Ah ok make sense. i don't think you need to call out it in return fire but there is definitively a need to put in the psychic part that you can only invoke during your turn (including witchfire obviously)

Hi people, im new to tabletop warhammer and wargames in general, do you think Prohammer clasic would be a good choice for a newby like me? im aware of opr, but i find it a little too simple.

klator wrote:
Hi people, im new to tabletop warhammer and wargames in general, do you think Prohammer clasic would be a good choice for a newby like me? im aware of opr, but i find it a little too simple.

It is heavily modified, as it is trying to unify 3rd-7th ed in the 7th ed rule set. it really depends on your player group our group did something similar with far fewer changes based on 5th ed instead, or if you have a group that straight up wants to play an older editon "pure" the old rulebooks and codexes are still around.

I think the added complexity of ProHammer is less from trying to be cross-codex edition compatible and more to do with the added mechanisms - the reaction system, crossfire, expanded morale (pinning, broken state), declared shooting, etc.

That said, I think the rules are comprehensive and should work even if you haven't played 40K before. And if you need codex access, you can hit up Wahapedia archive for all things 7th edition.

Check out the turn summary aid on the first post. That does have about 90% of the core rules more or less on a single 11x17 sheet.

Hey, just started reading this and gotta say, awesome job! It feels nostalgic as hell, even if it was only 9 years ago

A few questions cause Admec is stupid

1 can any character join another squad?
2 how do you play knights in this? Just as walkers?
3 Would the mega Force org with the imperial knights be okay to play with?

Responses!

(1) "Independent Characters" can join other squads. See the Independent Characters section of the rules under UNIT TYPE DETAILS chapter.

(2) Knights and super heavy vehicles are not really covered well in ProHammer - mostly because my groups never really used them.

As a stop gap measure, most of the rules for super-heavy vehicles in the 7th edition rulebook would appear to work mostly fine. Super Heavies have higher Hull point values however, which translated into ProHammer's Structure Points could be problematic. I might consider the following adjustments when it comes to damaging super-heavies:

* Keep their current number of Hull Points and treat these as Structure Points
* Structure points get used to degrade vehicle destroyed/explored results normally per ProHammer.
* Additionally, when taking Engine Damaged, Weapons Destroyed, or Immobilized results on the Penetrating hit table, one structure point must be spent to lower the result by 1. Additional structure points may be spent to lower it further.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Responses!

(1) "Independent Characters" can join other squads. See the Independent Characters section of the rules under UNIT TYPE DETAILS chapter.

(2) Knights and super heavy vehicles are not really covered well in ProHammer - mostly because my groups never really used them.

As a stop gap measure, most of the rules for super-heavy vehicles in the 7th edition rulebook would appear to work mostly fine. Super Heavies have higher Hull point values however, which translated into ProHammer's Structure Points could be problematic. I might consider the following adjustments when it comes to damaging super-heavies:

* Keep their current number of Hull Points and treat these as Structure Points
* Structure points get used to degrade vehicle destroyed/explored results normally per ProHammer.
* Additionally, when taking Engine Damaged, Weapons Destroyed, or Immobilized results on the Penetrating hit table, one structure point must be spent to lower the result by 1. Additional structure points may be spent to lower it further.

Alright, that can all work! It would give them some of the staying power they had in 7th, which is the biggest thing I would be looking for, and can stop them from being one shotted by a stray las cannon.

since they are super heavy walkers, should the stomps be played the same-ish? Maybe removing the "on a 6 the model is removed from play" and instead giving it the same treatment as a Destroyer weapon?

You could also just use the original FW rules (imperial armor 1 first edition) where titans and superheavies were designed to be used in normal games. a knight is effectively a baby warhound- knights are superheavy walker/2 structure points. uses the superheavy damage table. walks 12", sprints for 18" but can only fire 1 gun or runs for 24" and fires no guns, titanic stride also allows them to walk over intervening terrain or models as long as the knight can still be placed. can split fire and has an onboard tech marine/repair ability for mobility/weapon damage on a 5+. titan stomp is also an option. 1 attack at initiative 1 hits on WS2 and hits all models in B2B contact with a S10 AP2 attack. additionally superheavy walkers cannot be locked in CC with anything that isn't also a superheavy walker or gargantuan creature.

 aphyon wrote:
You could also just use the original FW rules (imperial armor 1 first edition) where titans and superheavies were designed to be used in normal games. a knight is effectively a baby warhound- knights are superheavy walker/2 structure points. uses the superheavy damage table. walks 12", sprints for 18" but can only fire 1 gun or runs for 24" and fires no guns, titanic stride also allows them to walk over intervening terrain or models as long as the knight can still be placed. can split fire and has an onboard tech marine/repair ability for mobility/weapon damage on a 5+. titan stomp is also an option. 1 attack at initiative 1 hits on WS2 and hits all models in B2B contact with a S10 AP2 attack. additionally superheavy walkers cannot be locked in CC with anything that isn't also a superheavy walker or gargantuan creature.

I like this fix a lot too, though it seems to be custom made for warhounds only. Still, the stomp attack makes sense, even if it is less effective than the 7th edition ones.

speaking of 7th ed... a though occured to me. There should be no problems porting 1st edition HH rules to prohammer, right? I.E. having orks or chaos fighting legionaries or mechanicum

Yes HH 1.0 is literally Alan Bligh taking 7th ed and "fixing" it so it is pretty well mostly compatible with any 3rd -7th ed codexes. if you were to use it with HH specifically the eldar/dark eldar, orks and necrons were actually around during the HH time period. even the named characters aside from orks.

 aphyon wrote:
Yes HH 1.0 is literally Alan Bligh taking 7th ed and "fixing" it so it is pretty well mostly compatible with any 3rd -7th ed codexes. if you were to use it with HH specifically the eldar/dark eldar, orks and necrons were actually around during the HH time period. even the named characters aside from orks.

oh, thats perfect then. I have been dying to play admec properly again for the longest time, especially now that I got a 3d printer. Definitely going to be giving prohammer a shot sometime, even on TTS!

I'm thinking of giving this a try, and I was wondering if y'all could advise me as to which Codices to get.

I have some Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum models, and I was wondering if there was any Codex that has rules for both Rough Riders and Tauroxes. 6th ed? 7th ed?

Also, what's the most fun Tyranid Codex to use? I have mostly old models from 1st-4th editions.

 Pariah Press wrote:
I'm thinking of giving this a try, and I was wondering if y'all could advise me as to which Codices to get.

I have some Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum models, and I was wondering if there was any Codex that has rules for both Rough Riders and Tauroxes. 6th ed? 7th ed?

Also, what's the most fun Tyranid Codex to use? I have mostly old models from 1st-4th editions.

Depends. our group plays core 5th ed but every codex is allowed. you just use one as the core and you can import newer models into it very easily. just use the new units base points cost and take all the upgrades from the preferred codex. 5th ed guard is our codex of choice 4th is used if you want to use the doctrines to build thematic guard regiments. i did this with my guard it is built from the 5th ed codex but i run some bullgryn with it from the 7th ed codex. as only the ogryn counterparts existed in 5th.

A friend and I are looking to start playing this but theres one hiccup. I'm planning on playing Eldar Corsairs from Doom of Mymeara, but that whole army has a lot of multiple-pistol models in it, and Brace of Pistols specifically makes reference to using multiple per model per phase.

Page 36 of the PDF says, "Each model may only shoot with one ranged weapon unless its type or special rules state otherwise. If they
have more than one ranged weapon, the active player must decide which weapon to shoot with. Special rules
affecting what weapons a model may shoot with include:"

Nowhere in the PDF is there any mention of the Gunslinger property of pistols, which lets a unit armed with two such weapons fire both in one shooting phase.

Is this just an unanticipated edge case? Am I reading it wrong? Does "Unless its type or special rules state otherwise" encompass this? Losing that severely hampers a niche of this army, both mechanically and thematically.

MetagoldPariah wrote:
A friend and I are looking to start playing this but theres one hiccup. I'm planning on playing Eldar Corsairs from Doom of Mymeara, but that whole army has a lot of multiple-pistol models in it, and Brace of Pistols specifically makes reference to using multiple per model per phase.

Multi-pistol firing has existed on and off through different editions but Imperial Armour 11 was a 5th edition book (no dual wielding).

Ah wait, I see that there was an updated version of it in 2015.

Gunslinger came in with 6th edition a year later, though a different form of it also existed in 3rd and 4th edition. I don't see it in Prohammer though.

One thing I am noticing after reading this whole thread, is there seems to be a disconnect between what is stated as being intended and what is actually happening in application. The author has stated repeatedly that ProHammer is intended to be more simulationist than GW 40k with what's happening on the table being logical and following an idea that a player could understand as being the 'obvious' way things would play out based on a simulationist expectation. However, I feel that a core rule absolutely flies in the face of this idea and drags the whole of it down. The wound allocation and armor save rules in the shooting phase are, to be quite blunt, a mess and about as abstracted as you could possibly get. They don't follow any self-evident (see: simulationist) process and seem to exist almost exclusively to facilitate 'fast rolling'. This does achieve the intended goal of making things less lethal though, but feels insanely game-y and against the spirit of a WAR game, favoring the idea of a war GAME.

That said, the rest of the rules seem almost perfectly what I am looking for. Having read the thread, I understand the intentions of the author on all other aspects aside from shooting wound allocation, and they make sense. This is a fantastic piece of work and truly deserves commendations. I personally cannot stomach playing with the shooting rules as written, but will absolutely be using the rest of the ruleset.

To touch on shooting two pistols at once, I would view this as an edge-case oversight rather than a deliberate omission. Very few models are ever going to be equipped with two pistols and I could easily see a majority of players having never ran into that situation before.

@Iron

I am curious about what you mean wound allocation wise. prohammer is built around 7th edition and it has a lot more nebulous "stuff" to contend with. our group built our perfect edition of 40K around 5th and we do not use any original rules, just utilize stuff GW already came up with but perhaps transfer them to 5th edition. in the case of wound allocation we use 4th ed rules to avoid the wound jumping shenanigans of 5th-
.wounds are allocated by the owning player
.wounded models must die first
.saves are rolled based on the units majority stats.

As for the pistol thing, that was only a special character thing as i recall only cipher had the ability to fire both of his pistols separately, otherwise 5th ed core rules only allow basic infantry to fire one weapon per shooting phase(aside from special items/wargear like a servo harness for example). they do get to choose from the weapons they are carrying however.

 aphyon wrote:
@Iron

I am curious about what you mean wound allocation wise. prohammer is built around 7th edition and it has a lot more nebulous "stuff" to contend with. our group built our perfect edition of 40K around 5th and we do not use any original rules, just utilize stuff GW already came up with but perhaps transfer them to 5th edition. in the case of wound allocation we use 4th ed rules to avoid the wound jumping shenanigans of 5th-
.wounds are allocated by the owning player
.wounded models must die first
.saves are rolled based on the units majority stats.

As for the pistol thing, that was only a special character thing as i recall only cipher had the ability to fire both of his pistols separately, otherwise 5th ed core rules only allow basic infantry to fire one weapon per shooting phase(aside from special items/wargear like a servo harness for example). they do get to choose from the weapons they are carrying however.

First, just to get it out of the way, ProHammer is built around 5th edition and not 7th as stated in the rulebook, the OP post, and the thread multiple times.

The target unit’s owner allocates wounds to HITTABLE MODELS. Each hittable model must be allocated a wound before any other hittable model is allocated a second wound (and so on until all wounds are allocated).
Any specific shot and resulting wound can be allocated to any hittable model in the unit.

Once all wounds have been allocated, determine which saving throws all models that have been allocated a wound will use. Saving throws fall into the following categories:
Normal armor - Armor saves that are not penetrated by the ranged attack.
Impacted Armor - Armor saves that are modified by an armor penetration roll (i.e. if the AP-value equals the armor save value, and the armor save suffers a -1 to the roll)
Penetrated armor - models that receive no saving throws
Cover saves - Models in the target unit that are OBSCURED by terrain from the point of view of any eligible shooting model and receiving the same level of cover save.
Invulnerable Save - models with an equivalent invulnerable armor save.
The target unit’s owner may always choose to ignore using a cover or invulnerable armor save in lieu of their armor save if desired.
Lastly, roll saving throws for all allocated wounds.

Each failed save results in an unsaved wound, which the defender must apply to their unit.
Unsaved wounds may be applied to ANY models in the unit, regardless what specific saving throw was used.
Unsaved wounds MAY be applied to non-hittable models at the defender's discretion in order to keep a different hittable model alive.
Unsaved wounds must be applied to already wounded models first (see REMOVING CASUALTIES).
Any excess unsaved wounds that can’t be applied to a hittable model (i.e. because they are all dead) are ignored.

The bolded parts in particular are just absolute nonsense. Having played it, I promise you that this is not how 7th Edition 40k works. I would consider this to actually be anti simulationist rules, emphasizing gamified abstractions over intuitive rulings.

An easy solve is that wounds are applied to the model that takes the save. A model must continue taking wounds until it is removed from play. That is all that would be required to fix this. Obviously, this would prevent you from being able to "speedroll", but I believe the disadvantages attached to the rule in the v2.4 ruleset vastly outweighs any benefit gained.

From the 7th Edition Rulebook:

Gunslinger
All models with two Pistols can fire both in the Shooting phase. This follows the normal rules for shooting.

As for the pistol thing, I think any model that could take advantage of that rule is (in my mind) obviously mechanically, and more importantly, thematically built around utilizing that rule. Taking that away from them seems to take away any reason to use that model, which I see as a bad thing. I'm not the designer, but I think ProHammer was built around being able to play with the codex and models you think are the most fun without one player needing to sacrifice using the codex they like. For example, one player wants to play CSM and one player wants to play Space Marines. The Space Marines player is really proud of his Leviathan Dreadnought he built and painted and really want to play it. The CSM player wants to play an edition of his Codex that is actually fun. Neither player can play what they want using a GW edition of 40k, whereas ProHammer facilitates both players getting what they want. If a model is built around running around like John Woo with two pistols, it seems a shame to deny that to the model and would discourage people from using that model in ProHammer. I see more options as a good thing.

 Iron_Hands_Fan wrote:
As for the pistol thing, I think any model that could take advantage of that rule is (in my mind) obviously mechanically, and more importantly, thematically built around utilizing that rule

Amusingly while the gunslinger rule has existed in one form or another in every edition except for 5th the unit built/themed around using two pistols to my memory were the seraphim... who were explicitly unable to use the rule having been given twin-linked pistols rather than two pistols until the WD codex at the end of 5th.

A.T. wrote:

 Iron_Hands_Fan wrote:
As for the pistol thing, I think any model that could take advantage of that rule is (in my mind) obviously mechanically, and more importantly, thematically built around utilizing that rule

Amusingly while the gunslinger rule has existed in one form or another in every edition except for 5th the unit built/themed around using two pistols to my memory were the seraphim... who were explicitly unable to use the rule having been given twin-linked pistols rather than two pistols until the WD codex at the end of 5th.

I was thinking of the 30K unit, I think they are called Destroyers?

 Iron_Hands_Fan wrote:
I was thinking of the 30K unit, I think they are called Destroyers?

I think several units popped up post 6th edition - the sisters of silence got a paired pistol set as well.

Regarding wound and casualty allocation - if you're good with removing speed rolling capability in favor of greater simulation logic/fidelity, go for it! IIRC 3rd or maybe 4th edition worked like ProHammer in terms removing any models you want, with the idea being that if a model with a special weapon (for example) died, someone else in the squad could pick it up. Regardless, design is all about tradeoffs, and this is a case where we like both the ability to resolve attacks quicker and give the defender some choice in what models are removed. But feel free to adjust of course!

Regarding Gunslinger... seems like an oversight not to have included it more than anything. Didn't realize it was in 7th edition. Are there any drawbacks to shooting with two pistols?

 Mezmorki wrote:
Regarding wound and casualty allocation - if you're good with removing speed rolling capability in favor of greater simulation logic/fidelity, go for it! IIRC 3rd or maybe 4th edition worked like ProHammer in terms removing any models you want, with the idea being that if a model with a special weapon (for example) died, someone else in the squad could pick it up. Regardless, design is all about tradeoffs, and this is a case where we like both the ability to resolve attacks quicker and give the defender some choice in what models are removed. But feel free to adjust of course!

Regarding Gunslinger... seems like an oversight not to have included it more than anything. Didn't realize it was in 7th edition. Are there any drawbacks to shooting with two pistols?

They'd be stuck firing at a range of 12" and couldn't fire other weapons.
After discussing it with some other people, this seems to be the wording and placement of this rule that would work best in ProHammer:

In Step 1 of Resolving Shooting Attacks, it says "Each model may only shoot with one ranged weapon unless its type or special rules state otherwise." The consensus is that this comprehensively covers edge cases and adds the least amount of wording possible to clearly communicate the intended game effect.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Are there any drawbacks to shooting with two pistols?

In 3rd and 4th edition you had to be stationary. In 6th and 7th there was no drawback.

A.T. wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Are there any drawbacks to shooting with two pistols?

In 3rd and 4th edition you had to be stationary. In 6th and 7th there was no drawback.

I suppose then it comes down to if you feel that getting to shoot two pistols is strong enough to need to be nerfed. Personally, I don't think so. Bolters and Plasmaguns are Rapidfire anyhow, and both get two shots at 12". Gravguns are Salvo 3/2. I don't see them getting any advantage over the regular gun, especially since you have to pay more for two pistols to shoot just as much but at a shorter max range.

Yo! I was just wondering if there was a ruleset for Primaris Marines and the new Tyranids. My friend likes to collect both in numbers, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind proxying a few things.

 Wild Woody wrote:
Yo! I was just wondering if there was a ruleset for Primaris Marines and the new Tyranids. My friend likes to collect both in numbers, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind proxying a few things.

Primaris and the new Tyranids (Norns, new gaunt type, etc.) never appeared in a 3rd-7th edition Codex so would not likely be compatible with Prohammer. A friend and I are working on a fork that will work with the newer units which will have it's own thread once we get closer to a finished project.

In the mean time, you can try this Chat GPT that is designed for creating units compatible with Prohammer rules. It is mostly successful, but you may want to tweak what it gives you a bit or have it generate a few instances of the same thing as it outputs something a little different each time.

 Iron_Hands_Fan wrote:

 Wild Woody wrote:
Yo! I was just wondering if there was a ruleset for Primaris Marines and the new Tyranids. My friend likes to collect both in numbers, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind proxying a few things.

Primaris and the new Tyranids (Norns, new gaunt type, etc.) never appeared in a 3rd-7th edition Codex so would not likely be compatible with Prohammer. A friend and I are working on a fork that will work with the newer units which will have it's own thread once we get closer to a finished project.

In the mean time, you can try this Chat GPT that is designed for creating units compatible with Prohammer rules. It is mostly successful, but you may want to tweak what it gives you a bit or have it generate a few instances of the same thing as it outputs something a little different each time.

Thanks! Please keep me updated.

I've been wanting to do a standalone "Primaris" condex like I did for Votann. So little time...

 Mezmorki wrote:
I've been wanting to do a standalone "Primaris" condex like I did for Votann. So little time...

It'd be pretty simple, seeing as they don't really get any options

Another question here: How should I handle superheavy vehicles like Baneblades, Imperial Knights, Tau mechs, etc with the structure point system? The most recent 7th edition rules give the Baneblade family hullpoints, so I'm a bit confused. Thanks.

 Wild Woody wrote:
Another question here: How should I handle superheavy vehicles like Baneblades, Imperial Knights, Tau mechs, etc with the structure point system? The most recent 7th edition rules give the Baneblade family hullpoints, so I'm a bit confused. Thanks.

This is how we've been handling it (it needs tweaking):

My friend group just played our first games of Prohammer and we're really enjoying it. We did run into a question about how 7th edition Tau's "Target Acquired" rule translates to this ruleset.

The "Target Acquired" rule states: "When an enemy unit declares a charge, all friendly models with this special rule in units within 6" of the charging unit's target can choose to fire *Overwatch* as if they were also targets of the charge."

We replaced the term "Overwatch" for "Stand & Shoot!" in the Supporting Fire rule for our game, which I think makes sense, but the Prohammer rulebook says vehicles may never Stand & Shoot, despite some Tau vehicles having the Supporting Fire rule.

How should this be handled?

Thanks!

Think I found a minor typo. Under "Unit Types Summary" it says Jetpack Infantry are Swift which would imply falling back with 3d6 but says 2d6.

Thank you for this ruleset looks great!

Regarding the Tau and overwatch, we had their special supportive fire rule use follow the same reaction fire rules, so it limits their shooting on the following turn. We do allow vehicles to use their ability, but following the same reaction fire rules.

Hey there! Me and my friend have been really enjoying playing ProHammer on Table Top Simulator so thanks for making it. Howevr she doesn't have as much time to play as me and I’ve got the bug to play more. So I was wondering if theres a community of people who play ProHammer on tts out there? And if so would anyone like a game!

Just wanted to say my mate and I have been playing this for the past 6 months with 5th / 4th Ed codex's It has been so much fun .

Thank you so much for making such an awesome system!

Thanks for the kind words all. It's truly encouraging hearing that people enjoy ProHammer and that it continues to receive interest and activity! There isn't any community playing it that I'm aware of unfortunately - so maybe not that big yet. Maybe someone should start a discord channel for it? I'd be happy to set one up if there's interest.

I think a discord would be great if theres other people who wanna play on table top sim and just discuss things in a more casual form. I think its great that all the info is still available on the forum so its not lost but discord can still be good for chats

Thanks for this ruleset, I haven't fully gotten the hang of it, but in the small games we've played it's been a really nice return to some nostalgic styles of playing, without so many bad swings, and your new damage tables and version of split fire play particularly satisfyingly.

I had a question, if you don't mind: how does units screening other units interact with the following rule? It seems like the edition entirely negates the rule; if so, how might you handle it? Have you further house ruled any analogous mechanics you've encountered? (This is from the Tyrant's Legion forgeworld list, basically Marines can use their human fodder troops ("Auxilia") as cover to attack through; for a less obscure version, I think Gretchin used to have a similar rule around 3rd edition? )

The Tyrant’s Due: Any model with the And They Shall Know No Fear special rule that also has this special rule may claim a bonus of +1 to any cover saves granted because of weapons fire passing through an Auxilia infantry unit to reach them (the standard 5+ save allowed for Intervening models becoming a 4+). However, if this bonus is claimed, the Auxilia unit immediately suffers D3 wounds per unit firing through them against which this save bonus has been claimed. Wounds inflicted in this way are distributed as if the enemy unit against which the cover save bonus has been claimed had fired upon the Auxilia unit and have no AP value.

Once again thanks for the great system, I've now played at least a dozen games with two friends so and I can safely say it will be my preferred way to play 40k into the foreseeable future.

I will say a more rapid way to ask questions and discuss improvements (on a Discord server) would be really appreciated, sometime while playing it would be useful to get a third interpretation of the rules. Two situations recently when this came up are possible example where a clarification might be helpful: 1. When charging or using regular fire against a transport with fire-point or, as was the case in the situation I was in, open topped vehicles. It was questioned whether the unit in the vehicle could return fire or stand and shoot, we eventually ruled that since vehicles cannot do either that their passangers couldnt either. It was later pointed out to me by the third player in our group that, yes embarked units cannot return fire or stand and shoot when their transport is shot or changed, but not for that reason. It is because that unit is not the Target of the charge or shooting attack. So the rules do cover this situation, however it could be clarified in one section or another.

2. Secondly this is mostly my fault for misreading the rules about retreat/pursuit and fall back rules and how they interact with the Swift keyword. I would propose rewording the USR to say "always roll an extra D6 when rolling for fallback, retreat and pursuit moves" as far as I can tell this doesnt change the functionality and would be more clear (to me at least)

I had an idea to potentially make use of supression more and maybe make more strategic choices when trying to avoid being the target of return fire or stand and shoot. Basically requiring units that gained a suppression token that turn to test for Leadership when attempting to make a shooting reaction. I personally don't find that reactive shooting needs a nerf but one of my friends I play with finds it a pain to play against so I was trying to find a good way to mitigate it with tactics (instead of a flat nerf like a cover save) theres obviously other options for tweaks e.g. requiring a test every time you reactive fire (and probably enter OverWatch) which would cut down on memory, or requiring that all supressed units need to take tests in the same way. Also helps making supression tokens of Fearless units more useful (and monsters even more deadly comparitively).

Hello there! My friend plays Tyranids and wants to use some of his newer Tyranid models in Prohammer. We were going to use the Tyranid creation tables found in Chapter Approved 2004, but we're confused on how to handle mass points with this system since they weren't in the Prohammer google doc. Do you have any suggestions?

Just curious as to why the updated 3rd edition Dark Eldar Codex isn't included on the Prohammer website? I see the Chapter Approved where the rules were made available, but I think having both versions posted would be more helpful.

Message me if you need the PDF.

is there any consolidated FAQ for prohammer?

question that came up yesterday was:

does the +1 on the damage table still apply if the vehicle suffered one of the damage types listed BUT that damage was healed with repair/daemonic possession/a battlesmith ability or something?

No official FAQs for Prohammer, just searching this thread.

As for the vehicle question - I'd lean towards keeping the +1 damage even if the damage was repaired. I think of having damage there now being a loss of armor or something that is compromised. So even if the damage is jury-rigged in the field and "fixed", there's still a loss of armor or weakness. The point of the rule is build towards being able to destroy the vehicle. Repairing damage is strong enough as it is if it means you get a weapon back or become mobile again!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - I've been a few people mention a ProHammer website. There was never ProHammer website that I was part of - so not sure what that's even referring to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I guess it's this!

https://sites.google.com/view/prohammer40k?usp=sharing

Lol - didn't know someone actually made a website! Cool

I'm coming back to the hobby, last played it n 4th edition. This ruleset looks really promising. I think some friends and I will try a campaign this summer, Thanks mezmorki!

On that note have you made a discord yet? I think it could be really beneficial for some live discussions

@Mezmorki the (unofficial) website now points to the Alt40k website. Are you affiliated with that project now? I have just discovered your work (Prohammer) and much much prefer it to the Alt40k set of rules.

Either way. Thanks for all your hard work.

Justyn wrote:
@Mezmorki the (unofficial) website now points to the Alt40k website. Are you affiliated with that project now? I have just discovered your work (Prohammer) and much much prefer it to the Alt40k set of rules.

That alt40k page has links for alt40k, custom40k, and prohammer. The prohammer link points back to this thread.

Alright, I took a stab at making a ProHammer discord server:

https://discord.gg/wGpw4Xy3

Let me know if you can join/access it correctly. I've used Discord a fair amount but never setup my own server, so hopefully this isn't too broken Let me know if you can join!

Is ProHammer made using any generative AI?

Zero AI was used in creation of ProHammer

 Mezmorki wrote:
Alright, I took a stab at making a ProHammer discord server:



Let me know if you can join/access it correctly. I've used Discord a fair amount but never setup my own server, so hopefully this isn't too broken Let me know if you can join!

Just tried to join, and the link is invalid.

Try this?

https://discord.gg/bVnZtwym

I cant join. It keeps saying invite invalid. Has the invite link expired?

Hmmm try this one. I this is set to. It expire:

https://discord.gg/FZ78594vv7