Gorgon Tank EditionPrevious Thread >>92567156>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
Not dead lol
>>92596104>it took an hour and 30+ minutes for the previous thread to get linkedBetter late than never.
>>92596104Want to print up some Gorgons for the Krieg I plan to print so bad.
OP hereI'm sorry I forgot to link this thread to the previous one. I completely forgot to do that.
It's fine, thanks for baking a new thread OP.To catch everyone up, last thread a determination was made to form a small group of core rules designers with a roughly similar vision for the project to collaborate off-site, instead of everyone trying to come to a consensus on every question within the /fourk/ threads which simply leads nowhere - too many people with differing tastes. Details to apply are here >>92595470We will continue using the thread for more open discussion and brainstorming, but in order to make progress on creating a playable prototype, this design group will work separately.
>>92597123Are the small group of core rulers designers all on the same page together at the very least?
>>92596104I believe in you fuckers.
Has there been a consensus on what models will be backported into the fourk codices? Someone mentioned that models which could believably exist in the setting during 999.M41 or earlier and actually warrant their own statlines would make the cut, but things that have no reason to exist as separate units (like most primaris shit which is just “here’s a slightly larger marine with each armor and weapon configuration being its own unit type”) would be culled
>>92597649ITs too soon for that, we need to sort out base rules first
It'd be neat if we had 4th edition pdf attached somewhere, since it is the edition fourk is planned to focus on. It is suprisingly hard to find online.Also found a quick reference for 4th ed while looking for it.
>>92598023https://file.io/7fx9eJ0MTgeu
I believe that TLOS hasn't been properly discussed before. If I understand correctly, the conclusion is that it sucks and should be changed. What should change? AlsoPersonally I think that the ideal abstract LOS should not require players to check the unit's POV and only a number and type of obstacles between the target and the shooter trajectory should matter.When Yaktribe was making a community edition, we had a similar discussion for TLOS, however after long discussion, the conclusion was that the game is faster when both players 'trust' their opponent not to be a dick, and TLOS is the less wordy rule, while also not requiring extra tools from players such as silhouette templates. I've attached the picture the discussion boiled down to:1. True Line of Sight. Weapons and cosmetic parts cannot be used to draw LOS not to discourage conversions. If its not clear what is part of the model's body, and what are cosmetic parts, discuss it before the game.2. Infinity-style silhouette template. Completely shuts down That guy, but requires players to have an extra tool.3. A hybrid TLOS, it is a combination of #1 and #2. Any parts of the model which are clearly outside the base can't be used to draw LOS.>>92598048Much appreciated.
>>92595481>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.I'd like to have a go at the 'rule of thumb' wording. Feel free to come up with something else, if it is not satifactory.>If the Strength is equal to the Toughness: a roll of 4+ is required.>Is the Strength is greaterthan the Toughness: subtract the difference from the target roll required, however it cannot go lower than 2+.>Is the Strength is greaterthan the Toughness: add the difference to the target roll required, however it cannot go higher than 6+.
Is HamWarmer 24.5 useful here?
>>92598137iirc, as the pastebind says we did discuss the infinity style but we had no conclusion. Personally, I am all for it, we already have ways of describing equivalents (GEQ, MEQ etc.) so I can't see why that can't help us inform a targeting kind of system.
>>92598184I like the way kill team does it where it's about bases. That way you can allow for people to really get creative with models and have everyone's army play consistentlyPlus it lets you check LOS using the whippy sticks, justifying their inclusion in boxes
>>92598741It unfortunately gets weird when we consider shit like Warpsmith which has oval bases, but GW has a handy dandy guide on the bases they sell so we can convert that into size tiers.
>>92598825We could also just ignore oval bases entirely since they didn't exist during 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. If people are gonna play 4.5 then they're already more advanced, so saying "use 40mm round instead" shouldn't be a problem
>>92598960True, it completely slipped my mind that Oval bases weren't a thing then.In any case if we go off by base sizes here is all bases that James currently sells, we can pick out which ones supported officially for /fourk/ and work from there with size stats.
>>92598960>>92599125Weren't oval bases only used for Imperial Knights anyways?
Has there been consideration to just using the heresy 2.0 rules as the foundation?Also marines -should- be 2 wounds.
>>92599556Re-read the #1 in the post you've replied to. What you are describing is a cosmetic part of the model.
>>92599375Yeah but this is future-proofing and lets people backport things if they want to. IIRC a lot of the big nids use oval bases once they started going bigger than the carnifex.>>92599532Marines being 2w is a terrible idea, it makes it basically impossible to balance against every other army and causes damage races where S8 AP3 blasts are at a premium and everything else absolutely sucks.>picrel>>92598143How do we feel about the HH2.0 WS chart which makes it much more impactful? It definitely feels a lot more intuitive than capping at 3+/5+ in my experience, and it makes characters significantly better.
>>92599574>causes damage races where S8 AP3 blasts are at a premium and everything else absolutely sucks.That was already a huge breakpoint for 4-7th.
>>92599532Just make armour 3+ not a meme, no need for an extra wound for an infantry model. The reason why W2 became a thing was because of damage escalation.>>92599574I'd be neutral for this.
>>92599574took me a minute to realize this is the same as 10e S v T just way uglier
>>92598960>>92599375Oval bases arrived well before knights.Among the first was the plastic trygon in 5e
Morning gents, we continue our glorious crusade.>>92597396That's the idea, yes. Once I have enough applicants in my email I'll cross-reference their design goals and pick a few that synergize well together.For those few of you who already sent in an e-mail and haven't heard back yet don't worry, I'm gonna give it at least until late tonight before making any decisions, possibly another day. The ones I've already received look promising. I encourage more people to send.
>>92597649>Someone mentioned that models which could believably exist in the setting during 999.M41 or earlier and actually warrant their own statlines would make the cut, but things that have no reason to exist as separate units (like most primaris shit which is just “here’s a slightly larger marine with each armor and weapon configuration being its own unit type”) would be culledThat sounds about right, yeah. We haven't made any final decisions about this but I think if there's only one thing almost everyone here agrees on, it's that this version of the game should take place before the Gathering Storm lore, before Cawl, Guilliman, Primaris and all the rest.>>92598137Number 2 is the only fair one in my opinion. Models are static but the thing the mini is representing on the battlefield within our imaginations is able to move, duck, crouch, tuck their arms in etc. Furthermore, one of the things about 4th edition that particularly stands out is the fact that it used size categories for LoS.>>92598156At only 10 pages long, probably not. I skimmed it and don't see anything useful here, it's just like a slightly less anemic OPR with more classichammer rules.>>92598960I'm not in favor of any solutions that require people to rip their models off the bases and rebase them.>>92599532>Has there been consideration to just using the heresy 2.0 rules as the foundation?I suggested it early on, but it doesn't seem popular for whatever reason. I think most people just haven't bothered to actually read the HH 2.0 rules and have their hearts set on 4th. But the systems are still pretty similar in most places and I think we don't need to really be married to the idea of using either one or the other as the core, we can just take the best mechanics from all the classichammer/horus heresy editions (maybe even a little bit from 2nd ed) and make the most solid core we can.>Also marines -should- be 2 wounds.Will address this in my next post.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually like 2W Marines. I think it does a much better job of representing how augmented and hard-to-kill they are in the lore than a mere +1 Toughness. We're talking about guys that can eat a sucking chest wound that takes out their heart and lungs and they still have a back-up heart and a back-up lung. There's art that depicts space marines fighting with a missing arm, just still going at it with full fury. It's not just armour that makes them tough bastards.But beyond that, I've also always thought of Wounds as representing something other than just "meat points", because Characters have more Wounds even when they're still made of the same amount and type of meat as a basic trooper. To me they also represent something like "heroism" (or "slasher-movie villainy" for some), that hard grit and determination to just not die or give in to pain, even if physically the creature's body is no harder to damage than a regular trooper. That adds a flavor to the space marine statline that sets them apart and tells a bit of narrative just in a string of numbers before you even look into the lore, and it feels good on the tabletop when you're the marine player to take some single wounds but not lose a marine.I think the major issues with it are solvable. One is just a matter of perspective - a lot of people associate 2 Wound marines with the advent of Primaris and it soured them on it just for that reason. The other is the issue of wounds/damage bloat, which is sort of a real thing and sort of just a reversion to a different way of thinking about wounds/damage that goes all the way back to 2nd edition. But GW definitely executed poorly. For one thing, flat damage values should never have been used, and for another, space marine characters should not have received multiplied proportional wounds - ie, instead of basic marines going from 1->2 wounds and characters going from like 3->6, it should have been 1->2 and 3->4. Flat increase.
I'm glad that this is taking root and I would be glad to share my work on my own 4th ed remake project with the group (though since I'm working it may take some time).The main thing I want to see is a game that feels like the way the game did when I started, but is less restrictive. I want to be able to build a unit and furnish them with the armor, and armory I have for them. kinda like how you'd build a SM captain with whatever upgrades, but for full squads and vehicles. Carnifexes, ork vehicles, SM squads, all had great options like that and people loved it.I'd also love to see a return to narrative gameplay as a focus instead of this sportsball victory point bullshit we seem to see way too much of lately. Make it with real scenarios in mind, not just "Hurr Durr muh points" which will just attract the lowest of the low WAAC fags. LET things be swingy, LET the game be fun. I'd like to work out the kinks as well, like the whole LOS debacle mentioned >>92598137.
>>92599125There was a recent controversy about the new ulftak BlackHawk having a 50mm base instead of a 40mm base. Its stupid, Lets not make bases something to worry about within reason. Obviously don't put every marine on a 50mm, but rule that an appropriate sized and shaped base is what they need. any fuckery is just going to plague us with WAAC bullshit. that's the number one thing we should keep out of this.
>>92601023Instant death was the perfect counter to 2w+ models. (page 27) I like the idea of marines being able to take more than the average guardsman in small arms fire, but being obliterated by something more impressive. 2w marines should have been a thing long ago to be more accurate. give them a bump in points to make it work.
>>92598137I think for vehicles and walkers it should be ture loss, while for infantry models it should be something like "when determining los, infantry models are considered to be cylinders with a radius and height equal to their base size"
>>92601263Feel free to try but this looks like a very hard thing to balance considering how the game works.
>>92597123>instead of everyone trying to come to a consensus on every question within the /fourk/ threads which simply leads nowhere - too many people with differing tastesNot to mention bad actors trying to sabotage the project by attempting to keep us mired in pointless debate over small details.Moving development off-site and having a small group write the rules is a good decision.
I'm gonna tell you why this is unlikely to work out: You're gonna end up with people squabbling about what should be in the rules. You'll end up with two neckbeards screaming at each other on /tg/ about whether or not Primaris and Custodes should be in the new fan ruleset. If not that, then something else. Then it will eventually splinter into several smaller projects that will never get finished and just end up in some forgotten corner of the internet.I'm sorry. I do want this to happen. In truth, I think it'd be better if the entire game mechanics were overhauled from the ground up instead of basing it on an older edition. Or I think it'd be better if maybe there were deliberately several variations of the game for different types of battle scales. But at the end of the day, the reality is: This idea is good, but the best thing you can do is take it and as another person said- work on it away from the greater community, and when it's mostly done- push it out. It'll either stick or it won't.
>>92601182a game can be standardized and competitive without being WAAC
>>92598156Whats really the point of this ruleset? Did somone just wanted to make their own OPR?
Is this just the new turnip 28 meme ruleset that people are going to give up on in 8 months
>>92601347I really don't think it is, especially if you have a points increase on the marines. they get less models to field, but each individual model is capable of living a little longer, at least up to fighting MEQ. If instant death is in play, they're still going to die to heavier weapons. The points jump should be hefty enough to change what people bring, but low enough that you're not cutting what people can take by half.
>>92601435Even if so, whats about it?There are people who arent boring slop gulpers, and want to create something
>>92601419They've already moved development off-site. So your concerns are unfounded.>>92601435Oh look, a demoralization shill trying to sabotage the project. This is why development needed to move away from here. That way shills like you can shit up the thread all you want and it won't hinder development.
>>92601469>That way shills like you can shit up the thread all you want and it won't hinder development.Yep. Fuck em. Gives me more motivation if anything.
>>92598137I'm kind of a fan of what I've heard called "2D line of sight". Basically, you take a bird's eye view and draw a straight line between the shooter and the target and if there is no intervening terrain between them along that line, then the shooter has line of sight. And if there is terrain, but it's lower in height than both the shooter and the target, then the target can be considered to be in cover and gets any bonus that might confer.
>>92601511What about models on different levels of buildings?
>>92601469>"They're already moving it off site!"Cool, so maybe one day I'll stumble across it. Like I've said before, the biggest problem a lot of you guys have: You can't pull the GW penis out of your mouth. Let it go.Look, I'm not even telling you to 'let go of 40k'. No, you love 40k and so do I.But I think the biggest problem is that you're slightly tweaking something that GW already did... and GW has never been renowned for making solid wargaming rules. The entire mechanics aren't suited for the shit that is being crammed into the game... but at this point, if you start omitting that shit from the game, you're driving away interest.So the entire mechanics should be completely overhauled from the ground up. If you're using an older edition, or a variation of GW rules- you're already shooting yourself in the foot with the GW dick in your mouth.I want you to succeed.I just don't want to see someone else doing yet another "OK we're doing an older edition with some homebrew updates" that'll basically end up as a dead link on 1D4chan.
>>92601529That's where it gets a little more complicated than a true LOS system. Basically you assign each piece of terrain a "height level" and a model can only shoot maybe one or two height levels above the level they are currently at.
>>92601538Whatever. If you don't have anything positive to say about the project, then fuck off and keep your thoughts to yourself. No room for demoralization here and no one wants to hear your negative bullshit.
>>92601511I'm working on a tabletop skirmish game. I use a simple mechanic: Range Bands and complications. Granted, it's a 3'x3'- but the principle can still work.>A ranged attack is either close, mid, or long range. >Weapons and attacks are measured the same, they don't all have their own unique range.>Some weapons/attacks can vary in accuracy and effectiveness depending on the range band>Within each range band, there are a certain number of "Complications" that result in modifiers- intervening terrain, elevation, cover, etc.>Complications in close range are more forgiving- intervening terrain isn't a factor, but cover is.>By counting the number of modifiers from the attacker to the target, you determine what the roll is.Maybe this'll help? Or at least kick off another idea.
>>92601561>"If you're going to be critical and give me anything other than praise, you should go away!"This is why you shouldn't be writing rules for anyone but yourself. If you can't handle the harsh reality from some rando on 4Chan, the criticism of the final product is gonna have you sucking the end of a revolver.
>>92601545In warcry, terrain is devided into "floor" which is most of the table, and "platforms".Mounted models cant go to platforms (or use staircases or doors).if target of an attack is 2" or more higher than the attacker, it gets cover
>>92601538>But I think the biggest problem is that you're slightly tweaking something that GW already didA lot of people think between 3e and 4e were the best editions, and just needed tweaks. This is kind of what we're doing.
>>92598137>>92598137#2, preferably. the rationale is, in an ideal game where both players can trust the opponent to not be a dick, you don't need to enforce the rule at all. since you're only making rules to stop bad behaviour, it makes sense to use the least ambiguous and easiest to verify rule, which is a rectancular/cyclindrical abstract LOS boxgetting players to cut out and bring 3-4 small paper rectangles of different sizes definitely wouldnt be an issue, especially if non-casual games are where this rule would be used most often. even without the rectangles, you can just use the edge of the base as a width guide and measure say 40mm or whatever upwards, and then check for LOSZ
>>92601601A lot of people, certainly. But you'll have detractors.Out of curiosity, let me ask you something (let's just roleplay for a moment):>"Hey bro, you made those rules? That's cool, I wanna play... but I have basically just Primaris Marines because I started playing a couple of years ago... can I still use those rules?"
>>92601616Basically what Infinity does, with Silhouette sizes?
>>92601622>Primaris MarinesPrimaris marines arent real
>>92601595I'm not working on the rules, retard. But I do truly support this project, unlike you. I can tell from how you post that you're just another demoralization shill trying to sabotage the project despite claiming to be "one of us".
>>92601622>>"Hey bro, you made those rules? That's cool, I wanna play... but I have basically just Primaris Marines because I started playing a couple of years ago... can I still use those rules?">"Sure bro. We decided not to backport Primaris, but feel free to pick any SM chapter and their additions and we'll just use those stats, using your primaris marines as standard marines. Work for you? :)"
>>92601642Don't know if you're the guy that's writing the rules, but if that's your approach... do you mean:>"A Space Marine is just a Space Marine, Primaris model or OG Model."or>"LOL No we're not allowing them to be used at all, because reasons"
>>92601646>"I'm not working on this, I'm just here to cry when people point out problems and gatekeep the feedback, which absolutely helps the people who are writing the game, just like it has with current 40k.">>92601650I like this approach. I always kinda felt that Primaris should have just been a more cosmetic upgrade or something- in my mind I always thought that an experienced Space Marine with a couple of service studs in his dome should be on par with a brand new 'upgraded version' Space Marine anyway. >Also I still think Chaos Space Marines should be more terrifying and versatile than both
>>92601641basically yes, it works reasonsbly well for infinity since LOS comes up very often due to the complexity of terrain
>>92601673>"A Space Marine is just a Space Marine, Primaris model or OG Model."this one, im not writing the rules, but thats the attitude of every normal person.New players dont even know theres a difference besides that those ones are older and smaller unless you tell them
>>92601159>I would be glad to share my work on my own 4th ed remake project with the groupPlease do, happy to take a look at it when you have something to present.> I want to be able to build a unit and furnish them with the armor, and armory I have for them. kinda like how you'd build a SM captain with whatever upgrades, but for full squads and vehicles. Carnifexes, ork vehicles, SM squads, all had great options like that and people loved it.Completely agreed. Customization is a heavy motivating factor for this project. 10th is a fucking travesty in this respect.>I'd also love to see a return to narrative gameplay as a focus instead of this sportsball victory point bullshit we seem to see way too much of lately. Make it with real scenarios in mind, not just "Hurr Durr muh points" which will just attract the lowest of the low WAAC fags. LET things be swingy, LET the game be fun. Agreed as well. Objective circle squatting and racking up VPs turn by turn should die in a fire. But scenario design is an issue for much later IMO.>>92601182>any fuckery is just going to plague us with WAAC bullshit. that's the number one thing we should keep out of thisYep.>>92601263Yeah exactly. And some people will argue this makes S8 weapons too important a breakpoint, but that can be taken into account with points costs and availability. For example, the points increase for a S7 weapon over an equivalent S6 weapon would be less of a jump than going from that S7 weapon to its S8 counterpart.>>92601347>very hard thing to balanceThis is always one of the things I care about least when weighting the pros and cons of a design decision. Think about it from the opposite perspective>"yeah this mechanic isn't as cool, but at least it's easy to balance"- if you care about balance over coolness you're probably someone who would just rather play 10th, in my opinion. There are a million knobs to turn in order to tune balance so I'll worry about that last.
SRD anon here. Considering ammending the section on Non-vehicle Model's characteristics profile to include a notice on "Type" since it is listed in the codex for every unit anyways (jump infantry, bike, etc). Currently it is described the same as in the official rulebook aka "here is a heads up that models have types and these types have special rules". The actual rulebook doesn't frame it like it is part of the Characteristics but it is an essential part of the model's rules. The vehicle section does discuss types in this way, but the core rules section doesn't. The core rules also does not consider "Character" a type but it clearly is and Characters have special rules, so I'm likely to add that to that earlier section as well, and probably like "Character:Infantry" since you can put some on bikes or give a jump pack which again... have different rules. This still would only count as an editorial change right?
>>92601704I've always felt this was the best approach. It's a good way to eliminate arguments about whether or not the breakdancing nurgling on the Plague Marine's shoulder is 'part of the model' because he has his dick in the pauldron or some absurd shit.Infinity eliminates things like 'modeling for advantage' or 'punishing cool conversions' with its system (even though there's not a whole lot of 'conversions' or 'modeling' with Infinity)- because it says flat out:>"The thing is this big. If you can see this block, you can see the thing and shoot at it"
>>92601722Random idea:>Certain models should only be used in certain point size armies, and some units should require a certain 'tier' HQWithout having played 40k in like 2 years, it's hard for me to cite a more current example- but I'll be basic with it:>A 'combat patrol' sized game shouldn't involve Imperial Knights or huge tanks/monsters>The army's most elite, hardcore, valuable, ancient, awesomest badass units aren't going to be entrusted to a basic lieutenant
>>92601701Except you aren't providing any feedback. You're just listing reasons why it will fail.
>>92601701>I like this approachCool, that's how I see it. Considering these are homebrew rules, any model should definitely be allowed, with the caveat that with proxies, there is *some* relevance to the unit. Then you can have people bring in non-backported units like Primaris and 3d printed models alike, but still use the stats and rules from what we create. Everyone wins.
>>92601768I'm pointing out considerations, and potential complications. You see, in the real world where adults measure successful projects in something more than 'I didn't lose my finger or fuck the baby', we have to do something called 'risk assessments' and factor in potential complications instead of relying on nothing but positive affirmations and ass-pats.
>>92601722glad we're on the same page. you should see an email from me about joining. I have saved plenty of notes on what people loved about the old days.
>>92601419Way ahead of you. See >>92597123>>92601489Based as fuck.>>92601511Agreed, this is probably close to what we'll go with.>>92601529>>92601545I have ideas in mind for this.>>92601588This is good for Kill Team level skirmish stuff but probably a bit too complex for something at our scale. I'm happy to hear everyone else's thoughts on it though.>>92601736Yeah anything that doesn't actually change outcomes in-game is an editorial change, please do this, it's very helpful.>>92601759We've had similar suggestions before and I'm in favor, putting a bit more restrictive Force Org chart where certain units unlock or change slots around.
>>925981373 is definitely ideal, but time and again using the trust system and TLoS either leads to gamey moments or confusion. Two completely shuts down "That Guy" as you said, so what if it's an extra tool?
>>92601777That's cool. Most of my 'firstborn' Space Marines are actually on Primaris bodies, anyway- because I like their proportions. I have never had anyone complain or have trouble with it. Besides, I might be one of the few people out there that still runs stuff like =][= and the rule we have is "A Space Marine is a Space Marine".I'm sure the Impulsor (or whatever it's called) can easily be a Rhino, and most of the other stuff has a grognard-era analog.
Quick update on what I'm doing right now, going through some of the most relevant editions to this project and just writing out comparative lists of how they treat all the mechanics. I think it will be a great aid to future discussions.As far as application emails to the design team, everyone looks good so far, no decisions will be made for another 12-24 hours so keep sending them in to screamingnidanon@gmail.com
>>92601457Maybe you should create something tangible instead of trying the impossible feat of crowdsourcing a ruleset
>>92601806>Too complex for our scaleI think just going with the basic 'range band' formula for all ranged attacks, at least, is probably even better for a larger wargame.A weapon/attack is either short, medium, or long range (or if you want more than that)- and that's the categories. Not every weapon would need its own specific measurement.At the end of the day... a bolter and a lasgun should shoot about the same distance, same as basically any kind of pistol or super-compact weapon/attack, and shit that shoots real far just shoots long range.
>>92601833Exactly. If picrelated army bros can have a game with stones and shit, we can do fine with similarly looking actual miniatures. Btw what is =][= ?
>ITT: a bunch of mentally weak children squabble about inconsequential things while 100s of 28mm rulesets already exist
>>92601908Cool so another one won't hurt.
>>92601886>Btw what is =][=Inquisitor. Basically a weird hybrid of Skirmish game and RPG that GW farted out like 20+ years ago. It was simultaneously the dumbest good idea and the best dumb idea that GW ever had.It's clunky, it kinda shrugs at the idea of 'balance', and it's far more focused on narrative story gaming......but it did a lot of things pretty well, including making Space Marines into something actually terrifying. To a point where if you played, and you wanted to play Space Marines... "One Space Marine" was your warband. That was it, that was all you needed, that was all you were gonna get because HOLY SHIT they could be scary.
Is this the version of the rules where I can play with my fucking Kill Tanks?
>>92601908>Calls people who are trying to create something 'mentally weak' because some lazy fuckwit made Grimtard Future One-ply Rules for Retards
>>92601960I will put double digits page long kustom vehicle design rules straight into the fucking Ork codex my lad.
>>92601951Haha that sounds great, as space marines should be. I loved that Astartes animation, really made them look how I felt about them. I've got a hoard here and see I have the (living? Part I and II) rulebook so I'll give it a quck read to see how it works.
>>92601977I'd be cool with that. DESU, I'd be cool with it if the 'vehicle rules' basically just took a page from Necromunda's rules for vehicles where it basically has the different components and stuff, and you sort of 'build' the vehicle so it matches your model.
>>92601908>STOP TRYING TO COOPERATE ON CREATING SOMETHING>Want to talk about something you created? Fuck off shill.>Why does /tg/ never create anything any more?
>>92601977Gork bless you anon.
>>92601977I think it should be part of core rules avalible to anyone, with orks just getting more options
>>92602042Like a set of generic upgrades that do the same thing for all vehicles of a type across all factions but with Orks being uniquely able to slap more of those upgrades than normal on their vehicles at the cost of reliability?
>>92601622What a bizarre question. Rules can't possibly enforce that sort of thing even if you wanted them to. 40k was designed with the assumption that you'd be gluing guns onto fantasy or historical miniatures anyway. Make yourself a deodorant tank while you're at it, but buy a fresh stick before the game.
>>92602042I'd rather do it faction-specific just because something made for core that needs to equally apply and make sense for Imperial, Necron, Tau, Eldar etc. vehicles is going to be bland and generic and necessitate everyone getting their own custom vehicle upgrades in their codex anyways. But basically, yeah don't worry, it won't be JUST Orks that get to have all the fun.
Without getting into specifics (since it's not an urgent concern) how do you feel about adding in units that armies don't have, or never had? For examples, letting Battle Sisters ride bikes? Or is it going to be so open that someone could have access to Exodites?
>>92602055Yes, exactly, normal vehicle creator gets you like, option for light walker, walker, light vehicles, vehicle and heavy vehicle, each with its own restrictions on what kind of armor and amount of weaponry it can carry, with ork vehicles instead just having point costs without any restrictions, but more stuff you put on it, the more likely it is to fuck up.Say, a 0-12 reliability score, and when you want to shoot, you have to roll over it on 2d6, or otherwise roll on a fumble table
>>92602068Aactually makes much more sense, tho, i wouldnt bother making separate ones for Space Marines and guard, as they use pretty much the same equipment
>>92602060>40k was designed with the assumption that you'd be gluing guns onto fantasy or historical miniatures anyway.True, but now they assume that you'll be using THEIR models to do this- because if you so much as glue one thing from another company onto the GW models you bought... NOT ALLOWED IN A WARHAMMER OR GAMES WORKSHOP STORE OR WARHAMMER WORLD OR THE CITADELI mean, you know, just in case you really enjoyed playing a game in a place with like one table and pushy sales associates trying to get you to buy a dozen different things every turn.
>>92602136They aren't going to let you play a homebrew retro spinoff game in their stores either, so who cares? The guy who owns the space can dictate what models you're allowed to use. Your opponent can elect not to play with you because he doesn't like your models (or because your tank smells better than your armpits). The rulebook can't do a damn thing and it's absurd to pretend otherwise.
>>92601977This is what we need. ground-up custom creation with a few examples of the final product. While on the subject of Ork improvements, I would recommend a normal boy have a profile of WS4, BS2, S4, T4, W1, and Sv 5-6+. I feel they didn't do enough on their own in the past, and died a smidge too easily, but T5 was just added lately to let them stand against marines. I would also recommend a little higher strength to the dakka, just to make sure when they do hit they actually damage something, possibly with exploding 6's somewhere in there, and vehicles that are more likely to explode and careen into an enemy. i'd like more of a chance of that for them.
>>92602106the goal seems to be to make the most customizable options available. have a base profile for everything and add on whatever makes that unit special. I'm sure making custom rules for things you want to have shouldn't be too hard to make happen.
>>92602179...you guys get to smell armpits in the store? Fuck, I miss all the good shit. Whenever I do that, I'm "being weird" and "bothering the customers" and "banned from Build-a-Bear workshop for making children cry".
>>92602136i have personally never played at an official store or tournament, so their rules aren't a bother to me, but that doesn't mean I don't hate them being dicks to their own customers. Look at White Dwarf, it changed from showing off cool conversions and terrain DIY tutorials to only caring about showing you the new release and having a batrep that shows the new shit winning every time. it sucks now.
>>92602757Anon, people who play arent customers they want, they want a fat kid named jimmy to ask his mom to buy him space marines he will never assamble
Anons, how will stormtroopers be presented in the fourk?You will still keep them distinct from homegrown veterans like Kasrkin, right? Stormtroopers started as unique and then Kasrkin took the limelight like Cadia always does, and then GW didn't do the best, but a still serviceable, rehash of the original stormtrooper concept
>>92602757Yeah, I remember when you could buy a White Dwarf and it would come with cool little mini-games, battle scenarios, crafting ideas, etc.Now it's basically GW wanking over their newest product and laughing at the cucked customer for being stupid enough to pay $15 for a book of advertisements pretending to be content between actual advertisements.Also, I don't play in any GW/Warhammer stores- ever. Aside from all the usual shit I've mentioned- if you wanna know what did it for me?>"Necromunda? You can't play that here. >"Blackstone Fortress? Sorry, no.">"Underworlds? No, not on our tables.">"Kill Team? Not today.">"Yes, I know no one is using the table.">"Yes, I realize that no one else is in the store.">"Yes, I that table is only a 4'x4'">"Yes, we sell all those other things.">"None of that matters, you can't play that here.">"Even if you bought it here.">"Basically we only want people playing 40k or Age of Sigmar on those tables.">"Sir, if you're gonna call me a 'faggot' I'm going to have to ban you from-">"You're interested in a new army! How can this lowly faggot help you?"
Maybe I'm paranoid but I feel like this sort of project would be a prime target to be undermined by the usual useful idiots and other such GW bootlickers. Be vigilant, nerds.
>>92602840i actually really like tempestus scions design vise.But these units seem to be very similar in their concept, i wouldnt want to get into modern 40k situation, where you got 3 different infantry squads
>>92602900I mean, I know the guys are already working on something- and that's great and all. But to any others, and for these guys to file in the back of their heads:>The best thing you could do, rules-wise, is to deviate away from the standard ruleset and make something from scratch, completely disregarding any previous ruleset. Make something mechanically different- even consider using different dice mechanics, list-building, etc.The further from 'what is accepted now' it goes, the less-likely the copraphages will be braying at the door......and the less likely they will be to want to play it and shit up the communities that play the fan version.
>>92602931I think there's a decent middle ground. If the aim is mass adoption then I believe it would be most effective to build a tight, balanced ruleset that competitive players will feel very comfortable transitioning into. I say this as a casual player who greatly prefers spectacle and fluffy rules more than balance and tournaments etc.You're going to want people organizing tournaments with these rules. Otherwise it will only ever be yet another niche homebrew that small groups of friends play beerhammer with in the privacy of their homes. Hardly a paradigm shift away from GW's incompetence as I feel some people are desperate for.
>>92602924What I'm hoping for is that when the fourth gets to the point of designing factions and sub-factions, stormtroopers, veterans, etc shouldn't be all rolled into one datasheet and only be presented as Kasrkin like people did for a while.Heavy infantry/greanadiers/stormtroopers can share many simularities, including basic datasheets, but I think there should be some segregation for if one anon wants to play his stormtrooper force with Tauroxes/IFVs and Valks vs your Cadian player that wants his combined arms with veteran Kasrkin troopers vs your unorthodox veteran units like Catachan Fangs who're more like guerilla than shocktroops
>>92601448A 2 wound marine with a point increase is a very expensive bolter tax for your heavy guns. Also a very juicy instant death target. Bolters MUST be stronger than a lassgun and weaker than a pulse rifle. As you see it's not impossible but it's not a trivial change.
>>92600827>it's just like a slightly less anemic OPR with more classichammer rules.Isn't that what the goal is?
>>92603232Right, because these rules don't exist to sell models they exist to be a fun game that let's you use your models. Having a special fiddly rule for every variant of elite Guardsman doesn't make sense unless you need a reason to sell them. Wargear and doctrines should be enough to make your regiment feel special. Same for Space Marine Chapters.
>>92603301you need to add a lore section>no women>no PoC
>>92603344Stop trying to get rid of Howling Banshees nigger.
>>92603344why do you hate salamanders
>>92603665>salamandersactually, they are all wearing blackface
>>92603893I'm frankly shocked that the leftoid hobby squatters infesting 40k haven't gotten up in arms yet over space marines canonically having a "blackface organ" as one of their augments.Or I would be shocked if I didn't already know these people don't read the fuckin lore.>captcha: G4YKKKKek
>>92603344>No Howling Banshees>No Bolter BitchesNigger do you hate fun?
>>92603344I forget, do yellow fellas still count as PoC? If so, goodbye white scars.But in a non-bait topic for later just out of curiosity: Are we still sticking to how Dark Eldar were portrayed in 3rd/4th or will their 5th edition refresh be counted towards how they should be? Most models are still there just the context behind them has changed a lot like Pain Engines and expansion of Haemonculi covens.
>>92603893>salamanders are canadianruined forever
>>92604594>Are we still sticking to how Dark Eldar were portrayed in 3rd/4th or will their 5th edition refresh be counted towards how they should be? Most models are still there just the context behind them has changed a lot like Pain Engines and expansion of Haemonculi covens.5th ed Dark Eldar was a highly well-received labour of love by Jes Goodwin that brought a lot more depth and flavour to the faction. I don't think any DE players would prefer the 3.5e version over the 5e one.The much more controversial 5th ed refresh is Necrons.
>>92604877A good number of armies didn't have a great amount of variety until their refresh. DE and Necron both had that issue. in this era I generally consider everything from 3rd to 5th the era people loved. minus the god-awful vehicular bullshit added by 5th. lets make sure that gets toned down. I personally liked the update on the crons, but I can understand if others didn't.
>>92605223>vehicular bullshit added by 5threally not sure what you mean by that
>>926052365th added things like jink saves for fast-moving vehicles, and going to ground for infantry, cool ideas from a design standpoint, but they just bogged down the game more than it already was.
rerolls should be kept down. Roll to hit/wound/save is already more rolling than i'd like (personally i'd just like hit vs defense and a save), but is the standard. then we get FNP, reanimation, go to ground, jink saves, and other crap added and its just too much shit that bogs down the game. keep it fast and simple. a few different units should have a reroll as a key ability, but that's itKeep auras out of it too, that is shitting up the latest editions. if a character confers something to a squad, then it goes to the squad they're in, nothing more.
>>92605367is already more rolling than i'd liketo hit hit roll could be removed in exchange for only a to wound roll renamed something like attack roll, Mesbg does that to my knowledge
>>92605486Yeah, i'm aware it's a departure from the intent of the project, that's why I wouldn't push for it too hard on a remake, no matter how nice that would be. I tried making it on my own and it's just too much to design around, so I decided i'd rather have something working and finished than perfect.
>>92602868>"You're interested in a new army! How can this lowly faggot help you?"Topkek.
>>92605223>>92604877Well when we get to necrons deciding what to do with them, I suggest using something like "Initial Awakenings" and "Awakened Dynasties" to accommodate both versions of the crons. Could also have "Cults of C'tan" that have scrambled their brains and still worship the shards.
Seeing the volume and speed of all this furious posting has motivated me to dust off my own ideas for a fan edition of 40k, also stemming from frustration with current 40k, as well as a few points in previous editions.I originally wanted to blend OPR's GrimDark Future with Epic Armageddon as a base, but I think taking more from GrimDark Future but applying that Alternating Phases idea with the delayed Wounding/Destruction idea is more ideal. OPR has a very solid base, but I've always felt it leaned too hard into "we're basic and streamlined!" schtick which makes it suffer imoMy idea is that you want a tightly wond set of basic.mechanics, so then you can throw all of the more complicated and crazy rules on top. Balances it out; less time on the basics gives more.time for the crazy.Also holy shit I don't think I've seen Screaming Nid anon in ages.
>>92606518vgh too many models, obviously the sign of nuhammer. Let me guess, they're all painted as nigger women as well?
>>92607138It seems like a pretty standard eldar army in all those pics though? If you are trying to make fun of people that post smaller space marine lists, then you have no clue what you are talking about.
>>92598023I have copies of 3rd, 4th, 5th and I think 6th that I could take pictures of, as well as the first edition of apocalypse, the first of the siege of vraks books and a few codexes.I think all of those are available, but I don't mind grabbing stuff out of them if someone needs it.
>>92605367>rerolls should be kept downThey will be.>Roll to hit/wound/save is already more rolling than i'd likeI'm not touching that, though. 40k lacks enough granularity as is without condensing hit/wound into a single d6 roll.>Keep auras out of it tooYeah. They're more of a nuhammer thing. >>92606518Good luck!>Also holy shit I don't think I've seen Screaming Nid anon in ages.I have regenerated.>>92607449When it comes to PDF files I have just about everything GW ever made related to the 40k universe, unless it's very recent, and I can usually guarantee in good quality up to around 6th edition. Anyone who needs something uploaded just give me a (You).Okay. I'm heading to bed, tomorrow morning I'll put together my design team, say in around 10 hours. Gute nacht.
>>92607138Oops, the space marine player is having a meltie. :(
>>92607168come on that guy wasn’t even trying with his bait
>>92607648>Have all the codexesI don't have anything to add then. I only ever played casually. The lore and model painting were always more of my interest. I will say that I remember a time when you'd walk into a store and the tables would have some really impressive scenery on them. Water effects, lots of scratch build terrain, gangways and buildings. I feel like that's gone away. I realize that for a competitive game, the board needs to be "fair" for either side and that means terrain that's modular enough to move around. I think the big issue is extra-large models and terrain choices like the aegis defense line for players. Reasons being that terrain needs to be small enough to maneuver those big set-piece models around. Again, I realize why development went this way, but I also feel like a lot of the character of the game went away in doing so. In my opinion, I'd axe player terrain, like the Aegis defense line and limit the number of (very) large models so that more complex and visually interesting terrain can make a comeback. IDK, it might not actually be a very good move in terms of creating a competitive game, but some of my fondest memories are of stepping into a GW and getting to see some absolutely killer tables and then getting to play my army on them. There's something wonderous about seeing well painted miniatures on a well made table that's not fulfilled by the current way 40k is played.
>Primaris can be counts-as Firstborn!Hey, did you guys forget that Primaris have bigger bases? Nobody is going to rebase so Primaris collections just get to eat shit?
>>92607850A tactical marine and an intercessor are both on 32mm bases.
>>92607850What is supported "officially" and what is not only makes a difference if it is a tournament setting (doubt fourk is going that far) or players aren't willing to compromise (Stupid situation since fourk is more for people with a reliable friend group, what friend group is going to be "those guys"?).
>>92607880You are aware that people with old collections have marines on 25mm bases right?
>>92607648I'd be eternally in your debt if you could hook me up with everything you've got for 7th. Lost my own files a long time ago and been missing them ever since.
>>92607978>hook me up with everythingNTAhttps://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/84116513/#q84176247
>>92607850>>9260792625 mm and 32mm are close enough that we can just accept either on either kind of marine mini
>>92601511so picrel?Honestly, I'd prefer LOS system which does not require to constantly physically lean down to check vision. Its straight out impossible at times due to terrain.Is Size system from 4th edition good as is, or needs extra snazz for it?>>92601736Anything that does not change how the actual rules play out are an editorial change, so this is an editorial change.>>92601023Problem is that a second wound improves survivability disproportionally, especially against anything non-AP3. It makes AP4 and lower significantly worse against marines to the point of being cost-ineffective en-masse. Which leads to the damage race.Either all elite soldiers should go up in wounds (nudging the game towards skirmish), or armour system needs an overhaul (AP- on most weapons AP-1 on plasma and AP-2 on really nasty stuff), or marines should stay W1.>>92602633>>92602840Its a bit too early for that, core rules need to be properly made first. That is, as an ork player I'd love too see horde armies have respawn mechanics for chaff to reduce the painting required to play them. Also I'd love to see shootas being a proper sidegrade to choppa/slugga.>>92602068Any 'make-your-own-stuff' is really hard to pull off, most of the time there is 1-2 auto-take options and the rest is too niche/overpriced.
>>92608070Bless you anon. Truly a treasure beyond price.
>>92608281>That is, as an ork player I'd love too see horde armies have respawn mechanics for chaff to reduce the painting required to play them. Also I'd love to see shootas being a proper sidegrade to choppa/slugga.Love the idea of respawn/reinforcement mechanics. The ones they have on nu40k for Orks and Guard and Nids are a great idea.We'd have to find a way to make it fair tho, with it not being too reliable, yet not useless. I think it would be neat to see an entire Guard Platoon get wiped out, then you roll a die, and next turn the whole damn platoon marches back on the board.
>>92601538OPR already did what you are describing. I've tried it, it is a good deal of fun, but something does not fully click to me personally. I believe that a lot of people are of the same opinion and want 3/4/5th edition but ironed out.If you wish for new mechanics, throw some suggestions instead of 'whatever you are attempting is pointless'. Who knows, maybe it'd be of use for the project.>>92607850The difference between 32mm and 28mm is very small. It only matters if for CC and only if instead of 'also those who touch bases of comrades who are in base to base with an enemy can fight' you go with 'also those who are within 2" of comrades who are in base to base with an enemy can fight' or for blast templates somewhat.
>>92607926How is that different from people using those older models in 10th? Oh wait, it's not? There are no base rules in 10th? Or any edition of 40K? Okay, good, that's great. I'm glad we brought up and discussed this not-an-issue.
>>92608603>28mmmy bad, 25mm, but the what I've said stands.
>>92598137The neatest compromise I've seen is drawing a line from torso to torso. That removes most of the posing and basing problems without being difficult to describe or making you imagine cylinders or anything.
I don't know how many others care but I love a good psychic system. 10th edition having no psychic phase gutted my favorite part of my two favorite armies - TSons and GKs. I don't care exactly how it works, just a flavorful way to customize and use space wizardry would make me pretty happy. Alternating activations are also way overdue in 40k.
>>92599125Do we need base autism? 40k still doesn't have it, it's for Siggers only When new terminators dropped in 4th and it was discovered that 25mm based terminators could deep strike into a smaller footprint than 40mm, I immediately rebased my terminators because I wanted no part in waac faggery. There were people using a combo of 25s and 40s to make some really lopsided 'deepstrike circles' that were technically game legal.I'd understand if people didn't want to rebase though- and ideally rules should be tweaked so bases don't matter that much. Hard to get there if you will use blast markers though
>>92608281Respawn/reinforcement mechanics are fun and good. One of the best parts of AOS.
>>92609034As long as drawing power from the Warp is as risky as it is in canon, It's all good.
Quiet day on Fourk lads. Bumping. Any new ideas or thoughts?
>>92608375As was stated before, AoS balances it by only respawning half of the destroyed unit.So you lost 10 boyz, and you can get a new unit of 5.But i feel like Tyranids Orks and Guard need separate mechanics that will work differently.For example, ork trukks being able to go beyond your edge of a table, and come back full of boyz next turn
Sorry I got settled in a little later this morning than planned, getting to work now on putting the design team together. Anyone who still wants to be considered you have about 20 minutes to send me an email, refer to the post here >>92595470Now I'm going to ask a question I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to, but just to put it out there:How many people are interested in trying a d12 based system instead of d6?There are a few benefits to it, but the major one is just the increased granularity. On a d6 you really only have 5 degrees of quality you can apply to something - it's really good (2+), kind of good (3+), average (4+), kind of bad (5+) and really bad (6+). This can make it hard to differentiate things like Guard Veterans and Stormtroopers being better shots than average Guardsmen, but worse than Space Marines who still need to be worse than Space Marine Veterans/Characters. With a d12 you get half-steps in between all of these, so you end up with 11 total degrees of variance. There's a lot more flavor available working with the numbers there, and you can have abilities that grant bonuses without them being massively swingy. The way 40k usually gets around this is by having re-roll abilities, which add in a really complex and uneven sort of granularity and takes up a lot of extra time. 12-sided dice are a much cleaner solution.The main drawback is of course that it goes completely against tradition and some people think it feels too different. 40k has always used d6 only! (Not actually entirely true, 2nd ed had polyhedral dice up to d20, and there have been spin-off board games in the 40k universe that don't use d6 based systems, but close enough).The other is a practical one, in that acquiring a good amount of d12 dice takes a little bit of extra effort. Not much - you can order 20 of them off amazon for like $10, and any FLGS worth its salt probably carries a million dice of every kind, but it's still one more small barrier to entry.
>>92611982If this were anything but what I understand the project was intended to be, a curated version of an existing edition, I'd say go for D12. But as it's not, and it's specifically supposed to encapsulate post 2nd edition, pre 8th edition 40k, it must stick to D6.>40k has always used d6 only! (Not actually entirely true, 2nd ed had polyhedral dice up to d20, and there have been spin-off board games in the 40k universe that don't use d6 based systems, but close enough).As I said, we aren't just trying to make the "best 40k", as most likely that would bring us to a wholly new system that apes the old. We're trying to make the best version of a system that existed. Anything that takes us too far from 3rd-7th should not be considered.
>>92611982my instant reaction is fuck no keep d6, but if it's just to try out and it's brought up later when we've made some good progress with rules and codices, I'd be open to try a few games. Perhaps a Fourk instead, when this project is complete so it can be focused on better. eh.
>>92611982If we are going to change main die, i would rather go with d10, as it just more straightforward when calculating probabilities, in exchange for only having 9 steps instead of 11.But i must add, i think the change of dice is one of those changes that make this project anything but a "remastered" middlehammer.At this point we can do whatever we want with turn structure, attack sequence, anything (not saying thats bad btw).Also, d10 would be really nice to use for scattering, as it shows you a direction and a value in a single roll.If we are speaking gradularity, i think 2d6 is the best, as it gives you a really interesting probability curve that can add some flavour too. But 2d6 doesnt really work with mass combat of 40k, you cant really roll 2d6 per every single one of your 20 conscripts
>>92601722Alright, so here are ten pages of posts from other anons throughout the last year or so as I was working on my own project mentioned in my original post you're replying to. some are contradictory, but for the most part people tend to agree on what made the 4e era a good time. rather than crowd sourcing the same info over and over every time I see a thread, this should help narrow down the things to focus on.
>>92611982Why D12? If you wanted to move to a die D10 or d20 allows easy percentile conversions?
>>92611982Basically >>92612043 has the right of it. I'm addition I think it's a stupid wannabe game designer move. The differences between models is not so significant at this scale that you need such granularity. Necromunda or Kill Team or Inquisitor? Maybe.
I was thinking, maybe we could use KillTeam melee combat system for charaacter duels?In killteam you roll a d6 per your attack, and can use a success to either attack your opponent, or block one of your opponents successes, with crits only blockable by other crits.So when your basic troops are fighting eachother, ot ther characters, its just normal to hit to wound sequence, but if 2 characters, or 2 sergants are fighting in a duel, it turns into a little minigame that can add flavour to some weapons and characters
>>92611982Definitely stick with D6. We're trying to make midhammer - anything that requires d12 granularity to matter is getting too complicated for 40kAlso I forgor in the email I sent you but I'd want to change the turn sequence to be "I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot" instead of "I move and shoot, then you move and shoot" or alternating activations which are more of a skirmish game thing. I don't see this as too much of a change because you're still retaining the fundamental move->shoot->assault sequence and both players are still taking turns
>>92612159KT works because it's a very granular game. In designing anything, you have to ask whether bolting an entire other system that only happens in a specific niche scenario (3e and 4e didn't even have challenges) is worth making players learn, or if it's better to just accept that 40k scale requires more abstraction
>>92612043>Anything that takes us too far from 3rd-7th should not be considered.>>92612086>my instant reaction is fuck no keep d6>>92612127>>But i must add, i think the change of dice is one of those changes that make this project anything but a "remastered" middlehammer.>>92612158>Basically >>92612043 has the right of it.>>92612172>Definitely stick with D6. We're trying to make midhammerYeah so that's pretty loud and clear, lol. Thanks gents. Alright, invites are going out in a moment. Check your emails.
>>92612140D12 is great because it's only one die, unlike D%, and 12 has the most prime factors of any Dx meaning you can do ½, ⅓, & ¼ probabilities easily. A 1/12 chance for crits/failures also makes them relatively rare and impactful without making them too swingy. It's a fantastic choice... but not for 40k
>>92611982I love the d12, but if you're not rolling handfuls of d6's, its not 40k. i would say that's a specific thing that should not change. the new apocalypse had d12s, but I don't know what they were used for since I've barely played recent editions.I would say the system should be as close as possible to the old, and then we start cutting the wonky bits and replacing them with easy and fun mechanics to streamline it. There are sacred cows to avoid sacrificing, like the d6, but then other parts of it aren't as loved or have been changed in the past and can be made better just by thinking them out with some hindsight.
>>92612242>looks at d20>looks at (you)
>>92612242>A 1/12 chance for crits/failures also makes them relatively rare and impactful without making them too swingy.This is probably the thing I love most about them, personally. It just hits that sweet spot.Other reasons why I prefer d12 over d10 - because they are more spherical and roll better, while d10's roll weird and don't feel like normal dice. But specifically for 40k, when converting stats from a d6 based system over, they map right onto a d12 easily with all of the new granularity in the d12 being exactly halfway between two d6 results. So you can essentially create units that have "Ballistic Skill 3.5" or "Strength 5.5" and so forth and have it fit into the existing understanding and feel of 40k statlines without having to reinvent everything from the ground up at 10% increments with a d10.Anyways, we won't be using them anyway so this is all moot, but just thought I should put it out there. My own personal project does use d12s at one scale and 2d6s at another, but it isn't quite designed for 28mm armies of the size /fourk/ is going for.
I keep rereading 4th edition and I'm struggling to understand how size worked. If an area terrain of size 1 has normal infantry (size 2) 7" deep of it, can it be seen by, say, a size 3 monolith?>>92611982bad idea, it'll scare people away and also buying batches of D12 to roll would be required which would allienate players even further. D6 is enough for 40k given how much dice is rolled, just don't go crazy on +1/-1 like GW does.
>>92612516>Reinvent everythingYou'd just have to literally add 2. I'm all for a new dice system if you can actually stop people from having to roll 30 dice at a time (something like a 'baseline stat' and then +1 for everyone else in the squad (out to the max with like a six man squad or something)
>>92612808>You'd just have to literally add 2Ah... no. If you mean "BS 3 just becomes BS 5 it's still a 50% on a d10" sure, that one works, but none of the others do. All the percentages go off-kilter relative to that benchmark. Whole thing needs to be recalibrated.
>>92612808>stop people from having to roll 30 dice at a timemaybe we shrink squad sizes (no more 20+ conscript waves) and make it so only RF weapons have more than 1 attack?
>>92612837I'd support no squads larger than 10 models regardless of the unit/army. Model count going down across the board was something already discussed and this is in line with that. I am again going to say that with Guard as the baseline for army size for the "standard size game" a Command Squad (5), 2x Scions/regiment elites squad (5ea.), 4x squads of infantry (maybe 2x 10 regular infantry, a heavy weapons squad, and a special weapons squad), plus a Chimera, Sentinel, and Leman Russ is the archetypal guard army. As for the other point on RF I agree that is sensible.
>>92612955Yeah that IG army sounds about right,a space marine army should be something like2-3 5 man tactical squads, a squad of scouts, a unit of either devastators or assault marines, a rhino/speeder, and either a dreadnaught, squad of termies, or a squad of veterans with an additional vehicle/drop pod
Also regarding space marine chapters, and some micro factions added later in 40ks life like genestealers.I like the idea of codex demonhunters and modern 40k "agents of the imperium", i think we could get stuff like admech, deathwatch, knights, through something lke that, i know alot of people, especially here, dont like the idea of stuff like Knights on the table, but i dont think its that bad if its limited enough
>>92613652We will be adding all of the various micro-factions that actually belong in the game, like Agents and so forth. Genestealer Cults aren't really a micro-faction they're fully supported at this point, and AdMech is going to be a vast army with all of the Forge World HH/Fires of Cyraxus stuff that never manifested.Knights don't belong because they're just too fucking big. As others have stated, after we have the regular game complete, we can look into doing an Apocalypse expansion that adds support for superheavies, but they just bloat the base game and shouldn't be an option for regular battles.
But who is doing the lore for this project? We need loretubers and meme curators as well.
>>92613887Good one
>>92613887>But who is doing the lore for this project?Also me.
>>92613887Good joke. You should make the logo anon.
>>92613887>loreRobert Girlyman and Boomer El'Johnson travel back in time to prevent the heresy, but trip over the time machine controls and time is rewound back to 4th edition, and permanently stuck there.
>>92613887Why would we need lore? It's all there in the codexes and (4e) rulebooks.
>>92613900>>92613912>>92613913>>92614204>>92614494C'mon, guys. You're smarter than this. Don't engage the troll.
>>92596104>The Turn [HIGH PRIORITY]The 40k IGOUGO turn cycle is showing it's age and limitations. It also kinda sucks. Let's rip the Ambush Alley-Force on Force system and modify it to our liking.
>>92616362It's an initiative-reaction system so both players play multiple times each turn.
>>92616437I'll look into it at least. We are either adding Reactions to an IGOUGO base or creating an alternate phases system, still to be determined.
>>92613878How micro and how differentiated?Militarum Tempestus was introduced with its own codex, after all.
>>92613878I think Genestealers can be left as an option for Tyranids to take IG allies
Whats consensus on Keywords? They didnt exist back than, but i would say that they are a very handy tool
>>92613652Admech has enough stuff if we backport can be it's own codex. Custodes and Grey Knights amd inquisition related stuff should just be rolled into Agents of the Imperium.Knights should for be for apocalypse size games only, like how 3rd editions place restrictions on named characters based on game size.
>>92617577I think the "you can't used named characters unless both sides agree" restriction should return
>>92617589Agreed. It's a good restriction and I've seen historical games like SAGA do this too.
>>92617072Honestly unnecessary for 4th edition. Units already have their type (infantry, vehicle, bike) listed. Can you provide examples of why keywords would be a good addition to 4th edition?
>>92612130>Los sniping worked similarly; only models in Los were viable casualties; so using rhinos to limit a lascannon's los to just the sarge meant only he was a viable casualty.Sounds fiddly, prone to causing arguments and generally gay as shit. It reminds me of how you can cheat 'shoot the closest' in Necromunda by pivoting the model so only the main target is within models vision arc (in Necromunda models have a 90 arc of vision, you can 'see' only those enemies who are within that arc). Needless to say it is considered to be something that tryhards use and is generally ingored (at least by groups in my local area).>Punishing retreats from melee was a good rule.Was it even possible to retreat from melee? The only way you could do it is by losing a fight and failing LD, I don't remember you could do it voluntarily until 8th edition.>Little cards for psykers warp storms like existed in 2nd edition was a good ruleThird edition got rid of cards for a good reason.
A small idea to make blasts and templates less detrimental for the game speed:1. Small blasts (3") can only hit up to 3 models max.2. Large blasts (5") and templates can only hit up to 5 models max.This means that spreading out your fighters is less of a necessity (when a unit is coherent, a small blast can easily hit 3 fighters), which would lead to faster games when hordes and templates are involved.
>>92618865at this point ust change Blast(X) to "every succesfull hit scores X hits"
Oh gawd yeah I just remembered you couldn't just withdraw from melee whenever you felt like it. To me that was *much* better for the thematic feel of 40k. Close combat
>>92602005
>>92618893It was mentioned that templates are going to stay, as they were iconic. I also like them, but I'd love to see their potential capped to reduce the necessity or constant model spacing.Blasts would still have the whacky quality of wildly scattering at times and that's what matters.
Could they BE anymore gender-neutral here?
>>92619725get this shit outta here.
>>92619725Sir this is /fourk/ we don't even have custodes here they're still in the palace guarding the emperor and wearing only loincloths
92619725Nulore ignore
>>92617589Maybe make Legend/Named characters work off a bonus percent of points (like 20% of your total points) so if you do have to take your leader off the board you don't have to relist anything., (it's a lot easier to say we're going to do names and go from 1500 -> 1800pts with names then 1500 down to whatever.
>>92602005To truth is this board has been gutted by several exodussyu as the kids say and currently still suffers from poor moderation in the form of reddit trannies who are also part time glow niggers. >Those niggers glow in rthe darkAlso various rules about how threads work are there mostly to make sure that good threads don't stick around.
Maybe it is a bit too early to ask but I've been pondering asking so I just wanna ask: Will this fork-edition be "era agnostic" in the sense that it will support post 4th edition included armies like the knights/custodes or even the Votann down the line when it reaches the backporting stages? If so then I think those factions should be the last ones to get backported as they may require the most work. I think knights should be saved for last.
>>92621220Generally speaking it seems like there is a desire to stick to everything pre-999.M41 and no knights nor fliers since they don't really fit in at the scale. Since it's a homebrew project you can use the rules for whatever homebrew faction you want, though I haven't seen anything talking about a points calculator or formula-based costing.
>>92616908Tempestus will be part of Imperial Agents in this project rather than the Guard, going back to the days of Inquisitorial Stormtroopers in books like Daemonhunters.>>92617042Genestealers have an incredible model range and will be fully supported, but their Codex will be combined with Tyranids into one document, like they were in 2nd edition. Same with Chaos and Daemons.>>92617072>>92617618Keywords are a useful formatting tool that doesn't change anything in terms of actual rules, we'll probably use them unless I can't find any use cases.>>92618701All good points here.>>92618865I don't see a point to this at all. Blasts work fine as-is, especially in smaller sized games like we're making where a max army will be half the size of standard 40k and squads will almost never go above 10 guys.>>92621220Knights aren't happening, Custodes are still being debated but if they do happen will be extremely limited, maybe a single model or a squad as part of an Imperial Agents soup. Votann will be added but I'm doing them dead last.
>>92621780Will stormtroopers explicitly be presented as only Inquisitorial stormtroopers, or will the original stormtrooper concept as a specialist organization of elite troops be used? I think some would prefer that taking stormtroopers wouldn't require taking Inquisitorial units
>>92622027The general philosophy for the project is to allow as much customization as possible within reason so yes, you'll be able to take them standalone.
>>92621780Why no knights? I don't see any reason to exclude factions that were in the lore and just didn't have a codex yet.
>>92622236Knights ruin the scale of the game and weapons.Speaking of custodes, are they all explicitly not included, or could they exist as a single custodian add-on in Imperial agents?
>>92622236They're just too bloody big. Superheavies don't make for a good game at this scale.>>92622306>Speaking of custodes, are they all explicitly not included, or could they exist as a single custodian add-on in Imperial agents?Exactly as I stated here >>92621780>Custodes are still being debated but if they do happen will be extremely limited, maybe a single model or a squad as part of an Imperial Agents soup
>>92617589How about being able to field just one as the warlord?
>>92598137I like the Infinity style. You can have models of vastly different sizes like the new vs. old greater daemons not effect gameplay as long as they are on the right base sizes.
Is there any desire to accommodate people who want to be goofy and play 40k at an alternative scale? Just a line on "switch all measurements from imperial to metric if playing at 1:100 scale" or anything like that? Then again since this is for playing 40k what that really means is playing with GW minis, making that moot point I suppose. No sense in "you may multibase two 15mm marines on a 32mm round base which shall be counted as a single model" when you're only ever going to have one line of minis used.
>>92622843Only if you and your opponent agree. The default should be "no," as it used to be
>>92623370you don't need anybody's permission to do thatany game that's written for one 28mm model = one dude can instead be one base = a squad.
Will Kasrkin and stormtroopers be separate?
>>92624266They should be. If I was in charge, the Guard rules would get a "Heavy Infantry" data sheet which is generic and encompasses Kasrkin and other homegrowns, and the Imperial Agents rules would get "Stormtroopers" which encompasses Scions/stormtrooper and Inquisitorial troopersSimilar, if not mainly the same datasheets save maybe some more esoteric larger options for the IA rules, but special regimental Guard vs regimental Tempestus rules that make the crunch difference
>>92596104Never seen these threads before but wishing you fuckers success, current 40k is a mess but the setting is so good
>>92624322>larger*war gearThe Imperial Agents armory would be more expansive for stormtroopers with special gear for tempestors and primes ie access to null rods, crosssbolters, etc
>>92624266Yes. Kasrkin will be in the Guard Codex, Stormtroopers will be in Imperial Agents.>>92624322Something very similar to this, exactly.
Just wanted to chime in and thank everyone for their discourse on the topic. For the last few years after reentering the game, I was staggered to find out that there wasn't a widely adopted fan-made ruleset (not counting OPR). About 3 years ago there was a tripfag named 'SCREAMING NID ANON' who had put out a fair amount of work into his own system based on 3e but then dropped off the face of the Earth. I dug up his email from an old pdf he'd put out and apparently someone close to him had died and he stopped work on the rules, pretty tragic if it wasn't all an elaborate larp.
>>92625776Screaming Nid anon is back.
>>92625789Holy fuck, I'm retarded. I read through most of the posts without even looking at the trip codes. Glad to have him back
>>92596104Great game---{ Graphics }--- You forget what reality is Beautiful Good Decent Bad Don‘t look too long at it MS-DOS---{ Gameplay }--- Very good Good It's just gameplay Mehh Watch paint dry instead Just don't---{ Audio }--- Eargasm Very good Good Not too bad Bad I'm now deaf---{ Audience }--- Kids Teens Adults Grandma---{ PC Requirements }--- Check if you can run paint Potato Decent Fast Rich boi Ask NASA if they have a spare computer---{ Game Size }--- Floppy Disk Old Fashioned Workable Big Will eat 10% of your 1TB hard drive You will want an entire hard drive to hold it You will need to invest in a black hole to hold all the data---{ Difficulty }--- Just press 'W' Easy Easy to learn / Hard to master Significant brain usage Difficult Dark Souls---{ Grind }--- Nothing to grind Only if u care about leaderboards/ranks Isn't necessary to progress Average grind level Too much grind You'll need a second life for grinding---{ Story }--- No Story Some lore Average Good Lovely It'll replace your life---{ Game Time }--- Long enough for a cup of coffee Short Average Long To infinity and beyond---{ Price }--- It's free! Worth the price If it's on sale If u have some spare money left Not recommended You could also just burn your money---{ Bugs }--- Never heard of Minor bugs Can get annoying ARK: Survival Evolved The game itself is a big terrarium for bugs
>>92625776>>92625858It was pretty funny seeing you miss my post literally directly above yours. Yes hello I am back. The original project was 2e not 3e, although you might have just made a typo.
>>92626409Haha yeah, I just assumed by the lack of caps locked posts that you weren't here. Welcome back. I did mean to type 3e, but I guess I just rounded up because you were calling it 2.5e at one point?
>>92599532>>92601023>>92599574If Marines get 2W, then infantry of other factions should be looked at for expanding the wound range of their heavy infantry. Necrons come to mind for having their more elite units being surprisingly fragile compared to their fluff.
>>92623564Nah, fuck that permission shit it was one of the good changes 4e made dropping that.Just have special characters be balanced instead of throwing people into this gotta have two lists and negotiate limbo
>>92628581No. Permission for named characters is necessary I don't want to see and play against Marneus Poobar, Commissar Yar-ick, CREED, Lilith Hasparax, Pedo Kant-asing, Old-dumb Ul-thot, etc in every game.Make up your own generic character and customize him
>>92628646I dont think we have to bother with that at first.We need to get basic rules and army lists going first
>>92628646To bad, deal with it. You don't get to veto any other kind of unit you may happen to not like. Why should some characters be any different. Especially when people build themes armies around specific lore.
>>92628660I'm not the guy in charge--just voicing my strong opinion that the rule was and has always been a great idea.>>92628677Cry about it. It was a good rule. Maybe the Chapter master of the ultraturds shouldn't show up to every battle.The whole "primarchs should stay with nu40K" bit is just 10 over the speed limit while named characters all the time is 5 over
>>92596104What about the AP system?I might be biased as a Necromunda player, but I strongly dislike all-or-nothing AP of old. I've played Heralds of Ruin 7th edition and it was soul crushing to charge with an AP4 big choppa nob only to find out that the marine you've hit still saves on a 3+, making big choppa a waste of points. Same probably goes for marine bringing a heavy bolter.I believe that as long as the system does not throw AP characteristic on every weapon, the AP system of 8th editions and later are superior of old.If you need more convincing, a Choppa special rule from Third edition was armour saves against it always fail on 1-3, making it an excellent terminator can opener. It was probably intended to make the game more fun against power armour.So something like this:AP0: Most infantry weapons (boltguns, shootas, choppas, flamers, grenade launchers etc)AP-1: Heavy bolter, Sniper rifle, low-mode plasma weapon, heavy flamersAP-2: Overheated plasma weapons, AP-3: medium sized power weapons, krak missileAP-4: fist-type power weapons, melta>>92598137Seems like silhoettes are slightly more popular, although this is obviously far from an actual vote. If silhoettes become a thing, there has to be some sort of print-out included in the rules. Also I feel like TLOS has to remain the same for vehicles, because of how different models can be (obviously no shooting banners/antennas/barrels and so on).>>92628692I agree on character rule. People should be encouraged to be creative and make their own characters instead of using.Also I always found the idea of even having the possibility of mirror game with the same named characters a travesty.
>>92628677We do, in fact, get to veto things, and named characters are done. Out. Finished. No more. Shuffled. Off this mortal coil. In the Elysian fields. Dead. Gone. Dearly departed. No longer with us. Passed away. In heaven. Dead dead dead dead and dead. :^)You vill play ze /yourdudes/ and you vill be happy
>>92629356Agreed on the AP, all or nothing AP was shit time.
>>92629356AP modifiers are a bad system.Not only is is more mental load at the table, it just feels bad when your power armoured guy is saving on a 4+ or 5+And in practice it ends up working out roughly the same anyway - weapons that deny saves due to being AP2/3 are going to have modifiers large enough to make saves useless.Also melee weapons don't have AP, that's nuhammer. They're either power weapons (no save) or normal weapons (AP -)
>>92629356>>92629417>>92629418Personally a slight hybrid system is what I would consider to be good.All or nothing except if the AP is exactly equal, then it modifies it to a certain extent. All or Nothing helped Power armour units, save modifier helped flak/mesh/t-shirt save units.
>>926294187th edition ork codex snippet, Big choppas were AP5, not AP4 as I've misremembered in the post above. The point is there were different AP for melee weapons before the 8th.>Not only is is more mental load at the table, it just feels bad when your power armoured guy is saving on a 4+ or 5+1. If we are going with much smaller scale for armies, then modifying it for one of your 5 man squad should not slow the game down.2. Saving on a 4+ or 5+ for a marine player is just as bad as for the opponet wasting points on AP weapon which does nothing because they were 4AP. >>92629432Prohammer does that, if your AP is equal to the armour, then the armour save is still made, but with -1. The problem remains the same, against marines you need AP3 or spam low quality attacks, taking special weapons with AP4 is just not viable.
>>92629356>People should be encouraged to be creative and make their own characters instead of using.Like some kind of character generator? Or just running a captain who's akshually legendary hero Biggus Dickus without it being reflected in the rules?
>>92629842Neither. You take an HQ choice, equip him with wargear from the armoury, and then write /yourdudes/ lore about him
>>92629871>Neither. You take an HQ choice, equip him with wargear from the armoury, and then write /yourdudes/ lore about himHow is this different fromjust running a captain who's akshually legendary hero Biggus Dickus without it being reflected in the rules?
>>92629842old 40k you use to get a huge list of wargear, and you would also have multiple variants of heroes (especially "warlord" types) because you would want multiple points levels for different points levels.eg my old 40k 3rd ed marine Captain had a master crafted lightning claw and a storm bolter (not a termie). This wasn't a model GW produced, so I converted him.
>>92629904Yeah, I guess I should've specified I was talking about older editions with all the wargear options.So, basically, just take an HQ, pimp him up within rules, and just say he's Biggus Dickus, but rules-wise he's just a captain?
>>92629919iirc that's what most special characters used to be with maybe one special rule or wargear.
>>92629890Normally named characters have unique wargear and rules. You cannot build a space marine chapter master with two power fists and a storm bolter, for example
>>92629890'Historical' figures like Yarrick should be fighting approriate enemies commanding appropriate forces. /yourdude/ captain has a lot more flexible narrative which is a lot easier to bend to fit the game you are running.Yarrick getting ambushed by Dark Eldar while commanding, say, nothing but multiple ogryns *could happen* outside the book lore scope, but feels forced to me.
>>92630043I'll reiterate my argument: Named characters feel appropriate for large scale battles (especially if both sides are represented by appropriate factions, to base the battle on appropriate rivalry).In a normal game scope they feel out of place, especially if they are fighting a 'wrong' faction.
>>92629842>character generatorNo, just an HQ with available upgrades and some backstory. I still cherish an ork boss, who used to to be a flashgit who has managed to 1v1 a terminator on a desperate charge (actual game experience).
>>92630039Why shouldnt we allow them to do so tho?You can have 2 lightning claws, why not 2 fists?And Power fist with auxiliary weapons was a thing (but only with melta)
>>92629929Usually, though sometimes. Thematic army mechanicchanges were tied to named characters too. Which is really why they shouldn't be vetoable. Neing able to say no to someone's themed army just because their HQ isn't an OC Donut Steel is just cancer we don't need in this.
>>92630519Thats just going into Nuhammer subfaction stuff, just tied to named characters instead of "detachments" or wahtever.If you want to play Steel Legion, you take imperial guard, and get a bunch of chimeras, not getting Yarrick
>>92598137Why not just do what we had back in the day? Small terrain hides infantry-sized creatures, large terrain hides monster/vehicle-sized creatures. Creature width should be determined by the base, for consistency.
>>92630533It's not really nuhammer if it's something older than 4e. Besides what does it matter.A steel legion army lead by the generic commissar is exactly as /your dudes/ as a steel legion army lead by yarrick.
>>92629398Lame. Special characters were fun options in 3rd/4th and were hardly the autopick choice they became later, it was much more common to see tooled-out generals from the standard lists - especially for codices that gave players lots of choices like Chaos 3.5, why take Abaddon or Typhus when you can bring your bespoke Chaos Lord? Much better to give players more interesting choices for /theirguys/ than just outlawing special characters.
>>92629398>We do, in fact, get to veto things, and named characters are done.I don't remeber there being a poll. And if we can just veto things, I'm vetoing your asshole right now.
If your "themed" army is only "themed" because you are running a specific named character, it's not a themed army. You just want to run the named character. You just want to play Marvel nuHammer.Named characters always being allowed is just primarchhammer but traveling 5 over the speed limit instead of 10
>>92629530>>92629356>AP4 not viable vs power armorOh no, power armor actually being tanky vs many weapons? can't be having that, better make it a modifier so the extra points paid for troops to have a good save are at least partially wasted against everything but the smallest infantry guns.>but I want my big choppas to be good vs marines :(not every weapon is going to be good vs every army, if you build your list to be a balanced force that can take on any army at least one weapon will be 'bad' vs any given opponent.
>>92630957It's not about AP4 not being viable against power armour.It's that AP4 should be better against 3+ than AP-.
>>92630519>Which is really why they shouldn't be vetoable.That is exactly why they should be vetoable. Better yet, don't have named characters in the game at all.
>>92631027Yes. Entire playstyles and building options shouldn't be linked to a named character.SNA, was there thought on unit limitations for this project, like rule of 3?
>>92629418>Also melee weapons don't have AP, that's nuhammer. They're either power weapons (no save) or normal weapons (AP -)As already mentioned, 7th did add AP values to melee weapons. It's one of the few legitimate complaints I have about the rest of that era, the nonsensical binary value of all melee weapons - are you a power weapon or not?That said I'm *not* in favor of the bizarre granulation they did on power weapons in that same edition. An axe, sword, a mace - if you're not something hyper-specialized like a fist, two handed hammer, or lightning claws, you're just a power weapon.But a chainsword or a choppa should have more different about it than a chaos cultist's lead pipe than just who is holding it. It's also bizarre how it skewed value in melee units, in armies who supposedly have strength in melee. Using Orks as an example again, does it seem right that in their entire 4e codex, they have two sources of AP in melee on infantry units - Power Klaws, and Burnas if they are in melee and didn't fire in the shooting phase? Absolutely everything else has no AP value, or is on a walker.
>>92631093Unless we're ditching the old force org chart there's no point. That's limiting enough as it is.
>>92631167Force organization is great, rule of 3 imho is just lazy and boring, and still gives waacfags enough room to do their thing, while really not being very flavourful, an army is not a random assortment of units 3 copies each
>>92631167I haven't been in all the threads, so I play catch-up on the info.
>>92631163Give them actual AP in that case, instead of cribbing the save penalties from Warhammer Fantasy. It's more consistent, and if every melee weapon turns your power armour into paper armour, it's nonsensical to be paying 15pts per model for space marines.
>>92631230Noone says that guardsman's bayonet should kill space marines
>>92631230I agree with that, I'm not the guy saying AP modifiers are better, I just think you lumping melee weapons sharing whatever AP system shooting weapons use with "nuhammer" is mistaken. It was present in the era we are drawing from, and I think it improves the game, it just needs to be done a bit differently than how they did it in 7th.
>>92631256I am not the anon you think you are talking to, so I'll leave it to him to respond to your point, but as far as I personally am concerned, 4e was already a disaster and anything past that is nuhammer.
>>92631002why? it's a measure of the toughest armor it can bypass, it can't bypass power armor, so why should it reduce the survival odds of the guy in power armor?
>>92598137>Infinity-style silhouette template. Completely shuts down That guyInfinityfag here. No it doesn't.
>>92631423Because power armour isn't a homogeneous invincible brick. It has thinner sections and weak points that can penetrative by stuff that can't get through the major plates. Which means a moderate AP weapon has more weak points it can exploit. In short it's just weird how an auto cannon is no better at getting through marine armour than a lasgun even though one is a light anti tank vs an infantry rifle.Plus spreading ap usefulness out as a more general upward trend of good is better than having a tipping point where it jumps from why bother too must have.
>>92631714Elaborate on Infinity WAACfag autism then. Seems pretty clear cut from the outside.
>>92631093>SNA, was there thought on unit limitations for this project, like rule of 3?No universal one like Ro3 because with the smaller army sizes and return of force org it isn't needed. Instead there will be the occasional unit that's limited to 0-1, and there will be lots of force org modification based on different characters, subfactions, etc. that let you play around with your list, but nothing spammable and abusive.>>92629356My current proposal for AP works like this:Saves come with two values, written like Power Armour: 3+ (5+)If you get hit with AP higher than the first value, use it as normal.If you get hit with AP equal to the first value, use the second one.If you get hit with AP lower than the first value, no armour save.This works essentially like the Prohammer system except instead of equal AP always being a flat -1, it's bespoke to the armour type.Thus we'll have things like Guardsmen with 5+ (–) and Eldar with 5+ (6+) so we can represent better armour without it being a full point better. Another example would be Indomitus Terminators with 2+ (4+) and Cataphractii with 2+ (3+). If this ends up being too complicated in practice I'll drop it and go with something simpler, but I think it has promise.The other idea that was discussed in a previous thread is to add more function to the Rending special rule, so instead of it always being "a wound roll of 6+ means no armour save", we change it to Rending X+ (AP Y). So Genestealer claws are Rending 6+ (AP 1) and a Chainsword might be Rending 6+ (AP 3). This allows us to play with melee weapons a bit more and give some of them an added bite without it being too swingy one way or another at certain AP breakpoints.Again, needs playtesting, it could end up being just as annoying to track this in game as AP modifiers, but I think there's potential.
>>92623564>>92628581>>92628646>>92628677>>92628692>>92629356>>92629398>>92630714The current plan for named characters is to not include them, but to include so many character traits, wargear options, and so forth that you can build your own identical to any that already exist, but also make brand new combinations. If you want to remake Abaddon exactly as he is you will be able to do so, but you can also make an equally hard as fuck (and extremely expensive) Chaos Lord of your own with similar stats and weapons but not necessarily identical. Some named character special rules might need to be toned down a bit, of course.
>>92632339That seems a sensible plan. Best of both worlds
>>92632261I understand the armour system.But honestly compared to just having AP be a save modifier it's more complicated with less granularity.
>>92632615Agree. It allows a good perspective of having custom characters being comprable in power to named characters, unlike in recent 40k
>>92632339Consider including a recipe book for convenience. As in "these combinations of upgrades can be used to recreate suchandsuch character". Some people are stupid after all.
Has a decision been made on board size?
>>92632736That's exactly what I was planning to do but I didn't know what to call it, "recipe book" is great, thanks anon.But basically the way the 4th ed Tyranid Codex does it, with tons of options but then some pre-made examples with names, that will be applied to every faction.
>>92632789The rules are assuming you play on a 6x4 foot board. If you want to go smaller or bigger no one can stop you, but balancing won't be done around that so it's at your own risk.
>>92632808Cool, that's the answer I was hoping for!
>>92632339>>92632615I think it is. This let's people bring Marneus Calgar, but Calgar becomes comparatively "grounded" when looking at other generic characters
>>92632798It could be put in lore part of the index/codex, heres rules, heres a story of Jhon LeFaggot, and heres what type of character and upgrades you could use to recreate Jhon LeFaggot
>>92632339What about a similar generator for subfactions? Just have a list of traits you can pick from.
>>92632798>I didn't know what to call itIndex Donutus
>>92632910Also planning something like that too, but with more options since we have a lot of subfaction material from 8th and 9th to draw on for ideas (pretty much one of the few good things GW did in nuhammer in my opinion).That's all going to have to wait until we get to codexes though, still working out core rules at the moment, but it looks promising.
>>92632994I was quite happy when the Greater Good book came out and stormtrooper regiments got love.
>>92632994I think a system like this could work as a faction mechanic for vanilla marines, KillTeam actually has almost the exact same thing.But i think stufflike Blood Anels, Deathwatch if we are goin to have something like that, Space wolves will need a bit more attention than just "pick your doctrines"
I know know SNA is mulling the idea about a single Custodes or single Custodes unit as an add-on option, but what are the thoughts of adding single Killmarines as add-on options from the Deathwatch instead of a whole Killteam?
>>92633278Deathwatch arent even close to Custodes, Deathwatch's killteams are groups of veterans taken from different chapters that uses specialisied equipment, it will be fine as a universal imperial elite 5man squad option imo
>>92633297I didn't say Deathwatch were OP. I figured they were going to be included. What I was asking for is to have the option of both Killteams and singular Killmarines. I said "instead," so I can see how that could be confusing.I think having one Killmarine added to an otherwise normal force can be quite interesting
>>92633370Really not sure how much sense it would make, its like being able to add a single slightly better Veteran with more weapon options, deathwatch guys are not one man armies, they are spec-ops, but i think it would be interesting to have "ex-deathwatch" as an upgrade option for space marine characters, which would give them access to deathwatch special-issue ammo and xenotech.Adding a single custodes makes sense, because they are much more than space marines in terms of deadliness and possible strategic insight, if we are adding something like that, would be cool for them to have a double role of both a beatstick, and a buff piece that would be advisor to your characters, and inspiration to your troops.
Also a kinda minor thing, but which version of combi-weapons do yall prefer? One use only or a regular additional weapon that can be fierd separetly, or with the bolter but with -1 to hit modifier?
>>92633494Veteran of the deathwatch should definitely be a character trait.Killmarines are special operations, but that makes as much sense as bringing an Inquisitorial hench-squad or maybe an assassin.It's not about having a killing machine, but rather a particular specialist which can be used to add something to the silhouettes of your force. Plus it exists and doesn't break anything in the game, so, to appeal to the idea of as much customization as possible, it fits well in this homebrew.The same thing you posit for a Custodes could be said for a Killmarine, just not as deadly. A Killmarine can buff a squad by coaching them about their particular xenos foe
>>92633594In addition, if someone wants to progressively build his force for a crusade-type game, it helps with lore accurate development>first gameGuard force with an Inquisitor with henchmen and attached KillmarineUh oh, there are xenos here and they're dangerous>2nd gameGuard force, stormtroopers, Inquisitorial band and a KillteamHoly smokes, the planet/sub sector is at risk!>3rd gameStormtrooper Strike Force, Inquisitor with reinforcements, 2 Killteams and a Watch Master
>>92632894I actually really like this idea.
SRD anon here to give an update and bitch. First of all, probably won't have the Complete Rules done until tomorrow (see bitching for details).Okay, rather than "40K rules have never been good" which some people like to parrot it's more accurate to say that 40K rules have never been written well. This book is a fucking nightmare. Take Missions for example. In theory a mission is the name, objective, special mission rules by mission level (alpha, gamma, delta), set-up, length, and has rules on deploying reserves. But for all five basic missions the everything but the objective is ALMOST exactly the same and is written out every single time. The Special Mission Rules by Mission Level are exactly the same for all missions, but is written out five fucking times. Set up is almost identical in all cases, but sometimes the deployment zones are slightly different. Game Length and deploying reserves is the same in all Missions. There is so much redundancy, but the language is unclear and they don't write exactly the same text each time so you have to double check before seeing if you can set up a generic case. Tremendously fucking annoying.Rules in general are written in an annoying way, perhaps only to me. Ideally I'd like to see each rule written like a function, pass argument x to the rule and get result y. But rules are consistently written that they do multiple things, which is fucking annoying when sometimes some of the things a rule does is shared with a different rule. For example, for all Non-vehicle model Unit Types it breaks down the differences by Phase but you get shit like Bikes, Jetbikes, Cavalry, and Jump Infantry all doing Fall Back moves of 3D6" written out each time. This isn't a USR? Why the fuck not. Bikes and Jetbikes are identical except for the fact they don't need to take a Dangerous Terrain Test when entering Difficult Terrain like a Bike would EXCEPT if they want to stop within it and make use of the terrain for Cover.CONT.
>>92635894You have shit like "Jetbikes can use the Turbo Booster USR" already, why the fuck can't every other part of the type be like this? Why can't I have on my datasheet "Space Marine Bike Squadron; Bikes" then flip to the section on Bikes and have a list of USRs that all Bikes have? Bikes are already a container for special rules, why can't we actually use USRs intelligently here? Oh fuck, the USRs themselves. Why are some of these so verbose? Preferred Enemy is so long, I managed to cut it down to just "Preferred Enemy (X): Models with this rule always hit on 3+ during Close Combat vs (X)". Others have the issue of doing multiple fucking things, like Turbo Boosters which gives additional movement and a 4+ Invuln Sv but only if the model has already moved at least 18" the current Battle Round. There is also an attempt in the original text to clarify whether or not Independent Characters inherit the rules of Units they join or not (it fucking varies from USR to USR btw) and sometimes the Unit can inherit it from the Independent Character so read the fine print.Also a weird hatred for charts? Often times in the middle of block text you will see a "roll D6 for 1 do this, for 2 this, for 3 this" instead of just putting in a chart. Why? Layout reasons I have to assume?I want to fucking murder everyone who worked on this. What a fucking nightmare text. The Swarms USR already says "applies the affects of both the Small and Vulnerable to Blasts/Template USRs". Does this even need to be like this? Why couldn't the data sheet just have those USRs? Is this actually more convenient to have a rule that just says "reference these other two rules"? Small and Stealth are the same rule, but presumably by being separate entries means they can stack their effects (just guess I suppose?).I'm going to drink and try and finish unsnarling this tomorrow. Might need another more aggressive editing pass even after this.
>>92635894>>92636023I salute you anon for going through this.Hopefully fourk can address these issues. I will say with verbose rules I don't mind it if it is talking about the fluff of a rule, but the ones where the mechanics are explained in so much detail that it becomes redundant can be a slog to read.
>>92636067Nah the 10th edition app got it right by having the fluff of a rule in a little textbox next to the rule. People don't need to sift through fluff to find that one line of rule which will settle whatever rules disagreement that have.
>>92635894>>92636023I feel like Morpheus in this scene right now https://youtu.be/aXNLdw9CUgE?si=D-XOg5JDP3b0JBCf>I want to fucking murder everyone who worked on this.But in old GWs defense I will say this. Writing rules is harder than anyone thinks, there are very few rulebooks from that time period from any company that are smartly written and formatted. Even today they're still rare. Stuff that looks obvious to us in hindsight wasn't always at the time and GW writers were on strict deadlines that kept them going by the seat of their pants with not enough manpower. You can look into interviews from Andy Chambers, Gav Thorpe and Rick Priestley etc which explain a lot of this. And most of these guys didn't have any formal training in editing or systems design, they were just dudes that loved wargames and were passionate and had a lot of ideas. Refinement comes after trailblazing.
>>92636136The lore has been separated from the rules with italics atleast since 7th edition
>>92636212Ah. I'm a newfag who started with 10th, but my group recently switched to 3rd out of curiosity and we never looked back.
>>92636203I am preserving a lot of these bad/annoying choices for now and just dealing with cutting out the chaff before I post an update. Once the entire thing has had the chaff cut out I MOST CERTAINLY will be going back and figuring out how I can wrangle these choices into line through editing. Inventing new USRs is probably going to be on the menu which might be contentious, hence choices like these being moved to another section.I also am pulling my hair out over Wound Allocation and Units with multiple Saves. I had to read all of this multiple times to get a grasp on it and my takeaway is NIGGER THIS IS NOT A FUCKING RPG, IT CAN'T TAKE THIS MANY STEPS FOR A GROUP OF 10 DUDES. It's fucking ridiculous, all the discussion we had so far on activations pales in comparison to how fucking obtuse this is. Enjoy sorting out how faithful you want to be when you get to this, I recommend using some version Look Out Sir just to save yourself the headache.I am aware of the history of the game but holy fuck. Already my chosen edit for it just takes the most common case and as a result probably is unfaithful since I didn't want to have to write out an entire page walking someone through how to do this (conservative estimate). And again, the actual core rules the system is built on is FINE, it's just pages and pages of exceptions that muddy the whole thing.
>>92636324Well, now you understand why Nuhammer is the way it is, even if its a massive overreaction
>>92636324>Wound Allocation and Units with multiple SavesI would just go using toughness and save of the closest visible model to the attacking unit
>>92636324I understand exactly what you're going through and no we will absolutely not be faithful to the obtuse and badly written parts of 4th edition because that's part of the whole reason for this project updating and changing things. Wound allocation has always been one of the worst things about 40k in every edition, I have ideas for how to address it.
>>92635894>>92636324>>92636445GW has always phrased rules like they don't even speak English. Magic used to be good about this before their downward spiral started, always keeping rules to the same general sentence structure and nomenclature. If you end up looking for inspiration on how to word things, older MTG keywords and abilities aren't a terrible place to look.
>>92596104Drawfag from the first thread, are there any 4e art pieces that people want to see ITT? I'd take any idea really. Currently I have an idea for Black Dragons vs Genestealer Cult that I'm working on (WIP pic rel), but I'm open to other ideas atm.
>>92637211It's kind of fucked that I don't think I've ever seen any art depicting the consumption of Tyran. Bugs vs. Admech in general is a cool matchup.
>>92637211Would you be willing to do Scions (the modern stormtroopers, not old Inquistorials or Kasrkin] dropping in from a Valkyrie and fucking up Chaos Marines?Really play into the glow of the eye lenses on the helmets?
>>92636638Eh, I think it's best for rules to be written in a clear-cut manner rather than a pretty one.
>>92637310Behold!
>>92633509Additional weapon. It's called a Combi gun for a reason.
>>92596104>>How can I contribute?I for one was always favoured playing over collecting, minis being necessary evil; please consider adopting rules for option of boardgaming using hex map and chits; unironically.
>>92639971So long as base sizes are listed you can use those with labels to play, even with 2D terrain by default for any game.
New>>92640657>>92640657>>92640657
