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.

Looking at the rules for comparison. the 4th rulebook is really good and adds the characters, blessed hulls on land raiders as well as keeps the vows. the biggest change really is to the righteous zeal special rule and be pure in mind, body, and soul is replaced by abhor the witch.

In the armageddon codex zeal requires 25% casualties to trigger but it is always passed, and it also effects jump infantry. the distance moved towards the enemy is 2d6 (3d6 for jumpers)

The codex triggers on a single casualty but they do not auto pass, it does not apply to jump troops and failure forces them to fall back. success only grants a 1d6 move towards the enemy.


The vow used to let them go after psykers getting an extra 2d6 move towards a psyker (including their vehicles) before normal moves. the change gives them a 5+save against psyker powers.

It is a trade off as to which version you like better. i thought the original was more in line with the lore.

I simply want to point out that I was not saying to try to win against WAAC players. As was stated you cannot.

However the best defense is not to specifically try to counter them but instead work at writing consistent rules, avoid "exceptions", work on fluffy for armies, accept that not all armies are going to be equal (and you don't want that anyways), avoid "special snowflake" concepts,

Always seek internally consistent balance and consistent rules applications. This alone will prevent most abuses, not all, just most. All rules abuse and WAAC centers around extreme abuse of niche rules written without proper testing or realization of interactions. Usually OP codexes or OP "special exception powers of uber to sell models".

Examples of poorly written rules being abused was 7th (lots of abuse in this edition, dunno why, maybe how long it ran). From Invisibility (which was SUPER EASY TO FIX, but wasn't) to "to-tipping cover" or "conga lines" or other ridiculous activities. All which were easily solved by SMALL changes that were not heavily impactful on game operation and did not significantly change the game play or core rule.

Oh and as a note, the overwatch changes in 9th so far are something I fully support. With a little tweaking it could be as close to as "ideal" as we can get.

Examples of "off the cuff" fixes:
Invisibility:
Warp Charges Cost: 3
6's to hit unless the unit shot or charges, note this is not snap firing so blast weapons may be used as normal, if so their position is revealed and they instead gain a non-alterable 4+ cover save, weapons that ignore cover are not effected by invisibility.

Still power, still open to abuse, but not like before. The cost opens up a much higher chance of Perils.

Toe-Tipping: In order to benefit from "area terrain" a model must be "fully within the area", fully within is defined by the model's WHOLE base being within a defined zone of Area Terrain.

Conga-Lines: See 9th Edition Coherency Rules.

Scatter Dice too slow/ arguments (bullcrap from players, but easy fix): Import Rules.Warmachine
With a little modifications that is.
Your standard GW template has "clock" markings. Anyone notice that? I present two options: one D12 one D6, both work equally well.
Blast D6
1-Declare Target
2-Place Template as desired on Target
3-Roll to Hit as normal
4a- If a Hit is rolled resolve the attack against the models under the template. Blast will hit ONLY those models under the template. Models not under the template may not be assigned wounds. Models partially under the template are only hit on a 4+ rolled for each model.
4b- If a Miss is rolled, roll a D6 and consult the clock on the template. 6 always points towards your opponents table edge, 3 always points to your table edge. Roll 2D6 and subtract the models BS from that number. Move the template along the direction rolled that number of inches and resolve attack as normal. This may impact friendly units or even hit multiple units.

Blast D12
1-Declare Target
2-Place Template as desired on Target
3-Roll to Hit as normal
4a- If a Hit is rolled resolve the attack against the models under the template. Blast will hit ONLY those models under the template. Models not under the template may not be assigned wounds. Models partially under the template are only hit on a 4+ rolled for each model.
4b- If a Miss is rolled, roll a D12 and consult the clock on the template. 12 always points towards your opponents table edge, 6 always points to your table edge. Roll 2D6 and subtract the models BS from that number. Move the template along the direction rolled that number of inches and resolve attack as normal. This may impact friendly units or even hit multiple units.

Of the two D6 is faster but the clock is more limited in direction, enough so as to be predictable to an extent. D12 offers more "reasonable" scatter granularity but it breaks the "D6" game rule so that is the biggest argument against it.

 aphyon wrote:
The vow used to let them go after psykers getting an extra 2d6 move towards a psyker (including their vehicles) before normal moves. the change gives them a 5+save against psyker powers.

4e still had that, but it was a d6" move. I'm guessing the change was to reduce the first turn charges that sometimes plagued 3rd edition (see blood angels).

With zeal I believe the amageddon templars had to fail their leadership test to use it. The odds of which are slim and anyone led by a chaplain never fell back (and therefore would never zeal).

By comparison the 4e templars would virtually always zeal forward if you so much as looked at them funny - it was actually a point of contention as some players insisted zeal was a forced maximum move rather than following the consolidation move rules (interpreting 'must' move towards the enemy as overriding the distance as well as the direction of the rule).

Models partially under the template are only hit on a 4+ rolled for each model.

Absolutely NEVER use this- it was the way it was in the original template rules and was fixed (if you get touched by the template you are hit) because it caused to many problems.

The additional rub, if i have to roll to hit in the first place i should not have to roll to hit again on the same targets.

DUST uses the reverse rule-the template never scatters so you have to roll for all models touched by it to see if they are hit. but that system does not have a roll to wound. hits are also wounds automatically-saves taken as normal based on weapon profile. \

A.T.
both rules for zeal have their own merits. i would say it is a toss up between the original armageddon mini entry and the full 4th ed codex. i would have no problem fighting against either version under the 5th edition based super edition he is trying to make with pro-hammer (although i prefer our version better since it is only 20 specific bullet point fixes by using existing rules combined into 5th)

@Mezmorki: A few quibbles as I read the rules in depth:

Unit types: P5: A few:
As written Jetbikes can go to ground and can't turbo-boost?
You've included Jink in the USR summary but three of the main unit types that had it (bikes, jetbikes, skimmers) don't, is it your intention that it'd be added to unit datasheets individually?
Monstrous Creatures aren't natively Fearless, is it your intention that it'd be added to unit datasheets individually?
Artillery type: It's not a common type in 40k but it's always got a pile of unnecessarily complicated rules. I'd really like to be able to write gun+crew as a single multi-wound model to make them faster and easier to use if possible, if you're amenable I'll send my proposal?

Overwatch: P7: Why no morale/pinning from overwatch fire? A unit breaking and running as they fail to advance past a hail of bullets seems like a perfectly logical interaction to me.

Shooting into melee: P9: As written monsters can be freely shot while in melee, even when engaged with monsters or walkers, but walkers can't?

Heavy weapons: P10: As written a unit with Relentless can't charge after firing Heavy weapons, is this intentional?

Blasts: P10: 2d6-BS scatter makes it very difficult for a blast weapon (particularly a large blast) to entirely miss; I worry that using that on top of the normal roll to hit is going to make blasts way too accurate (a BS4 model firing this way has an 87% chance to have the blast land exactly where they want it to, 2/3 chance of hitting on BS plus 1/9 misses but then rolls a hit on the scatter die plus 5/54 shot scatters 0"). I'd suggest either removing the to-hit roll like in the original 5e or dropping BS from the scatter roll like in 4e.

Assault phase morale (P13): I'm curious as to why you've dropped the morale penalty for losing more models here. I'm a little worried about things being too hard to sweep if they're testing on Ld7-8 before factoring in flags/morale buffs.

Vehicle damage tables (P16): I'm a little worried about making AP1 the bar for getting a +1 to the damage table and a little worried about allowing glancing hits to wreck vehicles while still letting Haywire glance on 2s. It's not necessarily very urgent but I may switch a few AP2 weapons to AP1 and/or give some Haywire weapons AP- with these tables.

Vehicle squadrons: P16: Why does the defender allocate hits evenly across the squadron? It seems inconsistent with requiring wounds to other units to hit the wounded models first, and seems like you risk making vehicle squadrons too durable.

Deny the Witch: P18: The d6+Ld roll-off makes me a bit twitchy, I worry that it'll make it too easy for someone to take a random chump psyker (an Astropath, say) and shut down a Lord of Change, or too hard for the Lord of Change to eat the Astropath's brain. I could fiddle around with Ld more but I'd almost rather introduce a "psychic mastery" mechanic just for deny rolls.

Jink: P19: You've got 6e Jink (gains a cover save after moving) here but almost 7e Jink (choose to jink to gain cover but then fire snap shots next turn) in the flyer rules on page 22. I'd strongly advise going to the 7e version for everyone; I spent a lot of 6e very frustrated by my Eldar not getting their cover saves top of turn one and getting alpha-struck down much too easily.

Chariots: P23: It'd be much, much easier just to say "this vehicle fights in melee like a walker" and then stat them accordingly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:

Space Marines: 4e. Endlessly customizable units, managed to be "jack of all trades, master of none" better than any implementation since.

I prefer the 5th ed book better because it had more unit options. both 4th or 5th editions could work better if you add in the expanded rules from the index astartes books(lots of people forget how great they are).

There were a lot of complaints about the 4th ed trait system allowing abuse because the negative traits you could choose from had no real negative impact...

I think what they thought was "everyone's going to pick one set of chapter traits and stick with them, which will limit what kind of army builds they can use!" and everyone else thought "great, we can revise our chapter traits to tailor them to whatever list build we're using today!"

Addendum: Am skimming the Index Astartes docs and I'm amused at how much the 30k Legion appendixes look like the CSM 3.5/Index Astartes Chapter rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Snipers: I'd like to be able to rethink them as special weapons/small teams rather than 40k's usual massed sniper squads; I can give everyone the ability to pick out targets a la the 3e Vindicare on my end, but would you consider putting that into the Sniper rule?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Eldar: Unsure. Most units change very little between books and the mission statement ("army of specialized scalpel units that need to operate in concert") wasn't well-filled by any of them; what tends to happen is that GW accidentally makes one unit too efficient against too many targets and the Eldar become a spam army. Maybe the 4e book with 3e Craftworlds' sub-faction material.

Eldar has always been one of my main factions (also Space Wolves and Orks). Having spent some time recently comparing Eldar codexes across editions, I think the 6th edition one I like the most. There are some subtle things and extra options that make it feel a bit more in flavor with 2nd edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:

Models partially under the template are only hit on a 4+ rolled for each model.

Absolutely NEVER use this- it was the way it was in the original template rules and was fixed (if you get touched by the template you are hit) because it caused to many problems.

What was the issue caused by partially touched models being a 4+? Confusion about whether a model was wholly or only partially covered?

AnomanderRake wrote:@Mezmorki: A few quibbles as I read the rules in depth:

Unit types: P5: A few:
As written Jetbikes can go to ground and can't turbo-boost?
You've included Jink in the USR summary but three of the main unit types that had it (bikes, jetbikes, skimmers) don't, is it your intention that it'd be added to unit datasheets individually?
Monstrous Creatures aren't natively Fearless, is it your intention that it'd be added to unit datasheets individually?
Artillery type: It's not a common type in 40k but it's always got a pile of unnecessarily complicated rules. I'd really like to be able to write gun+crew as a single multi-wound model to make them faster and easier to use if possible, if you're amenable I'll send my proposal?

Good comments.

* Fixed Jetbikes special rules (same as bikes)
* Jink. In 5th edition, those units didn't have Jink, and I kept it that way. I included Jink is the USR's to be used as special rule where applicable to individual datasheets
* I don't think they were natively fearless in 5th - so this is left to the data sheets
* Artillery is tricky, I agree it could be simplified. I'll add that to the list.

Overwatch: P7: Why no morale/pinning from overwatch fire? A unit breaking and running as they fail to advance past a hail of bullets seems like a perfectly logical interaction to me.

I was trying to keep overwatch from being too powerful frankly. The idea too is that the shots are taken based on the unit in their final move position, representing them taking shots while running, but making it to their final destination nonetheless (i.e. adrenalin on the run overcoming your desire to turn and flee at that moment). I also didn't want to introduce units breaking during your own turn. Also, since overwatch can be triggered after any move (including an assault move), I didn't want casualties to cause a charging unit to retreat mid-charge. Too strong.

Shooting into melee: P9: As written monsters can be freely shot while in melee, even when engaged with monsters or walkers, but walkers can't?

I'll fix that! I forgot that walkers are counted as infantry models in CC and are thus locked/engaged.

Heavy weapons: P10: As written a unit with Relentless can't charge after firing Heavy weapons, is this intentional?

* Fixed! Relentless units can still charge after shooting a heavy weapon.

Blasts: P10: 2d6-BS scatter makes it very difficult for a blast weapon (particularly a large blast) to entirely miss; I worry that using that on top of the normal roll to hit is going to make blasts way too accurate (a BS4 model firing this way has an 87% chance to have the blast land exactly where they want it to, 2/3 chance of hitting on BS plus 1/9 misses but then rolls a hit on the scatter die plus 5/54 shot scatters 0"). I'd suggest either removing the to-hit roll like in the original 5e or dropping BS from the scatter roll like in 4e.

My group and I were talking about this exact thing. We're going to remove the BS modifier from the scatter roll and see how that goes.

Assault phase morale (P13): I'm curious as to why you've dropped the morale penalty for losing more models here. I'm a little worried about things being too hard to sweep if they're testing on Ld7-8 before factoring in flags/morale buffs.

* Well, if you lost more models / suffered more wounds, you have a -1 to your Ld. It just doesn't scale worse than that. Maybe it's not strong enough of a morale check for larger horde units that lose? The original 5E rules (-1 Ld per wound you lost by) can be pretty harsh and too often leads into a guaranteed route. I was trying to tip it so that melee fights are more often going to last more than 1 round of combat.

Vehicle damage tables (P16): I'm a little worried about making AP1 the bar for getting a +1 to the damage table and a little worried about allowing glancing hits to wreck vehicles while still letting Haywire glance on 2s. It's not necessarily very urgent but I may switch a few AP2 weapons to AP1 and/or give some Haywire weapons AP- with these tables.

* Haywire as AP- makes sense. What units tend to use haywire the most? Harlequins mostly?

Vehicle squadrons: P16: Why does the defender allocate hits evenly across the squadron? It seems inconsistent with requiring wounds to other units to hit the wounded models first, and seems like you risk making vehicle squadrons too durable.

* Maybe I worded this wrong - but I intended it to mirror the normal wound allocation changes I in ProHammer. It says the defender allocates the penetrating and glancing hits , which is after the penetration rolls are made (which is analogous to after the wound rolls are made). I think the wound allocation rules in ProHammer, for both vehicle squads and normal units, should make them a little more durable versus shooting. Or at least give the defender more choice/flexibility over what models take what wounds. Do you think this should work such that you roll on the damage tables and then allocate those results evenly?

Deny the Witch: P18: The d6+Ld roll-off makes me a bit twitchy, I worry that it'll make it too easy for someone to take a random chump psyker (an Astropath, say) and shut down a Lord of Change, or too hard for the Lord of Change to eat the Astropath's brain. I could fiddle around with Ld more but I'd almost rather introduce a "psychic mastery" mechanic just for deny rolls.

* i was contemplating that. In this 6th/7th edition compatibly section I made note that mastery level is equivalent to how many powers your psyker knows for backward compatibility with older editions. Maybe that can be pulled into the main section. Or else the deny the witch is just a 6 on a d6 roll unless you have some spiffy wargear. Keep in mind, the default deny the witch only works if the psyhic power targets the psyker (or the unit it's in).

Jink: P19: You've got 6e Jink (gains a cover save after moving) here but almost 7e Jink (choose to jink to gain cover but then fire snap shots next turn) in the flyer rules on page 22. I'd strongly advise going to the 7e version for everyone; I spent a lot of 6e very frustrated by my Eldar not getting their cover saves top of turn one and getting alpha-struck down much too easily.

* I'll take another look at that

Chariots: P23: It'd be much, much easier just to say "this vehicle fights in melee like a walker" and then stat them accordingly.

* Ditto - can probably be simplified more.

Trying to fix GWs screwups...who knew it would become a second career for you. you already did better than their design team, although to be fair marketing probably doesn't want a "perfect edition" that doesn't need constant updates/fixes.

 Mezmorki wrote:

Overwatch: P7: Why no morale/pinning from overwatch fire? A unit breaking and running as they fail to advance past a hail of bullets seems like a perfectly logical interaction to me.

I was trying to keep overwatch from being too powerful frankly. The idea too is that the shots are taken based on the unit in their final move position, representing them taking shots while running, but making it to their final destination nonetheless (i.e. adrenalin on the run overcoming your desire to turn and flee at that moment). I also didn't want to introduce units breaking during your own turn. Also, since overwatch can be triggered after any move (including an assault move), I didn't want casualties to cause a charging unit to retreat mid-charge. Too strong.

I think Overwatch instead of shooting is already enough of a nerf.

Vehicle damage tables (P16): I'm a little worried about making AP1 the bar for getting a +1 to the damage table and a little worried about allowing glancing hits to wreck vehicles while still letting Haywire glance on 2s. It's not necessarily very urgent but I may switch a few AP2 weapons to AP1 and/or give some Haywire weapons AP- with these tables.

* Haywire as AP- makes sense. What units tend to use haywire the most? Harlequins mostly?

Massed Haywire is available to Harlequins (haywire-cannon bikes), Dark Eldar (haywire-cannon Scourges and haywire grenades on Wyches), Craftworld Eldar (haywire grenades on Swooping Hawks), and potentially Mechanicum/Marines depending on how I end up implementing grav-weapons (30k grav is all Haywire).

Vehicle squadrons: P16: Why does the defender allocate hits evenly across the squadron? It seems inconsistent with requiring wounds to other units to hit the wounded models first, and seems like you risk making vehicle squadrons too durable.

* Maybe I worded this wrong - but I intended it to mirror the normal wound allocation changes I in ProHammer. It says the defender allocates the penetrating and glancing hits , which is after the penetration rolls are made (which is analogous to after the wound rolls are made). I think the wound allocation rules in ProHammer, for both vehicle squads and normal units, should make them a little more durable versus shooting. Or at least give the defender more choice/flexibility over what models take what wounds. Do you think this should work such that you roll on the damage tables and then allocate those results evenly?

Vehicle squadrons are going to be a lot harder to handle than this; how do you deal with squadrons with different armour facings where vehicles are facing in different directions, on top of figuring out how to write "must allocate hits to damaged vehicles first" without hull points (do you need to allocate hits to shaken/stunned vehicles first?). I'd almost suggest just dropping vehicle squadrons as a concept and making everything that would be a squadron work like 30k Dreadnaught Talons (multiple vehicles to a slot, deploy together but act as individual units during the game).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:

Models partially under the template are only hit on a 4+ rolled for each model.

Absolutely NEVER use this- it was the way it was in the original template rules and was fixed (if you get touched by the template you are hit) because it caused to many problems.

What was the issue caused by partially touched models being a 4+? Confusion about whether a model was wholly or only partially covered?

That, plus it's an extra resolution step that doesn't really add anything to the game. There's also the fact that that rule was written when almost everything was on a 25mm base, trying to use that rule with whole armies on 32mm or 40mm bases risks blasts generally being too weak.

>Under no circumstances may more than two powers be used per player turn. (Revised)

Is this 'per Psyker?' If so, then that seems like it would inordinately hurt some armies (read: Tyranids) more than others.

Yes, each psyker is limited to no more than two per turn. I'll correct that.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Yes, each psyker is limited to no more than two per turn. I'll correct that.

It's just the base 5th editon rule you had 2 tiers of librarians base had 1 power top had 2, i think the only exception was special characters like eldrad and ahriman who i think could do 3 or 4.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Yes, each psyker is limited to no more than two per turn. I'll correct that.

You might alternately stick to "mastery level" as the rule for controlling how many powers a unit can cast. Going back to 5e everyone was limited to one, but there were costed upgrades for Farseers, Librarians, Sorcerers, and GK characters to get more, and core mechanics are there for things you don't want to have to copy-paste across a bunch of different unit entries.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Eldar: Unsure. Most units change very little between books and the mission statement ("army of specialized scalpel units that need to operate in concert") wasn't well-filled by any of them; what tends to happen is that GW accidentally makes one unit too efficient against too many targets and the Eldar become a spam army. Maybe the 4e book with 3e Craftworlds' sub-faction material.

Eldar has always been one of my main factions (also Space Wolves and Orks). Having spent some time recently comparing Eldar codexes across editions, I think the 6th edition one I like the most. There are some subtle things and extra options that make it feel a bit more in flavor with 2nd edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:

Models partially under the template are only hit on a 4+ rolled for each model.

Absolutely NEVER use this- it was the way it was in the original template rules and was fixed (if you get touched by the template you are hit) because it caused to many problems.

What was the issue caused by partially touched models being a 4+? Confusion about whether a model was wholly or only partially covered?

If memory serves me the issue was 2-fold. Considered Excessive Dice rolling (slow) and people were "abusing" and intentionally mis-representing the rule (a common problem). The first one is not solve-able. The other one is an issue with sportsmanship. However, in light of 8ths, and even 9ths excessive dice faffing... It's not as slow as endless re-rolls.
It should be noted that Warmachine used similar rules and doesn't have a problem with sportsmanship in that regard but the lower model count made dice rolling lower so that isn't totally fair.

Point is people have dicked around in 8th with the whole aura, wholly within/just touching crap as well such that even GW had to fix it in FAQs requiring a the entire unit to be "within".

In the end we try to balance things. Without the 4+ rule you need deviation to be much higher to prevent template weapons from obliterating horde armies. While it is reasonable that a horde would take more hits, it is also less fun. Always the balance of fun/crunchy. We do the best we can. It's just that blast weapons and template weapons can be very powerful when they are not made "special" with scatter and scatter causes all kinds of arguments between people of poor sportsmanship. More than the 4+ does tbh. Which is why GW tried the whole Dice instead of Templates.. but it leaves a lot wanting and takes a good bit out of the game.
I still don't see a "perfect" solution. Scatter Dice are BAD, always been BAD. The fact though that under old rules an Ork was as likely to get a "hit" on the actual dice as a Space Marine left a lot to be wanted, but to try and counter that they used the subtract BS method. But to get away from scatter requires a clock dice of some kind. How then to determine hit or or scatter? The fastest is the BS roll, but again that will make Marine blast extremely accurate and devastating towards hordes. Which kind of makes sense but is less "fun".

Wandering around in dark places of game design. It's kind of fun. Though in summation our friend has another good point about the base size problem. GW's scale creep has resulted in some crazy bases. Let alone GW's almost random use of base shape and size prevents the PP method of cylinders of logic about LOS and visibility. I mean who here doesn't recall the models on a tournament guard army all laying on their bases and similar slowed things.

 meatybtz wrote:
...Without the 4+ rule you need deviation to be much higher to prevent template weapons from obliterating horde armies...

To be fair you could also prevent template weapons from totally obliterating horde armies by fiddling with stats. Make more weapons AP6/- so 5+ armour is more valuable, for instance.

Flamers were incredibly dangerous in 5th edition but far less so in 7th due to the differences in shooting resolution.

5th was "All hits, all wounds, allocate wounds, save."

7th was:
"Batch weapons by type."
-For Each Batch, "Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save."

On one hand, 7th had slower resolution. On the other hand, it required flamers to fire first, and it prevented the issue of nuking a horde by tank-shocking a clump, mass-flamering it, and spilling-over to the rest of the horde.

If you want hordes to be more resilient versus templates/AOEs, allow unengaged units to consolidate 'as though' there were no enemies after assaulting a vehicle, regardless of whether or not they destroyed the vehicle or not. Optionally, the explosion damage for such vehicles resolves AFTER those consolidate moves, so you don't lose half your Tankbustas to a Rhino.

Honestly, I've had much issue with the 4+ for partially covered models using template + blast weapons. It's an extra step in the die rolling, but just doesn't take all much time in the scheme of things and I think strikes a better balance than other options.

I finished a ProHammer game last night of Eldar vs. Blood Angles (Lamenters technically) with a stupid amount of hand flamers Template resolution was fine.

 MagicJuggler wrote:


5th was "All hits, all wounds, allocate wounds, save."

7th was:
"Batch weapons by type."
-For Each Batch, "Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save."

ProHammer is:
"All hits, all wounds, allocate wounds by weapon batch and/or saves, saves"

Kind of a hybrid of the two approaches.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
If you want hordes to be more resilient versus templates/AOEs, allow unengaged units to consolidate 'as though' there were no enemies after assaulting a vehicle, regardless of whether or not they destroyed the vehicle or not. Optionally, the explosion damage for such vehicles resolves AFTER those consolidate moves, so you don't lose half your Tankbustas to a Rhino.

.

Interesting idea. I'll consider allowing consolidation moves after assaulting a (non-walker) vehicle.

First draft of a Space Marine book for these rules: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dfQUz1frMJcFd8N73UTPm_oUF0_mqsRf7k7QX-Wt2jM/edit?usp=sharing

There are no Forge World units or Flyers in this document right now; the FW units are left out to keep the size down, the Flyers because I'm not sure I agree with Mezmorki's core flyer rules. I tried to minimize datasheets otherwise, and ended up drawing more on 30k than 40k for a lot of Chapter Tactics.

This is very much a first draft and everything (especially points) is subject to change. The document has open comment permission so you can post there if you want.

Update to ProHammer, bringing it up to version 1.5

See below for bigger changes, but lots of other minor clarifications added throughout. Playing another game tonight to see how it goes.

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

Version 1.5

(1) Adjusted rules for shooting into close combat - now based on rolling to hit as normal, and then adding an additional step and D6 roll, hitting your own units on a 1-3, and intended target on 4-6.

(2) Adjusted rules for resolving blast weapons (no more BS subtraction to scatter distance), since it uses normal to hit roll for determining initial placement.

(3) Reorganized the universal special rules and combined 5th/6th/7th rules into organized lists.

(4) Clarified psyker handling between editions. Incorporates a “mastery level” concept into core rules that is backward compatible with older codexs

(5) Withdrawing from close combat moved to the start of your own assault phase (before charges). Helps keep melee units alive and sets up a choice.

(6) Morale checks for shooting and assault moved to the end of the turn. Units only take one test per turn. Slight tip in favor of melee units so you don't have charge targets break and run before you can finish the assault.

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

Just a little ProHammer update...

I'm currently writing a whole new set of missions and mission setup instructions. After reviewing how different editions handled it, I'm learning towards going back to the way VP's worked in 4th edition but blending this with the variety of mission types found across later editions.

For those who don't know or recall, in 4th edition a greater range of units could count as "scoring units" (unlike 5-8th? - 9th seems to have expanded the range of scoring units again?). What was cool is that you earned the unit's actual point value for killing it or 50% of its value if below 50% strength.

In addition to getting VP's for kills, the mission objectives were also worth a variable amount of points depending on the size of the game. I.E, a single "capture the center" of the table objective in 2,000 point game would be worth 2,000 points! In a mission with 4 objective markers, each marker would be worth 500 points, and so on.

The result is cool because the missions were a careful balance between objective scoring and killing enemies while preserving you own force strength (to prevent your opponent from scoring points on kills). It added a tactical depth that I feel later missions lack a bit. The whole thing scales perfectly depending on the size of the game being played too.

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

I'm also working on an alternative turn structure format for the game, which would be optional of course. Played one game with it so far and it's pretty interesting!

Sorry... i really like what you have done, but fallback... that plenty reason to disgard it for me as a khorne/WE player.

Edit: post shooting i can live with. Didnt notice the 1.5 change.

So I'm trying to think through the rules for deep striking a bit.

I do like that in 8th/9th units have a "chance" to be able to deep strike and also assault on the turn that they deep strike. I also like that there is NOT a deep strike disaster table - which can be very punishing and unfun overall.

I wonder in the context of 5th edition / ProHammer if there is a way to allow assaulting after deepstriking AND also minimize the disaster chances.

Here's an idea I'm kicking around, and looking for feedback.

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

(1) When deepstriking, place one model, designed the "center model", from the deepstriking unit on the table 6" or more away from an an enemy unit (for vehicles measure from all points of the hull)

(2) Roll a 2D6 + Scatter. If a hit is rolled, go to (3), is a scatter direction is rolled, go to (4)

(3) If a hit is rolled, place remaining models in the unit per step (5)

(4) If a scatter direction is rolled, determine the adjusted location for the center model, which is 2D6" in the direction shown by the scatter die (don't move the center model yet!).

* If the center model's adjusted location is on top of a friendly model, set the adjusted location as far as possible, stopping 2" short of the friendly model(s) it would be on top of.

* If the center model's new location is in impossible terrain, off of the table, or on top of or within 2" of an enemy model, your opponent instead chooses the scatter direction and sets the adjusted location based on the distance rolled. The chosen direction cannot result in the adjusted location being on impassible terrain, off the table, or within 2" of an enemy model. If no viable direction exists, the unit returns to the reserve pool and will attempt to arrive again next turn.

(5) Once the adjusted location is determined, move the center model to that location. All other models in the deepstriking unit must now be placed within 2" of the center model. Models may not be placed on impassible terrain or within 2" of enemy models. Any models which cannot be placed within 2" of the center model may be placed in base-to-base contact with a model that is within 2" of the center model. Should there be no space available to place a given model, that model is instead destroyed.

Models entering play from deepstriking, or disembarking from deep striking vehicles, may not take a normal move after arriving. However, they may shoot, run, and assault as normal.

* Drop Pod special rule allows you to stop the scatter distance short in the event of conflicts with enemy models, impassible terrain, etc. Drop pods, if open-topped, DO allow units to assault out of them the turn they arrive.

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

How this works in practice...

With the center model being setup up 6" away, and placing other models in the unit within 2", if you roll a hit (1/3 chance) you'll likely be in charge range after deepstriking.

However, it's also possible of course that you get an unlucky scatter roll that brings you too close to an enemy model, in which case they get to dictate the direction you scatter instead! I like that interactive aspect. The effect is that you "can" try to squeeze a unit in close and within assault range, but you only have a 1/3 chance to hit that spot and there is the potential for your opponent to pick a really unpleasant direction for it to scatter instead.

Obviously opening up the opportunity to assault from deep-striking is a big change for 5th, but it's allowed in 8th/9th with the risk that your charge distance won't get you far enough to assault. Here, there is a similar risk of scattering too far away and/or your opponent getting to place your model's in a worse location.

Thoughts?

My preference is to keep the chance for disaster if you just Deep Strike anywhere, but allow the player to mitigate it with teleport homers. I dislike 8e/9e's decision to allow predictable risk-free Deep Striking anywhere you want, it's turned Deep Strike into an efficient way to hide all kinds of units from alpha-strikes to the point that there's a whole bunch of stuff you should never deploy on the table instead of a high risk/high reward strategy for possibly getting a surprise shot off.

 aphyon wrote:

My list of best codexes to use-

.Space marines-5th
.Black templar-armageddon
.Salamanders-armageddon or 4th
.Blood angels-5th
.White scars-index astartes 1
.Dark angles 3.5 mini dex
.Demon/witch hunters-3rd
.Space wolves 5th
.Custodes-7th
.Oks-4th hands down the most orky book
.Tau-4th (back when they were good even without riptiides)
.Tyranids-4th hands down best use of biomorphs/synapse
.IG-5th
.Chaos 3.5(also the best book for almost a pure demon army..just play with the word bearers rules)
.Adeptus mechanicus/skitarii-7th
.Necrons-7th (they needed the expanded line before that they were pretty 2 dimensional)
.Eldar.-i'm gonna go with 4th
.Dark eldar- not sure, never fought them enough in any edition to know which one was best.

For expanding the lines for say adding something not in those codexes like a helldrake in a chaos marine force using the 3.5 dex.. just use the points cost listed from it's entry in the book it appears in but use the upgrade costs and related rules from the 3.5 codex.


I wouldn't use primaris at all in any manner except as stand in proxies for regular marines/units. the 8th ed system is completely incompatible with 3rd-7th especially using 5th edition core rules like pro-hammer.

3rd and 5th are both great but would both need a couple things changed, 7th would be the easiest to plug in and still had some of that 5th edition feel but lost some units and rules that you want if going retro psuedo 5th/7th rules.
I would do 5th but take out the harlequins and make the PfP chart either 7th's or just modify it so when a vehicle kills something the riders gets the token.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My preference is to keep the chance for disaster if you just Deep Strike anywhere, but allow the player to mitigate it with teleport homers. I dislike 8e/9e's decision to allow predictable risk-free Deep Striking anywhere you want, it's turned Deep Strike into an efficient way to hide all kinds of units from alpha-strikes to the point that there's a whole bunch of stuff you should never deploy on the table instead of a high risk/high reward strategy for possibly getting a surprise shot off.

Well, the counter-point for ProHammer is that when the shooting phase rolls around, units you place on overwatch can fire at deepstriking units. So maybe they can assault now, but they'll weather a bit of fire in the process.

Considering there were only a hand full of units in the game that can assault from "deepstrike" in 5th, only if they land close enough which is risky with the scatter dice and mishap table, i don't think doing that is necessary.

The units that can off the top of my head
.dreadnoughts in lucius pattern drop pods
.vanguard veterans
.callidus assassin
.boss zagstrukk (and his unit)

 Mezmorki wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My preference is to keep the chance for disaster if you just Deep Strike anywhere, but allow the player to mitigate it with teleport homers. I dislike 8e/9e's decision to allow predictable risk-free Deep Striking anywhere you want, it's turned Deep Strike into an efficient way to hide all kinds of units from alpha-strikes to the point that there's a whole bunch of stuff you should never deploy on the table instead of a high risk/high reward strategy for possibly getting a surprise shot off.

Well, the counter-point for ProHammer is that when the shooting phase rolls around, units you place on overwatch can fire at deepstriking units. So maybe they can assault now, but they'll weather a bit of fire in the process.

The problem there is that you end up with an army trapped in a corner scared to move because if it doesn't sit there on overwatch it'll get mangled by someone's deep-striking alpha strike. Or someone will put down deep-strike skew that will bulldoze through someone else's overwatch. 8e/9e has "overwatch" stratagems too, and they're really not enough to meaningfully interact with someone who's willing to put thirty or forty Stormtroopers in deep strike so they can pop up in good range without ever getting shot.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem there is that you end up with an army trapped in a corner scared to move because if it doesn't sit there on overwatch it'll get mangled by someone's deep-striking alpha strike.

Well, if they hide in a corner then they aren't using those units to move on objectives up field. You gotta take some exposure to play the game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Or someone will put down deep-strike skew that will bulldoze through someone else's overwatch. 8e/9e has "overwatch" stratagems too, and they're really not enough to meaningfully interact with someone who's willing to put thirty or forty Stormtroopers in deep strike so they can pop up in good range without ever getting shot.

Well there isn't much to be done about that either way then.

 Mezmorki wrote:
...You gotta take some exposure to play the game...

Unless you allow risk-free Deep Strike. Things in Deep Strike can't be interacted with before they hit the table.

I did another massive update to ProHammer, after iterating through a number of tweaks and changes.

Long story short, I've gone about as far as I'm willing to go in changing the core game flow - stopping short of adding in a proper alternating activation (AA) system. What I've been grappling with lately is the realization that 40K probably needs a better series of "reaction" options layered into the game. While AA systems are great - they require more substantial adjustments to points and stats, and that isn't what ProHammer is about. Instead, I want to create more interplay between players by posing them with tougher choices and more options, many of which relate to "reactions."

Adding in pre-mediated overwatch in lieu of normal shooting was one initial step. Last version I added in different steps in the firing process - an idea lifted from Epic. Units that don't move get to "fire first" and resolve casualties simultaneously with overwatch fire. In the newest version (1.7) I added reactive fire, which occurs after a unit is hit by normal fire, and allows them to return fire with their attacker - but it means they can't shoot normally on their NEXT turn. Reactive fire can also be triggered when a unit is charged (replacing the 8th/9th edition style overwatch). It's a stronger shooting attack, but leaves the unit more vulnerable in the resulting melee (and they still can't shoot next turn). Again, the idea is giving players more interesting choices to juggle.

I also revised the close combat resolution and fallback sequence, inspired by a mysterious source (and also warhammer fantasy battle). No more instantly wiping out units on a sweeping advance but you now get some different pursuit options.

I also added a suppression mechanic to the game based on "hail of fire" idea. If you take more wounds (before saving throws) than you have wounds in the unit, you have to take a pinning test.

Next, I've been playing with a rule where if the AP of a weapon equals your Armor Save, you STILL get the armor save but it suffers a -1 to the roll. Overall, it helps non-marine armies a bit more because of how many AP5 and Sv 5+ matchups there are. Those 5+ saves become 6+which is worth something.

I'm trying to make it so that across the game, things are a bit less deadly, allowing more time for units to make counter-players instead of just getting wiped out and rendered useless on the field. These changes also all make morale and leadership a bit more important, as there are more instances where leadership tests are required.

Finally - I adapted the mission structure from 9th edition into a full process and system for building customized missions, with a bit of tweaking and refining to minimize first player advantage. I think it turned out pretty well.

At this point, I think the rules are really about cleanup. I'd like to eventually re-organize the ProHammer rules and fill in the gaps so that they are mostly a standalone ruleset. But that will be a bigger undertaking and take more time. Likely, that will be part of a big "2.0" version for ProHammer.

Thanks for listening!