Switch Theme:

ProHammer Classic - An Awesomely Unified 40K Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

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.





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran








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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/08/25 14:19:41


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

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.





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Pacific Northwest

 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)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/25 21:17:43


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
It's classier than that gentleman's club for abhumans, at least.
- Caiphas Cain, probably

 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 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.
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

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.





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Pacific Northwest

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?

Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
It's classier than that gentleman's club for abhumans, at least.
- Caiphas Cain, probably

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 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.





This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/28 02:21:35


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Pacific Northwest

 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!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/08/28 05:15:06


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
It's classier than that gentleman's club for abhumans, at least.
- Caiphas Cain, probably

 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

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.





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

@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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/12 18:01:33


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Pacific Northwest

 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.

Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
It's classier than that gentleman's club for abhumans, at least.
- Caiphas Cain, probably

 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 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.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Pacific Northwest

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?

Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
It's classier than that gentleman's club for abhumans, at least.
- Caiphas Cain, probably

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






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.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

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.





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Pacific Northwest

 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)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/15 01:34:03


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
It's classier than that gentleman's club for abhumans, at least.
- Caiphas Cain, probably

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






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.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 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.
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Pacific Northwest

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.

Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
It's classier than that gentleman's club for abhumans, at least.
- Caiphas Cain, probably

 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 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.
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/21 19:39:47


 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 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.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






I'll take a look and correct that. Thanks for pointing it out!

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

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.

   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 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'.
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/11/25 17:07:33


 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

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).





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/25 18:04:34


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/03 20:04:30


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: