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.

Another question here: How should I handle superheavy vehicles like Baneblades, Imperial Knights, Tau mechs, etc with the structure point system? The most recent 7th edition rules give the Baneblade family hullpoints, so I'm a bit confused. Thanks.

 Wild Woody wrote:
Another question here: How should I handle superheavy vehicles like Baneblades, Imperial Knights, Tau mechs, etc with the structure point system? The most recent 7th edition rules give the Baneblade family hullpoints, so I'm a bit confused. Thanks.

This is how we've been handling it (it needs tweaking):

My friend group just played our first games of Prohammer and we're really enjoying it. We did run into a question about how 7th edition Tau's "Target Acquired" rule translates to this ruleset.

The "Target Acquired" rule states: "When an enemy unit declares a charge, all friendly models with this special rule in units within 6" of the charging unit's target can choose to fire *Overwatch* as if they were also targets of the charge."

We replaced the term "Overwatch" for "Stand & Shoot!" in the Supporting Fire rule for our game, which I think makes sense, but the Prohammer rulebook says vehicles may never Stand & Shoot, despite some Tau vehicles having the Supporting Fire rule.

How should this be handled?

Thanks!

Think I found a minor typo. Under "Unit Types Summary" it says Jetpack Infantry are Swift which would imply falling back with 3d6 but says 2d6.

Thank you for this ruleset looks great!

Regarding the Tau and overwatch, we had their special supportive fire rule use follow the same reaction fire rules, so it limits their shooting on the following turn. We do allow vehicles to use their ability, but following the same reaction fire rules.

Hey there! Me and my friend have been really enjoying playing ProHammer on Table Top Simulator so thanks for making it. Howevr she doesn't have as much time to play as me and I’ve got the bug to play more. So I was wondering if theres a community of people who play ProHammer on tts out there? And if so would anyone like a game!

Just wanted to say my mate and I have been playing this for the past 6 months with 5th / 4th Ed codex's It has been so much fun .

Thank you so much for making such an awesome system!

Thanks for the kind words all. It's truly encouraging hearing that people enjoy ProHammer and that it continues to receive interest and activity! There isn't any community playing it that I'm aware of unfortunately - so maybe not that big yet. Maybe someone should start a discord channel for it? I'd be happy to set one up if there's interest.

I think a discord would be great if theres other people who wanna play on table top sim and just discuss things in a more casual form. I think its great that all the info is still available on the forum so its not lost but discord can still be good for chats

Thanks for this ruleset, I haven't fully gotten the hang of it, but in the small games we've played it's been a really nice return to some nostalgic styles of playing, without so many bad swings, and your new damage tables and version of split fire play particularly satisfyingly.

I had a question, if you don't mind: how does units screening other units interact with the following rule? It seems like the edition entirely negates the rule; if so, how might you handle it? Have you further house ruled any analogous mechanics you've encountered? (This is from the Tyrant's Legion forgeworld list, basically Marines can use their human fodder troops ("Auxilia") as cover to attack through; for a less obscure version, I think Gretchin used to have a similar rule around 3rd edition? )

The Tyrant’s Due: Any model with the And They Shall Know No Fear special rule that also has this special rule may claim a bonus of +1 to any cover saves granted because of weapons fire passing through an Auxilia infantry unit to reach them (the standard 5+ save allowed for Intervening models becoming a 4+). However, if this bonus is claimed, the Auxilia unit immediately suffers D3 wounds per unit firing through them against which this save bonus has been claimed. Wounds inflicted in this way are distributed as if the enemy unit against which the cover save bonus has been claimed had fired upon the Auxilia unit and have no AP value.

Once again thanks for the great system, I've now played at least a dozen games with two friends so and I can safely say it will be my preferred way to play 40k into the foreseeable future.

I will say a more rapid way to ask questions and discuss improvements (on a Discord server) would be really appreciated, sometime while playing it would be useful to get a third interpretation of the rules. Two situations recently when this came up are possible example where a clarification might be helpful: 1. When charging or using regular fire against a transport with fire-point or, as was the case in the situation I was in, open topped vehicles. It was questioned whether the unit in the vehicle could return fire or stand and shoot, we eventually ruled that since vehicles cannot do either that their passangers couldnt either. It was later pointed out to me by the third player in our group that, yes embarked units cannot return fire or stand and shoot when their transport is shot or changed, but not for that reason. It is because that unit is not the Target of the charge or shooting attack. So the rules do cover this situation, however it could be clarified in one section or another.

2. Secondly this is mostly my fault for misreading the rules about retreat/pursuit and fall back rules and how they interact with the Swift keyword. I would propose rewording the USR to say "always roll an extra D6 when rolling for fallback, retreat and pursuit moves" as far as I can tell this doesnt change the functionality and would be more clear (to me at least)

I had an idea to potentially make use of supression more and maybe make more strategic choices when trying to avoid being the target of return fire or stand and shoot. Basically requiring units that gained a suppression token that turn to test for Leadership when attempting to make a shooting reaction. I personally don't find that reactive shooting needs a nerf but one of my friends I play with finds it a pain to play against so I was trying to find a good way to mitigate it with tactics (instead of a flat nerf like a cover save) theres obviously other options for tweaks e.g. requiring a test every time you reactive fire (and probably enter OverWatch) which would cut down on memory, or requiring that all supressed units need to take tests in the same way. Also helps making supression tokens of Fearless units more useful (and monsters even more deadly comparitively).

Hello there! My friend plays Tyranids and wants to use some of his newer Tyranid models in Prohammer. We were going to use the Tyranid creation tables found in Chapter Approved 2004, but we're confused on how to handle mass points with this system since they weren't in the Prohammer google doc. Do you have any suggestions?

Just curious as to why the updated 3rd edition Dark Eldar Codex isn't included on the Prohammer website? I see the Chapter Approved where the rules were made available, but I think having both versions posted would be more helpful.

Message me if you need the PDF.

is there any consolidated FAQ for prohammer?

question that came up yesterday was:

does the +1 on the damage table still apply if the vehicle suffered one of the damage types listed BUT that damage was healed with repair/daemonic possession/a battlesmith ability or something?

No official FAQs for Prohammer, just searching this thread.

As for the vehicle question - I'd lean towards keeping the +1 damage even if the damage was repaired. I think of having damage there now being a loss of armor or something that is compromised. So even if the damage is jury-rigged in the field and "fixed", there's still a loss of armor or weakness. The point of the rule is build towards being able to destroy the vehicle. Repairing damage is strong enough as it is if it means you get a weapon back or become mobile again!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - I've been a few people mention a ProHammer website. There was never ProHammer website that I was part of - so not sure what that's even referring to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I guess it's this!

https://sites.google.com/view/prohammer40k?usp=sharing

Lol - didn't know someone actually made a website! Cool