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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just take me to the rules!
ProHammer: Enhanced 5th Edition (Living Rules Link)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've played 40k on and off since 1st Edition, with the most time spent on 2nd and 4th edition. I've dabbled a bit in 8th edition and find it wanting. Not that the newer direction of 40K is bad, but for me it just doesn't capture the same gameplay feel and aesthetic character of older editions of the game. And while I like some of things about 6th and 7th edition, they also felt needlessly finicky and overwrought. 5th edition is a high watermark for a more streamlined but still classic feeling 40K - but it isn't without its faults.

So, I've embarked on a journey to find a better 40K. I'm starting to teach my own kids and nephews how to play (they are asking to learn I swear!) and given I have tons of older stuff at my disposal it seems like going with a classic version makes sense. And if Im going back to an old edition, I might as well house rule it to make it as cool as it can be.

With that, I've taken 5th edition as base and pulled in bits of 4th and 6th edition, a few inspirations from 8th edition in the name of streamlining, and even a few throw backs to 2nd edition (without getting too nuts!).

The overall design goals for this project is as follows:

Create a hybrid ruleset that brings out the epic drama of 40K but is tactically richer.

Add more player choices and flexibility but set the stage for tougher, deeper decisions.

Balance “fairness” with excitement. Keep players on their toes but don’t overly punish.

Increase the fidelity or “logicalness” of the game, while staying as simple as possible.

Restore the importance of position and maneuver - this is a miniature tactics game!

The 40k rules tend to swing a lot from edition to edition. First vehicles are too strong, then they are too weak. Assault is too weak, oops, now it's too strong. The game never felt like it landed with the right balance point baked into the rules. ProHammer tries to find that elusive sweat spot.

Additionally, I've found with new players that often times what makes sense from a logical standpoint doesn't really line up with the rules. Times when you say out loud "well that doesn't make any sense" are far too common. Or you hear someone say "that is stupidly unfair" to rules that are just randomly punitive. I've tried to sand off these rough edges while boosting the strategic depth of game and emphasizing the importance of positioning and movement and use of terrain. This is a tactical miniature game after all! But it's also a richly thematic game - and I don't want to lose the charm and wildness that makes 40K special.

Here's a link to what I've come up with:

ProHammer: Enhanced 5th Edition (Living Rules Link)

Below are some of the Key Changes at a Glance

* Movement is model-by-model​ for determining what counts as moving
* Can approach difficult terrain at normal speed. Can take ​saves from dangerous terrain
* Can take a leadership test to ​split fire​ once (i.e. unit can shoot a max of two different targets)
* Line of Sight: ​Hard cover uses true line of sight, soft cover blocks LoS beyond 6”
* Cover saves:​ 3+ fortifications, 4+ hard cover, 5+ soft cover/intervening models, 6+ light cover
* Snap Fire​. Heavy weapons may move and snap fire, assault weapons may run and snap fire. Can
snap fire after going to ground.
* Declared Shooting ​(experimental) players must declare all shooting targets
* Overwatch ​can be declared instead of shooting normally, allows one “point blank” round of full strength fire against a single charging unit (with some downsides)
* Revised wound allocation process​ for shooting attacks - can only remove “viable” targets are in true line of sight and in range. Cover saves determined on model-by-model basis. Unified and streamlined process for resolving shooting even for complex units.
* Blast weapons​ use ballistic skill to hit. If shot missed, automatically scatters.
* Rapid fire weapons​ - once at max range or twice at half range, regardless of movement (6th)
* Close combat victors ​may consolidate into enemy units again.
* Units engaged in close combat may ​withdraw​ at the start of the assault phase (post-shooting) and will incur some penalties.
* Opposing unit can consolidate into enemy unit.
* Revised Vehicle damage​: Uses separate modified 4th edition glancing and penetrating damage charts. Skimmers are less resilient while other vehicles remain reasonably durable. Cover saves
adjusted for vehicles.
* Defensive weapons ​on vehicles are ​Strength 5​ or less.
* Hitting vehicles in melee​ attacks based on the speed the vehicle moved (same rules for skimmers)
* Less punishing ​deep strike​ rules (models placed under large blast template ala 4th edition)
* Slightly more predictable ​reserves (6th)
* Lone characters can’t be shot unless they are the closest model (4th)
* Force Weapons​ deal D3 wounds on successful psychic test (not instant death)
* Revised m​orale rules for falling back and regrouping​ to be more volatile but also less punishing
* Uses ​mission structure + objectives ​based on 6th edition

Lots more odds and ends in the ruleset. Please take a look and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the changes. I'm planning to make adjustments and fine tuning as I play test this more, so I'm open to suggestions! Thanks.

Only a couple things i see as problamatic in your over-view

1.declared fire-battletech has it and we purposely do not use it, as it slows thew game down way to much

2. consolidating into a second unit after winning combat-incredibly bad mechanic that was badly abused in 4th edition. especially hurts NON MEG armies like guard and tau.

Otherwise very solid work, and excellent layout.

It is quite similar to the rules set we use for hybrid 5th ed using the best bits of 3rd-7th.



Funny how we the players with experience playing the game can come up with a similar rules set that works better than what GW manages to pay people to write.

Thanks for taking a look.

I kept the declared fire as optional - but I used to play that way with my group all the time and everyone seemed to enjoy it. I've always had an issue in 40K and other IGOUGO games where the shooting becomes a little optimization puzzle where you work out an ideal order based on level of threat and go from there. It makes it feel a little gamey. Declaring fire forces you to make a strategic "gambit" or a plan of action in the face of uncertainty. Keep in mind, units are at most only shooting two targets (if they split fire) and so far in testing the wound allocation thing has been pretty quick to resolve. Hasn't seemed to have added much time to the game yet.

Consolidating into other units - I've tried to temper it by adding the ability for a unit to withdraw at the end of their movement phase (I think 2nd Ed had a voluntary fallback rule?). Without consolidation, it creates this equally weird situation as a melee attacker where you don't want to kill the charged unit too much, because you'd rather kill them at the end of your opponents assault phase so you could charge with them again. 8th edition has voluntary fall back moves too.

I also thought about adding in the ability to fire into melee combat in exchange for stronger consolidation moves.

Thanks for the feedback nevertheless, I'll keep tweaking things And keep this updated. I want to do some formatting to the rules and call out where the changes are a bit better.

Let me know if you have other thoughts! Cheers.

On the consolidating assault rules. here is an example of why it becomes a problem-back in 4th a buddy who plays IG did a game where we ended on turn 5 where my deathwing had a single chaplain and a venerable dreadnought left. we decided to play it out to see what would happen. thanks to that rule i managed to walk through the entire rest of his army with just those 2 models (even though he technically already won). because every time i won combat and they broke i would run them down with the dreadnought.

The best rules i have seen if you want the option to shoot into melee( i know guard players that think it fits the lore just fine....especially for DKOK, ) is- shoot with a penalty and every miss hits a friendly model in the melee-armor saves apply as normal.

The only model that used to be able to do something similar with orbital strikes was inquisitor lord karamozov..so long as he targeted a friendly model in melee

I hear you. A lot depends on the size of the game relative to the table and how spaced out things are. If consolidating into units is allowed it has to be planned for. With the range limited to 3" of you can keep at least 6" between units you're usually pretty safe. If you then add options for voluntary fallback (ala 8th edition) and/or rules for firing into melee, then I think it's relatively balanced. In your example the game was already technically over before it became an issue anyway.

I do like your idea about shooting into close combat. Could also do something where if your side as many more models you'd suffer a -1 to hit (meaning you'd be more likely to hit your own models when you fail). Maybe 1's are always total misses.

Well shooting into melee in the way i described is used in many systems including 3.5 dnd....if you don't take the -4 penalty to avoid shooting your friends there is good chance you will.

The big difference from what you are doing and what we did is you are creating your own original rules, we just used rules that already existed in the game in various editions and put them all into the same edition. effectively picking the best core rules with the best USR/core mechanics cherry picked across the compatible editions. i think that is a lot easier for players outside your family to wrap their heads around known pre-existing rules.


IIRC 2nd ed overwatch allowed you to shoot normally at one unit in the enemy movement phase but that unit then did nothing during your own player turn. it might be best just to directly import that over to get what you are looking for.

2nd ed. overwatch required you to place your unit into overwatch at the start of your turn, with no moving or shooting or assaulting allowed that turn. They can act normally on their NEXT turn.

So you had to declare overwatch proactively / ahead of time.

Finished updating ProHammer to version 1.1 with adjustments in the following areas:

* Revised overwatch to work on non-assaulting units with additional restrictions (24” max range), other lose ends clarified.
* Clarifications to withdrawing rules adding
* Added new “Shooting into Close Combat” rule
* Added in option to use pistols in close combat (can make one pistol shot, ala 8th edition)
* Added rules for throwing grenades during shooting phase, if the unit is equipped with them. Limited to just one grenade attack per unit.
* Added optional rule for balanced force composition, requiring players to maintain at least a 2:3 troop to specialist unit ration (2nd edition throwback).
* Made vehicles one step easier to hit in assault at each step. (3+ for moving up 6", 4+ for 6-12", 5+ for over 12", etc.)
* Added clearer text notes indicated rules that were revised or new

Added a rule from 7th edition regarding overwatch fire which is that shooting in overwatch never forces the target to take a moral or pinning test.

Also clarified how vehicles work with split fire.

Last - and this is maybe a question for those more familiar with 6th + 7th edition, but it seems like if I added the additional universal special rules outside of what 5th edition covered as an appendix, players could choose to use 6th or 7th edition codex's with ProHammer.

The mechanical changes aren't that different from a codex standpoint. There are a few rule areas that I haven't included in ProHammer (challenges comes to mind) that might have some impact on certain later edition codex options, but seems like it could work reasonably well most of the time?

Thoughts?

That was an easy enough fix. we allow all codexes to be used from 3rd-7th but they must adhere to the 5th ed core rules. meaning some rules are flat out ignored if there is no 5th ed equivalent USR or use the most applicable USR.

An examole-dunestrider for the 7th ed mechanicus list-since all movement is fixed the effect that is supposed to represent -the ease with which they traverse terrain- is simple reverted back to "move through cover" USR instead if giving them extra movement or charge range.

I started going through the USR's for 6th + 7th. I'm going to make a compiled set for the ProHammer rules that make the appropriate adjustments to bring them all into proper alignment.

What's interesting is that I priced out a 2000 point space wolf army using the 5th edition codex. Same list was like 250 points cheaper using the 7th edition wolf list.

I wonder what to do about all the 7th edition attachment stuff. Do you just ignore that and it's always using the standard force organization charts (unless your opponent agrees of course).

You might get a kick out of this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1al0RietrhVVuo10iuaIZCo1MjVjyEp9SviFTKkVCnNo/edit?usp=sharing

I didn't complete it for 7th edition yet, and 8th is a little sparse, but it's a general rule by rule comparrison of the different editions (focused on 4th, 5th, and 6th). I used this to help under standand what ProHammer would change to what. It's been a fun side project!

 Mezmorki wrote:
...I wonder what to do about all the 7th edition attachment stuff. Do you just ignore that and it's always using the standard force organization charts (unless your opponent agrees of course)...

The 7e detachments were badly designed; the buffs they gave ranged from the mediocre (Deathwatch: everyone can Deep Strike!) to the incredibly overpowered (Space Marines: 550pts of free Razorbacks!), some let you flat-out ignore some very important limitations (Eldar: 300pts of bikes and then you can take as many Wraithknights as you like!), and the requirements were sometimes incredibly easy and sometimes incredibly difficult.

If you want to try doing something like the specialized detachments I'd suggest reading up on 30k Rites of War; they're a much simpler, better-balanced, and generally better-built version of the same "variant detachments" idea.

Yeah formations/detachments/unbound in 7th were bad, like i said we try to keep it baseline 5th ed as much as possible so the old FOC is required. the nice thing about 5th though is it did allow vehicle formations with their related restrictions. So a bit more freedom but not break the game style like 7th allowed.

Taking allied detachments did exist all the way back iin 3rd (and were not broken), but most people didn't take them aside from grey knights who had their own special rules as normally you had to take the additional 1 HQ and 1 troop minimum to gain access to 1 elite/heavy/fast from the allied force.

I ever thought that AP against vehicles should have a role.

as you are doing, AP 3 or AP 6 are the same, I find it not fair.

as an houserule, I found very balanced and realistic that after a pen. Hit, roll a d6; if you roll equal or higher AP weapon value, you score an heavy damage, if you roll lower, then the hit is a glancing

your overwatch rules sound interesting, declared firing looks good but can be slow for 'many small unit armies' ie guard.CC consilidate could be too powerful.
In my version of 7th one of the main rules is you have to reduce all hull points on a vehicle to destroy it. In a single volley with different weapons ie from a leman russ/devestator squad choose most powerful weapon that hit to blow it up.

I updated the link in the subject post to point to the "living rules" (i.e. google document) version of the file, that so that it's always reflecting the latest.

Current at version 1.1 with the changes I mentioned a few posts up. Here's the link too:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uoAUqM9mJPNqh2XX8ywAhZ5htXvM8_xkGB6OKrpZw2k/edit?usp=sharing

Still getting my head around 7th edition and what I can I can do make the core of those codex's "compliant" with ProHammer.

What's interesting with the vehicle HP's added in 6th/7th, is that the unit prices didn't change all that much. Seems like using the ProHammer vehicle damage tables (closer to 4th ed) makes vehicle durability more uncertain. Things could be destroyed faster, but they could also hold out longer. Depends on the die rolls.

Are Shaken and Stunned cumulative as well?

ProHammer does this:

Shaken = can shoot but only hits on. 6 (aka snap fire)
Stunned = shaken + cant move next turn

So if a model takes two stunned results, what happens then?

Oh, nothing further happens. It's stunned for it's next turn only, no matter how many stunned results it suffers. They don't stack and accumulate.

I wanted to mention something as I was revising my rules.

People have expressed concerns by allowing units to consolidate into new enemy targets (like in 3rd edition).

Bear in mind, that the ProHammer rules also let you voluntarily withdraw from any combats (albiet with a penalty) on the start of your turn. This is similar to rules in 2nd edition for voluntary fallback / breaking off, as well as in 8th/9th where you can just "move away" on your turn.

There is also stronger (potentially) overwatch fire AND even a rule for firing into close combat at the risk of hitting your own unit.

Hello all. Quick update on ProHammer, now version 1.2.

* Added simplified rule for Deny the Witch
* Added 6th/7th edition compatibility rules (see last section) - including universal special rules. Players can use any codexes from 3rd-7th edition.
* Added a new unit type summary chart section
* Added Smash rule to monstrous creatures
* Clarified how vehicles split fire (treated as Ld 10, each weapon can fire at a target within its arc)
* Clarified what counts as a viable target model when allocating a wound pool during shooting

I am following this thread. Interesting...

 jeff white wrote:
I am following this thread. Interesting...

Any thoughts to share?

 Mezmorki wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I am following this thread. Interesting...

Any thoughts to share?

As a long time player, since RT days. I have a very long memory.

At the core, the basic mechanics of the game as presented in 3rd-7th are pretty solid. A few issues that are more linguistic vagueness and outright intentional widespread misreading and misrepresentation of certain rules that resulted in some serious abuses.

I suppose what is even more interesting is with a little bit of wrenching, 8th was pretty solid too. Again, badly written and ham-fisted rules cause the only "core" issues.

9th isn't really any worse off than 8th but it again suffers from ham-fisted approach rather than a refined sense of consideration of issues and moves towards "logical and consistent application changes" as solutions.

Everything else is rather a result of two things:

Power Creep and Model Selling Tactics influencing individual codex/supplement/unit rules.

It's all over the place with love children, mass buffs to sell certain new or low sales/high inventory items, and just rules that are not only not internally consistent but illogical even in the face of "trying to sell models".

Reading through what you've done fairly matches up with what I've done on my own as far as attempting slow, careful, logical changes. Looking at how to make things across the board logical and rational without "love children".

Sometimes a rule change isn't needed so much as a direct removal of the abuse there of with the rule mostly intact. This gets back to consistent application and logic.. aka GW made a Codex or Supplement that did not consider a core rule and gave an army a major abuse of an otherwise fine rule. I can write more later. But for starts I would encourage you to look towards backporting certain concepts from 8th. KeyWording in an "extensible" language (like extensible programming) allows for some very consistent and controlled rules use and modification. GW implemented the idea and then threw it to the wind and went hog wild and ham-fisted and the results were a mess. But getting back to its basic concept and working from there can yield very good results. But it can be tricky as you have to do your best to conceptualize groups and who should inherit from where and why rather than just mass key-wording till you get spaghetti, rules duplication, confusion.. or 9th where now you have an FAQ that has melta changes only to one group of models but not others so now its crazy. Or some space marines get 2w, but others (regular grey knights) don't.. neither do chaos marines? what? why?

When you conceptualize Astartes as a class and all Astartes start as: 4/4/4/4/2/4/2/8 (yes initiative is in there) And logically, Heretic extends Astartes, there for all basic Chaos Marines have the same Stat-line. For example even Primaris works here.. Primaris extends Astartes and becomes 4/4/4/4/3/4/2/8.. the Primaris extension adds 1w. A Captain is also an Astartes so his base stat line is the same but Captain adds: +1/+1/etc.. So if you make a Captain Primaris Astartes his statline should be easy to understand WHY, where it comes from, etc.

You can do vehicles in a similar fashion and even include exclusionary clauses.. such as a Vehicle can be Skimmer (extends Vehicle) but a Skimmer cannot be "heavy", but it can be "light" or "fast". Using some of the older designations here as keywording examples allowing a very complex and flexible system but one that also has boundaries, controls, and consistency. Those "controls" are important. Just like limitations on Heavy Weapons and movement were important to reduce the excessive power there of.. or limits on vehicle fire arcs and number of weapons fired when moving because it prevented them from being Last Starfighter Death-Blossom mode all the time.

This works for weapons for example and gets to a major complaint about the recent FAQ. All "melta" weapons should be consistent, even if you "extend" into something special it should be.. something special. Like Astartes Grenade Launcher vs Guardsman Grenade Launcher.. or the Dark Angels Grenade Launcher. Those were all logical extensions and could be understood.. as Astartes Shotgun vs a Regular Shotgun.

So it is less "core rules" and more Abuse there of and a complete lack of consistent application and logical nature to the rules and codexes. Just getting back to that fixes a lot of things with ALL editions.

I've been looking back over some of my own oldhammer projects recently, and it's struck me as I've been doing so that the play environment (assumptions made by the Codexes) is at least as important as the core rules. I've also noticed that for most armies there's usually one idealized version of their Codex in the same way that people sometimes hold up 5e as the idealized time when the game worked correctly.

I'm considering building a few Codexes specifically for this rulebook as an exercise, try and go digging for the best version of the army and then make them all compatible with each other.

 meatybtz wrote:

So it is less "core rules" and more Abuse there of and a complete lack of consistent application and logical nature to the rules and codexes. Just getting back to that fixes a lot of things with ALL editions.

Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply. That's a lot of good stuff to mull over.

For my part, I must admit that I don't have the best grasp of the various abuses in the codex's over the years - which does put me at a bit of a disadvantage with respect to writing ProHammer. The reason is that I've always played with a good jovial group of friends and none of us are the sort to try and deliberately bring out full on cheesy lists. We play to win but we don't care about winning enough to squeeze the rules to their limit. Frankly a lot of the egregious balance issues people bring up with various editions we've just never had to deal with.

All this said, I'm really not looking to re-do codexes with ProHammer - although I could see potentially starting to keep track of a list of errata-like adjustments to be considered in some cases. But I think someone far more knowledgeable than me would need to take it on.... maybe the next post....?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I've been looking back over some of my own oldhammer projects recently, and it's struck me as I've been doing so that the play environment (assumptions made by the Codexes) is at least as important as the core rules. I've also noticed that for most armies there's usually one idealized version of their Codex in the same way that people sometimes hold up 5e as the idealized time when the game worked correctly.

I'm considering building a few Codexes specifically for this rulebook as an exercise, try and go digging for the best version of the army and then make them all compatible with each other.

I'm curious where you might go with this - especially given my response directly above this message.

As said, I'm not looking to redo the codexes myself, but I'd love to see what others come up with and what sorts of issues arise in a given codex with the ProHammer rules. If problems can be addressed through the core ProHammer rules instead of having to modify a codex, I'd be open to exploring those changes too.

I've been playing a few more games with ProHammer using some 6th and 7th edition codexes - and running into some compatibility issues. Mostly this has to do with psykers (and I've added a bit to the rules to clarify this more) and also with certain weapon profiles, namely melee weapons like power weapons.

For my part, I must admit that I don't have the best grasp of the various abuses in the codex's over the years - which does put me at a bit of a disadvantage with respect to writing ProHammer. The reason is that I've always played with a good jovial group of friends and none of us are the sort to try and deliberately bring out full on cheesy lists. We play to win but we don't care about winning enough to squeeze the rules to their limit. Frankly a lot of the egregious balance issues people bring up with various editions we've just never had to deal with.

You will never counter the power of WAAC players no matter what you do. it seems like your group already has figured out the right attitude towards playing 40K.
Many of the big issues in the older editions was directly related to codex release schedule. hence the reason why the term bandwagon jumper became a thing. as the newest codex often had rules/units that were better in the edition it was designed for VS people who were still waiting on their updates who were still using old codex. this was pretty well solved by the time every codex got it's update release. the problem was that about that time GW would switch editions and start the process over again.

I've been playing a few more games with ProHammer using some 6th and 7th edition codexes - and running into some compatibility issues. Mostly this has to do with psykers (and I've added a bit to the rules to clarify this more) and also with certain weapon profiles, namely melee weapons like power weapons.

Curious, i have not run into any of those problems, but then again we are using the bog standard 5th ed psyker rules. no deny the witch shenanigans all the powers from 6th/7th are allowed. although we discourage the stupid game breaking ones that do things like create the "can only hit me on a 6+/re-roll all my saves" deathstar one.

When it comes to melee weapons power weapons are all treated as being bog standard AP3 for simplicity. we just use the strength modifiers for things like axes/mauls etc.. from 6th/7th leaving the big hitter like power claws/fists/hammers etc.. the only ones AP2/initiative 1.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I've been looking back over some of my own oldhammer projects recently, and it's struck me as I've been doing so that the play environment (assumptions made by the Codexes) is at least as important as the core rules. I've also noticed that for most armies there's usually one idealized version of their Codex in the same way that people sometimes hold up 5e as the idealized time when the game worked correctly.

I'm considering building a few Codexes specifically for this rulebook as an exercise, try and go digging for the best version of the army and then make them all compatible with each other.

I'm curious where you might go with this - especially given my response directly above this message.

As said, I'm not looking to redo the codexes myself, but I'd love to see what others come up with and what sorts of issues arise in a given codex with the ProHammer rules. If problems can be addressed through the core ProHammer rules instead of having to modify a codex, I'd be open to exploring those changes too.

I've been playing a few more games with ProHammer using some 6th and 7th edition codexes - and running into some compatibility issues. Mostly this has to do with psykers (and I've added a bit to the rules to clarify this more) and also with certain weapon profiles, namely melee weapons like power weapons.

Most of it's just bookkeeping/math, taking all the options from the version of the book with the most options and doing whatever math is needed to check it against everything else. Most Flyers, MCs, and superheavies need broad stat reworks across the unit type, the high-T/low-Sv niche needs to be explored more, Skyfire needs to be handed out more broadly, and the role of Initiative needs to be fiddled with some.

The major sticking points aside from restatting are psykers, Primaris Marines, and sub-factions. I prefer 4e/5e-style psykers where you had what were usually fairly minor powers that you paid points for and rolled a psychic test to use; the WHFB-inspired mechanics run on the assumption that everyone's got about the same amount of wizards in any given build, so armies with many more/less tended to be useless. As to Primaris there would be three approaches: say "this is oldhammer, no Primaris", try and interpret them as a resculpt and stat units that could be either Primaris/old-Marines, or try and continue the parallel army structure. I'd prefer the second just to keep with the theme of making sure you can use as many things as possible, but an argument could be made for just ignoring the Primaris. And as to sub-factions the problem there is that the Space Marines and to a lesser extent CSM have a really broad and well-developed set of sub-factions with distinct models, but nobody else does, which leaves me either saying "no sub-factions" and trying to roll the special units back into the generic faction, making up a lot of stuff out of whole cloth for everyone else, or giving SM/CSM way too much screen time.

It might be interesting to see if you folks agree with me on what the "definitive" edition of a given book is as well; a summary:

Space Marines: 4e. Endlessly customizable units, managed to be "jack of all trades, master of none" better than any implementation since.
Blood Angels: 5e. Massive range expansion plus the first appearance of Descent of Angels.
Dark Angels: 6e. Deathwing/Ravenwing extended from "Fearless version of generic unit" to a selection of stuff you might be able to build an army out of.
Space Wolves: 30k rules. The wolfwolfwolf stuff in the 40k Codexes since 5e feels too cartoony, the aggro-melee-foot-blitz ambush vikings of the 30k rules feel much better to me.

Imperial Guard: Toss-up. I want the regimental doctrines out of the 3.5e book or the 30k Militia rules and the simplified Platoons/large rifle squads of the Solar Auxilia, but the Orders that have come to define the Guard as well as almost the entire plastic motor pool came out of the 5e book initially.
Inquisition: 3e Malleus/Hereticus book, plus this one 5e fandex I ran across that redid them and added the Ordo Xenos for 5e. The Grey Knights have never been the same since the 5e book mangled their statlines and tried to stretch them into a standalone book, the Acts of Faith system in those books was simple, elegant, and effective in a way it's never been since, and the Deathwatch from back then had a lot of toys that felt right at the 40k scale rather than the overcomplicated mess of mixed squads.

CSM: 3.5e book, plus 30k rules. Loaded with interesting and characterful stuff, plus sub-faction rules that made playing Undivided much more interesting.
Daemons: 30k Ruinstorm list: Strange Chaos-y overly-customizable monstrosities rather than GW's four bland one-dimensional mini-Codexes.
Renegades and Heretics: Toss-up. There are so many different versions of this army that do slightly different things that I can't point to one that makes a better starting point.

Eldar: Unsure. Most units change very little between books and the mission statement ("army of specialized scalpel units that need to operate in concert") wasn't well-filled by any of them; what tends to happen is that GW accidentally makes one unit too efficient against too many targets and the Eldar become a spam army. Maybe the 4e book with 3e Craftworlds' sub-faction material.
Dark Eldar: 5e. Massive range expansion, masses of strange and interesting tech, army-wide buffs that alter the way they play, some of which hasn't been seen since.
Necrons: 5e, largely for the alternate Cryptek tech.
Orks: It's been an incredibly under-supported army for as long as I've been playing, lots of design space left unexplored. I kind of want to do a clean sweep here.
Tyranids: 4e. The build-a-bug biomorphs really gave the sense of the hive mind tailoring broods of troops for specific tasks.
Tau: Unsure. There are a lot of places I'd want to take the Tau that GW's never gone; expanded client races, gun-fu melee battlesuits, that kind of thing.

Space Marines: 4e. Endlessly customizable units, managed to be "jack of all trades, master of none" better than any implementation since.

I prefer the 5th ed book better because it had more unit options. both 4th or 5th editions could work better if you add in the expanded rules from the index astartes books(lots of people forget how great they are).

There were a lot of complaints about the 4th ed trait system allowing abuse because the negative traits you could choose from had no real negative impact.

Blood Angels: 5e. Massive range expansion plus the first appearance of Descent of Angels.

Totally agree- the best and most thematic and lore focused BA book.

Dark Angels: 6e. Deathwing/Ravenwing extended from "Fearless version of generic unit" to a selection of stuff you might be able to build an army out of.

Nope gonna have to say the 3.5 mini dex was the best lore based rules for deathwing/ravenwing, battle standards and characters for my unforgiven.

Space Wolves: 30k rules. The wolfwolfwolf stuff in the 40k Codexes since 5e feels too cartoony, the aggro-melee-foot-blitz ambush vikings of the 30k rules feel much better to me

I am actually quite happy with the 5th ed codex, the next codex that turned logan grimnar into santa with an actual sleigh got a bit stupid.

Imperial Guard: Toss-up. I want the regimental doctrines out of the 3.5e book or the 30k Militia rules and the simplified Platoons/large rifle squads of the Solar Auxilia, but the Orders that have come to define the Guard as well as almost the entire plastic motor pool came out of the 5e book initially.

Having a good friend who has played guard since 3rd, while he liked the doctrines in the previous codex he still rates the 5th ed codex as the best ( i do as well). although i do like the original chapter approved book for the IG armored company list as well as the rules for schaffers last chancers.

Inquisition: 3e Malleus/Hereticus book, plus this one 5e fandex I ran across that redid them and added the Ordo Xenos for 5e. The Grey Knights have never been the same since the 5e book mangled their statlines and tried to stretch them into a standalone book, the Acts of Faith system in those books was simple, elegant, and effective in a way it's never been since, and the Deathwatch from back then had a lot of toys that felt right at the 40k scale rather than the overcomplicated mess of mixed squads.

Yep, still have both the demon hunters and witch hunters codex. still the best most lore inspired rules.

My list of best codexes to use-

.Space marines-5th
.Black templar-armageddon
.Salamanders-armageddon or 4th
.Blood angels-5th
.White scars-index astartes 1
.Dark angles 3.5 mini dex
.Demon/witch hunters-3rd
.Space wolves 5th
.Custodes-7th
.Oks-4th hands down the most orky book
.Tau-4th (back when they were good even without riptiides)
.Tyranids-4th hands down best use of biomorphs/synapse
.IG-5th
.Chaos 3.5(also the best book for almost a pure demon army..just play with the word bearers rules)
.Adeptus mechanicus/skitarii-7th
.Necrons-7th (they needed the expanded line before that they were pretty 2 dimensional)
.Eldar.-i'm gonna go with 4th
.Dark eldar- not sure, never fought them enough in any edition to know which one was best.

For expanding the lines for say adding something not in those codexes like a helldrake in a chaos marine force using the 3.5 dex.. just use the points cost listed from it's entry in the book it appears in but use the upgrade costs and related rules from the 3.5 codex.


I wouldn't use primaris at all in any manner except as stand in proxies for regular marines/units. the 8th ed system is completely incompatible with 3rd-7th especially using 5th edition core rules like pro-hammer.

 aphyon wrote:
.Black templar-armageddon

I would have thought the 4e codex with the errata, unless the intent was to just plug the zeal and vow rules on top of the 5e book?