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.

...including redone Psychic Disciplines, and background lore. Anybody interested just message here what you wanna see, I have gone to the extent of making every Faction thematic and yet functional, and my edition has been claimed to be more balanced and competitive than 8th. For instance, most games end with 4 models remaining for the winning side, we play total annihilation. I have done up a Codex for Exodites, Corsairs, Harlequins, Hrud, Kroot, Demiurg, Slanni. I am open and receptive to all comments, just don't be too harsh!

A little more information would be nice to get me interested. What did you change, is it just a balance patch, what were your guiding principles, is this more with tournament players in mind or narrative and how does that translate, did you change basic rules, is it compatible with 9th edition and so on...

I, too, can write words on the internet.

Got a link to your work?

Summary of your changes?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFpZsGk7KG0tbCKbdl3ZqL6EEBJugwdl1kbjLoxoz1o/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13H8chT3MCQD3nDuttgwFfp3qQ5EFRyH6glXC13nruo4/edit

Here are some links, the first is my own homebrew edition, which is an attempt at making the game more thematic and tactical, that I call Defhammer, after the way Orks say, Death, "Deff", or Def as in "Definitive". There are some inspiration for why it is the way it is, it is mainly to do with fitting it into my vision for the game. Like creating Unit Facings, just in Fantasy, allowing you bonuses when you are charged from the Rear, although not from the Flank. Also, making Crossfire a real effect in the rules, not just something mention without any real tangible benefits.

The second link is an exploration and examination of the ideas behind my revisions, how I feel the game should be made thematic and yet functional, by going into a deep insight of the different Codices, with some not even in the game, existing only in the background.

You can say it is a balance patch, as well as a complete thematic overhaul, my guiding principles was to make the game more fun through being more thematic, as well as making a backdrop and entry for my own special rules for certain units, that benefit from Unit Facings, like the Gutter Runners of the Hrud being able to gain bonuses from "Backstabbing" the enemy. It is more for tournament play, it is meant to be not just thematic, but more competitive and balanced. Like I said, it is not just a changing of basic rules, this is a quite different spin on things, but if we were to make a comparison of compatibility, it is rather close to 7th or 30K.

This is basically the archetypical "I can write a better 40k than this garbage current edition" document, so I'll break down some of the stuff here for folks who may be inclined to enter into similar projects.

Pitfall 1) Assuming that people will know what you mean, because you know what you mean.

"Specialist: Specialist Models in a Unit may fire their Weapon at a different target from the rest of the Models in his Unit. Specialist Models are those Models with Special or Heavy Weapons."

Immediately: I do not have a definition of what a "Special" weapon is. Heavy is a firing type, it is defined by the Heavy trait, I know what Heavy does. All models in a unit can fire at different targets if they have Heavy weapons, makes sense.

Another example: " Man-Sized Models benefit from Light Cover within Craters, while Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles do not."

There are many things in 40k that are not 'Man Sized" but also do not have the Monstrous Creature or Vehicle keyword. What do I do about those?

Pitfall 2) just tosses in rules from various conflicting editions of 40k without actually telling the person playing your homebrew what to start from.

this doc references the 8th ed to-wound chart, 8th ed style AND 7th ed style AP, 7th ed and earlier initiative stat, "Cover Saves" which are not a thing in 8th, and Mortal Wounds which are not a thing pre-8th.

So, what statlines and points should I use for my units here? How do me and an opponent build a list to use your rules?

Pitfall 3) Rules that you probably had an idea for, and then just forgot about.

"Cover Save Level:
A 6+CS has a Cover Save Level of 1 and a 5+CS has a Cover Save Level of 2, while a 2+CS has a Cover Save Level of 5. The Cover Save Level is the degree of Cover provided by the Cover."

OK, fantastic, I know what the level of my cover save is. Good to know. Doesn't seem to turn up anywhere else in the document, but, hey, at least I know!

"Design is a part of testing."

Special Weapons are mentioned in their own lists, like for Storm Troopers and such. Models that are not Man-Sized or Monstrous Creature are neither, it is that simple. The clarification for Cover Save Levels is only there should there be a requirement for it. I have redone the different Codices, Space Marines generally cost a Point more, while a Guardsman costs 4 Points.

Calixtus wrote:
Special Weapons are mentioned in their own lists, like for Storm Troopers and such.

So anything that in a codex is called out as a "Special Weapon List" is a Special Weapon? But when you have a unit that can optionally take weapons that function identically to Special Weapons, like Eldar Storm Guardians who can take Flamers and Fusion Guns from their datasheet, then those units do not get the Specialist keyword and cannot split fire? What about weapon lists like "Basic Bio Cannons" that essentially function alllllllmost like Special Weapon lists but aren't called that?

is it also Rules As Intended for units like Devastators that are all equipped with Heavy weapons to be able to freely split fire? If that is the case, can I declare their facing to be towards any unit I like but then declare that my whole unit will be using their Specialist rule to shoot other targets?

Calixtus wrote:
Models that are not Man-Sized or Monstrous Creature are neither, it is that simple. The clarification for Cover Save Levels is only there should there be a requirement for it. I have redone the different Codices, Space Marines generally cost a Point more, while a Guardsman costs 4 Points.

So they neither do or do not get cover saves?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Calixtus wrote:
I have redone the different Codices, Space Marines generally cost a Point more, while a Guardsman costs 4 Points.

A point more than what? Which codex did you start from? 7th or 8th or 9th?

Basically Special Weapons are the more specialised as well as varied weapon choices you have in a unit, so in a unit of Storm Guardians or Guardian Defenders, the Flamers, Fusion Guns and Heavy Weapon Platforms are Specialists.

Only Man-Sized Models benefit from Cover Saves in craters.

About Points Cost, I will consolidate all future Codices in the future.

Calixtus wrote:
Basically Special Weapons are the more specialised as well as varied weapon choices you have in a unit, so in a unit of Storm Guardians or Guardian Defenders, the Flamers, Fusion Guns and Heavy Weapon Platforms are Specialists.

Only Man-Sized Models benefit from Cover Saves in craters.

About Points Cost, I will consolidate all future Codices in the future.

1) This should be explicitly stated, and I think you need to have a better idea of what you mean and how you want to implement it. Clearly, you were thinking of a tactical squad - 1 heavy, 1 special weapon. But there are squads like Sternguard Veterans where every model can have a weapon like that, or squads like Devastators where everyone is wielding a heavy weapon. Did you intend for those all to be able to fire at different targets? Is it any time you swap a ranged weapon on a model from the default that you gain the Specialist rule? If so, what about squad-wide weapon swaps, where your unit has the option between several basic guns and you just swap the whole squad from one to the other, like Necron Immortals?

I like the gist of some of the ideas behind your rules writing here, but I believe you have a long way to go towards meaningfully describing how to implement them. The section labeled "Suppressive Fire" i used as an example because it is nearly (to me, at least) incomprehensible. Reading it, I simply do not know either a, how to implement it in a game, or B, really what effect it has at all.

2) That would be a better way to word that. The best way to word that would be not to say "Man Sized" at all, and simply use the unit type keyword system - say "Only BEASTS, INFANTRY, JUMP PACK INFANTRY gain cover saves from craters". Otherwise you get immediate questions like - is a Space Marine a man-sized model? Is a Custode a man-sized model? is a Tyranid Warrior a man-sized model? We're getting pretty big here but they still have the INFANTRY keyword...

Ok, thanks for the input, I have changed the definition of Specialist. Also, Custodes are considered Man-Sized, at the defining end, so we have a clear idea of when Models get too huge to be classified as Man-Sized. Suppression Fire basically means it is directed fire that allows you to change the Facing of Units being shot at by that Suppressive Firepower.

Calixtus wrote:
Ok, thanks for the input, I have changed the definition of Specialist. Also, Custodes are considered Man-Sized, at the defining end, so we have a clear idea of when Models get too huge to be classified as Man-Sized. Suppression Fire basically means it is directed fire that allows you to change the Facing of Units being shot at by that Suppressive Firepower.

Facing in general is unclear. I believe your rules would be better structured if you first defined how facing is defined in a simpler manner than the current system you have, and then define all the rules that relate to facing in one place.

When I've added Facing in to an 8th/9th framework, What I've done is this:

Facing:

A model's facing is based off of two imaginary points that demarcate the sides of a model. For models with an oval base, these points must be at the points on the base where the base is either longest or shortest, and players should use common sense when determining whether the sides of the model are located. Imperial Knights, generally speaking, face towards the short side of the base, so the side points should be placed where the base is the longest. Bikers, generally speaking, face towards the long side of the base, so the points should be placed where the base is the shortest.

Models without bases should have these two points located as close to the center of the hull as possible on either side.

These points divide the base of the model into a front arc and a rear arc. A model's head, or if not applicable the front of its hull, must face towards the front arc to indicate clearly to their opponent which arc is the front. Players may want to mark the location of these points on their model, particularly on models with round bases.

After making a normal move or advance move, any model that does not have the VEHICLE, BIKER, JETBIKER or MONSTER keyword can be rotated freely to face in any direction.

Any model that has the BIKER or JETBIKER keyword may only make a Normal Move or Advance Move directly forwards, towards the center of their front arc in a straight line. At any point during that movement, they can expend 3" of their movement to turn up to 180 degrees. A model may declare as many turns as desired during movement as it wants as long as it has 3" or more movement remaining.

Any model that has the VEHICLE or MONSTER keyword may only make a Normal Move or Advance Move directly forwards, towards the center of their front arc in a straight line. At any point during that movement they can expend 3" of their movement to turn up to 90 degrees. A model may declare as many turns as desried during movement as it wants as long as it has 3" or more movement remaining. AIRCRAFT models may only make a single turn during their movement.

When declaring a Fall Back move, the controlling player must first rotate the models in the unit falling back to face in any direction, and then the fall back move must be made in a straight line towards the center of their front arc. Models cannot turn during or after a Fall Back move.

Models can only declare attacks or charge moves against a target if an imaginary line drawn through the center of the attacking model's base and the target model's base passes through the front arc of the attacking model.

Flanking: If an attack is declared and the imaginary line drawn between attacker and target passes through the rear arc of the target model, add 1 to the result of all wound rolls made by that attacking model.

I got a question, why is it 3", not say 2"? I will probably copy in whole what you just wrote, thanks!

Calixtus wrote:
I got a question, why is it 3", not say 2"? I will probably copy in whole what you just wrote, thanks!

The logic behind it was that 6" and 12" are two extremely typical movement values in 40k for walker-type vehicles and traditional tank type vehicles, and I compared a playtest game where a tank could perform a 90 degree turn a potential of 4 times vs a potential of 6 times and found that created more interesting decision points when it came to maneuvering.

In a typical situation, if you really outflank an enemy heavy unit and get totally all the way around it, forcing it to give up 1/2 of its movement to target you feels like an appropriate reward.

Also, in my original rules, Facing is very simple. This is far more complicated than what it originally was. In the previous one, it was simply after Moving, you choose which direction to face. When you shoot, you face that direction. When you are fired at with Suppression Fire, you face that direction. It is that simple. Why you made it so complicated.

Calixtus wrote:
Also, in my original rules, Facing is very simple. This is far more complicated than what it originally was. In the previous one, it was simply after Moving, you choose which direction to face. When you shoot, you face that direction. When you are fired at with Suppression Fire, you face that direction. It is that simple. Why you made it so complicated.

It is more complicated because it is more precisely defined. You based your facing on a unit-by-unit basis, rather than model-by-model, which would mean that you'd need to have some kind of directional arrow-marker or pieces of pipe cleaner or something sitting next to each unit, because I could have 30 ork boyz spread across a whole chunk of the table strung out in a line.

I also did not see in your rules how to determine whether I was actually facing the rear, or the sides, or the back of a model. You can leave that simply up to interpretation, it's how GW did it for years, but a lot of the rules complaints with recent gw rules are how vague everything is. (and then they do the weird move of pointing at editions that were WAY WAY more vague like 5th and saying things were better back then...)

The way this facing system works in practice is a lot simpler than how it appears upon initial reading, because both players will always have a tape measure to hand, and the way you determine where your model is facing when you need to check is by laying the measuring tape across the model and then figuring out whether the target (or the attacker, if the model is being targeted) falls in front of or behind the tape.

99% of the time, it's completely obvious whether youll be gaining the Flanking to-wound bonus, or whether you'll be able to attack a unit. The 1% that it is in question, it's as quick as it can be to check by drawing a line.

I play several games where facing is relevant, so it's pretty normal for me to just put a little white dot at the relevant points on the sides of the models.

I see...what games do you play where Facing is relevant? Do you want to help me with the Promethean Psychic Discipline?

Might I suggest that at the very top, before anything else, you state clearly which books work for your system. This should include which FAQs, errattas, and supplemental rules are compatible in detail. It's a lot of work but if nobody knows which rules to use they literally can't play.

Why are you rewriting rules that you could copy and paste from older editions of the game? (For example the Blast Templates section of the Glossary.)

Why do you sometimes abbreviate Cover Save as CS when your document hasn't yet introduced either cover saves or their abbreviation yet? (Example Jink references a 4+CS which I can only infer is a Cover Save.)

Why is cover the one type of save that Mortal Wounds can't get through?

Why do units get massively buffed rates of fire in the Overwatch phase being able to fire as often as they like as long as nothing has tied them up in melee yet?

Not a question but a comment; your formating is all jacked up with different text sizes throughout many paragraphs.

Why are we giving Psykers such heavy pregame RNG on the powers they can know? Wouldn't it be simpler to give them a fixed number of Master Points based on their Psi Rating and to balance powers based on who can take them and which combinations are valid at each fixed point value?

I'm going to stop here, but it's clear that this document is, as it stands, an unplayable mess that may make sense to you but which needs considerable work to be usable by anybody else.

Btw, what is the difference between Counter-Charge, and Counter-Attack?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Might I suggest that at the very top, before anything else, you state clearly which books work for your system. This should include which FAQs, errattas, and supplemental rules are compatible in detail. It's a lot of work but if nobody knows which rules to use they literally can't play.

(I will try what I can, this is a massive effort, do you wanna help me? I intend to rework every faction's point costs, that's the prime thing that has changed.)

Why are you rewriting rules that you could copy and paste from older editions of the game? (For example the Blast Templates section of the Glossary.)

(I rewrote them because I took a convenient route of writing it in my own way.)

Why do you sometimes abbreviate Cover Save as CS when your document hasn't yet introduced either cover saves or their abbreviation yet? (Example Jink references a 4+CS which I can only infer is a Cover Save.)

(I have edited that, thanks.)

Why is cover the one type of save that Mortal Wounds can't get through?

(Because it doesn't make sense to have Mortal Wounds going through Cover.)

Why do units get massively buffed rates of fire in the Overwatch phase being able to fire as often as they like as long as nothing has tied them up in melee yet?

(I don't understand this question. What massively buffed rates of fire? Do you mean the Heroic Overwatch?)

Not a question but a comment; your formating is all jacked up with different text sizes throughout many paragraphs.

(It is all jacked up because of Google docs, not me.)

Why are we giving Psykers such heavy pregame RNG on the powers they can know? Wouldn't it be simpler to give them a fixed number of Master Points based on their Psi Rating and to balance powers based on who can take them and which combinations are valid at each fixed point value?

(Not sure what you mean here, but the method of handling Psychic Powers have been one of the features praised by the people who have played my version.)

I'm going to stop here, but it's clear that this document is, as it stands, an unplayable mess that may make sense to you but which needs considerable work to be usable by anybody else.

(Well, the people who have played it with me, by first reading the rules, didn't have too much of an issue understanding it.)

PMed for full rules/codex pack

Calixtus wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Might I suggest that at the very top, before anything else, you state clearly which books work for your system. This should include which FAQs, errattas, and supplemental rules are compatible in detail. It's a lot of work but if nobody knows which rules to use they literally can't play.

(I will try what I can, this is a massive effort, do you wanna help me? I intend to rework every faction's point costs, that's the prime thing that has changed.)

...Not a question but a comment; your formating is all jacked up with different text sizes throughout many paragraphs.

(It is all jacked up because of Google docs, not me.)

Why are we giving Psykers such heavy pregame RNG on the powers they can know? Wouldn't it be simpler to give them a fixed number of Master Points based on their Psi Rating and to balance powers based on who can take them and which combinations are valid at each fixed point value?

(Not sure what you mean here, but the method of handling Psychic Powers have been one of the features praised by the people who have played my version.)

I'm going to stop here, but it's clear that this document is, as it stands, an unplayable mess that may make sense to you but which needs considerable work to be usable by anybody else.

(Well, the people who have played it with me, by first reading the rules, didn't have too much of an issue understanding it.)

Free advice: If you're looking for collaborators dismissing their feedback immediately after asking for help isn't a great start. I started posting comments on your Docs link, and gave up after about a page because what I saw there was contextless gibberish, and what I've seen here doesn't make me want to continue.

If you are going to start writing a whole edition of the game then you should write your document as though it is a whole new edition of the game. Do not reference anything outside of your documents. Start from page 1 like any other basic rule book does and start defining how to play the game to someone who has never played a game like this before.

As others have pointed out you have poor definitions of game defining traits. Things are unclear, cumbersome, up to interpretation... this aint great. None of us could play this version of the game without you sitting over our shoulders telling us what you intended.

All of that is before I even get into how bad some of the design decisions are for the actual game play. Mostly because it's hard to tell how bad any of it would be when I can't tell what it actually is.

Don't start making psychic disciplines. Get back out of all the codexes. The core book needs to work first.

Facing mechanics kind of turn me off. Makes the game so much more complicated.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Free advice: If you're looking for collaborators dismissing their feedback immediately after asking for help isn't a great start. I started posting comments on your Docs link, and gave up after about a page because what I saw there was contextless gibberish, and what I've seen here doesn't make me want to continue.

This.

I'm a grump and already unlikely to use custom rules found in this forum, but I will try to give constructive criticism on a project that has promise. When I'm brushed off or asked to do something that the author should have done at the start I am very unlikely to continue engaging with your project in a constructive manner.

Also, while I grade extremely harshly players like myself act as a good benchmark for what you'll face trying to spread your rules outside of a close group of friends that all developed the system together.

I have to apologise and say I don't understand what's wrong with the format of my rulebook. Could you give instances, since I tried my best to make it as easily understood as possible?

Calixtus wrote:
I have to apologise and say I don't understand what's wrong with the format of my rulebook. Could you give instances, since I tried my best to make it as easily understood as possible?

Ummmmm, have you read any of the comments made above? Some of them already touch on that, and it's less to do with the format and what you've written that doesn't make immediate sense. One example is why you've bothered having an AP system that is described to have both old 6th-ed style AP system where if there's a flat number like AP3 ignoring a 3+ save, and AP in current 9th edition, where it's a modifier. Why have both?

Your intrisinc system neither gives a reference base to what edition you want to primarily base on, nor does it provide easily understandable or reference points for a lot of your core rules.

 Grimskul wrote:

Calixtus wrote:
I have to apologise and say I don't understand what's wrong with the format of my rulebook. Could you give instances, since I tried my best to make it as easily understood as possible?

Ummmmm, have you read any of the comments made above? Some of them already touch on that, and it's less to do with the format and what you've written that doesn't make immediate sense. One example is why you've bothered having an AP system that is described to have both old 6th-ed style AP system where if there's a flat number like AP3 ignoring a 3+ save, and AP in current 9th edition, where it's a modifier. Why have both?

Your intrisinc system neither gives a reference base to what edition you want to primarily base on, nor does it provide easily understandable or reference points for a lot of your core rules.

It also doesn't work as a stand alone set of rules and seems to require you to pair it with an existing rulebook and set of codices. If you want a good overhaul of 40k you absolutely must start at page 1 of the BRB and work down from there beat by beat and change by change until it's done. Only then can you playtest with a set of armies and see if they need changes to fit your new system.

Calixtus wrote:
I have to apologise and say I don't understand what's wrong with the format of my rulebook. Could you give instances, since I tried my best to make it as easily understood as possible?

Open up your rule book and then open up GWs rule book. Start on page 1 and see the differences. GW has HORRIBE rules writing but they are leagues ahead of you because they are at least laying it all out. Your rule set assumes we know information that is not in your book.