Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/10 04:43:51


Post by: Mezmorki


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just take me to the rules!

ProHammer Classic (Living Rules Link) (PDF v2.2)
* All the core ProHammer rules! Use with any Codex from 3rd - 7th edition!
* See below for extensive details of changes made by ProHammer

ProHammer: Gameplay Summary / Reference Aid
* Zoom to 100% to have it fill your screen at a readable zoom-level

ProHammer: Mission Book (WIP)
* Variable mission objective and parameter mission set for use with any version of 40K.

ProHammer: Strategic Campaign Rules (WIP)
* Rules for running a strategic, map-based campaign. Rules for requisition, unit progression, & battle selection (integrates with ProHammer: Mission Book)

ProHammer Tabletop Simulator (TTS) Mod on the Steam workshop.
* Blank TTS environment for playing ProHammer. Complete with terrain generation resources, tokens, and other playing aids.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changelog

Version 1.0
Version 1.1
Version 1.2
Version 1.7
Version 2.1
Version 2.2
Version 2.3
Version 2.4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With this thread, I'm launching ProHammer: Classic (aka ProHammer 2.0) into the wilds.

Long story short, I've been working on the ProHammer ruleset for a quite a while now (see the old thread here), including as much playtesting as I can muster (quite a bit over table top simulator). A long standing aspiration of the project, achieved today, is to fully re-write the rules for a classic version of 40K that builds on the original ProHammer but comprehensively covers everything else that needs covering. Along the way, I can clean up issues in older rulesets and deliver something that works as a "unified" ruleset for the classic editions of the game (3rd through 7th edition). This "classic" version of ProHammer supports any codex in cross-edition play from the classic era.

Please take a look at the ruleset (linked above) and/or additional information below. I look forward to hearing your feedback as I continue to tweak and revise this much more complete and compressive version of ProHammer! Thanks!

=========================================================
WHY PROHAMMER?
=========================================================

Warhammer 40,000, from 3rd edition through 7th edition, shared a common core rule set that endured for nearly 20-years from the release of 3rd edition in 1998 until eighth edition in 2017. For many players, this era represents the “classic” 40K experience, and for one reason or another - whether it be the lore, the gameplay, or the aesthetics - remains a version of the game still worth playing.

ProHammer Classic is an attempt to build a unified ruleset that unites the best of 3rd through 7th edition, utilizing 5th edition as the starting point. In addition to integrating and refining rules from across editions, new rules unique to ProHammer are incorporated where it creates deeper and richer gameplay, making this “classic” 40k the best game it can be.

=========================================================
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
=========================================================

Designing games and writing rules is often an exercise in compromising. Adding more detail or nuance to the rules might make a game a more thematically rich simulation, or open up more strategic or tactical choices - but that might come with the cost of being harder to learn or longer to play. It’s a careful balancing act - and in order to walk the tightrope it is helpful to establish values and principals that can be relied upon to set

A few key principles underpin the design of ProHammer:

* Celebrate the epic drama of Warhammer 40k and its emphasis on gritty infantry battles.
* Give players more interesting and tough tactical choices, rewarding clever play over list building.
* Balance fairness with excitement. Keep gameplay surprising but not randomly or overly punitive.
* Emphasize intuitive rules. Simple is good, but shouldn’t be at the expense of gameplay or rule logic.
* Restore the importance of position, maneuver, and terrain which is at the heart of miniature wargaming!

=========================================================
KEY DESIGN CHANGES IN PROHAMMER
=========================================================

The ProHammer ruleset is a complete rewrite of the rules. While many aspects of the rules are inspired directly by a ruling in a prior edition, there are a number of notable and significant departures worth highlighting at the onset.

REACTION & TURN SEQUENCE:
ProHammer adds more dynamic play between players. Units that are shot by shooting attacks can take limited reactive fire (in exchange of taking their normal shooting next turn!). Units have options for different reactions when charged or when choosing to pursue a retreating unit.

CLASSIC OVERWATCH:
Re-incorporates a classic approach to overwatch, interwoven with First Fire, giving a benefit to units that remain stationary before shooting. Overwatch allows you to fire on your opponent’s turn, further breaking down the “I go, you go” gameplay into a more reactive system.

REWORKED WOUND ALLOCATION:
The process for resolving attacks - both ranged and melee - are refined and clarified to account for a unified batch rolling process that fairly assigns wounds, minimizes “game-i-ness,” and smooths out handling of multiple weapon attacks and variable target saving throws.

DEEPER SHOOTING:
The optimization exercise of older shooting processes gives way to a system of declared fire and tighter control of split fire options. Units gain flexibility but it requires players to commit to a shooting strategy upfront, rather than a “wait and see” approach. Mechanics for suppression, screening, and pinning adds further depth and decision making to the gameplay.

BETTER BALANCED VEHICLES:
ProHammer finds the “sweet spot” in balancing vehicle durability with offensive power, while clarifying and properly incorporating vehicles rules into the main flow of the rules. Revised vehicle damage tables and penetration modifiers replace hull points.

ASSAULT RESOLUTION:
The results of close combat, including fall back and pursuit moves, are reworked to provide for additional decision-points and eliminate overly-punitive outcomes.

PSYCHIC PHASE:
Across the editions, how psychic powers work have changed dramatically and at times became overly complex. ProHammer streamlines the psychic phase with a system that works uniformly for all supported codex editions (3rd-7th).

REVISION MISSION RULES:
From how objectives are scored, to rules for Deep Strike and reserves, mission rules have been refined and clarified to provide for a fairer experience that emphasizes smart decision-making and skill over die-rolls.

There is much more to the ProHammer ruleset changes - but the above list captures the essence of the biggest changes.


==========================================================
DETAILED OVERVIEW OF PROHAMMER
==========================================================


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL APPROACH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Reinstate the classic 40k (e.g. 3rd - 5th edition) gameplay feel
- Rules based on a blending of 4th and 5th edition, but are heavily modified to resolve common complaints (more below)
- Adds additional nuance and decision-points to the gameplay where it adds to tactical decision making
- Efforts made to reduce lethality and instant-wipe situations across the board (even from a classic 40k standpoint)
- Distinct and clarified vehicle rules (details woven into items below)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORE METHODS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measuring
- No premeasuring / free-measuring (if both players wish, it's optional to allow free measuring)

Moving Models
- Individual models in a unit may move or remain stationary, and count as having moved or remained stationary when determining a model's own shooting. Does allow a heavy weapon unit to remain still (firing at full strength) while other members of the unit make minor moves.

Line of Sight
- Clearly defined where LoS is drawn from on vehicle and non-vehicle models
- Clearly defined the "targetable" area of models, which is the body and upper limbs for non-vehicle models and the "hull" of vehicle . Clearly defined what counts as a body or hull (no shooting antennas or sword tips!)
- Uses hybrid Line of Sight rules based on the type of terrain. Area terrain blocks LoS beyond 6" of depth up to the height of the terrain feature. Intervening terrain works based on true LoS (with above clarifications on needing to see the body or hull)

Making Attacks on Non-Vehicles
- Uses classic wound charts for non-vehicle wounding. Depending on the matchup, can be impossible to wound certain targets.
- Instant death causes D3 wounds instead of.... instant death
- When a weapon's AP equals the Armor Save, instead of ignoring armor it instead reduces the armor save roll by 1 (helps everyone's survivorship)

Making Attacks on Vehicles
- Clearly defined vehicle arc's using a standard template and approach relative to the position of the firing models.
- Heavily revised the vehicle damage tables to achieve a better balance point WITHOUT having to use hull points (which are ignored if using 6th + 7th edition codexes). Basic table is less lethal, only destroying on penetrating hit of a 6 ... but....
- Added a +1 to die roll when vehicles are already damaged.
- Added "engines damaged" results, having the movement speed
- Open-topped and AP1 weapons add +1 to the damage roll as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOVEMENT PHASE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Added explicit reserve sub-phase
- Major revisions to deep strike rules. Units can still scatter but landing in an invalid location no longer instantly-deletes the unit. Instead, your opponent gets to reposition the unit within 12" of the original drop location (this works super well!)
- Units that deep strike MAY still assault (if within 6") - however they lose their charge bonus and the effect of any offense grenades they may have.
- Units may charge after disembarking from vehicles that moved up to 12", but lose their charge bonus and the effect of any offense grenades they may have. Assault vehicles (including open-topped) exempted.
- Units can advance (i.e. run) D6" instead of shooting (per 5th edition). Can't charge afterwards unless the unit has fleet.
- Revised difficult terrain rules to be less punishing when entering difficult terrain. Individual models can move full movement up to the terrain, and may then move into the terrain provided the difficult terrain role (highest of 2D6) allows for that additional movement. More forgiving this way.
- Clarified tank shock rules for vehicles

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHOOTING PHASE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shooting Sequence
- Active player declares all shooting targets for their units BEFORE making any shooting attacks (declared fire both adds depth to the game AND speeds up the gameplay in our experience)
- Units may split fire ONCE on a successful leadership test, targeting two separate units of their choice. Vehicles may split fire and are treated as having Ld 10.
- Overwatch and reactive fire (see below)

Overwatch + Reactive Fire
- Classic overwatch (from 2nd edition) with refinements. Stationary non-vehicle units may enter overwatch. Overwatch shooting is resolved on the opponents turn at either the start of their shooting phase (but after their movement phase) or after charges have been declared (may only then shoot at a charging enemy unit).
- Overwatch limited targeting enemies within 24" only
- Shooting reactions - units hit by normal shooting attacks (not overwatch fire) may choose to "go to ground" (gain +1 to cover saves, per 5th edition, but lose mobility and only shoot with snap fire next turn) or may choose to "reactively fire" simultaneously with the opposing shooting unit. Reactive fire only allows for 1 shot to be made per firing weapon at AP "-", and the unit then strikes last in close combat (and loses and CC cover benefits).

Resolving Shooting Attacks
- Revised wound allocation process into something that is (we feel) perfect. Clearly define "hittable" models.
- All shooting attacks from one unit to another are "fast rolled" and the method properly handles the allocation from there, even accounting for units with mixed armor of cover saves, multiple wounds, different weapon attack profiles, and where individual models may be out of LoS (all in all a big improvement over 5th).
- After allocating and rolling for wounds + saves, casualties may then be removed from any model in the unit (and already wounded models must take new wounds first). This speeds things up tremendously and "keeps the fun" by lettering the defender decide what models they want to keep alive (and captures the spirit of look out sir and other rules)

Other shooting phase highlights:
- Pinning weapons (per 5th edition) can pin units
- Screening rules (adapted from older editions). Shooting "through" one enemy to hit another means 50% of the successful hits hit the intended target, and the other 50% hit the screening unit.
- Suppression rules - units taking more wounds from a single enemy shooting attack that it has in wounds, and that suffers a casualty must also take a pinning test.
- Can shoot into close combat, with a 50% chance of successful hits hitting your own unit instead.
- Can throw grenades (1 grenade attack per unit)
- Blast weapons: roll to hit as normal. If it hits, template is on target model/location. If it misses, then the template scatters. Models wholly under auto hit, partially under on a 4+
- Rapid fire weapons: can't charge if you shot rapid fire. Shoot once at max range or twice at half range.
- Heavy weapons: if the model moved, only hits on snap fire (6+ to hit)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSAULT PHASE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assault Sequence
- All units declare charges. Must declare charges at a unit you shot at. May declare charges against multiple enemy units.
- Units with charges declared against them may perform overwatch fire (if still in overwatch) OR take reactive fire.
- Charge moves occur
- Melee engagement resolved
- Units engaged in close combat at the start of the phase may choose to voluntarily withdraw at the start of the assault phase. Opposing unit, if not still engaged, may choose to pursue or consolidate.

Resolving Melee engagements
- Clarified the hit/wound/casualty allocation process to be consistent in application with the shooting phase, fast resolving all attacks at a particular initiative step.
- All AP 2/3 weapons (from 6th & 7th ed) treated as power weapons, and negate armor saves

Close Combat Results
- Units on losing side take a break test. If failed will fall back.
- Revised pursuit (e.g. sweeping advance) rules to not be so punishing. Falling back units moves 2D6" and then pursing unit moves 2D6". Each model re-touched in base-to-base gets to make 1 auto-wounding hit with no armor save allowed (invulnerable saves are allowed). If any models are still in base-to-base contact or within 2" engagement range, the units remain locked in combat.
- Units may consolidate into other enemy units (but not sweeping advance into them)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORALE PHASE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Consolidated morale phase. Take break tests from suffering 25% or more of current strength or when loosing assaults.
- Clarified how falling back moves, giving players some flexibility to move logically into cover while moving away from enemy models.
- Clarified effects of being broken ad pinned, trapped, reaching the table edge, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSYCHIC POWERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- No defined psychic phase.
- Powers drawn from the applicable codex edition for the psyker.
- Modified (rebalanced) standard powers provided for 6th & 7th edition psykers
- Unified approach to determining mastery level for psykers (based on the number of known powers).
- Cap of two powers per turn (even if mastery level is higher)
- Re-worked perils of the warp (slightly less lethal)
- re-worked deny the witch (requires a psyker unit within at least 6" to deny the witch).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIVERSAL SPECIAL RULES + UNIT TYPES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Concise and streamlined list of USR's, pulling across all editions. Tweaked and balanced for consistency.
- Some of the more "spammy" USR's added to unit types (i.e. Hammer of Wrath) toned down in their power/impact.
- Vehicles have "main weapons" at Strength 6 or more. Defensive 5 or less. Can generally fire two main weapons on the move. Only 1 ordinance weapon can be fired.
- Flyers made easier to hit/destroy than standard 6th/7th edition rules. Flyer specific USR's are icing, not a requirement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORGANIZING A BATTLE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army Construction

- Armies may only use a single detachment with a standard force organization chart or an alternative standard chart provided by their codex. Multiple detachments of the same codex force may be taken with opponent's permission.
- No formations (6th/7th edition) may be used.
- Warlord traits and psychic powers, if normally randomly determined by the codex, may instead be selected directly (player choice). Standard warlord traits are available to all codex editions now.

Mission Selection

- Standard 72" x 48" board (6-feet by 4-feet)
- New mission selection process developed, with a greater range of competitive / matched play mission types.
- Clear process for assembling terrain on the map
- Clear process for determining mission parameters and variables (see separate ProHammer Mission Briefing file)
- Clear process for determining exclusive / majority control of objectives based on the types of models/units in proximity

==========================================================
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
==========================================================

Compared to 8th/9th edition, I'd summarize the overall difference as follows:

- More tough & tactical decisions: declared fire, declared charges, no-premeasuring ranges, better movement rules, split fire, flanking vehicles. Larger board opens up decision space in early turns.
- More interactivity: reactive fire & overwatch (feels quasi-alternating activation), going to ground, charge reactions, voluntary withdrawals, casualty removal process, deny the witch, etc.
- More fidelity: Proper morale system with pinning, fleeing, regrouping. More thematic vehicle rules.
- More clarity: processes standardized, streamlined without loosing flair where it counts. Clunky systems like challenges, precision strikes, psychic phase from 6th/7th edition removed.
- More good feelings: Less chances for instant unit destruction, greater survivorship overall, less impact from critical die roll failures, more ways to keep models alive and the battle raging

=========================================================

Well ,this went way too long!





ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/10 17:21:05


Post by: kirotheavenger


When it comes to formatting, something that I think helps is numbering sections and sub-sections.
eg;
3. Shooting
3.1. Declare target
3.1.1. Pick a target within LoS and range.
3.1.2. A unit can only target 1 enemy unit, unless it splits fire

It makes referencing rules much easier.
It's something I've only seen in historical games written in the '90s and such, but I'm not sure why it fell out of favour. I guess because it doesn't look as nice?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/10 20:08:35


Post by: Mezmorki


Yes, it can be helpful to use numbering like that (I do play historical wargames so are familiar with the approach) - but as someone WRITING the rules it's really a horrendous PitA and - also - it's really not as approachable for modern eyes.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/11 10:57:41


Post by: JawRippa


Page 24 says "initial strength" for casuality tests, yet established term is "current strength".
I'm still reading, but so far rules seem good.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/11 12:20:51


Post by: Mezmorki


 JawRippa wrote:
Page 24 says "initial strength" for casuality tests, yet established turn is "current strength".
I'm still reading, but so far rules seem good.


Good catch! Fixed. Thank you!


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/13 14:57:06


Post by: flakpanzer


Nice Mezmorki. I like what I am seeing and appreciate the effort you've put into it.

One question on Obscured. The wording has me confused.

OBSCURED: If 25% or more of a model’s TARGETABLE AREA (body or hull) is blocked by intervening terrain features (or the model is in dense cover), from any point of view from the unit drawing line of sight, then the target counts as being OBSCURED and may benefit from being behind cover depending on the type of terrain and receive a COVER SAVE.

If a unit of 10 Marines is firing at a unit of 10 Orcs, but only two of the orks are 25% blocked by intervening terrain from say 5 of the Marines (but not the other 5), how is that resolved based on the above?

Thanks.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/14 00:08:00


Post by: Mezmorki


Good question - and I can try to clarity the rules.

The intent is that if a "model" is obscured relative to the Point of view of any shooting modes, then that "model" is eligible to take a cover save. With the way wound allocation goes, if you assign a wound to those obscured models they can take the cover save. Other models that aren't obscured in the unit wouldn't be able to take a cover save.

Does that make sense?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/14 01:43:04


Post by: flakpanzer


Yep. Makes sense. Thank you!


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/25 17:02:05


Post by: MagicJuggler


I had a quick glance and the first thing that sprung to mind is the fact that you eliminated Warp Charge while including the Malefic Daemonology.

In 7th edition, Malefic Daemonology was controversial because it let you bring in 'free troops'. However, one of the main things limiting it was the fact that Summoning cost 3 Warp Charges to cast, meaning you had to spend around 6-7 Warp Charge to have a decent chance of it going off.

There doesn't seem to be any real limiting factor to Summoning, plus the rules for Denial make it so that it's harder to actually qualify to Deny.

A similar issue exists with the fact you're keeping Invisibility 'as is'. Invisibility as a Psychic Power was responsible for many deathstars of unholy power, to the point that the current version of Horus Heresy replaced it with a different power, Warp Howl.

Warp Howl is a malediction that targets an enemy unit within 24", reducing its WS and BS to 1 until the start of the psyker's next turn.

The rationale was that Warp Howl was meant to penalize deathstars rather than promote them.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/25 18:08:52


Post by: Mezmorki


Ah, I wasn't clear on how summoning worked as no one in my group has played Chaos in 6th/7th.

When I read the powers, I assumed you had to have purchased the daemon unit, and the summoning powers are what actually got them to the table. But it wounds like that isn't the case! Crazy!

It could be that if you use a summoning power (summoning, possession, sacrifice) that is the only psychic power you can use in the turn. Maye further restrictions like you can't shoot or charge after summoning, and can't do it if in melee combat already.

For indivisibility - yes, it's too strong I'm playing a game with a big unit of wraithblades with invisibility, forewarning, and eldar enhance stacked. It's a nasty unit.

I was thinking of just modifying invisibility so that the opponents get a -1 to hit for ranged and melee attacks. Would keep the spirit of the power but ton it down drastically.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 09:39:27


Post by: Zustiur


I've been adding comments to your document all day from my phone. I log on to my computer now and can't see my comments. I really hope you can see them?

On further examination, I was looking at Enhanced Prohammer. I'll try again with 'Classic'.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 09:46:07


Post by: aphyon


 Mezmorki wrote:
Ah, I wasn't clear on how summoning worked as no one in my group has played Chaos in 6th/7th.

When I read the powers, I assumed you had to have purchased the daemon unit, and the summoning powers are what actually got them to the table. But it wounds like that isn't the case! Crazy!

It could be that if you use a summoning power (summoning, possession, sacrifice) that is the only psychic power you can use in the turn. Maye further restrictions like you can't shoot or charge after summoning, and can't do it if in melee combat already.

For indivisibility - yes, it's too strong I'm playing a game with a big unit of wraithblades with invisibility, forewarning, and eldar enhance stacked. It's a nasty unit.

I was thinking of just modifying invisibility so that the opponents get a -1 to hit for ranged and melee attacks. Would keep the spirit of the power but ton it down drastically.


Yeah that's the old way 3rd ed style you had to buy/pay points for the demon forces but they always start the game as reserves, but you didn't need to use powers to summon them they came in as reserves so long as there was an icon on the table (not in a transport) for them to spawn off of. the stability check was just a leadership test that instead of making them run made them *poof* back into the warp if they failed. of course if you were fighting grey knights the lesser demons just keep coming back as reserves ala green tide from the players table edge. it made up for the fact psycannons ignored invul saves and aside from khorne demons all the demons had was an invul save.

.


P.S.
Mezmorki

Have you guys opened up enough to test out the re-write with your gaming group?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 10:14:52


Post by: Zustiur


Huh, I can't add comments to this document. Oh well here goes:

* Coherency needs a clause for being in a continuous chain. Otherwise you can have a unit of 4 models, 2 on one side of the 18" bubble, and 2 on the other side.
* Normal Move 1" clause should be rephrased to be more clear.
* Hittable models clauses make it possible to snipe specific models by careful use of LOS. e.g. block sight to half the unit by putting a rhino in the way so that the casualties have to come from the visible half.
* I cannot find your rule section for morale checks. You have a reference to Morale Phase, but no such section exists.
* You don't have a reverse clause for shooting at infantry who are in combat with your monsters/vehicles. This may be intentional, but you may want to think about it if it hasn't already been considered.

I think that covers all the things I commented on in Enhanced which are still relevant to Classic.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 14:11:31


Post by: meatybtz


Zustiur wrote:
Huh, I can't add comments to this document. Oh well here goes:

* Coherency needs a clause for being in a continuous chain. Otherwise you can have a unit of 4 models, 2 on one side of the 18" bubble, and 2 on the other side.
* Normal Move 1" clause should be rephrased to be more clear.
* Hittable models clauses make it possible to snipe specific models by careful use of LOS. e.g. block sight to half the unit by putting a rhino in the way so that the casualties have to come from the visible half.
* I cannot find your rule section for morale checks. You have a reference to Morale Phase, but no such section exists.
* You don't have a reverse clause for shooting at infantry who are in combat with your monsters/vehicles. This may be intentional, but you may want to think about it if it hasn't already been considered.

I think that covers all the things I commented on in Enhanced which are still relevant to Classic.

I agree with the above except the Hittable models clause. What you describe is called Tactics. As in chess, how you place and move your figures matters and should matter. A misplacement should hurt.

However, if it bothers enough folks the solution is simple, friendly intervening models/units do not block line of sight -7th edition- This prevents using your LOS blocking models like a Rhino to abuse a rule. So friendly models do not block LOS, period. Including tanks, etc. This is a minor break in continuity but one can assume that communications between units allows units to not block each other.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 15:41:04


Post by: A.T.


 meatybtz wrote:
However, if it bothers enough folks the solution is simple, friendly intervening models/units do not block line of sight -7th edition- This prevents using your LOS blocking models like a Rhino to abuse a rule. So friendly models do not block LOS, period. Including tanks, etc. This is a minor break in continuity but one can assume that communications between units allows units to not block each other.
That's generally fine when it's models in your own unit.
Not something that is practical for all friendly models though as that would allow you to park up rhinos as LoS blocking walls for your heavy weapons.

Casualty rules are always a trade-off between potential for abuse and ability to snipe. I find that 'owner removes models, no more casualties than models visible' is reasonably clean if you are willing to accept that outside of coherency breaks you'll have to kill the squad down to the last model to get to the special/heavy weapons. But preferences vary.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 17:32:50


Post by: Mezmorki


A.T. wrote:
 meatybtz wrote:
However, if it bothers enough folks the solution is simple, friendly intervening models/units do not block line of sight -7th edition- This prevents using your LOS blocking models like a Rhino to abuse a rule. So friendly models do not block LOS, period. Including tanks, etc. This is a minor break in continuity but one can assume that communications between units allows units to not block each other.
That's generally fine when it's models in your own unit.
Not something that is practical for all friendly models though as that would allow you to park up rhinos as LoS blocking walls for your heavy weapons.

Casualty rules are always a trade-off between potential for abuse and ability to snipe. I find that 'owner removes models, no more casualties than models visible' is reasonably clean if you are willing to accept that outside of coherency breaks you'll have to kill the squad down to the last model to get to the special/heavy weapons. But preferences vary.


Good points all around.

My preference in all of it is that the defender should be empowered to determine which models get removed - but also have the burden of needing to keep special models protected to some degree.

I also want to cut down on cheesy / exploitable stuff (which admittedly I don't look out for enough because my group is very casual and easy going with things). I do think it's dumb to be able to use LOS blocking vehicles to limit lines of fire artificially in order to hit certain models. But - part of what I've done with wound process in ProHammer is to make dealing with mixed armor/cover saves much easier to track and sort out.

I wonder if it would work such that AFTER rolling to save, when you know your unsaved wounds, you can apply those to ANY models that did or could have taken the same type of save, with a cap on not being able to put unsaved wounds on more models in total than you have hittable models overall.

I think there's also a thought, which plays to the defender's advantage, of just seeing the total number of unsaved wounds and applying those to whatever models you want. This does mean that a model that took an invulnerable save for example, and failed it, could be kept alive by having its wound be re-allocated a different model in the unit. This is also the most streamlined way to do it, because you don't need to apply wounds and keep track of what models are in what saving throw group. All the unsaved wounds go into a pool.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 18:03:49


Post by: A.T.


 Mezmorki wrote:
I think there's also a thought, which plays to the defender's advantage, of just seeing the total number of unsaved wounds and applying those to whatever models you want. This does mean that a model that took an invulnerable save for example, and failed it, could be kept alive by having its wound be re-allocated a different model in the unit. This is also the most streamlined way to do it, because you don't need to apply wounds and keep track of what models are in what saving throw group. All the unsaved wounds go into a pool.
The more complex a unit becomes in terms of mixed saves the more it pushes back to a 5e style of 'split your unit into distinct elements and divvy the dice up between them'. Though ideally if you've gotten through the save stage to the actual wound allocation there should be no more saving throws available to you - FnP potentially thowing that one out.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 18:13:21


Post by: Mezmorki


The ProHammer system is closest to 5E's way of handling it really, with the big fix being that wounds are applied across a group of models after saves and ensuring that multi-wound models that are already wounded must take all the wounds and be removed at a casualty first.



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/26 18:57:41


Post by: meatybtz


I see the point and it makes sense.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/27 02:54:23


Post by: Boris420


Is pro-hammer going to have cross compatability with modern codexes?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/27 07:19:22


Post by: aphyon


 Boris420 wrote:
Is pro-hammer going to have cross compatability with modern codexes?


I think he may be trying to, but as a general rule no. editions 3-7 are cross compatible with only minor tweaks. from 8th + it is an entirely different game.

The entire point of this exercise that those of us who like the older version of the game was to make a "fixed" 5th edition where you could use any unit and any codex from 3rd-7th in the same core game rules.

Mezmorki went the extra galactic sector and made his professional re-write. where as our group just uses 5th core rules and imports (15) better versions of certain rules from the other editions into 5th. either way it makes the game more immersive to those who want a more thematic lore based casual game.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/27 14:03:50


Post by: Mezmorki


^^^^^^

What aphyon said.

However, I have been tinkering with a ProHammer version of 9th edition. But rather than trying to making 8th/9th edition codexes compatible with ProHammer: Classic, the idea would be to make a "ProHammer: Modern" version. Rather than a full re-write, I imagine this being more like the original ProHammer version where i'm just hooking in and adapting rule tweaks, starting with 9th edition but making it feel and play more like the classic versions.

I started outlining what this might look like here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795000.page

Last, I also started a project to create a "Codex: Primaris" that ports primaris units only into their own faction/codex book compatible with classic 40k (i.e. ProHammer). I'm partway through that exercise. I could see continuing this trend and doing some ProHammer supplements that port over new units from 8th/9th edition codexes into a classic edition as well.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zustiur wrote:
Huh, I can't add comments to this document. Oh well here goes:

(1) Coherency needs a clause for being in a continuous chain. Otherwise you can have a unit of 4 models, 2 on one side of the 18" bubble, and 2 on the other side.
(2) Normal Move 1" clause should be rephrased to be more clear.
(3) Hittable models clauses make it possible to snipe specific models by careful use of LOS. e.g. block sight to half the unit by putting a rhino in the way so that the casualties have to come from the visible half.
(4) I cannot find your rule section for morale checks. You have a reference to Morale Phase, but no such section exists.
(5) You don't have a reverse clause for shooting at infantry who are in combat with your monsters/vehicles. This may be intentional, but you may want to think about it if it hasn't already been considered.

I think that covers all the things I commented on in Enhanced which are still relevant to Classic.


I see you must have been the one who made the comments on the older version

(1) I added this clause to coherency

(2) I tried to clarify this better - let me know if that makes sense

(3) See the discussion above - I'll need to think through how I want to tweak this aspect of the wounding process.

(4) I removed references to the "morale phase" as there is no morale phase in ProHammer (just morale checks that happen at the end of the turn).

In terms of tests, these are all described in the relevant section. So "casualty tests" from taking ranged casualties is under the shooting section, "break tests" are under the assault phase, etc.

(5) Yeah, I intentionally didn't want to add the reverse clause. The thinking is that you can shoot monstrous creatures but attempting to shoot over the normal height models. Whereas shooting the non-monstrous units might also result in taking hits against a monstrous creature.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/02/28 00:40:59


Post by: Zustiur


Yep, that was me.
The rephrased movement and coherency look much better.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/01 14:18:06


Post by: Mezmorki


 aphyon wrote:

Have you guys opened up enough to test out the re-write with your gaming group?


We've been playing using Table Top Simulator - which has been pretty awesome using the "Battleforged Workshop Mod" (https://github.com/TTSWarhammer40k/Battleforged-Workshop-Mod-Compilation)

Off hand, recent-ish games we've had, all at 2000 points

- Space wolves vs. dark angles
- Space wolves vs. Necrons
- Eldar vs. Lamenters (SM successors)
- Dark Eldar vs. Guard
- Dark Eldar vs. Lamenters
- Space wolves vs. Necrons
- Space wolves vs. Tyranids
- Space wolves vs. Dark Angles (round 2)
- Eldar vs. Tyranids
- Eldar vs. Gray Knights
- Eldar vs. Lamentors

We're hoping to run some games with Tau, Ork, and Chaos Marines soon.

I have a Feral Ork (3rd ed) army I worked up that I'm hoping to try if I can find suitable digital models.






ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/02 15:58:45


Post by: Mezmorki


Made a tweak to reactive fire based on our game last night...

Two situations where the current reactive fire rules are perhaps too strong. Reactive fire from units with masses of strong rapid fire / assault weapons (i.e. Wraithcannons on Wriathguard) is really difficult to work around. They are enormously powerful guns that only shoot once anyway, and wraithguard aren't very strong offensively fighting in melee, so there is never a reason to not shoot with them reactively if getting charged.

The other case is mass fire versus lightly armored units. Large blobs of units (guards, guardians, etc) getting charged can still put out a lot of shots, and against lightly armored melee units (orks, tyranids, etc.) pulling off essential charges is overly dangerous feeling.

So, we decided to give units that are hit by reactive fire a 4+ cover save, as means of toning down reactive fire. We didn't want to make reactive use the snap fire rule (as that's too punishing and often makes reactive fire pointless in the first place). This solution helps address balance out mass reactive fire vs. light armored units as well as for modest volumes of high damage shooting versus relatively tougher units.

We will try it out on our next few games and see.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/03 14:47:39


Post by: the_scotsman


Hey Mezmorki, not seeing it in these rules:

What happens if a firing model falls on the line between two arcs of a target vehicle? This is fairly common with vehicles fighting vehicles as the models' hulls are fairly large. Do you default to taking the stronger or weaker value? i.e. between front and side arc - always front?

Or do you determine the arc that more of the attacking model is in?

(Personal opinion, I would default to the attacking model needing to be wholly within the side arc to attack the side, or wholly within the rear arc to attack the rear)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also there's a typo in the penetrating hit table "Engines Damages" instead of "Damaged."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have concerns with respect to Reactive Fire and Template weaponry. You have fixed charge distance to 6", meaning attempting a charge from out of range of a template weapon is not possible.

The negative to having fired reactive fire is snap firing in the next turn, however template weaponry snap firing hits on a 4+

It is mentioned under Cover Saves that some weapons (such as templates) ignore Cover Saves. This is not mentioned in the main Template Weapons section on page - so presumably Template Weapons and other weapons with the Ignores Cover USR?

If you are going to use a 4+ cover save, rather than Snap Fire, to balance out Reactive Fire, I would suggest removing ignoring cover saves as a blanket rule from Template weaponry, or further nerf template weaponry on snap fire.

Personally I think Template weaponry not being able to fire Snap Fire may make sense. The ammunition of most template weaponry could be limited, and soldiers cowering under the effects of pinning may not be willing to blind-fire a flamethrower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it intentional that Walkers are unable to fire any weapons if they move?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I believe that you have an opportunity to combine pinning and going to ground, having them be two different states seems slightly confusing/redundant.

Personally, I would change Going to Ground to be an option that allows a unit to voluntarily become Pinned, include the benefit to cover saves (except for Monstrous Creatures, FMCs, and Bikers/Jetbikes), and include the fighting at I1 in initiative (because the Pinned unit must stand up before it can fight).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooting into melee requires some refinement:

-Multiple friendly units may be involved in the engagement. I would allow the opponent to select which friendly unit is hit instead.

-How do I resolve a template or blast weapon firing into combat?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/03 16:10:12


Post by: Mezmorki


Thanks!

I added actually add a facing chart just now under the MODELS -> VEHICLES section. And then clarified under "DAMAGING VEHICLES" how to determine what facing a model falls within. I used your suggestion, makes total sense.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/03 16:24:08


Post by: the_scotsman


What happens if I declare a tank shock against a target unit engaged in melee combat?

Do I essentially grant them a free fall back move out of melee if they pass the test, or do I get to run over them automatically since they can't move out of the way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A suggestion, should monstrous creatures with powerful weaponry prove to be a recurring problem WRT Reaction Fire:

You have the concept of "Defensive Weapons" in the game. Rather than allowing "Defensive Weapons" to be fired for free in addition to other weapon types, what if vehicles and monsters could both fire Reaction fire, but only with Defensive Weapons, and if those Defensive Weapons got their full rate of fire for those attacks. The model would still only shoot Snap Shots in its next turn, but potentially at that point would be engaged in melee or destroyed, so you may as well take free shots with your arm-mounted storm bolter or twin shuriken catapults.

Forcing a player to choose between those probably less powerful defensive weapons and their main guns would likely not feel as much of a trade-off, considering they are basically then free attacks when you get charged at.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/03 17:38:19


Post by: Mezmorki


The tank shock rules state in a few places that you can't tank shock against engaged units, through melee engagements, etc. So neihe of your listed results happen, since you can't tank shock engaged units in the first place.

Maybe this could/should change, but it seems like it would create more problems that it's worth.

Regarding Reactive Fire:

Currently, monstrous creatures simply can't fire heavy weapons with reactive fire, but can fire other weapons as per non-monstrous creatures. The thinking is that even though monstrous creatures count as stationary for firing heavy weapons, the heavy weapon itself is still something that needs a bit of setup and can't be brought to bear on a target quickly.

As for vehicles, a similar logic applies, but it's also much harder to bring a vehicle or turret to bear in a reactive manner. Vehicles are powerful (and we recently bumped up the number of primary weapons they can fire when moving), but I want players to have to think really carefully about positioning and I want vehicles to still be really vulnerable to melee attacks.



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/03 17:47:27


Post by: the_scotsman


 Mezmorki wrote:
The tank shock rules state in a few places that you can't tank shock against engaged units, through melee engagements, etc. So neihe of your listed results happen, since you can't tank shock engaged units in the first place.

Maybe this could/should change, but it seems like it would create more problems that it's worth.

Regarding Reactive Fire:

Currently, monstrous creatures simply can't fire heavy weapons with reactive fire, but can fire other weapons as per non-monstrous creatures. The thinking is that even though monstrous creatures count as stationary for firing heavy weapons, the heavy weapon itself is still something that needs a bit of setup and can't be brought to bear on a target quickly.

As for vehicles, a similar logic applies, but it's also much harder to bring a vehicle or turret to bear in a reactive manner. Vehicles are powerful (and we recently bumped up the number of primary weapons they can fire when moving), but I want players to have to think really carefully about positioning and I want vehicles to still be really vulnerable to melee attacks.



Makes sense on the tank shocks. I agree it's a can of worms.

With the defensive weaponry, mainly I'm considering the way that auxiliary and hull mounted weaponry like that was used historically - they were basically impossible to use while the main gun was going, their primary purpose was to dissuade infantry assaults when an HE shell would be too risky. Them being allowed to fire as"freebies" in editions like 5th I think primarily came from the fact that no reactive fire modes really existed in those game states.

Taking them away during normal firing (unless they were one of your selected weapons or you were allowed to fire with all guns because you stayed stationary), but allowing them to be used as reactive fire, would just give them that little extra use case, in particular stuff like hull and sponson HBs on vehicles with Ordnance weaponry.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/03 17:55:19


Post by: Mezmorki


In ProHammer, they are still allowed to be fired as freebies even when moving and even when firing a main weapon (with the exception of ordinance weapons / large blast weapons).

Check out the VEHICLE UNIT TYPES table towards the end. A leman russ could, for example, move up to 6" and fire two main weapons (main cannon if not ordinance) and a hull mounted lascannon, and also shoot it's sponson heavy bolters (STR 5 and below are defensive weapons). It could move 6-12" and still fire defensive with snap fire.

I see where you are coming from through ... and I'll put some thought into it. Is the suggestion to allow vehicles to take reactive fire but only using defensive weapons?



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/03 18:17:07


Post by: the_scotsman


 Mezmorki wrote:
The ProHammer system is closest to 5E's way of handling it really, with the big fix being that wounds are applied across a group of models after saves and ensuring that multi-wound models that are already wounded must take all the wounds and be removed at a casualty first.



I want to note that while that rule does exist, in the "Allocate Wounds" step in the melee rules it appears to require the exact opposite: "After all wounds rolls are made, the target unit’s owner allocates successful wounds to ENGAGED and HITTABLE MODELS in the target unit. 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)."

Is this intentional?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mezmorki wrote:
In ProHammer, they are still allowed to be fired as freebies even when moving and even when firing a main weapon (with the exception of ordinance weapons / large blast weapons).

Check out the VEHICLE UNIT TYPES table towards the end. A leman russ could, for example, move up to 6" and fire two main weapons (main cannon if not ordinance) and a hull mounted lascannon, and also shoot it's sponson heavy bolters (STR 5 and below are defensive weapons). It could move 6-12" and still fire defensive with snap fire.

I see where you are coming from through ... and I'll put some thought into it. Is the suggestion to allow vehicles to take reactive fire but only using defensive weapons?



The suggestion is to remove defensive weapons as a freebie, but allow defensive weapons (and only defensive weapons, just in case some weapon exists somewhere that's Assault type and still extremely powerful, like a sonic lance or a tyrannofex gun maybe) to be fired with full effect in Reaction fire.

The normal restrictions on reaction fire would then still apply - a vehicle that fired its defensive weapons using reaction fire would then be snap firing its next turn.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/04 12:22:32


Post by: the_scotsman


It seems strange that Broken units can shoot freely with no penalty, and if currently engaged in melee.

It's also a bit odd that, in the Broken rules section, you state that unengaged Broken units must fall back, but in the Assault rules section, you state that units that fail a break test in combat (presumably, who are engaged) also fall back.

It would be clearer if you stated that broken units always fall back.

Additionally, if my unit fails morale in combat, falls back, and is caught by a pursuit move, after taking the damage for the successful pursuit, the broken unit just fights as normal, no penalty of any kind? Does it still need to take break tests? If the following turn is the turn of the controlling player of the broken unit (fairly likely) does that unit then immediately fall back again in the movement phase, triggering another Pursuit or Restraint test?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/04 17:00:21


Post by: Mezmorki


I view broken units more as a tactical retreat instead of being in complete disarray and unable to regroup. I've made it easier for units to regroup among other things.

I probably have some language that needs to clarified or simplified or made consistent, so I'll take a look at the items you reference.

Units being able to shoot while falling back was a common thing in older editions, and of course the unit counts as moving (and you're potentially falling back out of range).

Under [morale -> broken units] I note that if you are broken and charged, you must immediately test to regroup. If you fail that, the unit counts as being PINNED, which means in melee they lose any advantage for being in cover and only strike at initiative 1.







Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
It's also a bit odd that, in the Broken rules section, you state that unengaged Broken units must fall back, but in the Assault rules section, you state that units that fail a break test in combat (presumably, who are engaged) also fall back.


I think I have it correct and matching my intent.

"Break Tests" are only taken in response to losing a melee engagement (so the unit taking the test is engaged). If the unit fails the break test, they immediately fallback (still in the assault phase) and gain the "broken" status.

Similarly, "Causality Tests" apply to units that take 25% of current strength loses from ranged attacks. At the end of the current turn, if unengaged, they take the casualty test. If they fail, they immediately fall back and gain "broken" status as well.

At the start of the next turn, a players broken units can try to regroup. If they fail to regroup they stay broken, and then during their movement phase they must take an additional fall back move.

Does that make sense?



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/04 19:15:44


Post by: the_scotsman


is there a functional distinction between break tests, casualty tests, and regroup tests that they could not be combined into a unified Morale Test (with modifiers)?

This is the sequence I find a bit odd:

My turn:

I charge, I fight, I lose the melee, I fail my break test, and immediately fall back (still on my turn)

Your unit pursues, catches, damages me, i'm still broken.

Beginning of your turn, I take a regroup test, fail, and remain broken. However, because it's not *my* movement phase, I don't fall back, I fight like normal.

Alternatively:

Your turn, you charge me, I lose, break, fall back, get pursued, take damage.

Then my turn, I try to regroup, fail, and because it's MY turn, I fall back AGAIN immediately.

This occurs due to the fact that regroup tests are worded to occur on all turns, but the fall back happens during ITS movement phase (the controlling player's) only.

If Fall Back moves always happened immediately upon failing any kind of morale check, and Broken units could not move in the movement phase, the units' behavior would not be dependent on player turn.

Your morale system is head and shoulders better than the current morale system of 40k, but I do think it has some elements that could use some refining.

Suppression, in my opinion, is a vastly better mechanic than Casualty Tests. The idea of a unit coming under a hail of fire THAT CAN CONCEIVABLY HARM IT and being forced to take cover or run is the concept that is attempting to be conveyed by the current casualty-based morale system in 40k and IMO is redundant with Casualty tests.

Imagine this system:

-Unify all morale into a single rule called Morale Checks. when you take a Morale Check of any time, you roll 2d6, add or subtract any relevant modifiers to the morale check, and compare to the highest Ld value in the unit. Put all the modifiers in the relevant sections (i.e., after the "determine the winning side" you'd put your table of modifiers to the morale check that's being rolled and keep them the same as now).

-If a morale check is failed while a unit is engaged with one or more enemy units, the unit must immediately attempt to fall back. Any unit that falls back becomes Pinned afterwards, Broken is not a separate concept.

-If a morale check is failed while a unit is not engaged with one or more enemy units, the unit's player may choose to have them become Pinned for the turn in the position they are now in, or immediately fall back (and subsequently become Pinned)

-at the beginning of any player turn, all Pinned units on the board take a morale check (same modifiers as regrouping currently) and therefore the same situation occurs. If you fail this regrouping test on your opponent's turn, your units can/do Fall Back in that opponent's turn, Falling Back is totally separated from the movement phase, it isn't a thing you have to do in your movement phase in your movement phase you can still move D3".

-Units that voluntarily become pinned due to Go to Ground still need to regroup using a LD test. units with the rule "And They Shall Know No Fear" automatically pass this test. Units with Fearless can never become pinned, because Fearless in 3rd-7th was characterized as "Insane/Inhuman/Fanatic Bravery or complete lack of sentience". This means Go to Ground cannot be done by fearless units.

Go to Ground, Suppression, Pinning, Falling Back, Break Tests, Regroup Tests are all unified by a single thread, and the statuses of Gone to Ground, Pinned, and Broken no longer need to be tracked separately.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/04 19:37:58


Post by: AnomanderRake


Usually the reason "break tests", "casualty tests", and "regroup tests" have different names is because special rules might reference only a specific kind of morale test. Kriegers don't take casualty tests (morale tests caused by casualties when shooting), but do take break/regroup tests; Space Marines auto-pass regroup tests, but don't have any special benefit to casualty/break tests, that sort of thing.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/04 20:05:48


Post by: the_scotsman


_____________________________________


THE LINE REPRESENTS A SEPARATE LINE OF THOUGHT ENTIRELY

let's talk about Reactive Fire. I like this, this is cool this is interesting.

1) you have a note under reactive fire that notes that units take reactive fire do not get any benefit from charging this turn. As far as I know, this cannot matter: i will always charge in my turn, I will always react fire in my opponent's turn. You can therefore state simply that the unit does not benefit from having multiple melee weapons if it took react fire.

2) Charge reactions. This section as far as I can tell is totally redundant, and only serves to confuse the reader because it reads as though units that choose to react to a charge do NOT fight in the ensuing fight phase. I believe the intention is that they fight at I1 and count as being out of cover, but if you didn't go back and read the reactive fire rules you'd think units that choose to Stand and Shoot do not fight.

3) similar to "Pinned", wording "Reacted" as a status makes good sense. Ideally, players would put down a marker or chit that indicates that a unit has a particular status, and you would define a time at which that status is removed. For example: At the end of a player's turn, all "Advanced" and "Reacted" tokens are removed. When a model fires Overwatch, the Overwatch status is removed. When a unit passes the morale check to regroup, the "Pinned" status is removed.

____________________________________

Advancing:

In several places in the rules you mix up "run' and "advance." decide on one term and keep that consistent, especially since "counts as having moved" is another thing to track.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Usually the reason "break tests", "casualty tests", and "regroup tests" have different names is because special rules might reference only a specific kind of morale test. Kriegers don't take casualty tests (morale tests caused by casualties when shooting), but do take break/regroup tests; Space Marines auto-pass regroup tests, but don't have any special benefit to casualty/break tests, that sort of thing.


Are "Break tests" "Casualty Tests" and "Regroup Tests" specifically referenced in 3rd-7th codexes and rule supplements? This system is intended to patch into existing codexes, and I was under the impression the rules contained within were added on. To my memory morale tests were unified in the rules, at least in 5th 6th and 7th.



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/04 21:10:16


Post by: Mezmorki


Regarding Morale

You only test to regroup at the start of your OWN turn. You don't test to regroup on your opponent's turn at all. Maybe I need to make sure that's clear.

I do like the idea however that when you fail to regroup (at the start of your own turn) then you immediately fall back, and THEN cannot move during your movement phase (but still count as having moved). Makes it cleaner so that fall back moves are always and only made after failing a casualty/break/regroup test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:

1) you have a note under reactive fire that notes that units take reactive fire do not get any benefit from charging this turn. As far as I know, this cannot matter: i will always charge in my turn, I will always react fire in my opponent's turn. You can therefore state simply that the unit does not benefit from having multiple melee weapons if it took react fire.


I was trying to cover all the basis. For example, units with the counter-charge special ability (i.e. Space Wolves) count as having charged even when they are charged. They would lose that ability. But you are correct that in general you can never charge and take reactive fire.

the_scotsman wrote:

2) Charge reactions. This section as far as I can tell is totally redundant, and only serves to confuse the reader because it reads as though units that choose to react to a charge do NOT fight in the ensuing fight phase. I believe the intention is that they fight at I1 and count as being out of cover, but if you didn't go back and read the reactive fire rules you'd think units that choose to Stand and Shoot do not fight.


Okay, I think I see the confusion. I was just trying to provide an additional rule "hook" into the reactive fire rules. I'll add a note that the unit still fights in melee combat but suffers the impacts listed under reactive fire.

the_scotsman wrote:

3) similar to "Pinned", wording "Reacted" as a status makes good sense. Ideally, players would put down a marker or chit that indicates that a unit has a particular status, and you would define a time at which that status is removed. For example: At the end of a player's turn, all "Advanced" and "Reacted" tokens are removed. When a model fires Overwatch, the Overwatch status is removed. When a unit passes the morale check to regroup, the "Pinned" status is removed.


I like that suggestion a lot! I'll see about weaving that into the whole ruleset.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/05 03:55:45


Post by: the_scotsman


Ah - the wording of "at the start of the turn" made me assume that meant any turn, not just yours.

I think there are currently a few too many potential statuses that you need to keep track of for your units. in terms of what you need to potentially track, you've got:

-Moved
-Advanced
-Remained Stationary/First Firing
-Overwatch
-Reacted
-Went to Ground
-Pinned
-Broken

Moved/advanced/stationary is fairly easy to manage, because you don't really need to mark those statuses - they're resolved in the very next phase. Overwatch, Reacted, Pinned/Broken definitely require tokens, because you generally won't be resolving those abilities until later on - hence my suggestion to combine Pinned, Gone to Ground and Broken together, rather than keeping them three subtly different statuses.

GTG: +1 to cover
Snap Shots
move d3" in movement

Pinned: Snap Shots
move d3" movement
Fights worse

Broken: normal shooting, normal charging
if charged makes a test and if failed is pinned in melee
falls back in movement
requires regroup to get out of



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/11 22:27:28


Post by: Mezmorki


I wanted to give a little update on where things are on ProHammer development:

First priority is getting the mission pack finalized. I have a good chunk of work to do in finishing that off. I have been playtesting the ones developed thus far, and they've been quite interesting!

Next, I'm toying around with a series of modules and updates for the ProHammer system, and I'm curious what others think and if any jump out as more interesting or not.

(1) HexHammer Module
I've been working on a addon ruleset that builds a "hex based" version of 40k, which allows the gameplay to sped about and streamlined, which would in turn support larger games. The basic idea is that instead of playing on a board, you could use hex-maps and/or custom hex tiles to build terrain. Each hex would represent a 6" x 6" area, be subject to some stacking limits, would define cover and LoS blocking features, etc. You would use a single miniature to represent a unit, with record sheets for units containing all the details.

(2) Alternate Activation Module
There have been some great ideas kicked around recently for AA systems, and I have ideas in mind for how that could be a bolt-on system for ProHammer

(3) Command Point Module
I've also been tinkering with ideas for a command point-like system - except it would be aimed squarely at strategic-level usage (i.e. not stratagems). For example, CP's could be designed to a more flexible Force Organization chart, CP's could be bid/used to determine game setup conditions, and they could also be applied towards mitigating die-rolls for certain functions, like reserve rolls, variable game length rolls. The only unit level function might be related to morale tests.

(4) Campaign + Crusade System
I'd love to port the Crusade system, coupled with a true map-based campaign system into ProHammer. I developed a pretty solid campaign rulset years ago that I could probably adapt as well.

(5) Skirmish-Scale System
Aaaand - another idea is making a set of tweaked rules / addon's for skirmish scale games. I used to have an old ruleset I used with 3rd + 4th edition that made 40K a bit of a hybrid between Necromunda/Kill Team and smaller 40k game. I think the point limit was around 500 or 600 points - but with lots of things liked relaxed coherency, model's getting "downed" instead of killed, etc. Could be worth exploring.

(6) Primaris Codex
I started work on making a "Primaris only" codex that's ProHammer compatible, so that people using their new fancy primaris mini's can feel like they are getting something specific.

Thoughts on the above?




ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/14 13:45:50


Post by: meatybtz


the_scotsman wrote:
Ah - the wording of "at the start of the turn" made me assume that meant any turn, not just yours.

I think there are currently a few too many potential statuses that you need to keep track of for your units. in terms of what you need to potentially track, you've got:

-Moved
-Advanced
-Remained Stationary/First Firing
-Overwatch
-Reacted
-Went to Ground
-Pinned
-Broken

Moved/advanced/stationary is fairly easy to manage, because you don't really need to mark those statuses - they're resolved in the very next phase. Overwatch, Reacted, Pinned/Broken definitely require tokens, because you generally won't be resolving those abilities until later on - hence my suggestion to combine Pinned, Gone to Ground and Broken together, rather than keeping them three subtly different statuses.

GTG: +1 to cover
Snap Shots
move d3" in movement

Pinned: Snap Shots
move d3" movement
Fights worse

Broken: normal shooting, normal charging
if charged makes a test and if failed is pinned in melee
falls back in movement
requires regroup to get out of



Statuses are best handled with "tokens". Which is very old hammer. I know folks today are confused by tokens but most of us oldies are used to having masses of cardboard tokens on the board defining statuses, movement rules, commands, etc.

In general it's not much more complicated than the "elemental" tracking for Warmachine. Such as "on fire" or acid resistance, etc. But I am a huge fan of "crunchy" rules, especially when they can also be streamlined to operate quickly. It may be slow at first to learn but once learned a token system is very fast.

In fact it is one of the reason why 7th had issues. Folks didn't use tokens enough. Made it harder to track and required lots of note taking. Same reason why faction "decks" worked way faster than having to D66 for orders.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/15 15:24:55


Post by: Mezmorki


I still have all my old tokens from 2nd edition boxed set, which we still use for ProHammer



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/15 19:54:26


Post by: jeff white


 Mezmorki wrote:
I wanted to give a little update on where things are on ProHammer development:

First priority is getting the mission pack finalized. I have a good chunk of work to do in finishing that off. I have been playtesting the ones developed thus far, and they've been quite interesting!

Next, I'm toying around with a series of modules and updates for the ProHammer system, and I'm curious what others think and if any jump out as more interesting or not.

(1) HexHammer Module
I've been working on a addon ruleset that builds a "hex based" version of 40k, which allows the gameplay to sped about and streamlined, which would in turn support larger games. The basic idea is that instead of playing on a board, you could use hex-maps and/or custom hex tiles to build terrain. Each hex would represent a 6" x 6" area, be subject to some stacking limits, would define cover and LoS blocking features, etc. You would use a single miniature to represent a unit, with record sheets for units containing all the details.

(2) Alternate Activation Module
There have been some great ideas kicked around recently for AA systems, and I have ideas in mind for how that could be a bolt-on system for ProHammer

(3) Command Point Module
I've also been tinkering with ideas for a command point-like system - except it would be aimed squarely at strategic-level usage (i.e. not stratagems). For example, CP's could be designed to a more flexible Force Organization chart, CP's could be bid/used to determine game setup conditions, and they could also be applied towards mitigating die-rolls for certain functions, like reserve rolls, variable game length rolls. The only unit level function might be related to morale tests.

(4) Campaign + Crusade System
I'd love to port the Crusade system, coupled with a true map-based campaign system into ProHammer. I developed a pretty solid campaign rulset years ago that I could probably adapt as well.

(5) Skirmish-Scale System
Aaaand - another idea is making a set of tweaked rules / addon's for skirmish scale games. I used to have an old ruleset I used with 3rd + 4th edition that made 40K a bit of a hybrid between Necromunda/Kill Team and smaller 40k game. I think the point limit was around 500 or 600 points - but with lots of things liked relaxed coherency, model's getting "downed" instead of killed, etc. Could be worth exploring.

(6) Primaris Codex
I started work on making a "Primaris only" codex that's ProHammer compatible, so that people using their new fancy primaris mini's can feel like they are getting something specific.

Thoughts on the above?


1 not for me
2 sure
3 I am not a fan of cp bs
4 seems to feed 5
5 Ne Pro Munda!
6 they are marines represented with different models. Primaris sukkkkk.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, can you sell this? A dedicated scalable rule set with plug and play options for different ways to play, e.g. AA, adding layers of realism with Ne Pro Munda scale interactions, that can replace a lot of GW edition bloat and swingy meta chasing bs might become a standard. It would also invite 3rd party minis. It might be the future of the hobby imho...


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/15 22:08:17


Post by: aphyon


Sell it how?

If you mean promote it as a fan made supplement? sure

Make money off it? no it would be an IP violation unless he just made a generic space battle game rules set that could use any 3rd party miniatures. kind of like how mantic does kings of war. we all know it is their version of warhammer fantasy but it is not sold as such.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/16 05:16:22


Post by: jeff white


Exactly. Kings of war style. Use the old names that GW changed because they know that they cannot stop common use, e.g. space elves or eldar, space marines... avoid ALL restartes bullshoot... I would love to see GW lose the game and finally become that toy company they always wanted to be, let the organisation recede from dominance in hobby. Just saying...


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/16 16:50:57


Post by: the_scotsman


 meatybtz wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Ah - the wording of "at the start of the turn" made me assume that meant any turn, not just yours.

I think there are currently a few too many potential statuses that you need to keep track of for your units. in terms of what you need to potentially track, you've got:

-Moved
-Advanced
-Remained Stationary/First Firing
-Overwatch
-Reacted
-Went to Ground
-Pinned
-Broken

Moved/advanced/stationary is fairly easy to manage, because you don't really need to mark those statuses - they're resolved in the very next phase. Overwatch, Reacted, Pinned/Broken definitely require tokens, because you generally won't be resolving those abilities until later on - hence my suggestion to combine Pinned, Gone to Ground and Broken together, rather than keeping them three subtly different statuses.

GTG: +1 to cover
Snap Shots
move d3" in movement

Pinned: Snap Shots
move d3" movement
Fights worse

Broken: normal shooting, normal charging
if charged makes a test and if failed is pinned in melee
falls back in movement
requires regroup to get out of



Statuses are best handled with "tokens". Which is very old hammer. I know folks today are confused by tokens but most of us oldies are used to having masses of cardboard tokens on the board defining statuses, movement rules, commands, etc.

In general it's not much more complicated than the "elemental" tracking for Warmachine. Such as "on fire" or acid resistance, etc. But I am a huge fan of "crunchy" rules, especially when they can also be streamlined to operate quickly. It may be slow at first to learn but once learned a token system is very fast.

In fact it is one of the reason why 7th had issues. Folks didn't use tokens enough. Made it harder to track and required lots of note taking. Same reason why faction "decks" worked way faster than having to D66 for orders.


I completely agree with Tokens being fine, but I think many game systems rely on the fact that tokens exist as a crutch a little too much. Token systems work the best, and the most intuitively, when:

-You minimize the number of tokens needed by combining various "sources" of token into a single token
-You standardize when various tokens expire, and when various tokens are added, and when they stick around.

Take Necromunda, as an example. The most common statuses - Standing, Engaged, Pinned, and Seriously Injured - are all handled simply by the orientation of the model. Standing, next to another model, lying face up, and lying face down. The common statuses you generally have tokens for - Broken, Out of Ammo, and Ready. And then uncommon statuses like Blaze, Blind, Webbed, etc come up rarely enough that you generally don't need tokens to represent them, when they come up you'll remember. ....But you will have cotton on hand for Blaze because it's hilarious to do so.

The game also takes steps to avoid adding duplicate statuses where possible. Acid and Fire are both represented by Blaze, because it's the status that causes ongoing damage to a fighter based on something bad happening to them that persists after the initial attack they just got hit by. Going to ground wililngly by using the action that lets you do so and going to ground unwillingly because you got shot cause the exact same Pinned status. Getting hit by a Fear Gas grenade and otehrwise failing a morale check cause the same Broken status. Even in an old-school, simulationist, sprawling game, which by ANYBODYs definition necromunda is - the combined rulebook is solidly over 500 pages - it makes every effort to fit rules into existing structures to avoid excessive bloat and 'almost the same but subtly different' states.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/16 20:49:40


Post by: jeff white


That was a cool mechanic in necromunda, using models themselves rather than tokens or chits such as in older editions of 40k and Epic...


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/19 02:45:08


Post by: Mezmorki


Check out the attached. Making some tokens for ProHammer by re-creating and adapting some classic 2nd edition tokens



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/19 05:35:21


Post by: aphyon


I still have my old set of gale force 9 circular tokens from 5th ed, mostly for the vehicle damage chart.



ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/19 05:44:48


Post by: jeff white


2nd Ed tokens worked. I am unable to comprehend why gw ever got rid of tokens.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/19 11:55:14


Post by: the_scotsman


Is "Hidden" and "Detected" a thing in prohammer?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/19 12:22:58


Post by: Mezmorki


the_scotsman wrote:
Is "Hidden" and "Detected" a thing in prohammer?


No - but I was on a role remaking old tokens so figured I'd make those too just in case.

There were some older mission designs from past editions that used them, and I I end up incorporating any of those into the new mission set there might be a use for them.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/24 13:10:31


Post by: Irbis


 aphyon wrote:
The entire point of this exercise that those of us who like the older version of the game was to make a "fixed" 5th edition where you could use any unit and any codex from 3rd-7th in the same core game rules.

So, you're just supposed to use old books with these rules? But the problem is, most problems with 6th/7th edition were contained in unit entries, not the rules (such as Tau writer buffing his pet army to make all slow, keyboard controlled tau walkers MCs for some insane non-reason, when they really should have been lightly armored walkers to begin with - if only because that change made them absurdly better in melee than actual dedicated melee walkers). I also don't see any reference to Str D weapons (which, again, was another broken aspect of 7th edition when Tau and Eldar got to spam them from every orifice). I take we should just pretend 7th edition doesn't exist with these rules?

 Mezmorki wrote:
Last, I also started a project to create a "Codex: Primaris" that ports primaris units only into their own faction/codex book compatible with classic 40k (i.e. ProHammer).

Yeah, the game really needs that, if only because they offer new interesting way to play that isn't just spamming old, tired MEQ profile with same-same S4 spam, yawn. That and the army actually looks good

And it's not like there isn't a precedent for W2 armies even in 5th, you could do GK and ork nob armies consisting entirely of multiple wound models and they were balanced just fine.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/24 13:37:50


Post by: the_scotsman


 Irbis wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
The entire point of this exercise that those of us who like the older version of the game was to make a "fixed" 5th edition where you could use any unit and any codex from 3rd-7th in the same core game rules.

So, you're just supposed to use old books with these rules? But the problem is, most problems with 6th/7th edition were contained in unit entries, not the rules (such as Tau writer buffing his pet army to make all slow, keyboard controlled tau walkers MCs for some insane non-reason, when they really should have been lightly armored walkers to begin with - if only because that change made them absurdly better in melee than actual dedicated melee walkers). I also don't see any reference to Str D weapons (which, again, was another broken aspect of 7th edition when Tau and Eldar got to spam them from every orifice). I take we should just pretend 7th edition doesn't exist with these rules?


I mean, considering that your claim that Tau got a bunch of strength D weaponry is just kind of a fantasy......yes? IIRC Tau got a couple strength D single shot missiles on their smaller knight-class superheavy and a strength D gun on their larger knight-class forgeworld superheavy. Nothing like Eldar getting D on their heavy infantry/artillery.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/24 13:43:46


Post by: aphyon


So, you're just supposed to use old books with these rules?

Yes and they work just fine so long as you play them with the 5th ed rule set taking precedent over codex entrees that may differ based on edition. at this point our group has literally been doing this for a couple years now with no issues.

I have given the example before-dune strider in the 7th ed cult mechanicus/skitarii book defaults to the move through cover USR in 5th edition.


not the rules (such as Tau writer buffing his pet army to make all slow, keyboard controlled tau walkers MCs for some insane non-reason, when they really should have been lightly armored walkers to begin with - if only because that change made them absurdly better in melee than actual dedicated melee walkers).


That was a terrible example to use to prove your point. Sure one could argue riptides and such should have been vehicles, however i understand the design intent to treat them as oversized crisis suits that were infantry with wounds. but seriously even as a MC i am not afraid of a riptide in CC, in fact i want to get an I2/WS2 tau into CC. way better than being shot by it.


I also don't see any reference to Str D weapons (which, again, was another broken aspect of 7th edition when Tau and Eldar got to spam them from every orifice). I take we should just pretend 7th edition doesn't exist with these rules?


Our group does not use prohammer although we share many of the same ideas as Mezmorki, as such some rules from 7th were very good and work well imported into 5th like grenade throwing, overwatch, snapfire and such. D weapon wise we just use the 5th ed rules when they were powerful but not game breaking. auto pen against a vehicle with a +1 on the damage chart roll, no armor or cover only invul saves on a 2+ to wound for infantry/MCs and anything less than T6 suffers instant death rules anything above takes a single wound, not that silly d6+3 or d6+6 nonsense. from 7th.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/29 06:27:32


Post by: Kulvain


Love the work you have done here, but i have a question in regards to Gets Hot weapons. Are vehicles immune to the potential damage from rolling a 1 to hit?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/29 13:14:47


Post by: Mezmorki


Vehicles in 5th edition don't suffer from Get's Hot - I forgot to add clarification to 5th edition, but I will. Thanks


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/03/31 19:38:45


Post by: kurhanik


Glancing through the rules and a couple of small notes I noticed:

Page 42 - Assault Weapons
"Models that advance in the movement phase are still eligible to with an assault weapon in the shooting phase, but only shoot with SNAP FIRE."

Reads a bit confusingly to me, it might be because I didn't play 5th though. I assume with the note on snap fire that they are eligible to shoot/fire with an assault weapon, but it took a reread or two. Mostly because right up until the note on shooting with snap fire, it reads like they can advance in the shooting phase as an extra movement bit.

Page 59 - Infiltrate:
"Outlank" should be spelled "Outflank"

Just some small nitpicks from my nitpicky mind. I definitely plan on trying this out at some point, see how it tools around.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/04/01 00:36:45


Post by: aphyon


i understand the confusion since you never played 5th.

In 5th "running/advancing" occurs during the shooting phase not during movement as you are giving up shooting to gain an extra d6 of movement. however you cannot charge otherwise unless you have the fleet of foot/claw USR he is putting in the 8th ed assault weapon rule into 5th. in 5th all it means normally is that an assault class weapon always shoots it's normal amount without penalty if you move with ti and you can assault after firing it (thus the name) unlike with rapid fire or heavy weapons. our group still uses the 5th ed rule as we saw no need to change it. even though we also added in snap fire rules from 6th/7th we decided to keep all non compatible 8th+ edition rules out of our conversion.


Irbis
So, you're just supposed to use old books with these rules?


special note to Irbis i regularly post our house rules 5th ed games batreps in my own topic including which codexes we are using to play the match to demonstrate that they are cross compatible.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/04/01 02:07:03


Post by: Mezmorki


That wasn't worded too clearly, I changed it to this:

"Models that advance in the movement phase are able to shoot with an assault weapon in the shooting phase, but only shoot with SNAP FIRE."

In ProHammer I moved advancing to the movement phase (taken as an extension of a unit's normal move) for a number of procedural reasons and also to speed things up. It's easier to move the unit once instead of moving it in two separate steps in two different phases. Procedurally since ProHammer adds declared fire a mind a few shooting steps, it was cleaner to not have movement co-mingled in with it.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/04/01 09:18:36


Post by: kurhanik


That reads far more clearly yes. I saw you had advance in the movement phase and the first half of the original wording made me think that the intent was assault weapons would let you advance a second time in the shooting phase - at least until I saw the bit on snap firing.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/24 23:59:42


Post by: Lexington


Wow!

Been looking at doing something similar, given the bloat and imbalance of 9th, but I'm happy to see someone else has already put in the hard work.

Curious, have you thought about doing Prohammer Codexes? I know the idea here is simple backwards compatibility, but it'd be nice to play with something that had a more unified design philosophy, and was a little more integrated into the base rules of the game. Don't have much as far as credibility, but I'd be happy to throw in to help with an Ork book...


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/25 01:27:14


Post by: RevlidRas


Honestly, if there's one thing I'd seriously suggest stealing from 8e-9e, it's probably keywords. They don't need to be nearly so extensive in this system, but Unit Type is already partway there - it's just more awkward about it than it needs to be. There's not really much reason to have the whole "counts as a flying model" distinction when you can just slap FLY on a unit, for example, or to separate BIKE and JETBIKE when the latter is just the former with FLY.

Alternatively, unit types feel like they'd also be less awkward as just an Angels of Death-style collation of special rules, i.e. Biker: Models with this rule have the Fast (12" move), Reckless Speed (treat difficult terrain as dangerous instead of being slowed), Turbo-Boost (12" advance), Relentless, Hammer of Wrath, and Jink special rules.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/25 17:25:06


Post by: AnomanderRake


RevlidRas wrote:
Honestly, if there's one thing I'd seriously suggest stealing from 8e-9e, it's probably keywords...


The keyword system in 8th/9th is basically the same thing as unit types, just with fewer built-in special rules. You could add faction keywords, but they don't really have any rules function; defining "Space Marines" as "units from Codex: Space Marines" does the job just as well as defining "Space Marines" as "units with keyword Space Marines."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lexington wrote:
...Curious, have you thought about doing Prohammer Codexes? I know the idea here is simple backwards compatibility, but it'd be nice to play with something that had a more unified design philosophy, and was a little more integrated into the base rules of the game. Don't have much as far as credibility, but I'd be happy to throw in to help with an Ork book...


I'd considered doing some army books for this before starting my own project. There are a few headaches:
1) If you nail people to using a specific Codex you risk them not being able to use the version of their book they liked most.
2) You need to work out what to do with sub-factions; there have been sub-faction rules for people other than loyalist SM over the years, but most of the non-SM stuff is from 3rd or 8th-9th, so compatibility is a worry. Unless you're happy with SM having four books and sub-faction traits and nobody else getting them.
3) You need to work out what to do with Primaris. Primaris-as-resculpt leaves Gravis and the vehicles out in the cold, the vehicles' masses of weapons don't mesh well with vehicles' limited ability to fire multiple weapons on the move, and the statlines in 3rd-7th aren't granular enough to give them meaningfully different statlines.
4) You need to have a good sense of how the game played in all editions from 3rd-7th to recognize the typos/bad decisions. Things like Lightning Claws on SM being 15pts each whether they're on 2A models or 4A models in the 5e book, or the high-ROF S6 in the 7e Eldar book that probably screwed the game more than the D-weapons, or the interaction between the Snap Shots rule and hits-on-6s triggers.
5) Melee weapons. Mezmorki's chosen to go back to the 3e-5e melee-weapon-as-special-rule implementation, which means you have to compress a lot of melee weapons, risk a lot of special rules bloat, or both.
6) Psychic powers. The 6e-7e universal tables were a great idea, but GW went back and gave everyone unique disciplines as well, which means there's a lot of built-in redundancy to wrestle with unless you're prepared to face the outrage of people who don't want their unique psychic tables taken away.

I do have enough spare time I could look into writing some army books for this project, I've certainly done enough prep reading for my own project (3e-7e Codexes, 30k, Imperial Armour books...).


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/25 18:37:06


Post by: Blinkfox


I skimmed through, liked what I saw. Except maybe one thing, and that is cover saves. I've always hated how space marines, having power armor, never gain any benefit of standing behind a fence against bolters, but DO gain a save against plasmas, meltas and the like. If this is a means to balance their already very trusty armor, it's certaily not an intuitive and clear one. Also, very illogical and unjustified.
Why people (GW and community alike) are still shunning the idea of to hit modifiers as a cover mechanic? Modifying armor save by 1 is not significant enough to make cover matter.

Apart from that, someone may have already asked this, but is this compatible with Horus Heresy? Or at least planned to be compatible. I'm rather sick of i go you go principle and would like alternatives to spread to all systems I'm interested in.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/25 19:51:44


Post by: Mezmorki


Thanks for the encouragement all

Regarding codexes, I maintain the following philosophy about it:

(1) I feel that there is about the same amount of variation in "power level" between codexes of a given edition and the power level of a given army codex across editions. Basically, if you take all the compatible 3rd-7th edition codexes and rank them according to power, it's going to be all over the place. The strong codexes will be strong regardless of edition.

(2) I think asking people to use custom codexes will dramatically cut down on the liklihood of people trying to play ProHammer. Maybe I'm being foolish, but I feel like people view the codexes as something quasi-sacred - even though logically there is plenty of opportunity to clean things up and improve balance. But people are also likely familiar with the way a given older codex works, and letting them put that knowledge to use in an improved core rule system seems like a better way to go.

The one exception to this is that I started porting Primaris marines into a classic 40K compatible codex. This does mean they are basically just standard 1W marines again, albiet with slightly tweaked wargear and options.

(3) Not sure about horus heresy compatibility - I'll have to look into it.

I am kicking around ideas for an optional module that mixes up the turn structure. My usual ProHammer gaming crew is going to be away for the next month or so - which should give me some time to work through that.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/25 20:04:43


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Mezmorki wrote:
...(3) Not sure about horus heresy compatibility - I'll have to look into it...


There may be issues coming from your attempts to fix something one way and the FW team's attempt to fix the same problem a different way; 30k's vehicles are often cheaper and their AVs higher than the equivalent 40k vehicle, so if you combine that with your changes to the damage tables you might see vehicles that are too tough for their cost. 30k's got more challenge-dependent mechanics, so just sticking blanket restrictions on would have a more disproportionate impact, and 30k uses the AP2/AP3 distinction a lot more than 40k does, so going back to 5e-style melee weapons could screw up some costs.

In theory, anyway. On the other hand there are vehicles priced like their 40k counterparts with the same statline, forces with no challenge mechanics at all, and AP2 at Initiative is pretty rare, so it's not going to screw up the points for anything too badly; you might have to try it and see. The biggest problem off the top of my head is that some of 30k's 5HP vehicles that are paying a premium to have extra HP are going to see a durability drop.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/25 20:18:37


Post by: Nurglitch


Always neat to see someone try to build a better Warhammer.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/25 21:00:15


Post by: Mezmorki


Nurglitch wrote:
Always neat to see someone try to build a better Warhammer.


Thanks!

I need to come up with a good way to do battle reports. I've played about 20 games over the past couple of months using the ProHammer rule set - and we've been super happy thus far. I have the mission book 50% done at this point, and really liking how those have come together. We've had some tense games that have come right down to turn 6 or turn 7 craziness.

Just finished a game last night of 3.5 ed Chaos Marines (Emperor's Children) vs. a Cult Mechanicus/Skitarri force (7th edition) and had a good game. It came down a hail mary attempt on my part of try and recon a 3rd table quarter before my opponent, and pray that the game ended. Almost worked except my dread was about 1/4" short of a critical charge that I needed to push a big skirari unit off the zone. I charged next turn and did the deed, but it was too late - my opponent also recon'd a 3rd zone. This pushed the game into the secondary scoring system where I lost rather handidly! But it was a great game.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/28 05:13:10


Post by: RevlidRas


 AnomanderRake wrote:
The keyword system in 8th/9th is basically the same thing as unit types, just with fewer built-in special rules. You could add faction keywords, but they don't really have any rules function; defining "Space Marines" as "units from Codex: Space Marines" does the job just as well as defining "Space Marines" as "units with keyword Space Marines."
That's what I'm talking about, yes. Keywords have the benefit of being more modular - you don't need BIKERS and JETBIKES, you can just have BIKES and BIKES that also FLY.

They also have the separate benefit - although GW hasn't done this much, if at all - of making it easier to build unambiguous cross-faction rules, such as special Salamanders armour that gives you immunity to FLAME weapons, or abilities that penalise all DAEMON units, or haywire grenades that harm MECHANICAL units.

Faction keywords are mostly useful for allied army building, which isn't really something that earlier editions did (and that 8e-9e only does debatably well at all). It's an easy argument to make that, at the scale 40k operates, there should only be very specific and limited "alliances" to begin with; Inquisitors tagging along with Astra Militarum or GK/DW/SOB appropriate to their Ordo, Genestealer Cults with Brood-Brothers (who can be folded in like "looted vehicles"), Heretic Astartes with Daemons (work fine with daemon summoning rules), Harlequins showing up in any given Aeldari army, etc.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/28 07:41:29


Post by: kirotheavenger


Bikes and Jetbikes differ in more than just FLY though. Jetbikes also turboboost faster and jink better iirc.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/05/28 16:35:01


Post by: AnomanderRake


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Bikes and Jetbikes differ in more than just FLY though. Jetbikes also turboboost faster and jink better iirc.


The Jink is the same (it's a USR, flyers, bikes, jetbikes, and skimmers all Jink the same), though jetbikes do turbo-boost 24".


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/07/16 10:50:18


Post by: kirotheavenger


Just had a thought, has anyone tried this with 30k?
I'm being leaned on to join 30k, and I think I can make a really cool army, but I don't like a lot of what 7th edition does as a core ruleset


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/02 00:18:32


Post by: Rikerwota


I like a lot of this, with the glaring exception of tlos. I definitely preferred the terrain rules of 3rd and 4th in this regard.
Will sit down and give it a proper read through and offer any constructive feedback if I feel like I have anything to add


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/02 02:16:15


Post by: aphyon


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Just had a thought, has anyone tried this with 30k?
I'm being leaned on to join 30k, and I think I can make a really cool army, but I don't like a lot of what 7th edition does as a core ruleset


30K was FW(Alan Bligh) taking 7th edition and trying to fix everything the main game design team for 40K screwed up. they did a pretty decent job. i am not happy they kept the WHFB 8th ed magic phase, but it is a huge improvement on 7th edition(especially the deletion of formation spam). .


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/02 05:28:59


Post by: AnomanderRake


I think the biggest thing you'd have to change running 30k with Prohammer is the lack of challenges; you could add them back if you liked them, but if you didn't there are upgrades that no longer have much of a point (e.g. artificer armour sergeants, half the Imperial Fists' unique rules).


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/02 07:51:55


Post by: kirotheavenger



 AnomanderRake wrote:
I think the biggest thing you'd have to change running 30k with Prohammer is the lack of challenges; you could add them back if you liked them, but if you didn't there are upgrades that no longer have much of a point (e.g. artificer armour sergeants, half the Imperial Fists' unique rules).

This is my primary concern. I really dislike challenges, they feel forced and not very thematic to me. Like in films where there's this massive chaotic melee that just... stops... so the main character can have their moment with their nemesis. Plus mechanically speaking it's just rolling dice at each other for mutual annihilation.

But challenges seem quite deeply embedded within 30k unfortunately. I hoped that wasn't the case.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/02 10:34:35


Post by: RevlidRas


 kirotheavenger wrote:
This is my primary concern. I really dislike challenges, they feel forced and not very thematic to me. Like in films where there's this massive chaotic melee that just... stops... so the main character can have their moment with their nemesis.
That's the definition of thematic, though. Setting aside realism to prioritise big cinematic/narrative moments that fit the kind of stories the setting tells.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/02 10:54:09


Post by: kirotheavenger


It depends on if you like that cinema or not I guess.
I hate it, it feels silly and destroys my suspension of disbelief if I see it in a film. It destroys the illusion of it being a real world


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/03 11:18:56


Post by: Mezmorki


Rikerwota wrote:
I like a lot of this, with the glaring exception of tlos. I definitely preferred the terrain rules of 3rd and 4th in this regard.
Will sit down and give it a proper read through and offer any constructive feedback if I feel like I have anything to add


Thanks! If you wanted to house-rule older abstract LoS rules back in you could. Honestly, when I've been playing ProHammer lately we've been slipping back into that mode a little bit anyway.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/09 19:50:01


Post by: myUserName


 Mezmorki wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Always neat to see someone try to build a better Warhammer.


Thanks!

I need to come up with a good way to do battle reports. I've played about 20 games over the past couple of months using the ProHammer rule set - and we've been super happy thus far. I have the mission book 50% done at this point, and really liking how those have come together. We've had some tense games that have come right down to turn 6 or turn 7 craziness.

Just finished a game last night of 3.5 ed Chaos Marines (Emperor's Children) vs. a Cult Mechanicus/Skitarri force (7th edition) and had a good game. It came down a hail mary attempt on my part of try and recon a 3rd table quarter before my opponent, and pray that the game ended. Almost worked except my dread was about 1/4" short of a critical charge that I needed to push a big skirari unit off the zone. I charged next turn and did the deed, but it was too late - my opponent also recon'd a 3rd zone. This pushed the game into the secondary scoring system where I lost rather handidly! But it was a great game.


Thank you for the time and effort you put into this.
After we played 8th edition from nearly start to end, a friend of mine and I are not interested anymore in paying GW for new rules with low quality. Instead we are excited to try ProHammer in the very near future!
Any chance you could make some already finished missions available for download?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/13 00:21:38


Post by: Mezmorki


Here's a link to a document with mission briefings:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1brLLro_8XAutunsTkNYz9BMnfEV41GwNj4alB9WGvGI/edit

This has 3 of 6 mission briefings finished. But the way it's setup each briefing is a template that provides quite a bit of variation. Just one one template/briefing is like the whole set of 9th edition GT missions.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/15 04:03:09


Post by: Insectum7


I hate to say it but I've only just taken a look at what you've done here. Big congrats! It's very nicely put together and has some interesting modifications. Well done.

A few immediate bits of feedback:
1: I'm wondering if clarifying that every model in a unit can make a grenade melee attack would be good. It appears to be implied, but perhaps a blatant "Unlike throwing grenades in the shooting phase, every model in a unit can make a grenade attack in melee." Just a thought.

2: Have you considered expanding the melee grenade attack allowance to include Monstrous Creatures? I think a few editions allowed that.

3: Why are Ork Tankbusta Bombs only S5? My 3rd ed book puts them at S6. (I do not have a later book)

4: In the "Look Out Sir" note the title says "Look Out SiT"

----------

Incoming design ramble:
I found the decision to reduce Instant Death to D3 wounds interesting. One of the major developments that hurt the 3rd-7th foundation was the increase in MCs with more and more wounds. The paradigm where weapons like Lascannons could only deal a single wound to MCs was beyond it's breaking point when dealing with Riptides, Wrathknights, Larger Tyranid creatures, etc. If anything, I would have reintroduced a Damage stat and begun pumping up some of the big guns to be able to do more damage against the "MC class". But instead you've opted to actually reduce their damage potential against smaller targets. I'm wondering about the rationale.

Anyways, nice work overall.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/17 19:00:46


Post by: myUserName


 Mezmorki wrote:
Here's a link to a document with mission briefings:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1brLLro_8XAutunsTkNYz9BMnfEV41GwNj4alB9WGvGI/edit

This has 3 of 6 mission briefings finished. But the way it's setup each briefing is a template that provides quite a bit of variation. Just one one template/briefing is like the whole set of 9th edition GT missions.


Fantastic, thank you!

We are using 6th edition codices and I consider playing Khorne Demons. After I've read the codex and ProHammer's USRs, I have two questions:

1.
When I pay 20 points for a Greater Locus of Fury, the benefit is that
This model, and all models in its unit, have the Rage special rule.

ProHammer has two rules for Rage, one for 5th edition and one for 7th edition units. As I'm using a 6th edition codex I understand that I shall use the 5th edition rule:
Rage (5th): Unit must move towards the closest enemy.

I don't understand why this is a benefit to pay points for?

2.
Some Khorne Demons can gain the special rule Hatred, ProHammer tells me that this means:
Re-roll all to-hit rolls against hated target in the first round of close combat

Do I understand correctly, that all of my opponent's units count as hated targets?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/21 11:07:31


Post by: Mezmorki


Re: Rage
I would think you'd use the 7th Ed rule here. IIRC 6th edition rule book had rage working like it did in 7th, granting extra attacks on the charge, which makes sense considering you pay a bunch of points for it.

Re Hatred:
Yes - you'd re-roll missed hits in the first round. Typo in ProHammer, as you'd re-roll all "missed" hits in the first round.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/24 18:33:28


Post by: terror51247


How does pro hammer handle superheavies?
Does it have superheavies at all?


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/25 19:35:02


Post by: Strg Alt


@OP:

Wish you well with that project. Maybe it can some day reach the same status as 9th Age has currently for veteran WHFB gamers.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/26 05:39:49


Post by: aphyon


terror51247 wrote:
How does pro hammer handle superheavies?
Does it have superheavies at all?


Probably the same way 5th ed did. in a 2k list you could bring a detachment of allied superheavies. the various baneblades, eldar scorpions etc... and small supers like the macharius/malcadores were not that game breaking, it was proper titans with D weapons where it became an issues.

Recently our group broke out the old 3rd/4th pre-apocalypse rules from forge world found in imperial armor 1 (first printing) that were designed for normal games of 40K before GW made apocalypse a thing. even things like a warhound were a bit harder to kill but were really not overpowered.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/29 14:53:06


Post by: Mezmorki


Well, currently ProHammer isn't really intended for super heavies. Since it uses the older force organization chart there is no slot for super heavy units or lord of war type things. And I haven't really processed the balancing of it all either were it to be included.

Call me crazy, but Im of the mindset that super heavies and Titans and stuff don't belong in the basic game. The missions aren't designed around large single units for one thing, but in terms of scope and scale they just feel out of place to me.

If someone wants to play a "custom game" of ProHammer and use super heavies (with opponents permission of course) that's totally fine, but the ProHammer damage tables aren't going to work that well with it.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/30 05:34:25


Post by: aphyon


 Mezmorki wrote:
Well, currently ProHammer isn't really intended for super heavies. Since it uses the older force organization chart there is no slot for super heavy units or lord of war type things. And I haven't really processed the balancing of it all either were it to be included.

Call me crazy, but Im of the mindset that super heavies and Titans and stuff don't belong in the basic game. The missions aren't designed around large single units for one thing, but in terms of scope and scale they just feel out of place to me.

If someone wants to play a "custom game" of ProHammer and use super heavies (with opponents permission of course) that's totally fine, but the ProHammer damage tables aren't going to work that well with it.


Uh... you need to read a bit more the standard 2k+(the super heavies count as a second force org chart stand alone army) list indeed has a slot for super heavies as per FW rules a 2k+ point list of 5th can take a detachment of allied super heavies.
remember that not all super heavies are created equal. a malcador or a macharius or just oversized leman russ's.


Additionally the original rules for super heavies found in the original printings of imperial armor 1-3. they were actually designed for normal games of 40K(with opponents permission/notification). this was well before apocalypse was released so the weapons profiles were way more normal. there were no apocalyptic blasts, D weapons or the like. a mega bolter was just a 36" range assault cannon with 10 shots, turbo lasers were las cannons that use a blast template with longer range etc....

Everything was also way slower. all super heavy tanks could only move 6" and motive damage/failed terrain checks caused a loss of D3" of movement. titans had similar restrictions-
6" move-fire all weapons, 12" move fire 1 weapon.

The damage chart was also quite a bit different.

We have been using them in our games lately and they are far from game breaking. in classic FW style they are mostly over-costed centerpiece models.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/08/30 11:42:19


Post by: Mezmorki


That's reassuring! I'll take another look.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/01 13:08:04


Post by: terror51247


Most of my experience in playing a non 8th edtion system comes from playing 30k. Super heavies arent that dangerous there to be honest. They can be just as underpowered or overpowered as any other unit. I really cant see why people are so afraid of them.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/01 13:14:25


Post by: vict0988


terror51247 wrote:
Most of my experience in playing a no 8th edtion system comes from playing 30k. Super heavies arent that dangerous there to be honest. They can be just as underpowered or overpowered as any other unit. I really cant see why people are so afraid of them.

Normal vehicles can be immobilized, shaken and stunned, monsters can get taken down by a force weapon, against an army of 6 vehicles and 50 infantry you are very likely to pick up some models when you attack, but it's not outrageous for things to go south enough against a super heavy that you don't end up picking anything up for a turn. These factors make them difficult to balance, so you often end up with overpowered or underpowered super heavy units.


ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/09 07:54:15


Post by: Radium


Rules look great! I'll be trying them out very soon!

Two points I found reading through the document:
  • Page 33: under the "Screening" header - seems like there's some placeholder text ("wd") that is probably intended to be a quick explanation of what screening does/represents

  • Using run/advance interchangeably can be a little confusing, and it might be better to only use advance throughout the text (this also helps differentiate it from special rules like Hit & Run)



  • And one (slightly nitpicky) question: why the cutoff at strength 5 for defensive weapons? IIRC, it was strength 6 in 4th, and changed to strength 4 (I think?) in 5th and beyond. To me, strength 5 feels like a strange cutoff point, because it includes heavy bolters, but excludes scatter lasers/shuriken cannons/assault cannons, it seems like either both should be included, or both should be excluded from defensive weapons.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/09 08:17:26


    Post by: aphyon


    Defensive weapons were strength 5 in 4th and he is using that as the base line. S5 weapons were considered primarily anti-infantry weapons that's why they are considered defensive VS S6 and above that are considered more AT primary weapons.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/09 12:52:46


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I could see an argument that S6 is anti-infantry in so much as it's a sort of hybrid strength between Anti-infantry and anti-light vehicles. Assault cannons, scatter lasers, multi-lasers, star cannons, etc. feel more AA.

    But the reason I left it at S5 was that for many vehicles, their S6 weapons ARE clearly their primary weapon (e.g. Twin-linked assault cannons on various things, Wave Serpents, etc.). In many cases, those same vehicles already have ways of avoiding the restriction (e.g. fast skimmers being able to move decently and shoot with two main weapons).


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/09 13:58:00


    Post by: Illumini


    Are there updated codexes, or can any codex from 3rd-7th be used?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/09 15:09:53


    Post by: JNAProductions


     Illumini wrote:
    Are there updated codexes, or can any codex from 3rd-7th be used?
    I believe the point of this project is to be able to use your existing Codecs with minimal fuss. So just your old books.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/09 15:34:23


    Post by: Mezmorki


    ^^^^^ Correct. Use literally any codex you want from 3rd-7th. Can play any versus any other.

    The only restrictions is that in a standard game players are limited to a single standard detachment and force org chart (no allies) and also no Formations may be used. Some codexes provide alternate force organization charts which may be used.

    At a more detailed level, ProHammer provides a consolidated and concise list of universal special rules that should cover everything. In some cases there is a 6th/7th edition version of the USR, which you should use of using a 6th/7th ed codex.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/09/15 15:47:50


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Figured it's been a while since I posted any rule updates / tweaks here. Here's a changelog for ProHammer 2.1:

    SNAP FIRE
    * Clarified that if a unit has a special rule allowing it to snap fire using a different hit value (e.g. 5+) that it can be used as specified in the special rule

    NORMAL & REACTIVE FIRE
    * Clarified that units hit by normal shooting attacks can also use JINK abilities (if they have them), in addition to going to ground or taking reactive fire.

    REACTIVE FIRE
    * Added the condition that units that have gone to ground can't take reactive fire.
    * ADDED: Heavy weapons ARE now allowed to shoot with reactive fire, but still only make 1 shot and count as having moved (so hit on snap fire unless slow & purposeful or whatever)
    * ADDED: A unit hit by reactive fire ignores the AP value of any weapons that have hit them, and so will normally be allowed to take an unmodified armor save.
    * ADDED: Reactive fire hits by weapons that automatically hit (e.g. templates) only do so on a 4+.

    RESOLVING SHOOTING ATTACKS - Applying Wounds
    * Clarified this a little. Basically, it gives the defenders more flexibility to determine what models are removed. You use HITTABLE models as before to determine what models can be hit, armor vs. cover saves etc. But when it comes to applying wounds, you CAN choose to allocate unsaved wounds to non-hittable models, AND if all hittable model are dead can ignore and left over unsaved wounds.

    BLAST WEAPONS
    * Clarified that blast weapons, due to scattering or their area of effect, that hits and wounds can be allocated to ANY models in the unit for purposes of wound allocation. There are no "non-hittable" models once the template's position has been placed.
    * Added rule to cover blast markers hitting units in melee engagements.

    TEMPLATE WEAPONS
    * Forgot to include the most important rule - that template weapons ignore cover!
    * Added same rule to cover template weapons shooting into melee engagements

    DECLARING CHARGES
    * ADDED rule that if you declare fire against a transport and it's embarked passengers are forced to get out that same turn, you may still declare a charge against the disembarked passengers.

    CLOSE COMBAT - BREAK TEST
    * Added a rule where units may choose to voluntarily fail a break test. Units that voluntarily fail back however only shoot with snap fire in their next shooting phase. This can setup some interesting trade-offs
    * Clarified that when falling back from an engagement, falling back models can be moved through enemy non-vehicle models they were engaged with.

    PURSUITS
    * Clarified the way pursuits work a bit more, in particular with how units are locked (or not) after making pursuits and dealing extra attacks.
    * Reiterated in this section that units are never locked in an engagement with non-walker vehicles.

    PSYCHIC POWERS
    * Added further restrictions around Conjuration spells and further limited those powers to 6th/7th edition psykters only (where relevant)
    * Added some additional restrictions to some summoning powers and tweaked the unit count for summoned units.
    * Invisibility Power - toned this down. Applies a -1 to hit in close combat and ranged against invisible targets.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/11/10 06:05:35


    Post by: RustyNumber


    Just a word of thanks for all your work Mez, these rules are perfect for someone who loved 5th edition and is just baffled by all the book keeping and "floating layers" to track in 9th.

    I'd love to see optional "addons" for non-templates template weapons (similar system to 9th ed) and a hybrid of hull points/penetration table.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/11/10 17:52:55


    Post by: Mezmorki


     RustyNumber wrote:
    Just a word of thanks for all your work Mez, these rules are perfect for someone who loved 5th edition and is just baffled by all the book keeping and "floating layers" to track in 9th.

    I'd love to see optional "addons" for non-templates template weapons (similar system to 9th ed) and a hybrid of hull points/penetration table.


    Thanks! Glad you see some promise and hopefully you'll be able to try it out. Always looking for feedback and things to tweak/improve!

    Regarding the "addons," for each of those why do you see the need for them? What is it about using actual templates that seems problematic? What benefit / change would you be trying to accomplish with hull points?

    Let me know your thinking on those.

    Cheers


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/11/10 20:42:44


    Post by: Mezmorki


    ProHammer Spotlight
    There is a lot going on in ProHammer. These "spotlight" posts talk about a specific aspect of the design and how it evolved, works, or operates with respect to other editions of the game. Hopefully this generates some further discussion and interest.


    =================================================
    ProHammer Spotlight #1: Vehicle Damage
    =================================================

    A source of constant debate across classic editions of 40k (3rd-7th) was the vehicle damage tables and how that affected the overall survivability of vehicles, and in turn their usefulness as transports or weapon platforms. This is an aspect of the rules that no one ever quite seemed happy with, as any given edition was rendered vehicles either too weak or too durable.

    Looking back down memory lane, it went something like this:

    3rd edition: There were glancing hits (vehicles destroyed on a 6), penetrating hits (destroyed on a 4+), and ordinance (destroyed on a 4+). Open topped vehicles had a +1 to the damage results. Skimmers moving over 6" only took glancing hits (crazy!). All vehicles in cover ("hull down") also only take glancing hits. Basically, you needed to roll a "6" to kill a vehicle. Transported units can disembark after the vehicle moves and still assault. Between the hull down rules and assaulting from transports, this was peak vehicle craziness.

    4th edition: Same damage tables as above, but transports suffering penetrating hits, even if not destroyed, forced passengers to disembark, maybe even taking damage if it moved fast. Ouch! AP1 weapons also added +1 to the damage results. Skimmers still only take glancing hits when moving more than 6" The "hull down" cover save only works on a 4+ (not automatic anymore). If the vehicle moved first, passengers can't charge after disembarking. Vehicles were a bit weaker in general, but their utility as a transport (for non-skimmers especially) was curtailed heavily.

    5th edition: There's now just one damage chart, with vehicles destroyed on a 5+. However, glancing hits apply a -2 to the roll, so unless you have an AP1 weapon (still +1) or it's an open-topped (still +1) then it can't be destroyed. Vehicles being obscured get a cover save depending on the type of cover, and if passed simply ignores the hit entirely (no downgrading takes place). Overall, vehicles were tougher to kill than in 4th edition and even 3rd edition. Consensus seemed to be too tough.

    6th edition: Single damage table but only used on penetrating hits, with vehicles only destroyed on a 6. AP1 weapons add a +2 and AP2 add a +1. So both harder in general, but potentially the same (4+ to destroy) with an AP1 weapon. The real kicker was the addition of Hull Points. Most "tanks" and heavy vehicles had 3 hull points. Each glancing or penetrating hit knocked off one hull point. The upside is that taking a glancing hit means no loss of function (no crew stunned/shaken, weapon destroyed, etc.), but if all the hull points are lost the vehicle is instantly destroyed anyway. Ugh. In practice vehicles died much more quickly and were more vulnerable to glancing hits. Obscured vehicles take a cover save (like 5th edition), but cover saves were slightly toned down (e.g. woods were 5+ instead of a 4+).

    7th edition: Similar to 6th edition, except that vehicles were only destroyed when taking a penetrating hit on a 7+, meaning you needed a higher AP weapon to outright destroy vehicles. In practice, this didn't matter that much because glancing hits still resulted in a loss of hull points which is how vehicles were usually destroyed. Consensus was that vehicles were still too vulnerable and easy to destroy.

    ProHammer .... so what did we do in ProHammer?

    The "sweet spot" in vehicle survivability and transport utility needed to be somewhere between 5th and 4rd edition. 5th edition was clearly too strong, and 4th edition was probably a tad too weak except for things like skimmers that only suffered glancing hits. We wanted to bring some sanity to the way it worked. Here's what we have:

    (1) There is a separate glancing and penetrating hit table. Glancing hits only destroy on a 7+ and penetrating only on a 6+. AP1 weapons give +1 to the roll, and open-topped gets +1 as well.
    (2) Instead of hull points, we also added another modifier, which is that vehicles that have suffered prior damage (weapon destroyed, engines damaged, immobilized) also get a +1 to the roll. This is only applied after the current attacking unit's attacks are all resolved. This means, for example, if a unit with 3 melta guns shoots a tank, if all hits cause a damage result, none of them would get the +1. The +1 would only then apply to the next unit that shoots the vehicle.
    (3) We added the "engines damaged" result to table, which halves all applicable move distances/speeds.
    (4) If using a 6th or 7th edition codex, hull points are ignored.
    (5) Cover saves / hull down vehicles get the applicable cover save, and if passed reduce the penetration result by one (penetrating hits become glancing, glancing becomes no hit). Skimmers only get a special save if moving flat out.

    The result of the above is that it's pretty rare for a vehicle to just get blasted away in one turn of shooting - though of course it's still possible (as it has always been). Vehicles can take glancing hits all day long and only only die on a 6 if they are already damaged. Hull points be dammed. On a penetrating hit, the table is still fairly forgiving, as you only die on a 5 or 6 if already damaged.

    Regarding use as a transport, we do allow units to disembark and charge after the vehicle as moved, however the assaulting unit loses its charge bonus (unless the vehicle was an assault vehicle or open-topped). Obviously this gives a big advantage to melee oriented units, but other aspects of ProHammer, like reactive fire or overwatch, can be tools to deal with rapidly deploying and assaulting units if you prepare for it. Units do get automatically pinned/entangled if inside a vehicle that gets destroyed, so overwatch can be a helpful deterrent in that way.

    Overall, we've found the above to strike a nice balance in survivability and durability. We've had a lot of situations play out where vehicles were effectively destroyed after having their weapons all blown off and becoming immobilized. We like the idea of vehicles slowly breaking down. At the same time, use cover and careful positioning is still pretty important.

    Let me know what you think!





    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/11/11 00:06:31


    Post by: RustyNumber


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Regarding the "addons," for each of those why do you see the need for them? What is it about using actual templates that seems problematic? What benefit / change would you be trying to accomplish with hull points?


    As much as I loved the physicality of pie plates and flamethrowers, it is quicker and easier to just roll a D6 or whatever, AND you don't have to sweat about unit positioning. If there's one thing I hate in wargaming it's when the rules make it necessary to be very fiddly and precise with the spacing and positioning of your infantry bases. Hell, I didn't like 6th edition purely on the basis of the wound allocation rules, I want my Sgt to always be leading the squad at the front for rule of cool but those rules made it suicidal!

    I guess I just like the idea of vehicles having a wound pool AND a degrading statline to go along with it. Always felt a bit lame that a single lascannon shot could wreck a vehicle turn one in 5e, in theory anyway. Even a limited wound pool at least gives an attacker the sense of how far to go they have to defeat something (or increase their odds of defeating something) and the defender isn't sweating bullets over ever single penetrating table roll. Though I concede it makes sense you can OHKO lighter vehicles, so perhaps tilting the damage table for heavy vehicles so it's incredibly rare they will die to a first penetrating hit and have to sustain some other form of damage on the table before having the odds of destruction increase. Something like your seven level table for glancing hits? I suppose 5e "front loaded" shooting at vehicles with the player needing to hit then penetrate, which even with a S9 lascannon against armour 14 was an uphill battle, but once you were "in" with a pen it was just a single D6 between life and death of an expensive and impressive model.

    Then again I've not played 5e for a looooooong time, so I'm pretty well just conjecturing.

    Edit - Oh and of course NOW I go and read your update post there and see it addresses a lot of the things I just typed out


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/02 17:00:19


    Post by: Mezmorki


    So, I'm working on a tweak to ProHammer vehicles that is somewhat a re-working of Hull Points.

    The big thing I'd like to solve for is situations where that one unlucky hit knocks out a signature model (e.g. land raider, monolith, etc.) early on in the game due mainly to chance. In ProHammer, you need a 6 on the penetrating table to kill, but modifiers for prior damage, AP 1, etc. can reduce that quickly.

    My idea is to give vehicles a number of "structure points" (not hull points) based on their total Armor Value (add front + rear + one side), like so:

    AV 30 = 0 structure points (for 10/10/10 vehicles.
    AV 31-36 = 1 structure (rhinos/chimeras, dreadnaughts, up to 12/12/12 AV vehicles)
    AV 37+ = 2 structure points (leman ruses, AV14/14/14 vehicles)

    After a vehicle damage roll is taken, the defending player MAY decide to spend a structure point to reduce the damage result by 1. This could be used to turn unlucky 6/destroy result into immobilized instead, and so on. For the toughest vehicles it could mean holding onto them so when they get hit by some big AP1 weapon and have already taken prior damage, you could spend both your points to keep it limping along a little more.

    Unlike Hull Points though, when your structure points are reduced to zero, the vehicle doesn't die, you still need to get a destroy vehicle result on the table. You just don't have any ability to mitigate that any more.

    Thoughts?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/03 01:48:57


    Post by: RustyNumber


    Interesting idea! Narratively I'm not sure I like the idea of the player being able to "spend" an innate part of a model at will. Why not give each facing of armour an ablative value that can be reduced akin to wounds before destroyed is possible? This would give some more meaning to vehicle positioning, risk vs how you can continue to use firepower from fixed weapons, and also narratively is somewhat interesting (after 3 missile impacts to the left side this Predator tank side armour is in a bad state!) That being said I'm not a huge fan of "book keeping" during a game... perhaps limited to the heavier vehicles/tanks? Or perhaps just going with your current system but heavier/tanks get additional penetrations before the bonus applies?

    I suppose with enough tweaking it really stops being the 5e vehicle damage ruleset though....


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/06 01:13:46


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Assault cannons, scatter lasers, multi-lasers, star cannons, etc. feel more AA.
    But those weapons, with the exception of Scatter Lasers on a Firestorm, are specifically not AA weapons. Starcannons and Scatter Lasers being unable to fire when a vehicle moves seems strange to me - means IFVs can't really help their infantry all that much.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/06 01:26:19


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Those weapons can still fire when the vehicle moves. ProHammer let's vehicles fire up to two primary weapons (strength 6+) if moving at combat speed, which is 6" for normal vehicles and 12" for fast vehicles. Most eldar vehicles for instance can still move 12" and function as a transport and still fire all or most of their weapons.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/06 03:13:08


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Twin-Linked weapons have issues.

    In many cases these are over-costed for what amounts to just a re-roll (some Codices were 1.5x the weapon cost, others were double!).

    Despite there being literally two guns, there's no chance that they ever cause more damage, and that always felt weird to us.

    Way back in the day, when our group did our 40k Revisited project, one of the early changes we made was to Twin-Linked weaponry. Essentially on a natural To Hit roll of 6, the weapon hits twice. It still has the re-roll, and you cannot get a second hit if the re-roll comes up as a 6, but it meant that occasionally Twin-Linked weapons really smacked their targets.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/06 03:41:44


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I like that idea for twin-linked weapons! It makes something like a classic land raiders TL-lascannon sponsons way more interesting.

    Good idea and I'll think about working that in!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/06 09:01:06


    Post by: The Deer Hunter


    Twin linked weapons seem more realistic in 8th and 9th ed. They are 2 weapons that must target the same target, since linked. Could have the advantage of counting as 1 weapon when it comes to the max number of weapons a vehicle can shot with


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/06 22:21:42


    Post by: NinthMusketeer


    First of all, great work; this is a fantastic service to the community.

    My main concern would be KISS. People are even less tolerant of complexity in fan rule systems, so simplicity is important. Just from this page I see suggestions that are adding additional layers of complexity that I am not so sure are worth it for the improvement they provide.

    For example, looking at the twin-linked matter; why not cut the re-roll and make it is same profile as a single weapon but successful hit rolls, hit twice? It is one simple rule that, speeds up gameplay, is intuitive, and easy to explain. "Twin-linked means hits hit twice" provides much greater appeal than "twin-linked means re-roll misses and 6s hit twice unless it was from a re-roll." In isolation is seems silly to sweat something so small but those small things add up, and add up quick.

    But despite my tangent, this is great work. The very concept of making a ruleset compatible with so many different editions is daunting, that you have actually pulled it off speaks to a high level of skill in rules writing and a huge amount of effort.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/07 00:21:49


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Aww, thanks for the kind words! It's greatly appreciated and glad you're seeing some good stuff here.

    I agree that KISS is a good thing, but it haven't always followed it in this case.

    I'm a hobby game designer (had one game published by an established publisher and a few others in the works), and so I'm fairly cognizant of how rules are being read and interpreted. There are a lot of holes and edge cases and procedures that aren't explained all that fully in the older 40K rules, and once you try sit down and write the rules out more comprehensively it ends up getting longer!

    That said, there are rules in ProHammer we continue to question whether they are worth the overhead of including. I'm tinkering around with changes to the suppression rules because we sort of forget it's even there most of the time and I'll not sure they are really that necessary. Another one is the "first fire" rule giving an advantage for having not moved at all. There's cases where it can apply, but often it does even come up.

    Anyway - thanks again for the comment and encouragement!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/07 01:02:46


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     NinthMusketeer wrote:
    For example, looking at the twin-linked matter; why not cut the re-roll and make it is same profile as a single weapon but successful hit rolls, hit twice? It is one simple rule that, speeds up gameplay, is intuitive, and easy to explain. "Twin-linked means hits hit twice" provides much greater appeal than "twin-linked means re-roll misses and 6s hit twice unless it was from a re-roll." In isolation is seems silly to sweat something so small but those small things add up, and add up quick.
    Because just doubling the hits of all TL weaponry is really bloody powerful.

    The abstraction of Twin-Linked is that it's firing more shots, and is therefore more likely to hit. Our own rule was to represent the rare times where it's bang on target and actually hits with both guns in a meaningful way.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/07 01:10:53


    Post by: Mezmorki


    ProHammer is trying to REDUCE lethality, and while getting ONE extra bonus hit on a 6 is a slight boost to lethality, I would justify it on the grounds that twin-linked weapons, especially low fire rate ones, are rarely worth their price.

    A straight doubling of shots would be way to much of an increase in damage potential, as HBMC asserts, for me to consider.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/09 15:23:25


    Post by: the_scotsman


    OK - so it turns out, instead of trying out 4th edition, I wound up trying out Prohammer a few times! We liked the concept of fixing a lot of the little things that always irritated us about oldhammer, and it wasnt organized by chimpanzees like GW's old rulebooks, so we went for it.

    Game 1, I used the Dark Eldar 3rd ed dex against my opponent's 3.5 CSM dex, and game 2 I used 3rd ed genestealer cults vs 3rd ed catachans. Overall, great time! Really enjoyed the system a lot.

    Pros(hammer):

    -the elegant way that prohammer so greatly reduces the number of 'trap' options from classic WH rules: Absolutely fantastic. A++ on this front. The introduction of limited split firing, of allowing charging after deep strike and out of combat, of reducing the sharp cutoffs of the old Sx2 = INSTANT DEATH GWOOOOOOOOORRRR and AP = armor = INSTANT DEATH WOOOOOOOOOAHHHH is fantastic.

    I feel like if i take a unit in prohammer it is far, far harder to arm it "wrong" in the strategy layer and render it totally useless - really the only zone where this still happens is with the way vehicle weapon firing/movement works, where you can do something like arm a leman russ with plasma cannon sponsons and an ordnance cannon and, whoopsie! but it is what it is.

    -I also love how much more choice is granted to players in prohammer to allow them to influence things rather than leave everything up to pure randomness. Deep strike mishap going from 'the table of dooom' to 'your opponent sets them up where THEY want the unit to be' is a great example of this - it still FEELS like the unit has suffered a huge mishap and they are most likely screwed, but, its not just pure luck and randomness, it becomes more of a tactical situation.

    Honestly, I think this kind of agency is something I'd consider adding more of to various systems. Personally I really love Necromunda's fall back rules, where youve got an order of priority:

    1) over 6" away from enemy models
    2) out of line of sight of enemy models
    3) in the best cover available
    4) as far away as possible from enemy models

    If you can achieve a higher priority condition with your 2d6" move, then you must, but otherwise it gives players a little bit of wiggle room to figure out what the unit *would* do in the given situation - if it can get to solid cover, it would. If it can get away from the enemy units currently menacing them, it would. If it could get out of line of sight, it would. I think that helps with achieving versimilitude personally.

    Cons(hammer):

    -I think youre still a little bit away from the mark in terms of simplicity being a good goal in and of itself. A few examples:

    BROKEN and BROKEN SCREEN are two rules which are completely unrelated, but which seem at first glance to be. You read BROKEN SCREEN and think its a rule where a BROKEN unit doesnt provide a SCREEN, but its different.

    PINNED, BROKEN, GONE TO GROUND, REACTED, WITHDREW...there are a lot of statuses that are very VERY close to being the same, but aren't *quite* the same - maybe one of them can shoot but only on 6s, maybe one of them can shoot but all weapons only fire one shot, maybe one of them can't shoot. Very often, the various debuffs are also a long laundry list of things that can be very tricky to remember the distinctions between - sometimes a particular status will strip a model of melee charge bonuses, but other times it will strip it of all bonus attacks, and force it to just fight with the baseline attacks statistic.

    I think the best way to optimise prohammer is to take a look at these various layered systems and really take stock, REALLY look and think "Can I consolidate this, can I boil this down just a little bit to make these two things that are almost the same, the same." IS reaction fire AND overwatch both existing in the same system necessary? Can I find ways to make active overwatch fulfill the same narrative/gameplay purpose that I want reactive fire to fulfil?

    I pull out reactive fire here for this purpose because I think its the prime example of a mechanic that is really borderline of being a "Ram" from 3-7e. A mechanic that is highly convoluted, requires a lot of figuring out, and is limited such that it will really come up in situations where it will be pretty un-impactful. In my eyes, players are basically going to have to look up exactly what reactive fire does...basically any time reactive fire would come up in game. The game will grind to a halt as Sergeant Expendable and his gakky guard squad are gonna get charged and ground to bits by a squad of khorne bezerkers and the players go

    "ok....so you are within 24"...yep...and so every one of these guys is going to shoot, but they only shoot 1 shot, so the pistol is going to be the same as the lasguns..and the missile launcher does get to shoot but its heavy so it counts as moving so it only hits on a 6, and i cant use the blast...but i can use the flamer, it just hits on 4+s instead of automatically..." *one long resolution later*

    "So that's 1 AP- wound and 2 from the flamer"

    "OK 1 fail" *removes 1 khorne bezerker*

    and thats the only time Reaction Fire is going to turn up in that game.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/09 16:26:04


    Post by: Mezmorki


    @the_scotsman

    Thanks! I really appreciate hearing you decided to give a play with your group and to provide feedback on how it went. Can't express my appreciation enough!

    Regarding the Con's that you mention. I absolutely agree with you that there is some streamlining that can happen and that will help streamline the gameplay.

    I see a few areas to tackle in this regard, which you also mention. I'm working on some revisions but I'll share my thinking here.

    Rather than defining "reactive fire" I instead want to define something I'll call "Limited Fire". Limited fire would be the following: Shooting models only make 1 ranged attack at AP "-" and fight at Initiative 1 should they be engaged this turn.. We'd then have "Snap Fire" as we currently define it, where you can shoot as much as you want, but only hit on 6's.

    Having defined those fire conditions, overall we have Normal Fire, Limited Fire, and Snap Fire. All other rules that affect a unit's shooting would use one of these three conditions.

    We can then say clearer things like this:

    * As a reaction to being shot, the unit can "Go to Ground" or return fire simultaneously using Limited Fire. If returning fire, the unit is subject to Limited Fire on it's next shooting phase as well.

    * As a reaction to being charged, before moving charging models, the unit can shoot the charging unit with Limited fire. The unit is subject to Limited Fire on it's next shooting phase.

    The above isn't a fully formed idea, but I see where you're going with cleaning it up.

    I'll try to get the terms organized a bit better and provide an update here on what I'm thinking. I agree it would help smooth it out a lot!

    Thanks!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/09 18:10:03


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    @the_scotsman

    Thanks! I really appreciate hearing you decided to give a play with your group and to provide feedback on how it went. Can't express my appreciation enough!

    Regarding the Con's that you mention. I absolutely agree with you that there is some streamlining that can happen and that will help streamline the gameplay.

    I see a few areas to tackle in this regard, which you also mention. I'm working on some revisions but I'll share my thinking here.

    Rather than defining "reactive fire" I instead want to define something I'll call "Limited Fire". Limited fire would be the following: Shooting models only make 1 ranged attack at AP "-" and fight at Initiative 1 should they be engaged this turn.. We'd then have "Snap Fire" as we currently define it, where you can shoot as much as you want, but only hit on 6's.

    Having defined those fire conditions, overall we have Normal Fire, Limited Fire, and Snap Fire. All other rules that affect a unit's shooting would use one of these three conditions.

    We can then say clearer things like this:

    * As a reaction to being shot, the unit can "Go to Ground" or return fire simultaneously using Limited Fire. If returning fire, the unit is subject to Limited Fire on it's next shooting phase as well.

    * As a reaction to being charged, before moving charging models, the unit can shoot the charging unit with Limited fire. The unit is subject to Limited Fire on it's next shooting phase.

    The above isn't a fully formed idea, but I see where you're going with cleaning it up.

    I'll try to get the terms organized a bit better and provide an update here on what I'm thinking. I agree it would help smooth it out a lot!

    Thanks!


    So this is coming back to my overall point with the cons though:

    Why do you need both limited fire and snap fire? wouldnt the overall purpose and what's being represented be essentially the same? Additionally, using limited fire for 'reaction fire' (7e overwatch) seems to make very little sense to me personally, as it would mean that a single shot, high strength weapon, say, an ork Rokkit Launcha, would be the ideal weapon to have to spray and pray at an enemy as they came charging at you, while a high volume of fire weapon like an assault cannon would be the absolute worst weapon to have as its mighty 6 shots would be reduced down to 1. Also, incidentally, single shot weapons get to effectively double their firepower if you can perform Limited fire on both your turn and the enemy turn, because 'limited' in the instance of 1 shot means 'the same.'

    rolling the full dice and needing 6s versus rolling just 1 die makes sense if the philosophy is "yes, OK, it takes too long to resolve snap fire and we know this method makes a little bit less intuitive 'sense' but its faster and easier" but then why keep snap fire? Why not decide on one rule instead of having one form of fire where a guardsman gets 1 hit, one form of fire where a guardsman gets .33 hits, and one form of fire where a guardsman gets .5 hits?

    What i'm saying here overall, is not that you need to necessarily streamline the gameplay. If you settled on one definition of 'still shooting, but not shooting as much' via some method, say: roll to hit as normal, but then discard 1/2 of the successful hits with each weapon rounding up, or: make only one shot with each weapon, or: roll to hit but only hit on 6s, whatever, im personally partial to the former as it doesnt alter a unit's effectiveness via their statistics and leaves all things equal, but the point being if you had one, then one instance versus another of a squad being subjected to that doesnt require two differnet rules to be remembered.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/09 18:39:04


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I see what you're saying.

    That said, in my view, snap fire as defined (hit on 6+'s) is never a very satisfying thing to roll. The low chance of successfully hitting is really about giving units a freak-chance to hit something under extremely poor circumstances.

    The intent for reactive fire (and we've used it quite a bit in our games I should add) is about setting up a genuine trade-off decision. It's intended to be positioned between the effectiveness of normal shooting and snap fire.

    For multi-shot weapons, the intent is to reflect you making half of your shots (approx) during the reaction, and other half (approx) during your next shooting phase. In terms of high strength single shot weapons (rokkit launcher, wraith cannon, etc.) the "AP-" adjustment is to cut back on the lethality of those weapons since they are effectively hitting twice as often (and they often have higher strengths already). The reduced AP is also intended to reflect weapons not being properly calibrated or lined up to maximize their impact.

    This all said, I could see, a way to combine the two that might work for both limited fire and snap fire situations. For example, Limited Fire could be:

    * -1 to hit
    * Weapon shoots half it's number of shots (rounded down, to a minimum of 1)
    * Blast + template weapons only hit models underneath on 4+
    * Resolved at AP-


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/10 13:05:34


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Wait...so am I reading the rules incorrectly? I thought if you used react fire you did not get to shoot the following turn under the current rules
    (which, FTR, I agree with on principle I think it would be an automatic always-do thing if you could just get half your firepower for free during your opponent's turn. React fire halving your firepower effectively makes total sense to me.)

    So to summarize current react fire is:

    -multishot weapons become one shot
    -all weapons lose all ap
    -template weapons hit on a 4+
    -heavy weapons snap fire (AND presumably become one shot and lose all AP?)

    If the rule intent is to halve firepower, wouldnt it be less complicated since you do mandate fast rolling in prohammer to just have a player fastroll for each weapon in the unit and discard half the successful hits, rounding up, and the unit retains the same 'movement status' from its preceding turn (i.e. still counts as having moved/remained stationary/fell back etc if it did that in its preceding turn)?

    That would actually achieve the goal of halving firepower while being less to remember, introduce less strange skewing of the math.

    I think this all makes sense to include along with the various buffs youve included to when youre allowed to perform assaults (after disembarking, after deep striking etc) and it furthers the goal of allowing the player to interact during their opponent's turn. Also, it would allow you to consolidate your systems further, because it would mean that a unit that has an Overwatch token gets to perform React fire in the First Fire step of the shooting phase targeting any enemy unit and does not have to discard half the hits.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Going on a little bit of a 'deep reading' tangent here doodly doop doodly doop keep this in mind as a second thought:

    This is a "Designer Intention Check":

    "The Saving Throw characteristic can never be modified below a 2+ or above a 6+"

    ^Is the intention of this rule that - for example - an ork boy is unaffected by all AP?

    "Hard Cover: Lists "Hard Barricades"
    Fortifications: Lists "Barricades"

    ^lets pretend I have an Aegis Defense Line on the battlefield. Is it a hard barricade or a barricade?

    -Step 1: Reserves
    Step 2: Movement

    Would it not make more sense to reverse the order of these two steps, given that models that arrive from reserves cannot move normally in the movement phase anyway? This would intuitively make more sense to me upon first reading and I think pokeokes the intended rule reading to prevent mistakes.

    Shooting Phase Step 4 Casualty Test

    If this occurs at the end of the turn why put it here?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/10 13:23:55


    Post by: Mezmorki


    On mobile so I'll be brief....

    In the current rules for ProHammer (as written right now) if you use reactive fire during your opponents turn, on your next turn, the unit that shot with reactive fire can only shoot with snap fire.

    The old way used both reactive fire shooting rules and then also snap fire rules.

    The revised way I'm thinking would be to define "limited Fire" and then have a unit using a reaction utilize limited Fire for their reaction attack and again on their next turn's shooting (representing splitting their fire across two instances at somewhat reduced effectiveness).


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/10 13:47:12


    Post by: the_scotsman


    hittable models rework proposal:

    "2) DETERMINE HITTABLE MODELS
    HITTABLE MODELS: Determine which models in the target unit are able to be hit by shooting attacks.
    Models that are out of sight from all shooting models are NOT a hittable model.
    Models that are out of range from all shooting models are NOT a hittable model.

    NO HITTABLE MODELS: If the target unit has no hittable models, then no shooting attacks are resolved.

    While resolving a shooting attack, the defender may choose to allocate wounds to models that are not hittable if desired. However, if at any point during the resolution of the shooting attack the condition of NO HITTABLE MODELS above occurs, the shooting attack ends immediately - no additional save rolls need to be rolled."

    ^this wording removes the ability of the opponent to "Rhino Snipe" models in the opposing unit by strategically blocking his own line of sight, and additionally further clarifies that even in the midst of a roll batch, a shooting attack ends immediately if the condition of "no hittable models" occurs.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Mezmorki wrote:
    On mobile so I'll be brief....

    In the current rules for ProHammer (as written right now) if you use reactive fire during your opponents turn, on your next turn, the unit that shot with reactive fire can only shoot with snap fire.

    The old way used both reactive fire shooting rules and then also snap fire rules.

    The revised way I'm thinking would be to define "limited Fire" and then have a unit using a reaction utilize limited Fire for their reaction attack and again on their next turn's shooting (representing splitting their fire across two instances at somewhat reduced effectiveness).


    What I'm proposing is that firepower on demand on your opponent's turn in addition to firepower on your turn seems (to me) a well worth trade-off to being able to fire on one's next turn. I can see myself viewing reactive fire as a CHOICE if i had to give up my following turn's firepower entirely, but as an AUTOMATIC thing if I got to perform half my shooting on your turn and half on my turn at roughly the same effectiveness - even if i am limited in target choice and morale effects.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/10 13:51:07


    Post by: Mezmorki


    ^^^^^ That makes sense. It's sounds the same the same as what we intended, just the wording is a bit clearer.

    Thanks!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/10 13:59:06


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    ^^^^^ That makes sense. It's sounds the same the same as what we intended, just the wording is a bit clearer.

    Thanks!


    (and, it allows you to trim the "hittable" language from essentially the entire rest of the document, and keep it confined to this rule section only)


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Shooting into engagements last bullet proposal:

    If the intended target is a MONSTROUS CREATURE or WALKER, add +1 to the roll to determine if the intended target is hit.

    (just, for clarity)


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    let me hit you with this proposal for unifying reduced-fire effects:

    -Some rules will indicate that a unit may only make a ranged attack using SNAP FIRE. A unit shooting with SNAP FIRE shoots as normal, but after rolling to hit with roll batch, half (rounding up) of the successful hit dice are discarded.

    -Models attacking with TEMPLATE weapons that are subject to snap fire only hit models fully or partially covered by the template on a 4+.

    -If a model is under the effects of two or more rules that would require it to SNAP FIRE (e.g. firing a HEAVY type weapon after the unit moved, or the unit having GONE TO GROUND, or firing REACTIVE FIRE) then the model may not make shooting attacks at all.

    Snap Fire Example: Keith is attempting to perform React Fire against an opposing unit of Ork Boyz that have declared a charge against his Imperial Guard Infantry Squad. First he lays down the template from the squad’s flamer, and he is able to cover 5 models. He rolls 5 dice, 3 of which are 4+, so his flamer scores 3 hits, which are then resolved as normal. He then rolls to hit combining the laspistol wielded by the sergeant with the 7 lasguns from the ordinary squad members, and scores 7 successful hits. 4 of the successful hits from this batch are discarded, and the remaining 3 roll to wound and save. Finally, he rolls to hit with the squad’s heavy boltgun, successfully hitting 1 time. However, this hit is discarded, as ½ of 1 rounding up is 1.

    This system would be the effect from GOING TO GROUND, PINNING, moving and firing HEAVY weapons, vehicles being SHAKEN, and REACTION FIRE. It would cleanly reduce the unit's firepower by 1/2 with only 2 additional rules 'modifications' being required, and the "Round Up" clause prevents manipulation by intentionally trying to split up one's firepower into many different roll batches. The "Two or more effects" clause prevents the situation of "Welp, i'm already snap firing, so, I might as well do *insert silly thing here*" and allows it to be a universal effect BUT also with different 'levels.' Streamlined - but not Simplified and not reducing the number of levers you get to have as a designer.

    it also avoids the strange interactions of:

    -snap firing 7e-style reduces the firepower of orks by 50% but space marines by 75%
    -React Firing Prohammer style reduces the effectiveness of an assault cannon by 83% but a laspistol by 0%


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    --------------------------------

    Deep strike suggestion: Units that deep strike count as having made a normal move in the movement phase. (this is currently not specified)


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/10 15:06:18


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I like where that's going - but there's probably some other edge cases to be considered.

    "Heavy 1" weapons would never be able to shoot under this situation, as their 1 hit die would be "rounded up" and discarded.

    Couple of options to maybe resolve this:

    Option A

    Since ProHammer is predicated on always batch rolling, what if you roll for all of your attacks (and determine number of hits for template/blast weapons). Then you just discard half of the total successful hits (rounding up), irrespective of what weapons made what hits.

    This would likely mean that more of the hits you retain could be from heavy or special weapons. Balance wise, I could see retaining the "resolved at AP-" effect to diminish the relatively higher impact of heavier weapons under this option..

    Option 2

    Weapons shoot half the number of times (rounding up), but with a -1 to hit. I ran some assorted maths on typical weapons and that about works out such that shooting twice at reduced BS is about the same as one full round of shooting. Single shot weapons get a slight boost. But I think it could potentially ditch the AP- thing and be okay as well.

    ----------------------------------------

    I like Option 2 a little more since I'm generally a fan of trying to reduce the amount of extraneous die rolling that's needed. If you're going to toss out half the die results, might as well just start with rolling half as many to begin with. Option 1 is less elegant IMHO, as you're needing to assemble the full compliment of dice, then separate out all the successful hits, and then split that pile in half following another layer of logic, etc.









    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/10 15:28:43


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Honestly, I dont think this edge case (of a squad with one single heavy 1 weapon) not getting to fire is not worth requiring so many addtional levers.

    A devastator squad with 4 lascannons would still be able to fire at snap. Only a squad with 1 single 1 shot weapon would be unable to operate in Snap Fire.

    Option 2 could work. IDK. I do think the 'two or more effects' clause has value, I'm just the kind of person that would find it incredibly easy to just toss half the hits in the middle of a shooting batch and in the instances where I've got 1 melta gun or 1 lascannon in a squad would just...not roll with that weapon.

    The way my brain is wired I like a rule with 1 step (roll my batches as normal and pitch half the hits each time) more than a rule with 2 steps (figure out how many shots each gun gets, halve them, then deduct -1 from my hit rolls)


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    --------------------------------------------

    Typo: in the "Special Shooting Rules" section, templates are listed as hitting models fully or partiall under the template on a 5+. In the main Snap Fire section this is listed as a 4+.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    ------------------------------------

    Rewording: The section "Broken Screen" could be renamed to "Screen Gaps" to avoid confusion with the other, morale-based use of the term "Broken"


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    --------------------------------------

    Template weapons ignoring cover is mentioned twice.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    ----------------------------------

    In all instances where weapon types are mentioned, recommend changing "units" and "models" to "units containing models" when describing charge allowance.

    e.g.: "units containing models firing Heavy weapons may not charge in the assault phase"


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    --------------------------

    Voluntary Withdrawals:

    Timing voluntary withdrawals to occur in the controlling player's assault phase seems unnecessarily punishing. IMO, withdrawals should allow for *some* chance for the unit to escape from the enemy unit in combat with it to allow friendly units to open fire - espcially if the unit in combat is a fast unit that can fall back 3d6", like a BIKER unit.

    I would keep this section EXACTLY the same but alter the timing to place it during the controlling player's movement phase. The unit voluntarily becomes BROKEN, performs a FALL BACK move, and the opposing unit can choose to PURSUE or CONSOLIDATE as normal - in my eyes, this grants a nice happy medium between 7e-9e's highly permissive 'fall back' and 3e-6e's highly punishing 'no leaving combat ever'.



    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    My proposal for Voluntary Withdrawals in the movement phase:

    Voluntary Withdrawals

    Units belonging to the active player that are already engaged in close combat at the start of their movement phase may attempt to voluntarily withdraw from close combat during the movement phase.

    -A unit that is withdrawing immediately BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

    -All other friendly units which do not wish to voluntarily withdraw must make a Leadership Test with a -1 modifier if the unit is under half strength and a second -1 modifier if the friendly unit withdrawing would cause them to be outnumbered by opposing models in close combat. If that Leadership Test is failed, that friendly unit also BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

    -If the opposing unit is no longer engaged with any of the active player’s units, they may choose to PURSUE or CONSOLIDATE (see CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS).




    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    ----------------------------

    Regroup Tests:

    Remove the -1 modifier for the unit being out of coherency. Above, units out of coherency are prevented from taking Regroup tests.

    Remove the stipulation that at least one model must be alive to perform a Regroup test. Tautology.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    ----------------------------------

    Psyker models (Available Powers)

    Add additional sentence: "If a psyker model’s datasheet indicates specific powers available to that psyker, those are the powers available to it"

    (older psyker model datasheets operate in this way)


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/10 21:57:59


    Post by: Illumini


    Gotta say, the_scotsman makes a great point with the simplified snap fire rule. Very elegant solution IMO, especially the fact that it impacts everyone the same, something which the -1 thing does not.
    I agree that you shouldn´t make needless complexity just for those single ROF1 weapon squads.
    Losing AP makes little sense IMO, seems like a rule that reduces "realism".


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 13:09:54


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Ive realized what it is about the 'hittable' terminology that's been bugging me - you use "Targetable Area" in another section in the rules.

    "Targetable" would therefore flow much more naturally as shorthand for models that can be legally targeted, because you introduce the same language earlier in the document. "hittable" leads one to assume it has a relationship with to-hit rolls, which it does not (really, anyway).



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 13:43:30


    Post by: Squidsy22


    Seems like the doc could use a healthy round of terminology cleanup/unification, but the core of it is solid. I've been watching 40k from the sidelines for ages, and now that I finally have the income to start dipping my toes in, all the cool stuff from the editions I grew up admiring gets replaced or removed (templates, individual sponson LOS, army-specific Force Org, ect.) while a whole slew of gak (One-million-and-one stratagems, pRiMaRiS!!!, child-friendly 40k, ect.) took its place. I'm happy I get to enjoy the golden years of the game without having to learn each and every edition and find a community to play each with- and even more so that the project is being actively worked on by the community!
    Keeping an eye on this, and hoping it'll be what finally gives me an in on 40k


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 14:33:42


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I could definitely use an adept technical writer to clean up the organization and terminology. Things could probably be streamlined quite a bit that way too!

     the_scotsman wrote:
    Ive realized what it is about the 'hittable' terminology that's been bugging me - you use "Targetable Area" in another section in the rules.

    "Targetable" would therefore flow much more naturally as shorthand for models that can be legally targeted, because you introduce the same language earlier in the document. "hittable" leads one to assume it has a relationship with to-hit rolls, which it does not (really, anyway).


    "Targetable Area" is a term that should be only referring to the main part of the model (e.g. torso/head/legs/arms for figurine models and the hull/turrets for vehicle models). The targetable area is what one would use for determining line of sight through terrain features.

    "Hittable" is a term that refers to whether a given model can be allocated a wound as a result of a volley of fire from a unit (i.e. models in LoS and range from at least one attacking unit) or round of melee attacks (i.e models in base to base contact with an enemy or within 1" of friends models in base to base contact with an enemy).

    EDIT: I suppose "hittable" should more accurately be "woundable" - since it's about wound allocation more than it is making hits. But woundable is kinda clunky sounding. And with ProHammer a defender can choose to allocate wounds to non-hittable models if they want (in order to potentially keep a hittable model alive).


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 18:14:28


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    I could definitely use an adept technical writer to clean up the organization and terminology. Things could probably be streamlined quite a bit that way too!

     the_scotsman wrote:
    Ive realized what it is about the 'hittable' terminology that's been bugging me - you use "Targetable Area" in another section in the rules.

    "Targetable" would therefore flow much more naturally as shorthand for models that can be legally targeted, because you introduce the same language earlier in the document. "hittable" leads one to assume it has a relationship with to-hit rolls, which it does not (really, anyway).


    "Targetable Area" is a term that should be only referring to the main part of the model (e.g. torso/head/legs/arms for figurine models and the hull/turrets for vehicle models). The targetable area is what one would use for determining line of sight through terrain features.

    "Hittable" is a term that refers to whether a given model can be allocated a wound as a result of a volley of fire from a unit (i.e. models in LoS and range from at least one attacking unit) or round of melee attacks (i.e models in base to base contact with an enemy or within 1" of friends models in base to base contact with an enemy).

    EDIT: I suppose "hittable" should more accurately be "woundable" - since it's about wound allocation more than it is making hits. But woundable is kinda clunky sounding. And with ProHammer a defender can choose to allocate wounds to non-hittable models if they want (in order to potentially keep a hittable model alive).


    Right - in LOS, as in, part of the "Targetable Area" is visible to the firing model. They are related concepts, and I'm of the opinion that reutilizing the same language helps to relate the two concepts, as it helps to call the player back and remind them. Also, Targetable is a term that I think is more commonly understood than 'Hittable'.

    ...I'm actually not 100% clear on exactly how wounding in prohammer works. It seems like its intended to be a way to kind of spread the defenses. Can you let me know if I'm doing this correctly?

    -my opponent is opening fire at my unit of Ork Boyz with a unit of Imperial Guardsmen. Lets say a very large unit of imperial guardsmen. My unit of Ork Boyz has 6 models out of cover, 3 models behind a piece of light cover (5+ cover save) and has a boss nob with the 'eavy armor upgrade (4+sv). I take 13 wounds.

    Am I correct in assuming that under the prohammer wounding system, I can start by allocating 3 wounds to the in-cover boyz, and 1 wound to the nob, but then I must take 6 wounds on my out in the open boyz - but then the remaining 3 I can choose to put on the nob and 2 cover boyz? So I would make 2 4+ saves, 5 5+ saves, 6 6+ saves....but then after that, I would allocate the UNSAVED wounds to any models of my choice?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 19:02:21


    Post by: Mezmorki


     the_scotsman wrote:

    ...I'm actually not 100% clear on exactly how wounding in prohammer works. It seems like its intended to be a way to kind of spread the defenses. Can you let me know if I'm doing this correctly?

    -my opponent is opening fire at my unit of Ork Boyz with a unit of Imperial Guardsmen. Lets say a very large unit of imperial guardsmen. My unit of Ork Boyz has 6 models out of cover, 3 models behind a piece of light cover (5+ cover save) and has a boss nob with the 'eavy armor upgrade (4+sv). I take 13 wounds.

    Am I correct in assuming that under the prohammer wounding system, I can start by allocating 3 wounds to the in-cover boyz, and 1 wound to the nob, but then I must take 6 wounds on my out in the open boyz - but then the remaining 3 I can choose to put on the nob and 2 cover boyz? So I would make 2 4+ saves, 5 5+ saves, 6 6+ saves....but then after that, I would allocate the UNSAVED wounds to any models of my choice?


    Yes - you got it

    The one further note is that you aren't forced to apply unsaved wounds to non-hittable models if you don't want to. Depending on the number of unsaved wounds you have, you could up killing all the hittable models and have wounds left over that would be ignored. Or if the number of unsaved wounds was less than the number of models you had, you could choose to kill off some of the non-hittable models in order to keep a special weapon unit or leader alive, etc.

    The reason for this is really about "keeping fun" as the defender has leeway to try and preserve key models and let the chaff fall away. It also speeds things up since you aren't needing to keep track of exactly what models took what wounds with what saves. Lastly, it's a general reduction to shooting lethality as well, since you can use terrain to keep models out of hittable status and not suffer from overkill.

    The only other note about this is that if you have units with multi-wound models, you have to apply wounds to already wounded models first on a sequential basis. Eliminates all the shennanigans with 5th edition wound allocation to mixed equipment forces.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 19:04:44


    Post by: JNAProductions


     Mezmorki wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:

    ...I'm actually not 100% clear on exactly how wounding in prohammer works. It seems like its intended to be a way to kind of spread the defenses. Can you let me know if I'm doing this correctly?

    -my opponent is opening fire at my unit of Ork Boyz with a unit of Imperial Guardsmen. Lets say a very large unit of imperial guardsmen. My unit of Ork Boyz has 6 models out of cover, 3 models behind a piece of light cover (5+ cover save) and has a boss nob with the 'eavy armor upgrade (4+sv). I take 13 wounds.

    Am I correct in assuming that under the prohammer wounding system, I can start by allocating 3 wounds to the in-cover boyz, and 1 wound to the nob, but then I must take 6 wounds on my out in the open boyz - but then the remaining 3 I can choose to put on the nob and 2 cover boyz? So I would make 2 4+ saves, 5 5+ saves, 6 6+ saves....but then after that, I would allocate the UNSAVED wounds to any models of my choice?


    Yes - you got it

    The one further note is that you aren't forced to apply unsaved wounds to non-hittable models if you don't want to. Depending on the number of unsaved wounds you have, you could up killing all the hittable models and have wounds left over that would be ignored. Or if the number of unsaved wounds was less than the number of models you had, you could choose to kill off some of the non-hittable models in order to keep a special weapon unit or leader alive, etc.

    The reason for this is really about "keeping fun" as the defender has leeway to try and preserve key models and let the chaff fall away. It also speeds things up since you aren't needing to keep track of exactly what models took what wounds with what saves. Lastly, it's a general reduction to shooting lethality as well, since you can use terrain to keep models out of hittable status and not suffer from overkill.

    The only other note about this is that if you have units with multi-wound models, you have to apply wounds to already wounded models first on a sequential basis. Eliminates all the shennanigans with 5th edition wound allocation to mixed equipment forces.
    What happens if there are more wounds than there are models?

    If I have a squad of 5 Marines getting shot by some Assault Cannons, and take a total of 8 wounds, 3 of which are AP2 from Rending, how do I allocate those?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 19:27:10


    Post by: Mezmorki


     the_scotsman wrote:
    Right - in LOS, as in, part of the "Targetable Area" is visible to the firing model. They are related concepts, and I'm of the opinion that reutilizing the same language helps to relate the two concepts, as it helps to call the player back and remind them. Also, Targetable is a term that I think is more commonly understood than 'Hittable'.


    I'm not sure what your suggestion is here? Are you saying we should use the terms "Hittable Area" for the LoS determination and "Hittable Model" from a wound allocation standpoint, so that "hittable" gets used in both cases?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     JNAProductions wrote:
    What happens if there are more wounds than there are models?

    If I have a squad of 5 Marines getting shot by some Assault Cannons, and take a total of 8 wounds, 3 of which are AP2 from Rending, how do I allocate those?


    Well, the AP2 hits penetrate armor so that's 2 unsaved wounds. You'd roll armor saves for the other wounds. If you ended up 3+ failed armor saves, the unit as a whole would take 5+ unsaved wounds in total and everyone is killed.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 19:47:38


    Post by: JNAProductions


     Mezmorki wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    Right - in LOS, as in, part of the "Targetable Area" is visible to the firing model. They are related concepts, and I'm of the opinion that reutilizing the same language helps to relate the two concepts, as it helps to call the player back and remind them. Also, Targetable is a term that I think is more commonly understood than 'Hittable'.


    I'm not sure what your suggestion is here? Are you saying we should use the terms "Hittable Area" for the LoS determination and "Hittable Model" from a wound allocation standpoint, so that "hittable" gets used in both cases?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     JNAProductions wrote:
    What happens if there are more wounds than there are models?

    If I have a squad of 5 Marines getting shot by some Assault Cannons, and take a total of 8 wounds, 3 of which are AP2 from Rending, how do I allocate those?


    Well, the AP2 hits penetrate armor so that's 2 unsaved wounds. You'd roll armor saves for the other wounds. If you ended up 3+ failed armor saves, the unit as a whole would take 5+ unsaved wounds in total and everyone is killed.
    Derp. Okay, replace them with Terminators-so some get a 3+ and some get a 2+.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 20:03:17


    Post by: Mezmorki


     JNAProductions wrote:
    Derp. Okay, replace them with Terminators-so some get a 3+ and some get a 2+.


    This is why the ProHammer wound allocation is nice - because you don't need to track what models actually get the wound and/or make a save. You just roll all the saves based on an even allocation, and once you have a total number of UNSAVED wounds, you allocate those to whatever models you want.

    E.G... two terminators take a 3+ save for the two AP2 rending hits, and then you'd rolls six 2+ saves. Once you determining the number of saves that fail, the total unsaved wounds go onto any models.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 20:07:34


    Post by: JNAProductions


    I’m not explaining myself well-I’ll try to formulate my words better in a bit, but I’m about to hang with some friends now.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/13 23:23:32


    Post by: the_scotsman


    I'm arguing that "targetable" is much more common wargaming terminology, and "targetable" should be substituted for "hittable" but that the current rules are good and if you want to stick with true-LOS, ideal.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    New thought: The reason I ask about the wounding system is because if I put myself in the shoes of a newbie, it is probably the most un-intuitive wounding system I've seen in 40k.

    it's not the worst gameplay wise - actually it probably works basically equivalently to the one I like the best - but the concept of

    -my opponent rolls to hit
    -then they roll to wound
    -then I assign those wounds spread out throughout my unit
    -then i roll a save for those models that I wounded, to see if those models survive
    -psych, no, it's not that, now I take all the failed saves and put them back togheter in a pile and now I decide who dies, even if it is a model I did not even have take a save.

    And I'm not 100% convinced that - compared to 9e's wound allocation system, where you just select a model that's going to take damage and you take saves for that model, fast-rolling if you can to save time - it gets you that much additional value.

    lets take my 10 ork boyz from before - 3 in cover, 1 nob with a 4+, 6 boyz just on a 6+ - and shoot them with a guardsman squad using 9e target allocation rules and using Prohammer allocation rules. The guardsmen have a plasma gun and 8 lasguns+pistol.

    the plasma gun scores a hit and a wound.

    Prohammer: I obviously select a guy in cover to take a 5+. He fails. I can now select a guy out of cover to die.

    9e rules: I select that same guy in cover, he fails, that guy must die. (we're pretending we're using everything Prohammer and just swapping out the wound allocation systems here)

    The lasguns score 5 wounds. They roll well.

    Prohammer: I allocate to the 3 in cover, the nob, and 1 out of cover. I roll 3 separate save types, tally them all up, and wind up with 3 fails, then I remove 3 models from out of cover.

    9e: I allocate to the 2 in cover, who absorb 3 wounds total with 1 successful save in there. I then take 2 more saves from the guys out of cover, and they both die.

    At the end of the day, the only difference amounted to 1 casualty, and in the prohammer system, we have to consistently square the circle of guys taking their cover saves...and then other guys dying instead of them. And you have other weird interactions - like my ork boyz if theyre being fired on by a special weapon squad where every guy has a different gun are way better at using cover to their advantage than if theyre being fired at by a squad where everyone has the same gun (because that would be resolved as one roll batch and so its much more likely we'd get down to the guys who are out of cover).

    I think theres some obvious and understandable desire to avoid the deathstars of ye olden days where you had all these characters intermittently tanking for units to make them super tough, but I think a much simpler rule, like "once you start taking saves with one particular model, that model must be selected to take saves until it is destroyed" and a reminder note about being able to batch like save rolls together (perhaps with a little illustrative example, like "Mary has 3 orks in cover and she takes 5 wounds. She wants to use the protection of her cover save, so he rolls 3 dice together because if all 3 of those rolls fail she will have to begin taking normal armor saves. She succeeds only 1 of the 3 rolls, so now she can only roll 1 die for her models in cover.") and youd achieve nearly the same result of player agency, without some of the mathmatical strangeness and immersion-confusion.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/14 00:02:56


    Post by: Mezmorki


    An earlier iteration of ProHammer had it working likey you mention at the end. I.e., you'd assign wounds into like-groups based on models getting the same net armor save (or using a cover save, etc.) and then applying unsaved wounds just within those saving throw groups.

    Simply put it's more complicated, and keeping it all straight often requires rolling a bunch of small separate batches of dice to keep track of what came from where. And at the end of the day, it hardly matters to the net result anyway, but just ends up taking longer. It was just a pain.

    The way we have it now works with batch rolling 100% of the time and it's much easier to parse complex situations and keep the rolling pretty simple. It also eliminates the need for dealing with any sort of "Look Out Sir!" type rules or other added steps to keep your special models from being unfairly wiped out, etc. And, unlike when rolling saves one-at-a-time, you can't have some super save, re-rolling saves, feel-no-pain model tanking hits over and over for the squad. He'd only get allocated a the appropriate proportion of the total wounds.

    Rationale-wise, we're coming off the logic from 3rd and 4th edition that said, right in the rules, some fluffy statement to the effect that casualties can be pulled from anywhere in the unit, representing other models stepping forward to pick up a special weapon or the general chaos of battle not representing the exact models that took hits. Sure, there's some illogical aspects to the way we do it, but it works and is clean from a gameplay perspective.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/14 01:17:12


    Post by: the_scotsman


    I'm mostly looking at it as something that seems like it would more often result in clunky allocation shenanigans than the alternative. Regardless of the method you go with at some point you'll have to take split saves for a squad against the same offensive rolls. But in the prohammer system that will occur basically any time a squad is partially in cover - a smart player will allocate whatever wounds they can to the models in the cover and will remove them last, so you'll consistently have

    -3 dice for the guys in cover
    -4 dice for the guys our of cover
    -3 dice for the guys in cover
    -1 die for the guy out of cover

    Etc etc. Especially if you have a few special weapons etc out of cover that you're trying to preserve.

    I understand the concern about "superman" characters tanking for the boys, but the addition of "wounded model must be wounded more" adds a lot more risk to that little maneuver. If you decide your embedded 2+sv captain is gonna tank some hits, and he takes just one wound, then I can turn a melta gun on him and blast the smile off his face.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/14 01:35:59


    Post by: Mezmorki


    What you describe is the system working as intended.

    Models getting to take advantage of cover saves (proportionally when hit by a large volume of shots) helps reduce lethality while also letting the defender leverage the wound allocation in order to keep special models alive longer.

    As mentioned we tried it the other way earlier, more as you described. It has more logical sense, I agree, but just meant that players had to spend more time fussing around with model placement and worrying about whether or not their one special weapon model would get stuck in (or out) of cover and be forced to be killed based on failing that specific sub-batch of saving throw rolls or whatever. Is also meant that the logic of being able to instead remove a non-hittable mode doesn't really hold up anymore either. And we felt keeping that option on the table was more important.

    Just wanted to add that I appreciate the dialogue here. It's always good to revisit things and keep options for improving things on the table. Keep at it! Cheers.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    i just uploaded a ProHammer Tabletop Simulator (TTS) Mod to the Steam workshop. A little crude but it's what we've mostly been using during the pandemic, in one form or another, to keep playing. Enjoy!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/14 14:17:14


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    What you describe is the system working as intended.

    Models getting to take advantage of cover saves (proportionally when hit by a large volume of shots) helps reduce lethality while also letting the defender leverage the wound allocation in order to keep special models alive longer.

    As mentioned we tried it the other way earlier, more as you described. It has more logical sense, I agree, but just meant that players had to spend more time fussing around with model placement and worrying about whether or not their one special weapon model would get stuck in (or out) of cover and be forced to be killed based on failing that specific sub-batch of saving throw rolls or whatever. Is also meant that the logic of being able to instead remove a non-hittable mode doesn't really hold up anymore either. And we felt keeping that option on the table was more important.

    Just wanted to add that I appreciate the dialogue here. It's always good to revisit things and keep options for improving things on the table. Keep at it! Cheers.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    i just uploaded a ProHammer Tabletop Simulator (TTS) Mod to the Steam workshop. A little crude but it's what we've mostly been using during the pandemic, in one form or another, to keep playing. Enjoy!


    Oh yeah - trust me, the reason I'm getting so in depth with this is that this system is basically WHAT IVE BEEN LOOKING FOR and I am invested in contributing as much as I can from an editing standpoint to get it to be as great as it can be.

    I'll leave wound allocation alone for now - ill have an opportunity to test it out again this weekend, so I'll do so and report back again. The main thing I'm concerned about is just...being able to explain it quickly and easily to people, since where I'm starting, I'm a single person being an ambassador for this system as opposed to a group that's already kind of 'bought in'.

    Leaving that off for a bit, I want to take note of something real quick: Prohammer adds a lot of design levers that could help a lot with the traditional 'first turn problem' and I think with the amount of work youve put in to breaking down the issues with IGOUGO it might be worth looking into this a litle bit.

    You determine the first and second player effectively "at the top" before deployment starts. So already, the second player is going to be deploying more defensively and the first player more offensively. But I also think the second player could stand to have a couple more inbuilt ruses and advantages to offset the advantage of going first (which remember, is if anything increased by the additional systems added by Prohammer in the form of active overwatch, suppression, etc)

    I'd suggest something like

    "DEFENSIVE ADVANTAGES

    Before the first player turn begins, the player taking the second turn may optionally choose to apply each of the following advantages to one of their units. A different unit must be selected to receive each advantage

    -Forward Scouts: The unit may make a pre-game move up to 6"
    -Posted Sentries: The unit may be given an Overwatch token
    -Scanner Decoys: The unit may be removed from the board and re-deployed. A unit re-deployed in this manner may be placed into Reserves using any special rules it has."


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/14 16:34:28


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Glad that ProHammer is going generally in the right direction for you. Happy to have your help refining it too. BTW, I haven't had a chance to dig into the document in the past few days, but your earlier edits and recommendations are on my radar to address.

    Regarding turn advantages...

    While I don't like the command point system in 9th and how crazy it is with stratagems.... I have been tinkering with a system for "strategic points" that would tie into the mission selection/setup process, reserves systems, and perhaps even army list creation and force organization.

    A few disconnected ideas/thoughts I've been tinkering with:

    * Players would begin army creation with some number of strategic points (SPs)
    * Players would gain bonus SP's for including more units of troops and/or pay SP's to go over other limits on unit types
    * Instead of rolling off at the start of the game for who picks sides, goes first, etc., players would instead blindly bid SP (or could be an open back and forth bid, or a blind bid with both players losing their bid amounts) for who picks first/second what at each step during setup.
    * SPs could also be used in-game for limited command/strategic/leadership related items. I.e, players could spend SP's to add +1 to their reserve rolls. Players could spend SP's to modify the game length / game end rolls, could be used to modify leadership tests.
    * Maybe, maybe even have a few very light ways to spend SPs on things like a command re-roll
    * SPs would be pretty limited otherwise

    The intent would be to have something where taking a more balanced force, perhaps even slightly more troop heavy, gives you more SPs. If you really want to go first or whatever, you can bid a whole bunch of SPs up front, but that gives you less to work for the rest of the game. Maybe you go first but your opponent gets an easier time dictating when the game ends, etc.

    All that said, I could even see the SP's tying into your suggestions, where the defender and/or attacker could spend a few SPs for certain pre-game actions.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/14 17:35:33


    Post by: nou


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Glad that ProHammer is going generally in the right direction for you. Happy to have your help refining it too. BTW, I haven't had a chance to dig into the document in the past few days, but your earlier edits and recommendations are on my radar to address.

    Regarding turn advantages...

    While I don't like the command point system in 9th and how crazy it is with stratagems.... I have been tinkering with a system for "strategic points" that would tie into the mission selection/setup process, reserves systems, and perhaps even army list creation and force organization.

    A few disconnected ideas/thoughts I've been tinkering with:

    * Players would begin army creation with some number of strategic points (SPs)
    * Players would gain bonus SP's for including more units of troops and/or pay SP's to go over other limits on unit types
    * Instead of rolling off at the start of the game for who picks sides, goes first, etc., players would instead blindly bid SP (or could be an open back and forth bid, or a blind bid with both players losing their bid amounts) for who picks first/second what at each step during setup.
    * SPs could also be used in-game for limited command/strategic/leadership related items. I.e, players could spend SP's to add +1 to their reserve rolls. Players could spend SP's to modify the game length / game end rolls, could be used to modify leadership tests.
    * Maybe, maybe even have a few very light ways to spend SPs on things like a command re-roll
    * SPs would be pretty limited otherwise

    The intent would be to have something where taking a more balanced force, perhaps even slightly more troop heavy, gives you more SPs. If you really want to go first or whatever, you can bid a whole bunch of SPs up front, but that gives you less to work for the rest of the game. Maybe you go first but your opponent gets an easier time dictating when the game ends, etc.

    All that said, I could even see the SP's tying into your suggestions, where the defender and/or attacker could spend a few SPs for certain pre-game actions.


    Ok, so I think it's a good moment to chime in and expand on the stratagem part of the list of features of my system I've sent you in PM.

    I use a three dimensional point system, where each unit has not only a total cost, but also three partials for mobility, offense and defense. As a result, I have a pretty good metrics for comparing the skew of the armies. This is then used to draw a number of stratagems at the game time to equalise this skew a bit. I have three lists of stratagems, one for each parameter and the player with lower score in a given category draws a number of stratagems. Those are generally thematic effects altering the mission parameters/mission asymmetry instead of a simple "gain scout" or "increase save" etc... but that is just my take on this as I'm leaning more to narrative side of the hobby. This is not directly portable to GWs point system, but you could try to bolt something similar on battlefield role system 40K uses or tie it to the missions themselves and attacker/defender roles. The added bonus apart from increasing balance is that this method adds a lot to games variety in confines of a small playgroup that can't really rely on a large number of players with their diverse play styles and army lists. A problem which I'm pretty sure will affect ProHammer players.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/14 17:51:19


    Post by: Mezmorki


     the_scotsman wrote:

    My proposal for Voluntary Withdrawals in the movement phase:

    Voluntary Withdrawals

    Units belonging to the active player that are already engaged in close combat at the start of their movement phase may attempt to voluntarily withdraw from close combat during the movement phase.

    -A unit that is withdrawing immediately BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

    -All other friendly units which do not wish to voluntarily withdraw must make a Leadership Test with a -1 modifier if the unit is under half strength and a second -1 modifier if the friendly unit withdrawing would cause them to be outnumbered by opposing models in close combat. If that Leadership Test is failed, that friendly unit also BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

    -If the opposing unit is no longer engaged with any of the active player’s units, they may choose to PURSUE or CONSOLIDATE (see CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS).


    Wanted to comment on this...

    The reason that we didn't do voluntary withdrawals during the movement phase (and we actually had it working this way in an earlier iteration and tested it a few times) is that for good or worse, or undercuts the ability for a melee unit - especially lightly armored ones - from being able to avoid enemy fire by staying engaged in CC. Especially in light of having reactive fire against a charging unit, we didn't want to tip the scales against melee armies too much. We ALSO allow players to shoot into melee combat now, so if something is truely such a horrendous threat that you nee to shoot it, you can at least do that now, at the risk of course of hitting and wounding your own forces in the process. When withdrawal was during movement, you'd rarely have a need to shoot into melee combat anymore.

    How it is now, with withdrawal movements timed around charges, is that you can, for example, charge into an on-going melee engagement and then withdraw the weaker/at risk unit right before the fighting. This can add some planning to the use of counter-attacking forces and the like too, which has been a fun add to the system.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/15 12:45:27


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Glad that ProHammer is going generally in the right direction for you. Happy to have your help refining it too. BTW, I haven't had a chance to dig into the document in the past few days, but your earlier edits and recommendations are on my radar to address.

    Regarding turn advantages...

    While I don't like the command point system in 9th and how crazy it is with stratagems.... I have been tinkering with a system for "strategic points" that would tie into the mission selection/setup process, reserves systems, and perhaps even army list creation and force organization.


    ....my instinct says "Nah."

    Part of the design real-estate youre gaining with prohammer is from the fact that you dont have the overly complex army wide rules/stratagems 9e has. Youve freed up brain space, and youve filled it with more options and choices for what you can do with your units when.

    You've put down good solid bricks. Use them extensively - build them in to the rest of your system. Every little feature you add doesnt have to be wholly self-contained, when youve introduced a concept to the table like overwatch counters or react fire you can then re-use the concept in another spot and immediately the player recognizes it and gets it because theyve already consumed the concept earlier in the rules.

    Besides, i think turn 1 advantage in prohammer is actually not going to be super overwhelming. In my eyes the biggest problem with it is that Overwatch in particular is a really tempo-heavy mechanic - getting to go first and put critical squads on overwatch is a pretty big deal. Hence just a really simple suggestion to allow a little pre-game trickery and tempo compensation for the defending player.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Mezmorki wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:

    My proposal for Voluntary Withdrawals in the movement phase:

    Voluntary Withdrawals

    Units belonging to the active player that are already engaged in close combat at the start of their movement phase may attempt to voluntarily withdraw from close combat during the movement phase.

    -A unit that is withdrawing immediately BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

    -All other friendly units which do not wish to voluntarily withdraw must make a Leadership Test with a -1 modifier if the unit is under half strength and a second -1 modifier if the friendly unit withdrawing would cause them to be outnumbered by opposing models in close combat. If that Leadership Test is failed, that friendly unit also BREAKS and FALLS BACK.

    -If the opposing unit is no longer engaged with any of the active player’s units, they may choose to PURSUE or CONSOLIDATE (see CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS).


    Wanted to comment on this...

    The reason that we didn't do voluntary withdrawals during the movement phase (and we actually had it working this way in an earlier iteration and tested it a few times) is that for good or worse, or undercuts the ability for a melee unit - especially lightly armored ones - from being able to avoid enemy fire by staying engaged in CC. Especially in light of having reactive fire against a charging unit, we didn't want to tip the scales against melee armies too much. We ALSO allow players to shoot into melee combat now, so if something is truely such a horrendous threat that you nee to shoot it, you can at least do that now, at the risk of course of hitting and wounding your own forces in the process. When withdrawal was during movement, you'd rarely have a need to shoot into melee combat anymore.

    How it is now, with withdrawal movements timed around charges, is that you can, for example, charge into an on-going melee engagement and then withdraw the weaker/at risk unit right before the fighting. This can add some planning to the use of counter-attacking forces and the like too, which has been a fun add to the system.


    interesting. I think ill have to test it out for myself, but part of the thing with melee in prohammer I think is that by removing the really devastatingly damaging aspects of it (sweeping advance) youve kind of opened it up to be much more permissible with stuff like the 'charge from deep strike' and 'charge from transport' rules. Youve also greatly increased defenses with the Save ruling.

    Maybe youre right. I think for my part, you as my opponent handing me a bunch of free movement because you withdrew your squad might be enough that I wouldnt mind.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/15 14:58:56


    Post by: Squidsy22


    If I may offer a suggestion about the defender's privilege, the three options listed seem impactful yet balanced, but as they are, would have far more impact on smaller games and far less on larger games. The solution I propose is to make it scale with game size, and add some redundancy for the sake of more melee/ranged centric armies (no tau would pass up the chance to dig in and set up a firing line, nor would a tyranid bother with overwatch if they could seize closer/better cover to lessen the distance for their charge.)
    The rule is as follows "Defender's Advantage: for every 500pts in the defenders army, they may apply one and only one of the following effects to a single unit- <Insert Forward Scouts, Emplaced Sentries, and Scanner Decoys as suggested>. No unit may receive more than one of the effects, nor may they stack the same effect."
    It ensures the defender receives a reasonable compensation for going second without letting them move what amounts to half their army in a smaller game for free- while also allowing them to forgo certain advantages altogether for the sake of moving multiple units forward, setting a firm defensive overwatch line, or risking getting tabled early in exchange for the tactical flexibility of extra unexpected deep strikes.

    Obviously I'm only an armchair rules-writer here, I don't have any experience with the system- but from the outside looking in, that seems more balanced without adding any unnecessary bloat.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/15 15:24:54


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Regarding defender's bonuses:

    I will say, that in practice and based on our games over the past year with ProHammer, I don't feel like going first has yielded much of an advantage. It probably depends more on the army whether or not going first is good or not.

    Compared to 8th/9th with the "smaller boards", with the larger older boards often going first means needing to close range, and often still being out of range with the bulk of your fire, which creates an opening for the second player to advance and close range for more impact. But it just really depends on the armies and on the missions. For many missions we use in ProHammer, I'd argue that going second and getting the "last turn" is a major advantage as you get to dictacte the final board state. Given we use mix of missions and objectives in ProHammer, sometimes going first is good, sometimes not, and I'm not sur, honestly, if a "defenders" advantage is even something that's warranted overall.

    Speaking of missions - it may well be that such "defender advantages" are things that are part of the mission special rules and only used where the scales are tipped in favor of one player over the other due to the nature of the mission.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/15 17:22:51


    Post by: JNAProductions


    Okay, I finally gathered my thoughts. Because it's related to Cover.

    I have a squad of 5 Scouts-3 are in cover and have a 4+ save against anything that doesn't ignore it, 2 are out of cover and just rely on their 4+ armor. They are shot by Heavy Bolters. 4+ in cover, 5+ out of cover. They take 8 wounds total-how do I allocate saves?

    Would I have to do five at a time? Or could I choose to put them all on the cover saves, even though they might die before taking all the hits? How does it work?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/15 17:33:50


    Post by: Mezmorki


     JNAProductions wrote:
    Okay, I finally gathered my thoughts. Because it's related to Cover.

    I have a squad of 5 Scouts-3 are in cover and have a 4+ save against anything that doesn't ignore it, 2 are out of cover and just rely on their 4+ armor. They are shot by Heavy Bolters. 4+ in cover, 5+ out of cover. They take 8 wounds total-how do I allocate saves?

    Would I have to do five at a time? Or could I choose to put them all on the cover saves, even though they might die before taking all the hits? How does it work?


    I get what you're asking for now. It's about the actual wound allocation step to determine the number of different saves that are taken.

    The way it works is that each hittable model (i.e. in range and in LoS) gets allocated one wound from the total pool (so with 8 wounds, each of the five models, 3 in cover and 2 out of cover, would get allocated one wound) and then if there are still wounds remaining to be allocated (3 in this case) you'd start another round of allocating wounds (and would logically put those wounds in the next round on the three models in cover).

    The result of the above is that you'd end up with 2 automatic unsaved wounds (for the 2 wounds on the models out of cover who don't get a save) and then 6 wounds on the model's in cover, which pass a cover save on a 4+.

    Once you roll the cover saves (say you make 4 of of the 6 saves), those unsaved wounds (2 in this case) would get added to the other unsaved wounds from the models out of cover (also 2). In total, you'd have four (4) unsaved wounds and would need to remove 4 models from the squad. You can remove ANY of the models in the unit at the the point of allocating unsaved wounds, as there is no forced link between removing casualties from the exact models that failed a given save. In this case, you could choose to keep one of the models in the open alive if you wanted to, or keep one in cover alive.

    In summary, when allocating big batch of wounds, you have to allocate wounds as evenly as possible before rolling saves, to determine the proportional balance of different saves the unit gets. Once the saves are rolled, the resulting unsaved wound can be be applied to ANY model in the unit.

    Addendum: The advantage of this approach is that you only ever need to make one batch of hit rolls, one batch of wound rolls, and one batch of armor saves and you can do it all at once, no matter how many different weapons the shooting unit is using or different armor/cover/invulnerable saves the target has. So long as you have different color dice for tracking the different weapons or saves, you can batch roll it all once. It's nice too because knowing the total number of unsaved wounds then gives the defender some choice and leeway in what models they want to keep alive. It's a nice balance IMHO.





    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/15 17:35:42


    Post by: JNAProductions


    Don't they get a 5+ save? Since AP4 and 4+ armor means -1 to the save, not negate entirely.

    But okay-I get it now.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/16 13:39:34


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Minor notes today, going through USRs:

    (any time I type a word in ALL CAPS i mean bold)

    Assault Vehicle: Appears to have been written for a build of the game where units could not normally assault out of moving vehicles. Reword to indicate assault vehicle grants full attacks when charging after the vehicle moved.

    Crusader: Does prohammer feature "Sweeping advance rolls"? Perhaps add D3 to Pursuit moves?

    Fleet: This seems like a significant change from what i recall its usual incarnation being (reroll advance rolls). Does the fact that Fleet is handed out like candy in certain codexes cause this to be a problem ever?

    Hit&Run: Does this move count as the unit Falling Back? Does the unit they left get to make a pursuit roll? A consolidation move?

    Also change to "at THE end of THE assault phase" and corrrect type "OUTLANK" to "OUTFLANK"

    Infiltrate: Specify "outside of the normal deployment zone" and "during deployment" to clarify this rule.

    Jink: Should this be reworded from "Models" to "Units"? Can I jink with half my biker squad, leaving the other half to shoot normally?

    Move through Cover: Add "Difficult terrain TESTS"

    Outflank: May I choose instead to move on from my own board edge? I recall that being a feature of outflank in several editions to avoid outflank occasionally having a 50% chance of being a detrimental rule.

    PoTMS: Is "Smoke" a technical rule term elsewhere in the document? Should it be worded 'smoke launchers'?

    For Rage (5th) vs Rage (7th) should I look at what edition of codex im using?

    Scouts: Reword last sentence to "Gains OUTFLANK" for consistency.

    Slow and Purposeful: Reword to "Unit always moves as if it is in difficult terrain. Gains RELENTLESS." to make it similarly worded to other rules e.g. infiltrate.

    Turbo-boosters: Referred to elsewhere in the document as Turbo-Boost. Rename.

    Also, suggest reword: "Instead of making a normal move, units with this rule may make a special Turbo Boost move of up to 24". Units may not shoot in the shooting phase or charge in the assault phase if they made a Turbo Boost move in the movement phase. Units that also have the JINK rule gain a 4+ cover save if they used a Turbo Boost move in their last movement phase."

    Brotherhood of Psykers: "uses highest leadership value in unit" rather than "unit leader" language which is not used in the rest of the document.

    Counter Attack: Reword "If this unit is not engaged to any enemy models and an enemy unit successfully completes a charge move into contact with it, it may take a Leadership test. If passed, this unit gains a bonus of +1 attack during the Assault phase."

    Daemon: Reword "Unit gains a 5+ invulnerable save and FEAR"

    Eternal Warrior: is the intention that any MASSIVE WOUND only causes 1 wound? or just massive wounds from the Instant Death rule?

    Fear: Does an enemy unit in base contact with a unit that causes Fear but which is not making attacks against that unit still have to test?

    Fearless: EDIT: suggested change to FEARLESS to reflect the way its typically portrayed (as units being "mindless" or "bezerk") "Unit automatically passes all Morale and Pinning tests, but may not Go to Ground, be given Overwatch tokens or perform Reaction Fire, and automatically fails Restraint tests."

    Furious Charge: "unit gains +1 strength if it made a charge move on its last turn."

    Hammer of wrath: Change to "when this unit charges, each model in the unit may". Currently RAW hammer of wrath only works when you charge me!

    Hatred: Change Missed to Failed?

    it will not die: change 'it's' to 'its'

    Preferred Enemy: same as hatred should specify that if prefered enemy lists a faction, the ability only functions vs models with that faction.

    Shrouded: "Add +2 to the value of cover saves claimed by this unit. If in the open, this unit has a 5+ cover save."

    Stealth: Same wording as above.

    Stubborn: And pinning tests?

    Tank Hunters: What does "immune to tank shock" practically mean? I automatically pass the leadership test? I can get run over and just not care?

    Zealot: Reword to "Gains FEARLESS and HATRED"

    Blind: reword to 'by a weapon with BLIND"

    Gets Hot: remove apostrophe. Also as written this seems to say that you wound your target automatically? Should it not say that the firing model takes the wound? And if youre going by prohammers wound resolution table to get the desired effect of gets hot id reword to

    "If a model shooting a weapon with this rule rolls a 1 to hit, it must take an armor save. If the armor save is failed, the firing model suffers a massive wound. Vehicles are not affected by the GETS HOT rule."

    Graviton: Add "never roll on the vehicle damage table for attacks from GRAVITON weapons." (if the intention is that graviton can immobilize vehicles but nothing else)

    Interceptor: a weapon with this rule may be fired at an enemy unit immediately after that enemy unit enters from reserves and ends the movement phase within line of sight and range of the weapon. If used in this way, the firing model may not shoot in the shooting phase of its following turn.

    Master Crafted: Correct typo "re-roll"

    Melta: reword "to penetrate vheicles" to "on armor penetration rolls"

    Pinning: this rule appears to be written with my suggestion to make Going to Ground identical to Pinning in effect. if you wish to keep the two distinct, youll need to reword this rule.

    Poison: you should note that poison weapons have no effect versus vehicles.

    Rending: "If an armor penetration roll with a RENDING weapon is a 6, add an additional D3 to the result of the penetration roll."

    Split Fire: dont all units have this? If so, should this allow automatic passing of split fire tests?

    Sniper: reword to "Gains RENDING and PINNING"

    Strikedown: Is this also called Concussive in some editions?

    Twin linked: Reword to "Reroll failed to-hit rolls."

    Unwieldy: Should models with Relentless ignore unwieldy? Just a thought. IDK.

    Smoke Launchers: I always felt like because you had to not fire at all these were kind of silly. Maybe "instead of firing one Main Weapon" or "instead of firing all Defensive Weapons"?



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/16 22:12:25


    Post by: Mezmorki


    ^^^^ Thanks for the edits!

    Will get to incorporating those when I can. Cheers!

    ==================================================================

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    I'm through making edits, and have incorporated most of the earlier suggestions. Wanted to call out a few items below:

    Shooting Phase Step 4 Casualty Test

    If this occurs at the end of the turn why put it here?


    It's a check to mark units (we use tokens) so you don't forget in the event a bunch of other stuff transpires.

    Targetable Area


    Changed these bullet points (and the one other reference) to "Target Visibility" (making it more of a process item) and just directly referencing the body/hull of the model elsewhere, since that's already a clearly defined term.

    NO HITTABLE MODELS: If the target unit has no hittable models, then no shooting attacks are resolved.

    While resolving a shooting attack, the defender may choose to allocate wounds to models that are not hittable if desired. However, if at any point during the resolution of the shooting attack the condition of NO HITTABLE MODELS above occurs, the shooting attack ends immediately - no additional save rolls need to be rolled."


    This edit doesn't need to be made here, because it's already covered further down in the process when it comes to allocating UNSAVED wounds. So Rhino sniping already isn't something that can be forced very easily.

    "HITTABLE" as a term


    I've been mulling this over and I'm going to leave it as HITTABLE for now. It IS tied to the initial "to-hit" process in that the hittable models have to be in line of sight and in range.

    Fleet: This seems like a significant change from what i recall its usual incarnation being (reroll advance rolls). Does the fact that Fleet is handed out like candy in certain codexes cause this to be a problem ever?


    I don't think so. In later editions where fleet was used more (and where it allowed re-rolling advance and charges), those were also editions where the charge distance was 2D6", with fleet giving you a chance for a higher distance (up to 12"). That's fairly comparable to older fleet rules where you advance d6" (during movement) and then still charge (a flat 6"). So you're effective charge was 7"-12", which is in the ballpark of 2D6" with a re-roll. A little more consistent in ProHammer, but that's fine given I'm trying to tip the scales back more towards melee a bit overall.

    Fearless: EDIT: suggested change to FEARLESS to reflect the way its typically portrayed (as units being "mindless" or "bezerk") "Unit automatically passes all Morale and Pinning tests, but may not Go to Ground, be given Overwatch tokens or perform Reaction Fire, and automatically fails Restraint tests."


    Definitely don't want this. You'd end up with all kinds of fearless units (thousand suns for example) not being able to do overwatch or reaction tests. I've never felt fearless meant "berserk"





    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/18 16:04:35


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I want to provide an update on where things stand with ProHammer

    (1) I went through the recent suggestions and edits on the thread here and have incorporated most of those, as noted above. Edits that affect gameplay in some manner have a comment in the rule doc calling it out.

    Some big picture things to call out. These mostly relate to trying condense the terminologies and different situations into methods that are more uniform.

    (2) Defined LIMITED FIRE upfront alongside snap fire. -1 to hit, half the number of shots (rounded up), targets within 24”. Clarifies that if you use limited fire as part of a reaction, you must also use limited fire on your next shooting turn.

    (3) I incorporated a major rework to the langage and process around “reactions.” “Reactive Fire” as a term has been removed, and replaced with a “Return Fire!” reaction option when a unit is shot and the analogous “Stand & Shoot!” reaction when a unit is charged. These basically work the same, and both direct the unit to resolve their fire using the new Limited Fire rules. Seems to be much cleaner handling it all this way. Units performing these reactions also suffer a penalty in assault (lose advantage of cover and strike at initiative 1 with just their base attacks).

    (4) I revised the assault phase process a little, after realizing we were actually playing our games differently from how the rules were written. Basically, the assault phase has parity with the shooting phase steps, in that you first declare ALL charges and withdrawal moves, and then you go around and resolve the charges/withdrawals and charged units can take the Stand & Shoot reaction if desired.

    The above works well (and is how we’ve been playing it). It lets you setup situations where you might try to charge a unit with two different units, drawing out stand & shoot fire against the first unit that charges in, etc..

    (5) “Going to ground” is removed as a specific term. Instead, units taking fire and perform a “Take Cover!” reaction, granting the unusual cover bonus but then PINNING the unit as if it was normally pinned.

    (6) Clarified the rules around units being pinned a little bit. Clarified that broken units that are pinned (or that are broken and become pinned) continue to fall back as normal but suffer the other ill effects of being pinned (shooting with snap fire, etc.)

    (7) Screening - revised this to make it a little more impactful and eliminate some of the die rolls. If the screen is in intact, then all units automatically hit the screening unit instead. Makes unit positioning a bit more interesting this way.

    ==============================================

    QUESTIONS & NEXT STEPS / UNRESOLVED ITEMS

    There are a number of loose ends and areas of the rules that I’m still working through right now. Some feedback on the below would be welcome! Curious to know people’s thoughts:

    (8) Throwing Grenades - I admit we mostly forget this is even an option. In the interest of simplicity, I’m inclined to just remove the ability to throw grenades. Just seems to bog things down to resolve one-off shooting attacks of limited impact.

    (9) Suppression - I’d like to revamp the suppression rules and make it a legit part of the gameplay that ties into more facets of the game. Here’s my tentative proposal:

    ——————————————
    * Each time a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a volley of shooting attacks it gains a suppression point (use a D6 next to the unit)[*]Crossfire: (see note further below)
    * Each suppression point incurs a -1 modifier to leadership tests the unit makes (morale tests, split fire tests, psychic tests, etc.)
    * When a unit would gain 3 or more suppression tokens it must take a PINNING test. If the pinning test fails, the unit becomes Pinned and loses all but one suppression point. If passed, the unit continues on as normal.
    * Units automatically lose one suppression point at the start of each of their turns.
    * Units lose all but one suppression points if they become engaged in melee
    * Units that are fearless or immune to pinning STILL gain suppression points and will have their leadership value affected for other leadership tests they may be required to take.
    ——————————————

    I think the above will add an interesting pace to the game. Units hit by a group of attacks that actually do damage and inflict casualties seems to be a good 40K-appropriate approach, representing the ability of some units being able to shrug off small arms fire, and only taken casualties when hit by a sufficient volume of it.

    Since one suppression point is removed at the start of a unit’s turn, in order to force a unit to take a pinning test, you’d need to focus multiple units shooting at the same target over a battle round or two.

    If the above seems reasonable - I’m going to draft it up properly in the rules as a “trial” rule for testing a bit more and see how it goes.

    CROSSFIRE - As part of the suppression system, I was thinking about a clean and simple crossfire rule. Units hit by crossfire would gain an additional suppression point.

    Determining crossfire: The first unit that shoot at an enemy unit determines the facing of the target unit. Draw a line between the shooting model and target model that are closest to each other. Next, superimpose a line on this closest target model perpendicular to the first line. Subsequent units shooting at the target unit that are WHOLLY behind this perpendicular line are said to be shooting at the rear/flank of the unit and inflict an additional point of suppression for crossfire.

    (10) Vehicle Structure Points - This idea is aimed at reducing the chances of a vehicle being 1-shotted early in the game. We’ve found that in many matchups, certain vehicles, especially high cost high armor vehicles, struggle to justify themselves because an unlikely hit can knock them out very prematurely.

    Here’s the working proposal:

    ——————————————
    * Vehicles gain structure points (SPs) based on totaling up the three armor values for a vehicle (front, rear, and one side).
    * AV 30 = 0 SPs (eg 10/10/10 vehicles)
    * AV 31-34 = 1 SP (e.g. rhino, chimera, necron lighter vehicles)
    * AV 35-39 = 2 SPs (e.g. dreads, heavy flyers)
    * AV 40+ = 3 SPs (e.g. leman Russ, heavier vehicles)
    * When a vehicle suffers a hit that would cause it to be IMMOBILIZED, WRECKED, or EXPLODES result on a vehicle damage table, the vehicle instead loses structure points, each applying a -1 to the damage table result, sufficient to drop below all immobilized, wrecked, or explodes results, or as far down as the damage result as remaining structure points allow.
    * Vehicles suffering damage result due to losing structure points count as being damaged as if that damage result occurred initially.
    ——————————————

    Essentially this gives vehicles a save, sometimes more than one, against critical damage results. No one likes getting their prize toy knocked out in one freakish shot, and this help minimize this. Again, considering drafting this into the rules as a “trial” rule for further testing.

    THREAD SEEMS TO BE BROKEN - NEW POSTS ARE NOT GETTING ADDED


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/26 12:25:11


    Post by: licclerich


    You've made tanks useless by saying a glancing hit makes a vehicle snap fire only. Tanks are supposed to shrug of effects like this.
    Rules i use
    Roll to hit with Blast weapon. If the shot misses it always deviates, never use ''on spot'' or use BS skill of firer
    You have to reduce all hull points before exploding a vehicle.
    Example. A vehicle has 1 hull point left on it. A leman russ Wrecks it with its auto cannon but it can over kill with its las cannon and 2 multi meltas. If any of the last three Penetrate it they can roll to see if they get an Explode result.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/27 00:54:43


    Post by: RustyNumber


    As someone who likely won't ever actually get to play the fruits of your wonderful efforts and is just here out of interest - I think you're really starting to get away from the core "it's a tweaked 3/4/5/6th edition" with a lot of the complexity you're suggesting.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/27 14:30:01


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Testing....


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    licclerich wrote:
    You've made tanks useless by saying a glancing hit makes a vehicle snap fire only. Tanks are supposed to shrug of effects like this.
    Rules i use
    Roll to hit with Blast weapon. If the shot misses it always deviates, never use ''on spot'' or use BS skill of firer
    You have to reduce all hull points before exploding a vehicle.
    Example. A vehicle has 1 hull point left on it. A leman russ Wrecks it with its auto cannon but it can over kill with its las cannon and 2 multi meltas. If any of the last three Penetrate it they can roll to see if they get an Explode result.


    Tanks shrugging off hits is represented by armor penetration rolls failing to achieve a glancing or penetrating hit. If glancing hit results didn't minimally incur snap fire, then what would even be the point of acknowledging glancing hit?

    The trail rules I'm testing out sorta return hull points, in the form of "structure points" that get depleted when a vehicle would take a hit that results in it being destroyed.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     RustyNumber wrote:
    As someone who likely won't ever actually get to play the fruits of your wonderful efforts and is just here out of interest - I think you're really starting to get away from the core "it's a tweaked 3/4/5/6th edition" with a lot of the complexity you're suggesting.


    Perhaps. I'm not afraid to add some complexity into the system so long as it's at the appropriate "scope." What I mean is that I don't want complexity that comes down to having to resolve small detail oriented things that only affect a model or two (for example the "challenges" system in 6th/7th edition). But if the complexity is something that affects a whole unit, and more importantly its broad capabilities at any given point, I'm okay with that, because it's adding some new levers to the overall tactical decision making.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/27 21:42:38


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Prohammer Batrep!

    A friend of mine and I tried out prohammer (previous version, not with all these new suggested changes) using the 3E space marine codex vs the 3e Eldar codex, plus some Harlequin allies. Prohammer doesnt have specific ally rules that I could find, so we just agreed "less than 1/3 of the points as allies" and incorporated the 'quins into the standard force org chart.

    I brought:

    -A farseer (guide, fortune)
    3 Warlocks (1 to each guardian squad, each with 1 different power)
    -the Avatar of Khaine
    -a Shadowseer

    --10 harlequins, with various stuff
    -3x8 storm guardians with 2x melta guns
    -7x dire avengers with a diresword exarch

    -10x banshees with an executioner exarch
    -5x fire dragons with a pike exarch with fast shot
    -a death jester with a shrieker cannon

    -5x dark reapers with a shuricannon exarch
    -a war walker with double bright lances
    -a D-cannon

    -3x shining spears
    -a vyper with scatter laser and shuriken cannon
    -a squad of swooping hawks

    He brought:

    -a captain with a combi-melta and power fist
    -another captain in terminator armor

    -3x tactical squads with various equipment, all 5-man
    -a unit of scouts

    -2x predators (one of which was The Vaunted Deodorant Tank!) one with autocannon, one with full lascannons
    -2x dreadnoughts, one with lascannons, one with multi-melta
    -3x assault squads, with various stuff
    -lascannon devastator squad

    we played a pretty simple mission, relic movable objective in the middle worth 2pts per turn if you hold it, home objective worth 3pts per turn but ONLY to your opponent - no points for the player who owns it.

    My opponent had his 3x assault squads and terminator captain in reserves, fairly balanced board setup with 2 tacticals and a captain in the middle, and a dread and a predator on either side, with the last tactical squad set up on his home objective.I put a big ball of melee hate in the middle, and set up my dire avengers/shining spears/vyper and other assorted fast stuff off to the flank on the side with my opponent's home objective. I placed my home objective basically in line with the relic, so I didnt have to defend it. My opponent went first and basically sacrificed the scouts to score turn 1 points on the relics, moved up the tacticals so theyd be able to pop out and rapid fire at my stuff, moved the dreads up aggressively, and shot at stuff with lascannons - though he had limited targets so that was basically 'my fire dragons' and 'my dark reapers'

    My first turn, I used the scouts as a charge move springboard for all my stuff, obliterating them, but taking some mostly unipactful reaction fire with a squad of storm guardians. Biggest thing that happened was my 3 remaining fire dragons rolled up on the dreadnought, and my fire dragon exarch popped him right open with fast shot. My dark reapers, D-cannon, storm guardians, vyper and dire avengers all went on overwatch, awaiting the reserve rolls.

    my opponent rolled reserves and 2 assault squads came in, unfortunately not the one with the captain. both squads were carefully positioned to avoid the Reapers' overwatch, but one (threatening my D-cannon) I completely obliterated with my overwatch units, cuttting them down to the sergeant, who broke and ran.

    Most of the lascannons and multi-meltas prioritized taking out my War Walker and my Vyper, and one of my storm guardian squads with Conceal up that was holding the objective slowly got beaten down to just the warlock with tactical bolter fire. My fire dragon exarch incredibly stood firm, the sole survivor, ready to take on the dreaded deodorant predator.

    On my turn, the harlequins and banshees finally moved in for the kill, charging up the middle while the guardians claimed the relic and locked it down. My opponent unfortunately at this point had a laser cannon in a clown fight, as all the bolter weapons in his list got scythed down, managing to drop only a couple of harlequins with their react fire. My shining spears daringly leapt over the wall between them and my opponent's home objective, and I suddenly remembered a few things: one, that shining spears' offense used to be crap, and two, that shining spears' defense also used to be crap. 150pts of shining spears then promptly went down like total chumps to the Overwatch token from 5 dudes with boltguns...because they were just T4 W1. Sadly the exarch rolled poorly this turn leaving the predator tank only temporarily inconvenienced. The avatar of Khaine charged in and butchered the second dreadnought, and my opponent had 7 lascannons up against a whole mess of nasty melee infantry right in their faces.

    On my opponent's turn, the final assault squad finally arrived, with its captain in tow, and launched a final suicide charge into the storm guardians' objective. with the -1A from charging and the storm guardians striking first taking down 3 assault marines, the charge would be a doomed one, and my opponent conceded, with most things ready to be mopped up turn 4.

    Overall Impressions:

    -any time you add active, full power overwatch to an IGOUGO system, you inherently tilt the game pretty significantly towards defensive, static play, and that REALLY showed in this game, with basically anything but the bluntest most overpoweringly strong offensive pushes being easily rebuffed by defensive play.

    I was able to basically put a huge chunk of my backfield on lock with a single squad of dark reapers, and even though he purposefully avoided them, my opponent lost 1/2 of his assault squads to the overwatch tokens i'd thrown down on just..random crap units I had no need to move. On my opponent's side, a minimal tac squad with boltguns and I think maybe one upgraded gun of some kind offered up a really powerful defense to my mobile units just by hiding behind some of those shipping containers.

    I think it might be worth examining whether the interlocking systems of active overwatch, AND react fire, AND suppression are tipping the scales just a little bit towards static play. Run a few tests with an opponent purposefully creating a reactive, long range gunline using a tau codex, and see how it feels.

    -random reserve rolls starting on a 4+ on turn 2 feels pretty punishing, and made me remember why Deep Strike felt like absolute crap throughout all the editions I played until 8e. Removing the hard barrier between deep strike and melee is a step in the right direction, but my opponent and I both agreed we'd have both been 100% better off just..not deep striking any of our stuff and instead hiding them behind some cover and just using their fast movement to get them where they needed to go.

    on the plus side, though

    -we both really liked where Vehicles were landing in prohammer. Lacking the React fire, they were less defensive than everything else, and the VDT seemed like it was in a good sweet spot for stuff going down when it needed to, but also requiring dedicated AT weapons to punch through armor. attacking vehicles felt tense but also things went down when lets be honest they should have died. I do not think vehicles need a change from where they are at at present.

    -generally react fire as a system we both liked. We played using the "roll to hit, divide by half and round down" system, and I gotta say....it was a tad too punishing, I think just changing it to round up and it'd be about where it needs to be.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say as much as I like the CONCEPT of active overwatch...a more useful version of React Fire with take half/round up Snap Fire and then no shooting on your following turn would probably give you the good scenarios for active overwatch without the negative experiences of "spawn camping" that we ran into with active overwatch.

    Images to follow!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/27 22:00:44


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Images

    [Thumb - 20211219_135102.jpg]
    [Thumb - 20211219_125803.jpg]
    [Thumb - 20211219_125811.jpg]
    [Thumb - 20211219_135623.jpg]
    [Thumb - 20211219_142910.jpg]
    [Thumb - 20211219_125822.jpg]
    [Thumb - 20211219_143741.jpg]
    [Thumb - 20211219_150009.jpg]
    [Thumb - 20211219_143816.jpg]


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/28 14:29:32


    Post by: Illumini


    Cool bunkers, are they MDF?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/28 14:35:28


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Thanks for the bat report! Great to see you giving it another go and round of feedback!

    Couple of scattered thoughts and reactions:

    Re: Overwatch
    We haven't found it to be too strong in our games, but that could be due to any combination of mission objectives, respective forces, and board setup. There's an opportunity cost of overwatch in that you can't move the unit, so you can't use that unit to pressure objectives. The tradeoff we've found is often "do I shoot at a less ideal target and move (maybe towards objectives), or go onto overwatch and wait for a better target to present itself?" Dedicated fire support units (i.e. dark reapers, devastators) benefit relatively more from overwatch.

    Remember too that if a unit shoots on overwatch it can't also shoot with reactive fire. Also remember that overwatch is limited to 24" range. So for example, another counter-play option is use your own fire support units that remain stationary to utilize their "first fire" advantage to shoot at a high threat overwatch unit first, to soften it up, before it can make its attack.

    On a different note, the "trial" suppression rules I have drafted established a process for crossfire and determining the forward facing for a unit (in order to determine when a unit is hit from "behind" for crossfire). I'm thinking of other applications for this method, and potentially overwatch could be one. For example it could work like this: You pick a model and use the overwatch token to determine the facing of the unit. When resolving ovewatch fire, you can only shoot on a target in the forward 180-degree arc of the unit.

    This change would add some maneuver based counter-play as a way to work around overwatch. In your game above, assault squads could potentially deep strike behind the dark reapers and be able to engage them, or at least shoot them down a little. Could add a nice maneuver and positional dynamic, and make overwatch a bit riskier and more challenging to execute well, while giving your opponent options for counter-play.

    Re: Random Reserve Rolls
    I agree that there's often some head ringing about weather it's better to just deploy on the table at the onset to have more table presence, present more targets, pressure objectives, versus deep striking for the flexibility of being able to deploy anywhere. If relying on deep strike units as a part of a one-two-punch strategy or something that needs a predictable tactical execution, I think it can lead to frustration. The uncertainty of when deep strike (or any reserve) unit arrives makes it's placement more of an immediate tactical decision of where it can achieve the greatest impact as opposed to slotting into a pre-defined plan somehow. When viewed that way, the randomness isn't as problematic IMHO, but it can still be frustrating at times.

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, I've been working on this the summary document below. View at 100% scale and should fit width-wise on a 1920 x 1080 screen in your browser (Chrome at least). Basically covers the majority of the overall procedural elements and rules that most often need to be looked up. Let me know if you see anything amiss with it (or have other feedback).

    ProHammer Gameplay Summary Chart

    -------------------------------------------------------------


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/28 15:59:55


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Illumini wrote:
    Cool bunkers, are they MDF?


    Yeah, Deathray Designs, I plug them at every opportunity, hands down by a MILE the best MDF terrain I've ever gotten/worked with, and at a great price.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/28 16:09:46


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Thanks for the bat report! Great to see you giving it another go and round of feedback!

    Couple of scattered thoughts and reactions:

    Re: Overwatch
    We haven't found it to be too strong in our games, but that could be due to any combination of mission objectives, respective forces, and board setup. There's an opportunity cost of overwatch in that you can't move the unit, so you can't use that unit to pressure objectives. The tradeoff we've found is often "do I shoot at a less ideal target and move (maybe towards objectives), or go onto overwatch and wait for a better target to present itself?" Dedicated fire support units (i.e. dark reapers, devastators) benefit relatively more from overwatch.

    Remember too that if a unit shoots on overwatch it can't also shoot with reactive fire. Also remember that overwatch is limited to 24" range. So for example, another counter-play option is use your own fire support units that remain stationary to utilize their "first fire" advantage to shoot at a high threat overwatch unit first, to soften it up, before it can make its attack.

    both me and my opponent very quickly picked up on a few ways to counteract that rule - namely, staying out of LOS which is quite easy to do given Prohammer's quite lenient LOS measuring system. I simply placed my Reapers such that there was a ruin between me and my opponent's Devastators, and he placed his tacs behind a box. Both were then ready and happy to spawn-camp for the entirety of the game, awaiting our opponent's relatively fragile mobile units!

    On a different note, the "trial" suppression rules I have drafted established a process for crossfire and determining the forward facing for a unit (in order to determine when a unit is hit from "behind" for crossfire). I'm thinking of other applications for this method, and potentially overwatch could be one. For example it could work like this: You pick a model and use the overwatch token to determine the facing of the unit. When resolving ovewatch fire, you can only shoot on a target in the forward 180-degree arc of the unit.

    This change would add some maneuver based counter-play as a way to work around overwatch. In your game above, assault squads could potentially deep strike behind the dark reapers and be able to engage them, or at least shoot them down a little. Could add a nice maneuver and positional dynamic, and make overwatch a bit riskier and more challenging to execute well, while giving your opponent options for counter-play.

    I almost wonder whether you might utilize your design lever of React Fire to make Active Overwatch irrelevant. let's pretend that you use your Crossfire system and make unit facing a thing on all units, ala 2nd edition - a quick way to do that would be to designate a "unit leader" and agree on that unit leader's facing, and then use that to determine crossfire or whether the unit is capable of reacting - say, a unit can only React if an opposing unit performs a reactable action within that unit's Front 180 degree arc and wtihin 24". And then you have a fairly strong Snap Fire rule (I personally like the idea of "discard half the hits, rounding up" myself) and you make it so a unit that uses React Fire can't shoot in its following turn.

    All in all though im still digesting this new morale/suppression system. I like it, very similar to OPR, in concept, but I still need to think about it and see if it's as lean as it could be.

    I still am of the opinion that a unit becoming Pinned should get the same benefits as a unit willingly GOing to Ground, but that's just me.


    Re: Random Reserve Rolls
    I agree that there's often some head ringing about weather it's better to just deploy on the table at the onset to have more table presence, present more targets, pressure objectives, versus deep striking for the flexibility of being able to deploy anywhere. If relying on deep strike units as a part of a one-two-punch strategy or something that needs a predictable tactical execution, I think it can lead to frustration. The uncertainty of when deep strike (or any reserve) unit arrives makes it's placement more of an immediate tactical decision of where it can achieve the greatest impact as opposed to slotting into a pre-defined plan somehow. When viewed that way, the randomness isn't as problematic IMHO, but it can still be frustrating at times.

    Yes, I agree that my opponent definitely fell into a strategy-layer trap of basically knowing the current edition, and failing to really understand how different the older edition was (i.e. - how you really need a smaller number of dedicated anti-tank weapons to really cover your bases, how anti-infantry troopers arent 'tax' that you should take a min number of but instead should be the backbone of your forces, and how deep strike is not a strategy-layer tool that you can really rely on to be part of your battle plan, but instead soething you bring MAYBE ONE cheap unit of to do in order to act as a wild-card that can appear potentially anywhere.

    What I'm generally questioning is whether the rules for deep strike and how it interacts with react fire and active overwatch may have dropped it a bit below the power curve than you maybe intended. because I brought a deep strike unit the way that deep strike generally was used in oldhammer (small cheap wildcard unit) and they straight up just..never showed up, and even if they had showed up, theyd have just gotten splattered by something on React/Overwatch or failed to make any real impact as id have had to deploy them out of LOS one turn, and then actually use them the next turn.

    overwatch requiring a target to be within a 180 degree arc of the designated "unit leader" may resolve that issue, as you said.




    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/28 17:55:37


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I almost wonder whether you might utilize your design lever of React Fire to make Active Overwatch irrelevant. let's pretend that you use your Crossfire system and make unit facing a thing on all units, ala 2nd edition - a quick way to do that would be to designate a "unit leader" and agree on that unit leader's facing, and then use that to determine crossfire or whether the unit is capable of reacting - say, a unit can only React if an opposing unit performs a re-actable action within that unit's Front 180 degree arc and within 24". And then you have a fairly strong Snap Fire rule (I personally like the idea of "discard half the hits, rounding up" myself) and you make it so a unit that uses React Fire can't shoot in its following turn.


    Hmmmm.... tricky trying to parse through my own thoughts. I'll see what I can muster up here....

    I see active overwatch and reactive fire as two distinct things that need distinct tradeoffs and tactical purposes.

    Overwatch is about deferring shooting in order to fire at a priority target as it presents itself (might even warrant needing to pass a leadership test to enter overwatch?). It's range limited (so you can't use it snipe backline units from across the board), but allows the unit to bring its full shooting power to bear, just deferred a turn. With the addition of only allowing overwatch fire in the forward arc of the unit, it opens up some counterplayer opportunities for maneuvering behind units on overwatch.

    Reactive fire is about breaking down the turn structure and helping to mitigate the inherent lethality and lopsided-ness of the IGOUGO system and some of the imbalance resulting from dedicated melee units attacking melee-weak units. The counter-play comes down to the order you select units to shoot and/or charge, in a bid to draw out reactive fire. Reactive fire is also weaker than normal shooting, and limits your subsequent shooting, so there's some tradeoffs to make there. Although being honest, if you're unit is likely to get wiped out from either being shot and/or assaulted, taking the "reaction" shot is usually a no brainer.

    Another thought/restriction on overwatch could also be that when you put a unit on overwatch you also declare your intended target (just like having to declare other shooting attacks). It then puts the ball in your opponent's court as to whether they decide to bring the unit out or not, but would let other units move into position to charge or shoot at the over watching unit without suffering from return fire.

    Maybe, maybe, a way to unify this more is to define LIMITED FIRE (as has been done, and we discuss the restrictions on that compared to normal fire). You could then put units on overwatch in lieu of shooting on their turn, in order to fire with limited fire during your opponent's turn (and then fire normally on your next turn if desired). Or you could take limited fire as a reaction, but then get no shooting on your subsequent turn (since presumably the unit would've shot normally on its earlier turn already). The following situations could result over a player's two turns.

    NORMAL SHOOTING SCHEME
    Player A Turn 1 - shoots normally
    Player B Turn 1 - no shooting
    Player A Turn 2 - shoots normally
    Result = 2 full powered rounds of shooting

    OVERWATCH SCHEME
    Player A Turn 1 - enters overwatch
    Player B Turn 1 - shoots limited fire on opponent's turn at any target (overwatch fire)
    Player A Turn 2 - shoots normally
    Result = 1.5 rounds of shooting

    REACTIVE FIRE SCHEME
    Player A Turn 1 - shoots normally
    Player B Turn 1 - shoots limited fire on opponent's turn at an attacking / charging enemy unit (reaction, suffers melee malus's)
    Player A Turn 2 - can't shoot
    Result = 1.5 rounds of shooting

    With the above, overwatch vs. reactive fire could all use the same "limited fire rules" (including only in a forward 180-degree arc if desired). They both result in the same potential output in damage (a full round of shooting on one turn and a round of limited shooting), but are both less than a unit shooting normally twice. The primary difference then is just in the timing and target selection, and also taking a "reaction" causes some melee penalities, whereas overwatch fire wouldn't.

    The above isn't that much different from the way it works now, except it's reducing the damage output for overwatch shooting a bit, which is probably fine and would help balance it out a bit.


    both me and my opponent very quickly picked up on a few ways to counteract that rule - namely, staying out of LOS which is quite easy to do given Prohammer's quite lenient LOS measuring system. I simply placed my Reapers such that there was a ruin between me and my opponent's Devastators, and he placed his tacs behind a box. Both were then ready and happy to spawn-camp for the entirety of the game, awaiting our opponent's relatively fragile mobile units!


    See... I think the situation you describe is actually interesting. Yes, it's more defensively minded than traditional 40K, but when you factor in objectives and scoring points, the calculus shifts. Is my opponent's overwatch fire covering objectives? Do I think I can move onto an objective and absorb the damage long enough to return fire? Do I move onto the objective with one unit and threaten the overwatching unit with a faster assaulting unit? Which unit will my opponent shoot at, etc. I think these are interesting choices.

    Another way to handle overwatch, is that rather than having it occur during the shooting phase, it occurs during your opponent's movement phase. Each time you finish moving a unit that in LoS and range of a unit on overwatch, your opponent has to choose then and there whether they will fire at it or not. If they decline to shoot at it, they can't decide later to go back and shoot it if no other targets present themselves. This can add another line of counter-play to the mix, as the order in which you move units can have a bearing on whether the overwatch fire goes off or not. Something to consider.


    I still am of the opinion that a unit becoming Pinned should get the same benefits as a unit willingly Going to Ground, but that's just me.


    So this would just be adding the +1 to cover saves as one of the effects being pinned? So the "Take Cover!" reaction is simply voluntarily becoming pinned at the moment the unit starts to take hits. In the spirit of trying to reduce lethality, giving pinned units the +1 to cover save isn't a bad consolidation prize. I can make this change.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/28 19:13:08


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Yeah, I actually noodled it over a bit more and I do think with the addition of a "Facing" system like you're proposing with your new morale system Overwatch wouldnt be nearly as oppressive.

    I do like your new morale system, as well as the idea of implementing simple, low-effort facing rules into the system, ala 2e to make Active Overwatch something that requires actual choice, and to reward positioning.

    ....I do think your first draft would *most likely* result in morale being very oppressive and fearless being OP, though, so I do want to re-propose the idea of the Fearless rule preventing a unit from taking Reactions normally, and only allowing Reactions from using Overwatch tokens.

    Suppression Points: I like the idea of -1LD for each suppression points, but I think personally its a good way to trim down some of the various modifiers applied to various types of LD test. Suppression Points should be the PRIMARY source of LD modifiers, and I also think they should NOT affect leadership for the pinning tests you start taking for each suppression point you take past 2.

    I'm thinking of these tests:

    -break test for falling under 1/2 strength
    -regroup test
    -break test after losing melee combat
    -split fire test

    I think suppression points could be the sum total of the modifiers for all these tests and would be a great unifier of the morale mechanics. (Also I think you should be allowed to choose to have a broken unit become Pinned after making a fall back move to shrug off suppression tokens)

    I think Overwatch is actually pretty fine as is and could be worked into a holistic reaction system - ill type up thoughts on that later.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Crossfire: I think this is a really critical aspect of this new suppression system, because it enables a player through maneuver to give out suppression points to more elite/MSU units and allows those units to have to interact with the pinning system

    I think a fairly simple way of checking for Crossfire - say, if a straight line can be drawn through the targetable area of a model in the enemy unit to the targetable area of any friendly model, then the shooting attack will inflict 1 additional suppression point - and then you're basically good to go with it.

    Any time a unit would gain more than 3 suppression points, a Pinning test must be made instead, and no more than one Pinning test must be taken against any given shooting attack.

    Pinned units fire with Limited fire and may not have Overwatch tokens, and if a unit is under the effect of 2 or more rules that require Limited fire, then it may not shoot at all (this means Pinned units may not use React fire).

    Then in terms of active overwatch, this is really the only system where a facing system for non-vehicle units needs to be implemented. Simply place a directional indicator on overwatch tokens, and when placing a unit on Overwatch nominate a "unit leader" and place the overwatch token on their base to indicate what direction is "forward."

    In addition to being able to declare React fire normally, a unit with an Overwatch token may declare React fire when an enemy unit:

    -arrives from Reserves
    -ends a move during the opponent's Movement Phase.

    when firing React fire with a unit with an Overwatch token, the target unit must be wholly within 180 degrees of the facing indicated by the overwatch token as well as within 24", but the react fire attacks are made at full ballistic skill and the token does not count as having used react fire in its following turn.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2021/12/28 20:35:23


    Post by: Mezmorki


    In no particular order...

    ---------------------------------------------

    I still need to test the current wording of how suppression points are gained. Right now, you need to (a) be shot at (but not necessarily hit by) more shots from one unit than you have models, and (b) must suffer at least one unsaved wound.

    This encourages mass fire and is a nice counterpoint to split fire (e.g. if you split fire you're less likely to get enough volume of shots on a unit to apply suppression).

    I don't think suppression needs to be the primary modifier, and the -1 for below 50%, out of coherency, etc. are still relevant IMHO.

    I was also thinking that, balance wide, suppression might work better balance wise where you get -1 for every 2 suppression tokens (or part thereof), up to a max of 6 tokens (and -3 leadership).

    ---------------------------------------------

    I wonder if there should be more things tied to taking "non-morale" leadership tests. Right now, it's only split fire tests, restraint tests (for not pursuing in melee), and psychic tests. Suppression affects all leadership based tests, so even fearless units testing for the above are subject to suppression tokens for split fire tests, etc.

    But what about other opportunities for leadership? What if going into overwatch requires a test (resisting the urge to shoot at visible enemies), or even performing reaction fire? In this manner, all units, even fearless ones, would be subject to suppression effects.

    As an alternative, suppression tokens could also do things other than modify leadership, such that all units (even fearless ones) are impacted by the nature of suppressive fire. E.g., having one or more suppression token could incur a -1 to a unit's WS and BS.

    ---------------------------------------------

    More in a bit.....




    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/03 13:41:49


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    In no particular order...

    ---------------------------------------------

    I still need to test the current wording of how suppression points are gained. Right now, you need to (a) be shot at (but not necessarily hit by) more shots from one unit than you have models, and (b) must suffer at least one unsaved wound.

    This encourages mass fire and is a nice counterpoint to split fire (e.g. if you split fire you're less likely to get enough volume of shots on a unit to apply suppression).

    I don't think suppression needs to be the primary modifier, and the -1 for below 50%, out of coherency, etc. are still relevant IMHO.

    I was also thinking that, balance wide, suppression might work better balance wise where you get -1 for every 2 suppression tokens (or part thereof), up to a max of 6 tokens (and -3 leadership).

    ---------------------------------------------

    I wonder if there should be more things tied to taking "non-morale" leadership tests. Right now, it's only split fire tests, restraint tests (for not pursuing in melee), and psychic tests. Suppression affects all leadership based tests, so even fearless units testing for the above are subject to suppression tokens for split fire tests, etc.

    But what about other opportunities for leadership? What if going into overwatch requires a test (resisting the urge to shoot at visible enemies), or even performing reaction fire? In this manner, all units, even fearless ones, would be subject to suppression effects.

    As an alternative, suppression tokens could also do things other than modify leadership, such that all units (even fearless ones) are impacted by the nature of suppressive fire. E.g., having one or more suppression token could incur a -1 to a unit's WS and BS.

    ---------------------------------------------

    More in a bit.....




    Suppression the way you've described it is a system that is complex to track. Already, "Oh, that was more wounds than your unit has models" is inherently quite tricky, but something that if well integrated, does help to introduce a natural disadvantage to the "MSU" phenomenon that makes small units inherently advantageous within 40k that has really always existed. "Larger units with more models are a bit naturally braver" is I think a fairly solid basis to stand on as a core for a morale system, but then you actually have to tie it together. If suppression is just something dangling off to the side of a morale system, I think this drastically weakens its use case and lowers its value below the threshold of the quite complicated tracking system.

    The real important thing to look at is I think 2 things:

    1 - when do we add a suppression token.

    when 1 unsaved wound is suffered AND when the number of wounds pre-saves exceed the number of models in the unit is too complicated. I'm sorry, I do love me some crunch, but it's too complicated and it's low value.

    Let's start with this: let's have a unit with the BEST SAVE POSSIBLE, a 2+, take wounds in excess of the usual minimum unit size - 6. That unit has a nearly 100% chance of suffering at least 1 unsaved wound from the get-go.

    So now you get into "is there value to going with 'a number of wounds exceeding the number of models in the unit." For most units, this means the number of suppression points they will ever suffer is 1 before they are wiped out. A number of wounds exceeding the number of models in the unit, even for a 5-man unit of space marines, is going to equal 2/5 casualties. The odds of ever stacking up 3 suppression points on 1 unit during a game practically seems fairly slim even if we're looking at lasgun shots with negligible AP.

    I want to pitch you on "A number of hits capable of wounding exceeding the number of models in the unit" - and then possibly consider altering the to-wound chart such that T = 3 > S cannot wound. This would mean that even if you're slinging a bunch of S3 shots at a T5 target, say, a squad of guardsmen opening fire on a unit of SM Bikers, the number of shots needed to cause suppression would still at the very least have a 50-60% chance of causing a wound. And if the goal of a suppression system is to give low-S weaponry something useful to DO against high-T targets (which I think it is) this facilitates that much, MUCH better than "wounds exceeding models" does.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/03 18:23:45


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I think we're sayin the same thing (pretty close).

    So what I have is pretty much what you are suggesting as well (re-read my post you quoted). That is, you get suppression when the the number of shots fired exceeds the number of models in the unit. With the caveat that at least one wound actually has to occur as well.

    The reason for the last point is that I do want armor to actually account for something. Terminators getting hit by a dozen las rifle shots, after accounting for misses, and failures to wound, and armor saves can often (and thematically should) shrug off those hits. If the stipulation is only based on number of shots fired, you're going to get things like terminators getting pinned into uselessness.

    Right now, T = 2 > S cannot wound. So you can have a S2 wound a T5, but only on a 6+ right now. Feels fine and has been working well so far.







    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/03 19:11:59


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    I think we're sayin the same thing (pretty close).

    So what I have is pretty much what you are suggesting as well (re-read my post you quoted). That is, you get suppression when the the number of shots fired exceeds the number of models in the unit. With the caveat that at least one wound actually has to occur as well.

    The reason for the last point is that I do want armor to actually account for something. Terminators getting hit by a dozen las rifle shots, after accounting for misses, and failures to wound, and armor saves can often (and thematically should) shrug off those hits. If the stipulation is only based on number of shots fired, you're going to get things like terminators getting pinned into uselessness.


    Yeah I actually think shots instead of hits is too lenient, personally. Makes cheap units like 10-man las squads a bit too potent, and I would be worried about vehicles with a couple heavy stubbers being able to basically throw out a suppression token against any squad for free. but, overall, I think it's solid, would happen often enough to be impactful, but not so often to be something you never bother with. Combined with a simple crossfire rule (see my suggestion above) and with that being the major source of leadership modifiers to unify the various tests, I like where it goes. The crossfire rule allowing for a second way to achieve suppression points without having to wound but only with good positioning adds a layer of battlefield positioning skill expression.

    I'd definitely add a leadership test to going into Overwatch as well as have it affect psychic powers etc. I also like that suppression would somewhat affect fearless units and monsters, theoretically, representing them 'going berserk' or becoming less disciplined even though they still wont run or be pinned.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/03 19:26:11


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Either "shots fired" or "successful hits" could work, but it'll just come down to playtesting to see how it works and if it needs to swing one way or the other.

    Our group spent some time last week talking through the trial suppression rules (they are written up in ProHammer rules now) and we're going to play some games with how we have it and see how it goes. It might very well be that cheap las squads and the like will be too strong with dolling out suppression based on "shots fired".

    The other lever for modifying this is based on impact of suppression. As written, we have each suppression token incurring a -1 to Ld. There's some concern that that is too much, and that capping suppression tokens at 3 or making every two suppression tokens (rounding up) incur a -1 might be the way to go. Again - need to test this.

    Last - for the moment we're letting fearless units ignore suppression. Mostly because if they ARE affected by suppression, but not affected by pinning, then it's not clear how they would ever clear their suppression tokens.

    Older core rules said that fearless units could choose to go to ground (Take Cover!) and self-pin themselves, so maybe that's what they'd need to do. Or charge into melee, which is what most fearless units probably want to do anyway. Something to resolve still.




    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/04 12:53:56


    Post by: the_scotsman


    I'd just include in the Go to Ground rules that a fearless unit may take the penalties of Go to Ground without the cover bonus in order to clear suppression, if desired. I think that would ESSENTIALLY never come up, but it's ok to give players an option even if tactically it seems unusual that it would matter. After all, Fearless units would only be caring about suppression for the purposes of Restraint, Split Fire and Overwatch if you were to add overwatch as a LD test event (I think you should). But even to get to 3 suppression tokens, units would need to necessarily take 3x their number hits and suffer 3 separate at-least-one-wound events, odds are good that a highly suppressed unit of even fearless models is going to be so shredded that you're not overly concerned with stuff like split fire tests - I just think Suppression is a fantastic place to add a little bit of skill expression and unify the various "Nearly The Same But Slightly Different" modifier setups for various leadership tests. Put it all under one system, and make that system an active/tactical system as opposed to just circumstantial ("welp, guess the unit is at half strength so now they're -1 for the rest of the game nothing I can do about it and you didnt do anything to cause it other than kill my guys" vs "I successfully jumped a fast unit of mine behind your unit in order to quickly stack up 3 suppression tokens with a co-ordinated attack, now I have a much greater chance of that unit breaking and me successfully dealing with it in a way other than killing it to death.")

    TLDR: I think this is just one of those things that in a vacuum seems problematic but in practice would really not be. Like take the example of some fearless unit, say, 10 thousand sons marines, taking 3 tokens of suppression from boltguns:

    -1st token, on average causes 2 casualties.
    -2nd token, on average causes 2 casualties
    3d token, on average causes 1 casualty.

    you now have 5 models left in the unit with a -3 penalty, which adjusts their leadership down to 7 in most codexes. As the person playing them - is it so critical that your Thousand Sons be able to split fire with a target roll of 10 instead of 7 that youd give up a full turn of shooting with them? You can't gain additional suppression tokens anymore, you're capped at -3, and you auto-pass the pinning checks you'd be required to make from more tokens, and there's only 4 models with inferno boltguns left in the unit.

    Another possible spot for a LD test you might consider is to have there be a roll for choosing to target the passengers of a transport that you just destroyed mid shooting attack. Personally I love the idea of high-LD units having various tactical advantages that allow them to feel like better trained soldiers.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Separate note: I looked over the terrain rules incidentally, and while i know EXACTLY what you're TRYING to write for the difficult terrain rules, I'm trying to figure out a way to reword it to be less confusing.

    I feel like anyone who didnt spend multiple editions with "Eyeing The Terrain" as his absolute favorite goofy bit of GW rules writing shenanigans would read the rule and go ".....what?"

    here's my stab: "ENTERING DIFFICULT TERRAIN: If a model’s move would cause one or more models in a unit to enter a terrain piece within 6”, then rather than moving as normal, roll 2D6 and take the highest result. If this result exceeds the distance to the terrain piece, then that unit may move into the terrain piece and no model in the unit may move further than the result of the 2d6 roll. If the result is less than the distance to the terrain piece, the unit moves as normal for its unit type, but may not enter the difficult terrain piece."

    The intention as i understand it is "if i roll a DC test lower than the result needed to get to the cover, I shouldnt get to hop in and claim a cover bonus, but is silly if I roll a 2 and the terrain piece is 4" away that this terrain piece somehow psychically prevents me from moving over the open ground between me and it"


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/04 13:56:34


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Other assorted thoughts & responses:

    * I tweaked the suppression rule for fearless units. Fearless units gain suppression as normal, but obviously auto-pass their pinning tests. I just noted that fearless units can always choose to fail their pinning test and/or Take Cover! if they want, willfully becoming pinned but clearing most of the suppression tokens. That should take care of it.

    * I forgot to mention that our group liked the idea of using the overwatch token's orientation to convey the forward 180-degree arc of the unit, and that you can only overwatch into that forward arc. I think adding a leadership test to enter overwatch isn't a bad idea either.

    -------------------------------------------

    My pending list of ProHammer projects:

    (1) Finish up the other half of the mission design book

    (2) Write up the revised campaign system rules (this is for running map based campaigns!) and unit experience system (adapted from 4th editions campaign rules).

    Our group is going to run a ProHammer mini map-based campaign. Starting with 2000 points total in the army, but each detachment is limited to 750 points initially. After a certain number of campaign rounds, everyone will get reinforcement points and the detachment point limit will go up (to 1,000 or so)


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/04 16:10:31


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Other assorted thoughts & responses:

    * I tweaked the suppression rule for fearless units. Fearless units gain suppression as normal, but obviously auto-pass their pinning tests. I just noted that fearless units can always choose to fail their pinning test and/or Take Cover! if they want, willfully becoming pinned but clearing most of the suppression tokens. That should take care of it.


    out of curiosity, why have GTG clear "most" suppression tokens and not "all"? If you get 1 suppression token does that mean youre just going to have 1 for the rest of the battle then?

    in my eyes the most logical situation is:

    -becoming Pinned (or GTG, if GTG is the state and Pinned is the action of un-willfully becoming GTG, whatever way you want to word it) clears all suppression and no suppression can be gained while already Pinned

    -suppression stacks up while in any other state, including Broken, and any time you would have to take 1 or more Suppression from an attack while already at 3 Suppression, you instead take a Pinning test.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/05 02:01:00


    Post by: Mezmorki


    The way it's setup in the rules is that "pinned" and "broken" are both status effects. It's possible for a unit become pinned (e.g. as a result of suppression) and then still need to take a leadership test for casualties and/or if they are charged in morale. Preserving 1 suppression token means you'll take those roles with a -1 still, reflecting that the unit is still a bit shaken up by incoming fire.

    In the full write-up in ProHammer, it lists how suppression tokens are "lost" - which includes:

    (a) Becoming pinned (lose all but one suppression token)

    (b) Becoming engaged in melee (lose all but one suppression token)

    (c) At the start of your turn, lose one suppression token.

    I've also clarified what happens when a unit is both pinned and broken. The two effects stack such that the unit DOES still fall back 2D6" as normal, as per being broken. But instead of a it being a "tactical retreat" where the unit can still shoot normally while it falls back, a Broken + Pinned unit is also subject to snap fire and suffers additional penalties if they do get charged. This represents a worse morale state of total panic and an uncoordinated withdrawal.

    BTW, I think it's important to have the 2D6" fall back trump the limited D3" move of being pinned because breaking a unit and having it fall back is a mechanism for pushing units off of objectives. Otherwise, a unit that's holding an objective would happily stay pinned and hold onto the objective. It creates more dynamic play this way.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/06 12:37:09


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Ah, OK. full disclosure I have made a copy of the rules at this point, seeing as we are unlikely to meet and rather than needing to get into knock down drag out arguments over some detail I dont like I've just been changing things.

    For example - while I think the concept of losing 1 suppression token at the start of your turn is fine, I think what you'd find with that is that most typically that means Suppression will never be a factor on your turn, because Suppression tokens are likely going to be stacked up on 2 occasions.

    1 - incidentally, when you just happen to fire a large amount of guns at one unit. This unit will probably take 1 token, and if it survives, shed it immediately.

    2 - when you purposefully position models to use Suppression, in which case the decision to GTG to shed suppression becomes a factor but then youll just shed the last suppression token on your next turn anyway.

    This is why I think it makes more sense to just have the one way to shed suppression and have it shed all at once.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Also I've put in that units Going to Ground or Broken cannot hold objectives, so 'happily staying pinned on an objective' is a non-issue. Just seemed to make sense to prevent GTG on an objective being a default tactic for chaff troops. So I have Pinned while Broken result in a unit being both - double Snap Fire rule comes into effect, so it can't shoot at all, it can only make a fall back move, but the fall back move is D3.

    Otherwise the only distinction would be firing Snap.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/01/07 15:36:52


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I was wondering if perhaps you had made a "fork" of the project - since I had added things to the prime version (e.g. a full write-up on the suppression section) and your feedback/questions made me think maybe you hadn't read that yet

    No issues with making a fork for your own use of course. Just bear in mind that I'm regularly trying to clean up and tidy up the document, so there may be minor fixes and adjustments you'll miss if working off of a forked version.

    What I've been trying to do for version control, is at a given version number (currently v2.1) anytime a change results in a substantive gameplay change, I'll make the change and add a comment with the next version number (i.e. version 2.2 now). At a certain point, when I'm comfortable with a batch of changes, I'll save a back-up copy of the live version with all the comments, and then clear out all the comments in the live version. This way, people can go back and look at the older commented version to see what's changed, but the live link will always be the latest version.

    Anyway - take a look at the original ProHammer document, as it has a whole "Suppression (Trial Rule)" section built out.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding suppression....

    In response to #1:
    Say a unit gets 2 or 3 suppression tokens (e.g. 1 suppression token and then another 2 from being in crossfire). Squad leader has Ld 9, so you suffer a -3 to Ld test to pin. If you PASS the test (on a 6 or less), the unit is unpinned but still has those -3 modifier. It will drop to -2 at the start of their next turn. So they'd take split fire tests or whatever at a -2 along with whatever other leadership tests they might need to make that turn.

    In response to #2:
    If you go to ground, you're still subject (potentially) to needing to take a casualty test from shooting attacks, in which case you'd have a -1 to that test, and if you fail suffer both broken and pinned (which is pretty rough).

    If you only lose suppression by getting pinned (either GTG or being forced into pinning), bear in mind this means that if you charge and should loose the combat, you'll be slapped with whatever pile of negative suppression modifiers you still have.

    I need to play some games with how I have it - theory crafting only gets so far

    In response to holding objectives:
    Have you perchance used or looked at the ProHammer mission book? About half of the planned mission archetypes are complete, and it's what we've been using for a while now.

    There are some specific rules about what units count as "scoring models" versus other units. Generally, holding an objective requires a player to have more scoring models in proximity of the objective than their opponent has of models in total. Monstrous creatures, vehicles, swarm units, beasts, mindless, and broken + pinned models/units never count as a scoring.

    The above means that most basic infantry / jump troopers / bikers / etc count for scoring, but any model's can count towards denying control of a point. So you could have a scoring unit trying to take a point or zone, but the enemy having a pinned unit would still count against them. The enemy wouldn't be able to take the point with their pinned/broken unit, but their presence could deny my ability to take the point. Hence still wanting to have a lever for forcing units to fall back by breaking them.

    Also, on the topic of being broken + pinned....

    Effects of being BROKEN:
    * If unengaged, must fall back at the start of its turn.
    * May shoot, but count as having moved
    * May not enter overwatch
    * May not perform reactions (Take Cover, Return Fire, Stand & Shoot)
    * If charged, must immediately test to regroup. If failed, strikes at initiative 1.

    Effects of being PINNED:
    * May only crawl D3” in its next movement phase.
    * Gains +1 to cover saves (or 6+ in the open)
    * Shoots with snap fire on its next turn phase
    * May not charge.
    * If charged, loses advantages for being in cover (opponent’s strike at normal initiative value).

    If a unit is broken + pinned (or is pinned and becomes broken), then you combine the effects except that you must do a standard fallback move. The unit is breaking from cover and running, screaming for the hills, scrambling through whatever cover they can find along the way.















    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/02/16 19:10:26


    Post by: Backspacehacker


    Throwing out an idea for vechile wounding chart.

    So i know what of the big issues with vehicles was GW never really found a sweet spot for them. With things either being unkillable or being glanced to death or stunned all game.

    What if you had a system that uses hullpoints still, but the vehicle damage chart instead of jsut being the result of a single die roll is calculated this way.

    D6+remainingHullpoints - (1 for AP2, 2 for AP1) -(1 if armor bane) -1 if pen

    Then the damage result in a chart where the lower the result the worse the effect, The idea here is that a vehicle that is fresh and unwounded most likely will not be getting stunned, or popped instantly, or getting their weapons' destroyed out the gate. It also makes it so heavy vehicles like the land raider, are not getting shaken as soon as they get dinged by a single auto canon round. But as their vehicle gets more and more wounded, the likely hood of getting worse results increases.

    This way the more you focus a vehicle the more chance it has to pop, and the more health it has, the less likely it is to just get one shotted/become stunn locked all game.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/02/17 17:45:16


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    In my experience 30k manages to find the sweet spot for vehicles in a way 40k never has without changing the 7e vehicle damage system at all by seriously limiting your ability to spam mid-power shots and making AV12-13 much more prevalent. AV10-11 is treated as cheap, squishy light vehicles that can be easily taken down with autocannon fire, and the real armored vehicles are the ones with AV13-14 on the front and 12-13 on the sides (the Predator remains a weird 13/11/10 crossover between "light vehicle" and "tank").

    That said my own experiment with revising how vehicle damage works was to reverse hull point damage and the damage table, so a glance does a damage table result and a pen does a hull point and a damage table result, so it's possible to stunlock a vehicle by firing weapons too light to kill it at it but if you want to kill it you need real AT.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/02/17 19:08:17


    Post by: Mezmorki


    FWIW, we have four games under our belt with the revised "Structure Point" system we added to ProHammer. This gives all vehicles SP's based on the sum of their armor values (AV 30 = 0 SPs, 31-33 = 1 SP, 34=36 = 2 SP, 37 or more = 3 SPs). Whenever a vehicle takes a damage result that would destroy it, you remove SPs to lower the die roll to the first non-destroyed result.

    We're finding that it works pretty well. It gives light transport (rhinos, chimeras, and equiv.) a save against an early unlucky hit 1-shotting it. Likewise, the serious armor like Leman Russ' and Land Raiders will take some work to properly destroy.

    We have found this really hadn't changed the "stun locked" equation too much, and often times vehicles are getting immobilized and have all their weapons blown off before ever being officially "destroyed" - but that's okay in our book. Part of the DNA of how it's worked throughout these editions. We have clarified more cases where cover lets you degrade the penetration roll result, and in general vehicles about right in terms of durability to us.

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Also, I'll mention our trial suppression rules are working pretty well and is adding an interesting element to the gameplay. It definitely discourages smaller units since it easier for them to pick up suppression tokens. The effects of suppression on unit morale is mixing things up more. I've never had so many marines fall back and need to take advantage of And They Shall Know No Fear - pretty cool actually.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/02/18 18:41:37


    Post by: Strg Alt


    I have a couple of things to add to the discussion:

    1. Ld-related tests
    You have Split-Fire, Restraint (close combat) and Psychic. 2nd already had Target Priority (ranged combat). The general idea (I am not quoting the exact ruling of 2nd) is like this:

    Self-preservation dicates that units fire at the closest enemy targets otherwise they may bite the dust in the next seconds of a firefight. So if despite all of this a unit still DOESN´T want to fire at the closest enemy target it has to make a Ld-test in order to keep their cool and be allowed to pick calmly another target which is farther away. Obviously there are a few exceptions to this rule:

    1. Units including special/heavy weapons suited for targeting large units (e.g: vehicles/tanks/monstrous infantry/monsters) are trained to not waste their ammo on units which are composed of smaller models (German idiom: Mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schiessen.). Therefore they may ignore nearer units composed of swarm/small/medium models. This exception also came up during 3rd Tyranid codex in which all other factions were trained to pick targets when fighting Tyranids according to the size of the bugs (swarm/small/medium/monstrous infantry/monster).

    2. If an enemy unit is too close to the unit in question which wants to choose another target then a new target may not be chosen. Self-preservation kicks in as described earlier and it has to target the closeset enemy unit. How close the enemy unit has to be for this rule to kick in is negotiable but I feel 6 inch is a good start.

    3. An exception to having to fire at an enemy unit which is 6 inch or closer to a firing unit would be if the enemy unit can´t be harmed by the ranged attacks of the chosen unit (e.g. Grots having to fire with blunderbusses at a Dreadnought). What kind of action the grots would have to take in that case is open to debate.


    2. Effects of Suppression
    This depends on the case if the entire unit is considered to be suppressed when the suppression condition has been fulfilled or if the rules allow for more granularity so that single models of a unit can be suppresssed. 40K has taken the route in the past to require a pinning test and on failure the entire unit was effected.

    Epic Armageddon on the other hand dealt a single (maximum; regardless of multiple units firing at the same target) blast marker to units coming under fire and adding an additional blast marker to each model lost to a unit due to ranged fire. Each blast marker prevented a model in the unit from using it´s ranged attacks during it´s next activation. However blast markers didn´t prevent models from participating in close combat as it was considered that the proximity of a close threat would energize even the most fearful soul.

    This leaves the question which models would be affected first in a unit by blast markers? The solution was that the more cowardly individuals of a unit would be first affected as they lurk further back measured from the unit doing the firing at the target unit. So you deal blast markers from the back to the front.

    In the end you have to choose to either give an entire unit a minor debuff due to being suppressed or be really punishing by dealing out a major debuff for individually tracked models of a unit.


    3. Source of Suppression in regards to Mindless/Fearless units
    This adds a bit of granularity to the suppression mechanic. There can be three sources described as posing a threat to units in regard to suppression:

    A. Single sniper shots
    B. Hail of bullets
    C. Explosives/Flamer

    What follows is my understanding of how Mindless/Fearless units would operate in 40K and what kind of units would be part of these categories.
    Mortal units, the majority in 40K, are all affected by the above mentioned sources of suppression. However Mindless or Fearless units should ignore source A&B as they either have no concept of being alive (e.g. Servo Skulls and Servitors) aren´t alive in the first place (e.g. Plague Zombies and Daemons) or their sense of survival is being suppressed (Tyranids). However the tremendous force of explosions will still hurl those models from their feet and thus they should be able to be suppressed by source C and being set on fire will interfere with their perception of their surroundings.

    What exactly belongs in category C is up to debate. Quick and easy would be to select all template weapons so even the humble frag grenade could have an effect.


    4. Bikes/Jetbikes/Cavalry and Suppression
    I have always found that Bikes/Jetbikes don´t function really well in the 40K environment since 3rd onward as they have been basically treated as being cavalry. So this might not be an issue with other folks but for me it´s a pretty glaring discrepancy. Epic Armageddon doesn´t use separate rules for the above units in regards to suppression but 40K obviously addresses unit differences in more detail so I think it may be warranted. Apart from that I think Bikes/Jetbikes should behave differently in close combat as well but this would be a topic for another discussion.

    Back to the meat of the matter. Vehicles can be suppressed via specific results on the damage table and infantry models have the basic suppression mechanic. This leaves Bikes/Jetbikes/Cavalry to be unaccounted for and honestly going to ground for these type of units just doesn´t work as this would usually prove fatal to the pilot/rider while being in motion. So imo these units need a separate way to deal with the suppression mechanic.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/02/18 20:01:13


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Thank you for the extensive thoughts! Although I must admit, I'm not sure if you intended this to be a theoretical approach to suppression/morale or a criticism/suggestion specific to ProHammer.

    In the trial suppression rules in ProHammer, suppression tokens apply a -1 to Ld, whether fearless or otherwise, which affects all leadership-based tests. So split fire, restraint, and psychic tests are all affected by suppression.

    Fearless units still gain suppression tokens and it only clears with 1 token being removed at the start of each of their turns, or if they choose to go to ground (self-pinning themselves). This is to represent the distraction effect of suppressive fire still messing with their coordinative functions (split fire, restraint, psychic tests, etc.)

    I've considered adding in a "must shoot the closest unit rule" with a Ld test to avoid it. I've also considered only having it apply within a certain distance. E.G, if there are one or more enemies within 12", you have to try and shoot at one of those enemies (or take a Ld). But I'm not sure this is strictly required because...

    Screening rules. The screening rules in ProHammer work well. My feeling on the older "must shoot the closest" was more about not allowing a player to shoot through one unit to hit a different one behind it. ProHammer's screening rules prevent this from happening (so long as your screen is intact).

    In ProHammer, "pinning" is a result of being overly suppressed. Some weapons (sniper rifles, barrage weapons, and those that explicitly state they case pinning) force a unit tp take a pinning test at the end of the turn. "Hail of Fire" adds suppression tokens, and if you get three suppression you have to take a pinning test as well at the end of the turn.

    The effect of being suppressed is that it affects your leadership (as above), which in turn makes it more like likely that the unit will become pinned by failing pinning tests. Being pinned is not pleasant (only crawl D3", shoot with snap fire, lose cover bonuses when charged, etc.)

    The analog for going to ground for bikes is choosing to "jink"- although I admit this is a gap in the ProHammer rules with how jinking interacts with suppression. I suppose it could be that, just like with pinning, if you get 3 suppression tokens the bikes are forced to jink (or have to pass a Ld test to avoid it). If you jink, you do get a cover save, but then only shoot with snap fire next turn (like being pinned). That could work.








    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/02/19 12:55:32


    Post by: Strg Alt


    @Mezmorki:

    Have you implemented a weather table and/or a table for random occurrences like for the first Cityfight rules published in WD yet?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/02/19 13:06:18


    Post by: Mezmorki


    No, not yet. I want to finish building out a "twist" system for layering on special rules and the line on top of the standard mission structure.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/02/19 16:07:27


    Post by: Strg Alt


    I just remembered the WHFB Lustria campaign book. People like me who use jungle terrain for 40K will profit from it´s tables which cover weather and encounter effects.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/03/01 12:48:44


    Post by: Sebmaster777


    What are the rules for riptide movement? Do they get thrust move? They are jetpack monstrous creatures, which are not identified in the table. What about the riptide's nova move, which let it move 4d6. Would it now be 12 inches?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/03/01 19:43:17


    Post by: Mezmorki


    We just had a battle with a riptide last week

    They are treated as jetback and monstrous creatures both. So they get a thrust move as normal, which goes up to 4D6 with the nova move.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/03/08 16:37:18


    Post by: Ventus


    I really like the idea of this, haven't had time to fully dig into the rules but me and my buddy have been working on a similar concept for a while and haven't made nearly the progress since it's just so much work.

    Good job! Will try to give feedback and maybe even play some games.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/03/17 22:42:04


    Post by: kestral


    I certainly approve of the idea - I will give it a read over this weekend!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/04/08 02:06:03


    Post by: lumanson


    Is there any interaction between screening and blast/indirect fire weapons?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/04/08 12:16:22


    Post by: Mezmorki


    A normal blast weapon would, if the screen is intact, need to place the blast market on the screening unit instead. Indirect fire weapons, given they can shoot without needing LoS can ignore screens. I can add that clarification into the rules.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/04/09 12:58:55


    Post by: Mezmorki


    ProHammer v2.2 Update

    Lots of tweaks to the ProHammer rules “officially” being rolled out today (they’ve been marked up in the rule doc with comments for a while now):


    ===========================
    CORE RULES
    ===========================


    Dense Cover / Area Terrain: The terrain rules we use are intended to be a hybrid of abstract and TLOS based. As such, a clarification was added that individual terrain elements within a piece of area terrain that block a model’s true line of sight do still block line of sight, even if the unit is within 6” of the edge of the dense cover / area terrain piece. Basically, if you are in dense cover, you get cover and can see in/out within 6” of the edge, but if there are big solid/opaque features you still can’t see through those at all.

    Limited Fire: Added limited fire officially as the mechanism for performing reactive shooting attacks and in other circumstances. Unlike snap fire, limited fire incurs a -1 penalty to hit a halves (rounding up) the number of shooting attacks normally allowed. Limited fire is what gets used when performing reactive shooting or shooting against a charging unit.

    Vehicle Structure Points: Removed from “trial” status and made permanent. After a bunch of games we like the way this is working with helping to boost vehicle durability in a logical manner.

    Quick reminder on how this works. Vehicles will have 0-3 structure points based on the total armor value of the vehicle (front + one side + rear). These points are automatically reduced when a vehicle gets a destroyed result on the damage table, with each point lowering the result down to a non-destroyed result. We think this accomplishes what hull points were attempting to do (make vehicles more durable) but had failed to do.

    Line of Sight: Adjusted the language to refer to “target visibility” as opposed to “targetable area” to be more clear what it’s referring to.

    Intervening Terrain: Adjusted to say that if ANY part of a model’s BODY or HULL is blocked by intervening terrain then they get a cover save (as opposed to 25% or more of the body/hull, which is tricky to try and calculate).

    Cover Types: Barricades moved into a hard cover (4+ save) type and not under fortifications (3+ save)

    Feel No Pain: Clarified in the saving throw section how Feel no Pain works with the wound allocation system.


    ===========================
    SHOOTING
    ===========================


    Suppression & Crossfire Rules: Removed from “trial” status and made permanent. After a bunch of games we like the way this is working with units accumulating and shedding suppression tokens.

    Quick reminder of how it works: Each time a unit has more shots fired at it than it has in wounds AND suffers at least one unsaved wound, the unit gains a suppression token. Each suppression token incurs a -1 to the unit’s leadership. If a unit gains 3+ suppression, it must take a pinning test at the end of the turn - or of course you can “take cover” (aka go to ground) and voluntarily pin your unit, shedding all but one suppression token. One suppression token is also removed at the start of each turn.

    This has been working well and adds a nice dynamic and decision making to the shooting. While 1 suppression token isn’t a huge deal (since the unit sheds it at the start of their next turn), if they take 25% casualties they will suffer an added -1. We’ve found morale starting to play a more significant role as a result. Crossfire works such that if you would add a suppression token, if you are creating a crossfire on the unit you instead gain 2 suppression tokens. It’s pretty sweet.

    Overwatch Attack Direction: To allow for more counterplay and maneuver around overwatching units, when a unit is placed on overwatch you must now specify the direction they are watching. Units may only fire on targets within the 90-degree arc of this direction.

    Take Cover!: Take Cover! ” added a reaction choice which causes units to “go to ground” and effectively self-pin themselves. Pinned units also benefit from +1 to their cover save now (but aren’t forced to take pinning tests until the end of the round).

    Screening Rules: Adjusted the way screening works slightly. Friendly models/units no longer count towards screening (it’s assumed you’re shooting between gaps in movement, etc.). However, if a screen is intact, ALL of the hits directed at the targeted screened unit instead hit the screening unit.

    Grenade Throwing: Removed grenade throwing. Too fussy in our opinion to keep.


    ===========================
    ASSAULT PHASE
    ===========================


    Declared Charges: For maintaining parity with shooting and consistency with how the timing of reaction fire works, players must now declare all charges, then sequentially select units and resolve their charges. When a unit is selected to conduct its charge and the charged is determined to be successful (sufficient distance), before it moves, the charge target may perform reactive fire.

    Stand & Shoot! Reaction: Renamed and clarified handling for a unit being charged to return fire against a charging unit. Uses the limited fire rules denoted below.

    Close Combat Break Test Tweak: Tweaked the morale penalties slightly. Instead of a -1 for losing combat and additional -1’s based on the relative difference of wounds, it now works such that you get a -1 for every 3 (or part thereof) wounds suffered on the losing side.

    Retreat & Pursuit Moves: Instead of using the standard 2D6” or 3D6” fall back moves, units retreating from close combat moves back D6” + Initiative Value (or 2D6” + Initiative for “swift” units, as added to the USRs). This change is to reintroduce the initiative stat back into the close combat resolution process, and also cut down how swingy fall back moves can sometimes be.


    ===========================
    VEHICLE RELATED
    ===========================


    Crew Stunned Result: Added a note that barrage weapons cannot fire at all after crew stunned results.

    Embarked Passengers & Wrecks: Clarified that even units normally immune to pinning can be entangled and pinned if in a wretched vehicle.

    Transports & Movement: Clarified that units may not ADVANCE after disembarking from a transport that moved this turn.


    ===========================
    MORALE RELATED
    ===========================


    Broken & Pinned Status: Units that are pinned and become broken suffer a stacked set of penalties. Whereas a broken and falling back unit is presumed to be making an organized withdrawal, a pinned and broken/falling back unit is fleeing in a disorganized and chaotic manner. So a pinned and broken unit only shoots with snap fire, falls back 2D6”, loses the advantage of being in cover in charged, etc.

    Charging Broken Units: Broken unit must attempt to regroup. If it fails, it strikes at initiative 1.


    ===========================
    WEAPONS / USRs / UNIT TYPES
    ===========================


    Weapon Types: Some minor clarifications to weapon types. Removed ability to shoot two pistols if armed with two, and added clarification that units firing salvo weapons cannot charge in the assault phase.

    Psychic Power Selection: Clarified the different ways, across editions, that psychic powers may be accessed.

    Psychic Hoods: Notes that it extends range to 24” unless the specific wargear indicates differently.

    Psychic Disciplines: A number of tweaks to the balance of psychic disciplines. Iron Arm toned down, Invisibility toned down, etc.

    USR - Stealth & Shrouding: Removed the ability for these to stack. Stealth is +1 to actual cover saves, Shrouding is +2. Added reminder that this doesn’t apply to jink saves or other “counts as cover” type saves.

    USB - Smash: Toned this down. Now just exchange all attacks for a single smash attack.

    USB - Smoke Launchers: Modified to grant a 5+ cover save to all models within 6” of the tank when it launches smoke.

    Unit Types: Forgot to add that monstrous creatures cause fear!

    Independent Characters - Shooting at: Trying to get the right balance here. Revised this so that you can only shoot an IC if (A) it’s the closest unit and within 18”; (B) more than 18” away and more than 12” from an another friendly figurine model; or (C) is a monstrous creature.


    ===========================
    ORGANIZING A BATTLE
    ===========================


    Mission Prep: Adjusted standard procedure. Re-added the roll off for determining who goes first.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/04/22 16:32:08


    Post by: Sebmaster777


    Just curious if you're going to add rules for gargantuan MC and FGMC eventually? Want to try out the Ta'unar, but the rules for those are missing atm.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/04/22 20:34:30


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Sebmaster777 wrote:
    Just curious if you're going to add rules for gargantuan MC and FGMC eventually? Want to try out the Ta'unar, but the rules for those are missing atm.


    I haven't yet. You could just use the rules for them from the 7th edition book.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/04/22 20:35:00


    Post by: JNAProductions


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Sebmaster777 wrote:
    Just curious if you're going to add rules for gargantuan MC and FGMC eventually? Want to try out the Ta'unar, but the rules for those are missing atm.


    I haven't yet. You could just use the rules for them from the 7th edition book.
    That might not be a good idea...

    Those rules aren't well-balanced.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/04/26 17:09:51


    Post by: Just_Breathe


    I'm not totally about a Unified 40k Rulset,
    but an *Awesomely* Unified Ruleset I can do.
    /j


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/04/27 12:33:49


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Why go for the minimum, when you can go for awesome!?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/05/03 16:08:02


    Post by: Sebmaster777


    Just a quick question, since I don't think it's mentioned, but the effects of crew shaken are permanent correct?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/05/03 22:32:59


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Sebmaster777 wrote:
    Just a quick question, since I don't think it's mentioned, but the effects of crew shaken are permanent correct?


    Oh no! I totally missed that. No the effects of shaken and stunned only last until the end of the models own next turn. And multiple instances don't stack either. So if your opponent shoots your vehicle and stuns it, you suffer the effect on your next turn but not on the following (unless they of course stun it again).


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/05/08 11:54:55


    Post by: Sebmaster777


    What are the rules for twin-linked template weapons? Do they re-roll wounds like in 7th edition?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/05/09 16:57:03


    Post by: Insectum7


    Hmm, interesting move with Structure Points, I like that quite a bit.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/05/10 02:08:56


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Sebmaster777 wrote:
    What are the rules for twin-linked template weapons? Do they re-roll wounds like in 7th edition?


    I missed that! Added a note in the Twin-Linked USR that twin-linked template weapons automatically hit all models fully OR partially under the template. Normally, models only partially under the template are hit on 4+.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Hmm, interesting move with Structure Points, I like that quite a bit.


    This has been working pretty well for us so far. The only thing we're keeping an eye on is whether the top tier vehicles with 3 Structure Points (eg. Land Raiders, Monoliths) become too strong and hard to take down. Penetrating AV14 is hard enough! We're keeping an eye on it.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/17 16:49:11


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Minor update, bringing core rules to version 2.3.

    * Added a “Jury-Rig” rule for voluntarily using additional structure points on a vehicle (if available) to reduce the damage results further.

    * Revised the Relentless rule for compatibility with 7th edition - to also allow firing of ordinance weapons and salvo weapons.

    * Revised infiltrate USR to essentially have independent checks on unit to unit LoS when determining allowable placement

    * Added note for Twin-Linked USR that Twin- Linked template weapons automatically hit all models touched by the template.

    * Monstrous Creatures - cause Fear but only if also Fearless.



    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    As an aside - I feel somewhat vindicated with the direction of ProHammer seeing so many of its ideas showing up in Horus Heresy 2.0. It's pretty interesting.

    The details are different, but ProHammer and HH2.0 both use reactions as a way of breaking apart turn structure. HH2.0 limits the number of reactions, but keeps it pretty powerful. ProHammer always lets units perform reactions, but couples those reactions with some negative modifiers forcing a bit more of a trade-off decision.

    Psychic phase basically works how ProHammer does it (which is more of a return to 3rd-5th style).

    The one that really caught my eye though was their deep strike rule! It's basically exactly what we have, where if a deep striking unit scatters onto an enemy unit the opponent gets to reposition it within a distance of the original spot. Coincidence? I'm not sure!



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/22 21:39:42


    Post by: Arschbombe


    Interesting project. I've read the thread and skimmed the rules. So now I have some questions.

    I understand that writing codices is beyond the scope of this at the moment, but has there been any thought about codex-specific FAQs or compatibility supplements, at least for factions that didn't get a codex designed around 5th edition? When you use 5th edition as the base, you can get weird interactions with the odd codex. I ask because I noted that the ProHammer rules include compatibility notes for 6th and 7th edition units in some parts.

    For example, Eldar never got a 5th edition codex. The codex used in 5th was written for 4th. Banshee masks are supposed to make Banshees strike at I10 when they charge. The text of the rules say that the charged unit don't get any initiative bonus from cover they are in. The 4th edition rules gave a unit in cover I10 when they were charged. A Banshee mask prevents this bonus allowing the Banshees to strike first when charging into cover. In 5th edition this was changed so that units charging into terrain strike at I1. 4th edition Banshee masks just don't work in this environment. If I use the 3rd edition codex, Banshee masks work again because their rules say Banshees always strike first on the charge without regard to any other factors. They kinda work in 6th because they reduce enemy I by 5 so Banshees charging into cover striking at I1 when get to go simultaneously with the vast majority of their targets. I don't have the 7th edition codex so I don't know if that fixes the charging into cover issue or not.

    Another example, the 4th edition CSM codex has some weird rules too. Crazed on a Chaos Dreadnought can generate a Fire Frenzy, requiring them to shoot at the closest "visible" unit. Visible is not defined anywhere, but when the rule was written walkers could see in a 180° arc to their front. In 5th this was changed to 45° arcs along the centerline of each walker weapon creating confusion about what is visible and what happens when the dreadnought pivots to face the target and other targets are now "visible." Are things like this on your list to things to address or do you consider these to be edge cases that just won't come up often?

    While on the subject of codices, have you noticed any glaring issues playing cross edition codices against each other? Like do 7th editions books tend to be significantly stronger than, say, 3rd edition books? Does ProHammer work best with books from the same edition?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/23 00:39:21


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Thanks for taking a look.

    I think all of these compatibility concerns should be taken in the spirit that the rule was intended, making adjustments as needed. I hope that anyone taking up ProHammer is with a like minded group and players would agree on the spirit of things and not get bogged into endless loops of technicalities.

    All said, the Banshee masks should work across all editions zs intended without needing a ruling. The ProHammer rules say that if a unit is charging an enemy in cover, they strike at initiative 1. Banshee Masks in 4th edition say explicitly that they negate cover bonuses (the same way frag/offensive grenades would) and that they also strike at Initiative 10 on the turn they charge. So it would seem to work correctly for 4th.

    For 6th, both units would end up striking at Imitative 1 (simultaneously) as worded. I think we've house-ruled that they would strike ahead of their opponent's, since that was the intent of how it worked.

    7th edition was weirder. Banshee masks caused Fear and prevented opponent's from shooting them with overwatch.

    For the Chaos thing, vehicle weapons shoot out in a 90-degree arc from the axis of their weapon. If you point a chaos walker in a direction where your units might be hit by the attack, it would seem like that's working well enough? Different degree arc, but I don't see it as a huge issue personally.

    Overall, these small goofy inconsistencies come up from time to time. What we've typically done is refer back to applicable core rulebook for how the situation would've been resolved under those originally rules, and then replicate it or approximate it. We don't get to hung up on it honestly.

    As far as balance across codexes - we haven't come to any formal conclusions about the effects of playing different editions across each. I feel like it hasn't really mattered. I have one player that plays 7th edition codexes most of the time, and others that are all over the place depending on the type of list they want to run. There hasn't been any clear patter of one edition winning more often than another.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/23 07:58:22


    Post by: aphyon


    I missed that! Added a note in the Twin-Linked USR that twin-linked template weapons automatically hit all models fully OR partially under the template. Normally, models only partially under the template are hit on 4+.


    Bleh i hated that 4+ stuff from 3rd and 4th i was much happier when 5th when it went to anything touched by the template is hit and twin linked just re-rolls wounds.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/23 19:15:53


    Post by: Mezmorki


     aphyon wrote:
    I missed that! Added a note in the Twin-Linked USR that twin-linked template weapons automatically hit all models fully OR partially under the template. Normally, models only partially under the template are hit on 4+.


    Bleh i hated that 4+ stuff from 3rd and 4th i was much happier when 5th when it went to anything touched by the template is hit and twin linked just re-rolls wounds.


    For us it was a balance thing. Auto-hitting anything touched felt like it made some weapons, especially anything large blast, a bit too powerful. Do you just not like the extra die roll step? Or arguments over what's fully vs. partially under?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/24 05:56:57


    Post by: aphyon


     Mezmorki wrote:
     aphyon wrote:
    I missed that! Added a note in the Twin-Linked USR that twin-linked template weapons automatically hit all models fully OR partially under the template. Normally, models only partially under the template are hit on 4+.


    Bleh i hated that 4+ stuff from 3rd and 4th i was much happier when 5th when it went to anything touched by the template is hit and twin linked just re-rolls wounds.


    For us it was a balance thing. Auto-hitting anything touched felt like it made some weapons, especially anything large blast, a bit too powerful. Do you just not like the extra die roll step? Or arguments over what's fully vs. partially under?


    This is one of those area where i stick by not using self created rules in our 5th ed hybrid game. It may not look as professional as what you have accomplished, but a simple set of 15 rules from 3/4/6/7 put into 5th edition makes the game far more fun and adds a lot to the core 5th ed rules without regards to which edition codex you choose to use 5th ed was 98% better than anything that came before it and after it in the army battle style game 40K became from 3rd-7th.

    The glaring bad parts being wound allocation abuse and the vehicle assault rules (that were better in 4th for a strategy war game). the 4+ thing was a poor design that had its day with guess weapons that made many template weapons not even worth taking. having to guess the range and then not being able to fire if you guessed wrong or still requiring a roll to hit if you managed to guess right. the switch over to 2d6 + scatter (- for BS if you fire direct) was already a roll to hit, having to hit again on a 4+ something you already managed to hit is a step to far for an army scale game. it is a mechanic that wasn't needed and was done away with for good reasons. i do not see it as anything but punishment not balance that also slows down the game.


    Note i am not knocking what you have done, it looks great, and if it works for your group that is great news, what we have done and have been playing for 5 years or so now has been great for our group with zero issues game mechanics wise(well one guy who is a guard player really wants to bring back 3rd ed ordinance pen 6 rules, now that is a bit too powerful). everybody gets to bring an army they enjoy, and we have fun fighting in the 40K setting. we also noticed that no one army is super overpowered even when we match up codexes from editions that may be one or five editions removed from each other.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/24 14:15:23


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I think from 5th - 7th edition the blast weapons worked such that they always scatter 2D6 minus BS, and anything fully/partially touched is hit automatically (the rule you all use).

    ProHammer, in the interest of being a bit more simulation-ist, uses a hybrid approach where you roll to hit as normal with your BS (which means even a Guard hitting on a 4+ has a better chance to hit than the scatter dice hitting on a 5+, BS4 models even more so), and if you hit the template stays where you put it. If you miss, instead of it just being a total miss, it then scatters but scatters a full 2D6. With the higher chance of getting a direct hit, certain weapons, especially large blast ordinance weapons and the like, can be insanely powerful, hence the 4+ for models not fully covered. It was a balance thing mostly.

    Anyway - Aphyon, you should totally take 30 minutes and type up your rules (or even just format it a bit better as a forum post) to have here as a point of reference. It's worked so well for you all, would be good to share the love. Give it some pithy name (MashHammer?)


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/24 17:40:58


    Post by: kingpbjames


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Anyway - Aphyon, you should totally take 30 minutes and type up your rules (or even just format it a bit better as a forum post) to have here as a point of reference. It's worked so well for you all, would be good to share the love. Give it some pithy name (MashHammer?)

    Agreed, if your group has been playing a house edition for 5 years I'd love to see it.

    Unfortunately I don't have much to contribute to this thread, since my friends and I only got into 40k at the very start of 8th edition. It didn't take me long to realize that 8th was a major overhaul of the game, basically 40k 3.0, and for better and worse really streamlined it.
    I did buy a 5th edition rulebook to see what the hype was about but these "40k Classic" house editions are the way to play, IMO.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/24 19:01:50


    Post by: Mezmorki


     kingpbjames wrote:

    I did buy a 5th edition rulebook to see what the hype was about but these "40k Classic" house editions are the way to play, IMO.


    Personal opinion here, but I'd play any non-house ruled classic edition of 40K (3rd-7th) or 2nd edition over 8th/9th edition any day of the week. Yes, you've probably heard people grumbling about issues they had with older editions, but I think they definitely had more positives than negatives compared to 8th/9th. It's self-righteous to say this, but I feel bad for people that like 40k but started with 8th/9th and have no idea what the game was like before hand.

    You can also get the core rule books and codexes used off of Amazon for dirt cheap. Way more affordable to get into 40k with an older edition


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/25 07:10:42


    Post by: aphyon


    Mezmorki wrote:
    Anyway - Aphyon, you should totally take 30 minutes and type up your rules (or even just format it a bit better as a forum post) to have here as a point of reference. It's worked so well for you all, would be good to share the love. Give it some pithy name (MashHammer?)


    Well you asked for it-

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/806639.page#11422487

    Mezmorki wrote:
     kingpbjames wrote:

    I did buy a 5th edition rulebook to see what the hype was about but these "40k Classic" house editions are the way to play, IMO.


    Personal opinion here, but I'd play any non-house ruled classic edition of 40K (3rd-7th) or 2nd edition over 8th/9th edition any day of the week. Yes, you've probably heard people grumbling about issues they had with older editions, but I think they definitely had more positives than negatives compared to 8th/9th. It's self-righteous to say this, but I feel bad for people that like 40k but started with 8th/9th and have no idea what the game was like before hand.

    You can also get the core rule books and codexes used off of Amazon for dirt cheap. Way more affordable to get into 40k with an older edition


    Indeed, many of the players i have introduced to 5th edition that had only experienced 8th & 9th really enjoy playing the older edition and have a bit of consternation as to why GW has removed so much of what made the game fun and interesting for non-tournament play.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/25 13:52:03


    Post by: Mezmorki




    Awsome - I'll take a look!

     aphyon wrote:
    Indeed, many of the players i have introduced to 5th edition that had only experienced 8th & 9th really enjoy playing the older edition and have a bit of consternation as to why GW has removed so much of what made the game fun and interesting for non-tournament play.


    Yeah, I try to explain this to people at times and they are like "I heard blast templates and vehicle facings were stupid" ... and I just have to sigh. The older rulesets were more immersive and "simulation-ist" in that, even if things were seemingly a little more complex, I found them to be more intuitive and rational at the same time. There was better "logic" driving the rules and 95% of the gameplay was based on what was actually modeled on the table and its positioning.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/25 18:27:04


    Post by: aphyon


    There was better "logic" driving the rules and 95% of the gameplay was based on what was actually modeled on the table and its positioning.


    That is where we get the distinction between a strategy based WAR game, and a war GAME.

    This also comes back to what 40K was originally meant to be-a thematic game where you fight epic battles in the 41st millennium, compared to what it has attempted to become a "balanced" game for tournament play.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/25 19:21:50


    Post by: kingpbjames


     Mezmorki wrote:
    Yeah, I try to explain this to people at times and they are like "I heard blast templates and vehicle facings were stupid" ... and I just have to sigh. The older rulesets were more immersive and "simulation-ist" in that, even if things were seemingly a little more complex, I found them to be more intuitive and rational at the same time.--

    Actually my experience with learning 40k in 8th ed was being surprised that there WASN'T blast templates, vehicle facings, etc. At the time I was also looking into Battletech and Heavy Gear so I was expecting more wargamey simulation type stuff but it ended up feeling more like a board game. My friends felt the same so I looked into these past editions but drew the conclusion that there was no one perfect or complete edition, due to codex/power creep in 5th and rules bloat in 6th and 7th.

    So I really would rather play your community-unified editions since GW decided to reboot the game with 8th instead of making their own "final" edition.
    At least one thing 8th did right IMO was release all those indexes along with the core rules so everyone was on the same page. Why didn't they do that for every edition... (or at least for 5th)


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/25 20:51:21


    Post by: A.T.


     kingpbjames wrote:
    At least one thing 8th really did right IMO was release all those indexes along with the core rules so everyone was on the same page. Why didn't they do that for every edition...
    It could take them a couple of editions to get through all the factions. A 10 year wait for a new oldhammer codex was not out of the question.

    Ironically given his reputation Matt Ward wrote a sensible and balanced first entry in the 5th edition lineup - but it wouldn't have mattered if GW had updated all the armies to the same standard there and then because Cruddace and Kelly broke that standard immediately. The games direction, if there was any, shifted far more frequently than just once per edition.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/26 06:25:32


    Post by: aphyon


    Funny story.....3rd edition main rulebook actually had indexes for all the armies that were available when 3rd was released.

    So, it isn't like they didn't know about doing that.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/28 00:35:08


    Post by: kingpbjames


    Ok, as an 8th edition neophyte I did not realize that OldHammer's Ballistic Skill is NOT just the die face you hit on, but a scale of 1 through 10 that you THEN need to convert with a chart. What the frell is the point of that? I feel like just penciling in the results of the table on each datasheet so instead of BS7 it says BS 1/5+, or 1*5+ or something.

    But more importantly, I am also curious about vehicles using those damage charts instead of wound pools like in 8th. It seems scary that these vehicles only have 1 wound protected by high Toughness, meaning a single high strength shot with a lucky 6 penetration would one shot any vehicle... And this is where hull points and super-heavies started coming in?
    I suppose if it worked from 3rd through 5th edition it really worked, but what do I do about my friend's Stompa? It's 40 wounds and meant to be pounded down to rubble. In these cases should we just use the single Toughness stat and wound pool, and disregard the vehicle damaging system?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/28 02:19:08


    Post by: Mezmorki


     kingpbjames wrote:
    Ok, as an 8th edition neophyte I did not realize that OldHammer's Ballistic Skill is NOT just the die face you hit on, but a scale of 1 through 10 that you THEN need to convert with a chart. What the frell is the point of that? I feel like just penciling in the results of the table on each datasheet so instead of BS7 it says BS 1/5+, or 1*5+ or something.


    There isn't really any reason for the BS chart to be the way it is, as opposed to just saying it hits on a 3+ or 4+ or whatever. It's a hold-over from a long-running earlier era. Certainly the way 8th does is it is easier and saves a step.

    But more importantly, I am also curious about vehicles using those damage charts instead of wound pools like in 8th. It seems scary that these vehicles only have 1 wound protected by high Toughness, meaning a single high strength shot with a lucky 6 penetration would one shot any vehicle... And this is where hull points and super-heavies started coming in?
    I suppose if it worked from 3rd through 5th edition it really worked, but what do I do about my friend's Stompa? It's 40 wounds and meant to be pounded down to rubble. In these cases should we just use the single Toughness stat and wound pool, and disregard the vehicle damaging system?


    The entire ecosystem of the game was different. Most weapons couldn't actually hurt vehicles. You'd need a Strength of 6 to even glance hit a vehicle with 12 armor (which only happened on a penetration roll of a 6), and then you'd need to roll high on the damage table to destroy it (i.e. another 6). In 5th and beyond, a glancing hit wouldn't destroy the vehicle at all. To reliably kill vehicles you'd need a decent amount of AT weaponry and a game plan for how to use it. And most effective AT weapons were pretty inefficient at killing troops or even monstrous creatures (relative to the point cost of the AT weapons). So the situation was a bit different.

    ProHammer does recognize, however, that in the worst case scenario you can have someone get a lucky hit with a strong AT weapon like a melta and 1-hit kill your Armor 14 Landraider or something else big like that. On one hand, its a dramatic and wild moment to be celebrated. But from a competitive mindset people were understandably upset. ProHammer tries to work the balance a bit with using Structure Points like a limited get out of jail card to reduce the chances for a wild first-shot kill to take out a big vehicle.

    This all said - it's worth reiterating the point about vehicles and their resistance to most weapons. Take the raw 5th edition rules. A vehicle with 13 armor needs a Strength 7 weapons to force a glancing hit. Glancing hits impart a -2 to the damage table roll, which means rolling a 6 only results in the vehicle being immobilized. You'd need a S8 weapon to have a chance to destroy it. 14 armor vehicle need a S9 weapon (lascannon) to get anything other than a glancing hit (or a melta weapon basically).

    Ironically, Hull Points ended up making vehicles more fragile - because you lost a hull point even on a glancing hit, regardless of what die result you had. So any moderate concentration/volume of fire that could in theory force a glancing hit was all you really needed to take out a vehicle. 5th edition was definitely better than 6th (when hull points were introduced) in this regard.







    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/28 04:32:07


    Post by: kingpbjames


     Mezmorki wrote:
    ProHammer tries to work the balance a bit with using Structure Points like a limited get out of jail card to reduce the chances for a wild first-shot kill to take out a big vehicle.

    I'm sorry, I actually hadn't read your Structure Points section yet. It was right there after the vehicle damage section... And after the examples you gave I have a better perspective on tanks and AT weapons now. Won't need to worry about my Firewarriors chasing Rhinos around with their S5 pulse carbines.

    However, I'm still curious how a Stompa would play in ProHammer. Was the unit only in Epic and Apocalypse before 8th edition?
    I think I read that certain giant units like Carnifexes are multi-wound units instead of vehicles with armor values, so I suppose the Stompa would be the same and not have facings.


    PS. I don't mean to be rude but I think you had a hard time writing your SP section. I think you're missing the word "points":
    USING STRUCTURE POINTS: When a vehicle suffers a wrecked or explodes result on the damage table, subtract structure [points] from the vehicle and apply a -1 modifier to the damage result sufficient to reduce the result to an immobilized result.

    I would also recommend rewording that second part for simplicity:
    When a vehicle suffers a Wrecked or Explodes result on the damage table, use structure points to modify the damage roll down to the [b]Immobilized[b] result.

    But if you think it's fine then no worries at all!

    Got a 7th ed. Tau Codex for $6 coming in the mail, $2 shipping!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/08/28 14:42:15


    Post by: aphyon


    It seems scary that these vehicles only have 1 wound protected by high Toughness, meaning a single high strength shot with a lucky 6 penetration would one shot any vehicle... And this is where hull points and super-heavies started coming in?


    It is all about immersion. the damage chart represented real life things the human mind could understand from our real world experiences. a tank taking minor damage (glancing), blowing off a track or road wheel, having a gun damaged, crew knocked around. think of WWII when a tiger 1 puts an 88 APHE round through the front plate of a sherman it doesn't wear it down it just straight destroys it 99.9% of the time. 40K is at least a little nicer only destroying something 33% of the time and only on a penetrating hit. . as Mezmorki says it is more simulation small arms cannot hurt heavy armor in older editions of 40K so you need dedicated anti-tank in the right place at the right time to do the job...that is where what you do on the table becomes really important. strength maxes out at 10 and armor maxed out at 14 for vehicles (15 for fortresses) so even the best guns in the game had a 50/50 chance to hurt AV 14.

    hull points were an abomination. putting in place a double damage system that turned vehicles into paper. it could be done right (like DUST 1947 does it) but GW wasn't smart enough to figure that out. Structure points starting in 3rd edition on the other hand made damage to enormous vehicles required you destroy them 2 or 3 times over depending on how big they were., if you rolled well on the damage chart you could still do it quite efficiently.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/12 18:00:33


    Post by: Eilif


    @Mezmorki

    Just wanted to say that while chances are that I will probably never play this (currently a Grimdark Future fan), I really enjoyed reading the first post where you laid out your game philosophy, objectives, the approaches to various rules categories and your overview.

    Really an interesting read and some food for thought looking back over my own history with 40k that spanned 2nd-6th.

    Good stuff.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/12 20:53:19


    Post by: kingpbjames


     Eilif wrote:
    @Mezmorki

    chances are that I will probably never play this (currently a Grimdark Future fan)

    I respect One Page Rules but it's not for me. It's so condensed that I find it difficult to read but I'm sure it works really well as a quick reference sheet once you've got most of it memorized.
    I enjoy my Heavy Tome of Rules and a codex with one photographed unit per page.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/13 04:34:33


    Post by: Eilif


     kingpbjames wrote:
     Eilif wrote:
    @Mezmorki

    chances are that I will probably never play this (currently a Grimdark Future fan)

    I respect One Page Rules but it's not for me. It's so condensed that I find it difficult to read but I'm sure it works really well as a quick reference sheet once you've got most of it memorized.
    I enjoy my Heavy Tome of Rules and a codex with one photographed unit per page.

    Seeing all the work you've done here, I think you'd have the Grimdark rules (even the expanded book) memorized pretty quick, though I doubt sunshine who loves 3-7th 40k would be satisfied with OPR levels of abstraction.

    I do love a good Wargaming book though I have mentioned this elsewhere but my son and I get our inspiration and fluff from previous edition Codices even as we get our game rules from OPR.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/14 17:48:47


    Post by: kingpbjames


    I've got a quick question that I figure is better answered here than in its own thread:
    Are Stealth and Shrouded the common invisibility/camouflage abilities in 3rd-7th and do they only provide cover saves, not hit roll debuffs?

    I'm coming to classic 40k from 8th ed so I'm a little surprised that my Tau stealth suits aren't -1 to hit. I do get that their "chameleonic fields" make them blend into cover, but when they're out of cover their Stealth USR grants them a 5+ cover save. This is worse than their armor save meaning that you would only take it to nullify weapon AP.
    So this means that their stealth ability works more like a shield than a cloaking field that makes them hard to see.

    Since there's the Blind USR I'm wondering if there's some other defensive ability that makes your unit harder to hit instead of harder to damage?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/14 18:04:57


    Post by: Mezmorki


    There's basically no hit modifiers period in classic 40k (3rd-7th edition). There aren't really many modifiers at all frankly. Occasionally you'll get the net effect of modifiers by way of things that impact the characteristics of a unit (e.g. +/- to strength, WS, BS, etc.) but rarely ever applied as actual modifiers to the die rolls.

    That said, you are correct in that stealth/shrouded basically provide cover saves, which in classic 40k terms is effectively an invulnerable save against ranged attacks (except for the relatively few weapons that ignore cover). Being in hard cover (granting a 4+ cover save) and shrouded (improves your cover save by 2) essentially means you have a 2+ invulnerable save. No hit roll modifier but pretty dang tough at the end of the rolling.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/14 18:09:27


    Post by: aphyon


    Unlike an invulnerable save that isn't something that can be bypassed because it is well INVULNERABLE (FETH mortal wounds!) a cover save only helps against shooting attacks. if somebody skillfully manages to maneuver enough to run up and hit your eldar elite rangers with a stick all they get is their basic 5+ armor save assuming the weapon doesn't straight up ignore it.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/14 18:50:54


    Post by: kingpbjames


     Mezmorki wrote:
    There's basically no hit modifiers period in classic 40k (3rd-7th edition). There aren't really many modifiers at all frankly.

    Well there's that Blind USR that debuffs you to BS1 / BS 6+.

    I kind of feel like invisible or cloaked infantry being harder to spot and hit, not harder to dig out of cover, makes more sense...... Think of the first Predator movie!

    Can you foresee any classic codex units being particularly screwed by 8th edition -1 and -2 hit modifiers? (Stealth suits and Ghostkeels)


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/14 20:07:08


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Yes, -1 and -2 hit modifiers certainly makes more sense from a "logic" standpoint, but the older editions aren't really setup for that and you might end up causing unanticipated side effects.

    I haven't run the numbers, but a -1 hit modifier would screw over anyone with a BS3 or worse pretty badly - which is most of the armies out there.

    Keep in mind, unlike 8th (and especially 9th) in the older editions there aren't nearly as many things that give you a boost to die rolls either, not nearly as many things that let you re-roll failed results etc. 8th/9th is littered with stratagems and auras that affect die rolls and increase success chances, which can counteract the penalties you see in the modifiers.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/15 09:23:11


    Post by: A.T.


     kingpbjames wrote:
    I'm coming to classic 40k from 8th ed so I'm a little surprised that my Tau stealth suits aren't -1 to hit. I do get that their "chameleonic fields" make them blend into cover, but when they're out of cover their Stealth USR grants them a 5+ cover save. This is worse than their armor save meaning that you would only take it to nullify weapon AP.
    6e and 7e had both stealth and shrouded, so 4+ cover (unless prohammer has changed this?)
    4e had the old nightfighting rules that prevented them from being shot at without a range test

    Both have a notable advantage over a -1 from a gameplay perspective - they are circumstancial. The positioning decisions of you and your opponent determine their effectiveness.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/15 16:42:37


    Post by: kingpbjames


    A.T. wrote:
    ... 4e had the old nightfighting rules that prevented them from being shot at without a range test

    Both have a notable advantage over a -1 from a gameplay perspective - they are circumstancial. The positioning decisions of you and your opponent determine their effectiveness.

    Is a range test a rule like cannot be hit unless within 12" or something? FYI my Ghostkeel already has that in its rules, where if you get close it goes from -2 to hit to only -1.

    Still I understand Mezmorki's point about leaving hit roll modifiers in 8th since there's not enough rerolls in 3rd-7th to balance against it.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/09/15 21:15:17


    Post by: A.T.


     kingpbjames wrote:
    Is a range test a rule like cannot be hit unless within 12" or something?
    Kind of.
    Nightfighting was a variable distance limit - you rolled 2d6x3 so sometimes they couldn't be hit if they were more than 6" away and other times they could be shelled from across the board.

    Would have preferred a fixed distance of 18" or 24" myself. Much like target priority in 3e and 4e it's extra dice rolling for the game to randomly override your action.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/11/21 19:22:26


    Post by: Tyran


    Sorry for the necro, but looking at the rending USR, is it being AP2 in melee (even though all the other melee rules don't use AP) intended?

    Similar but opposite question for armourbane, as written it only works for melee.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/11/23 10:25:39


    Post by: A.T.


     Tyran wrote:
    Sorry for the necro, but looking at the rending USR, is it being AP2 in melee (even though all the other melee rules don't use AP) intended?
    It is the 5th edition wording which I think they just used to shorten the description. 'Ignores armour' and AP1/2 were used fairly interchangeably at the time.
    The distinction is only relevant for 6e+ vehicle damage rules, which prohammer doesn't use.

    Armourbane being melee only is correct for 6th edition books. In 7th edition it also applied to ranged weapons with the rule (though models with the rule still only had it in melee) so the prohammer rule is incomplete.
    - in fact the Infernal Gaze psychic power in the prohammer core book is a ranged attack with armourbane.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/11/23 12:58:53


    Post by: Mezmorki


    I'll take a look and correct that. Thanks for pointing it out!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/11/23 14:18:27


    Post by: Tyran


    A.T. wrote:
    It is the 5th edition wording which I think they just used to shorten the description. 'Ignores armour' and AP1/2 were used fairly interchangeably at the time.
    The distinction is only relevant for 6e+ vehicle damage rules, which prohammer doesn't use.

    Not quite.

    5th edition had "Rending Weapons" rules in the melee weapons section and "Rending" in the general USR section for ranged weapons.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/11/23 14:53:11


    Post by: A.T.


     Tyran wrote:
    Not quite.
    5th edition had "Rending Weapons" rules in the melee weapons section and "Rending" in the general USR section for ranged weapons.
    Quite right - i'd only looked at the first entry. Been a while since I played 5th and had been looking at the 'Feel No Pain' USR with regards to how it treated AP1, AP2, and 'no saves allowed'.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/11/25 16:40:42


    Post by: Tyran


    Another question.

    Can Fearless units voluntary withdraw or voluntary break?

    The way it is written I would say yes to the former but no to the latter.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/11/25 17:02:24


    Post by: aphyon


    If he stayed with the 3rd-5th ed rules-no fearless units are insanely brave/stuid they will never fall back or break no matter the odds. hence the addition of the no-retreat rule to punish them in 5th. in 3rd and 4th they just auto pass and keep fighting (the rule we went back to in our 5th ed games).


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/11/25 17:05:44


    Post by: Tyran


    The fact that he allows them to Take Cover or decide to fail a Pinning test suggest he didn't stay with that interpretation.

    EDIT: Also Torrent is either miswritten or purposely nerfed. As written the entire template needs to be within 12" of the firer while the actual torrent rules were that only the narrow end needed to be within 12" of the firer.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/03 20:03:44


    Post by: Mezmorki


    Alright - I took a pass at addressing the USRs based on the comments above.

    We're working on another update to the core rules with some other things we want to tweak and clarify, so I'll make a more formal changelog at that time.

    One note that we did adjust torrent by requiring the whole template to be within 12" range. But maybe that isn't needed?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/05 09:55:45


    Post by: Illumini


    That makes torrent a 4" range weapon, pretty terrible.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/09 01:29:03


    Post by: Tyran


    I found another mistake, the ordnance type doesn't have rules for the number of shots
    Yes I know it is very obvious how it is supposed to work.

    Similar is the lack of One use/shot only USR.
    Again very obvious but still probably should be there.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Illumini wrote:
    That makes torrent a 4" range weapon, pretty terrible.

    It also causes a weird compatibility scenario because many 5th Ed codexes had bespoken torrent rules before the Torrent USR was a thing, and it wouldn't be clear if those examples should follow the Torrent USR or their own bespoken "torrent" rules.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/09 10:59:41


    Post by: A.T.


     Illumini wrote:
    That makes torrent a 4" range weapon, pretty terrible.
    It's the 3e-4e guard hellhound rules IIRC, back when the weapon had a 24" range.

    5e hellhounds had the same torrent rules as the 6e and 7e USR - place the narrow end within x" and the wide end no closer than the narrow end. (x normally being 12", but there were variations such as the warp hunters 6" torrent).

    As Tyran mentions though all pre 6e torrents had their own unique rules so there is no reason outside of rebalancing to change it, unless there was some obscure errata i'm not familiar with.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/11 19:08:56


    Post by: Irbis


     kingpbjames wrote:
    But more importantly, I am also curious about vehicles using those damage charts instead of wound pools like in 8th. It seems scary that these vehicles only have 1 wound protected by high Toughness, meaning a single high strength shot with a lucky 6 penetration would one shot any vehicle... And this is where hull points and super-heavies started coming in?

    It not just seems scary, you immediately identified why the vehicles were trash in 6/7th and no one took them. Never mind lucky shots, two glances barely scrapping paint job to deplete hull points and your expensive vehicle committed seppuku out of shame or something on the spot. Then you had (fake) distinction between monstrous creature and walker status, one of which gave you dozens of very strong rules for free, the other crippled you for no reason. And the worst part was, it was assigned randomly. Sluggish Tau walker controlled by joystick that had no business being anything but a walker? MC because writer tried to make every entry in his pet army book broken just because. Super advanced second body machine plugged directly into your brain? Walker, because screw you. Etc, etc...

     Mezmorki wrote:
    Yeah, I try to explain this to people at times and they are like "I heard blast templates and vehicle facings were stupid" ... and I just have to sigh.

    Nice strawman using new, naive players (who are 100% right, BTW) who have no idea of the system issues and abuses yet. Do try to show them how firing three quad mortars resolving 15 small blasts looks like, all while you argue with them you hit every possible partial for max rolls, or tell them they can't fire expensive flamer because it clips 0.01 mm of friendly unit base and they will laugh in your face next time you try to say it.

    The older rulesets were more immersive and "simulation-ist" in that, even if things were seemingly a little more complex, I found them to be more intuitive and rational at the same time.

    Complete nonsense. Imagine I am facing a corner of the tank, seeing juicy weak side completely exposed, but since I am 0.001 mm to the left of the imaginary line (insert more arguing due to vehicle shapes making it extremely not obvious where it is) I am forced to target obscured, strong front of the vehicle. Or the fact AV is absolute and despite there being a huge hole in tank front or side easily penetrated even by lasguns, nothing like that is in the rules. Or the fact that I ran to the front of tank and I try to stab it with my fork, which then magically teleports 10 meters away to tank rear, and despite it being solid steel, due to the fact it's AV10, it's within kick, fork, or punch roll range and the tank then explodes. Unless it's Land Raider because these are AV14 all around and thus immune to magic kicks despite having exposed engine in the rear, go figure.

    Or you can be WAAAC thatguy arguing that by the rules, gluing turret in place it now can't rotate and is in effect immobile gun. Or the Knights that can't target anything directly in front of them. Or guns that somehow, due to scatter, can magically teleport shells behind itself (but not if shooter is really accurate, because everyone knows being good turns off wind, repelling force fields, misfires, random chance, etc, etc pesky issues normally leading to blast miss). Or plasma weapons - they explode, unless firer is good shot because they can reroll 1s magically reinforcing cooling coils, unless it's a plasma cannon because then gets hot dice is separate and you can't touch it even with BS10 and in fact you need a whole FAQ to determine how it works - what a simple and rational system!

    In what universe any of this gak is ""intuitive and rational""?
    There was better "logic" driving the rules and 95% of the gameplay was based on what was actually modeled on the table and its positioning.

    Which is a complete BS because it applied only to vehicles for some reason, while everything else was abstracted. Infantry can fire out of their backs, not where their guns are pointed. Positioning, what's that? Monsters can fire everything out of their arse should they wish. It's only the vehicles where you spent next 5 minutes arguing expensive lascannon can't fire because it's 0.01 degree out of firing arc (or not, depending on angle you look from) because while infantry and monsters can do a handstand during their turn to fire, being sane and assuming tank can slightly turn to fire then turn back to position (like 8+ edition does) is completely verboten


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/12 00:20:22


    Post by: Mezmorki


    We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I like the classic rules far better, and basically can't stand 8th/9th.

    FWIW, many of the issues you point out as problems in the classic editions are things ProHammer tries to rectify, although given your seeming distaste for the classic editions YMMV with respective to ProHammer.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/14 16:31:04


    Post by: Tyran


    The hittable and engaged rules are kinda confusing.

    ENGAGED MODELS: Every model of both players that are in base-to-base contact with an opposing model or that is within 1” of a friendly model that is in base-to-base contact with an opposing model are ENGAGED-

    HITTABLE TARGETS: Only models that are engaged are a HITTABLE target and can be hit by a melee attack. A hittable model remains hittable for the entire engagement, regardless of how casualties at different initiative steps occur.

    So the way I understand this is that "being engaged" can be lost because casualties even if hittablement cannot be lost.

    A model will allocate all of its attacks against the unit it is engaged with, either by being in base-to-base contact with an enemy or within 1” of a friendly model in base-to-base contact.
    If a model is in base-to-base contact with models from multiple different opposing units, and/or within 1” of friendly models that are engaged with different units, the attacker must declare which of its attacks are being directed towards which enemy unit.

    Ok, but what if the model is no longer engaged because casualties? does that mean they no longer get to attack? e.g. the enemy removed models that were engaged with Space Marine with a power fist before it got to attack.

    After all wounds rolls are made, the target unit’s owner allocates successful wounds to ENGAGED and HITTABLE MODELS in the target unit.

    What if they are no engaged models left? The way it is written (using the logical AND operator) means that a model needs to be engaged AND hittable.

    Unsaved wounds may be applied to ANY engaged model in the unit (whether it was hittable or not).

    Same question, what if no engaged models are left?

    Unsaved wounds must be applied to already wounded models first (see REMOVING CASUALTIES).

    What if there are already wounded models that are not engaged nor hittable (aka at the back of the engaged unit?).

    If all hittable models in the target unit are removed, and additional unsaved wounds remain to be applied, these wounds are ignored and are not applied to non-hittable models.

    Ok so here it specifies hittable models, even though above it specified engaged models.

    EDIT: Also found a typo in the Relentless USR, it says ordinance instead of ordnance.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/21 16:59:47


    Post by: kestral


    This is great stuff! Keep up the good work.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2022/12/26 16:01:13


    Post by: Mezmorki


     Tyran wrote:
    The hittable and engaged rules are kinda confusing.


    I took a look, and the reality is that I was being sloppy and using the rules somewhat interchangeably. For clarity, I've reworked it so that it only uses "engaged model" as a term throughout. The "Hittable" term is now only used in reference to shooting attacks.

    All said, the basic idea is that "Engaged Models" (as determined at the start of a resolving a melee engagement) remain engaged for all purposes throughout the course of resolving the engagement in the current turn, and hence are eligible to attack to be attacked.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2023/01/11 14:25:28


    Post by: Mezmorki


    ================================
    Version 2.4
    ================================

    Fairly large number of relatively minor comments, plus a full text read through and editing pass. Tried to catch as many grammar errors and typos as I could while clarifying language throughout for better consistency.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Core rule changes & adjustments
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    * Firing Arc for vehicle mounted weapons is assumed to be 90-degrees (not 180-degrees as previously written) from the axis of the weapon barrel.
    Snap fire tweak - blast weapons work as normal, albeit with only hitting on a 4+. Only template (e.g. flamer) weapons hit fully covered models on a 4+ if using snap fire.
    * Structure Points: Adjusted the vehicle structure point values a bit, consolidating ranges into 0, 1, or 2 structure points (no more vehicles with 3 points). SPs were making it a little too difficult to kill vehicles.
    * Structure point rules for flyers in hover mode and fast moving skimmers can also use SPs to reduce damage if an immobilized result would’ve resulting in them being destroyed as well due to moving at a fast speed.
    * Deepstrike: Changed it so you can place a center model that is deepstriking at least 2” of an enemy model if desired (instead of 6”).
    * Tank Shock: Changed the way Skimmer Tanks can tank shock, given they ignore underlying terrain. Treat tank shocks more as a “death from above” crush attack, rather than rolling along the ground.
    * Overwatch: Clarified a few condition affecting whether a unit can enter overwatch or not. Clarified how the direction of overwatch fire is determined.
    * Split fire: Clarified that vehicles can still only split fire between two targets
    * Suppression: Changed this so that a unit sheds a suppression token at the END of its turn (not the start). Makes the impact of having just one token more relevant.
    * Suppression & Fearless: Tweaked how fearless units handle suppression. They can still choose become pinned, but ONLY after gaining 3+ suppression tokens, in order to shed them (this is on the basis that “fearless” does not equal “mindless”)
    * Engagement & Engaged Models: Adjusted language to remove reference to "hittable" models when talking about melee engagement. Melee engages are resolved based on handling for "engaged models" whereas "hittable" models refers to resolving ranged attacks.
    * Charing & Assault Grenades: Adjusted this so that only the models equipped with assault grenades benefit, not all models charging to the enemy.
    * Disordered Charge: Defined this as term as part of determining the number of attacks a model makes, and summarized the conditions where a disordered charge can apply
    * Pursuit Attacks: Changed this from one automatic wound with no armor save to one automatic hit with normal armor saves.
    * Consolidation: Noted that units consolidated into are automatically and immediately engaged.
    * Psykers & Disturbance in the Warp: Slight counter-balance for armies that can stack a lot of psychic powers. This rule adds a slightly Ld penalty as more and more powers are invoked in a turn.
    * Psykers and Death: Tweaked things so that psykers with active blessings or maledictions that are killed cause their invoked blessings/maledictions to be immediately canceled.
    * Universal Special Rules: Various minor edits and clarifications for consistency with published editions.
    * Unit Types: Corrected Cavalry, per 5th edition, to only move 6” but having fleet and a 12” charge.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    MISSION BRIEFINGS
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Did a modest pass cleaning up the mission briefings and clarifying/tweaking based on feedback from our campaign games. I’ll follow up with some more details after another pass is completed on the briefings.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    NEW MECHANICS
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    A few new mechanical systems are added to the game that the team has been discussing for a while.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Strategy Point System

    This system gives each player a pool of strategy points to use, based on the size of the game being played (e.g. you get only 4 points in a 2000 point game).

    These points can be used to modify or re-roll certain strategy and leadership related items over the course of the game. This includes applying modifiers to any “Mission Parameter” rolls, re-rolling a reserve roll, game end/last turn roll, leadership tests (except psychic tests), or for performing a special command action. The latter lets you purge a unit of certain status effects.

    The use of points is further limited to not more than one point being spent per battle round, and that you can only spend a point to re-roll a given roll once.

    The intent here is to help mitigate certain die-rolls that can lead to a lack of player agency and skew the direction of the game in a way that can feely randomly punitive at times. We’ll see how this goes in future testing. Feel free to play without as well.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Second Player Concessions

    This system gives whichever player goes second a “concession” for every 500 points of game size (e.g. 4 concessions in a 2000 point game).

    Each concession lets you do one of the following after deployment:
    Place a unit on overwatch at the start of the game
    Redeploy a unit onto the board following its normally allowed deployment rules
    Withhold a unit by removing it from the board and placing it back in reserve
    Fortify a unit by granting it +1 to cover saves until the unit moves
    Invoke a psychic power.

    Concessions also escalate in cost if you take the same option multiple times (eg. taking two overwatch concessions would cost three points, one for the first time, and two for the second time).

    The intent with this is to give some flexibility to the second player to adjust things to reduce the impact of potential alpha strikes and give the first player some potential obstacles or changes in plan to work around.

    We’ll see how this goes!


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2023/03/06 14:55:54


    Post by: Sgt Bastonne


    Love the idea, hopefully i find someone to play with me someday.

    Question about Structure Points: why do they exist? It seems like I have to Wreck a landraider 3 times to kill it?

    (also just want to add that i prefer 9th edition pistol rules so would keep firing them in close combat)


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2023/03/07 00:10:27


    Post by: kingpbjames


    Your Strategy Point System sounds like get-out-of-jail-free cards, which I'm totally fine with! It is more of an abstraction than I like but it really sucks if a single dice roll screws you over. I prefer dice to represent the small and expected chaos of the battlefield, not the skill of bomb defusal.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2023/12/21 18:51:40


    Post by: BilboSwaggins


    Has anyone tried ProHammer with one of the solo variants running around? Personally I like the old 3ed-7ed style rules better (more simulationist, less gamey) but the issue is finding people to play with. The Poorhammer podcast came out with their own very well composed horde mode variant that I've heard good things about. Looking at the rules for it the basic set up would work. But some of the random events and custom abilities rely on 10ed concepts like CP and devastating wounds, and would need to be reworked.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/13 15:08:26


    Post by: SetantaSilvermane


    What codex eras do you guys find the best fit with this ruleset?
    Since it's based on 5th, would the 4th-5th codexes work best?
    How about 6th-7th codexes?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/16 10:15:21


    Post by: A.T.


    SetantaSilvermane wrote:
    What codex eras do you guys find the best fit with this ruleset?
    3rd to 7th has a mostly shared core ruleset.

    In practice the costing and utility of units did change through the editions, and regardless of which books you use your group will have to decide whether or not flyers, gargantuan, and superheavy units are available.
    Beyond that 'older codex' does not always mean 'weaker codex', though it was frequently the case that costs fell and freebies increased through the editions.

    4th-5th isn't a bad place to start and after a few games you might shift to older/newer books to better fit your group - though you might want to jump straight to the 3e Witch Hunters codex (the 5e sisters were playable but suffered from being a 5 minute hack-job by Cruddace - you can see the copy/pasting) and you'll want to use the 2011 points updates for the Templars/Dark Angels if using those books alongside the other 5e Marine factions.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/18 10:46:33


    Post by: vipoid


    I'll make a suggestion for this ruleset, which is something I was saying years ago:

    The penalty for charging into difficult terrain (without grenades) should be that the attackers lose the +1A they'd normally get for charging.

    This way, terrain negatively affects all units that lack grenades, rather than severely penalising units with high-initiatives, whilst having no impact at all on anyone else.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/18 14:53:55


    Post by: A.T.


     vipoid wrote:
    This way, terrain negatively affects all units that lack grenades, rather than severely penalising units with high-initiatives, whilst having no impact at all on anyone else.
    Six of one and half a dozen of the other - the change helps some units that are unreasonably disadvantaged but it also makes some weak units weaker and some strong units stronger.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/21 06:17:21


    Post by: Quentcat


    Hi. I'm new and I wanted to try 40K but 10th felt super bad with gears having the same price (0). This seem a super good project. It can be a good idea to make a list of wich codex to take for each factions (or why not opening the door to rebalancing them) so the rules feel more unified.
    It's already hard enough to chose a faction so having to choose between each different version of codexes seem.... I mean I don't have the knowledge to chose. Meaning some others probably don't as well.
    I don't mean the strongest ones but like having a pools of 1 codex per faction balanced as much as possible with each others that people playing this ruleset can chose from.
    Thanks a lot for the rules that aren't game workshop mess.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/21 09:19:32


    Post by: aphyon


    The penalty for charging into difficult terrain (without grenades) should be that the attackers lose the +1A they'd normally get for charging.

    That rule already exists for photon grenades for Tau, specifically because of how much they hate close combat.

    SetantaSilvermane wrote:What codex eras do you guys find the best fit with this ruleset?
    Since it's based on 5th, would the 4th-5th codexes work best?
    How about 6th-7th codexes?


    Mez has done tons of work on this to make it look professional, and he and i have many similar ideas. however he has added a bunch of house rules that never existed because he wanted to use more 7th edition. our group uses 5th as the core and only imports a few pre-existing rules from previous editions(wound allocation, assaulting vehicles, sniper rifles always hitting on 2+ etc..) as well as a few add-ons from 6th/7th (mostly snap fire, overwatch, grenade throwing, smash and combining the flyer rules with the original more reasonable FW flyer rules). while you can use 6th and 7th ed codexes in our games. they must conform to the 5th ed core rules and USRs as such you have to look at the rule from 7th that it is trying to represent in 5th and if none exists it is ignored. as such 3rd ed/index astartes, 4th ed and 5th ed codexes are usually preferred to keep the feel of the game. aside from a few that didn't exist outside 7th like admech.

    Quentcat wrote:Hi. I'm new and I wanted to try 40K but 10th felt super bad with gears having the same price (0). This seem a super good project. It can be a good idea to make a list of wich codex to take for each factions (or why not opening the door to rebalancing them) so the rules feel more unified.
    It's already hard enough to chose a faction so having to choose between each different version of codexes seem.... I mean I don't have the knowledge to chose. Meaning some others probably don't as well.
    I don't mean the strongest ones but like having a pools of 1 codex per faction balanced as much as possible with each others that people playing this ruleset can chose from.
    Thanks a lot for the rules that aren't game workshop mess.


    The big thing to remember with the classic hammer game the designers were more focused on the lore of the universe and making each force "feel" like it should fight in the lore. as such fighting epic battles in the 40K setting is far more important to the game VS chess style balance between armies. as such list building is not as important as to how you as the player use that list on the table to your benefit. as it was once called -good generalship. as there were no trap cards to pull you out of the fire if you made a tactical error.

    For another take on this here is the link to the refined rule set we use based on 5th-

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/806639.page

    And my ongoing oldhammer discussion topic with the old beta rules as well as current updates on our games-

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page

    Additionally these are most of the common codexes we use in our games that i keep with me in case they are needed by any players.

    Spoiler:


    There are a few others i own or other players have copies of including all the FW imperial armor books that we can draw from as well as they are all cross compatible.





    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/22 18:25:18


    Post by: Dominar_Jameson_V


    Quentcat wrote:
    Hi. I'm new and I wanted to try 40K but 10th felt super bad with gears having the same price (0). This seem a super good project. It can be a good idea to make a list of wich codex to take for each factions (or why not opening the door to rebalancing them) so the rules feel more unified.
    ...
    I don't mean the strongest ones but like having a pools of 1 codex per faction balanced as much as possible with each others that people playing this ruleset can chose from.

    Mezmorki actually did make a thread asking for people's opinions on exactly this:

    What edition CODEX was "best" for each faction?
    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/806645.page

    Mez you should really link to that thread in your OP. I've gone back to it many times.
    I would like to see that thread turned into a poll but for some factions there unfortunately isn't one perfect codex and I'd think it would be frowned upon to cherry-pick from two codices. the Breacher Team and Ghostkeel were only added to Tau in 6th edition, so I'd have to use that or 7th since they're some of my favorite units.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/22 18:49:06


    Post by: aphyon


    the Breacher Team and Ghostkeel were only added to Tau in 6th edition, so I'd have to use that or 7th since they're some of my favorite units.


    Our group addressed this very easily. we use the 4th ed tau book because it best fits their intended fighting style, you just pull the base points of those 2 units from the newer dex and put them in the 4th ed book rules for unit upgrades costs and effects.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/22 20:43:10


    Post by: Quentcat


    Is there a way to play chaos knight or is it doomed with this rules set?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/23 07:27:48


    Post by: aphyon


     Quentcat wrote:
    Is there a way to play chaos knight or is it doomed with this rules set?


    You can play them in our rule set, not sure about Mez's

    you just need the 7th ed knights codex+chaos upgrades preferably from the 3.5 dex or imperial armor 13.



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/23 10:08:22


    Post by: A.T.


     aphyon wrote:
    you just need the 7th ed knights codex+chaos upgrades preferably from the 3.5 dex or imperial armor 13
    Forgeworld did release a daemonic knights pdf for possessed variants of the paladin and errant.
    Same costs as the 6e knights but the chaos variants got a free upgrade on their chainsword (+1 on the destroyer chart vs monstrous and gargantuan creatures), and could take a dirge caster for 5 points.

    They could each upgrade to gain the 'daemon' rule (including the 5++ save) and a few extra bonuses - when combined with IA13 you had Khorne knights with 3++/4++ with up to 6 enhanced attacks on the charge and an overwatch blocker.

    Not to mention that as Daemons they were subject to the warp storm table and related rules/psychic powers - anyone fancy fighting souped up khorne knights with 2++ saves?


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/24 04:39:17


    Post by: Mezmorki


    It's cool to see a little more discussion happening around ProHammer again. And the timing isn't lost given the general reception to 10th editions.

    I think it could be a great addition the the OP to list out a preferred set of codexes across the factions as a sort of "best of" list for each faction. Could also list some caveat and disclaimers for each to consider if the interest is having a more balanced game.

    As a group of players, you can also just decide on a time frame era and only use the codexes that would've been current at that time.

    Another specific option is to only use 7th ed and then you can use all the data that's still on Wahapedia - no need to track down old codexes then.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    I had aspirations of making a unified ProHammer set of codexes at one point. But it's a lot of work. I made a tyrnanid and league of botany codex though!

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13pleEW1QN_oTZNg8BFKt_-pwa_WQIEWbNJhzzr3gHno/edit

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mTmGvg-J7qaKNCvxQqXZy3Rw-IJxG8BJwPSsOz-TfXc/edit



    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/24 06:23:32


    Post by: Quentcat


    Oh cool the dwarfs are available.

    chaos upgrade ? dex 3.5 ? imperial armor 13 ?
    I am so lost all of this isn't in the codex list spreadsheet i guess there was stats released with specific model so not in codex ? Seem insane to find the docs for all the contents haha


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/24 06:58:22


    Post by: aphyon


    A.T. wrote:
     aphyon wrote:
    you just need the 7th ed knights codex+chaos upgrades preferably from the 3.5 dex or imperial armor 13
    Forgeworld did release a daemonic knights pdf for possessed variants of the paladin and errant.
    Same costs as the 6e knights but the chaos variants got a free upgrade on their chainsword (+1 on the destroyer chart vs monstrous and gargantuan creatures), and could take a dirge caster for 5 points.

    They could each upgrade to gain the 'daemon' rule (including the 5++ save) and a few extra bonuses - when combined with IA13 you had Khorne knights with 3++/4++ with up to 6 enhanced attacks on the charge and an overwatch blocker.

    Not to mention that as Daemons they were subject to the warp storm table and related rules/psychic powers - anyone fancy fighting souped up khorne knights with 2++ saves?


    I much prefer the 3.5 dex vehicle upgrades for a chaos knight.

    being immune to sun/shaken (demonic possession), adding +1 to all AV facing up to 14 (mutated hull) and being able to regrow damage on a 4+ in leu of shooting (parasitic possession) are for more interesting to me than buffing the ion shield.

    Additionally if you dedicated to various gods they had their own specific vehicle upgrades- slaneesh had the option to add dirge casters lowing LD values of every non-aligned unit around them progressively worse the closer you got to them(in close combat was the worst), or nurgle vehicles giving off an area effect nurgles rot cloud. etc...


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/24 15:32:45


    Post by: A.T.


     Quentcat wrote:
    I am so lost all of this isn't in the codex list spreadsheet i guess there was stats released with specific model so not in codex ? Seem insane to find the docs for all the contents haha
    I can send you a link to many of the official errata and FAQ files from 3rd to 5th - none of the actual book content though, you'll have to look to ebay for that.


     aphyon wrote:
    I much prefer the 3.5 dex vehicle upgrades for a chaos knight.

    being immune to sun/shaken (demonic possession), adding +1 to all AV facing up to 14 (mutated hull) and being able to regrow damage on a 4+ in leu of shooting (parasitic possession) are for more interesting to me than buffing the ion shield.
    It's times like this you need to reach for the old daemonhunters codex and abuse the hell out the sanctuary power.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/25 16:29:02


    Post by: aphyon


    It's times like this you need to reach for the old daemonhunters codex and abuse the hell out the sanctuary power.


    I love that power.....given that i end up fighting lots of 3.5 chaos at my FLGS group i do run an allied contingent of demon hunters/grey knights from time to time. even the GK vehicle upgrades help to counter the chaos silliness.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/25 16:52:06


    Post by: A.T.


     aphyon wrote:
    I love that power.....given that i end up fighting lots of 3.5 chaos at my FLGS group i do run an allied contingent of demon hunters/grey knights from time to time. even the GK vehicle upgrades help to counter the chaos silliness.
    The problem the old daemonhunters had is that their upgrades _only_ countered daemons, and were mostly paid for as add-ons.

    So you were either list tailoring against a specific opponent or else throwing points away with the games weakest faction - i.e. a chaos mutated hull gave +1 armour against everyone, whereas a blessed grey knights upgrade gave +1 armour penetration for that single vehicle only against mutated hulls.
    (now if it had been rolled into the Black Templars eldar-abusing blessed hull rules instead...)

    Though they did have the right idea with some of the more baselines stuff, the strength 6 weapons were much better suited to the theme than the 5th edition 'marinehunters' and their power swords.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/25 17:17:36


    Post by: aphyon


    Well they were designed as an anti-chaos/demon force so most of their stuff worked against all chaos and some specifically against demons. (interestingly enough also against the eldar avatar as it is classified as a demon).

    i feel they were best represented as a part of the inquisition in the demon hunters book to assist any imperial faction when it runs into chaos stuff. not as a pure faction/full marine chapter.


    ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition @ 2024/02/25 17:57:09


    Post by: A.T.


     aphyon wrote:
    Well they were designed as an anti-chaos/demon force so most of their stuff worked against all chaos and some specifically against demons. (interestingly enough also against the eldar avatar as it is classified as a demon).
    I guess I just felt like more of it should have been baked into the default abilities and daemonic infestation counter-penalty.

    The GKs only in-built anti-daemon rule was that daemons had to always assault through difficult terrain to charge them. Everything else was upgrades and points down the drain in an all-comers list.