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.

In ProHammer, they are still allowed to be fired as freebies even when moving and even when firing a main weapon (with the exception of ordinance weapons / large blast weapons).

Check out the VEHICLE UNIT TYPES table towards the end. A leman russ could, for example, move up to 6" and fire two main weapons (main cannon if not ordinance) and a hull mounted lascannon, and also shoot it's sponson heavy bolters (STR 5 and below are defensive weapons). It could move 6-12" and still fire defensive with snap fire.

I see where you are coming from through ... and I'll put some thought into it. Is the suggestion to allow vehicles to take reactive fire but only using defensive weapons?

 Mezmorki wrote:
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.

I want to note that while that rule does exist, in the "Allocate Wounds" step in the melee rules it appears to require the exact opposite: "After all wounds rolls are made, the target unit’s owner allocates successful wounds to ENGAGED and HITTABLE MODELS in the target unit. Each hittable model must be allocated a wound before any other hittable model is allocated a second wound (and so on until all wounds are allocated)."

Is this intentional?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
In ProHammer, they are still allowed to be fired as freebies even when moving and even when firing a main weapon (with the exception of ordinance weapons / large blast weapons).

Check out the VEHICLE UNIT TYPES table towards the end. A leman russ could, for example, move up to 6" and fire two main weapons (main cannon if not ordinance) and a hull mounted lascannon, and also shoot it's sponson heavy bolters (STR 5 and below are defensive weapons). It could move 6-12" and still fire defensive with snap fire.

I see where you are coming from through ... and I'll put some thought into it. Is the suggestion to allow vehicles to take reactive fire but only using defensive weapons?

The suggestion is to remove defensive weapons as a freebie, but allow defensive weapons (and only defensive weapons, just in case some weapon exists somewhere that's Assault type and still extremely powerful, like a sonic lance or a tyrannofex gun maybe) to be fired with full effect in Reaction fire.

The normal restrictions on reaction fire would then still apply - a vehicle that fired its defensive weapons using reaction fire would then be snap firing its next turn.

It seems strange that Broken units can shoot freely with no penalty, and if currently engaged in melee.

It's also a bit odd that, in the Broken rules section, you state that unengaged Broken units must fall back, but in the Assault rules section, you state that units that fail a break test in combat (presumably, who are engaged) also fall back.

It would be clearer if you stated that broken units always fall back.

Additionally, if my unit fails morale in combat, falls back, and is caught by a pursuit move, after taking the damage for the successful pursuit, the broken unit just fights as normal, no penalty of any kind? Does it still need to take break tests? If the following turn is the turn of the controlling player of the broken unit (fairly likely) does that unit then immediately fall back again in the movement phase, triggering another Pursuit or Restraint test?

I view broken units more as a tactical retreat instead of being in complete disarray and unable to regroup. I've made it easier for units to regroup among other things.

I probably have some language that needs to clarified or simplified or made consistent, so I'll take a look at the items you reference.

Units being able to shoot while falling back was a common thing in older editions, and of course the unit counts as moving (and you're potentially falling back out of range).

Under [morale -> broken units] I note that if you are broken and charged, you must immediately test to regroup. If you fail that, the unit counts as being PINNED, which means in melee they lose any advantage for being in cover and only strike at initiative 1.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
It's also a bit odd that, in the Broken rules section, you state that unengaged Broken units must fall back, but in the Assault rules section, you state that units that fail a break test in combat (presumably, who are engaged) also fall back.

I think I have it correct and matching my intent.

"Break Tests" are only taken in response to losing a melee engagement (so the unit taking the test is engaged). If the unit fails the break test, they immediately fallback (still in the assault phase) and gain the "broken" status.

Similarly, "Causality Tests" apply to units that take 25% of current strength loses from ranged attacks. At the end of the current turn, if unengaged, they take the casualty test. If they fail, they immediately fall back and gain "broken" status as well.

At the start of the next turn, a players broken units can try to regroup. If they fail to regroup they stay broken, and then during their movement phase they must take an additional fall back move.

Does that make sense?

is there a functional distinction between break tests, casualty tests, and regroup tests that they could not be combined into a unified Morale Test (with modifiers)?

This is the sequence I find a bit odd:

My turn:

I charge, I fight, I lose the melee, I fail my break test, and immediately fall back (still on my turn)

Your unit pursues, catches, damages me, i'm still broken.

Beginning of your turn, I take a regroup test, fail, and remain broken. However, because it's not *my* movement phase, I don't fall back, I fight like normal.

Alternatively:

Your turn, you charge me, I lose, break, fall back, get pursued, take damage.

Then my turn, I try to regroup, fail, and because it's MY turn, I fall back AGAIN immediately.

This occurs due to the fact that regroup tests are worded to occur on all turns, but the fall back happens during ITS movement phase (the controlling player's) only.

If Fall Back moves always happened immediately upon failing any kind of morale check, and Broken units could not move in the movement phase, the units' behavior would not be dependent on player turn.

Your morale system is head and shoulders better than the current morale system of 40k, but I do think it has some elements that could use some refining.

Suppression, in my opinion, is a vastly better mechanic than Casualty Tests. The idea of a unit coming under a hail of fire THAT CAN CONCEIVABLY HARM IT and being forced to take cover or run is the concept that is attempting to be conveyed by the current casualty-based morale system in 40k and IMO is redundant with Casualty tests.

Imagine this system:

-Unify all morale into a single rule called Morale Checks. when you take a Morale Check of any time, you roll 2d6, add or subtract any relevant modifiers to the morale check, and compare to the highest Ld value in the unit. Put all the modifiers in the relevant sections (i.e., after the "determine the winning side" you'd put your table of modifiers to the morale check that's being rolled and keep them the same as now).

-If a morale check is failed while a unit is engaged with one or more enemy units, the unit must immediately attempt to fall back. Any unit that falls back becomes Pinned afterwards, Broken is not a separate concept.

-If a morale check is failed while a unit is not engaged with one or more enemy units, the unit's player may choose to have them become Pinned for the turn in the position they are now in, or immediately fall back (and subsequently become Pinned)

-at the beginning of any player turn, all Pinned units on the board take a morale check (same modifiers as regrouping currently) and therefore the same situation occurs. If you fail this regrouping test on your opponent's turn, your units can/do Fall Back in that opponent's turn, Falling Back is totally separated from the movement phase, it isn't a thing you have to do in your movement phase in your movement phase you can still move D3".

-Units that voluntarily become pinned due to Go to Ground still need to regroup using a LD test. units with the rule "And They Shall Know No Fear" automatically pass this test. Units with Fearless can never become pinned, because Fearless in 3rd-7th was characterized as "Insane/Inhuman/Fanatic Bravery or complete lack of sentience". This means Go to Ground cannot be done by fearless units.

Go to Ground, Suppression, Pinning, Falling Back, Break Tests, Regroup Tests are all unified by a single thread, and the statuses of Gone to Ground, Pinned, and Broken no longer need to be tracked separately.

Usually the reason "break tests", "casualty tests", and "regroup tests" have different names is because special rules might reference only a specific kind of morale test. Kriegers don't take casualty tests (morale tests caused by casualties when shooting), but do take break/regroup tests; Space Marines auto-pass regroup tests, but don't have any special benefit to casualty/break tests, that sort of thing.

_____________________________________


THE LINE REPRESENTS A SEPARATE LINE OF THOUGHT ENTIRELY

let's talk about Reactive Fire. I like this, this is cool this is interesting.

1) you have a note under reactive fire that notes that units take reactive fire do not get any benefit from charging this turn. As far as I know, this cannot matter: i will always charge in my turn, I will always react fire in my opponent's turn. You can therefore state simply that the unit does not benefit from having multiple melee weapons if it took react fire.

2) Charge reactions. This section as far as I can tell is totally redundant, and only serves to confuse the reader because it reads as though units that choose to react to a charge do NOT fight in the ensuing fight phase. I believe the intention is that they fight at I1 and count as being out of cover, but if you didn't go back and read the reactive fire rules you'd think units that choose to Stand and Shoot do not fight.

3) similar to "Pinned", wording "Reacted" as a status makes good sense. Ideally, players would put down a marker or chit that indicates that a unit has a particular status, and you would define a time at which that status is removed. For example: At the end of a player's turn, all "Advanced" and "Reacted" tokens are removed. When a model fires Overwatch, the Overwatch status is removed. When a unit passes the morale check to regroup, the "Pinned" status is removed.

____________________________________

Advancing:

In several places in the rules you mix up "run' and "advance." decide on one term and keep that consistent, especially since "counts as having moved" is another thing to track.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Usually the reason "break tests", "casualty tests", and "regroup tests" have different names is because special rules might reference only a specific kind of morale test. Kriegers don't take casualty tests (morale tests caused by casualties when shooting), but do take break/regroup tests; Space Marines auto-pass regroup tests, but don't have any special benefit to casualty/break tests, that sort of thing.

Are "Break tests" "Casualty Tests" and "Regroup Tests" specifically referenced in 3rd-7th codexes and rule supplements? This system is intended to patch into existing codexes, and I was under the impression the rules contained within were added on. To my memory morale tests were unified in the rules, at least in 5th 6th and 7th.

Regarding Morale

You only test to regroup at the start of your OWN turn. You don't test to regroup on your opponent's turn at all. Maybe I need to make sure that's clear.

I do like the idea however that when you fail to regroup (at the start of your own turn) then you immediately fall back, and THEN cannot move during your movement phase (but still count as having moved). Makes it cleaner so that fall back moves are always and only made after failing a casualty/break/regroup test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

1) you have a note under reactive fire that notes that units take reactive fire do not get any benefit from charging this turn. As far as I know, this cannot matter: i will always charge in my turn, I will always react fire in my opponent's turn. You can therefore state simply that the unit does not benefit from having multiple melee weapons if it took react fire.

I was trying to cover all the basis. For example, units with the counter-charge special ability (i.e. Space Wolves) count as having charged even when they are charged. They would lose that ability. But you are correct that in general you can never charge and take reactive fire.

the_scotsman wrote:

2) Charge reactions. This section as far as I can tell is totally redundant, and only serves to confuse the reader because it reads as though units that choose to react to a charge do NOT fight in the ensuing fight phase. I believe the intention is that they fight at I1 and count as being out of cover, but if you didn't go back and read the reactive fire rules you'd think units that choose to Stand and Shoot do not fight.

Okay, I think I see the confusion. I was just trying to provide an additional rule "hook" into the reactive fire rules. I'll add a note that the unit still fights in melee combat but suffers the impacts listed under reactive fire.

the_scotsman wrote:

3) similar to "Pinned", wording "Reacted" as a status makes good sense. Ideally, players would put down a marker or chit that indicates that a unit has a particular status, and you would define a time at which that status is removed. For example: At the end of a player's turn, all "Advanced" and "Reacted" tokens are removed. When a model fires Overwatch, the Overwatch status is removed. When a unit passes the morale check to regroup, the "Pinned" status is removed.

I like that suggestion a lot! I'll see about weaving that into the whole ruleset.

Ah - the wording of "at the start of the turn" made me assume that meant any turn, not just yours.

I think there are currently a few too many potential statuses that you need to keep track of for your units. in terms of what you need to potentially track, you've got:

-Moved
-Advanced
-Remained Stationary/First Firing
-Overwatch
-Reacted
-Went to Ground
-Pinned
-Broken

Moved/advanced/stationary is fairly easy to manage, because you don't really need to mark those statuses - they're resolved in the very next phase. Overwatch, Reacted, Pinned/Broken definitely require tokens, because you generally won't be resolving those abilities until later on - hence my suggestion to combine Pinned, Gone to Ground and Broken together, rather than keeping them three subtly different statuses.

GTG: +1 to cover
Snap Shots
move d3" in movement

Pinned: Snap Shots
move d3" movement
Fights worse

Broken: normal shooting, normal charging
if charged makes a test and if failed is pinned in melee
falls back in movement
requires regroup to get out of

I wanted to give a little update on where things are on ProHammer development:

First priority is getting the mission pack finalized. I have a good chunk of work to do in finishing that off. I have been playtesting the ones developed thus far, and they've been quite interesting!

Next, I'm toying around with a series of modules and updates for the ProHammer system, and I'm curious what others think and if any jump out as more interesting or not.

(1) HexHammer Module
I've been working on a addon ruleset that builds a "hex based" version of 40k, which allows the gameplay to sped about and streamlined, which would in turn support larger games. The basic idea is that instead of playing on a board, you could use hex-maps and/or custom hex tiles to build terrain. Each hex would represent a 6" x 6" area, be subject to some stacking limits, would define cover and LoS blocking features, etc. You would use a single miniature to represent a unit, with record sheets for units containing all the details.

(2) Alternate Activation Module
There have been some great ideas kicked around recently for AA systems, and I have ideas in mind for how that could be a bolt-on system for ProHammer

(3) Command Point Module
I've also been tinkering with ideas for a command point-like system - except it would be aimed squarely at strategic-level usage (i.e. not stratagems). For example, CP's could be designed to a more flexible Force Organization chart, CP's could be bid/used to determine game setup conditions, and they could also be applied towards mitigating die-rolls for certain functions, like reserve rolls, variable game length rolls. The only unit level function might be related to morale tests.

(4) Campaign + Crusade System
I'd love to port the Crusade system, coupled with a true map-based campaign system into ProHammer. I developed a pretty solid campaign rulset years ago that I could probably adapt as well.

(5) Skirmish-Scale System
Aaaand - another idea is making a set of tweaked rules / addon's for skirmish scale games. I used to have an old ruleset I used with 3rd + 4th edition that made 40K a bit of a hybrid between Necromunda/Kill Team and smaller 40k game. I think the point limit was around 500 or 600 points - but with lots of things liked relaxed coherency, model's getting "downed" instead of killed, etc. Could be worth exploring.

(6) Primaris Codex
I started work on making a "Primaris only" codex that's ProHammer compatible, so that people using their new fancy primaris mini's can feel like they are getting something specific.

Thoughts on the above?

the_scotsman wrote:
Ah - the wording of "at the start of the turn" made me assume that meant any turn, not just yours.

I think there are currently a few too many potential statuses that you need to keep track of for your units. in terms of what you need to potentially track, you've got:

-Moved
-Advanced
-Remained Stationary/First Firing
-Overwatch
-Reacted
-Went to Ground
-Pinned
-Broken

Moved/advanced/stationary is fairly easy to manage, because you don't really need to mark those statuses - they're resolved in the very next phase. Overwatch, Reacted, Pinned/Broken definitely require tokens, because you generally won't be resolving those abilities until later on - hence my suggestion to combine Pinned, Gone to Ground and Broken together, rather than keeping them three subtly different statuses.

GTG: +1 to cover
Snap Shots
move d3" in movement

Pinned: Snap Shots
move d3" movement
Fights worse

Broken: normal shooting, normal charging
if charged makes a test and if failed is pinned in melee
falls back in movement
requires regroup to get out of

Statuses are best handled with "tokens". Which is very old hammer. I know folks today are confused by tokens but most of us oldies are used to having masses of cardboard tokens on the board defining statuses, movement rules, commands, etc.

In general it's not much more complicated than the "elemental" tracking for Warmachine. Such as "on fire" or acid resistance, etc. But I am a huge fan of "crunchy" rules, especially when they can also be streamlined to operate quickly. It may be slow at first to learn but once learned a token system is very fast.

In fact it is one of the reason why 7th had issues. Folks didn't use tokens enough. Made it harder to track and required lots of note taking. Same reason why faction "decks" worked way faster than having to D66 for orders.

I still have all my old tokens from 2nd edition boxed set, which we still use for ProHammer

 Mezmorki wrote:
I wanted to give a little update on where things are on ProHammer development:

First priority is getting the mission pack finalized. I have a good chunk of work to do in finishing that off. I have been playtesting the ones developed thus far, and they've been quite interesting!

Next, I'm toying around with a series of modules and updates for the ProHammer system, and I'm curious what others think and if any jump out as more interesting or not.

(1) HexHammer Module
I've been working on a addon ruleset that builds a "hex based" version of 40k, which allows the gameplay to sped about and streamlined, which would in turn support larger games. The basic idea is that instead of playing on a board, you could use hex-maps and/or custom hex tiles to build terrain. Each hex would represent a 6" x 6" area, be subject to some stacking limits, would define cover and LoS blocking features, etc. You would use a single miniature to represent a unit, with record sheets for units containing all the details.

(2) Alternate Activation Module
There have been some great ideas kicked around recently for AA systems, and I have ideas in mind for how that could be a bolt-on system for ProHammer

(3) Command Point Module
I've also been tinkering with ideas for a command point-like system - except it would be aimed squarely at strategic-level usage (i.e. not stratagems). For example, CP's could be designed to a more flexible Force Organization chart, CP's could be bid/used to determine game setup conditions, and they could also be applied towards mitigating die-rolls for certain functions, like reserve rolls, variable game length rolls. The only unit level function might be related to morale tests.

(4) Campaign + Crusade System
I'd love to port the Crusade system, coupled with a true map-based campaign system into ProHammer. I developed a pretty solid campaign rulset years ago that I could probably adapt as well.

(5) Skirmish-Scale System
Aaaand - another idea is making a set of tweaked rules / addon's for skirmish scale games. I used to have an old ruleset I used with 3rd + 4th edition that made 40K a bit of a hybrid between Necromunda/Kill Team and smaller 40k game. I think the point limit was around 500 or 600 points - but with lots of things liked relaxed coherency, model's getting "downed" instead of killed, etc. Could be worth exploring.

(6) Primaris Codex
I started work on making a "Primaris only" codex that's ProHammer compatible, so that people using their new fancy primaris mini's can feel like they are getting something specific.

Thoughts on the above?

1 not for me
2 sure
3 I am not a fan of cp bs
4 seems to feed 5
5 Ne Pro Munda!
6 they are marines represented with different models. Primaris sukkkkk.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, can you sell this? A dedicated scalable rule set with plug and play options for different ways to play, e.g. AA, adding layers of realism with Ne Pro Munda scale interactions, that can replace a lot of GW edition bloat and swingy meta chasing bs might become a standard. It would also invite 3rd party minis. It might be the future of the hobby imho...

Sell it how?

If you mean promote it as a fan made supplement? sure

Make money off it? no it would be an IP violation unless he just made a generic space battle game rules set that could use any 3rd party miniatures. kind of like how mantic does kings of war. we all know it is their version of warhammer fantasy but it is not sold as such.

Exactly. Kings of war style. Use the old names that GW changed because they know that they cannot stop common use, e.g. space elves or eldar, space marines... avoid ALL restartes bullshoot... I would love to see GW lose the game and finally become that toy company they always wanted to be, let the organisation recede from dominance in hobby. Just saying...

 meatybtz wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Ah - the wording of "at the start of the turn" made me assume that meant any turn, not just yours.

I think there are currently a few too many potential statuses that you need to keep track of for your units. in terms of what you need to potentially track, you've got:

-Moved
-Advanced
-Remained Stationary/First Firing
-Overwatch
-Reacted
-Went to Ground
-Pinned
-Broken

Moved/advanced/stationary is fairly easy to manage, because you don't really need to mark those statuses - they're resolved in the very next phase. Overwatch, Reacted, Pinned/Broken definitely require tokens, because you generally won't be resolving those abilities until later on - hence my suggestion to combine Pinned, Gone to Ground and Broken together, rather than keeping them three subtly different statuses.

GTG: +1 to cover
Snap Shots
move d3" in movement

Pinned: Snap Shots
move d3" movement
Fights worse

Broken: normal shooting, normal charging
if charged makes a test and if failed is pinned in melee
falls back in movement
requires regroup to get out of

Statuses are best handled with "tokens". Which is very old hammer. I know folks today are confused by tokens but most of us oldies are used to having masses of cardboard tokens on the board defining statuses, movement rules, commands, etc.

In general it's not much more complicated than the "elemental" tracking for Warmachine. Such as "on fire" or acid resistance, etc. But I am a huge fan of "crunchy" rules, especially when they can also be streamlined to operate quickly. It may be slow at first to learn but once learned a token system is very fast.

In fact it is one of the reason why 7th had issues. Folks didn't use tokens enough. Made it harder to track and required lots of note taking. Same reason why faction "decks" worked way faster than having to D66 for orders.

I completely agree with Tokens being fine, but I think many game systems rely on the fact that tokens exist as a crutch a little too much. Token systems work the best, and the most intuitively, when:

-You minimize the number of tokens needed by combining various "sources" of token into a single token
-You standardize when various tokens expire, and when various tokens are added, and when they stick around.

Take Necromunda, as an example. The most common statuses - Standing, Engaged, Pinned, and Seriously Injured - are all handled simply by the orientation of the model. Standing, next to another model, lying face up, and lying face down. The common statuses you generally have tokens for - Broken, Out of Ammo, and Ready. And then uncommon statuses like Blaze, Blind, Webbed, etc come up rarely enough that you generally don't need tokens to represent them, when they come up you'll remember. ....But you will have cotton on hand for Blaze because it's hilarious to do so.

The game also takes steps to avoid adding duplicate statuses where possible. Acid and Fire are both represented by Blaze, because it's the status that causes ongoing damage to a fighter based on something bad happening to them that persists after the initial attack they just got hit by. Going to ground wililngly by using the action that lets you do so and going to ground unwillingly because you got shot cause the exact same Pinned status. Getting hit by a Fear Gas grenade and otehrwise failing a morale check cause the same Broken status. Even in an old-school, simulationist, sprawling game, which by ANYBODYs definition necromunda is - the combined rulebook is solidly over 500 pages - it makes every effort to fit rules into existing structures to avoid excessive bloat and 'almost the same but subtly different' states.

That was a cool mechanic in necromunda, using models themselves rather than tokens or chits such as in older editions of 40k and Epic...

Check out the attached. Making some tokens for ProHammer by re-creating and adapting some classic 2nd edition tokens

I still have my old set of gale force 9 circular tokens from 5th ed, mostly for the vehicle damage chart.

2nd Ed tokens worked. I am unable to comprehend why gw ever got rid of tokens.

Is "Hidden" and "Detected" a thing in prohammer?

the_scotsman wrote:
Is "Hidden" and "Detected" a thing in prohammer?

No - but I was on a role remaking old tokens so figured I'd make those too just in case.

There were some older mission designs from past editions that used them, and I I end up incorporating any of those into the new mission set there might be a use for them.

 aphyon wrote:
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.

So, you're just supposed to use old books with these rules? But the problem is, most problems with 6th/7th edition were contained in unit entries, not the rules (such as Tau writer buffing his pet army to make all slow, keyboard controlled tau walkers MCs for some insane non-reason, when they really should have been lightly armored walkers to begin with - if only because that change made them absurdly better in melee than actual dedicated melee walkers). I also don't see any reference to Str D weapons (which, again, was another broken aspect of 7th edition when Tau and Eldar got to spam them from every orifice). I take we should just pretend 7th edition doesn't exist with these rules?

 Mezmorki wrote:
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).

Yeah, the game really needs that, if only because they offer new interesting way to play that isn't just spamming old, tired MEQ profile with same-same S4 spam, yawn. That and the army actually looks good

And it's not like there isn't a precedent for W2 armies even in 5th, you could do GK and ork nob armies consisting entirely of multiple wound models and they were balanced just fine.

 Irbis wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
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.

So, you're just supposed to use old books with these rules? But the problem is, most problems with 6th/7th edition were contained in unit entries, not the rules (such as Tau writer buffing his pet army to make all slow, keyboard controlled tau walkers MCs for some insane non-reason, when they really should have been lightly armored walkers to begin with - if only because that change made them absurdly better in melee than actual dedicated melee walkers). I also don't see any reference to Str D weapons (which, again, was another broken aspect of 7th edition when Tau and Eldar got to spam them from every orifice). I take we should just pretend 7th edition doesn't exist with these rules?

I mean, considering that your claim that Tau got a bunch of strength D weaponry is just kind of a fantasy......yes? IIRC Tau got a couple strength D single shot missiles on their smaller knight-class superheavy and a strength D gun on their larger knight-class forgeworld superheavy. Nothing like Eldar getting D on their heavy infantry/artillery.

So, you're just supposed to use old books with these rules?

Yes and they work just fine so long as you play them with the 5th ed rule set taking precedent over codex entrees that may differ based on edition. at this point our group has literally been doing this for a couple years now with no issues.

I have given the example before-dune strider in the 7th ed cult mechanicus/skitarii book defaults to the move through cover USR in 5th edition.

not the rules (such as Tau writer buffing his pet army to make all slow, keyboard controlled tau walkers MCs for some insane non-reason, when they really should have been lightly armored walkers to begin with - if only because that change made them absurdly better in melee than actual dedicated melee walkers).

That was a terrible example to use to prove your point. Sure one could argue riptides and such should have been vehicles, however i understand the design intent to treat them as oversized crisis suits that were infantry with wounds. but seriously even as a MC i am not afraid of a riptide in CC, in fact i want to get an I2/WS2 tau into CC. way better than being shot by it.

I also don't see any reference to Str D weapons (which, again, was another broken aspect of 7th edition when Tau and Eldar got to spam them from every orifice). I take we should just pretend 7th edition doesn't exist with these rules?

Our group does not use prohammer although we share many of the same ideas as Mezmorki, as such some rules from 7th were very good and work well imported into 5th like grenade throwing, overwatch, snapfire and such. D weapon wise we just use the 5th ed rules when they were powerful but not game breaking. auto pen against a vehicle with a +1 on the damage chart roll, no armor or cover only invul saves on a 2+ to wound for infantry/MCs and anything less than T6 suffers instant death rules anything above takes a single wound, not that silly d6+3 or d6+6 nonsense. from 7th.

Love the work you have done here, but i have a question in regards to Gets Hot weapons. Are vehicles immune to the potential damage from rolling a 1 to hit?

Vehicles in 5th edition don't suffer from Get's Hot - I forgot to add clarification to 5th edition, but I will. Thanks

Glancing through the rules and a couple of small notes I noticed:

Page 42 - Assault Weapons
"Models that advance in the movement phase are still eligible to with an assault weapon in the shooting phase, but only shoot with SNAP FIRE."

Reads a bit confusingly to me, it might be because I didn't play 5th though. I assume with the note on snap fire that they are eligible to shoot/fire with an assault weapon, but it took a reread or two. Mostly because right up until the note on shooting with snap fire, it reads like they can advance in the shooting phase as an extra movement bit.

Page 59 - Infiltrate:
"Outlank" should be spelled "Outflank"

Just some small nitpicks from my nitpicky mind. I definitely plan on trying this out at some point, see how it tools around.

i understand the confusion since you never played 5th.

In 5th "running/advancing" occurs during the shooting phase not during movement as you are giving up shooting to gain an extra d6 of movement. however you cannot charge otherwise unless you have the fleet of foot/claw USR he is putting in the 8th ed assault weapon rule into 5th. in 5th all it means normally is that an assault class weapon always shoots it's normal amount without penalty if you move with ti and you can assault after firing it (thus the name) unlike with rapid fire or heavy weapons. our group still uses the 5th ed rule as we saw no need to change it. even though we also added in snap fire rules from 6th/7th we decided to keep all non compatible 8th+ edition rules out of our conversion.

Irbis
So, you're just supposed to use old books with these rules?

special note to Irbis i regularly post our house rules 5th ed games batreps in my own topic including which codexes we are using to play the match to demonstrate that they are cross compatible.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page

That wasn't worded too clearly, I changed it to this:

"Models that advance in the movement phase are able to shoot with an assault weapon in the shooting phase, but only shoot with SNAP FIRE."

In ProHammer I moved advancing to the movement phase (taken as an extension of a unit's normal move) for a number of procedural reasons and also to speed things up. It's easier to move the unit once instead of moving it in two separate steps in two different phases. Procedurally since ProHammer adds declared fire a mind a few shooting steps, it was cleaner to not have movement co-mingled in with it.