DIY and the New Codex

[Brother Delias]

@ one of Mor's Earlier comments. I play IG, Orks, Chaos, Tau, and am working on an SM army. As of now, the IG have their combat doctrines, though like you had said, with the new direction that GW is seemingly going, I can see this going away, which is sad because it's actually the best offtrait system I have seen so far. As said, I am fairly new to SMs in general, so most of the ins and outs of the previous editions I haven't been able to see, and therefore am a little lost in most of this. the only Army I play that is strictly adhereing to the baseline of the codex is my Tau, which doesn't leave much to change anyway. Either way, under a trait system, I beleive that in order to get a uniqueness, you have to look at the rules of said traits, think of how best that relates to your army, and then work the two in tandem with eachother. Too many times have I seen someone work one first, then the other, and then end up with a poor storyline for said Army. My IG army(which is slotted for APOC on a MASSIVE scale) is a global army, comprising of multiple regiments, and therefore multiple doctrines. However, on the small scale, these really don't matter, because on a small scale force, Most of the Doctrines, both specialised and non, are meshed together to form a strike force aka: a normal IG army. As far as chaos goes.. the only thing I don't like is that all daemons are now the same... regardless of what god they come from. Everything else seems set as it sould be as far as I'm concerned. Orks are orks... so it's easy to create a WAAAGH of your own easily enough. I havent't read the new rules for tyranids, but from what I understand the mutegenics has gone away somewhat for more hordish rules. which I have mixed feelings about, being that I first started playing as bugs and loved mutigenics. I look forward to getting the new codex to start working on my Monks of War chapter, which I already have started writing fluff for. Which as soon as I have finished, I will be posting on here. Either way, as far as making a unique army, fluff should not dictate rules, as rules should not dictate fluff. These need to be worked in a constant flow with eachother to get an army that works, and looks good doing so. That's my two cents worth, good day!

[Muras]

From day one when I started playing Space Marines, I have found a variety of things interesting about their story, and directions GW's taken them over the years are something I constantly enjoy learning. One of the units that appealed to me all along was the lowly Apothecary. The idea of a warrior medic helping maintain the future of the chapter by aiding in the recovery of geneseed and helping save his bretheren on the battlefield greatly appealed to me, and I often fielded a command squad just to use one of them on the field.

 

When Codex Space marines (the last one) came out, I was elated that they had introduced the idea (which'd never occured to me at the time) of fielding apothecary sargents. I loved the idea I built my chapter, the Disciples, with it being one of the main themes for me as to how this developed in the chapter and why they choose to make this divergance from the codex. For the last few years I have been having a ball converting my former black templar to a chapter all of my own, which my opponents over the years have loved to hate (loving the story, but hating the 'and i apothecary that wound, and that one, and that one' over the years).

 

Then I heard the rumors of the current Codex coming. At first I was vastly depressed about the fact that one of the most intruiging elements of my on the table list was going to pass into 'count as' normal sargeants. But with a few more months of thought about this and time to consider it, I will just use it as a differentiator in my story, and for Apocalypse games (plan to make my own chapter's formation including the ability to field apothecary seargants, since Apoc's all about the story anyhow in my experience).

 

I am now enjoying the fact that I've been given a few more options as a slightly codex divergant chapter, but still, despite moving on from the initial depression over the loss of my favorite option, I can't quite shake the dismay at the change. I dislike the fact that even though I can still leave it in the story, which I do find greatly appealing, the tabletop doesn't reflect my chapter as well as it once did and that seems like a shame.

[Commissar Molotov]

From day one when I started playing Space Marines, I have found a variety of things interesting about their story, and directions GW's taken them over the years are something I constantly enjoy learning. One of the units that appealed to me all along was the lowly Apothecary. The idea of a warrior medic helping maintain the future of the chapter by aiding in the recovery of geneseed and helping save his bretheren on the battlefield greatly appealed to me, and I often fielded a command squad just to use one of them on the field.

 

When Codex Space marines (the last one) came out, I was elated that they had introduced the idea (which'd never occured to me at the time) of fielding apothecary sargents. I loved the idea I built my chapter, the Disciples, with it being one of the main themes for me as to how this developed in the chapter and why they choose to make this divergance from the codex. For the last few years I have been having a ball converting my former black templar to a chapter all of my own, which my opponents over the years have loved to hate (loving the story, but hating the 'and i apothecary that wound, and that one, and that one' over the years).

 

Then I heard the rumors of the current Codex coming. At first I was vastly depressed about the fact that one of the most intruiging elements of my on the table list was going to pass into 'count as' normal sargeants. But with a few more months of thought about this and time to consider it, I will just use it as a differentiator in my story, and for Apocalypse games (plan to make my own chapter's formation including the ability to field apothecary seargants, since Apoc's all about the story anyhow in my experience).

 

I am now enjoying the fact that I've been given a few more options as a slightly codex divergant chapter, but still, despite moving on from the initial depression over the loss of my favorite option, I can't quite shake the dismay at the change. I dislike the fact that even though I can still leave it in the story, which I do find greatly appealing, the tabletop doesn't reflect my chapter as well as it once did and that seems like a shame.

 

Whilst it's not the same, and it carries the whole 'opponent's permission' clause, Imperial Armour 6 features updated rules for the Red Scorpions, who use a new and updated form of 'Purity Above All' in 5th Edition. (After all, Apothecaries have been updated and upgraded, too!) - If you can get hold of the book, it might give you an answer. :o

[Muras]

Aye, I have heard rumors about that, though I haven't gotten a chance to see how they implimented it yet. Hoping I can see a copy someday so I can decide if I like what they did with them before I purchase a rather expensive book for that one entry.

[Marshal Nebiros]

I was one of the people who based my DIY's fluff around an obsession with purity. Consequently, I chose Purity Above All. This is probably the only trait that cannot be duplicated in the new codex. Thus, I felt like my Night Watch chapter was destroyed...

 

But wait! GW knew how I would feel. So, as a trade off, they made a map that shows the homeworld of the Night Watch: Silence. This is a first mention of this world. Also, they gave me a chapter symbol (which means I have to repaint all my shoulderpads, but what the hell). So, on the whole, I came away happy.

 

However, others who spent a small fortune on spare bits to convert a ton of apothecaries might not be as happy as I am.