DIY and the New Codex

[Commissar Molotov]

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.

 

I've had similar ideas before, with the "Black Templorks". Great minds think alike! :)

 

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.

 

But then I could easily place down that army and they could go "Oh. Purity above all."

 

What makes that army characterful? and what makes it different from another player's army with the exact same army list? I think that's the key question to answer. If you think about it, there's a finite number of possible combinations in a Warhammer 40,000 army list. I'm not talking about "viable army builds", but simply the fact that there's only so many ways to add up to 1,500. There may be a countless million combinations, but it's finite. (Bear with me here!)

 

What I'm saying is that the chances are that someone's running the exact same Templars list as you. What makes yours distinct, different and interesting?

[Morte]

What I'm saying is that the chances are that someone's running the exact same Templars list as you. What makes yours distinct, different and interesting?

 

My Templars have asian-looking script on them? :)

 

Really though, it's not quite the same as DIY is it? I play a Black Templars army knowing I'm one in a multitude with very little to distinguish us. My personal creativity in the matter is limited to how I like to freehand script and insignia! I'm hardly creating my own chapter, fluff and characters from scratch, although I do see your point.

 

Bringing it back to the Fluff-Rules-Aesthetics dimension, I love BT fluff, love the rules (sometimes) and I love the aesthetics. I think, however, that if I wanted to represent a BT army in codex space marines (or any other unique army), I still feel like I'd be a little bit disappointed that I can't arm them all with BP/CCW. Would still love the fluff, and the aesthetics, but the rules let me down. Two for three :cuss That's merely what I'm trying to say. Why settle, when you can be in the sweet spot of hobby bliss with an army that appeals to you on all levels no?

[Prtyjedi]

This topic sure is a mouthful, if ever spoken aloud. But it's nice to see some introspection around here. It's always nice.

 

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?

 

I might've been unclear as to my meaning here. I doubt the process itself will be easier, I think that the expanded amount of fluff, though UM-centric, will inspire and guide newcomers better than the previous Codex, which to me always seemed rather light on the DIY side. Call me cynical, but I doubt any tome could encompass all advice on DIY chapter making, well, at least to any satisfaction.

 

-------

 

Interesting discussion here, though.

 

I very much agree with Race Bannon's "players prefer to be told how to play an army" point. It's very much true. Though I haven't had much interaction with the 40k gaming community, from what I've gathered this is the case.

 

I, every now and then, see people caught between making armies that are

a) Well-painted

b ) Optimized for winning

c) Themed and fleshed out, the ideal DIY Chapter

I think that with time and effort you could have all of these, whereas people often settle for just two (usually a and b ). I think that losing traits creates distance between the gaming and fluff sides of 40k. This is both a good and bad thing. Bad in the sense that our "min-maxers" might see less potential in having a well-designed DIY army because it means nothing on the battlefield. On the good side, maybe people can really start focusing on the fluff-side without having to worry about gaming mechanics.

 

It's an interesting discussion. Keep going, kids.

 

Regards, PJ

[Commissar Molotov]

My Templars have asian-looking script on them? :)

 

But there you go! That's distinct, and there is (presumably) some backstory behind it. As a DIY player, I know that I'm playing using Codex: Space Marines, one in a multitude - and it's up to me to distinguish myself, not Jervis Johnson. :cuss

[Morte]

I, every now and then, see people caught between making armies that are

a) Well-painted

b ) Optimized for winning

c) Themed and fleshed out, the ideal DIY Chapter

I think that with time and effort you could have all of these, whereas people often settle for just two (usually a and b ). I think that losing traits creates distance between the gaming and fluff sides of 40k. This is both a good and bad thing. Bad in the sense that our "min-maxers" might see less potential in having a well-designed DIY army because it means nothing on the battlefield. On the good side, maybe people can really start focusing on the fluff-side without having to worry about gaming mechanics.

 

Exactly what was said with the fluff-rules-aesthetics paradigm, if not in the same words. I think Molotov might have struck upon the unifying theory of hobby wargaming :)

 

edit:

 

God bless eternal optimism, Molotov. I think we're pretty much agreeing about the same thing now at this point!

 

Let it be said though that if GW removes the doctrines system from the Imperial Guard and homogenizes all guard armies to play like Cadians, there will be much to account for. But that is a different topic for a different day, for it is 3.22am here and I don't have a catalepsean node.

[The_Chaplain]

woohoo break in between classes.

 

I, every now and then, see people caught between making armies that are

a) Well-painted

b ) Optimized for winning

c) Themed and fleshed out, the ideal DIY Chapter

I think that with time and effort you could have all of these, whereas people often settle for just two (usually a and :)

 

yeah but when you meet people that strive for all three those are the DIY's that leave a lasting impression on you

[Prtyjedi]

Very true. Sad that they are rare, like the fabled Honest Politician, or Teacher Who Took Up The Job As Calling And Did Not Grow Bored With It In A Few Years.

[The_Chaplain]

or Teacher Who Took Up The Job As Calling And Did Not Grow Bored With It In A Few Years.

 

<--- aspiriring teacher

 

You have the education system's focus on standardized testing to blame for that. Teachers can't teach any original content because the rubrics set up by the county/state force them to teach to the test. That and the fact that the snotty lil' buggers aren't motivated to learn at all. Woo, was that ever off topic LOL

 

Really random thought but this board should have a sticky for DIY army blogs so that we can see where our DIYs are coming along both in liber and pc&a formats all in one location.

[Prtyjedi]

Point true, and thankless students don't help either.

 

Getting back on topic, I'd like to hear opinions for and against the integration of/gap-bridging between the fluff and gaming itself.

[Race Bannon]

Interesting edit Morte. What's interesting is that - in my estimation - the 4th ed Codex granted the most freedom by NOT choosing any traits at all. The entire list was available to the player with no drawbacks. If my Chapter didn't like Librarians in the fluff then I simply did not choose Librarians to play with. What made traits awesome was that they allowed to make a SM army different from the "norm". And I agree with Molotov, most of the disadvantages were laughable.

 

So, the new Codex says the same thing: ultimate freedom because there are no restrictions. The Special Characters only enhance the freedom, but what's the drawback? Cost. ;)

 

But I must digress to actually answer the questions proposed :D

 

My DIY was only affected fluff-wise. If anything, the new edition improved some parts and helped explain better other parts of the story. Mechanically, almost nothing has changed except the effectiveness of some units and an introduction of new units. Thus, the disappearance of the trait system means little to me. BUT, I have expressed my dissatisfaction to the SCs and their giving Chapter Tactics as a replacement elsewhere on the B+C and no need to rehash them here.

[Prtyjedi]

I don't really care about the Special Characters either way. In the end they're just an expensive Captain with a a side order of gimmicks. But they are nice models and can give a nice touch to your army, especially for those who aren't that good at conversions.

[Swordlord]

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. ;)

 

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

Is this agreement or arguement with my statement that I (my DIY Chapter) doesn't care about the loss of those implants' functionality? I'm missing the point of your comment.

 

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%. :)

 

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 mentioned in my post that you can make a distinct Chapter by what you do or do not field, regarding fluff or game play.

Distinct and different is a thin line to tread, as both words are synonymous with each other. Most people want their IA to differ from other IAs. Most people want their DIY characters to be distinct from other officers in their own Chapter as well as distinct from pre-generated special characters that GW puts out. I've noticed there is a disparity when these terms are used in DIY C&C, especially when they are used to change a wip to more closely match in style and form to an already accepted, non-official DIY that gets acceptance to the B&C Liber.

 

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.

So , a DIY-er should spend zero time on creating characterful sergeants and commanders, because all Chapters will have them? That's rather dry, especially since most GW fluff fiction characters are not based on a Chapter's master. And if a DIY states specifically that they do a certain thing well, your statement precludes the description of the best that DIY Chapter has to offer. What makes the Castigators officers distinct/different than any of the other thousands of Chapter officers in the galaxy? You've concentrated on a specific officer to flesh out within the Castigators heirarchy. Why can't others? Isn't he distinct? Isn't he different? It was my point that DIY-ers will have to make their own backstories, as ever.

 

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'.

As far as gameplay, you are probably correct that they don't need a codex of their own. But they could use some official fluff, to make the "intangible other" more tangible. That's why I work on DIY Chapters, to make the distinct/different/"other" tangible to those who might see my army on the tabletop.

[Commissar Molotov]

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

Is this agreement or arguement with my statement that I (my DIY Chapter) doesn't care about the loss of those implants' functionality? I'm missing the point of your comment.

 

It's a quote from The Teachings of Rhetoricus, as presented in IA: Imperial Fists: "Do we bemoan such losses? No! We are the Fists! We do not need to hibernate or spit venom. We crush our enemies." It's a quote I've always thought was cool. So I'm agreeing with you - I'm not a complete Ultra-fanboy. ;)

 

I mentioned in my post that you can make a distinct Chapter by what you do or do not field, regarding fluff or game play.

Distinct and different is a thin line to tread, as both words are synonymous with each other. Most people want their IA to differ from other IAs. Most people want their DIY characters to be distinct from other officers in their own Chapter as well as distinct from pre-generated special characters that GW puts out. I've noticed there is a disparity when these terms are used in DIY C&C, especially when they are used to change a wip to more closely match in style and form to an already accepted, non-official DIY that gets acceptance to the B&C Liber.

 

I can only use the terms 'distinct' and 'different' according to my own standards - what others in the Liber do or say is up to them, ultimately. I'm a little confused by the last sentence of yours, though.

 

To my mind the goal of DIY is typically to create something consistent in tone with the extant 40k universe. Yet, concurrent with that is the desire to make something original and interesting to draw people in. The different/distinct paradigm occured from something I wrote a while ago which said that Liberites were focused on being "different" (especially from the Ultramarines, refusing to use UM gene-seed, etc.) for the sake of being "different". My argument was that you could be "distinct" by looking at the character of your army, but not just being contrary for the sake of it, but being consistent where it aided you and not-consistent when it aided you.

 

So , a DIY-er should spend zero time on creating characterful sergeants and commanders, because all Chapters will have them? That's rather dry, especially since most GW fluff fiction characters are not based on a Chapter's master. And if a DIY states specifically that they do a certain thing well, your statement precludes the description of the best that DIY Chapter has to offer. What makes the Castigators officers distinct/different than any of the other thousands of Chapter officers in the galaxy? You've concentrated on a specific officer to flesh out within the Castigators heirarchy. Why can't others? Isn't he distinct? Isn't he different? It was my point that DIY-ers will have to make their own backstories, as ever.

 

Again, I'm not sure about the "Why can't others", which seems a little like a direct attack, or I'm trying to prevent people from doing something I've done (I honestly hope I'm misunderstanding you there). A DIYer can spend as much time as he wishes creating characterful Sergeants and Commanders. I was trying to assert that there's a difference between 'support characters' and 'main characters'. A DIYer is within their rights to go as detailed (or not) as they wish. I've named every Marine in my Fifth Company, and may eventually have every squad in the Chapter named. I fully support having characterful Sergeants. But I was making the distinction between a Scout Sergeant and a Company Captain - I believe the Captain, as the 'avatar' of the player, would be the primary focus for fluff. I also think it takes more work to justify a counts-as Calgar than a counts-as Telion. Not that either is impossible.

 

'And if a DIY states specifically that they do a certain thing well, your statement precludes the description of the best that DIY Chapter has to offer.' - Can you point out where? I can't see it, and if you can show it to me, I'd like to refute it. :)

 

 

As far as gameplay, you are probably correct that they don't need a codex of their own. But they could use some official fluff, to make the "intangible other" more tangible. That's why I work on DIY Chapters, to make the distinct/different/"other" tangible to those who might see my army on the tabletop.

 

I think that's ultimately why we're all here. I'm primarily asking in this thread how the transition from C:SM 4.0 to C:SM 5.0 has affected both extant DIY Chapters and the craft of DIYing in general.

[Ferrus Manus]

Sorry to seem a bit out of flow but I haven't read the entire thread so I'm just going to answer the original post:

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.

 

The loss of traits has made no difference to me, personally I salute GW for getting rid of them. I remember that someone has said that it removes originality from armies and characters. Have you seen how many options characters and units have now? Its amazing, I feel sorry for BA and DA players, they don't even come close in terms of options. Its quite sad really. As for the 'new toys' its nice to see them, a breath of fresh air and makes marines even more versatile then ever.

 

Plus, I think it makes DIYers want to be codex. No more of this 'my marines all have close combat weapons' or something else because everyone wants to take all the new goodies, personally I cant wait to field some Sternguard, oh and Vanguard equipped with Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields (What a good use of 300+ pts.:))

[Barret]

Plus, I think it makes DIYers want to be codex. No more of this 'my marines all have close combat weapons' or something else because everyone wants to take all the new goodies, personally I cant wait to field some Sternguard, oh and Vanguard equipped with Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields (What a good use of 300+ pts.:D)

 

There's a difference between "want to" and "have to". I'm still a little cranky about the loss of Traits, but that's because I now have a DIY and ~2000 points of fully modeled, converted and painted Marines that are completely illegal under the new Codex... because they all have BP+CCW. I'm now forced to migrate them to BT, BA or SW and all of those Codexes come, rules-wise, with a certain amount of baggage that I feel squeezes my DIY. The Space Wolves fight as a counter-attack army... that doesn't work. The Blood Angels are jump-packers and mechanized... nope. The BT are the best option, or maybe just the least painful, but will still require changes to my army and possibly thus to my fluff as I regard the two as inextricable.

 

I'm really not a fan of the Special-Characters-as-Traits paradigm, honestly. I think they do an excellent job of representing the fighting style of a single person and his Troops, but a poor one for representing an entire Chapter. For me, as I said, fluff and tabletop performance should have some kind of link between them. I love my Iron Hands because they're distinct from the norm, not a huge amount, but just enough that my opponents viewed them differently. Same goes for my Sons of Dagda. The lists I built were different, because they were predicated on slightly different rules and tactics. Now with my Iron Hands and Thousand Swords I'm going to have a difficult time getting away from the nagging feeling that I'm just like everybody else, and that's why I got into DIYing in the first place. If my army is just "red Ultramarines" who happen to all carry knives they can't use, why am I going to all this effort? When I played someone using Traits, they knew they were fighting my Chapter. Now they're just going to be fighting some Marine who fight the same way as everybody else. Sure, I could limit my choices, but then I'm handicapping my ability to win (and I do like winning), not to mention that those limitations would need explanation in the fluff that just isn't there. The Thousand Swords are Codex, mostly, so refusing to take Chaplains or Scouts or Vindicators doesn't make sense. With Traits, I could represent that they were a little bit more tenacious in close combat but tend to be light on the armoured support. Now they can be light on armour, but that's it, unless it just so happens that I have a Captain armed exactly like Cantor or Lysander, but I don't and I don't want to.

 

I had zero interest in Space Marines until Traits came around, at which point I dove in head-first because for me, personally, a DIY needs to be more than just an essay and some converting. I respect fully that others disagree with me and I'm happy to support them in that, but I struggle with it now, and I'm not sure how I'm going to resolve that conflict.

[Swordlord]

Again, I'm not sure about the "Why can't others", which seems a little like a direct attack, or I'm trying to prevent people from doing something I've done (I honestly hope I'm misunderstanding you there). A DIYer can spend as much time as he wishes creating characterful Sergeants and Commanders. I was trying to assert that there's a difference between 'support characters' and 'main characters'. A DIYer is within their rights to go as detailed (or not) as they wish. I've named every Marine in my Fifth Company, and may eventually have every squad in the Chapter named. I fully support having characterful Sergeants. But I was making the distinction between a Scout Sergeant and a Company Captain - I believe the Captain, as the 'avatar' of the player, would be the primary focus for fluff. I also think it takes more work to justify a counts-as Calgar than a counts-as Telion. Not that either is impossible.

 

'And if a DIY states specifically that they do a certain thing well, your statement precludes the description of the best that DIY Chapter has to offer.' - Can you point out where? I can't see it, and if you can show it to me, I'd like to refute it. :)

First, allow me to allay any thoughts of direct attack as none were intended. I'll admit to a little frustration, as I took the wording in your reply to mean that a Chapter's lower-ranking officers unworthy of description, and that the Captain was the only Chapter hero of note. I could have read more into your statement than there was. But don't envision me eating words, because I'm not.

 

Counts-as: only matters in game play. The new Codex and White Dwarf articles regarding said codex all concur that the special characters and their associated stats are available to any 'codex' Space Marine army. The wrinkle for DIY-ers here is creating a story for their DIY heroes that fulfill the same role as those codex special characters, fluff-wise. Distinctive IA creation isn't always just finding a different reason for an already existant Astartes hero or behavior and calling it your Chapter's 'tank commander' or 'Belief' or 'Combat Doctrine'. It should be allowed some originality, imho. This is where I thought an Imperial Fist Codex, or official fluff, would come in handy for me, as all I have to build on via the new codex is Lysander.

 

I do agree with your outlook that a given captain is the 'avatar' of the player -- especially true on the tabletop. However, I'm biased toward non-coms, since I spent most of my military career as one. :) As such, I view the captain as a character in the background. It's the troops and the sergeants moving the troops that get the job done. And the 5th edition rulebook emulates this idea with the emphasis on troops choices. You can have the most super-bad, Ubermensch captain in the galaxy, and he's worth less than squig spit without any troops.

 

As for naming every marine in a company, those additions aren't part of an IA, at least from all the C&C I've seen throughout the Liber threads. Part of the overall fluff of a DIY Chapter? Most assuredly!! But I've read numerous rebuffs for putting that much detail in an IA. "Pare it down" is a pretty common axiom. Even the Castigators don't have that much detail and distinctiveness within their IA itself.

 

:blink: Perhaps detailed fluff of that nature & extent should be placed in a fiction thread, as many of us want it for our DIYs, but it seems to have no place in an IA (and thusly the Liber Astartes). It is in that expanded Chapter fiction that the majority of the distinctiveness shows, not in an IA. I have a good many fine ideas that are suitable, but they tend to make the IA a tome rather than an index. You can squeeze a few choice lines in an IA that, say, make an anti-librarian outlook seem distinct from the Black Templars, but to flesh out a Chapter and its heroes you need more room than current IA standards allot.

[Commissar Molotov]

That's certainly true. On the first page of this thread I mentioned my disappointment that the community within the Liber Astartes is IA-centric. The IA article is not everything - it cannot be, because it is designed to summarise a Chapter. That's why I'm working on a Castigators website. I believe you can get around the IA restriction by writing "summary reports" or the like that allow you to go as in-depth as you like.

 

I fully support the counts-as concept. It takes some imagination, but it can totally work. I try wherever possible to promote originality (though I would favour 'consistent reality', in the sense of keeping it adherent to the background of the 40k universe - unless your stated intent is to break that background, in which case, go nuts!). I think there's a fair amount of Imperial Fist fluff - certainly more than for many Chapters, and the Index Astartes forum would be willing to help you out there.

 

As such, I view the captain as a character in the background. It's the troops and the sergeants moving the troops that get the job done.

 

That's very true - and makes me think of the quote by Roboute Guilliman currently in Ferrus Manus' signature - the Tactical Marine has always been the core of the Codex strategy. Every Marine is a hero in his own right, and that's something I find attractive about the Astartes.

 

Barret's post highlights the disadvantage of any Codex shift. I think back to the Second Edition assault squads that lost their power axes and hand flamers. I definitely have sympathy for anyone that invested heavily only to find themselves bereft of options. So perhaps this thread could look at alternatives for some of the traits that've been lost.

[flintlocklaser]

Well, here's my take on the good Commissar's topic. The 5th edition codex has had some minor effects on my DIY (the Steel Ghosts, ask for them by name!) as far as actual army-building goes - one or two negatives, a handful of positives. But as for the theme and backstory, the character of the army, they're basically unaffected. To be fair, my concept and tabletop idea for them was always as a basically Codex chapter; their main 'divergences' were a focus on counterinsurgency work and cityfighting (both given a boost by the 'free' weapons selection for the basic Tactical squad in the new dex), and their biggest divergence is of course, totally behind the scenes. I did get some benefits, in that I can field a legitimately hardcore Chief Librarian Severstal fairly easily, and I can get an effective, decently priced Ven Dread to represent Brother Nakoval. The lower stats on Scouts hurt, as the understrength nature of the Steel Ghosts means that their Scouts should be seeing lots of action - I'm trying to figure out a nice, useful build for at least one squad of them in my larger lists. But another plus is the cheapness of the dakka Predator... I could go on like this, unit by unit, but the practical upshot is that I think my guys are gaining more than they lost.

 

I will say that the 'new toys' in the list don't really affect me one way or the other. Most of them (Vanguard, Thunderfire, new LR mark I can't recall the name of) don't really feel right for my army. I'm considering a unit of Sternguard in larger games, as their specialist ammo and ability to take a heavy flamer seem like they could be of use in the kind of conflicts the Steel Ghosts are supposed to gravitate towards. And while I'm one of those people who has no problem with DIYs using 'named' characters as counts-as, I don't plan to use on in this list (counterpoint: my BA-successor DIY, the Jade Eagles, will be using a Lemartes-clone). In fact, due to the huge influence that my Chief Librarian has over the Ghosts, the other command slots (captains/chapter masters, chaplains) have sort of become ciphers; my IA article was already running way long, but I was trying to give the implication that the traditional command staff were sort of well-meaning dupes, manipulated (but not converted or magically controlled) by Severstal, and the Reclusiam was going to be very small and not terribly influential. Tabletop-wise, this means I feel the so-called chaplain nerf much less than some other people, and the build-your-own Captains/Chapter Masters are fine by me, as this means I can make them tactically useful without feeling any need to make them some kind of epic powerhouse.

 

So all in all, there hasn't been a huge impact on my primary DIY. But I can easily see how some people, especially those whose chapters diverged from the Codex more, could have some problems making the transition.

 

EDIT: went in to remove some of the fifty million 'quotes for emphasis' I put in there since those make me look like a 'giant tool' who can't 'write'

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

The Nova Devils got stung a little bit on the Trait loss, losing the No Mercy, No Respite bit. The rest is allowable in the fluff, so I'm not perturbed by it. What is getting annoying is the Honor Guard bit, as I don't see jump packs anywhere in there and I needed those (I had it covered with Shrike's Wing). It'll take a little work to re-adapt, but not enough to scrap the whole project. :tu:

[Morte]

Barret's post echoes my sentiments in regards to this topic :blush: DIY's gotta be something more than just "in your head". It's all well and good to have it all worked out, but it's all in your imagination unless there's a more tangible mechanism for conveying differences in character or tactical doctrine. Nobody has ever accused Codex Marines to be tactically inflexible (doctrinally yes, but tactically?) The issue is that they're SO flexible that almost any unique list you come up with now (footslogging, shooty, mechanised, drop pod, scout heavy) might really be seen as a manifestation of Ultramarines doing their thing. For all intents and purposes, the differences (whether in character, attitude, tactics or circumstance) between your DIY and the boys in blue become in name only. How would one represent a particularly vicious codex chapter (Marines Malevolent, Minotaurs) or a codex chapter with internal strife (Soul Drinkers) or a codex chapter that has some seriously divergent recruiting practices (Exorcists)? Their tactical doctrine matches the codex, and yet there's this incredibly rich vein of source material that's left untapped.

[Donkeybomber]

I started my DIY with little understanding of space marines in 4th and am still developing them through 5th. The biggest problem I have (fluffwise) as far as I know (I haven't had a chance to read through the new codex yet) is with the scouts. In my IA the scouts were not the newly recruited "less experienced" brothers, but rather sniper specialists who wore different armor for "sniperish" reasons. With similar stat lines, this worked fine. However, putting the sniper rifle in the hands of brothers with the inferior BS, when my fluff reads them as being the most skilled at ballistics... Basically these "equal brothers" are no longer equals among their peers. Why couldn't there have been a sniper squad/team option? :blush: Otherwise I haven't noticed to much difference, though I am still in the early phase of the IA.

 

Hopefully I'll get a look at the codex tonight and may be able to answer the question more appropriately.

 

Seems about the same to me for people just starting,

Donkey

[Forgeman]

I would like to associate myself with several of the above comments, particularly Barret's. I've had a DIY chapter since I first started in the hobby (some fourteen years ago now) but it wasn't until the traits system that I actually was able to say 'this truly is my chapter'. During 3rd Ed, I used the SW codex but thanks to traits I coudl accurately detail my chapter; a true grit infiltrator force that had been smashed to bits but struggled on with tactical marines having to takae on almost every single role.

 

I don't have the new codex yet but I've seen all these new veteran units and models and I'm not particualrly impressed. I've never once written an army list, I just make up the squads as best as they fit my background and just have fun (had fun, when was the Armageddon III campaign, haven't played since then...?); I've been at my local GW often enough to have seen every type of gamer there is but my two tactical squads of men always gave me memorable actions from every game (truly, I remember them all and mainly due to the fact that my marines creamed armies they should have had no chance against but I imagine that's more down to the Emperor smiting gamers who like to win a bit too much).

 

Still, my chapter has constantly evolved over the years, I imagine the new 'dex will simply make me focus on different units but, I'll miss the traits.

[Sergeant Centurius]

It's not that bad for me. I've decided to take sicarius, call him Senturius, and infiltrate a Legion of the Damned squad in addition to the ones deep striking so it's not too bad. Alternatively, i can use Cassius as Sicarius to represent the tough sergeant and the ferocity of the legion.

[Kros Morotho]

My DIY Chapter, the Sentinels, was created as a 4th edition, pure Codex, all-drop podding/deep striking force. This meant that it ws composed entirely of terminators, 10-man tactical "pod squads", and Dreadnoughts acting as mobile fire bases. It didn't always win, especially because it lacked tanks, and it did nothing for all of first turn, but I kept the theme consistant, and thus it was not only fun to play, but everyone in our local store was excited to play against it.

 

The loss of Terminator command squads is propbably the biggest adjustment I have to now make. Previously, I could have taken three (elite) Dreadnoughts, and still squeezed in 7 termies by ataching them to a t-armoured Captain. Now however, in order to do the same I must replace one of the Dreads with a terminator squad, or spend 100 points to bring in a Master of the Forge so that I can have 1 (or more) heavy-support Dreadnoughts.

 

Also, I had to lovingly scratch build all 6 of my pods... so it was a bit of kick to the manhood when GW finally got around to releasing a plastic kit.

 

On the upside, I can now start playing on turn one, which will be great!

[Race Bannon]

Perhaps detailed fluff of that nature & extent should be placed in a fiction thread, as many of us want it for our DIYs, but it seems to have no place in an IA (and thusly the Liber Astartes). It is in that expanded Chapter fiction that the majority of the distinctiveness shows, not in an IA. I have a good many fine ideas that are suitable, but they tend to make the IA a tome rather than an index. You can squeeze a few choice lines in an IA that, say, make an anti-librarian outlook seem distinct from the Black Templars, but to flesh out a Chapter and its heroes you need more room than current IA standards allot.

 

This is an interesting idea. I look at the RG IA from White Dwarf ... it's the stories told in the IA that help define the Chapter. Details are given in the articles and these are the models for us to use. Although an IA article should be a summarization, I think some detail is need to explain the summary. I don't mean to put all details in it's own little box either.

 

It seems to me that there is a fine line between "summary" and "story" regarding IA articles. The official stuff is clearly well written by professionals and we do not question any part of it. Actually ... we can't as the article is what it is. But on a forum, we are fans sharing an idea with other fans who have the capability to request more from the author no matter what. Look at the Castigators and Space Sharks IA as an example. Liber is definitely "IA-centric" because that is the only model we all have to use and emmulate. It introduces the idea and explains it to everyone in one shot. After that it's time to game on.

 

It takes a certain amount of courage to show the world - literally - your creativity and command at the English language. It's stressful enough to try to express yourself and be open to criticism of your idea, your Chapter. So I think part of why we usually see IA articles above anything else is simply because an IA is like a safe zone. We just have to say what is needed and not much more than that. I'm not trying to speak on behalf of everyone, this is just what I think to explain a phenomenon.