Glory to the Archivists Edition

>What this thread is for:
/tg/ gets shit done again and is creating a “Battle Bible” (Ala 2nd edition) for 4th edition Warhammer 40k.
>What this thread isn’t for:
Alternative ideas for what 4th edition could include, such as alternating activations, new unit ports, etc.
This is a Stage 4 process and we're still at Stage 1 for now so there's plenty of time for that later on.
Don't engage edition warriors, trolls and rule revisionists. We're trying to keep it tight; mannered and objective focused.

BATTLE PLAN:
Stage 1:Finish revising and formating the SRD.
Stage 2:Compile all erratas into the SRD.
Stage 3: Condense all the codeces in shorter rules documents.
Stage 4: Make an Optional Rules supplement for the SRD.

Stage 1 progress:
SRD still to-revise sections:
>Characteristics
>Terrain
>Ranged Weapons
>Characters

SRD completed sections:
>Introduction
>Models
>Vehicle Characteristics
>The Turn
>Shooting Phase
>Assault phase
>Melee Weapons
>Morale
>Unit Type
>Vehicles
>USRs
>Organizing a Battle
>Missions
>Missions Special Rules

HOW TO:
1. Download the 4th Ed. SRD here:
https://mega.nz/folder/1DMxURza#iLn0OuQ8AVGl4XJvU8J4Ig
2. Download the original 4th Ed. Rulebook at the same address.
3. Name a crunch Chapter you're going to inspect.
4. Make sure all important rules of said Chapter made it clearly into the SRD.
5. Post a quick report with a screenshot here so we can keep track of progress.

ONLY WHEN IT'S DONE CAN WE PROCEED WITH UPDATING THE SRD WITH FAQS AND ERRATAS.
https://mega.nz/folder/p95WHYiY#2TZFnrI1vbRtjRSQLWNuYg

All reports so far:
https://mega.nz/file/RCIXVbLK#Oii31z1TFWDRzHiivj4XtQqDfaR7tielWtuqy-Ivroo

3rd/4th era trove:
https://mega.nz/folder/p95WHYiY#2TZFnrI1vbRtjRSQLWNuYg/folder/pxhlwZZS

4th edition compilation by anon:
https://mega.nz/folder/p95WHYiY#2TZFnrI1vbRtjRSQLWNuYg/folder/pxhlwZZSdhy

Previous thread:
>>95750925

Old OP pastebin for emergency bakes:
https://pastebin.com/UanfG6qh

Don't know if it's relevant but I've been chipping away at porting 3.5/Early 4th Codices to NewRecruit. So far I'm still neck deep in Marineshit w/ Index Astartes & Cursed Founding rules. As for their subfactions I'm taking the FAQs into account but keeping the DAngels Chapter Approved rules & giving Blangels AssVets more weapon options for the sake of flavor

"one man army" here. Happy to see that this project ain't dead yet. Sorry if I've not been active, but Uni's killing me. Yes, I'm a zoomer.

>>95816013 (OP)
Praise be!

Very happy to see this project continue, hold the line! My group can't wait to get this to the table after many, many years...

PATIENCE
DILIGENCE
PRECISION
AGGRESSION!

>>95816360
Cheers buddy. I couldn't make it in time to post the second thread myself but I was planning to name it "One Anon Army Edition".

Studies come first, you've done your part and can rest with a light heart. It's definitely slower without you but I'm not up to date with the pdf update yet so there's no hurry.

I'm getting there though, I'll submit a draft version by Friday if life doesn't get too much in the way.

TERRAIN (INFANTRY MOVEMENT)
Terrain rules for other types of units than infantry will be covered in later sections of this document (or will be added into this section once it is expanded).

BEFORE THE GAME
Before the game starts, make sure all players agree on the terrain types (including type, shape and height if the tarrain representation is abstracted) on the battlefield.

TERRAIN TYPES
1) CLEAR
2) DIFFICULT (may also be DANGEROUS)
If an infantry unit moves into, through or out of difficult terrain, it must roll 2D6 and select the highest as its allowed movement distance (some units have special rules allowing more dice to be rolled). Note that a unit that starts its move out of difficult terrain and does not roll enough to stop inside still only moves the rolled distance. After rolling, you may announce that the models are not moving at all (but the unit still counts as having moved for the purposes of firing).
3) IMPASSABLE
Models may not be placed inside unless there is a special rule that grants them this capability (for example flying units). If both players agree, a specific section or tract of otherwise impassable terrain may be excluded from this rule (and be passable for any infantry).

MOVING UP AND DOWN
When moved, a unit may move up and/or down during and after its move, but vertical movement is subject to the (usually 2D6) difficult terrain roll. This means that an infantry model may move 6'' into a building, roll 2D6 (picking the highest, 5 for the sake of this example) and move up or down (for example climbing a ladder of 3'' at the start of its move and then down a different ladder of 2'' once inside).

>>95817276
AREA TERRAIN
In cases where you cannot use direct WYSIWYG procedures to handle a piece of terrain or when it would be impractival to represent it due to the need to
place models in precarious or imprecise situations (for example for a mass of foliage like a tangled forest), treat it as Area Terrain and use a form more suitable for wargaming. The general height assumed for such abstracted terrain is the same as for models and ranges from Size 1 (for low-lying area terrain like marshes, debris fields) to Size 3 (high woodland, destroyed comms array). Once it is understood and agreed what each piece of area terrain represents and Size it is, the only key aspect that should not be abstracted too heavily are its boundaries (in extreme cases, only painting the outline of area terrain on the board may be enough). A solution that may be visually satisfying is to place a handful of actual trees or other objects within the area terrain, but move them out of the way slightly if a model enters the area.

BUILDINGS
One structure can often combine terrain types (one floor may be difficult terrain, another may be difficult and dangerous terrain, a third may be open terrain).

DANGEROUS
Every model in a unit moving through difficult terrain (not if stopping inside or moving out) rolls a D6. On a 1, that model suffers a wound with no Save allowed.

>>95817276
>Models may not be placed inside unless there is a special rule that grants them this capability (for example flying units). If both players agree, a specific section or tract of otherwise impassable terrain may be excluded from this rule (and be passable for any infantry).
This was the sort of thing I was warning about last thread, saying not to take the flavor text out. This is such an unpleasant chore to read compared to saying something like "If both players agree, you may designate certain areas of impassable terrain to be passable, such as a shallow ford across a river, etc"

>>95817302
But the point of an SRD is to be concise. Since it's just an accurate (or intended to be accurate) and direct statement of the rules. It's not "not 4th edition", so both the rulebook and this is the same. But if you want to reference it, having everything for every topic in one place and as simply and directly stated as possible is obviously useful.

Like, no shit a reference manual is dull. But it's a reference manual, and the original rulebook is still valid. Something I'd suggest for the guys working on it actually now that I think of it, is once you start adding stuff from white dwarf or whatever, probably would be good to cite it as "WD157" or whatever.

>>95817635
It doesn't matter how concise it is if the rules fail to adequately convey their intention. You could condense the movement rules down to "Models may move." and it would be fucking worthless. Excising the examples from the impassable text serves no purpose and makes the rule worse.

>>95817733
If you say so, then I'm sure it must be true for you at least.

>>95817733
Reading you in the absolute vacuum that is a forum debate, yes. But the truth of the situation is if you're reading this part you're actually parsing a well designed document where the Impassable section of the Terrain page is three lines top in a clearly obvious and agreably spaced area. So it's a breeze to locate and read.

It's such a non big deal that I could replace his Impassable definition by yours if you are really serious about it.

>>95817276
>>95817281
Great works, always appreciated. I'm saving it once I'm back behind the computer tomorrow.

>>95818716
It's not a breeze to read, it's harder to read. The examples exist to clarify things and make them concrete rather than abstract and obtuse.

I'm not the same anon as >>95817733 btw that guy was a little more rude about it than needed, but he is right overall.

>>95818858
You're welcome to pick up any section of the SRD and reword it the way you want. I'm open to it.

Yuge compilation of Index articles. Mostly Astartes.
https://gofile.io/d/WPKa5R

>>95819208
I'll probably make one big pass over it as soon as the full thing is completed and give you guys an edit which you're welcome to take or leave if you like it.

>>95819526
Pretty sure I'll like it. I can still make a "dry" and a "flavored" version anyway. Make sure you stick around.

Only because OP link is broken, compilation of all the rules for normal play. Includes everything I could find for legal play and also includes a torrent to every white dwarf if interested.

https://mega.nz/folder/PEcnVC5Y#BGZlNvCNOoC2_ZFdw_5KoA

I might be special needs, but where does it specify what facing you attack in melee against armour? I know its in there somewhere but I cannot find it.

>>95820840
pg 71

>>95821034
thanks, I am confirmed for low IQ

>>95820840
Page 71 last sentence on the bottom of the left half of the page. I actually did not know this differed from 5th ed always strike the rear.

>>95821043
>I actually did not know this differed from 5th ed always strike the rear.

5th made vehicles fold like a fucking we napkin in melee.

>>95821051
>>95821043
One thing im noticing people struggle with, is the fact that 4th-5th rules bleed in players minds. So im trying to get the 4th rules down tight so it doesnt effect gameplay.

>>95821073
Yeah I suffer from it in both directions. 3rd-4th and 4th-5th bleed. After all these years those editions really run together in your brain as an old grog.

>>95821051
I didnt remember this, I always associated wet napkin melee with 6th ed cause they changed the to hit table to just always hit on 3s. Simultaneously they started handing out krak grenades built into the profiles stock of tons of stuff.

I think a cool hybrid rule would be to grant a pen bonus for grenades, I always found it thematic that with a carefully planted grenades you used the weak rear value. But less so for a chain fist etc.

>>95821073
It definitely does for me. For one cause I have my own 4th/5th/6th hybrid homebrew, and two just cause I was still a kid when I played 4th and 5th and I couldnt fucking read then, we all learned from word of mouth.

>>95821101
yeah I learned through word of mouth until I was about 19. I remember reading the rules for the first time (partially a money issue, partially an attention span thing) I realized how many things we did on the assumption of the rules. EVERYONE knew their codex off by heart though haha.

>>95821680
Well, in the end of the day, the reason you play the game is the models, armies, and their rules, not the core rules

>>95821093
to be fair a lot of 3rd by the end was more of a 3.5 with CA rules like the new combat rules which were used for 4th
it's why 3rd is so good but you need a lot of supplemental material

>>95816013 (OP)
>>95819847
So this one should replace the last link?

>>95821875
Yes, I thank the OP for noticing my compilation but for me the link went to some user page. The link I posted (checked in private browser) goes to my compilation (contains a torrent to every white dwarf as well).

>>95821894
I'm OP, I did an emergency bake and obviously mixed a thing or two (forgot to add a Previous Thread link).
Was fun to read the two or three last posts complaining about the thread dying despite anyone of them able to c/c the OP Pastebin I posted few days ago to bake a fresh bread though.

I couldn't answer with a link to the fresh bread nor thank you for your link but now I can. It's a great trove anon. Glory to the Archivists!

up

Nu-SRD anon here. I'm working on the Terrain chapter and I'm wondering about these two posts:
>>95817276
>>95817281

If you check the actual SRD or picrel you can see we already have a quite complete Terrain chapter. Am I missing something here?

Since people were complaining about the updated version posted in this thread, should I keep the initial chapter as is or replace some parts or switch entirely to the new version?

All opinions welcome.

>>95824574
Picrel since I obviously forgot. Talk about a classic smoothbrain move.

>>95821073
>>95821093
>>95821101
I spent my college years doing almost nothing but attending class and studying the 4e rule book when I should of been studying for class. I can tell that a lot of us here didn't have enough games under their belt, but said people are recommending rules changes.

If the SRD has done anything right, its gotten people reading the 4e rulebook. Hopefully it will lead to people playing games and then we can talk about what should happen next.

On another note I think if not for Matt Ward, i would have loved 5th edition, next time you meet some one who is nostalgic about 5th ask them what army they played. In my experience its always some one who played with a Ward codex.

>Simultaneously they started handing out krak grenades built into the profiles stock of tons of stuff.

Grenades in 4th are like a last resort total desperation move because of how the armor facing rules work in addition to how swingy the vehicle dmg table is.

Say you have 10 marines fighting a dreadnought whose WS4 and frontal AV12, they each get to throw a single grenade against those defensive values. A 50% chance to hit, then 1 in 6 that do hit have a chance to effect the vehicle, followed by a 1 in 3 chance to actually do something meaningful to the vehicle.

Dreads usually have around 4 attacks, so in a few rounds of combat it will end up soloing an entire squad of dudes. basically get to helplessly watch as your squad gets eaten alive by the mechanical monster as you hope and pray for a string of lucky 6s. Maybe if your really lucky they will break from combat and the dread wont sweep them.

I've had people charge things like vindicators out of desperation, hoping for that string of 6s only to watch the tank pivot and evaporate the squad with heavy ordinance during the controlling players turn.

>>95821820
Thats actually what makes me so interested in the core rules. Everyone "knows" how the game is supposed to be played. The idea of a perfect ruleset that has no gotchas and "wait what" moments is just so captivating. The ideal ruleset is one that all the rules match the players expectations and all the abstractions line up.

>>95824594
do what feels right pls

>>95821073
I started in 2005 with the battle for maccrage set, but only had 3e codexes to play against my brother as i expanded a bit into tau and marines, along with some necrons. It was a good way into 5th edition before i got a modern codex for BA and played them outside my house. by that point 5th had changed a good number of things and it felt comparatively wrong.

>>95824826
>On another note I think if not for Matt Ward, i would have loved 5th edition, next time you meet some one who is nostalgic about 5th ask them what army they played. In my experience its always some one who played with a Ward codex.
I played Dark Eldar and liked 5th edition.

>>95824826
Yes anything to get people to read the rules is good. Of the 3 editions, 4 5 6, I played the most of 6th I think? Its what I got all my college friends to play but 4th and 5th were what I did in middle and highschool. I think they were all equally good and bad, netlisting really wasn't a thing back then especially if you just played with friends and so they never felt 'solved'. I played tau as a kid cause all my friends had dibs on the cool factions.

>grenades
Not disagreeing with you, but to help indicate the difference between the grenades in 6th ed a unit of 10 tactical marines kills a falcon basically instantly. 10 grenade attacks, 6 hits, 1 glance 2 pens its dead from hull points alone. The to-hit changes in 6th ed combined with the always hitting rear armour made a huge difference.

It meant that you had to be cagey with vehicle placement. And to some extent I kinda like it, but I think it went to far. Even the 4th ed codex starts the section with this line, but its sort of not true with how hard it is to hit vehicles in melee.

>>95824960
>goes 16 years without a codex.
>loves the edition where he finally gets a book

Why am I not surprised

>>95825026
I think he was just pointing out the book was not written by ward.

>>95824979

6th is the only edition I didn't play. My local area, every one played with am aegis defense line. It just looked so silly, I skipped out until 7th but the codices felt bad. That said 7th seemed like it had a good rule set from what I saw.

>It meant that you had to be cagey with vehicle placement. And to some extent I kinda like it, but I think it went to far.

I think there needs to be vehicles who aren't afraid to get up lose and vehicles that are essentially lightly armored artillery pieces who might be able to survive shooting, but won't survive a punch.

4e has both of these, but by and large nearly every vehicle is too comfortable with coming in close. While 5e had the opposite problem.

Variety is the spice of life.

>>95825036
Correct.
(And to the other anon, it was 8 years.)

>>95825069
People love to shit on 6th ed, but it was actually the most fun I had playing warhammer, playing with my friends and laughing and what not. Plus it was the first book to have a real and not shit index. One of my college friends had a pretty big apartment livingroom so I brought over a 4'x8' sheet of plywood and we set it up on their fold out tables and played so many games on that. We played entirely with minis from my childhood (cause all my old highschool friends left their warhammer at my house and never came back for it) so we had a rag tag collection and just proxied fucking everything. We played by drawing random armies out of a hat, then each had 30 minutes to build a list while other friends would setup the table.


It didnt take a phd to recognize that if you just ban flyers, riptides, and wraithknights you had a really fun game. 7th ed was a downgrade in almost every mechanical way, and the codices got worse too.

>>95825126
Was dueling/challenges in 6th? That was probably the most interesting thing I saw in 7th.

>>95825126
IIRC 7th started with the "oops, all psykers can summon daemons" edition. I played at launch and that shit sucked to be a necron player. Bunch of waacfags summoning twice their points in daemons for free was horrible, and gave me another reason to hate them. Best to make sure we have no oversights like that.

>>95825194
They were just stealing that from whfb. I like the concept but it was just more bloat to an already bloated rules set. Elimination of all the unnecessary bits was what made this era we're working in much better.

>>95824594
Difficult / dangerous terrain should include something for vehicles

>>95825572
Isn't that a rule about vehicles and not a rule about terrain though? At least GW thought so.

>>95825594
yes, but if I'm looking through the book for how a vehicle interacts with terrain, i'm going to check that section before specifically looking at vehicles. I would advise SRD anon at the very least have a reminder blurb pointing to the correct page for vehicles interacting with terrain in that section if he isn't going to include it there.

>>95825440
Yeah literally anything that gave away "free points" is obviously some breakable horseshit that never should have been in the game, and that was one of the greatest sins of 7th edition. First summoning, then formations that gave you free transports and wargear, people playing 2000 point games could end up with 3000+ points worth of shit on the board.

>>95825652
it's an absolute travesty what they were doing with those concepts. fucking up both the flavor and competitive sides to sell more shit. I know we can do better returning to basics.

>>95825194
Dueling was in 6th, and it would have been fine except the penalty for dueling was way to harsh: your dude couldn't attack at all. It should have just been like -1 leadership if you lost combat or something.

Im sorry I meant to say "the penalty for declining"

>>95816013 (OP)
Characteristics, just expanding on them. I think we should have a brief explanation in this section, and expand on it in each phase further. Having the info in more than one place is good for reference. we can revise these further if needed.

>Weapon skill (WS)
Represents a unit's ability in close-quarters combat. This may be with a sword or axe, tooth or claw, or even their own bare fists. This is compared to an opponent's WS, primarily in the Assault Phase (page X) to see if a blow lands. The dice rolled for an attack need to meet or exceed the result given on the melee To Hit chart. A basic human soldier would be Weapon skill 3.

>Ballistic skill (BS)
Represents a unit's ability to accurately use a ranged weapon, such as a firing a gun, spitting acid, or throwing a knife. This is done in the Shooting Phase (page x). A die is rolled for each attack made with the ranged weapon. A successful attack is any die result that is 7 minus the unit's BS (7-BS 3= 4 or higher needs to be rolled). An average human soldier has a Ballistic skill of 3.

>Strength (S)
Represents a unit's physical strength in melee combat. Where WS is used to determine how many hits are made, S determines how hard the hit is. After rolling WS in the Assault Phase (page x), take the successful hits and roll them on the To Wound chart, comparing the attacker's Strength to the defender's Toughness. Any that meet or exceed this are successful wounds. S may be modified by the weapon used. Weapons fired in the Shooting phase will also have their own Strength. An average human soldier's Strength is 3.

>Toughness (T)
As explained in Strength above, this is how durable a unit is to take a hit. Whenever a unit is successfully hit in the Shooting Phase (page x) or Assault Phase (page x), the Strength of the attacker (or their ranged weapon) is compared to the Toughness of the defender on the To Wound chart, this tells what result or higher is needed to wound the defender. An average human soldier would be Toughness 3.

>Wounds (W)
Represents how many life-threatening injuries a unit can take before dying. Whenever a unit takes an unsaved wound in the Shooting or Assault phase (sometimes even the movement phase, see Dangerous Terrain, pg x), it reduces their remaining wounds by 1. If the unit reaches 0 it is dead and removed as a casualty. An average human soldier or equivalent only has 1 wound, larger creatures and legendary heroes may have more.

>Initiative (I)
Indicates how quick a creature is in close combat. Used primarily in the Assault Phase (page X) to indicate when they fight in combat by comparing with any opponents they are engaged with. The unit with the highest Initiative in the combat goes first, then the next highest, and so on. the lower the initiative, the slower the unit is to act. Some weapons may give the user a lower initiative because they are slow and cumbersome, but come with a trade-off of being more powerful. An average human soldier is Initiative 3.

>Attacks (A)
Used to determine how many attacks an individual in a unit would make in close combat. Used in the Assault Phase (page x) to see how many dice are rolled for a melee attack. Most creatures only have a single attack, but some more quick or deadly units may have more. Additional close combat weapons, and some abilities can alter the number of attacks a unit gets.

>Leadership (Ld)
This represents the bravery and determination of the unit, as well as its ability to take orders. Primarily used during the Morale portion of the Assault Phase (page x) to determine if a unit that has sustained casualties and lost the combat will stay in the fight or try to flee. This is done by rolling 2D6 and comparing the result to the unit's Leadership value (adding or subtracting any modifiers that may be present). If the result is under their Ld, they succeed. If it is over, they fail and run from the fight. An average human's Leadership is 7.

>Save (Sv)
Represents what kind of defensive armor, alien carapace, force fields, or otherwise are present to protect this unit. This usually represents an Armor Save, but it may also represent an Invulnerable Save if the creature has that available (sometimes with both, Armor/Invul). Whenever a unit takes a wound that can be saved, they will roll to see if it is saved. Any dice rolled that are at or over their save's value are discarded, any that are rolled below the save's value are subtracted from their Wounds (W). Some melee weapons ignore armor and can only be saved by models with an Invulnerable save, ranged weapons may have an Armor Piercing value that ignores armor higher than it's value (see page x). An average human soldier has a save of 5+.

>>95824594
For the SRD anon, I want to recommend we use the space a little better and make it easier to reference when we get to editing the actual book. One of the best examples i have for rules is the layout of the cypher system, which has a sidebar that says the referenced section on the line mentioned, with a page to flip to. I'll do a little mockup to explain it better, but here's an example page that does what i'm talking about:

>>95826376
>>95826390
>>95826396
You're overthinking and overcomplicating this. Stop putting redundant information on rules in sections in doesn't belong. A player just being introduced to the characteristics doesn't need to know how to take a Morale test yet holy shit. Stop. The point of this project is not to rewrite the rulebook it's just to condense the existing rules in one place.

>>95826427
Mockup. the sidebar can be used to show where anything is, and the box can outline the overview without wasting a whole half the page.

>>95826427
that's fair, this is why i said it should likely be revised. there is a lot of dead space in the SRD that could be utilized better. You can still easily fit some sort of example, or at least point to where they can find it in more detail.

>>95826513
sidebar should be on the outer page edge, if that wasn't clear already. It should be pretty easy to add to whatever doc is made though filling in the info would take some time. This wouldn't be an immediate need, but something down the line that could help flipping through the book. Kinda like having relevant index info on the page you're on instead of flipping to the back to find it every time.

>>95826513
IMO this might be the single best addition. 4th rules hop around so fucking much, this could make things a lot easier.

>>95826539
Thanks, I think it would be worth the effort to add, especially if the doc is meant to be easier to read.

Whoever's adding it, please feel free to edit the charactaristics info to whatever works best. any reference to page numbers or phases could easily be pushed to the sidebars later. I just wanted to make sure someone can more easily find the info on how to do something. redundant info is one thing, better indexing is another.

>>95826467
Meant to have the bottom part reply to you on >>95826513

>>95826513
This is fucking sick, goddamn. I hope the indesign guy or whatever he was gonna use sees this.

>>95826558
How exactly are you doing this?

I am an unga bunga using a notepad, whats the better way?

>>95826617
I just took the screenshot and modified it in sketchbook, but I know there's gotta be an easy way to add sidebars on alternating page sides. I can look into seeing how that's done and report back. The text boxes are standard in pretty much every software, down to word. SRD anon is doing a good job for the basic doc to get all the info down. I just want to build on that work.

I assembled a quick style guide for all the fonts i could find used in the original text, in case we wanted to keep it looking the same in every capacity. I wasn't able to find what font the gothic numbers on specific areas are, or the exact font used for the quotes and charts, the closest free one i was able to find that looks like what was used in the body of the text is this one https://legionfonts.com/fonts/dominican
I don't think it's exact, but that's close enough for what we're doing.

If there are any font fanatics lurking, it would be helpful if we can find the fonts used in the original doc, or something similar.

I'm still looking at how to make the sidebar. I have affinity publisher, which is pretty good for the price and likely will allow us to copy elements between in case we have to reassemble it in that, but that's down the line. SRD anon is doing the right thing just getting it together and revised before we settle on a final format.

>>95827345
The fonts GW used are expensive, I've looked into it in the past, so yeah just go with whatever free alternative you can find that's close enough unless you're someone who knows where to pirate fonts.

>>95816129
Very based and epic of you, friend.

>>95827387
CasablancaAntique is a good match with the Dominican font.

>>95827419
Both look pretty identical to my eyes, so unless we find the exact one dominican is free and works just fine.
old english and arial are default windows fonts. we can just copy the numbers as needed for the few parts that use them.

>>95826617
Alright, I learned that in Affinity I can fuck with a LOT of things with the layout, including adding these sidebars to every selected page. I'm sure setting up a doc will take some time, but I bought the program to learn it, so I'm sure I can do some of that now. here's the video i learned from in case anyone else wants to learn from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LssH6uCwD4g

>>95826534
In my experience it is best to keep a single page format because most of the time, realistically speaking, people will be viewing these pdfs in a single page view on a digital screen rather than a book. But it's also trivial to re-crunch the document with an inner/outer page format so it's not really something you should worry about. Similarly, chapters are always supposed to start on the right page, with a blank left page if necessary. This really isn't valuable for a digital pdf.

I also put a hyperlink to the table of contents on every single page in the header, it's really handy.

Absolute fire

Gonna grab the frescoes next

>>95827611
Thanks Anon, i'm checking it out now.

>>95827814
>realistically speaking, people will be viewing these pdfs in a single page view on a digital screen rather than a book
You mean two page spread PDF format on a digital screen unless they are a worthless fucking animal.

Do not, under any circumstances, produce this as a single page format without left and right spread.

>>95827854
Fun fact is most of these go back to 2nd ed or even Rogue Trader,

Give all marines 2 wounds. That is all

>>95828073
A two page spread format is too small to see on any normal tablet screen anon. Im just speaking from experience with my own homebrews, which I make in single page format. But, it literally takes 2 seconds to change between single and double page spread so its not an issue really. If anything you should just always crank both versions for each release.

Another thing 5th ed did better was the defensive weapons cut off. In 4th its s6 and below, which includes a ton of heavy weapons like multilasors and star cannons. S4 is a better cuttoff for point defense weapons, stuff that is all meant to be in the ballpark of heavy stubbers.

>>95828189
Terminators I agree, Space Marines feel pretty adequate. In our games at least.

I thought the idea of an SRD was that it would just be pure rules and not have fluff like quotes/flavour text etc?

>>95828078
And that practice isn't just restricted to stuff like quotes either, a lot of the "Ultrawank" that everyone attributed to Matt Ward in his 5th edition codex was copied pretty much word for word from 2nd edition's Codex: Ultramarines.

>>95816129
Hope it goes well. A lot of the 3rd Edition stuff there is broken or just halfway functional.

>>95828189
We're keeping stats as-is for this doc, clarifying the rules of the edition and having all the codex entries in one place. later we might do a fluffy edition that leans into stuff like that and makes adjustments. I'm personally totally for it, but this groundwork needs to be done first.

>>95828274
To compromise, the sidebar idea doesn't necessarily need to be on the side and could potentially be a footer, but I think I'd prefer to plan to print the document out for use at the table. A PDF can always be linked an annotated so you can jump around as needed, physical books require more planning.

>>95828781
The SRD version we're working on first probably will be just plain text, rules and codex entries only, which will be a necessity and not a crazy thing to accomplish.

Outside that, we have been discussing going beyond that into a fluffy fan edition that keeps the core system the same, but has more fitting and outrageous rules going further in each direction ( 2 wound marines, loot everything orks, endless wave tyranids, etc). That's something I personally support and want to see, and would love to make it look like the original book with fonts, quotes, etc. that's the fun, experimental side of the project that we can test ideas on.


For now, if everyone can make plaintext codex compilations, that would be great to get it going and finish the SRD. Nobody is going to care about your army as much as you, the players. So best put it in their hands to get the info down.

>>95828339
>which includes a ton of heavy weapons like multilasors and star cannons
Part of me suspects that Eldar might have been the reason for setting the limit that high, it allows the Falcon to zip around at high speed without sacrificing any firepower unless it's packing a BL or an EML firing krak missiles.

>>95826513
>>95829437
Nu-SRD anon here. It's going to be low on my priority list because we don't have number page yet so there's nothing to refer anything to for now. But margin referencing is definitely on the to-do list.

Meanwhile you can totally start to note words and places that could use future references if you feel like it.

>>95827814
Table of Contents is in the pipeline, I'll make sure it hyperlinks to relevent pages.

>>95827345
I'm using Affinity Publisher too so maybe there's a way to transfer you my settings regarding master pages, paragraph and character styles. Once you're set up we can share the load or you can toy around.

>>95827387
If you can name them I can try and sail the high seas.

>>95827814
>>95828073
We're going the Old School Essentials format (+ Cypher margin referencing) so it's "one chapter = one page" ideally and "one chapter = two pages facing each other" worst case scenario.
So reading it in single or two pages spread is up to taste and there's food for all.

>>95830556
One page/spread per idea is a great way of handling things. Glad we're using the same program already, i'm sure theres a way for you to share the project file. We'll probably have to trade emails at some point for working behind the scenes, but that can be down the line. I'd be glad to fuck with it once we're going. I think i'll reference the index for the majority of things, look on each page for specific references, and add that to the margins once we're moving. I am well aware of the index lacking a few helpful entries from my time playing, so we'll likely have to add those to the final project. these were both me: >>95826513 >>95827345

>>95830642
Yeah I can tell you know your shit which is more than me. I played two initiation games of 40k 4th edition and that's about it. I learnt editing two weeks ago by trying Scribus then Publisher for the sake of this project.

I'm really light on my feet here but there's constant support by really knowledgeable or willing anons so it's a big win for /tg/ so far.

>>95831818
I played it back 20 years ago as a kid and i've been working on rules for years with varying success, I'm sure we can make a good doc. If we focus on your point of just putting it all in one document, we can get that done and later on get creative with the rules later on and still have a vanilla doc for people to play if they just want to replay the good ol days. fourk was scatterbrained last year, and everyone burnt out real fast because it went in too many directions. there's a much better foundation here with room to expand later if we get this part done first.

In the meantime, while I'm working on transcribing the ork dex as the first one we'll get done. I'm through the summary, just need to do individual profiles now.

>>95819592
>>95819526
I'm genuinely curious if there's some sort of neurodivergence that makes you prefer legal text over context-heavy communication.

>>95824826
>Maybe if your really lucky they will break from combat and the dread wont sweep them.
I always found it kinda retarded that you couldn't voluntarily retreat from melee. Hoping to fail a test is bad gamedesign.

Quick questions for old heads since I don't think i ever got this right:

In this era when a character or unit mentions it has an "extra close combat weapon", I know that's supposed to add another attack, but is that attack on the existing profile, or is it something you add to the profile when you're figuring out attacks?

For example, i have boss snikrot who has 4 attacks, and then his profile says he has an extra CCW. is that now supposed to be 5 attacks?

>>95833166
If it's been added to the profile it will say it has (and usually the profile will have the upgrade in brackets on said profile). No bracket, means you add the weapon attack.

>>95832159
I'm poster 1 but not poster 2. I grew up a really imaginative kid always ace-ing my school mandatory novels and essais until Uni. I couldn't stop writing. My style was really pompous though.

Up until High School I was kinda shy but I became a chatty box by then and could chit-chat on any specific interests or fields flawlessly as long as it was surface level.

I'm oldish now, discovered English and its simplicity as well as GMT wargames' contract style rulebooks plus got fed up with Covid bullshit ostracizing me, so I have no patience in me anymore and nothing left to say. I feel like I've no patience for bullshit anymore but bullshit is my bread and game.

No one is neurotypic here though anon. I'm an ENTP and a massive contrarian. My wife is an INTJ autist and loves making lists for no real reasons. I just like bulletpoints and putting sub-folders into folders. I was told it's a gifted/zebra thing but who knows? Thanks for coming to my Ted talk anon!

>>95832159
???
Why did you respond to me when I'm the one pushing for the NOT legal text?

>>95832178
Only very tactical units should be able to do that, do you have any idea how hard it is to coordinate actually fleeing from a close combat situation without getting completely fucking slaughtered?

>>95833362
Thanks, it was really unclear from whenever i'd read it. I'm going to just put it as part of the profile unless it state's that's only an option. I think that'll cause less friction.

A suggestion.

>>95833870
It's been recommended by the original SRD anon. Codex motivated anons might get a thing or two out of it.

>>95833870
any specific course? free preferred.

>>95833866
2 CCWs = 1 extra attack. Putting in exceptions to this is absolutely going to cause friction.
Also if your Snikrot profile has 4 attacks, you're using the wrong codex.

>>95834084
>Also if your Snikrot profile has 4 attacks, you're using the wrong codex.
I am looking at both a physical copy and PDF of the ork 4th edition codex

>>95834084
A fair few characters have 4 attacks. Pair that with a charge and extra weapon and a lot of characters run around with 5-6 attacks on the charge.

>>95834039
Both technical writing 1 and technical writing 2 are free. Without a coach of course, just the material.

>>95834165
i.e. the wrong codex.
You should be using the 3rd edition codex which is a: not shit and b: actually has errata, supplements, and chapter approved content that make rewriting the codex a worthwhile endeavour.

>>95834165
6 attacks on the charge with weapons that aren't choppas or power weapons, seems absolutely reasonable to me.

>>95834507
the job of the SRD is to assemble all 4th ed info and codexes. 4th ed, not 3rd. we'll be working on an improved fan edition for 4th that takes advantage of other editions best parts later, but we need the vanilla doc of everything from that era to be done first as a baseline. Other codexes that were stuck in 3rd ed until they got updated in 5th are the only things that will be taken directly from 3rd at this point.

This thread is assembly of the doc, and not in the business of changing things yet, suggestions are always welcome for later..

>>95834548
It's not changing anything as long as you keep the timeline consistent. A game between CSM (using 3.5 codex) and Orks (using 3e codex) under the 4e main rulebook is a matchup that happened many, many times.

>>95834548
The threads were clear on what they wanted from the start, which was early 4th primarily using 3rd edition codices. And that the main problem with the rules is that codexes, errata, and chapter approved were all spread around.

But then they got hijacked by an ego-tripping retard who isn't familiar with the ruleset, and thinks because he's wasting his time rewriting a rulebook that's been complete since 2005 (to later add errata that doesn't exist) he gets to dictate how everything goes.

>>95834659
And you're here to...?

>>95834507
Played all of 4th with both the 3rd ed book and the barely even a 4th ed codex written for 5th. Let me tell you the 4th ed books is seriously unfun to play against and lacks the soul of the 3rd ed book.

Anyone suggesting we play with 4e codices, especially late 4e codices, cant be taken seriously and should refrain from posting.

Youve never played into double lash prince, leaf blower guard, or 180 fearless orks with a coversave or a dozen trukks ramshackle trukks loaded with Boyz and nobody moving 25" turn 1. Fuck 4e codexs.

>>95834589
well I'm a good chunk into this one already, i can transcribe the 3rd ed version after that makes the necessary changes to match. I'm about halfway through the 4th ed one so I might as well finish it. Feel free to start doing the same to other codexes in the meantime.

>>95834659
Hijacked? Anon no one is trying to do anything but make the 4th ed stuff I dont think anyone is even trying to backport their favorite minis.

>>95834548
>the job of the SRD is to assemble all 4th ed info and codexes. 4th ed, not 3rd.
No, pay attention. 4th Core Rules with mostly 3.5 codices. Circa 2005 or so.

>>95834659
>But then they got hijacked by an ego-tripping retard who isn't familiar with the ruleset, and thinks because he's wasting his time rewriting a rulebook that's been complete since 2005 (to later add errata that doesn't exist) he gets to dictate how everything goes.
Erm, did I miss something? Who are you talking about?

Got all but the vehicles, warbikers, deffkoptas, and army wide rules done on the 4th ed ork dex. once i'm done i'll pivot and redo a little of the work to have it for 3rd ed. we can have a consensus on which is preferred then. might as well get the bigger book done first.

>>95835334
He is probably talking about /fourk/, don't worry about it.
You guys can make this project work.

>>95835806
That doesn't even make sense, /fourk/ was a fuckin year ago. Also the person who took over writing that was more familiar with the ruleset than anyone.

Hey lads, can anyone of you check if this is correct:

Shooting Casualties:
-You have to take a Morale Test if models equal to 25% of the Unit’s current model count are eliminated in a single Shooting Phase.
-If the Unit is below 50% of Starting Strength the Morale Test must be made as 2D6-1.
-A Unit already falling back, pinned, or locked in close combat does not have to take this test.

Units that fail a Morale Test due to Shooting casualties must then Fall Back.

>>95835036
4th ed TAU codex is the same as the 3rd but with some balance changes (plasma is more expensive) and some extra units for variety which are cool sidegrades.
The extra units of the imperial armour 3 book are also great, and not stronger than base codex book.
Same with the tyranid codex.

>>95837003
Yes, those are early 4e codexes that are mostly in the same spirit as late 3rd. The Tau one especially is necessary to give them variety and more than 3 wargear options.
Eldar/Dark Angels is when things start going bad.

Original OP of the thread that spawned all this.

It's got to be 3.5-4, as so many anons are saying, with obvious early 4th stuff like Tau. Wouldn't bother with later 4th, that was the beginning of the end.

Proceed.

>>95836877
I don't have the book in front of me, but from what I remember working on fourk, yes that sounds correct.

What do we consider the "late 4th" edition dexes ? Is there a list we can make so we know which ones to focus on using 3rd edition versions?

I was in my own little corner with 4th and 3rd ed tau, 3rd necrons, 4th space marines but with a 3rd ed blood angels supplement. It was a good time, but that was all I experienced before 5th came around.

>>95837159
We've had two threads worth of these conversations already, I don't understand why it has to keep being explained to people.

>>95837177
I want the info in one place, not spread across multiple threads. In the time you typed that you could have easily said where the cutoff is.

Man, the 3rd ed chaos codex seems so busted in 4th edition. My guard army seems to crumble to just two souped up lords.

>>95836877
>-If the Unit is below 50% of Starting Strength the Morale Test must be made as 2D6-1.
Why would you word it like this? Just say it has a -1 modifier. Morale checks are always 2d6.

>>95837274
You retarded or something? Just use the 3.5 IG dex, it's just as busted as the 3.5 chaos dex

>but I lost to two lords!!!!!!!!

Skill issue

>>95837478
I'll go downstairs to my library and check out the 3rd ed codex. But the juggernaught lord can charge my back line in one single turn even with heaps of terrain about. It just gets into combat on turn on and then every turn it's fighting a unit. Not sure what I can do about it.

>>95837478
Uh, how is the 3rd ed guard dex just as busted? It's basically the same as the 4th ed one.

>>95837583
3.5 codex, not 3rd ed codex. Are you retarded?

>>95837343
I think the idea is if you're parsing the document while having a game you don't have to look at the Morale Test paragraph to check how to pass it, then, check your Shooting Casualties paragraph to discover the modifier is -1.
If being redundant waste no space and allow you to check only the one relevant paragraph instead of quicky browsing the whole chapter, why wouldn't you? I'm not saying everything is perfect but I'm more concerned with shitload of other stuffs to be honest.

It's the end of the day for me now but I can throw you some more weird or shitty phrasing tomorrow if you want to give it a look?

>>95837626
No, you're just making it more confusing. Saying "if this condition is in place, take the test as 2D6-1" implies that you don't normally take it on 2D6 or something because otherwise why be so specific?

No one has to check the morale check paragraph to remember that a Ld test is 2D6, once you've played a single fucking game you remember that forever.

I am starting to get the impression a lot of people working on this project don't speak english as a first language or something.

>>95837590
So the Guard have a 3rd edition and a 3.5 (or 4th, the one im playing). It is in no way OP. The 5th Edition Guard codex is the one that opened the door to some OP guard builds.

>>95837561
Can you post the lists you guys were playing with?

My first thoughts are to just hammer the lord with str 8 if hes t4.

>>95837660
It's not OP, yes, and neither is the 3.5 chaos codex. So they're equally "busted."

>>95837771
Im going through the dex and his list and frankly he's made many errors. However, the books is a headache to navigate and im flipping back and fourth through so many pages to understand it all. For example he's taken a chaos lord and a demon lord, but it appears you can only have one. It also seems that a juggernaught is not a cavalry model which helps a lot. It also appears that khorne cannot get move through cover. I also cannot find where the feel no pain comes from. It also appears he didnt read the fact that you use the original toughness for instant death, which would help me a lot because I thought he was T6.

If somebody knows the chaos dex and can help me figure it out a bit that would be sick.

Demon Prince: 50
Mark of Khorne: 10
Feel on Pain: 10
Demon Armour: 20
Demonic Aura: 15
Demonic Essence: 15
Demonic Mutation: 15
Demonic Resilience 15
Demonic Stature: 15
Total: 160

Chaos Lord: 60
Mark of Khorne: 10
Feel No Pain: 10
Juggernaut of Khorne: 25
Bezerker Glaive: 40
Move Through Cover: 5
Frag Grenades: 1
Total: 151

8 Chaos Space Marines: 112
Mark of Khorne: 40
Khorneate Chain Axe: 8
Frag Grenades: 8
Aspiring Champion: -
Axe of Khorne: 15
Talisman of Burning Blood 10
Rhino 50
Smoke Launchers: 3
Total: 246 X3

Chaos Dreadnought: 75
Destroyer: 25
Twin Linked Lascannon 50
Total 150

LandRaider 250
Dozer Blade 5
Parasitic Possession 40
Total: 295

Everything feels fair except the 2 characters which seem to just move an ungodly amount a turn.

>>95837893
Side note, he's normally really good with rules, so im gonna pin it down to the confusing dex layout and lack of army builder, i'll bring it up to him tonight before our game in a couple of days and anything will be fixed. No harm, he's getting old so it is what it is haha.

>>95824960
God, I remember this image. I think I contributed to or editted it.

>>95837159
Go read Eldar 2006 then read literally anything earlier and see the difference.

>>95837893
Juggernaut is cav, my bad, it can't also take the glaive is what I meant.

>>95837654
>No one has to check the morale check paragraph to remember that a Ld test is 2D6, once you've played a single fucking game you remember that forever.

Try and remember the game is 21 years old anon. It is legal for 4th Edition to drink and fuck in any single States you can think of. There's hordes of people that never played it and have no clue how to play it. There's half a page in there describing what D3, D6 or XD6 means, will you get mad at that too?

I'm happy you don't need the SRD though, more power to you anon.

>>95837893
You're in luck, I was cleaning a cupboard yesterday and found my old stack of 40K codices. 3.5 ed Chaos on the very top of the pile. I'm flipping through it right now and to check all the points you've raised:

1) Armies may only have one Chaos Lord, including Sorceror Lord and Daemon Prince as variants.

2) There is some interpretation involved in the God-specific steed options. Juggernauts and Steeds of Slaanesh begin with "Steed." as if to emphasis a keyword with built-in properties, and Discs also mention Steed, capitalised, later on. The main wargear entry for the neutral Chaos Steed meanwhile says they take "many forms, more of which are described in the Books of Chaos" (god-specific options lists). This again implies that the god-specifics are meant to be seen as "neutral Chaos steeds +1", having all those properties combined.

But at the same time, the main wargear list begins with a a detail box covering different wargear modes and such, which has Steeds capitalised, and specifies that Steeds are one-per-model, lock them into the movement mode of the mount (which is unspecified for Juggernauts) and cannot board transports. So this would suggest the contrary that each steed is totally separate in properties and effects, with no overlap unless stated otherwise.

Lastly, there's a balance perspective. Juggernauts, DoTs and SoSs are simply budget repackaging of multiple generic conditions in one, and regular Steeds might as well be as well since moving as Cavalry is identical to Daemonic Speed. So let's stat breakdown:

Juggernaut: Daemon Strength, Mutation and Essence for 35pt. Normally, this is 40pts for independent characters, so a small saving. For Aspiring Champions, Strength + Mutation is just 15 points, but Essence is unavailable. So you can view this as paying 20 points for Essence on a squad champ, 5 points more than usual for an IC.

cont.

>>95837893
>>95838285
Either way, these stats are not insane, but if you throw in the base steed boosts as well, it's Resilience and Speed for free. For a character, that's a full 25 points of freebies, and 20 for Aspiring Champions (10 of those are mostly wasted unless you take a full squad of Chosen Champions however. This is obviously an insane boost.

Steeds of Slaanesh: The effect and cost is almost identical to a regular Steed, just swapping Resilience for Mutation. This is 25pts for a SoS versus 30pts for an IC buying seperate, but just 20pts for an AC, so it's actually pricier than buying seperate. SoSs are just a cheap Independent Character discount.

If we presume Resillience is included too, we up those to a 15pt IC saving and 5 point AC saving, again an aggressive steal albeit much milder than the Juggernaut.

Discs: Flight and Mutation in one for 25pts. ICs would pay 35 for this, so it's a very nice saving for a melee-oriented Sorceror Lord, but ACs again pay only 20 individually so it's no benefit in Chosen teams.

The Steed-freeby presumption breaks down here, as Steeds and Discs combined would grant both Cavalry and Jump Infantry, contradictory movement types that would require some even deeper statbashing/cracking. Certainly it would be a wild saving to have Mutation, Resilience and two/the best of both move boosts for only 25pts.

Lastly, the regular Steed: It's Speed and Resilience for 25/15pts for ICs/ACs. Bought independently, these gifts are 25pts and 20pts respectively, so there's literally no upside for an IC and ACs only save 5pts. Frankly I can see why no-one bothered with them back in the day.

Overall: The three god-specific steeds are generally good value for money for ICs,and Juggernauts being great on ACs, if you can accept the mild drawbacks of no transport rides, if you assume the "no stat overlap with the basic steed" approach. if you instead use the "Steed +1", they're all crazy broken. Regular Steeds meanwhile are meh no matter.

>>95837893
>>95838388
So in synopsis, I would say from a balance perspective the "Steeds +1" interpretation is very unfair, and the regular one is just right. Given that more legislative approaches are neutral, I would lean on your friend playing it wrong and giving himself crazy boosts for free, and he should accept the already pretty good deal for a Juggernaut without awarding himself Resilience and Speed for free.

3) You are right, Khorne models cannot have Move Through Cover. Nor, for that matter, can anyone with any kind of Steed, so his Juggerlord is a double violation.

4) Feel No Pain is a Khorne-specific gift purchaseable by all Khorne characters. Note that the extra toughness from Resilience is ignored for the ID FnP-busting effect, but Stature's bonus is not, so his DP still claims T5 and therefore a threshold of S10 for claiming his FnP.

Overall summary: your friend is either a fool, a knowing cheater or somewhere between on three counts out of four. He should not have two Chaos Lord variants in one force, he should have Move Through Cover on any Khorne units (ie all of his army), and his Juggernaut reasonably should be much weaker.

Moreover, points cost checks:

>Daemon Prince
Should have base cost 60 but resilience should only be 10. 160 is the correct price but your written numbers add up to 165.

>Lord
Points cost adds up right but MtC should be gone, for 146pts total

>Marine Teams
Your friend has done himself dirty, this time. He's paying 10pts for the ToBB when it's only 5, (there's an odd contradiction in the codex where the Book of Khorne section says 10 for ICs and 5 for ACs, while the main wargear says just 5, but either way it us just 5 for an AC), and he's bought a Chainaxe he doesn't need since said AC also has an Axe of Khorne. Each squad should thus come to a neat 240pts. I'm beginning to lean more towards your friend being dopey.

>Dreadnought
A-okay

>Land Raider
A-okay, although why he's purchased an empty transport is bewildering

>>95838624
Thanks for the help, yeah he's a bit different. Honestly my main gripe was the fact his lord would move 6+D6 plus fleet plus 12 inch charge and maybe more I dont recall. Then in combat he would just be immune to anything, all the while another demon lord would be bouncing around. Everything else felt fine it was just 2 super lords against my guard when I had no real way of bringing my guns to bear on the 2 characters. But I can Instant death the guy at least and also there will only be one of them.

Cheers

>>95837893
>>95838624
Final points total:

DP: 160
Lord: 146
Squad A: 240
Squad B: 240
Squad C: 240
Dreadnought: 150
Land Raider: 295

Total: 1471pts

So on the one hand, this army is illegal, and one of either the Juggerlord or the DP has to go. On the other hand, he's already got 29 points to spare, and after trimming his leadership he's got either 175 or 189 pts to throw around total. A unit of Chosen to hop in the LR could be good.

If he's really attached to the Juggerlord model, he could replay it as a Juggerlieutenant instead. Performance is very agreeable, as Lords and Lieuts are identical par 1 less attack for a 15pt saving, functionally identical to Daemonic Mutation. However, Lieutenants can only take 75pts of Wargear, and subtotal 50 of Gifts (including Daemon Weapons). So he'll need to lose about 15pts of Gifts total, which probably means trading the Glaive for a cheaper Daemon Weapon (may need to lose FNP too), Axe of Khorne, Powerfist or plain PW, or ditch the Juggernaut for a level 50 from FNP and Glaive.

Stepping back from the gritty detail, your friends force has aggressive killing ability but feels suboptimal. His DP is slow... I'm baffled as to why you say it's fast, his Land Raider is empty, his Juggerlord joins no-one. He really may have need some rules-breaking to stand well against you. What list were you running?


(.... dear god, he wasn't putting the DP in the LR was he? That is some serious rules breaking. Retroactively take all his wins from him if so)

>>95837893
>My opponent is illiterate
Average Khorne player behavior, you should have expected this.

Also anon, consider abusing pic by flanking with infiltrators or the odd chimera. This rule if abused correctly can set your opponent back several turns.

>>95837893

2 HQ
1 troop
1 Elite
1 Heavy

Is this correct? If so it breaks force org.

>>95838818
>must charge if there are any enemies (INCLUDING VEHICLES OR CREATURES THEY CANNOT HURT) in range at the start of the Assault Phase

tank shock the bastards, kek

>>95838733
>>95838733
Okay, so his Juggerlord certainly cannot move that fast if he is not a Cavalry model, and which is the most fair and reasonable interpretation of the rules. It should move 6+D6" and then charge 6", which should be entirely manageable. His defences are T4, 3+ armour save, Feel No Pain and 4 Wounds, so while that's not frail it should be defeatable. Note that this version of Feel No Pain is ignored by any AP 2 or higher attack / power weapon strike, so your plasma, melta, las and melee champs should be able to rip him up. I hope you have some.

I'm really baffled by the bouncing Daemon Prince. It doesn't have Speed or Flight. Even if he did cheat via Land Raider, that's hardly bouncing.

>ID one of them
Hey, if you have a S10 artillery piece, you can ID the Daemon Prince as well.

>only one of them
See, he could pare down to a Juggerlieut, it's not impossible. But get some good guns and some roadblocker units, and remember: this anon >>95838818 has the right of it. Has your friend being rolling Blood Frenzy for all his units every turn? If they get it, they must disembark and run forward like idiots. You can bait so much dumb stuff with this rule.

>>95838832
Note the x3 under the Berzerker squads.
>1 Elite
Chaos Dreads are HS.

>>95838885
Have to be careful with that if they have power fists in those quads, but if not absolutely. Otherwise just lead them around the nose with at 12" move back towards their board edge, do loop de loops of frothing mad retards trailing you.

Also even if he can hurt the vehicle, doesnt mean he's going to immediately kill it. He could be wrapped up fighting random chimeras turn after turn after turn.

He has so few units, you have plenty of wiggle room to just abuse him silly with a few squads of infiltrators leading him on a goose chase.

>>95838908
>Note the x3 under the Berzerker squads.

I saw it as soon as I posted, my mistake anon.

>>95838914
>if they have power fists
Try to read the army list before giving advice man. They only have Chainaxes and Axes of Khorne, they're safe and sound. Everything else you say is fine, but try to lean in a little. (also grenades can be a threat)

>>95838042
People where not born when return of the king was release in theaters and now are legal in almost every country.

>>95838973
>>95838042
It's true guys. I have a friend and colleague, regular gig and partying comrade, who's 3 years younger than Chaos Space Marines 3.5 edition. We're getting older.

But people are also dropping in their standards of literacy and general attention span, too.

>>95838938
>Try to read the army list before giving advice man.

I'm talking more in the future that in the immediate. Him being absolutely helpless will last exactly 1 game.

>(also grenades can be a threat)
Looking at the list (kek), frag grenades arent doing shit.

If he can upgrade into Krak its still going to be an absolutely the most frustrating shit imaginable.

realistically its going to be either 4s or 6s to hit a vehicle that isnt immobile and it's one grenade attack per model in the squad. He can also expect to see str 6 krak going into AV 12.

On top of all that the vehicle dmg table is incredibly fickle, there's a significant chance he wont do any kind of meaningful dmg.

Unless he's got the luck of the devil, 8 dudes arent going to immediately solve this problem with out a dedicated anti tank weaponry, which again, will make an appearance next game.

>>95838818
>>95838765
>>95838832

For context, it's not like im being tabled, it just felt wrong that our two armies would fight in what felt like normal rules, except his two lords that would just wipe a unit of mine a turn each. Im actually at 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss. It was just that particular lord combo that was a problem.

But knowing about them now all my issues can be rectified easily, my demolisher wont just do a single wound.

As for my list, here it is... and tell me if it's incorrect. Im hamstrung by model availability, all my models are fancy 3rd party ones so it takes time to expand the collection. Eventually I'll have more of everything.

>>95839046
>it's not like im being tabled
Good to hear. I really think next game you're going to be closer to tabling him, hes going to need help.

>my demolisher
That thing is av f14 s13? It will be shitting on his berserkers if you take advantage of the blood rage.

>Im hamstrung by model availability
Buy a 3d printer, GW fan boys will nay say it by explaining how difficult they are to use, but it's so far from the truth. You just need proper space to do it in and some pre supported models.

You'll only ever buy GW minis if on the rare occasion they make something worth buyinh.

>>95839032
>Him being absolutely helpless will last exactly 1 game.
That goes completely against what we have to see of the guy - he seems dopey and not like the type to rapidly adapt or change his army roster. I can see him being attached to his Axe of Khorne models and not wanting to replace them with Power Fists, or even having fists lying around.

>frag grenades arent doing shit.
Well of course not. Were FGs even useable against vehicles back then? My point was if you WERE to account for fresh Power Fits in the future, actually Melta Bombs (you've forgotten about them) are very affordable and require minimal remodelling or list redesign to incorporate. Almost like they were designed that way.

In any case, yeah taking more armour is a great solution for our IG friend against this Khornetard list.

>>95839046
>it's not like im being tabled
That's reassuring, you should clean his clock now (haven't studied your list atm as I can't recall the IG 3.5 list much, no idea if I have the codex)

>my demolisher wont just do a single wound
In fairness, you should know how ID works, and the toughness value of his DP.

>m hamstrung by model availability, all my models are fancy 3rd party ones so it takes time to expand the collection. Eventually I'll have more of everything.
That's normal man, dw and keep at it. List looks pretty good for a cobble job.

>>95839336
I was simply told his toughness was 6. My entire life I've only read witch hunters, imperial guard, tau and Eldar books. This is my first time in my 20 years of playing I've looked at a codex that isn't those. 0 interest in them. But now I know.

>>95839240
Oh yeah no doubt. As for the demolisher I only maybe get a chance to hit his juggalug if I get first turn but heavy is placed well before the mighty jugga and as it stood he'd be in combat every turn almost. So it's been annoying to try shoot him. Plus we play on a big city board right now.

It's been fun, it'll still be fun even. Just got a hunch that something wasn't right.

I do have an 8k resin printer and I've had fun with it but I don't enjoy it like I used to. Plus I've got like 1 year until my savings run out and I'm in-between jobs so I'm just finishing with what I got. I had to travel to the usa to pick it up even, lots of great memories with that thing.

>>95839296
>power fist availability
Good point... he could just proxy it between friends, I think wysiwyg is going to be a lot less strict if 4th ed starts to catch on with modern players, modern base sizes get in the way of many things like templates, disembarking, melee, and god knows what else.

>Were FGs even useable against vehicles back then?

Yes they were, if your troops (orks, guard, eldar) were str 3 you'd need a frag grenade to have any hope against a vehicle, assuming you could hit back armor.

>actually Melta Bombs
Im not sure about the chaos book, but usually anti tank nades are restricted to special units or officers. Paying for a whole squad to get melta is probably more expensive than buying a fist and army wide its probably more efficient to just get a unit of dedicated anti vehicle, I don't have any memory of people upgrading into melta for the sake of anti tank.

My tank bustas are the only unit I ever fielded because they had anti tank nades.

>>95839424
Wow. Your friend took you for a ride, basically. I'm not even sure if DPs went up to T6 in 5th edition? Although I think they became ID proof then so it's a wash. Your friend might not know any better.... but I wouldn't trust him as a source from now on.

>>95839464
Yeah our IG friend COULD let him proxy.... but after what he's done for the last several games? Justice, I say let him keep his S4 overpriced axes.

Cool, I knew FGs could do that in 4th and 5th but didn't know it was an option back then.

>Melta Bombs
Right here in wargear, all characters can buy them for 5pts a pop without replacing a weapon. That's one in every squad and available on the Lords/Lieutenants as well, and ultimately one MB can hit very hard. En-masse is nastier but beggars can't be choosers, it's a Khorne 3.5th ed list.

God, the glory days of Tankbustas..... iconic unit. I love Orkish explosives, they're so characterful.

>>95839477
Nah he got me into wargaming as a kid in 06. Normally he's good with rules, this is a first to be honest. We play several game systems and go to tons of various tournaments. Maybe he's going through something and didn't give the rules his full attention or something. Don't think Ill of him, trust.

>>95839549
Well, I don't know the guy, so you may be right. Tbh I feel like I'm going through a rusty patch in other areas rn, my brain has been foggy for days after a rough weekend. I'm talking Warhammer with you guys as a break lol. Have fun with your games all the same man.

>>95839556
I used to watch 30+ year Olds play when I was in my teens and crack up at how they were so forgetful and needed to recheck rules or got confused with older editions or other systems etc. Now it's part of wargaming with people haha except kids today don't read so I don't even get to be impressed by them.

Anyway thanks for the help, you too.

>>95838042
Buddy what the hell is this argument. I didn't say people have to have prerequisite knowledge of a Ld test who have never played the game. I said once they play it once they know. Also, it was the same 2d6 score equal or under mechanic in every single edition of the game from RT to 7th and the new Horus Heresy stuff that comes after. And it's covered in the Morale section.

You're just not getting it. We need someone who isn't thick to actually write this stuff. Put the proper information in the place where it belongs with the proper wording. The 3rd and 4th ed rulebooks already did this very well for the most part.

>>95839548
>all characters can buy them for 5pts a pop without replacing a weapon.

Every army is like that, but 1 attacking needing a 4 or a 6 to hit and again, even on a penetrating hit you might not do shit to the vehicle. You just don't have the volume of dice needed to satisfy anti tank needs.

Lets suppose for a moment that it isnt a chimera, but say a SM Dread, or a squad of killa kanz, or any walker with a power pist/claw.

In this scenario, the zerkers could just as easily be ground into sausage as they are to win the fight.

Assuming model availability isnt an issue, the list needs powerfists and dedicate squads of anti tank of the ranged variety.

Taking melta is a step in the right direction, but its still incredibly swingy as to if it can actually impact a game.

>>95839616
>The 3rd and 4th ed rulebooks already did this very well for the most part.

My problem with 3rd and 4th is that they can be overly wordy and some rules which are similiar to other rules, but have this very small which may not stand out and is easily missed, but are absolutely vital to be observed.

A few off the top of my head:

mother fucking target priority.

Blast rolls for partials, but ordinance doesn't.

Ordinance has a different penetrating hits chart.

Dedicated transports cant be shared.

ATSKNF doesn't make your guys morale proof.

Characters in melee, read up on it, it can get pretty sweaty with how you can use it to your advantage.

>>95839616
Glad you volunteered, it's settled then. Keep us posted anon.

Alright. Here's all the non WD publications of the era. Circle what should be used, cross out what shouldn't. we need a consensus on exactly what books are going into this doc so we know what to work on.

>>95840128
Here, I couldn't tell you which Tyranids book is better or which supplements should or shouldn't be considered though.

>>95840128
I'd also add the Imperial Armour publications from 4th edition.

>>95839785
Reliable tank killing is very important, and being honest the Khorntard list was fairly lacking, but my point is more about making sure that Blood Frenzy units don't go chasing tanks they can't hurt like idiots forever. Meltabombs, like a random combi-melta, are a deterrent, not a main weapon but something that CAN deal a lot of damage, and thus places the onus of uncertainty on the enemy.

>>95840128
I honestly think these info boxes would be better if the 3.5th edition books were separated from the rest.

>>95840759
There's literally no reason for it. "3.5" was never an actual thing it was just a colloquialism people came up with later, and there were only four books that fell under it. It's just the second Chaos and Guard books and the two Hunters.

>>95840489
>crossing out Tyranids 4th
Are you retarded

>>95840282
>>95840489
now, i'm not familar with the book, was everything in index astartes covered in the 4e book?

>>95840973
not my crossout, but these are the questions worth asking, well, in some ways.

>>95840489
Why was 4e nids crossed out, anon ?

>>95840973
>>95841001
3e Tyranids codex provides more customization, and the same units as the 4e codex. Given, they are DAMN close in quality, so I wouldn't fault anyone for preferring the 4e codex. It was a close call, and I might change my mind later.

>>95840967
Disagree, there was a huge difference in connotation and feel towards the end of 3rd edition, which is precisely why the term 3.5th has such weight in the common lexicon. Moreover, Tau and Necrons were very much 3.5th edition books, and they played strongly over most (or in Necrons' case, ALL) of 4th ed's life span.

>>95840489
>crossed out 4th tyranids
Retard-kun I...

>>95841038
Tau got replaced in 4th anon, I dont think you really know what youre talking about. And Orks 3rd codex was well before the period dubbed "3.5" but it felt more like one of those dexes.

>>95841033
>3e Tyranids codex provides more customization, and the same units as the 4e codex
Not really no. All the biomorph customization shit from the back of the 3rd dex just got moved into the main profiles but with way more options. New syanpse countering instant death also made warriors viable, and it added the Broodlord too which wasnt in 3rd. 4th was much better overall.

>>95840759
Look, man, just know that shit that isn't crossed out in the images posted by TWO FUCKING PEOPLE above is good stuff. Trust your elders, newfag. This isn't nu40k

>>95840282
It is generally recognized that the 4th ed bid book was the best one, but the 3rd ed one was pretty cool too. It’s a close tie imo and I would leave it down to the player personally. 3rd ed was a mess of book with the mutations system, but once you learned it it was cool. But it almost entirely can be replicated in the 4th ed book. The biggest difference imo is how spore mines are handled. Both books are clunky, iirc 5th Ed ironically has the most elegant rules for spore mines.

>>95840993
I'm hesitant to say yes, would require some careful cross-referencing. Index Astartes had a lot of material.

>>95841059
>Tau got replaced in 4th
So did Chaos Marines, what's your point? I wouldn't snooty and snipey about this, Tau v1 were a late gamechanger in 3rd and everyone knows this.

>>95841095
I've been on /tg/ since 2011, do not call me "nufag". My commentary had absolutely nothing to do with this "Bible" project, and I doubt you are my elder.

>4e
Space Marines
Black Templars
Tau
Tyranids
>3e/3.5e
Everything else

>>95841197
Is put eldar in 4th as well just cause of 3 shot starcannons. Also the 4th wraith lord is hot.

Are you people aware that the original OP for both Fourk and this "4th edition bible" project did all of this in order to kickstart a movement of "4th edition fans" with the eventual goal of KILLING modern 40k fans?

You people are supporting terrorism. You're supporting a project intended to drum up hatred towards GW and the modern fandom/playerbase with the goal of MASS SHOOTINGS. Just making sure everyone here is aware: YOU ARE SUPPORTING A LONG-TERM PROJECT WITH THE ENDGOAL OF TERRORISM AGAINST 40K FANS IN ORDER TO "REPLACE MODERN 40K." Be aware of this thread's actual intended purpose, don't listen to anyone who claims it's just "a bunch of guys wanting to play older editions." This is an attack, a threat of actual violence against modern 40k players and possibly GW themselves. Please take this to heart, I don't want people getting hurt

>>95841322
>opens up youtube
>MWG has been playing 4th ed games for several months
>very popular, 10k+ views on average each battle report.

It's working.

With regards to the optional addition of newer units mentioned several threads ago before it became a general I assume it would be for actual new units.

Again this is OPTIONAL to allow new decent models to be used with backporting.

So for instance paragon warsuit for SoB can easily be backported and can exist. But 90% of the CSM stuff doesnt need to exist as its either looks like shite (Khorne 8-bound) or are really just models for existing stuff already (the deathguard termis are just chosen terminators, flawless blades are just power armoured chosen with MoS so making them seperate units isnt needed.

I mainly suggest this as our group who has been playing 4th for a while uses some fo the full on new units in special missions in our campaign as an excuse to have models we think are cool whilst not overly using them or dealing with dogshit mdoels like the baby-carrier, 8-bound etc. Its mainly in very large/apocalypse games as well.

>>95841527
The paragon warsuit is the prime example of modern mainstream garbage taste infecting the hobby anon.

>>95841527
The current scope is just for existing stuff from this edition, but we can look at backporting other stuff that's ok looking later. If your table wants to add rules that fit the era in the meantime to more justify recent models, hey, do what you want. I'd say just don't impose it on the whole project and cause friction before it's even an option on the table.

>>95841589
and by later, I mean for the expanded, fan edition we've been talking about, This 3.5/4e edition needs to remain pure and free of any more modern influence.

>>95841566
I think theyre a nice model but again I understand that some people hate some stuff like how I hate other models.
>>95841589
Understandable, I mentioned it just to say that the backporting for some stuff is easy and that if people wanted to do it (as in ahead of this project) they need to think a bit about what the units represent lorewise. Personally as a chaos player I dont really care either way as purely 4th with the 3.5 edition book is fun enough.

Anyone wants to check the last part of the last page of the SRD (Mission Special Rules - second half) and tell me if it all makes sense to them or need a strong rewording?

>>95841792
"SS" should probably be spelled out as Starting Strength just for clarity, the "[game point limit] / # of tokens" should be spelled out as well, and are victory points intended to be integral to these missions, or optional? if integral i would look at having this in the section explaining the mission, if not, don't worry about that, just make the optional part of VP more clear.

>>95841322
>You people are supporting terrorism.
inshallah my brother

>>95841835
I'll add that I haven't taken a proper look at the doc to give my notes yet, so I can do that here soon. It's not a very long one.

>>95841880
Thanks anon, appreciate the efforts.

Alright, so discourse is leaning towards these:
3rd:
>BA
>DA
>SW
>CSM (2nd printing)
>IG (2nd printing)
>Catachans
>Orks
>Assassins
>Eldar
>Craftworld Eldar
>Dark Eldar
>Witch hunters
>Daemonhunters
>Necrons

4th:
>SM
>Tyranids
>Black templars
>Tau empire

Does this sound right to everyone?
Are there any reasons to use an older printing, or a newer one? Is the reason a specific unit, or the whole thing being better?

>>95841934
Is there not weird point discrepencies between BA, DA, and SW in 3rd compared to the SM and BT using 4th when theyre mostly the same faction?

>>95841929
Immediate notes:
>unit types summary
the average number of models in units part seems unnecessary, just say the unit's profile will say how many models it can take, min and max.
>infantry
would add "human, alien and otherwise"
>jump infantry
i believe jet packs were a seperate unit type with their own rules that only saw a few entries, but the separation will matter down the line

I'm also noticing that these entries for the units are lacking the movement values for each of them, and so far i have only seen the beginning of the movement phase section say that infantry moves 6". I'm wondering if i might be reading an older version of the doc.

>>95841934
Chaos 3.5 is just straight up better and the best codex ever made so long as you dont WAACfag it by playing Iron Warriors Obliterator spam. It has huge depth on how every unit can be altered. You can make 1k plus pts chaos chosen units just for the fun of it in huge games. The Monogod legions (or mono god renegades) actually have lots of options and play very differently despite mostly sharing the same base units. This is before you even factor in veteran skills and whatnot.

>>95841934
For Dark Eldar, the revised codex should be used, which you don't have listed. Most of its upgrades were actually shit (the Wych melee invulnerable being a notable exception), but it was better than nothing.

>>95841322

>>95842018
I see the later breakdown on units is also lacking the distinct movement values. We'll want to double check that, since memorizing the differences between the unit types and what they did was key back then.

>>95841934
Yeah this is pretty much correct.

>>95842082
>Vehicle profiles
I'd change FA / SA / RA to just F / S / R to match the way most of us remember it. visibly easier to absorb. I'd also keep things like unit details and explanation for each together in the same page. the 'one spread per issue' idea should help with that.
>shooting phase
"partially within" on the cover part should be more clear.
>assault
on the close combat summary I would say "pick a combat" then explain how to start by choosing units by initiative order to fight. Grenades absolutely need a good explanation. In general we should likely use less shorthand for terms to keep it easier. Too much shorthand and it starts looking like an algebra problem.
>characters
I personally don't feel it's necessary to ask to use a named character in your army. stating when psychic powers are used would be helpful here.
>Missions
There's a whole other section about campaigns and stuff that wasn't in my mini rulebook back in the day that seems like a good idea to include here, along with options like cityfight when we add that. Also the types of missions (alpha, gamma, omega) should probably be expanded on. Alpha doesn't make much sense to have nothing in it, unless the point is "kill the other side", which should be clear.


Overall, it's not a bad doc, just needs some work. I'd like to take a crack at redesigning it visually so it works a bit better while still keeping the single issue to a section intact, as well as adding the margin notes to help skip around as needed. That won't be as necessary in a doc this size, but it will be helpful as we add more.

Finished transcribing the ork dex for 4th, though we're not planning on using that one i'm sure a good chunk of the work will transfer just fine to the 3rd when i start that tomorrow most likely. I'll share both just in case anything from 4th is used. theres a good number of differences, but it's not too bad. the hardest part is done. Not looking forward to doing the SM codex.

>>95843828
Good work anon, sorry you put all that work into the wrong codex but I think at least some of it will help in the long run.

>>95843929
Eh, better to learn. Also I found out why I never used grenades, because I never understood how they worked in this edition

>>95827487
I happened to have the "real" version of one of them (Caslon Antique) so here's a link for whoever wants it.

https://g0file.io / d/Zr1OyU

>>95833838
Not that hard. Pre-radio baseline humans managed to do it regularly. You can gate it behind an LD check to do it and be able to act afterwards, but "run" is a pretty simple command in of itself and having melee be an absolute shield against ranged weapons was always retarded

>>95816129
Finally getting the Space Wolves' options to play ball. Once I get through the 13th Co. I think that's all for Marines.
Also how do I know if my Deldar book is the original version or the updated one before I get into all the Eldar?

>>95845176
>Pre-radio baseline humans managed to do it regularly.
No they didn't. The moment you run from combat tended to turn into a rout where you just got run down and killed. It's where the vast majorities of all casualties ever caused in war came from before artillery was invented.

>>95845176
Retreating from a melee engagement where the enemy is both willing and capable of pursuing without it all going horribly wrong has always been basically impossible, especially in a vacuum of one formation against one formation. Either the enemy willingly allows you to retreat or something prevents them from doing so, usually being threatened by another enemy unit who are threatening to cause some serious damage if the pursuing unit ends up out of position and disorganised.

>>95844794
Fuck is this link sending me to and why is my computer warning me about it?

>>95841437
11th edition will destroy all interest in this project in one year. This will never work. Primarchs and Primaris are here to stay, bitch

>>95845869
This isn't even good bait, you need to be more subtle anon. Here's your pity (You).

>>95844794
>>95845834
Oh sorry I'm retarded and forgot to replace the 0 in the link

>>95845834
>https://gofile.io/ d/Zr1OyU

yeah i checked it, once you fix the zero it's good.

>>95846915
thanks anon

>>95845869
Ok, you have my permission to go play that if you want. Someone needs to like it, and if they did go and make a better edition, hey that's great. I like what I started with.

>>95845869
I spent my last two weeks working on this project and I believe you.

>>95847159
It's over for you. If anyone at my LGS spotted you playing 4th edition, we'd kill you. Hail 10th edition! Hail story progression! Down with grimdark, up with nobledark!

>>95848894
How many funko pops and/or joytoys do you own

++ SRD UPDATED ++

Hey anons, the SRD has been updated from 0.90 to 0.95
Link right here: gofile. io/ d/7PEVLP

So what's been done so far? At first glance not much (except a cheeky nod to 2nd edition era vibrant style) but under the hood it's pretty cool: 100% of the original SRD has been rewritten from Word to Affinity Publisher so from now on any single addition or edition will be few clicks away instead of a massive headache.

I've also added page numbers, a table of contents, hyperlinks to it plus crunched few double pagers as a single page (Vehicle in Details I & II and Missions I & II).

This new pdf has been designed as a double pages spread but saved as single page so you can read it as fits you the most: single page or facing pages.

What's next?
There's every single community updates so far to go through, digest and update the SRD with: https://mega.nz/file/RCIXVbLK#Oii31z1TFWDRzHiivj4XtQqDfaR7tielWtuqy-Ivroo
Same for this post >>95841835
We can also toy with fonts >>95827345
And with sidebar referencing >>95826513

But the thing is, I'm too shit at 4th Ed. to go through the Community Updates on the SRD all by my own. We'll have to focus on a Chapter by Chapter basis so you grogs can hold my hand and pinpoint to me what exactly needs change and where.

++ SRD Updated ++

Anyone know where I can find 7th edition Codex's? Primarily looking for full 7th editions Space Marine, elder, and CSM.

Thanks in advance.

>>95849624
Very nice. glad to see my suggestions are taking root. I might need access to the actual project file to mess with it, but it may just work off the pdf, i haven't messed with affinity too much outside making a character sheet.

I'm working my way through the 3rd edition ork dex now, just got done with wargear and moving on to actual stat changes. (I can really feel the 9 years between books in the way its written. people were giving the 4th ed book shit, but I'm thinking a good chunk of the updates were necessary. Haven't played them in that edition though, so I'll have to try it before passing judgement too fast)

>>95849624
So, to illustrate my last point: the Vehicle Characteristics community update says to separate the Vehicle Profile from the Walker Profile, which I did. But it also adds to put in the Margin of Victory Table and I'm like "wtf is that shit?"

So expect to see me here a lot asking a fair bunch of concrete questions and posting mock-up waiting for grognards to give a green light on a page by page slow process.

>>95849721
Kek. It's really just (You) and (I) in here, isn't it? Well, thanks for your service anon.

I can send you the original in ten-ish hours, meanwhile just let me know if you want it posted here or on a temporary email address.

>>95849727
the majority of my games were what i think is called alpha, kill the other guy type fights back in the day, so unfortunately i don't have a great amount to go off of

>>95849701
We've only got links for the old stuff here, pre 5th, you might want to see if 40k general has something, unless someone else wants to post.


>>95849776
I sent you an email on the one you listed in the previous doc, you can send it there as well.

>>95849624
Based, good progress anon, thanks for the update. I'm still slowly getting around to reading everything in 3rd and 4th so I can be a reference advisor for material moving forward.

>>95849727
>Margin of Victory Table
Here anon, page 86, just bragging rights for how bad you beat your opponent. Got nothing to do with vehicles, seems like a mistake that somebody put it there.

>>95849721
>transcribing the 3rd ed waaagh rules
>EVERY CHARGE roll 2d6, if under the size of your mob they DOUBLE their initiative, meaning mobs of 12 or more automatically get this.
>any footslogging orks can rejoin other units of the same kind to rebuild their size, with specific rules for mixed armor
>Choppaz reduce armor saves to 4+, no matter what.
now i'm starting to see what we lost and still haven't recovered from this era. Still think there's a few improvements in the 4th for certain things, but it's a travesty we lost such good rules.

>>95849818
You rang the wrong number, nuSRD guy post some socials later (or on the next revision of the doc).
>>95849624
Congrats. You might make it. I hope you will.

>>95849624
Lovely work anon. Glad you are having a good time with the affinity publisher.

>>95850397
I understand why they got rid of the 4+ save choppa rule, it should have been replaced with something else instead of deleted entirely but in that form it doesn't really make any sense at all. A choppa can cut through Terminator armour with contemptuous ease, but the mighty Guard-issue flak jacket provides its full defence against a choppa? Completely whack, it should have been a flat -1 to enemy armour save rolls or something instead of the bizarre backwards scaling where the weapon gets less deadly the worse the target's armour is.

>>95850397
Kek, that image

>>95850529
Agreed, I never liked that rule, but I do agree they should have SOMETHING to replace it, even if it's just choppas hitting at +1 Strength.

>>95850529
I think it was there to show that it eats through armor the same regardless. The guard don't get it any better or worse that way, and you have good incentive to take them out before they get in close combat. I think it's also there to equal out all the little shenanigans that kill your orks on the way to the enemy. their meks and doks only heal a single wound or fix a vehicle's damage on a 6, and can make it worse on a 1, many weapons damage or outright kill their users on a 6 or 1, you're not in full control of the force like you are with most imperium armies. Even if they got rid of the choppaz having heavy, and only gave it to big choppaz, which is fair, they still could have kept the better Waaagh rules.

Something to consider for the future fan edition.

>>95850601
The rationale given by Chambers was that Orks needed something so their attacks didn't all just bounce off marines in close combat given the new AP system was all or nothing, when previously in 2nd edition choppas were I believe a -1 AP weapon.

Problem was the actual implementation was kind of bad for reasons the other anon already described.

>>95850619
The rational is fair, he was probly erring on the side of caution. But the fact of the matter is that basic attacks like those of orks Should bounce off marines.
>>95850529
Flat -1 would be better for sure but I still think that’s a bit much. Personally I am a big proponent for having even basic melee weapons at least something over the ubiquitous ccw. Chain swords could be something like +1 strength with exploding 6s. Choppas could have like bathe rending, a 6 to wound is -1 armour save.

>>95850397
Are orks i2 or i3 I forget?

>>95850715
I2, but Nobz were 3.

>>95850619
well, it's really only terminator equivalents that suffer from it, tac marines still get a save that's only -1 to their normal save, and they're both gonna dish it right back to them harder at mostly the same initiative since orks have only a 6+ in most cases. I know from a logic perspective it should just tear through it in general, but this doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. recent rules that lower the save with AP absolutely fucked me from having any save whatsoever, so that felt worse.

>>95850715
boyz are I2, nobz are 3, so the one big guy gets to hit before the marines, then the boyz strike at the same time, at least getting a few more hits in.

>>95850733
Interesting. I can see why they changed the rule then, orks should never be striking before eldar which I think are i5.

>>95850758
With WAAAGH momentum yes they should.

>>95850790
Lol no they should not

>>95850758
>orks should never be striking before eldar
well, they don't own initiative 5, and we're not talking about every single ork, there was only one per mob you could upgrade to a nob, nobz also didn't have units in this edition, so the only ones capable of doing this were the leaders of the units and any characters you had that got a higher initiative. everyone else struck after the eldar, even with the waaagh working.

>>95850810
In 2nd edition initiative didn't even determine hit order. Andy Chambers himself gave the Orks that double initiative rule in 3rd. And the 4th ed Ork Codex that took it away was made past the cut-off point where the designers can be trusted - the rules were taking a turn for the worse by that point, the good people were gone.

>>95850814
I could maybe see a ork war boss striking at equal to an elf, but certainly not before.

>>95850814
What determined hit order in 2e? I never played that one. Also the Phill Kelly ork codex is really really good. So you really not like it at all?

>>95850898
>What determined hit order in 2e?
You fought simultaneously and the winner got the hits through while blocking whatever their opponent did. The way it actually worked was you rolled a number of dice equal to your attacks, took the highest one, and added its result to your Weapon Skill, plus some other modifiers and abilities like parry that let you force re-rolls and stuff. You compare the final number to your opponent and you hit them a number of times equal to the difference, so like if you got a 9 and they got a 7 you hit them twice.

Initiative was the tie-breaker, so if it was a draw the one who was faster got to sneak one hit in.

>>95850898
olden daemon has a good video explaining that era's mechanics if you want to go more into /grog/ territory than what we're doing.

>>95850917
That’s actually really awesome sounding. Did it play out well? Makes me think of the risk dice pair off mechanic.

>>95850959
It's awesome for small games, because every one of these fights is one on one, model to model. Meaning if you charged 10 orks into 10 tactical marines you were rolling these dice 10 separate times. It didn't work for larger games, which is part of why 3rd ed simplified everything.

>>95851363
yeh that makes sense, could fit well with Challenges though.

Most of 3rd ork dex is transcribed, just a few more units that weren't in it later, and some to remove. then the armory, and that one's ready to put into a PDF for formatting.

>>95849624

looking good! never played 4th but appreciate the efforts of those involved, I love community shit like this.

>>95819376
honestly it kind of amazes me that GW has been able to resist the temptation of doing something with the 2nd and 11th legions and/or their Primarchs over all these years

>>95854053
The remaining old heads in charge of the lore have some integrity left and the suits probably don't really care about the specifics of what they put out as long as it's profitable. I don't think we'll see anything about the lost legions until GW either near completely runs out of existing things to release or sales start tanking really badly and they need an emergency action to get people interested again, neither of which seem particularly likely in the foreseeable future.

>>95825572
Good call, I'll double check to make sure it's at least in the Vehicle chapter and if it is, make a reference to it in the Terrain chapter.

I'd like to rework the Terrain chapter anyway to highlight that an Area can belongs to more than one single category, and said categories can vary depending on your models (Vehicle or Non-Vehicle) and spot (bridge on a river, safe path in a minefield, collapsed stairs in a building, etc).
Maybe I should add a "Create your Own Terrain" (rulewise, not craftwise) page for this. What do you guys reckon?

When the SRD is complete, there should be additional supplements that adds all the new units in, so that new players with newer armies may be able to play. New blood is needed - we can gatekeep, of course, but that means that sometimes you open the gate to those with the right attitude. And sometimes, that might include those who have numarine armies. Thoughts?

>>95854754
Yeah, I'm not srd anon but the guy transcribing the ork dex, I fully intend to have a system in place for everyone to make a rules doc for anything they want to backport as well as guidelines to keep it in the same scope.

On that note, I had a thought about the mention of base sizes. It's likely people are going to be using more modern minis in these rules, and not a ton of people who have minis from back then will be using them with the same bases. I'm not GW and I don't expect anyone to rebase their army to play this system, so I would say there should be a "minimum" or "suggested" base size for units, and the guidelines should be to stay within a few mm of that as often as you can. Hell, marines back in the day were on 25mm's and those were too small most of the time, all the basic ones were hanging off of them. A slightly larger footprint in general shouldn't break the game, and you shouldn't play with Waacfags that are modeling everything on 60 mms because hurr durr "the rules don't say I can't". That's not the spirit of this era and that mentality should be ignored not placated.

>>95854395
yeah i like that, though the guidelines on what is possible for terrain are pretty extensive, check those first. difficult/ dangerous with some additional rules like minefields are fun.

>>95855427
Someone, most likely you, already mentionned that earlier in this thread. I didn't quote a four (You) in my SRD Update post because I was already jugglong with too many posts but I think it's a welcome addition.

The thing is we'll need a grog to make that list first, only then I can format it nicely.

>>95855901
(cont)
Thinking of it I could most likely add it on the Unit Type page since base sizes should more or less the same for all Infantry type or all Jetbike type, no?

>>95855901
(that wasn't me with the bases, but i'm glad someone's on the same page) There were really only a few options for bases back in the day, so it should be pretty easy to categorize.
basic troops were always on 25mm,
heavier troops like terminators finally got 40mm bases in 4th (previously also on 25mm, they looked ridiculous)
anything larger went on a 60mm, also in late 3rd/4th. 50mm rounds weren't introduced till later, dreads, wraithlords, deff dreads, carnifexes and other bigger models were actually on square fantasy bases until the model refresh in that era. I wouldn't bother with those as they looked jarringly different compared to the round ones, but if someone has an old one on that they can do what they like.
the only other weird one was the oblong ones for bikes, easily subbed in for oval ones of the current era.

>>95856003
so, i would put suggested base sizes by type:
>Basic infantry: 25-32mm
>Heavy infantry: 40-50mm
>Walkers and monstrous creatures: 50-80mm
That covers pretty much everything that needed a base back in the day

>For units like bikes or other units with a longer footprint, a base should contour to their shape as much as possible, which may require a more oval base than a round one to save space.
>Not every unit needs a base. vehicles with more than 2 wheels don't generally need a base as they can stand on their own, but may have one that fits the contour of the model if desired

>>95854754
For numarines backporting is stupid, my group just use the primaris models as space marines. At best I can begrudgingly understand the unique weapon units etc. For stuff like chaos space marines there is literally no point as the 3.5 codex represents the good units better with chosen and whatever mark you give them. Such as flawless blades are just MoS chosen, 8-bound are shit but are easily explained with MoK chosen and daemon upgrades etc. You only really need it for stuff that has no easy representation such as the new vehicles. Vehicles as well are more forgiving as the custom vehicles rules were still around or can be frontported from 2nd.

>>95856563
I'd agree with this. if someone wants to use new weapons, go for it, make the profile, but the primaris storyline was just there to justify them not killing off their remaining stock for more true-scale marines because people would be pissed if they were forced to buy a whole new force.

I don't mind someone using the new ones, even if i prefer the old sculpts (particularly on the helmets) but we already had the issue a year ago on fourk that kept fucking up the thread when people insisted on it. You want it? Make it. but wait till we're working on the fan edition with backports and idealized rules before really getting into it.

>>95850810
>get charged by an army with virtually no shooting
>one guy in the squad might go first
>this isnt fair

okay anon.

>>95850898
>I could maybe see a ork war boss striking at equal to an elf, but certainly not before.

Person who actually spent years playing 4th with the 3rd ed book.

While the waaagh rule sounds great on paper in practice it never worked like you guys think it did. If you upgraded your nob into a Uge Choppa or a Power Klaw, which you always fucking did, you always struck last.

The only exception to this is your warboss and his nob retinue, assuming they had a choppa equipped. Though I would argue my 20+ pt melee focused models better be fucking swinging before your guardians.

>>95856003
Basing doesnt matter in 4th as long as you dont go smaller than what was originally supplied.

>>95856792
exactly, so if we put the minimum that things came with we'll be fine. newer ones are (thankfully) bigger but a few mm doesn't really add up to a problem in the vast majority of cases.

>>95856563
The only true weakness of the chaos 3.5 ed book is that it doesn’t actually have berserkers, plague marines, and normal csm with the mark of tzeench. I really like how in the 4th ed book they separated the super chosen from the basic marks of chaos.

>>95842030
Unlike with CSM and IG the DEldar codex was exactly the same save for the addition of the two or three pages adding the Wych stuff, so when people say DEldar codex it's always refering to the later version.

>>95856563
>8-bound are shit but are easily explained with MoK chosen and daemon upgrades etc
Wouldn't those guys be better as possesed with a Khorne skin?
Also, yeah, agreed with your post. My friend uses his intercessors as tacticals. I don't like it, but it's the compromise I need to make in order to keep the game alive, because if I forced him to rebuy his army he'd lose interest (and very understandably).
As for the vehicles, we either use the vehicle design rules or just make a brand new unit entry. His Repulsor is now a Land Raider Repulsor, for example.

>>95856874
It has berserkers and plague marines. Applying the mark heavily alters the unit and its options. That si what a KB or a PM is. Noise marines arent really anything other than CSM with MoS and sonic weapons. They dont need to be a full seperate unit. None-rubricae MoT CSM understand but you could lower the points cost and give them some other benefit but that requires some weird fan rules stuff.

>>95856679
I think its mostly new players that joined in 8th onwards who dont really understand how units work and think that stuff exists how it does in the game being distinct datasheets/entries etc. rather than that beuing done for balance. For example all the chaos units that are in power armour are basically either CSM or chosen with various marks and wargear. Nurgle fart cannoneers terminators and farmer tool weapon are easily differentiated by picking wargear to represent them as theyre both just MoN terminators. A marine or a CSM is just that before you give them wargear and veteran upgrades. A (cs)marine. GW even built the game's entries based on starting from this and limiting wargear to make the game balanced.

TLDR: They think the 'unit' is the models in the box instead of the models just being a kit to build somethign that represents the unit itself.

>>95857070
Sure, its more I think the models are fuicking dogshit and a person playign 4th should at least have better taste than using them. Sure as a base to do conversions on (Im getting the 30k saturnine terminators to make obliterators from by greenstuffing etc.) but using them to represent either possessed or chosen with lots of the daemonic upgrades is fine. My group has done the same with the new marines for my BT army and my friend's BA army. Admittingly I wish I used some of the olt school bolters but its mostly fine.

I dont even mind the odd new vehicle so long as its rare as in a relic from the chapter's armoury etc. as you could make a vehicle have hover movement with the custom vehcile rules for 2nd.

>>95856287
I made a quick update, you let me know if that's cool or not.

>>95856679
What truely new weapons are there? The only think I can think of is the jump pack autocannon dude. Everything else has a direct analog.
>eradicatinators, melta guns
>hell blaster dudes, plasma guns
>desicrationsterors, missile launchers
>eradicatanators, las cannons
I think the thing that specifically would need something new is actually gravis armour but not the guns.

>>95857079
That was kinda my point. Beyond 3.5 ed, berserkers pleasure marines throusand sons and noise marines are notably NOT just csm with their marks. They are like one level up. And it’s been this way for such a long time that a lot of people actually forget that it wasn’t always like that. My initial list was careful cause like you pointed out noise marines are mostly about their special equipment which was in the 3.5 ed book, and so where the all is dust thousand sons.

In my opinion a khorne berserker should not be the same thing as a csm with the mark of khorne.

>>95856808
i will say the only time bigger is an issue is for disembarkation and blast templates, but other than that youre gucci.

>>95857079
>TLDR: They think the 'unit' is the models in the box instead of the models just being a kit to build somethign that represents the unit itself.

>modern players dont understand making your own dudes
fucking grim.

>>95825572
Updated version: I added a small sentence at the end of Difficult Terrain to check the same section on page 19 for Non-Vehicle Units and updated said section on said page.

See picrel to make sure I didn't omit anything or if you want to reword it in a better way.

>>95857795
Imo they should be just that, as thats MoK and giving them chainaxes is what makes them a berserker. the Mark is what makes them a cult marine ansd gives them the power. You can gear them fully up or not at all. The fully geared up version IS the max the unit should be without getting into super special rule wank which just causes an arms race. Plus the 4th ed codex for chaos is absolutely dogshit to begin with. Everyone uses the 3.5 version as its more fun and more customisable.

>>95857670
I would use the word "suggested" at some point to make it clear it's not a big deal, but outside that looks good.

>>95858193
For the continuing to move in difficult terrain part, I would word it "If a vehcile begins its movement already 6" or more within difficult terrain, -etc"

And instead of "becomes a casualty" (which sounds more like something a soldier might have) i would use the same nomenclature of the vehicle damage table and say "the vehicle is destroyed"

It does look like the shooting explanation cuts off at the top there after explaining defensive weapons.

>>95858193
I would mention something about mounted weapons like sponsons only being able to see fire at the arc they are attached to

I would also say "one embarked passenger may fire per firing point on the vehicle" and make some note of the location they are firing from.

>templates are assumed to have struck the side armor in the case of Barrage _weapons_

I think we need to be a bit more clear on what AP weapons means at the bottom.

>>95858342
actually, if you uploaded it to google docs and set it to allow suggestions I can go page by page and recommend wording as well.

>>95858247
I won’t argue about the rest of the 4th book being worse. It’s very bland by comparison. But the unique faction specific units were cool.

>>95858193
Looking at this, it comes to mind you should probably change the style (or at least colour) on the tables to match the powerful yellow (or whatever you end up going with in the end). Some kind of border or something, maybe even just along the bottom would help a lot visually. And since it's digital, a "night mode" version might also be nice as an alternative in the future, though I think some PDF viewers can invert documents natively so maybe not necessary.

Not important stuff, but I thought about it and wanted to get it out there.

>>95856679
Is there any actual new weapons for them? Only ones that come to mind are the sniper guys, the rest are pretty much just very specific loadouts (Inceptors = assault marines with 2 plasma pistols etc)

>>95858877
Depends how autistic you want to get about "auto bolt rifles" "stalker bolt rifles" "executor heavy bolters" etc.

>>95857767
Phobos armor i would argue are the only ones, Gravis armor can be just made by giving terminators 2 powerfists with combi bolters or flamers

>>95858885
They removed that, only the underbarrel grenade launcher thing is still in the big game, the different bolters are only in Killteam

>>95858895
Oh good. Yeah the underslung grenade launcher can just be a combi-grenade launcher which existed in the 3rd edition codex too, I think.

>>95858906
Yeah, so all we really need to make new players be able to play, is include marine squad that starts with 3 models with extended wargear options, like taking a jump pack and an autocannon

>>95858886
Aggressinators are probly the worst looking and most replaceable (as in like you pointed out they really overlap with terminators). I find the heavy intercessorsorpetors be a really cool niche that isn’t really filled outside of using your terminators badly and centurions. Heavily armoured dudes with heavy machine guns that have more mobility than devestators but also less firepower.

>>95858920
well we can hit that later once this first part is good. keep your notes for it tho, should be easy to add to the armory.

>>95858295
All great calls. I messed a bit with the table and ended up masking a bit of the Shooty blurbs, thanks for catching that.

>>95858342
I'm a 4th Edishlet so any single missing rule you catch you'll have to post a picture or reference it from the Core Rulebook so I can go and check it before I try to dogest and synthetize it.

But yeah you're right a Google Doc would be way better. I'll set one up tomorrow. It's past time we tool up for the job! Be aware though that I'm still updating the SRD according to what was posted the last 3 threads so don't bother going further away than Page 1-10 + 19 for now.

>>95858842
Yellow and Red is a placeholder, it's 2nd Edition era Heavy Metal vibe and I was sure to take the piss for it. Weirdly enough I didn't so it's still here for now.
We already had cool suggestions for 4th era appropriate Fonts but if you want to suggest a colorscheme please go on, it's appreciated. Tell me more about the borders too, we go full frame thick lines? What's on your mind?

>>95859268
NTA but for 4th edition you want to be going more on the black and white and slate grey side of things if you're trying to stay closer to the original book.

>>95859268
First of all, maybe there is a nice vector or transparent PNG for the 4th edition grim and dark logo.
Second of all, like the other guy said the book is mainly grey and drab, including a scruffed... dry and cracked cement(?) look on every page, I threw something together in photoshop (here: https://litter.catbox.moe/zicbzitoxvenmcyw.jpg) that approximates the same sort of look but it's really just a transparent texture over a white page to give some visual interest I think, check the original rulebook.
The original also uses text boxes with a stone texture with beveled edges and heavy chips and scratching for headings and images. I think someone already identified all the fonts used in 4th. Fourth also put little quotes in small, allcaps near the page numbers, stuff like "THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: HATE ENRICHES".

Other than that, the rulebook has most of it's colours on the cover. Some standouts are here on THIS (here: https://litter.catbox.moe/hy3k4oas0d2c0uht.jpg), but you can also pick your own colours I suppose? It's pretty easy to see the dominate trends in colour regardless like this.

>>95859138
Oh yeah, its as far from a priority as you can get, but in general if we want to engaged with a lot of newer players, it has to be something we address

>>95859810
That colour palette is COMFY

>>95859810

>>95859810
Yeah, i've got a style guide we can follow and i'm planning on having a master page setup we can use in affinity. I've been working hard on the ork dexs so i haven't finished it yet. Good call on the background texture.

>>95859830
holy shit anon that is clean, i have the headers from the interior that could use some help, want to take a crack at those? (or at least tell me the steps to do it myself)

Am I fucking crazy or was there a mission in the back of a codex book somewhere in this edition or 3rd that involved rescuing a stranded dreadnought? But now I can't find it literally ANYWHERE, I thought it was in one of the space marine books or something. This is bothering me because I remember it so vividly, it's like a mandela effect thing.

>>95859953
I can take a look at them. My email is in the AA-40K mega link here.

>>95706891

Send the files my way and I'll see what I can do.

>>95860478
Thanks dude, I sent those your way.

>>95860400
When in doubt, write it yourself. I had a movie scene like that. swear it was real, can't find it anywhere. still gotta film it.

so, is there going to be a battle bible for every edition? or just second and fourth for being the objectivly best editions out there

>>95861310
we're aiming for a specific niche of the 3.5 era with some room for optional additions if people want to make it or use what is being made. Right now it's just that one doc of all the 4th ed rules and appropriate codices in one place we're aiming for.

>>95861310
It's a lot of work driven by passion alone so my guess would be 2nd and 4th yeah. Any 5 to 7th enjoyers would have an easy time tweaking on 4th groundworks though so it might be a thing eventually, if they're ready to show their mettle.

I can't find the rule that says Vehicles, walkers, cavalry, and walkers cant ascend up the ruins of a building.

Was this tucked away some where in cities of desth/city fight or an FAQ for the BRB? Or am I having mixed memories of 5th?

>>95860400
That sounds familiar, but i cant provide any additional clues.

>>95858370
I uploaded the latest version on Google Drive and allowed comments. I'm new to this so we'll see.

>>95859810
We're now at version 0.96 thanks to you Photoshop anon:
gofile. io/d /u1Pv4y

>>95859953
Here's the Affinity Publisher original file I promised you two days ago:
gofile. io/d /7qPVMe

>>95858370
>>95863117
Geez I'm extra retarded with a side of dumbass. Here's the Google Drive link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MSDpC5T3HVtXWR6GCblj5iMO7VGQnEnD/view?usp=drive_link

>>95863117
Readability on headings is REALLY BAD. Rule of thumb, light background means dark text. Light on light is bad. Also probably should make that background even more transparent, it's a little too strong/distracting. Something like a central pure white and fade maybe might be nice so the texture is strongest at the edges? I can take a stab at it later, pretty sure changes like that are trivial and you can apply them in a second from any option.

>>95863524

agree with both, background needs faded out a tad, headers need at least a black outline or just be darker in general

>>95816013 (OP)
Would it be appropriate to create a catalog of scans for era appropriate models?

>>95863524
Yeah I made the headers before you sent the background and it was really cool on a white page: it's the exact same color and gradient as the offical logo. It became an absolute mess when I added the background though. From then on, either I reworked the headers with unaccurate colors to help them pop out... either I waited for (You) to notice and throw me a black banner to apply behind them so they naturally contrast like on the official logo. :^)

It's supposed to be really low on the priority list but I have time to toy around, it gives me a welcome break and force me to learn new stuff. Plus I'm kinda bottlenecked on rules update for now as I wait for Google Drive anon to comment on the most needed changes.

I expect really low actions on my side for the next two days as the boy wants to go to the beach but I'll try and make the background fade a fair bunch and throw a dark rectangle behind the headers by Monday tops. There's a pretty neat community update on this thread regarding Terrain types that flew under my radar so I'm excited by that too.

>>95865835
>>95863117
So is the text all typed on each page individually? Im DL'd your afpub and im bit confused. Can you only edit the text in afpublisher? I was expecting to find a template file of some sort, and then the files that are loaded to make up the page contents, or is that not how it works? How are page breaks handled in this program, or does text just overflow the bottom?