Tanks EditionPrevious Thread >>92552036 >What is Project Fourk-Hammer?Project Fourk-Hammer (provisional name) is an experiment to see if the 40k community on /tg/ is interested enough to come together to homebrew a fan fork edition of Warhammer 40,0000's 3-7e Era, primarily inspired by 4th Edition. Think Warhammer Armies Project but for Warhammer 40k's Fourth Edition. >Why are you doing this?/tg/ complains about modern 40K constantly. At least one /tg/ anon has already succeeded in producing a viable alternative to 40K in the form of OnePageRules, however this is not satisfying to many since it is too shrimplified and lacks the flavour and identity they love, or once loved. >How can I contribute?Post in the thread things you want to see in your idealized version and respond to other posts making proposals, or present material you have prepared such as rules text or art. The project is looking for someone who will commit to acting as a maintainer, which means compiling and editing discussions, effectively a secretary position. >What has been done so far?A summary has been prepared here: https://pastebin.com/pdx5GmYdUntil someone decides to become a tripfag and take the responsibility of being the full-time maintainer it is a collective effort to record the outcome of discussions in the threads. >Thread Templatehttps://pastebin.com/1T71j2Vg
Never forget that the autogun sergeant is the first successfully backported model to this edition.Literally just sergeant allowed to use autogun stats.
So according to the poll http://poal.me/83ai34IGOUGO but with "extensive" reactions is the winner by 1. With it being so close it would probably be better if there was more discussion between that option and "AA in phases" option. That said, IGOUGO with "extensive" reactions could be the ticket if we define "extensive" and how reactions would work in depth, especially making sure horde army reactions are as valuable as elite army reactions.
not a 40k player currently but ive been waiting for a reason to get into it-- online play only. will be keeping an eye on this.
>>92567209Winner is alternating phases by one atm
>>92567237Well look at that.Still, wit how close it is I guess a discussion on why people voted for those options will be valid and then we can get bit nitty gritty and decide what fourk will use for turn order. I can see IGOUGO requiring balancing on reactions while AA phases will require balancing on what type of actions can be taken per phase and how each unit is activated.
>>92567209I can already forsee the "extensive reactions" (which will necessitate a large number of per-faction fan rules) will be the death knell for this project. At least alternating phases/activations is a clean global rule change, adding custom reactions is going to constantly devolve into arguments about balance and straying from baseline 4th edition every single time it is brought up. Personally I wouldn't touch IGOUGO at all, maybe add 2E-style overwatch at the very most.
>>92567171I know someone already said in the last thread, but autoguns in 4th are just lasguns. this isn't really backporting anything. the differencce is entirely arbitrary and aesthetic.
>>92567263Horus Heresy manages custom reactions just fine and gives us plenty of precedent to work with. Keep in mind that most Reactions are universally available, like 6-8 of them, while factions will only have 1 or maybe at most 2 of their own, and none of them need be game-breaking. They're just a way to add more flavour, which is something I think everyone agrees that we want - a very flavorful edition.If the only major argument against Reactions is "tough to balance" I think that's a minor drawback compared to the benefits and the issues with Alternate Phasing. To reiterate, if it's whole army phasing, alpha strikes aren't addressed at all unless we still add Reactions anyways. If we go with unit phasing, that's a hell of a lot of drag on the game flow and still feels less dynamic than a Reaction system since it stays very rigid in what can be done in what phase, just breaks up the resolution between players. It also leads to gamey target prioritization trying to kill units that haven't activated yet, which I don't think is ideal fun gameplay. The meta considerations of turn structure itself intrudes too much on the tactical considerations, kind of takes you out of the immersion a bit if that makes sense. Reactions do a better job of making it feel like things are actually happening simultaneously instead of alternately.
>>92567383>>92567261I guess the next step regardless of what we pick is the individual phases and how they work. If we go with "IGOUGO+R" then we'll need to decide on some basic reactions to add in, while if we go with "Phase AA" we'll need to decide what actions can be taken each phase for each unit and what order each unit will take.
Thread theme to get us into the moodhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uSM-ihNGHs
>>92567399IGOUGO+R is easy because as I explained last thread, we can essentially just port it in from HH rules with little or even zero alteration. If we want to change it more later we can, but it's not a bad set-up as is.If we go with the alternate phasing route that's more work to design from scratch unless we use the simplest most brute force implementation, which I don't think will work out as well as people think it will. We can always try it and see, again playtesting is the key. But it'll also be easier to put together the first system and get it on tables quickly. I've seen another anon suggest adding 2e style Overwatch to Alt Phasing if we do it and I agree that's a good idea. There are also a couple ways we could tweak the Overwatch Reaction to make it function more like that in the IGOUGO system as well.If we cannot agree on trying one of these systems, why don't we have a proponent on each side write up a rough draft of rules and we'll just test them both?In order to facilitate that, we'll essentially just use the rest of 4th edition as is except for changes that have already been agreed upon, and the playtest forces should be proxied mirror matches to stay as even as possible.>>92567430You're a demigod amongst mere mortals.
>>92567463Speaking of testing, should each anon do physical games with their friends or do we try to organize internal testing with anons of the thread with Tabletop simulator?
>>92567501I have some irl friends I regularly play 3rd edition with. They'd be willing to playtest this.
>>92567430D-Rok > Bolt Thrower, fite me.
>>92567383I see your point and I think it's a good one, do you have any framework for how you want Reactions to be? Just porting the HH 2.0 with minor changes depending on factions?The point of a system is it's outcome and I think your outcome is the best for what people actually want.
>>92567501Either is good, but I think the second one is preferable because it ensures both people involved in the test are actually interested, trying to get your friends in on it while the game is still very rough and in development might be an uphill battle. Sometimes the parameters and goals of a playtest aren't going to align with the experience players actually want out of a finished game.The further we get through development and the more polished it is, the more we can (and should) seek outside feedback though.
>>92567526To start with we can just straight port it from HH2.0 yes. That means 6 universal Reactions available to everyone. The rules text may need to be just slightly tweaked in a couple of places.That actually brings me to another point, though. We had a bit if a debate on whether or not to use HH2.0 or 4th as the core, and while the majority settled on 4th, it's worth keeping in mind that these systems are extremely similar in a lot of places, just being different stages if the evolution of the 3rd edition ruleset. So that said, what we're really determining here are just a handful of differences between the editions, and instead of doing that wholesale, I think we should have someone go through both 4th ed and HH rulebooks and just write out every instance where the rules conflict, and we can go down the list as a group and pick which one we prefer on a case-by-case basis.Personally I think there are only a few things that 4th does better in the core rules. Where I think the committment to being mostly 4th ed will come in, will actually be when we get to the codexes (and in some cases those would actually be 3.5ed).
>>92567535Well I'll need to start downloading some things (I only have World Eaters downloaded for TTS) to set up, unless if someone already has the required downloads to set up a standard marine army v standard marine army.
How about using 2nd edition overwatch rules for reactions, but instead forfeitting whole turn for it, you just pass shooting in your own phase and take the -1 for shooting in overwatch. It would be familiar and kinda do the same thing
>>92567156>what I'd like to seePsychic being more than mortal wounds (Curses, altering terrain features, things like charging a warp storm, etc)Bringing back Hatred (Slaanesh vs Eldars, SW vs TS, etc)More flavor like the Avatar being immune to flamers and meltas, CSM mutations (pre-game or during the game), etcEvents happening that buff/debuff everyone on the table for a turn (like blowing up a holy statue) - might have to be mission-basedALTERNATING ACTIVATIONS because the turn structure of 40k is the worst thing out there
>>92567383>if it's whole army phasing, alpha strikes aren't addressed at allSimultaneous resolution is pretty easy going by phases. I shoot, you shoot, everyone dies. It also means you can do suicidal shit like running dudes into the open to do some damage but get immediately wiped out.
>>92567209>IGOUGO but with "extensive" reactionsSo what people really want is to play Infinity?
Have any of you fags checked out existing fan remakes? Might be worth seeing what other people have tried already. I'm aware of:>Prohammer Classic>41st Millennium Edition / 5.5 edition>Warhammer 999.M41No I haven't looked at them much myself, nor am I telling you not to make your own things because these already exist.
>>92567567I feel like it isn't either or really we can have it as "you activate half your army then the other player does," and include simple reactions that let players interact during the others turn to try and limit shenanigans.
>>92567988>ProhammerWow, thats pretty much exactly what I was looking for, thanks for mentioning it anon! Why don't we just contribute to this instead?
>>92568133>>92567988Oh my god, it even keeps armor value for vehicles as opposed to this current retarded toughness system.
>>92560410Why not simply have them as an ally you can bring in, a la Daemon/Witch Hunters dex?A single Custode or a single squad of SoS, heavily customizable as a non-counting HQ choice, similar to inquisitors?
>>92568133>Why don't we just contribute to this instead?The moment they find out you are from 4chan, you will almost assuredly be told to kick rocks.Too much baggage.
>>92568373Not sure why I'd need to tell them.
>>92568369I actually think the solution that would make /tg/ the happiest is having a template/guide/format for Codices and letting everyone write whatever stupid Codex they want that is compatible with the rules.
>>92568709This.
Bump
>>92568709We need a working core rulebook first before we should consider codices first. >>92567988Glad that there is competition against us. It will mean we have to up our rule writing game.
>>92567209Why the feck is IGOUGO with->>no reactions>>limited reactions Not an option? If you are forking 3rd-7th the only reactions were heroic interventions, overwatch and go to ground, and all were controversial because they were often no brainer options that didn't do much but frustrate assaulters and frustrate shooters respectively.Going to shoot my unit off an objective in the open? Better activate a rule that gives them a cover save at the cost of them staying put. Very strategy, much balance
>>92567988>>92568133Yeah I've been reading through the Prohammer Classic doc this morning and it's pretty good, close to what we're doing in a lot of ways, just a few points I disagree on.They still use TLoS, no Movement characteristic, and the return fire reaction is just a bit too punishing for the user in my opinion. A few things feel too fiddly and out of character with the rest of the design, like the suppression mechanic is solid in concept but I think it could use refinement. There's a lot of clever stuff here though, including some suggestions I've seen other anons here make and some innovative ideas I haven't seen before, and I recommend everyone check it out thoroughly and then we'll decide our next steps.Oh, it also sacrifices a bit of focus in order to allow compatibility with any edition codex from 3rd through 7th, though. While there's something to be said for that, my ideal project would have a single Codex for each faction that draws from the best parts of each, in order to tighten balance and keep everyone more or less on the same page.
>>92571399Because raw IGOUGO fucking sucks and anyone who has played a game with a different turn structure never wants to go back. Even the men who designed the first 4 editions of 40k don't use it anymore and say it's the first thing they'd change if they went back. Horus Heresy 2.0 which is the most modern form of the 3rd ed 40k lineage added in Reactions. Kill Team and Necromunda don't use IGOUGO at the smaller end of the scale, and Epic 40k/Adeptus Titanicus/Legions Imperialis doesn't use it at the larger end of the scale. It's simply indefensible. If you want to play like that, just pick up an old 4th edition rulebook and codex and play it straight. Any fan project that's looking to update rules is always going to gravitate towards attacking the weak point of IGOUGO first, and it has happened every time people have discussed doing something like this.
>>92571400>Yeah I've been reading through the Prohammer Classic docI skimmed through it and a bit of the Death Guard stuff and it seems to be written by some ESL. Absolutely full of errors, bad grammar, spelling mistakes, using the wrong words entirely, contradictions, etc. It needs to be heavily edited to be of any use.
>>92567232>online play onlydiscord tranny kek
>>92571400>Oh, it also sacrifices a bit of focus in order to allow compatibility with any edition codex from 3rd through 7th, though. While there's something to be said for that, my ideal project would have a single Codex for each faction that draws from the best parts of each, in order to tighten balance and keep everyone more or less on the same page.I've been reading through it as well and that was my exact thought. Not to derail the thread but I think a project focused on taking Prohammer, not adjusting it all, but providing codexes built to purpose for it in the same way Prohammer was patched together from multiple editions, might be a more realistically achievable goal for this board.Basically, take what is generally agreed to be the best or most flexible/flavorful version of each army's codex across those editions, tweak them and grab good ideas from other edition codexes (ie re-introduce proper looted vehicle rules from Orks 3rd into Orks 4th), maybe, *maybe* backport some post-8th units that are worthy No fucking Primaris outside "If you want to mix together Intercessors with other specialized squads to create the equivalent of a Tactical Squad, representing those same rules, go ahead"
>>92567156>Post in the thread things you want to see in your idealized versionOkay, let's go>5th edition with minor fixes like wound allocation>Smaller tables - 4x4" and 3x3" depending on the game size>1500pts is a standard sized game now>2000pts is for big long-ass games>Shadow War: Armageddon is your Kill Team now, no need to thank me>Pic related alone should be enough to play a 1500pts game
>>92571557>Not to derail the thread but I think a project focused on taking Prohammer, not adjusting it all, but providing codexes built to purpose for it in the same way Prohammer was patched together from multiple editions, might be a more realistically achievable goal for this board.Almost agreed, but there are a few things I absolutely cannot resist changing, which I mostly already outlined in my post. We can also trim the document down quite a bit, it's more bloated than necessary since it provides rules for things like flyers, and has to address all the stuff in the GW codexes that should be ignored under its core rules, which we won't need.I think what I'll do over the next few days its create a document that compares the rules text for each mechanic across 4th, HH2, and Prohammer, and highlight the biggest discrepancies and figure out which version people prefer. Anything that's the same across all 3 projects will probably just go in untouched, with only one particular exception that comes to mind for me, which is Wound allocation - I think there might be a better way to do this.I have work tonight however, so I won't be around too much longer. In the meantime, once again, I implore anyone else serious about this project to read through those rules documents and continue taking notes and comparing. It seems like, at least for now, we're roughly settled on the turn order question being IGOUGO+ Reactions, with the final implementation likely to fall somewhere between HH2 and Prohammer Classic.
>>92571553>Discordnty, I'm not a pedophile
>>92571550>t. retard who has to spend thousands before even playing the game
>>92571553Ben, no one wants to join your discord.
>>92571624That's far too much for that size board. An equivalent ork army wouldn't even be able to deploy on a 3'x3' board.
>>925716244x4 and 3x3 boards would be way too small, even if you could fit the armies along each edge there would be absolutely zero room for movement and everything would be in range of everything else at all times.
>>92571399Fag is curating poll options to shill his pet HH2.0 project. Very inorganic, notice how 4th won out on the poll about which edition to base the project on but the namefag is still shilling reactions and now movement values.
>>92567501Both. Actual play testing is very good, but logistically it's limiting.
>>92567156Personally I think that the most sensible starting point is to simply tidy up 4th edition without introducing any major changes. 4th is already a pretty solid ruleset and most of the problems stem from balancing within the Codexes, not especially with the actual system itself. Making big sweeping changes like adding reactions or, heaven forbid, completely changing how activations work risks turning it into basically a brand new game that nobody will ever play because they want to play old school 40k, not some random dude's donut steel game.
>>92572391This desu. Personally beyond this thread I'm of the opinion that 40k has nothing left to offer and we should move on to a new setting and entirely new rule set. But if the point is to fork 40k, then 40k should be the starting point and we should be attempting to fix it, otherwise you might as well just start from scratch.
>>92571759I've been reading the 4th Ed rulebook on my work breaks to help compare notes, will get around to age of darkness eventually.
>>92571624>Smaller tables - 4x4" and 3x3"Absolutely not. Too small.>Pic related alone should be enough to play a 1500pts gameNo fliers allowed. No superheavies. No lords of war.
>>92572582>Too small.you must be american, because here in the EU even 4x4 tables are rare at home.The game needs to be playable at smaller sizes to be sucessful outside LGSs
>>92571467Horseshit. I played Necromunda 2018 and Killteam 2018 after a ton of HoR KT.In the end, I have gravitated to Shadow War Armageddon, which is IGOUGO. It is the superior game, with Necro and KT I was just trading activations using disposable pawns so I could use my heavy hitters after the opponent had moved his. With OG Necro you commit your whole team before you see how your opponent reacts, there is more anticipation and planning.Get fucked with AA, its a crutch.
What are the major differences between 3rd and 4th Editions? Jog my memory.
>>925716244x4 is actually loads when terrain is dense, and armys are 1500 or less.And yes, SWA is the superior skirmish game, and the proper place for save mods
>>92572797>trading activations using disposable pawns so I could use my heavy hitters after the opponent had moved his.sounds like actual tactics>commit your whole team before you see how your opponent reacts, there is more anticipation and planning.No, it's just a lazy and slower version of the above.You want beer and pretzels checkers, not a real wargame.
>>92567501I have TTS and would be interested in playtesting
>>92572756And you must be new. The game has traditionally been played at 6'x4' and it has only been recent editions that have reduced this to appeal to normies who can't be bothered to actually hobby. A 6'x4' folding table is cheap, compact for storage, and easy to use, even if you don't have a lot of gaming space. There really isn't any good excuse.
>>92572853The major change was start of rapid fire creep. RF weapons could now fire twice at 12 after moving, whereas in 3rd they could only do that while stationary. This reduced the value of positioning and increased the value of moving forward- increasing damage output of RF weapons generally, across the board. This also devalued Stormbolters and shuricats and other fixed multishot weapons.USRs introduced in 4th, which was a positive change, which also fed into SM combat doctrines codex.4th Ed added negative effects for passengers in vehicles that were destroyed, beyond casualties from the explosion. This made transports less useful than 3rd, but not as useful as 5th when they stripped away that and made vehicles harder to kill across the board.
>>92572756Someone managed to forget that Warhammer comes from Britain, where the average home is a relatively small 2-up 2-down terraced house. If they managed it then so can you.
>>92573001>The game has traditionally been played at 6'x4'On paper. Most people play in smaller tables and that always has been the case outside clubs.>ecent editions that have reduced this to appeal to normiesThat was GW finally acknowledging reality. The real issue is the bloated army sizes and their increased speed since 2e> A 6'x4' folding table is cheap, compact for storage, and easy to use, even if you don't have a lot of gaming space. Again, maybe in the US. Not in your typical EU apartment or home. Or outside north america, really
>>92573043They wanted people to play at stores or at clubs. Most people has never done it.
>>92573016Pretty sure the rapid fire change was 5th or 6th? Unless I'm thinking of when they made it so anyone could charge after shooting, not just assault.
>>92573001I used to play on my living room carpet. It worked well enough. >>92572756Why stop there? Why not just play a round of 40k on your car's dashbo- oh. Right.
>>92572891>>Sounds like actual tacticsNo, sounds like shit. It's brainless trades until the guy with the more elite team runs out of dudes so I can play my most dangerous stuff. Action economy beats quality because I was regularly getting to play with half my team after he had already committed. >> SlowAh, I found the real issue. Can't hold attention span during opponents turn? Did you pull out your phone and get on your socials and get creamed because your head wasn't in the game anymore?Maybe you should stick to AA and hold your deck of tactics cards and stratagems tight!(Verification not required)
>>92572258Not only did I not make any of the polls, but half of them didn't end up going with what I picked. Any of the oldfags here who would recognize my name know I'm the 2nd ed guy. My project was mostly done before HH2.0 even came out, and I haven't even come close to suggesting most of the rules from it for this. Basically, you are a fucking idiot.>>92572797Good thing I didn't suggest using AA then, maybe you should actually read my posts?
>>92573058Then honestly, play Kill Team or some other smaller game. Stop trying to fuck it up for others. I live in what is effectively a glorified closet. I've played this shit since 2nd, there was no bloated army size. 6'x4' is ideal.
This argument is getting out of hand and a little nasty.All I can throw into this situation is asking what type of way do you think that a 40k battle should be simulated and why? Should it be a really abstracted representation like a histroical documentary (x did y before A did B) or be closer as a simulation of how the battle actually played out? That would probably gets us somewhere unlike screaming in the void about how much AA or IGOUGO is better.
It doesn't matter much since people will play it with the space they have. Even if you write in the rules "MUST be 6x4 >:(" if I don't have that much space then I'm playing it smaller. It's probably one of the least enforced rules, especially if it's a homebrew or fangame anyway.
>>92573200This is also the ticket, the table sizes have always been suggestions (As is with many rules really). If anything it is a statement of "This is the environment that this game was tested in, play outside of that boundary at your own risk".
>>92573175Yeah I have no idea why table size is coming up again after we already went over this one in detail. 6x4 is already too small at 28mm scale for the sort of armies current 40k pushes as the standard, we agreed to shrink the armies down to solve this because everything else is effectively unfeasible.Lowering the table size is just recreating the problem all over again.>>92573200>>92573220And of course there's this which is completely correct. None of us can stop anyone from playing on a smaller table if they want. I'm not going to actively design for smaller boards, though.
If someone really really wanted completely raw, as is igougo, then there's already not only a bunch of fangames that already keep that but you really could just play regular older warhammer editions. Why even make a homebrew when you already have 8 different editions to pick from that already do what you want?It doesn't have to be AA, and I like more complicated activation systems anyway, but I feel like entirely unfiltered igougo is probably the biggest stumbling block for warhammer as it is. It's boring waiting around with literally no interaction from your part. God, it's boring.
>>92573128>I was regularly getting to play with half my team after he had already committed.Ah so you're the anti AA moron unable to understand that those all solved problems in other games. And even in KT21 it isn't a problem until you take losses.>Can't hold attention span during opponents turn?Projection. That's what usually happens in IGOUGO 40k while in AA games is like chess, with every move potentially forcing a change of tactics
>>92573175nah, it should be 4x4 with 4" as the standard movement just like in RT/2e
>>92567156One thing that I want is a robust ally system. I've got some notes somewhere around here that I had wrote regarding 9th edition... Mostly I wanted to throw my hat in the ring before posting anything more solid.
>>92573200Didn't older editions state that deployment zones must 24" apart? Other than that it doesn't really matter if you have 6" deployment zones and play on a 4x3 coffee table anyway.
>>92573182>Should it be a really abstracted representation like a histroical documentary (x did y before A did B) or be closer as a simulation of how the battle actually played out?I'm a little confused as to what you're asking here, can you try giving more specific examples?>>92573296Exactly this. Seriously, why are we even here if we're just going to edit like 3 lines of the 4th ed rulebook and then play it without taking any lessons from the decades of wargames development that have occurred since then. Unless I'm completely mistaken on the terminology here, a fork is a new edition, but one that goes back to an older edition as the basis. Anyways, if someone really hates Reactions even after trying them out in the playtests, we'll talk about it. But being this vehemently against change before even trying it out is counterproductive. No one should have strong opinions on game mechanics you haven't even played with yet unless those mechanics are just soundly bad from an objective point of view.
>>92573426Examples:If someone's goal of 40k was to have it like how a documentary would tell a story of a battle, IGOUGO makes more sense>On the ridge came the armies, their tanks rolling up behind them a hail of gunfire came down. However, the counter offensive by the enemy forces took the ridge in a brutal series of melee combatWhereas if you assume the 40k battle being played is more of a real time simulation of what is happening, AA (Or at least in this case AA by phases) works better for that goal.
I have done something useful (unlike the rest of you). I have taken the 4e Rulebook and begun writing an SRD version of it. A stripped down, rules only version in concise English. This is exactly the rules and terminology of the text, excepting some small areas where I used a modern term (namely Battle Rounds) to make clear what is being said. This can and SHOULD go through some additional editing and arguments on whether or not this is truly the most accurate, concise stating of the 4th Edition rules. This is obviously a useful tool for someone planning on making changes to the system, or someone who wants a shorter, reference manual style presentation for playing.I have so far only completed the sections that GW labeled in the rulebook themselves as "essential", meaning Characteristics, The Turn, The Movement Phase, The Shooting Phase, The Assault Phase, and Morale. The remaining sections (that I personally am labeling "Complete Rules" and "Supplementary Rules") I am going to pick away at over the next ehhhh week? Oh and because I'm generous and would like to see this go somewhere, I am providing it in both PDF and docx format.Kiss kiss mwah faggots.https://www.mediafire.com/file/m35icqcwxy0uzkm/fourk_SRD.docx/file
>>92573455I see what you're saying now. It's definitely intended to be simulationist. That said, Reactions are just as viable as AA or AltPhase for adding that dynamic element you're looking for.>>92573495Absolutely based, thank you. This will be very useful tomorrow. I have to leave for work now so my posting will be much less frequent for the rest of tonight. Good luck everybody.
>>92573495This is fantastic. Project aside it's great as is, I'd love to run a game of with concise rules layout.
>>92573551>ReactionsThis is the way. While I prefer full AA, Reactions are better for a retro-clone of 3-7th rules
>>92572797>Shadow War ArmageddonI'd never even heard of this before, does it have a campaign system like Necromunda?
>>92573423In what world is a Black Templar more likely to ally to a Dark Eldar than a Dark Angel?
>>92567975Trying to imagine the amount of shithurt Infinity AROs would cause with pie plate templates dropping on any unit that activates is driving me insane.
>>92574193Lmao that sounds hilarious, send it.
>>92567171>"NOOOO I DON'T WANT WOMEN AND BLACK PEOPLE IN MY GAMES!!! I'M GONNA MAKE MY OWN EDITION OF 40k!!!">immediately starts backporting black people and women
Question.Are we gonna use templates/scatter dice shenanigans?ANd how much liberties is there supposed to be? Would going away from classic Igo Ugo be too much?
>>92574390>Are we gonna use templates/scatter dice shenanigans?Hasn't been discussed yet, are you in favour or against? And why. >ANd how much liberties is there supposed to be? Would going away from classic Igo Ugo be too much?Some fags want Reactions, some want Alternating Phases, some are content to leave the activation system alone and focus on other sticking points. Where do you stand on it?
>>92574452It laregly depends on how much of a GROG expirience we want to achive.I dont like how templates force players into anti-blast formations (when every miniature is as far from others as coherency would allow).The way they scatter is very grogy tho, it may not affect the game most of the time, but when it does it feels great.But if we are talking flame templates, i would say that im against them, as theres plenty of ways to represent flamers without them, and they dont scatter so they arent as interesting by themselves.Not sure about the Igo vs AA tho, on one hand i consider alternating phases to be a superior choice, on the other, IgoUgo is a very Warhammer thing in my eyes, just like To hit To wound sequence, or Wounds instead of Hit points.If we are changing IgoUgo we can change whatever we want, but thats not really the goal of the project is it?
What kind of fucking niggers want to get rid of templates and scatter dies? 2nd edition with all those crazy templates is where its at, even 3rd had basic templates
>>92574589Reactions are the least controversial change for that reason, since AoD already has them and it doesn't really change the basic IGOUGO format. As I understand it the project wants to be pretty conservative and not an entirely new game.
>>92573495Pastebin anon here, ty for this.I am adding this to the thread template along with a section mentioning to read and edit this as an easy way to contribute.
>>92574390It'd be NuHammer if we didn't
>>92574589>autistic spreading memeJeez it has been decades and people still worry about something that did not happen.
>>92567383then why is this /fourk/ and not /hh2/?sitting around for half an hour is boring as fuck
>>92573732you cant read charts
I miss the pie plates of yore
I'd like to make an analogy.>Rogue Trader = Chainmail>2nd Edition = OD&D plus Greyhawk>3-4th Edition = B/X>5-7th Edition= AD&D 1e>AoD = AD&D 2e>8+ Ed = WotC slopI bring this up because I want to point out to fags who want to make a retroclone here that using AoD as a baseline is probably fucking retarded for various reasons. It's too mature and has too much shit in it. It is much easier to add or change stuff in the relatively simple B/X rather than the more detailed and frankly bloated AD&D (either edition).B/X retroclones flood DTRPG, but ain't nobody making (nor buying) AD&D retroclones. At most they are just grabbing OSRIC, or more likely just 2e themselves. And I think that this is a totally natural thing. For that reason, anyone who wants to make edits of AoD or turn 4e into AoD is probably misguided.Just my $0.02
>>92574299Have you considered that wasn't their problem with 40K?
>>92567156I like the eldar, what special rules should they keep?I remember a while ago I read a post that outlined reasons for 'unrounded' unit costs, for example a squad costing 112 points instead of something like 100 or 150. This would be to encourage players taking small unit upgrades across their army to help fill out a list. Does that sound like something /fourk/ would like?>>92567349Its basically a tommygun, so give it 3 attacks or something?
>>92575747>This would be to encourage players taking small unit upgrades across their army to help fill out a listwhy is this a good thing?
>>92575816Customization is inherently fun. More customization is more fun.
>>92575816Because hyper optimization leads to every list looking nearly identical to each other and stifles fun.
>>92567156As long as vehicles get armor facings and damage tables again I'll be happy.
>>92575747>Its basically a tommygun, so give it 3 attacks or something?no, terrible idea. 4th is abstracted, not 1 to 1 representational (impossible without a full re-do of the stats to be a wider range than they are) and in universe is no better or worse at shooting a guy than a lasgun and the reason the guard (mostly) use lasguns is logistics and supply lines, bullets require much more effort to get to the front than the same number of shots worth of lasgun batteries. thyem being the same allows you to model a poor planet's PDF, penal legion, etc with any kind of rifle and enable custom guard regiments to not have to use different rules to be wysiwyg.giving it 3 shots would make it objectively one of the best infantry weapons on basic human guys, why would you take a lasgun over that on units with the option? besides, the game does not need that level of granularity to be good or fun, if you want that play RT.
>>92571839Miniatures, in my miniatures game?Shockedpicachu.jpg
>>92573705It is OG Necromunda with tweaks, and 40k armies. Units use the 3-7th Ed 40k statline so porting units in is EZ.The tweaks are minor and you can ignore them (for example, add blaze for flamer weapons back in)The campaign /injury/progression/market system is stripped down and suits learning the system and banging out quick games- but it is compatible with 20 years of Necro material. You can just port in the OG Necro campaign once you have the core rules down, and it's flexible enough to add any of the gangs and equipment.Game is OOP so there will be no updates or balance swings or republishing the whole affair. Primaris aren't in it, but the weapon add-ons allow you add range to a boltgun if you really want to represent Cawls abominations.
>>92577748This. On the scale that 40k works at, a lasgun is equal to an autogun, all patterns all the time, all scopes or bayonets or attachments etc.This is the principle that was lost when they introduced Cawl pattern bolt rifles/carbines etc with stats that were different from the slew of existing boltgun patterns- it should always have just been a boltgun. There isn't room or need for variants that fire a little further or a little faster when we have existing weapons for that with their own distinct models.Fourk needs to get back to this operating principle if its going to gain any traction: unified weapon profiles.My twin lascannon works the same as this twin lascannon, which works the same as that twin lascannon.
>>92578605Hard agree here. As someone who started with nu-hammer and went back to try 3rd, having all the weapons listed on one page in the rulebook is a godsend.
Overwatch as a declaration in the movement phase that pops off when any unit charges within weapon range or as a reaction if someone declares a charge to that specific unit, yay/nay?
>>92567156Warhammer 41%k, Dawn of Rope
>>92578617Movement phase declaration is best. Forces a tactical choice if you want to shoot this turn or wait until an enemy moves.
>>92574299That's not the problem with 40k. The problem with 40k is AWFUL FUCKING RULES.
>>92567156I've just jumped in, so this might have been discussed earlier, but I saw a decent looking project on Dakka-Dakka called "ProHammer Classic". It might be exactly what are you looking for and the author's heart seems to be in the right place.https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.pageSome suggestions of my own:1. Move away from random charges. Fuck them so much. Imagine if long ranged weapons had a randomly determined range everytime you shot, that'd be infuriating.Basically, melee should be easy to initiate, but not super-duper lethal (in general the game could use less models required and less lethality).2. 'Horde' factions like orks, tyranids, IG and so on get to resurrect dead models combined into a fresh unit. Dunno how would one track it down, perhaps include it into the list's cost or with some sort of resources, but I personally think that players should not be forced into torturing themselves by painting 90+ models to play a proper horde army. Allow them recycling the squads they have to create the feel of meat waves.
>>92578916I think we already had this discussion about it. Some anon said there was inconsistencies in it and that may be attributed to the author being an ESL.But the suggestions are nice.
>>92578955Who knows, maybe the author would be interested to hop in. Its easier to fix an already existing ruleset rather than trying to create one from scratch. Trust me, I took part in an attempt of making a community edition for modern Necromunda on Yaktribe, it was exhausting.
>>925789161.Never had any problems with random charges, but they should scale depending on the move characteristic, in Old World currently chares are done by rolling 2 dice, picking the highest, and adding the result to your move.Not sure about lethality of melee, i really liked sweeping advance.2.Im not sure it should be an army building thing, but rather special rules.In AoS most horde factions have some kind of ability like that, but its done through a character ability or command trait or something like that, imperial guard had something like that as late as 8th edition
>>92573128I've played both SWA and modern Necromunda. AA beats Igoyougo any day of the week, unless you need fast games.The problem with disposable pawns can easily be fixed, for example forcing a player to activate at least 2 fighters at a time, if their squad had a lot more fighters at the start of the round. And even then I wouldn't say that expendable pawns are that bad in Necromunda, it is usually good for the start of the game, when you want to have a drop at an opponent after they've wasted their elite model activation. After that you are in range for guns/melee and you always want to activate your juiciest models first, before they get killed by an opponent. That's what my actual experience playing Numunda is at least.Oldschool overwatch is way, waaaay more anti-fun than AA pawn abuse, it slows the game a lot and can easily create stand-offs, where the losing move is to attack first.
>>92578916>>92579028With guard I could imagine it being an order or reaction called "REINFORCE THE FRONT LINE" where you bring back an identical squad from your deployment zone.The lesser but just as good version of that for nids could be "THEY JUST KEEP COMING" where horde units can appear on board edges if a synaptic creature calls upon them, but is a once per battle thing rather than a continuous thing like guard with exchange that they can appear on a board edge close to the synaptic creature that calls them.
>>92579048>unless you need fast gamesIs IgoUgo really faster? never felt like it
Has anyone played a wargame with alternating phases? It sounds good on paper but I can foresee gamey stuff like "move a guy 1" back to get out of range of a certain weapon you don't want hitting" which isn't very 40k in my opinion.
>>92579099Yes MESBG. You can try playing it yourself since the core rules are free, but it gets sucked off pretty hard in /gwsg/ along with BFG as "da best GW games EVAR".
>>92579028Your unit's boltgun long range is now 18+2D6" (pick the highest). Would that be fun to roll for every time you shoot? What kind of feelings would you feel if you rolled badly enough for the target to be outside rapid fire range/outside of range entirely? What did it add to the game itself?Random charges are bullshit, period.My opinion (not backed up by facts) - the only reason why random charges became a thing to begin with was because of lethality creep and GW wanting to make melee fair by making it unreliable but super killy. Which creates swingy moments where one of the players is not having fun at all.>n AoS most horde factions have some kind of ability like that, but its done through a character ability or command trait or something like that>With guard I could imagine it being an order or reaction called "REINFORCE THE FRONT LINE"> for nids could be "THEY JUST KEEP COMING"Could we just make this into a unified special rule for [all] units which are supposed to be cheap, expendable and easy to reinforce? Because Having a unique special rule for each faction which does essentially the same thing is repeating the same mistake that GW has made throughout many different editions. Keep the bloat in check, unify similar rules into one whenever possible.>>92579074Yes, it is faster in terms of actual time, because passing turn back and forth between you and opponent has a small lag. Especially if the situation on the battlefield has suddenly changed (for example your lucky plasma gun volley has managed to down and opponent's leader which was about to get activated, so now your opponent has to scramble for a different plan).AA *feels* faster, but in reality IGOUGO is faster.
>>92579133>Because Having a unique special rule for each faction which does essentially the same thingI dont think it should do the same thing, maybe guard can have a command that gets you a new unit in reserves, some tyranid creatures giving birth to new units right on the battlefield, and orks sending trukks beyond the table into reserves, to bring them back full of boyz next turn.Random charges are made to make melee more powerful, you can easily expect a 6 or 7 inch charge, but its harder for your opponent to kite you as he needs to keep 12" inches ebtween the units, and of course you can roll 2 1s on charges, but you can roll only 1s in your shootin phase too, its part of the game, (tho, i personally would make charges a leadership check, you passed, get a charge for your move +6")
>>92567156Can we get plagueburst crawlers, vashtor and the primarchs converted into 4rth edition. I feel like the primarchs could be considerably weakened for the smaller scale so its more fun to play against. Something like 5-7 wounds 2+ save 5+ invun.
>>92579333>primarchs
>>92579354As long as we say yes to at least plagueburst crawlers I'm a happy man.
>>92579333New deathguard drones and vehicles would be fine i guess, but idk how i feel about primarchs and stuff like that
The main reason I am supporting this is to see shit like what would happen if Deathmarks were designed in the edition where Necrons were so strong they only really had 75% of an army to work with in a battle.
>>92579292>you can roll only 1s in your shootin phase tooand you can roll only 1's when fighting in CC and unlike shooting you get hit back.
>>92579333Again, we need to figure out the rules before we even think of backporting things>Primarchs We're trying to get away from NuHammer in here dude
>>92579333>>92579362Just use the old vehicle creator. It's exactly what it's made for. Almost all newer vehicles don't need anything else.
>>92579472>Old vehicle creatorwhat were the rules for it?
what about base size though?
Good morning brothers. I have a clear schedule and caffeine. Today, we get shit done. Will be addressing many posts shortly. I'm also working on a diagram to visually explain the differences between different activation/turn order systems to help us all understand each other a bit better; I'll post it later.Let me start off by summarizing the things I think we have basically set in stone at this point:>the game is drawing primarily from 4th edition, but not entirely (else why not just play 4th edition RAW?)>army sizes will be much smaller than you are used to. Think closer to 1000 points as standard rather than 2k.>designed for a classic 6'x4' table size. You can play on smaller if you want but we won't be actively balancing for smaller battlefields.>no flyers, superheavies, or primarchs - possibly no named characters at all.>the design wants to lean "flavour heavy, customization heavy". Think Chaos 3.5e codex as the standard for everyone.>we have settled on the "X meets Y" approach where we are not radically altering every aspect of the game, but it should feel like classic 40k with just one major difference and everything else is minor tweaks here and there.>the major change described above is removing straight IGOUGO by either adding an activation system or reaction system. Currently reactions are favored as it's less of a major alteration and already has precedent in several 40k spin-off games like the current Horus Heresy rules, but this is the most hotly debated part of the project so far.Let me know if I missed anything.A few people have suggested starting with an existing fan ruleset called Prohammer Classic as our baseline for the core rules as it has already done a lot of the work - it's also based on 3e-7e and has reactions. I'm in favor of this as long as we make a few small changes (mostly popular changes like removing True Line of Sight and replacing it with 4th edition's size categories system).
>>92579568I definetly prefer 32mm for space marines and orks, but i would gut the 28mm nonsense
>>92579583COuld somone enlighten me on how reactions work in heresy?
>>92579099Because legions hiding behind coward rocks is very 40k as per the lit.
>>92579354>>92579333If there were eventually to be an apocalypse module, that's where I'd say yes to bringing in rules for super heavies, fliers, and specifically only daemon primarchs.Otherwise no, not in normal games and no loyalist primarchs at all, I think an important part of this needs to be a preservation of the state of lore at the time of the era we are trying to to encapsulate.
>>92579133>Igougu fasterThis is just nonsense. Even if swapping has some tiny lag running alternative activation is like running two cores on a computer. But thankfully this is easy to test, not that any of you are interested in actually answering these question instead of ruffing about igougo.
>>92578605I haven't played any of the newer editions since they introduced primaris and the new data slates or whatever they're called. Did they make up a shitload of different rules for different lascannons and boltguns in this edition?The only big changes I remember from playing my buddy is space marine are his veterans shooting those kraken rounds and some other stuff I think.>>92578821>The problem with 40k is AWFUL FUCKING RULES.Yes. They used to have all these different flavorful rules, but the balance was shit. The most annoying thing I remember form actively playing was:>Rules creep for new models where one army would almost always dunk on everybody>Alpha Strike bullshit coupled with IGOUGOThis project might have potential, either with alternate activation or having reactions (kind of like close combat, perhaps with initiative steps, where units fire back at what's shooting at them and where perhaps positioning and/or assaults become more valuable vs shooting only).
>>92579706Mate, I've specifically mentioned that I've played similar systems which are AA and IGOUGO. SWA and Numunda. Extensively.I've also ran homebrew Necromunda RPG module where each player gets 2-3 gangers instead of a big gang, but they are more elite. Turns out that it is way faster for everyone to activate all of their models then pass the turn then go back and forth between each other. So first we played it as AA but naturally switched to IGOUGO.AA is for tactical depth and better player engagement, IGOUGO is for simplicity and faster turn resolution. If the number of units/models is very small, IGOUGO is more fun I'd argue.
>>92579612The TLDR is that the player who does have a turn gets one (by default) chance per each of his opponent's phases to do something that mitigates his opponent's strategy, like advancing one of his own units, or having them fall back, overwatch, etc. So the theory is you have to pay attention so you can best utilize this opportunity each phase.
>>92579803I see, sounds nice but im not a fan of when rules say you can do X, but only N amounts of time, maybe we could tie them to Initiative? If a unit moves and starts/ends move/charge within X" of an enemy unit with a higher initiative, it can fire overwatch, or reroup and move d6", or somethig else
>>92574390>Are we gonna use templates/scatter dice shenanigans?Of course.>>92575299Not only this but there are 3 reasons why it doesn't matter much in our project anyways.1. Being a community ruleset designed around fun and flavor means WAACfaggotry will self-select itself out in the first place. Most tourney type guys will always play Current GW Edition™ and even if a minority of them decide to pick up Fourk, as long as they are outnumbered they will have to adjust to the etiquette and attitude of the larger community or else be shunned and struggle to find games.2. Fourk will be playing at much smaller army sizes - there will likely never be a point you could be autism-spreading 3 mobs of 30 boyz each to exactly 2".3. Real military doctrine actually does demand spacing out to a degree that one mortar blast can't take out more than one man or two at the absolute unluckiest. The only time real soldiers bunch up is when there's limited cover and/or they're fighting through a chokepoint. So I don't see anything wrong with this behavior as long as it isn't taking up too much added time.But as the anon I quoted said, it didn't really happen back that often in the days when blast templates were current.>>92575374If you think you'll ever be sitting around for half an hour doing nothing in a game with small armies and abundant Reactions you haven't played many games. Just wait until we start playtesting and see.>>92575677We aren't retrocloning HH2, we're just cannibalizing a couple small pieces of it. The Reaction system takes up like two pages. Most of that bloat you're talking about is staying out.>>92575747>I like the eldar, what special rules should they keep?We have to get core rules settled before we start talking faction design, but if you have ideas just write them down somewhere for later.>>92579706IGOUGO is faster, this isn't a question. That doesn't mean it's better, but there are trade-offs. Raw AA can also suck for its own reasons.
rules for the fourk throne. let's keep digging lads.
>>92579612Here, read this, pdf attached.My first suggestion was to just bolt this on to 4th ed more or less unchanged for the simplest solution we can start playtesting, but I have plenty ideas of increasing complexity for how we could change it if desired. I think it's best to start simple though.However, I also really like a few things about the Prohammer Classic implementation of reactions. Another anon made this suggestion here >>92571557>Not to derail the thread but I think a project focused on taking Prohammer, not adjusting it all, but providing codexes built to purpose for it in the same way Prohammer was patched together from multiple editions, might be a more realistically achievable goal for this board.If we go with this idea of starting with Prohammer base I can write up a simplified form of that document instead.Our next vote should probably be on which of these directions to take, or if people want to try a third option.>inb4 "Just make it 99% identical to 4th ed including IGOUGO with no reactions"This is not a fucking option, that's already been settled.
>>92579583Whats wrong with the True Line of Sight? And what would be the alternative even?
>>92571400>return fire reaction is just a bit too punishing for the user in my opinion.I don't think so, like Stand and Shoot it is giving the inactive player the opportunity to salvage some value from a unit which they positioned badly and did not anticipate a particular play from the opponent with the more rewarding but identically punishing Overwatch mechanic. The fact that you get full BS on it also means it's particularly potent on high threat, low shot count weapons as they are not penalized nearly so much.
>>92572853what >>92573016 said, and also tanks could now move AND fire (but just 1 gun)
>>92579783>if the number of units is very smallI crunched the numbers on this a bit. The deployment zone is 72x12" and we have discussed using GEQ as a baseline for armies, not MEQ. So I thought to examine the idea of "how full do you want a deployment zone to be?" by looking at guardsman footprint.The deployment zone is ~5,575cm^2 and a single Infantry Guardsman (25mm base) takes up ~5cm^2. If a standard army is weighted such that let's say deploying 50 Infantry models would be expected then they would occupy about 5% of their deployment zone not cramped. But just 50 Infantry models isnt likely, so also threw in three heavy weapons teams, two Leman Russ, a sentinels, and a Chimera (I know it's not a "good" list but I am doing napkin math only) and got a footprint of 12% of the deployment zone.Quick head count says that is probably 8-10 units depending on which infantry you were taking? From that the thread has been talking like this seems to be about right but I thought I'd make sure. Definitely a "small number of units" though. Could probably assume to take maybe 2-3 more units and take up a footprint of 15% of the deployment zone wirh a "standard" GEQ army. Lots of room for manuevering on the board wirh armies of this size.If I fucked up the math let me know.
>Open this thread expecting a shitshow and incompetence>Get exactly thatThanks, /tg/. Good luck.
>>92580248Any objective criticism?
>>92580167Kek, by “small number of units” i meant 4-5 models for a Necromunda skirmish from my personal experience. For any wargame I’d personally prefer AA.
>>92580073>The fact that you get full BS on itNo, check the Limited Fire rules again. It halves the number of shots AND reduces hit rolls by -1. On top of that, it also applies during the units own turn immediately following, so next time it shoots it's still limited fire. And then it also brings them down to Initiative 1 and removes any bonus Attacks during the close combat phase that turn.It's a little bit much. Maybe if it didn't apply on the following turn, or it was just a -1 to hit and didn't halve the shots. I think the main reason Prohammer makes it so punishing is that there's no limitation on using Reactions in that system, unlike HH which has a limited number you can utilize per phase, or a system like ASC where you need to pass an Initiative test to take a Reaction.You're right, though, that there's also 2e style Overwatch in this system which isn't punished at all, and this is the emergency "oh shit" button that just mitigates things a bit, so it should be somewhat punished. I just think it overdoes it. And I think the fact that it applies unevenly to weapons with different numbers of attacks is what annoys me most about it. 1 shot guns don't suffer from the half shots, 2 shot weapons are at 50%, and 3 shot weapons are at 66%, it's just inelegant and all over the place. Good in concept, but rough and amateurish in execution. It's also a lot of bookkeeping to track since it applies conditions into the following Assault Phase and the next turn Shooting Phase.
>>92580343Honestly, don’t even bother with troll posts like those. It’s inevitable that random assholes will try to hinder our efforts here for myriad reasons. GW internet defense force trying to stifle community rulesets, tourneyfag grifters who sell online “boot camp” courses for 10th edition who don’t want to see the official rules lose a following, the obnoxious OPR creator who is always shilling on here trying to attack the competition, leftist culture warriors who think everyone joining this project is doing it over female Custodes… we are like the Imperium beset on all sides by heretics, mutants and aliens. Assume anyone who doesn’t provide constructive critique is just a bad faith actor and report and ignore them.
>>92579929Show a similar sized game game of AA and Igougo where igougo is faster. Warhams is amongst the slowest of games for that very reason which is why anyone who didn't have a waterslide for a brain would want to consider changing it. In what world is a game where two people can play at once slower then only one side being able to play at a time. THINK FOURKAgain easy to test, hard to grasp, Fourk will do neither.
>>92580067True line of sight is just awful. I don't think there's really any positives. It's weirdly meta and niggling and oddly assumes that all models are somehow always in the stance they're modeled in.There's alternatives, like all models of each given type having an established silhouettes, like infinity, or models having size classes, or just "you are your base size wide and twice high". Basic "I can draw a line from the center of my infantry model to the center of yours" is fine for any casual game.>tenth edition>If any part of another model can be seen from any part of the observing model, that other model is visible to the observing model.Wow no wonder tenth is completely fucked with ugly huge L walls. Surprised I'm not seeing crouched wraithlords again.
>>92580494You dont even reply to most constructive critism if it objects your vision on doing things. Why are you even here if you want to just make your own 4th ed heartbreaker. All this started well which why I was interested in it, but seeing how its just one anon wanting something specific without knowing how and finding out that someone else already did it better and wanting to hijack that now doesn't make this guy wrong >>92580248
>>92580604>Show a similar sized game game of AA and Igougo where igougo is faster.Literally every single one of them all else being equal. Warhammer is slow because of a whole bunch of other factors.However, IGOUGO *feels* slower because of the long downtime. So it's okay if games take slightly longer under an AA system if they have the illusion of going faster. But the more turnover points you add, the more drag there is, and eventually it starts to outweigh the benefits and the constant cognitive reassessment can become mentally tiring. This is one of my main issues with a system like AltPhase unit-by-unit.Let me finish my diagram to explain, I'll post it up in a bit.
>>92580024I wonder if the old force organization chart could be mixed with reactions to make things more flavorful>HQ's obviously providing buffs or ordering units within a certain radios>Elites overal being deadlier and fighting back harder>Troops are the baseline>Fast Attack being capable of more movement shenanigan's>Heavy Attack with some last ditch guaranteed response?
Rather than discussing activation systems as naseum, I have a different question. In the SRD posted in this thread weapon types are listed. I fucking hate how this is written, some are a specific weapon (like melta) others are generic features(heavy or rapid fire), some types have multiple rules or reference other rules (barrage are automatically pinning, but not all pinning are barrage), and at least one time two types in fuse to make an entirely new effect (twin-linked+template) it's a fucking mess.Can we just make a list of keywords that each do ONLY one thing and then slap the keywords on the wargear? Boltgun is xyz, autocannon is abc, Bright Lance is jkl, etc. That would be helpful.
>>92580619>You dont even reply to most constructive critism if it objects your vision on doing things.Show me one post with meaningful criticism I didn't respond to. If I missed a few I'm happy to go back and discuss.>Why are you even here if you want to just make your own 4th ed heartbreaker.Why do you keep making this bullshit claim and then moving the goalposts. Am I making a 4th ed heartbreaker or a HH2 heartbreaker? You can't even decide. For the last time, if I wanted to make my own edition, I don't need this thread. Because I already did it. And it's very different to this project, it's primarily based on 2nd edition and uses radically different mechanics that haven't even been mentioned here at all. All of my contribution to this thread has been explaining game design concepts and breaking down our options based on whatever the thread decides is the popular goal, and then pushing things in the direction I think has the highest chance of success. I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with me on anything that comes down to subjective taste, I have in fact gone against my own personal tastes multiple times here because I want this game to appeal to more people and I'm self-aware of my inclination towards hyper-advanced and detailed rules. The only time I argue strongly against anything is when it's just outright a bad idea in relation to the stated goals, which I'm able to see clearly because I have three years of professional study in game design theory.I think you just have namefag derangement syndrome and seethe at people agreeing with me on anything, no matter what it is. It's just pettiness over someone else getting recognition. If you have actual arguments against anything the thread has decided on, make them. Discuss it. It's all open for that. What is your problem specifically, in terms of mechanics? Let's hear it already.
>>92580733Yeah, so stuff like this is entirely a matter of formatting and presentation, not design, where the final effect in game is identical but it's just written a different way in the rules to make it easier to digest and reference. 100% we will do that wherever possible.
>>92580733To be honest all those old types weren't that confusing from what I remember. Twin-Linked Template just meant you could re-roll the scatter dice or to wound if I recall correctly. Anything Barrage was basically a mortar or similar indirect attack and therefore caused pinning (as well as being able to fire indirectly and during a couple of editions having to "guess" the distance fired as well). Weapons with the pinning special rule in general just forced a pinning check on wounding or killing a model I believe. Not quite sure how a keyword would change this.
>>92567156>Psyker powersI think you should look at doing powers like they do them in TOW.>Spell schools>Randomly generated or pick based on players opinion>Psyker weapons are used in their respective phase.>Cast number of spells based on level>Check is a LD check based on the strength of the power>Introduce things like will power to increase your LD to resist magic like magic resistance in TOW.Dont go the way of mortal wounds, that shit sucks because everything just ended up being "How many ways can i say do d3 mortal wounds."
>>92567156doesn't this already exist?https://store.steampowered.com/app/1870300/SOVL_Fantasy_Warfare/
I've been practically praying for a fan maintained fork of 40k for years. Watching with interest, wish you luck
>>92567156So what codex are you looking at basing this off of?3rd ed codex? 4th? 7th?
>>92580807If a weapon is twinlinked it should just get twice as many shots
>>92580813Obviously we won't be using mortal wound nuhammer type stuff.
>>92580817>https://store.steampowered.com/app/1870300/SOVL_Fantasy_Warfare/Thats fantasy square-slop
>>92580760Some namefaggot: Discuss we're open for thatAlso some namefaggot: Does slanted poll, loses in his own slanted poll, proceeds to ignore the polls. What can I say, at a certain point you just have to enjoy the circus I guess.
>>92580845I think Codexes should be a "best-of" compilation of things taken from across the whole range of the factions history, but with the balance baseline set around 3.5e/4th. We haven't really started discussing that yet though, because core rules need to be established first.
>>92580891While i can apricate that, i dont think thats possible becuse some of them swing so wildly in what they allowed and did not allow that it would be a nightmare to try and port things forward and or back. You will be 10x better off picking one era of codex's then working to port over the parts that were cool from other editions.Example if you pick say 7th as a base, but for CSM you wanna port over the fact they let you take demons as troops, that would be easier to port that unit into 7th vs trying to port the 3.5e CSM codex to 7th ed base.THat and also 3.5e CSM would be dick stomping everyone. Laughs in small blast bolters.
>>92580877Thanks for proving me right that you don't actually have anything to say at all regarding mechanics, you're just seething over someone having a name.I didn't do the polls nor have I ignored anything they settled on. Now for the last time, post your specific fucking issue. Talk game mechanics already, otherwise you're trolling and don't care about the project at all, in which case I direct everyone back to >>92580494
>>92580926None of these things are impossible to overcome, we just have to be smart about it. You have to think of this like we are GW writing a new edition of 40k. Just copy-pasting old codexes is lazy. We're going to make new ones fitting to this new edition, and we have all of the existing ones to take inspiration from. Whenever things are heavily conflicting, we will use the 3.5e/4e era as the grounding point for the general tone and power level we're trying to achieve. At the end of the day, playtesting will make it obvious is something is completely out of whack.
>>92580965>None of these things are impossible to overcomeFair in it not being impossible but also trying to save you headache. I think your best best is going to be pick a edition to stick with, and grab the codexs from it and then work to bring inthe thing you liked from each other codex.Personally if i was in your shoes i would say start with 3rd, 4th, or 5th ed core rules, and use 3rd ed codex and then go from there.
>>92580850There is nothing wrong with mortal wound mechanic inherently. Its the fact that GW overused it in modern 40k that makes you hate it (probably).
>>92581094Disagree, inherently its a bad mechanic because it creates the problems that nu40k has. If you wnat a wound to go through armor, just say its AP is like 3 or 2. If you want it to negate FNP make it an instant death wound. Mortal wounds and the rending system is what led to the insane amount of invulns, and other BS save modifiers.
>>92580760Who are you even arguing with here? This was my first post in this thread, after I posted twice in last thread. But since I did get your attention here we go then:>>92552577>>92557317>>92558341>>92558382>>92560504>>92563012>>92567700>>92572391>>92580067I specifically ignored the posts which you replied with handwaving. Felt sad to read thread backwards and come this >>92580494 You are not wrong but since you see everyone else as leftist trolls who work for GW its impossible for this project to succeed when such a tranny is in charge>>reportlmao>>92580606Is that what's considered for True Line of Sight? Jesus, I was under impression that it meant if model can reasonable see its target with benefit of doubt, since actual soldiers wouldnt be in such dramatic poses all the time or standing on rocks. Yeah I knew about infinitys system, never tried it myself. By glance it felt like it was designed to stop arguments from THAT kind of TLoS
>>92581094There's nothing wrong with having a mechanic that's basically just a shortened name for "this unit suffers a wound with no saves of any kind allowed", yes, those always existed in the rules. But when people refer to Nuhammer mortal wound shit they mean how GW used that to replace every single way of suffering damage outside a basic shooting attack or melee attack. I also disagree with the term used because "mortal wound" sounds like something that causes instant death, not something that ignores armour and force fields. I think in our project we should just refer to these as "unsaveable wounds", and they will be as rare as they originally were in 4th.
>>92581157On the subject of ID, i think it should change a bit, rather then just obliterating the model with no FNP saves. I think an ID would should instead do d3 wounds. or do 2 wounds.So if you cause a wound with ID, that single wound becomes either 2 wounds or D3 wounds. I dont like this idea of you shooting someting with stupid powerful weapons and it just fucks you whole sail, but i also thing there should be some capacity of reward for brinigng as asininely powerful weapons' against a unit its double the Toughness of.
>>92581150>Who are you even arguing with here?Obviously the post I replied to, which used the term "heartbreaker" again so pretty clearly one of the same guys from last thread.Let's address this stuff you linked.>>92552577>1. Second edition styled combat: Should be for character v character interactions. Regular fighting between units remain the same as it was in 4th.Supported this with my post here >>92556268Didn't have an opinion on the other stuff in that post yet since we're still working out core rules.>>92557317>Why won't we simply play 4E on smaller tables then?Addressed the fuck out of this last thread, that was one of the first things I talked about.>>92558341Agree with this guy but this is stuff for later on.>>92558382This is something we can definitely open for discussion, I think cover should still matter even for heavily armoured units, but I also favor cover saves as a separate roll instead of a modifier because it's less fiddly, similar logic to going back to the 3e-7e AP system instead of modifiers, which also seems more popular amongst the thread in general.>>92560504This post didn't really suggest any particular mechanics just said "hey let's do good on psychic powers". Well, yeah of course. But again that's something more for codexes, we need to do core rules first.>>92563012I've addressed a half dozen times why raw IGOUGO is bad and unpopular.>>92567700Already covered under the suggestion to use Prohammer Classic as a base.>>92572391Already covered by voting last thread to add a major turn structure change, re: raw IGOUGO bad and unpopular.>>92580067Simply hadn't gotten around to this one yet because I'm bouncing back and forth between this thread and trying to make this turn structure diagram, someone else addressed TLoS already and frankly most people who have been playing 40k for any length of time have already seen a hundred discussions on why TLoS sucks.TL;DR>You are not wrongYou said it, not me.
Whats yall opinion on using d12 or d10 for scattering instea of a special scatter dice? You roll 1 die, and immedietly get both the direction and the value of the scatter with a single roll, i think its quite a neat idea used in another game i cant remember a name of
>>92574299Nobody cared until it became deliberately about bending lore to pander to woketards. Having a female Guard commander isn't woke, it makes sense, especially since they're explicitly rare and often popular among the fans, having a female custodes is woke because it puts politics ABOVE the established rules of the setting. I hope this helps you be less retarded.
>>92581346Honestly? Scatter die never were any issue. They were very clear on how they worked, the problem always was shitty players would be ass holes about it, if you roll the scatter die right next to where you are dropping your blast its not hard to move.If its that big of an issue, just go back to the older rules on how they would do it. Roll a D6>5 or 6 is a direct hit.>1,2,3, or 4. Move the blast marker toward the respective board edge the scatter distance.
>>92581346That feels like change for the sake of change. Two differently coloured D6 rolled at once does the job. At least when someone suggests using D10 or D12 for shooting or something they are adding granularity or suggesting an alternative way of counting hits (like WS(X)+D(Y) = hits for the entire unit, fewer dice rolled). An actual change, not a superficial one.
>>92581306Amazing, it all slides you off like water now doesn't it. More schitzo posting, handwaving and you managed to purposefully misundertand insult as an compliment and pin it on yourself like a thin skinned narcist. >not knowing what heartbreaker means
>>92581616>nothing but metaposting, still not a single word on actual game mechanicsFor the last time, post your ideas, or else it's obvious the only thin-skinned narcissist here is you and you're spending all your time whining about the mean namefag boogieman because the thread didn't agree with your suggestions and your ego can't handle it. Also, learn to type in proper english.
>>92581616The nid guy holds conversations in a polite manner, so it is you who is acting like a total ass. If you are disagreeing with something, either keep it constructive or take a break.>>92571400I strongly recommend using an existing ruleset and expanding upon it. I've taken part in a fan project on yaktribe forum which had a goal of creating a modern Necromunda community edition, which sadly lead to nowhere after a year of struggle, with me actively working on as an editor. Here's what I've got to learn from this experience:>You need at least multiple editors and proofreaders, because doing all of this solo is soul crushing.>No matter what you do, you will not make everyone happy. Some people want an exact recreation of 2nd/4th/5th/6th edition with minor ironing. Some people want a reworked ruleset made with modern approach. You will not please all, so don't slavishly follow polls and voting, because there will always be someone who dislikes the decision. >The previous note leads to the most important question: who is is aimed for? Warhammer veterans? Jaded 10th players who heard that older editions were somehow better? Pick an audience and make a product that pleases that audience.>You need a tight development group and a dedicated forum/discord/whatever, because otherwise you get anons like me who jump and suggest/criticize things that were already discussed or get people who simply derail discussion at all costs. Its impossible to constantly be up to date for the discussion, which will lead to things going in circles.>Last, but not least, I strongly impore to take an already existing ruleset which is the closest to your goal (in our case it seems that Prohammer is decent, but needs a lot of polish). It is a lot easier to fix something that re-invent something from scratch.
>>92581901Thank you.Also, excellent post. I'm happy to do editing and proofreading and I'm quite experienced with it as well, if you help with it I think we could handle a lot of heavy lifting on that front.I also agree completely on not being able to please everybody, which is something I've already had to address when the idea of IGOUGO + Reactions was simultaneously attacked by purists who wanted no Reactions and radicals who wanted to change to a more extreme Alt Activation system. Maybe we should have spent more time agreeing on clear design goals and the target audience before progressing but I don't know if it would even really help because as you say some people will just show up and jump in without reading them.Anyways, on that front, the turn structure diagrams are complete and I'll be posting them up next with deep dive explanations.
>come back a day later>no complaints regarding my work on the draft SRD of 4thGuess that means I didn't make any mistakes.>>92581901Good luck trying to get people to join a discord lol, and 4chan discord groups always fucking suck anyways since everyone seethes at the admin non-stop (kinda like how they are currently seething at the namefag). A quick look shows that the thread is 99% ideas guys except for me, but if they keep the thread up while I do this for my own satisfaction that works for me. Probably (definitely) would be easier if it was even five people agreed to become executives of this venture and did the actual work while repeatedly sourcing comments from even periodic threads when updates were done. Debating whether or not I want to recruit or not for that purpose, or if I just finish my SRD project and post it to /40kg/ and /grog/ to use if they want.
>>92582084I'm still planning to read and compare the SRD, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Let me finish my current task and I'll do that next. As far as a discord goes, I agree it comes fraught with issues, not to mention I don't think discord is even a good medium for a project like this, would much prefer oldschool forums if we need to use something other than the /tg/ thread, which I'm not even convinced we do. As long as the thread baker stays organized and puts effort into updating the pastebins and so forth this place should suffice.
Alright, turn order structures. Here's a comparison of 5 major ones we have discussed. Keep in mind, there are DOZENS of potential ways to do this, if people want to explore more ways, but the thread seems to have generally agreed to keep it simple and not change things too radically so I haven't even bothered to get into any more out-there methods.>IGOUGOThe oldschool, and it hasn't aged well at all. There is one major advantage to IGOUGO, and that is, every time the color switches between player 1 and 2, you have what's called "turnover lag", which is that moment when the other guy goes "okay my turn, what am I doing here..." and looks over the board to plan his moves. Every time there's a switch, there's a new board state by definition, else the previous players go didn't actually accomplish anything. New board state = new data to process. Even experienced players are slowed down by this a little bit. IGOUGO has basically none of it.There are two major drawbacks though. One is that the player who isn't currently active has to sit there for quite a long time doing nothing except occasionally rolling an armour save or a leadership test, and these aren't actually decisions, they're just mechanical actions that could theoretically be done by your opponent. This gets dull and boring in larger, longer games. The part of playing games that uses your brain is decision-making and you shouldn't be locked out of making any decisions for too long. The other is the alpha strike problem, which almost everyone has encountered playing 40k at some point. That is, when your opponent gets to shoot with their entire army in the first shooting phase before any of your stuff can shoot back, they do disproportionate damage, because your retaliation is now going to be weakened by the units that died, and this leads to a death spiral that gives player 1 a huge advantage in fire superiority. There are ways to mitigate it, but none of them are really good enough or satisfying.
>>92582363Next up is alternate activation, the traditional basic variant where you just pick a unit and do all of its stuff, then the opponent, back and forth. This solves both problems with IGOUGO, reducing downtime drastically at the cost of some turnover lag, and bringing the alpha strike potential down much lower. However, it comes with some of its own all-new problems.First, if the two sides don't have equal numbers of units, it gets a little weird. The side with fewer more powerful units is getting more out of each activation, while the side with more weaker units is going to be basically wasting activations on chaff for as long as possible until their opponent is all out, and then use the last ones when they can go several times in a row with no retaliation to do perform a "beta strike". This is a balance issue that can be addressed in a number of ways, but as designers we do HAVE to address it - AA is not a magical cure that can just be slapped into a game with no consideration for things like this.A much bigger issue is that it can feel too gamey and abstract, when the units getting activated at the end of a turn still haven't done anything at all by the time 70% of the board has already moved, shot, charged into combat, fought stuff, and then consolidated out. Again, ways to address this too, but a lot of them involve using a more complex hybrid structure. Further complicating this is the fact that the solutions for the previous problem and the solutions for this problem don't necessarily synergize.I'm not much of a fan of raw AA. It's arguably better than raw IGOUGO, perhaps, but that's like saying building a house out of dirt is better than building a house out of sand.
>>92582363>>92582505Food for thought on alternating actions (whole)Shooting phase should happen for both, but then casualties are removed for both at the end of player 2 shooting phase. Then the rest operates as normal. This helps curb alpha strike bullshit.
Third is alternate phasing, the (Whole) variant, to my understanding this is what the Lord of the Rings tabletop game uses although I've never played it myself. This does quite a bit to solve the boredom issue of IGOUGO, without bringing in any of the problems of AA, since everything is done moving before anything shoots, and everything is done shooting before anything charges, etc.The biggest flaw is that it does very little to solve IGOUGO's alpha strike issue, since the first player still gets a whole shooting phase before the opponent. It does at least slightly help since the second player has a chance to move units into cover before they get shot, but I don't think it's enough for 40k. It works better in medieval sorts of games. I think the most interesting part is the fact that both players get a charge phase in the same turn, but without doing anything about the alpha strike issue I have to say this one doesn't cut it.Fourth is alternate phasing by unit, sort of a hybrid of the last two. It solves both issues of IGOUGO as well as the late-activation issue of standard AA. The problem is, as you can see, ridiculous levels of turnover lag. This will really drag a game out. Furthermore, I think it actually goes too far in solving the boredom issue of IGOUGO, to the point that you don't really get enough downtime to relax and breathe. It can feel frantic, and requires a hell of a lot of bookkeeping if you want to track things like Heavy weapons being penalized for the unit moving and so forth.>>92582605This is one possible solution to that, yeah. The 2018(?) version of Apocalypse used this mechanic. If enough people support trying this we can playtest it. My gut reaction is that I don't like it because it feels a bit too abstract for my tastes and the delayed gratification on seeing the results of your shooting is not as fun, you lose a little bit of immediate emotional impact and immersion. That said I won't rule it out without trying it more.
>>92582363I personally would go either with alternate phasing, or igo with heavy reactions, as it keeps the most of the original spirit of how it played
>>92582505KT addresses this with the Group Activation characteristic - less elite teams can activate 2 units at a time. >>92582605I quite like this, too.
>>92567156Only somewhat related to the topic, but I thought some of the people here could possibly give me good adviceMe and my friends are considering finally giving 40k a try. We played few other wargames regularly in the past and we've been fans of the lore for a long time, but never played 40k proper. The opinions on which editions of the game are good/bad seem to be... quite varied to say the least. But since neither of us ever played any of them, meaning we have no bias I was thinking of maybe doing a tour of all of them to form a proper judgement. Like you know, try out every edition starting from Rogue Trader up to the current one and write down our thoughts and comparisions. Say, 3 battles per edition, each with different factions Any advice on how we should pick our armies, especially since I know various codexes were very uneven even within the same edition? Any other things we should keep in mind in general?
>>92582639>My gut reaction is that I don't like it because it feels a bit too abstract for my tastes and the delayed gratification on seeing the results of your shooting is not as fun, you lose a little bit of immediate emotional impact and immersion.While i can understand that, its equally as unsatisfying to loose half your army to who ever won the roll of and getting half your army obliterated by shooting before you can even go. This is a problem that only gets worse the larger your games get. late 7th and onward 40k honestly became a game that was decided by turn 2 like majority of the time. Now an alternative to this is to introduce initiative into the shooting phase. Where shooting and casualties are removed at initiative steps. Which would be more balanced and thematic but have a lot more steps to happen. Seeing as how 90% of the unit in the game are at initiative 4, it would kinda act the same way. The problem with alternate activation is it can kinda fuck over who goes second. The best way to go about this to use existing rule sets would probably be the alternative activation whole option
>>92582605>alternating phase>all casualties removed at the end of second player's shooting phaseThis sounds really good, gunfights being resolved simultaneously just like close combat.
>>92582084>99% ideas guys except for meHow do you stop being one tho?Like, i had plenty of ideas for tweaks or whole separate games, but never really went nywhere with anything like that, and at the same time the idea of being the "idea guy" doesnt sit right with me
>>92582682I think speed tiers can work, like Fights First
>>92582692Personally what im trying to avoid is shaking up to much of the fundamental phases of the game, becuase doing so requiers a lot of rule rewriting. Switching from IGOUGO to Alternating whole is a very easy switch, and i actually cant think of anything that would be effected by this. Removing casualties at the end of both shooing phases would also address the problem of getting alpha strike down. You could even throw a rule in there for special cases like snipers who get a rule that says casualties caused by snipers are removed instantly rather then the end of the shooting phase. Of course that could screw over player 2 but not that bad.
>>92582721As long as its used sparingly. I would do it this way thenAlternating phases for the shooting phase casualties are removed at the end of both players shooting phases, BUT some weapons/units, which should be very rare, have a rule that makes it so casualties are removed immediately after saving throws are attempted. That should only be on things like snipers, possibly Psyker abilities? Not all but some of them. It should be quite rare.
>>92582693You just produce something that people can use. That's it. Even if you made an excel template for a 4th edition unit card and shared it so people could write down stats and draft units that would be enough. If you were really motivated and have the training, make a website like Wahapedia but for 4e or something.
>>92582737>>92582721Keyword: Hitscan
>>92582722Would you even need to use snipers that way? It's nice if they can eliminate targets before they do anything T1 but it feels like crap for the player that has it happen to them. Losing that special weapons model or leader unit after it has a chance to at least do something turn 1 is still impactful, but sucks less.
>>92582754Right but again, it should be very rare. And really should only be on things like snipers. because the problem is if you start making it work on things like las canons, lances, shit like that, the name of the game is going to be spam the shit outta those, and it royally fucks over player 2. Because who ever is player 1, they just need to use their hit scan weapons to blow up the other sides hits can weapons so they cant benefit from them.
>>92582363Alright now finally on to Reactions, which I will sing the praises of. Reactions solve a whole bunch of issues, and can be attached to pretty much any of the systems we have already discussed.Basically, these are a dynamic way to suddenly influence the game based on some sort of condition triggered by your opponent, usually moving/charging into a certain range of one of your units or shooting at it. There are several key things about Reactions that are different than regular Activations:1. They are dynamic rather than part of the turn structure. What this means is, when they take place is a turn is going to be different turn to turn, and typically within your control. Unlike AA where it goes back and forth and back and forth, you only use a Reaction (or attempt to use one if there's some kind of test involved) when you think it's critical.2. They usually have an effect BEFORE your opponent is finished resolving whatever they are doing. So, your opponent declares an action, you declare a Reaction, and then that Reaction mitigates the damage your opponent is able to do, or resolves simultaneously, or in some other way makes their life harder. There's an immediate punch and guard or simultaneous counterpunch, unlike AA where your opponent is done doing his thing before it comes back to you.3. Turnover lag tends to be lower because Reactions are restricted in what they can and can't do, and because the amount of Reactions you have available is usually limited in some way.4. When applied to IGOUGO, they make turns feel uneven, but in a good way. The Reacting player is typically more on the back foot, so when player 1 has a full turn their opponent sort of has a third of a turn, and when it switches the first player has a third of a turn and the opponent a full turn. AA is a bit regular and symmetrical in terms of when control swings back and forth, but Reactions add an ebb and flow that feels more like the chaos of real combat.
>>92582763Yeah, but thats kinda the point, thats the job of the sniper, and what would you rather have? >Losing a few special character from a sniper squad>Losing half your army from alpha striking including those few characters. It would only be a thing for player 1 on tunr 1 really as well. Because rember when a round ends, player1 and player 2 swap roles. So Player A was player 1 for the first battle round, but player B will be player 1 for the second battle round. So player B will get to do it to player A if they brought snipers as well.
>>92582776>>92582737of course. Fights First is really hard to get, too, because it's really fucking good. a race to see who can cram the most hitscan weapons would be bad.>>92582763screen your units and prioritize targets on your return fire
>>92582793>ReactionsI wasn't on board at first, but how you've described them seems cool. Do you see any drawbacks with this method?
>>92582670I think it would be more fun if you used the same armies, and grew them as you played through the editions.Great idea btw, ill probably try to do something like that
>>92582793I think adding a game system to address an issue that could be circumvented by selecting a different turn structure locks in a lot of complexity early in the design process
>>92582682>While i can understand that, its equally as unsatisfying to loose half your army to who ever won the roll of and getting half your army obliterated by shooting before you can even go.Oh completely agreed, which is why I don't suggest using any system that falls prey to the alpha strike issue. The delayed casualty mechanic is one possible solution but there are other ones that I believe might feel better. As I mentioned here >>92582793 Reactions can give you a chance to do something very similar, but on a smaller unit-by-unit basis (your opponent shoots one of your units, you use a Reaction to shoot back simultaneously, then both suffer damage after) instead of a whole army basis, which addresses that delayed gratification problem and the abstraction. It feels more immediate and accomplishes the same goal, but only for PART of your army.What I do not agree with is resolving stuff like this by Initiative/speed tiers >>92582721 that leads to way too much bookkeeping for not enough benefit and often just feelsbad stuff for one army.>>92582844The main drawback to Reactions is just the potential to overdo it as a designer. You don't want every unit to feel like it has a gotcha or we end up with something like the stratagem bloat of 9th edition or the bespoke unit abilities of 10th. They add bookkeeping, either in some sort of meta resource to track how many Reactions you have available, or if there's some kind of cost to using a Reaction that weakens the unit next turn you have to track that.But all of these are solvable with good design. As far as I can tell, there are no INHERENT drawbacks to some sort of Reaction system. There are just a lot of ways to do it, some better than others.Alright next post will discuss Prohammer.
>>92582722>>92582763>>92582797>>92582829Could mirror the idea of "Fights First" in the shooting phase with a "Shoots First" type of rule. Something you could apply more to snipers and the like. No idea if this is a good idea, just tossing it out there as a concept. I honestly liked the way Apocalypse and old Epic did blast markers and then removed casualties for both sides later.
>>92582363>>There is one major advantage to IGOUGO, and that is, every time the color switches between player 1 and 2, you have what's called "turnover lag", which is that moment when the other guy goes "okay my turn, what am I doing here..." and looks over the board to plan his moves. Yeah, if the other player pulled out his phone or went to the bathroom.If both players were engaged during the player turn, the other guy already knows how his opponents move, shooting and assault phase have affected his plans and will have adjusted them appropriately- beginning with movement. Did he moved where I expected he would? Are the charges /shooting I set up last turn still viable? In the opponents move phase you are mentally running your next move in response, as his commitment is revealedShooting phase adjusts that further- if he rolled better than expected, or neglected a unit you thought he would punish, your plans adjust to what is still possible.Lastly Assault phase shouldn't be a huge shock, as he set up his charges on his last turn and you already moved to respond. If he manages to stick in combat or break you will be down to his positioning while charging and your set up previous. Any surprises here give the final adjust to your plan and you will be ready to play as soon as the last model has fallen back or piled in during his assault phase.
So the feeling you get is either>my army advances on my opponent, is blasting and charging and trying to kill them, but they are fighting back and trying to foil me before they regain the initiative and push back at me and now I'm on the back foot and have to do what I can to not lose my advantageOr>both armies advance on each other while blasting away, soldiers falling on both sides simultaneously before some shock troopers charge up and clash for brutal duelsWhich is the cooler feeling though?
>>92582934it's not really worth the cognitive load to track the changes to your plans with each individual action that your opponent takes on their turn.
>>92579333Vashtorr and the daemon primarchs can be used as heavily kitted out Damon Princes.
>>92567501My LGS plays a lot of 3rd. Once a doc drops we can playtest.
>>92572797>Pvt Partzheh
>>92582895So here we can finally see how turn structures can start to get weirder when you get more creative. This is the best representation of Prohammer Classic I could do, but the Fights First section isn't quite so structured because the number of activations available to each player within that phase is dynamic to what the units on the board have chosen to do for that turn and previous turn. In other words it will grow or shrink based on how many units remained stationary or went into Overwatch.I also depicted the Reactions with smaller lightning bolts here because there's a bit of a punishment to using them in this system, compared to for example HH which limits how many you can use and in what Phases but they tend to be more powerful. I don't like the extra bookkeeping it adds or the specific execution on some of them but small tweaks can be made, the idea is there and it's solid.There are also several other cool ideas within Prohammer that don't relate to turn structure, but which interest me. Whether we want to steal some of these mechanics for a more 4th ed base, or build on this core more or less whole, or even do something else entirely - that's up to the thread to decide.>>92582940This is a great way to describe these two options, yeah. Obviously I favor the first one but we should probably do a poll on it. I think that ebb and flow feels cooler.>>92582934>>92582947This. Cognitive load is a real thing, and systems with too much turnover suffer for it, no matter how much you think you can avoid that by just paying attention. Attention costs brainpower. Ultimately we're making a game, not a professional cognitive sport, and the goal is to maximize fun with minimal mental drain. Too much cognitive load is as bad as not enough.
>>92582895>Reactions can give you a chance to do something very similar,I dont like the reaction system. The problem with it its either to good or aweful. HH is a great example of the reaction system being way to powerful, and it still does not not address alpha strike. You are honestly better off not doing a reaction system and going back to the old overwatch system, and introducing maybe army specific types of over watch to act as a bonus. Like guard can chose to overwatch with BS 2 rather then BS 1, or they get to over watch with templates as well something like that but honestly i would avoid reactions especially in an alternating phase system where casualties are removed at the end of both shooting phases.Reactions were designed around the idea of casualties being removed right away, which is why the reactions specified you doing your reaction BEFORE removing casualties, with shifting that to the end of both shooting phases, thats not needed. Remember the saying, "Keep it stupid, simple" >Alternating phases (whole)>Casualties removed at the end of shooting>Very rare shoot first weapons like snipers, maybe pistols as well to give them a reason to exist outside of extra attack) >no reactions but keep over watch with how it used to exist.
>>92568384Someone here will spill the beans, especially if you or someone else starts talking about it here.
>>92573182>This argument is getting out of hand and a little nasty.This is why nothing actually works out coming from nu/tg/: too many faggots that want to talk shit about anything and everything, because point is to talk shit, not create a better product.>little different than reddit, really
Did 4th have challenges? I feel like in a limited bubble it's a really fun feature, and I'd like to see it added here if possible. My one problem: in Heresy (the only system I've played with it) is that people love to do challenges and then accept them with a model that clearly wasn't the one the challenger wanted to fight. Ex: I charge my melee squad (1 HQ and a squad that has a sergeant) .to your squad with the same formation. When I challenge, you accept that with the sarge instead of the character, as is valid RAW. I find this pretty lame, and would prefer direct challeges, if we decide to go with them.
>>92583115>I dont like the reaction system. The problem with it its either to good or aweful.That's a balance issue, not a design issue. Comes down to execution. Claiming it's too hard to balance before playtesting is jumping the gun.>HH is a great example of the reaction system being way to powerful, and it still does not not address alpha strike.I'm not sure how a system that is used by both players can be considered "too powerful", too powerful in what way, in relation to what? You're absolutely right that it doesn't solve the alpha strike issue in HH, but there are a couple of reasons why our game would be different, the major one being the much smaller armies (which both reduces how much alpha strike fire you can concentrate on single targets and makes limited Reactions lift more weight proportional to your number of units), and the other being the potential for simple changes to the system like starting Reactions at 3 per Turn instead of 1 per Phase.>You are honestly better off not doing a reaction system and going back to the old overwatch systemI like 2e Overwatch but these aren't mutually exclusive. See Prohammer above, that system does use both.>Reactions were designed around the idea of casualties being removed right away, which is why the reactions specified you doing your reaction BEFORE removing casualties, with shifting that to the end of both shooting phases, thats not needed.A returning fire reaction is based around this idea yes, but there are many other uses of Reactions. Movement ones for repositioning, and damage mitigating ones to reduce how much you actually suffer in losses in the first place. Delaying casualty resolution means you get one more use out of some of your units before they die, but skillful use of Reactions can prevent your units dying entirely.>>Very rare shoot first weapons like snipersProblem here is that will only ever benefit the first player, so it's a total non-starter of a mechanic.
>>92583328>Problem here is that will only ever benefit the first player, so it's a total non-starter of a mechanic.Not true, when the second battle round happens, if the player 2 had snipers, then will be going first in round 2 to benift form them. Battle round 1Player A is Player 1Player B is player 2Battle round 2Player A is now player 2Player B is now player 1 You still swap whos going first on each battle round, which means player 2 i will benefit from it on even battle rounds with snipers.
>>92583327No, challenges appeared in, what, 6th edition? My memory is fuzzy on that one. But back in 2nd ed basically every combat was a Challenge.Some anons have suggested bring back 2e style combat for challenges between Characters only while resolving other combats in the regular way which I'm totally in favor of, but need to see how many other people support something like that.
>>92583357Oh you're totally right, my bad. Still not sure if it's a good idea but that is potentially okay.
>>92583328>That's a balance issue, not a design issue. Comes down to execution.why add a system with so many caveats?
Anyone else feeling positive so far? Just hearing this game discussion (If a little shitflingy at times) reminds me why I love the table top community.I'm on team IGOUGO+R, think it is the best middle ground to keep how 40k "feels" while also addressing the flaws of the game.
>>92583753Yes indeed. It will be very exciting when we get to the point of polishing the codices and reading feedback of playtests. I'm still on standby for any large data processing required. Very happy to contribute to this best I can and speed things along.
>>92583716I don't see many caveats, I see one, which is just to do a quality job on the balancing. And that's true of many pieces of the puzzle.>>92583753I'm feeling very positive. Namely because there's no way we can truly screw this up. We don't have a publishing deadline. We don't have greedy executives forcing decisions to sell more models. We don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator. No matter what happens, if the playtest games suck, we can just try something else until it works.I know it's been awhile since this has been true, but there's a reason that the saying "/tg/ gets shit done" once came into existence. And you guys might think I'm crazy for saying this but I have confidence in our ability to make a better game than sellout nuGW under my semi-expert guidance.Moving forward I think we’ve now narrowed down our approach to 3 options refined through discussions, and I think they’re all good options that could potentially make a very good game so I’m not too concerned which one we go with. I’ll write them up next post and then someone can make a poll.
Option 1: IGOUGO+RWe stick with classic IGOUGO turn structure but add a robust Reaction system. Most of the design work for core would go into this system, and there's not necessarily a lot that needs to be done there. We can keep it as simple as just copying over the 3-page Horus Heresy Reactions seen here >>92580024 - or try various tweaks and adjustments, I already have some in mind if we decide to go that route.Pros:>Reactions are dynamic and cool. See >>92582793>IGOUGO feels closest to the original 40k we're trying to recapture.Cons:>May be the most difficult to balance.>Some added complexity in writing the codexes.Option 2: Alt-Phase with Delayed CasualtiesWe use a turn structure where one player moves all their stuff, then the other player moves all their stuff, then player 1 shoots all their stuff, then player 2... but units killed by shooting aren't removed until the end of both players’ shooting phases, allowing destroyed models to get some value. For consistency I think we would make close combat work similarly, with units that have higher Initiative gaining some other bonus rather than striking first.Pros:>Probably the best at addressing classic issues of IGOUGO systems. Low downtime and no alpha strike problems.>The forgiving nature of delayed casualties might make balance between different factions easier to achieve?Cons:>Would take the most work in designing the core. Likely to encounter unforeseen snags, messing with turn structure to this degree is not as simple as it sounds on paper.>Possibly feels too different for some players. Casualties delayed for entire phases can feel a bit abstract.Continued...
>>92584720Option 3: Modified Prohammer ClassicGive some polish to an existing fan-work that's already done the bulk of the job and has some really great ideas, then make bespoke codexes for it. (Obviously credit would be given to the creator for inspiring our work.)Pros:>Has a clearly pre-established design ethos with a fully functional and innovative core. Option 1 leaves lots of room for us to argue over fine details of how much to lean into 4th versus how much to hybridize it with minor mechanics from other editions or new ideas, Option 2 probably even moreso because of the radical departure from typical turn structure, but this one gives us a baseline that already synthesized all the 3e-7e editions into one modern version.Cons:>Some of these new mechanics are definitely still in an unrefined state and need to be touched up. Some people might be of the opinion that it’s easier to start from scratch than to build on an existing project with all of its associated baggage.
>>92584720>>92584752Vote here: http://poal.me/fon0xrGodspeed lads.
>>92584808I'm gonna call the vote on this when the thread gets bumped off the board, k?T. pastebin anon
>>92582081As much as I'd like to join the effort, I have too much on my hands, as I'm continuing to work on Necromunda project solo. I occasionally pop on forums with the Gang Showdown ruleset.>>92582363Neat analysis. As an AA junjkie, I think that if unit count is kept to reasonable quantity (6-8), then the turnover lag is not too bad and you could even run with #4.Out of all I probably enjoy the Armageddon solution, because getting a chance to activate after you've 'died' can still lead to cinematic moments such as desperate and mortally wounded guardsmen shoot back while managing to drag some scum with themselves. I've played Battletech quite a lot and it does exactly that - allows the 'dead' mechs to retaliate (although targets are declared before the shots are rolled), and it does not ruin the immersion for me.>>92583092Tbh seing the actual turn structure of the Prohammer Classic made me lean towards the option #2, because IGOUGO is familiar to people and delayed casualities would probably become a familiar occurence.I'm not a fan of reaction because I've played enough SWA/New Necromunda with tactic card bullshit to know how stressful it can be to constantly scan your opponent's turn to interrupt them at the very right moment.
While that poll gets settled I want to bring up something simpler to get the discussion going. What does the non-vehicle characteristics profile need to look like?I'm partial to: Name | Move | Silhouette | Ballistic Skill | Weapon Skill | Strength | Toughness | Initiative | Wounds | Attacks | Leadership | SaveGives 12 items which is nice and round (could be written on one line or two), and is generally compatible with every version including RAW 4e since Silhouette could just note the Size instead. I don't have anything to say about vehicle profiles rn other than the fact that Armor facings are definitely going to be there.
>>92583357>igougo ain't the problem>well what if instead of having one turn at a time, we made the people in Igougo take turn turns, one after another Really tells you the average IQ of the 'People here to save Warhammer'.
>>92585553????|Anon IGOUGO is one person does all their moves shooting, and assaults. IE how the game currently is. A system were each player does their full phase is alternate activation. What point are you trying to make?
>>92573495Much appreciated anon
>>92585350Yeah change Silhouette to Size, and obviously put the stats in the traditional order.Vehicles just same as 4th but add Mv and Size.
>This was roughly 1.5k pts in 1998
>>92586067How much does 1500 points get you in modern 40k?
>>92586067It's roughly 1.3k now. Who cares.
Alternating activation instead of normal tunsLore must stop before 2010No women
>>92586218>No womenI'll be dead and buried before anyone takes my Howling Banshee butts away faggot.
>>92586218>Lore must stop before 2010This but Helsreach and DoW2R stay
>>92567430I see this and raise you the complete discography in one vid https://youtu.be/DHJaAtQjYrY
>>92586218>no lore before 2010hmmmm, a bold proposal...but...one i accept. Do we count units as lore? For example, things like Death wing knights, and black knights whos kits were released in like 2012.
>>92586502I think backported units should be examined on a case-by-case basis.Was it a hideous cash-grab power creep release by GW that clashes in some way with the themes, lore, or aesthetic of the faction and/or overlaps with already existing units but just does their job better? Fuck 'em.Was it a cool unit that fleshes out the faction's lore in some new direction and fits with what was already there? It can stay.Obviously some of this is subjective so we'll have to debate over the really controversial ones. There are units I wish never saw the light of day just because I think they look fuck-ugly but if other people like them who am I to tell them they can't use them?Judgement will fall much harsher on Space Marines than anything else though because their line is so unbelievably bloated with unnecessary units.We also need to think about Forge World, I do think some of their stuff should be included.
I don't know why I reddit spaced the fuck out of that last post so hard. Anyways, I'm bowing out for the rest of the night. Keep up the good work everyone.>>92586479Based as hell.
>>92586570Krieg are a must for FW shit
>>92582639I got bored on my lunch break and wrote a draft of rules I like, if you don't that fine, I just think they're neat.
>>92586901It's not much to read through so I did, but I'm left with the question of "why?" or maybe "why like this?" is more accurate. It's an anti-alpha strike sort of rule but it just seems incredibly annoying even looking at it, let alone something that only reveals itself to be annoying when you actually play it.
>>92586901Ngl activating only half your points at points will be annoying, especially on later turns where stuff dies and you need to keep track of how many points is in each unit. Should just do it as half of your units rounded up or down.
>>92581306>I've addressed a half dozen times why raw IGOUGO is bad and unpopularNTA but can you point me at a post with your reasoning for this? Lurking the thread the only arguments against raw IGOUGO I've seen are "I don't like it" and "what's the point in forking 4th edition if we keep IGOUGO" neither of which are arguments.
>>92587271>>92571467He asserts that nobody who has tried a different system wants to go back to IGOUGO and is immediately proven incorrect.He acknowledges that IGOUGO is faster and is therefore by definition the superior system for making large battle games manageable but still wants to shoehorn reactions, (which are an engagement crutch for zoomers) into his groghammer.His position on reactions is clear, he is married to them
>>92587355You dare question the expertise of a college educated game designer with a definite slant across his 45 posts?
>>92587271My bad, I see you posted a more detailed argument against IGOUGO later in the thread. Still not sold on reactions, they don't feel very wargame-y to me, but less of a depature from stock 40k than AA. My question is if you're going to port reactions from HH2.0 across to 4th, why even use 4th as a base?
I do see the advantage in mitigating alpha strike, but why not just bring back 2E overwatch instead? Less fiddly than these wierd "x per turn" trap cards that pop out of nowhere
>>92587066The point was to not have alpha strikes and have turns and phases be a lot more back and forth. Using point totals is annoying but it's the system the game uses and I threw it in there. If I was to spend more time on it I'd probably give units an activation cost and divide things that way to simplify the math and make it less annoying.>>92587093Dividing your army in half would also technically work but that doesn't stop someone from activating all their strongest units and getting a mini alpha strike before the other players turn. With some kind of cost I feel they have to atleast stagger it a bit.
Charge declared in movement phase? If we are making melee less overall lethal, having it be in the movement phase to punish bad positioning of shooty units might be a good balancing decision.
>>92587995>If I was to spend more time on it I'd probably give units an activation cost and divide thingsCould possibly have an amount of activation points based on the size of the game and i.e. troops cost one point to activate, elites cost 2 points to activate.
So how about this as some new things added to each phase:Movement:>Declare Overwatch (Action): Basically ready the unit to shoot at someone declaring charges within their weapon range.>Heroic Intervention (Reaction): Nearby squad gets charged? Other squad gets in on the action. Needs to pass a leadership test though to see if they have the balls to get in.Shooting:>Counter-Fire (Reaction): Shoot back at enemy unit that shoots at you, higher initiative shoots firstI also thought of names for other potential actions and reactions in the phases but can't think of what they can do.>Concentrate (A psyker action in the movement phase possibly?)>Parry (Assault phase reaction)>Press the assault (Movement or Assault reaction maybe?)
>>92573423>imperial guard>the archnemesis>allies of convenienceThey're just reluctant to publish a codex: renegade guard or whatever and do this instead
>>92588245That would work yeah I like that idea, my only problem is certain troops are more valuable depending on the army. Like activating one gaunt squad is not the same as activating one tactical squad.
>>92582793I don't hate reactions but I think you're blind to their drawbacks.They're inherently more complex. They're literally exceptions, so that's inevitable. This makes them harder to write, harder to read, and harder to balance.If they're rare they're easy to forget to use. If they're limited at all they're another thing to track.Also it's very easy for the non-active player to be distracted and miss their chance, which is pretty easy if there are third parties watching the game.They also introduce lag, either because you keep checking if your opponent wants to react to mitigate the above, or because they stop you while they make up their mind. Especially if they're a limited resource.>>92584720Alt-phase pros:>Makes suicidal moves much more useful so they will happen more, which is thematically appropriate.>Lets two units wipe each other out, which is both appropriate and funny.Simultaneous resolution also means you can do things out of order where convenient, like all of one flank then the other where they happen to be separate.
>>92588458I like both pros for the alt-phase you've listed. Mutual assured destruction is always funny.>>92582793My biggest problem with reactions system is that they'll probably result in a lot of faction unique ones which will be hard to balance. In general I feel like we are taking a gotcha! mechanic and trying to build a game around it, which while bringing skill. I feel like we could be repeating the GW mistake with stratagem obsession, where the game is shallow by itself and stratagems are thrown on top of it.I'd much rather focus on positioning, suppressive fire, terrain interraction being cruicial for the victory rather than timing of reactions. Outflanking enemy, shooting from multiple sides, assaulting, tank shocking enemy so they bunch up for a grenade throw and so on.
>>92586078This >>92571624 plus a Boxnought and maybe an extra HQ is 1500pts.
>>92571624>>92572797>>92579048>>92585333>SWA mentionedBoy oh boy. How do we make Shadow War a thing again? What fixes and changes would you introduce to make it even better?
Something that will have to be kept in mind if alternating phase wins is that force allocation to objectives becomes more important. Both will be grinding each other down so you need to correctly allocate units to the parts of the battlefield in a selective way to not be spread too thin and get wiped out. After all, there is randomness so an elite force can roll poorly and take more casualties than a similar number of shots from a less elite force, but normally you're going to expect the elites to dish out more than they take. Or maybe terrain like bunkers and cover provide enough advantage that an isolated unit can hold its own even against a superior force for a while before a Fast Attack zips over the next battle round to reinforce them. I suppose that means weapon ranges will also need to be looked at, or strongly worded terrain guidelines to prevent the right flank from being able to easily draw line of sight to the center or left flank. When I put it like that it sounds like a good thing actually. It forces needing to worry about positioning, reinforcements, getting cover, the danger of indirect fire that can hammer you without being able to shoot back unless you have counter-artillery or deep strike units, the massive threat of a deepstrike from behind becomes as it flanks an important unit, etc. It's not that these things aren't already felt, but it feels more pressing when you can't just get lucky to go first and kneecap the opponent's ability to fight back.
>>92567156>Post in the thread things you want to see in your idealized versionI want to see Necrons the way I remember them: nothing but monoliths and endless tides of warriors who can one-shot the other team's heaviest vehicle on a lucky roll. It pisses me off to see Necron units that are not monoliths or warriors and like one skeleton wizard leading them. No, I am not kidding. Necrons should be painted in silver only, no other paint just spray them silver.
>>92586570And besides, if somebody is displeased, there's nothing stopping them from making the Codex Autistes with centurions and airplanes and releasing it for anyone else who likes that kind of thing.
>>92589585This, just like nothing stops people releasing fandexes for real 40k, nothing stops people from making their own /fourk/ codecies, just that it won't be "officially" supported just like /fourk/ isn't "officially" supported by 40k proper.
>>92589585It's me, I like centurions.
>>92589998you should feel ashamed
>>92586570I WILL use phobos pattern armor bc i think it looks better than any other SM profile. I don't care if they get unique phobos rules or not
>>92590244they just look so sturdy and rad
>>92590463no, they look dirty and sad
>poll indicates /fourk/ diving headlong into the likeliest path to failure, by commiting to effectively homebrewing an entire new system that at most borrows stat lines, names of phases, and USRs, instead of something realistically achievable through anonymous contribution like simply tweaking an existing edition or fan ruleset I hate to doompost and boy would it be neat to be proven wrong, but it was fun while it lasted I guess.
>>92591714I'm trans and POC btw, if that matters.
Alright, afternoon boys, I'm back. Surprised at the poll results, it looked like IGOUGO+R was solidly in the lead last night but Alt-Phase took over at some point. While I will be honest that it was the one I was least in favor of, I meant it when I said I am satisfied with any of these three systems and I think all three of them have the potential to make a great game. That said, this one comes with some real challenges - but I have experience with unusual turn structures and it's something we can handle if people are willing to try creative solutions. I've already got some ideas that I think we can apply which I'll bring up in a bit after I get settled in.All that said, the poll isn't over yet, things could change. But since this one will probably take the most work on core structural mechanics, I'm going to go ahead and get started with it anyways instead of waiting. Will also be replying to some posts in a bit as well.>>92591714I'll just address this one real quick. There is no such thing as "failure" with an iterative design process. Read my posts here>>92584126>>92560082If shit doesn't work, we just revise it and go again. The only way this project actually fails is if everyone stops trying. Doomposting is pointless, particularly before we've even playtested it once.
Jesus fuck go play OPR if you want AltAct. The whole point of this thing is to take 4th Ed. 40k and build on top of it. IGOUGO with Reactions is the way to go
>>92591875I'm not convinced either are a big change at all.>IGOUGO but with pseudo Strategems>IGOUGO by phase and casualties are only removed at the end of each phaseNeither is "re-writing the entire game" tier, bother just change the tempo. You could add each as a single page to an unmodified copy of the original game without changing anything else. Putting charges in the Movement phase is more dramatic of a change.
>>92591832Cute>>92591875>The only way this project actually fails is if everyone stops tryingMy dude, what did you think I meant by failure when talking about how this project is apparently choosing to take the biggest, hardest road under the most disorganized possible format? This is going to die on the vine, the way things are going.Oh, and FYI using something like a basic polling site for a major decision like this is fucked, all it takes is one dude with a VPN bloating their desired option and all of a sudden you're designing a homebrew nobody wants or wants to contribute for, and then you're dead in the water even faster. They don't even have to be someone invested in the project succeeding, they could be picking the worst option to try and kill it in the cradle.
>no argumentative posts for 12 hours>namefag comes back and suddenly there is fudding and doompostingHmmmm...
Alright hold up, catching up on old posts.>>92587547>Still not sold on reactions, they don't feel very wargame-y to meI don't mean this to sound dickish but, you haven't played many wargames other than 40k, have you? Reaction mechanics of some sort or other have been common to wargames since at least the 70's with hex and chit stuff like Advanced Squad Leader. In GW systems you had them or something like them in Space Hulk, Advanced Space Crusade, the Brace for Impact special order in Battlefleet Gothic, even Go To Ground in 5th ed 40k, and now the ones in the Horus Heresy system. Bolt Action & Beyond the Gates of Antares, Chain of Command has a rare interrupt after you build up a CoC dice, I could keep going.>My question is if you're going to port reactions from HH2.0 across to 4th, why even use 4th as a base?I suggested starting with porting in the HH2.0 ones because that's the easiest way to get games on the table to playtest, they only take up 3 pages of space, and are already familiar to some people. I'm not sure why you think taking one mechanic from HH2.0 means we should replace every single thing in 4th that is different with the equivalent mechanic in HH2.0. But ultimately these two systems are extremely similar anyways.>>92588241>Charge declared in movement phase?I've mentioned before I am a fan of this, yes, but it does take some readjusting, no matter which of the 3 options for a game system we went with.>>92588287Have to settle on our option first, but there are some thoughts here we can refine.>>92588458Thank you for pointing these out. I'm not blind to them but I think we just disagree on how much of an impact these drawbacks have, I don't believe they outweigh the benefits. But that said, it's something to look out for in playtests if we use a reaction system.>>92589513>Something that will have to be kept in mind if alternating phase wins is that force allocation to objectives becomes more important.Interesting assertion, how so?
>>92591976To be fair to its proponents, Alt-Phase is NOT Alt Activation. Also, no matter which of these turn structures we use, we will guaranteed make a richer, deeper, more flavourful game than OPR by a mile. I would also prefer IGOUGO+R but I implore everyone not to doompost and seethe about different styles before we've even tried playtesting games with them. Give everything a fair shake.>>92592004>I'm not convinced either are a big change at all.They are both bigger changes than you think. Especially the second one, because we cannot just do the simple brute force implementation you think we can. I'm about to write up a post why once we're caught up here.>>92592067The doomposting is still pointless. However you do make one good point here.>all it takes is one dude with a VPN bloating their desired option and all of a sudden you're designing a homebrew nobody wants or wants to contribute forI want to hope nobody would be doing this but I have suspicions. We got a lot more votes overall than I thought we would. The problem is, what is the alternative? If I say "reply to this post ITT with your favorite option" anons could just samefag it even more easily. And no matter what we end up with, some people are going to be unhappy. Which is why I tried to stress from the outset, ALL of these have potential to make a good version of 40k and I'd prefer if people hold off on dismissing any of them until we start playtests.We all need to make compromises. No one is going to get their exact perfect ideal set of rules because what's ideal for one person is hated by others. I voted for the Modded Prohammer Classic option which turned out to be the least popular, for example. But the goal of this project isn't to make an unbelievably perfect wargame, just one that's better than the alternatives.
>>92588643Love what you have to say in this post, you're right that there's a risk to overfocus on Reactions making the rest of the game shallow. I would also like to include mechanics for positioning and suppressive fire, which is part of why I supported Prohammer Classic as our core to build on because it already included some ideas relating to that, as well as Reactions. None of these things are mutually exclusive. At the same time, though, it seemed most people reached a general consensus that we shouldn't change too much all at once, so unless we keep all of these changes small we don't want to pile on too many of them or we end up with a ship of theseus that isn't actually classic 40k.The voting/consensus system is a bit of a conundrum. Any suggestions for how we go forward if we don't want to do things strictly democratically?
Lmao, the poll just shot up 4 votes for the same option in the last 30 minutes after zero votes (at all) for the last 3 hours. This also puts it at 12 total responses higher than any previous poll. Absolutely tainted, autist egos got in the way in the end.
>>92592365>I think we just disagree on how much of an impact these drawbacks haveYou did say somewhere that you don't think a reaction system has any inherent drawbacks. I certainly disagree with that. But I'm not claiming they're a bad thing either; I just prefer a different solution.>>92592004Going by phases makes having priority a pretty big deal. A lot of that disappears with shooting and fighting having simultaneous resolution, but movement priority will be a big deal. In particular going second gives you more control over lines of sight and charges.
>>92592604>Any suggestions for how we go forward if we don't want to do things strictly democratically?I don't think so apart from developing each one and have something like "The players can agree to the following rulesets for combat" but in the interest of removing bloat and keeping sanity, isn't the best idea at all.For 99% of 4chan subjects, I am completely against a discord but this situation might be one of the occasions it could work out better. We could cover things quicker and discuss particular details better especially over mic (yes, we're not all spergs). Hell, you could split the discord up into 3 and have each group develop the 3 poll choices of rules, then come together when it comes to amending codices and smooth them out so they work regardless of choice. Way too ambitious though, I know. Maybe the choices that lose can make their own Fourk? There's no reason why they can't do that.
>>92592692>In particular going second [in alt phases] gives you more control over lines of sight and charges.how so?
>>92592703Yeah I considered that, I just don't know if I want to commit to us splitting already. On the one hand, there's a risk the projects all lose too much momentum if we splinter into different factions. On the other, maybe the problem right now is that we have too many cooks in the kitchen to begin with, and a few small teams of 4-5 dedicated passionate guys can get more done than one big unfocused team of 20ish. Or whatever our real numbers are.Maybe what we need to do is commit to designing all three of these, then playtest all of them, and then compare notes and see what works across all of the systems and what doesn't, then consolidate from there. It's more time and more work, but it's not like we have a deadline. I don't really like discord for this though.>Maybe the choices that lose can make their own Fourk? There's no reason why they can't do that.Actually, this might be the move simply because by having three separate threads, it'll become clear natural selection which one is receiving the most attention and posts and which ones are falling off.
>>92592692>You did say somewhere that you don't think a reaction system has any inherent drawbacks.You're right I did say that, I guess I dismissed the turnover lag as an inherent drawback because it's lower than most of the alternative systems that use more activations than the system would use reactions. However you made a good point that there's a bit of lag every time you could POTENTIALLY use a reaction, while the player considers whether or not to do it. So I stand corrected.>but movement priority will be a big deal>>92592771I'm going to address this at some point, because he's right. There's more to Alt-Phases than it appears on the surface which I tried to stress from the beginning when I described "unforeseen snags" as one of the cons of this option.Before that though let's seriously talk about if we want to split the threads or not.
>>92592771Play a single game of battletech and you'll see many pitfalls in AA and alternating phases. Good game but it isn't flawless.
>>92592703I think if we are doing it like this, we should change the view of the project, not as an alternative warhammer edition, but more of a modular collection of rules, which can be played in different combinations
>>92572582>No fliers allowed. No superheavies. No lords of war.I get no super heavies, and no lords of war.But why no fliers?
>>92592771You get to move between the enemy moving and shooting, so you can hide from their big guns (terrain permitting). And generally react to whatever they do.
I don't think splitting threads is a great idea unless if there is a dedicated handful of autists ready to steer this project properly, which takes away some of the "community made" aspect.The main thing to also keep in mind is that this an alt-ruleset to cater specifcally to disenfranchised 40k players who want to experience the good ol' days but with some changes that most players can agree on was needed. What those changes are unfortunately needs someway to communicate to players. Forking the fourk this early seems counter productive.
>>92593784>The main thing to also keep in mind is that this an alt-ruleset to cater specifcally to disenfranchised 40k players who want to experience the good ol' days but with some changes that most players can agree on was needed. I think a big problem is a lot of people think this is a project to "fix" 40k and for them that means alternate activations. But that's not how the game played in the good ol' days, it's not even an approximation of it.
>>92573495Nice, this will be great for our usual 4th ed games. A complete version of the core rulebook with this style would be pure gold
I'm going to namefag a bit, so bear with me.>>92592781>a few small teams of 4-5 dedicated passionate guys can get more done than one big unfocused team of 20ish.Pretty much this.What happened to Necromunda Yaktribe Community Edition (YCE) was exactly that: a ton of forumers suggesting wildly different ideas all at once. Then we've decided to have a committee in PM chat, and it still was pretty bad because it included 10 people. To make things worse, some wanted it to be basically an FAQed game slavishly following the original GW ruleset, and others wanted to change D6 to D12.This lead to a constant back-and-forth, with votes being thrown for even the most minute change. So, trust me when I'm saying that I had an experience of being a part of a similar project. If you want to increase the probability of success:>You need a better platform than a 4chan. 4chan threads are great for brainstorming ideas, but not for an ongoing discussion. For example, comming back to an idea which was discarded earlier but later found out to be decent would be hard to track here. In general, keeping progress here would be tideous.>I highly recommend trying to get in touch with the Prohammer author, because maybe he'd be willing to contribute and he has been doing his project for a while, because I saw it on Dakka a long time ago and he keeps updating it from time to time.>Only those who actually participate in the creation of the document get to suggest ideas. This includes editors, playtesters, proofreaders.>A team of 4-5 focused people is better than a team of 10 each with its own take.>It is fine to have a bigger online poll to understand what the 'general' pubic wants. You can do google questionaire to make skewing the vote harder. It worked okay during the YCE development.https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/yce-development-questionnaire.10742/>Splitting is an awful idea.>The faster you make something similar to a rule draft, the better. Dev fatigue is real.
>>92594859Also as much as I'd like to take part in 40k rewamp, but I have my hands full with my own Necromunda project that I'm working on with my group. I wanted to give some tips based on my experience working on a community ruleset.
>>92594484Glad you appreciate it. And yeah I'm still working on the rest. Expect to see it in either /grog/ or /40kg/ maybe by the end of this week.
>>92593407Fliers don't make any sense at this scale. They're better represented by "bombing run" type abilities that don't require a model. Aircraft move too damn fast to need a physical representation on the table.Vehicles with hover modes can work, but only if they use the hover mode exclusively.
>>92594898>>92573495Seems like a good summarization of the 4th edition. I kinda forgot that it did not have random charges, huh. Also it is kinda weird how pistols allowed shooting twice.I have a few ideas, but feel free to ignore them:>AP should reduce armour throw instead of being all or nothing. Probably the best change later editions brought to the table, but they overdid it and started throwing AP on everything. >Seems like wound allocation was a thing in 4th and you've fixed it, nice.>It'd be nice to simplify tables for wounding and weapon skill by making up a rule to make remembering the table easier: if STR equals T, then roll a 4+. If the STR is bigger, the required roll is lowered by each point of difference, down to 2+. If the STR is less, the required roll is upped by each point of difference, up to 6+.>>92595164This. Most aircraft would look weird as it should easily cover the entire battlefield in less than 1 round.
>>92594859>>92594877Thanks for the added input my friend, very appreciated.>To make things worse, some wanted it to be basically an FAQed game slavishly following the original GW ruleset, and others wanted to change D6 to D12.Sounding incredibly familiar, indeed.Well, based on your experiences, it seems the next step is to focus the design group and downsize. Here's what I'm gonna do:TO ALL POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTERS - apply by email to>screamingnidanon@gmail.comPlease include some rough approximation of the following:>what you've contributed to the thread so far (if you were OP, the SRD guy, the pastebin guy, etc., or just purely got involved in discussion).>your vision for the project, design goals, which of the turn structure options you prefer and if you're willing to work on it even if we choose a different one>how much time you have available to devote to this project daily>anything else you feel is relevantYou don't have to write a novel, just keep it within the length of a /tg/ post or less.I'll create a discord and invite a small number of people that seem like they'll be able to get the most shit done and have similar ideas. If you don't get picked, don't take it as a personal offense, it doesn't mean your pitch was bad, it might just mean that your efforts would be better directed leading a different team. I encourage people to continue discussing ideas here in the thread and organize other projects if you want. I'll continue updating the threads with progress and lend advice to any other groups attempting a different version. Once we have a working prototype I'll reopen applications for playtesters and expand the team.Ganbatte dayo, or whatever weeb shit we say here on 4chan.
>>92595370I appreciate the comment but this is strictly an SRD of 4th and will be finalized without any mechanical changes beyond some minor editorial ones. On the subject of the charts well thanks for mentioning it because I went back to check and noticed I transcribed a couple cells incorrectly. I am considering adding in a "rule of thumb" to them as an editor's note like "S=T is always 4+" etc, but will certainly keep the charts themselves.Not sure what you mean about fixing wound allocation in 4th, since this is exactly how it is described in the text but in a fraction of the word count.
>>92594898This is probably the most useful thing to come out of the thread so thank you.
>>92595470>Discord Trannies gonna save the dayHaha, Good one Nid.
>>92595567I'm open to suggestions for what other meeting place to do this on, but everyone keeps saying discord, so I just made a quick and dirty profile and server. Just throwaway accounts that can have a place to organize discussions. Frankly I don't give a shit where it is.
>>92595481>Not sure what you mean about fixing wound allocation in 4thI've never got to play 4th, the edition I've started playing warhams was 7th. I remember hearing about wound allocation abuse in older editions, but after re-reading 4th edition, it seems like it wasn't a case for it.>will certainly keep the charts themselves.Yeah, the charts themselves are obviously needed. Its just that a rule of thumb could simplify it a lot.>>92595567>SRD of 4th and will be finalized without any mechanical changes beyond some minor editorial ones.Understandable.
>>92573495Theres a typo in Str/Tgh table, Str 4 vs Toughness 4 is 3+
>>92595744You NIGGER you get ZERO credit for that when I posted about it myself five posts up.
>>92595470I hate to say this but this might be the best option if /fourk/ is gonna succeed. That doesn't mean that the threads should die. They should still continue with people from this site giving opinions/suggestions on what should be done, while the main crew works and takes opinions on getting a core rulebook working. I know the real fun will begin when things models start getting backported or when a formula is made to backport post 4th ED models.
>Page 9 Where's the new thread?
new OP forgot to link the thread.>>92596104>>92596104>>92596104
