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
Regular Dakkanaut






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just take me to the rules!
ProHammer: Classic (Living Rules Link)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With this thread, I'm launching ProHammer: Classic (aka ProHammer 2.0) into the wilds.

Long story short, I've been working on the ProHammer ruleset for a quite a while now (see the old thread here), including as much playtesting as I can muster (quite a bit over table top simulator). A long standing aspiration of the project, achieved today, is to fully re-write the rules for a classic version of 40K that builds on the original ProHammer but comprehensively covers everything else that needs covering. Along the way, I can clean up issues in older rulesets and deliver something that works as a "unified" ruleset for the classic editions of the game (3rd through 7th edition). This "classic" version of ProHammer supports any codex in cross-edition play from the classic era.

Please take a look at the ruleset (linked above) and/or additional information below. I look forward to hearing your feedback as I continue to tweak and revise this much more complete and compressive version of ProHammer! Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY PROHAMMER?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warhammer 40,000, from 3rd edition through 7th edition, shared a common core rule set that endured for nearly 20-years from the release of 3rd edition in 1998 until eighth edition in 2017. For many players, this era represents the “classic” 40K experience, and for one reason or another - whether it be the lore, the gameplay, or the aesthetics - remains a version of the game still worth playing.

ProHammer: Classic is an attempt to build a unified ruleset that unites the best of 3rd through 7th edition, utilizing 5th edition as the starting point. In addition to integrating and refining rules from across editions, new rules unique to ProHammer are incorporated where it creates deeper and richer gameplay, making this “classic” 40k the best game it can be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Designing games and writing rules is often an exercise in compromising. Adding more detail or nuance to the rules might make a game a more thematically rich simulation, or open up more strategic or tactical choices - but that might come with the cost of being harder to learn or longer to play. It’s a careful balancing act - and in order to walk the tightrope it is helpful to establish values and principals that can be relied upon to set

A few key principles underpin the design of ProHammer:

* Celebrate the epic drama of Warhammer 40k and its emphasis on gritty infantry battles.
* Give players more interesting and tough tactical choices, rewarding clever play over list building.
* Balance fairness with excitement. Keep gameplay surprising but not randomly or overly punitive.
* Emphasize intuitive rules. Simple is good, but shouldn’t be at the expense of gameplay or rule logic.
* Restore the importance of position, maneuver, and terrain which is at the heart of miniature wargaming!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY DESIGN CHANGES IN PROHAMMER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ProHammer ruleset is a complete rewrite of the rules. While many aspects of the rules are inspired directly by a ruling in a prior edition, there are a number of notable and significant departures worth highlighting at the onset.

REACTION MOVES & TURN SEQUENCE:
ProHammer adds more dynamic play between players. Units that are shot by shooting attacks can take limited reactive fire (in exchange of taking their normal shooting next turn!). Units have options for different reactions when charged or when choosing to pursue a retreating unit.

CLASSIC OVERWATCH:
Re-incorporates a classic approach to overwatch, interwoven with First Fire, giving a benefit to units that remain stationary before shooting. Overwatch allows you to fire on your opponent’s turn, further breaking down the “I go, you go” gameplay into a more reactive system.

REWORKED WOUND ALLOCATION:
The process for resolving attacks - both ranged and melee - are refined and clarified to account for a unified batch rolling process that fairly assigns wounds, minimizes “game-i-ness,” and smooths out handling of multiple weapon attacks and variable target saving throws.

DEEPER SHOOTING:
The optimization exercise of older shooting processes gives way to a system of declared fire and tighter control of split fire options. Units gain flexibility but it requires players to commit to a shooting strategy upfront, rather than a “wait and see” approach. Mechanics for suppression, screening, and pinning adds further depth and decision making to the gameplay.

BETTER BALANCED VEHICLES:
ProHammer finds the “sweet spot” in balancing vehicle durability with offensive power, while clarifying and properly incorporating vehicles rules into the main flow of the rules. Revised vehicle damage tables and penetration modifiers replace hull points.

ASSAULT RESOLUTION:
The results of close combat, including fall back and pursuit moves, are reworked to provide for additional decision-points and eliminate overly-punitive outcomes.

PSYCHIC PHASE:
Across the editions, how psychic powers work have changed dramatically and at times became overly complex. ProHammer streamlines the psychic phase with a system that works uniformly for all supported codex editions (3rd-7th).

REVISION MISSION RULES:
From how objectives are scored, to rules for Deep Strike and reserves, mission rules have been refined and clarified to provide for a fairer experience that emphasizes smart decision-making and skill over die-rolls.

There is much more to the ProHammer ruleset changes - but the above list captures the essence of the biggest changes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks!



This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2021/03/03 18:06:32


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





Bristol (UK)

When it comes to formatting, something that I think helps is numbering sections and sub-sections.
eg;
3. Shooting
3.1. Declare target
3.1.1. Pick a target within LoS and range.
3.1.2. A unit can only target 1 enemy unit, unless it splits fire

It makes referencing rules much easier.
It's something I've only seen in historical games written in the '90s and such, but I'm not sure why it fell out of favour. I guess because it doesn't look as nice?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Yes, it can be helpful to use numbering like that (I do play historical wargames so are familiar with the approach) - but as someone WRITING the rules it's really a horrendous PitA and - also - it's really not as approachable for modern eyes.

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





Page 24 says "initial strength" for casuality tests, yet established term is "current strength".
I'm still reading, but so far rules seem good.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/11 12:28:10


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






 JawRippa wrote:
Page 24 says "initial strength" for casuality tests, yet established turn is "current strength".
I'm still reading, but so far rules seem good.


Good catch! Fixed. Thank you!

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






Nice Mezmorki. I like what I am seeing and appreciate the effort you've put into it.

One question on Obscured. The wording has me confused.

OBSCURED: If 25% or more of a model’s TARGETABLE AREA (body or hull) is blocked by intervening terrain features (or the model is in dense cover), from any point of view from the unit drawing line of sight, then the target counts as being OBSCURED and may benefit from being behind cover depending on the type of terrain and receive a COVER SAVE.

If a unit of 10 Marines is firing at a unit of 10 Orcs, but only two of the orks are 25% blocked by intervening terrain from say 5 of the Marines (but not the other 5), how is that resolved based on the above?

Thanks.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Good question - and I can try to clarity the rules.

The intent is that if a "model" is obscured relative to the Point of view of any shooting modes, then that "model" is eligible to take a cover save. With the way wound allocation goes, if you assign a wound to those obscured models they can take the cover save. Other models that aren't obscured in the unit wouldn't be able to take a cover save.

Does that make sense?

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






Yep. Makes sense. Thank you!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







I had a quick glance and the first thing that sprung to mind is the fact that you eliminated Warp Charge while including the Malefic Daemonology.

In 7th edition, Malefic Daemonology was controversial because it let you bring in 'free troops'. However, one of the main things limiting it was the fact that Summoning cost 3 Warp Charges to cast, meaning you had to spend around 6-7 Warp Charge to have a decent chance of it going off.

There doesn't seem to be any real limiting factor to Summoning, plus the rules for Denial make it so that it's harder to actually qualify to Deny.

A similar issue exists with the fact you're keeping Invisibility 'as is'. Invisibility as a Psychic Power was responsible for many deathstars of unholy power, to the point that the current version of Horus Heresy replaced it with a different power, Warp Howl.

Warp Howl is a malediction that targets an enemy unit within 24", reducing its WS and BS to 1 until the start of the psyker's next turn.

The rationale was that Warp Howl was meant to penalize deathstars rather than promote them.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Ah, I wasn't clear on how summoning worked as no one in my group has played Chaos in 6th/7th.

When I read the powers, I assumed you had to have purchased the daemon unit, and the summoning powers are what actually got them to the table. But it wounds like that isn't the case! Crazy!

It could be that if you use a summoning power (summoning, possession, sacrifice) that is the only psychic power you can use in the turn. Maye further restrictions like you can't shoot or charge after summoning, and can't do it if in melee combat already.

For indivisibility - yes, it's too strong I'm playing a game with a big unit of wraithblades with invisibility, forewarning, and eldar enhance stacked. It's a nasty unit.

I was thinking of just modifying invisibility so that the opponents get a -1 to hit for ranged and melee attacks. Would keep the spirit of the power but ton it down drastically.

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




I've been adding comments to your document all day from my phone. I log on to my computer now and can't see my comments. I really hope you can see them?

On further examination, I was looking at Enhanced Prohammer. I'll try again with 'Classic'.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/26 09:50:01


 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 Mezmorki wrote:
Ah, I wasn't clear on how summoning worked as no one in my group has played Chaos in 6th/7th.

When I read the powers, I assumed you had to have purchased the daemon unit, and the summoning powers are what actually got them to the table. But it wounds like that isn't the case! Crazy!

It could be that if you use a summoning power (summoning, possession, sacrifice) that is the only psychic power you can use in the turn. Maye further restrictions like you can't shoot or charge after summoning, and can't do it if in melee combat already.

For indivisibility - yes, it's too strong I'm playing a game with a big unit of wraithblades with invisibility, forewarning, and eldar enhance stacked. It's a nasty unit.

I was thinking of just modifying invisibility so that the opponents get a -1 to hit for ranged and melee attacks. Would keep the spirit of the power but ton it down drastically.


Yeah that's the old way 3rd ed style you had to buy/pay points for the demon forces but they always start the game as reserves, but you didn't need to use powers to summon them they came in as reserves so long as there was an icon on the table (not in a transport) for them to spawn off of. the stability check was just a leadership test that instead of making them run made them *poof* back into the warp if they failed. of course if you were fighting grey knights the lesser demons just keep coming back as reserves ala green tide from the players table edge. it made up for the fact psycannons ignored invul saves and aside from khorne demons all the demons had was an invul save.

.


P.S.
Mezmorki

Have you guys opened up enough to test out the re-write with your gaming group?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/26 09:48:23




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




Huh, I can't add comments to this document. Oh well here goes:

* Coherency needs a clause for being in a continuous chain. Otherwise you can have a unit of 4 models, 2 on one side of the 18" bubble, and 2 on the other side.
* Normal Move 1" clause should be rephrased to be more clear.
* Hittable models clauses make it possible to snipe specific models by careful use of LOS. e.g. block sight to half the unit by putting a rhino in the way so that the casualties have to come from the visible half.
* I cannot find your rule section for morale checks. You have a reference to Morale Phase, but no such section exists.
* You don't have a reverse clause for shooting at infantry who are in combat with your monsters/vehicles. This may be intentional, but you may want to think about it if it hasn't already been considered.

I think that covers all the things I commented on in Enhanced which are still relevant to Classic.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Zustiur wrote:
Huh, I can't add comments to this document. Oh well here goes:

* Coherency needs a clause for being in a continuous chain. Otherwise you can have a unit of 4 models, 2 on one side of the 18" bubble, and 2 on the other side.
* Normal Move 1" clause should be rephrased to be more clear.
* Hittable models clauses make it possible to snipe specific models by careful use of LOS. e.g. block sight to half the unit by putting a rhino in the way so that the casualties have to come from the visible half.
* I cannot find your rule section for morale checks. You have a reference to Morale Phase, but no such section exists.
* You don't have a reverse clause for shooting at infantry who are in combat with your monsters/vehicles. This may be intentional, but you may want to think about it if it hasn't already been considered.

I think that covers all the things I commented on in Enhanced which are still relevant to Classic.

I agree with the above except the Hittable models clause. What you describe is called Tactics. As in chess, how you place and move your figures matters and should matter. A misplacement should hurt.

However, if it bothers enough folks the solution is simple, friendly intervening models/units do not block line of sight -7th edition- This prevents using your LOS blocking models like a Rhino to abuse a rule. So friendly models do not block LOS, period. Including tanks, etc. This is a minor break in continuity but one can assume that communications between units allows units to not block each other.

Consummate 8th Edition Hater.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 meatybtz wrote:
However, if it bothers enough folks the solution is simple, friendly intervening models/units do not block line of sight -7th edition- This prevents using your LOS blocking models like a Rhino to abuse a rule. So friendly models do not block LOS, period. Including tanks, etc. This is a minor break in continuity but one can assume that communications between units allows units to not block each other.
That's generally fine when it's models in your own unit.
Not something that is practical for all friendly models though as that would allow you to park up rhinos as LoS blocking walls for your heavy weapons.

Casualty rules are always a trade-off between potential for abuse and ability to snipe. I find that 'owner removes models, no more casualties than models visible' is reasonably clean if you are willing to accept that outside of coherency breaks you'll have to kill the squad down to the last model to get to the special/heavy weapons. But preferences vary.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






A.T. wrote:
 meatybtz wrote:
However, if it bothers enough folks the solution is simple, friendly intervening models/units do not block line of sight -7th edition- This prevents using your LOS blocking models like a Rhino to abuse a rule. So friendly models do not block LOS, period. Including tanks, etc. This is a minor break in continuity but one can assume that communications between units allows units to not block each other.
That's generally fine when it's models in your own unit.
Not something that is practical for all friendly models though as that would allow you to park up rhinos as LoS blocking walls for your heavy weapons.

Casualty rules are always a trade-off between potential for abuse and ability to snipe. I find that 'owner removes models, no more casualties than models visible' is reasonably clean if you are willing to accept that outside of coherency breaks you'll have to kill the squad down to the last model to get to the special/heavy weapons. But preferences vary.


Good points all around.

My preference in all of it is that the defender should be empowered to determine which models get removed - but also have the burden of needing to keep special models protected to some degree.

I also want to cut down on cheesy / exploitable stuff (which admittedly I don't look out for enough because my group is very casual and easy going with things). I do think it's dumb to be able to use LOS blocking vehicles to limit lines of fire artificially in order to hit certain models. But - part of what I've done with wound process in ProHammer is to make dealing with mixed armor/cover saves much easier to track and sort out.

I wonder if it would work such that AFTER rolling to save, when you know your unsaved wounds, you can apply those to ANY models that did or could have taken the same type of save, with a cap on not being able to put unsaved wounds on more models in total than you have hittable models overall.

I think there's also a thought, which plays to the defender's advantage, of just seeing the total number of unsaved wounds and applying those to whatever models you want. This does mean that a model that took an invulnerable save for example, and failed it, could be kept alive by having its wound be re-allocated a different model in the unit. This is also the most streamlined way to do it, because you don't need to apply wounds and keep track of what models are in what saving throw group. All the unsaved wounds go into a pool.

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





 Mezmorki wrote:
I think there's also a thought, which plays to the defender's advantage, of just seeing the total number of unsaved wounds and applying those to whatever models you want. This does mean that a model that took an invulnerable save for example, and failed it, could be kept alive by having its wound be re-allocated a different model in the unit. This is also the most streamlined way to do it, because you don't need to apply wounds and keep track of what models are in what saving throw group. All the unsaved wounds go into a pool.
The more complex a unit becomes in terms of mixed saves the more it pushes back to a 5e style of 'split your unit into distinct elements and divvy the dice up between them'. Though ideally if you've gotten through the save stage to the actual wound allocation there should be no more saving throws available to you - FnP potentially thowing that one out.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






The ProHammer system is closest to 5E's way of handling it really, with the big fix being that wounds are applied across a group of models after saves and ensuring that multi-wound models that are already wounded must take all the wounds and be removed at a casualty first.


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





I see the point and it makes sense.

Consummate 8th Edition Hater.  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Mckinleyville, CA

Is pro-hammer going to have cross compatability with modern codexes?
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 Boris420 wrote:
Is pro-hammer going to have cross compatability with modern codexes?


I think he may be trying to, but as a general rule no. editions 3-7 are cross compatible with only minor tweaks. from 8th + it is an entirely different game.

The entire point of this exercise that those of us who like the older version of the game was to make a "fixed" 5th edition where you could use any unit and any codex from 3rd-7th in the same core game rules.

Mezmorki went the extra galactic sector and made his professional re-write. where as our group just uses 5th core rules and imports (15) better versions of certain rules from the other editions into 5th. either way it makes the game more immersive to those who want a more thematic lore based casual game.



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






^^^^^^

What aphyon said.

However, I have been tinkering with a ProHammer version of 9th edition. But rather than trying to making 8th/9th edition codexes compatible with ProHammer: Classic, the idea would be to make a "ProHammer: Modern" version. Rather than a full re-write, I imagine this being more like the original ProHammer version where i'm just hooking in and adapting rule tweaks, starting with 9th edition but making it feel and play more like the classic versions.

I started outlining what this might look like here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795000.page

Last, I also started a project to create a "Codex: Primaris" that ports primaris units only into their own faction/codex book compatible with classic 40k (i.e. ProHammer). I'm partway through that exercise. I could see continuing this trend and doing some ProHammer supplements that port over new units from 8th/9th edition codexes into a classic edition as well.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zustiur wrote:
Huh, I can't add comments to this document. Oh well here goes:

(1) Coherency needs a clause for being in a continuous chain. Otherwise you can have a unit of 4 models, 2 on one side of the 18" bubble, and 2 on the other side.
(2) Normal Move 1" clause should be rephrased to be more clear.
(3) Hittable models clauses make it possible to snipe specific models by careful use of LOS. e.g. block sight to half the unit by putting a rhino in the way so that the casualties have to come from the visible half.
(4) I cannot find your rule section for morale checks. You have a reference to Morale Phase, but no such section exists.
(5) You don't have a reverse clause for shooting at infantry who are in combat with your monsters/vehicles. This may be intentional, but you may want to think about it if it hasn't already been considered.

I think that covers all the things I commented on in Enhanced which are still relevant to Classic.


I see you must have been the one who made the comments on the older version

(1) I added this clause to coherency

(2) I tried to clarify this better - let me know if that makes sense

(3) See the discussion above - I'll need to think through how I want to tweak this aspect of the wounding process.

(4) I removed references to the "morale phase" as there is no morale phase in ProHammer (just morale checks that happen at the end of the turn).

In terms of tests, these are all described in the relevant section. So "casualty tests" from taking ranged casualties is under the shooting section, "break tests" are under the assault phase, etc.

(5) Yeah, I intentionally didn't want to add the reverse clause. The thinking is that you can shoot monstrous creatures but attempting to shoot over the normal height models. Whereas shooting the non-monstrous units might also result in taking hits against a monstrous creature.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/27 14:16:51


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




Yep, that was me.
The rephrased movement and coherency look much better.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






 aphyon wrote:

Have you guys opened up enough to test out the re-write with your gaming group?


We've been playing using Table Top Simulator - which has been pretty awesome using the "Battleforged Workshop Mod" (https://github.com/TTSWarhammer40k/Battleforged-Workshop-Mod-Compilation)

Off hand, recent-ish games we've had, all at 2000 points

- Space wolves vs. dark angles
- Space wolves vs. Necrons
- Eldar vs. Lamenters (SM successors)
- Dark Eldar vs. Guard
- Dark Eldar vs. Lamenters
- Space wolves vs. Necrons
- Space wolves vs. Tyranids
- Space wolves vs. Dark Angles (round 2)
- Eldar vs. Tyranids
- Eldar vs. Gray Knights
- Eldar vs. Lamentors

We're hoping to run some games with Tau, Ork, and Chaos Marines soon.

I have a Feral Ork (3rd ed) army I worked up that I'm hoping to try if I can find suitable digital models.




This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/01 14:18:56


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






Made a tweak to reactive fire based on our game last night...

Two situations where the current reactive fire rules are perhaps too strong. Reactive fire from units with masses of strong rapid fire / assault weapons (i.e. Wraithcannons on Wriathguard) is really difficult to work around. They are enormously powerful guns that only shoot once anyway, and wraithguard aren't very strong offensively fighting in melee, so there is never a reason to not shoot with them reactively if getting charged.

The other case is mass fire versus lightly armored units. Large blobs of units (guards, guardians, etc) getting charged can still put out a lot of shots, and against lightly armored melee units (orks, tyranids, etc.) pulling off essential charges is overly dangerous feeling.

So, we decided to give units that are hit by reactive fire a 4+ cover save, as means of toning down reactive fire. We didn't want to make reactive use the snap fire rule (as that's too punishing and often makes reactive fire pointless in the first place). This solution helps address balance out mass reactive fire vs. light armored units as well as for modest volumes of high damage shooting versus relatively tougher units.

We will try it out on our next few games and see.

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






Hey Mezmorki, not seeing it in these rules:

What happens if a firing model falls on the line between two arcs of a target vehicle? This is fairly common with vehicles fighting vehicles as the models' hulls are fairly large. Do you default to taking the stronger or weaker value? i.e. between front and side arc - always front?

Or do you determine the arc that more of the attacking model is in?

(Personal opinion, I would default to the attacking model needing to be wholly within the side arc to attack the side, or wholly within the rear arc to attack the rear)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also there's a typo in the penetrating hit table "Engines Damages" instead of "Damaged."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have concerns with respect to Reactive Fire and Template weaponry. You have fixed charge distance to 6", meaning attempting a charge from out of range of a template weapon is not possible.

The negative to having fired reactive fire is snap firing in the next turn, however template weaponry snap firing hits on a 4+

It is mentioned under Cover Saves that some weapons (such as templates) ignore Cover Saves. This is not mentioned in the main Template Weapons section on page - so presumably Template Weapons and other weapons with the Ignores Cover USR?

If you are going to use a 4+ cover save, rather than Snap Fire, to balance out Reactive Fire, I would suggest removing ignoring cover saves as a blanket rule from Template weaponry, or further nerf template weaponry on snap fire.

Personally I think Template weaponry not being able to fire Snap Fire may make sense. The ammunition of most template weaponry could be limited, and soldiers cowering under the effects of pinning may not be willing to blind-fire a flamethrower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it intentional that Walkers are unable to fire any weapons if they move?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I believe that you have an opportunity to combine pinning and going to ground, having them be two different states seems slightly confusing/redundant.

Personally, I would change Going to Ground to be an option that allows a unit to voluntarily become Pinned, include the benefit to cover saves (except for Monstrous Creatures, FMCs, and Bikers/Jetbikes), and include the fighting at I1 in initiative (because the Pinned unit must stand up before it can fight).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooting into melee requires some refinement:

-Multiple friendly units may be involved in the engagement. I would allow the opponent to select which friendly unit is hit instead.

-How do I resolve a template or blast weapon firing into combat?

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/03/03 16:08:26


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Thanks!

I added actually add a facing chart just now under the MODELS -> VEHICLES section. And then clarified under "DAMAGING VEHICLES" how to determine what facing a model falls within. I used your suggestion, makes total sense.

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






What happens if I declare a tank shock against a target unit engaged in melee combat?

Do I essentially grant them a free fall back move out of melee if they pass the test, or do I get to run over them automatically since they can't move out of the way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A suggestion, should monstrous creatures with powerful weaponry prove to be a recurring problem WRT Reaction Fire:

You have the concept of "Defensive Weapons" in the game. Rather than allowing "Defensive Weapons" to be fired for free in addition to other weapon types, what if vehicles and monsters could both fire Reaction fire, but only with Defensive Weapons, and if those Defensive Weapons got their full rate of fire for those attacks. The model would still only shoot Snap Shots in its next turn, but potentially at that point would be engaged in melee or destroyed, so you may as well take free shots with your arm-mounted storm bolter or twin shuriken catapults.

Forcing a player to choose between those probably less powerful defensive weapons and their main guns would likely not feel as much of a trade-off, considering they are basically then free attacks when you get charged at.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/03 17:08:45


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






The tank shock rules state in a few places that you can't tank shock against engaged units, through melee engagements, etc. So neihe of your listed results happen, since you can't tank shock engaged units in the first place.

Maybe this could/should change, but it seems like it would create more problems that it's worth.

Regarding Reactive Fire:

Currently, monstrous creatures simply can't fire heavy weapons with reactive fire, but can fire other weapons as per non-monstrous creatures. The thinking is that even though monstrous creatures count as stationary for firing heavy weapons, the heavy weapon itself is still something that needs a bit of setup and can't be brought to bear on a target quickly.

As for vehicles, a similar logic applies, but it's also much harder to bring a vehicle or turret to bear in a reactive manner. Vehicles are powerful (and we recently bumped up the number of primary weapons they can fire when moving), but I want players to have to think really carefully about positioning and I want vehicles to still be really vulnerable to melee attacks.


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






 Mezmorki wrote:
The tank shock rules state in a few places that you can't tank shock against engaged units, through melee engagements, etc. So neihe of your listed results happen, since you can't tank shock engaged units in the first place.

Maybe this could/should change, but it seems like it would create more problems that it's worth.

Regarding Reactive Fire:

Currently, monstrous creatures simply can't fire heavy weapons with reactive fire, but can fire other weapons as per non-monstrous creatures. The thinking is that even though monstrous creatures count as stationary for firing heavy weapons, the heavy weapon itself is still something that needs a bit of setup and can't be brought to bear on a target quickly.

As for vehicles, a similar logic applies, but it's also much harder to bring a vehicle or turret to bear in a reactive manner. Vehicles are powerful (and we recently bumped up the number of primary weapons they can fire when moving), but I want players to have to think really carefully about positioning and I want vehicles to still be really vulnerable to melee attacks.



Makes sense on the tank shocks. I agree it's a can of worms.

With the defensive weaponry, mainly I'm considering the way that auxiliary and hull mounted weaponry like that was used historically - they were basically impossible to use while the main gun was going, their primary purpose was to dissuade infantry assaults when an HE shell would be too risky. Them being allowed to fire as"freebies" in editions like 5th I think primarily came from the fact that no reactive fire modes really existed in those game states.

Taking them away during normal firing (unless they were one of your selected weapons or you were allowed to fire with all guns because you stayed stationary), but allowing them to be used as reactive fire, would just give them that little extra use case, in particular stuff like hull and sponson HBs on vehicles with Ordnance weaponry.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: