How close to completion of a functional rules system are you, /fourk/ team?
Not trying to be rude just curious.

>>93107274
I know there's a couple, like AA-anons version, that are in a playable state, mostly going through playtesting.
I've been slow going on my BGA/4e Conversion due to focusing on prepping for a con next week

So if I wanted to play 999.m41 as Imperial guard should I just use the 3.5e codex and would it work pretty well?

>>93107943
Yup. Or you could use the 5th ed book if you prefer that one, Its what my friend likes. Both have good stuff in them.

You will need to make rulings about a few things. The astropath's special rule alters the reserves roll, and since reserves are no longer random that wont work. Other than that its pretty much only stuff that you would have encounter in the 5th to 6th transition FAQ. So hull points on vehicles (use 2 for sentinels, maybe 3 for artillery, 4 for tanks). And psychic powers, just pretend they are all warp charge 1.

Let's talk the Chapter Traits from SM 4th. These were the most flavorful perks I think SM's ever had prior to every Chapter's 5th cousin's menial getting a solo codex.

Hot take: I think that Chapter Traits should be expanded, and 'variant' SM codexes be abolished. I think things like Thunderwolf Cavalry, Death Company squads, Templar Neophytes, etc., should either be lock-in options similar to how god-armies work for Chaos, or made into 'totally not' generics. As in, a unit that has a cap per list with stats that 'strongly reflect' what they're meant to represent. That way, if you wanted to treat it like Thunderwolves? Go nuts. If you want to treat it instead like some kind of heavy jetbike for your White Scars successors? Do it.

Am I totally off the mark here?

>>93108054
The 4th ed space marine build-a-bear chapter maker was pretty fun.

>subfaction codecies
to quote myself from last thread
>I think it’s a terrible design choice to make sub factions that end up as just ways to min max an army. Stuff like ‘plus one to hit in melee’ should never exist. Sub factions should never be something a player feels the need to switch between from one game to another. Instead they should focus on unique force organization alterations or unique units, things that center around faction identity.

So I dont think that variant specific space marine units or stuff should be abolished. I just dont see the reason too in a homebrew setting, where in my eyes the goal is to make the best rules for the models you have and like. My distaste for sub-faction codices comes entirely from GWs rolling release schedule, where 5 god damn space marine books come out before another faction gets their stuff. So I agree that in the short term, all space marines should use the same book, once the bandwidth opens up I see no reason not to.

>>93108292
While I agree with the notion, I feel that the way 4th did it was near-perfect. It wasn't just that you got that '+1 in melee', it's that you got that at the cost of not being able to do things like charge out of a transport. There was always a downside, whether it was in your army composition or other such things.

>>93108397
Yes the 4th ed stuff was quite good. The reason I used that example is that, minus the marine codex which felt kinda like a 3rd ed holdover, basically there was no build a bear chapter stuff between 4th 5th 6th and 7th ed. And when it returned in 8th ed it was all in the form of "my iyandin get +1 cover save!" or "my space wolves get +1 to hit!". Which was trash.

Any time where you have a situation where a player with his pained up ultramarines needs to say "today these are counts as black templar", cause his list suddenly gets better for free with no other changes, means you fucked up.

Dakka Dakka Dakka!
When shooting with an Ork unit in your army for every successful unmodified ‘6’ to hit you may also count an unmodified ‘1’ to hit from the same unit also as a successful hit.

>>93110265
While this sounds like a fun rule to play out in person, on regular BS2 orks it has the same effect of increasing their average to BS3, but with more swing. If you increase their BS then either there dakka needs to go down or the points need to be rebalanced up. Maybe it could be reserved for a specific unit?

>>93110599
well its conditional on how many 1's and 6's you roll together at once so only really buffs units up to BS3 in large enough batches of dice rolling (the intent I suppose) in reality its maybe BS2.5 average on smaller units. You can either roll too many 6's or too few 1's or vice versa. I guess it also has anti-synergy with Twin-linked and preferred enemy unless the interaction is specified properly. Personally I loathe putting extra conditions on rules in general but I suppose DDD could only kick in as a rule when within range of an designated objective markers (ammo dump) or when not moving or not being able to charge afterwards but then I feel like its meant to be a blanket buff for all Orks and not just hard focused on shooting units which these extra conditionals would then favour to the point it would unbalance the army list.

Alright I wanted to continue the discussion from the end of the last thread about hit and wound allocation. The most crunchy and interesting of topics for sure. I have probly typed up and typed over 4 or 5 "clever" rules for order of operations and what not, but yesterday I took a step back to try to analyze the problem, and this is what I came up with. You either have to settle with some form of spill-over, or you have to implement slow dice. And the earlier you allocate to models, the worse the spillover problem becomes.

4th
>roll all hits > roll all wounds using mode > allocate saves to largest save group first
5th
>roll all hits > roll all wounds using mode > allocate saves between game-different models, no spill over.
Varying forms I have written
>roll all hits > allocate wounds amongst similar kinds of models > roll save, no spill over
>roll all hits > allocate wounds and make saves slow rolling both
>roll all hits > 'average' wound rolls and recombine into one pool > allocate and slow roll saves.
When it comes to allocation, I like to use a blend, where the attacker gets to choose against which hit groups he allocates his different weapons, but the defender gets to allocate his unsaved wounds within those groups.

So I guess the question becomes what do you guys prefer? Slow rolling or accepting some level or another of dealing with spill over cases?

>>93111049
Is ork shooting really that overcosted? Seems fine to me. Personally the removing the random shots on lootas is where I would start, or at least making it roll per model rather than per unit.
>loota = 15 points
>IG auto cannon team = 25 points

>>93111320
random on the lootas is why they are 15 to begin with instead of 25 like an IG autocannon

Its mainly because slugga boyz always seem a better pick than +1pt shootas in 4-5th the extra 5+ shot never really made up for the quantity/quality/synergy of attacks the sluggas got (I forget when they got rid of the choppa rule too). As much as boyz were just power klaw delivery system a lot of the time regardless. A lot of the weapon that were good for orks were the blast weapons and things with twin-linked because you didn't have to chance some 5+ rolls to get some somewhat reliable damage from your weapons.

I was only thinking about this because a while back someone said in the thread that ork shooting sucks so I was thinking of a way to boost it without breaking it at the same. Maybe you are right and just fix it points instead.

>>93111776
Average of 2 hits still though, just like the autocannon. I thought the points difference was more to do with the worse ballistic skill and one less wound.
But no dont let me dissuade you, if orks need a shooting boost a special rule (that doesnt effect their CC ability) is a great way to handle things. And your rule is cool because of how it has less effect on orks who can aim than those who cant, which I like. Mechanically it is well thought out.
But I remember the talk about orks a while back and remember the tone of it coming across the same way some people say "tau should be BS 4 cause they are a shooty army". And you just gotta tell those people "no".

Sex

>>93111882
but not for you

Dead concept.

How would you incorporate concepts from 40k rpgs like dark heresy?
I feel like there's a lot of world building and concepts there that have never gotten explored on the tabletop.

>>93113630
I stopped caring when they decided to keep IGOUGO

>>93111867
To be fair I think also in a alternating unit activation game 5+ doesnt matter as much since its not like most of the army gets nuked before it can do damage. It always felt in 40k games if you missed then unit was probably dead next turn and there weren't many options other than hope you hit in your own turn to at least get some value before dying horribly.

Personally I always found my friend's ork army did shooting well for the most part but that was because he took the units that could shoot well instead of trying work with the bad shooting options in the ork army. I wouldn't be opposed to giving baseline orks a buff like this even if the complaint originated in some flawed thinking. Maybe have the rule apply to Troops only just to raise the floor on shooting output for the army.

>>93114523
I mean I don't see why there couldnt just be an off shoot of the project that allows AA to work alongside the rules currently. Theres a couple of versions in this thread from other contributors that already does AA I think? My own homebrew I'm working on once again thanks to this thread actually uses a playing-card based AA system because I like those decks of cards they occasionally released with sweet 40k artwork on them. If the mainline /fourk/ system doesnt have more interactivity than the 40k has had historically I wll be sad though.

>>93114523
>>93114699
Guys not only is there an alternating activation ruleset linked in the pastebin, but is nearly faction complete…
You can go play it.

>>93114699
>uses a playing-card based AA system because I like those decks of cards they occasionally released with sweet 40k artwork on them.
That sounds rad as hell.

>>93114523
According to this post last thread >>93059122 SNA and his friends are planning some form of alternating phases rather than strictly igougo, so maybe stick around and see if it suits you.

>>93116660
>and see if it suits you.
Screamer is pretty tied to his Igougo with reactions.

>>93059122
>>93116660
>>93115985
v interesting. i'll skim thru AA-40k.

>>93116824
As someone who has played AA, I will say that I really like the way the alternate activation is implemented. It is not over cumbersome to the game flow and still has a lot of that classic 40k feeling in the actions.

File: chenkov.jpg (31 KB, 640x480)

31 KB JPG

>>93116456
Thanks yeah its still work in progress but essentially each player chooses a suit/colour, in army list selection each Troop/FA/HS gives a numbered card while each HQ/Elite unit gives a royal card. Both players cards are shuffled together and 5 cards are drawn from the deck at a time which act as a priority timeline left to right. When a card is used to activate a unit the card used from the timeline goes on a seperate discard pile nearby. Royal cards (JQKA) on the timeline can be spent activating a unit ability or special army rules (twin-linked for a turn or something like Oath of moment from space marines in 10th ed or some thematic deck/card/timeline manipulation for factions like Eldar) instead of activating a unit with it. Once all the cards have been put on the discard pile you then draw from the top of the discard deck and start the process over again and keep going until every unit on the board has been activated. Essentially because it starts playing out priority again in reverse order you never feel like you've been robbed by RNG activation as essentially all those 'missing activations' from the timeline (say if your opponent gets 4-5 cards on the timeline at once) means there will also be activation sequences where you yourself get uncontested activations later on. Plus I suppose theres a skill and opportunity for gameplay shenanigans if the discard pile isnt just shuffled by default after all the cards are used. I could see an army like Genestealer Cults having a shuffle mechanic or card priority ambush mechanic if you top deck a royal card for example. Its WIP like I said because I don't want to make it all consuming/complex and inevitably take away from the fun of pushing miniatures around the board.

My homebrew also has a flexible turn structure so the player who rolled priority each turn can choose which phase of the turn gets played first so depending on how many actions you know are coming up through the deck it adds more depth.

>>93115985
thanks I thought there was I only click pdf links in the replies never really checked out the pastebin fully.

>>93116885
Sounds like a nice solution to AA. I like how you plan to trying cards to units, it’s one of the weakest aspects of AA that it incentivizes making your worst moves first. Some form of random forced activation will be really nice. You can combine it with an Ready and Waiting / Overwatch action of sorts to ease out any uncomfortableness.
Did you mean to say you don’t shuffle the discard deck or did I just reward you wrong? Maybe playing two rounds snake draft could be cool actually.

>>93116885
>>93117096
Simply curious, what is wrong with just choosing which units to activate? I don't understand why activation needs a card system.

File: 2BEE82FC-5474-4113-B459-F(...).jpg (273 KB, 1170x952)

273 KB JPG

>>93117281
It’s mostly a philosophical viewpoint. I saved this screenshot from different thread a few weeks ago, I think it captures very well how I feel about it. It just comes down to personal preference I suppose.
There is another aspect of AA that (potentially) anons card timeline method could be a great solution for. The biggest hurdle to any AA game is how much more turnover lag there is because players have to re-assess the game state after every move. I don’t know if the card anon had intended things to works like this, but if at the top of the round the whole timeline becomes visible (rather than top decking all the way through) then players could plan out and keep to their strategy better.

>>93117753
idk, I want to activate my really important or well positioned units first. phobos omni-scrambler is entirely based on denying activating a unit for x activations. if you kill a model before it even activates on a TP, you're way ahead.
I think it comes down to the KT that anon is playing, or they're playing very turtle-y. KT is aggressive.

I don't know if it's 40k applicable, but I've been playing around with the Idea of "covering fire". Some sort of action that a unit can take where it provides another unit the benefit of suppressing fire. I guess in 40k, the equivalent would be something like the old Pinning rule.

I just really love the idea that unit A might not have clear line of sight to an enemy unit, so rather than aim to kill, they simply bombard the enemy unit so they *keep* their cover, and almost deny them an activation, or provide some sort of negative modifier to the unit, freeing up unit B to advance unmolested.

I know it might be too fiddly to work in 40k, but I'm sure some anon with a bigger brain than me can either make it work or remove the idea from the thread completely by calling me a faggot or something

I like the sound of this card based activation system. I've used something similar is dome hex based wargames and it can be pretty fun. One thing I've seen implemented for more "horde" based factions are tokens or cards that when drawn allow multiple units to activate. One game I played, nuklear winter, even had a faction that activated it's entire force every time a counter was drawn, meaning they got two activations for every unit in their army per game turn. 40k is less abstract than those games, bit you may be able to use similar systems.

>>93117753
I more agree with this anon >>93117922 that while you could use chaff units to burn activations, that would probably come down to an active decision on your part during list creation. It could also be just a big mismatch in army sizes, such as a heavily terminator based space marine army against a tyranid swarm, but I would argue that that's both a valid strategy and very fluffy, the tyranid synapse creatures driving their swarms forward to absorb the enemy's firepower while they advance unharmed and attack while the enemy are at their weakest.

I prefer to leave that choice to the player, and not have the activation be random. That being said, even with my setup I think being able to manipulate the turn order is useful, and I think overwatch and command actions help allow that. I do like the idea of laying out a "turn order" by drawing everything though, that could lead to some interesting interactions.

>>93117922
I have played a few different (even homebrewed one of my own) AA skirmish games and there always seems to be the feeling of gaming the activations order in some form or another. The example from the picture I think is just the worst one. That’s not to say I dislike AA in games, I just don’t prefer it to igougo unequivocally.
I think a more creative set of mechanics that can be tailored to the desired feel of the game can add a lot. Take x wing as an example, the pre-planning and initiative system is one of the best mechanics behind that game.

>>93118107
In other games where I have seen this mechanic it either comes on the area denial, like overwatch where upon moving you do so at the threat of peril, or as a form of a debuff.

I think the design behind any form of crowd control is that it has to have a reason for using it instead of just shooting your target regularly. The most obvious answer is to trade output damage for points efficiency. The pinning special rule is basically suppressing fire, but admittedly more if a random consequential bonus rather than something a player can plan around.

So how you’ll you go about implementing it? Say you have two tactical marine squads that can fire upon a target. I like your example, but what other criteria are you after such that one squad using suppressing fire makes the other squad kill better than both squads otherwise shooting in parallel. I can most easily imagine it being a special rule applied to some wargear that is aggressively costed for instance but I think you are aiming to bake it in at a lower level? It could open up a cool form of utility to damaged squads too.

Suppressing fire could also be a really cool counter action to hiding, if you wanted to also include that mechanic.

>>93118722
It's interesting, because as you said, it needs to be something tactically different than just choosing to fire normally at the unit. But also something thematically different from " Hey, why does declaring suppression fire do something different than my guys literally shooting to kill"

It could be something applied during the regular firing of a unit, giving utilities to shots that miss. Every x amount of shots that miss apply some sort of suppression effect through volume of fire. Adds utility. And softens rng around atrocious die rolls.

It also opens up weapon stats/key words that could make them have additional bonuses to suppression

>>93118722
I'd just steal blast markers from BFG and Epic.

>>93120314
Please give me the run down on those again? Blast markers count = number of squads in platoon are stunned or something like that?

File: firefight.png (56 KB, 604x292)

56 KB PNG

>>93117096
yeah its meant to be snake draft (I've never heard of that term before but seems apt!) format. I think at a base level it would be a good platform to work off. Some factions could mess with ordering and who goes first within the 5 card draw and with various influences on it. Maybe there would be a some sort of mechanic within that incentivising the players to not play cagey without the threat of introducing too much RNG.

>>93118129
>One thing I've seen implemented for more "horde" based factions are tokens or cards that when drawn allow multiple units to activate.
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah I was thinking about that and some of the JQKA abilites would allow something like an imperial guard platoon command squad to activate the rest of the platoon nearby or a tyranid hive tyrant allowing friendly units nearby to all charge at on a single activation (negating multiple overwatches/counter charges). I would like to consider it to be akin to MESBG with heroic actions but without the limiting and time consuming Might/Will/Fate system in terms of the resource tracking and scalability. This could lead to too many abilities being tied to the draw of cards and not enough on-board rules presence and ending up with a horrendous 9th ed strategems bloat so I would probably try to keep to thematic and powerful risk/reward moves that smart/experienced players will play around or counter play instead 20 different gotcha mechanics an army could do at any given time.

>>93117096
>You can combine it with an Ready and Waiting / Overwatch action of sorts to ease out any uncomfortableness.
Interesting yeah. I was looking at having a 'firefight' rule to activate outside of the 5-card timeline where essentially you don't use a card if you want to fire at the unit that is firing at you (barring modifiers/pinning, etc) if you pass an initiative test.

File: clipped.jpg (92 KB, 1331x1440)

92 KB JPG

>>93120553
also with a card system each game played will be unique :^)
There are exactly 52! or 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 possible arrangements of a standard 52-card deck.

>>93120381
Basically, even if hits don't ultimately damage, they inflict a blast markers which can suppress. Iirc, there's also a rule for supporting fire from nearby units.

And a unit surrounded by explosions looks cool on the tabletop.

>>93118722
>>93120031
I'm honestly not sure. Like I said, it's just something I've been toying around with, and I'm a retard, so I don't really know where to go with it.

I _think_ my instinct is this;
Unit A cannot draw line of sight to enemy unit E.
Unit A lays covering fire on Unit E and declares that Unit E cannot (in its next turn) move to a position that would bring it into line of sight to Unit A
Additionally, Unit E cannot fire upon a nominated unit, in this case Unit B, in its next turn.
Unit B, MUST advance/run as a result of covering fire being declared.

Unit A would obviously have a penalty applied, something like no movement in that turn and the following turn or something similar.

I'd suggest this is only a once per game thing. And I'd say it was only something infantry or walkers can perform, upon infantry. This would be next level stupid if tanks started doing it, or infantry did it to tanks.

Like I said, I'm retarded so I'm sure this wouldn't work for one or more reasons, but I'm playing around with it in my head for now

>>93120381
You gain a Blast Marker for coming under fire, plus an additional one for each casualty you suffer.

Each BM stuns a stand, disallowing it from shooting. They are applied back to front (compared to the target), and only among stands that could actually participate in that shooting attack (i.e. no counting stands outside of LoS/range as suppressed).

Once a unit gains BMs equal to the number of stands composing it, it breaks immediately, and has to retreat two moves. Broken units cannot conduct any actions until they manage to regroup in an end phase, but they're not literally forced to continue retreating (they are destroyed if ending a turn within an infantry move from any enemies though).

Having any BMs also gives a unit -1 to the activation roll (a check to see if a unit makes a full or partial activation), and influences melee resolution (+1 if you don't have any BM, +1 if you have less than your opponent).

>>93116801
His head was tied to his ass from the start, it's still kinda funny how you try to make this a community project when all of you want different things. Now that the anger from custodes is fading, are you really going to keep at this?

>>93124979
I probably will. Even if my BGA conversion only ever gets used by me and my friends, I still wanna do it. One, because I dislike the mechanical direction modern 40k has gone, two, because I enjoy homebrewing and designing systems and this helps me get some more experience working with more constraints, and three, because I've got a ton of warhams models I want to keep playing with.
For me it was never about custards (should have stayed a background detail) or whatever. I just want to make the 40k I want to play.

>>93111223
>roll to hit
>roll to wound using majority Toughness
>defender allocates wounds and takes saves
As long as the defender doesn't cause overkill, and doesn't abuse multi-wound models to avoid removing models as casualties, I don't see a problem.

For example, if a tactical squad takes 10 wounds, the space marine player puts 7 of them on the seven marines that are just normal bolter marines.
5 of the bolter marines survive, and he puts the remaining 3 wounds on those 5 bolter marines again.

>>93127803
I am starting to lean towards slow dice like you indicated, rather than having some convoluted pre-allocation. The most complicated unit is probably the dark eldar beast master, which has 4 different types all with varying toughnesses and saves.

I do have an idea of "averaging" toughness by allocating dice out evenly, rolling to wound, then re-pooling them all. Its pretty fast and I have always hated the majority toughness thing.

File: 31hmh7de5pl51.png (122 KB, 640x334)

122 KB PNG

>the nogames nomodels containment thread is still active
You're doing the board a valuable service, keep doing what youre doing, or I guess more accurately keep refraining from doing anything of value

>>93127803
If you want to do something very different, you could steal from something I think came from the SST game designed by Andy Chambers which IIRC had hit allocation work by placing a template over a unit. Everything under the template was equally allocated damage dice, defender's choice.

File: the real hobby.png (560 KB, 754x708)

560 KB PNG

>>93127983

>>93120381
Maelstrom's Edge also uses blast markers and is squad-platoon scale. The rules are free on their website if you want to take a look. They stack penalties on discipline checks that are needed for troops to activate properly.

>>93127907
Personally I'm a fan of equally spreading out all wounds over legal targets in a unit. If there are a models in a target that aren't visible then they shouldn't be able to sponge bullets for models caught in the open. I'm also a fan of the 6th ed rule (I think) where if the enemy is benefitting from a cover save but there are models from that unit in the open you can target fire those models while denying the blanket cover save of the unit. Obviously only the models in the open would be eligible for taking wounds then but I thought it was a neat rule that promoted and interesting decision making on maybe sniping carelessly placed specialist models in a squad without having the horrendous rule of closest models to the firing unit are removed first which 6th and 7th did have.

File: Dark Eldar Cover.png (1.91 MB, 1015x1350)

1.91 MB PNG

>>93135228
I agree with this. It's what I went with and allowed the defender to allocate hits among the eligible models as they see fit. I used the rules for complex units for mixed Toughness/save units and kept the rules for torrent of fire from 4th so that if the attacker can get an overwhelming number of hits, they can still try and force down a specific model.

On an unrelated note, I'm getting my rough draft of the dark eldar codex put together and I'm starting to think ahead on it. Should there be rules for designing your own kabal, or should I focus the book on building different types of dark eldar armies? Like kabalite, wych cult, under city reavers etc. If I do go with build-a-kabal, what would be a good way to do it? I'm currently thinking about something along the lines of the chapter traits from the 4th edition space marine codex.

This is my first draft of a cover as well. I've always liked the picture and had it saved to my computer already. I think it contrasts well with the craftworld cover and that it captures some of the look of old school dark eldar with the better style of the faction post revamp. Any suggestions for art that might work better?

File: DarkEldar001.pdf (139 KB, PDF)

139 KB PDF

Alright Ive been cranking through the dark eldar codex, porting it all to my latest template. I actually wrote 90% of this like 8 years ago back when I knew much less latex. But I have finally gotten around to it now, and its good enough for a first pass. Someone who actually has dark eldar models should give it a once over cause its probly chock full of errors. Its mostly just a port of 5e with whatever stuff I felt like changing along the way that I do not remember.

>>93135679
I'm not super familiar with chapter traits, but if it's anything like the 3.5e Guard's "build a regiment" system, it could definitely be interesting as an alternative system for list building

>>93135679
I don't think every faction needs a build-a-chapter customisation system. If you write the codex well enough there should be multiple archetypes within the book and multiple themes within that to encourage units to synergize well together in a lore friendly way.

File: file.png (518 KB, 604x372)

518 KB PNG

Hey look Blood Ravens!

Overload: A psychic power with the overload rule is unable to be used by the psyker who casted it for (x) number of turns until after the power has been cast. (x) is specified under the specific psychic power entry itself.

Warp Drain: If a psyker is using more than one power per turn. When casting another power after the first, subtract the warp charge number of the power from the leadership of the psyker.

(i.e. Eldrad Ulthuan casts Scrier’s Gaze (Blessing 2), this is the first power cast this turn. Therefore he suffers no negative effects from Warp Drain, however, he also attempts to cast Prescience (Blessing 2, 18”) and therefore suffers a -2 to his Ld when trying to cast this power.)

Working off the 6th ed rules for psychic powers.

>>93136750
I don't think wyches should have a 5+ armour save. I really like the mandrake special rule. I feel like the tokens should be removed if an enemy moves within 6" to give the opponent more counter-play to them. Mandrake also have -1Ap which needs fixing same with eyeburst (unless meant to be that way?). I haven't gone through all the wargear/items as thats a lot of words but I'm sure they're fine if they're anything like the original codexes they came from.

Good stuff my dude.

>>93142291
SOVL

>>93118129
I do think your command point system really does tie together your AA stuff.

>>93123601
The idea you came up with is already pretty cool, especially as a tool for interacting with AA. So I wouldnt downplay your ideas so much.

>>93124979
This >>93125236 is how I feel about things too. I just enjoy making rules.

>>93121292
>>93123863
>>93132538
Cool thanks guys.

>>93135228
Yeh the 6th ed focus fire rule. I actually liked the closest first rules that 6th had, at least on the surface. But there are just too many wierd cases where you get problems. Suddenly blast weapons become the sniper rifles. and things like rhino-waveguides (park two rhinos next to one another making a slit, so the lass cannon devs can only see the one HQ model) were just ugly issues that required clunky exception cases, making the the whole system kinda collapse under its weight. The biggest fault of 6th ed was hiding the good melee units behind the shit ones in combat.

This quote is from 4th ed, I like it 'it can be imagined that these troops [in the back] were slain as they advanced and that the rest of the unit continued moving forward.' I extend the same idea to 'picking up the plasma gun'

>>93135679
I personally do not favor heavy segregation of the dark eldar sub factions. The 5th ed DE book has a rule that if your army is lead by a haemunculi you can take wracks as troops. Thats enough customization to field any heavily themed army you need to. So you gotta think about what else you want to gain from it. I would think about making maybe some sub variations on unit types. Reavers some to mind, as a they dont have a 'trueborn' equivalent. Now that Ive said it I realize there is no way to customize your archon to be a reaver or hellion or scourge type model. So you could lean into something like that. I think making drawbacks to the subfactions is a must for making them interesting.

The 3.5ed Imperial Guard book also had a pretty cool build a bear chapter maker too, check it out as well. I remember they had some cool stuff involving gaining access to special wargear for units which otherwize wouldnt have it.

>>93144098
Do you think that psykers are casting too many powers in 6th ed?

>>93144576
I increased the save of kabalites to 4+, I did the same thing for eldar guardians, this always was laughably low for a hyper advanced species. but maybe the wytches should stay 6+. I need to take a closer look at their minis to make a judgement call.

I dont want to take credit for the mandrakes rule, that is straight from the older 3.5e DE book. But I like your idea about adding some counter play to them. Maybe shooting them could slow down the marker or something too. Getting close could force you to either remove the marker, or reveal the mandrakes at that location.

My rules take both old style AP and new style save reduction as denoted by the negative AP.

Thanks for your review.

>>93145284
I think there should be more of a push to make choosing which power you want to reliably cast and in which order to cast them. A rule like Overload allows for powerful or 'enhanced' versions of powers to be implemented as there is a substantial downside to using them as they are deactivated for a portion of the game afterwards. I think psyker heavy armies are pretty nuts when it comes to what they can achieve and the usually have supporting rules that allow them to do what they do very reliably so adding both of these rules counteracts that somewhat. Stuff like Eldar farseers in falcon/wave serpent bunkers shouldn't just be pooping out force multipliers without somesort of decision making or a downside taking place.

File: plague.jpg (1.44 MB, 2048x1536)

1.44 MB JPG

>>93145600
huh fair enough its a very unique rule that I suppose GSC have nicked in the newer editions of 40k. I like your formatting. RE: wytches they really are scantily clad. I think their resilence should come from their dodge save and their speed. Its not a huge deal being either 5 or 6+ but just feels wrong to see it as a 5+ after they have been sv6+ for so long. The 4+ is nice on the armoured Eldar. I never understood why it was so low either.

>My rules take both old style AP and new style save reduction as denoted by the negative AP.
that makes sense. thanks for clarifying.

>>93145261
Wasn't there a Duke Slicus or something in the 5th ed book (didnt have a model) for jetbike/hellion heavy armies? Maybe that would be somewhere to start.

File: baron2.png (351 KB, 747x539)

351 KB PNG

>>93145678
nvm its this guy

File: best4tkeva.png (76 KB, 1700x872)

76 KB PNG

even the robot overlord thinks that AA would be best topjej

>>93138104
>>93139952
>>93145261
I'm going with force customization. I agree with the points made in its favor, I knew that in more recent editions there had been what were basically 'kabal traits' and I wasn't sure how well those worked. I snagged a copy of the 9th edition rulebook and I wasn't impressed. Just a bunch of bonuses like the army rulebook was incomplete without them. Anyway, I'm thinking I might make dark eldar a little more like orks, who can add legendary titles, customized guns and other bonuses to their bosses, I think that might be an interesting angle to customize a dark eldar army a little bit, probably good with corsair eldar too.

Pepsi Anon, I actually used something similar to the 3.5 guard regiment rules in my own guard codex, but where that codex took away all of your neat bits and made you buy them back along with your custom rules, I set up a more sacrificial system. Your custom regiment starts with everything a standard guard list does, and then you have to sacrifice access to units and take on negative rules to gain access to the unique regiment doctrines. I included most of the established regiments as examples and it seems like a solid system so far, but I need to see what broken combinations can be made from it so I can make adjustments.

>>93144098
What kind of powers would you expect to have the overload ability on?

The warp drain rule is interesting if you're going to have psychic powers play a bigger part, then I remember from 3-5th edition. I forget how prevalent multiple castings per turn were in 6th forward though.

>>93146381
Thanks robot masters.

>>93124979
I've been angry since late 4th edition. Get on my level.

>>93123601
This is leaning in a good direction, but rather than taking away options, you could apply modifiers. Like if you have an overwatch mechanic, you could either have general overwatch were you can shoot enemy units, or you can have sub-types - covering fire, suppressing fire etc and with these, you would have to pick a target. So the player could say, I'm providing covering fire for unit x against unit y, and any shooting attacks made against the covered unit by the enemy suffer -1 to hit, say. Or you could provide suppressing fire, and cause the enemy to either move as if in difficult terrain or suffer a shooting attack. These are just off the cuff, so you would want to think about what you wanted to do obviously. But the idea of your units providing mechanical benefits to each other through basic gunfire instead of unique unit special rules is really good.

>>93145600
Wyches just need to stay fragile to shooting. In terms of the models they're basically just wearing body gloves, I think 6+ works good. If you wanted your could provide a lessened dodge invulnerable save against shooting to represent how nimble they are.

>>93146242
Not sure about anybody else, but I'm bringing all the dark eldar characters back in. Especially the one named after a disney villain.

File: 463959_sm-Chaos, Chaos Sp(...).jpg (76 KB, 600x600)

76 KB JPG

>>93146662
>Anyway, I'm thinking I might make dark eldar a little more like orks, who can add legendary titles, customized guns and other bonuses to their bosses, I think that might be an interesting angle to customize a dark eldar army a little bit, probably good with corsair eldar too.

Sounds like a good idea maybe really lean into the who neurotic, egotistical maniac thing and have the whole army be about the warlord and how cool he is. Crusader Kings 3 level of traits.

https://1d6chan.miraheze.org/wiki/Dark_Eldar_Kabal_Creation_Tables
This apparently exists as a resource so maybe it can inspire somewhat here.

>What kind of powers would you expect to have the overload ability on? The warp drain rule is interesting if you're going to have psychic powers play a bigger part, then I remember from 3-5th edition. I forget how prevalent multiple castings per turn were in 6th forward though.

Essentially stuff that has a heavy front-end effect but should only be used at the right moment for maximum effect. Here's a few I wrote a long time ago:

>Hallucination (Malediction 2, 24”) (Overload 1) Unit treats successful hits as unsuccessful and unsuccessful hits as successful for the turn.
>Transfer Consciousness (Blessing 2, 24”) (Overload 1)
Target Character becomes your Warlord.
>Molten Fusilade (Witchfire 2) (Overload 2)
R24” S8 AP1 Assault 3 Melta.
>Misfortune (Malediction 2, 24”) (Overload 1)
Target unit must discard any rolls of a 6 to Hit, to Wound and must re-roll 6’s to any saves they must take for the turn.

File: main (dragged).pdf (60 KB, PDF)

60 KB PDF

Alright ive been working on typeing up a cohesive catch all set of rules for complex shooting. What I have settled on for now is a slow-dice roll-in-waves approach, where hits are evenly divvied up evenly between hit groups (different types of models), and the defending player gets to allocate unsaved wounds within the hit groups. I also added some fun rules for 'picking up gear' and the like.

When it comes to dealing with any 'remainder' hits, such that there is not enough to give all models left a hit, you start allocating to groups based upon model position, starting from the front.

If someone could go through this and poke holes in it Id appreciate it. Gotta write the melee version next.

>>93145603
I guess it depends on how powerful you want to make your spells and how the rest of your system works. I like the 6th ed 'mana' system myself, casting a bigger spell means you cant cast as many a turn. The psychic stuff is actually something I am in the middle of overhauling right now, so ill keep your ideas in mind.

>>93145678
> I like your formatting
Thanks! I worked pretty hard on that.
>wytches
I think I agree, ill change them to 6+ for the next revision.

>>93146662
I like the idea of legendary titles, thats pretty cool sounding, ill have to check out your ork and guard codex. The main reason I have been avoiding custom sub factions is just the amount of time it takes to come up with creative and interesting special rules that aree flavorful and are not 'do X core mechanic but now do it better'.

>>93146730
As a rule I do not write in any special characters into my books. But I were to change that, 'mini' special characters like the baron is where I would start. Im more interested in getting a codex for every faction first. I do not like hero hammer as a matter of course, preferring to have fun build your own hero options. But there is really no reason you could not just use the characters as printed in existing source material along side the codecies I do write.

>>93146662
I would love to see force customization for most factions as it's great for fluffing out /yourdudes/ and it rewards you for running fluffy armies.

I know about the vehicle creation table for 3rd, but was there ever anything for making your own units?

>>93150632
*infantry units

>>93150632
Not that I can think of? closest thing I might be the guard codex customizer, I think there was some wargear options and such in there?

Bump