Creating a new Dark Angel Codex.

[Belial212]

Agreed Shadey, I actually meant that it would apply only to the squad carrying it, but only provide a bonus to firing at targets within 12 inches. So your bolters would only become twin linked if you are in rapid fire range, meaning you have to get very close and personal to use the bonus. I wasn't talking about the effect of the banner on other units within a 12 inch radius, as is commonly the case with banners which provide re-rolls for Leadership checks, etc.

[FerociousBeast]

I think we can debate the finer points of the banners later, but for now I think it suffices to say that the sacred banners should be a part of at least one of the codexes, and employing simple USRs is a definite possibility.

[con-fusion]

Let's take a step back from throwing out ideas for new gear and rules, and go back to procedure.

 

I would suggest the following:

 

1) C:DA+ Stat/Gear/Point Update -- Start with a project to take the current codex (C:DA4) and merely update stat lines, equipment, and points to bring it into line with C:SM. Do not change special rules or create new units/gear. C:DA+ will keep the same units in the same slots as C:DA4. For example, a C:DA+ Tac Squad will have the unit size choices and and equipment options of a Tac Squad in C:DA4 but the stat lines, equipment effects, and points will mirror C:SM, with special equipment available only to DA but not C:SM marines retaining C:DA4 stats. C:DA+ should not incorporate C:SM units/options/etc. available in C:SM but not C:DA4 (e.g., the Thunderfire Cannon). Five or seven volunteers should manage the process. One of these volunteers should be a mod (and the others should be selected on a first-come-first included basis). The mod will create a thread in the rules section for C:DA+, Everyone can picth in with stat references, point update suggestions, and such. The volunteers will then vote on each item, and a unanimous vote will result in acceptance of a change to C:DA4. The volunteers will then compile the rules into a pdf to be provided to the general membership. This should take no more than a month. The general membership will playtest the list for a month and provide feedback.

 

2) C:DA++ Just a Little Messing Around -- Take C:DA+ and start moving units around and including more units/concepts from C:SM, C:SW, and C:BA. For example, here is where we would throw in the Thunderfire Cannon, make Scouts a Troops Choice, add plasma cannon options (for those that love their plasma), add landspeeder squads, play with stubborn vs fearless, etc. We would not create new rules, new units, or new equipment. The process would be the same (though I think some of the volunteers from C:DA+ should cycle out), but the timeline would be longer. Start with a thread for ideas limited to the just messing around a bit concept, and go from there. Changes here should be highly influenced by C:DA+ playtesting.

 

3) C:DA+++ If We Build It... -- Take C:DA++ and go wild. Anything goes here. New units, gear, special character, etc. are all welcome. This is the place for things like special command squads (e.g., a RW command squad for Sammael), unit member upgrades (e.g., upgrade a battle brother in a Tac Squad to a Corporal), Brother Bethor and his super nifty standards, and whatnot. Again, same process, longer timeline. Changes here should be highly influenced by C:DA++ playtesting, new mini options (where there are minis to buy, minis will be made), fluff implementation, and uniqueness.

[Alys Dwr]

I'm reading through the new posts but this jumped out at me and made me feel like sharing.

I like a lot of the brainstorming going on, and I was thinking about how to incorporate the 'tactical/strategic' aspect of the DA.

I've been toying with the idea of "after both sides have deployed, for every independant character in your army you may re-deploy a single tactical squad". Any thoughts? I think that this as a special rule wouldn't need any points increases as you would get to do it once and then need to pay 100+pts to do it for a second squad. I'm not sure about how combat squads would work with this, whether there should be a limit on how far the squad can be moved and if they can do it with an IC attached etc. Could be a fun rule though and definately give us a tactical edge from the get go, as the DA should have.

 

Al

 

+edit+

 

"Let's take a step back from throwing out ideas for new gear and rules, and go back to procedure."

i do apologise, should have caught up on the reading first :sweat:

[Belial212]

Maybe you're right con-fusion, maybe we should create threads for the specific tasks. Earlier on it was suggested that they be Project Redemption (The Modernization of the codex in-line with C:SM) and Project Unforgiven (The new codex, in 1 stage rather than the 2 you suggest.) Maybe it's time to create some teams for this and start getting people who are willing to put some work into this talking to each other in a smaller capacity?

[HsojVvad]

I have a question. If you are playing C:DA+ (I like the name by the way) just say you are playing Chaos SM. Would you let them be C:CSM+ as well? Would they have updated wargear and point costs as well? Would only be fair for them too since they are SM after all. If not, why not? I hear CSM players complain about same wargear and they either work different or different point costs as well.

[FerociousBeast]

Chaos players have a forum, too. Nothing preventing them from following our lead. Anyway, that would suit them. We are the I Legion, after all <_<

[con-fusion]

No soup for Chaos!!! :tu:

[breng77]

I have a question. If you are playing C:DA+ (I like the name by the way) just say you are playing Chaos SM. Would you let them be C:CSM+ as well? Would they have updated wargear and point costs as well? Would only be fair for them too since they are SM after all. If not, why not? I hear CSM players complain about same wargear and they either work different or different point costs as well.

 

What wargear does Chaos have that uses the old rules? As far as I am aware they don't have certain items, but these items existed before the codex was written so any ommission was intentional.

[Gillyfish]

Okay guys, the draft Project outline for Project Redemption is available here:

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=209429

 

Please read it and post some suggestions in that topic.

 

I'll try to get something written about Project Unforgiven as soon as I can and I will post the link in this thread when that's done.

 

Thanks for the comments and suggestions so far.

[Gillyfish]

And here's the outline for Project Unforgiven:

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=209431

 

Again, please provide any comments you have on the plan (whether you agree, disagree or have some suggestions for improvements/alternatives).

 

I'll collect feedback on plans for about a week and then we should be able to get started (well, hopefully, anyway).

[Grand Master Neo]

don't know if it would interest anybody but i have just converted the existing codex into an easy to understand excel format if it would come in useful?

[HsojVvad]

don't know if it would interest anybody but i have just converted the existing codex into an easy to understand excel format if it would come in useful?

Best be careful. That could get the Forum in trouble for releasing copyrighted material. I say best be kept to yourself. Then again, I am not lawyer so I could be wrong.

[Grand Master Neo]

don't know if it would interest anybody but i have just converted the existing codex into an easy to understand excel format if it would come in useful?

Best be careful. That could get the Forum in trouble for releasing copyrighted material. I say best be kept to yourself. Then again, I am not lawyer so I could be wrong.

 

i'm not going to post it on the forums so it should be okay. it is merely designed as an aid to help us with production

[Shadey]

What will be the format for these projects? The most convenient way would be to copy over content from any codex we use into a brand new all inclusive codex of our own but I assume that copyright/ip issues would prevent this. So instead will it read like an errata?

 

eg: p42 The cost of x is modified to be y points.

 

In the case of additional units from Codex Space Marines: p37 C:SM, z squad is available for the same points cost and options. I also guess they would come under the same header, troops, elites etc.

 

I assume the only units that will have their entire unit entry in any file we produce would be brand new units (and perhaps units/special characters from obsolete codices). This would force players to have C:SM and C:DA on hand, which is not unreasonable imo. Finally what about units from C:BA or C:SW etc? Will we need C:BA for the Stormraven? (as an example).

[HsojVvad]

What will be the format for these projects? The most convenient way would be to copy over content from any codex we use into a brand new all inclusive codex of our own but I assume that copyright/ip issues would prevent this. So instead will it read like an errata?

 

eg: p42 The cost of x is modified to be y points.

 

In the case of additional units from Codex Space Marines: p37 C:SM, z squad is available for the same points cost and options. I also guess they would come under the same header, troops, elites etc.

 

I assume the only units that will have their entire unit entry in any file we produce would be brand new units (and perhaps units/special characters from obsolete codices). This would force players to have C:SM and C:DA on hand, which is not unreasonable imo. Finally what about units from C:BA or C:SW etc? Will we need C:BA for the Stormraven? (as an example).

Sadly this will have to be the way. This is why I thought if we had different point costs, we wouldn't have to do this, because this would be our version and would not be copying anything. For example say Space Marines are 5 points. ( I know they are not but for example) then DA would be 6 points. The extra point costs would be because they are custom made or have an extra rule. Or say -1 point and they don't have any grenades but if you want them, then add 1 point and this should prevent the copy protection, I think. We are not making a point cost from the UM or SW or BA codex and by adding say 1 or 2 point costs, the GW will have to prove that we copied thier formula in court that we violated the copyright act then.

 

So if we have different point costs we will be ok. Then again most people cry and complain because DA are different point costs then this is moot and we would have to use your example as you said, wich really sucks.

[RayJ]

HsojVvad, I really don't get your aversion to points uniformity. Causing these units to cost different points for what is pretty much the same thing makes them harder to balance. Take a look at Blood Angels vs Space Marines. The basic units cost the same. There are a few exceptions, but those are bringing options that are slightly too expensive into a better balance with the current environment and other choices in the codex.

 

We should look at Blood Angels as our primary resource for how to modify ourselves in comparison to ultramarines (and look at Space Wolves second). I promise you, swapping out combat tactics for our chapter trait will be all that's necessary to make our battle company stuff work. Special characters to make more changes is an ok route to go, but purposefully making the process hard on yourself my mandating the points be different is a bit troublesome.

[Deathwing]

The points discrepancy thing might be more so that we can publish the codex in it's entirety rather than a mini-codex ala 3rd edition. As far as I understand we can't wholesale copy and paste whatever is in the current publications without getting into a mess.

 

To be honest I see nothing wrong if the end product published something like

 

Tactical Squad

- see page # in Codex: Space Marines.

- Replace Combat Tactics with Dark Angel Trait

 

Heck, it would actually make the bottom line better for GW as Dark Angels players everywhere would have to buy a copy of Codex: Space Marines to use the B&C made document (even more so if GW adopted it as an official update). Be sure to include that bit when the final project gets submitted to GW, lol.

[RayJ]

For the purposes of playtesting and designing, our data should probably be formatted as Deathwing suggests. The end product is hopefully something GW will use to put into print. Along those lines we should be developing with their current gameset and philosophy in mind. That means standard units should be represented with standard rules.

 

Deathwing hints at the inconvenience this will cause us, but if we are really set on making a workable project, it's a minor and easily surmountable obstacle. Working with the long-term in mind will make things better on us all as we close in on the final stages.

[FerociousBeast]

BoLS publishes army books that use stats from codexes, and the hammer of the gods has not yet fallen on them. I say give it a shot, then take it down if GW says so.

 

I've long been deeply skeptical that GW actually has a legal case in forbidding the online publishing of stats (it's not, despite widespread popular belief, a violation of copyright), but that's a topic for another thread.

[Belial212]

I agree with both Deathwing and FerociousBeast, as strange as that sounds. When we publish online, it might behoove us to reference existing codexes rather than put up material copied from another codex and thus not incur GW's potential wrath, whether legal or not. But as a working document amonst the smaller group that end up doing the majority of the design work, it makes sense to use a more complete codex with everything in it, most communications to be done by e-mailing pages and the codex as attachments. When we publish though, it won't be a lot of work to create an edited version for public consumption.

[HsojVvad]

HsojVvad, I really don't get your aversion to points uniformity. Causing these units to cost different points for what is pretty much the same thing makes them harder to balance. Take a look at Blood Angels vs Space Marines. The basic units cost the same. There are a few exceptions, but those are bringing options that are slightly too expensive into a better balance with the current environment and other choices in the codex.

 

We should look at Blood Angels as our primary resource for how to modify ourselves in comparison to ultramarines (and look at Space Wolves second). I promise you, swapping out combat tactics for our chapter trait will be all that's necessary to make our battle company stuff work. Special characters to make more changes is an ok route to go, but purposefully making the process hard on yourself my mandating the points be different is a bit troublesome.

It's mostly so we don't get in trouble. You just never know as someone said, the Great Hammer will fall on B&C. I tend to err on the side of caution. So if take out grenades and make them X points cheaper we can publish it and it will not be the same point costs as SM. Then we add in point costs for the grenades. We can even go to say that Y number of points are added to the squad if grenades are not used. Even if it's one point more than the SM codex, I believe we can't get in trouble since we are not copying the C:SM, other wise we will have to say, stat so and so, is Look on page XXX C:SM, or add Y points to page XXX C:SM cyclone missle launchers or something like that. I hate referring to other books, but I see no way of getting around the Copyright unless we contact GW and ask themsleves if we infact can do this.

 

Who knows, maybe they will give us written permission. So who ever heads this project, I say to them, to write a written letter and snail mail it to GW and ask for permission to use stats and points costs and be able to list them in our home brew codex. If we don't ask we don't know. Email will not cut it, but I believe we would get a written response back if we send a self stamped addressed envelope to GW. So what do you think? The person who is in charge write a letter to GW? If nobody will, I will take on the responsibility then.

[Gillyfish]

Regarding the question of whether stats should be included, we should probably play it safe and avoid reproducing existing content in full. That would certainly be the case for Project Redemption. Project Unforgiven may require the creation of entirely new entries, which is something different entirely.

 

When we get further along with the project I will speak to the Admins of the B&C (who know GW Legal's stance on these things) and ask for their advice.

[Zebukkuk]

After reading this entire thread, I'm feeling inspired to make some contributions.

 

I've been playing 40k since 1988, and starting collecting Dark Angels in 1994. I've seen every incarnation of the Dark Angels since then, and like many others, I have been appalled at how completely our Codex has been... left in the dark, so to speak.

 

It's true that the Dark Angels have many traits in common with Codex Chapters: 10 companies including a veteran 1st company and a scout 10th company, etc. Looking back at the past Codices, GW was wont to use wargear and psychic powers to make the Space Marine chapters unique. Unfortunately, much of this wargear was dropped (Sacred Standards, Chapter Relics, etc.) So while I see the need for a new unit or two, I think most of the work needs to focus on the other, "smaller" details that give an otherwise Codex chapter a distinctive Dark Angel feel.

 

To this end, Project Unforgiven needs a fully redone list of psychic powers, as many as are included in Codex Space Marines. None of these need to be game-breaking, but they do need to convey who the Dark Angels are. So while the Blood Angel psychic powers are tailored for their particular style of play, Dark Angel psychic powers can and should do the same for us. We could make Mind Worm available to any Dark Angel Librarian, but also include others to show just how effective Dark Angel Librarians are at assailing the minds and souls of their enemies, for example. (Compare how the Daemonhunter psychic powers focus more or less on damage output, while the Witch Hunter psychic powers focus on psychology.)

 

I agree that the Sacred Standards need to be brought back. Using USRs is a good idea, or perhaps they could work similar to Cities of Death stratagems (Standard of Devastation offering re-rolls to hit for one unit within 12", Standard of Fortitude offering re-rolls of failed saving throws) for example.

 

I'm also liking the idea of rolling Heroic Intervention into Deathwing Assault. It wouldn't be game-breaking, since many armies can use the reserves denial tactic to keep key units off the board on the first turn. Plus the existing limitations on the number of squads that can use Deathwing Assault would keep its use to a fair level.

 

In my opinion, army-wide Stubborn (a.k.a. Intractable) is a must in place of Combat Tactics. It's a shame that Jervis removed it from the 4th ed. Codex, as I felt it made the Dark Angels quite unique.

 

As a big fan of the Adeptus Mechanicus, I was very disappointed that Mat Ward removed 1 wound from the Techmarine statline. This was a big mistake, ensuring that hardly anyone will bother fielding them, while they were already a rare sight on the gaming table. Whatever changes are made to the Techmarines, I think they need to retain the 2 wounds to show that they're more than just a Tactical Marine with fancy wargear.

 

One potential pitfall we should avoid is the "me too!" syndrome. Just because the Ultramarines, Blood Angels, or Space Wolves have something, doesn't mean we need it. Widely available Feel No Pain should remain a Blood Angels trait. Let the Space Wolves keep their ability to mix Terminators in with power armour squads. There is still plenty of room to make Dark Angels different without borrowing too much from other books.

 

Anyway, I've got a whole heap-load of ideas about how to make the Dark Angels play like they're meant to, while not making anything particularly overpowered. I think the key is to make everything in the army list worth taking. When I make a Dark Angel army list, I should have a hard time deciding what to take... but only when every option is worthy of serious consideration.

[HsojVvad]

I agree with Zebukkuk. Forget about the "me too syndrom". If we can't be different, and we have to have what others have, then just use that codex when you want to play that game. That would be problem solved then. Use UM codex for one game, use SW codex for another game, use BA for the next game. I just find it funny nobody ever uses the Chaos codex to represent the Dark Angels. I wunder why is this?