Hate the New Colors Edition

>What this thread is for:
/tg/ gets shit done again and is creating a “Battle Bible” (a la 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 so far:
+SRD still to-revise sections:
>Characteristics
>Ranged Weapons
>Characters
+SRD completed sections:
>Introduction
>Models
>Terrain
>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 latest 4th Ed. SRD here:
gofile. io/d /TimD7O (remove the two spaces).
2. Download the original 4th Ed. Rulebook here:
mega.nz/folder/1DMxURza#iLn0OuQ8AVGl4XJvU8J4Ig
3. Name a crunch Chapter you're going to inspect.
4. Make sure all important rules of said Chapter made it nice and clear into the SRD.
5. Post a quick report with a screenshot here so we can keep track of our so far progress.

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

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

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

4th edition compilation by anon:
mega.nz/folder/PEcnVC5Y#BGZlNvCNOoC2_ZFdw_5KoA

OP Pastebin for future bakes:
pastebin.com/anhv8xPS

Previous thread:
>>95816013

>>95866577
Sorry mate, thought you wanted to toy a bit with the original file. Here's the template file:
gofile.io /d/ kcDaNf

>>95863524
Picrel should be a bit better?

>>95858370
I'm an absolutely newby regarding Google Drive so let me know in this thread when you add some comments there, in case there's no notifications or I failed to see them. Anyway I set-up one for you so let me know how it goes:
drive.google.com/file/d/1MSDpC5T3HVtXWR6GCblj5iMO7VGQnEnD/view?usp=drive_link

Ah you made a new one. I fucked up the subject on >>95867976, so we'll let that die.

Orks did not progress yesterday because I spent the day away from my desk, but I just need to consolidate the waaagh, mob rule and mobbing up into the army special rules and we'll have all the info ready to copy and paste in the proper document.

Then I'll look at the new doc and provide some feedback.
Is there somewhere specific you want the transcribed codex uploaded?

>>95868831
>Picrel should be a bit better?
I would call it a functional improvement yeah. Definitely readable, probably can suffice until the content is finalized, or at least the RULES part of content.

NewRecruit Anon from last time here. I think Loyalist Marines should be just about done. Now? It's Ork time

>>95870067
I just finished the doc with the ork rules (for copy and paste, no special formatting for the actual big book)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lKdZRzuEBWwyPYIGH-yvSb5J_1zWhmNH/view?usp=sharing

>>95868776 (OP)
congrats on steady progress guys, keep it up pls!

Making comments on the google doc now. some is a rehash of stuff i posted on the last thread, others are more detailed. There's a good number to go through, but its nothing that can't be tweaked.

>>95869396
Sorry Orkanon I waked up this morning, saw the previous thread was archived and couldn't find the new one by Ctrl+F on the Catalog since the title is missing. Thanks for picking up the torch honestly, I feel bad for baking this one.

For your file, it's a big mess of Gofile, Google Drive and Mega by now so whichever fits you the best is fine by me.

>>95869396
Next time I boot up Publisher I'll work on the Terrain page but if you have minor graphic tweaks like more transparency for the background image or bigger dark banners it's a five minutes job. I'm not enamoured with this style so it's no big deal for me.

>>95870542
Cheers my bro, I received some notifications so it works! Spending tonight and tomorrow making memories with my wee boy but I'll go hard on it by Monday. Thanks for your help.

>>95870618
All good, you can save it or comment on it here in the meantime: >>95870085

Now that I've got the codex for orks complete, I can transcribed the additional WD and IA material and add it to my doc so we have a complete faction army list.

Should I eat the frog and focus on space marines next, or something else?

>>95870624
Have a good time. You're probably going to get a few more when I get home

>>95870822
Orks vs Muhreens is kinda fun, so I'd like it. It has that classic feel to it you know?

>>95870822
How do you guys know which 'zine to look at for extra rules or units that weren't in a Codex? Is there a wiki for that or something?

>>95870822
Orks vs Marines has to be the most timeless matchup in 40k and straight up iconic when it comes to Oldhammer

>>95871447
Rare art, I don't even remember ever seeing this before! Where's it from??

>>95871358
one of the links posted in the last thread had it. this was the most complete archive of 4th ed docs we had:
/folder/PEcnVC5Y#BGZlNvCNOoC2_ZFdw_5KoA/folder/LNECVJSC

>>95870828
>>95871447
alright, I can focus my efforts on that next. the 3rd ed ork codex took about 3 days to do while working, but i was working out the kinks as well. Now that I know what it should look like, i can focus more on it.

(Still gonna be an absolute bear lol, but at least that'll be a start and enough to begin playing)

Why did you gut the terrain rules, morons?

>>95872088
well first it's an incomplete doc, and more needs to be added. Second, feel free to contribute what you feel is lacking so it can be improved.

>>95872088
contd - I want detailed terrain in there as much as anyone, along with running campaigns, but we've got to get to that point with the editing. there's so much info scattered around the publications it's going to take some time to get everything in the doc. cityfight, jungle fighting, even the core book has a lot of details we need to grab and compress for easy reference still.

>>95872088
>gut the terrain rules
>area, impassible, difficult, clear all covered
>moving up and down covered
That's everything in the full rules. It's 1.75 or so pages, page 16-17. You can look it up. Want to elaborate on what was gutted?

Alright, I got the feral orks written, just need to add them as an option on the document. Next is their Imperial Armor options and unless there's some White Dwarf additions we don't have, they will be compiled and done. I imagine codex armageddon might have something extra for them as well, but i'll look into it.

after that, i'll start on marines. Those thankfully have pretty identical stats and options throughout, so it shouldn't be too hard.

>>95874428
That does bring up a good point now that i think about it; Should we have ALL the options in a single army list for each, or should they be separated out more in their own sections? Apocalypse and IA in one, WD in another later in the book?

We can always shift things around, but I'd like to know what the people who might print this out think.

>>95872820
Yea you didn't actually type in any of the important functionality from the rulebook, and if you don't understand that, why are you even clamoring for 4th edition and why are you pretending this is a 4th edition battle bible if you don't want it to work like 4th edition?

>>95874971
pls what functionality or detail is missing?

>>95871893
Crap, I'll add that to OP Pastebin tomorrow. Thanks. Any other important ressources I missed?

>>95875136
He won't elaborate because he presumably can't.
You should give him benefit of the doubt and assume he's shitposting because he likes the project and wants to keep the thread alive but doesn't know how to contribute any way other than this. It's the kind thing to assume.

>>95871893
Thank you for letting me find the lost and damned pdf Anon.

>>95875750
Most likely this anon >>95834659 still butthurt by this reply >>95826467 thinking it was OP so he's now on a personal crusade.

>>95875750
I think I recall more terrain details in 3rd's rulebook I quite liked but wasn't included in 4th. Maybe that's what this anon is remembering. I'll dig out my physical books and see if I can find it

>>95876628
yeah the only thing i found missing from 4th is stuff like bunkers, fortifications, razorwire, minefields and the like in the battle missions section. that would be a quick addition to this part, but it wasn't part of the main text so that's likely the reason it wasn't there yet.

Okay I'll be back working on the SRD again tomorrow, but while I'll be pretty busy with that I feel like we've neglected our own trove.

There's really good links and ressources that have been posted in four threads: mega, fonts, images... Does anyone feel like parsing the previous threads and collecting what might have been left behind?

>>95877202
Mega has unfortunately not been allowing me to upload, and all i've been able to do is port the info from the mega with all the 4th stuff into my own

Why does this terroristic attack on 10th edition and its fans still a thing? Give up already, this thread is hurting GW and therefore hurts 40k

>>95877784
Kek, I'll name the next bake after you Jihadition anon.

>>95877784
Let the Nuhammer burn

>>95877202
Here's a few of the previous links


Compiled 3rd/4th era books: mega.nz /folder/PEcnVC5Y#BGZlNvCNOoC2_ZFdw_5KoA/folder/LNECVJSC

Codex armageddon (needs to be added to above archive, if there are more we need to know) gofile.io /d/60c85r

Caslon antique font Which is the only font that isn't default on windows: gofile.io /d/Zr1OyU

Codex orks compiled in PDF form for this project (needs additional units from a couple other sources):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lKdZRzuEBWwyPYIGH-yvSb5J_1zWhmNH/view?usp=sharing

>>95877319
Do you know if the links in the OP are still needed and up to date? Or do we need way less of them now because we have a better trove or two to replace them all?

>>95877980
Cheers mate! Good digging.

>>95877784
Good.

>>95877784
"Some may question your right to destroy ten billion people. Those who understand realize that you have no right to let them live."

>>95878209
So what's the endgoal then, terrorist? Are you planning on killing all 10th edition fans and GW employees? How do you intend to go about doing that?

You people are insane.

>>95877784
If they made a better game people wouldn't have any reason to modernize old editions.

>>95878275
>How do you intend to go about doing that?

well evidently you spergs would kill yourselves just seeing any form of 40k that isn't nu40k, so I guess I'll just start posting 4th edition batreps all over social media and watch the fireworks

>>95878275
"Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane."

Cleaned header by someone in one of the last threads, I've emailed them all the other variations as well. We can replace the existing hard to read headers with this, and use the caslon antique font over it in white for the different sections, just like the old book.

>>95878875
I'll check in the morning if this black cartouche is long enough or need a custom size.

>>95879054
Yeah that'll likely work. definitely want the caslon font on them tho.

>>95878298
I've been getting more 4th batreps recommend in youtube for some reason. Even though I do not watch them.
The few times I did, usually end mad because people play like retards and forget basic rules for the armies played or basic general rules and not even talking about 4th it happens with any game and every edition.

>>95879515
They're likely juggling multiple editions in their head, and the old 4th book isn't easy to reference because of the way it's written, hence the need for a doc like the one we're working on.

Hey OP, i took the liberty of editing the doc with the original fonts and added headers as something you can turn on and off in the doc. go to the master pages portion of each page, select "edit detatched" and you should be able to make them visible or invisible in case you have a single page or 2 page spread.


apub:
/file/kTxUXRqb#NP4HdYhhz79qu2dDiCzPlTOjsfoNunRZzQydKaur0OI

current version with changes in pdf:
/file/gaBlUb6J#TRw4MUA-BetbXuGtQyL403FArjhmYWKJKxZ2MgEC7E0

>>95880162
(as you can see we still need to update the tables, but it's getting closer. Now to figure out those margin notes)

>>95868776 (OP)
>4th edition compilation by anon:
>mega.nz/folder/PEcnVC5Y#BGZlNvCNOoC2_ZFdw_5KoA

I haven't paid for MEGA (im very poor currently) so I implore anybody with a sub to download all the compilation files. I think after 30 days it gets removed from mega or something. If that happens it would be a pity if I couldnt re upload.

Also if anybody knows of anything missing let me know and I can add to it.

Cheers, watching with keen interest, especially the army building side of it.

>>95880162
It's really coming along (visually). Once editorial changes to the text get pushed through, it should really be something.

>>95880222
... I've had 50 gigs of space for free for years on mega, nothing deleted. You might want to check that and be sure. I got the archive ported to mine as well to keep it all in one spot

>>95880162
Alright, it took my entire evening, but I updated the whole doc, same link. Apparently it's detecting spelling errors because the default language is set for french, and there's some fonts that i don't have, so it's not letting me automatically replace them, so i replaced everything it wasn't substituting by hand. annoying, but the final product is better.

Still needs the edits i sent over to op on the Google doc side, and we probably want to use some of the empty space better with some example pics from the original book to better illustrate parts, but we can add that as we go. OP: please make sure to install caslon antique, make sure you have Arial, and Old English MT (for the one instance of it) when making future edits. I got this to match as close as i can at the moment.

>>95875750
Here's a few stipulations about terrain your poor reading comprehension didn't allow you to port over to the SRD:

- models deeper than 6" into area terrain cannot see out
- enemies in the same area terrain can only see each other if within 6"
- enemies on opposite sides of area terrain but not inside it can't see each other no matter how deep it is

>>95881068
Oops. Anon, you worked on version 0.95 from last thread and not 0.96b from OP.

>>95882054
It's because it's in the relevant section: Shooting Phase - Line of Sight & Range.

>>95882800
Version I have saved is .96 according to the title of the doc. I think both of us failed to change that on the first page

>>95881068
>>95882944
>>95882800
Alright it looks like I'm just in time then. I want to suggest using git and github as a version control for the project, so conflicts like this don't happen. Git also serves as a handy change log / version history, but most importantly it makes it very easy for multiple authors to see exactly what changed.

>git, a version control tool, can be used by yourself or with a online repo
>github, a online repo that you use git with.

I wanted to teach myself some new tricks and I thought this would be the perfect time to try; I have never used github before so this will be a bit new for all of us, but I use git locally on my own projects a lot and its great and Im willing to learn and teach a bit. There is only one caveat, and I do not want to step on the incredible work done so far by the two anons working on the page design, but git will offer no value at all if you don't use plaintext files since it cannot manage proprietary binary files. Is this possible with the affinity workflow? It seems to me like all the text is stored in one big .afpub file, but maybe they can be broke out? For git (or any version control) to be of value and work we need a data structure that contains the text, and then a template file where you "turn the crank" and out comes the pdf.

So because it's what I know, I have re-created the last posted template in latex as an example to show-off using git, as well as a few of the first pages for an example. You can see how each piece of the project is a separate plain text file, so when it changes the exact line edits are visible on github.

You can check out what Ive got so far here which has a partially done pdf, just remove the space as usual.
https://git hub.com/pepsi41999/4ebattlebible.git

For example, I have made two commits to the github so far, one was the starting point, and the other was adding the movement phase. You can see the commit history of a branch by clicking this button which gives you a file by file breakdown of the exact changes made.

Im still learning how to use github, but essentially the flow is that anyone who wants to contribute can download the project (known as cloneing the repo), make some changes, then push them back to the github. Then authors can pull those changes to their local copies. It's a very distributed model that helps everyone be working on the latest version. It also allows merging two versions together easily so long as you didn't edit the same files at the same time. With big projects and lots of contributors its common for one or two people to be responsible for merging and making sure you don't break things, but thats more relevant for company software so they don't break their websites and such.

Latex really isn't that scary if you don't open the .cls template file. Which is kinda the paradigm of Latex to begin with, authors just write text, editors format templates. If you open any of the .tex files (which can be opened by any plain text editor like notepad, sublime text, or notepad++) you will see it's all very clean and easy to understand (and replicate) if you have a starting example.

The cool thing about a project like this (which has all the contents broken out) is that even people who don't want to install the compiler can contribute; you don't have to generate a new pdf each time you make changes. Files can be updated or added (small spelling mistakes for example), and then another anon can pull those changes, turn the crank, and upload the new pdf. Can something like this be done with affinity publisher? Where the template file, pdf, and the text contents can be completely separated?

>>95885130
The doc looks good, though i would like us to use the proper fonts matching the original book, (Caslon antique for headers, Arial the rest of the doc) especially if we're rebuilding it. I'm not opposed to learning something new if it makes the process easier, but I do have concerns that complicating the workflow will keep the project from getting finished as i don't know the first thing about using this.

>>95885254
If we're on the same page about the style of the doc, leave room for the margin notes, art, examples, etc, and all we're submitting to be assembled is the transcribed information for each faction and expansion to be added to the doc, that would be a good workflow someone like me could use without having to jump through hoops I unfortunately don't really have the time to learn.

My ideal workflow:
Transcriber(s) simplify the codex or book info > OP or whoever is assembling adds it to the doc matching the existing style

I dipped my toes into editing the style on the doc just to get that looking right sooner, but i'd prefer to stick to just transcribing and simplifying the existing text for the various books and feeding it into the main doc.

>>95885254
Thanks! I wont lie that I spent the better part of my weekends freetime on it, but most of the credit should go to the other anon(s) with affinity publisher, I just copied his style. Fonts are easy to change, it's a 20 second job. I actually included the font files in the project so anyone who downloads it has everything they need. But don't ask me to make that gradient word art, that is basically impossible with latex. But I wanted to stress that maybe affinity can do what we need? It doesnt have to be latex even though thats what I personally know.

I was hoping that this version control idea, (when paired with a de-centralized data/file structure where the actual chapter of the book are broken out into individual files would help to enable more people to contribute, since all you need is a text editor. Someone else can be responsible for changing style if for instance later we want to add margin notes, but for an SRD I dont really see that being so valuable as I do preserving page space and keeping chapters to a one page spread.

>>95885300
I think that separate role workflow can still stay. But maybe think more of the rolls shifting from transcribers and publishers, to transcribers authors and editors. The most that might be asked is that you type the word \section{} or \chapter{} once in a while. Formatting tables can be a bit tricky, but the nice thing is that if you are not compiling the pdf yourself then you can just do your best, and it can be fixed by the editor, just like how its done now, but maybe making it a little bit easier for the editors.

>>95885130
It's pretty cool but you have to realize if we go this way you'll be baby-sitting us.I can definitely see the value though, I'll give it a big dive this week for sure. Cheers anon!

>>95885254
I gave it a quick rework as few things got fucked along the way: Table of Contents was not showing the Missions and Missions Special Rules chapters because Characteristics and The Turn popped a twin each somehow, one empty Text Frame spawned from the Warp on a Master Page, the background was back at 100% opacity but I was told to done that done a bit last thread, this kind of BS.

Check this link for v0.97a:
gofile. io/d/0nkOPD

I'm super tired and might have introduced some more horrors myself so let me know if you want the original and templates now too or if you want to point few obvious things to me first.
I did abide by your Original Style request but introduced a bit more colours on the Headers so let me know if you can live with that.

Oh yeah: the tables are still horrible (I take sole credit for that) but at this point I really want to enjoy tomorow to work on all the 50+ comments left on Google Drive.

>>95885521
(i'm the samefag on both replies and the one who did the doc last night in affinity, and transcribed the ork codex, and commented 50x times on the google doc)
The gradient wasn't hard to get rid of (or add again, but i'd rather not) just go up to the color tab, change to gradient, and select what it's going between. I think the stark white looks better than the gradient, but that's because it's what i expect from the old version. If we could drop the gradient/color, and the underline i think that would be better.


>>95885603
A lot of the tables can be improved by putting them in Arial, bold certain parts, and shrinking the font a bit. I also think we could do light/dark with less opacity instead of grey/green. i was also able to figure out how to rotate the text on the cells that were sideways (attacker WS/ strength on the charts, etc). there's a setting at the bottom of the "table" tab that says "rotation" which lets you set that, and right above is a tab for an offset to fix it if it's not centered right

>>95885760
To clarify what I meant, latex has a different approach to fonts, and it is very, very anal. To info dump you, a 'font' is a specific file from a 'font family'. Bold characters for instance are a different font from regular, and so is italic. Latex does not handle font manipulation well at all because it's totally out of the scope of the tool, which for typesetting pages. In any sort of publisher program you can take any font and manipulate it with pre-canned routines to twist the font into unintended uses, such as bold italics, or small caps. In latex if your font family doesnt have the bold italic small caps font, then too bad for you, you cant do that. You would need to use a tool to make the font you want, then import the font into latex to use.

For example, this is a screenshot of the contour package describing how they cludge an outline for text. Latex is not a vector path editor which is what you need to properly make fonts.

Basically the rule of thumb with latex, is that whatever is easy to do in microsoft word is hard, and whatever is fuck you impossible please blow my brains out in word is easy in latex. This means styles, ToC, and hyperlinks are all a breeze.

>>95885906
>whatever is easy to do in microsoft word is hard, and whatever is fuck you impossible please blow my brains out in word is easy in latex
I think i recall this, or something else similar being talked about in fourk last year. being that i'm just starting to grasp some of the concepts on Affinity, i think the introduction of something new might be a drag.

That said, I don't really desire to work on the full document more than getting us codex entries, recommending some edits and adding some flavor, so i'll let the project lead take the reigns on whether or not to use that.

>>95885603
Let me try to illustrate some of the power of keeping everything orderly in data files and a template (which is just how it always works in latex). Let's say I make a quick and dirty table for my unit statline to look, but then a year from now I want to change the way the unit entry looks. And by this time I have typed out 8 codecies each with 20ish unit entries each! Going back to do that is a hell nightmare of a slog. But its impractical to operate under the presence that you have to get everything perfect from the start.

This compilation screenshot is showing off a small snippet of source material and what it ends up looking like when you compile it. Under the hood I have function I wrote which takes the stat line and formats it the way I want. While it looks complicated, a regular user who wants to use my class will never need to understand how it works. But because I separated my data from the formatting completely, I can design a new formatting function, and then automatically update EVERY document all at once in only a few minutes.

Now that said, It doesn't have to be latex that does this. Markdown does this too. And Im starting to poke around and think Affinity publisher might have had some features like this added since I last looked. You should check out the data merge manager tool to see, it seems to fill that role?
https://affinityspotlight.com/article/populate-pages-in-an-instant-with-affinity-publishers-powerful-data-merge-manager/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFNAovgje8

This forum thread seems to indicate they are working on it.
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/195389-affinity-publisher-data-merge-manager-bug-no-fields/
While this one from 2 years before the other indicates that back then it didnt exist.https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/150873-importing-complex-json-structures/

>>95886136
>of course I know him, he's me

>>95886356
alright, we can try to learn and implement it. Should be easier in the long run than what i did with the orks so far.

we'll need to figure out how to format it to work with the data, but the learning curve might be easier than what we've already done so far.

>>95886749
(I clearly typed half this post 30 mins ago and the other half now)

Im very excited to see this initiative succeed.
The chaos 3.5 codex and the custom chapter rules always felt like peak 40k to me even though i didnt start playing until 5th edition.

Although i will miss Nob squads and Thousand sons with AP3, the way codexs were made conceptually was just better before 5th.

>>95888019
if you'd like to start transcribing the info like i did in the orks doc i posted from google docs, that'll be helpful in getting it into the book sooner. we've got the files, just need to get the data from them. it'd certainly save me some time doing it down the line if more people did that with their favorite faction.

Quick update:
all ork additions from WD, IA, and Codex Armageddon are added to the doc, each with their own summary. updated in the mega link i had above for the codex. Next is space marines... but i might tackle something easier just to build up some dopamine again. Harlequins was only a few pages and actually able to copy/paste, so that may be on the list sooner.

i'm gonna sleep now.

Doing a quick count of the factions including all their supplements, this means we have:
Space marines (all flavors)
Imperial guard
Witch hunters/daemonhunters/assassins
Chaos space marines/ daemons
Tyranids/Gene stealer cults
Eldar/craftworld/Harlequins
Dark eldar
Necrons
tau

I'm sure there's some obscure faction I'm missing from the era, we can include that as well if we want. In the meantime, if someone is lurking and wants to fill in some tables and simplify the rules text, tell us which you're grabbing.

>>95888033
I can try after work. In the meantime i noticed in the Ork document that your flashgitz all had Nob statlines.

Working on the 50+ comments left on the Google Doc. I won't be able to treat them all but most for sure. Anything requiring illustrations means we'll have to source a decent .png before we can deal with it.

>>95888523
Good catch, will update

>>95890025
Snipping tool + the examples from the original book maybe? You can zoom in to the size you want, snip it and crop it if it has a border.

Also good news, the actual rules of the 4th edition space marines dex aren't actually that long, they just have a lot of supplemental materials to go through

>>95890379
Oh yeah, cropping images is definitely an easy job. I'm toying around on a potato laptop for now so I stick to text edition. It can be done later or maybe some anon will be happy to come forth and deliver? It's a community project and we can't just feed on "wishing you good luck" and "I hope you guys suceed".

Thanks for the rotation protip on the table panel, looking way better now.

>>95888225
If we're bringing in stuff like GSC and Harlequins then the Huckleberry Admech doc should be in as well IMO.

>>95893764
GSC and harlequins exist in 3rd as very small niche factions, if there's an admech book from that era i'm not aware of, I want it in there. if you're only talking about a more recent faction, then i'm afraid it'll have to wait until after this project comes together and we're handling backporting content and making fan codices

>>95893601
I can take a crack at that between working on the space marines dex i'm on now.

>>95890379
Updated the ork dex in the link to fix the flash gitz error. also put IA additions at the end of the doc rather than between feral orks and speed freeks. makes more sense to read main dex>subfactions>IA updates in that order.

Took all the images, which will need some cropping and rotation, but they are at least separated for us here: /folder/MWx1kSJK#_p8HEnwuCUE8_RwCNNlkXg

furthermore, it seems I did not realize the missions didn't have example images to explain the battlefield. Sorry about that. I still think it might be helpful to make some quick ones when we're detailing that section. In addition to the basic missions there are also several scattered in older codexes (like the assassination mission in codex assassins) and a faction-specific set of missions from a 5th ed book called battle missions. That one isn't high on my priorities since it's from a later edition, but having some extra options along with the base book and city/jungle fight might be cool.

I want to remind everyone, while compiling info from different sources together, please make sure you always always list the original sources exactly so it can all be double-checked and referenced. One of the big problems the 2nd edition Battle Bible has had was it just makes total mistakes and adds in stuff that didn't exist in the real game.

Is there a need for proofreading? As in, not trying to make rules suggestions, but just checking for fuckups? I began with 4th, and I'd like to be part of this somehow.

In case anybody is checking out the github thing I found this video very helpful for learning how to log in with their whole token things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuiH6cBtc58

The only thing after that is to make sure to doublecheck your local config .name and .email file so you dont dox yourself.

>>95895849
The rules are almost complete, but most of them were compiled by the original SRDanon. He did a great job but had so much on his plate.
We managed to find a few missing rules and are still working on that; but beside this I'd love for one anon to rewrite some text sections. Some of them are a bit convoluted, and the overall document starts to feel like the work of multiple people instead of being one coherent style.

Let me know if you fell up to the task.

>>95895718
Cheers Orkanon, adding the to the OP pasta.

>>95895952
I'll check if I'm not filtered by my own retardation. Cheers.

Worked on the SRD for the last few hours. No progress on the Google Drive commentaries this time though as I focused on the community updates that were posted on the previous threads.I'll try and sneak a couple more hours and get done with the Shooting Phase and Assault Phase docs that where posted a solid week ago I think?

>>95895849
if you'd like to read the orks doc and compare it to the existing documentation, make sure all the stats line up that would be a good idea.

Orks compiled:
https://mega.nz/file/geJ0iYrB#VJ7DhmFSi7xO9wN1vfaWj5R7OXvHnpjzhGstDW0G0jo

Original docs:
https://mega.nz/folder/UGxVkaob#Zdm-KCLfomGMM4h7QeNY-w

Also: I just realized i might have sent the ork doc on google drive and not mega before, I updated the google doc as well as the mega link i had already been updating above. OP: if you're collecting these yet, please get the most recent one.

>>95894515
Tim Huckleberry wrote the Journal rules for GSC, he also produced an Admech list right at the end of 3rd and revised it a couple of times with playtest feedback, but of course by then the Journal was gone and GW was already starting to wind down the amount of cool shit on their website at that stage so it never got "officially" published.

Here's the .doc with the latest version I could locate(01/05); https://gofile.io/d/gaRfsq

>>95899019
Nice. and it's already a word file we can copy and paste. That'll save time. will add to the archive for later trimming to match what we already have.

Alright, the same anon who cleaned the basic header also did the other versions used for different sections (skulls, aquilas, etc on the one side). we can add these to the doc as options for the master page to switch on and off for major sections. I can see about adding it whenever we have a new version of the .apub to share, if someone else isn't comfortable matching it up with the other header.


Here are all the cleaned elements so far, (headers and to hit/wound charts) along with a folder for the elements that need cleaning. I'll ask if he's willing to do that as well, but i'm willing to spend some additional time on it if not.

/folder/UCwQ2I6I#aOFa8mgyyMG4JHz1TrDDww

>>95899774
That is so cool. Huge thanks to this anon.

>>95899774
Nice work anon and anon’s friend. You should put them on the github.

>>95896191
Yes, I'd absolutely like to! Is there a D*****d for this, or some other way of contacting? A public document? I'll say right here and now that I'm probably not the person to ask as far as making stats line up, unless you literally mean things like statlines being shifted over accidentally.

>>95901263
>public document
I’m working on making one using github, you can find the link if you scroll up. Not all the pages are added, you can start by plain texting some of the missing chapters. The big issue right now is that there are like 3 or 4 different anons all working in parallel and the project has fourked (pun intended). So I’m not even sure where to get the most up to date has-been-edited text anymore, and I don’t want to undo someone’s edits on accident.

>>95901613
If it helps, I haven't touched the main doc since uploading 0.97, so i've left others to work on that. I've only provided notes and been working on the individual codex sections. I got some assets added above, but that's been my only contribution to the main doc.

>>95901644
I did some more digging and think there is a cool possibility store data in jsons. It would also leave us in a good position to make a website. So long as you have the data stored in an organized fashion, you can parse it however you need for the front end later.

So I’m picturing a file could be like:
{
“entrytype”: “infantry”,
“name”: “space marine”,
“statline: “4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8 3+”
}

>>95901613
NuSRD anon here, I'll upload the most up to date version on Google Drive tomorrow. It's the same as v0.97a that was released a bit earlier, but with a decent amount of tweaks here and there suggested by Orkanon plus some decent community updates from previous threads. I also moved two pages further in the book (Terrain right between Organizing a Battle and Missions, USR at the very end) so viewing the document as a spread is now way nicer and more sensitive (like Characteristics facing Vehicle Characteristics or double pages like the Shooting Phase or Vehicle in Detail facing each other).

>>95901747
well copying over the stat line itself is one thing, but beyond that its adding the special rules, wargear, and options into their own box, which is the most time consuming part of moving over the codexes so far.

Then we've got the wargear, special rules for the army, weapons, etc that have to be added to the armory. Your idea sounds good to make a clean doc, but just filling out stats is a small part of the overall codex.

If you copy something from the tables i've made and paste in plain text, i think you'd have the vast majority of the info to fill in those entries if you want to get that started. I'm not experienced in the stuff you're talking about doing so if you want to tackle it, have at it, but for now the most helpful thing is going to be grabbing the data from the codex pdfs and reducing it to a more readable state. It's time consuming, but many hands make light work.

>>95901780
Ok I’ll wait for you to post your next pdf, the. Then I can rip out all the text and stick it in the github as plaintext.

>>95901933
>but beyond that its adding the special rules, wargear, and options into their own box
And this is exactly what Im trying to hammer home. Sorted data (i.e. in the right box) can be parsed very easily. Handing off unsorted data means someone will have to re-type it all into sorted data. Be that in affinity publisher or in notepad.

Here is an example of how I do things in my homebrew, showing off a piece or wargear, a weapon, and a unit entry. You can see that all data is sorted into a relevant box, such as \name{} \uentry{} \wargear{}. The data put into this box is raw, and then it gets parsed and formatted the way the template specifies, such as adding the bold word "Wargear" right above the list of wargear the unit has. Over on the right you can see how I bold the weapon and wargear names, while I italicize the description. This all happens under the hood, and if I wanted to later I can change the format easily enough, so long as the data is binned properly.

Many hands make light work like you said, and if we can get those hands to put the data into the right box from the get go it will be the biggest single improvement we could make. Please keep in mind that these are only examples, but the finer you sort the data the easier everyone's life becomes.

>>95902922
Quite nice. How does it handle special rules only for that unit? 4th introduced USRs, but with us doing 3.5 era, we have a lot of older books that have rules specific to that unit. we also have some things like the nob (sergeant) which has a non-standardized cost (usually 11 points, sometimes 9, sometimes 12)

Would those exceptions also have to be added by hand?

Also, space marine dex is chugging along. i got some time yesterday to write the summary while on an impromptu road trip, just got through the armory now, getting to the actual units next. This is just for the marine dex, later ones for other chapters will add non-standard units (emp. champion, baal predator, etc) and army rules. I don't actually think there's too many of those, and the IA rules only add 10 variants of existing vehicles, and a few that weren't there before (thunderhawk, weapon battery). It'll take time to do it all, but it isn't actually that bad.

>>95903234
The paradigm behind my workflow (and im not saying my implementation is perfect mind you) is that once you have all the things in boxes, all you have to do is decide where the boxes go. Take this example comparing my old to my new page layout. All thats different is the template. These files were produced more than 10 years apart using nearly the same data file.

Essentially the way my existing template works is that I have a handful of pre-canned boxes that fit most use cases, which I sort the data by. Then the boxes always get printed in the exact same order no matter what. Every once in a while for the sake of making things look nicer you can kludge things by putting data in a different box, thats about the extent of the exceptions. I also have catch all box at the end which you can just dump whatever you want in, such as special rules.

When it comes to unit composition and how you handle it, it really comes down to how you want to layout the page. My two favorite unit entry layouts are IA11 2nd edition, and Tau 6th edition. The tau 6th ed book has the unit type and unit comp in-line and looks like this older genestealer entry. Because the unit type and unit comp are broken out as line items you can easily list each one. Personally I still prefer a method of points per model, and a sergeant upgrade cost, even if it's mandatory.

Here’s my first army project at about 3 months and I’m really starting to feel some serious burn out. I’m starting to lose motivation because i’m not sure if I am interested in trying another army, not entirely happy with how my army currently looks etc.

Should I just step away for a bit from painting? Or should I try painting something different?

>>95903548
They look good to me, and remember you can always add to them later. Its not a race too, thats a ton of minis to paint in only 3 months.

>>95903548
You likely intended this for /wip/, but i'm cool with it. Burnout is a real issue to deal with in the hobby. Forcing yourself to do more than you're feeling is a guaranteed way to not enjoy more in the future. Take a break, play some games with them (perhaps 4th ed?) and get yourself hyped to paint more in time.
I've got nothing negative to say about these, they look like an army to be proud of.

>>95903548
These look pretty good despite the Primaris base. The small boxnaught is kino.

Okay so if I upgrade a Marine Sergeant to a Vet Sgt, can he take his default weapons for free or does he have to get them through the Armory?

>>95906129
Going by the 4th ed codex he keeps the default weapons.

>>95906158
Double check there isn’t a clause somewhere in the warhead section stating you are limited to two weapons, that’s how CSM 3.5 does it.

>>95906397
You are but that doesn't matter.

>>95906454
Man I just need to stop replying in the morning I can fucking read.

++ SRD UPDATE ++

v.097d now on Google Drive with comments allowed:
drive.google.com/file/d/1Wg0o_zuC7-FbTWEdlV47OcPIIR85LlPt/view?usp=sharing

I leave v0.96 there too so now that I'm up to date with the Community Update.txt I can catch up with the previous Google Drive comments again; but ideally you guys should focus on 0.97d

Don't bother yourself too much with anything past Page 17 for now as it's still in the pipeline. The Shooting Phase and Assault Phase went through major rework though so it can pay off to give extra attention here.

++ SRD UPDATE ++

Speaking off, the Assault Phase is quite the beast now. It went from a one page affair to a full spread and I still had to give up on adding the rules for multi Units fights. I think I'll call the loss later down the road and turn it into a 4 pages behemoth so I can also add illustrations and examples while still keeping it nice and roomy.

I was really surprised by the amount of rules and exceptions left over by SRDanon, I'm pretty sure Orkanon did the Google Doc revamp of this chapter because it sure takes a CC player to be this specific.

how easy would it be to get 32mm scale rules for 3rd//4th (map size, template size differences)

I am bad at math

>>95908680
If you stick to 6x4 then I don’t think you’d really need to change much. The problem is the new boards took half a foot off both measurements.

>>95908680
I’m pretty sure even in 4th ed guardsmen were not 28mm tall. That said 32/28=1.14 so there you go, multiply all things by that.

>>95908680
Honestly I'd just use the same ones.
the recent rules shrank the board from 72"x48" to 44"x60" (2k points, assumed. 1k and below are even smaller), and models got bigger over time. keep it to the original size and you're fine with a few extra millimeters. a template might hit one less model over the course of a game comparatively, but that's not much.

>>95908665
>I'm pretty sure Orkanon did the Google Doc revamp of this chapter because it sure takes a CC player to be this specific.
I did not, though i did have a lot of suggestions. Not sure what a CC player is tho

>>95907760
Damn, it looks shillable now.

>>95907760
Alright cool good stuff anon, I’ll start copying this text over to the github tonight.

>>95909025
I meant someone playing a Close Combat intensive army. Well pretty bad it wasn't you because I remember when the anon posted the links to these Google Docs and he was pretty motivated so he did like three chapters in a row. He kind of hinted doing Assault Weapons but didn't in the end. Don't know if it's because it was good enough as it is or if he got bored.

>>95909063
Yeah it's starting to hey.

>>95909677
I can c/c the text page by page as it is in a plain text .txt if you want? Might be easier on my side.

>>95910529
Can you repeat what you mean? Are you feeding plain text .txt into the afpub?

>>95907760
Alright I have added the shooting and assault phase chapter to the github. I noticed there was some messed up step counting with some duplicate numbers, I programed in a dynamic counter now so if a step gets added it will automatically update all the numbers and the dynamic step references will be correct too.

>>95910581
>Step counting
God Emperor, I wish I could say I was drunk. It's fixed now, thanks.

++ SRD UPDATE ++

drive.google.com/file/d/1Va_cIokHzKUYE9KmyyZD8H-bl3zL-_B8/view?usp=sharing

Fixed the step counting brain fart for both Shooting and Assault phaese plus slight tweaks on the headers colour.

++ SRD UPDATE ++

>>95911219

good stuff folks!
just a minor suggestion, put the background grey paper texture on a layer in the pdf so it can be toggled off for a print friendly option

>>95911646
Is this a pdf feature thing? Tell me more.

>>95911701
Yeah anon, we're a bunch of monkeys dicking around. It works by the sheer might of our Will. Any new tricks is more than welcome.

>>95911701

its a pdf thing, usually only accessible through acrobat reader rather than previewed in a browser.
I dont know exactly how its set up before export though, and just doing a cursory google im not entirely sure if Affinity Publisher actually supports it as there seems to be conflicting results.
if its a 5 minute fix it would be a great option, but if its a pain in the arse dont worry about it.

Just got done with all the special rules, chapter creation and psychic powers in the Space marine dex, moving on to actual entries for the units, then this part will be done and i can move on to the other chapters

>>95916796
HQs and elites are written, troops, fast attack, and heavy support remain. Might take a break and see what else i can accomplish on this tonight.

>>95916796
>>95917579
Nice work, anon.

>>95917769
Got the dex transcribed in full. Copied everything to a pdf, but haven't formatted it fully as we need to get the other chapters and info on there. It was quite the push today but i'm glad i completed it. Next for marines is individual codex entries for other chapters, IA entries, WD articles, and whatever else was compiled. Happy to have this part done though.

https://mega.nz/folder/NO4kWQZC#yb7c5W0S83ZxgyKGrXnd0g

>>95918173
Good work anon! Thanks for your efforts

>>95918173
Really solid, kudos to you anon.

++ ENLIST TODAY ++

-Holo-Gifted anons:
> Track and provide accurately sized templates for Flamer, Blast and Large Blast weapons.
> Clean any image from this trove: mega. nz/folder/UCwQ2I6I#aOFa8mgyyMG4JHz1TrDDww/folder/lWgwAIpb

-Servo-Gifted anons:
>Get on the Github: github. com/pepsi41999/4ebattlebible.git

Data-Gifted anons:
> Proofread the latest Short Reference Document: gofile. io/d/qTfnke
> Double check your feedback isn't on the To-Do list already: gofile. io/d/rtutYW
> Transcribe your favorite Codex in plain text: >>95888225


++ END OF TRANSMISSION ++

I know i'd mentioned the to-hit chart for the shooting phase was needed and i found it, attached. furthermore, I'm not sure if this era had anything about BS over 5, but it would be worth confirming if it did and how it worked (we'll probably come up on that with one of the more niche dexes like codex assassins.

Also, we're going to want to steal the reference chart from the back of the main book wholesale, possibly even including the spread as a seperate PDF because it was so damn useful

>>95920753
Do you mean the Quick Reference Sheet? If yes it will be its own PDF. It's something you want printed and lying somewhere on the table more often than not.

>>95920753
Assassins was obsoleted by daemonhunters/witchhunters. Pic related, 3e daemonhunters faq and 4e cityfight faq

>>95918173
Black Templars have been added to the space marine doc. I believe i only have blood angels, dark angels, and space wolves left for codexes and then the IA and WD parts (actually not too many IA units, like 10 variants of existing vehicles, but that's it)

I would like to tackle a smaller non-imperial dex next, just to have some variety and get things done a little faster. Any recommendations?

>>95920905
hey, saves me copying over more. glad to see it's already done. i think their assassination mission was also included in cityfight.

>>95920770
my tiny rulebook from the 4th ed starter set really could have used one of those. I had a couple later on from 3rd. those were very useful.

>>95886356
Hi, can you share the latex code for this stuff? I'm also doing a homebrew 40K project (basically 3.5 mixed with Bolt Action) but my latex-fu is not as good as yours, I'm writing each statline as a table.

>>95922412
A QRS is a staple in most historical games. Ideally you're supposed to be taught the rules by a friend or the local scene, keep a QRS handy for a quick reminder and only check the rulebook once in a while when doubt emerges.

The SRD will fit right in between the QRS and the rulebook detail-wise. Its purpose is to be complete enough to provide a centralized and up to date reference; but also to be digest enough that it can replace a friend or local scene to teach you the game without a headache. Regarding the last part it's really hard to find a decent writing style and I don't think we're there yet. Too much bulletpoints and then it's too dry, too much chitchat and then it's defeating the point.

>>95886356
nvm I realised you posted a github repo with it

About to translate the Evil Sunz clan rules to NewRecruit. Where the actual fuck are the mounted Warboss rules because it is NOT in Codex Armageddon

>>95924726
It was added in a chapter approved article. The 4e FAQ for Armageddon has the rules reprinted in it.

>>95924787
interdasting, i thought this was a FW fix.

>>95923902>>95923957
Sure, but give me a bit, Im taking this opportunity to rethink how I handle some of my backend macros, as the one I use on my personal homebrew can be real finicky and cryptic if you make a syntax error.

>>95922400
Remember that IA:Apocalypse has an index for each faction for which books have what.
The big torrent mixed up the 2007 and 2013 ones, so if you're using that the one labelled 2013 is the right one.

>>95926344
Solid advice. Anyone can rename the IAs so we don't have to double check and switch them anymore?

>>95926344
That's super useful. I don't have the torrent though, is anyone able to reupload that one to mega?

Hey quick question; i'm working on the Blood angels transcription, And I just found out that there was the 3rd ed dex, and later on a 2007 WD dex that covered their rebooted stuff before the whole 5th edition matt ward dex people love and hate.

Which dex should i be transcribing, the 3rd edition or 4th edition WD one?

>>95929725
That's a good question I do not have an answer to. Need to find a Blood Angels grog. I do know that the 4th ed Dark Angels codex is highly unpopular and disliked, so, take from that what you will.

>>95929777
Looking at some of the posts in the archive >>95840489 and >>95840282, it looks like we'd pretty much agreed that anything published after the 4th ed tau book would not be included, BUT I just wanted to make sure if this wasn't an oversight, as the 5th ed dex from a few years later is the one most people take issue with (Matt ward wrote it)

>>95929786
Almost all of the issues people have with Matt Ward are related to the lore, not the rules, in my experience. I mean, some people complain his books were OP, but they were all well-balanced against each other, it was just that the other 5th ed books weren't on the same level. But that's neither here nor there, I don't think we're using any 5th ed books at all except maybe Dark Eldar.

>>95929725
3rd + FAQs. Same for Dangels

>>95929815
Alright, i'll continue with the 3rd ed for now, worst case scenario i copy most of the info and adjust to the newer one. I'm not actually seeing much changed aside from not rolling for DC, just taking one from each squad instead to make the unit and having proper USRs like feel no pain.

>>95929807
5e deldar would absolutely rape every 4e dex.
That might be fluffy, but I'd prefer 3e+faq be the endorsed dex.

>>95931110
yeah i don't really think that one was truly on the table for anything but the later backports. main book needs to stay in the correct era.

BA 3rd ed codex entries added to the space marine doc. DA and space wolves left before supplemental materials.

>>95929807
>Matt ward
>every character is eternal warrior
Fuck that faggot.

dont mind me asking here, but whats with the whole hubbabaloo over playing with 4th edition rules with third edition codex's? whats the mentality behind this?

>>95868831
Looking good so far.
I'm rooting for you man.

With respect to the OP's work, and the community, I am not trying to start shit, and I've read "What this thread isn't for" as well so I'm sorry if this is a violation of that.

If everything goes well, could there just be a "victory lap" done to the PDF with a section dedicated to terrain making, wash making, and generally cool hobby stuff? Yes I vaguely remember an official section from GW printing that said how to make washes. Not sure if it was an older White Dwarf or from an older codex.

>>95934145
When editions changed, you don't get new codices all at once. Some time during 4th, the codices were much worse than the third one, but before that they were fine. Compromise by letting everyone keep the best version of their codex.

Soemone rewrote te whole Wound Allocation section for us but I'm not sure if they made a typo or what. Can a grognard confirm to me this is correct?

"After determining the number of Wounding Hits, make Armor Saves for all Hits. When Allocating Wounding Hits, no single model may be said to take all hits (unless it is the only valid target). Once all Wounding Hits and Wounds have been dealt, if excess damage was dealt it is wasted. If only one Sv is being used, once made for all Wounding Hits Wounds may then be allocated to any models the targeted Unit’s player chooses, so long as there are no multi-Wound models that have already taken a Wound. Wounds must be applied to them first, without “spreading around” the damage to their fellows.

Units with multi-wound models must remove whole multi-wound models as casualties where possible. Wounds cannot be spread around."

>>95934508
Thanks mate, once we're done we can make a regular version, a print friendly version and a hobby enthusiast one if you have cool stuff to add. We could just pillage the one from 3rd or 4th Core Rulebook but maybe there's newer stuff you want to throw in instead?

>>95934646
>We could just pillage the one from 3rd or 4th Core Rulebook
That would be a great starting point to be honest. Maybe remake those pages with a modern style makeover.

But since the citadel inks are no longer with us maybe substitute with artist inks? Wip talked about custom ink washes and linked a good dakkadakka diy wash recipe.
>>95922016

Could be recommended right after custom terrain advice is given.
But again this should best be considered after everything else is done.

>>95934911
I’m at work right now but I did make orders for some ingredients to make such custom washes.
I am using liquitex ultra matte medium instead of regular matte medium though.
I have the distilled water I am just waiting on the ink and ingredients to arrive. Because unlike you said this should be a victory lap thing when we get to that bridge to cross.

>>95934508
black magic craft has a good wash recipe that i've been using or ages (seriously, it's one water bottle i've kept on my shelf for years, filled with black stuff and used whenever i feel the need, still having 20% left after everything i've done with it in 5 years is pretty impressive)

That said, I feel that would be better as a seperate project that collects their painting books, terrain making books, and individual army painting tips as a single pdf like we're doing for the rules.

Might want to talk with /wip/ or the terrain thread about working on that immediately instead of relying on us to compile (we're just learning the way to make a document ourselves for the most part) and we're quite a ways off from completion (almost got the core rules, expansions are still in the pipeline, i'm working on the second army collected rules out of god knows how many).

The torrent link in the mega with all the WD also has all their painting guides, though i'm not sure if it has the terrain book as well, but it would be a good place to start.

>>95934145
Early 4th was well balanced around using the 3rd edition books as they were expected to be used until the updated codex came along. the core book, while not perfect was better laid out and easier to reference than the previous book and was completely compatible.

at a certain point the 4th ed dexes were getting more geared to working for 5th, and many dexes were left behind and underpowered, possibly not even updated until the next edition and weren't viable in the game at that point. The time when they best worked together, with an edition that didn't have the later bloat, was the later half of 3rd with the early half of 4th, so that's why we're compiling that era into a single document, for preservation and to have everything needed in one place.

SRD v0.98 should be ready for upload within 24h. Then I'll be like 75% done with the recommended edits but mostly I'll be bottlenecked by our actual lack of clean images to insert here and there to illustrate the most complex ideas and sequences of play. There's no hurry though so I'll focus on the weakest paragraphes and try to give them a bit more life.

>>95937662
I've done a couple so far, i think i just figured out how to fix them not sitting right the scan has them a little warped so they don't sit square, but i just found the free transform tool on the program i've been using for ages, so i can see about cleaning those up today between calls. it's gonna delay the DA dex a bit, but eh the book needs to happen first.

For the BT unit entry in the space marine document for sword brethren it has the veteran squad options copy pasted.

For example the unit in the 4th ed codex doesnt have a sgt and all models can take terminator honours for 10pts each. In the document however a sgt is mentioned despite it not being in the unit entry (not really an issue) but it lists that they can take terminator honours for 15pts.

Additionally one model in the 4th ed codex can take a power weapon for 15pts. Now due to making it so anyone with terminator honours can acces the armoury (before its not explicit but I prefer this for BT and marine vets/command swuads as it makes them on par with chaos chosen) and take a power weapon for 10pts.

Given the sgt wouldnt be any different to any other sword brethren (unless you add one and make him have an extra attack which warrants the extra 5 pts) I assume the best solution would be to either ignore the in unit price entry for a power weapon?

There is also no listed cost for a plasma pistol in the armoury section unless you assume the price carries over from the entry before it.

>>95938324
Thanks for reading that over, i'll see about updating those as soon as i'm done with these images.

>>95938576
Upon consideration its a weird thing. If you want to take a chaper unit the 15pts for the power weapon is more viable. But I assume that like myself most players want to play a more thematic game and would almost never field the unit without the full weapons upgrades to keep up the 'your dudes' vibe which is where the weapon option becomes redundant.

TLDR
>Just a single power weapon with no termi honours = 15pts
>Termi honours and a power weapon = 20 pts (10 for each) and can be taken several times

>>95937662
alright, I got all the images cropped and squared up thanks to some unexpected time at work allowing me to screw around freely for a bit. Also made a new alternative scatter image.

https://mega.nz/folder/UCwQ2I6I#aOFa8mgyyMG4JHz1TrDDww

>>95938733
yeah the sergeant shouldn't have been mentioned, but aside from that and the mention that terminator honors let them take whatever( evidently it is only the +1 attack and the combat shield option for them) it is pretty damn similar to the normal veterans

>>95938884
Thanks, I'll work on those once I'm back behind the potato computer.

>>95938988
this brings up a good point that terminator honors might not give everyone access to the armory... going to have to look into that and confirm. it might also be a one-off

>>95938988
Might want to change "May take one of the following skills" to "must"
Chekt

>>95939234
good call, it's not an option like the vets were. must have glazed over that.

Sergeants are the only ones who can take terminator honors and get items from the armory.

Also, the armory needs to be reworked to show what specific things they can get, because apparently it's a specific list. I'll see about reworking those on this dex and the previous one before i get too far.

Has anyone compiled all the extra IG doctrines from white dwarf and chapter approved? I know there was a few about mutants, different Ogryns and rough riders

>>95939355
I'd recommend checking the mega IG section to see what was compiled, and if not, the WD archive torrent has everything from the first issues all the way up to when they changed to weekly/monthly recently*. I know 3rd and 4th had to start around the mid 200's and end around with 5th in the mid 300's, in case you need to track any specific issues down.

>>95939107
It doesnt in the BT codex or the marine codex except for the sgt. However I always thought it should as its retarded that your elite units doesjnt have access to power weapons. Even more so when Chaos 3.5 chosen which is basically the equivalent basically have access with their version of termi honours.

Ultimatelty it depends whether people want the codexes are they are or to """fix""" the edition which can end up as a clusterfuck.

>>95939439
Dont*
Late nights turn me into ESL

>>95939295
Vets have to take a skill too tho

>>95939699
well, i'll fix that too. it's not a big document

>>95939439
we're just aiming to have all the existing rules in one place, so i'll fix these to be correct according to the actual text of the codex, and we'll add any necessary FAQs as needed. I appreciate you guys checking it over and not just giving me shit about it, that's the constructive attitude needed to keep this going. not always easy to be entirely accurate while doing this when things aren't happening at work.

>>95934145
Because 4th edition wasn't a complete rewrite that invalidated the previous codexes, it was more just a refinement and cleaning up of changes that had been made to 3rd over the course of Chapter Approved and that sort of thing. By the time it came out, a couple of armies had already received their second 3rd ed codex (usually referred to as 3.5) or were made with 4th already in mind. Some armies never even received a 4th ed codex at all, they didn't get a new one until 5th.

But most importantly, while the first handful of 4th ed codexes were really good, and generally upgrades to the previous versions, as time went on, a lot of the best designers moved on and left during 4th edition and the quality dropped suddenly. There's a sharp visible divide between the good first half of 4th ed and the latter half.

So when people talking about 4th being the golden age, they're talking about the first couple years of it, when a lot of armies were still using their 3rd ed codexes, and we're trying to recapture that specific time period.

>>95934646
>"After determining the number of Wounding Hits, make Armor Saves for all Hits. When Allocating Wounding Hits, no single model may be said to take all hits (unless it is the only valid target). Once all Wounding Hits and Wounds have been dealt, if excess damage was dealt it is wasted. If only one Sv is being used, once made for all Wounding Hits Wounds may then be allocated to any models the targeted Unit’s player chooses, so long as there are no multi-Wound models that have already taken a Wound. Wounds must be applied to them first, without “spreading around” the damage to their fellows.
This is a fucking mess, gonna be honest. Needs a total rewrite.

>>95940846
>So when people talking about 4th being the golden age
3.5e to 4e and even bits of 5e were absolutely the best time to be in this hobby. I distinctly remember 6e and 7e being a total wash out for me, and I didn't both again until the later part of 8e and a little of 9e (and that was mostly out of curiosity than desire).

>>95940861
Yeah, needs some work. it's late where I am so i don't really have the wherewithal to make words good right now, but if someone wants to take a crack at it please post.

>>95941103
Your experience matches mine. things started going bad in 5th, but it was still very similar. played 2 games of 6th, didn't enjoy. oops all daemons edition didn't feel good (though the baal campaign is cool). I don't think i played a single game of 8th. came back at the tail end of 9th, and played a little of 10th before deciding i just like collecting, painting, and playing the editions i started with.

>>95941116
I think the last fun game I had was somewhere in the tail end of 4th or possibly early 5th. I remember distinctly playing against a friend who was running a Rhino Rush/Rhino Conga Blood Angels force, and I managed a lucky flamer attack from an Assault Marine on the rear armour of the lead Rhino and completely boxed in his vehicles.
>Rhino Conga was taking like 4 or 5 Rhinos with 5-man squads and running them straight up the board in single file.

>>95941103
>>95941116
Same here. And yeah same about 5th was where it started going bad, but it wasn't all bad right away, I remember some surprisingly fun games during that edition even though I also remember some terrible games that edition, whereas 4th was pretty solidly fun most of the time. 6th I was out. Came back in 7th only because they added Skitarii, and then Genestealer Cults, which were both really great if you played against people who weren't powergaming 7th with retarded formations and superheavies and flyers.

>>95941168
>superheavies and flyers.
Flyers weren't the worst offender, but I'm with you on Superheavies. Don't get me wrong - Baneblades f'kn rock, but it didn't exactly add anything to the game.
I think in general 40k needed a spread of games to suit different scenarios, and it did for a while.
>Skirmish: Killteam/Very Small 40k games, limited to infantry models only.
>Battles: 40k, infantry, vehicles, walkers, skimmers
>War: Epic 40k, scale change to 10mm, include superheavies, titans, flyers/aeronautica.

Is there a working file for new recruit yet? Can I have it?

>>95941180
well the imperial armor did have an introduction to super heavies, which we'll be including in the "optional/expansion" rules , but i particularly like that they released the rules with some more awareness than we have now

>>95941190
recruit anon pops in now and again, you might not get a reply for a while, but i'm sure he'll come around some time.

>>95941180

I'd say flyers are worse.

Superheavies caused issues from not being accounted for in the base rules and thus difficult to wedge in and balance as a lot of eggs in one basket, yes, but I think you could solve that issue with enough finagling. Besides, if one player has one the other should too, so there's some degree of balancing just from that.

Flyers though... Ugh, "Hit on 6+ unless shooting with an anti-air gun which hits everything else on 6+ unless it has interceptor" was the worst thing to happen to 5th edition and carried through to being absolutely toxic to deal with in 6th and 7th, Absolutely meta defining garbage, made pick up games in that era a chore.

>>95923902
I added the melee and ranged sections to the github, as well as the interface999 for weapon entries. Still working on unit entries.

>>95941750
Post the link when you do so for tourists and lurkers to check.

>>95940861
>>95941116

Okay I rewrote the original and community update into this:

------------------------------------------------

5) Wound Allocation
After determining the number of Wounding Hits, make a Saving Throw for each one of them. Any unsaved Wounding Hit becomes a Wound and is allocated to a model from the defending Units by the defending Player.
When allocating Wounding Hits, no single model may be said to take all of them (unless it is the only valid target).

- If a whole Unit share the same Sv value you can speed up the process by rolling all the Saving Throws at once and allocate every unsaved Wounds when done.
- If a Unit has wounded Multi-Wounds model(s) these must be allocated any remaining Wounds first until removed as casualties before you can allocate any Wounds to another model again. It is forbidden to spread Wounds around in order to spare a Multi-Wound model.
- If a Unit has mixed Armor values then proceed as explained below.

Once all Wounding Hits and Wounds have been dealt with, any excess damage is wasted.

------------------------------------------------

Let me know if it makes more sense and if I misunderstood something.

>>95940861
>>95941116

Okay I rewrote the original and community update into this:

------------------------------------------------

5) Wound Allocation
After determining the number of Wounding Hits, make a Saving Throw for each one of them. Any unsaved Wounding Hit becomes a Wound and is allocated to a model from the defending Units by the defending Player.
When allocating Wounds, no single model may be said to take all of them (unless it is the only valid target).

- If a whole Unit share the same Sv value you can speed up the process by rolling all the Saving Throws at once and allocate every unsaved Wounds when done.
- If a Unit has wounded Multi-Wounds model(s) these must be allocated any remaining Wounds first until removed as casualties before you can allocate any Wounds to another model again. It is forbidden to spread Wounds around in order to spare a Multi-Wound model.
- If a Unit has mixed Armor values then proceed as explained below.

Once all Wounding Hits and Wounds have been dealt with, any excess damage is wasted.

------------------------------------------------

Let me know if it makes more sense and if I misunderstood something.

>>95941195
Adding superheavies and flyers as experimental rules or elements to huge, "cinematic" games with FW stuff was fine. It meant you only saw them on special occasions and were merely a curious novelty to play with and against.
The problem came from pushing them to the forefront, that should've never happened.

Is the Demonic Stature + Dread Axe combo that broken? Denying any save is cool, but always wounding on 4+ even grots feels so stupid.

Okay forget about this post >>95942451
I dug up my old Core Rulebook and came up with picrel instead. Let me know if I missed something like a 'tard.

>>95942616
depends on what you're fighting, sure is if you're fighting characters or terminators. I think it was the slaanesh minor power siren that in combination with that became silly, because if you can not shoot at the daemon prince it becomes much more broken.

>>95942738
Where is this torrent of fire thing coming from? Is that in the 4th ed book?

>>95942738
A few notes:
we really need to only be abbreviating on a statline or something in a table. if we're writing a longform paragraph, T needs to read Toughness, Sv needs to be save, S needs to be Strength, to be clear or else it looks like algebra. it doesn't take up that much space. AP is fine as that is the normal nomenclature.

>When allocating wounds, each one -taken-

torrent of fire : i think the other anon is mixing this up with a later rule they introduced with the same name, i'd remove that "torrent of fire" part to avoid confusion and just make it a follow up paragraph.

Instant death: Multi-wound* not multi-wounds

other than that, i don't think i have any gripes

>>95943329
Yes it’s hidden in the paragraphs of wound allocation. It’s not a bolded keyworded rule though, so it’s hard to find or even know it exists. I proposed making it its own thing, like how instant death is.

>>95943841
I think that would just serve to confuse people who have encountered it in later editions (like it did to me) as its really nowhere in the existing index, and not a "specific" rule. Maybe just use a different term if it is going to be its own thing, and make sure it's in the index?

>>95943321
Damn, didn't even look at it because I usually don't pay attention to ECs. Becoming invisible to ranged weapons? That's busted.

>>95943883
I think the fact that you didn’t know what it was is a good reason enough to break it out into a boxed rules that’s quick to find.

>>95942147
https://github .com/pepsi41999/4ebattlebible

On a related note, has afpub anon gotten around to testing out the data merger tool capabilities? I was experimenting with data formats and I’m wondering how far down the rabbit hole to go. At some point you kinda cross the threshold of typing more data structure than actual data.

What is the plan moving forward, are people actually interested in this github idea? I could make a repo for ork anon to help him get started on porting his content.

Similar thread, what is the plan for codecies. The thread title calls for a Bible, one big pdf with absolutely everything in it, but I do prefer the format of separate codices. I was thinking we could have one repo for each book for organization?

>>95944495
yeah i had to go find it on that page before posting my last one. maybe a different term like "overwhelming fire" or something would confuse less.

>>95943329
The situation was bad enough that I had to dig up the Core Rulebook and here it was, hidden in the mess. I received a good deal of community revisions in the first three threads and one anon did a really good job pointing out missing rules and correcting errors. He chose to highlight Torrent of Fire by making it its own thing and I trust him enough that I went along with it.

>>95943631
Thanks, I'll get ride of the abbreviations later, but I sure will. I think SRDanon wanted to help newbies by having them straight up look at their Unit profile instead of mentaly converting Characteristics first; but the algebra point you are raising is valid.

>>95943883
I can leave Torrent of Fire as is or remove it, doesn't matter much to me. But let me tell you as someone that spent an hour today digesting the rules for Wound Allocation that, keyword-wise, the Core Rulebook a bloody mess: hits can be wounding hits can be wounds, Armor can be Save can be saving throws. Even the Step's name, Wound Allocation, is nowhere on these pages and is called Remove Casualties instead. I assumed Wound Allocation was a later GW concept and rolled with it because GW had a whole decade to think it over.

It's not the first or last call we're making here. We can vote about it, or you guys tell me if the later edition Torrent of Fire keyword GW eventualy adopted is more or less the same thing. If it is that means GW itself decided it was important enough to make it into its own concept, if not then we're just gonna confuse new comers from latter editions and should get ride of it.

I'm more concerned about SRDanon's choice of having Wound Allocation as Step 5 and Saving Throws as Step 6 as it looks there's a good amount of interplay between both; but GW chose to make Remove Casualties come after anyway.

>>95945178
torrent of fire was a rule that replaced flamer templates and just did a certain number of automatic hits to an enemy in range. I think it was added in 8th, but i'm not certain. My vote would be to just drop the phrase if we're not going to make another more specific replacement.

Also, no update on marines today yet, it's been a busy day. hopefully i can start DA today.

>>95944865
I figure we can have options for the book. the goal is one big doc, but there's nothing saying we can't also have a seperate zip file available with the different pieces if someone didn't want to print everything.

>>95941103
My 7th experience was a complete anomaly since no one was trying to waacfag their way into victory. My group never experience the horrors of crap of Taudar or invincible deathstars. Worst thing was a guy trying to netlist some necron army, but sucked so much at the game we just tried to win against him using the stupid list possible.
Once I table him using 6 Penitent Engines and a wall of Immolators.

Why should I play this and not 10th edition?

>>95945178
I am a huge proponent of keyword-less design; rules should be written in plain spoken form. But even I recognize that sometimes an abstract game concept is best named. An example being “rolling to wound” vs “the To-Wound roll”. When the keyword is self explanatory it gains nothing but a layer of potential confusion when reading. But in other times a keyword like “instant death” can help a user remember and reference an index for an otherwise complex theme.

>>95945805
Are you 33 to 39 years old and want to relive the joy and nostalgia playing the game you played in middle school as a kid? If so, this is for you. If not, no hard feelings.

>>95945805
Wargear is cool

>>95945805
A better question is why would you play 10th when its crap?

>>95945884
>nostalgia
>>95945984
>"wargear"
>>95946064
"10th is crap"

Okay, ignore nostalgia goggles. Explain why wargear is good, why 10th edition is crap, and why 4th or 3rd or whatever the fuck edition you guys are going with is the "best edition of the game" from a pure rules perspective

>>95946469
It’s about the experience. 4th ed is a wargame, the rules are tailored for this experience. Troopers are not game pieces with a strict purpose that always listen to your command. 10th ed is like an tcg, It’s got trap card and gotchas and gamey mechanics like command points (which is just another word for mana).

Another part of this is scope. “Centerpiece” models practically do not exist, and we do not want them to. Seeing a primarch level character in my tiny skirmish battle every single game is just hella lame. In 4th ed a dreadnaught IS your centerpiece model. A tyranid army can’t field anything larger than a carnifex. This narrower scope keeps the game play more immersive and balanced which is in turn more fun.

The last part for me is just the terrain rules, which in 10th are not good. The edge effect of terrain is way to high. I also think symmetrical forced layouts are not good. Establishing a status quo in this manner was unhealthy for the game.

Honorable mentions:
>wargear is fun
>multi round combats
>vehicle armour facings and firing arcs
>blast templates

>>95946542
This sounds interesting. So it feels more like a real battle compared to 10th? More immersive? Sounds interesting, I'd like to see it in action. Like the historical wargames I've seen some people play in the shop. Didn't think 40k of all things was ever like that.

>centerpiece models do not exist

Wouldn't this exclude knight players?

>>95946594
>Wouldn't this exclude knight players?
yes. this is not a bad thing. That said we do have optional rules for super heavies from when they first appeared, and do have plans on backporting existing rules to the same style as this era, but that is far far off unless someone gets cooking sooner..


OP, i have added quotes, filler art, and the little frescoes we see throughout the original book to the "cleaned elements" folder so they may be used in the document as filler for those blank spaces

>>95946637
forgot the fuckin mega link
https://mega.nz/folder/NTB0TTDR#8Qxl_ugtPUbetUzoLnzEBQ

>>95946594
And that is a good thing.
Super heavies are for special scenarios or their own special rules like apocalypse.
Same goes for primarchs and flyares. Named characters back in the day needed permission from the opponent to be used. Not because they where broken, but mostly because it would require some reason why some random sisters of battle are now clapping Dantes ass. Because after all this is a wargame we are stimulating "historical events"

>>95946594
For an example to give you a frame of reference, a knight or equivalent unit in 4th edition would cost probably around 700 points, and you would not be able to take them in normal games. Back then we had a special word “apocalypse” for playing HUGE battles of around 5000 points. Normally these would be played on 2 or 3 full sized tables pushed together. The games would last lap day. Baneblades and stuff of similar power level were limited to this size of game, you could not bring them in normal matches. And your army couldn’t be all apoc units either. The force organization chart saw to that.

The force org chart was also a big part of forcing player to bring thematic lists that were fun to play. Also only troops could score objectives so you needed them. That’s not my personally favorite solution, my friends and I play that all non-vehicles, non-monstrous-creatures, and non-swarms can score objectives. And we also have a rule that says you cannot field more points in a force org category than you have in troops. So if you want to bring 600 points of heavy armour you gotta bring 600 points of troops too.

>>95946594
>Wouldn't this exclude knight players?
You could probably get away with using their 6th? 7th? codex but I think there's 3e fanrules somewhere

>>95946594
>Didn't think 40k of all things was ever like that.
The thing to keep in mind here is the history of GW/Citadel.
They used to just make little pewter figures for other people's games, from Napoleonic, to Medieval, to Late 1800s, to Lord of the Rings, and more. This pastiche of production eventually coalesced into them making their own game (Warhammer Fantasy Battles), which allowed them to kind of mash together all these disparate elements from various historical times (that's why Bretonia is medieval France, yet the Reikland is late-Renaissance, and there's dwarves and elves and orcs). Eventually they were making SciFi miniatures too, and from this spawned the first edition of what would later be known as Warhammer 40,000 (called Rogue Trader).
Now these earliest battle games were all based on the existing Historical Wargames of the time, although in some ways simplified (but would be considered ridiculously complex today). As time marched on the games (both Fantasy and 40k) gained more of their own identity and more bespoke rules to suit the settings.
3rd Edition 40k was the first big shake up from what we could call the OG Wargame but in Space. The 3rd Ed Rule Book really cemented a lot of the lore, cannon, and mechanics, we all take for granted now, and the following army codexes further cemented that. It was also a time when I feel the most passionate and clever employees were at GW - a bunch of total nerds and geeks who all took part in miniature design, rules design, art, writing, and direction. Imagine a small room of your best mates sinking beers just chewing the fat and coming up with wicked ideas and play-testing them that day while Jeff in the corner is sculpting 3-ups of the latest chaos abomination he dreamed up last night.
A lot of us older (30s-40s) fans grew up playing 3/4/5th edition 40k, so that's what we remember fondly - a niche hobby run and enjoyed by passionate fans who were looking to have fun spending time with their mates.

>>95946594
>Wouldn't this exclude knight players?
It would, but a lot of us would prefer that such massive pieces just weren't in the game at all, or at least restricted to Apocalypse games where their inclusion makes more sense. That's what 3rd and 4th Edition was like.

>>95946469
>wargear is good
So back in the older games, Wargear was all individually costed. A combi-bolter was 2pts, a combi-metla was 10pts etc. It required you to be very careful when choosing unit load outs and composition, cause you might come up short on points, or have to field an army just below points value (there were a lot of 1998pt armies out there). In addition, Wargear was more than just weapons. Things like grenades, bionics, iron halos, chem-inhalers, extra armour, medals, purity seals, and more, were all costed in, and allowed you to really craft an individually unique army.

>>95946879
>my friends and I play that all non-vehicles, non-monstrous-creatures, and non-swarms can score objectives. And we also have a rule that says you cannot field more points in a force org category than you have in troops. So if you want to bring 600 points of heavy armour you gotta bring 600 points of troops too.

Kino

>>95946469
>Explain why wargear is good
Do I seriously need to explain why tailoring out your character in gear of your choice is a good thing? Man, it's part of the narrative side of the hobby.
Even putting that aside, it's also just good utility, a great way of adapting your characters to the armies you face. If you find a lot of vehicles, get your captain a Combi-Melta. Oh, and it also solves the issue of 90% of 10th edition armies being 1990 or 2010 pts, because you can juggle the points around now.
Oh, and certain weapons no longer feel useless. The las or bolt pistol on your commissar may still hit weaker than the plasma, but now you're saving points for something else because plasma is more expensive.

>>95947234
If you experience is the same as mine, we'd also use Wargear as a little narrative tool. If your HQ went down one game the next you'd buy them Bionics. Or if they took out a melta-wielding foe you'd take a meltagun or combimelta next time.
Sure, we were just aping the stories of Tycho and Yarick, but that's the point I guess.

>>95946469
Everything about 10th is garbage. It is the most abstracted and most gamey edition to ever be written. It doesn't feel like you are recreating a war in the far future, it feels like you are playing DOTA with miniatures or something. Entirely crafted for the tournament crowd and zero attention paid to the narrative crowd. The whole feel of the game is off. Customization completely gutted. Wargear essentially non-existent.

It also manages, somehow, to be too simple and too complicated at the same fucking time, which is a real achievement of retardation on the part of the designers. If I had to describe 10th as a bodytype, it's skinnyfat. Too much bloat in all the places you want to be thin and toned, and way too scrawny and weak in all the places you want there to be muscle mass.

You had editions like 7th that were too fat and bloated but at least had a layer of muscle underneath. Then you had editions like 3rd in its first couple years that were scrawny as fuck but at least they were slender and lean. 4th is the best of both worlds, and the opposite of 10th - has meat on the bones in the places where you need it, but stays streamlined without too much of the fat. It's not ideal or perfect by any means, but it's the closest we got to that out of any of the 10 editions ever written.

>>95945805
4th edition has a lot more “wargame” mechanics with a lot of simulationist aspects. Measuring facings and firing arcs for vehicles, units actually breaking under bad morale and fleeing the board, emphasis on individual wargear down to grenade and cybernetic options to fully kit out units and characters.
10th edition plays more videogamey with an emphasis on streamlining and gameyness. This isn’t inherently a bad thing, but it’s not at all why I fell in love with 40ks gameplay. Shooting through treads, 1” wall, practically nonexistent cover rules, stratagems, detachment rules, fixed costs. It strips a lot of the core gameplay I enjoy and feels a lot more like just bashing toys together and rolling dice to see who wins. There is no inherent benefit in 10th for flanking a tank and dropping a rocket in its ass. 4th rewards you handsomely for this.

>>95947323
>It doesn't feel like you are recreating a war in the far future, it feels like you are playing DOTA with miniatures or something.

Bingo. the sportification of 40k is what's killing it in the modern era. VP means nothing in scenarios they make now.

>>95947323
>you are playing DOTA with miniatures
Hadn't made sense till you said it like that. It does feel like DOTA//LoL.
>It also manages, somehow, to be too simple and too complicated at the same fucking time
Legitimately, I have no idea how they managed this either. It's impressive just how 10th ed came to be like it is. Like, you need to be an expert at shit game design to make it. I think any other group of 10 people you pulled off the street could probably make a better wargame - not a good one, just a better one than 10th.

>>95947435
>There is no inherent benefit in 10th for flanking a tank and dropping a rocket in its ass. 4th rewards you handsomely for this.
Vehicle toughness, whilst I am a fan of some streamlining of mechanics, was a massive misstep . Turned them from VEHICLES into vehicles, if you get what I'm getting at.

>>95947596
actually it turned them from vehicles to <vehilcles>

Added the morale and unit types chapters to the github
https://github .com/pepsi41999/4ebattlebible

>>95946637
Yes, I'm finishing v0.98 today by polishing some wording here and there and then it's the big leap. For v0.99 I'll solely focus on adding all the illustrative examples where they are the most needed. This should fuck up the layout so much this is going to be a big job. In fact I expect v1.0 to simply be reorganizing pages to try and make the most sense of it.

Once we're there the SRD will be officialy complete but I'll keep working on tweaking minor stuff plus editing and adding bonus chapters as requested so we should end up beyond 1.0 anyway.

>>95947323
>>95947590
>>95947454
Ya'll need to try crusade

Are there any rules from later editions you miss?

I like advancing/running personally and would house rule it back into the game

>>95948230
>Ya'll need to try crusade
Sell it to me.

>>95948241
>Are there any rules from later editions you miss?
Not so much a rule, but I do like things like Terminators having 2W.
But once I open that pandora's box I go off on a bunch of changes like the incongruity between Toughness and Armour and the need for Wound Rolls etc.

>>95948260
I'd rather just give marines 2 wounds and pump their points to compensate.

>>95948230
It still plays like DOTA

>>95947323
>it feels like you are playing DOTA with miniatures
Funny when an actual 40k ASSFAGGOTS exists and it's one of the most reviled things in the franchise

>>95948264
I think if that was done, the best format for it would be
>here is marines as they were
>and here is this revision with higher points, balanced as best we can (if you wish)
But not only the latter.

>>95948796
Oh definitely it would be best to present both.

If you're only adjusting points for durability (2 wounds), marines would balance out by having overall less output (less guns/attacks on the table) so I imagine it wouldn't be too much of an issue.

Lazy way I will test with some mates is to just play 25% points down (1000pt game, marines get 750pts), and blanket 2 wounds across the board

>>95947264
My Warboss actually started as a "Nob Luutenant" that became bigger as battles went by. Same with my lowly Chaos Champion, who's now a powerful Daemon Prince.

>>95948264
Honestly, if you're gonna do that you might as well expand the movie marine list instead

>>95949478
What a retarded take.

>>95948264
well if we're on the subject of the "fan codex" expansion for later, I know i wanted 2 wounds across the board. I didn't read the whole movie marines article, but i think they went a little too elite. You should still be fielding a decent number, just half as many models as a normal force (at least how i envision it).
Malum Caedo from Boltgun would be a fun one to stat out as a one man army though.

>>95950267
>I didn't read the whole movie marines article, but i think they went a little too elite.
Because people are too dumb to even understand the TITLE of the article. It's "movie marines", not "lore accurate marines". It is NOT supposed to represent accurate marine stats at all, but way stupidly overblown fanwank style marines you would get in one of those hollywood action movies from the 80s. They are joke rules written for fun, it even includes "stunt doubles" as wargear. Marines are not, in fact, supposed to be remotely that powerful.

>>95949478
Why not both?

>>95950267
Lore accurate would probably be like, T5, S5, I5, A3, 2+ save, LD9, 2 wounds for the average tactical marine, alongside ATSNF. Make the astartes boltgun S5 AP4 and a special rule that gives it double the shots of a rapid fire weapon (2 at range, 4 within twelve inches), pistol has 2 shots and the same stats, Astartes Chainsword has Rending, etc. Keep astartes vehicles the same, but add a rule that the crew can't be stunned due to being astartes (count crew stunned results as crew shaken, count crew shaken results as nothing). Give termies and extra wound and a 4++ save.

This would probably be dogshit to play against on the table compared to normal marines but it's more lore accurate than the ridiculous movie marines list

>>95950437
>This would probably be dogshit to play against on the table compared to normal marines
i'll keep the notes in mind for whenever i get around to that. I do plan on doing this to Every faction, so it'll be more even. these will absolutely meant to be played against each other and not the normal codexes that i'm transcribing for this project. I just always wanted to see more bombastic "lore accurate" versions of each faction for fun, fluffy games.

Speaking of which: starting work on the DA codex today while i'm at work.

>>95950437
>Lore accurate would probably be like, T5, S5, I5, A3, 2+ save
No you fucking idiot, did you not read what I just got done saying? Movie Marines are not even close to lore accurate, they are way overpowered intentionally as a fucking joke.

Lore accurate marines are accomplished with 2 wounds, and perhaps 2 attacks. Priestley is the one who invented marines and decided how strong they were in the lore, and also the man who statted them. Then he directly acknowledged when the stats weren't living up to the lore and buffed them multiple times over the course of Rogue Trader to fix that. Then Chambers took over and was part of the team that retweaked everyone's stats again at the start of 3rd edition to make sure they were lore accurate (that's why Orks went from WS 3 BS 3 to WS 4 BS 2). Then he also acknowledged when they had oversimplified some things, like Terminator armour, and buffed them to fix it.

At the end of all this, the units stats were almost entirely in line with where they are supposed to be according to lore, because they were being managed by the same damn people who wrote the lore. The only thing is that, back then, 2 Wounds was a lot, because even huge monstrous creatures only had 4 and the damage stat had been removed after 2nd ed to simplify the game, so they didn't give all marines 2 wounds until 8th brought back damage as a characteristic, although it is arguably still appropriate.

S5, T5, I5, that's all retarded wank and is way stronger, faster, and tougher than marines actually are. The lore is clear that they are not as strong as ogryn, as fast as eldar, etc.

>>95950489
Aren't marines made to level the playing field against shit like eldar and orks?
So statwise they should be around the stats of an eldar or an ork

>>95950489
>The lore is clear that they are not as strong as ogryn, as fast as eldar, etc

They're like that in the FFG rpgs and in games like Space Marine, as well as the astartes animation where five marines is enough to take down several squads of militia and 2 psykers without much effort

>>95950513
They're made to be better than regular human soldiers in every way, and they are.

S4 > S3
T4 > T3
I4 > I3
etc.

They were never on the level of shit like Custodes which are the stats you are trying to give them. This is absolute wankery.

>>95950521
>FFG
So a third-party licensed company that produced games which are no longer canon?
>space marine
So a third-party licensed video game?
>astartes
So a fan animation created completely outside of the bounds of GW? (Admittedly it is fucking awesome, but it also puts Marines up against humans so there's no conflict with anything I've said).

>>95950545
I mean, it was pretty in-line with the canon you see reflected in stuff like Dawn of War, where marines die in droves but are still the most elite faction in the game and each marine feels individually powerful

It's certainly not in line with shit like the beloved Astartes animation and other, more modern depictions, as >>95950521 points out. Which is canon now, btw.

>So a third-party licensed video game
Which GW officially endorsed to the point of writing fucking white dwarf fluff to tie into it. It's canon.

In 4th ed era 40k (which dawn of war 1 represents well), a demi-company of marines is enough to match up against a couple of companies of pure guard infantry, and would possibly face severe casualties and lose because that's considered an even match up. In modern fluff since then (around which the pop cultural idea of space marine power revolves), it'd take at least a thousand guard infantry to match that demi-company. A small regiment's worth.

>>95950545
>custodes
Anon I never even mention custodes, just eldar and orks. I was even implying to make stats marines worst than those.
S3, T4, I4, Sv3+
After all orks and eldar are Still S3 and T3

>>95950545
>>95950521
>>95950513
>>95950489
>>95950558
>>95950562

y'all realize you are arguing about shit we aren't even doing right now, as we're just assembling a 4th edition doc with easier to read rules and codex entries all in one place. we're CONSIDERING a fan dex AFTER we get this shit put together. none of your suggestions are being considered for the current stage of this project. save the arguing for a few months down the road when we're actually doing it.

>>95950562
I'm saying whoever it was saying Marines should be statted S/T/I 5 with 3 attacks and 2+ armour and 4 shot guns and all that nonsense is trying to make Marines into Custodes (or better) which is ridiculous.

>>95950545
>To take a town, send a legionary; to take a city, send a squad; to take a world, send a company; to take a culture, send a Chapter.

- Know No Fear by Dan Abnett

>>95950567
My bad for a second there I got confused with another thread.

>>95950576
Meaningless in terms of game stats. It's just a saying. Full chapters aren't effective because they're all demigods with super stats, they're effective because of coordination, training, leadership, synergy, strategy, etc.

A tactical marine is not the equal of an Exarch, a Warboss, or a Tyranid Warrior. The existing stats in 4th edition were given to marines because those were the most fitting stats according to the lore, by the people who created both and know better than anyone.

>>95945708
Well that settles it. I replace Torrent of Fire by Overwhelming Firepower for now.

>>95945860
What are some parts you'll replace? I'm playing a wargame not a tcg so I'm not huge on keywords anyway.

>>95950664
What? No just leave it as torrent of fire, that’s what it literally is described as in the rule books. Don’t change it.

Also are you not interested in the github? The parallel editing of different versions is what I was trying to avoid by consolidating everything, but so far no one has touched it but me.

>>95950604
Uh huh. So a squad can conquer and hold a city through sheer tactical brilliance? Ten guys? Even if a single lone marine would fall over like wet tissue paper if they encountered ten hormagaunts, and only take out 2 or 3 at range as they closed in on him? Because realistically that's the most you can hope for on the table

>>95950702
Torrent of fire isn't a 4th ed rule, it is just used in the fluff side of a paragraph on shooting describing what happens if you take a number of shots that meets or exceeds the number of models being shot, the shooter can decide that a specific model (usually a character or someone with a special weapon) definitely takes a hit from the group. Torrent of Fire as a rule was later introduced a few editions later for automatic hits from a template weapon like a flamer and including the exact name will just confuse people who played later editions.

As for Github, i feel like neither SRDanon or I (orkanon) really understand it enough to use it. I like the idea of everyone working on the same document, but if we have to change the entire workflow or risk fucking up the existing doc, i think i'd rather just have the one revising it finish their modifications, post the latest version, and revise further from there with suggestions. Too many cooks could cause us to splinter or butt heads. So while this current way might be slower, i'd rather do it slow and right while working on other parts in the background than inadvertently overwriting someone else's work.

>>95951006
cont'd
Now, that said you could copy and paste in plain text and add from the codex docs I've already worked on into that side for later editing, my part is just getting the info from the codex into a form we CAN copy and paste (which is why i post both the pdf and word docs in the mega whenever i have something done) that could make things easier for later editing. Right now learning to grok a new thing while i'm already just trying to grab the data isn't something i'm really willing to do as most of this work is already done between the time i'm not busy at work with my actual job and my time off.

>>95950702
I wish the very best to your Github initiative anon. Actually, I think it has way more potential than the SRD because eventually someone can make an army builder, a wiki and whatnot out of it. That being said, updating the SRD is already taking all my spare time so I can't stretch myself too thin yet.

If you have some really simple tasks you want to delegates to me just ring my bell anon. I'll be happy to do any monkey parts if it helps you even one bit.

Also I need the name of a Walker that would be 4 letters max so it can fit into the damn Walker characteristic profile table. Does that even exist?

>>95951149
can you just shrink the text of an existing walker name to fit on the line? that's what i did. even just "dread" is five letters and not a full unit name.

>>95951232
I was dreading this prospect.

>>95950567
therealhobby.jpg

>>95934999
My ingredients arrived. I have 4 liters of distilled water (it was for 1.25 Canadian bucks and only option from the shop) and I might go on a spending spree of different inks.

So it was said that a victory lap might be done with a hobbyists edition.
Should I even bother as it may be too early to be bothered with including hobby related stuff when the compiled rules aren't even done yet?
I'm feeling as though the best answer might be "not at the moment." And I'm alright with that. I just need to make sure that I can make these ink washes in the first place. I have index cards to record my recipes.

>>95951360
worst case scenario, write it up and hold it for when we're finishing things off. I still think that would be best as a seperate collected hobby advice doc like how we're collecting the rules

>>95951360
You better move your sorry inked ass. v1.0 is like a week away, top.

>>95951397
It's all pdf so I think it will end up as a folder with SRD, SRD Printer Friendly, Codices, Hobby, Full SRD Experience, Homebrews.

>>95951397
How is this edition going to be distributed anyway?
I saw github mentioned, but I only skimmed this thread. I think I missed something in my retardation.
>>95951417
>You better move your sorry inked ass. v1.0 is like a week away, top.
Aw shit. Okay I'll just link the recipe I found and am mimicking.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/261541.page
I'm using ultra matte medium instead.
The plan is to first start with a black wash as I feel that black washes are the most universal of washes and then cover the original Citadel washes in providing alternatives.
No reason we can't cram some terrain making advice from the "How to make Wargame Terrain" books.

But in accordance to Murphy's Law where everything that can will go wrong, I feel as though I might mess up the recipe somehow are the results won't be that great. Still it is not gonna stop me from trying to make these custom ink washes as the prime motivator was me wanting to try DIY and then followed by wanting to scratch build terrain and rush through the painting part with just basecoats and diluted washes followed by a drybrush.

>>95951500
>then cover the original Citadel washes in providing alternatives
I can probably try looking at the daler rowney acrylic ink range (I prefer their glass containers as liquitex looks more easier to knock over by accident).
According to the lexicanum 4th edition was released August 28th 2004.
This means that I should be mimicking the older washes.
Pardon my idiocy but I'm fairly sure that it was the number 1. or 2. pot designs from pic related that were used during that era.
Can anyone here confirm which pot design from pic related was used during 4th edition's era?
From there I can probably find a chart of the acrylic washes and what their effects looked like when applied over white.
Then I can try experimenting with acrylic inks to make a "close enough" DIY version.

I'm not gonna beat around the bush here. I was most likely 5 years old in 2004.

+++++++++ SRD UPDATE +++++++++

v0.98: drive. google. com/file/d/1pWktX1RdU2GdIXHLdR1z5y7QcW34aINA/

As usual comments are allowed so feel free to point any errors or mistake there.

+++++++++ SRD UPDATE +++++++++

>>95951760
Skimming through and so far haven't noticed any types yet.

Will there be a move from google drive to some other form of file distribution after the main goals of this project are concluded?

>>95951500
still figuring that out. i'd like to decentralize it to some extent to prevent an official takedown from a certain company, so it's always available.

>>95951681
I distinctly recall the design of #2 being available back when i was first getting into the hobby in 2005, so that might actually be the wrong date (but, i could also be wrong, who knows)

(I was 11-12, a prime age to get into all this. glad to see a younger generation stepping up)

>>95951760
Were any of the previous comments not acted on yet? I can see the example images are still pending which is totally fine, I just want to make sure i don't suggest something again if it's still pending.

>>95950745
>Uh huh. So a squad can conquer and hold a city through sheer tactical brilliance? Ten guys?
No, a squad can't actually conquer and hold a city at all, period. It's a tough guy saying in-universe, it isn't real. Dan Abnett isn't the decider of space marine lore, he didn't even work for GW until a decade after 40k was created, and he never wrote a rulebook or a codex anyways.

>>95951970
I've centralized every suggestions so far into a single .txt, I'll upload it tomorrow so you can compare.

Out of the top of my head, apart from the images that are to be implemented in v0.99 as scheduled; I still have to add the multiple combat rules, define vehicle's arc of fire, rewrite Tank Shock, add more terrain options such as Minefield and extra missions like Raid. Every minor stuffs as been dealt with already.

>>95951824
Well we were kind of hoping you'll go door to door like a Jehova Witness and give free prints. "Have you heard about our Lord ans Savior TEH EMPERAH?"

>>95952410
minefield and booby traps would specifically be for something like raid with "hidden setup". i'm not sure how much of the jungle fighting rules from the catachan book were alread included as part of the core rules, but we can compare when we go over optional content like the different mission types, campaign, and so on. That'll be lower on the priority list than making sure this core part of the doc is done.

>>95951824
like i said >>95951970
>still figuring that out. i'd like to decentralize it to some extent to prevent an official takedown from a certain company, so it's always available.
i'm sure we can figure it out later, and we can float some ideas in the meantime. We can also see about uploading to the internet archive as a backup in case we do ever have a takedown as well. the core members should always have the most up to date project files for redistribution onto sites if we do face a threat of that.

>>95951500
>>95951681
I think you’ll be hard pressed to find pics like pic related to show how the earliest citadel washes worked over white.
Unless you count coat d’arms’ super washes as close enough to those old ones.

If all else fails you could just try to get the washes to mimic the badab and Devlan mud era of gw washes. They kept the wash palette simple then. But don’t feel bad about not getting Baal red right. That was my least favorite of the bunch.

>>95952571
There is a fan made rule supplement for Horus heresy hosted on itch.io if I recall properly. So far nothing happened to it last I checked as of making this post so maybe things will be alright.

But then again Lego did cancel a free fan made bionicle game so maybe gw would cancel a redux version of fourth edition.

>>95951500
>>95951681
>>95952673
Would it be better if I just instead made the basic wash colors that the goblin image covers instead of worrying about mimicking gw’s colors and tones?
Ive just had a thought that doing something like the mimicking might increase the chances of getting the project taken down by gw. I’m not sure how British copyright law works.

>>95952699
Yeah, being free doesn't protect you from copyright takedowns: it's only more likely to put you under the radar in terms of a company deciding you're worth it to go after. But the deeper the pockets and more litigious the company, the less help that is.

>>95952699
we just have to source it everywhere and get the word out, and make a document to be proud of. technically it falls under abandonware once they move on to a new edition, but they were taking down fan animations all over the place a while back.

We could always do something akin to wahapedia, or have the info available to the people running that site to make a new section for this specific era. not sure they'd want to, but you never know.

I started playing in 2006 with 4th edition. You anons are doing the Emperor's work, keep it up.

>>95950489
>At the end of all this, the units stats were almost entirely in line with where they are supposed to be according to lore
>guardians still at WS 3 BS 3
lol

>>95953185
Yes. that doesn't reflect their speed.

Eldar civilian on the same level as a trained human soldier

>>95952917
Don't overthink it mate, even GW don't know how UK copyright law works. Do your stuff, have fun.

>>95953261 meant for >>95952915

>>95953197
>a superhuman with hundreds of years of militia experience is on the same level as some guy that's been given a lasgun for a few months
Nah, guardians being buffed is one of the only good things later 40k did

>>95953261
>>95953264
Alright I’ll just head to the art store and grab some inks and see how serviceable I can make some washes. Don’t expect them to be 1:1 with any gw washes though.

>>95953160
a year after myself. good to have you. We do need more people transcribing codex info. This goes for anyone and everyone who wants to help.

Orks are done, marines are in progress, every other codex is still needed if someone wants to commit to grabbing the info.

>>95868776 (OP)
>4th edition compilation by anon:
>mega.nz/folder/PEcnVC5Y#BGZlNvCNOoC2_ZFdw_5KoA

example of what we're looking for in the document : >>95877980
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lKdZRzuEBWwyPYIGH-yvSb5J_1zWhmNH/view?usp=sharing

>>95953531
Here's a list of the ones we still need transcribed and simplified, codex listed by weight of entries and by the printing we had confirmed in previous threads was the best for 3.5 era, additional content (army supplements, IA entries, WD articles for specific additions) also needed:

>Heavy codices, lots of entries
Imperial Guard (3rd edition, 2nd printing)
Chaos space marines (3rd edition, 2nd printing)

>Medium codices, good number of entries but not a huge amount
Eldar (3rd)
Tyranids (4th)
Tau Empire (4th)
Witch hunters (3rd)
Daemon hunters (3rd)

>Light codices, limited options
Necrons (3rd)
Dark Eldar (3rd)

>Expansions for optional rules to add to the main rule book, some other content is spread throughout other books
Cities of Death
Apocalypse

It's quite the undertaking.


OP, it might be a good idea to have a running list of what has been done and what needs to be handled in a pastebin or something.

>>95953650
i believe i also have an early mechanicus and GSC book from this era as well that would go into the medium and light categories specifically

>>95951077
>time runs thin
I understand that completely. But I want to double down on that the reason why I think github is cool is because you can decentralize the editing. Github is designed for parallel editing, it’s purpose is to allow merging and keeping track of multiple peoples work.

>>95951006
I want to alleviate the fear of accidentally editing over another persons work. The way git works is like this:
>Anon wants to make a change to the movement chapter cause he notices a typo.
> he clones (which means downloads a copy of) the current most up to date project.
> he makes his edit, commits (this means making a save point) the change making a note of what he changed in the log
> he pushes (this means uploads) the new complete project to github
At this point the github will now reflect the latest edits. But all past commits (save points) are not lost. This is the power of git, the ability to go backwards in time, it it’s a full history of the working versions along with a complete and visible line by line change history. It won’t help the difference of opinions though, but know you cannot erase the older versions so it’s always capable of going backward to recover something deleted on accident.

>>95951760
But it’s getting hard cause even now the stuff I am slowly putting on the GitHub is out of date cause you pushed out another version. And it’s hard since you don’t have a change log I have no idea what changes were made and how I would reflect them onto the github.
>a really simple task
open up command prompt and type the word “git” without the quotes and tell me what happens. If you are on Mac or windows I think it will just automatically either work or offer to install it for you, and if you are on Linux it’s probly there already.

>>95953678
(mechanicus was actually already a word doc which i just uploaded as a PDF which needs very little work. it and GSC has been uploaded to my personal archive, same as the other one but with the extras i've found, mega. nz /folder/AGAU0RLL#ZppNZJMXZwoYI9CLO7PF6g)

>>95953740
I think if you guys were going to have a discord and have accountable editors with their names on shit and be interested in maintaining this long-term this would be a cool idea. But really this is one editor picking up the slack from a previous editor, and looking for revisions as he refines the release pushing for a 1.0.

Like, are you setting up a "Classichammer Rules Committee" as it were? Or is this a small, casual project for and by /tg/ anons?

>>95953742
Can you add 3E Codices for Orks, Blangels & Dangels with FAQs? Far better than the 4E books and you might as well if we're including 3.5 and 4e for CSM

>>95953765
To start, I think there is a universal desire to prove we can get something done on tg alone. The SNA and his secret discord was what killed fourk.

What I am proposing is more of an open source battlebible. I am super anal about typography and page layout. With the project open source anyone can copy it and do with what they please, fix a mistake, make a house rule edition, whatever. The keys to the kingdom are online and up for grabs, because the raw uncompiled source files are there.

>>95953740
here's what i got, pic related

>>95953765
/fourk/ had a discord i was part of last year, little too much ego going on, so I'm hesitant to use it again, but hey it might be different this time. this group is actually getting shit done in the vein of old /tg/, so who knows. (we did a lot of theorizing and planning, but when the lead ghosted us it ultimately went nowhere. I don't want the effort going to waste this time)

so far this is pretty fuckin' casual with only myself (orkanon), nuSRDanon, github anon, and possibly a few more working on it (not everyone has a name so far, and if we did people would call us namefags). I'd like to keep it on this thread as much as possible, and thankfully have less replies than the shitshow that was last year's project with everyone pulling in a different direction.
Right now we have a baseline of WRITE THIS EDITION, BUT BETTER and GET ALL CODEX DATA FROM THIS SPECIFIC ERA, so if we can at least do that we have victory. if we can make a fluffy fan edition with that as the basis after, even better.

>>95953833
I would like to add those to the docs, i just haven't perused the FAQ sections to find all the info to do so. if anyone can narrow down where to find it all i can focus on doing that after i finish marines and add it to the workflow of the future dexes.

>>95953906
Should be good to go with this
>https :// mega. nz/folder/p95WHYiY#2TZFnrI1vbRtjRSQLWNuYg/folder/hlxXiBQY

>>95953185
>>95953197
>>95953340
Guardians aren't soldiers like Aspect Warriors. They're musicians, artists, sculptors, and merchants, who have taken up arms to defend the Craft World cause there simply isn't enough of the Warrior Class (Aspects) left to fight.
Them having WS and BS 3 is fine, since they have Initiative 4 meaning they strike before an Imperial Guardsman and at the same speed as a Space Marine, which reflects their natural agility and speed.
You have to always keep in mind that the abstraction of lore into mechanics is severely limited by the d6 dice scale.
If 40k had from the get go decided to use, say d12s, then there is an argument that you could put a normal human at 3, a guardian at 4, a Space Marine at 5, a Demon Prince at 8, and a greater Demon at 10, which would scale more authentically.

>>95954138
Someone that's served as a citizen soldier every now and then for a few hundred years deserves a higher WS and BS than a random guardsman and there's a reason they changed it in 7th or whatever

>>95953765
Creator of fourk here. That was a terrible idea in what went down and I hope it doesn’t repeat itself when the discord was made.

I also feel shame in starting fourk. I wanted to be the spark that gets the idea out there but let true veterans of that era take the wheel. Maybe that’s why it failed along with clashing egos and a starter who did not have a clear vision.

I hope this project succeeds where fourk failed. I’ve skimmed this thread are things going on properly?

>>95954352
Guardians are basically the Eldar version of Conscripts so by having WS/BS 3 they DO have better skills than a human.

>>95954352
IIRC they only changed it when they got rid of Initiative, since they had no other way to reflect an Eldar's natural speed and agility.
Also IIRC the Ulthwe guardians got BS4? Cause they were way more warlike and constantly at battle? I could be remembering wrong.

>>95954449
>better skills than a human
A bog standard Imperial is WS 2 BS 2 S3 T3 Init 2 imo

>>95868776 (OP)
Is there a 3rd edition version? also why 4th over 3rd? genuinely curious.

>>95954629
4th is 3rd but revised, and not revised in a way that pissed everyone off.

>>95954629
3rd went through several codex-level revisions, to the point a lot call it 3.5e (some codex got 2 printings for example, and early and late one in preparation for 4th ed).
4th essentially coalesced all these little mid-cycle revisions into a new edition, so it was very well-received.

>>95954359
Dont feel bad. I still enjoyed fourk more than I have any other thread in the last 5 years on here. But trying to move the thread to a secret discord did not help, eventually people just stopped posting. I think having a guided task, even if it's just transcribing and srd, is helping these threads stay alive better.

>>95953906
>pic related
kk ill figure out how to get things going and write up a tutorial.

>>95954003
Thanks, i'll save it to my mega and look it over when i'm working on it.
>>95954359
Don't feel shame, it's not a failure if we learn from it. it just gets a restart and an extended timeline. those threads burned bright but got snuffed out fast. this has a better chance if success and I have a good feeling about this project more than the last one.

Any help we can get on codices and proofreading is something we can use.

>>95954629
Common question, we really should have it in the OP, but the free bumps are nice. 3rd was some of the best 40k ever was, flavorful but playable and a proper wargame when compared to today's offerings. on the downside, the editors said fuck you if you're trying to find anything in that book. all the info is scattered around in each rulebook and codex that it's a constant nightmare of flipping. Compare that with 4th, which still had a fair amount of flipping, but introduced an index, universal special rules, and got rid of the wonkiness without losing flavor in the first half. it was also totally compatible with codices from 3rd, which made it a special time to play everything from the later half of 3rd and the early half of 4th, hence 3.5 Once they started gearing codices towards the next edition they started getting out of whack, and the game had some improvements, but other parts made it go downhill from there edition after edition.

>>95955067
thanks, my mind is full of fuck and i don't want to get it all over the project in a metaphorical sense

>>95952699
If you mean DiscordWally's panopticon stuff, something did in fact happen to them - they initially had a layout doc for their stuff that made it look exactly like the modern HH books but GWLegal "got in touch" and made them change it to something a bit more generic(it was actually the incident that turned a big chunk of the community against him and his littlq clique of faggots, because he used it to pretend GW had somehow *endorsed* his houserules above alternatives rather than simply approving the changes made to avoid a lawsuit). If this doc is going to end up including art and layout shit from the original it will, eventually, draw the Eye of Sauron and should be distributed accordingly, ie fucking everywhere you can with as much redundancy as possible because security through obscurity is a joke.

>>95954003
updating the ork and space marine data to include the FAQ and errata info now. should be updated within the hour.

>>95955119
Thanks. Should I publicly ask in the OP for a drawanon to remake everything we salvaged from the Rulebook into something /tg/made? Or is it not worth it because we can just give the middle finger to James Workshop by releasing the SRD on the high seas?

>>95953740
>Cmd.exe
>C:\Users\Admin>github
'github' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

Sorry. I fucked up and let you dry by updating from v0.97 to 0.98 without any edit history. I'll upload the community recommandations as a live document on Google Drive for now, leaving comments everytime something as been acted upon so you know what's going on. It might be the next best thing until I understand Github enough to use it properly.

>>95953740
>>95955644
Major updates from v0.97E to v0.98 have been:
-Filling the profile tables with real datas.
-Adding a GW DIY Scatter Dice section to the Introduction page.
-Switching Torrent of Fire name to Overwhelming Firepower for the Shooting Phase chapter.
-Rewriting the whole Wound Allocation steps for the Shooting Phase and Assault Phase chapters.
-Rewriting the Saving Throws introduction blurb to add the needed roll for the Shooting Phase and Assault Phase chapters.
- Removing the chapter headers' color gradient to a plain off white.
- Downsizing the chapter headers a few points and recentering them.
- Restyling the Table of Contents to mirror the Objective blurb on the cover.

I'll be more carefull in the future and keep you in my mind anon.

Updated OP for the next thread:
https://pastebin.com/5tsP11vy

Orkanon, Gitanon, let me know if I'm missing anything here or just plain suck.

New thread: >>95956008
New thread: >>95956008
New thread: >>95956008

Wew, first time I managed to do it on time.