ded editionPrevious Thread >>93107027>What are these threads?Fourk is a place for people to discuss homebrew 40k projects. Fourk is not a unified project, but instead a commons where we can dream up great new rules for tailoring the perfect 40k experience, and for players to find a ruleset that best aligns with their wants. Most of these projects so far center around the 3rd to 6th ed era.As it stands, there are currently multiple projects in various stages of completion relating to /fourk/, and the thread has become a community repository for all of these various works. Anons are welcome to share their own homebrews as well!Find the current listing here: https://pastebin.com/QGYx56X3>Why are you doing this?Cause we like to. Complaining is the real hobby.>How can I contribute?Talk about rules! Post your ideas in the thread and things you want to see in your perfect version, and respond to other posts making proposals, or present material you have prepared such as rules text or art. The more specific, concrete, and actionable your submission is the more likely it is to be used. "I want a better psychic phase" is fine, but describing in detail what you think that should be like is better.
>>93195571Bump
Why don't hecking chuds want Votann in /fourk/? Starcraft's aesthetic is epic.
>>93200353Someone already packported it your dummy.
bump
>>93200353Because we want dwarves
Shame how dead this is now. I hope you guys can keep the project alive. Maybe when screaming nid anon comes back if he comes back that will inject life into it again.
>>93211222I think people are just in a period of writing, having talked over a bunch of ideas. I know thats what I am doing, I dont really have anything new to share right now as I am half way through a revision.
>>93214885That's what I've been doing too. Sorry for not dropping in. Are you doing a system wide revision or working on a particular book?I'm still getting the rough draft for the Dark Eldar codex assembled. Its been slow going for outside reasons, but I'm almost done getting the units written out. That's more of a pre-rough draft step since I'll need to go over everything once its done and see what clashes between units or could end up being over or underpowered.For a sample of where I'm at, this is my first pass at the Haemonculus that I finished earlier today. I had mentioned in a previous thread that I wanted to give the leaders of Dark Eldar armies customization options so the player could have a suitably impressive leader for their kabals and cults, so that's the major focus of the profile.
>>93215134The dial in your champion part is looking cool. Im not sure how much you have worked out the balance yet, but +1A being less than +1WS doesnt seem right given your to hit chart. Primogen is a cool name btw, I like it.Maybe combine the 4th and 5th Options bullet, and simply make many arms start at 4 instead of 2?
>>93215351Balance has been completely feels-based at this point, so don't look too hard into any of it. It should be in the ballpark but its all up in the air still. I do think you're right on the Attacks being low, I want to leave WS were it is, but A may go up to +6 pts. Once I get the units finished and do a real review I should be ready to share the book.Many Arms is the Sslyth special rule and allows the model to shoot a number of weapons equal to the value given. I wanted to keep that limited with the profile tiers and make sure there's a cost attached because you can end up with a Haemunculus shooting four weapons a turn, potentially with precision shots and high BS. Once I get the equipment list done I should be better balance the actual weapon and profile options.
>>93215431Im not sure what the special rule reads exactly, I had just inferred that it meant you can use more than 2 pieces of wargear in combat, and had nothing to do with the attack stat.>shooting 4 gunsDo infantry get to shoot more than one weapon? I ask because this has been something Ive been thinking over as of late. Ranged heroes just are not a thing in warhammer because ranged weapons inherently do not scale with a more expensive profile; right now ranged weapons on a hero are more of a side gig. Even the real GW heroes, like Illic nightspear, were a joke for there points cost. Ive been tempted to play around and explore the space for improving character shooting without simply giving everyone a 'relic' version of every gun in the game. Cause lets be real bs5 simply does not cut it. So
>>93215515Oh, yeah that's all the rule does is allow more shooting attacks from the model in the same turn. I'm definitely leaning into them being more shooty with a many arms build. Otherwise my system is pretty much how you describe for other infantry. I have to assume that GW felt it was fine since characters getting into close combat is a lot more cinematic than standing back and having fire fights.I'm not really sure what the best option is to improve character shooting under their system. You could maybe tie it to the hero's Initiative and/or attacks in some way? Maybe allow an Initiative test to fire again, or allow successive attacks off of successful hits up to their attack value? I don't know if there's enough their to make a more in depth system without coming up with a new rule.
Are you all too good to post in the monthly homebrew thread or something?
>>93221110Eh, I don't want to throw off a thread full of legitimate homebrew projects with what's really just a fan project. I don't make these threads, but since they've agreed to host me I'll be here while they're around. If they ever drop off I'll probably try to migrate to another 40k thread, but I appreciate having the other 40k fan project creators here to bounce ideas off of.
>>93221231In my experience those residing in the home brew threads are those the furthest from wanting to talk about warhammer. It’s all RPG design. The alternate wargames thread isn’t really appropriate either because the whole point of that thread is to avoid GW content.Same as AAAnon, I enjoy bouncing ideas around.
Bump
>>93215515>>93215709might just be worth it to write in a Gunslinger USR to allow it to be a core book ability to uniformly buff characters that need it. Personally I think it might just be buffing whatever weapon type they have so for example Rapid fire would get a free reload and shoot twice. Pistols extra range and multiple pistols are usable. Heavy weapons gain extra accuracy or are movable. Assault weapons allow Move shoot move extra attack in combat.
Dead concept.
>>93235758Speaking of dead shit, can whoever has access to the pastebin please update the link for AA-40K to this Mega folder? The previous link will no longer be kept up to date. https://mega.nz/folder/EqRzATpY#veXSXgaGG23c462K4ppDJg
>>93237901do you have a link to the discord btw? I'd like to contribute if there is still something going on.
>>93237960I was never in on that unfortunately. If you can get ahold of ScreamingNidAnon I think he should be able to get you a link.
Sup guys. I plan on making a 40k clone of my own mostly based off HH rules. Does anyone have tips for programs to use for nice formatting? I really love how Pepsi-anon’s documentation looks, but I’d also like something of my own.
>>93195571>>93211222It's very obvious why this is "dead". This is a project and/or movement that is already fractured and fragmented within a niche, without any tangible goals. Want people to play something other than current 40k 10th ed? Then you need to FOCUS on a single system, and PROMOTE it. You can't have multiple forks of a niche movement and expect it to grow. Consolidate on one damn gaming system, get promotion going via social media and YouTube battle reports etc, and then MAYBE it can grow to being more than 4 ppl playing. Otherwise we're just stuck with whatever GW gives us as the newest game and rules.
>>93221231You've had 25 replies since friday. You're literally having to bump the thread with nothing to keep it alive. You aren't going to throw off a whole thread with 25replies a week
>>93246210uh oh its the thread police better make it look like we're doing something worthwhile in here guys otherwise more people might wander into a thread they don't like and start complaining. >>93245633unironically there's probably some AI program that you could skim from a google search that would format your stuff in a minute or two for you nowadays.
>>93195571What generally happened to fourk that caused it to die?I lurked here for a while and then notice that it is dead/dying.
>>93248195everyone is too busy writing rules to discuss them.
>>93210515But anon, they were all eaten by the nids
I realize that it might be slightly off-topic, but is the author of doc related around?Have you made any progress? Do you have a link I can find your stuff at?
What do you guys think about this as a combat system?All units hit on a 2+ regardless of Weapon Skill. All models legible to fight in the combat roll their attacks. Then each model's successful hits are paired off against an enemy’s successful hit. A die with a higher score than the die it is paired with wins the pairing and the lower die is discarded and does not count as a hit. Having a higher Weapon skill than the opponent means that the successful hits from the model with the higher Weapson skill wins any pair off ties. Any excess dice that are not 1’s and have not been paired off automatically counts as hits against the target unit (weight of attacks will always overcome talent) Priority to pair off dice goes to the model(s) with the highest initiative in each combat (or some rare implemented special rule like fight first).
