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
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






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.
   
Made in us
Space Marine Scout with Sniper Rifle





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...

The Aurora Chapter - Coming Soon! 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




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.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







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...).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/25 17:54:14


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ru
Fresh-Faced New User




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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/25 18:38:03


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






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.

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







 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/25 20:05:36


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

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

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






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.

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




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/28 05:13:32


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Bikes and Jetbikes differ in more than just FLY though. Jetbikes also turboboost faster and jink better iirc.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 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".

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

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
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: