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.

Thank you for the extensive thoughts! Although I must admit, I'm not sure if you intended this to be a theoretical approach to suppression/morale or a criticism/suggestion specific to ProHammer.

In the trial suppression rules in ProHammer, suppression tokens apply a -1 to Ld, whether fearless or otherwise, which affects all leadership-based tests. So split fire, restraint, and psychic tests are all affected by suppression.

Fearless units still gain suppression tokens and it only clears with 1 token being removed at the start of each of their turns, or if they choose to go to ground (self-pinning themselves). This is to represent the distraction effect of suppressive fire still messing with their coordinative functions (split fire, restraint, psychic tests, etc.)

I've considered adding in a "must shoot the closest unit rule" with a Ld test to avoid it. I've also considered only having it apply within a certain distance. E.G, if there are one or more enemies within 12", you have to try and shoot at one of those enemies (or take a Ld). But I'm not sure this is strictly required because...

Screening rules. The screening rules in ProHammer work well. My feeling on the older "must shoot the closest" was more about not allowing a player to shoot through one unit to hit a different one behind it. ProHammer's screening rules prevent this from happening (so long as your screen is intact).

In ProHammer, "pinning" is a result of being overly suppressed. Some weapons (sniper rifles, barrage weapons, and those that explicitly state they case pinning) force a unit tp take a pinning test at the end of the turn. "Hail of Fire" adds suppression tokens, and if you get three suppression you have to take a pinning test as well at the end of the turn.

The effect of being suppressed is that it affects your leadership (as above), which in turn makes it more like likely that the unit will become pinned by failing pinning tests. Being pinned is not pleasant (only crawl D3", shoot with snap fire, lose cover bonuses when charged, etc.)

The analog for going to ground for bikes is choosing to "jink"- although I admit this is a gap in the ProHammer rules with how jinking interacts with suppression. I suppose it could be that, just like with pinning, if you get 3 suppression tokens the bikes are forced to jink (or have to pass a Ld test to avoid it). If you jink, you do get a cover save, but then only shoot with snap fire next turn (like being pinned). That could work.

@Mezmorki:

Have you implemented a weather table and/or a table for random occurrences like for the first Cityfight rules published in WD yet?

No, not yet. I want to finish building out a "twist" system for layering on special rules and the line on top of the standard mission structure.

I just remembered the WHFB Lustria campaign book. People like me who use jungle terrain for 40K will profit from it´s tables which cover weather and encounter effects.

What are the rules for riptide movement? Do they get thrust move? They are jetpack monstrous creatures, which are not identified in the table. What about the riptide's nova move, which let it move 4d6. Would it now be 12 inches?

We just had a battle with a riptide last week

They are treated as jetback and monstrous creatures both. So they get a thrust move as normal, which goes up to 4D6 with the nova move.

I really like the idea of this, haven't had time to fully dig into the rules but me and my buddy have been working on a similar concept for a while and haven't made nearly the progress since it's just so much work.

Good job! Will try to give feedback and maybe even play some games.

I certainly approve of the idea - I will give it a read over this weekend!

Is there any interaction between screening and blast/indirect fire weapons?

A normal blast weapon would, if the screen is intact, need to place the blast market on the screening unit instead. Indirect fire weapons, given they can shoot without needing LoS can ignore screens. I can add that clarification into the rules.

ProHammer v2.2 Update

Lots of tweaks to the ProHammer rules “officially” being rolled out today (they’ve been marked up in the rule doc with comments for a while now):


===========================
CORE RULES
===========================

Dense Cover / Area Terrain: The terrain rules we use are intended to be a hybrid of abstract and TLOS based. As such, a clarification was added that individual terrain elements within a piece of area terrain that block a model’s true line of sight do still block line of sight, even if the unit is within 6” of the edge of the dense cover / area terrain piece. Basically, if you are in dense cover, you get cover and can see in/out within 6” of the edge, but if there are big solid/opaque features you still can’t see through those at all.

Limited Fire: Added limited fire officially as the mechanism for performing reactive shooting attacks and in other circumstances. Unlike snap fire, limited fire incurs a -1 penalty to hit a halves (rounding up) the number of shooting attacks normally allowed. Limited fire is what gets used when performing reactive shooting or shooting against a charging unit.

Vehicle Structure Points: Removed from “trial” status and made permanent. After a bunch of games we like the way this is working with helping to boost vehicle durability in a logical manner.

Quick reminder on how this works. Vehicles will have 0-3 structure points based on the total armor value of the vehicle (front + one side + rear). These points are automatically reduced when a vehicle gets a destroyed result on the damage table, with each point lowering the result down to a non-destroyed result. We think this accomplishes what hull points were attempting to do (make vehicles more durable) but had failed to do.

Line of Sight: Adjusted the language to refer to “target visibility” as opposed to “targetable area” to be more clear what it’s referring to.

Intervening Terrain: Adjusted to say that if ANY part of a model’s BODY or HULL is blocked by intervening terrain then they get a cover save (as opposed to 25% or more of the body/hull, which is tricky to try and calculate).

Cover Types: Barricades moved into a hard cover (4+ save) type and not under fortifications (3+ save)

Feel No Pain: Clarified in the saving throw section how Feel no Pain works with the wound allocation system.


===========================
SHOOTING
===========================

Suppression & Crossfire Rules: Removed from “trial” status and made permanent. After a bunch of games we like the way this is working with units accumulating and shedding suppression tokens.

Quick reminder of how it works: Each time a unit has more shots fired at it than it has in wounds AND suffers at least one unsaved wound, the unit gains a suppression token. Each suppression token incurs a -1 to the unit’s leadership. If a unit gains 3+ suppression, it must take a pinning test at the end of the turn - or of course you can “take cover” (aka go to ground) and voluntarily pin your unit, shedding all but one suppression token. One suppression token is also removed at the start of each turn.

This has been working well and adds a nice dynamic and decision making to the shooting. While 1 suppression token isn’t a huge deal (since the unit sheds it at the start of their next turn), if they take 25% casualties they will suffer an added -1. We’ve found morale starting to play a more significant role as a result. Crossfire works such that if you would add a suppression token, if you are creating a crossfire on the unit you instead gain 2 suppression tokens. It’s pretty sweet.

Overwatch Attack Direction: To allow for more counterplay and maneuver around overwatching units, when a unit is placed on overwatch you must now specify the direction they are watching. Units may only fire on targets within the 90-degree arc of this direction.

Take Cover!: Take Cover! ” added a reaction choice which causes units to “go to ground” and effectively self-pin themselves. Pinned units also benefit from +1 to their cover save now (but aren’t forced to take pinning tests until the end of the round).

Screening Rules: Adjusted the way screening works slightly. Friendly models/units no longer count towards screening (it’s assumed you’re shooting between gaps in movement, etc.). However, if a screen is intact, ALL of the hits directed at the targeted screened unit instead hit the screening unit.

Grenade Throwing: Removed grenade throwing. Too fussy in our opinion to keep.


===========================
ASSAULT PHASE
===========================

Declared Charges: For maintaining parity with shooting and consistency with how the timing of reaction fire works, players must now declare all charges, then sequentially select units and resolve their charges. When a unit is selected to conduct its charge and the charged is determined to be successful (sufficient distance), before it moves, the charge target may perform reactive fire.

Stand & Shoot! Reaction: Renamed and clarified handling for a unit being charged to return fire against a charging unit. Uses the limited fire rules denoted below.

Close Combat Break Test Tweak: Tweaked the morale penalties slightly. Instead of a -1 for losing combat and additional -1’s based on the relative difference of wounds, it now works such that you get a -1 for every 3 (or part thereof) wounds suffered on the losing side.

Retreat & Pursuit Moves: Instead of using the standard 2D6” or 3D6” fall back moves, units retreating from close combat moves back D6” + Initiative Value (or 2D6” + Initiative for “swift” units, as added to the USRs). This change is to reintroduce the initiative stat back into the close combat resolution process, and also cut down how swingy fall back moves can sometimes be.


===========================
VEHICLE RELATED
===========================

Crew Stunned Result: Added a note that barrage weapons cannot fire at all after crew stunned results.

Embarked Passengers & Wrecks: Clarified that even units normally immune to pinning can be entangled and pinned if in a wretched vehicle.

Transports & Movement: Clarified that units may not ADVANCE after disembarking from a transport that moved this turn.


===========================
MORALE RELATED
===========================

Broken & Pinned Status: Units that are pinned and become broken suffer a stacked set of penalties. Whereas a broken and falling back unit is presumed to be making an organized withdrawal, a pinned and broken/falling back unit is fleeing in a disorganized and chaotic manner. So a pinned and broken unit only shoots with snap fire, falls back 2D6”, loses the advantage of being in cover in charged, etc.

Charging Broken Units: Broken unit must attempt to regroup. If it fails, it strikes at initiative 1.


===========================
WEAPONS / USRs / UNIT TYPES
===========================

Weapon Types: Some minor clarifications to weapon types. Removed ability to shoot two pistols if armed with two, and added clarification that units firing salvo weapons cannot charge in the assault phase.

Psychic Power Selection: Clarified the different ways, across editions, that psychic powers may be accessed.

Psychic Hoods: Notes that it extends range to 24” unless the specific wargear indicates differently.

Psychic Disciplines: A number of tweaks to the balance of psychic disciplines. Iron Arm toned down, Invisibility toned down, etc.

USR - Stealth & Shrouding: Removed the ability for these to stack. Stealth is +1 to actual cover saves, Shrouding is +2. Added reminder that this doesn’t apply to jink saves or other “counts as cover” type saves.

USB - Smash: Toned this down. Now just exchange all attacks for a single smash attack.

USB - Smoke Launchers: Modified to grant a 5+ cover save to all models within 6” of the tank when it launches smoke.

Unit Types: Forgot to add that monstrous creatures cause fear!

Independent Characters - Shooting at: Trying to get the right balance here. Revised this so that you can only shoot an IC if (A) it’s the closest unit and within 18”; (B) more than 18” away and more than 12” from an another friendly figurine model; or (C) is a monstrous creature.


===========================
ORGANIZING A BATTLE
===========================

Mission Prep: Adjusted standard procedure. Re-added the roll off for determining who goes first.

Just curious if you're going to add rules for gargantuan MC and FGMC eventually? Want to try out the Ta'unar, but the rules for those are missing atm.

Sebmaster777 wrote:
Just curious if you're going to add rules for gargantuan MC and FGMC eventually? Want to try out the Ta'unar, but the rules for those are missing atm.

I haven't yet. You could just use the rules for them from the 7th edition book.

 Mezmorki wrote:

Sebmaster777 wrote:
Just curious if you're going to add rules for gargantuan MC and FGMC eventually? Want to try out the Ta'unar, but the rules for those are missing atm.

I haven't yet. You could just use the rules for them from the 7th edition book.

That might not be a good idea...

Those rules aren't well-balanced.

I'm not totally about a Unified 40k Rulset,
but an *Awesomely* Unified Ruleset I can do.
/j

Why go for the minimum, when you can go for awesome!?

Just a quick question, since I don't think it's mentioned, but the effects of crew shaken are permanent correct?

Sebmaster777 wrote:
Just a quick question, since I don't think it's mentioned, but the effects of crew shaken are permanent correct?

Oh no! I totally missed that. No the effects of shaken and stunned only last until the end of the models own next turn. And multiple instances don't stack either. So if your opponent shoots your vehicle and stuns it, you suffer the effect on your next turn but not on the following (unless they of course stun it again).

What are the rules for twin-linked template weapons? Do they re-roll wounds like in 7th edition?

Hmm, interesting move with Structure Points, I like that quite a bit.

Sebmaster777 wrote:
What are the rules for twin-linked template weapons? Do they re-roll wounds like in 7th edition?

I missed that! Added a note in the Twin-Linked USR that twin-linked template weapons automatically hit all models fully OR partially under the template. Normally, models only partially under the template are hit on 4+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hmm, interesting move with Structure Points, I like that quite a bit.

This has been working pretty well for us so far. The only thing we're keeping an eye on is whether the top tier vehicles with 3 Structure Points (eg. Land Raiders, Monoliths) become too strong and hard to take down. Penetrating AV14 is hard enough! We're keeping an eye on it.

Minor update, bringing core rules to version 2.3.

* Added a “Jury-Rig” rule for voluntarily using additional structure points on a vehicle (if available) to reduce the damage results further.

* Revised the Relentless rule for compatibility with 7th edition - to also allow firing of ordinance weapons and salvo weapons.

* Revised infiltrate USR to essentially have independent checks on unit to unit LoS when determining allowable placement

* Added note for Twin-Linked USR that Twin- Linked template weapons automatically hit all models touched by the template.

* Monstrous Creatures - cause Fear but only if also Fearless.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an aside - I feel somewhat vindicated with the direction of ProHammer seeing so many of its ideas showing up in Horus Heresy 2.0. It's pretty interesting.

The details are different, but ProHammer and HH2.0 both use reactions as a way of breaking apart turn structure. HH2.0 limits the number of reactions, but keeps it pretty powerful. ProHammer always lets units perform reactions, but couples those reactions with some negative modifiers forcing a bit more of a trade-off decision.

Psychic phase basically works how ProHammer does it (which is more of a return to 3rd-5th style).

The one that really caught my eye though was their deep strike rule! It's basically exactly what we have, where if a deep striking unit scatters onto an enemy unit the opponent gets to reposition it within a distance of the original spot. Coincidence? I'm not sure!

Interesting project. I've read the thread and skimmed the rules. So now I have some questions.

I understand that writing codices is beyond the scope of this at the moment, but has there been any thought about codex-specific FAQs or compatibility supplements, at least for factions that didn't get a codex designed around 5th edition? When you use 5th edition as the base, you can get weird interactions with the odd codex. I ask because I noted that the ProHammer rules include compatibility notes for 6th and 7th edition units in some parts.

For example, Eldar never got a 5th edition codex. The codex used in 5th was written for 4th. Banshee masks are supposed to make Banshees strike at I10 when they charge. The text of the rules say that the charged unit don't get any initiative bonus from cover they are in. The 4th edition rules gave a unit in cover I10 when they were charged. A Banshee mask prevents this bonus allowing the Banshees to strike first when charging into cover. In 5th edition this was changed so that units charging into terrain strike at I1. 4th edition Banshee masks just don't work in this environment. If I use the 3rd edition codex, Banshee masks work again because their rules say Banshees always strike first on the charge without regard to any other factors. They kinda work in 6th because they reduce enemy I by 5 so Banshees charging into cover striking at I1 when get to go simultaneously with the vast majority of their targets. I don't have the 7th edition codex so I don't know if that fixes the charging into cover issue or not.

Another example, the 4th edition CSM codex has some weird rules too. Crazed on a Chaos Dreadnought can generate a Fire Frenzy, requiring them to shoot at the closest "visible" unit. Visible is not defined anywhere, but when the rule was written walkers could see in a 180° arc to their front. In 5th this was changed to 45° arcs along the centerline of each walker weapon creating confusion about what is visible and what happens when the dreadnought pivots to face the target and other targets are now "visible." Are things like this on your list to things to address or do you consider these to be edge cases that just won't come up often?

While on the subject of codices, have you noticed any glaring issues playing cross edition codices against each other? Like do 7th editions books tend to be significantly stronger than, say, 3rd edition books? Does ProHammer work best with books from the same edition?

Thanks for taking a look.

I think all of these compatibility concerns should be taken in the spirit that the rule was intended, making adjustments as needed. I hope that anyone taking up ProHammer is with a like minded group and players would agree on the spirit of things and not get bogged into endless loops of technicalities.

All said, the Banshee masks should work across all editions zs intended without needing a ruling. The ProHammer rules say that if a unit is charging an enemy in cover, they strike at initiative 1. Banshee Masks in 4th edition say explicitly that they negate cover bonuses (the same way frag/offensive grenades would) and that they also strike at Initiative 10 on the turn they charge. So it would seem to work correctly for 4th.

For 6th, both units would end up striking at Imitative 1 (simultaneously) as worded. I think we've house-ruled that they would strike ahead of their opponent's, since that was the intent of how it worked.

7th edition was weirder. Banshee masks caused Fear and prevented opponent's from shooting them with overwatch.

For the Chaos thing, vehicle weapons shoot out in a 90-degree arc from the axis of their weapon. If you point a chaos walker in a direction where your units might be hit by the attack, it would seem like that's working well enough? Different degree arc, but I don't see it as a huge issue personally.

Overall, these small goofy inconsistencies come up from time to time. What we've typically done is refer back to applicable core rulebook for how the situation would've been resolved under those originally rules, and then replicate it or approximate it. We don't get to hung up on it honestly.

As far as balance across codexes - we haven't come to any formal conclusions about the effects of playing different editions across each. I feel like it hasn't really mattered. I have one player that plays 7th edition codexes most of the time, and others that are all over the place depending on the type of list they want to run. There hasn't been any clear patter of one edition winning more often than another.

I missed that! Added a note in the Twin-Linked USR that twin-linked template weapons automatically hit all models fully OR partially under the template. Normally, models only partially under the template are hit on 4+.

Bleh i hated that 4+ stuff from 3rd and 4th i was much happier when 5th when it went to anything touched by the template is hit and twin linked just re-rolls wounds.

 aphyon wrote:

I missed that! Added a note in the Twin-Linked USR that twin-linked template weapons automatically hit all models fully OR partially under the template. Normally, models only partially under the template are hit on 4+.

Bleh i hated that 4+ stuff from 3rd and 4th i was much happier when 5th when it went to anything touched by the template is hit and twin linked just re-rolls wounds.

For us it was a balance thing. Auto-hitting anything touched felt like it made some weapons, especially anything large blast, a bit too powerful. Do you just not like the extra die roll step? Or arguments over what's fully vs. partially under?

 Mezmorki wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

I missed that! Added a note in the Twin-Linked USR that twin-linked template weapons automatically hit all models fully OR partially under the template. Normally, models only partially under the template are hit on 4+.

Bleh i hated that 4+ stuff from 3rd and 4th i was much happier when 5th when it went to anything touched by the template is hit and twin linked just re-rolls wounds.

For us it was a balance thing. Auto-hitting anything touched felt like it made some weapons, especially anything large blast, a bit too powerful. Do you just not like the extra die roll step? Or arguments over what's fully vs. partially under?

This is one of those area where i stick by not using self created rules in our 5th ed hybrid game. It may not look as professional as what you have accomplished, but a simple set of 15 rules from 3/4/6/7 put into 5th edition makes the game far more fun and adds a lot to the core 5th ed rules without regards to which edition codex you choose to use 5th ed was 98% better than anything that came before it and after it in the army battle style game 40K became from 3rd-7th.

The glaring bad parts being wound allocation abuse and the vehicle assault rules (that were better in 4th for a strategy war game). the 4+ thing was a poor design that had its day with guess weapons that made many template weapons not even worth taking. having to guess the range and then not being able to fire if you guessed wrong or still requiring a roll to hit if you managed to guess right. the switch over to 2d6 + scatter (- for BS if you fire direct) was already a roll to hit, having to hit again on a 4+ something you already managed to hit is a step to far for an army scale game. it is a mechanic that wasn't needed and was done away with for good reasons. i do not see it as anything but punishment not balance that also slows down the game.


Note i am not knocking what you have done, it looks great, and if it works for your group that is great news, what we have done and have been playing for 5 years or so now has been great for our group with zero issues game mechanics wise(well one guy who is a guard player really wants to bring back 3rd ed ordinance pen 6 rules, now that is a bit too powerful). everybody gets to bring an army they enjoy, and we have fun fighting in the 40K setting. we also noticed that no one army is super overpowered even when we match up codexes from editions that may be one or five editions removed from each other.

I think from 5th - 7th edition the blast weapons worked such that they always scatter 2D6 minus BS, and anything fully/partially touched is hit automatically (the rule you all use).

ProHammer, in the interest of being a bit more simulation-ist, uses a hybrid approach where you roll to hit as normal with your BS (which means even a Guard hitting on a 4+ has a better chance to hit than the scatter dice hitting on a 5+, BS4 models even more so), and if you hit the template stays where you put it. If you miss, instead of it just being a total miss, it then scatters but scatters a full 2D6. With the higher chance of getting a direct hit, certain weapons, especially large blast ordinance weapons and the like, can be insanely powerful, hence the 4+ for models not fully covered. It was a balance thing mostly.

Anyway - Aphyon, you should totally take 30 minutes and type up your rules (or even just format it a bit better as a forum post) to have here as a point of reference. It's worked so well for you all, would be good to share the love. Give it some pithy name (MashHammer?)

 Mezmorki wrote:
Anyway - Aphyon, you should totally take 30 minutes and type up your rules (or even just format it a bit better as a forum post) to have here as a point of reference. It's worked so well for you all, would be good to share the love. Give it some pithy name (MashHammer?)

Agreed, if your group has been playing a house edition for 5 years I'd love to see it.

Unfortunately I don't have much to contribute to this thread, since my friends and I only got into 40k at the very start of 8th edition. It didn't take me long to realize that 8th was a major overhaul of the game, basically 40k 3.0, and for better and worse really streamlined it.
I did buy a 5th edition rulebook to see what the hype was about but these "40k Classic" house editions are the way to play, IMO.

 kingpbjames wrote:

I did buy a 5th edition rulebook to see what the hype was about but these "40k Classic" house editions are the way to play, IMO.

Personal opinion here, but I'd play any non-house ruled classic edition of 40K (3rd-7th) or 2nd edition over 8th/9th edition any day of the week. Yes, you've probably heard people grumbling about issues they had with older editions, but I think they definitely had more positives than negatives compared to 8th/9th. It's self-righteous to say this, but I feel bad for people that like 40k but started with 8th/9th and have no idea what the game was like before hand.

You can also get the core rule books and codexes used off of Amazon for dirt cheap. Way more affordable to get into 40k with an older edition