Apologies if dumb question. Is there an interest in taking factions that weren't in 4th (like GSC, Votaan, Custodes) and backporting them to the fork?

my LFGS is looking at playing more old 40k.

It's funny what it takes for /tg/ to be creative again is GW (Finally) breaking the 40k fanbase.

>>92808977
Hi! I have created an SRD for 4th edition specifically to make playing it easier! It's just 4th! I however have not really undertaken backporting new armies, and am only (very slowly) working on creating datasheets and an armory reference page for Space Marines as a proof of concept.

I would LOVE if you would like to step up and backport those old armies, they would be added into the pastebin for people to download. You will have to use your best judgement, and maybe making an email and name would be useful so people can bitch at you for fucking the balance and not costing things correctly for 4th edition or whatever. Please please please feel free to contribute.

>>92808977
GSC had rules in 3rd and if armies like Dark Eldar that went like 12 years without new rules I hardly see an issue with not getting rules in 4th

Hi, I've just opened /tg/ for the first time in months and spotted this thread in the catalog. Just dropped in to say I'd love something like this to gain traction. I'm afraid I'm at a point in my life where time is very tight due to family stuff, otherwise I'd see how I could help. Best of luck with the project brothers!

>>92808977
>like GSC
Yes.
>Votaan, Custodes
No.

>>92808977
For the currently unnamed project i'm working on with SNA, it's possible for GSC, less for votann and custodes since they are less robust. So far we're sticking to the major forces of the era before we start looking at that. However; if there's anything my team isn't working on, people will have the tools to make their own codex for it.

>>92811571
Hopefully in a little while we'll have something fun for you to try out.

>>92808770
I've updated my starter rules packet to include the vehicle rules and the special rules used in the starter scenarios and managed to keep it at 10 pages total. Hopefully that makes it easier for anyone who just wants to try it out. I've also added a reference to them in the main rulebook after the rules introduction to redirect players to them before they get into the core rules of the game.

>>92808977
I plan on doing Genestealer Cults sometime in the future, and while I have no plans to write rules for the Leagues of Votaan, or Custodes, I encourage anyone that likes the system and wants to write rules for it to do so. I'll add a seprate folder to the mega link if anyone ever wants to submit additional rules.

>>92795140
Im glad you enjoyed reading it over. I am particularly proud of the terrain section. My rules actually started as a mission packet for 6th, and then terrain rules cause 6th ed (its even worse in 7th ed) basically has none other than those made specifically for the GW kits and the terrain rules were terrible. Cough cough toe-in carnefex.

ButI am confused as to your feedback on the armour penetration? You think its clunky but I should also double down on it?

Since I am on the topic I will blog post about armour rend as a mechanic. Rend (AR) is like the opposite of AP, but not in the way you expect to think about it. Rather, Low AP is super effective vs bad saves, while Low (or any for that matter) AR is more effective against good saves. -1AR vs a 2+ save is equivalent to AP 4 vs a 4+ save; both circumstances cause you to suffer twice as many wounds.
The detriment to loss of armour save is directly proportional to how good the save was. AP 2 weapons will deal 6 times the wounds against a 2+ save, where AP 6 weapons only deal 1/6th more wounds to a 6+ save.

In this regard, there isnt much of a need for AR values. The workable design space is kinda AP6,5,4 and right around here is where you might want to introduce a AP-1, and then AP 3 and AP2. This is honestly something Im still working on. I baked AR into the core rules, but none of the codices (that I've written or exiting 3rd to 6th ed books) really make use of it yet, so its kinda an in-flux thing. Another idea I had thought of prior, but never fleshed out, was to introduce bounded AR. Say a weapon was AP5/-1 (my notation for AP5 AR-1) perhaps the -1 should only apply to 4+ saves for example. In this it could be an in-between. Perhaps AP5/-2 could be -1 to 4+ saves, and -1 to 3+ saves.

As it is right now, with overpower the way it is, you are either getting full save, no save, or -1.

>battle report
Ill make sure to take some picture if we end up playing a game this weekend. I keep forgetting.

>>92808977
Be the change you want to see in the world anon. Take a peek at the currently game ready projects from myself or AAAnon from last thread and talk it over with your palls.
>>92743924
>redesigned alternating activation 40k experience
>>92756364
>a true-to-the-feel reimagining of the older editions

Having never opened or played with the new votan books, it would be pretty hard for me to really capture the feeling of the armies. Thats not to say I wont try later but its not at all on my to-do list.

>>92814536

DESU for Votann, just make a 4e/your fork squats codex. They are space dwarfs. Squats. Been around since the start.

>>92810906
Sure. Looking at porting armies to 4th/5th. Trying to find the SRD for 4th, doesn’t seem to be in the bin unless I’m moronic.

>>92816792
You'll have to go to a previous thread or two to download it. Thanks for reminding me I should make a MEGA and pass it to SNA however. I'll do that this weekend.

>>92732846

I want close combat to feel scalable. A hero hitting on 2+ makes sense against a grunt, but if he's fighting the avatar of khaine, it makes no sense for them to be hitting each other on 2+.

I'd like eldar psychic powers to feel more tricksy. Rather than "reroll to hit", how about "force your opponent to reroll x number of successful hits" or "roll x number of dice and keep those dice to one side. After your opponent had rolled to wound against one of your units, you can substitute one of their successful wounds with a dice of your choice from your pool".

I would like vehicles to feel like vehicles, not monstrous creatures. They should be immune to small arms fire

>>92817263
Thx SRDanon, will try to look at starting some conversion when i can. cant promise the best but will see about at least getting some groundwork done.

>>92817886
Consider grabbing copies of the 3e SM, Nid, and IG codex as reference as well, since you want to cost and create plausible units.

>>92818140
Going to look at that and the 9th edition codex for values. Shouldnt be too hard to play around with.

While i do think grudges were fun and fluffy I think they would need a rework. not worrying about it too much now. going to first get the statlines done. point costs too. work from there one step at a time.

>>92818195
Is there anything of value from ninth edition.
Apparently even redditors hated it.

>>92820889
In my eyes there were SOME fluffy rules. 9ths biggest problem was bloat above all else, even the shit balance which could be fixed with the culling of certain rules.

File: warhammer-40k-leagues-of-(...).jpg (2 MB, 1920x1080)

2 MB JPG

>>92820889
Not really. from my experience its very customizable with codex's Butttttt. its very bloated without direction. Top that off with the smaller board size. Stratagem spam, rerolls like crazy. it was a mess.


Been looking over the SRD and the Codex's. Question about Wargear:

Atm just considering using for ease stuff like boltguns, Heavy axes, etc. stuff you would find in both the guard codex and the SM codex.

Unless you guys have any personal belif on how wargear should be handled its personally a headache with the pseudo special weapons Votaan (and by extension a lot of other 9/10e codex's have.)

Current Plans are as follows:
>Convert statlines to 4e
>Get a basic wargear listed started.


Imo I'm in the belief that Dwarves should be tougher than guardsmen but not to the level of SM. and have a guard shooting profile but better toughness. Unless you guys say different.

>>92821285
Follow your dreams, be true to your vision. Then when you actually post your first draft people can rip you to shreds.

>>92821693
Being ripped to shreds is a good thing, harsh criticism gets through thick skulls more.
t. Thick skulled wannabe game designer.

Cool project, I just want to echo an older post >>92679908 . The concept of SM has changed since original where they were basically tough dudes in power armor. Games Workshop has been tied to that concept but you don't have to. They really should just be monsters. Primaris was a hamfisted attempt by GW to give them more wounds and strength but you guys can just give regular marines that instead and maybe even more

>>92823517
Im normally against 2 wound marines.

Feel free to disagree but unless special cases an infantry unit should be 1 wound per model. in my experience the 2 wound marine spam has resulted in bullshit plays (meleeing tanks, Carving through a heavy front and shrugging off anti infantry.)

Im not against marines being the toughest infantry or the hardest hitting infantry in the game though. It should be hard to wound a marine to compensate for their smaller unit size.

imo they should be hard hitting too but not just overly the best choice. else you'll have the OP marine problems that primaris brought. Marines were the best at one thing but also good at everything, which overshadowed the other factions.

>>92823760
Aspect Marines is a much worse result of the Primaris shit.

>>92823517
>they were basically tough dudes in power armor
No they weren't. Rogue Trader refers to them as superhuman, with extensive modifications. And the WD article detailing all their extra organs came out only a few months later, before they were even bumped up to T4.
Stop spreading this lie.

>>92817359
So like Fantasy close combat where comparing weapon score determines what you need to roll?

>>92825931
Yes. I know its not a perfect system, and I'm too stupid to come up with one that works, but the current way of doing it doesn't work for me.

File: Epic40k.jpg (859 KB, 1500x1029)

859 KB JPG

Hey frens. It's cool that you're doing your own thing, it seems like your game philosophy it's not my cup of tea but that's ok. In any case, your project is giving me the inspiration to write my own 40K retroclone, a halfbreed between 2nd ed, Rogue Trader and Bolt Action. I love Rogue Trader, but sometimes it's too clunky and dispersed in countless WD articles to play as a coherent game nowadays. 2nd ed is more cohesive but I hate using cards in a miniature game.

Currently I play 3ed with my friends to get my 40K fix. But some of my friends are ex-CCG players and don't truly "get" narrative games, the focus on matched games with equal point army lists doesn't help with getting them out of their mix-maxing mindset. Right now I'm working on a map campaign to give them a test, but maybe I should try a shock therapy aka writing my own rules with no army lists.

My homebrew would have a full narrative focus, designed to play scenarios instead of matched play. No army lists with points, instead the host writes a scenario with the objectives and OOB of both sides, like in Force on Force, Inquisitor or Stargrunt II. Would anyone be interested in it around here, or is this too niche a project?

>>92826864
>I love Rogue Trader, but sometimes it's too clunky and dispersed in countless WD articles
Have you tried Renegade Scout?

>>92826931
I've read the pdf, but I haven't actually played it desu. I've played 5core Company Command and No End in Sight from the same author, they were fun but I'd rather play Battlegroup. I like a bit of crunch in my games.

>>92826864
>My homebrew would have a full narrative focus, designed to play scenarios instead of matched play. No army lists with points, instead the host writes a scenario with the objectives and OOB of both sides, like in Force on Force, Inquisitor or Stargrunt II.
This seems to be somewhere awkwardly halfway between premade scenario wargames (with the caveat that there are no premade scenarios, and someone has to be the unpaid game designer) and roleplaying games (with the caveat that, if it's the host creating the scenario /and OOB/, you lose on the Your Dudes aspect, as the players don't seem to have any input).

>>92826864
You have my interest.

>>92826864
The more the merrier?

>>92808770
Don't know if it fits, but back in 8th I recall there being a big thing over the rules for the commissar being changed.
Used to be if they failed a morale check within range of one you remove a single model and they pass. But they changed it because conscript blobs so you just reroll the test now.
So I thought a good compromise would be conscripts still reroll and guardsmen pass, but commissars don't befit from the look out sir/character protection rules, to represent the men not exactly wanting to die to protect the commissar.

>>92827063
Fwiw, the best games of whfb I ever played were entirely asymmetric. No army lists or points. Create the scenario forst and then choose the most appropriate army. Like, if I'm playing a dark elf raiding party, it doesn't make sense for me to take a bolt thrower or dragon, because in this scenario they wouldn't be there (in our heads), and the defender _would_ have defensive weapons stationed at their end of the board.

Points don't matter in narrative play so much. You can always improvise if things swing too far one way or ther other

>>92827063
Really? It seems to me like the kind of scenario based system I propose is maybe less common in fantasy and sci fi, but it's the most popular way to play HWG. See Hail Caesar, Black Powder, Crossfire, 5 Men in Normandy...
And even in sci fi WEG's Star Wars, Stargrunt, Rogue Trader or Tomorrow's War have that vibe.

File: IMG_0033.jpg (1.01 MB, 1640x1054)

1.01 MB JPG

AAAnon I was reading over your overwatch rules and thing you should give them a once over. There seems to be some conflicting info involving LoS, and I also recommended some adjustments to presentation and order.

I am also a little confused as to why you don’t just make overwatch one of the default actions? Perhaps it’s to make things that plug-in into the hold rules also apply to overwatch?

>>92827499
Iirc Independent Characters already didn't benefit from anything like Look Out Sir in older editions so I'm not sure that would actually be a change to anything.

File: 1553340421798.jpg (12 KB, 236x261)

12 KB JPG

Why does everyone here hate 40k Admech? I think they look sick as hell. Easily the least generic design in all of WH.

>>92832676
Wrong thread?
30K AdMech are far superior in design and its not even close.

File: Overwatch Revision 1.jpg (3.28 MB, 1963x1457)

3.28 MB JPG

>>92830093
Those are good ideas for the structure of this section. How's this?

I wanted to be very careful with overwatch and not make it too easy to go into it. I don't want to tempt players to get into standoffs with entire armies overwatching each other. As a result there were a lot of criteria a unit has to meet, so I decided against making overwatch its own action in an effort to future proof it against any rules I write down the line. Same with why the unit is removed from overwatch when charged but still allowed to Stand and Shoot. I wanted overwatch to be a very specific thing.

I tried to clarify my requirements pertaining to line of sight, let me know if that helped. What I meant to say with the rule was that a unit not in area terrain or in a vehicle/building/battlements couldn't have an enemy unit able to draw line of sight to them without that line passing through cover. I didn't want units just standing in the open overwatching, they would put themselves behind cover to do so.

Excellent suggestions, thanks! Let me know if anything is still unclear about these.

>>92826864
I would. Actually , playing BA made me wonder if anyone "rewrote" the rule for 40k setting, with for example a wider range of possible "units stats", factions reacting in a different way to moral test/pinning etc...

>>92811977
Is there plans for necrons or are they in the same box as Votaan and Custodes?

>>92829104
I didn't say that it wasn't popular, i said that the proposal relies on the host making scenarios (and thus effectively being the unpaid game designer).

>>92835614
Isn't that already the case for 99% of all RPGs? And if he does do this can't he just release scenarios in packs? That was the business model of RPGs forever (not like he would be able to sell it anyways), "Scenario T-1 - Battle For Oghram" seems easy as pie.

>>92836335
>Isn't that already the case for 99% of all RPGs?
It is. However, the proposal specifies a wargame, and thus...
>And if he does do this can't he just release scenarios in packs?
...given the context of the thread we're in, i doubt that the proposal implies proxies and cutouts as opposed to actual miniatures. It's like an ethos difference, for the lack of a better explanation; if you're making an oldhammer retroclone, you're probably imagining it to be played using oldhammer (or similar) miniatures, not tokens or counters or whatever that's not a miniature - and a prewritten scenario, if the miniatures are not supplied, relies on the players+host to possess a good enough collection that hopefully has something fitting.
Of course, moving to printout tokens is a solution, but is it a solution within the bounds of the ethos?

>>92836397
Printouts are a very low-cost, low effort requirement for a game so I think it is reasonably within the scope. I'm personally tempted to go ask /po/ for help on making some papercraft terrain pieces actually. And anyone who does possess an old army of Space Marines or whatever doesn't need to rely on the printouts and can just use their actual minis. Or make a HUGE scenario on the scale of Waterloo, everyone prepares their armies for it, and then include a bunch of smaller scenarios that use the minis in the main scenario in different battles.

It's not so terrible of an idea that it isn't practical at least is my point. But I'm not him so he would have to show up to defend his actual plans instead of my spitballed defense for him.

File: SR by Army.png (180 KB, 1528x903)

180 KB PNG

>>92835523
Yeah, Necrons will have their army down the line. I've taken a bit of a break after finishing my last book and focused on feedback from the thread and reviewing what I've already written. Once I'm refreshed I'm going to do the Deathwatch/Grey Knights book so I can be done with Marine armies for good, then next will either be Dark Eldar or Necrons. Not sure which yet.
For anyone interested in what I still have planned, the Strategy Rating table in the main rulebook shows everything currently in the works unless something changes.

>including overwatch at all
no thanks

>>92838357
Overwatch - mind you, we're talking real Overwatch, not the 6th edition version that was free extra shooting - is an absolute necessity in a turn-based system, otherwise all movement becomes teleportation.

>>92838444
Update on SNAPfourk doko?

>>92838651
Progress slowed down this past week as I was sick earlier in the week and then had things going on with work and family, now another member is sick, so we've been on a bit if a break. But I put forward the new Morale rules yesterday and one of our other members is playtesting it and reporting back soon. I've also got the Monstrous Creature rules more or less worked out.

One of the biggest things we'll need to look at next is psychic powers and then scenario designs and then we should be close to wrapping up the core rules.

SNA please add this to your pastebin thanks.
m3g4 . nz /folder/1DMxURza#iLn0OuQ8AVGl4XJvU8J4Ig

Still working on the Votann Back conversion, week's progress is slow but going well.

Little out of the loop. but what is the current plans for armies codex. I assume every one from 3-6th

>>92843287
I assume you're asking me specifically? I am only going to condense 3rd Edition codices (the ones I feel like doing, at whatever pace I please, since there's not nearly as much superfluous text in these as there is in the rulebook).

>>92843311
got it, thanks for the work you do SRD anon.

>>92808770
I hate the antichrist I hate JW I hate primaris

>>92843078
Done

>>92843457
Okay but tell us how you really feel.

So, what do you guys think about nid monsters, what should their upper size be? Everyone seems to agree for vehicles but nid monsters are still up in the air.

>>92849975
Wouldn't it be the Carnifex? Oh wait, I guess a Swarmlord and hive tyrants are a bit bigger, but are probably fine? Still just dreadnought/MBT sized models. Toxicrines and such are MBT size so they are in, and so is everything smaller than them. Mawlocs are out for sure, same with Hierophants. Did I miss anything?

>>92850108
There is a whole bunch of monsters which gets hit like Tervigons, Tyranofexes and things of that size.
I get it, but Tervigons are cool, but if it won't be supported "officially" then I will just make my home brew using 4th's unit maker.

>>92849975
On our project they are definitely being included up through the tyrannofex/tervigon size. We'd mentioned we're keeping flyers out until the apoc expansion, but ground-based monsters up and around that size should fit fine.

We've got some real fun plans for the tervigon to act like a mobile spawn point for gaunt-sized endlessly recycling swarms.

>>92850108
Carnifexes are Tyranid Dreadnoughts, sizes up to Land Raider are acceptable which is essentially what a Tyrannofex is, so yeah, the bigger nid monsters are definitely in. The only one I might not allow is the Trygon, it was originally a Forge World Gargantuan beastie before they made it plastic in 5th edition. Also the flyers will of course be out.

Wha happun to grog?

>>92851525
Pretty sure Grog was more 2nd ed and earlier focused, while this project is squarely in 3rd-5th territory. I haven't seen a thread for it in a while, but I'm sure nobody would mind you starting one up if that's what you're looking to discuss instead of this era.

>>92850738
Good to know! Thanks dudes.

File: Inferno!14.jpg (654 KB, 1079x1600)

654 KB JPG

Guess I'll share the 3rd and 4th books I've managed to gather. If you have any I don't lmk.

m3ga. nz /folder/u0pE3TDR#5jzGJNLZ-gZsMKY4x1EPkw

Since the hype is dead now and there are 4+ ongoing projects maybe you should only make this thread just once a month, or once a fortnight, since updates aren't exactly flying in from anyone and there's not a lot of discussion anymore.

>>92857197
yeah honestly as an outsider who would be interested in an alternative system to 40k 10th ed...
Pick and stick with one damn thing! And make some online content or something to help get others onboard. Maybe battle reports, youtube shorts, whatever. I need to show something to people around me to convince them to play, rather than print out a small booklet and take it some people one day. 'Naw I'd rather just play 10th' they'll say.

>>92858541
I kinda disagree, if you have 5+ (complete) alternatives to 40K the thread is doing its job of offering choices. Though each project could do to write up some batreps for their systems and post here or to blogs. I guess you'd get razzed pretty fucking hard if your terrain or minis weren't YouTuber-tier overproduced warhammer stuff maybe.

And one of them is literally just 4th Edition. It's fourth edition, look up 4th edition batreps. It's the smallest ask too, just play the older edition itself (though you are fucked if you don't have a codex for your faction).

>>92858541
>Pick and stick with one damn thing!
All these projects were stared independently.
Also: fuck you. You faggots keep saying, "Why does /tg/ never get anything done now?" and that attitude is why: because the fags that get shit done keep being told the shit they've done isn't welcome here.

Does anyone have a compilation link of Pepsi-Anon’s M999 rulebook + Codex’s my local group is interested in playing.

File: IMG_0035.jpg (2.12 MB, 1640x1466)

2.12 MB JPG

>>92832845
Ok that makes more sense now, I was rather confused as to what the requirement for overwatch were in the prior version. I made some further edits suggestions for you to take a look at now that I understand how you want things to go, just clarity of rules sort of edits.

>>92836756
What was strategy rating even for?

>>92860449
Ill make one soon, Im currently half way through a round of balance updates, but you can look here for the latest stuff.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/92617391/#92617391
If I don't have a ruleset for the faction you are looking for, pick your favorite old codex.
Mine are
>Eldar 4e
>Dark Eldar 5e
>Tyranids 4e
>Tau 6e
>Space Marines 4e
>Orks 4e
>Guard 5e
>Crons 3e
>Chaos Marines 3e (2rd printing)

>>92863620
Looking forward to seeing the rest of your army lists when they're ready. I'll check over those overwatch rules again and see what can be reworded, but some of those redundancies are being used to strictly define rules interactions. For example, I think the penetrating hit wording works better in your image, but I may leave the glancing hit wording the same to clarify its on a per attack basis.

Strategy Ratings are for a couple things. First, they're used if there is a strategy roll in a scenario (D6 + SR). The winner gets to make decisions when it comes to picking deployment zones and who goes first. Also, the number of Command Points an army gets is equal to its SR +1, and those go a long way to offsetting the power imbalance between small, elite armies with fewer activations and horde armies with lots of activations. While that isn't a hard and fast rule, the general categories are 1 - hordes, 2 - ponderous armies, 3 - 'normal' armies, 4 - fast raiders and pirates, 5 - rapid reaction special forces/Farseer led Eldar, 6 - fucking bullshit.

File: 1596629951860.jpg (73 KB, 513x513)

73 KB JPG

Best Pre-8th Codex for EVERY army. Including subfactions (Krieg, Black Templars). GO!

>>92863778
>strictly define rules interactions
I thought that might be the case. I’ll read the section on command points next, MSU vs hoard has always been a nuisance for AA games.

>>92865749
I did really like the 4e black Templar book. But +1s for -1I was kinda meemee vs crons.

>>92865749
For me it's gotta be 3.5 Chaos.

>>92858541
We've just had a slow week on account of 2 of us being sick. Work will continue soon.

>>92860449
>>92843287
Can you post a copy of the 9th ed dwarfs codex? I have actually not yet read much of their stuff. But I could start making a first attempt stab at porting their stuff which might help you.

>>92872811
dont have a pdf on me atm Pepsi anon.

HOWEVER. Wahpedia has archives of 9th edition codex rules, and units.

https://wahapedia.ru/wh40k9ed/factions/leagues-of-votann/

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why aren't you just playing 10th? You will play ZERO games if you try to play 3rd edition or whatever. You're a bunch of nogames fags and should probably all kill yourselves

>>92875779
Imagine not having a friend group to play different games with.

>>92875784
Bruh. All friend groups play 10th edition. All you do is play on TTS, which isn't real gaming. Trust me dude. I tried getting people to play 3rd ed. They laughed me out of the store.

>>92875804
>He plays 40k or any other tabletop game in a store instead of his man cave
>He doesn't have friends who are willing to try new systems with him
Jesus Christ man why do you keep going at this point ?

>>92875926
I live in a fucking apartment with a roommate. Regular people can't afford man caves.

>>92876028
We use rental spaces with my friends. Don't know if it exist where you live, but here it's like twenty bucks for a 20m2 room, with school tables, for an evening.

>>92876028
Psy-op your roommate to play kitchen table 40k with you then

File: untitled.png (19 KB, 682x384)

19 KB PNG

>>92875784
Pic related part 1

File: Death.png (29 KB, 682x384)

29 KB PNG

>>92876167
Pic related part 2

>>92875779
>m-m-m-m-must confoorm

>>92875779
You can get games if you play OPR. It's so easy, you can even make a list right there in the store with whatever models they have using the army builder app. No wonder it's such a success.

>>92876542
Weak effort

>>92876716
moar effort than games workshop at being balanced and fun
moar effort than most

>>92875779
>Why aren't you just playing 10th?
Because it sucks really, really bad.

>You will play ZERO games if you try to play 3rd edition or whatever.
Really? Then how do I get games of 2nd all the time?

Dumbass zoomer.

>>92876542
The only thing worse than 10th is OPR. Who cares if you can get games if they aren't worth playing. I can also go outside and eat dirt off the ground, it's so easily available, it's right there! That must mean the dirt diet is a great success!

>>92877057
Update on SNAP 40K?

>>92877194
I'm resuming playtesting later today, I'm optimistic about the current build. A lot of finalizing of text to do and a couple small things I still want to address, then we need to finish up some vehicle mechanics and development should speed up.

>>92877250
Could you post a snippet of rules text and your rationale behind it so people can have something to discuss?

Bros why are you obsessed with 4th ed when 3rd ed is king?

>>92877334
Well that'll be up to SNA or AG since he's being doing a lot of the notekeeping.
But let me just say that it definitely leans into more feels than reals. Rules are there and do try to prevent waacfagging, but more try to represent something on the battlefield, even if that means stripping away some layers of abstraction.

>>92879971
like OPR?

>>92880146
In a different way. OPR strips back most levels of abstraction AND flavour.
We're stripping back abstraction that confuses what it is trying to represent while trying to retain flavour. Think OPR as trying to play the numbers game, we are trying to play the simulation game.

File: progress chart.png (48 KB, 162x878)

48 KB PNG

>>92877334
We should have an infantry-only test doc you guys can try out here soon, maybe another week or so before we have it written and formatted to a point you can use it. right now we're hammering out some details on USRs and weapon types, then Vehicles and MCs are being worked on after. Statwise you should just be able to import whatever 4th ed era codex you want to use at the moment. We'll be updating these and working on each individual faction in detail once we're happy with the core. Gotta work off some existing stats in the meantime.

>/fourk/
>no movie marines based space marine and custode lists

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

>>92880666
gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8 s8an

>>92880164
depends on what you call flavour
to a certain extent, it seems maintained in OPR: formulas aim at making troops balanced, but the different factions still have their own style
and there still are a few special rules, even if it lacks the fun of unpredictable Mek gunz, or vehicles progressive damage (that's where it really lacks flavour to me, and it would probably be a lot better if they added special rules for that in a few cases, without dragging it all down like stratagems and co)

now, seems to me most confoormers view flavour as shitloads of special rules you spend most of your time on, and trad yet meaningless dice tsunamis (since they could be replaced by much simpler and probabilistically equivalent, simpler throws), and igougo aggravating all that
then, it's more drag than flavour to me
and I guess getting rid of that has a lot to do with OPR's relative success
that they certainly cut down too much seems easier to fix than trying to fix (at least current year) 40k

>Why aren't you just playing 10th?
Because we like 40k, not MTG Marvelshit

>>92881254
It's not b8. Movie marines are peak because lore accuracy>all else

>>92882830
Movie marines are explicitly not lore accurate.

bumpin

Ah, thread is a week old, someone will have to remake. I will not do it myself as I don't want it to be just myself keeping this alive, there needs to be interest from others too.

Looking at the 4th Ed white dwarf version of Blood Angels currently and I think it's neat. What are your guy's favorite rules for Blood Angels?

File: 1700574746424317.jpg (707 KB, 1392x867)

707 KB JPG

>>92883882
Not 4th, but they are easy enough to adapt.