I Thought would try making my own thread to see if anyone is interested in this, as I have seen a growing number of remarks and posts revolving around going back to older (namely 4th ed) editions.I have been working on my homebrew edition of warhammer for 8 years now, and I just finished with the latest update. I play it regularly with my close friends, and I can recommend it in good conscience to anyone who is interested in looking at older editions.Its really just my favorite parts 4th, 5th, and 6th ed, but there are enough things different at this point (and those editions blur together so much for me now) that its hard to point to what is most similar to what. There are also lots of my own ideas. Its designed with the intent to be compatible with all your favorite codecies from 3rd (mostly) to 6th ed, but I also have a collection of homebrewed codecies that we use for play, that I can post if anyone is interested.>space marines (beta)>eldar>eldar corsairs>tyranids>necrons>tau>dark eldar (beta)>Working on a small hot-fix for 5e IG and 4e orksIt still has some flaws, primarily I haven't worked out a solution for fast dice wound allocation that really works. Id be happy to discuss any of the details to anyone interested.
Bump
>>92617391>Its really just my favorite parts 4th, 5th, and 6th ed,Not where I'd go with it but ydy anon, its cool you're making a thing.
>>92617391Can you Post the eldar and Corsair codex
>>92617391Good, you finally made a thread.Put an email contact in the pdf, you idiot. If you have any expectation that people will read it and give feedback or ask questions, they need some form of contact. Make WarhammerPepsiUniverse@gmail.com and stick the contact on the second page so people can actually say things to you if they have anything to say. Costs you nothing, and works a lot better than trying to force a general thread for your project, or yelling into the noise that is the normal 40k generals.
>>92620772Here is the eldar one.>>92621162Not a bad plan. Ill put this in the 008 version when I get around to it.warhammerpepsiuniverse@proton.me>>92620663Which one was your favorite anon?
>>92620772Here is the corsair codex.
>>92617391I know nothing about warhammer, but nice editing. It looks cool. Pretty fonts. Might check it out later to see what's warhammer's all about. Also bump.
>>92623528Thanks anon, I worked pretty hard on the formatting template. Taught myself how to use latex for this project.
>>92622148Is that the actual email you're going to/have made?Not the other anon, but 4e has the best core and 6e has the best vibe. They missed the mark and overdid USRs, but the codex has the most customization of any ed in most cases. afaik, it's the only ed you can give a scout sergeant double lightning claws.5e was a mostly pointless gap edition. The codexes are slick, and have some neat design ideas, but it's all just 4e with the edges sanded down and the points hacked too low.
>>92626964>is that email realYes it should be, I just made it this morning. Would have used gmail but they force a phone number now. Please feel free to send something to it so I can confirm it works. >4e has the best core and 6e has the best vibeThere are good parts to each imo. >4e had avtual working rules for area terrain>5e had scattering blast templates>6e had the warp charge mechanics and hull points6e also was the first to allow pre-measureing and as a direct result introduced random charge distances. I liked 4e's combat resolution outnumber mechanics to 5e. 6e lacked the no-retreat/pulled down rules which really hurt it, fearless was basically a must have. I cant think of a single thing 7e actually improved upon except the change for FMC preventing charge on turn after flying. Invisibility basically ruined the whole game, and cover save stacking was just awful. Agreed on the every rule has to be a USR.>most customization of any edI would say this was actually 3e and 4e, IG and SM had full on build-a-bear chapter makers, and Eldar had the craftworlds codex. I really mix up what is from what ed now, but I remember doing a side by side diff a while back, and decided that from 4th to 5th, 70% of the differences went in favor of 4th ed, but Id pick 5th ed for the scattering blast templates alone.
>>92627093You seem to agree with me that 4e has the best core. There are good things in the other two, for sure. I think that 5e introducing small blasts scattering (guess and ordnance stuff scattered in 4e) is what you picked for 5th is humorous, though. And I'm torn on if it was an improvement. It being more fun in general makes me lean to it being a good thing. But like I said, most of what I like about 5e is clean codexes. 6e had lots of nuggets, I'm mixed on if hull points was a good one. Def hate random charge.As to customization, you should review. Early 4e dex certainly had a good amount, and you've got great standouts like the 3e nid dex, but for 4e Orks and Eldar and chaos, they were essentially proto 5e dexes with all the baggage that has. The chapter building stuff in 4e is pretty anemic compared to what nids and IG got in 3rd.6e (maybe not in all of them, but for the ones I remember) gave back the 3e armories, and seemed to hand literally any character the keys. Though looking now, I was mistaken: 4e scout sgts could get termie honors and take lightning claws. So 6e just gave it back. I really think 6e codexes hit the mark there, still. 3e flexibility combined with modern organization.
>>92617391CORSAIRS SHAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>92627339>You seem to agree with me that 4e has the best coreI do, I think you will find that there is most similarity to 4e.I had to look it up to make sure Im not smoking that good crack. But Blast and large blast do not scatter in 4e. Only ordinance does, which does not encompass all large blasts. I think Tau and Eldar (mine and my brothers childhood factions) had no ordinance at all, so that change from 4th to 5th was much larger for us. I think the only ordinance we had was my friends monolith.My main take away about 5th is that it simply was made too quickly for Ward to fuck it up too bad.6e tau codex was a real love letter, if you ignored flyers and the riptide. I loved how it made etherials a real unit instead of a joke. But yeh there are lots of good things across each edition. When my friends and I started playing again in the tail end of undergrad we used the following>6e ruleset with 4e area cover rules>4e Nids>5e Corsairs>6e SM, tau, eldar>5e Crons>5e DE>5e guardEventually I started writing rules, it started with my mission packs cause back then (really all editions of 40k actually) just have dog water missions. A big part of my project is just satisfying my own autismo to have everything in one cohesive document.I did love the armouries sections, the 4e eldar codex is probably one of the saddest (but probly my favorite cover art too). Random charges I think are a critical pairing with pre-measureing allowed. But I think 2d6 was a bit too chaotic, I use 4+2d3" now.
>>92627353>be me, OP>2014, start collecting corsairs>have to homebrew some compatibility for 6e and 7e>Christmas 2016, brother gets me IA 11 2nd edition with new army>Army retconned to be swash buckling pirates of the 41st Caribbean>6 months later 8th ed comes out, army deletedThanks James.
>>92627697Those FW upgrades for guardians and dire avengers looked nice. But even ignoring that, GW 'brought back' corsairs as a kill team, but then they removed the Corsair keyword from Prince Yriel so you can't even run them as their own army. They don't even give the Anhrathe keyword to Rangers and Shroud runners even though they're all collectively on the 'path of the outcast'. It's like there's one GW designer who likes them, then another (with more power) who hates them a lot.
>>92627672I didn't say large blasts scattered, but I see where I implied it by saying small blasts for 5e. Large blasts are mostly ordnance in 4e, so most of the stuff you're rolling to hit with is incidentally small blasts. What's the exception, Submunitions on Tau Hammerhead railgun?6e Tau fails by setting the standard for the stagnation of auxiliaries and setting the standard for the gundams, so I'm really sour on it. The rules were good fun at least.I disagree that premeasure requires random charge. No one should be missing eyeballing 6" charges, who cares if you know for sure you can make your charge? The opportunity cost for charging is usually so low. I'll try to find time to read through your rules proper, but 4+2d3 sounds overdesigned and you're guaranteeing them 6" anyway. You're just letting them always land their 6" charge and I don't understand how you're addressing premeasure if that was a problem. If I just saw that in the rules without extra context, I assume you wanted 6" charges, but also wanted to buff melee; I'd never in a million years think that you kept random charge because of premeasure concerns.
>>92627746Fire prism and hammerhead submunition rounds I think are the only large blasts the eldar and tau had in 4e and neither are ordinance.My thoughts on random charges and premeasuring come down to wanting to balance between range jockeying and the feels bad of missing your 6" charge by 1/16th inch. I part of me also just kinda got used to random charges, so I kinda started with that. I have it such that charging is affected by difficult terrain, so 6-10 seemed like a reasonable range. Its been proving to be fine and not really a sour spot in any of our games so I havn't really looked at it in a while.I actually worked out a hybrid between full pre-measuring and not, because half my friends started playing with me in 6th ed and the other half 4th ed. So its an important topic for me. To not alienate anyone, I settled on a system where you can premeasure "within phase". I played in a flg for a few years, and there was always that one guy who would triangulate the entire board state every turn.
>>92627721The new ones are just not for me. Jet-packs or bust. Also wasps are the coolest thing ever. But I admit I only played 5 games of 9th, and have not touched 10th ed. Just not interested in the direction the game is moving.
>>92617391Will you be including any of the newer units for the game? I only got into the hobby towards the end of 8th but seems like a neat idea.
>>92628537Thats definitely the biggest allure to making your own codex. I admit that I mostly take joy in writing the BRB, but I have ported over all the units that my friends and I actually own, plus the ones I think are cool; I'm going to gatekeep anything that I think doesn't belong in the game, wraithknights, etc.But I also recognize that there is just no way I could keep up with how fast GW puts out new stuff these days. Another anon recommended a guide to porting new minis into the old game space.
>>92629260>Another anon recommended a guide to porting new minis into the old game space.Could you please share this guide if you have it?
>>92630911Sorry no havnt done that yet. I mostly just go by feel for now, and make adjustments as we play. It’s really hard to stat a mini if I can’t hold it in front of myself and really get a good sense of it’s purpose. But I think eventually I’ll make some guidelines.
>>92633650Guidelines would be appreciated.
>>92617391I think I'd need to play a couple games to get a feel for it, but I think that if you're looking to simplify your Wound Allocation you could probably make wounds splash into squads as a general rule. 5 DMG being applied to a squad of any units would deal 5 to chaff units exclusively, unless it kills them all (in which case it goes to the next "tier" of units, and applies to them in the same way). It wouldn't have to work exactly like that, but if you're having issues with wound allocation being too syrupy then you can just replace it with a simpler rule-version which does a similar thing.I'll keep checking the thread. I like the cut of your jib, insofar as I can tell on sight.
>>92628537Please OP, do not waste time adding Buzz Lightyear marines.
>>92638470Wound allocation is something I flip flopped back and forth on probably the most. I really enjoyed the feel of 6th eds point of origin system, but It also irked me to no end how the actually precision weapons were blast templates, and rhino wave guides. Ultimately I decided on controlling player picks wounds because that way players get to enjoy using their special weapons longer, which is more fun. I also have no issues pretending that a squadmate picked up the dead mans gun.The most complicated case is realistically going to be a hybrid squad with a mix of toughness and saves, and a character. Throw in partial cover and you got a real tough situation to try to roll for. For fairness you might consider evening dividing up the to wound rolls, then re-merging the split wound pools and take saves one at a time, but even this has obvious abstraction flaws. Just havnt worked out which I like best. There has always been a similarly related situation of two half size squads standing right next to each other, vs one full sized squad; the fact that shooting at these is treated differently is an oddity. I think in the end I will just have to settle on something that feels consistent.
>>92638608>The most important rule is to have fun. Tailor the experience to your liking. While the rules provided in this book are all with good intent, inevitably something will not match your desired expectation. I strongly encourage making changes as you deem a better fit for your needs. If you don’t want control over your experience, then you probably are not interested in this project anyways.Take a look for yourself, but do please keep in mind the beta status of this book, many of the vehicles are not present currently.
>>92639461I should clarify and apologize for not being as clear. I mean the suggestion might be a troll trying to derail the project and paint you as someone not in the spirit of the game.
Bump Haven't had the time to check this out yet, but looks promising. Keep up the good work.
>>92617391Is it still standard 40k turn ordering?Did you take the unit by unit pill with HQ units being able to activate a second unit?It makes the game move quicker and fights become more reactionary. It also removes the "100% of my army kills 50% of yours on the first turn, enjoy your uphill battle" issue.
>>92652020I just checked. You did not. I will however give your solution to turn order a chance.
>>92652020It is, I do not favor alternating activation from my testing. It seems nice on paper, but once you try it out you learn that it makes games take forever; much more time is spent thinking as players have to re-assess the board state many many more times. I also tried a hybrid solution that I scrapped after play testing it a bit, that I called state space play, where upon the active player would move his forces, then both players would shoot in the shooting phase, with wound resolution at the end of the phase. It was thematically nice, and it did what I wanted (it also solved first turn alpha strike), but again, it makes the game take longer. Meaning you get to play out less board states than you do with traditional igougo in the same allotted time. Ultimately I went back to the standard way for a variety of reasons, one its more compatible with older resources, and two its just what my friends and I decided we liked. Maybe ill give AA another go sometime, see how it is. I think the only way to solve AA is to have initative like x-wing, which forces a move order on units so you dont get msu stall.Out of curiosity, would you do AA and still have phases? Or merge such that when a unit activates he does everything.>>92652053One thing I havn't worked out in a way I like is distributing overwatch to the 2nd player. Right now scout units get it. But it feels rather contrived. Im always hesitant to dish out muginsy rules like "the 2nd player gets to pick 1 unit per 500 points to overwatch with, even if it might actually be a good solution. My friends and I also like to play with a lot of terrain, so turn one alpha strike is certainly lessened.
Also Im just going to post the remaining 3 codices Ive made in case someone wants them.
crons
Nids
>>92646098Thanks anon, hope you like it.
