Thread 96220767

As the enshittification of the official rules continues unabated, let’s discuss alternative rulesets. Share your experiences and perhaps we can highlight more distinctive features of each.

"ProHammer Classic"
-Best of from 3rd to 7th edition with 5th edition as base.
-reactive fire, reworked wound allocation, classic overwatch, deeper shooting and much more
-rulebook, scenarios, campaign system, ChatGPT powered unit creation tool, TTS Mod
-Use with any Codex from 3rd - 7th edition
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.page
https://sites.google.com/view/prohammer40k?usp=sharing

"Custom40k"
-rewrite to modernize, streamline and rebalance the classic era (3rd - 7th edition)
-Alternating activation, Model backwards(and forwards) compatibility, huge customization(as in 3.5 chaos codex style customization), armor values for vehicles
-rulebook, codices, campaign system, scenarios and a working points calculator
-Discord: https://discord.com/invite/wnGAB3TYAY
https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/383354-custom40k-homebrew-with-alternate-activation-huge-customisation-support-for-all-models/
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/806918.page

"The Long War Project"
-fusion between 3rd edition and 7th/horus heresy. With some bits from 8th.
-rulebook, scenarios and codices
-actively maintained
-Discord: https://discord.com/invite/nkxx4ZUBRU
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VBC2H49xydk8lPxgAjTY9sFtNmHQefp4

"Alternate 40k Rules"
-rulebook, scenarios, codicies
-not actively maintained since 2022
https://alternate40krules.wordpress.com/

"Waffle Edition /tg/-Edition"
-rulebook and codices, as well a WIP points calculator
-not actively maintained since 2024
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H9BSZAMNLNupOgwFLyWrCNrb1uBG3j_9XbopwhAES_4/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0
https://1d6chan.miraheze.org/wiki/Waffle_Edition_40K

>>96220767 (OP)
>Found Primarshit rules in each of these
NO excuses, zoomzooms. Come play a real wargame.

Including this thread there are three threads about alternative warhammer 40k rules.
Is GW gonna one day try and nostalgia-bait through "classic redux" rulesets?

>>96220886
>"classic redux" rulesets
They kinda do this with HH already.

>>96220891
>They kinda do this with HH already.
I think "kinda" is the wrong word for it to be honest.
HH is just marines vs marines with pity guardsmen thrown in.
It doesn't have the wild diversity of aylmao enemies that 40k has.
But if HH is a testbed and 3.0 doomspeakers are proven correct then GW may not ever do a classic redux ruleset alongside their mainline one.

>>96220891
Already going the way of NuHammer sucking all the flavor out of 3.0. The duty has fallen onto us.

>>96220915
>The duty has fallen onto us.
Well you better get to work and check out the SRD battle bible project. It is the only time I've seen nu/tg/ have any hope of getting shit done.
I really want this to be a /fourk/ flopped so SRD Battle Bible Project could fly kind of thing.
But Bongland politics may have killed it if the main project lead is a Brit and restrictions are not letting Britposters contribute to the project.

I'll confess. I don't think I'm smart enough for the job so I want to keep my hands off the project lest I be the one that somehow fucks up and ruins the whole thing.

>>96220808
If by this you mean death to Primarisharts, agreed. What's the point of leaving modern 40K for superior versions of the game and IP and then just importing all the poisoned fruits of the nuhammer tree back with you? Old editions may not be perfect, but they're a fuck of a lot better than someone's trumped-up pretentiously-presented houserules that seemingly only exist to shit up good stuff with bad stuff.

Long live 2nd, long live 4th, fuck fan editions and fuck GW gg peace out.

>>96220903
GW is moving over to a subscription style format where rules and minis are constantly being replaced, competitive metas drive consumers to engage in this. It’s over.

>>96220924
>But Bongland politics may have killed it if the main project lead is a Brit and restrictions are not letting Britposters contribute to the project.
the fuck are you talking about?

Thank you for collating these anon, I had only heard of Prohammer before but I was disappointed by the lack of effort put into the army side of things. Interested in Custom40k and Long War

>>96221236
The maintainer for custom40k will give a showcase on how it is played this Sunday via TTS, as announced on their discord. He seems to be a decent guy and is quick to answer questions about the rules. They are also rather open for input and changes.
I have not looked into Long War too much yet but their maintainer uploaded some videos about the project on youtube

>>96221280
I've been skimming Custom40k and it seems to be the more interesting system. Alternating Activation on its own is nothing special, but the facedown order mechanic is fun, reminds me of the standalone Apocalypse ruleset GW released in 2018. Hoping to give it a try, but as a Necronfag the reanimation mechanic seems a little wonky but I'm gonna give it a try

The fact that its a system powered by German autism gives me hope.

>>96220767 (OP)
There's also Potica40k albeit dead

https://sites.google.com/site/potica40k/introduction

>>96221187
Someone posted a troll image about a week ago claiming all UKanons would be booted off the site...almost a week ago. Either they're still trying to push it despite the troll image apparently inciting the jannies to genocidal rage or there are a lot of thicky-dicky single digit IQ morons around here who keep believing it despite the specific claim made in the image not coming true.

Renegade scout is good, it's more modernished and polished version of RT and 2nd ed era 40k. Mostly still as complex as far as number of rules you can use is concerned, quite good at adapting units from most editions into it and also has good trait of being just fun game to play.

>>96220924

this (somehwat surprisingly) isnt actually true.
source: man unironically drinking tea.

I'll add a link to my AA-40k ruleset. Dark Eldar and Necrons are complete but in the 'rough draft' stage. I'm taking some time to fully internally hyperlink the books. So far Craftworld Eldar and Tyranids are done. It's alternating activation and there's a starter scenario book along with data cards and reference sheets. The scenarios are based off the old 2nd edition Armageddon starter booklet, so Orks vs Space Marines.
My favorite period of 40k was early 4th, but I really enjoy everything up to that point. I really just pulled from whatever sources I thought had fun ideas. There are still more armies to come, once Dark Eldar and Necrons are done I'm turning my attention to Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch/Grey Knights.

https://mega.nz/folder/EqRzATpY#veXSXgaGG23c462K4ppDJg

>>96220767 (OP)
None of these ever give marines baseline 2 wounds and thus will forever suffer the feeling of marines not feeling appropriately elite.

Fix this.

>>96221804
>but the facedown order mechanic is fun, reminds me of the standalone Apocalypse ruleset GW released in 2018
It's from Adeptus Titanicus/Space Marine.

One Page Rules or previous versions of One Page 40K are available as well.

>>96220767 (OP)
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/113585/Swatters--Large-Scale-BugHunting-Miniatures-Rules

>>96220767 (OP)
Here is my own 999.m41 edition (pepsihammer).
https://mega.nz/folder/2YdghLzL#w0KOILlS1lrM1AeE4jcG-Q

Its basically my favorite parts of 4th - 6th mashed into one. I have codecies for most of the main factions at the time. Really the one Im missing is orks. But the ruleset is designed to be mostly compatible with any official codex from the era.

>>96224882
But if marines have 2 wounds then ______ needs 3 wounds and the problem rolls forever.

>>96220924
I think someone was trolling us over there.

Hijacking the tread a bit:
Is there an equivalent to that, but for Warhammer Battle?
Something which would be a little bit halfway between the original game and One Page Rule, with the sacred cows killed, as well as a large support for creating new fan-made factions, but still retaining some of the features (like rules for flag bearers and musicians, that kind of stuff).

>>96226239
No, you just give marines 2 wounds. There is zero problems there.

>>96226468
Only thing I know for fantasy was called the Warhamner Armies Project

>>96226513
A better solution is just to start nerfing big pie plates. Marines do not need to be tougher vs las guns. AP2 and AP3 large blast should basically not be in the game. They dont belong. Hell AP4 large blast is already pushing it. A 85 point whirlwind with a lucky shit can white like 100 points of fire warriors in a single turn. That is not a good balance point.

>>96220808
>>96220974
There's no reason for primaris to have special rules. If primaris fans want to use their primaris models, they can sort them into proper squads and use the rules for real marines. The oddball primaris units that don't really fit only ever got used when they had retarded pushed rules, no one will miss inceptors or aggressors.

>>96229739
>AP2 and AP3 large blast should basically not be in the game. They dont belong.
You'll have to pry those pie plates out of my cold, dead hands.

>>96230873
>HH got it right making the battlecannon small blast ap4 aye lmao
But memes aside, battlecannons and even worse demolisherrs have been balance breaking basically since 3rd ed. More and more ap2/3 pieplates (ignoreing flyers here) are what broke 6th ed. But ill admit that my homebrew posted here >>96226220 makes them better
Changes include
>you dont have to center a template on a model
>unit coherency is 1.5"
>blasts scatter 3d3 inches
These changes together make small blast templates actually valuable instead of useless (having the radius be smaller than unit coherency was always incredibly dumb).
Another relevent change
>instant death is replaced with overpower, which incures a -1 armour save penalty and +1 wound rather than flat out dead.
A plasma cannon at s7 ap2 small blast should be about the scariest anti elite infantry in a regular game.

My general rule of thumb for points and balance is that against an optimal target, a unit should be expected to kill roughly 1/N of its points a turn with N being the average number of game turns. Plus and minus roughly a factor of 2 is really all thats safe to include.

So a battle cannon on a 150 point leman russ, you want to be able to kill not much more than 2 (28 point) of tactical marines a turn. 3 if your opponent is greedy and tries to clump up to hold an objective better or something. With that said I have not changed them yet because I havn't settled the problem that inherently imperial guard are a problematic glass cannon army that kinda needs these broken toys to compete with that fact that, like tau, they have no melee.

>>96231185
>150 point leman russ, you want to be able to kill not much more than 2 (28 point) of tactical marines a turn.

that's retarded and you're gay

>>96231276
No it's not. Thats the least optimal target for the battle cannon, every other space marine unit costs more than that. You really think a 150 point unit should be able to dunk like 90 points of marines a turn? Thats insane. Plus leman russ have some of the best armour in the game. Its a crazy good tank.

Just play a different setting.

>>96226239
I mean it feels like the problem rolls until you run out of models that could have more wounds than the previous model. And at that point your basically just saying "but balancing the game around marines having 2 wounds would be work"

>>96231438
Id be lying if I didnt think about doubling all units to have 2 wounds and then doubling all attacks. That way you could have marines be 3 wounds, which is not such a big jump as double. But it would mean the game would go longer cause everything would mean twice as many dice. But rolling dice is fun? I dunno.

>but balancing the game around marines having 2 wounds would be work
It took GW two and a half editions to finish band-aid patching the effects of giving marines 2 wounds. It was like a cat chasing their own tail.
But again, I dont think marines need to be much better at defending small arms.
10 guardsmen (50 points) fire rapid fire 20 shots will hit 10 will wound 3-4 will kill about 1 space marine (14 points). That is reasonable. Even a more powerful gun like shuriken catapults, 10 guardians (90 points) fire 20 shots hit 10 wound 5 kill ~2 marines (28). Seems fine. 10 Marines (140 points) shooting guardians rapid fire 20 shots hit 13 wound 8 kill 4 (36 points). All these things are about in line with what they need to be. The problem arrises when you have undercosted guns that are better at killing marines. And that problem would not be solved just by giving marines 2 wounds, as seen from looking at the D2 power creep that happened followed by the -1D that happened after that and then the next thing and the next then whatever happened after that.

Dark reapers were 35 points per model for a reason.
The way to solve marines is to decrease the times they don't get to make their 3+ saves.

>>96224882
Custom40k gives them 2 wounds

>>96224882
Just play movie marines. Deep inside you know damn well nothing less would ever soothe your (admittedly justified) feelings of fundamental inadequacy.

>>96231937
>>96231940
What edition was this released?

>>96232189
3rd or 4th I cant remember which

>>96232189
actually its got screenshots of dawn of war which came out right after 4th launched so probably 4th.

>>96229739
bro we've seen what happens
you end up with heresy 2.0e
you should be able to drop marines with plasma, power weapons and the like.
marines are a surgical tool, the fact that you drink paste isn't our problem.

>>96220767 (OP)
Which of these have rules for models that were shoved into Legends? I've got a Brass Scorpion and a Spined Chaos Beast that are collecting dust in the corner.

>>96234461

They are both forgeworld minis right?Fundamentally I would say everything that had rules in 3rd to 7th can just be used in ProHammer. So if you have the data-sheet you can play them.
As for custom40k: they have a simple unit calculator so you can create any unit you want.

>>96234461
AA-40k has rules for spined chaos beasts and will have a supplement for super-heavy units in the future. The chaos beasts are available in the daemons of chaos and lost and the damned armies, but if you're playing chaos space marines and want to include them, my official ruling is "It's your game now. Do what you want."

>>96234517
>>96234722
Cheers fellas, I'll give everything a look

>>96234461
By design any 3rd to 7th ed codex can be used with pepsihammer with minimal compatibility issues.

>>96234380
I mean I did say I was meemeeing so I think I cya'd. HH is entirely a unique game because its all marines vs marines. They should have moved to the rend system it would better suit the fact that the entire game is only 2+ and 3+. Power weapons becoming ap3 was the most damaging thing to ever happen to warhammer.

>>96231807
Where?

>>96237198
go to one of the forum links in the OP for custom40k
then click on the Space marine army list linked there. Primaris as well as true born all have 2W

>>96221236
>>96221280
>>96221804
>>96220767 (OP)
>>96235367
Been playing Custom40k since its inception. The guy who made it is super nice and open to feedback. The system itself has a really strong core. You can put in basically any unit for the system and homebrew to your heart's content if you'd like since it doesn't rely on special unit abilities and is essentially a refined version of the older games. The alternating activations are also very neat and takes cues from Bolt Action.
It's also the only Warhammer game to date that doesn't have broken Flyers.

>>96235604
Problem.
i play the non-marine factions
ap 4 across the board kills me.
my artillery now no longer works because marines get 2+ rerollable armour saves against a medusa
non marines are 16% worse at hitting marines in melee
it's pain.

>>96238125
Why is 40k so locked in with buckets of D6s anyway?

Reading the rules for 10th as written in the book as they came out I don't know what the fuck anyone's problem was despite tanks and flyers needing some clarification and the clunky separation of wargear from troop profiles.

I say this as a very, very casual 40k player doing a tonne of other things.

I think 90% of problems would disappear if people would accept RAW and just house rule or roll for any major discrepancies. Fuck the meta. Where has the meta gotten you? Ten editions and the game still isn't perfect?

Eleventh needs to fix terrain more than anyone's gay little army.

>>96238450
Of course it is not perfect. That was never the goal. Warhammer is not like Battletech for example. Battletech was refined over the decades and remains almost unchanged in terms of rules.
GW however wants all the good fanboys to buy the new rulebook and codex every 3-4 years. If the rules would not change then no one would do that.

The sooner one understands that the better. Then you can give GW the finger. Read the lore that is still somewhat good. Buy some GW minis, maybe even second hand and give a rats ass about their constantly fucked up rules that get worse with every iteration and the shit load of FAQs and Errata you need to handle.

Their rules are really their least important thing in my eyes. Except if you are a tournament-bro of course. But if you are in it for the fun, or lore, or aesthetics of the minis then you are golden.

>>96238496
99% of the time I play something else lol
they say themselves, they are a miniatures company.

People need the rules to be the source of the thematic feel but overlook paint scheme, composition, your lore etc

>>96238125
I play just about every faction so I like to think of myself as non-baised, but ill still hedge my bet.
>non-marines are 16% worse in melee
By my math a guardsmen is way worse than that. But they are also like 1/3rd the price. Are we still talking about 2 wound marines? Sorry im a bit lost.
How are marines getting re-rollable 2+ saves exacly? Im not remembering which edition had that. Even the griffon will wound marines on a 2+, in which they will start to fail saves.

>>96237242
What is your favorite part of the core mechanics that isnt the alternating activations? I ask because I have my own homebrew and like to read other guys stuff. If I had to pick a thing I am very proud of its my psycic power rules, which work like this.
>warp charge is mana, 1 2 or 3 normally.
>when you cast a power, pick how much mana you want to use, then add 1 bonus dice
>roll them, look at chart to see which dice harness (ld10 is 2+ ld9 is 3+ etc)
>if you have enough harness the power is cast
>any doubles = perils (take ld check or lose wound, double 1 mean you auto fail the ld check)
Denying is just like casting a power, roll then dice then do like the Risk board game and try to cancel out all your opponents dice.
I also have a mechanic called overcharge, which lets your generate a bonus mana at a risk of becoming stupider.
Its super clean, I really like how it means casting harder powers means a higher chance to perils, and is compatible with the warp charges established in 6th ed books. Mathematically its very its very similar to the old basic leadership test for the lower end of things so simple laymen psykers really wont notice a difference (like warlocks and zoanthropes or the like).

>>96238881
>two wound marines
I'm talking strictly the weapon skill chart.
>How are marines getting re-rollable 2+ saves exacly?
heavy, all failed template weapons are rerolled.
usually that would be cataphractii who are generally the preferred termies in my area because who the fuck wants to trade a 4+ for a 5+ for 1 move and running reactions.
also a number of legion special units and the breachers. basically targets you want to hit and your zone moteralis standards.
it's more of a problem because 1. you see a lot more terminators, (command squads for line and i think ws5)
more terminators in general because they're two wound and not as good as contempters but still generally favoured

>>96239018
Ah ok sorry I thought we were talking 40k here. I dont actually play HH but I do happen to know they nerfed the ever loving hell out of the battle cannon, hence my meemee.

>>96220924
It's fucking nutso that you simps keep calling that a "project" when it's literally just ctrl-z'ing the rules from one edition

What percentage of potential players do you think there are who really want to play 4th edition, but simply cannot bear to use downloaded pdfs (or ebay) and will have their sole barrier removed by this "project"

>>96239307
Well at least people were working on it. I dont think I have convinced a single person to read my homebrew to give me feedback. So something that doesnt need discussing has an appeal.

>>96239307
Oh it's far worse than ctrl-z, they're trying to paraphrase rules and failing due to elementary school level reading comprehension and having never actually played old/middlehammer and not understanding the gaming conventions and design ethos of the time. It's sad to watch, really.

>>96243183
That is literally what a StandardReferenceDocument is you dolt. There are only 2 ways how to write rules. You can either have rules that are good for teaching, long wordy paragraphs that explain a point clearly from multiple angles with example so a reader in a vacuum can understand it without asking for help. And the other way is write terse and brief rules that are easy to parse and reference for double checking purposes for players who already have the context and know how to play, but these rules will lack the context to teach the how and why. You cannot have both without your game being so shrimple you end up with 10th edition.

And also why one page rules doesn’t work because it hinges on the fact the player knows what all this shit means cause he already knows how to play warhammer.

>>96222068
it is so dead the website isn't even working.

>>96246491
The 4th edition rulebook is pretty well written from a reference point of view already, I've started playing it again recently and it was generally quite easy to find and extract whatever information we needed.

>>96255952
Respectfully, and I say this as a person um who prefers teaching style rules, it’s ok. Being able to parse out quickly the letter be t info from a paragraph with mixed of fluff, context, and rules is a skill I have since I’ve been doing it since I was 12. But it is way easier to find the exact rule/sentence in a bulleted or boxed rule set layout format like 10th ed.

The worst part about 4th ed is that it’s index sucks. Nothing is where you want cause they too broadly categories things like it’s a table of contents. 6th ed has a much more usable index.

>>96258416
To be fair, my perception was probably coloured somewhat by playing The Old World afterwards and trying to find some of the stuff in that rulebook is genuinely painful.

>>96246491
I understand the paraphrasing, the problem is the retards on that project can't read and don't know how to play the game, so they rewrite them wrong. It's just hipster zoomers on a retro fad because it's hot on youtube, not grogs trying to teach an excellent game to new people.

Hey there,

Custom40k guy here.

Some points I would like to address:
Reanimation protocols are super hard to balance (for me) and they have been going through several iterations at this point. I'm always open for player feedback and how they (and the game as a whole) can be made better. Feel free to give your Necrons a try and let me know what you think about them.

All Marines have 2 wounds! The only "Marine" unit with less are Scouts, where only their squad leader got 2 wounds.

Marines feel properly elite to me in the game. You normally have around 30 models (including 1-3 vehicles) in a list that can go against around 100 Orks + their toys and it is balanced.

All units and wargear options will eventually be added to the game, I'm mostly just waiting for somebody to request it. Despite having several hundred datasheets and options done already, there is still too much out there for me to just add it randomly.
If you want to play and bring your legended units, just drop me a message on Discord and I'll be more than happy to convert the units.

The points calculator would work as well, though I really just put it out there because somebody asked me about it. Nobody is required to make their own units. I use it as a base for all models and weapons and people can look into it and suggest changes, if something feels off.


Thanks for including Custom40k in your list!
If anybody is interested in a showcase or introduction via TTS, just drop by in Discord.

Cheers!

>>96262644
Hi there, pepsi here. One of the things reasons I ultimately settled back into the old igougo formula (other than thats what my players wanted) was that alternating activations always devolved into "whats the least bad move I can make" in attempt to stall before you move your good things. Handling mis-matched numbers of activations threw lots of problems into the bag too and made msu really strong. How does your game address these? I like your x-wing style lay down your actions phase, but without trying it out I cant say for certain. Do you feel like this solves the issue?

How long does it take for a normal game of 1250 points take?

>I asked this question to someone who said they played your game but they didn't reply so I'll ask you.
What is your favorite part of the core mechanics that isnt the alternating activations?

>>96262644
With using the newer AP modifier style system; how do you mitigate marines dying too quickly?

>>96264803
Good questions!
You get a "Pass" token for every 2 units difference between both armies, checked at the beginning of each round. This mitigates a stalling opponent. The missions themselves are centered around objectives, which means that no army can just sit back and shoot the other player off the board. Starting on turn 2, you are normally in charge range with _some_ units and you want to use that first activation of the round to engage in melee. Holding back by just activating a backfield unit that does nothing but camp on the objective would be the wrong decision.

My favourite part of the game is actually not a base mechanic from the core rules. What I love the most is being able to put in all those bigger and smaller customisation options into the army lists. "No model no rule" does not apply to me and I'm a little fluff nut.

A few examples:
- Nearly the entire weapons list in the Eldar armory only exists because Autarchs are former Aspect Warriors that should have access to every Aspect Warrior wargear. So of course I gave them those options!

- Inquisitors are in a similar boat in that they have access to basically every Imperial "standard" equipment and on top of that they are allowed 1-2 wargear items from another Imperial armory, showing their big influence on other organisations.

- Want to bring a Librarian Dreadnought in your Blood Ravens army? Go ahead. How about some lizard/raptor mounts for your Salamanders? You can do that. Cursed raven-monsters in your Raven Guard successor? I got you covered.

I make the customisation options in the game as free as possible within my own vision of what should be possible and what would make sense, from a narrative point of view.

>>96264803
2500 point games are the default size and they take about 2-3h with 2 seasoned players playing non-horde armies. 1250 isn't really a size I am familiar with, but for smaller games (1000-1500 points) I have special limitations in place (like no Land Raiders) to keep the skew in check.

The big thing to mention here is that regardless of the time it takes to play a game, you get to play with much less downtime compared to regular 40k.

One activation usually takes about 0-5 minutes and after that, it is your turn again. There is no waiting for half an hour and only picking up your own models while getting pounded by the enemy artillery.

>>96266839
There are several factors that influence the survivability of Marines and other stuff. In no particular order:

- All armies have to bring at least 25% or their points in Troops and are restricted by the classic Force Organisation Chart. So you can't just bring 10 Predator Annihilators and call it an army. Having more Troops helps in making the army look more uniform and as they are normally less powerful, it helps to bring the lethality down as well.

- There are next to no re-rolls in the game and certainly no stuff like "you hit on 2s and can re-roll 1s with your squad full of overloaded plasma guns". Your army doesn't get annihilated just because you dared to have them standing in the open for 1 turn.

- Cover is helping everybody equally. Marines do not get an exception because they already come with 3+.

- Weapon costs started out with the premise of being ~33% effective into an ideal target. This got adapted over time and of course some units are more effective since they can bring more special weapons, but it is a good place to start. Dangerous weapons that can kill a Marine outright are expensive and usually have to be pointed at enemy vehicles first, as they are immune to small arms fire thank to the Armor Value system.

- Also the amount of Damage 2 weapons is limited.

>>96266839
For example heavy bolters and autocannons did not get extra damage. Roughly speaking, everything below a missile launcher can't kill a Marine in a single shot.

Let me know if you got any more questions! Always happy to answer and give reasoning on my design decisions.

>>96269771
>You get a "Pass" token for every 2 units difference between both armies, checked at the beginning of each round. This mitigates a stalling opponent. The missions themselves are centered around objectives, which means that no army can just sit back and shoot the other player off the board. Starting on turn 2, you are normally in charge range with _some_ units and you want to use that first activation of the round
That doesn't solve that issue at all.
>The missions themselves are centered around objectives
Gay

>>96269821
>1250 isn't really a size I am familiar with, but for smaller games (1000-1500 points) I have special limitations in place (like no Land Raiders) to keep the skew in check.
This tells me that your system is pretty badly balanced. If you need every army to be able to bring 10 000 points of mush to every battle because otherwise skew lists win, there's an issue with disconnection in your core rules. See: Flyers, Knights.

>>96269919
>That doesn't solve that issue at all.
You are free to your own opinion, all I can say is that stalling like that does not happen. If you want you can have a look at it yourself the next time we are playing on TTS.

>This tells me that your system is pretty badly balanced. If you need every army to be able to bring 10 000 points of mush to every battle because otherwise skew lists win, there's an issue with disconnection in your core rules. See: Flyers, Knights.
Smaller games are narratively intended to represent skirmishes between (combat) patrols. You’re not meant to see Captains, Land Raiders, or other high-tier units in these matches. Instead, the focus is on core infantry engagements. The inclusion of vehicles or high-toughness units is deliberately limited to prevent them from dominating the game and skewing the scale around themselves. This is both a gameplay and a narrative design choice. If players always had to anticipate their opponent bringing high-armor vehicles, it would distort the list-building process too heavily.

In the same spirit, you wouldn’t see Imperial Knights outside of large-scale “Epic” battles, where they’re matched against Baneblades and Stormsurges. Including Lords of War in standard-sized games was, in my opinion, a design misstep by Games Workshop. I’m aiming for a feel closer to how armies looked and played in 3rd to 5th edition - more grounded and cohesive.

That said, I’m not interested in debating game balance based on theoretical assumptions. You’re always free to ignore or modify any rule to fit your preferred style.

>>96269982
>all I can say is that stalling like that does not happen
>my benevolent playtest group with routine-blindness doesn't use this meta strategy, so it doesn't exist

>Smaller games are narratively intended to represent skirmishes between (combat) patrols. You’re not meant to see Captains, Land Raiders, or other high-tier units in these matches. Instead, the focus is on core infantry engagements. The inclusion of vehicles or high-toughness units is deliberately limited to prevent them from dominating the game and skewing the scale around themselves. This is both a gameplay and a narrative design choice. If players always had to anticipate their opponent bringing high-armor vehicles, it would distort the list-building process too heavily.
tl;dr, you're a retard and my point still stands.

>In the same spirit, you wouldn’t see Imperial Knights outside of large-scale “Epic” battles, where they’re matched against Baneblades and Stormsurges. Including Lords of War in standard-sized games was, in my opinion, a design misstep by Games Workshop. I’m aiming for a feel closer to how armies looked and played in 3rd to 5th edition - more grounded and cohesive.
People could and did bring a land raider in 1000pts in 3rd, you're just looking for excuses.

>That said, I’m not interested in debating game balance based on theoretical assumptions
And that's why your rules are garbage.

>>96269828
I guess I was more concerned around weight of dice with AP modifiers like say, Ork Choppas.

I was always somewhat partial to the 9th ed armour of contempt rule that ignored ap-1, but still let dedicated anti armour/heavy infantry weaponry do it's intended job.

>>96220767 (OP)
Accept no substitute
>squad level rules
>a superior ap system
>accurate and fun shooting rules
>terminator level armour really feels invulnerable
>bolters hit like they do in the fluff

>>96231363
>>96231185
>marinefag malding over the Guard having one (1) counter to his precious basic infantry
Lmao no. S8, AP3, Pieplate. Stop trying to human wave my tank if you don't want to lose minis.

>>96270106
sell it to me - how so?

>>96270140
It's effectively pre-RT 40k. The game works on a percentile dice system, when shooting you take your base shoot skill and adjust it by any modifiers for range (weapons have an accuracy drop-off per ground scale metre), movement, weapon braced, number of dhits being fired, etc, then roll under the result to hit. In melee you and your opponent roll percentage dice plus your combat skills and the highest hits.
You then determine your hit location and check if its armoured, if it's not you roll for tge effect of the wound, with nastier weapons like bolters having a higher chance to kill or cripple, if it is armoured you roll for penetration. Take the armours base penetration rating and adjust it by the weapons penetration modifier for that armour type, then roll your percentile dice. At or under that number and you penetrate and can roll for wounds, plus power and dreadnought armour have a chance to malfunction.
The thing is, power armour is almost impenetrable as base, and some more primitive weapons like handguns have a negative modifier, so even at point blank they can't scratch marines. Dreadnought armour comes with a base -10% to penetrate, so you have to have at least a +11% modifier to even have a smidgen of a chance of going through.
Or a Sungun (melta). Those just instagib.
If you fail to kill, you might pin the target. Again, more devastating weapons like bolters are better for this.

There's expansions that introduce vehicles, non combat skills (base laserburn only has combat skills) and more detailed character levelling (base laserburn has rules for troops whom survive getting better over time), as well as aliens, support weapons (heavy bolters, lascannons, etc) and light artillery (wounds by an at weapon on a human are basically "lol, dead/limb amputated").
There's a lot more too it and whilst it looks complex, it's really not. Would recommend.

>>96270338
Just for reference, laserburn dreadnought armour = 40k terminator armour.
And yes, there are rules for personal and bubble Shields, and yes, you can put them on dreadnought suits, so you can represent the energy shield terminators have.
The rules also encourage you to homebrew your own stuff.

Personally I just play 5th edition and add to the codexes based on my own version of M42

>>96270976
The roll to see who got first turn with that deployment must have been intense.

>>96270998
I think it was my buddy’s Blood Angels, the game was a neck and neck tie though, a lot of fun given I never sit my Tau in a corner and call it “skill”

>>96221090
Wait till blind boxes and prepainted minis become the norm.

Marines were already elite, weapons in the 41st millennium are just brutal. 2 wound marines was the worst thing gw has done to 40k. It made people retarded like this guy >>96224882 thinking that elite wasn't elite, and marines needed to be marvel superheroes. Then the rest of franchise followed suit.

>>96269771>>96269821
Pepsi here again. Thanks for the nice reponces. Ok I scanned through some of your unit entries and see you have inflated points to be be somewhere between 2x and 3x their original cost. So I reckon your 2500 point game is probly closer to a 1000-1250 point game in OG points land (which takes about 2-3 hours). (Marine is 14ish vs you have them at like 35ish).

The anti stalling measure is good but I’m surprised you didn’t just make it 1 pass per unit delta. MSU is pretty much always a good thing from a gamey standpoint and I think it should be discouraged from also having a meta game advantage as well. The other anon is right though in that it doesn’t actually solve the issue I was asking about, which more has to do to the nature of AA play feeling like a prisoners dilemma where neither player wants to use their fun toys too early on. I’ve brainstormed about how I would do things and I think the best idea I have is to take the bolt action beam bag system and go every further.
>each unit gets an action (a poker chip with their name on it)
>draw them from the bag, drawn unit must act.
This is the only idea I have so far that solves the “imma wait with unit X until you are forced to move unit Y first” problem. But I worry it might make there feel like an extra layer of luck which is already a problem in wargames.

Have you every tried a phased AA movement with simultaneous shooting resolution? I always thought this might be a nice solution but ive not tried it. Do you have some sort of commander order system for I coordinating multiple units to work together? That’s another thing I felt many bear bones AA lack.

>>96269771>>96269821
Part 2
I also like the older customization and identity you could have with it. But I’m also more conservative with what I put into each codex. I think that many of the new units have too much overlap and bloat, it starts to damage the feel of the factions. My solution for the autarch was similar to yours, you get to pick two aspects and gain their stuff.

But I gotta ask, why did you choose to go with the 10th ed no templates? Templates are what separates new from midhammer for me. I would never leave home without them. You write that your rules focus on emulating the 3rd to 7th Ed era, so I’m curious why you sides with many of the identifying post-8th edition era changes, such as the AR and Damage system, no cover saves, and no templates.

My solution for points balance is that, rather than 25% troop requirement it is such that you must take at least as many points in troops as any of the other categories. So if you want to play a more even list you could do something like 20% in each category. But if you want to run a skew list you have to pay for it with more troops. It works super well.

I’m reposting the link for my pepsihammer so you can read through it. Some key points I recommend you checkout are Overpower, Complex Shooting and Hit Groups, and my Missions chapter.
https://mega.nz/folder/2YdghLzL#w0KOILlS1lrM1AeE4jcG-Q

Ps I couldn’t figure out how casualty allocation is handled in your rule set. Could you pinpoint it for me?

Also dayum is everyone in this thread a euro? No replies all day then 10 when I wake up.

>>96273264
Marines where armour that is nearly impenetrable with conventional small arms fire. Fallout 4 power armour plays about how a space marine is. It’s like a walking tank suit. So I guess the question becomes how powerful do you consider lasguns?

>>96273625
>https://mega.nz/folder/2YdghLzL#w0KOILlS1lrM1AeE4jcG-Q

Where 2 wound marines

>>96274189
Don’t have them at the moment sorry. Is it the right choice? I don’t know. But Im also the only marine player in my group so I am super cautious about what I do with marines and 2 wounds would be a huge jump. Won’t deny I’ve considered it. Terminator armour grants an extra wound and currently terminators are really good.

One of the views I try to remember is that in the tail end of 7th (when tactical marines were at their worst) is that small arms has taken a back seat to big ass anti tank, grav shit, and pieplates. So I’m hesitant to make a change that would, for the most part, only change the interaction between marines and small arms. feels like barking up the wrong tree. A missile launcher is still gonna one shot a marine even with 2 wounds. Check out the armour of contempt rule.

The main drive for me is creating the perfect core rule set. Opinions on army balance are always going to vary from group to group. My goal is to create the system that has as little double takes, gotchas, and “wait what that’s how it works why!!??” moments as I can.

>>96273602
Hello again!

You are right that some units cost more points, that is not the case for all of them, though. I want to give one example for a horde and elite army each:

2500 points Grey Knights
- Captain in Nemesis Armor (1)
- Inquisitor (1)
- GK Strike Squad (5)
- Stormtroopers (10)
- Ordo Malleus Warband (7)
- Armiger (2)
- Ghost Terminator Squad (5)
- Purgator Squad (5)
- Rhino (1)
= 37 models in total.

1000 points Orks
- Boss (1)
- Boyz (50)
- Painboy (1)
- Killa Kan (1)
- Trukk (1)
= 54 models in total.

AA really helps with reducing the downtime (and lethality) and it scales much better into bigger battles, as the acitvation of a single unit doesn't take any longer than in a small game. I vividly remember a 5000 points game of 9th edition in my local club where one side had to sit idle for a solid 45 minutes before getting to do anything at all besides removing models.

I get the MSU point, though not every army is able to do so. Marines (and similar profiles.. I always write Marines out of laziness) can't bring enough MSU to matter, as you can see from the sample list above.

Orks need bigger squads to circumvent Leadership issues, Necrons want bigger units to have the better Reanimation Protocols. Guard would have to leave their tanks and more interesting units like Ogryns or Rough Riders at home if they really wanted to go for a stalling tactic. Leadership playing a more vital role, as there are only a couple of creature models in the whole game that are fearless (Greater Demons, Avatar of Khaine, C'tan shards) and Leadership values are lower across the board. Falling below half of your nominal strength incurs a further penalty and makes your squad testing to flee after taking additional casualties.

>>96273602
MSU is dangerous for low Leadership units and too restrictive in points for better units to be exploitable. Maybe there is a winning list that can reliably stall with enough chaff units while still being able to bring enough quality to win a game, but I have not encountered it so far. If that happens I would look into it more detailed to see what is causing the issue. Maybe a unit get spammed that should not be spammable.

What I dislike about the "random activation" idea you mentioned, is that it takes away from player agency and it would clash with the order system in place. Having a fast moving unit within your own battleline with a "Charge" command is a good deterrent against anybody coming to close or deep striking next to you. If that unit had to be activated first, my opponent would be free to act without fearing any counterplay.

I haven't tried phased AA, but I have hear about it several times form Epic. I think it is a good solution for alpha strikes in IGOUGO and not super needed when doing AA, as the impact of a single activation is way lower. I don't think it would hurt, though. Character models are able to join units, but apart from that there is no "multiple units act at once" in the game. We play with "one activation per player" in multiplayer games to speed up things, though. There it could happen, but I'm always weary of the increase in lethality it could bring.

I know what you mean with overlapping and bloat. I honestly just accepted it and try to make every unit worth its points, even if the combination of profile + wargear + special abilities according to fluff sometimes makes a clear better unit. But at least you are not harmstringing yourself by playing with the model you like more.

No templates (and some other effects) are to speed up the game, remove "feels bad" moments and reduce situations where player could argue about the game state.

>>96273602
Examples:
Instead of "you re-roll 1s with all of your 60 shots" an ability could be stated as "get +1 to hit".
Instead of using pie plates - which forces players to space their models, roll a scatter die, argue about wether something is still at least half under the template or not - you roll 1 die and just hit multiple models.

I like to take the best (in my opinion) of all editions. That is why you won't find random charge rolls alongside the gradual AP system.
Cover is not a separate save due to how invulnerability saves work. You can take your armor save + your invulnerability save like in WHFB. I always found it odd that you can't take both in 40k. But having a third saving roll on top of that felt too much. So cover saves go directly into improving your armor save, while FNP is non existent and handled entirely different, depending on the model in question.

I would like to add to the "25% must be troops" that most armies have access to something I termed "Archetypes". They change what counts as troops for your army and you must follow certain restrictions.

>>96273602
Example - Swift as the Wind
- Bikes and Outriders can be taken as Troops.
- Outflanking units may be deployed on turn 1.
- All units with less than 12" Movement must start the game as passengers inside a transport.
- Units that have no transport option and less than 12" Movement cannot be taken at all.

This Archetype allows you to take a better unit (Bikes) as troops, but they are really bad at holding backfield objectives, because they are more expensive than Tacticals and don't have any long ranged heavy weapons. Now if you want to bring a Tactical Squad in this list, it must be alongside either a Razorback, Rhino, Impulsor or Land Raider, which makes it more expensive than in a regular list and some units may not be available at all. Themed lists like that are super popular among the players, but don't outshine the default list due to their restrictions.

How do you handle themed lists?

I'll give your rules a look after work, thanks for the recommendation!

You remove wounded models first. In a coherent unit, you are able to assign damage to any model you like. If the unit has a mixed profile, you have to take the profile that is more prevalent. If profiles are evently split, you decide which one to use but have to assign the damage to the models with the respective profile first. I think some of it might have gone missing under the last re-formatting of the core rules. I'll add an extra paragraph about it again.

>>96220767 (OP)
Maybe people will tell me this is a stupid idea but for years now I've thought that AP could be improved by combining the old rules with the nu rules. So we used to have AP5 or whatever and its equivalent today is probably AP-1. But what if the AP of, say, bolters, was AP 5 (-2). So that the effect would only kick in at a certain armour value. There'd be much more granularity that way. And you could avoid the thing we have now where 2+ armour, which used to mean something, just gets glanced down to nothing by AP-1 and AP-2 weapons instead of dedicated heavy weapons. You could then make chaff-clearing small arms more effective as well. No?

>>96273732
Lasguns aren't what they are designed to fight. They take on aliens with tech and abilities beyond anything humans are capable of, demons beyond comprehension, etc.

That aside, a lasgun is a robust and powerful weapon. But folks realize against the horrors of the milky way galaxy the lasgun is humbled. Morons don't apply the same logic to muhrines tho.

>>96277008
So it lowers armor then ignores 5+ and worse? Or only applies the -1 to 5+ and worse? Because this makes crap armor (an already weak part of the game) worse.

Better of toning down AP across the board.

>>96277008
Its not a stupid idea its actually how I do things in pepsihammer. AP and AR works like this
>AP is like 4th edition, ap4 means 4+ save and worse is denied.
>AR is a reduction of save, -1 means 4+ turns to 5+
You can combine the two, so for instance a gauss cannon is ap4/-1. When done in this way (with the AP listed before the AR) the "-1" applies to the save below it (in this case 3+ will turn to 4+) but the AR "decays" for each save as you work down.
>AP4/-2 will mean a -2 to 3+ saves and -1 to 2+ saves.
If the AR is listed first it does not decay like graviton cannon which are simply AR -2
>AR -2 will apply a -2 reduction to all targets saves evenly.
Lastly I have a mechanic called overpower, which replaces instant death. If you exceed the 2+ to wound criteria your attack gains AR -1 and causes 2 wounds if unsaved.

My take away is that both AP and AR are tools, both have their uses. Its always important to remember that -1 save doubles the amount of casualties to a 2+ save while its only a 20% increase in casualties to a 5+ save. This non-linearity is super important to recognize. Its the same reason why I prefer cover saves over dice mods. Simply put the d6 system doesn't have the resolution to support more than + or - 1 in any direction without running into a lot of broken fence-post problems. Dice gates work very well though for that.

>>96270040
boy, you really showed him, anon. your bitter trolling really shows you're one of 'us'.

>>96269771
Can I take Baal Predators, Librarian Dreadnoughts, Chaplain Dreadnoughts, and Land Speeder Tempests in my Dark Angel Army?

How do Fallen work?

>>96279536
Absolutely, you can!
In fact, all units in an army are sub-faction agnostic by design. If your headcanon version of the Dark Angels puts their Librarians in Dreadnoughts, who am I to argue? That unit exists in the broader lore, and I highly doubt the Blood Angels and their successors are the only ones to ever do it - it’s just that GW never released a generic model for it.

All units and wargear options are simply crunch, which you're free to reflavour to suit your own narrative.

Of the units you mentioned, all are already in the game, except for the Tempest, but that’s easy to add in.

As for the Fallen:
I currently don’t have a dedicated Fallen player in my group or on Discord, and since GW has treated them like a red-headed stepchild for years, I haven’t given them much attention - yet.

At the moment, they’re represented as standard Space Marines with access to a limited number of units from the Chaos Space Marine roster. Units with the Daemon keyword are excluded.

If you have a good idea for how the Fallen should work or want to brainstorm their rules and feel, feel free to message me or bring it up on Discord. There’s nothing better than passionate fans when it comes to capturing the spirit of a faction on the tabletop.

>>96276833
Cool to hear that leadership is a big part of the game. Its actually something im trying to bring back. One of the weak points in 7th edition was that Fearless was so prolific. And if you didnt have it you were not a viable CC unit. By adding things like target priority and no-retreat (i renamed this to pulled under) it makes leadership and morale take more center stage. I also added a Shaken/Rattled state that goes between full operation and fleeing, very similar to your pinned/1 battleshock token status. Your suppressive fire rule is pretty cool I might borrow that.

Why did you move from 25% casualties trigger a morale check to half then each casualty? Not that I dont like it its kinda intriguing sounding.

I see your point about agency. Ultimately the fact I couldnt get the system to work the way I wanted (and player preference) that led me to not change from igougo. There is also a good feeling of control that You get to do stuff on Your turn. I hate trapcards. But I know what you mean about alpha strike too. We tend to play smaller games so its mitigated. Ive also thought about the chess method where you just take turns doing an action, with no "game turns" to be spoken of i.e. you can just keep moving the same piece if you want. We tried some simultaneous phase resolution games too but we found that without the feeling of a turn the experience was more hollow, like we were just going through the paces you know. And getting shot a lot in your own "turn" felt shitty.

One thing I really like about using templates is that they are a counter to over efficient use of terrain and cover. And in my personal experience arguments just dont really happen among adults/friends.

>>96276833
Rules question. What is the point of the fight action if by doing so it grants your opponent the fight action as well? Is there some reason you would not just wait until the end to do these?

I also have a save stacking rules because like you I thought it odd. But the way it works is that each sequential save is at -1. I really like how this feels and plays out because the idea that cover is more impactful for weaker units is thematically on brand as it makes a larger percent difference. It also keeps things from just being completely un-killable. But cover saves going towards armour just doesnt work with a majority AP system like I use, its a nice solution for a more AR leaning system like yours so I see why you chose it.

Ill admit themed lists are not really in focus right now. I find that themed lists are for the most part something I try to avoid because I find that more often than not "themed" is just code for a skew list. I think troops have a very important role in the game in that it's important for gameplay for your opponent to have some targets for his cool toys to beat up, and vice versa. That said I think you can still get very thematic within the bounds of the standard force org, and eventually ill think carefully about adding things in like "if you take a captain on a bike you can take bikes as troops". But also from personal experience playing against raven wing was the worst shit ever so I'm cautious.

>I think some of it might have gone missing
Been there too lol.

Might want to double check Parry as well, I think currently the ability (which can be bought on one model with a parry shield) effects the whole unit.

>>96230873
Rename the pic to DeadAstartes.png

bump