File: fourk SRD.pdf (4.54 MB, PDF)

4.54 MB PDF

>>92669567
Reposting SRDanon's fourk rules from his >>92667493 post.

>>92669626
Has there been any talk about vehicles for the following:
>Introducing hull point mechanic as well as armor saves
>Introducing AP effects on vehicle damage table (AP 1 & 2 conferring + modifiers while - AP weapons only being able to strip hullpoints and - modifiers on damage tables)

>>92669626
Why does assault weapons prevent you from charging?

File: SumatraPDF_MTfHYacqbM.png (183 KB, 442x346)

183 KB PNG

>>92669733
Because I made a typo, thank you for catching that. Added to a list of fixes. If you catch any other mistakes please let me know.

>>92669626
Comparing this to the rule book I have on hand really shows how much of it was fluff text.

Rules mean nothing, there's 10 sets of rules that work, what you need for a successful edition is a BALANACED points list for every army.

Good fucking like with that. It takes thousands of games to do.

>>92669985
To be fair, if this is a continuation from 4th-6th edition, with tweaked turn orders/reactions there is more than enough material to work back from to make sure that certain combos cannot be made or some under or overcosted units are properly adjusted.

40k had its share of stupid power creep and options available to certain armies, but as long as some special rules are not made to be overtly stupid without having drawbacks its fine. Also some stupid powerful mechanics that are difficult to pull off should still be in the game.
I think at one point plasma moritats for HH was retardedly powerful, but actually getting the moritat close enough to pull it off such a big gamble that it was worth it. Either a legion squad would blast his ass to a pulp or he'd get within plasma chainfire range and generate unlimited hits while fucking up a 20 man squad.

>>92669985
You have it ass backwards. Until you have good rules, balance means nothing. You can have a perfectly balanced game with exact 50/50 winrates in all match-ups and still have it be a miserable fucking experience that isn't worth the time to sit down and play it to begin with. It's much more preferable to have a fun and soulful game that you actually get excited for even if balance isn't perfect. Balance comes last.

This is part of GWs current problem. 10th edition is just fundamentally dogshit on so many levels, and they spend all this effort on "Metawatch" articles and balance dataslates, which no one gives a shit about but tourneyfags. They could mathematically prove it was the most balanced edition of 40k ever made and I still wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, because the game sucks.

I know people meme about this but I'm gonna use a food analogy here. If a game is a meal, design is the ingredients, balance is how you cook it. You can take a premium cut of delicious marbled wagyu steak and slightly under- or overcook it and still have a good meal. On the other hand, if you take a log of shit and cook it to perfection - simmering for just the right amount of time on each side! - you're still eating a fucking turd.

Balance is one of the very last factors in good game design. It still IS a consideration, and totally whack balance undoes all the hard work you put into the design just like if you completely burn that steak you ruined it, but its importance is massively overstated by amateurs. I will take a fun game with 60/40 winrates over a mediocre and bland game with 50/50 winrates ANY fucking day.

>these threads are still getting made
You guys know you can just play OPR right? It even has a formula-based custom army app that you can use to make whatever codex you want.
>muh fluff!
You can use whatever grog lore you want, not an issue.
>muh shrimplified
Working adults don't have time to play a board game for 6 hours in their friend's basement. Grow up, or go play ASL like a real boomer autist.

>>92670533
you are the cancer killing /tg/, kindly remove yourself from the board and go back to twitter or wherever you came from

>>92669966
This, 4th Edition SRD anon is the real hero here. Oddly enough coming up with about the same amount of rules as one page rules.

>>92670533
For the last time, OnePageAnon, if we were going to play your shitty excuse for a game, we would have started doing that already ages ago. Everyone knows OPR exists, if they're still trying to make other versions of 40k it's because they have accurately written it off as completely uninteresting.

>>92670533
I have played it a couple of times, it's ok. Not particularly faster than 4th. The lack of toughness felt like shit, as vehicle wounds.
Deep strike without dispersion is a bad idea specially with alternating activations.
It's also as flavorless as it can get.
Don't get me wrong 40k is not great. But can be an enjoyable mix of nostalgia and charming rules, if you remove those two you are left with just the mediocre part of the game.

>>92669626
>>92667493
Comments from someone who is briefly familiar with 4th:
>Units further than 6” within Area Terrain may not be targeted.
Does the area terrain size matter? As can you completely hide within Size 1 area terrain as a normal infantry?
>Units may Shoot targets behind, or deeper than 6” into Area Terrain if they have a higher elevation, such as from a cliff or
building.
It'd be nice to specify the minimum height, because you could get into argument what provides elevation and what does not.

File: RollOut.jpg (170 KB, 910x843)

170 KB JPG

>>92670965
>I have played it a couple of times, it's ok. Not particularly faster than 4th. The lack of toughness felt like shit, as vehicle wounds.
>Deep strike without dispersion is a bad idea specially with alternating activations.
>It's also as flavorless as it can get.
I still don't understand the flavourless complaint. I definitely think that OPR is made in reaction to the directions of 9th and 10th edition warhammer's the game engine. Keeping things simple has no impact on flavour though. Let's play a game of 'point to the things you would change' to be very flavourful mostly so OPR can steal it (oh hey we got Assault rules now 3.3 is go boys)

You want it to be unobtrusive in the background. And frankly I don't want to roll more then what I can actually fit in my hand. Oh well to each their own I guess.

Havoc Brothers Roll Out

>>92671416
Maybe OPRfag can take his off topic shit system elsewhere

>>92671164
OP phrased it as a new system but this is just 4th Edition with shit stripped out, it's nothing new and supposedly no changes were made except to phrasing.

What are the answers to those points in the 4th Ed rulebook? Is it specified there? What page?

>>92671488
The funny thing is there's probably more OPR fags then fourkfags in the thread now that screaming nid and his blowjob buddies fucked back off to discord.

>>92672502
It is Wednesday, people are working. Where's the OPR thread you should be posting in?

What are we actually simulating? When I think about 40K and WFB I get something like an RPG but with a shitload of individual minis, probably since that is how both developed. But like... what is happening on the board?

Killteam or Mordheim or Warcry is straightforward, it's pretty much exactly what you see. 6-12 minis a side, each representing a single soldier, fighting over some shit in a little scrap with mostly to scale terrain and distances, squads. NetEpic or warmaster, not super accurate on the scale for distances and terrain necessarily but it's gives the right sense. Actual armies fighting over an appropriately large area. Stands represent tactical units, not individuals so a stand of Guard or Nids is waaaaaay more bodies than Space Marines or Eldar.

But WFB and 40K are like... the skirmish minis fighting, but the board is bigger and there are more of them. But the minis represent individuals still? But not really. You have more models for IG than SM because you have individual model removal still. Because we want to sell a lot of minis.

You guys have said "smaller battles" but really you mean a smaller collection. 12-15 elite Guardsmen can probably tango with 5 CSM especially if they have some plasma with them, that does seem accurate. But we are still playing an RPG-like detailed, fluffy, game here still. Lots of simulation, minimal abstraction. If the IG player's normal army is 50 minis, wouldn't that mean the CSM player is bringing like 16-20? Probably reasonable for both to resolve in detail. If my assumption is true and you have a small "1 model equals 1 man" deal then for guard you have a platoon! One platoon of normal soldiers featuring an APC, some bigger guns, and a tank maybe. A handful of CSM and a daemon engine seems like more than a match.

If 40K or /fourk/ really was a proper "1 equals 1" platoon scale game I think it can work and have a clear identity. But elite armies would feel VERY different (oops! all Characters! maybe!). Idk

>>92672502
I feel /Fourk/ as a 4chan thread should be an ideas factory so people can get interested in making their own stuff while the main Fourk system is being worked on by SNA.
Encouraging new systems to emerge to fill in the niches left in 40k's shadow is the best way forward instead of saying "X exists, why bother with making y and z?". It's the same mindset that let GW rule over the table top market.

>>92673902
I agree with you completely. It's the reason I ever only play 1K points with the new 10th edition rules. It's absurd the amount of bodies you need to fill a 2K list of Deldar. Besides that, you can't even go for glory and bring like 8 fully manned Raiders and some toys because of the 3 model limit.. It feels weird to me at 2K points but juuuust about right at 1K. I get that lord-of-war type units don't jell well at 1K and I guess we could limit list building when including one and make sure you are stuck with a lot of chaff or outright ban inclusion of key support units when you decide to take a LOW.
It is with these thoughts and yours that I shall forever plead for a more dynamic game, more player interaction. Cleaner crunch and more mechanical surface area to show your skills in command, deception, list-building and luck.

With this unique order system idea, will guard orders as we know them be different, or an additional squad tactics mechanic?

>>92674544
It's funny, I thought of the same thing when we first discussed it, maybe the squad tactics idea isn't too bad.

>>92674353
I'm glad you agree, but I doubt you are as much of an extremist about this as I am. You're probably on the same level as the SNA group.

File: Screenshot_20240304_224027.jpg (479 KB, 1080x696)

479 KB JPG

>>92674544
I just hope that if the guard orders as we know them persist, that stormtroopers get more orders than regular guard. Should represent the tactical and strategic paychoindoctrination. Instead of six orders like guard get, have the first six plus six that take inspiration from the MT orders from the codex

File: oldwarhammerarts02.jpg (352 KB, 1300x928)

352 KB JPG

>>92673902
Wargames have basically almost never been true to scale, that's not a 40k issue. 28mm in particular is like almost always incorrect in some way. It's complicated battles on boards that are little too small with models that are a bit too big, but that's okay. It makes for a fun game and that's the important bit. If you want full simulationism, you're looking into historicals that have tried the same thing and it's an almost entirely alien experience. If you convert warhammer to chain of command and play at 15mm, you're playing an extremely different but probably more realistic game.
If you want true warhammer, epic is probably the best bet. It's the only game that captures that "dudes swordfighting in the front, titans walking in the back" feel.

>>92674667
I like the other ones I mentioned, yeah Epic is pretty much TRVE 40K but "this is what a platoon (more or less) of 1:1 represented Guardsmen or their equivalent strength in another faction could handle on a patrol" does still feel like a good middle ground for something larger than a scrap between two squads and a proper battle.

>>92674544
>>92674555
>>92674647

This is a good subject for discussion. Here's how I see it:

The introduction of Guard orders in their 5e codex was a design paradigm shift for the game. I think the success of it (in terms of fan reception) is ultimately what started GW designers down the road towards where it landed in 9th edition. It's the first memorably bespoke gameplay system for an army I can remember. Other, earlier books sometimes had them for army building purposes, some had something close to one as a balancing tool (Necron Phase Out and Tyranid Synapse). But Guard Orders feel, to me, decidedly closer to things which came much later on such as GSC Ambush rules, Dark Eldar Pain tokens, and plainly as a reaction to players looking at Guard Orders and going, "boy, that's a cool and unique way to make playing the plain soldiery more engaging - WHY CAN'T I HAVE THAT TOO". Hell even the people who disliked it, did it on the merit of the basic nonsensical nature of it - why is the unique trait of the Guard their ability to... follow orders? They're somehow gooder-er at it than fucking Space Marines?

So, I think that if army-specific gameplay systems (and I want to emphasize, these are things that happen *in game* that only that army features, it's a distinction that's hard to codify wholly but you definitely know them when you see them - to name another example, Votann Judgment tokens) are something you want, you should be aware it's something of a slippery slope that will likely lead to a system that feels remarkably similar to 8th and 9th edition.

To me, even though this one in particular arrived not terribly late into the 3rd-7th era, I think it's too in line with what this project presumably was wanting to avoid. A lot of the fatigue people experienced in 8th and 9th was over keeping track of every army's unique, special twists on the core rules, and my impression is that's who this project is aimed to please.

>>92674850
Not an unfair critique, I'd say. In comparison to other gamified meta-abilities/currencies, I don't think orders are that bad.
I have to wonder about the difference between the order system as we know if for guard versus character auras or character buffs to a squad.
If only guard/guardlike [like Tau infantry, for example] armies got these kinds of squad-tactical bonuses while more elite armies had auras or squad buff equivalents that are just 'ON' and nonselectable, would that sort of system add more flavor or distinction between superhuman/monstrous armies vs more "army" armies?
That's if either of these concepts survive as we know them in any capacity.
Dev-team?
Captcha=GAYPHT

>>92669567
This sounds real interesting, I'm just gonna lurk for a while

>>92674850
>why is the unique trait of the Guard their ability to... follow orders? They're somehow gooder-er at it than fucking Space Marines?
I would say that space marines are constantly at the edge of human ability, while avarage guardsman is a shmuck that needs somone to scream at him.

Its not about Guardsmen being good at following orders, its about how much effect a good chain of command has on a guardsman in comparision to a space marine

>>92670533
>You guys know you can just play OPR right?
Yes, I know. I have tried it, and I did not like it. It had its merits, but it definitely wasn't for me, and didn't scratch my Warhammer itch.

>>92673902
>You guys have said "smaller battles" but really you mean a smaller collection. 12-15 elite Guardsmen can probably tango with 5 CSM especially if they have some plasma with them, that does seem accurate. But we are still playing an RPG-like detailed, fluffy, game here still. Lots of simulation, minimal abstraction. If the IG player's normal army is 50 minis, wouldn't that mean the CSM player is bringing like 16-20? Probably reasonable for both to resolve in detail. If my assumption is true and you have a small "1 model equals 1 man" deal then for guard you have a platoon! One platoon of normal soldiers featuring an APC, some bigger guns, and a tank maybe. A handful of CSM and a daemon engine seems like more than a match.
Yes, something pretty close to this, but just a bit more material for the Guard players (and possibly a Reinforcement mechanic) and the Marines having at least a few small squads.

>If 40K or /fourk/ really was a proper "1 equals 1" platoon scale game I think it can work and have a clear identity. But elite armies would feel VERY different (oops! all Characters! maybe!).
They'll feel a little different for sure. This is part of the idea behind 2 Wound marines.

>>92674544
So as far as orders go, the idea is for there to be the 4 generic core ones, and then every faction gets something like 3 or so faction-specific ones, plus there faction specific rules. Guard will just get FAR MORE orders overall, and possibly the preliminary bombardment rules from 2nd can make some kind of reappearance.

>>92674850
I wouldn't say 5e Guard orders were the first bespoke army mechanic, no. Those existed as far back as Rogue Trader with Ork mek cards, and Space Marines with ATSKNF/Rapid Fire in 2nd, or Tyranids pre-game event table, and so on.

But I do understand what you're getting at - as time went on, the newer 40k editions added a bit more gamey faction rules to everyone, and we don't want to go so far down that path as 9th edition did.

>>92675313
>Those existed as far back as Rogue Trader with Ork mek cards, and Space Marines with ATSKNF/Rapid Fire in 2nd, or Tyranids pre-game event table, and so on.

I tried to specify as best as I could that I'm referring to specifically sets of rules that add a new gameplay component, specifically for that army. Not to be confused for things that make an army treat an existing rule differently, like ATSKNF, or affect list building and army composition. As you say, those have existed for a while.

Regardless we seem to be on the same page.

>>92674565
I guess I am. I mean, why waste rules that work well enough? Looking back at the older editions I see some rough edges here and there, but I also see a lot of flavor. I like the idea of initiative, I like the idea of leadership or morale and movespeed. So how about we try and catch some of that old flavor with a couple of new systems bolted onto a working foundation. Seems like less work for more gain to me. Granted that it's difficult to come up with interesting systems that don't require tokens of some kind. I mean, you can use tables but seriously? You should be able to keep all relevant info in your head or on the table. Like your phone, that maybe runs an app, that does some bookkeeping, like keeping track of how many actions a certain unit did. Or what stratagems are available and how many command points you have left. Granted, I'm not a big fan of the stratagems but you get the idea, I like to think outside the box.

>>92674850
> success of the 5th edition Guard list
Oh yeah the leaf blower list. Truly the pinnacle of elegant game design.
What a fucking joke.

>>92675714
Not a snowflake's chance in hell that a single person visiting this thread learned 2 code.

>>92669626
I kinda prefer how HH2 does WS, makes having low WS much more punishing

>>92675922
I mean... Age of Darkness was written 18 years after 4th Edition. I'd hope they had some good ideas in the interim.

File: Spoiler Image (4.77 MB, PDF)

4.77 MB PDF

>>92673902
>>92674353
>>92675313
Here, Space Marines for 4e in the style you want, with 2 wounds too.
Unironically, thanks to SRDanon's work, I'm thinking of making my own fork based in this style, but probably not as strong. I like the Flamer rules, and I might replace Lances with the Lascannon's rules. A Fluffhammer, if you would, with the rules focusing more on how the stories say fights would go and trying to reflect that.

>>92670343
You're dead on about everything here, except the food analogy.
>You can take a premium cut of delicious marbled wagyu steak and slightly under- or overcook it and still have a good meal.
If you buy a wagyu steak and overcook, you might as well have bought a cheap shitty one, it would be about as good. If you're a dogshit cook, no amount of money spent on high quality ingredients is going to create a meal anywhere near as good as your local pretty-ok Mexican or Chinese place that uses mediocre ingredients.
I think a better analogy for point balance is presentation. It's not something that will ever make or break a meal, and the chef can adjust it however they need to after figuring out the right recipe without affecting the actual taste of the meal whatsoever. On the other hand, there's no quality of meat or presentation that can make a burned steak remotely edible.

File: 20240501204508_1.jpg (791 KB, 1920x1080)

791 KB JPG

>>92676087
I limited myself to 15 models for a CSM and SM force to see what it looked like, ended up with 3 model squads. However this does feel like a proper battle between larger than life warriors that met on a mission. I think if each Tac Marine was a 3W model in a 3 man squad they would still be slightly more durable than a hypothetical 12man squad of IG Infantry, give bolters Assault 3 or something and they are blasting away a block of infantry while charging right up through No Man's Land. I also made a "list" of IG to compare but didn't have enough time to play with dolls to make a little diorama of them.

File: 20240501205703_1.jpg (375 KB, 1920x1080)

375 KB JPG

>>92676308
A platoon on parade. It just FEELS right to me, I'd want to make this as my baseline. You might notice I went with unit sizes of 12, 6, 3, and 1 that's just a personal bias. Adds up proper though.

Why make a 40K variant comprised of the relatively minor changes between 3e and 7e, and not make a 40K variant that implements and updates the roleplaying narrative elements of Rogue Trader? That’s what I want.

>>92676876
Ask SNA when it's coming out.

>>92674850
Yeah, I feel like guard orders were one of the first meta, videogamey, MTG synergy combo type things they added. Guardsmen suddenly getting buckets of dice in an attack, more than the masses of orks they were fighting, because they had a hero in range that activated his special ability. It didn't feel like a simulation then. The orders for guard come from you, the player, representing the HQ units on the board.
I think guard players liked it mostly because it was strong. Same with the nostalgia for mechanized vetspam.

>>92676888
Who’s SNA?

>>92677038
Longstanding namefag working on the project.
>Screaming Nid Anon

This sounds a lot like Prohammer. Have you guys heard of that?

>>92677130
It has been heard of, yes

>>92677130
See >>92652819

>>92677148
>>92677144
Thank you. I am retarded.

>>92676308
>>92676329
I don't agree with 3-man Marine units. It feels wrong. Except maybe for Terminators, or elite CSM, like Chosen.

The Guard one though, that looks really good.

>>92676876
Because Renegade Scout already exists, as does Inquisimunda 28. This thread was created by people who want something closer to 4th ed.

>>92676966
Yeah one of the things I'm trying to get away from with our orders are anything that's outside the bounds of believability for something you can do just because a guy yelled at you. Like Guardsmen suddenly outrunning Space Marines or doubling their rate of fire. Instead our orders are more about opening up a different tactical option, rather than just buffing raw stats.

>>92677130
We have, someone posted it in the first /fourk/ thread and it's come up a couple of times. I was mostly impressed reading through it actually, and am still considering borrowing some more ideas from it with minor tweaks and changes. In particular I want to do something like the suppression system, and I like the way it handles crossfire.

>>92677521
Thanks, I didn’t know about Renegade Scout but it looks interesting. I’ll scrounge around for a PDF.

>>92677832
Anon, I...

>>92677844
Yeah, I realized my mistake pretty shortly after posting. It's also 1AM here and I've been sleep deprived for the last 2 days.

File: 1714359733376093m.jpg (91 KB, 1024x749)

91 KB JPG

>>92677855
It's OK, Anon. Please, face the wall

>>92670533
>just play opr
Or ProHammer

I know you guys have a bit of a hate-boner for Knights but what about Armigers? A warglaive could get a multi-melta for the thermal spear and a chainfist dread stats but woth a stubber too. They don't seem to be that much bigger than a redemptor dread either. They pretty much are a bit wasted on using 100mm bases.

Also if you want even less of it just limit it to one.

>>92678186
Why do so many of you faggots insist on trying to put things into the game before there's even any game to put things in? How does that make any sort of sense?

>>92678186
with*

I'll clarify for the warglaive a bit: chain cleaver gets chainfist stats, stubber gets stubber stats and thermal spear as multi-melta. What do you anons think? Also I suppose if dreads can stomp I could sort of borrow that too for the warglaive?

>>92678243
I was just thinking and typing before I forget. Sorry, anon.

>>92678278
>I was just thinking and typing before I forget
Use notepad then.

>>92677521
>I don't agree with 3-man Marine units. It feels wrong.
If they were W2, I think 3 man squads would be okay-ish. I'm not a fan of W2 marines though.
>orders are more about opening up a different tactical option, rather than just buffing raw stats.
That'd be great. I do hope that fourk won't go over the board with orders (I think 4 default and up to 4 per faction would be manageable, anything more and you'll have to keep an opened PDF to make sure you are not forgetting something).
I think the game should require turning to tables as little as possible.

>>92678186
Knights I think still definitely have a place in this.
They'll just be tricky to balance. But what would help is treating armigers as normal vehicles and pushing the army to many armigers and only 1 or 2 bigger knights.
So it's close to a guard armoured company or Nidzilla

>>92678412
i think for the scale we're seemingly aiming for we'd want some more crunch for the big mecha's, stuff like limb-based damage and maybe some sort of resource that you need to expend in order to do stuff, special rules that can be used when it interacts with other large vehicles (maybe it can topple a rhino on the charge or something)

What are uses for the initiative in HH? Also would appreciate its PDF to check out to see how reactions worked there.
>>92678412
>>92678781
Knights is literally a skew faction list. If anything skew factions are not fun to play, period.

Speaking of which there is one decision which I really like in OPR, specifically the 'sidedeck' units. Basically you prepare multiple small squads before the game (could be represented with special weapons on the 'gunner'), and you choose which one to bring after you learn what is the main army of your opponent consists of. This makes it so spamming vehicles or inftantry does not lead to one sided games.

Regarding knights discussion, there was small talk on doing an Apoc styled expansion to include them in, but for the base game they are way too big and way too skewed.
Just also note (At least in my mind, haven't talked with others) they probably won't be full on armies in this hypothetical expansion but allied forces to the main force.

Never played a recent enough version to have knights in; wouldn't they be basically a whole army with the size forces we've been talking about? Seems more like a scenario gimmick than a genuinely playable force.

I felt very strongly at the time that 7th edition scaled down a lot better than it scaled up. Detachments were cancer in 2000 point tournament standard, but in 1000 or even as low as 750 or 500 points they opened up so many more options, and brought the feel of the game back to when just a few squads and a tank was "an army"

>>92677521
>I don't agree with 3-man Marine units
It breaks convention significantly. However it opens up a much less restrictive design space. They are super elite soldiers. Three Wounds, three shots, three melee attacks, 3+ save, makes them numerically consistent, and statistically impressive enough to behave as follows.
>12 Guardsmen and a crew carrying a lascannon and advancing through some war-torn streets
>ahead! The sound of thunder, three running Chaos Space Marines appear!
>the Lt. gives the order, the unit halts and tries to get some cover before unleashing a blistering fusilade of lasgun shots at the approaching chaos menace!
>the three heretics respond by raising their boltguns BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM a torrent of fire while at full sprint through a storm of Las shots!
>the bolter munitions rip through several Guardsmen while the enemy is barely singed!
>finally the lascannon is ready, the three try to smash inside a ruined building to evade but one is too slow and is blown away!
>the unit is struggling to get away from the buildings but it's too late!
>BOOM BOOM BOOM CRASH! The remaining two Chaos Space Marines crash through a nearby building and rip apart the nearest Guardsmen with clawed fists, a brief scuffle in melee but the unit loses morale and scattered, hunted down by these monsters in a sweeping advance!

Thinking in terms of the fantasy makes it easier. Heroes and monsters. The terror of a unit of normal men when three CSM appear and they are caught alone, but each one eliminated a serious cause for celebration. But this is just my POV on it.

>>92679908
SM are allowed in squads of 5 or 10. Anything else is wrong.

>>92680001
That's not even true, Plague Marines, Noise Marines, etc break that convention. Also that convention was established when SM weren't much stronger than Guardsmen, basically just dudes in power armor. That is not what a SM represents now (an Angel of Death).

File: 1684833769817147.png (24 KB, 634x162)

24 KB PNG

Had a chuckle at this when I started my in-depth reading of the SRD this morning. Based SRDanon.

>>92678821
I was thinking more along the lines of a centerpiece type of unit, something the rest of the army is there to facilitate. It teeters on the edge of being reasonably includedable imho. But if no cool crunch can be created to facilitate these big beasts then I wouldn't, period.
But I kind of agree in that best case scenario, I see the big robots as a cool centerpiece which you run as a mission or something. Worst case scenario its just a biggerer betterer dude which is just dull, let alone balanced.
Not sure what you mean with "skew faction", but yes, they should be on the bottom of the priority list

While taking my monthly shower, I had an idea for the Imperial Guard. I know you guys probably aren't at this stage of development yet, but I wanted to post it just to get it out there before I forget about it.

Ok so, I think the Guard should have the way their orders work, revamped into something I call Chain of Command. It would work as follows:

>Sergeants can issue one order, but only to the squad they are part of.
>Platoon Commanders can issue one order only to units that are part of their Platoon (player must declare which units belong to which platoon before the game)
>Company Commanders can issue two orders to any unit in their company (again, declared before the game)
>Add a unit called Regimental Commander that can issue three orders to any unit in their regiment (again, declared before the game).

What do you guys think?

>>92681512
I think Anon hasn't been reading the thread

>>92681592
Oh, if it's already been suggested then awesome.

>>92681626
I think Anon hasn't been reading the thread

>>92681512
How is this a chain of command? Shouldn't orders go through it or something? And shouldn't they be diferent? Like: A Company Commander orders a Platoon Commander to take a position and then the Platoon Commander orders his Sergeants to do an assault and flank? Or is it really just, "I outrank you, therefore tell your men to shoot at that Ork"?
I'm semi-confused.

>>92681904
That's just the name that popped into my head for it. It doesn't have to be called that if you have a better name for it.

Is /fourk/ going to do the Fantasy side too or just 40K?

>>92684529
The fantasy side is already covered with OPR's regiments and WAP. I doubt /fourk/ will cover fantasy.

>>92684529
Fantasy's already covered
https://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/

>>92680451
Great, and those post also revealed another typo. Well, did you end up finding any OTHER mistakes?

File: 1552152930916.jpg (80 KB, 631x1000)

80 KB JPG

>>92686991
>even in this reply
I'm gonna fucking kill myself.

>>92686991
>>92687009
Its okay anon. Better we find the typos now than when the rules are released to the public. It would look very unprofessional to have many typos.

File: IMG_0076.jpg (168 KB, 750x819)

168 KB JPG

>>92687009
no anon pleaes don’t commit seppucku over a spelling mistake

>>92686991
Typos are the norm unless you have a dedicated proofreader. I've ran a dedicated homebrew write-up for 3 years and I still occasionally find a mistake.

File: New edition.jpg (468 KB, 2560x590)

468 KB JPG

I think that /fourk/ should build upon an experience of modern editions rather than trying to go to the past. Look at the peak of the profile presentation we will have in 11-th edition.
sorry, I couldn't resist. Keep up the good work

>>92669626
copywriting nit: Scatter dice should specify that the positions are relative to *a line drawn from the attacker to the target*.

>>92669626
I'm blown away that something was actually done. Feels a bit like old /tg/.
Godspeed /fourk/.

>>92690372
Thanks, added to the list of corrections to be made. If you catch anything else let me know.

I've been inspired by /FOURK/ and have unironically begon on a conversion of the 10e ruleset. I've just started the process of ripping out the stratagems and replacing them with other stuff. Am dealing with the Core-rules, CSM & DE codexes and once I have something coherent I'd like to post a link here. Not sure if anyone is interested in this shit or if this is the right thread because >10e lmao
Anyway, I have newfound respect for everyone involved in this project, can't wait to see the results of testing

>>92691746
If you want to share then share, but realistically people who want to play 10e will play 10e and not houseruled 10e since the appeal of playing 10e is "it's the latest patch to my favourite live-service game!".

>>92691746
This is what's fourk is for, not just the "main" system but to get others to make their own versions of the game we love.
God Speed.

I guess /fourk/ ran out of steam then.

Good morning, folks.

Bumping to keep the thread alive. We on the design team are beginning some early playtesting today.

>>92699024
Nice, do share how things went.

>>92699024
Wicked, let us know what goes down

>>92680001
>This is the kind of retard that shits out his opinions on this board

File: playtest deployment.png (2.43 MB, 1465x918)

2.43 MB PNG

Going oldschool with vassal. Ultras vs Imperial Fists totally mirrored forces and no subfaction rules yet, so no balance concerns. The sergeants wargear is only for aesthetic purposes for this test, they're all treated as having chainswords (there will be extensive wargear options in the final game).

File: 1703154948200926.jpg (738 KB, 2461x1742)

738 KB JPG

>>92699024
>>92701733
Godspeed.

>>92686991
You seem to be missing the part of the Blast rules that actually discuss scatter.

>>92669966
Triple dubs, fucking checked

>>92670156
In 1e Heresy, the Thousand Sons were the top army simply due to psychic shenanigans. 2e Heresy has balanced it out significantly (dreads still need some work though.)

>>92690220
Not enough scopes or picatinny rails

>>92676087
What edition is this for?

>>92703701
Looks like you can plug it into 3rd to 7th

>>92702781
Actually Blast does not scatter unless it is also Ordinance. So Type "Ordinance, Blast" scatters but a weapon that is only Type "Blast" does not. Ordinance is explained.

Basically a shot from a Whirlwind scatters, but a shot from a plasma cannon does not. A plasma cannon's blast hits a single target, then has a random chance of also hitting other models within the 3" blast template. Thanks for making me check though.

>>92704571
Holy hell it's been a long time since I played 4th. I completely forgot there was an edition where you just didn't scatter regular blast weapons.

>>92704764
>>92704571
That sounds like a huge pain in the neck. Who wants to scatter multiple plasma cannon shots every turn?

>>92704801
Yeah I agree I like this much better, it also fixes a problem that came up in playtesting with resolving overwatch.

>>92704571
Oh and speaking of typos, it's Ordnance, without the i

>>92704906
Thanks.

>>92677521
>I don't agree with 3-man Marine units. It feels wrong. Except maybe for Terminators, or elite CSM, like Chosen.
If it feels wrong to you its likely purely out of habit, there is really no reason why you wouldn't have 3-men units at that scale. It does not remove anything from the game either.

File: 1172661809187.jpg (53 KB, 380x384)

53 KB JPG

>>92669567

Let me ask you just one thing. Do we have Necron Warriors that can oneshot a Baneblade? This is the one thing I want back.

>>92705217
Tactical squads are a central part of the SM aesthetic, and they come in 5 or 10. If you want to start picking apart shit like that you might as well put Primaris in. Obviously CSM can do whatever they want.

I'll just offer a comment, going by lore, a squad of Space Marines has to be in 5's. While I like the idea of balancing around the 3-6 man squads, bumping wounds and toughness to make up for those reduced numbers, if we're going by lore and oldfag rule based limitations, then they'll have to stay in numbers divisible by 5. Balancing around being in those numbers and still being a touch tougher might be an interesting idea though.

>>92705340
As the Necron player in SNA's team you bet your biscuit I am still going to make Gauss weapons auto glance on 6's.

>>92691746
I don't think strategems are the main problem with 10th. You'd need to get rid of this power level nonsense that was forced on all of us for me to even consider an alternative of 10th.

>>92705844
>Tactical squads are a central part of the SM aesthetic
Aesthetic by squad number is the most retarded shit ever.
>you might as well put Primaris in.
Gross. Going beyond the 5-10 limit is the usual way to fluff codex deviant Chapters and its just dumb to lock it in like that.
Balance wise if you just do this basic incrementation across every faction its not so much an issue anymore.

>>92705217
Or because every piece of art and lore since the fucking beginning of time has marines operating in larger units than that. This isn't Kill Team.

File: Cover.jpg (1011 KB, 938x1282)

1011 KB JPG

>>92669567
I haven't been on 4chan for a while and was just coming back to post a thread like this. Without digging through the archive for the old threads, is this thread specifically about a single ruleset, or can I share my stuff here too? Not looking to hijack. I've been working on a hearbreaker ruleset where I started with 7th edition, ripped it up and put the stuff I liked from 4th in and then just frankensteined it from a bunch of other editions/sources.

Unfortunately my group doesn't get much time to play anymore, so playtesting hasn't really been possible without taking it online.

>>92705844
Oh no you can't make changes!
>The number of men in a squad must always be divisible by 5
Five is a holy number. The way it's always been. If we change the holy size, what's next. Improvements? Reactions. YOU'Re ALL THE DEVIl.

>>92707984
Well if you want to talk about it, British rifle sections in WW2 were 10 men max which is likely why 10 is the most common section/squad size in 40K. That's the basis for the convention. You are willing to sacrifice other sacred cows for balance, sacrifice this one too.

It's not like you're going with power levels and fixed squad sizes right? Just balance SM around 3 men as the smallest legal squad size, and make them appropriately durable, powerful, and expensive for this minimum. It should not make it so much more expensive that someone can't add as many men as they want to make a "full" section/squad of 10, that choice just makes that many guns focused on a single target when shooting (unless you're going to allow splitting fire I guess),

A section is just your corporal, a gunner, and a rifleman by default, add as many more riflemen (bolters) to taste. Makes sense to me. Most would probably just stick to 4-5 anyways, especially if they are 2-3W models with multiple attacks.

>>92708105
Oh and if we want to appeal to tradition, lots of shit used to be sold in blister backs of 1-3 models, with boxes of 6 as a discount right? Just saying.

>>92708105
>You are willing to sacrifice other sacred cows for balance, sacrifice this one too.
First off, nothing is being done for "balance" yet at all, as I've already stated, that's the last consideration of any game. Sacred cows are being sacrificed for superior design, and even then, we have a general consensus not to change too much and restructure everything from the ground up. We have a few areas that are getting totally changed, while other things are being kept familiar to ground the project in classic 40k.

Another major aspect of the project is keeping accurate to the lore of the time period, that means your typical marine squad is 5-10 men. 3 man squads are Primaris bullshit.

>Just balance SM around 3 men as the smallest legal squad size, and make them appropriately durable, powerful, and expensive for this minimum.
No. The scale bloat this would lead to is preposterous. What the hell do you do with things like Obliterators and Tyranid Warriors then? Then what becomes of the even bigger units? It's untenable. We already made a big jump by going with the 2 Wound Marines, and it feels good in playtesting - they are more durable to bolter fire, but are still getting vaporized by plasma cannons. Taking it another step up to 3 Wounds for a basic marine is obscene, at that point we need Damage stats back and now we're playing nuhammer. You don't need the granularity of 3 wounds for a basic infantryman, even in an elite army, 2 is perfect.

>>92708167
"Perfect" seems pretty premature. Alas.

>>92708058
Go ahead bro, the more alternatives the better. Maybe the OP can work on compiling a list of links to downloads for EVERY alternative way to play 40k. Choice is good.

Cool, thanks.

https://mega.nz/folder/cK0hSCJZ#59xIvxfhg8qre5t15s2WSg

It's a pretty significant departure from the normal 40k playstyle, my biggest concerns are general point cost discrepancies and that I may have gone noseblind to it and may not recognize what isn't properly explained or some glaring rules conflict that just never jumped out at me. If you want to try it out, the starter scenarios booklet recreates the 2nd edition Armageddon starter set which used space marines and orks/gretchin. I've included unit cards for those. Any feedback to help fix it up is appreciated.

Armies I have rough plans for are adeptus mechanicus, deathwatch and grey knights (probably going to be one book) and the inquisition for the Imperium. Dark eldar, and the eldar subfactions, namely harlequins, corsairs and exodites, genestealer cults and necrons for the alien races. Chaos is pretty much complete, but I may do an Imperial/Chaos knight book if I can make it work and may do a more general superheavy supplement.

>>92708384
The logistics phase is a good organizational addition. On the face of it the Skirmish Phase is well structured and I don't see any major issues that come up in a reading of it. Likely results in a highly playable game of 40k. Overall it's very comprehensive (I did not yet take the time to read it in detail for every section). Personally I shudder a bit at 150+ pages, but checking sections you seem to have taken lengths to try and make sure everything is defined, so it's length due to being thorough at least.

I like it? It transforms some of the core rules but the changes are conservative enough aside from the skirmish phase stuff that its not likely to make most grogs retch. I hope you don't take this as an insult, but it kinda feels like you Paizo'd the game. That might not make sense to anyone but me, but that is what my intuition is telling me.

Thanks for sharing!

>>92708553
Thanks for taking a look. My biggest complaint with older editions of 40k were that after building your army, it felt like the only real decisions players had to make were how to deploy and target priority. I wanted to make player engagement, decision making and risk assessment a stronger part of gameplay. I'm hoping the skirmish phase changes work in service to that.

The strategy rating/command point system had the added benefit of giving me another aspect I could use to make an army stronger or weaker. The space marine army list, for example, has a real advantage with a high strategy rating, not only in helping deployment go there way, but starting with 6 command points and the special rule attached to tactical squads should help them out activate and react to the enemy despite being outnumbered in most cases, and gave me something to tweak instead of just buffing their stats and weapons like I considered initially.

>>92708167
How do they get vaporised by plasma cannons when plasma cannon is S7 lol

>>92706859
The main problem I have with stratagems is that they don't really interact directly with other systems and that the way you use them and when depends on the individual stratagem. This makes them wildly inconsistent, difficult to keep track of and easy to forget that they even exist. Some are also downright lame, take the "Grenades" Stratagem from the core rules for instance, if you didn't forget to use your grenades before it'll cost you a command point if you do. Like, why? I haven't read up on the old 4e-6e rules but iirc in 7e it used to be a viable weapon to use when you where within ideal charge-range, I like that assault aspect of them and would like to see that return in some way.

I dig Stratagems as a concept though it grinds my gears as to why you'd need a dedicated resource pool. Why not let characters (not just HQ but your squad leaders too) have an actual job and implement something similar through them.

>>92706859
Oh I completely forgot, the power-level-nonsense you mentioned, I take it you mean the OP statblock+rules new releases get? Or did you have something specific in mind? In all honesty I'm not a big fan of the huge mc-large units like Knights but I think an overhaul in vehicle rules would make them more palatable, they should be more than just a big sack of wounds that shoots handsful of dice. You should feel like you're in control of something dangerous that has a glaring weakness, and it should require effort (and a bit of luck) to succeed with it.

>>92710218
I mean how wargear has no cost in 10th. It's effectively the same as old power levels. Take the best possible gear for your unit or you're kneecapping yourself. Unless you think a devastator squad with all heavy bolters should be the same cost as a devastator squad with all lascannons.

>>92709716
Small blast gets 2-3 hits, then they wound consistently on 2+ and ignore armour, PCs are getting kills in testing.

It is strange that if you fired one at a single-model marine unit it wouldn't be able to kill him since it would only score one hit, though there are ways to adjust for this. We could make the initial hit S8 and the ones caught at the edges of the blast S7.

>>92669681
That is definitely something we're considering. We want the core infantry gameplay to work before we introduce vehicles, but we know for sure AVs will be there. I personally liked the hull point addition, but we've got to be smart about it and make it elegant.

>>92678186
there is a far-off plan to do all the bigger apocalypse stuff, starting at knights and going up. Armigers may very well fit in the normal mechanicus list, but we shall see. They won't be their own army as they are now though. Mechanicus, skitarii and knights would likely just get rolled into one force. same with chaos, SM, etc.

I'm just more excited to get the fun Zzap gun back.

>>92712597
*Shock attack gun
Had a brain fart.

>>92708167
>No. The scale bloat this would lead to is preposterous. What the hell do you do with things like Obliterators and Tyranid Warriors then?
Lol what?
Just allow every single unit to go 3-5-10-12-15-20. The fuck are you talking about this is a single line across every profiles. You've literally spent more effort writing this bullshit post than doing it.
>3 man squads are Primaris bullshit.
Once again, the dumbest lowest tier argument possible. Just allow it, let players justify it on their own.

>>92713018
You should really read whole posts and pay attention to reply chains.

>>92713030
I read the whole thing, which again was more effort than simply writing
> You may recruit this unit in increment of 3, 5, 10, 1, 15 or 20 models
Across a master profile and copy past from this.

>>92713041
Which has literally not a fucking thing to do with what was being discussed and is even more restrictive than most actual 4th ed profiles are. Please learn to read.

>>92713051
Alright, I tried.

>>92713018
>Just allow every single unit to go 3-5-10-12-15-20
This just sounds like you should play without strict unit sizes, lmao at 12 OR 15 models as bespoke restrictions.

>>92713075
Yeah honestly, the only thing is the weird 2 bros unit, but you could say 3-20.

>>92707984
>>92708058
I count more than ten.

File: 1700205286010652.png (734 KB, 1092x566)

734 KB PNG

>>92713067
Anon let me clue you in here so you can realize where you went stupid.

Reread the green text I was responding to here >>92708167
>and make them appropriately durable, powerful, and expensive for this minimum
Your entire post was a dumb non-sequitor that missed the point of discussion which was about ALTERING MARINE STATLINES TO MAKE 3 GUYS AS STRONG AS 5, and even what you recommended to do is retarded because in every edition before 10th you didn't buy anything in fucking "increments" in 40k, you just had a minimum and maximum and buy models one by one.

So you proposed a solution that's worse than the existing system to a problem that you made up in your head because we were talking about something wholly different.

>>92713112
That's the rarely used 'Tactical Pile' formation.

>>92713113
Ok yeah you know what I was writing a whole post detailing where I had posted and the point of my argument, which should have been clear to anyone but a fucking retard, but this isn't worth it at all.

>>92713169
Can I see the post if you haven't already binned it?

Having played a bunch of opr which drops a lot of units down to three, you just don't feel like you're fielding many models or using up much of the board. Dropping tacs down to stronger units of threes as well, along with a lower point game, means a marine army might be like 15 guys maximum. You're basically just running the movie marines list then in which case great, use movie marines.

>>92712597
I might say a controversial thing, but fuck ork random. Or rather GW approach for ork random. A lot of the times you risk something really bad happenning for a slightly above average result and something awesome happenning with a super low chance. SAG outcomes were mostly bad.

>>92713169
He's not the only one who doesn't get what you're saying. The argument proposing smaller marine squads suggested that marines be defensively pumped up even further than the 2W profile to justify limiting them to min/maxes of 3-6. SNA responded that besides lore weirdness contradicting them deploying in formations that small, this also introduces a durability scaling problem with a bevy of other units - if a tactical marine is something like T5 W3, what is a Terminator going to be? And if a Terminator is that, what is an Obliterator going to be? And then a Carnifex above that? If you raise that bar too high, you are either overly compressing the granularity between elite infantry and things like monsters, or inflating heavier units with Toughness and Wound values to where they are hitting the system's built-in profile limits.

So where does your discussion about hard set model increments come in here? It's not relevant.

>>92713188
>not fielding many units
A good thing, model counts are bloated in games.
>not using up much of the board
A good thing, leaves more room for maneuvering.
>basically just running the movies marines list
A good thing, damn you sold me wtf.

>>92713228
One anon suggested that. I simply reacted that this was too complex and you could simply allow 3 man squad without balancing from the start, and it will balance all across the profiles naturally if that's the starting point.
I wrote the increment thing quickly, sure you might as well have granular squads at that point.

>>92713245
OPR is unironically good, but the problem is that it is very barebones and most anons, me included, want some meat.

>>92713267
Ok, but the part of SNA's post you greentexted to reply to was specifically talking about the statline bloat I explained, not the fundamental ask of putting MEQ units at 3 minimum. That's how the two of you ended up with a communication failure.

>>92713245
I mean try it and see how you feel, but especially with these larger scale minis it start feeling like you're just pushing action figures around a board. Squads go a long way to making the board feel active. You can see casualties get removed and parts of the board get wiped out. Everything being multiwound feels more abstract. I like it when artillery hits my unit and I remove a couple dudes more than it hits them and I switch a a dice to a different face.

But with opr at smaller unit sizes you'd be basically just playing a skirmish game, which trust me, OPR is not nearly complex enough to recreate. Move, shoot, tick down wound counters, repeat.

>>92713302
I wouldn't describe it as a communications failure on my end, I tried to give him the chance to realize his mistake and reread the post carefully and he doubled and tripled down.

>>92713267
Anyways, that whole stupid digression aside, there are other reasons not to allow 3-man marine units if we DON'T rebalance their stats and costs. For example, that alters Force Org minimums and allows for more potential cheese and skew lists. It alters the proportion of Sergeants and/or special/heavy weapons to basic Marines which means there are more considerations to go over. It alters the effectiveness of "target a unit" abilities, not to mention shooting in a system in which splitting fire requires the use of a specific mechanic gated behind a test which has opportunity cost. I could go on, honestly.

Games like 40k are complex systems and seemingly innocuous small changes can have much greater ramifications than anticipated, which means when you make a change, you better damn well have a good reason and understand all of the things it's having a ripple effect on, and be prepared to adjust those mechanics as well if the downstream effects are undesirable.

And all that just to implement something which flies in the face of the lore? Who do you think we are, GW?

I always felt MEQ should be the "balancing" point for the game. Tip it and your balancing point becomes skewed.

>>92691746
Hey dude, post an email or something, I'd like to get in touch with you.

>>92713468
Agreed. Marines should serve as the "baseline" army, and everything derives from that.

>>92714297
Pretty much where we're going. The only big-ish change we're seriously pushing for with marines is 2w base stats. It'll make them a bit more elite and survivable, but not fully doubling them. Everything else with them is meant to remain the same feeling. Marines will likely be the first codex we flesh out before moving to the other archetypes and expanding.

>>92714297
>>92714676
I can understand this decision, because it might be the one most of the game is based around. At the same time, and this is my personal opinion, that astartes have a gigantic missmatch with lore and their tabletop counterparts. Part of this is the skirmish nature of the game and all sides bringing tailored weapons and lists to dunk on astartes, on the other it's keeping things streamlined as shit like moviemarines will cause unnecessary bloat.

I still think that the 40k scale has outgrown the game/point system it uses, something half the size would probably allow for a lot more movement, positioning and objective shenanigan's were it decisions matter a lot more.

>>92715925
>as shit like moviemarines will cause unnecessary bloat
That's not the issue with Movie Marines. The issue is that it is not lore accurate. It says it right in the article. It's not meant to represent actual Astartes in the canon. It's meant to represent "Action Movie Heroes" that do completely unreasonable hollywood bullshit even by 40k standards.

There's a huge contingent of relative newfags to 40k who think Marines actually are supposed to be as overpowered as they are in certain terrible bolterporn nuhammer Black Library fanfiction schlock or in the godawful video game, and that those stats were made to represent what Marines would be like if balance didn't matter and they made them totally lore accurate. That's completely fucking wrong. They aren't superheroes. They cannot outrun cars, dodge bullets and do frontflips in Terminator armour. They do not solo full size armies with a single squad. The early 40k writers were actually relatively reasonable and grounded and managed to make them extremely badass while still believable, and that is the standard that should always be kept to. One of the most legendary Marines in the galaxy, Ragnar Blackmane, was known as an unprecedented prodigy within the already harder-than-usual (some would say Mary Sue) Chapter of the Space Wolves because he managed to kill an Ork Warboss and his retinue of like 5 or so Nobz single-handedly in close combat. That means that's not the kind of feat you expect from your average Tactical Marine on a tuesday - it's the kind of thing that marks you as one of the most powerful Marines to ever live in 10,000 years. In the same article, Ragnar comes within one inch of being decapitated by a single Genestealer, and manages to kill it after it only scraped the top of his head and made him bleed.

So yeah, those are the canon power levels. Old Marines stats were a little too low and that's been acknowledged with the 2 Wounds, but you can also very quickly take it too far.

>>92716288
That seems like an argument against 2W marines. They already are tougher, better fighters, and have better Saves than Guardsmen. So if you got ~50 IG models for (point limit) then you have ~35 SM models at the same limit since they are taking what, 33% fewer Wounds every time they get attacked anyways compared to Guardsmen?

You don't need to give them more Wounds, they are already appreciably more durable models and have better damage output. Plus lmao tracking Wounds on basic infantry. You just undermined your argument I think, 2W marines is just as stupid as 3W.

how did the playtesting go?

File: win rates by faction.png (2.5 MB, 1455x1168)

2.5 MB PNG

>>92717320
>if you don't think the fucking Strength 6 Toughness 6 movie Marines are canon accurate you can't give them 2 wounds
This is a goofy argument, there's such a thing as a middle ground.
If you were around in 3rd/4th edition you would know that Marines were typically considered underpowered when played straight up and their only good lists were weird cheese. Tacticals should feel good to play, and the 2 Wounds helps a lot in that regard.

While we don't have a lot of good data to go on from that time period, Chapter Approved 2001 had pic related which gives a rough idea of where things were at midway through 3rd ed.

>>92717400
It did its job and encountered a bunch of snags and vague areas in the rules writing that needed to be addressed. Today as soon as I finish breakfast I'll be writing up our new draft of the alpha and taking it for another spin. It actually felt kind of fun to play though despite the early roughness, which is a great sign.

I'll report back more later.

>>92717400
I did my own mini playtest for a bit before I had something to reference, and though I forgot a few things (power fist hitting last was the biggest one), it did well. I think having optional initiative tokens you put next to the units would be a good idea so visual people like myself can remember when everything goes in combat at a glance would be good.

SNA did a pretty in-depth playtest and though vassal crashed he had a lot of insights before it did. We know quite a few things we need to define before we make our next iteration of the test doc. I'm sure he'll post some specifics here soon. currently, we're keeping the ugly WIP internal until we have something coherent to release here. We want a strong base before you guys see it.

>>92708058
>>92708225
>>92708384
Also want to address this real quick.

Yes, I agree with SRDanon and I highly encourage other people to post other rulesets here as long as they fall under the general parameters described in the OP - any homebrew 40k system that primarily draws on the 3rd-7th edition era. I think it would be interesting if we expand /fourk/ to essentially be a shared thread for all projects of that nature, like an /awg/ but specifically classic 40k, but if we do we that we need to have very clear names for each different version so as to not confuse the discussions.

As far as your project anon, I love the effort and detail put into it, having gone out of your way to include a lot of the old quotes and fluff throughout the book. I only had a brief skim of the core rulebook but it essentially seems like a blend of 4th and 7th with Alternate Activation. Not my preferred style, as I've made clear in my breakdown of different turn order structures a couple threads back, but for people who do want to play like that I think you've got a good core.

>>92718065
>greentext
Not what I said, not the same guy. I'm saying 1W Marines as in the 4e codex UNCHANGED are already stronger statistically speaking than guard. If you still wanted to make them feel even stronger make Guard Infantry Squads 5+ Sv, congrats now Tactical Marines are even more durable.

And in any case, CSM of the same era WEREN'T considered underpowered despite having the exact same statline. It's not their stats that made them feel underpowered, sorry. Figure it out.

>>92718278
>I'm saying 1W Marines as in the 4e codex UNCHANGED are already stronger statistically speaking than guard
Not by a high enough degree, not proportional to their greater points cost. No one playing 4th ed was ever complaining "damn those Tactical marines, they're too tough and strong!"

>If you still wanted to make them feel even stronger make Guard Infantry Squads 5+ Sv
They... are 5+. What are you talking about.

>And in any case, CSM of the same era WEREN'T considered underpowered despite having the exact same statline.
It was not the basic CSM Troops unit doing the heavy lifting in that codex.

>>92718468
>guard
Timeline shifted, I came from a universe where they were 4+.
>no complaining too tough and strong
Likewise it wasn't that they were too weak either no? There was just other shit in their codex doing the heavy lifting (will come back to this).
>CSM codex
Yeah and per your own chart the entire army was VERY balanced. You want to make SM (the unit) stronger, just make SM (the faction) stronger instead of buffing basic infantry which aren't really your main source of power anyways.

Infantry is good at dying, better infantry is better because it achieves more as it dies (trades better, holds on longer, etc.). 2W does achieve this (holds on longer) but so would shit like "SM are better at using their surroundings than others, can always take a 6+ cover save even in open terrain (protection from AP) and +1 to rolls for normal cover saves". Whether the actual math on this 2 second proposal is too much or not is unknown to me (I did not check) however it does prevent the bookkeeping that comes with 2W basic infantry, is consistent with them being good soldiers (idk it represents them going to ground or ducking out of the way because their auspex let's them notice shit sooner), that are adaptable (this is always useful as a faction ability), and so on.

2W marines is 2020 nuhammer shit if you ask me f a m

>>92718677
>Likewise it wasn't that they were too weak either no?
It often was.
>There was just other shit in their codex doing the heavy lifting (will come back to this).
Right but we want to address internal as well as external balance and I want all basic Troops to feel good to play, not for Codexes to be held up by stronger crutch units that are always taken instead with the most bare minimum Troops tax (unless someone just actually wants to play with low Troops because of stylistic reasons, not power balance reasons).

>Yeah and per your own chart the entire army was VERY balanced. You want to make SM (the unit) stronger, just make SM (the faction) stronger instead of buffing basic infantry which aren't really your main source of power anyways.
This also goes beyond balance as well, and it's a design intention to make Marines feel more elite and heroic.

>Infantry is good at dying, better infantry is better because it achieves more as it dies (trades better, holds on longer, etc.). 2W does achieve this (holds on longer) but so would shit like "SM are better at using their surroundings than others, can always take a 6+ cover save even in open terrain (protection from AP) and +1 to rolls for normal cover saves".
This idea is not... entirely without merit, at least the first half. But I don't prefer it as a Marine identity thing, as what you described is essentially the Stealth USR, and modifying Cover so it's actually doing something against weapons that don't have high enough AP to ignore better armour is something I'm already considering for the general core rules, because it just feels wrong for units in cover to have the exact same durability as units in the open in many circumstances.

>2W marines is 2020 nuhammer shit if you ask me f a m
I believe you feel that way because GW happened to introduce it at the same time as Primaris but I feel it was an overdue change. It's still being tested but it feels good in Marine vs Marine games.

>>92718677
>basic infantry which aren't really your main source of power
They damn well should be.
>always take a 6+ cover save even in open terrain
The guys in big, chunky, usually brightly coloured armour?

>>92718761
Leaving aside you not wanting to pivot to my half-second alternative immediately.
>on internal balance
HQ are either a beatstick, a buff dispenser, or hybrid. Troops exist to die, ideally die slowly but it depends on how they are used. Elites are troops that trade better. Fast attack are elites that can reposition easier. Heavy support exists to delete shit. Vehicle versions of any of these exist to draw fire from non-vehicles. As long as the unit does their role properly you have internal balance. Of course, missions actually having objectives where simply blowing the opponent off the board isn't the best option is impossible, so troop tax is unavoidable in this context unless troops are good enough to blow the opponent off the board (bad external balance).

>primaris
Yeah, and I hate it for that association. But it also is not an elegant solution to the "how can we give SM (unit) a bit more time on the board" question.

>>92719148
You're just a crazy guy, line infantry are never the bulk of anyone's power in anything. Heavy cavalry or tanks are depending on the time period, sometimes artillery. As for the save thing yeah, they move quick idk, they are dodge rolling to the ground and abusing i-frames, mald about it or something.

File: experimental wound table.png (51 KB, 649x692)

51 KB PNG

>>92719301
Your categorization of unit types is too strict and not accurate to many faction's design intentions. No, not all Troops are there simply to die, and not all factions are meant to play symmetrically.

>But it also is not an elegant solution to the "how can we give SM (unit) a bit more time on the board" question.
I disagree I think it's very elegant. Instead of writing out an entire additional special rule, it's just +1 to a single stat on the characteristic profile, which also separates them further from standard humans and represents the lore of their augmented organs, will synergize well with "outnumbering in combat" rules (since those count by wounds), will synergize with updated Apothecary rules, and will allow Space Marine forces with smaller model counts to hold their own against horde forces without needing to bloat the model count of hordes.

There are very few drawbacks to this outside of the fact that some people's immediate visceral reaction is "ew Primaris". Which everyone should have gotten over by now since regular Firstborn got the 2 Wound treatment in 9th ed.

However, I am considering an experimental modification to the To Wound table, see pic related, which may help heavy weapons reign it in a bit without the Strength 8 Instant Death breakpoint becoming all-important, although this needs to be tested vs Monsters.

>>92719455
My categorization of unit types is as broad as possible. Idk how you can seriously argue against it other than not liking a systematic look at battlefield roles in general.

>>92719548
Because you're just wrong and a cursory examination of various units makes that exceedingly obvious in seconds. I can destroy your whole argument with one word:
>Genestealers
But there are dozens of other cases that don't line up with your claim. Tau Pathfinders don't reposition any better than Fire Warriors in a Devilfish and don't trade well at all as your "Fast Attack are Elites and Elites are Troops that trade better" assertion claims, they are a support unit that buffs other parts of the army.

Skitarii Rangers are precision snipers made to delete other Troops and officers, but they are Troops.

Necron Tomb Spyders are Heavy Support but don't exactly "delete shit".

Techmarines are Elites that heal vehicles, they aren't very good at trading.

And so on and so on and so on.

>>92719700
>exceptions mean there is no rule
Okay. So your other option is that force org is bullshit and means nothing since any unit can be anything. Great!

>>92719840
>if it's not this one thing it's the opposite extreme
What's the mental illness that causes this? The same crap argument was used to say 2 Wound Marines might as well be Movie Marines, or that if we change a single thing with the system we might as well rip up the whole thing and make a game from scratch that doesn't resemble 40k at all.

Anyone arguing in these absolutist terms has room temperature IQ. Learn to see things with a balanced perspective or quit wasting everyone's time.

>>92719455
Yea my first impression is that the threshold for "critical wounds" is a step too low. It's going to be harsh on monsters which don't have access to invulnerable saves.

>>92719884
You're the retard that thinks that a trend can't exist because there are exceptions so follow your own advice maybe. Giga pseud energy, hope your grandma gets clipped by an 18 wheeler so you can get some perspective on life.

>>92719840
I dunno, I can think of a lot of units that fit into the other categories that are usually just "Troop with slightly different battlefield role", especially back in the day.

>>92720033
Actually if we adjust it a step like you suggest the chart might even look a little more even in a way. Hold on, updating.

File: 1703104856130215.png (51 KB, 683x729)

51 KB PNG

This will be tested. Some of the design team has qualms against bothering with 6's re-rolling 6's for very low strength attacks vs high toughness but I don't think it will come up often enough to slow down many games.

>>92720213
Yea the only thought I would have would be to mirror instant death by having a step which disallows wounds at all, as it was with double toughness in those editions. But that would throw the tiering off for the nested values/rerolls again.

>>92720760
Actually the only reason Instant Death is where it is in that chart is because the highest Strength is 10, so if you're wounding something with 5 or less toughness you are automatically at double the toughness and therefore Instant Death.

The design team is in fact proposing we add "strength that is half the toughness or less cannot wound" to mirror instant death which doesn't change the chart at all, but comes into play at certain points. However, that means things like Guardsmen cannot Wound Toughness 6 or higher which is a step lower than current immunity breakpoints in 4th, and I'm not sure it's necessary.

File: Big Thinkin`.jpg (2.97 MB, 2656x2218)

2.97 MB JPG

>>92720213
This is not very good. I have the same opinion on it both from the first impression and after giving it some thought.
This is way too complicated to remember easily and worst of all, it is not even symmetrical. I don't see any reason for 'Higher by 2' to have an extra quality taped on top of it, an increase to wound by 16% by going from 3+ to 2+ is enough.

My take on it: if STR is higher/lower by 3, the armour save is improved by 1 or reduced by 1 (if armour was already getting ignored, cause 2 wounds). Double the T = instant death.

File: 1712603698082196.png (61 KB, 676x512)

61 KB PNG

>>92724462
You're right, we greatly simplified it.

File: 594.png (272 KB, 600x600)

272 KB PNG

>>92724479
Yeah, this is much better. We've spent a lot discussing mental load on players with turns/reactions and whatnot, so keeping to-wound tables easy to learn is a must, otherwise the game will be insufferable. Does STR>=Tx2 follow an instant death rule?

I have a weird idea, which follows what your table does, but it would reduce rolling significantly. If the STR differs from T by 3 or more, you either halve a number of successful to-wound results or double it. The outcome is roughly the same as rolling a 4+ for a bonus effect, but it is both easy to remember and way faster to resolve. The only problem is that it could make high STR weapons too good against hordes with 1 wound.
For example:
>while shooting with S3 lasguns, you've rolled five 6's against a T6 target. You halve the result, rounding it up, ending with three 6's for target to save.

>>92724548
>Does STR>=Tx2 follow an instant death rule?
Yes, and we also added the inverse - if the Strength is half the Toughness or less it cannot wound.

The only interaction where this makes a major difference to 4th is that Strength 3 is now useless against Toughness 6, which is something that will need to be addressed with certain armies.

>I have a weird idea
Too abstract for me. Also be aware in the bottom result on the Wound table, that isn't a bonus dice. It's simply that if you roll a 1, you fail to wound, on a 2 or 3, you wound, and on a 4, 5, or 6, you double wound, all on the same dice roll.

The top one where you need to re-roll does add a little bit of extra time but there are very few cases where it comes up due to the aforementioned half Toughness rule.

>>92724592
If there are instant death and cannot wound rules in play then I see no reason for top and bottom rows to exist.
6+ has a bad chance to wound already and forcing a reroll into a 4+ feels unneccessary, and I feel that '4+ causes 2 wounds' is there purely because of W2 marines. I don't think that 40k needs such granuality for niche situations.

>>92724732
It'd also mean that the rare and coveted S9-10 weapons become even better monster hunter weapons. It would also mean that S7 weapons also have a niche as character killers. But it seems to be there for elite armies. Marines, battlesuits and mid sized nids would feel the pain of these changes the most desu.

>>92704921
Might as well rename the keyword to artillery to make it both accurate by definition and to keep the typos/mental association with the archaic word for orders and arrangements.

>>92719455
My first impression on seeing the table was
>This will make things needlessly complicated
>>92724479
This one is far more fitting and embodies the entire "this weapon is powerful enough to rip you limb from limb" feeling that instant death had while also putting extra hurt on high T monsters who usually only suffered one wound (and with such a table could be brought down easier).
I don't know if it's in the current edition of 40k, but I saw HH2.0(?) had weapons with brutal statline that would confer X amount of extra wounds on successfully wounding, which as far as USR's go might be very fitting to describe how deadly weapons are vs having all sorts of wound table fuckery.

I get why people hate the 2W statline for marines because it reminds them of primaris, but honestly I think that marines would always have been better as 2W baseline. Weight of fire always brought them down as quick (it seemed) as fast as they were able to chew through guardsmen, nids or boyz; unless they got a cheeky rapid fire off which was quite rare.

File: magic box chart.png (21 KB, 641x369)

21 KB PNG

>>92724732
>If there are instant death and cannot wound rules in play then I see no reason for top and bottom rows to exist.
Because if you chart it out ignoring all of the S/T interactions that basically don't exist or never happen, you get this, and every point of Strength and Toughness always counts instead of hitting breakpoints of redundancy where some weapons and attacks are paying for extra Strength that does nothing.

>>92724732
>6+ has a bad chance to wound already and forcing a reroll into a 4+ feels unneccessary, and I feel that '4+ causes 2 wounds' is there purely because of W2 marines. I don't think that 40k needs such granuality for niche situations.
I'm in agreement with you on this. I just want normal tables to avoid it all. that said, we agreed to test it and confirm first

>>92669567
Bump, like what you’re up to, even though i’ve long since given up on 40k.

>>92670156
Love Moritats, such a stupid but fun concept.

>>92718173
I appreciate you taking a look at it even if it's not the direction you're taking your own work. If there's a place for it here, feel free to label it to distinguish it clearly, can't say that I've thought of one for it before. If anyone is interested in my stuff I'm happy to avoid drawing anyone away from the work here.

>>92724592
What is the point of doing this on the thread other then vanity. Have you taken a single suggestion from the crowd that wasn't your starting position?

>Too Abstract
>We must have table symmetry even if it's stupid as hell and generates infinite rolls
>Five is a sacred number of marines
>But votann is great
Honestly you have a bad case of faggetosis

>>92729119
Considering my starting position was to use a completely different turn structure entirely, I think you might be retarded.

>Too Abstract
Yes, over-abstraction is bad, especially where it has the risk to cause wonky math like "halve the number of dice".
>We must have table symmetry even if it's stupid as hell and generates infinite rolls
Symmetrical mechanics are easier for players to remember and aesthetics are an important quality of design. Also, infinite rolls, lmao.
>Five is a sacred number of marines
If you don't like the lore go play another game. Like 10th edition. I also broke down like a half dozen other reasons why messing with Marine squad sizes is a bad idea even outside of that. You're just making yourself look bad here.
>But votann is great
Squats have been in since RT, Votann are just modernized models. It's a faction that doesn't break any of the rules - no superheavies, no primarchs, no flyers, not overly bloated with too many redundant unit types. No reason not to include them. All the autism was about using the name "Votann" instead of Squats, if I just change the fucking name you have no argument.

I can tell you are the same one guy who shows up seething in every fucking thread, it's gotten old and pathetic. If you can do it better, post your own project and we'll compare. I don't see you taking the effort to organize, all you do is bitch.

>>92729284
No that's another guy, I'm that guy you're thinking of and who you keep saying is Onepageanon. He's right btw, you're a fag.

>>92729119
Yeah, it needs to work first and be easy to remember. just use the old tables.

File: 1698014302585697.png (58 KB, 1393x548)

58 KB PNG

>>92729472
This is the new vs old table. The new one is actually easier to remember imo due to being balanced symmetrically, but even if it weren't, it has benefits in terms of gameplay interaction that make it worth it.

>>92729119
>>92729372
>wah wah wah
I'm also not SNA, much to what's been posited. Please stop crying when reasoning behind things has been given, especially when your objections are dumb

>>92729868
>wah wah wah whining
Wah wah wah.

File: SRD.png (32 KB, 788x310)

32 KB PNG

>>92669797
Caught a couple more.

- Your Weapon Skill table has WS 6 vs WS 6 as 3+ instead of 4+

- Step 1 here has a minor typo in "Chose" instead of "Choose"

SNA has a very specific vision for his game and doesn't want anyone influencing it past what he deems acceptable. Anyone who isn't on the train should realize that by now.

>>92730407
Eh, he has stepped down on a few points admittedly, especially early on.

>>92730407
At this point? Yes I would say a specific vision is finally starting to take shape. Which is not only good, but necessary. You don't have a successful project without one person having a clear vision of the end goal and everyone contributing towards that. Otherwise you get some vague and incoherent mishmash designed by committee. This is exactly why I recruited a smaller design team to focus off-site, and the idea to do so was a conclusion we arrived at thanks to input from other people who have created fan projects in the past, like the Gang Showdown anon. Notice that the Prohammer Classic project is mainly the work of one guy as well. And we have the anon here >>92708384 who posted his rules, again a one-man job, he can correct me if I'm wrong in that.

That said, though, the vision I have arrived at is heavily influenced by the thread and the discussions we've had as well as constant back-and-forth with the design team. If this were entirely a solo thing by me I wouldn't have even started with a 4th edition base, or an alternating phases structure. Where there is room for exploring design space, I am always open to ideas. Where I become very insistent on doing things my way, is only when I can see how a suggestion is a bad idea based on my extensive knowledge of game design. Anyone who reads through the threads from the beginning can see that whenever a genuine good faith argument comes up, I am willing to explain my point of view in-depth and break down game mechanics to their pros and cons.

And as I've stated several times now, anyone who doesn't like my way of doing things is welcome to try their hand at writing a 40k ruleset themselves. I don't fear competition, I gladly welcome it. But the most vocal critics never seem to actually want to take on any responsibility or put forth real effort, and the guys who do post other rules tend to be very polite and happy to share the space.

>>92730661
You keep saying "extensive knowledge of game design" but, pray tell, what does that actually include? I myself have been designing games for the better part of 5+ years and I wouldn't consider my knowledge "extensive" or tout it as such.

File: mouse.jpg (45 KB, 617x494)

45 KB JPG

>>92730407
>a very specific vision for his game and doesn't want anyone influencing it past what he deems acceptable
Wait, you may be onto something. Could he actually be from the Panoptica team?

>>92730878
Extensive relative to the average /tg/ user, not necessarily extensive relative to long-time industry professionals. But I have been tinkering with writing my own rulesets for games for roughly 20 years and spent the last 3 taking it as seriously as it is possible to do with 4-8 hours a day spent filling notebooks while consuming books on game design (many specifically on wargame design), listening to podcasts on game design, following entire college courses on GD theory, interviews and articles from designers, reading rulebooks from many different popular wargames, testing my own games in solo play or with a friend, etc. Call it my autistic special interest, but I didn't half-ass it. I would have a degree in the field if I wanted to spend exorbitant money on actually attending a university for this, but luckily in the current day and age you can get a college level education for free if you know how to google search worth a damn and just apply yourself. A lot of this crossed over into military theory, history of the World Wars, and speculative mil-sci-fi literature as applies to 40k or the influences 40k was based on.

Oh and I read about 200 White Dwarfs and every single rulebook, codex, supplement, spin-off board game, citadel journal, expansion set, and so on pertaining to 40k, including all of the Epic material, BFG, space hulk, advanced space crusade, necromunda, and gorkamorka, from 1987 to the early 2000s, cover to cover.

>>92731095
I don't even know what Panoptica is, but if I were part of an existing team for an existing project why would I be here doing /fourk/ instead?

>>92730021
Thanks, I did end up catching the choose/chose error you highlighted but not the table issue, those continue to be my bane.

>>92730407
I think this is an important topic to address. /fourk/'s next OP should pivot from "this is a singular project with contributions from /tg/" to "this is a collective of people who want to make or play 3-7th style 40K, please share your homebrew or contribute homebrew to an existing project [link to a directory of downloads]". This is honestly already the case all but in function since there is the anon who posted his AA-style 40K homebrew, my work on a 4th Edition SRD, and whatever SNA's team calls themselves collectively and their project all happening in the same space.

For me I want (once I get more editing done) is people to you know, treat what I made as an SRD.You know, hack 4th, make up a list of houserules for it and share, make custom codices, create scenarios or missions, and make 4th Edition feel a bit more alive. Treating /fourk/ as /homebrew/ but for 40K is a good way to achieve that. Is definitely kinda indulgent though since it would mean 40K would have /hhg/, /ktg/, /40k/, /grog/, and /fourk/ as generals which is indulgent to say the least.

>>92731290
>Is definitely kinda indulgent though since it would mean 40K would have /hhg/, /ktg/, /40k/, /grog/, and /fourk/ as generals which is indulgent to say the least.
Honestly don't see a problem, 4chan boards run on the philosophy of natural selection, if the threads maintain enough interest to stay alive they belong here, if they don't deserve to exist they just won't sustain themselves. With /fourk/ expanding to cover multiple fan projects it absolutely justifies itself, and does a great service of offering visibility to numerous creators who would otherwise be drowned out just posting on /40kg/ or a more general homebrew thread that covers non-40k systems.

Coming up with names for some of these different projects is going to be important moving forward though.

In addition to my team's project, your SRD, and the AA-style 4th/7th hybrid guy, I would also suggest linking Prohammer Classic here too. I don't know if the creator comes to /tg/ or is aware of us but I like his work and I'm happy to shill it for him and direct people there.

>>92731453
Since the alternating activation system is what sets mine apart, if the OP reposts it in the next thread just call it AA-40k.

>>92730000
>wah wah wah
Mama's #1 crier

>>92731916
Hey, you have a consistent posting pattern and I assume you want to help so I want to jump in here.

You should just hide shitposts/trolling attempts instead of replying to them. It is a fact that these sort of people have a wire in their brain that gives them an orgasm every time they get a (You), so replying to shitposters and wannabe trolls keeps them coming back. Just hide their post, replies, and make it a stub. Better yet, reply to a real post and get a discussion going, low effort shitflinging or counter-trolling or whatever you want to call it just clutters up the thread with garbage and drowns out the potential for actual discussion.

Thanks.
Also as an update I probably will be posting an updated revision in a couple hours, so if anyone caught any other errors in the last posted draft please let me know before then so I can apply them.

>>92732170
Thanks for the sincere reply. I'm not valuable for this early dev stuff--I only have deeper faction-type ideas/desires for what I want for my pet factions. The in depth numbers stuff is beyond me.
So, I point out the whining of derailers with only noncomplex, nonsatisfactory, short posts--pulling any value from the (You)
One can tell it gets under their nerves

File: 1686246668706943.png (45 KB, 793x406)

45 KB PNG

>>92732170
>so if anyone caught any other errors in the last posted draft please let me know before then so I can apply them.
I double checked the original rules for Pinning, as the design team is currently going over this mechanic. Pinning weapons cause a test if there's at least one casualty, you have at least one wound, which isn't the same for multi-wound targets. You also seem to have missed the -1 modifier to Leadership if the pinning test is caused by an Ordnance Barrage.

File: 40K_fourth_edition_SRD_v0-9.pdf (2.01 MB, PDF)

2.01 MB PDF

>>92732495
Thanks, I totally overlooked the box text on Ordnance Barrage.

Alright, an update!
All "refer to page XX" have been replaced with the proper page, and I updated the first page. Sometime before the next thread I plan to create a Mega account and start putting stuff in there, please include that along with AA-40K anon's Mega link in the next thread!!!

Since this is basically done now other than occasionally responding to fix mistakes I am... free! I have NOT labelled this 1.0 because I am not convinced I have not caught every mistake yet. But now... I might start making an excel file for the 16(?) 3.5e codex I have and actually type out each Unit on a card. Formatted easy to print to pages, and an editable format for anyone who wants to make changes. Yeah yeah. I know I said I wouldn't but I'm helping myself and just sharing the work I am doing anyways. Also since this is for me I am going to work leisurely, and maybe ignore even further Codex that I personally don't play/care about and just trust that anyone who wants to customize factions can use the template to do some work and stop freeloading since any moron can copy values from a book into a template.

Will admech stuff work with this?

>>92733039
Regarding the project I'm leading, eventually yes.

>>92732846
Great work. Hopefully seeing 4th in this stripped-down form will encourage others to join community ruleset projects or start their own.

>>92729522
To be honest, I liked the variation of higher by3 conferring the 2 wounds on 4+, gives higher value to higher strength weapons besides them being better at penning enemy armor, but also better at ripping through (smaller) monstrous creatures. But I understand how others anons point out it could overcomplicate things.

>>92735170
I said new vs old, not old vs new. The left one is the one we are using. The right one is 4th edition and sucks.

>>92713883
What about? I've got nothing to show yet.

>>92733158
Does it have a name?

bump

>>92738592
Not yet, other than Fourk, but if we end up using that as a more general term for this collective thread it might need a more distinguishing one.

File: 33FE0F03-58FF-4A8F-83B9-9(...).jpg (65 KB, 905x566)

65 KB JPG

I can’t make the next thread it’s blocked for me for whatever reason

>>92735859
I'd be down to collab on that, I like 10th a bit.

>>92739346
Ahs shit, jannies on gw payroll