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.

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.

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...

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.

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...).

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.

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.

 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.

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

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.

 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.

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

 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".

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

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

 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). .

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).

 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.

 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.

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

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.

 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?

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.

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.

 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?

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.

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

@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.

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.

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.

 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.