>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 formatting the SRD.
Stage 2:Compile all GW official erratas into the SRD.
Stage 3: Condense all the codices into up to date SRD. - pending
Stage 4: Make a Hobby Enthusiast supplement for the SRD.
Stage 4: Make an Optional Rules supplement for the SRD.

HOW TO HELP:

> Help to update the SRD:
1. Check the latest 4th Ed. SRD here:
v0.98A: drive. google .com/file/d/1KwK1cKvi6J-_38eTp5YRXbzWJvYtmJhA (remove spaces)

Changelog: drive.google.com/file/d/1yLBkFdcigJMjE7s3i8nzuanSt11uTbh52.

Look for any typo, errors, missing rules or dense writing style.
Make sure your recommendation wasn't already posted here:
drive. google. com/file/d/1xP-gIraW1DThssvvtE58YeTd3yDxwyzp/ (remove any space)
Leave your recommendation on the SRD pdf directly by leaving a comment in google drive

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

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

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

>All codices are claimed and are being worked on, and are being archived as they are posted. we will format and proofread these after the core is done.
>current pending codices: Tau, Daemonhunters, Witch hunters, imperial guard
>IF you can no longer commit to finishing your codex, due to life getting in the way or whatever, please inform the thread so someone else can take up the mantle.

Current transcribed codex data is here: https://mega .nz/folder/5SxSAbTK#xTn9hz0PGp1_kMYT0SZXuA

NuSRD anon here, still away for holiday but keeping an eye on the threads. You guys are doing awesome, the Codices keep pilling up.

TauAnon here - I've been a lazy motherfucker, but I am scratching away at the Tau dex.

Am I right in thinking the Kroot Merc list will be separate, and I shouldn't include it in here?

>>96147320 (OP)
Where to find Battle Bible Codices?

>>96147826
I don’t think any are done yet? We are still transcribing them

>>96148134
Ah okay, sorry, my mistake

>>96148212
the rough versions of the ones done so far are here:

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

>>96148413
Thanks a ton for the link anon.

>>96147329
Should be 4e catachans. It's the third edition codex updated for 4th ed and the 3.5 guard codex.
The biggest difference I noticed when I was skimming through is that you can't take them in codex guard armies anymore, but that was FAQd out with the 3.5 codex anyway.

Last thread people made me aware that Prohammer is a thing. It looks neat. Has anyone here played it? Battle Reports are basically impossible to find of it, I found like one 1hour video with triple digit views and that's it.

>>96149695
What's prohammer?

Should I remake this thread with a proper subject and somewhat related image?

>>96149840
>Should I remake this thread with a proper subject and somewhat related image?

Image is perfect, no changes. You could do a title if you want, but not needed IMO.

Here's a picture from a 4 way 4th edition King of the Hill game that some friends and I played. We got the rules from a WD, but changed it to a random player going first every turn.

Game is fun. We had some open areas, but area terrain like forests also creates a lot of good no-shooting areas. In some ways you need less terrain because of no true LOS.

>>96139630
Fixed and updated, thank you.

>>96148659
Not being an IG player myself, this was something i was not aware of

To the Anon transcribing the imperial guard, here is a copy of codex catachans to use from 4th edition, i checked the publication date and it is 2005, so definitely before the cutoff. please alter the existing data using this.
https://mega .nz/file/FfQBHbJQ#9caHqyixTyiIkkdkprj4YOuzCDR9gwrzmIIB3K2TKv4

>>96149695
I have. It’s actually my buddies and I’s preferred system over anything else. 4E is too vanilla and limited for our tastes and GW just cranked the retard level further and further for 5th and beyond, so Prohammer provides a nice alternative.
The biggest flaw with it is allowing any codex from 3rd to 7th to be used. It tries its best to roll back the biggest excesses of 6th-7th in terms of special rules (it overrides them with universal special rules found in the core rulebook) and outright deletes unique formations from the game. But it has no means to solve the point cost power creep and you can still definitely tell how different the game plays just based on the codexes used. That’s why we stick to 3rd to 4th edition codexes up to Tau and why I’m so thrilled with the work the thread has done in compiling all the information into one place. It’s a huge help.

I should also mention that the Prohammer creator *did* try his hand at developing a couple of codices for it. He did an okay job with Nids (he just backported a bunch of stuff into their 4E book) but he attempted it with Votann and that book just demonstrates why anything after 8th can never be allowed lol.
>>96149789
5th Edition core rules fork, generally emphasizing additional simulationist elements to the gameplay without compromising the core of what 40k is.
You can read the guy’s entire design philosophy here
https://www. dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.page

>>96149789
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.page

>ProHammer Classic is an attempt to build a unified ruleset that unites the best of 3rd through 7th edition, utilizing 5th edition as the starting point. In addition to integrating and refining rules from across editions, new rules unique to ProHammer are incorporated where it creates deeper and richer gameplay, making this “classic” 40k the best game it can be.

Pic summarizes the broad-strokes changes

>Thats a lot of words, just give me a one sentence summary
4e meets 5e plus changes to make the game gooder

>>96151868
>>96149789
>>96149695
This is not a prohammer thread, despite some similarities. Different project. going into stuff like this was one of the reasons fourk got derailed last year. Please make a different thread if you wish to discuss it

>>96153957
Didn't mean to interrupt your dead thread here officer
Lmao

>>96154060
>dead thread
>a group of anons successfully collaborated to create a rulebook and almost all of the codices are finished

There's nothing wrong with talking about prohammer or fourk or whatever offshoot, but please realize that the only reason we've been able to make as much progress as we have is because we've just been laser focused on getting what has been published into an easier to read format.

Think of this project as the foundation for anything else you'd like to run. But houserules and homebrew are not the goal of the 4th Battle Bible project.

>>96151836
Personally, I think it's kind of an impossibility to *backport* Votann, because there's nothing to backport *to*. You're essentially having to scratchrule the LoV in an era where they didn't exist, and if you want the faction to fit the spirit of 3/4, then the end result simply isn't going to be the LoV you'd started with.

>>96154291
most newer units could be given stats within the confines of the 4th edition system without too much difficulty aside from the point cost and adjusting to fit the era.

Personally, I don't think the Leagues have a place in 40K, let alone older editions of 40K.
I get that you might want to be gunning for inclusivity for the betterment of all, but I feel as though the Leagues are at odds with the spirit of 40K and bending over backwards to include them in this project would be a detriment. But that's just me.

>>96154738
What about them makes you feel like they're at odds with the spirit of 40k?

>>96155085
Their technology which is so hyper advanced is also aged and defunct. They clone with reckless abandon. They flirt with AI when that was previously the Tau's conceit. Their aesthetic is generic space dwarf when their Necromunda Squad counterparts are excellent. Even their newest hero is just a "I survived the Nids" when that was Calgar's claim to fame having lost all four limbs to the beast.
They just feel antithetical to good 40K in my eyes.

>>96154654
I think he more means that LoV are emblematic of the modern GW design philosophy at all levels - rules, fluff, aesthetic - and in order to create a version of them that feels right in the context of 4th you'd have to butcher all of those aspects so much they wouldn't be recognisable anymore. 4th is still the era where "Dark Age STCs" are exemplified by the Rhino and other commonplace/shared vehicles, rather than being a completely distinct NASApunk-cum-mecha anime design language. Maybe DAoT tech really did look like that, but it doesn't belong *in* 40K, the age of farm equipment turned into tanks & mechs and cavalry charges with actual literal horses.

Besides we already know what "4th edition LoV" ie Squats updated for that era's design philosophies would have looked like: the Demiurg.

>>96153957
Anon asked a question and I replied. It was like 5 posts, calm down

>>96155534
there was a lot of posting about it last thread as well. No disparaging people from talking about it, I just don't want to distract this thread from its purpose by talking about an entirely separate project.

>>96155473
>Demiurg
NTA, but are there any official artworks for their appearance?

>>96147747
Take your time anon, it's Summer and we all deserve a break. Pretty sure Kroot should be in tho.

>>96155734
i think Battlefleet Gothic Armada has some basic, remarkably dull ship designs.

>>96156241
That's all? Grim.

>>96155734
There was a single concept sketch by Jes, you can see it on the 1d6chan article for them.

Ink wash anon here. Inks haven’t arrived yet but I got myself some proper white primer so I’ll be doing that for the mechanicus gw bases and for some em4 minis. The diy ink wash page I have in my head should have example pictures of the ink wash on a base and on a model. In this case em4 bulk plastic dwarves.

>>96156394
Huh, can't find it. Thanks anyway.

>>96156418
That's some really good news. Say sorry to the Canadian post! You guys are always sorry anyway.

>>96156418
>em4 bulk plastic dwarves.

Godspeed, anons working on this project. You are doing the Emperor's work.
A few friends asked me to show them 40k, and I want to try using 4th ed, space marines vs orks. Would 1000 points be small enough to not be overwhelming but have enough room to show off some of each army's special toys?

>>96156531
1k is good for showing them the game without it taking forever, if you're just showing it to them you don't want to take 3+ hours to do it.

>>96156531
Give them a taste of the game through 4th Editions Combat Patrol. Page 182 of the Rulebook.
Armies are no larger than 400pts
Minimum Requirement is One Troop choice.
HQ are optional. No named characters, no 2+ saves, no more than two wounds per model, no vehicles with a total armour greater than 33, no Ordinance and played on a 4x4 space.

My brother and I play Combat Patrol all the time and it's a fast/fun way to get your 40K fix. Especially good for intro games.

>>96156610
>>96156879
Thank you fellas, I'll try a combat patrol first to see if they're interested before a bigger game. I'll try to get pics of the game this weekend to share.

>>96156438
>type "demiurg 1d6chan" into search
>first result

>>96156531
Ime 650 is the right into game but you have to cheat a little bit with unit size minimums sometimes, like 3 terminators instead of 5. A 1000 point game should take about 3.5 - 4 hours, longer if you are teaching. Also don’t have them list build. You should do that for them. Heck I don’t even bother with points normally except to double check roughly that the cools models I pull out are about equal.

Also we forgot to link the last thread >>96069168

>>96151868
>5th ed as a basis
Doesn't take rocket appliances to know this would end up poorly.

>>96160899
Was it 5th that had the wound spread? As a result you had annoying things like the ork nob biker squads that could spread the damage across the entire squad.
So in order to remove 1 model from a squad of 10 models with 2 wounds you need to make 11 wounds before a single model got removed.

>>96161099
yep

>>96158267
My bad I was looking at Votanni stuff

>>96157094
Have fun homie.

>>96160899
>Doesn't take rocket appliances to know this would end up poorly.

You know, it's kind of funny. I grew up playing 5th, but reading back on it now, 4th edition is so much better. It's just that my friends and I screwed up a bunch of 4th edition rules so it wasn't as good as it should have been.
5th was the beginning of the end.

Can someone explain to me why 4th edition is so much better regarded than 5th? I love 5th.

>>96161999
The quick an dirty is that about 75% of the differences favor 4th ed. keeping in mind that fundamentally the editions are rather similar so many of these differences may be or seem minor but they can add up. Some examples being:
>combat resolution mechanics
>mixed saves/complex units rules
>area terrain rules
But there are some things 5th does better too such as defensive weapons are now s4 and below instead of s6 or less.
Of course there are some things many people don’t agree about. I think the very best parts of 5th Ed are the blast, running, and rapid fire changes. But there is another anon here who hates them and spergs out anyone someone mentions them.

>>96161099
I believe Prohammer has actually removed that

>>96163171
>Running
>Rapid Fire changes
What happened here?

>>96164374
>4th ed
You can’t run by default. Units with fleet can run. You can fleet and charge.
Rapid fire is 1 shot half range if you move.
>5th Ed
Everyone can run. Fleet let’s run and and charge.
Rapid fire can shoot twice half range even if you move.
>6th ed
All units can run. You cannot run and charge. Fleet let’s you reroll runs and charges.
Rapid fire is always twice half range or once max range, movement has nothing to do with it.

6th ed has the best rapid fire rules.

>>96164664
>even if you move
It doesn't explicitly say that, are you sure that's how it works?
>Fire twice at up to 12", or remain stationary and fire once up to maximum weapon range

>>96164713
You are right! I mixed up 3rd and 4th ed (which is the same as 5th Ed actually now that I double check). In 3rd you cannot shoot twice at 12” if you move.

My last error is that it’s not half range until 6th Ed, it’s once at max range, or twice at 12” no matter what (so fuck tau lol).

>>96163171
Dunno if I'd go so far as to sperg out about it, but I sincerely do dislike the running changes. Devalues Fleet, devalues transports, reduces the need to plan ahead, and minimises what was a pretty significant differentiator in an edition with no Move stat.

>>96165521
I like it because of the adds tactical flexibility to the turns and helps reduce the need for critically perfect deploymen; losing before the game even starts cause of a bad deployment is second only to losing in the list building phase in terms of not the most fun. But more so that I think running makes infantry move at a more appropriate speed for the table size and turn quantity. It’s weird to think that a unit, who may have wanted to stand still to shoot their heavy weapon once can’t move half the length of the board by the time the game ends.

And thematically I like the abstraction that a standard move is the speed at which a unit can move and properly operate their guns, as in a careful advance rather than an all out sprint.

But also transports are so powerful id settle for runs just to make them worse. Full mech was just the dominant way for so long.

>>96154091
It took you tremoring housebound shits two months to copy+paste a couple of pdfs. "Create a rulebook" lol lol la mayo.

so for the sake of The Battlebible. it is only stitching 4e and 3e together, fifth edition is being left out in its entierty yeah? so I cant pimp out my knobs or have ALL THE CHAOS DEMON characters for a Demons of Chaos army?

>>96165521
So you played a gunline army and one of your friends played Tyranids. Gotcha.

>>96167339
Nta but as a kid I played tau and my friend played nids. We could not figure out how he was supposed to ever win, and I mean like we sat down together poured over the codex and tried to come up with a viable list. Maybe it had to do with that we played on an 8’ ping pong table and couldn’t read lol. But in fairness I never beat my brothers eldar a single time. 4th ed tau blew chunks they are so bad. Praise Jeremy for finally making fusion guns range 18. Curse Jeremy for making railguns strength 8….

>>96167406
I would guess you lacked two things:

- enough cover save-granting terrain
- any LoS-blocking terrain

>>96167439
Even with plenty of terrain (lincoln logs, wooden blocks, train track stuff) but a carnifex moving 6” a turn takes like 8 turns to cross that much dead zone lol. We just didn’t follow the rules cause no one ever bothered to read that part of the rule book, it was all word to mouth cause we were dumb kids.

>>96167339
Actually I played Blood Angels in 2nd and Black Templars, Catachans, Eldar, and Inquisition in 3rd & 4th. I just like my games to require me to think for more than ten seconds about how to win instead of lining everything up and zerging mindlessly right into the middle of the table to moshpit like a dumbass.

>>96167192
I strongly disagree, deployment is distinct from listbuilding as it's part of the actual game on the tabletop and it should impact your chances of victory. As to choosing to shoot vs being able to traverse the whole table - yeah that's the point? Not being able to run creates tradeoffs that you have to plan around; you can gain firepower at the expense of maneuver, you can gain maneuver at the expense of points(transports) and risk(your transports might get blown up with your dudes inside), or you can compartmentalize your approach and take units focused on firepower and units focused on maneuver(cavalry, fleet).

And I don't know what your meta was like but 4th was absolutely not a "powerful transports" edition. Rhinorush was a 3rd strategy and only seemed "dominant" because of how common Marines are. 4th made that less prevalent and also toned down stuff like Falcons and Waveserpents, in fact I think the only really "transport focused" memelist was Tau leaning into Fish of Fury and Tau were hardly that common. Transports weren't "meta" again until the middle of 5th when the tournament stankmonsters realized how much more resilient mech armies were and started using Leafblower Guard and the like.

>>96168649
I like your explanation for why running shouldn't be a thing. You've convinced me.

>>96169190
Sir, this is an internet, we serve snarky bile here.

>>96164774
>so fuck tau lo
All you needed to say homie!

>>96168649
Like I said a difference in opinion. I think that infantry’s movement speed of 6” does not best suit the scale or board size. You do not like how it makes them faster. Nothing I or you can say to change each other’s mind. I think we have repeated the same talking points every thread.
But your points are wrong and mine are right aye lmao got heem.

My meta was “if you don’t put your entire army in transports then Tiberius is going to Fear of the Dark them off the table on turn one” :(

>>96167406
>We could not figure out how he was supposed to ever win, and I mean like we sat down together poured over the codex and tried to come up with a viable list.

If you want to play them "competitively", you either go heavy monstrous creatures with a lot of shooting, or you do a lot of genestealers. Most of the time against Eldar and Tau and whatnot, you need more of the monstrous creature shooting.

Carnifexes are best played with the VC/Strangle setup. I also recommend the biomorph that gives them an additional wound for 15 points. IIRC 163 points has them at BS3 with enhanced senses, 5 wounds, 2 str10 shots, and a str8 large blast.

Railguns, lascannons, plasma, etc feels less bad when you had the 5th wound and if you're in ruins or other decent cover you're getting a 4+ save

Melee carnifexes are best played cheap, if taken at all. I tend to play pretty casually so sometimes I run a suped up melee carnifex with all the fixings like regen, tusked, etc.

Now granted if you're playing on a ping pong table then yeah basically nothing a cc opponent can do.

>>96170865
Oh, you're a Specialcharacterfag, that explains a lot.

Got three more books on the mail today. My 3E collection is almost complete now. Thought you might get a kick out of it.

>>96170991
So as kids we always played with 12” deployments, no matter what instead of playing with a 24” dead zone like you are supposed to. And we always played with all the good tall ruin terrain in the deployment zones. My brothers Neil tan dark reaper troop choices always just outranked and gunned down all my tau.

>>96171095
Dude I was like 11 years old ease up.