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.

Over the past few months, I have been working on a homebrew rewrite of 40k. I posted quite a bit on dakka, but as the project grew in size I decided to put together a subreddit to keep track of it all. http://www.reddit.com/r/forgehammer

What am I looking for?

Currently being worked on:

There are several core objectives:

Armywise: Most things are still very WIP/stand to be redone, but generally speaking:

Resurrecting this post, due to resuming work on Forgehammer. I had a bit of writer's block, but have been back at it over the last few days.

Feel free to post thoughts on the subreddit for related core rules/etc, or general thoughts here. Thanks!

@Magic-Juggler.
This looks more like a 'serious edit' than a re write to me.
(A complete re-write should get rid of the layers of complexity the forced backwards compatibility to WHFB inflicted in the rules for 18 years.IMO/)

Could you please list the game play issues you wanted to address, and the changes you wanted to make to correct these issues.
And how you wanted to go about implementing them.As this would let me understand your project much better.

Lanrak wrote:
@Magic-Juggler.
This looks more like a 'serious edit' than a re write to me.
(A complete re-write should get rid of the layers of complexity the forced backwards compatibility to WHFB inflicted in the rules for 18 years.IMO/)

Could you please list the game play issues you wanted to address, and the changes you wanted to make to correct these issues.
And how you wanted to go about implementing them.As this would let me understand your project much better.

If you actually read his project, you would notice some of the issues he intends to address, which IMO, he does a good deal of innovating in order to address. Everyone's interpretation of these problems and the solutions they come up with is different, but I get the impression you have your own mind made up on exactly what you want to see happen and are only interested in other people adopting those ideas. Every solution to these problems has its own pros and cons that need to be made and I think you would do well to take other peoples' ideas more seriously and with an open mind instead of dismissing them because they aren't recycled from Epic so you can recite the laundry list of GW hate you have. These threads are for discussing solutions to problems. There is an official "GW Hate" page somewhere on the internet, I'm sure, but its not the Dakka Proposed rules forum.

I've taken a relatively quick look (I plan to take a more detailed look later), but here's a few ideas and comments I have.

Space Marines

-- Are you adding in a new FOC slot called "Dedicated Transports"?
-- -- Because I am OK with this. It also is a better classification for things like Rhinos.

-- Assault Squads should still be a Fast Attack Choice rather than a Troops Choice by virtue of their Jump Packs making them a Jump unit.

-- Assault Centurions should be an Elite Choice. Heavy Support could also work, but that would put them in the same category as tanks, so Elites makes more sense.

-- I like the idea of Veteran Tactical Squads, but I feel like this needs to be separated into two squads: Veteran Tactical Marines (Ballistic) and Veteran Tactical Marines (Melee), where the former has BS5 and WS4, while the later has BS4 and WS5.
-- -- The other thing is I'm not 100% sure that these will not detract from other squads in terms of role, but I definitely like the idea.
-- -- What was the motivation for the Veteran Tactical Squad?

-- Tactical and Assault Terminator Squads should have a difference in WS and BS much like the one I suggested above for the two different Veteran Tacticals:
-- -- Tactical should have BS5 and WS4, while Assault should have BS4 and WS5.

The reason for the above two changes is that it offers a bit more uniqueness as well as denies them the ability to fulfill each other's rolls just was well as the other. This can also be applied to other units like Tactical Dreadnoughts vs Assault Dreadnoughts.

-- I would increase your points costs slightly for these squads because of the extra wounds.

-- Tactical Dreadnoughts should cost 110 - 120 Points with that loadout.

-- Similarly, Assault Dreadnoughts seem very under-costed since they have a second Power Fist that can strike at initiative. Plus having two Power Fists will give the extra attack for having two melee weapons. At least 125 points would be a better cost.

-- Why do Vehicles have a Leadership Characteristic?

-- Why do Vehicles that otherwise don't have an Initiative Characteristic have one now?

-- Why do a number of vehicles like Vindicators have a Strength Characteristic? Isn't that Characteristic a bit redundant given that Ramming Strength is based on AV and Weapon Strength is dealt with by the weapon profile(s)?

-- Why do vehicles now have a WS Characteristic let alone one that takes a value greater than 1? Vehicles (unless they're Walkers or something like that) can't generally fight back.

-- At 6 HP, the Land Raider would be worth more than 200 Points. Also, any vehicle with more than 4 HP is delving into the lower end of SHV territory.

Edit #1:

-- I haven't read through all the Rites of War, but it's a bit too Mix-And-Match for my liking. This Mix-And-Match property takes away the uniqueness of any given Chapter. It would be better to retain the current Chapter Tactics in some form or another (i.e. add, subtract or change a number of relatively small details), then say that the any Successor Chapters must have a core set of CT's and/or Traits with the option to take a set number of additional CT's and/or Traits (which would have restrictions.

For Example: A Black Templars Successor Chapter may take the same view of Librarians and Psykers as a whole (especially if they were tutored and/or heavily supported by the Black Templars), so it would make sense that they are restricted in terms of Psykers much like Black Templars are. Being a Successor Chapter, however, means that the player may choose for them to be more Codex-Compliant.

Armoury

-- I noticed that a number of weapons had a Range of 16". The default numerical ranges found in the current rule set do not include this specific range (AFAIK), so why have you included it?
-- -- I'm not saying it's a bad thing and/or should be removed. I'm just curious as to why you've included it.

-- Should Power Fists be under "Power Weapons"?

-- Why have you reduced the range of a number of weapons and weapon groups (e.g. Plasma Weapons and Grav Weapons)?
-- -- It seems to nerf a number of weapons beyond any usefulness and also doesn't make sense in a number of cases. For example: Why is an Assault Cannon only R16"? 24" was just fine. And Plasma Cannons are on the bottom end of the scale with their current profile. Your suggested profile seems to make them even worse.

-- Under Grenade Attacks, you said "For every 5 models in a unit, rounding up, one model may choose to participate in a Grenade Attack." Does this mean that if a unit has 6 models, we round it up to 10 models (for the purposes of this rule) and then allow two models use grenades?
-- -- If so, it might be a better option to keep it at "1 model out of every 5".

@Powerfisting.
The only reason I posted asking for a break down of what game play issues Magic Juggler wanted to address and how he wanted to address them.
Was the information he linked to, seemed to keep multiple resolution methods and the general over complication currently in 40k.

Getting rid of the 'randum rollz' is great,and I totally agree with using more interactive game turn.(Alternating phases/actions.)

But keeping multiple levels of complication needs some justification.IMO.

if Magic Juggler could explain his reasoning behind what he did I could comment in a more constructive way beyond, '.why do this?...why do that?'

I am happy to consider any straight forward intuitive solution , that abstracts the resolution to simplify it.But does not abstract the interaction results while doing so.

As ALL good war games follow this abstract the resolution not the results ethos!(Not just the 4 versions of the Epic series.)
And as a result they only use a fraction of the resolution methods and special rules 40k is lumbered with.

 Powerfisting wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
@Magic-Juggler.
This looks more like a 'serious edit' than a re write to me.
(A complete re-write should get rid of the layers of complexity the forced backwards compatibility to WHFB inflicted in the rules for 18 years.IMO/)

Could you please list the game play issues you wanted to address, and the changes you wanted to make to correct these issues.
And how you wanted to go about implementing them.As this would let me understand your project much better.

If you actually read his project, you would notice some of the issues he intends to address, which IMO, he does a good deal of innovating in order to address. Everyone's interpretation of these problems and the solutions they come up with is different, but I get the impression you have your own mind made up on exactly what you want to see happen and are only interested in other people adopting those ideas. Every solution to these problems has its own pros and cons that need to be made and I think you would do well to take other peoples' ideas more seriously and with an open mind instead of dismissing them because they aren't recycled from Epic so you can recite the laundry list of GW hate you have. These threads are for discussing solutions to problems. There is an official "GW Hate" page somewhere on the internet, I'm sure, but its not the Dakka Proposed rules forum.

I agree. As interesting as it can be, discussing basic issues, problems, aspects or whatever shouldn't fill out a thread which presents an alternative ruleset. Whatever MagicJuggler wants to fix, an alternative ruleset is also creative work which don't have to address a specific issue but could just have been created to reflect the lore of the 40k universe better. Threads such as this one is also kind of promoting his work and people should very much ask him about everything about the ruleset, but it should be done directly - we can read the rules directly so we can comment them directly - what the author actually tries to achieve may be interesting, but when the work has been done to a point which have been done here, we can see for ourselves which issues has been addressed and which haven't. I'm pretty sure that if you ignore the actual rules and ask such a question it's for finding holes in the argument and tell him what he did wrong - not to "delve into to the glorious mind of the author and give him just the right criticism he needs!".
Sorry I may have repeated myself here.

All the best to the author - it would be great if some of those who have qualms with the 7th ruleset would try out Forgehammer and tell if it made a difference. Playtesters' feedback would probably have big impact on MagicJuggler and could help to form the end-product.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- Are you adding in a new FOC slot called "Dedicated Transports"?
-- -- Because I am OK with this. It also is a better classification for things like Rhinos.

It's not so much that it's a new FOC slot, as much as it's slotless. Like how Dedicated Transports worked from editions 3rd to 6th. The whole "Take a Dedicated Transport as a Fast Attack" didn't happen until 7th, really.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- Assault Squads should still be a Fast Attack Choice rather than a Troops Choice by virtue of their Jump Packs making them a Jump unit.

Ehhh...besides the fact that Assault Troops have always had the option to run without packs (which in practice only mattered for 5e Blood Angel armored lists), they've almost always been overshadowed by bikers, they got the point break/cost as much as Tacticals, simply because Tacticals get better mobile midrange combat than last time; for now, at any rate, regular Bikers are still Fast Attack, at least without a Major Codex Deviation (No "Make them Troops with a HQ on Bike" workaround).

-- Assault Centurions should be an Elite Choice. Heavy Support could also work, but that would put them in the same category as tanks, so Elites makes more sense.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- I like the idea of Veteran Tactical Squads, but I feel like this needs to be separated into two squads: Veteran Tactical Marines (Ballistic) and Veteran Tactical Marines (Melee), where the former has BS5 and WS4, while the later has BS4 and WS5.
-- -- The other thing is I'm not 100% sure that these will not detract from other squads in terms of role, but I definitely like the idea.
-- -- What was the motivation for the Veteran Tactical Squad?
-- Tactical and Assault Terminator Squads should have a difference in WS and BS much like the one I suggested above for the two different Veteran Tacticals:
-- -- Tactical should have BS5 and WS4, while Assault should have BS4 and WS5.
The reason for the above two changes is that it offers a bit more uniqueness as well as denies them the ability to fulfill each other's rolls just was well as the other. This can also be applied to other units like Tactical Dreadnoughts vs Assault Dreadnoughts.

The idea is that by default, the Codex Astartes divides the 1st Company into Veteran Squads, and Terminator Squads, which in turn are focused on Assault or Tactical subroles. Aka, why you have Sternguard vs Vanguard Veterans, or Tactical Terminators versus Assault Terminators. Some chapters explicitly ignore this subdivision, figuring Veterans are Veterans and they should fight as they please. This is why the Dark Angels only have Veteran Squads & Terminator Squads, why Black Templar only had Sword Brethren and Terminators (at least before their codex was obsoleted by being rolled into 6e Space Marines), why Space Wolves only got Wolf Guard & Wolf Guard Terminators, etc. Likewise, unless there's a super-obscure chapter I'm unaware of, these same aforementioned chapters also do/did not have any distinction between "Assault" Dreadnoughts or "Tactical" Dreadnoughts. 4th ed Black Templar got regular Dreadnoughts (that could take a Veteran skill), Dark Angels get regular Dreadnoughts (that can be upgraded to Inner Circle), and Space Wolves get regular Dreadnoughts (as well as some odd toys, like Blizzard Shields, etc). Contrast codex Marines getting regular Dreads vs Ironclads, or Blood Angels getting regular Dreads vs Furioso Dreads. I'm still tweaking the actual points/options for this though.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- I would increase your points costs slightly for these squads because of the extra wounds.
-- Tactical Dreadnoughts should cost 110 - 120 Points with that loadout.
-- Similarly, Assault Dreadnoughts seem very under-costed since they have a second Power Fist that can strike at initiative. Plus having two Power Fists will give the extra attack for having two melee weapons. At least 125 points would be a better cost.

I'm thinking 125 for Dreads probably. I'm mostly sticking to a fast "Units cost multiples of 25 pts by default" when doing initial statting.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- Why do Vehicles have a Leadership Characteristic?

There are non-morale based uses for Leadership, and there may be future uses for Leadership too. Example: Issuing Orders to Imperial Guard vehicles.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- Why do Vehicles that otherwise don't have an Initiative Characteristic have one now?

To-hit is a chart that compares the attacker's Ballistic Skill versus the defender's Initiative. The idea is that Initiative is a mix of heightened reflexes, a good second sense, and knowing when to TAKE COVER! Initiatives of 6 or above basically reach Matrix levels of dodginess.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- Why do a number of vehicles like Vindicators have a Strength Characteristic? Isn't that Characteristic a bit redundant given that Ramming Strength is based on AV and Weapon Strength is dealt with by the weapon profile(s)?

Mostly, I figure having Ramming equal to Vehicle Strength means less bookkeeping/is more streamlined. Vehicles used to have a separate Ram value back in 2nd edition for example. Something I've been interested in, is tweaking Tank Shock rules to be more fine-grained. To use an (extreme) example that's currently in 7th edition:

-An Ork Wartrukk with Reinforced Ram can cause a Riptide to run away if it fails a Leadership Test due to Tank Shock, kills it outright if it fails a Death or Glory check, and displaces it otherwise. (This is assuming the Tau haven't destroyed the Trukk altogether, of course).
-A Land Raider attempts to Ram a Warbuggy, fails to kill it, and crashes to a perfect halt. The Warbuggy loses a Hull Point at worst, and then becomes an immovable object.

Tank Shocking/Ramming based on strength differences could account for pushing smaller models/vehicles out of the way. At least that's the initial idea.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- Why do vehicles now have a WS Characteristic let alone one that takes a value greater than 1? Vehicles (unless they're Walkers or something like that) can't generally fight back.

Car-fu. Tank-Shock has been modified somewhat, to be "Weapon Skill of tank vs initiative of models being tank shocked." Can they jump out of the way before they get rammed into? Weapon Skill isn't so much "Dodging" an attack, as much as it could be turning/providing no good hits. ("Hit the bumper" instead of "Hit the fuel line", etc).

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- At 6 HP, the Land Raider would be worth more than 200 Points. Also, any vehicle with more than 4 HP is delving into the lower end of SHV territory.

Vehicle damage has been tweaked more, aim is to weaken "HP-stripping" (mass haywire, autocannons/hymps, etc) as the main way to kill vehicles, in favor of high-strength/low ap weapons (lascannons/etc). Tank Hunters is "Reroll the Vehicle Damage result", rather than "Reroll to penetrate", so a Meltagun inflicts an Explosion (does D3 more HP damage) on a 4+, so with Tank Hunters, that's a 4+ rerollable.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- I haven't read through all the Rites of War, but it's a bit too Mix-And-Match for my liking. This Mix-And-Match property takes away the uniqueness of any given Chapter. It would be better to retain the current Chapter Tactics in some form or another (i.e. add, subtract or change a number of relatively small details), then say that the any Successor Chapters must have a core set of CT's and/or Traits with the option to take a set number of additional CT's and/or Traits (which would have restrictions.

For Example: A Black Templars Successor Chapter may take the same view of Librarians and Psykers as a whole (especially if they were tutored and/or heavily supported by the Black Templars), so it would make sense that they are restricted in terms of Psykers much like Black Templars are. Being a Successor Chapter, however, means that the player may choose for them to be more Codex-Compliant.

I thought about that, main thought is then "Ok, so how do I do chapters where the successor is not necessarily known? Aka, how do you do the Cursed Founding, the Star Scorpions/Mentors, the Blood Ravens, etc?" I may consider switching back to something like this though. There are a fair few "restrictive/mutually exclusive" options as is, and some may come with their own drawbacks. I'll tweak it more, and get back on this! (Sorry, this sounds dismissive :/)

 IllumiNini wrote:

-- I noticed that a number of weapons had a Range of 16". The default numerical ranges found in the current rule set do not include this specific range (AFAIK), so why have you included it?
-- -- I'm not saying it's a bad thing and/or should be removed. I'm just curious as to why you've included it.
-- Why have you reduced the range of a number of weapons and weapon groups (e.g. Plasma Weapons and Grav Weapons)?
-- -- It seems to nerf a number of weapons beyond any usefulness and also doesn't make sense in a number of cases. For example: Why is an Assault Cannon only R16"? 24" was just fine. And Plasma Cannons are on the bottom end of the scale with their current profile. Your suggested profile seems to make them even worse.

Main reason was the game eventually got crowded at higher point levels, and maneuver ultimately felt more like a case of "Do you have Turbo-boost or Gate?" vs "Are you static"? So the idea was rather than making the table bigger, to scale down everything (Movement, shooting, etc) to 4" increments. So a Tactical Marine moves 4" instead of 6", shoots 16" instead of 24", consolidates 2" instead of 3", etc. Some side effects may be there (blasts and flamers are relatively scarier, you can "gain" more speed from embarking/disembarking from transports, etc), so this still bears testing. Maybe it may work better converted to 5" increments?

 IllumiNini wrote:
-- Should Power Fists be under "Power Weapons"?

Dang, yer right! I'll move them there.

 IllumiNini wrote:

-- Under Grenade Attacks, you said "For every 5 models in a unit, rounding up, one model may choose to participate in a Grenade Attack." Does this mean that if a unit has 6 models, we round it up to 10 models (for the purposes of this rule) and then allow two models use grenades?
-- -- If so, it might be a better option to keep it at "1 model out of every 5".

It would mean that, and it's mostly intentional. "1 in every 5" would mean if a unit of 10 Tacmarines got whittled down, it now only makes 1 grenade attack from there. How this interacts with "huge" squads (20-30 models+), I'm curious to see. Whether Guard players would create conga-lines, where the front 10 soldiers move to grenade while the rest provide heavy weapon fire from behind. Then again, such positioning does make for flamerbait.