>What is Project Fourk-Hammer?Project Fourkhammer 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 out of production Fourth Edition. Complete with properly balanced factions, and back-ported post-4th edition released models. Think Warhammer Armies Project but for Warhammer 40k's Fourth Edition.So far the main objectives at hand will be to:Look for a homebase to archive agreed upon stats/re-balances of currently existing factionsLook for a homebase for players who have played 4th edition/have not played 4th edition gather around to learn/re-learn fourth edition and homebrew Project Fourk-hammer.Brainstorm out a formula to use stats shown on Wahapedia to more hastily back-port post 4th Edition released models into the 4th Edition format in "testing" form before they are properly balanced.Construct a proper OP format should things get off the ground.Remember to bump when this thread reaches page 8 and/or 9.Thought for the thread: "All praise to the Emperor."
>backport post released unitsImperial Guard autogun sergeant should be an easy one if the autogun stats already exist in the fourth edition imperial guard codex.
A fine idea anon and something I think about a lot. I think like most, would love a 3-4 merge. There's probably a small amount of cool things from later editions but I never went further than 5th. I commend you and wish you the best. I can do all sorts (art/scripting/admin stuff) so if this takes off, consider me on-board.
Should the malleus rocket launcher's main ability be a beefier but more expensive mortar team with guaranteed 12 shots but less range? But also with the same armour stats as a mortar team to make it a powerful glass cannon?Before anybody calls me out. This is the first time in my life I've ever tried suggesting anything game design related.
>>92552036I think Fem Custodes miniatures should get +5 on all roles.
Took a look at the Wahapedia Cadian Castellan and I think the stats are fine. It is the abilities that I am not fine with as I think it may require a total rewrite. What should the 4th edition Cadian Castellan's abilities be?
>>92552128I’d say S:6, Barrage, Blast, Pinning Weapon.
I feel like everyone begins focusing on backporting models, it'd make more sense to get a solid core going>what's being kept of 4th>what's being thrown out>what's being reworked>balancing existing codices Then those need to be bundled up into an easily accessible form so that it can be passed around and used as a reference point for things like new models/power levels.
>>92552296Yes agreed. Get a base level of agreement going before even thinking about individual stats.
>>92552296Good idea
>>92552296Yeah, do we want to use 4e rules "as-is" or do we want to do updates? Probably a good idea to figure that out before we get deep into backporting units and cleaning up codices like you say. Some low-hanging fruit is the activation system. AA is off the table imo, but Reactions like in HH or a MESBG style system are negotiable. Another one is templates (presumably people will want them to stay), and vehicle rules.
>>92552036>4th editionNo. Use the latest 3-7th ruleset that already has many improvements: The Age of Darkness rulebook for the HH.Then add 40k armies based in the HH ones, the Panoptica fandexes, or porting them from 7th+
>>92552051Autoguns and Lasguns are interchangeable statwise. It's only a cosmetic change. As it should be. Sargeants can take lasguns
Sounds kino but I have questions>HH Reactions. Yay or nay?>How will Primaris be handled? I think they should be a separate Codex from Manlet Marines>Any autists willing to compile the data for BattleScribe?Other than that hell yeah
>>92552296Especially when model range bloat is one of the bigger issues with the current game. Fact is, it's a big ask to get the manpower to stat up every single modern unit when you should probably start by proxying them as older ones whenever possible.The first start should probably be by checking out the existing fangames and seeing what you do and don't like about them. If you're real lucky one might already have a lot of solutions for your problems. A catalogue of each one and their features is a concept.
>>92552036Is this a "Warhammer, but with Blackjack and hookers" scenario?If so, I support it.
>>92552036I don't think 4th is a good edition to work with. Rules like target priority, size categories, and strategy rating (does anyone even remember strategy rating?) make 4th edition basically just a more complicated version of 3rd edition without any benefit.You'd be better off just patching 5th edition, because that edition at least added things to the game, and its main weakness was down to the codexes, not the core rules.That said, it at least had more codex releases than 4th edition.
>>92552128Count as Thudd Gun. Backport Vraks stuff to 4th and give those rules to the new models
>>92552253Castellan is basically the old edition senior officer, platoon con is junior officer both have stats
>>92552253Just a Colonel Officer and attach him to his mandatory command squad.
>>92552363>do we want to use 4e rules "as-is" or do we want to do updates?Without updating the core rules, you're really just making fan codices instead of a proper fork. Which is fine mind you but probably not what this project is really about. It might also help to list which codices are going to be the base for this just for the sake of completion. I think a short term roadmap like this would work>Pick the edition for the foundation (which seems to be 4th so good job)>List out every codex that will be used for this this. Just to start let's only do proper ones and not Chapter Approved/White Dwarf addons.>Go through chapter by chapter of 4th to see what parts we want to keep and what needs reworked>If something needs reworked, throw out some examples from other editions/wargames that are cool and see how people react to that.
>>92552380>>Any autists willing to compile the data for BattleScribe?Yep. I don't think there is any premade 4th dataset right? I can't find it. I have 3 though...
>>92552363>>92552367>>92552380For reference here it is the HH2 rulebook:> https://workupload.com/file/haFRhf7tEE7And wahapedia now has all the Lelgion profiles so you can see how they work:> https://wahapedia.ru/heresy2/factions/legiones-astartes/It should be easy to port 40k imperials and xenos to this ruleset
>>92552484This is the basic bitch SM unit:https://wahapedia.ru/heresy2/factions/legiones-astartes/Legion-Tactical-Squad
>>92552380I'm in favor of "use your Primaris Hellblaster model as a Space Marine equipped with a plasma gun". This is retro, Primaris don't exist other than as an option for models if you want.
You mind if I throw in a few suggestions?>1. Second edition styled combat: Should be for character v character interactions. Regular fighting between units remain the same as it was in 4th.>2. When compiling backported models, don't be afraid of making some of them just war gear options, like for example with Necron destroyer variants just say that a Necron Destroyer squad can take Lokhust skiffs, Skorpekh bodies or Ophydian bodies>3. Set a hard limit on how big a model can be. Of course, also make exceptions like the Monolith was A-ok back in the day because of the function it served more than anything.
>>92552380>>92552531Still jumping the gun a bit but I do agree just running Primaris as regular SM is probably the best route. For a project like this we're going to want to minimize the amount of work that needs to be done, and sitting down and making Space Marines 2 just seems like a lot of effort for minimal gain.
>>92552581The only problem I can see is certain primaris units. Like, heavy intercessors probably will be fine but Aggressors and Inceptors will be a bit harder to fit into the mold. Of course, we can just ignore them entirely, but I dunno. I did an attempt to try and roll in all of the gravis and phobos units into one unit for a 2nd edition backport with war gear and it isn't great, but it was my best guess to allow those units into an older edition without bloating the roster.
>>92552459Since the first stop the roadmap is all but "officially" sorted, I say let's get cracking on a list of Codices.My proposed list:>Codex: Space Marines>Codex: Imperial Guard>Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus>Codex: Witch Hunters>Codex: Daemonhunters>Codex: xyz of Khorne >Codex: xyz of Nurgle>Codex: xyz of Tzeentch>Codex: xyz of Slaanesh>Codex: Chaos Undivided>Codex: Eldar>Codex: Dark Eldar>Codex: Orks>Codex: Tyranids>Codex: T'au>Codex: NecronsI think this is at least a good start since it gives 5 for each "type".
So why 4th edition? I'm curious.
>>925526433rd edition but refined. 2nd edition would've been a cool base as well but most people remember 40k as 3rd/4th so here we are.
>>92552628Assuming we're using the 3.5 Chaos codex for this, then I think the god specific ones aren't really necessary. Veteran skills, chaos gifts, and wargear cover most things outside of really specific daemon engines and other large units.
>>92552614>Inceptors Double plasma pistol Jump Pack marines>Agressors Heavy flamer/Assault cannon terminators It's not perfect, but it's simple and a good enough representarion of the models. These projects mainly fail by being too ambitious. Also, if a statline is already from GW, if easier to get it approved as "canon" or whatever you want to call it by the community
Maybe this is a dumb question but will marines be on 32 mm bases or something else?I support the idea of fans making "forks" of popular games and settings though. Maybe MTG needs this.
>>92552628I'm with anon here >>92552663Outside of Death Guard who have a ton of stuff to fill their own codex, the other cult armies are probably fine just to run the 3.5 dex style. It'd be interesting to see what is done with the cult specific units that we now have though, whether they are locked to the various chaos god specific books within the dex and are locked unless if you pick a certain chaos legion or can be used in any army but are locked to their mark.>>92552677You know what? Fair. I've burnt myself out on my own project for the same reason, did Necrons, Dark Eldar and started Nids and Marines but lost the interest. I'll be lurking and throwing out suggestions to this project.
>>92552655What does 4th add that actually makes it better instead of '3rd edition with more steps'?
>>92552705Eh, as a Death Guard player arguably a large amount of their codex is "Plague Marine with X gear and maybe Y feature." If you're going back to older 40k style where that shit is handled with the customization features from the Chaos Space Marine 3.5 codex, you're missing out less than you'd think. Really the following would be hard to replicate in that:>Mortarion>Poxwalkers (just give them Alpha Legion Cultists but with melee only)>Foetid-Bloat Drone>Myphitic Blight-haulers>Plagueburst CrawlerMaybe the Tallyman too. Still, less bad than you'd think.
>>92552663You're probably correct, better to just go with 3.5e style for now.Then amended the list becomes:>Codex: Space Marines>Codex: Imperial Guard>Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus>Codex: Witch Hunters>Codex: Daemonhunters>Codex: Chaos Undivided>Codex: Eldar>Codex: Dark Eldar>Codex: Orks>Codex: Tyranids>Codex: T'au>Codex: NecronsI'm actually kind on the fence about Grey Knights after what you said about Chaos. Could it not just be achieved as a part of the Space Marines Codex instead of being a super special codex of its own? You can easily apply the argument to Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels etc that they don't really need their own book and could be achieved in a 3.5e level Space Marines Codex. But what about Grey Knights?
>>92552804Aren't Grey Knights under Codex Daemonhunters or am I misremembering something? Unless you mean what to do with modern units like the baby carrier, which I'd say just leave out for now.
>>92552396>You'd be better off just patching 5th edition, because that edition at least added things to the game, and its main weakness was down to the codexes, not the core rules.No games detected, enjoy your stinky guard spam list + going to ground because that was super fun back then. Or not being able to use most of your scenary because true LOS.Or vehicle spam because of the retarded rule changes. Or the wound allocation exploits that basically brake the game with mixed loadouts (and I'm not talking about fish of fury level exploits, in fact that was not a great tactic to begin with. I'm talking about ignoring high strength shots or taking one wound of each an every single nob before removing a single model just because all of them have slightly different loadouts for example) Running was an unbalanced messOl I get it, a lot of people started with 5th but for the love of god it was broken, it way worse than 4th.The overpowered broken codex and the model creep / finecast was just the cherry on top.
>>92552677I never want to see a name like "Inceptors" in any game I ever play.It's a dumb nonsense word that means nothing. And there's a MILLION of these stupid words in nu marines."Assault Marine" means something. "Kabalite Warrior" means something.Even a word like "Carnifex" can be inferred as some kind of big monster.wtf is an incursor? Is it a kind of inceptor?What about an intercessor?Invictor?It just goes on and on.
>>92552834That's what I am saying, is drop the Daemonhunter codex from the list. Are they actually different enough from Space Marines to get their own codex?
>>92552863If there's a pre-existing one I'd just say leave it. Once more it's easier to repurpose something already there than to reinvent the wheel, which in this case would be creating a bunch of SM gear for Grey Knights.
>>92552844We're talking about core rules, not codex power creep, so half your points are invalid.5th isn't true LOS. And 4th's system requires weird stuff like size categories which nobody understood, nor even played with.Wound allocation has one specific flaw everyone knows about and could be easily fixed.It's also not like ork nob wound allocation was ever winning someone the game. They were playing 4th edition orks. The game was over before deployment.Running and going to ground were perfectly fine rules.
>>92552036So, you want to make a great 40k fan made edition by adding all the bloat and redundant units of nu-hammer to the edition that is great because it doesn't have the masive bloat that 5th edition started and GW has continued to this date?Not only that you want to add the retarded primaris that have as many different troops as 4 different armies combines.
>>92552893>Wound allocationshit like that has already fixes in the latest HH rulebook. Anybody seriously interested in doing a 3-7th rules revival should read it and pay attention.
>>92552847>Even a word like "Carnifex" can be inferred as some kind of big monster.Carnifex is literally a real word you fucking retard
>>92552915qrd on how HH does it?
>>92552893No games.
What are some glaringly missing things from the 3rd and 4th Codices? Only thong I could think of is Sternguard and Vanguard Vets
>>92552926>Carnifex is literally a real word you fucking retardNot in english
>>92552931*thing
>>92552927Look here >>92552484It's the full rules PDF, just skip the HH lore
>>92552928kWant me to post pics of my many fully painted armies next?More pics of games?Just want to know what we're apparently pivoting to instead of actually discussing the thread topic, thanks.
>>92552915Using HH 2.0 base for rules? I mean sure but you gotta get grogs on board with Reactions and Hull Points.
>>92552927
>>92552379It's not just a cosmetic change. Autoguns aren't affected by the First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire order since the order specifically says it only affects lasguns.
>>92552974The one thing I don't like about this is that it requires casualties to be taken only from units in range and LOS. In casual games I'd imagine it largely doesn't matter, but it seems exploitable.
>>92552981A modern edition of 40k, on a neoprene mat & with store-bought terrain doesn't make you knowledgeable on 4th. We played with and have always played with size brackets. Works perfectly. Easily understood system. You just suck and don't want to have a conversation because no one worth playing will play with you. (Hence why you're on such an abysmal board.)
Hello ladsAs the OP of the "rolling 3+ then 4+" thread about 3rd edition. I think a lot of you are putting the cart before the horse. Talking about importing 2010s and 2020s sloppa before you can even pick apart what you want to keep of the ruleset.Totally the wrong approach. Keep it simple, keep it 1HQ2Troops-core, keep the power level down. If you must use Primarines (yuck) just run them as their OG equivalents.Think you're better approaching it from a "can we tinker with 3rd/4th a little" approach rather than some random backport of a lot of the reasons 40k sucks to me now.
>>92552036I can set you up some Indesign or QuarkXPress master template for generating up a manual with auto-placed graphical elements, pulling from a data merge source with the unit info and stats in a database, if at a later stage people want a shareable manual that looks GW-like while also only needing text input from contributors.
>>92553024This project is probably only ever going to be used in casual games if it gets off the ground so is that really an issue?
>>92553024It's mutual for the shooting models of a unit
>>92552655I remember it as 2nd, as its when I got into the game, and I would imagine that a lot of people associate the "golden era of 40K" as being the edition they started playing in. However, if we can't have 2nd I'd happily settle for 4th, theres a lot in the newer editions from 7th onwards that I really find boring.
>>92552937It means Butcher in Latin. : )
>>92552655>>925530642nd edidion already has a widely used fan rules PDF since many years ago:> https://2e40k.com/Librarium/2ndEditionBattleBible
>>92553024>it requires casualties to be taken only from units in range and LOS.Taking casualties from models out of sight or range is just wrong to me lol
>>92553042>A modern edition of 40k, on a neoprene mat & with store-bought terrain doesn't make you knowledgeable on 4th. We were playing 5th, as evidenced by the codex on the floor. IIRC that card was being used as a reminder for something that I can't recall.I started playing in 3rd and played all through 4th.4th was the most fun edition I played.But I played it (as did everyone else I met) by ignoring some of the more obtuse rules in 4th, and focusing on having fun.With the benefit of hindsight, I don't see any good reason to start a fork at 4th instead of 3rd or 5th.Starting with 4th is just going to require you to take out its problems until it's basically 3rd anyway.And 5th at least offers a different take on things.Feel free to disagree, but I don't really listen to nogames nomodels people like you.See ya.
>>92552036>Look for a homebase to archive agreed upon stats/re-balances of currently existing factionsuse Git. superior version control
>>92553045Very true but I do think trying to figure out what to backport can also help in determining which rules need to be adjusted as well. I would say the best approach is to have backporting in mind when tinkering and when hitting a snag go back to the tinker to see if it needs to change to compensate the new unit or the new unit needs to change for the sake of the edition.
>>92553052Don't know. It just doesn't seem as fun, and can lead to more arguments.Making LOS matter so much in general probably isn't the best of ideas.>>92553096That's fair. I guess I'm just the opposite.
If we are doing 4th edition as the base, can we make it that Necrons don't have their stupid fade out rule? Nerf gauss weapons for all I care, just please let me play with a full army instead of 75% of an army.
Fuck it, here's a poll.http://poal.me/dlz4hx
>>92552981That board is unplayable with true LOS
>>92553127no. rules first.
>>92553127Rules first. Totally pointless to backport into nothing.
The biggest rule question:>IGOUGO>Alternating actions
>>92552804>Codex: Chaos UndividedNew fag here, I've been looking for a way to play all of Chaos in one army so I approve of this.
Finally, GW screwed up enough to light a fire under /tg/'s ass so we can get stuff done again. I'm coming out of retirement, lads. I'm clearing my schedule.First order of business.>4th edition coreI want to hear good arguments for why, and not "because most people say it's the best", but specific mechanics. What mechanics do you like from 4th better than any alternatives? I liked 4th, but it had its flaws too - every edition did. If I were to do a new project like this from the ground up, it would not be my first pick.If you know who I am you probably know my ideal edition is 2nd. That said, I'm also in favor of drastic changes, to the point that the original core doesn't matter as much to me, and I think there are very convincing arguments for using HH2.0 instead. In fact, if we're going to err on the side of NOT doing drastic changes, I would favor HH2.0 the most.But once we get that out of the way, we need to address one of the biggest issues with 40k that is going to crop up no matter what edition we use, and this is the thing that ultimately caused me to give up on designing the version I had already put years and hundreds of man-hours into, and that is scale. I can sum up the problem as follows:>28mm models>6x4 gaming table>armies larger than platoon sizePick 2, and only 2, if you want a good game. Until this elephant is addressed, all your efforts are going to waste.
>>92553385If we aren't doing drastic changes with the way the points system works, then the size issue will solve itself I feel with naturally lower model counts moving from what 2,000 pts is in 10th to what is 2,000 pts in whatever older edition.
>>92553426Okay let me take a step back first, because the scale conundrum is built on a certain level of complexity taken as a given. I'm working under the assumption that this project intends to be more complex than 8th-10th and certainly more than OPR.First off, 40k is a game in which each individual model is based separately, and able to move and be positioned separately. Therefore, we want to work at a level of game complexity in which every individual model counts, and can be tracked in some sense as a discrete game element. Otherwise, why not just have 5 guys share a big base?This was the philosophy behind Rogue Trader and 2nd edition. You can see it in the fact that 2nd edition had things like individual soldiers getting caught on fire, their weapons jamming, and the one-by-one dueling close combat mechanics.The problem is that this fell apart even at game sizes of only 2000 points. Army sizes were outgrowing the mechanical ability to deal with them in a reasonable span of time to play a game. This is why 3rd edition simplified and streamlined it so heavily. But 3rd edition did it to such a degree that it almost should have just moved units to being movement trays or 5-guys-to-a-base. This is my issue with these later systems.I believe that fundamentally you want every soldier in 40k to mean something to you. You paint them all individually. You can customize them, name them. Faceless hordes of 200 conscripts were never really the intention at 28mm scale and shouldn't have been encouraged, but GW was never going to say no to more money, they are perfectly happy to suggest that you don't have a full army until you've spent thousands of dollars.The reality though is that once you put forces this large on the table there just isn't enough room to maneuver them all. If you shrink the armies down enough it's okay, but at that point, we are not even talking "2000 points under old editions", we're talking more like 1000 points.
>>92553551That's a fair enough analysis and shake. I guess the next step is to make another poll to determine which 2 of the three we should focus on for scale purposes.http://poal.me/vy72b2I've also just downloaded the 4th edition core rule book and going through trying to comb over mechanics to compile a list of things to discuss with the rules as well.
>>92553586With the way the poll works the one with the lowest vote is ignored and we put our stock into the ones with the highest votes.
>>92552036I honestly think there is no need to back-port many units. Most of them should be merged into the same profiles. Why the 4th edition anyway? Why not 5th or 6th?
>>92553551Agreed, 40k becomes just toys smashing each other over 2e/early 3e army sizes.
Shit on me as much as you want but 8th edition was the best. During the indexes only period I enjoyed 40k like never before and I started to play around the 5th edition. 8th had its flaws but the core rules were fucking solid and the game went worse only because of the unbalanced codexes and pointless expansion books.
>>92553214What are the key differences between the 4th edition and the 5th edition? 5th and 6th edition are the ones I'm most familiar with. 5th had the janky wound allocation system.
>>92553586Well the thing about this is there's also a matter of practicality, right? So the options are almost chosen for us, with just a few possible workarounds.>28mm scaleMost people want to play with their existing collections of models. And even if we decide to void this one and go for, say, 3D printing new smaller models, there's only so small you can go before you stop being 40k and start being Epic, which already has its own fan communities and rulesets. So it's pretty unlikely this is the thing we drop, although I do think there's interesting potential in 15mm scale, it would probably just splinter the community further in what's already going to be a tough sell as a fan-made fork.>6x4 tablesNot a lot of people can manage to get much more gaming space than this for a single game. For some it's already hard to manage this much. Furthermore, at a certain point, it becomes difficult to even reach across the table to pick up your models if you extend the gaming space much greater than this.With the two above more or less set in stone that means you're limited to platoon+ sized armies or the game is simply unmanageable with complex mechanics, unless you either get really creative, or, as mentioned above, we somehow get a 15mm 3D print community going to a robust degree.But what do I mean by get creative? Well, in theory we could play with larger armies, if we design the game in such a way that not all of your army is on the table at the same time. But that would require very outside the box thinking, a lot more playtesting and development, and ultimately, would not feel like classic 40k, but something rather new, which can be both good and bad.Therefore our ACTUAL options are as follows:>throw out the existing models and start over with 15mm prints (almost certainly going to be unpopular and possibly unfeasible)>keep army sizes smaller than some people are comfortable with and superheavies are dead>whacky new mechanics
>>92553719>Not a lot of people can manage to get much more gaming space than this for a single game.This. I never played 40k on such a big table outside of the LGS and even there I wasn't a huge fan of that. I have a strong preference for 44x30" and 36x36" kitchen table games.
>>92553719I'm personally in favour of the second option. I have Epic for larger scale stuff anyways, so give that I think it's the most sensible option.
>>92553719>>92553787Realistically we were always going to go with option 2, the smaller army sizes. This was the foregone conclusion from the beginning, but I walked through all of the steps to explain it because I just want everyone to be aware of the arguments for why, before we start diving into the actual project design, and not have anyone show up to the thread and complain that this sucks because it wasn't what they wanted when we tell them "sorry you can't bring all your toys, you can't have whole squadrons of leman russ tanks, you can't have a stompa, you can't have three riptides" etc.The ideal 40k that exists in people's fantasies where they have awesome, dynamic, and tactically interesting rules while keeping armies the same size they are used to with the models they already have built and (hopefully) painted at 28mm scale - is an impossibility. It doesn't exist. The armies HAVE to be smaller. If you dumb the game down enough to make it work it's not worth it, now you're just paying more money and spending more time painting and carrying more shit for a worse game, which is exactly what 10th edition has become, but really what 40k has been for a very long time now.
I know we are in the stage of just dishing out rules but I guess to set everyone's expectations so that we can design rules better:What should we consider a "normal" size for a space marine force? Since space marines are a good balancing point we can build around a scale of their forces.What should be the biggest and toughest? We'll come to exceptions when we do actual units but for now we should set what we should expect to be the biggest unit to fit into a standard space marine force.
>>925539271HQ+2TIf this is your minimum size game, then something like... A Chaplain and 20 marines max? More realistically with upgrades you should expect it to look like a Chaplain and 10 marines, or 5 marines and 10 scouts. It's not gonna be shrimple, and this is still twice as big as modern Killteam already at this "minimum" size.
>>925539271-2 HQs/Elites, 1-2 Tactical squads, a Dread, a 5-man squad of specialists and maybe an extra vehicle/Termie squad should be considered a quite big force and I don't want to see anything bigger in 1000pts games.
lmao the sheer amount of people who point to reading the army building of these two forces in white dwarf as their inspiration for getting into warhammer makes me consider them the ur-example of their era. If you want force org and army sizes, these two are great starting points.
>>92553978I love this. This is the perfect size for 40k games with 28mm in a 4x4' or a bit less. But the army lists and profiles needs to be carefully curated for it to avoid the problems with swingy low points games.
This sold me my army, personally.
>28mm so anyone can play without needing to rebase or own a 3D printer>Reactions and Alternating Activation as options>Stick to 3rd and maybe 4th Codices until we have solid rules. After that we can start backporting shit
>>92554069Sounds like a solid start. I'm going through the 4th ed rule book and jotting down notes about certain things, including stuff that I think other editions did better.>>92554030>>92554046I wouldn't know about "standard" but these would be nice "slightly bigger games" lists for marines.
>>92552804You can add a Lost&Damned
>>92554041>swingy low points games.This is actually what the bigger issue is.Either transports are shit that you never bring, or they can change the face of the board out of hand.>>92554069I still do not get the love affair for 4e codices, as they are the ones that stripped out so much of the on the table soul and variety from the game, and encouraged the minmaxing/WAAC nonsense you see to this day with the modular traits.
>>92552628Why not just use the supposed best codex ever instead of making a billion of them
Another poll this time talking about the AP system.http://poal.me/r53jgrI can see the argument for all 3 types.
>>92554120Try reading the reply chain.
>>92554030>>92554046These are great but should be pretty much the absolute MAXIMUM size we support. Not the middle ground, not the starting point - this is the ceiling.>>92553978With this as more of a slightly smaller middle ground.Remember that horde armies will field about twice as much and we don't want those to get unwieldy.It sounds like everyone is onboard and even excited about this so I suggest we move on to the next order of business, which is - settle on the core edition.>>92554069Forget about codices at all for now. We need to work out just the core rules and how far we're going to evolve them, and, depending on how far we take that, possibly a barebones testing index just to have some basic units to play with and roll dice.It looks like 4th ed got the most votes in the poll >>92553214 but if we're going with that I really think we should just push it all the way to Age of Darkness. As another anon previously argued, it's basically the most refined version of the whole 3rd-7th era plus some awesome new stuff like Reactions.If we're going to be serious about doing this, I think everyone needs to actually read the rules in full.4th Edition https://drive.google.com/file/d/1snpYN3I85rnQS4v6ZLjo2FCA1WMGmdbA/view?usp=drive_linkHorus Heresy Age of Darkness https://drive.google.com/file/d/19InTLkO_N6ddtunT2aqjpqgvHIi6SXCP/view?usp=drive_link
>>92554139I personally think that the AP system is fine with OCCASIONAL modifier used VERY sparingly.Say only Berzerkers, Choppas, and a few other melee weapons have a -1 (the old "no better than 4+" was frankly the only rule I deeply despise of the 3rd-4th period).
>>92554158Give your best pitch as to why working with a HH2.0 framework is easier to work with? Other than that we can piggyback off the work done by panoptica, though that is useful.
>>92554158Thank you so much for providing the books, anon!This will be invaluable to helping us in our journey to make a proper fan edition.Reading the 4th edition rules right now.
>>92554139It should really be "AP should be a save modifier that also informs how you can penetrate vehicle armour" since we are dealing with older editions and vehicle armour.
>>92554139This is one of the things I'm really stuck on. On the one hand, we are trying to make a crunchier system, but on the other hand, when you do that, you can't just make EVERY sub-system and mechanic crunchy - you have to pick and choose your battles, and know where to leave stuff simple so you can use the cognitive real estate elsewhere.AP is one of those things that I don't think needs to be overly complicated. If we go with the simpler style of "you either get a save or you don't" that's one less fiddly modifier to have to track and remember each time you make saving throws. It also means invulnerable saves actually matter more. I used to be on the side of the modifier AP just because 2nd ed is my favorite and I thought it makes more logical sense, but from a game designer perspective and setting aside nostalgia, I think the other one is a better choice.>>92554189Well for one thing they have been very good at cleaning up the language so that everything is categorized and easier to discuss than writing out paragraphs of special exceptions. For example all Feel No Pain type abilities are called Damage Mitigation. It brings back Movement as a characteristic which 4th lacks. And overall I just honestly think it's a better system period. If there are things we prefer about 4th compared to it, we can tweak the details, but I think it's the better base to start from.
>>92553978>>92554030>>92554046>Small enough to last an afternoon and not melt your brain>Big enough to still be interestingThis is the golden ratio of 40k scale
>>92554139my proposed AP modifier scheme that I first saw in /hhg/:>AP higher than save, save as normal (AP3 vs. 2+ = you get a 2+ save)>AP equal to save, take your save at -1 (AP2 vs 2+ = save at 3+)>AP lower than save, no save allowedI think this retains the strengths of the old all-or-nothing AP system while still expanding how granular the AP system can be. The only problems I would see with adopting this approach is that it creates a lot of questions as to how we re-balance a lot of weapon types, whose AP score is relatively set in stone. I think it might also force some units to have their armor and maybe even invuln saves revised. I also voted for old AP system for what it's worth on the poll.
>>925533854th edition is the last edition of 40k that plays like a wargame, with slower pacing than 5th and newer and also already includes support for superheavies and flyers if you include forgeworld's experimental rules.
>>92554249>>92554228>>92554164My issue with the all or nothing system is that it gets weird when you are looking at armies that aren't the norm in terms of save values.It means effectively marines always save on 3+, but most weapons were below AP6 so you got stuff like orkz and guard not saving much.That is at least how I remember it, correct me if I am wrong.
OnePageRules is actually a pretty good alternate system, IMO. The only problem is I'm a bit of a force org purist, and their "Battle Brothers" army list rubs me the wrong way (e.g. 3 man Terminator squads, dev squads where even the sarge gets a heavy weapon). Also the wound system is a bit too wonky (it's either 1 wound or wounds in steps of 3).Did a homebrew take on Space Marines for the last edition (see attached) that addressed some of this, although admittedly the Marines came out a little OP.
It's happening lads, we're doing it. Let's keep it going. I'm not as deep on the rules as most others here so I think my talents are better used elsewhere like editing and compiling rules/data, or something else script-based that autistics enjoy, but now isn't the time for them; it's early days. I'll be closely watching this and bumping when I can, but for now I must go to sleep. Godspeed all.
>>92554291OPR is fun but I don't think fits what we are trying to achieve in this thread which more crunch but with fluff based rules hence picking older editions of 40k. Simple but not too simple. I want more shit like pic related where there is a fun fluff explanation that turns into a crunch weapon as well.>>92554298G'night anon.
>>92554291OPR already exists and made all the impact it was ever going to make. There is a substantial portion of 40k players, myself among them, who want something the exact opposite of that - detailed, crunchy, flavorful rules, instead of bland and simple. This thread is for those people.
What do you guys think of morale? This gives us an opportunity to make a morale system that doesn't treat every unit's break results equally. Having all failed morale be "run away" rather than a variety of different effects always seemed like a hole that 40k never particularly filled.
>>92554419I think the morale system should remain the same as it has been in 4th edition.
>>92554419Radical take: Morale doesn't belong in 40k except for factions/units with Commisar-like overseers for flavour.Literally all factions are zealots, psychos, fearless, or brave in some way. The entire lore works in that premise
>>92554461I still think there should be representation when something is "overwhelming". Not necessarily to make the unit "afraid" or "demoralized" just more "Lose concentration because of the amount of shit going on right now". But I like with the idea of strictly morale being something factions like Guard would have to deal with where they are zealots but get overwhelmed more easily than say a marine.
>>92554291I think one of the original rules writers for Games Workshop did mention that IGOUGO did need to be thrown out, but here's the thing: OPR is the shrimplified and modernized version of 40k that people have been clamouring for and this fan edition of 40k is the more crunchier purist fan edition of 40k that is yet to be released, but should be a thing.There's no reason that both games can't coexist as the "fall back editions" when GW fails and puts out a bad edition.
>>92554519>I think one of the original rules writers for Games Workshop did mention that IGOUGO did need to be thrown outIt was Andy Chambers. AFAIK he said in a recent video that they should have done it in 3rd :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkM9Y3agV_I
>>92554550Even if he said so in third I think IGOUGO should be kept in this backport version of 4th edition. To both not create too much work for the autists here and to try and keep the purists as happy as possible.
>>92554580agreed, but Reactions like in the HH should be considered. They're a neat solution for more interactivity and less 1st turn advantadg without going full AA.
>>92554609Reactions should be implemented but some of the shooting reactions are a bit overpowered since they allow you to react at full BS. IMO if we're going to implement them the shooting reactions should have some kind of aim malus applied.
I would love this. I actually played some 3e yesterday, and 4e is good fun as well.
>>92554629The problem is the HH units having easy access to auspexes for free reactin fire. Remove those and there's no issue with the default limitations.
So to summarize what we got so far: >People seem to be in favour for 4th to be the base>Have army sizes be at max like these posts>>92554030>>92554046>Introduce the HH reaction system into the 4th edition base>AP to stay the same as is in 4thSo far so good. What are some other rules you would want from other editions that you think are valuable to keep in some form?
>>92554842Allow pre-measuring. It was always stupid and good riddance.Think about the blast template rules. Maybe use the HH version to avoid cheesy WAAC shit.
So in summary so far (stuff that has some amount of consensus)>4th edition as a base is overwhelmingly most popular>some people want to steal ideas from Age of Darkness, nobody is vehemently against this so far>28mm models>6x4 board size>fewer minis on the board, superheavies are fucking gone, presumably no fliers either>people want to focus on fluff AND crunch, no shrimplification, feasible since fewer models as previously mentioned>>92554842Damn you for typing your post out before mine, not gonna delete this section though.Technically speaking scatter dice and templates are the next items in the book (pg. 5) to discuss but since both of the most popular baselines use them I am doing to assume they are in, and details can be hashed out later. So from the book the next topic is base sizes and model height (pg.6-7). Call me fucking crazy, but I think Infinity solved this, laying it out like how they do is no-nonsense and is pretty straightforward. It's not really much of a change either.
>>92554932It was discussed earlier that Primaris would just be used as "counts as" for regular marines that exist already.
>>92554872>Pre-measuringadding to notes, absolutely good addition>Blast template rulesYeah the heresy version might be a better way of handling it.>>92554904>and details can be hashed out later.I think the details are being hashed out pretty quickly but I won't call any judgement currently. I'm just taking down notes on what people want.>Base sizes and model heightsThat chart is going to be slightly out even for modern models, but it's a good way to compartmentalize the decisions.
>>92554942>It was discussed earlier that Primaris would just be used as "counts as" for regular marines that exist already.Sorry I definitely missed that when I was reading through the thread then. I'm okay with this. We'll just have a text box "note" that says bolt carbines/bolt rifles count as bolters and hellblasters count as plasma rifles etc. My apologies.
>>92552036My suggestion for APGo with the all or nothing AP, but if AP = Armor save you get an armor save at -1Also introduce Breaching (x/y) on weaponsBreaching (x/y) If you roll an unmodified roll of X+ to wound, that wound is caused at AP Y.That way you can do things like Chains Swords Breaching(6/3) So a wound roll of 6 results in that wound being at AP 3.
>>92555021This is of course also assuming you can even wound the target?
>>92555046Oh of course, only if you can wound it. This also assume you are doing 1 wound on most infantry units.
OP hereRemember to head over to anon's >>92554158 post and grab a copy of the 4th edition rules over there. To familiarize oneself with the rules or to jog one's memory on the road of nostalgia.I'm so glad that there seems to be traction for a fan made edition of 40k.I've got to sleep now.
>>92552628>>92552804GW already made rules for GSC on 3rd jn the citadel journal 40 and 41.They are functional
Alright, what are we doing for Characteristics?What is gonna be in, and how is it going to be formatted? The baseline is:>all are rated from 0-10>WS, BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, SvConcerning BS, do we want/expect to have models with BS >5? 4e... doesn't have any like that iirc, but AoD does (only Primarchs iirc) and allows rerolls for models with BS>=6. I'm not against this, but it's hard to imagine anything getting >BS5 anyways. Initiative is something I'd like to replace with Fights First/Fights Last since most units sit in the range of 2 (Grots), 3 (Guardsmen, most models), and 4 (Space Marines and most elites), buuuuut there are a few exceptions like Dire Avengers and Howling Banshees that go to 5-6. Could still probably use Fights First/Fights Last if you added something like "Supernatural Initiative" as a tier above, but then it kinda feels like you're better off either crushing the Initiative to just the three tiers or leaving it be.Attacks can probably go on the weapon instead of +1/-1A. Just write "Bolt Pistol | S4 | AP5| Pistol(1)" or "Close Combat Weapon | S(wielder) | A1). Unless people are really married to keeping it traditional I suppose.I have nothing to say about the other Characteristics.
>>92555620To be fair anything greater then BS 5 was super rare to begin with, like the only things i can think of off the top of my head that had a BS 10 was cypher.
>>92555620Movement needs to return as a characteristic instead of being married to unit type.Of course we should expect BS to go above 5. The system where BS 6 is a 2+/6+ reroll, BS 7 is a 2+/5+ reroll etc. has worked fine in many editions.Absolutely NOT replacing Initiative with the crap system 8th-10th uses, that's the worst variation on fight sequencing we've ever had. If you want 4th ed as the core, you take 4th ed initiative system. Personally I think this is where 2nd shines best, and I have designed a version of close combat that streamlines it for large groups so it isn't as slow and bogged down as 2nd eds, which I can post about later.Something that concerns me far more is the lack of mobility in 4th ed, now that the dust is being cleared off and it's coming back to me. No running except for units with the Fleet USR, and 6" flat charges, was incredibly slow. It's worth noting that 3rd and 4th were literally the ONLY editions to do this. Even Rogue Trader had a form of run moves, and so did 2nd edition. 5th brought them back. Later editions added random charges which could allow more distance to be covered even though you lost some reliability (and honestly that's sort of a good thing too for a whole bunch of reasons).However I've always taken issue with the Charge Phase being separate from Movement after 2nd ed. The idea that your units can move faster but only if there's an enemy within range to charge in order to "pull" themselves onto objectives is very gamey and silly and leads to all kinds of nonsense. I'd much rather go back to charges being done in the Movement phase alongside all other movement and they aren't limited to only if the enemy is within charge distance (charging when it doesn't bring you into base contact is just running).
>>92555620I think with the vibe we're going for with this system, AKA very crunchy and based off of old editions of 40k, we'd be going against our own rules by removing initiative. Even if most models have very similar initiative scores I think a numerical initiative characteristic gives us a lot of design space to mess around with, with regards to models getting higher or lower initiative based off of any number of factors (weapon, special rules, if they charged, etc..) vs. fight first/fight last which is pretty binary.Hypocritically though, I do like the idea of a weapon listing how many attacks it gives on it's profile, I think that's one streamlining decision that would make a lot of sense. Seems like another way to balance different melee weapons if some give more attacks than others. Speaking of which, do we want to make all power weapons generic or give each one (sword, axe, maul, etc) different statlines?
>>92555738Adding Movement as a stat is totally sensible I agree. And Initiative is unlikely to change, but I did want to bring it up early. How do you feel about being a hypocrite with me and the other anon and moving Attacks to the Weapon profile though?
>>92555749>>92555796Only issue I see with attacks on profile is that older editions had weapons as weapons, how they are used depended on the user, meaning we have to do the nu-hammer thing and list every weapon on every profile instead of saying "This unit can equip x, y, z (As seen on reference 1)"
>>92555738Re: charging, HH2 has something called a 'surge move' where if you fail a charge you still move towards the enemy half the distance you rolled. I think it's worth adding desu
>>92555807Adding/explaining further with this, in older editions it was really easy to remember what a weapon's stats were because they themselves didn't change, what changed was the user's stats. A bolter is a bolter, a lascannon is a lascannon etc.Putting stats like that on the weapon which changes based on user is not a good way to do it.
>>92555796>and moving Attacks to the Weapon profile though?Exactly as this anon says >>92555807 it would be fine if we wanted to have to list every single melee weapon option on every profile so the attacks can then be adjusted for the users, but that's in conflict with the earlier editions large wargear lists that are supposed to cover many different units, and we definitely want those. So with this decision we have the tension between ease of reading during listbuilding, or ease of reading during playing, and that second one is reliant on some kind of custom listbuilding software to only list the weapons you actually took.In this instance I would err on the side of simplicity and just not change it from how it was. Keep attacks in the unit characteristics. If we want to make certain weapons weaker with more attacks we can just add a new USR like Extra Attacks to handle that functionality, which I think is a good idea.
>>92555021This is getting a bit gritty and complex but that doesn't mean I dislike it. You could replace "Breaching" with Rending even, this is basically just a mechanical update to the Rending rule to give it more variability across different weapons.
>>92552036FYI part of the reason Warhammer Armies Project worked was it was mainly ONE GUY.You are NEVER going to get a consensus too many fucking peopleSo just do the work, if it's good then people will latch on (WAP).> But what if its not????Lmao.then you wasted your time. Bit at least you produced something.'Community effort' is lazy, commie, Euro thinking, aka loser thinking. You want it done? Just fucking do it.
>>92555021> so go all or nothing on AP> But not reallyFound the marine fag. Fuck off.
>>92555890I agree, having it be a mechanical update of rending is a fine idea and it slots in pretty nicely.>>92555918Most of the time All or Nothing AP benefits marine players.
>>92555918Not sure why you think that targets marine players specifically. Sisters of Battle all have 3+ armour, some Eldar Aspects do, larger Tyranids do, there are Mega-Armoured Orks with 2+, Tau Suits, Necron Immortals... so what point are you making here?I'm iffy on the "-1 AP at equal value" part still but not for any faction balance reason. Balance is easy to tweak. I just feel that it's slightly inelegant.
I'm just gonna stress that if the goal is a tighter playing game with less finagling during turns, "true line of sight" cannot be in it.So if we are using HH2.0 as a base, that's gotta get cut out. There is nothing more infuriatingly fiddly than waiting around for your opponent to diddle their models around a terrain piece checking firing angles, either for or against. It's also an absurdly "real" game mechanic in a system that historically is super abstracted. It's a given that if a real unit were moving into a piece of cover, they would be actively positioning themselves to avoid exposure. Thinking otherwise is like thinking the armies are literally taking turns moving, shooting, and punching each other all at once before trading off.
>>92556104Presumably not an issue. Above it was also mentioned that adding Infinity style "Silhouette" Characteristic would also (or just noting the existing Size on the unit's profile) could be of some benefit. Either way, I don't expect many (any?) people to champion for TLOS.
>>92552036>fourth edI mean, it's still going to play as slowly as tenth ed. Not really a point in making a game that is just as hopelessly clunky desu. Would rather do something with alternating activations, which inherently makes things more balanced.
>>92556201It also makes it inherently a different game. Might as well advocate for using D10s instead of D6s.
Now I am just throwing this out and it's a take it or leave it, but how about the 2nd edition close combat mechanics but only for character v character interactions? Call it something like "Challenge" or some shit. Every other close combat works the same, but with characters you want to get the feeling that these two commanders are truly duking it out for their faction.I dunno, I just love 2nd edition's fight system, but it doesn't quite work for bigger units.
>>92556104>I'm just gonna stress that if the goal is a tighter playing game with less finagling during turns, "true line of sight" cannot be in it.Agreed 100%. It was one of the worst changes 5th brought to us (if I'm not mixing up my editions, it's been so damn long), and I think the lack of TLoS is one of the reasons 4th is remembered fondly.Since I've already gone through the experience of writing, rewriting, and rewriting again almost an entire fan edition like this, let me illuminate you fine gentlemen with some of the experience I gleaned from doing so.The most difficult rules to get right revolved around everything to do with Line of Sight and Target Allocation, and how it interacts with Terrain (which is an amorphous eldritch horror from the perspective of a rules writer, since you don't know all the possible forms that it will take on your players' tables when you're trying to write rules for it), Blasts, and Characters that have joined units. Writing rules for this gordian knot of mechanics that are watertight, easily understandable, and don't lead to dumb exploits, is harder than you think. If we get this out of the way, I will clean sweep the rest of the document for you in one weekend. Killing True Line of Sight is absolutely part of that.>>92556241This is essentially the solution I came up with for updating 2e close combat. Characters fight Challenges pretty much as 2e is written, and the rest of the unit fights a group combat called a Meatgrinder, which was a simplified version that still felt a little bit like 2nd ed combats but it was all done at once. I'll dig it up later. But before we get to that, I think we need to address two major things.>>92556228>>92556201Both the turn sequencing which has already been brought up several times, AND the dice system, should be opened up for debate. We never really settled on a philosophy for how far we want to change the game vs preserve the core system, so we should do that before we go further.
>>92556268Personally, as much as I love Alternating actions and dice other than d6, I just can't see any 40k edition existing outside of IGOUGO and d6. This might be stokholm syndrome I dunno. The main thing that I would argue is that keeping things as is makes it much easier on us since we won't have to worry about dice averages and wording on rules as much as if we changed the core dice and turn order which would require us rewriting several rules instead of using our base edition(s) as the examples.
>>92556291How do you feel about pic related?
I want fourth edition ynnari with soulburstI WANT TO KILL SLANESSH
>>92556228Not really. You're still doing the same sequences, just not all at once like it's some 1970s Napoleonic historical game.It cuts down on alpha strike/first mover advantage where you get to clobber the other team with everything you have in an attempt to put them in an irrecoverable deficit. It de-links cheesy compositions that snowball on each other too.The best part about it is you actually interact with the game more frequently. You can basically leave the building on a 20min lunch break and come back not missing anything. That's a massive flaw and makes things both feel slower and is boring as fuck.I've played a barely modified 7th with alternating activations at my gaming club, and it was just better.
>>92556307I feel that's an ok middle ground. Obviously some rules might need to change to reflect it, especially now that we are adding HH's reactions, but it's a fine middle ground.
>>92556307When are casualties removed? Is it resolved "simultaneously" or in turn?
>>92556291I used to be staunchly against IGOUGO, but at smaller game sizes WITH REACTIONS I don't think it's completely terrible. That said, the Reaction system has to be robust - maybe moreso than HH currently does it.There's also alternating phases as >>92556307 suggests.Beyond that you have a system like Chain of Command, which has technically an IGOUGO but with limited activations based on a dice pool rolled randomly at the start of each turn.You also have different ways of doing AA. Most people when they think of AA think of free selection of one unit, followed by the opponent choosing and resolving one unit. But that's not necessarily how it has to be. You can have activation be based on random dice draw like Warlord Games, you can have it be based on some kind of Initiative system, there are a lot of ways to do it.
>>92556268Most people on this site don't understand the d20, let alone the d6. People low roll beacuse they don't cultivate kia and then blame bionominal distributions
>>92556328It's a bit different. If you're interested in the details this is MESBG and this free version is on Warhammer Community if you want to take a proper look.
>>92555890Truth be told its not that horribly complicated, All or nother AP system but equal means save -1 The breaching(X/Y) rule is definitely needed, it allows for SOOOO much balancing.
It seems AA is winning but how about sticking the game to d6?
>>92556447It should stay a D6. D6 die are much easier to get ahold of and especially in large volumes which is needed. I could see smaller scale like kill team games working off a D10 but not this one.
>>92556386Free selection is the most light weight, simplest to understand, and is easily implemented. An initiative system is way too cumbersome outside of small model count skirmish games. Even the dice-in-a-bag system adds another layer of game materials to buy and RNG to balance against.>>92556418I'm lazy, can I get the cliff notes?
Another notes update:>4th edition as base>HH reaction system>28mm scale>6x4 tables>Smaller army sizes>Focus on fluff and crunch when designing rules. Not shrimplefied>Pre-measuring is A-ok>Heresy Blast/Template rules>Look into using an adaptation of Infinity's size chart [WIP]>4th edition statlines with inclusion of Movement stat>AP is all or nothing>Breaching/Rending: Weapons have Breach/Rending (X+/Y). If the weapon can wound an enemy (Refer to SvT chart), on a roll of X+ on the wound roll, the AP becomes equal to Y.>Alternating Actions (To be determined which form this takes)>d6 based>Fuck James
give me the CSM 3rd or 4th codexes!!!!
>>92556447>>92556459I would never suggest d10. However, I am a fan of the d12. You can easily map d6 to it, it doubles your granularity exactly, the rounder shape rolls better than d10s do, and it can also serve as a d3 AND a d4. Furthermore, in one version of my own project where I was using a roll-under system, I came up with this very fluffy way to describe the rules for "1's always succeed" and "12's always fail" that borrows quotes from the rulebook canon.I'm not saying we necessarily should use d12 for this project, but if other people are open to the idea, I want to put it on the table. Also, the old 40k spin-off board game Advanced Space Crusade used d12 as the standard dice, so it's not without precedent.
>>92552036Sign me the fuck up, I was in the process of doing this anyway.
Any suggestions for players who want to run 4ed who are above the poverty line and have more than 25 models? Me and my friends have been building models since 5ed and have sizeable armies. If I wanted to play skirmish games I'd play 1ed kill team or necromunda
>>92556647Split them into different armies and say you can take up to 3 armies worth of force org charts or some shit.
>>925531175th with dumb riptides, sure>Starting with 4th is just going to require you to take out its problems until it's basically 3rd anyway.With that statement it's clear that you don't even know the difference between the two.
>>92554069I was workshoping my own alternating Activation rules for a game I'm making but I'll throw them in here.Each round is separated between players>Player 1 activates half their forces by points>Player 2 activates half their forces by points>Repeat.Players can end their go after activating atleast a quarter of their points total of troops. They may go over the half limit if the minimal point value unactivated unit on their side of the field would put them over.
>>92553626>>925533855th was the edition were GW went full corpo and started squishing in every way possible and that affected the rules too. Running doesn't work on 120×180cm tables. Going to ground was dumb and didn't work well as a game mechanic. Scattering all templates instead of just artillery made a lot of guns unusable. Wound allocation doesn't work. True LOS is just not viable unles you play only with those dumb modern tables with only L shaped ruins.Vehicle changes made them too reliableCodex books are garbage, model creep, no options, some are broken to the point to be unplayable.The only positive is that they nerfed rending while shooting changing the efect to the wound roll. 4th has sniping characters and special guns by forcing LOS to that especific model. Melee consolidating in to another squad creates uninteresting melee balls that can last until the end of the game and as 5th running makes the middle of the table unappealing for basic infantry.Rending is brutal, way too strong while shooting. Morale and pining are okish but need to be rewritten with better wording, there is room for improvement. Shooting to the closest squad works once you realize that tanks and creatures are not affected by this rule on both ends of the shooting, but could be reworked. Template guns are crucial to avoid parking lots, and full squads placed in non thematic ways like 20 models hidden behind a tiny ruin. Unit archetype infantry, beast, vehicle, bike etc works very well and makes the game easy to learn because all codex follow this archetypes. Most of the codex books are great, nid one is the most fun and thematic the faction has been. Chaos and dark angels are quite bad. This edition has the right amount of models, check how 5th ed nids introduced way too many redundant creatures just to sell more models. Forge world books are amazing as optional content.
>>92557048As critique to 3rd to 5th melee has a lot of rules but ends up being totally uninteractive, you just put your models base to base and roll until the end, there seems to be the intention of using model positioning for advantage but it doesn't work. I suggest taking inspiration from historical rulesets from melee centric eras, those tend to have better melee rules since it's the core of the combat for them. Games should be 1500 points or lower by default. 2000p are way too many models on the table unless you are playing special scenarios like forge world ones with some very expensive models, for example the taros airfield incursion that has a very small model count but includes an orca transport as support/win condition. If your table looks like a line of troops smashing eachother without room for maneuvering, you are doing something wrong. Asymmetrical deployments and win conditions are great.
>>92556516>Pre-measuring is A-okreeeeeee bring back guess range ordnance
>>92552036Would Fourkhammer need any new art? I'm an artist who likes 40k shit, and I'm increasingly disgusted with GW
>>92557217Once it gets around to backporting and deciding what should stick around from post 5th edition, it'd be neat to see new shit in the style of 3rd/4th edition art work.
>>92557048Bringing back running after giving everyone a movement of 6" was the issue - running worked well in 2nd when the basic M value was 4 though.
>>92557217Keep drawing and posting here Anon. OC always brings more people and keeps them interested and invested.
>>92557197I guess pre-measuring for everything else BUT ordnance would actually be fine enough.
>>92557233>>92557250I have a few pieces, some unfinished. These two were for a Nuglite genestealer cult, the "Cult of the Withered Mandible"
And I made this piece of an Iron Warriors Decimator
>>92557259>>92557266>>92557277Neat. Definitely stick around while we try to figure this shit out.
I also have this, from a homebrew Slaanesh warband, "The Excrutiators", that I've been messing around with, but it's still a WIP, and I might start over
>>92557282well thanks! I might pick up my 40k art again, with this new general
>>92557289Oh fuck me, I love this one.
Why won't we simply play 4E on smaller tables then? Just introduce a few minor fixes and we end up with an overly complex rules no one will play anyway but at least they will done right.
>>92557309thank you! I was overall unhappy with some elements of his proportions, but I liked other elements like the laughing/crying skull, and the smaller spiked pauldron, and the tubes and all that. I want to incorporate Eldar weapons and tech, since the warband has access to some Eldar materials due to their warband leader (a xenos daemon prince). But that's all for future drafts.
>>92552036I'm interdasted
>>92557265No.
>>92554609Andy did create a simple reaction rule when he wrote Starship Troopers.
>>92552363>Some low-hanging fruit is the activation system. AA is off the table imo, but Reactions like in HH or a MESBG style system are negotiable.Honestly I'm a big fan of the idea of AA within phases. Treat all the phases likenthe fight phase where players alternate moving/shooting etc a unit as appropriate for that phase. Bake in an ability for multiple units to activate at once (like an IG platoon activates all together)
>>92557197Nah guess range ordnance was just a pain. It was really swining based on how well the terrain let you use it as landmarks and cheat premeasure during movement phases. Which makes it innately a huge trouble to try balance.If you want uncertainty in ranging do it with dice.
>>92556516>AP is all or nothingNah keep the variable AP, it's one of tge good things about 2e/new editions. Means mid AP I'd actually worth anything instead of it being all about AP2 or don't bother.
>>92556584You have autismo.
>>92552051>>92552379>>92553017I think it is safe to say now that the autogun sergeant has been successfully backported. But to be fair it was an easy one but one backported nonetheless.
>>92552128Dual thud guns
>d10>d12Fucks sake it's like you're trying to bring this thing down before it even begins. D6. Scatter dice. Templates. That's all you need
I've been lurking this thread and decided to give you my piece of mind. I only play 2nd edition but I use project anvil backports, citadel journal designer experimental rules and couple house rules to things that regular rules dont cover.I strongly recommend looking into citadel journals, there is lot of great insight from developers. Also you should scale the game accordingly, like you're not even allowed to bring space marine captain on under 500point game where veteran sergeant should be the one calling the shots. We also reversed the limits on those very small games, for example of minimum brood size for genestealers is 6 models gets turned into maximum number of models for a brood in those under 500 point games. Makea things fast, very managable and cheap yet they bring out the best in all units on board. That squad on 10 guardsmen can really shine or that combat squad of marines really dominate the game and losing a single one of them feels like a loss like it should be. Of course, all this requires balanced per model points count
I've been meaning to backport Custodes and Admech to 3rd so my friends could try out 3rd with their armies. I'd be happy to help out with backporting stuff. Was thinking of using HH v2 statlines as a base. Was also planning to backport the sisters nuncarriers, using them as a terminator equivalent.
On the topic of 2E - ditch cover saves and bring back to-hit modifiers for units in cover!
>>92557259>>92557266cringy concept but good art
>>92556516Honestly pre-measuring can be a contentious topic, I think it should just be there as an optional rule.
>>92558400Pre-measuring shouldn't be avoided because players will always find some way to game it anyways.
>>92557792I found it added some fun to the game - you could guess poorly and still have the shot scatter onto the target anyway. I'm coming from a strictly non-competitive background though - you're right of course that it encourages shenanigans in more serious games.
>>92558400Nah, premeasure is one of the legitimate improvements GW made. Keep it in, variation and unreliability can come from dice rolls. Which makes things much easier to balance.
>>92556201>It's still going to play as slowly as tenth ed.-No command points or stratagems means no confusion about when to play the gotchas-No keeping track of army one-off special rules-AV means no keeping constant track of hit point loss on vehicles etc and their degrading performance-Minimal rerolls-Common special rules-Army compositions set for mission typeYeah if you think 4th plays as badly as 10th then either you never played 4th or you're just bad@rulesets, sorry to break it to you.My friends and I used to knock out 3x 1500-point games one after the other in an evening under 4th ed. It's a tidy ruleset.
>>92558910Also add onto it:>Weapons are really really easy to remember since every bolter acts like a bolter and every melta acts like a melta, the only thing that changes is core stats of the user of said weapon.It really is an underrated part of why pre-10th 40k statlines were clean since at most you need to remember the basic weapons and then how every unit uses those weapons without the weapon itself changing that much.
Anon who is taking notes here: I'm off to bed now, hopefully thread isn't bumped off by the time I wake up. If so I'll scour the archive and see what else has been discussed then post what I compiled in the next thread. Night.
>>92558951Oh and the AP rules eliminating the need for modifying armour saves, I thought I was going to hate that but it worked pretty well. The other thing to bear in mind was the smaller model counts too, and you could balance forces against each other from 500pts up using force composition rules. I find 10th with its 'bring anything you want' philosophy just creates imbalance until you start hitting 1200-1500 points minimum.4th is really popular for a reason. The rules didn't get in the way of playing like they do now, and netlisting really didn't help as there wasn't a 'meta' per se.
>>92554842>Have army sizes be at max like these posts'Army size' is a tricky one. Balancing the game around Marine statline rather than Guardsmen's has done it no favours in my opinion.If you're going to balance a 1500pt game around Marines, in my opinion you should indeed get a 'platoon plus'- 1-2 HQ, 20-30 Marines and a few support choices. But that, in IG format, would be 2-3 HQ, 40-60 Guard and a few support choices.For SoB/Witch Hunters you'd have 2-3 HW, 30-45 Sisters, a couple of tanks etc.And my old Nid Horde army at 1500 points used to include 120 spinegaunts as just the Troops choices (5 pts per model, 20 model squads, synapse nodebeasts 1 per squad- 660 pts total). Add Carnies, stealers, and Tyrants as needed. The secret is to make Troops choices underpointed and/or to make them the only units which can take and hold objectives. Really encourage people to take them and avoid this stupid 'battlefield role soup' we see now.
>>92559152GEQ should be the baseline for 40k. People shouldn't need 40-60 infantry minis just to play them.Make elite factions more expensive.
>>92557277Extremely fucked scale, it'll look perfect next to GW art lmaoBut no, these are all solid.
Good morning lads.I feel that we're getting a little bit scattered and bogged down in the weeds of particular subsystems and mechanics before we finish answering the broad overarching design questions that should be addressed first. It's not necessarily a problem for the thread to sometimes take the form of a brainstorm soup where everyone throws in their ideas, especially while we're still early on, but we should be settling on the bigger issues before moving to the finer details.With that in mind I'd suggest everyone focus on Turn Sequence for now and let's come to a real consensus on what we are doing regarding IGOUGO+Reactions, Alternating Phases, AA, or other implementation.Keep in mind that from a design standpoint there is no clear best. Every option has advantages and disadvantages. There are a hundred ways to skin this cat, though, so we need to break them all down and get a discussion going on it. And, before we can even do that I think we have to address the higher order question of how radical are we willing to go in terms of changing things overall? As far as I see it we have the following options:>Anything is up for alteration - the goal is to make the best game possible within practical limits and the core is more like a rough guideline.>Keep things close to the original version and only change the biggest flaws - the goal is to keep the game familiar and nostalgic, feeling like 40k of old, even if it sacrifices some potentially cool and innovative rules systems to do so.>'X meets Y' approach - a sort of hybrid where we keep most of the game similar to an existing 40k edition but we mainly make one really major change, such that the project can be pitched to prospective players as "It's like 4th edition 40k but with MESBG turn structure" or "it's like Horus Heresy rules but with alternating activations".
>>92559326Option 2. The problem with getting momentum for other alternative systems such as OPR going in local groups is too much unfamiliarity. And I'm personally uninterested in playing not-40k, this project should be about curating a "preserved" version of 40k that encapsulates a particular era while tidying up little rules or slight game feel issues that people's memories have glossed over.
>>92559326I am willing to go as far as an "X meets Y" approach. Not only is it giving us a bit of freedom to fuck with shit if we want, but it also makes it incredibly easy to pitch to someone as you pointed out.>go with wildly original and then it becomes /tg/'s OC sloppa>be very purist and it becomes an editorial project, plus getting questions like "why would I want to play this instead of the thing I am actually nostalgic for?"Hybrid sits in a comfy spot of "it's definitely the thing you know and love, but changes were made to tweak the feel of it to become an enjoyable alternative".I have created a poll on this topic here to help track opinion.https://poal.me/6ygngj
>>92559326Ahh, I think that alternating actviations is more or less the only way to go. It both gives you a thing to mechanically interact with (the idea that something could give your enemy two activations because its so ponderous, etc) and just look at this dork.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XogVrWgOZ2oThis dork is trying to hard to like this stupid game but he brings up the stupid bits of Igougo. He doesn't want to hide in coward rocks, this means that he just doesn't get to play the game? Moving away from L shaped ruins (I don't hate terrain but the idea that each 4x6 board which should be covered randomly in L shaped ruins (as apposed to whatever would actually make sense for that area, If it's subburbs the streets should make sense, every house isn't going to be a smoking ruin, etc, if it's in nevada, there's not going to be a lot). Guy spends how much on Warhams and just doesn't get to play the gameSomething better is needed. Alternating Activations which you already see in killteam both makes it more interesting, gives tactical options (allowing you top punish 'out of place' units better and faster) and so on.
>>92559383I mean it's literally one page of rules. It plays just like warhams, but better, and without hundreds of pages of codex filler because gw felt like they need to fill a book with words.
>>92559429Personally I always thought that OPR goes too far in the other direction and ends up completely generic and flavourless when the flavour is the single biggest reason that most people play 40k in the first place.
Honestly I'm impressed. Less than 24 hours of "refining and improving 4th edition" and you've already managed to ruin basically all the reasons why 4th is more enjoyable than nuhammer. WAP "works" because it's one dude's houserule autism, he just happens to share it for other people to use if they like. Mournival rules for Heresy work for the same reason; it's those dudes running their events and they make no pretense of it being anything else, they just let people DL and use it if they want. 2nd, 4th(with a mix of 3rd-4th dexes), and AoD are all popular choices for "escape current 40K rules" because each offers a distinct experience that suits a particular type of gamer. Some individuals or groups might add a tweak here or a houserule there, but they're not out there rewriting whole swathes of the core rules or backporting a bunch of shit from later editions or making up whole new turn order systems for them, because doing that would take away the reason for using them in the first place; that ready-to-eat defined experience. If you want herohammer just play fucking 2nd. If you want beer&pretzelhammer just play 4th. If you want all the modern bells & whistles, get writing army lists for AoD.People play 4th to *escape* fliers, superheavies, knights, centurions, TLoS, huge armies, AP systems, AA systems, primarifaggots, cogfopDaVinci mechanicus etc etc etc
>>92559545This but superheavies and knights should be strictly for Apocalypse games
>>92559429>literally one page of rulesTwo pages, one sheet of paper.>just like warhamsHas significant variance in gameplay from LoS, Characteristics, Activations, and balancing because it uses a formula for point cost.>but betterSubjective.>without hundreds of pages of codex fillerAll it does is separate rules from lore, which is good practice.
>>92559538I mean if you don't like their builds, (to a certain degree I agree, I like complex list building and slightly more raelistic armies then 3-6 rag tag warbands). But if you want to build something don't you want to start at bland and generic and then make your flavour shot?
>>92559429>I mean it's literally one page of rules.The best possible argument for why to never play it. Overly simple is as much a waste of time as overly complex.>>92559402I think you made a great case against the purist approach. If we don't change much at all, why even go through the trouble instead of just playing the old edition as is.Myself, personally, I lean towards the radical approach, but I recognize this could make the project harder to pitch to newcomers. I don't think it will end up being the popular choice so I'm happy to compromise with the hybrid. But if we do that, I really think we should consider opening it up to more mechanics from other 40k editions besides 4th. So my X meets Y, instead of being "4th edition meets Alternate Activations" would be something more like "the best parts of several 40k editions meet Alternate Activations" or something of that nature.>>92559538Bingo.>>92559545I'm impressed you managed to somehow skim the thread so lazily that you're accusing us of adding things that we are explicitly not allowing, like TLoS, superheavies, flyers... it's like you didn't read at all.This idea you're suggesting that each of these editions had an intentional focus towards a specific kind of gamer is simply not reality. The designers of 2nd didn't set out to make Herohammer, it was just an emergent result of things that were tried. 4th was not made to cater to a different group of players. You don't understand what you're talking about whatsoever.
>>92559649>name fag and non sequiturs two great flavours that belong togetherMy war game can't be simple, simple is just like complex. If getting your wargame done in 2 hours or less is 'too simple' don't know what to tell you. I can drink a lot of beer in 2 hours.
Primaris are a major part of the problem with nu-40k and need to be banned. Falling short of this is dooming to failure.
>>92559708You don't know what to tell me because you're a moron who doesn't understand that an unsatisfying game experience isn't worth any amount of time no matter how briefly it inconveniences you. Yes I would rather play something fun that takes more than 2 hours than play something mindnumbingly dull in half the time.This isn't the OPR shill thread, you can clearly see people are interested in making a completely different type of game, so what do you think you're accomplishing here? Just trolling because you feel threatened by 40k fans coming up with a better alternative than that flavorless slop?
>>92559781You keep claiming its unsatisfying and I'm saying the satisfaction comes from the game not the rules dummy. What I would like to see happen, is the forth or fork or whatever is successful, ignoring 30 odd years of miniature games in between 4th and now isn't going to make this a better game. If your game can't survive someone asking 'Why can't we finish a smaller game in less then 2 hours and fix the alpha issue" now, you're the one who's literally wasting time namefagging to get something 'fun' for you but you'll have no fucking playerbase becase no one particularly likes being alphad, no one particularly likes 4-5 hour games where you spend half your time with your thumb up your ass, no one particularly likes hundreds of pages in a rulebook that pretty clearly given how similarly these games run, was useless bloat. but that's okay Anon, keep screaming.
AA cultists are truly an insane bunch.
C'mon guys, let's not get bogged down replying to the peanut gallery! What's next on the agenda?
>>92559897The turn summary needs to have some amount of consensus or you can't move on to deciding movement/shooting/fighting/morale.
>>92559857Can't be assed to pick apart all this incoherent clown babble, read the thread. You're fighting a strawman. >>92559897>What's next on the agenda?Hilariously, Alternate Activation, or alternatives thereof. Again, as I mentioned before, there are a hundred ways to skin this cat.>1. IGOUGO but with robust Reaction systemThis can then be subdivided into how Reactions will work. Do you get a set number per turn? Do they require a test to pass (Initiative is the perfect stat for this)? Do you work Reactions into the Activation system infrastructure itself if you use something like CoC Command Dice pools?>2. Basic AAI activate a unit, move, shoot, fight etc. with it, then you do the same, back and forth. A lot of issues with this one, but it's simple to grasp for new players.>3. Alternate phasing (whole)I move all my guys, you move all your guys, I shoot with all my guys, you shoot with all your guys, etc.The variant is Discrete, where I move a unit, you move a unit, I move a unit, repeat until all of them are moved. Then I shoot with a unit, you shoot with a unit... etc. Fixes one of the issues with the basic AA above but adds even more "drag" to a game in terms of turnover lag and decision points. One of the drawbacks of AA systems is the fact that players have a lot more points at which they must reassess the game state before making decisions - with inexperienced or indecisive players this can really slow things down. >4. Actions by orderHow some editions of Epic do it. At the start of the turn you assign orders to each of your units (usually use facedown tokens) then reveal them all simultaneously.Fire - stationary but shoots firstAdvance - moves normal speed, shoots lastCharge - moves double speed, cannot shootSomething roughly like that, then you go by alternate phasing as above.You can also combine multiple types but we're trying to keep it at least somewhat simple.
>>92559326Definitely should keep it as close as reasonable to the source - adding AA would make it no longer feel like 40k imo - even reactions don't feel right to me. 40k IS an IGOUGO game, if you don't like that style of gameplay you probably don't actually want to play classic 40k.
Now let me make something abundantly clear.The most effective method of game design is iterative prototyping. That means, to get a very rough working version of the game up as soon as possible, test it, collect data, draft again based on the data, prototype, test, collect data, repeat.Our goal here is not to sit around talking about all the hundred ways to do a turn sequence (and I only scratched the surface so far) for a long ass time until we somehow convince ourselves we have the perfect version. It's to decide on the one that sounds most promising, test it out, report back, and then discuss what was cool and what sucked about it, and then go again. And again.There is no such thing as failing in this process. Every bit of data is valuable. If the game absolutely sucks to play that's awesome, that means we've crossed some things off the list and know what not to do. People are also going to have their own preferences and are also going to probably interpret some of the rules wrongly which teaches you how to write them tighter and more understandable.So don't get overwhelmed with all the info I'm putting out, let's just find the one that everyone thinks sounds the most interesting and keep grinding.
>>92559985I'd go with #1 out of any of those. I really have no interest in a fork that doesn't feel like 40k, as >>92560036 says, it's an IGOUGO system and if that ain't for you then it's fine for you to leave and play OPR or something.
>>92560036I mean if you just want essentially 4th edition as it's already written, why even have this whole fork project? No, if there's one thing that absolutely has to be off the table it's pure IGOUGO with no reactions. As someone else already posted, even Andy Chambers himself said recently his greatest mistake with 3rd ed of he could go back and rewrite it today would be getting rid of IGOUGO. Reactions are part of the current Horus Heresy rules which still feel very classic 40k, and Kill Team, Necromunda, Epic 40k of all sorts, all use differing types of Alternate Activations. And yes I know two of those are skirmish games but it doesn't matter, you CAN scale any activation system up to units.If people really want to try and keep things feeling oldschool I'm in favor of trying a system that's purely balancing out IGOUGO with Reactions. I've mentioned ASC previously as one of my favorite old GW games and that did so very well.
>>925599851 sounds like a good starting point, I like your idea about initiative factoring into it
>>92559649>The designers of 2nd didn't set out to make Herohammer, it was just an emergent result of things that were tried. 4th was not made to cater to a different group of players.When you write your game and you're deciding how many points get to be spent on characters, and your choice is "literally half of them", rest assured that that's choosing to write Herohammer. 3rd was also absolutely made with player groups in mind. It's well documented that GW was hearing from a lot of people who wanted to put more models on the table but were slowed down by the rules, and that GW wanted to sell more models to make bigger armies than in 2nd.Each new ruleset was written with the player in mind to some degree, and groups of players were certainly considered- even more explicitly when it comes to the modern game.
will primaris, custodes, and knights be a thing?
Okay so seems like basically everyone is on-board with method 1 then. Cool, I think that's for the best and this is going smoother than anticipated.>>92560184>I like your idea about initiative factoring into itI agree, and that's also how ASC did it. However if we go this route I need to head some people off because I know there will be balance whining, even though we are still at a design stage. I can already hear them.>WTF Eldar are going to be so OP>great another edition where Orks get screwedJust wait and hear me out lads. The initiative characteristic giving variation on different factions being better or worse at reactions adds to fiction's unique identity and flavor, and makes the gameplay styles more diverse and interesting. Yes for some factions this will end up being a big advantage and for others a disadvantage, but these can be balanced out by OTHER advantages and disadvantages across the factions from points costs to raw power to special abilities. We're not just going to staple on a major mechanic like that and leave everything else untouched. And if it doesnt work out we can try a different sort of Reaction system. I'm not going to let some factions just get hosed. But remember balance tweaking is the final step.
>>92560308>PrimarisAs proxies for Firstborn yeah>Custodeslol no>KnightsUnless they're Apocalypse only I hope not
>>92560308>primarisThat one is very controversial, we'll definitely chat about it quite a bit but I think the current agreement is to add some extra wargear options to Firstborn if needed and let you proxy Primaris units as Firstborn units.>CustodesI would argue yes but we'll see what everyone else thinks. They would be putting very few models on the board if we allow them.>KnightsDefinitely not. At least not in standard games.
>>92560308Custodes never should have had more than 1 or 2 actual Custodes, they're supposed to be the Elite of the Elite in terms of abilities. Fielding 20 Custodes is the kind of stupid shit that I find annoying, hell, I'd personally rather they weren't playable at all. You want to be a special boy? Play Grey Knights or Deathwatch. Making them a little bit better Marines makes them feel much less impactful and cool.
>>92560240Yeah I think Herohammer was pretty clearly intentional - 2nd ed 40k was just following the path laid down for it by 4th ed WFB and you would have to be braindead to think the hero focus was accidental in that game. Even late RT with the Space Wolf list they were introducing special characters kitted out with special rules designed to make them unkillable monsters - hell, the WD articles introducing the Space Wolf list spent an entire article on Ragnar et. al. and the main army list didn't come out until the following month!
>>92560389Custodes should never leave Terra and so should have no justification for ever being in a 40K battle
>>92560410Exactly. Even if someone wants to use the excuse of "but what about the Genestealer Cult on Terra!?" it wouldn't be justified. The Custodes wouldn't be sent in to deal with it unless they attacked the Imperial Palace. A Genestealer Cult on Terra would likely be dealt with by the Terran PDF, the Inquisition and the Imperial Fists.
One thing I think you have a great opportunity to tackle here is psychic abilities. The difference in the scope of psychic powers between some 3rd and 4th ed codexes is pretty extreme. There is also that period of minor psychic powers (which seems VERY interesting to get adapted into a set of core rules imo)
>>92560308>PrimarisAs proxies only, no need to invalidate someone's modern collection.>CustodesIt doesn't make sense to do so, especially if the assumed setting is pre-999.M41. >KnightsNo, please play NetEpic to your hearts content though.
>>92559168I like this line of thinking, let horde factions actually feel like a horde! Especially when fighting something more elite like marines.
>>92560694Another way to do it is a Horde rule to simulate a mob without need of having more minis. Example: add N dead minis to the unit every turn unless it has suffered X+ damage in a phase. That would also make useful multi shot guns like Assault Cannons dedicated to this job
>>92559985>>92560082Sounds good, anon!
>>92560317>Self appointed leader declares that his pet option is the most popular based on charitably 3 posts for itWell game over, another narcissist making their fantasy heart breaker instead of trying to design a game worth playing. Ahh well, like someone else asked>why not just play 4th edition rules 3rd codex?
>>92558318There seems to be two competing ideas happening in this thread, one party that just wants to make a refined version of 40k 4e and one that wants to use 40k 4e as a base to iterate their own full-on homebrew edition.
I have done actual work.>>92552036https://pastebin.com/1T71j2VgI have prepared a thread template pastebin, and a summary pastebin that I will update between threads, for as long as they continue to happen.
>>92561131The namefag is seemingly trying to steer discussion towards letting him use this initiative so he can promote his existing homebrew.
>>92561131If you have another idea then share it, don't be a bitter cunt just because you're getting outvoted and other people are putting in more effort. I never appointed myself a leader, I've just been initiating important discussions, and let's be clear about another thing: if I wanted to make my "fantasy heart breaker" I would not need this thread to do it. I've already written a nearly complete fan edition of 40k and it's very different in a lot of ways than what this is shaping up to be.>instead of trying to design a game worth playingThat's exactly what we're doing here, so drop your game design wisdom oh brilliant critic. What do you have to contribute? Make your arguments.
>>92561240OP here. Thanks for the good work, anon!
>>92553385I pick 28mm models, and armies larger than platoon size. 28mm models because I feel that's a no brainer. And armies larger than platoon size because I feel that this is a massive undertaking and given that 4th edition tends to lend towards smaller armies I doubt that there will ever be a supplement to allow for post 4th edition sized 2k point armies. Full disclosure I am an 8th ED baby. I did read over the 4th Ed codex that you had posted at >>92554158 I'm grateful for it.
>>92555918No? its designed to address the major issue/survavability of sv 2 elite models back during that time.Remmeber, or maybe you dont i dont know your history of the game, back then things like terminators still only had 1 wound, and that was what fucked them and made them not great unless you were able to deliver them into melee. Thats not just a marine issue.
>>92552643Because it was the current edition when /tg/ was created and thus the focus of our neck-beard nostalgia.
>>92561387The issue with this is where are you going to find massive playing spaces to maneuver around those models and how are you even going to reach them unless you're playing on a floor.That first post was really just meant to illustrate the difficulty of designing at 28mm scale, if you follow the whole reply chain you'll see that it inevitably leads to the conclusion that the game has to be at small army sizes to be feasible, bar doing something really unrealistic like all of us printing new armies at a smaller scale.In theory once the base version of this whole project is complete some anons could go further and make an Apocalypse supplement for it, but to keep it manageable we really need to stay around the army size that's been established here >>92554842
>>92561480Fair enough. I was thinking too big with the whole larger combat thing.
>>92552036I’ve actually seen a similar project on another site.
>>92561785Do you remember the site's name? If things fizzle out here or a rogue janny decides he has a bone to pick with us then we could move over to that project and take what we have to them.
>>92561914there's one in dakkadakka rules section
>>92562059Well it seems currently down, but I do feel that since they have a rules section with something similar to what were brewing up and if Warhammer Armies Project is anything to go by then it seems that GW won't go full Nintendo (in shutting down fan projects) on our asses so project fourkhammer should be fine.
Fucking brain dead niggers on about Custodes. Dave Taylor had a fantastic 4th Ed. Custodes Army using Grey Knights rules. This was mentioned in White Dwarf alongside his fantastic 4th Ed. Mechanicus army that used Lost and the Damned rules (which in an of itself offers an answer to Mechanicus questions, above and beyond the already fine unofficial Mechanicus list for 3rd, or using IG doctrines).How do people who are posting in this thread not know about this? This is like baseline 4th ed knowledge. Why isn’t that, plus Vehicle Design Rules for new vehicles, satisfactory?
Anyone think we should start next thread off with some polls, try to get more feedback so we can commit to certain decisions required to move forward?
>>92554158Your version was not OCR'd.So I slapped got it done quick. Walah, searchable text. Please replace that download with this.https://litter.catbox.moe/9ivzwi.pdf
>>92561240Notes anon here waking up.That is a good ass summary, so in turn I will make a poll then about the turn order.http://poal.me/83ai34
>>92562622Sure, that can't hurt. We're on the cusp of something great here, we just have to keep it going before the wheels fall off. I definitely agree with the mentioning iteration; it's true for all things being developed. We can't expect it to be perfect right away. Let's help each other to get a rough shape first then iron out the details as time goes on, there's really no rush.
>>92562770eh I'm leaning towards IGUGO (classic 3e player) but I've never played HH. I'll give the rules a read and see what the fuss is about.
>>925593264th Ed did just fine without alternate activations or reaction fire, so why add them now?The way weapons were set up, light infantry needed to cover hop and heavy infantry like marines were more able to move in the open.First turn alpha also wasn’t that big an issue as 6x4 tables meant that Troops choices, the backbone of your army, rarely had the range to engage on turn 1 without moving first.
>>92559429>All hits auto-wound>Games go for 4 turns only>Still shitty objective-control gameplay OPR is objectively not a good game.
>>92563089It's a game for casual players. I also think it's good as an introductory wargame for someone who has never played a tabletop wargame before. Beyond that, yeah, it's a terrible system.
>>92561398I had 4th ed marine force that was Scouts as troops calling in deep striking terminators and I did pretty well with it. Sv2+/4+invul is pretty reliable with smart play. If your termies are getting popped you’re playing them wrong.
>>92553978Sounds comfy. 40k is a skirmish game at heart and the modern trend to large armies and higher points just stretches it way too far. The standard game size should be 1000pts.
>>92562753Pastebin anon here, thank you for this. I added a download link to the summary section along with a listing of the prior polls that had been made.
>>92563130I agree completely with the anon who says it’s too simple. 10th ed shows that complexity (masses of special rules, constant rerolls, strats popping all over the place, army one-off power pops etc) do not make a tactically deep game. OPR shows that removing these elements, along with a bunch of other shit, also does not make a tactically deep game.
>>92553385I'm in favor of 28mm and armies larger than platoon size. I have never been the biggest fan of a standardized table size.
>>92552036>24 hours later>Thread hasn't died
>>92562770There is no option for leaving it as it is IgoYougo. Way easier to balance
Sweeping advances: Yay or nay?And why?
>>92552036What's wrong with using the Horus Heresy 2.0 rules and adding rules for different factions?HH2.0 is still built around the skeleton of Warhammer 3rd edition. It's closer to 40k 4th edition than many other rulesets. It already has the core rules, keywords, universal special rules and hotfixes of tiny issues.I mean, you could build up from the 40k 4th edition ruleset or strip out parts of HH2.0 to bring it down. Just cut out reactions.>>92556201>>92558910Huh?The entire reason why people don't like 10e is because it's too streamlined and too simplified. If you think it's too complex, go and play One Page Rules.>No command points or stratagems means no confusion about when to play the gotchasLimited-use abilities has always been around in 40k. There were so many rules that were stuff like, "when X is happening you can do Y once per game." Command points and stratagems are an amalgamation of those rules.>No keeping track of army one-off special rulesLiterally the entire aim of 10e was to reduce book keeping. Every unit fits onto a single sheet. Army rules only take up TWO PAGES.jesus christJust because you were very personally familiar with a ruleset and could play it faster does not mean it was simpler, streamlined or easy-to-understand. I mean, otherwise GURPS wold be a hundred times more popular.
>>92563573Pretend that I am a retarded no games and have no idea what that is, please.
>>92563665More or less the "I win more" mechanic for close combat.
>>92563574>There were so many rules that were stuff like, "when X is happening you can do Y once per game." Command points and stratagems are an amalgamation of those rules.Maybe in shitty editions, anon, which are not relevant here. This was rare in 3rd or 4th. >>92563665Please leave actual nogaems. Pretending isn’t necessary for you.
>>92552036Add 6th edition Hullpoints to vehicles and their vehicle damage chart. 3rd/4th vehicles were way to easy to remove.
>>92563352Oh no brother, they started the fire. But they didn't knew we love the heat.
>>92552036OP here.If anyone is interested in making the OP images in the lazy way I did it goes like this:>Open ForgeWorld Imperial Armour book>Find one of those model diorama photographs>take screenshot of selected pic>open Pixlr>open image>Go to text>Scroll down until find the "now showing" text>Edit the "text" (NOT THE NAME THE "TEXT")>save and you're done
>>92563089Wounding is objectively a time waster, what is wounding doing that you can't model with Attack and defense dice? As far as I can tell Wounding is there to require dozens of of dice something that could be accurately modelled in a couple otherwise. If OPR is objectively not good, what is warhammer again? Remember its the same game but takes twice as long and uses four times the dice or more to achieve the same ends.>>92563012Why add them now>Could someone anyone have found any possible improvement to 4th edition? Are not cowards rocks the most engaging gameplay against science fiction weapons that would have effective ranges god know what? Bit of dirt? Good think Sonic canons, a particle weapons, and literal magic can't do anything with that. Good ol' dirt. Again if OPR is bad, all of warhammer is objective terrible for doing the same thing in twice the time, hiding that fact with four or more times the dice rolls.>oh I just want my 3rd editionWell play 3rd edition? Fourk is only going to be a disappointment the point of a fork isn't to stay the same as what it's forking from. Even if you dingobrained fleshbeasts manage to shout down everyone at best you can just touch up layouts.
>>92562770I'm surprised to see AltPhases is now winning a few hours later. Alright, I'll focus the discussion in this direction then.So obviously this leaves us with the question of, how do we want to alternate? Whole army by phase - ie, "I move all my stuff, you move all your stuff, all my stuff shoots, all your stuff shoots"?Or unit by unit "we take turns moving units until everything has moved, then we take turns shooting until everything has shot" etc.The advantage of the first option is that it doesnt add much more drag to the game compared to IGOUGO, you are still resolving large chunks of the turn at a time. The disadvantage is of course, that it does nothing to solve the alpha strike problem of one side getting to shoot with their whole army before the opponent can respond, giving a large first turn advantage. If you use this method, you still need Reactions in your game.The second method has the advantage of breaking up shooting discretely which more or less solves alpha strike, however there is a LOT of drag here, every time you finish doing one movement/shooting/fight etc action and priority shifts back to your opponent players have a new game state to analyze. This has even more drag than classic AA. This WILL slow a game down, and can also be a bit difficult to track. "Did I already shoot with this unit this turn?" Not as immediately grokable as you'd think it would be.There are hybrid methods as well. For example, Movement is done army by army but then shooting happens unit by unit. This is how 2nd ed Epic 40k works.Another way to do it is to have separate shooting phases for units that moved and units that remained stationary, with the stationary units getting the advantage of shooting first. You can also place the "first fire" one before the Movement, even. This one may require a lot of fussy implementation of special rules to represent faster units and different weapon types though, I don't know if that's what we're looking for here.
>>92552036My only question is what's the point, when it'll just be the version of the game I already play (4th, with mostly 3rd codexes) but with extra tacked on shit I don't want or like in it? it really isn't lacking anything I'd add or change. it has a custom vehicle builder already if you want to use anything not in a codex and it's piss easy to make your own custom units if your group wants to have that too.Go make it if you think you want or need to but you'll never really find concensus on anything here.
4th edition is just about my favorite. Im absolutely captivated, boys. Wish I could help. Have a bump?
>>92564712If you just want to play 4th as it already is then you're always free to do so. If you're interested in the fork project it's because you want a new, better edition. A fork is essentially an alternate timeline where we got the thing we are making instead of 5th edition. If we weren't going to change anything at all why would the thread even exist? Of course we will never reach a perfect consensus. Players will always have subjective tastes. But if the majority of people want to drop IGOUGO - and many good arguments have been made as to why we should over the years - then that's naturally going to be something we attempt to work on. You're allowed to have subjective tastes, but if you want to sway the threads' opinions on something, it's best to have an argument for it based in game design reasoning, rather than just "I don't like this thing". And remember at the end of the day this is all going to come down to playtesting. If people mostly don't like what we've made at first that doesn't mean it's ruined forever, that's a natural part of the process - we'll go back to the drawing board and try something else. So I encourage you to stick around because you might find you have more fun playing something experimental than you thought you would.
IGOUGO with Reactions and AltAct should be options
>>92564789What do you mean by that? Both are already options in the poll. Do you mean they should be optional styles of gameplay that we design for as like, a modular system where players can agree with their opponents at the start of the game which style they want to use? Because that comes with it's own set of problems and is really not a wise idea.
>>92558383Chaos genestealers have had an outright army list, it's completely based
>>92564782it just seems to me if you're changing huge swathes of the core rules and stuff as fundamental as turn order you'd maybe be better off looking into existing alternative rulesets or writing something entirely from scratch to save yourself headaches and complications later down the line. it's reminding me of people who heavily modify D&D 5e to try and make it something it isn't, instead of using a more appropriate ruleset for their game.
>>92564978>you'd maybe be better off looking into existing alternative rulesetsNone of them satisfy the players who want a deep and flavorful game or there wouldn't be a desire for a new one like this thread has expressed.>or writing something entirely from scratch40k players don't want something completely unfamiliar, they want something that still feels akin to the game they know, but with improvements. It's also much easier to keep everyone focused and on task when we have a shared idea of what the starting point is.We aren't making arbitrary changes for the sake of change, we're discussing what we see as the flaws of the original 4th ed and talking about what can be done to innovate on that base. Almost everyone with some experience playing other, more modern games can agree that IGOUGO is the most lackluster element of the design and is past its time, with even one of the original 40k designers commenting on it on several occasions as being the first thing he would change if he could go back and redo it. That doesn't mean we want to throw the rest of the game out (although as I've previously stated in the thread, I am more comfortable than most with radical changes, but we've settled already on sticking with a comfortable middle ground where we don't change that much).
>>92565063>calls every other game bland and unflavorful>only warhammer is goodI mean you've answered your own question there. What's a good game that you play that isn't warhammer that you want to incorporate into the game? You're so fanny busted over one page rules that you've locked everything else out to except for some reactions system that just won't work (as intended you really want to keep Igougo it's just unpaletable for lots of the people who may play your game so you have to sneak it in there) or it's going to change to make your rules more bland and unflavorful (because apparently only alpha strikes and coward rocks are the 'living breathing flavour of the game'.
>>92565063>they want something that still feels akin to the game they knowSo why change the core rules like turn order so much it's a different game?
>>92565258Part of it might be to avoid James throwing the lawyer-hammer at us. 9th Age and Warhammer Armies Project are different gameplay wise to get away with this and we might have no choice but to do the something similar here.
>>92565182Oh I see, you weren't posting in good faith, you're just the buttmad OPR shill still trolling the thread. Enjoy this (You).>>92565258Because that seems to be what the majority of people want. It's not a completely different game just because we address a major flaw that past 40k designers have come forward and said they would also change if they were writing a new edition.Also I love how the two responses here are simultaneously accusing us of not changing things enough and changing them too much. Goes to show critics never really know what the fuck they're talking about.How about this. Either of you post your suggestions for rules and reasoning as to why based on your game design knowledge and experience.
>>92565337This is partially why I think per phase alternating activations is the best middle ground. We still have the phases we know and love but it's changed enough to fill in some flaws. As for what was discussed earlier in the thread, I think having it each phase is done by units with highest initiative to lowest is probably the best, alternating until every player has completed with every unit. If a player is done, then the remaining player just completes all of their remaining activations at once.
>>92565337>>92565363Im sure they will butGW will actually come after fans who make what are essentially non-profit, homebrew changes to a... ~20 year old rulebook?
>>92565346Clearly these are employees of OPR and GW both desperately trying to prevent this project from achieving anything.t. least schizophrenic grog
>>92565363Sequencing activations off of Initiative is far too tedious and requires too much bookkeeping for usually very little benefit. A better way to do it could be to nominate units for activation and have initiative be the tiebreaker in a 1:1 capacity, if we wanted to use some sort of system like that.But we're now reaching a point in the thread where I think things are getting too muddied and confused again because not everyone is keeping up with the discussions that have already been had, they're just throwing new ideas at the wall. We really need one of the summary guys to consolidate info here and maybe have a pastebin or document where we can track all of the different suggestions as we narrow down the list.
>>92565397Well there was this summary from the template someone posted beforehttps://pastebin.com/pdx5GmYdIf we just go through this slowly we might reach a point, make a poll if there is something where we narrowed down options but no consensus has been met.
>>92565375They probably would try if they could but what's GW going to do exactly?>no stop don't share a random .pdf with no real names or addresses attached on a Mongolian basket weaving forum>how dare you use unofficial rules to play games with buddies at the unaffiliated indie FLGS or some guy's garage
>>92565425I feel the same way as you do. I was scratching my head as I read those two posts, not exactly sure of what legal peril this general was in
>>92565410Oh awesome I somehow missed this, good stuff!Everyone make sure to read that before next thread if you want to contribute to the design talks. Also, before we make the next thread, let me know if there are any more rulebook PDFs I can upload so the baker can put the links in the OP. I have replaced the 4th ed rulebook with the searchable copy updated by this based anon here >>92562753 new link below.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L6FUwSmHaUoG6GDO1fl0M-_Nv_W0TwCd/view?usp=sharing
>>92565337you can't copyright game rules, as long as you file the serial numbers off you can make and sell an exact clone of any tabletop game legally.
>>92565545I just found this thread tonight. Personally, Id prefer to keep this project simple and as close to base 4th ed as possible. The later editions of 40k get so convoluted. For instance:>4th ed: Infantry, Jump Infantry, Beasts and Cavalry, Bikes and Jetbikes, Monstrous Creatures, Artillery, Vehicles.>AoD: Infantry, Cavalry, Automata, Dreadnought, Daemon, Primarch, Vehicles, as well as the sub-types Line, Antigrav, Artillery, Monstrous, Heavy, Light. Vehicle sub-types include Transports, Slow, Fast, Skimmers, Super-heavy, Knights & Titans, and Flyers.I mean.. do we really need subdivisions for every single type of unit? 4th ed was the last edition I closely followed so Im rather out of the loop in general.
>>92565590Technically speaking 4th has sub-types for vehicles too.>Open-topped, Fast, Walkers, Skimmers, TanksSo fewer, but still has some. Revising the categorization could be done I suppose.
>>92565346I, having written a few fantasy heartbreakers, recognize a fantasy heartbreaker in progress. I would like this to succeed, if you wrote the best war game that's just one more great wargame for me to play. But you're inability to own up to the fact that your stated goals and experiences is best served by playing 3rd/4th edition. You have like one home rule you want to write up. I get it, I've been there, I feel for you. I would like this to be a success but it won't be as long as you act like little bitch whenever someone points out that 30 years have passed and at least looking seriously at the other options instead of your shitty rigged polls might result in something good. >Critics never knowKnow enough to know that a name fag is the worst choice of 'self appointed captain'. People pointing out that the only people who are supporting you is because they want to change nothing at all is not a lack of understanding.
>>92565640>But you're inability to own up to the fact that your stated goals and experiences is best served by playing 3rd/4th edition. You have like one home rule you want to write up. I get it, I've been there, I feel for you. I would like this to be a success but it won't be as long as you act like little bitch whenever someone points out that 30 years have passed and at least looking seriously at the other options instead of your shitty rigged polls might result in something good.You are fucking babbling schizophrenic nonsense, just be clear and direct about what the fuck your issue is.
>>92565590We don't need all the new categories added by AoD, no. There won't be any Primarchs, Superheavies, etc. But we could add a couple of them, like Automata, for example.
Can named characters go back to needing opponent's permission by default?
>>92565716I'm in favor of purging them all and replacing them with relic wargear and upgrades so people can make their own.
>>92565375>>92565425>>92565442I'll be honest I'm a bit paranoid about the project being canned due to legal bullshit. But if >>92565548 is right then we should be fine. It still would be alright for the game to be different enough to be its own 40k edition hence why it is a fork of fourth edition hence why OP must have called it "fourk."
>>92565751We aren't monetizing anything so there's literally nothing they can do to stop us.
Reminder to whichever nigger ends up baking the next thread, there is a fucking thread template.>>92561240Won't be me, I'm going to bed.
>>92562770And now opinion has swung back again on this, to an even tie.As I explained here >>92564660 if we were to go with alternating by phases whole, rather than unit by unit, it's still going to have a potential problem with alpha strikes unless we keep reactions anyways. So unless the majority of people in favor of alternating phases want the discrete unit-by-unit variant, I think IGOUGO with heavy Reactions is the better option.I also want people to actually put forth reasoning as to why they favour whichever system they do. A poll is fine for quick and dirty data but personally I put more weight on people's opinions who can back them up with something.
>>92566050Could you make a hypothetical example of your ideal vision there?
>>92566050I personally voted phase by phase alternating activations because then you can do some interesting strategic plays if we change certain rules. Like for example, if we have 2nd edition type overwatch where you declare it in the movement phase for a unit and get them ready for it, then you can see which enemy units are being aggressively played and counteract more intuitively than putting units on overwatch and waiting for the enemy turn for it to pop off. It makes those phases more reactive while doing the order us 40k nerds are used to for the entire game's lifespan.
>>92566096I have a lot of ideas regarding how it could work, but to keep it simple, let's say we port over the Horus Heresy Reaction rules as-is (I recommend you go read those if you haven't already, pg 158 of the Age of Darkness rulebook, links are in the thread), but also ensure every faction has ample special rules to grant them additional Reactions above the base amount of 1 per phase (but typically ones fitting to their playstyle).Since we have already established that armies in this game will be relatively small, this might be all we need to do to ensure there are "extensive" Reaction opportunities relative to the number of units you have.If we want to take it a step further, I would suggest adding the ability for units that are directly targeted by either a shooting attack or a charge to be able to take an Initiative test in order to perform a Reaction even after the player is down to 0 for the Phase.I would also add a couple more Reactions like counter-attack/heroic intervention (charge in the opponent's turn when you/a nearby friendly unit receives a charge).
>>92566286HH tends to play at higher points limits for bigger armies. Are you concerned that matching or exceeding HH reaction numbers may be too much?
>>92564653>Wounding is objectively a time wasterAbsolutely wrong.
>>92566880On the contrary, I want there to be more reactions happening here proportional to our forces than HH normally has.I also suggest considering the idea of replacing the base 1 Reaction per Phase with base 3 per Turn (but keep the maximum 3 in any given Phase so that additional bonus ones must be spread around) to make things even more flexible. This should be adjusted based on the points limit of the game of course.Playtesting will be the arbiter of whether it's too much, or just right. We do have to consider that elite armies will benefit more from this as well, since they pack more power into fewer units, but as long as that's taken into consideration for balancing that's okay - I actually think it makes more sense for small elite forces to be more reactive.
>>92566929I'm jumping ahead here but I can imagine being able to roll with some sort of synergy with Nids Synapse and Guard orders when it comes to reactions, with the latter especially.
New thread>>92567156>>92567156>>92567156
>>92560410>>92560485What if the Inquisition are attacking the Palace?
