We're a whole gang now edition

>What this thread is for:
/tg/ gets shit done again and is creating a “Battle Bible” (Ala 2nd edition) for 4th edition Warhammer 40k.
>What this thread isn’t for:
Alternative ideas for what 4th edition could include, such as alternating activations, new unit ports, etc. This is a Stage 4 process and 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 GW offical erratas into the SRD.
Stage 3: Condense all the codeces into up to date SRD.
Stage 4: Make a Hobby Enthousiast supplement for the SRD.
Stage 4 bis: Make an Optional Rules supplement for the SRD.

HOW TO HELP:
- Data-Gifted anons:
> Transcribe your favorite Codex in plain text: >>95953650
> Help to update the SRD:
1. Check the latest 4th Ed. SRD here:
drive. google. com/file/d/1pWktX1RdU2GdIXHLdR1z5y7QcW34aINA/ (remove any space)
2. Look for any typo, errors, missing rules or dense writing style.
3. Make sure your recommandation wasn't already posted here:
drive. google. com/file/d/1xP-gIraW1DThssvvtE58YeTd3yDxwyzp/ (remove any space)
4. Leave your recommandation on the SRD pdf directly.

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

- Holo-Gifted anons:
> Get in touch with Inkwash anon >>95934508
> 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

RESSOURCES:
Original 4th Ed. Rulebook:
mega. nz/folder/1DMxURza#iLn0OuQ8AVGl4XJvU8J4Ig

FAQs & Erratas :
mega. nz/folder/p95WHYiY#2TZFnrI1vbRtjRSQLWNuYg

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

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

Previous thread:
>>95868776

10th edition will triumph. You're done. Embrace primarchs.

>>95956062
>Embrace primarchs
So Horus Heresy?

>>95956062
NO
GO GRIMDARK OR GO HOME

>>95956071
Speaking of I've been thinking about what the Legions would've been like in the 4e style, taking into account the earliest HH books and Index Astartes articles.

>>95956008 (OP)
>Alternative ideas for what 4th edition could include, such as alternating activations
Not bait, but genuinely who wants this? It feels so far from original Warhammer design.

>>95956081
Look at the chaos 3.5 codex for your answer

Or even the first few HH Black Books, granted that's 6e

>>95956181
Play chain of command to find out why people like AA

>>95956181
Andy Chambers literally tried to put AA into the editions around that era...

When he left he immediately made a 40klike with AA...

>>95956008 (OP)
>Clean any image from this trove: mega. nz/folder/UCwQ2I6I#aOFa8mgyyMG4JHz1TrDDww/folder/lWgwAIpb

Actually, unless we have more images to add to this, everything there has been cleaned, I just haven't removed the quotes and frescoes from that folder just yet.


We may want to be proactive about finding the missions included in the 3rd ed codices to include as missions (odd that they didn't do these in 4th, but maybe they just had them in the big book in a new form). Some we might have to redo, but each one I know of has an example pic. Dubious on the quality of it from the scan though.

>>95956008 (OP)
My only gripe is that if this project is finished proving that /tg/ still gets shit done Ill have to use pen and paper and a calculator to make my army list.

Such terrible archaic methods are not familiar to my zoomer ass.

Or her way I’m still rooting for you guys!
I managed to not notice any typos in the pdfs that have been posted so I guess that’s good.

>>95956565
>AKSHUALLY...
Well done you doofus.

>>95956590
How is using pen and paper an issue? I dont get the people going 'where is list building app' etc. Its not hard to make a list at all especially for old editions like this one. You have slot, you have points costs. Thats all you need. At best doing it this stuff in a txt file is helpful to go back and forth. Or keep a unit roster thats already got the cost of X unit with Y loadout already pointed up for you to add which is how people play campaigns.

The apps are often shit or used by netlisting faggots and a plethora of other crap aspects surround them.

>>95956565
the math ain't too bad, and it was part of the experience at the time. I wouldn't be opposed to someone making an app from the data either, as it'll all be there, but someone capable of doing that would have to be attracted to the project enough to make it

>>95956685 is meant for>>95956590

>>95956008 (OP)
Question, me and my buddies have been backporting modern units to 4e for past 2 years now and playtesting them thoroughly. Is it chill if i post some of them here?

>>95956212
Chain of Command is an awesome system but it is quite specifically not AA at all.

>>95956590
What's the issue with pen and paper? I recall doing it while riding the bus back in the day.
Specially when I only had so many models to chose from so may list where limited.
You are not trying to waacfag this are you anon?

>>95956751
A link would be cool, and would save a lot of work later for when we get to that point after this doc. Glad to have any data like that in advance.

I went through pages 1-10 in the last little bit and had some notes. they're mostly small things that are easy to fix. will do the rest in a while from assault phase on.

>>95956812
Unrelated to AA but I think a system like chain of command but set in 40k would be kind of badass, considering chain of command has rules designed around using RL ww2-era tactics to win. Basic fire and maneuver tactics is something that has never really worked in any edition of 40k, for instance.

But that's not what this thread is about, and that kind of discussion actually killed /fourk/

>>95957352
>But that's not what this thread is about, and that kind of discussion actually killed /fourk/
Yah, cool as it might be, considering it too much would derail everything. Best to stick to the system as is

>>95957406
Yeah, if anything it's something that could be worked on AFTER this project is fully finished

>project ski-lift
>Going back to the peak

>>95956293
Oh, which game was it?

>>95956181
>>95956212
>>95956293
Yes but AAAnon already made a version for that, it’s done. You can just go play it. We don’t need another one.

>>95957507
I think he did starship troopers for mongoose immediately after leaving

>>95956081
>>95956183
There was also supplements for certain chapters in 3e, so there's that too.

>>95956081
The chapter creation tools in the 4th edition space marine book covers a ton of ways to modify a chapter, add cursed founding from white dwarf and you have a damn near anything you need.

>>95956081
There's already a full 4th edition supplement from BOLS for Heresy gaming that has a stab at it. Not sure I agree with all their choices but you might find it interesting: tcrepo DOT com SLASH downloads SLASH battles-in-the-age-of-heresy

>>95958952
Awesome. Found their old pre-IA Badab book a little while ago so this should be a fun read.

>>95956812
Neither Chain of Command or Starship Troopers is strictly AA, but neither of them is strictly IGOUGO. I think that's a better way of phrasing what Andy wanted from inside the team and what would make 4th edition better: "Not IGOUGO."

>>95956816
Yeah pen and paper is an essential part of the experience, not difficult, and actually kind of zen.

I will say that digital list builders usually have a fantastic side-product, which is an easily printable list summary with stats and rules.

Old 40k benefits from having a printout like that IMMENSELY. Having unit stats for your army right in front of you is invaluable.

>>95956865
https:// workupload.com / archive/XRdgTRbfGs

Remove the spaces. Theres some minor mistakes here and there, like gaunts being fast attack and shit. This is what happens when the guy who's illiterate in the group gets the job of writing this down.


Flatout forgor the tervigons spawning sacs, which was supposed to act as a 20man transport capacity. (Only infantry and beasts allowed inside, any model with more than one wound counts as 3 models for the purposes of transport capacity. Follows all normal transport rules for disembarking, may not rembark afterwords and the model with sacs (while carrying troops) counts as having vulnerability to templates.)
Its just a taste of what we have done so far.

>>95956081
Please do not do this. Heresy is a fundamental reason why 40k became what it is, and why primaris have such boring one note loadouts.

SPACE KING is not very good and has nothing to do with 4th edition 40k.

>>95957515
I have. You should try it out and let me know what you think.
>>95706891

>>95959034
On a related note, once the actual rulebook has been put together and the FAQs and other changes have been worked in, it would be a good idea to write up a quick reference sheet for gameplay use to minimize cases where people remember commonly used rules wrong from an older version.

>>95960351
I’ve read over his stuff but I also have my own homebrew that my friends and I play. We experimented with simultaneous combat and alternating activations but we decided we wanted to go back to the igougo experience. Turn Ownership is important for game feel.

>>95960027
It’s got the same energy and passion behind its design as the OG warhammer designers had. So you are wrong.

>>95959421
Thanks, I'll put this in my folder for backported stuff to look at in the future

>>95960351
Yes, we're planning on stealing the existing reference sheet from the back of the 4th ed book wholesale as both a printable sheet and part of the book. That thing was great. might need a tweak or two, but nothing crazy.

>>95960027
it gives an occasional free bump, so it's fine.

>>95957821
Look at that. One page. Flavour. Reasonable limitations. Reasonable bonuses. It was a different time...

>>95960635
Can't disagree with the energy and passion and I do respect that. It's just very, warhammer 40,000 via rick and morty, which was what, 7th edition 40k era "comedy."
>>95960644
oh ive no problem bumping for sure.

>>95959890
The game and art books are fine. The problem is the novels slaughtering all of the mystique

>>95961083
The game is ass, the setting is ass. Heresy was good as a single page of backdrop fluff. Expanding it at all was a horrible idea that compounded marine wank

>>95961089
i think it has some cool things, but god i can't describe how much i don't want to play a game of marines vs marines over and over. at least there's some cool remakes of old models (ridiculous shoulder armor and all on those new terminators)

Updated the Space Marines army list with all Dark Angels options. I am now incorporating the FAQ and Errata into my workflow. Space Wolves are next, then supplemental material can be added, and we can close this chapter.

>>95961436
since the last time i posted the link was in the previous thread, here's the link once more. armies are in the "SRD related docs" folder.

https://mega . nz/folder/hPIS2RqC#O9oP_26sYnLBT2tysIoVWg

>>95960975
People act like Rick & Morty just appeared out of nowhere or whatever, when literally the only "new" twist in it was the science-ish theme. Fundmentally that style of edgelord cartoons-for-adults humour has been around since at least the 90's - or are people here too young to remember Ren & Stimpy and its ilk?

>>95962217
R&M is infamous for its overly nihilistic tone and retarded fanbase, not because of its edginess.

>>95961089
>>95961083
Aren't the HH novels basically just a detailed instruction manual on how to find each Primarch and Space Marine cool as if you can't just figure that out yourself?

Missed a bunch of the last threads but have CSM been done? I’d be interested to add in demons and marines and knights as well under a single chaos codex

I’ve also got a google drive link for a bunch of old White Dwarfs from 1996-1999 if anyone wants it

>>95963756
>and knights

>>95963756
>Have CSM been done?
No, so far only the orks are complete, space marines need the space wolves and supplemental materials to get transcribed still before working on other things.
Knights of any kind are not in the scope of this document as they are not part of 4th edition, but may be backported in the future. Chaos 3.5 dex+supplements is planned to be one of the major milestones to complete as they are one of the largest codexes.

If you would like to contribute by transcribing it sooner, links are in the thread for the docs and an example of what we need.

>>95963795
The torrent in the archive has the whole collection, but not everyone has the option to use that so feel free to drop it for posterity

>>95963756
For the moment, Knights are tabled until we get around to doing the superheavy bracket, things like the Baneblade, etc.

>>95960855
truly

Up to date with the Google Drive recommandations for now but this time I have a changelog to share with Github anon. I'll upload it once I'm done with v0.98A so most likely tomorrow.

>>95966341
The number keeps creeping up, but how close do you actually feel to 1.0 for real? I assume 1.0 is just the rules, then what, 2.0 is the rules plus all the codices?

>>95967600
as the person commenting edits for each new iteration, it's getting there. 1.0 will be just the general rules within roughly 25 pages. Optional rules and the work i'm doing on the codex side will come after. At the very least you should have a document to print and play with existing codexes a lot easier than the core book is for normal play. it's a good "section 1" once we finish the edits and add the necessary pictures.


Also, I believe OP asked for templates. here's what i found in the archive along with the FAQs someone uploaded:
https://mega.nz/file/NbARzZIJ#vOodlPlTLqJgGKRqGEjv2UUURcJp2T6hu8lsJpNOt4w

Alright, I've commented on the remaining pages I didn't get to earlier. it'll look like a lot but in reality its mostly small things.

>>95967600
I was expecting to hit v0.99 (adding every images or so) this week-end and v1.00 (rearranging pages because adding images will make a mess) next week.

But Orkanon threw in a new wave of cool suggestions so I'll get v0.98A first instead. I don't expect us to go above v0.98C before I can finallly catch back on schedule and add the images though, so it's a minor delay really.

1.00 will be virtually the same as what we have now except for half a dozen example images stolen from the Core Rulebook to help people get some concept like Unit Coherency faster. Plus some minor tweaks like rewording here and there. Once we're there some lurkers here will definitely have to step-in because I don't expect Orkanon to go through every single Army Codex by himself and neither should anyone.

>>95967671
Thanks. Too bad it's a pdf but still, better than nothing. I'll ve converted it into png and fingers crossed it didn't fuck up the dimensions or anything.

>>95963972
So... knoghts?

>>95971398
13th company should go with the Space Wolves codex, not chaos.

>>95969997
we could do a test print and see how they match up with the real ones. they look to be from the downloads on the site at the time.

>>95964309
Personally, ive been trying to backport knights.... i have given up. The best ive been able to do is Armigers as a form of Chaos armies mercenary unit that gets its own marks depending on the army its attached to. Basically they were just dreadnoughts with fleet and more expensive.

Ref: im the same guy who did the nids and heldrake i sent a day or two ago. I just need to... order all my pages before i send full pdfs for armies through. Not everything is playtested to a degree i like.

>>95971604
>Personally, ive been trying to backport knights.... i have given up.
Good, because super-heavies really don't work well at 40k scale for standard games. They're okay in Apocalypse but it has to be established beforehand that you are playing a giant game with a bigger than usual table and stuff, it's for special scenarios, not a typical average weekend at the LGS.

>>95971604
I think they'd fit fine in the apocalypse side, but they'd stay there. Knights shouldn't have been a regular army to begin with in my opinion. it's too large and requires tailoring to use.

>>95971687
I personally see Knights as like a superheavy option that AdMech might take, their Baneblade type option, but not their own faction.

>>95971670
>>95971687
Yeah, it was an attempt to see (i have a local knights player who wanted to join up in whats now my collective groups return to 4e) if it COULD work. Not if they SHOULD be there. I dont exactly like the idea of the guy being left out. Oh well, he can suck it up and play his necrons again. The fag.

>>95973074
well it won't be in the main doc anyway. i have yet to see the experimental admech rules from the era we found and see if they fit either. will probably be backported with everything else not from the era since it never appeared in any official publication and was just put out by a designer with permission later on.

>>95973074
Why is the guy ONLY a Knight player? Surely they realise how shite that is?

>>95973189
The classic admech list won't work with backported stuff, the design philosophy is just too different, it comes from the same ethos as the Inquisition 'dexes - its like trying to shoehorn Wardian Nucrons into the classic Existential Dreadcron list, you end up with something that's just...wrong, like garlic chicken kiev-flavour icecream.

>>95973746
A magos with a bunch of skitarii troops and some weirdo ad mech tech to round everything out doesn't seem like it's too outlandish.

>>95973189
>i have yet to see the experimental admech rules from the era we found and see if they fit either. will probably be backported with everything else not from the era since it never appeared in any official publication and was just put out by a designer with permission later on.
Where are these rules?

>>95974621
someone found them a few days back and uploaded them. i just converted the word doc to pdf
https://mega.nz/folder/4HZQ1AxD#CkdVn6WK36ZS6fJVJc91PQ

>>95974632
Thanks anon. Are the word doc and the pdf just the same thing in two different formats?

>>95974676
yes, i uploaded both as that's what i've done with all the other one's i've personally worked on to make editing easier.

>>95973676
No clue, he started in 9th. He has TS and Crons too but refuses to play them. So now its tough love or tough luck.
>>95973189
Fair, was just my 2cents of the matter. I really do need to organize my shite pile of playtested and WIP stuff.

>>95973948
So, the 4th edition list that already exists and has no need of Cogfop Cowboy imports?

>>95976542
You might have better luck persuading him to play his TSons, there's a reason the 3.5 'dex for Chaos is probably the best regarded codex GW has ever made.

>>95976641
Yeah. The Dg players in ny group have been loving it. Probably gonna play My word bearers soon with that dex.

>>95976633
You don't really need the cowboys, just their core stuff that does a good job of representing their armies.

looking at the example photo images in the cleaned images folder, I want to redo the fuzzy type with new clean text on a white background rather than grey. Anyone object?

>>95977742
i'm totally fine with that if you'd like to do that. these are just screenshots.

>>95977742
Please do it anon.

Was making a list for GSC in New recruit and the Magus has the options for Minor Psychic Power.
The question is, where the fuck do Minor Psychic Power rules come from? I used to play Black Templars and Witch Hunters so I usually just ignored those rules back in the day.

>>95977464
Which again, the 4th list already has, made for the 3.5/early 4th design philosophy, with over two years of playtesting both within GW and through fan submissions. Other than needlessly duplicating what we already have just so we can put Trademarkus Namicus(tm) titles on them what's the point?

>>95978229
Think they were a Chapter Approved thing, one sec I'll dig around in the annuals.

>>95978229
Yup. Chapter Approved 2003, page 60. No need to dig for it: gofile DOT ioSLASH d SLASH ZlgGvA

>>95978379
>>95977464
Look I realize I'm being snarky here but really, what more is necessary? The 4th list has:

-Magos and retinue
-Enginseer and retinue
-Praetorians(big elite Skitarii and/or big elite servitors)
-Electro Priests
-Techmarine detachment for fun flavour
-Skitarii
-Servitors
-Machine Cultists
-Sentinels
-Land Speeders
-Tarantulas
-Rapiers
-Thudd Guns
-Mole Mortars
-Conversions Beamers
-Robots
-Rhinos, Chimeras, and Land Raiders.

I'm not seeing the great need to look to the modern stuff, pretty much all of it either has a direct analogue or can easily be counts-as'd. *Maybe* there's a case for messing about with a unit entry for Sicarians, at a push Ironstriders, but Mechanicus isn't a big project that needs doing, it's been done for us.

>>95978379
Actually yeah that makes sense, I didn't even know there was a list in the first place.

>>95978422
*at a push Dunecrawlers, Ironstriders would work fine as not-Sentinels, brain got that one backwards.

Oh and Mechanicus can be padded further quite easily by just giving them a little "can choose from Imperial Armour as if they were Marines AND Guard" blurb.

>>95978229
Think I'll remake the citadel journal GSC rules and just backport the 9th or 7th codex rules.
Outside of the fat patriarch, limo and the fun gimmick about the random extra optional leader for the units. The army is just trash.

>>95978229
>>95978391
They're also reprinted in '04

>>95978391

>pg 2
>can you spot the deliberate mistake?

not really. is it that theres no point in putting terminators in a land raider?

Why 4th over something like 7th? I vaguely remember agreeing with the changes to the core rules over the years, it was only the faction specific rules and units that got increasingly cancerous. And 7th’s psychic phase, that was stupid
Not trolling, haven’t seen a fourk thread in a while and it got me thinking

>>95979668
7th got mega bloated before being replaced, and that whole thing started going downhill in 5th. midway through 4th was peak

>>95979668
>I vaguely remember agreeing with the changes to the core rules over the years
Like what, because all I remember is hating them overwhelmingly.

>>95979668
Hull points are shit
Nothing blocking LOS is shit
Everything is overgunned
Free buffs and free models for taking certain combos
Soup
No more A5 books
Hardcovers that last 1 year less each edition

Sorry if I missed discussion on this topic

Will there be an editors note about base sizes as base sizes have changed throughout editions of 40k?
I’m thinking of something like: as long as it was at some point an official base size then it is okay
Or something like that.

>>95979668
play a game of 4th and then play a game of 7th.

>>95979964
The SRD is already out. It's not totally done yet as it' stands currently at version 0.98 but if you download it from OP you'll see there is a paragraph about base size that does exactly that.

>>95979964
yeah, we have general guidelines. it's basically "use what came with the model" but beyond that there's some basic size guidelines.

overall i feel people obsess about it too much. a few extra mm won't break your game if its any good and you aren't playing WAACfags

>>95979818
Mega bloated how? I vaguely remember Special Rule names getting hard to keep track of in 6th
>>95979877
>>95979947
I liked move & shoot, running, pre-measuring, some of the later wound allocation rules (I think, hard to remember what edition was what), overwatch, maybe a few other things. Nothing I remember being egregious except for
>flyers
>hull points
>the aforementioned 7e psychic fuckery
Everything else was just codex creep, individual units or whole books that were poorly designed. Formations were an obvious cash grab

>>95977742
being gas lit into thinking you need reading glasses is part of the 4e experience.

My mail of inks to make washes got delayed sorry everyone. Was hoping to have them done for a hobby section.

>>95980011
>move & shoot, running
Removed the maneuver aspect of fast units, devaluing Fleet and resulting in the only useful ones being jump-shoot-jump cheese and transports being tin cans you threw right at your opponent's front line to shart out assault troops - which then made non-assault transports shit by comparison.
>pre-measuring
Massive loss of flavour to placate retards without the wit to understand how to guess range properly, completely de-risked both shooting and assaulting. Ultimately led to faggotry like random charge distances.
>wound allocation
I admit to not knowing enough about 6th & 7th to comment, other than I never had any problems with the wound allocation rules in 3rd or 4th so why did it need changing?
>overwatch
A crutch for shooting armies only necessary because pre-measuring was inserted.

And as for egregious - true line of sight? The fact terrain rules got shittier with every edition? The general bloating of army sizes? The introduction of endless "centerpiece" units?

4th is well regarded for many reasons and 6th & 7th shit the bed so hard GW rebooted the IP.

>>95980187
I wouldn’t worry about it anon.

>>95981296
I’ve never had a bad experience with pre-measuring EXCEPT the warmahordes fags, carrying a case of extra bases around to lay out where they were planning to be

>>95980011
>pre-measuring
This might sound kind of retarded, but its true, distance is much less important in 4th than in other editions. It might be the slowest and least lethal version of the game. An error in positioning wont typically have a cascading effect that will completely spoil a good game.

NuSRD anon here, back to work on the last Google Drive recommandations.

>>95983134
who do I email about upload access to the mega with the scanned photos?

>>95983331
You'll have to wait for Orkanon to wake up. He's here on the daily, no worries.

>>95983331
if you have your own mega you can just drop the link and i can move it over into my archive.

Hey guys, just a spectator here on the sidelines letting you know, I don't have much time to contribute with work and my own projects but I'm wishing you the best of luck and support you. Keep up the good work.

>>95984775

fair enough, give this a try:
mega [DOT] nz/folder/mN9wnIYK#rEeM65EoU5xHxmtFzKBC-g

this is the example photos with the text redone for clarity. Also tweaked levels a bit, sharpened some stuff, and put outlines on some white text so it pops out more (sometimes I didnt even notice it).

also: bring back playing on patterned kitchen tablecloths like picrel.

>>95985848
alright, got them added to the "Cleaned elements" folder. OP, please use these when adding example pics for better reading
https://mega(.)nz/folder/NTB0TTDR#8Qxl_ugtPUbetUzoLnzEBQ

>>95985896
>should have added a space, replace the (.) with .

>>95985847
Thanks anon.

>>95956008 (OP)
great work so far guys, hold the damn line!

UNTIL IT IS DONE

>>95985848
So good, thanks anon. Hopefully I'm done with v0.98A by tomorrow and then I can play around with images so you're just in time.

Do we have a list of which supplements are officially in or out? For example, which version of the CSM codex is being brought in? 3.5 or 4th edition?

>>95991025
What else but the king?

>>95991025

on a semi related subject, any armylists or codexes transcribed should probaby specify exactly where they are sourced from somewhere (ideally filename and overview) to avoid questions like this.

>>95992449
Yeah, I've brought this up a few times as well, but it always bears repeating. Source EVERYTHING.

>>95992972
Speaking of which, whike working on the Massacre paragraph from The Assault Phase, I noticed original SRDanon wrote that a Unit can move 1D6 instead of 3" when consolidating after a Massacre. Can anyone back this up?

>>95991025
orkanon here;
for chaos specifically it's the 3.5 dex. the list was here: >>95953650
additionally, we are updating with the FAQ/errata that came later, adding imperial armor entries and chapter approved content.

all of which can be found in the compiled folder here: https://mega.nz /folder/AGAU0RLL#ZppNZJMXZwoYI9CLO7PF6g

the attached image is what is intended to be transcribed. red is not included, green has been completed (or in the case of space wolves, is being worked on) people said a couple threads back that after tau empire's 4e book was the cutoff, eldar and beyond from 4th was considered to be getting in line with 5th and we saw a lot of overpowered codices as a result

This is the current scope of sticking in the 3.5 era. later on, we intend to have a fan edition that backports the worthwhile and iconic later content into a seperate doc people can choose to use and engage with if they like, but this version we're working on will remain untainted by later works and remain the bedrock everything else can be built on.


My week has been a bit busy between the holiday throwing off my work schedule and a con coming up this weekend, but i have next week off so i should be finishing up the marines soon so we can move onto other dexes while nuSRDanon edits the doc and fixes it for the base rules.

>>95994357
>forgot i did black templars 4th
pretend that's highlighted too

Keep it up you mad lads. Once the srd is finalised, I'll attempt to backport Imperial Knights codex from 6th edition into 4th.

>>95995722
Please don't. Knights don't belong in standard games.

>>95995999
people can backport whatever content they want. it won't effect the primary doc. i don't like knights, but superheavies are already planned to be mentioned in the apocalypse area of the "optional rules and game modes" which we'll be handling after the core rules are done, along with city fight and other stuff.

Got most of the wolves done. still need to get the fast attack and heavy support choices written down, and separate out the wolf guard armory discounts from the main pack, add it to the file, and then we're done with marine codexes, just got a good number if IA vehciles and whatever chapter approved content like cursed founding to add to the list. it's been a long time but i knew i wanted to get this out of the way. probably going to tackle an easier codex like necrons after all that.

>>95996876
>it won't affect
It will though won't it, because once it exists people who want to play Knights will make a fuss because "the rules are right there man" and then the person organising a group has to be the bad guy and tell them no, which risks a big stramash and the collapse of the group.

Backporting stuff should be a completely different project with its own thread and no connection explicit or implied - not even common hosting - with the SRD.

>>95995722
Sweet.

>>95997196
I think this makes a good point. At the very least if the SRD and transcriptions of official codex entries is one project, it should be extremely strongly worded that this is not the same as original fan content since it just IS the actual game restated and not something new and original.

>>95997955
You guys should grade the officialness of rules like the Mordheim community does it (from 1a, GW codex, to 3, unproven draft rules). It makes very easy to establish a cutoff point, even with faggots like >>95997196 says.

What should be kept as a sister but enirely separated projects are any efforts to rework the core rules (say AA, reactions, command friction, suppression or what have you).

I'm not involved in this effort actively, but I want it to succeed since I really like the 4th Edition era of GW.

>>95998022
That sounds like a good idea, from an outsider prospective. I play Mordheim a lot and it is very simple to organize a game saying "let's play this grade and above" or what have you.

>>95997955
>At the very least if the SRD and transcriptions of official codex entries is one project, it should be extremely strongly worded that this is not the same as original fan content

Any fan or backported content is going to be a completely seperate doc from what we're working on. You'd use the core rules in this doc, and people can tack on what they like, get critique, change it, etc. the core 3.5 content will remain untouched.

treat fan content and optional rules like named characters and superheavies - agree on it beforehand.

>>95998022
>You guys should grade the officialness of rules like the Mordheim community does it (from 1a, GW codex, to 3, unproven draft rules)
I agree with this idea fully for any fan content people make. we can explore that when we get to that portion of the project.

>>95998022
That's actually a fantastic idea. The grading system on the Broheim website would work almost without modification, just need to pick a couple of examples for each tier.

>>96001845
To wit, I propose;
1a - official codices & rulebooks(including supplementals like FW, Chapter Approved), the SRD
1b - Journal, WD, Fanatic, and website material that never made it to a CA annual, eg the GSC army list
1c - stuff that never got official publication at all but is authored by publishers of official material, eg the AdMech list
2a - Longstanding fan rules from established groups from the period, eg the BOLS supplements, modern fanrules that have been through enough playtesting they can stand on that level.
2b - Modern fanrules that have been through enough playtesting to demonstrate they probably won't break the game, or which are designed to be used "with themselves"/self-contained, eg if someone did a Badab War-style supplement for Apologist's War of the False Primarch campaign.
3 - Anything else that doesn't yet meet an above threshhold.

>>96001925
>Apologist's War of the False Primarch campaign
You got a link to this?

>>96001952
Not offhand. His blog is called Death of a Rubricist it gets mentioned there quite a lot.

Space wolves have been added to the space marines doc, they had a lot more specific differences than the others, so they took a bit. that's all the specific chapters, now we're on to IA entries and chapter approved/white dwarf content, then that one is done and ready to be included in our future segments once it has had proofreading.

>>95995999
>>95996876
>>95997196
>>95998022
In was not expecting to kick of a storm of posts. If I make it in would note it as a sloppy backport and not on par with any of the SRD materials. I agree with grading supplements to reduce headaches on organisers.

>>95996876
Is there anything in cityfight (or other expantion books) that you would just always recommend to play with even in normal games? I dont think I have ever used any of them.

>>95956008 (OP)
Question, you guys are putting this into battlescribe/new recruit readable data right?

>>96002924
Knights will always be a little fraught to discuss because for a lot of us, introducing superheavies and fliers as anything more than a curiosity through FW meant for massive participation games with dozens of people that you played once or twice a year was pretty much the moment that GW's decline became unstoppable. In the context of trying to revive an edition where a regular Castraferrum Dreadnought *was* a "centrepiece" mini introducing a whole army of superheavies will be...contentious.

>>96001925
Should it be added to the SRD?

>>95956008 (OP)
3rd ed codeces?

>>96005468
ok just saw the codeces that need to be transcribed. i have witch hunters and daemon hunters 3rd ed
I have a locally updated .cat for daemon hunters. what's the full transcribe needed for? there are pdfs of these codeces, has OCR been tried? pdf parsing is a whole new world with LLMs

>>95956008 (OP)
will we be using 3rd ed or 4th ed assault cannons? does it just depend on what's in the particular codex?

>>96004300
Same question i was using some old gituhub file for the 3rd editions codex that was missing random crap and the other day newrecruit had as their main options 3rd edition. It even had the clown army list.

>>96005783
Forgot the image

>>96005783
>>96005828
they just linked to the repo, use that one as it's more recent (unless you have local fixes, in which case submit a pr)

>>96005783
Same! Its why i asked lmao.

>>96003507
I haven't really studied them, but what little i have played was fun. you could potentially steal some building and terrain specific rules for normal games if you wanted more of a focus on that.
>>96005444
>Should it be added to the SRD?
I wouldn't worry too much about that at this point, everything we're putting in the main book is from official publications. this will be used for later content we add after this project
>>96005512
the 4th ed for space marines. IDK if there was much of a difference in the chaos 3.5 codex, but that could be up to the factions differing over the thousands of years in between.
>>96005485
>what's the full transcribe needed for? there are pdfs of these codeces, has OCR been tried? pdf parsing is a whole new world with LLMs
we're transcribing the info so we have it all in one place, with necessary FAQs and Errata from the era included. Furthermore, while it would be easy to just make a combined document with every single book's pages in one pdf, that's not the goal here. 3rd and 4th to a lesser extent were difficult to reference and find specific info from. Our document is intended to be easy to reference and find info, as well as read in general while still keeping the feel of that era of book alive.

That said, i don't know all the tools out there, so if you or someone else knows tools for grabbing the text from these scans (which are all as images so far) then the resource would be helpful in saving time typing everything out.

aside from that, i'm working on the IA space marine options today, and already went through about half of them last night, after that is chapter approved content, and marines will be done.

>>96006461
>the 4th ed for space marines [Assault Cannon]
ah, the busted Heavy 4 Rending one. nice.

>>96005512
Depends if we want to use the Wargear book.

>>96006461
>IDK if there was much of a difference in the chaos 3.5 codex, but that could be up to the factions differing over the thousands of years in between.
Chaos don't get assault cannons.
It's daemonhunters that's the concern. Their FAQ doesn't update the profile, but wargear unifies things.

>>96006591
>It's daemonhunters that's the concern.
I imagine if everything was brought to a standard with the wargear book, then it might have been brought in line, i'll make sure we address that when working on them

>>96007000
Please do. One of the strenghts of this era was the fact that a lascannon was a lascannon was a lascannon, regardless of who or what wielded it.

>>96007254
especially on the imperial side, i agree with this. other factions don't have so much of an issue with it as them.

>>96006461
>Space Marines Codex done soon™
An important staple. Impressive.

Imperial armor entries added to the space marines data. they weren't bad, mostly just variants of existing models with a few outliers. now on to chapter approved content

Can someone please confirm im not going insane, but in 4th ed melee vs vehicles do you not always strike rear armour? The only thing I can find is about how vs walkers you always fight against front armour.

>>96006570
The assault cannon got done dirty in 5th ed. It's really expensive and not easy to field a lot of.

>>96010984
It's okay grandpa.

>>96011017
please be kind anon I just cant tell if the editions are blurring together or not

This universal army builder has 3rd edition.
It could ve adapted fo 4th edition too.

https://www.newrecruit.eu/app/Lists/68677239ce8b483ac9affb7b?view=mcofbp94snliciyvb9

>>96010984
i gotchu. looks like you hit the armor facing you were pointed at, so positioning matters a lot more compared to what you were thinking of. (I like what it says here more)

>>96012488
for reference:
>4th ed core book, bottom of page 71

Alright, marines are finished (though i have a sneaking suspiscion we'll always be finding more content for them in WD, we can add that later).

Thanks to the anon who mentioned OCR earlier in the thread, I was not aware of this and will use it on the next codex transcription which should be Necrons (because i need something quick next time). Hopefully it'll speed up the workflow and make this whole thing go faster.


Here's the marine doc, once again (data only, proofreading and edits still needed) ; mega .nz/folder/NO4kWQZC#yb7c5W0S83ZxgyKGrXnd0g

I really hated 40K when I tried it in 8th/9th edition because instead of cool Dawn of War style back and forth battles, it felt more like a weird game of hide and seek where a unit of Boyz just died instantly if one of them still had an ankle visible after you tried to hide them all behind a rock. Would this edition offer more of a slow paced cinematic experience where units get to look cool advancing and fighting across the board instead of hiding behind walls and getting instagibbed or was 40K always like that?

>>96012496
Good job anon.

>>96012637
>slow paced cinematic experience where units get to look cool advancing and fighting across the board instead of hiding behind walls and getting instagibbed
play knights

>>96012617
>mega .nz/folder/NO4kWQZC#yb7c5W0S83ZxgyKGrXnd0g
Minor fix, Eldar and Dark Eldar are not separate for this ability. You choose 1 of 3: Tyranids, Eldar, Orks. Dark Eldar are included in Eldar so you get both if you pick that one.

>>96013864
This one right here should be "6+ invulnerable save against ranged attacks only".

If either of these things were changed because of an FAQ or errata then ignore me, I'm just going off what's in the codex alone.

>>96012637
>Would this edition offer more of a slow paced cinematic experience where units get to look cool advancing and fighting across the board instead of hiding behind walls and getting instagibbed or was 40K always like that?

4e is the one edition that is first and foremost about your dudes fighting some one elses dudes, objectives are usually a last minute consideration. It's a hobby first, wargame second, and a competitive game dead fucking last.

4th ed is asks a lot of questions that have to be answered, which can be over whelming for a new player. I've watched armies get swept off the table because they didn't buy any search lights and the mission ended up taking place at night.

There will be questions like:

>How do you deal with vehicles?
>How do you deal with hordes?
>How do you deal with Elite units?
>How do you deal with Speedsters?
>How do you deal with walkers in assault?
>How do you deal with Infilitrators?
>How do you deal with Deep Strikers?
>How do you deal with an army that's better at Melee than yours?
>How do you deal with an army that's better at shooting than yours?


You're going to have to answer these questions, some times the answers wont be so great and that's when you'll have a bad time. You'll get your asshole torn apart some times due to you or your armies ability to problem solve.

If you atleast attempt to answer this stuff you will win games and you wont end up with your ass in a sling.

>>96013864
you are correct, i'll fix that

>>96013920
i took a look; the same ability is a BT vow for the emperor's champion, and that says a 6+ save for anything, while the SM codex says this is just for shooting. Good catch, weird distinction, but we're going for accuracy.

>>96014912
Personally, if the ability is given the same name in the Black Templars book, which came later, I would consider it an update or buff to replace the generic Space Marine one, but make sure you make some kind of footnote of that in the SRD so players know.

>>96014938
well, there's two ways to look at it:

one, it should have been updated,

two, the templars book has it as a vow taken by the emperor's champion, who is god's favorite and it means more.

I don't know if there's any discourse about this online from back in the day (that's archived at least) so i'm going to leave it alone and let people hash it out.

>>96008946
Nice! I love the LR Prometheus, even if it's the single worst Raider.

>>96012637
If nothing else, 3rd and 4th have the lowest lethality rates of all the 40K editions (save for maybe RT? I have no clue) and there's no "True Line of Sight" system, so entire squads won't get picked off because one model had its pinky toe outside of cover, you need to actually see the center of the model. Power Armor also feels much more stronger, so models with 3+ and 2+ saves will actually be able to shrug off a decent chunk of fire.
That's not to say cover is irrelevant, but missing it isn't nearly as punishing as later editions.

>>96012637
>Would this edition offer more of a slow paced cinematic experience where units get to look cool advancing and fighting across the board instead of hiding behind walls and getting instagibbed or was 40K always like that?
Cover matters, as you can only kill models you see.
Choosing what side of a vehicle to attack matters as you only destroy it on 6 from a glancing hit, and a 4+ on a penetrating hit. so while you can one-shot a vehicle, you can still be unlucky and just damage it.
the board was 6'x4', so larger than what we currently have.

i think you'll like it.

>>96013864
Lysander has Shrike's claws in its box

>>96016301
an inevitable artifact of copy and pasting. fixed and updated, thanks

>>96012617
>>96013864
>though i have a sneaking suspiscion we'll always be finding more content for them in WD, we can add that later
There's army rules for codex compliant chapters as part of WD supplements (Iron Hands, Fists...), but I'm not sure of you left them out on purpose due to the chapter traits in the main codex.
On that note, will you also add the Deathwatch squads and options? Not sure if that would fall under SM or Inquisition/Hunters docs.

>>96013864
>>96013920
why aren't yall using version control and editing the 3rd/4th ed .gst and .cat files? this is a lot of duplicated work.

>>96016530
...what?

>>96012488
>>96012496
Many thanks anon! That is very odd how its the starting position rather than the ending position for making attacks.

>>96016535

I think anon might be referrring to using the datafiles from army builder apps of the time (i think gw even had an official one?) but from what I can gather from ancient forum posts they are hard to find, not for 3rd ed, or full of bugs. Still worth a better look though, i'll keep digging.

>>96018033

https://web.archive.org/web/20031206182632/http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=List_Models&code=300989&orignav=300810
currently looking for these 2 cd's to see if there is anything worthwhile that can be extracted

>>96018062

okay I have officially fallen down a rabbit hole. Instead of looking for the cd's, I found the GW website from 2004 had 2 patch files with fixes so I downloaded these and have all the army datafiles that the app uses. they are in a strange format that im not familiar with (exa) but theres a lot of plain text in them. Not sure if it will be worthwhile trying to reverse engineer it but i'll have another go later.

>>96018062
Would be cool to see those patched for modern systems. Didn't they also get free updates for 4e?

>>96018258

not sure, I wasnt playing around this time. I have a working xp machine so can get these running, but thats no help to anyone else.
I have just found out its possible to use 'Newrecruit' to build 3e lists, so that might come in handy, but theres no 4e option. sadly only seems to export the lists, I cant see any way of dumping the whole codex out which would be handy.

>>96018633
Post some screenshots if you can.

>>95980187
Inks arrived at last. Gonna write down instructions and see if I can make something worthwhile.

Will there be other things like scratch build terrain making techniques added to a variant of this battle bible?

>>96020457
Maybe /wip/ could jump in?

>>96021453
Already asked wip.

>>96018062
>currently looking for these 2 cd's to see if there is anything worthwhile that can be extracted
there's a video from codex compliant on that https://youtu.be/r1_eBYN7jzo?si=-4TcZPK6ZVlCtGzf

I feel it's just easier to extract everything manually than try and mess with antiquated software and then write it anyway, myself.

Hey, I want to get into 4th and play Blood Angels. Does anyone know where I can get the 4th Codex? The only version I managed to find was the 2007 pdf revised for 5th edition.

>>96021982
BA only got a white dwarf codex in 4th, before that they had a supplement for codex space marines in 3rd. the matt ward 5th edition dex added all the stuff you're probably used to. so if you're looking to play the era you'll want the 3rd ed supplement and codex space marines.

https://mega.nz/folder/ACBxFQbQ#_ANpuOdOynzFNVztHfIomw

>>95956008 (OP)
Why did anons go with 4th over 3rd? what's the difference between the editions?

>>96022146
3rd is a mess, but did improve upon the weirdness of 2nd while defining the era. 4th is just 3rd written better and completely compatible with codexes of 3rd. 4th then moved into its phase of preparing for 5th, this era (anything after tau empire's release) is being ignored by this project to give us the quintessential "3.5" era (aka the era i started with)

>>96022108
What's wrong with the white dwarf codex?

>>96022174
How is 3rd is a mess? I genuinely want to know as from my knowledge I thought it was regarded as the minimalist ultra smooth edition.

>>96022146
4th edition is essentially 3rd with all the errata and FAQs baked in. It wasn’t a major departure in the core rules, only the later codexes

>>96022191
personally i didn't see too many differences. the death company were made less random (one per squad is taken, instead of rolling for each squad) and you can buy more, which makes them more reliable and not steal so much from other squads if you roll for a ton, or have them not show at all. I never had that WD so i never used them, i went directly from the 3rd codex to the 5th since players were also pretty rare in my area.

>>96022385
in practice assuming you memorized it, sure, but the way its written is a nightmare. you can download the rulebook and see. there's no index, it's hard to find what you're looking for in general, and the codexes released from the era do the same. 4th just took it and fixed that, mostly. it can still be hard to find things. dexes having a summary at the back should absolutely be stolen for our edition.

>>96022489
>>96022498
I see. My understanding was that 3rd hard reset the complexity from 2nd and 1st/rt, and each edition complexity crept it. Thanks for clearing that up, and yes you absolutely need a rules summary/condensed one page reference sheet. Love those frrom OPR.

>>96022528
>My understanding was that 3rd hard reset the complexity from 2nd and 1st/rt, and each edition complexity crept it.
This is correct, except 3rd went too far, so the little bit of added complexity in 4th was the perfect sweet spot.

>>96022385
NTA, but as someone who played back in the day and ran a 3rd ed Bible at that time, it was the result of endless tinkering in White Dwarf, supplements, official FAQs, and semi-official FAQs (rulings be devs posting on non-GW forums. It had a full-on close combat rewrite, and just mountains of errata and FAQ entries, as the devs polished up what was essentially a new game into something stable.

>>96022593
Do you have any of that material around? I saw that there is a thread on dakkadakka where someone is trying to do that today.

>>96016535
>>96018033
>>96021764
battlescribe is no longer under development, but it works. newrecruit.eu uses the datafiles from it (.gst, .cat, .ros - basically XML files)

here's 3e
https://github.com/ksnyder1986/Warhammer-40k-3rd-Edition

github is used for version control: snapshots of changes are maintained, anyone can submit updates, only a select few can approve.

>>96021453
>>96021502
>>96020457
I should also say that work has me doing extra shifts and I'm gonna try and negotiate in the name of getting extra time to hobby.
And to pump out these ink acrylic washes.
If I can properly do it that is.

Some How To Make Wargames Terrain tutorials should be cannibalized for a future PDF that has the spirit of the rulebooks and codexes in including hobby sections.

>>96023376

I did find this github myself, but short of finding an editor to convert or some way of wrangling this markup into a human readable format I dont think it would be any quicker than transcribing from codexes. Do you know if theres any quick way of converting them?

>>96023530
>>96023530

(cont)
The best I have managed so far is to create an army list which is 'unrestricted' and add 1 of every unit, then export it as 'pretty'. This at least gives you the basic units with stats, and some special rules. Might be useful as a starter though..?

>>96023530
>>96023562
using the battlescribe data editor is probably gonna be your best bet. it still works.

>>96017235
Pretty sure the idea was to stop randy wraparounds to get at the back armor when the tank had perfectly acceptable positioning with side armor

>>96023439
It's okay if it takes longer than expected. No pressure anon. The game is two decades old, it's not going anywhere.

>>96022385
>How is 3rd is a mess? I genuinely want to know as from my knowledge I thought it was regarded as the minimalist ultra smooth edition.

It's definitely not ultra smooth, they ended up releasing a set of "advanced" rules to try and smooth things out. With all the rules and FAQs together 3.5 is essentially 4th ed, but spread out.

Some stuff just worked differently and wasn't all that great. Like melee combat, only models in B2B got to attack with their full number of attacks. Removing casualties started at models in B2B. So a deadly CC unit with a high initiative would absolutely cuck you every round of close combat.

All that said, 4th isnt smooth either. New players are absolutely going to run into one or more game pausing rules questions or arguments. Some times its going to be both players searching the rule book trying to find a hidden piece of text or its going to be one of the two players explaining sentence structure and arguing rules of intent.

4th is a lot of fucking fun, but it can also suck all the fun out of the room with misunderstanding or misremembering how things work. 3rd ed has this same problem, but much worse.

Why is 4th the sweet spot, what about 5th?

Figure out a better way to bump the thread than asking a question that has already been answered in the same fucking thread you stupid faggot.

>>96024404
nostalgia, poster age, etc
3rd-4th was 98-07
5th hit with the GFC in 08 and lasted the entire worst part of it before 6th was released and then very quickly supplanted by 7th. as to why not 7th, see >>95979668

>>96024164
vehicles should probably be entirely avoided in the first few games

>>96024905
Talking about vehicles. Played a couples of games the other day Emperor's Children vs Witch Hunters.
Due to extra armor and dozer blade (and the chaos equivalent) neither vehicle stayed immobilized from a glance, pen or terrain. But we did notice we only saw vehicle shooting during the first round and on the later rounds. Every other time they simply could not shoot due to the shaken result.
It was rather jarring to see our tanks just move around just because they could not shoot due to the crew shaken result.

>>96024404
Here is my personal grievances with 5th

>codex creep and soulless rules
I know anon's are going to disagree with me on this, but I personally feel like you either play Imperium forces in 5th or you just don't bother playing....

Most armies (like chaos and xenos) were playing with totally outdated rules, by the time some of these armies finally got a rules update the edition was nearly over and their codex's were written with 6th edition in mind.

On top of that 5th edition is the real start to army lists revolving around a special character, say you want all bikes then you have to play the named special character who rides a bike. You want an all terminator list? Same situation, you have to play the named terminator character.

>Deep Strike out of charge
This is a rarity in 4th edition, very very very few armies have anything capable of charging into melee combat the turn it arrives from a table edge or deep strike. Most cases I can think of were codexs published in late 4th intended for 5th ed.

Some times 5th edition just felt like i was taking turns with my opponent placing a unit on the table, shooting/charging with it. Then watching him place a unit on the table so he could shoot/charge with it so i could then pick my unit up off the table. The only way you could stop this was with these really stupid fences you would form with your chaff units. Just the most unthematic bullshit possible.

>eternal warrior everything
In 4th edition, most characters were susceptible to instant death, Meanwhile in 5th edition nearly every single 200pt character had a rule called eternal warrior that prevented instant death. Watching some one like Lysander cleave his way through units like sauron the dark lord got fucking old fast.

>>96024404
>blast templates scatter, ordinance scatter reduced
in 4th if a blast weapons misses, its never placed on the table. Ordinance scatters d6 or 2d6 depending on previous movement.

in 5th even if you missed with a plasma cannon, the shot landed some where on the table. Ordinance weapons got the scatter distance reduced by the units BS. Even when you missed you usually stuck the shot.

>Parking lots
Most non space marine armies in 4th cant stick anything and everything in their choice of vehicle, let alone one. Every army could mechanize in 5th. Vehicles also became mobile pill boxes thanks to the new rules.

Every one ended up sticking everything they could either in a vehicle or in reserve to prevent being blown off the table.

>melta meta
You spammed melta this edition to deal with the parking lots. 40k became a game of infantry fighting tanks and tanks fighting infantry.

>Sweeping advance no more
Everything that wanted to be in melee had some kind of rule preventing sweeping advance.

>No more consolidation moves into another enemy unit
If you killed what you charged on your turn, your dudes just sat there so that your opponent could shoot/charge them on their turn.

Fucking brutal against armies like guard.

>>96024955
>It was rather jarring to see our tanks just move around just because they could not shoot due to the crew shaken result.

Lightly armored stuff has to hide the turn before it shoots. heavy armored stuff is more resistant to shooting and is less likely to lose the ability to shoot.

There are also upgrades to remove the shaken/stunned penalty.

Space marines have the machine spirit upgrade that they can put on any tank.

>>96024164
>>96024905
Ideally we should pack the rules with the Battle for Macragge tuto missions.

>>96022761
I still have the last version I put out, from 2002. I need to clean it up a bit though: it was done for Word 97 and it shows.

>>96025598
Anon I did mention the upgrades that prevent stunned.
>extra armor
It is mostly the shaken that resulted in this silly situation of vehicles running around the table looking for cover without shooting till the end of the game when the anti tank weapons where dead.

>>96026828
>Anon I did mention the upgrades that prevent stunned.

Anon i know, but i'm making you aware that there are upgrades to ignore shaken.

If you don't have access to that, it means you need to be fielding more tanks.

>>96025470
Deep strike out of charge was something that was pretty specific to blood angels, I thought.

Also, you had ample non-imperium options: Necrons and Dark Eldar : )

>>96026067
they can be found here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080512003642/http://macragge.us.games-workshop.com/scenarios/default.htm

>>96026735
That's great, but even if it's in rough shape I am certain that people will appreciate it.

>>96026735
A cleanup is nice, but you should share the file as is so people at least have something in case you never get it all done or (god forbid) are murdered by GW

>>96027426
Necrons were absolutely unplayable until the last year of 5th, even more so for dark eldar.

Codex's that went 2 editions with out an update playing against matt ward's fan fiction.

>>96027426
>Deep strike out of charge was something that was pretty specific to blood angels, I thought.

Every single army had a unit that could either Charge from a deep strike, come off off a table edge in your deployment and charge you, and (or) had a absolutely devestating shooting unit that could appear through deep strike or flanking.

Hell, Tyranids had a giant monsterous creature that could deep strike ontop of the enemy.

>>96028068
>Hell, Tyranids had a giant monsterous creature that could deep strike ontop of the enemy.
Bro the Mawloc was dogshit, it was just an artillery weapon that worked in a weird way, like a Basilisk, it couldn't really tie things up in close combat.

In fact the entire 5th ed Tyranids codex was one of the biggest pieces of trash ever written by GW, it was so bad that just its existence ALONE would be enough to disqualify 5th from being considered the best edition even if all the other problems didn't exist. 3rd and 4th never had balance issues that bad.

>>96028092
>Bro the Mawloc was dogshit
>s6 t6 w6 i4 a3 sv3+ Monsterous creature
>Throws out a s6 ap2 template the size of its base (striking rear armor on vehicles) as a sampler before it assaults from deep strike
>it can leave combat when ever it pleases
>this is shit

lol, lmao even

>In fact the entire 5th ed Tyranids codex was one of the biggest pieces of trash ever written by GW

All the xenos codex's are bad in their own way, but my point remains. Every army written with 5th in mind has some kind of unpredictable threat with no recourse. Units just show up and things die. Not much you can do about it unless you screen with infantry blobs which looks stupid as fuck.

>>96028185
You obviously never played a game with or against that thing. The Mawloc still had to roll scatter, but it didn't get to reduce it by BS like other ordnance weapons because it's not a scattering blast weapon but a special deep strike ability, so it could go completely off target, hit impassable terrain and fucking die from a mishap. Even if it got into CC, it was a fucking WS 3 monstrous creature with lower strength than a power fist and only 3 attacks, worthless against large chaff units where it might score one hit a turn, and hit & run would never work if it was surrounded.

>>96028271
>You obviously never played a game with or against that thing.
Trust me I did.

>Some times dice can fuck you!
Really? in 40k? no way anon.

Seriously, yes it can miss target and yes it can misshap, but it can also land ontop of several tanks and squad of infantry.

>It's not an absolute beast in melee :(
It's a support unit Anon.

It ties up things for the rest of the army and when its no longer needs to it can find another unit to tie up, WS3 and S6 is for punching vehicles to death. If you want to stab up infantry take it's bigger brother.

>worthless against large chaff units where it might score one hit a turn
Chaff are worthless against it, you got it wrong. Chaff cant stall it out and chaff cant screen against your other bugs once they have to consolidate into this thing.

>hit & run would never work if it was surrounded.
burrow it


Maybe I'm wrong, what would you do to "fix" the Mawloc? If its so dog shit what would you do to change it?

>>96024404
codecies aside, only looking at the big rule book, about 70% of the differences lean towards 4th ed. Its a better core rule system.

>>96028368
Fixing the mawloc is easy. Make it an apoc only unit like the trygon and other units of its size and caliber are supposed to be.

>>96028185
You have bitter opinions and poor evaluation skills.

This >>96027058

>>96024955
>>96026828
For the EC player you can use daemonic possession on the vehicle. I dont see the point in takign a predator without one unless its to squeeze it in to fill points.

>>96027803
>>96027895

Okay, dug into my ancient files. I received a C&D from GW back in 2002, so that's when I stopped work on it. Right around then a ton of extra FAQ stuff came out, as they transitioned to the late 3rd edition lifecycle revised codexes. It looks like I was working on integrating those when I got the notice and quit. So it's going to be more focused on 3rd ed than I imagine people would like. Still, I'll convert it to PDF and link it here later today.

>>96032239

>actually listening to James' internet bullying

[dissapointed shake of the head]

>>96030895
and you have no argument

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


v0.98A: drive.google.com/file/d/1KwK1cKvi6J-_38eTp5YRXbzWJvYtmJhA

Changelog: drive.google.com/file/d/1yLBkFdcigJMjE7s3i8nzuanSt11uTbh5

There's still stuffs to work on but for now I'll focus on adding some of the cleaned images to llustrate the most obscure concepts (Unit Coherency, Line of Sight, etc.) and then rework the pages orders. Once done I can get back to the list: drive.google.com/file/d/1xP-gIraW1DThssvvtE58YeTd3yDxwyzp


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

>>96033194
All rejoice!

Praised the hard workers among us!

Here's my ancient 3rd edition rules compilation. Again, this is 3rd ed, and very specifically "cuts off at March 2002" 3rd ed, so the utility is going to be even more limited for 4th ed work. For example, the proper Necrons codex only came out in (IIRC) July, and the 3.5 Chaos Codex came out in October, and so they aren't referenced here. Daemonhunters, Witch Hunters, and Imperial Guard 3.5 were later as well. However, FAQs for those later works are easier to find, in part because GW started focusing more on concentrating their FAQs in readily accessible places and in part because there simply wasn't much time left to generate a ton of answers before they shifted to the impending launch of 4th ed.

This was originally distributed as 4 Word docs, but I've combined it into one pdf. I wound up cutting anything that would appear in the Index Astartes or Chapter Approved books (except FAQ entries, as that would have required re-editing the FAQ and taken forever).

Hope it helps.

https://files.catbox.moe/cnbwrc.pdf

Ink wash anon here.

Took a look at my em4 dwarves and caved to gw.
I bought some sector mechanicus bases and I’ll prime them black then white ink them through an airbrush. I hope it works well and if not I’ll use white paint.
Or should I use both the bases and the em4 dwarfs?
>posting from work btw stole pic related off google.

>>96033789
nice anon, i'll take a look and see what we can reuse.

>>96033194
I don't believe we'll need every image, as some are just not very good, but whatever can add clarity would be best to include.

I'm on my week off now, so i'm going to see what i can get done when i'm not painting or enjoying myself in other ways. I don't anticipate Necrons taking too long to complete.


Furthermore, after searching for the last 4 days, I finally found my fuckin templates set so i can play a game at some point.

>>96033789
Thank you very much, I never knew about the tellyporta boyz or other Armageddon campaign units from the website.

Going to be trying 4th edition for the first time tomorrow (my Dark Angels vs a friend's Tyranids), wish me luck boys.

>>96034289
Bases might be easier for you to take group pictures of.

The ork codex in this link (mega. nz/folder/PEcnVC5Y#BGZlNvCNOoC2_ZFdw_5KoA) seems to actually be the 5th edition codex.

>>96037863
There was no new ork codex in 5th edition.

>>96037990
oh right. Where in the linked folders is the 3rd edition Ork codex then?

>>96037746
Don't forget to post a battle report bro

>>96037746
>>96040393

and make a note of any areas where the rules might need any clarification!

>>96037746
Good luck crypto homo bro! Don't let the vorefag bring that trophy home.

>>96037824
You’re right. Though I am practicing gimp for the project. Don’t expect studio tier quality but I’ll try my best. I’ve got three days off starting tomorrow and so I can try this all out.
I’m going to first try the black wash.

>>95994357
Why not Assassins? Was there an update I haven't seen?

>>96042730
they are apparently in the witch hunters book

>>96043167
witch hunters has rules for assassins in a witch hunter army (must have inquisitor), codex assassins has rules for using assassin in SM, IG and SB armies. Not sure if there was ever any overriding statement that witch hunter outright replaced assassin codex?

>>96043225
>3e Daemonhunters FAQ
>4e Cityfight FAQ
>The lack of a 4e assassins FAQ
If you want an assassin in guard or marines, you ally in an inquisitor.

>>96044710
thanks for the info, i'll do some reading

>>96044710
assassins are in base daemonhunters codex

>>96044749
Absolutely nothing in my post implies they aren't.

>>96044710
Unless I'm in the wrong document completely, the DH QA errata says it does not supercede the assass codex.
The lack of a 4e assass FAQ leaves the previous rules in play imo, as the DH QA states.
I see no reason to not allow codex assassin to be played as is?

>>96044775
To which I mean, if I am playing DH or WH, I should use DH/WH codex. If I'm playing marines/guard/sisters, I should be using codex assassins.

>>96044775
The v2 FAQ

>I see no reason to not allow codex assassin to be played as is?
It completely invalidates the requirement to take an inquisitor.

>>96044775
>>96044786
And the 4e cityfight FAQ

>>96044786
OK. I only had v1 locally. I see v2 in the mega so looks like i've got some updating/sorting to do. So much to keep track of

>>96044801
this is why version control

Not gonna lie, im very excited for this project, but I am very much not excited about having to go all the way back to 3rd edition dark eldar.

I started in 5th edition, and pretty much stopped in 8th, though I came back briefly for 10th and fucking hated it. I'd never played 4th.

But after reading through most of the stuff in the megaz, goddamn is it good.

>>96045099
the biggest hurdle for me is that there were just some big lessons they learned for 4th codex's. Some of the 3rd edition (like dark eldar) just lack crucial options that really helped them out in there later dex. ultimately i just wish every faction got there chaos 3.5

>>96045099
5th is bad and gay (derogatory)

>Surfs up, Brother!

Up!

>flash gitz says they're possibly brainstorming ideas to make space king a multimedia franchise
>lists ideas
>not one of them is "a tabletop game with better rules than GW's modern slop rulesets, inspired by old rulesets GW abandoned, just to stick it to em"

Are they retarded????

>>96050788
not a space king thread despite the op pic

I'd like to see what they'd come up with though

>inkwashanon here
Made a dark grey wash instead of a black wash as a first bottle.
About 40 drops of liquitex carbon black ink into the 30ml bottle that is half ultra-matte medium and half 10:1 water and flow aid.
Even with a 6mm glass boiling stone (basically a 6mm glass sphere) it was still a big time consuming to shake up.
The good news is that I can always add more ink to try and achieve the black I'm looking for.
I've got a lot of bottles for this job.

The original recipe is here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/261541.page

>why change from matte to ultra matte and use liquitex inks instead of daler rowney as recipe said
Because the webstore I was buying from was doing a Liquitex brand sale on stuff. And usually according to what I've seen in WIP, if it isn't ultra matte then the matte option is a bit satin-ish.

I have a feeling that the matte medium "lightens" the colors of the inks a bit so excessive numbers of ink drops may have to be added, but that also makes me concerned for how much ink is too much ink because one thing I'm trying to achieve is a wash that doesn't stain flat surfaces too much but stains recess and raised details nicely.

I'm open to feedback lads!

>>96050931
>update and bump
I have personal preference for how a wash should behave. For me there should be next to no staining on surfaces and only around recesses and raised details.
Like ArmyPainter washes mixed with speedpaint medium: https://youtu.be/b6cbOrVnD3Y?t=368
I'm not sure what the secret ingredient of speedpaint/contrast medium is but I would love to know what it is to experiment a bit more at the hobby desk.

I understand that this may not coincide well with some of you. As some of you may want your washes to leave final results like pic related.
So should I just roll ahead and cover the rest of the colors for the hobby section of this Battle Bible? Or try and pursue how I want my washes to behave or after I roll ahead and get the rest of the colors and their respectively listed recipes out?

Man, I really want to play 4th now. Is there any content for 4th on Table Top Simulator? If not, I might work on getting the unit profiles from the various codexes into TTS.

>>96053950
Most if not all of the TTS stuff available seems more conducive to 8e onward. Might take some doing by dedicated people to get things to flow with 4e.

>>96054152
I'll give it a crack then - I really want to play, but there's no one local who would play 4th.

>>96053950
>Is there any content for 4th on Table Top Simulator?
What do you even need? Just models and dice. Any 40k material for modern editions will work fine.

>>96056309
Oh I guess scatter dice and blast and flamer templates but you can get those through Necromunda or Horus Heresy

I've been peeking in on these threads now and then, can someone give a quick statement on where the project sits? I've seen at least 2 or 3 attempts at this over the years on /tg/ (Screaming Nid Anon leaps to mind) and they always seem to peter out after a few months. This effort does look much more collaborative and objective focused to me, though. I've said to my friends for years that 40k would benefit from a proliferated fan-made ruleset, similar to what EDH became for Magic, but am hesitant to get my hopes invested in a single effort because of how often they tend to fizzle.

>>96056949
orkanon here. version 0.98a of the core rules were posted a few days ago, i haven't had much of a chance to go over them as i've had the week off and have been away from my computer because of it. we need to review that doc, make sure everything is good, have nuSRD anon add the example pics, and that part is good to go. next would be optional expansion rules such as cityfight, the IA rules for super heavies and flyers, and the additional special mission types in chapter 2, then it's adding all of the codices data to a single doc.

I'm 2 factions into that now, working on necrons next so we have a head start on that portion, but since the original dexes are available both physically for cheap in most cases, and digitally throughout the threads, this isn't as high a priority as the main rules.

I've personally been a little burnt out the last couple weeks due to some stuff going on in life, so i haven't been as fast on the draw on getting more dex entries done, and since i haven't been on the computer much at all this week i haven't posted in the thread as much as i usually do. I'm sure this'll pick back up when i return to work next week (and thus ass will be firmly planted in seat to do more)

>>96057083
what can I do to help with the codexes?

>>96056309
I feel like having the unit profiles in the description of the model in TTS will probably help get people on board.

>>96050931
>>96053140
You should pursue your own style. SRD and Codices will be delivered digitally, not as big books and softcovers. We don't have to pretend no technoligical progress was acconplished in two decades.

>>96057969
>You should pursue your own style.
Okay I'll add more flow aid see if that makes a difference.
One thing to know is that the ultra matte medium seems to lighten the colors if my black wash is anything to go by. Maybe a dark grey wash is better than a true black wash, but I want to try and go darker.

Also liquitex Muted Turquoise and Carbon black mixed 50/50 (before being added to ultra matte medium and flow aid) seem to produce a color that is very similar to ArmyPainter's Dark Blue Tone.
And according to pic related, Devlan Mud and Strong Tone are pretty similar so I might try and recreate that. The problem is that I may need to add a bit more black inks than I realize to combat the lightening from the ultramatte medium.

I feel like a wizard doing alchemy in his tower. It is a nice feeling.

>>96057328
If you'd like to help, please find your preferred codex on pic related, grab the docs for it here: https://mega .nz/folder/AGAU0RLL#ZppNZJMXZwoYI9CLO7PF6g

then make a document matching the previous work i had done (you can see the three completed codexes here: https://mega .nz/folder/5SxSAbTK#xTn9hz0PGp1_kMYT0SZXuA )

It should have:
Army rules first, including armory
then individual entries for the different HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast Attack, and Heavy support choices.

If you have extra options from Chapter approved or Imperial armor, put those in their own section, then have a summary at the end.

We can always fix mistakes, but try to pay attention, and save an editable word AND pdf copy. When you're done send a link in the thread so i can add it to this folder so we can access it later and proofread when we get to that section. Any help we can get on this will make that portion easier.

>>95956008 (OP)
OP, i just completed the Necron dex along with the one IA entry it had for the pylon. please see the Mega link above in this post. it was very satisfying to finish something in one sitting.

https://mega .nz/folder/5SxSAbTK#xTn9hz0PGp1_kMYT0SZXuA

>>96058634
Oh, and if it wasn't clear, the green ones are what have already been done, the red is what we're not including (either because it got updated in early 4th, or the previous 3.5 ed dex fits more than the newer option.

>>96058634
Even if we're not doing Index Astartes can we at least get the Relictors in there? It's a kino concept + it's not overridden by anything in the 4e Marine 'dex

>>96060396
already done with the space marine dex. see the bottom of the doc

>>96060435
Nice

>>96037746
Forgot to post this, opponent cancelled on me last minute. Hopefully we'll reschedule soon, I'll post a battle report then.

>>96058634
Righto, I'll start with the Tau dex.

>>96058634
I'll take care of Tyranids.

You just need a text file with everything right?

>>96058634
are you just typing stuff into the word doc by hand, or are you doing like OCR on the codex or something?

>>96067117
Any chance you could fit the Clan Rules into the Ork section?

>>96067126
Yup just a .txt is best

>>96067913
ork anon here. i'll handle that. different anon wants to tackle the tau.

>>96067117
>>96067126
>>96067208
thanks. I start by putting everything in onenote so i can move it around as needed, then copy it to a word doc and export as pdf. It would be best to save both pdf and word just so we have consistency.

updated progress list

>>96067913
any idea where i can find the full doc at? i'm not seeing it in my pdfs of chapter approved

>>96068524
I think I saw it in one of the OP links but if it's not I'll try and post it

>>96068734
no such luck. even if you just know what white dwarf it is i have the archive and can find it from there.

OP here, we're past the 300 replies mark but I'm away for the week-end. Anyone wants to bake a new thread?

>>96069048
i'll set it up

new thread
>>96069168

>>96069173
Praise be (you).