to 'dig into my imagination' to make my Captain different from other power sword-and-bolt pistol Captains used by other players. In that sense, Special Characters aren't that different.

 

well isn't that part of the challenge? I mean, your captain Antaeus doesn't seem all tht different from a stock captain mol, but the way youve written him into your fanfiction and backstory makes him a special character.

 

furthermore, for those that choose to use one of the provided specil characters like pedro kantor (a crowd favorite it seems) need to justify that in their backstory IMO. Maybe he's not a chapter master in your DIY, mybe he's a tough as nails veteran captain that has access to the chapter's more antiquated gear, given special permission by the chapter master to use an orbital laser should the need arise during the campaign. If written well, most players will accept a stock character a little more willingly.

 

And on that note, I am off to class. Catch you all later.

[Morte]

I just play Templars, but I used to have a strange love for Blood Angels B)

 

I actually think that in terms of the use of rules to personalise a DIY army, characters are horribly inflexible. The difference between traits and characters being that with traits, there's at least a measure of variation; sure you might both have preferred enemy: orks, but perhaps one army might also include many apothecaries (possibly an Iron Snakes type chapter?) whilst another would have a lack of heavy support choices (Crimson Fists?). With characters personalising your army, it's not just an issue of naming him something else and using a "counts-as". You're effectively (in game terms, anyway) using a cardboard cut-out character to represent a personal fiction. Which is fine, except for the fact that Codex Space Marines are extremely over-represented and the characters who truly give the army some character (Sicarius, Vulkan, Khan, Shrike, Kantor) are exactly the same as everyone else's.

 

Thus it seems to me that rather than being able to create something truly unique around a theme, you're having to buy into the fiction that you're playing an individual army (when really, Vulkan is the same from one army to another, regardless of how he's painted or what his "name" is). What particularly digs me about characters is that it doesn't even match your Fluff-Aesthetics-Rules paradigm. Why would a supremely talented tactician (counts as Calgar) have a pair of powerfists with inbuilt bolters? Say my fluff characters don't particularly match the archetypes in the Codex. My stubborn, Eldar-hating, power sword using commander trains his units to never fall back. Doesn't explain why, if I wanted to represent a stubborn army, my commander has a power fist and AP4 storm bolter.

 

Hell, what if I wanted to represent Salamanders the way they used to be? A stubborn army that could actually affect the meta-game (force the opponent to play another turn). The only way to reflect that would be to actually take Kantor for "stubborn" as opposed to Vulkan.

 

In terms of fluff, special characters force you to come up with contrived explanations for why your army is the way it is, and why your character's signature power axe has now become a pair of master-crafted lightning claws with rending. In other words, you're bending over backwards to fit the words of the Codex, rather than making it fit you. Ironically appropriate for Codex Marines, but not so much for DIY, as you might infer ^_^

 

edit: having read your posts, I agree totally that it's the imagination that's the final arbiter of whether something's unique or not. But why are my city-fighting marines, armed for close quarters combat, suddenly unable to change their armament from boltguns? Surely a tome so flexible as the Codex Astartes has a line that says "thou shalt use the holy chainsword in confined spaces". What you're talking about is really a disconnect in the link between reality and how you envision your army to be. You imagine your red Codex marines to have a great paintjob, awesome back story and fluff, interesting tactics on the table. What you're really getting is an army that is, for all intents and purposes, red Ultramarines. A great army doesn't have to be all in your mind. There's no reason why it can't function the way you envision it to.

[Commissar Molotov]

You put up a good argument, Morte. In the main I agree with many of your points, but I want to present some alternative views.

 

Thus it seems to me that rather than being able to create something truly unique around a theme, you're having to buy into the fiction that you're playing an individual army (when really, Vulkan is the same from one army to another, regardless of how he's painted or what his "name" is). What particularly digs me about characters is that it doesn't even match your Fluff-Aesthetics-Rules paradigm. Why would a supremely talented tactician (counts as Calgar) have a pair of powerfists with inbuilt bolters? Say my fluff characters don't particularly match the archetypes in the Codex. My stubborn, Eldar-hating, power sword using commander trains his units to never fall back. Doesn't explain why, if I wanted to represent a stubborn army, my commander has a power fist and AP4 storm bolter.

 

By the same token, therefore, "Captain with Power Sword and Bolt Pistol" is the same from one army to another, regardless of how he's painted or what his "name" is. We all have to buy into the fiction of 40k in order to make it work. And you're right to agree that your Commander is forced to be either Lysander or Kantor. It's unfortunately true that when the pendulum swings, it doesn't spend a lot of time in the middle, and I don't want to have to defend Mat Ward too much.

 

Your Commander hates Eldar - but that doesn't have to transfer into the rules. He's stubborn, but that doesn't have to transfer into rules either (even if there is a mechanism for it.) The obvious argument is "Kantor has it, why can't I?" That said, special characters are part of the fabric of 40k, and they're always going to get special rules (like God of War). If you want access to those rules, you either have to create your own character (in a rules sense) or you have to be Calgar. The tournament scene allows one but not the other (though the role of 40k and whether it's truly a tournament game or a game for friends is one that's hotly debated elsewhere, and not one that I want to get into here.)

 

The Characters are inflexible, and rather inelegant, I grant you. But the trait system was open to abuse. (The three major disadvantages were laughable, in my mind.)

 

EDIT to encompass your edit:

 

edit: having read your posts, I agree totally that it's the imagination that's the final arbiter of whether something's unique or not. But why are my city-fighting marines, armed for close quarters combat, suddenly unable to change their armament from boltguns? Surely a tome so flexible as the Codex Astartes has a line that says "thou shalt use the holy chainsword in confined spaces". What you're talking about is really a disconnect in the link between reality and how you envision your army to be. You imagine your red Codex marines to have a great paintjob, awesome back story and fluff, interesting tactics on the table. What you're really getting is an army that is, for all intents and purposes, red Ultramarines. A great army doesn't have to be all in your mind. There's no reason why it can't function the way you envision it to.

 

But an army doesn't have to have a non-standard organisation to be distinct, which I think is the end-goal for a lot of fluff-oriented DIYers. Of course I can't encompass everyone in a sweeping generalisation like that. I do think that the direction chosen is inflexible, and not the best - but I also think that DIYers can get a lot out of the new Codex (and by using the other Codexes available to them).

 

As for the chainsword issue, it is perturbatory, but said DIY Chapter wouldn't be in cityfights all the time, I believe. It's tricky because this Codex is designed for those that broadly follow the dictates of the Space Marine Codex. I can't magic up super solutions - in such a case, C:BT, C:BA or C:CSM would be alternatives.

[Morte]

Perhaps so; I was never much of a Codex Marines player anyway :) As you might guess I'm quite in love with marines who don't always do what they're told. I thought a revision of the traits system that introduced some seriously tough choices in exchange for benefits would have been good. Perhaps more linked traits - a footslogging, bolter armed army HAS to take the "no transports" rule, but gains an increased cover save. Things like that. Make the disadvantages REAL disadvantages. Hell, even attach 1 minor divergence to 1 serious disadvantage (seeing as how this might as well describe DA, BA and BT - we're different, and therefore we don't get the good storm shields) and I'm still sure that the truly creative would embrace the change. Most DIY players haven't got powergaming on their minds; they (we) just want to put on the table what we've seen in our minds. I wanted marines with spears. Not going to happen in this Codex.

 

A lot of this is related to the way in which I see open-ended hobbies like 40k - they're my models, and I'd like to do what I want with them. I'm a big fan of more choice rather than less; let me dig my own grave with bad trait choices if need be, but let me choose! Plus, it worries me that this is the trend going that GW has taken lately. Chaos Marines lost the wonderful uniqueness too; nevermind that some of the uniqueness was fairly silly or useless or highly situational - Word Bearers don't have a range of daemons to choose from, Alpha Legion doesn't have any real way to represent cultists (nevermind the fact that cultists were an average choice).. sure Iron Warriors lost the basilisk, and everyone's glad we don't see 9 Obliterators anymore, but so much character was lost in the trade-off. What about the dedicated players who lovingly modeled Cursed Founding Chapters like the Black Dragons? And (this worries me the most) IG doctrines are probably gone too; now that's going to seriously hurt creativity.

[Commissar Molotov]

Perhaps so; I was never much of a Codex Marines player anyway :D As you might guess I'm quite in love with marines who don't always do what they're told. I thought a revision of the traits system that introduced some seriously tough choices in exchange for benefits would have been good. Perhaps more linked traits - a footslogging, bolter armed army HAS to take the "no transports" rule, but gains an increased cover save. Things like that. Make the disadvantages REAL disadvantages. Hell, even attach 1 minor divergence to 1 serious disadvantage (seeing as how this might as well describe DA, BA and BT - we're different, and therefore we don't get the good storm shields) and I'm still sure that the truly creative would embrace the change. Most DIY players haven't got powergaming on their minds; they (we) just want to put on the table what we've seen in our minds. I wanted marines with spears. Not going to happen in this Codex.

 

Personally, I think all Marines should be in one Codex. The Deathwing could be easily recreated using C:SM, and the new White Scars basically outperform the Ravenwing. The BA, equally. But it's not something I'm seriously and fanatically advocating, it's just an idle thought.

 

But you raise an interesting point in the last line of that quote. I could turn round and say "I want an army entirely of Dreadnoughts." "I want a Marine Armoured Company, with no troops whatsoever. In fact, I want Land Raiders as troops." There has to be a disconect somewhere between player desire and the rules that are created. In that sense, homegrown rules are entirely recommended.

 

A lot of this is related to the way in which I see open-ended hobbies like 40k - they're my models, and I'd like to do what I want with them. I'm a big fan of more choice rather than less; let me dig my own grave with bad trait choices if need be, but let me choose! Plus, it worries me that this is the trend going that GW has taken lately. Chaos Marines lost the wonderful uniqueness too; nevermind that some of the uniqueness was fairly silly or useless or highly situational - Word Bearers don't have a range of daemons to choose from, Alpha Legion doesn't have any real way to represent cultists (nevermind the fact that cultists were an average choice).. sure Iron Warriors lost the basilisk, and everyone's glad we don't see 9 Obliterators anymore, but so much character was lost in the trade-off. What about the dedicated players who lovingly modeled Cursed Founding Chapters like the Black Dragons? And (this worries me the most) IG doctrines are probably gone too; now that's going to seriously hurt creativity.

 

Personally, again, I think a lot can be done with C:CSM using imagination. The thing is that players are now forced to imagine, and that's not something that sits well with everyone.

 

 

As to Black Dragons, not the best argument! :) The Dragon Claws were formed into seperate self-contained units that could be kept out of sight from the general public. They can easily be represented by Vanguard Veterans with lightning claws or relic blades.

[Vaaish]

I honestly didn't have much to change. had to reword some bits in the using in 40k section and adjust a bit of fluff for the loadout a few of my characters have. My lists had to be adjusted but none of that changed the overall feel of the army, just gave it more options and toys.

[Wolfbiter]

Having started my own DIY chapter development under the last codex, and having finished it under the new one, I have to say I prefer the new one. I am fine using the "generic" HQ figures rather than the special named characters...my theme was built more along the particular kind of units I prefer to take in an army rather than using "special" rules that deviated significantly from the codex.

 

In fact, I'm going to start out using a Master of the Forge with no additional upgrades, because my theme isn't built around a named leader. I see my Chapter deployed as small, rapid-response strike forces with a higher proportion of Terminators, Dreadnoughts and advanced Mechanicus goodies dropping and teleporting into battle. Like Mol said, I just refrain from taking as much Fast Attack, Speeders and Scouts to reflect their preferences.

 

Overall, I'm pleased with my army list so far. I think it fits my fluff conceptions very well and I'm looking forward to playing it on the tabletop when it's fully complete. I do have to grit my teeth and finish painting my Drop Pod though...putting it together tired me out. :)

[Race Bannon]

There are two things that keep coming to my mind:

 

1 - Most players prefer to be told how to play an army.

 

What I mean is this - Chaos players howled at losing the Legion lists with the new Chaos Codex. Really, the rules are still there but it's not obvious. The average player looks at the army list and goes, "well I have a watered down army now". Simply not true. If anything Chaos armies are now MORE Chaotic because there are no restrictions to play "Death Guard". So now it is up to the player to make a Death Guard list. It can be done, it's just not obvious anymore.

 

The same applies to Loyalist Chapters. The 3rd ed IA articles for Index Astartes are gone. With the 5th ed Codex, players are now forced to do one of two things: make the list fluffy on the table or use a special character to make the army work like "that" Chapter.

 

Players have an idea how their Chapter works. They also want to see it in action on the table. So I may say my Commander is a brilliant tactician, but how does that show on the table before the game starts? (not that that is my personal opinion) :)

 

2 - Most players prefer to make one list and stick to it.

 

This is competative gaming biggest fault in my opinion, but it makes sense from a "must win" point of view. I asked in Amicus a while ago if people tailored their list to the opponent or tried to fine-tune their list to be perfect. Most people said they use one list. Tournament players do this for sure. There is nothing wrong with that, ultimately. But with the new Codex, players will have to relearn their army until they get that one list again. Then the fluff will revolve around that list.

 

The trait system allowed for abuses, sure. And when it came to making a DIY Chapter there were a lot ... a lot ... of posts that said, "I have a color scheme and I want these traits, help me fill the holes." Did the story really matter here? No. It was how the army worked on the table. Simple enough and circles back to the first point.

[Commissar Molotov]

There are two things that keep coming to my mind:

 

1 - Most players prefer to be told how to play an army.

 

What I mean is this - Chaos players howled at losing the Legion lists with the new Chaos Codex. Really, the rules are still there but it's not obvious. The average player looks at the army list and goes, "well I have a watered down army now". Simply not true. If anything Chaos armies are now MORE Chaotic because there are no restrictions to play "Death Guard". So now it is up to the player to make a Death Guard list. It can be done, it's just not obvious anymore.

 

Now this, I agree entirely with. There was a thread recently ('Counts As Chaos Legions') which looked at applying imagination to the army list. I thought there were some fantastic ideas there, admittedly alongside some rather dodgy ones. But yes, I think to a certain degree the onus is more on the player than the rule-writer to be "fluffy". That's perhaps a slightly different issue to those players lamenting the loss of traits - after all, it represents a significant investment (of money and time) that has to be re-worked.

 

Players have an idea how their Chapter works. They also want to see it in action on the table. So I may say my Commander is a brilliant tactician, but how does that show on the table before the game starts? (not that that is my personal opinion) :)

 

I should play Lamenters, with my skill at dice-rolling. :D

 

The trait system allowed for abuses, sure. And when it came to making a DIY Chapter there were a lot ... a lot ... of posts that said, "I have a color scheme and I want these traits, help me fill the holes." Did the story really matter here? No. It was how the army worked on the table. Simple enough and circles back to the first point.

 

The other side to this is that at least those people were looking for fluff. Which in itself is a good thing, in my opinion. A willingness to interact with the mythos of 40k is only to be encouraged - whether it was to provide a thin justification for an abusive trait selection is debatable. ;)

[Morte]

You've got me there! Personally I think most people (myself included) do a measure of their own tinkering within the rules to make the things they want fit. There really is no limit to the creativity that you can inject into the hobby; one of my ideas was an Ork Templar army to represent Orks who had come to recognise and respect the Black Templars on Armageddon so much as to emulate them. I wanted to put together WFB Black Orcs as Initiates, and Ork Boyz as Neophytes, convert up an Orky Emperor's Champion, and my Orks would storm forward under fire with the Orky Zeal rule. But that's an example of two particular army types meshing well; large mixed squads of footsloggers and mechanised assault are qualities shared by both the BTs and the Orks.

 

It doesn't represent the more radical ideas out there though. Purity Above All (that was the apothecary trait, yes?) would have been a fantastic rule to represent Iron Snakes (from Abnett's book). Could easily tack on a major disadvantage (no vehicles) and arm a squad or two with close combat weapons and you'd have a reasonably balanced, but incredibly characterful army. Something I'm sure most people would remember. After all, what's DIY if you can't share it with others? What bugs me is that you could spend all this time converting marines and your opponent would take one look and say "oh. Sternguard + Kantor build."

 

A rose by any other name, and all that.

 

edit: Let it be said that after all that, I'm still a person who values a well-painted and intelligently themed army above how it performs on the table top. I don't really have trouble representing the things I want to represent with a little creative converting and "counts-as". I still don't agree with variety through special characters, however. Sure, the traits are gone, and you can make do without them. But that shouldn't be the way, should it? More freedom, more choice as to how you choose to express your very own snowflake-like individuality. As opposed to less freedom. Both work, which would you prefer?