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.

That makes torrent a 4" range weapon, pretty terrible.

I found another mistake, the ordnance type doesn't have rules for the number of shots
Yes I know it is very obvious how it is supposed to work.

Similar is the lack of One use/shot only USR.
Again very obvious but still probably should be there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Illumini wrote:
That makes torrent a 4" range weapon, pretty terrible.

It also causes a weird compatibility scenario because many 5th Ed codexes had bespoken torrent rules before the Torrent USR was a thing, and it wouldn't be clear if those examples should follow the Torrent USR or their own bespoken "torrent" rules.

 Illumini wrote:
That makes torrent a 4" range weapon, pretty terrible.

It's the 3e-4e guard hellhound rules IIRC, back when the weapon had a 24" range.

5e hellhounds had the same torrent rules as the 6e and 7e USR - place the narrow end within x" and the wide end no closer than the narrow end. (x normally being 12", but there were variations such as the warp hunters 6" torrent).

As Tyran mentions though all pre 6e torrents had their own unique rules so there is no reason outside of rebalancing to change it, unless there was some obscure errata i'm not familiar with.

 kingpbjames wrote:
But more importantly, I am also curious about vehicles using those damage charts instead of wound pools like in 8th. It seems scary that these vehicles only have 1 wound protected by high Toughness, meaning a single high strength shot with a lucky 6 penetration would one shot any vehicle... And this is where hull points and super-heavies started coming in?

It not just seems scary, you immediately identified why the vehicles were trash in 6/7th and no one took them. Never mind lucky shots, two glances barely scrapping paint job to deplete hull points and your expensive vehicle committed seppuku out of shame or something on the spot. Then you had (fake) distinction between monstrous creature and walker status, one of which gave you dozens of very strong rules for free, the other crippled you for no reason. And the worst part was, it was assigned randomly. Sluggish Tau walker controlled by joystick that had no business being anything but a walker? MC because writer tried to make every entry in his pet army book broken just because. Super advanced second body machine plugged directly into your brain? Walker, because screw you. Etc, etc...

 Mezmorki wrote:
Yeah, I try to explain this to people at times and they are like "I heard blast templates and vehicle facings were stupid" ... and I just have to sigh.

Nice strawman using new, naive players (who are 100% right, BTW) who have no idea of the system issues and abuses yet. Do try to show them how firing three quad mortars resolving 15 small blasts looks like, all while you argue with them you hit every possible partial for max rolls, or tell them they can't fire expensive flamer because it clips 0.01 mm of friendly unit base and they will laugh in your face next time you try to say it.

The older rulesets were more immersive and "simulation-ist" in that, even if things were seemingly a little more complex, I found them to be more intuitive and rational at the same time.

Complete nonsense. Imagine I am facing a corner of the tank, seeing juicy weak side completely exposed, but since I am 0.001 mm to the left of the imaginary line (insert more arguing due to vehicle shapes making it extremely not obvious where it is) I am forced to target obscured, strong front of the vehicle. Or the fact AV is absolute and despite there being a huge hole in tank front or side easily penetrated even by lasguns, nothing like that is in the rules. Or the fact that I ran to the front of tank and I try to stab it with my fork, which then magically teleports 10 meters away to tank rear, and despite it being solid steel, due to the fact it's AV10, it's within kick, fork, or punch roll range and the tank then explodes. Unless it's Land Raider because these are AV14 all around and thus immune to magic kicks despite having exposed engine in the rear, go figure.

Or you can be WAAAC thatguy arguing that by the rules, gluing turret in place it now can't rotate and is in effect immobile gun. Or the Knights that can't target anything directly in front of them. Or guns that somehow, due to scatter, can magically teleport shells behind itself (but not if shooter is really accurate, because everyone knows being good turns off wind, repelling force fields, misfires, random chance, etc, etc pesky issues normally leading to blast miss). Or plasma weapons - they explode, unless firer is good shot because they can reroll 1s magically reinforcing cooling coils, unless it's a plasma cannon because then gets hot dice is separate and you can't touch it even with BS10 and in fact you need a whole FAQ to determine how it works - what a simple and rational system!

In what universe any of this gak is ""intuitive and rational""?

There was better "logic" driving the rules and 95% of the gameplay was based on what was actually modeled on the table and its positioning.

Which is a complete BS because it applied only to vehicles for some reason, while everything else was abstracted. Infantry can fire out of their backs, not where their guns are pointed. Positioning, what's that? Monsters can fire everything out of their arse should they wish. It's only the vehicles where you spent next 5 minutes arguing expensive lascannon can't fire because it's 0.01 degree out of firing arc (or not, depending on angle you look from) because while infantry and monsters can do a handstand during their turn to fire, being sane and assuming tank can slightly turn to fire then turn back to position (like 8+ edition does) is completely verboten

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I like the classic rules far better, and basically can't stand 8th/9th.

FWIW, many of the issues you point out as problems in the classic editions are things ProHammer tries to rectify, although given your seeming distaste for the classic editions YMMV with respective to ProHammer.

The hittable and engaged rules are kinda confusing.

ENGAGED MODELS: Every model of both players that are in base-to-base contact with an opposing model or that is within 1” of a friendly model that is in base-to-base contact with an opposing model are ENGAGED-

HITTABLE TARGETS: Only models that are engaged are a HITTABLE target and can be hit by a melee attack. A hittable model remains hittable for the entire engagement, regardless of how casualties at different initiative steps occur.

So the way I understand this is that "being engaged" can be lost because casualties even if hittablement cannot be lost.

A model will allocate all of its attacks against the unit it is engaged with, either by being in base-to-base contact with an enemy or within 1” of a friendly model in base-to-base contact.
If a model is in base-to-base contact with models from multiple different opposing units, and/or within 1” of friendly models that are engaged with different units, the attacker must declare which of its attacks are being directed towards which enemy unit.

Ok, but what if the model is no longer engaged because casualties? does that mean they no longer get to attack? e.g. the enemy removed models that were engaged with Space Marine with a power fist before it got to attack.

After all wounds rolls are made, the target unit’s owner allocates successful wounds to ENGAGED and HITTABLE MODELS in the target unit.

What if they are no engaged models left? The way it is written (using the logical AND operator) means that a model needs to be engaged AND hittable.

Unsaved wounds may be applied to ANY engaged model in the unit (whether it was hittable or not).

Same question, what if no engaged models are left?

Unsaved wounds must be applied to already wounded models first (see REMOVING CASUALTIES).

What if there are already wounded models that are not engaged nor hittable (aka at the back of the engaged unit?).

If all hittable models in the target unit are removed, and additional unsaved wounds remain to be applied, these wounds are ignored and are not applied to non-hittable models.

Ok so here it specifies hittable models, even though above it specified engaged models.

EDIT: Also found a typo in the Relentless USR, it says ordinance instead of ordnance.

This is great stuff! Keep up the good work.

 Tyran wrote:
The hittable and engaged rules are kinda confusing.

I took a look, and the reality is that I was being sloppy and using the rules somewhat interchangeably. For clarity, I've reworked it so that it only uses "engaged model" as a term throughout. The "Hittable" term is now only used in reference to shooting attacks.

All said, the basic idea is that "Engaged Models" (as determined at the start of a resolving a melee engagement) remain engaged for all purposes throughout the course of resolving the engagement in the current turn, and hence are eligible to attack to be attacked.

================================
Version 2.4
================================

Fairly large number of relatively minor comments, plus a full text read through and editing pass. Tried to catch as many grammar errors and typos as I could while clarifying language throughout for better consistency.

---------------------------------------------------------
Core rule changes & adjustments
---------------------------------------------------------

* Firing Arc for vehicle mounted weapons is assumed to be 90-degrees (not 180-degrees as previously written) from the axis of the weapon barrel.
Snap fire tweak - blast weapons work as normal, albeit with only hitting on a 4+. Only template (e.g. flamer) weapons hit fully covered models on a 4+ if using snap fire.
* Structure Points: Adjusted the vehicle structure point values a bit, consolidating ranges into 0, 1, or 2 structure points (no more vehicles with 3 points). SPs were making it a little too difficult to kill vehicles.
* Structure point rules for flyers in hover mode and fast moving skimmers can also use SPs to reduce damage if an immobilized result would’ve resulting in them being destroyed as well due to moving at a fast speed.
* Deepstrike: Changed it so you can place a center model that is deepstriking at least 2” of an enemy model if desired (instead of 6”).
* Tank Shock: Changed the way Skimmer Tanks can tank shock, given they ignore underlying terrain. Treat tank shocks more as a “death from above” crush attack, rather than rolling along the ground.
* Overwatch: Clarified a few condition affecting whether a unit can enter overwatch or not. Clarified how the direction of overwatch fire is determined.
* Split fire: Clarified that vehicles can still only split fire between two targets
* Suppression: Changed this so that a unit sheds a suppression token at the END of its turn (not the start). Makes the impact of having just one token more relevant.
* Suppression & Fearless: Tweaked how fearless units handle suppression. They can still choose become pinned, but ONLY after gaining 3+ suppression tokens, in order to shed them (this is on the basis that “fearless” does not equal “mindless”)
* Engagement & Engaged Models: Adjusted language to remove reference to "hittable" models when talking about melee engagement. Melee engages are resolved based on handling for "engaged models" whereas "hittable" models refers to resolving ranged attacks.
* Charing & Assault Grenades: Adjusted this so that only the models equipped with assault grenades benefit, not all models charging to the enemy.
* Disordered Charge: Defined this as term as part of determining the number of attacks a model makes, and summarized the conditions where a disordered charge can apply
* Pursuit Attacks: Changed this from one automatic wound with no armor save to one automatic hit with normal armor saves.
* Consolidation: Noted that units consolidated into are automatically and immediately engaged.
* Psykers & Disturbance in the Warp: Slight counter-balance for armies that can stack a lot of psychic powers. This rule adds a slightly Ld penalty as more and more powers are invoked in a turn.
* Psykers and Death: Tweaked things so that psykers with active blessings or maledictions that are killed cause their invoked blessings/maledictions to be immediately canceled.
* Universal Special Rules: Various minor edits and clarifications for consistency with published editions.
* Unit Types: Corrected Cavalry, per 5th edition, to only move 6” but having fleet and a 12” charge.

---------------------------------------------------------
MISSION BRIEFINGS
---------------------------------------------------------

Did a modest pass cleaning up the mission briefings and clarifying/tweaking based on feedback from our campaign games. I’ll follow up with some more details after another pass is completed on the briefings.

---------------------------------------------------------
NEW MECHANICS
---------------------------------------------------------

A few new mechanical systems are added to the game that the team has been discussing for a while.

---------------------------------------------------------
Strategy Point System

This system gives each player a pool of strategy points to use, based on the size of the game being played (e.g. you get only 4 points in a 2000 point game).

These points can be used to modify or re-roll certain strategy and leadership related items over the course of the game. This includes applying modifiers to any “Mission Parameter” rolls, re-rolling a reserve roll, game end/last turn roll, leadership tests (except psychic tests), or for performing a special command action. The latter lets you purge a unit of certain status effects.

The use of points is further limited to not more than one point being spent per battle round, and that you can only spend a point to re-roll a given roll once.

The intent here is to help mitigate certain die-rolls that can lead to a lack of player agency and skew the direction of the game in a way that can feely randomly punitive at times. We’ll see how this goes in future testing. Feel free to play without as well.

---------------------------------------------------------
Second Player Concessions

This system gives whichever player goes second a “concession” for every 500 points of game size (e.g. 4 concessions in a 2000 point game).

Each concession lets you do one of the following after deployment:
Place a unit on overwatch at the start of the game
Redeploy a unit onto the board following its normally allowed deployment rules
Withhold a unit by removing it from the board and placing it back in reserve
Fortify a unit by granting it +1 to cover saves until the unit moves
Invoke a psychic power.

Concessions also escalate in cost if you take the same option multiple times (eg. taking two overwatch concessions would cost three points, one for the first time, and two for the second time).

The intent with this is to give some flexibility to the second player to adjust things to reduce the impact of potential alpha strikes and give the first player some potential obstacles or changes in plan to work around.

We’ll see how this goes!

Love the idea, hopefully i find someone to play with me someday.

Question about Structure Points: why do they exist? It seems like I have to Wreck a landraider 3 times to kill it?

(also just want to add that i prefer 9th edition pistol rules so would keep firing them in close combat)

Your Strategy Point System sounds like get-out-of-jail-free cards, which I'm totally fine with! It is more of an abstraction than I like but it really sucks if a single dice roll screws you over. I prefer dice to represent the small and expected chaos of the battlefield, not the skill of bomb defusal.

Has anyone tried ProHammer with one of the solo variants running around? Personally I like the old 3ed-7ed style rules better (more simulationist, less gamey) but the issue is finding people to play with. The Poorhammer podcast came out with their own very well composed horde mode variant that I've heard good things about. Looking at the rules for it the basic set up would work. But some of the random events and custom abilities rely on 10ed concepts like CP and devastating wounds, and would need to be reworked.

What codex eras do you guys find the best fit with this ruleset?
Since it's based on 5th, would the 4th-5th codexes work best?
How about 6th-7th codexes?

SetantaSilvermane wrote:
What codex eras do you guys find the best fit with this ruleset?

3rd to 7th has a mostly shared core ruleset.

In practice the costing and utility of units did change through the editions, and regardless of which books you use your group will have to decide whether or not flyers, gargantuan, and superheavy units are available.
Beyond that 'older codex' does not always mean 'weaker codex', though it was frequently the case that costs fell and freebies increased through the editions.

4th-5th isn't a bad place to start and after a few games you might shift to older/newer books to better fit your group - though you might want to jump straight to the 3e Witch Hunters codex (the 5e sisters were playable but suffered from being a 5 minute hack-job by Cruddace - you can see the copy/pasting) and you'll want to use the 2011 points updates for the Templars/Dark Angels if using those books alongside the other 5e Marine factions.

I'll make a suggestion for this ruleset, which is something I was saying years ago:

The penalty for charging into difficult terrain (without grenades) should be that the attackers lose the +1A they'd normally get for charging.

This way, terrain negatively affects all units that lack grenades, rather than severely penalising units with high-initiatives, whilst having no impact at all on anyone else.

 vipoid wrote:
This way, terrain negatively affects all units that lack grenades, rather than severely penalising units with high-initiatives, whilst having no impact at all on anyone else.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other - the change helps some units that are unreasonably disadvantaged but it also makes some weak units weaker and some strong units stronger.

Hi. I'm new and I wanted to try 40K but 10th felt super bad with gears having the same price (0). This seem a super good project. It can be a good idea to make a list of wich codex to take for each factions (or why not opening the door to rebalancing them) so the rules feel more unified.
It's already hard enough to chose a faction so having to choose between each different version of codexes seem.... I mean I don't have the knowledge to chose. Meaning some others probably don't as well.
I don't mean the strongest ones but like having a pools of 1 codex per faction balanced as much as possible with each others that people playing this ruleset can chose from.
Thanks a lot for the rules that aren't game workshop mess.

The penalty for charging into difficult terrain (without grenades) should be that the attackers lose the +1A they'd normally get for charging.

That rule already exists for photon grenades for Tau, specifically because of how much they hate close combat.

SetantaSilvermane wrote:What codex eras do you guys find the best fit with this ruleset?
Since it's based on 5th, would the 4th-5th codexes work best?
How about 6th-7th codexes?

Mez has done tons of work on this to make it look professional, and he and i have many similar ideas. however he has added a bunch of house rules that never existed because he wanted to use more 7th edition. our group uses 5th as the core and only imports a few pre-existing rules from previous editions(wound allocation, assaulting vehicles, sniper rifles always hitting on 2+ etc..) as well as a few add-ons from 6th/7th (mostly snap fire, overwatch, grenade throwing, smash and combining the flyer rules with the original more reasonable FW flyer rules). while you can use 6th and 7th ed codexes in our games. they must conform to the 5th ed core rules and USRs as such you have to look at the rule from 7th that it is trying to represent in 5th and if none exists it is ignored. as such 3rd ed/index astartes, 4th ed and 5th ed codexes are usually preferred to keep the feel of the game. aside from a few that didn't exist outside 7th like admech.

Quentcat wrote:Hi. I'm new and I wanted to try 40K but 10th felt super bad with gears having the same price (0). This seem a super good project. It can be a good idea to make a list of wich codex to take for each factions (or why not opening the door to rebalancing them) so the rules feel more unified.
It's already hard enough to chose a faction so having to choose between each different version of codexes seem.... I mean I don't have the knowledge to chose. Meaning some others probably don't as well.
I don't mean the strongest ones but like having a pools of 1 codex per faction balanced as much as possible with each others that people playing this ruleset can chose from.
Thanks a lot for the rules that aren't game workshop mess.

The big thing to remember with the classic hammer game the designers were more focused on the lore of the universe and making each force "feel" like it should fight in the lore. as such fighting epic battles in the 40K setting is far more important to the game VS chess style balance between armies. as such list building is not as important as to how you as the player use that list on the table to your benefit. as it was once called -good generalship. as there were no trap cards to pull you out of the fire if you made a tactical error.

For another take on this here is the link to the refined rule set we use based on 5th-

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/806639.page

And my ongoing oldhammer discussion topic with the old beta rules as well as current updates on our games-

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

Additionally these are most of the common codexes we use in our games that i keep with me in case they are needed by any players.



There are a few others i own or other players have copies of including all the FW imperial armor books that we can draw from as well as they are all cross compatible.

Quentcat wrote:
Hi. I'm new and I wanted to try 40K but 10th felt super bad with gears having the same price (0). This seem a super good project. It can be a good idea to make a list of wich codex to take for each factions (or why not opening the door to rebalancing them) so the rules feel more unified.
...
I don't mean the strongest ones but like having a pools of 1 codex per faction balanced as much as possible with each others that people playing this ruleset can chose from.

Mezmorki actually did make a thread asking for people's opinions on exactly this:

What edition CODEX was "best" for each faction?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/806645.page

Mez you should really link to that thread in your OP. I've gone back to it many times.
I would like to see that thread turned into a poll but for some factions there unfortunately isn't one perfect codex and I'd think it would be frowned upon to cherry-pick from two codices. the Breacher Team and Ghostkeel were only added to Tau in 6th edition, so I'd have to use that or 7th since they're some of my favorite units.

the Breacher Team and Ghostkeel were only added to Tau in 6th edition, so I'd have to use that or 7th since they're some of my favorite units.

Our group addressed this very easily. we use the 4th ed tau book because it best fits their intended fighting style, you just pull the base points of those 2 units from the newer dex and put them in the 4th ed book rules for unit upgrades costs and effects.

Is there a way to play chaos knight or is it doomed with this rules set?

 Quentcat wrote:
Is there a way to play chaos knight or is it doomed with this rules set?

You can play them in our rule set, not sure about Mez's

you just need the 7th ed knights codex+chaos upgrades preferably from the 3.5 dex or imperial armor 13.

 aphyon wrote:
you just need the 7th ed knights codex+chaos upgrades preferably from the 3.5 dex or imperial armor 13

Forgeworld did release a daemonic knights pdf for possessed variants of the paladin and errant.
Same costs as the 6e knights but the chaos variants got a free upgrade on their chainsword (+1 on the destroyer chart vs monstrous and gargantuan creatures), and could take a dirge caster for 5 points.

They could each upgrade to gain the 'daemon' rule (including the 5++ save) and a few extra bonuses - when combined with IA13 you had Khorne knights with 3++/4++ with up to 6 enhanced attacks on the charge and an overwatch blocker.

Not to mention that as Daemons they were subject to the warp storm table and related rules/psychic powers - anyone fancy fighting souped up khorne knights with 2++ saves?

It's cool to see a little more discussion happening around ProHammer again. And the timing isn't lost given the general reception to 10th editions.

I think it could be a great addition the the OP to list out a preferred set of codexes across the factions as a sort of "best of" list for each faction. Could also list some caveat and disclaimers for each to consider if the interest is having a more balanced game.

As a group of players, you can also just decide on a time frame era and only use the codexes that would've been current at that time.

Another specific option is to only use 7th ed and then you can use all the data that's still on Wahapedia - no need to track down old codexes then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had aspirations of making a unified ProHammer set of codexes at one point. But it's a lot of work. I made a tyrnanid and league of botany codex though!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13pleEW1QN_oTZNg8BFKt_-pwa_WQIEWbNJhzzr3gHno/edit

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mTmGvg-J7qaKNCvxQqXZy3Rw-IJxG8BJwPSsOz-TfXc/edit

Oh cool the dwarfs are available.

chaos upgrade ? dex 3.5 ? imperial armor 13 ?
I am so lost all of this isn't in the codex list spreadsheet i guess there was stats released with specific model so not in codex ? Seem insane to find the docs for all the contents haha

A.T. wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
you just need the 7th ed knights codex+chaos upgrades preferably from the 3.5 dex or imperial armor 13

Forgeworld did release a daemonic knights pdf for possessed variants of the paladin and errant.
Same costs as the 6e knights but the chaos variants got a free upgrade on their chainsword (+1 on the destroyer chart vs monstrous and gargantuan creatures), and could take a dirge caster for 5 points.

They could each upgrade to gain the 'daemon' rule (including the 5++ save) and a few extra bonuses - when combined with IA13 you had Khorne knights with 3++/4++ with up to 6 enhanced attacks on the charge and an overwatch blocker.

Not to mention that as Daemons they were subject to the warp storm table and related rules/psychic powers - anyone fancy fighting souped up khorne knights with 2++ saves?

I much prefer the 3.5 dex vehicle upgrades for a chaos knight.

being immune to sun/shaken (demonic possession), adding +1 to all AV facing up to 14 (mutated hull) and being able to regrow damage on a 4+ in leu of shooting (parasitic possession) are for more interesting to me than buffing the ion shield.

Additionally if you dedicated to various gods they had their own specific vehicle upgrades- slaneesh had the option to add dirge casters lowing LD values of every non-aligned unit around them progressively worse the closer you got to them(in close combat was the worst), or nurgle vehicles giving off an area effect nurgles rot cloud. etc...

 Quentcat wrote:
I am so lost all of this isn't in the codex list spreadsheet i guess there was stats released with specific model so not in codex ? Seem insane to find the docs for all the contents haha

I can send you a link to many of the official errata and FAQ files from 3rd to 5th - none of the actual book content though, you'll have to look to ebay for that.

 aphyon wrote:
I much prefer the 3.5 dex vehicle upgrades for a chaos knight.

being immune to sun/shaken (demonic possession), adding +1 to all AV facing up to 14 (mutated hull) and being able to regrow damage on a 4+ in leu of shooting (parasitic possession) are for more interesting to me than buffing the ion shield.

It's times like this you need to reach for the old daemonhunters codex and abuse the hell out the sanctuary power.

It's times like this you need to reach for the old daemonhunters codex and abuse the hell out the sanctuary power.

I love that power.....given that i end up fighting lots of 3.5 chaos at my FLGS group i do run an allied contingent of demon hunters/grey knights from time to time. even the GK vehicle upgrades help to counter the chaos silliness.

 aphyon wrote:
I love that power.....given that i end up fighting lots of 3.5 chaos at my FLGS group i do run an allied contingent of demon hunters/grey knights from time to time. even the GK vehicle upgrades help to counter the chaos silliness.

The problem the old daemonhunters had is that their upgrades _only_ countered daemons, and were mostly paid for as add-ons.

So you were either list tailoring against a specific opponent or else throwing points away with the games weakest faction - i.e. a chaos mutated hull gave +1 armour against everyone, whereas a blessed grey knights upgrade gave +1 armour penetration for that single vehicle only against mutated hulls.
(now if it had been rolled into the Black Templars eldar-abusing blessed hull rules instead...)

Though they did have the right idea with some of the more baselines stuff, the strength 6 weapons were much better suited to the theme than the 5th edition 'marinehunters' and their power swords.

Well they were designed as an anti-chaos/demon force so most of their stuff worked against all chaos and some specifically against demons. (interestingly enough also against the eldar avatar as it is classified as a demon).

i feel they were best represented as a part of the inquisition in the demon hunters book to assist any imperial faction when it runs into chaos stuff. not as a pure faction/full marine chapter.