So, one of the main points of contention of 8th vs other editions was the removal of USRs in favor of "bespoke rules."
Advocates point to the fact you have all your rules on the same sheet, and thus don't have to play "lookup." It also did not help that 7th had 80+ USRs, and numerous "unique" rules on top of that, a poor set of building blocks. Most comedically, one of the USRs (Missile Lock) spent the first half of 7th completely unused before being used for Blacksword Missiles. One USR for one weapon for one unit in one codex: Meanwhile, several other codexes had unique rules all representing some form of "missile that locks onto a foe."
Inversely however, badly-worded rules/modified rules now need to be duplicated via FAQ, while minute differences in word rulings can make "intent" hard to parse. ("May fire its weapons twice," vs "may be chosen to shoot twice" among other cases).
So what is the alternative, between an overdone bunch of USRs that end up being ignored in favor of bespoke rules, vs a tide of ambiguously-worded bespoke rules?
Why not just make USRs flexible and clear enough in the first place? This is more of a general discussion point, but as a rule of thumb, the following principles should apply when adding USRs to a game:
-The rules should be Composable: Did you know that a Warlock's Reveal Psychic Power was once unable to penetrate Imperial Guard camo? See, what happened was that in 5th edition, a Camo Cloak granted Stealth. The problem? Stealth was a * USR, meaning that as long as at least one model had it, the whole unit benefitted. Thus, a Lord Commissar could hide an entire unit with his cloak. Come 6th Edition, the Camo Cloak granted its bearer a +1 Cover Save. This amusingly granted protection against Eldar trickery, since Reveal only negated Stealth and Shrouded (and not any other modifiers to cover). Now, had there been a Grants Unit[Another USR] USR, you could separate Stealth from Grants Unit[Stealth] and there's now no need to copypaste unique versions of USRs with a minute exception. Warmachine does this to some degree, with Field Marshal[Rule], Granted/Tactics:[Rule], No Sleeping On The Job/Veteran Leader[Unit/Unit Keyword] and other cases.
-The rule names should say what they do: If I said one unit had Rage, and another unit had Hatred, would you know without context what these rules mean? Combining composition with indicative names, does Charge Bonus[+1 Attack] or Charge Bonus[reroll attacks] have the same degree of ambiguity? Leave the "fluff" independent of the actual function, to avoid room for creative interpretation.
-The rules should be atomic: A Relentless unit could fire as if stationary and still assault. A Slow and Purposeful Unit was functionally Relentless, granting this to the unit, but also preventing the unit from Running, Overwatch, or Sweeping. So what does a Heavy Battle Servitor do? It doesn't run, it shoots as if stationary and can still assault, and can shoot two weapons. Now, if there was a Cannot[Action] rule and a "Fire Another Weapon" rule (incidentally, there was no "fire two weapons" USR. You had Monstrous Creatures, Multitrackers, Decimator Protocols, Attack Bikes, etc. but apparently nobody thought to make a "shoot two weapons" USR), you could make Relentless (or Grants Unit[Relentless])+Cannot[Run, Overwatch, Sweep]), and avoid the need for extra rules.
In short, a smaller number of indicatively-named, composable and atomic rules can create an extensible building block for rules, while leaving a smaller number of components in need of FAQ/less room to debate over what the rules "really" mean.
My five year old son can play 8th. 7th and before was a cluster and a half.
USRs just mean you end up having rule conflicts and other lookup table nonsense that I hated in other editions.
Datasheets and mobile app style rules (AKA: Game cards) are better than whatever it is you want. I don't think I've looked at the core rulebook in a month tbh, I shouldn't need to.
Going AoS style datasheets in 40k was the best thing to happen to this game in a long time. USR's are a pain and you always end up with exceptions and other nonsense.
Even though I think7th edition was a very bad system, it wouldn't hurt 8th edition to have some USRs, namely:
Feel no pain
Deep Strike
Infiltrate
Flyer
Vehicle/ tank
Maybe, just maybe, also one for reroll 1s to hit as every codex has that rule.
These would be enough, right now vehicle isn't even needed and would only be necessary if they'd have something like fall back and shoot or shoot out of CC, which they don't have and seems counterintuitive for many people.
Besides, 8th edition actually has an USR, it is called FLY and it is a very strong one.
I would ask though...how many people actually use the name for their actual rule? If someone asks me what something does, I'll simply say "ignores wounds on a 5+" or "feel no pain on a 5+".
I don't believe this actually is creating bloat - the universal special rules still exist, just using different names so that they can be individually altered later via Chapter Approved if a unit becomes broken.
Like if you made a USR for rerolling 1s - call it "Field Tactics."
Great. Sounds good right? Well now you have to split it by type of roll. Rerolling hit rolls of 1. Wound rolls of 1. Save rolls of 1. So you have [Field Tactics]: Hits. And, then, you have to ask about scenarios where this is specific to certain factions. Like [Field Tactics]:Hit; Target: Imperium. And then you further need to specify if it is based on inches, like [Field Tactics]:Hit; Target: Imperium. Radius. 6".
And then you have to ask yourself if that's somehow clearer than saying "All units within 6" that share keyword <BLAH> can reroll hit rolls of 1 against targets with the Imperium keyword."
Very little is gained by abstracting rules into USRs.
USRs are synonymous with bloat. The idea of having rules contained on one sheet is the way to do it.
So, WMH actually has Leadership [Keyword]: Rule.
All models of Keyword within that model's CMD radius benefit from that rule.
Example: Janissa Stonetide has Leadership[Runeshaper]: Battle Wizard.
Incidentally, these rules are also printed on the card just for reference.
By doing this, it allowed for individual rules to be FAQed in one place. (Ex: How does Battle Wizard work with Impact Attacks?)
"<Blah> Leader: Vs Imperium, reroll 1s to-hit.
Define it as a 6" radius or base it off the model's Leadership according to taste.
MagicJuggler wrote: So, WMH actually has Leadership [Keyword]: Rule.
All models of Keyword within that model's CMD radius benefit from that rule.
Example: Janissa Stonetide has Leadership[Runeshaper]: Battle Wizard.
Incidentally, these rules are also printed on the card just for reference.
By doing this, it allowed for individual rules to be FAQed in one place. (Ex: How does Battle Wizard work with Impact Attacks?)
"<Blah> Leader: Vs Imperium, reroll 1s to-hit.
Define it as a 6" radius or base it off the model's Leadership according to taste.
The key point there is that they still have the rules printed on their statline. WMH has hundreds of USRs but they aren't printed in the rulebook. Every single one is on the unit stat cards which is exactly what they've done in 40k 8th but when GW does it it becomes a problem?
Also not to mention that the FAQ document is a mess because they messed up one USR at the start of Mk.3 and now EVERY model with the Flank ability required an FAQ which was at least 5 models per faction so there's like 50 FAQ entries fixing one rule.
Edit: On top of this they've also recently changed the Shield Wall wall rule in the CID so they'll have to do that again for that one rule.
MagicJuggler wrote: So, WMH actually has Leadership [Keyword]: Rule.
All models of Keyword within that model's CMD radius benefit from that rule.
Example: Janissa Stonetide has Leadership[Runeshaper]: Battle Wizard.
Incidentally, these rules are also printed on the card just for reference.
By doing this, it allowed for individual rules to be FAQed in one place. (Ex: How does Battle Wizard work with Impact Attacks?)
"<Blah> Leader: Vs Imperium, reroll 1s to-hit.
Define it as a 6" radius or base it off the model's Leadership according to taste.
The key point there is that they still have the rules printed on their statline. WMH has hundreds of USRs but they aren't printed in the rulebook. Every single one is on the unit stat cards which is exactly what they've done in 40k 8th but when GW does it it becomes a problem?
Also not to mention that the FAQ document is a mess because they messed up one USR at the start of Mk.3 and now EVERY model with the Flank ability required an FAQ which was at least 5 models per faction so there's like 50 FAQ entries fixing one rule.
Edit: On top of this they've also recently changed the Shield Wall wall rule in the CID so they'll have to do that again for that one rule.
40k doesn't use consistent naming for its rules. In one system, Tough is Tough, yet in another, Disgustingly Resilient is not the same as Fortune is not the same as Sturdy construction.
WMH does have its bloat of course. Assault vs Gunfighter vs Point Blank vs Dual Attack is the most notable one of course. And it still uses non-indicative names in a lot of cases (what exactly is an ashen veil anyway?).
However, concepts like Granted/Tactics/Leadership would have solved the issue 40k had with "duplicated rules," or obtuse rules like "a unit that is only composed of models with the White Scars Chapter Tactic has the Hit and Run USR." ("An Independent Character is considered to be its own unit that has joined another unit. Would my Captain grant Hit and Run to an ally unit?"). It would mean not having "Stealth vs +1 Cover Save," "Preferred Enemy vs Rerolling 1s to Hit and Wound," or other copypastes due to the rules not being scopable.
USRs do exist in 8th but they are just all over the place and have different names. If someone is playing Tau and asks what Manta Strike is, they will be told that it is deep strike so why is Manta strike even there? I'd personally go with a USR setup and put a condensed version on a unit card with the referenced page number in the BRB that provides more details, examples, and reference page numbers rules for any other that might modify it.
For example, a DS squad might not need the rules for the Homing Beacon USR on their card. However, if you are reading up on DS in the BRB I might see that it calls out Homing Beacon on pg XX so I decide to read that and find out that if I setup within 9" of an allied HB unit, I can setup more than 6" from an enemy unit. This is a useful, related piece of info to know about DS that would have no reason to be on a unit card if they don't have the HBUSR.
The advantage of USRs are that they can be used to apply clear depictions of the special rules that affect all armies in the game that can be easily updated as needed without addressing each individual army. If you combine this with a free PDF of the rules that gets updated as needed, it will mean less hunting through multiple documents or trying to determine what is the most up to date FAQ.
I think the problem with USRs is when their isn't a lot of control on the designers and they start making things up that don't really apply to many armies, are variations of similar effects, or decide to use a special rule when there might be a perfectly serviceable. Would you need a USR for defensive grenades that cause +1 armor save vs an enemy that charges for that assault phase? Unless defensive grenades really get expanded beyond being a Tau thing, probably not. Do you need a USR that grants +1 Str on a charge, one that does +1A on a charge, and one that lets you re roll misses on the charge? One version should be decided on and enforced as the really hard hitting charge mechanic. Then there is a big shock that 8th gave me, that Howling Banshees didn't get the same Always Strike First that Slaanesh got. It seemed very appropriate and I can see it popping up in other armies' units like GS and Witches. I forget what Banshees got instead but I remember being WTF about it as swinging first was kind of their thing.
If you can keep your design team focused on using what's there and only creating new USRa when it gives more depth to the game and affects multiple armies. The Homing Beacon example was one that I just threw out there but it is something I could see in units in many armies and there has been a precedent for it before, just with different mechanics. I could easily see it as a USR.
MagicJuggler wrote: Inversely however, badly-worded rules/modified rules now need to be duplicated via FAQ, while minute differences in word rulings can make "intent" hard to parse. ("May fire its weapons twice," vs "may be chosen to shoot twice" among other cases).
Where is the problem?
One allows you to fire twice at target X. The other allows you to fire twice picking different targets. Not only it's not difficult, it also perfectly shows how you can fine tune seemingly similar rules...
MagicJuggler wrote: So, WMH actually has Leadership [Keyword]: Rule.
All models of Keyword within that model's CMD radius benefit from that rule.
Example: Janissa Stonetide has Leadership[Runeshaper]: Battle Wizard.
Incidentally, these rules are also printed on the card just for reference.
By doing this, it allowed for individual rules to be FAQed in one place. (Ex: How does Battle Wizard work with Impact Attacks?)
"<Blah> Leader: Vs Imperium, reroll 1s to-hit.
Define it as a 6" radius or base it off the model's Leadership according to taste.
The key point there is that they still have the rules printed on their statline. WMH has hundreds of USRs but they aren't printed in the rulebook. Every single one is on the unit stat cards which is exactly what they've done in 40k 8th but when GW does it it becomes a problem?
Also not to mention that the FAQ document is a mess because they messed up one USR at the start of Mk.3 and now EVERY model with the Flank ability required an FAQ which was at least 5 models per faction so there's like 50 FAQ entries fixing one rule.
Edit: On top of this they've also recently changed the Shield Wall wall rule in the CID so they'll have to do that again for that one rule.
40k doesn't use consistent naming for its rules. In one system, Tough is Tough, yet in another, Disgustingly Resilient is not the same as Fortune is not the same as Sturdy construction.
WMH does have its bloat of course. Assault vs Gunfighter vs Point Blank vs Dual Attack is the most notable one of course. And it still uses non-indicative names in a lot of cases (what exactly is an ashen veil anyway?).
However, concepts like Granted/Tactics/Leadership would have solved the issue 40k had with "duplicated rules," or obtuse rules like "a unit that is only composed of models with the White Scars Chapter Tactic has the Hit and Run USR." ("An Independent Character is considered to be its own unit that has joined another unit. Would my Captain grant Hit and Run to an ally unit?"). It would mean not having "Stealth vs +1 Cover Save," "Preferred Enemy vs Rerolling 1s to Hit and Wound," or other copypastes due to the rules not being scopable.
You seem to be intent on imagining a problem that doesn't exist. Your so called answer would result in a people checking their codex for a units rules, then checking through a huge USR section in the rulebook where pretty much every rule needs it's own page to spell out all the massive number of variations and differences that can be applied to that USR. Pretty much the most bloated, arse backwards way of doing things.
USRs still exist, there are just far fewer of them. On the one hand it's great, because 7th became a bloat boi, but it would be so much easier for GW to treat the USRs left as USRs. Would it be so hard to just call all the 9" deployments deep strike, or FNPFNP? It's what all the user base who joined sometime before 8th call it anyway.
MagicJuggler wrote: Inversely however, badly-worded rules/modified rules now need to be duplicated via FAQ, while minute differences in word rulings can make "intent" hard to parse. ("May fire its weapons twice," vs "may be chosen to shoot twice" among other cases).
Where is the problem?
One allows you to fire twice at target X. The other allows you to fire twice picking different targets. Not only it's not difficult, it also perfectly shows how you can fine tune seemingly similar rules...
Can a unit of Vior'la Tau Breachers withdraw from melee and shoot? The Stratagem as written says "a unit may be chosen to shoot twice this phase." The normal rules say you may not "choose a unit" to shoot if it fell back.
Meanwhile, Ecstatic Sensations lets a unit "shoot again" at the end of the Shooting Phase.
MagicJuggler wrote: So, WMH actually has Leadership [Keyword]: Rule.
All models of Keyword within that model's CMD radius benefit from that rule.
Example: Janissa Stonetide has Leadership[Runeshaper]: Battle Wizard.
Incidentally, these rules are also printed on the card just for reference.
By doing this, it allowed for individual rules to be FAQed in one place. (Ex: How does Battle Wizard work with Impact Attacks?)
"<Blah> Leader: Vs Imperium, reroll 1s to-hit.
Define it as a 6" radius or base it off the model's Leadership according to taste.
The key point there is that they still have the rules printed on their statline. WMH has hundreds of USRs but they aren't printed in the rulebook. Every single one is on the unit stat cards which is exactly what they've done in 40k 8th but when GW does it it becomes a problem?
Also not to mention that the FAQ document is a mess because they messed up one USR at the start of Mk.3 and now EVERY model with the Flank ability required an FAQ which was at least 5 models per faction so there's like 50 FAQ entries fixing one rule.
Edit: On top of this they've also recently changed the Shield Wall wall rule in the CID so they'll have to do that again for that one rule.
40k doesn't use consistent naming for its rules. In one system, Tough is Tough, yet in another, Disgustingly Resilient is not the same as Fortune is not the same as Sturdy construction.
WMH does have its bloat of course. Assault vs Gunfighter vs Point Blank vs Dual Attack is the most notable one of course. And it still uses non-indicative names in a lot of cases (what exactly is an ashen veil anyway?).
However, concepts like Granted/Tactics/Leadership would have solved the issue 40k had with "duplicated rules," or obtuse rules like "a unit that is only composed of models with the White Scars Chapter Tactic has the Hit and Run USR." ("An Independent Character is considered to be its own unit that has joined another unit. Would my Captain grant Hit and Run to an ally unit?"). It would mean not having "Stealth vs +1 Cover Save," "Preferred Enemy vs Rerolling 1s to Hit and Wound," or other copypastes due to the rules not being scopable.
You seem to be intent on imagining a problem that doesn't exist. Your so called answer would result in a people checking their codex for a units rules, then checking through a huge USR section in the rulebook where pretty much every rule needs it's own page to spell out all the massive number of variations and differences that can be applied to that USR. Pretty much the most bloated, arse backwards way of doing things.
Hence the use of rules with indiciative names. Rather than call it Rage or Furious Charge, Powerful Charge vs Relentless Charge vs Brutal Charge, call it Charge Bonus[the actual effect]. So Charge Bonus[+1 attack], Charge Bonus[+1 Strength], Charge Bonus[+2 MAT], Charge Bonus[Ignore Terrain Move Penalty], Charge Bonus[+2 DMG], etc.
Programmatically, this essentially argues against copypaste and in favor of functional composition, and in favor of nonobfuscated naming.
Imo, the main reason to have USRs isn't so much for the players, it's for the devs. Right now 8th is suffering from the problem that there's no real way to make large scale changes because there's not enough universal definitions. By making everything granular, they've lost the ability to make simple changes to lots of things at once.
For example, if GW wanted to say that x weapon or ability negated Feel No Pain, then they are out of luck because FNP doesn't exist. They'd have to do something convoluted like say abilities that let you ignore wounds but that aren't saves. But then that could cover things beyond FNP. And makes it difficult to exempt units. And leaves the possibility of endless bickering over if a specific such rule is affected, which defeats the purpose of a simplified rule set.
It would have been nicer if they'd actually keyworded more stuff. Especially weapon types. Look how clunky it is to word rules that affect only certain families of weapons (eg Bolt weapons). It turns into a paragraph every time. And if they ever wanted to make a change to the game like All Bolt weapons gain an extra AP, then we'll end up with a bunch of edge cases again. Or what if they wanted to give a new rule to all Marines?
It's not that these things are impossible, it's just that they are extremely clunky, which dis incentivizes trying to make fixes.
I'm a lot less worried about USRs that I am about them establishing a Glossary of Terms and a Style Guide to keep them from mucking up the rules with imprecise language.
Who in their right mind decided it would be a good idea to use the word Wound in so many different ways in 8 pages of rules? Models have Wounds. You roll to Wound. You allocate Wounds. Argh
alextroy wrote: I'm a lot less worried about USRs that I am about them establishing a Glossary of Terms and a Style Guide to keep them from mucking up the rules with imprecise language.
Who in their right mind decided it would be a good idea to use the word Wound in so many different ways in 8 pages of rules? Models have Wounds. You roll to Wound. You allocate Wounds. Argh
This is what they really need to worry about being consistent with terminology.
You can't use the same word for different meaning then be surprised when people aren't clear what you mean.
Also bringing all the FAQ Errata and rules together in a cohesive manor would help so much.
Would CA 2018 having the errataed core rules and points lists and codex errata layed out in one book that is easily referred to be so bad for their products.
I VASTLY prefer to have all the rules in the rule book. Don't think you can make me buy a rulebook, an army book AND data cards. That's just milking your customers. Besides, what good are the datacards if you're just going to change rules & stats on the fly via FAQs and ANOTHER annual rule book?
The problem with having all the rules in the rule book is that you have to have a PLAN. You have to know what armies will have what rules, and how the rules will interact with each other. That means you have to playtest.
GW prefers to have their playtesters pay retail.
"Well Howard, the new edition is in stores. Do you think we have a good product?"
MagicJuggler wrote: So, one of the main points of contention of 8th vs other editions was the removal of USRs in favor of "bespoke rules."
Advocates point to the fact you have all your rules on the same sheet, and thus don't have to play "lookup." It also did not help that 7th had 80+ USRs, and numerous "unique" rules on top of that, a poor set of building blocks. Most comedically, one of the USRs (Missile Lock) spent the first half of 7th completely unused before being used for Blacksword Missiles. One USR for one weapon for one unit in one codex: Meanwhile, several other codexes had unique rules all representing some form of "missile that locks onto a foe."
Inversely however, badly-worded rules/modified rules now need to be duplicated via FAQ, while minute differences in word rulings can make "intent" hard to parse. ("May fire its weapons twice," vs "may be chosen to shoot twice" among other cases).
So what is the alternative, between an overdone bunch of USRs that end up being ignored in favor of bespoke rules, vs a tide of ambiguously-worded bespoke rules?
Why not just make USRs flexible and clear enough in the first place? This is more of a general discussion point, but as a rule of thumb, the following principles should apply when adding USRs to a game:
-The rules should be Composable: Did you know that a Warlock's Reveal Psychic Power was once unable to penetrate Imperial Guard camo? See, what happened was that in 5th edition, a Camo Cloak granted Stealth. The problem? Stealth was a * USR, meaning that as long as at least one model had it, the whole unit benefitted. Thus, a Lord Commissar could hide an entire unit with his cloak. Come 6th Edition, the Camo Cloak granted its bearer a +1 Cover Save. This amusingly granted protection against Eldar trickery, since Reveal only negated Stealth and Shrouded (and not any other modifiers to cover). Now, had there been a Grants Unit[Another USR] USR, you could separate Stealth from Grants Unit[Stealth] and there's now no need to copypaste unique versions of USRs with a minute exception. Warmachine does this to some degree, with Field Marshal[Rule], Granted/Tactics:[Rule], No Sleeping On The Job/Veteran Leader[Unit/Unit Keyword] and other cases.
-The rule names should say what they do: If I said one unit had Rage, and another unit had Hatred, would you know without context what these rules mean? Combining composition with indicative names, does Charge Bonus[+1 Attack] or Charge Bonus[reroll attacks] have the same degree of ambiguity? Leave the "fluff" independent of the actual function, to avoid room for creative interpretation.
-The rules should be atomic: A Relentless unit could fire as if stationary and still assault. A Slow and Purposeful Unit was functionally Relentless, granting this to the unit, but also preventing the unit from Running, Overwatch, or Sweeping. So what does a Heavy Battle Servitor do? It doesn't run, it shoots as if stationary and can still assault, and can shoot two weapons. Now, if there was a Cannot[Action] rule and a "Fire Another Weapon" rule (incidentally, there was no "fire two weapons" USR. You had Monstrous Creatures, Multitrackers, Decimator Protocols, Attack Bikes, etc. but apparently nobody thought to make a "shoot two weapons" USR), you could make Relentless (or Grants Unit[Relentless])+Cannot[Run, Overwatch, Sweep]), and avoid the need for extra rules.
In short, a smaller number of indicatively-named, composable and atomic rules can create an extensible building block for rules, while leaving a smaller number of components in need of FAQ/less room to debate over what the rules "really" mean.
You are trying to fix problems that 8th doesn't have. 7th had those problems. 8th doesn't need your fixes, as there is no conflict between rules and no rules that are "hard to parse". Having two wordings for the same thing isn't exactly clean writing, but it doesn't cause a single problem in 8th.
There is nothing to be gained for the players from a central look-up for unit rules.
As far as I'm aware you have posted multiple times that you will no be playing 8th and keep to 7th - the vast majority of the players find 8th to be the better system and very few people playing it regularly want USR back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
phydaux wrote: I VASTLY prefer to have all the rules in the rule book. Don't think you can make me buy a rulebook, an army book AND data cards. That's just milking your customers. Besides, what good are the datacards if you're just going to change rules & stats on the fly via FAQs and ANOTHER annual rule book?
You just need your army book to play. The basic rules can be printed from the home page, datacards are merely for comfort. The only other thing found in the BRB is missions and matched play rules, most of which are common knowledge by now. As long as one player has it or your location provides one, you're fine. Good look playing 7th without the BRB.
The problem with having all the rules in the rule book is that you have to have a PLAN. You have to know what armies will have what rules, and how the rules will interact with each other. That means you have to playtest.
No, that means being unable to change for the rest of the edition. Codices like custodes or knights or dark eldar would not have been possible with that approach.
The only way to successfully collect keyword rules is an online document that is updated with each release.
Every system I've ever seen with USRs has always had some way to break it.
Charge Bonus[+1 attack] is all well and good, until you end up with
"Charge Bonus [+1 attack] except when the enemy is in terrain, then it's Charge Bonus [+1 Mortal Wound on a 6]. If it's a vehicle, there's no Charge Bonus at all, but the enemy cannot fire overwatch."
You end up oversimplifying the game, and have things that end up awkwardly hamfisted to fit the overly restrictive system, or with !USRs anyways when the devs have to go more into detail about what they mean.
The good thing about NOT using a USR is you only have to focus on each unit on a case by case basis rather than change one USR and impact a multitude of units.
Thank goodness they added keywords so various bubble ability units have limits on what they can buff.
You can call an ability the "squirrelly kill-craze of death!" with +1 to hit in melee and there could be some 5 other units with different named abilities that do the exact same thing.
The rules folk can focus on stat balancing and the creative writing group can call it anything they want.
Yes, it will be harder to memorize all the funky abilities but GW is then able to "forge the narrative" so they can special snowflake the exact same ability as they see fit.
Marmatag wrote: "What if you wanted a gun that negates feel no pain?"
This is a good point. The wording would essentially read a bit more complex.
Something like: "Abilities that negate the loss of wounds, such as Disgustingly Resilient, do not apply to damage dealt by this weapon."
Is this a bad thing? I don't know. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, i hated USRs in 7th edition.
Ignore[Rule] or Nullify[Rule] (preferably, it would be ideal to agree on the duration of a Nullify ability; ideally until the end of the opponent's player turn or so), with either a ! as a wildcard qualifier or otherwise. I suppose if you really wanted, you could add a "Always[USR]" for immunity to negation, but ideally you should avoid the creep of "I ignore this rule," "oh yeah, I ignore this rule that ignores this rule," etc. But a lot of that boils down to designer discipline. (Admittedly, this is a theoretical discussion that idealizes not having GW ruleswriters).
So, a unit of Warp Talons may have Charge Bonus[Ignore[Overwatch]], or a Photon Grenade might have Nullify[Charge Bonus[!]].
Incidentally, I am in favor of weapons having Keywords too, to avoid Scunthorpe scenarios. So instead of a Fuel Relay benefitting all "burnas, skorchas, or weapons with 'flame' in their name," it would benefit all FLAMER weapons.
To be honest, some of the biggest imbalances in 8th right now are because GW has taken things to be too universal.
There is *zero* reason for new marine codexes to be coming out with the current crappy points values for stuff like marine bodies, CTs not on vehicles, units showing up again and again with the same terrible overcosted garbage. And remember how fun a Scion and an Infantryman paying the same points for a plasma gun was?
Nah. I like granular rules, for all their "15 kinds of differently worded infiltrate" side effects. Do I care if Scouts get to infiltrate 9" away while Rangers infiltrate 12" away while Kommandos infiltrate by popping out of a bush? No, they're doing things in different ways, and maybe if Kommandos had the very same Infiltrate as Scouts they'd be broken as balls because you could infiltrate your 90 Kommandos 9" away, roll and get first turn, and plow into your enemys army with 3" charge rolls.
GW should just give us USRs with variables- it's baffling that they don't do that. Feel No Pain X Scout Y and so on instead of a dozen different names for just slightly different rules. It's dumb.
Personally, I disliked having the USRs in the BRB.
I like having everything on my unit datasheets in my codex. Much nicer. I wouldn't want to go back to the old way.
However, they really should have put keywords on weapons, and possibly even on Special Rules. Would help to clarify wordings, so there wouldn't be arguments over whether or not Da Jump or Gate of Infinity can take you beyond your deployment zone.
Blastaar wrote: GW should just give us USRs with variables- it's baffling that they don't do that. Feel No Pain X Scout Y and so on instead of a dozen different names for just slightly different rules. It's dumb.
Remember, the more similar rules with different names, the easier it is to "forget" a minute difference. After all, Smite is Smite, FNP is FNP, etc.
I always liked how GW did USRs, but always disliked how they didn’t stick to them.
I dislike how 8th has handled its special rules, especially with the keyword system being introduced, how hard would it be to add feel no pain to a keyword, works with other rules they have.
Consistent naming for the same thing is pretty ideal. You can even add fluff rules that do nothing but grant your consistent name. Couple that with reminder text (with the understanding that reminder text can change) and you give yourself a lot to work with:
Teleportarium - This unit gains Deep Strike.
A model with Deep Strike may deploy anywhere on the....
Now you have your fluff and what that fluff does is a universal keyword rule that can be changed if necessary AND can be referenced by other rules like say, Auspex Scan to provide consistent effects.
Blastaar wrote: GW should just give us USRs with variables- it's baffling that they don't do that. Feel No Pain X Scout Y and so on instead of a dozen different names for just slightly different rules. It's dumb.
Remember, the more similar rules with different names, the easier it is to "forget" a minute difference. After all, Smite is Smite, FNP is FNP, etc.
Exactly. Everyone knows FNP is a roll made after a failed save, and if successful, allows that model to ignore the wound. I'm just saying that making it FNP (insert number required for success here) is an elegant solution to the problem of having granularity while avoiding confusion, and also avoiding unintended consequences from balancing. If a unit was too powerful with FNP( 4+), that unit's entry alone could be changed to FNP (5+) without accidentally over-buffing or over-nerfing others. Although it does help that systems that use this also include cards with their models for reference while playing.
The main reason for the current bespoke rules is that the granularity allows for unit modifications that will not affect an entire army or armies. Also, in theory, you are not required to have your BRB with you as the rules are concise and small. To be honest I am surprised they didn't adopt the early AoS method of having the rules at the back of the Battletome/Codex. This meant you never had to take a rulebook with you, only the codex.
Now, I know there is argument for adopting USR for the most common abilities, but remember that some of the deep strike abilities tend to have important wording differences that apply differently in game. Also, having the same name between factions of similar abilities means that TFG and Rule perverts can try to change the rules of another codex by arguing that one rule supercedes another. By making each rule for each unit distinguishable from one another they can in theory avoid the worst of the rule lawyers.
Regarding datasheets I was surprised to see that Imperial Knights got Datasheet cards so my guess is that they are eventually coming for other armies in 40k.
regarding rules bloat, has it occured to you guys that rules bloat is kinda important for GW? a game where one book and 3 boxes of minis sounds great for us, but is terriable for GW's bottem line,
I think there's room for both, but then i like to cherry pick. If deepstrike is consistent everywhere, then just make a USR called deepstrike. If one unit gets +1 attack on the charge, and the other unit gets +1 attack and +1 str, do that too.
Having USRs for individual unit has both pros and cons. You can either change one rule easily, or go back and change every individual iteration of the rule one at a time, and hope you didn't miss any. Some units may want to perform differently despite a USR change? Okay, that's when you give them a snowflake rule.
I think USRs should not have been done away with. I think most other tabletop games have USRs in some way, shape, or form. MTG does it. WarmaHordes does it. Why can't 40k do it? I know in editions past GW has had USRs change from one edition to the next. This usually leaves some armies in a weird state where their rules just don't mesh anymore. I feel like this is strong evidence that if GW wants to use USRs they need to keep them consistent not just within the current edition, but also in future editions. I also think that overly convoluted rules should not be a USR. Right now a lot of models have a ton of rules that are very similar but have different names. I understand that they probably did with the intention of: 'If this ability is broken on this unit somehow we can fix it without affecting other models with the same rule'. But I think they failed to fully think this through. They fully knew going into 8th Edition that changes were going to happen to the ruleset. So why not embrace that? Why not just say 'Hey if this rule is super broken on X unit then we give it a similar nerfed ability and call it something different in order to distinguish it'. I really think this is the way to go. GW needs to embrace USRs but embrace them for long periods of time like games like Warmachine and MTG have. USRs might also work better if editions lasted longer than 3 to 4 years on average imo.
MtG basically has bespoken rules as well. Outside of the vanilla keywords, all but some rare or mythic rares have the full text of their keywords printed as reminder text, sometimes even for those vanilla keywords.
When you try to collect the vanilla keywords across WH40k you get very few. Almost every single person on this thread uses FNP or deep strike as an example, because there really aren't a lot of other keywords to unify without changing what they do now.
I also don't think that consolidating every kind of charge bonus is simplifying the rules in any way. Even MtG does "gains +X/+Y when charging/blocking" rather than keywords - unless they are mechanic-specific keywords.
TL;DR:
- YES to USR to group similar things. FNP should be FNP, deep strike should be deep strike, infiltrate should be infiltrate and the pile of "This is a plane"-rules should also be named the same across all codices.
- NO to USR being defined in a central place. The new datasheet approach is so much better for playing and learning the game. The BRB no longer being mandatory to play games is a great step forward.
And tertiary:
-The name of the rule should be indicative of what that rule actually does, rather than being a "fluffname" similar to the "fluffname" of another rule that does something completely different.
-The rules should be designed in a future-proofable/composabl3 manner.
As an example, rather than having a "weapon expert: +1 to wound with all weapons that have x in their name." ("Is an inferno cannon a flamer? Is a Baleflamer a flamer?" etc.), weapons themselves would have keywords, and you can have a <Weapon> Expert: Bonus rule (For example, FLAMER Expert: +1 to wound) and check if that weapon has the correct keyword.
MagicJuggler wrote: And tertiary:
-The name of the rule should be indicative of what that rule actually does, rather than being a "fluffname" similar to the "fluffname" of another rule that does something completely different.
As an example, rather than having a "weapon expert: +1 to wound with all weapons that have x in their name." ("Is an inferno cannon a flamer? Is a Baleflamer a flamer?" etc.), weapons themselves would have keywords, and you can have a <Weapon> Expert: Bonus rule (FLAMER Expert: +1 to wound) and check if that weapon has the correct keyword.
You contradict yourself. Expert is in no way an indicator of being better at wounding something.
While I agree that there should be weapon keywords "Arsonist: This units adds +1 to wound rules when using FLAMER weapons." is way superior to "Expert: Bonus rule (FLAMER Expert: +1 to wound) ". Bonus points if Arsonist is used across multiple codices, but not necessary in any way.
It's morning. The parenthesis was the "example", not the actual bonus rule. In theory, Expert would let you modify other traits/confer other rules onto a weapon. (ex. Catachans might have FLAMER Expert: ignore cover). The underlying rule is contingent on the usage of a particular weapon.
PS: As a notable RAW goof in 6th and 7th, Interceptor as worded said a "weapon with this rule." While an EWO granted the weapons carried by the model the Interceptor USR, the Interceptor Drones on a Sunshark simply had the Interceptor rule and thus RAW couldn't actually use it. A similar issue happened with a Farsight Warlord Trait that granted Shred to a unit for one turn in the Shooting Phase; Shred as defined was melee-only, unless it was actually on a ranged weapon. Thus, the Warlord trait was RAW useless.
MagicJuggler wrote: It's morning. The parenthesis was the "example", not the actual bonus rule. In theory, Expert would let you modify other traits/confer other rules onto a weapon. (ex. Catachans might have FLAMER Expert: ignore cover). The underlying rule is contingent on the usage of a particular weapon.
Well... what's the point then? You could just skip the keyword and end up with the same solution, with nothing lost.
A proper rule would read: "Enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks from FLAMER weapons made by CATACHAN models."
(slightly edited 8th edition Imperial Fist chapter tactics)
PS: As a notable RAW goof in 6th and 7th, Interceptor as worded said a "weapon with this rule." While an EWO granted the weapons carried by the model the Interceptor USR, the Interceptor Drones on a Sunshark simply had the Interceptor rule and thus RAW couldn't actually use it. A similar issue happened with a Farsight Warlord Trait that granted Shred to a unit for one turn in the Shooting Phase; Shred as defined was melee-only, unless it was actually on a ranged weapon. Thus, the Warlord trait was RAW useless.
Yeah, but those kinds of problems really stemm from the rules being scattered across too many publications. A problem that does not exist in 8th. As long as all rules are spelled out on a single datasheet, each datasheet can be validated on its own.
The warlord trait in 8th would simply read "Units within 6" of your warlord can re-roll failed to wound rolls in the shooting phase". Done. Zero reason to use a USR in there.
When you try to collect the vanilla keywords across WH40k you get very few. Almost every single person on this thread uses FNP or deep strike as an example, because there really aren't a lot of other keywords to unify without changing what they do now.
To be fair, that's because both of those are based on USRs from earlier editions.
There are plenty of other rules in 8th that could be USRs - they just don't have catchy names from past editions. And lord knows none of them have catchy names from this edition.
For example, plenty of models have auras that let nearby units reroll 1s to hit or to wound. These could easily be USRs, but they don't have any common name, nor a holdover name from 7th (since no comparable USR existed).
Hell, we could easily have 'Aura' as a proper keyword - rather than a vague definition.
Eldarsif wrote: The main reason for the current bespoke rules is that the granularity allows for unit modifications that will not affect an entire army or armies.
In which case it should be scrapped immediately because it's demonstrably not fulfilling that purpose. In fact, GW's recent FAQs demonstrate the ridiculousness of not using USRs. Because all they can do is try and vaguely define the rule they're referring to, rather than being able to use clear keywords.
"So, you know the abilities that, like, let a unit do something like this, right? Well, those abilities now do something a bit different. Except for these units, which do what they did before."
What's more, they certainly don't bother using the unique rules to tweak specific units and only those specific units. Instead, they just make blanket statements in FAQs, sometimes listing an exception. Something they could easily do with USRs as well.
MagicJuggler wrote: It seems like we"re going in circles here. "Can I re-roll wounds when I Fix Bayonets?"
That's an issue that does not exist in 8th. Either you are doing attacks with your FLAMER weapon profile or you are not. If you are using any other weapon profile to make attacks, the rule does not apply. Simple.
You are too stuck on 7th with your mindset regarding rule problems.
When you try to collect the vanilla keywords across WH40k you get very few. Almost every single person on this thread uses FNP or deep strike as an example, because there really aren't a lot of other keywords to unify without changing what they do now.
To be fair, that's because both of those are based on USRs from earlier editions.
There are plenty of other rules in 8th that could be USRs - they just don't have catchy names from past editions. And lord knows none of them have catchy names from this edition.
For example, plenty of models have auras that let nearby units reroll 1s to hit or to wound. These could easily be USRs, but they don't have any common name, nor a holdover name from 7th (since no comparable USR existed).
Hell, we could easily have 'Aura' as a proper keyword - rather than a vague definition.
The thing is, you have auras that are 6", 7", 12", 18", you have auras that are 9" but require all models to be in range, some affect the entire imperium, some just space marines, some only specific sub-groups of a chapter and so on. The effects vary wildly, some have multiple effects. Unit Aura (6", DEATH WING, Re-roll(1, To Hit)) is no improvement over "DEATH WING units within 6" re-roll ones to hit", plus you need to put a definition somewhere. If you try to keyword some more complex auras, it gets worse: Unit Aura (6", ORKS, Assault bonus(+1A), Fleet) suddenly you need to define "Unit Aura", "Assault bonus" and "Fleet". Welcome halfway back to 7th edition USR.
The one thing you could keyword is the "re-roll 1 to hit" to "command aura" or similar, so when skimming a datasheet you would not need to read the whole rule, since almost every "tacical leader"-style HQ has it. All other auras, even the "re-roll 1 to wound" appear on no more than three or four models maximum, so what is there to gain from keywording them? The one thing I could understand would be explicitly marking all such skills with an AURA keyword, so things like relics which increase aura range can be worded more clearly.
The warlord trait in 8th would simply read "Units within 6" of your warlord can re-roll failed to wound rolls in the shooting phase". Done. Zero reason to use a USR in there.
MagicJuggler wrote: It seems like we"re going in circles here.
"Can I re-roll wounds when I Fix Bayonets?"
7th had the same issue with Flamers btw, which is why I used them as an analogy. Remember that a Baleflamer is not a Flamer, except when it is.
Saying "It didn't work well in 7th!" is not exactly a strong argument. I prefer 7th to 8th, and even then I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that 7th was not a good system.
A set of clean, simple, concise and precise USRs would be good for the game. Keep the full text on the page, sure. Keep a fluffy name AFTER THE RULES NAME, sure. But make the USRs actually universal.
The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.
Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:
- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.
It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.
The warlord trait in 8th would simply read "Units within 6" of your warlord can re-roll failed to wound rolls in the shooting phase". Done. Zero reason to use a USR in there.
MagicJuggler wrote: It seems like we"re going in circles here. "Can I re-roll wounds when I Fix Bayonets?"
7th had the same issue with Flamers btw, which is why I used them as an analogy. Remember that a Baleflamer is not a Flamer, except when it is.
But we already agreed on keywords for weapons being awesome, right? Looking for a FLAMER keyword is pretty clear, the Baleflamer will have it or not.
Death Guard actually does this, all the "re-roll 1 to wound" weapons are "Plague Weapons" and we have a psychic power (Putrefying Blades) and warlord trait (Arch-Contaminator) explicitly giving those weapons benefits. Why they haven't continued on that trend? Beats me.
I'll repeat myself. I'm all for adding keywords to rules for clarity or grouping certain kinds of effect. What I'm strictly opposed to is hiding rules behind keywords instead of simply spelling them out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you're not a magic player, have look at this picture:
Spoiler:
Any clue what that Angel can do? I guess flying and first strike are pretty easily understood, trample and haste can be guessed, and I would assume no one can guess what vigilance does. And now the kicker: A lot of magic players don't even know what "Protection from Red and Black" does properly. Sounds simple enough, right? You couldn't be further from the truth. There is literally no way to find out what that ability does without consulting the rules and/or a rules forum.
Good thing is, unlike MtG, WH40k doesn't have a space issue. If they need to, they can use an entire page for a datasheet. Therefore I see no reason to move any USR rules back into the BRB.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.
Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:
- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.
It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.
But surely this is an argument for USRs? If you have the same USR, you can add clear exceptions - so that people don't overlook a single sentence in a rule that' otherwise identical to another rule with an entirely different name.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.
Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:
- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.
It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.
But surely this is an argument for USRs? If you have the same USR, you can add clear exceptions - so that people don't overlook a single sentence in a rule that' otherwise identical to another rule with an entirely different name.
Right but what would you write as the USR?
"Steel Behemoth: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn."
Baneblade and friends: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat, and you ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Imperial Knight friendos: Steel Behemoth, except you can also step over enemy infantry and ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments: Steel Behemoth, except you can't shoot, but you can advance and charge also.
Minotaur Artillery Tank: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat.
JNAProductions wrote: You don't write one rule to cover a million things. You write one rule per thing.
Whiiiiiiich is what they're doing now?
Not even all the FNP rolls are the same. Graia's, for example, only works against the wound that slays the model, but also works against casualties from Morale, unlike Iron Hands. Conversely, the Psychic Fortitude power from the Astartes power list gives you a 4+ FNP, but it only works against psychic powers.
"Steel Behemoth: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn."
Baneblade and friends: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat, and you ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Imperial Knight friendos: Steel Behemoth, except you can also step over enemy infantry and ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments: Steel Behemoth, except you can't shoot, but you can advance and charge also.
Minotaur Artillery Tank: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat.
The problem is that you're trying to make one USR fit all.
Ignoring the penalty for moving and shooting Heavy Weapons should be a separate USR. Same goes for shooting normally when in combat.
JNAProductions wrote: You don't write one rule to cover a million things. You write one rule per thing.
Whiiiiiiich is what they're doing now?
Not even all the FNP rolls are the same. Graia's, for example, only works against the wound that slays the model, but also works against casualties from Morale, unlike Iron Hands. Conversely, the Psychic Fortitude power from the Astartes power list gives you a 4+ FNP, but it only works against psychic powers.
Not even all the FNP rules are the same.
Not what I meant.
I meant there's not one rule that's "Fall back and shoot; ignore heavy weapons penalties; shoot in CC."
"Steel Behemoth: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn."
Baneblade and friends: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat, and you ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Imperial Knight friendos: Steel Behemoth, except you can also step over enemy infantry and ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments: Steel Behemoth, except you can't shoot, but you can advance and charge also.
Minotaur Artillery Tank: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat.
The problem is that you're trying to make one USR fit all.
Ignoring the penalty for moving and shooting Heavy Weapons should be a separate USR. Same goes for shooting normally when in combat.
So the only "universality" of the "Shoot normally while in combat" rule is actually only the Baneblade chassis tanks, plus the Minotaur, Valdor, and Space Marine superheavies? Is it really more helpful than just writing on the datasheet "this unit can shoot while in combat"?
And which version of the moving and shooting heavy weapons should be a separate USR?
Grinding Advance: This model ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, but only on its Demolisher cannon.
Lumbering Advance: This model ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, but only on its turret weapon, and only if it moves half speed.
Blasphemous Machines: This model ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, and for advancing and firing assault weapons.
Battle Servitor: This model ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, but can only advance d3"
JNAProductions wrote: You don't write one rule to cover a million things. You write one rule per thing.
Whiiiiiiich is what they're doing now?
Not even all the FNP rolls are the same. Graia's, for example, only works against the wound that slays the model, but also works against casualties from Morale, unlike Iron Hands. Conversely, the Psychic Fortitude power from the Astartes power list gives you a 4+ FNP, but it only works against psychic powers.
Not even all the FNP rules are the same.
Not what I meant.
I meant there's not one rule that's "Fall back and shoot; ignore heavy weapons penalties; shoot in CC."
That'd be three rules.
Don't forget the 4th rule: can fall back and charge too.
So I guess y es, you can either add 4 rules to the tank's datasheet, or you can just have one that does 4 things. "Clear and concise" indeed.
I'm still not sure what the problem with the current system is. You're going to be looking up your unit's datasheet anyway, so looking up rules in the BRB is just an extra step. Adding USRs would just make bloat worse.
So the only "universality" of the "Shoot normally while in combat" rule is actually only the Baneblade chassis tanks, plus the Minotaur, Valdor, and Space Marine superheavies? Is it really more helpful than just writing on the datasheet "this unit can shoot while in combat"?
If it's that uncommon, sure, write it on the model.
So the only "universality" of the "Shoot normally while in combat" rule is actually only the Baneblade chassis tanks, plus the Minotaur, Valdor, and Space Marine superheavies? Is it really more helpful than just writing on the datasheet "this unit can shoot while in combat"?
If it's that uncommon, sure, write it on the model.
What rule is common enough to make into a game-wide USR?
The warlord trait in 8th would simply read "Units within 6" of your warlord can re-roll failed to wound rolls in the shooting phase". Done. Zero reason to use a USR in there.
MagicJuggler wrote: It seems like we"re going in circles here.
"Can I re-roll wounds when I Fix Bayonets?"
7th had the same issue with Flamers btw, which is why I used them as an analogy. Remember that a Baleflamer is not a Flamer, except when it is.
But we already agreed on keywords for weapons being awesome, right? Looking for a FLAMER keyword is pretty clear, the Baleflamer will have it or not.
Death Guard actually does this, all the "re-roll 1 to wound" weapons are "Plague Weapons" and we have a psychic power (Putrefying Blades) and warlord trait (Arch-Contaminator) explicitly giving those weapons benefits. Why they haven't continued on that trend? Beats me.
I'll repeat myself. I'm all for adding keywords to rules for clarity or grouping certain kinds of effect. What I'm strictly opposed to is hiding rules behind keywords instead of simply spelling them out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you're not a magic player, have look at this picture:
Spoiler:
Any clue what that Angel can do? I guess flying and first strike are pretty easily understood, trample and haste can be guessed, and I would assume no one can guess what vigilance does. And now the kicker: A lot of magic players don't even know what "Protection from Red and Black" does properly. Sounds simple enough, right? You couldn't be further from the truth. There is literally no way to find out what that ability does without consulting the rules and/or a rules forum.
Good thing is, unlike MtG, WH40k doesn't have a space issue. If they need to, they can use an entire page for a datasheet. Therefore I see no reason to move any USR rules back into the BRB.
Magic players are also capable of learning the rules for keyword abilities and don't have this weird expectation of having them spoon-fed to them every time they play. It's weird that playing with your nose in the codex because you don't remember what your units do is desirable.
The whole point of keywords like Akroma has is that there is a standard set of rules all players know, and they can look at their opponent's cards and understand what they do. And they still have rules written out on cards when needed, especially for unique effects, which would be the equivalent of non-universal special rules found in codices.
Wizards also nearly always writes rules text as clearly and literally as possible, making them easy to understand and avoiding the issue of multiple players each reading the same rule to work differently.
That's a good candidate. Just for the sake of investigating it, let's see what we can get:
What would this USR look like? "This unit can arrive on the battlefield before the end of Turn 3, at the end of any of its owning player's movement phases. If it arrives in Turn 1, it cannot be outside of the opponent's deployment zone unless it was already on the battlefield at the beginning of the game. It must arrive 9" away from any enemy unit in either case, and cannot move further that turn save to charge."
sound reasonable? I actually think that'd work ok, though it incorporates rules from the modern Tactical Reserves rule.
Then you need a special USR for GSC, and any form of Outflank.
Would you still say for things like Da Jump that they arrived "as though they had deep strike?" This created a gak ton of confusion in 7th edition, in regards to what "as though" meant.
You would also need a USR for Drop Pods, and disembarking from them.
Marmatag wrote:Then you need a special USR for GSC, and any form of Outflank.
Would you still say for things like Da Jump that they arrived "as though they had deep strike?" This created a gak ton of confusion in 7th edition, in regards to what "as though" meant.
You would also need a USR for Drop Pods, and disembarking from them.
Good point, perhaps it's not so great a candidate for a USR after all... any others?
Desubot wrote:Keeping it consistent it should say more than 9" away.
Unit1126PLL wrote: What rule is common enough to make into a game-wide USR?
Deep strike and feel no pain would be prime candidates. Auras should probably have an actual aura keyword, rather than a vague definition in the rulebook.
Rerolling 1s might work as a USR in some form or other.
You've got potential weapon USRs as well (Rending, Melta etc.).
Is this really more clear? Does this actually reduce bloat in any way shape or form?
It's not more clear because you're adding a load of unnecessary clutter.
Feel No pain (value) works just fine. The next 4 are either entirely irrelevant or have no purpose within that USR.
e.g. if you want a model to have FNP 5+ only against mortal wounds caused by psychic powers, just write 'This model has FNP 5+ against mortal wounds caused by psychic powers'.
So the only "universality" of the "Shoot normally while in combat" rule is actually only the Baneblade chassis tanks, plus the Minotaur, Valdor, and Space Marine superheavies? Is it really more helpful than just writing on the datasheet "this unit can shoot while in combat"?
If it's that uncommon, sure, write it on the model.
What rule is common enough to make into a game-wide USR?
Relentless needs to be far more common (and a USR) than it currently is.
Is this really more clear? Does this actually reduce bloat in any way shape or form?
Or you just dump all of the pointless variations on the rule and give units FNP X+. In a game where massive titans can annihilate whole units with each of their guns do we really need to worry about whether FNP applies to psychic wounds vs. all wounds?
I just don't see that as an improvement over the current system.
Can you help understand what the problem is that you're trying to solve, and then also help me understand how your proposed FNP here actually achieves that goal?
USRs are bad programming. You're essentially defining global functions without allowing them to be overridden; while FNP might make sense from a polymorphic standpoint, the implementation of that method should be left up to the object itself. In which case we're back to specific datasheets defining the implementation, which is where we are now.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.
Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:
- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.
It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.
And we don't need a USR, or convoluted USR-with-exceptions for each of them, because we don't need 6 rules that almost do th same thing. Just make them the same. One USR. This convolutedness of tiny variations of th same thing is not depth, it's just worthless bloat.
I just don't see that as an improvement over the current system.
Can you help understand what the problem is that you're trying to solve, and then also help me understand how your proposed FNP here actually achieves that goal?
USRs are bad programming. You're essentially defining global functions without allowing them to be overridden; while FNP might make sense from a polymorphic standpoint, the implementation of that method should be left up to the object itself. In which case we're back to specific datasheets defining the implementation, which is where we are now.
USRs are inheritable functions, not global variables. Method inheritance prevents "reinvent the wheel/copypaste programming." For example, the current discrepancy between different skimmer-types where you alternately measure distance to their base, hull, or the closer of the two.
Except that's not what you've done. A virtual function in a class should leave the implementation details to the object that inherits it. You're defining a global implementation. That is the very definition of a USR.
Another way to look at it, is that if you start allowing things to override it, it stops being a universal rule. Look at FLY. Imagine if half the models had a different implementation of FLY. It would stop being a universal rule, wouldn't it?
This whole discussion is silly anyway. The 8th rulset is far from bloated, and abilities being spelled out on the data sheet is the ideal way to approach it. The challenge is the sheer volume of rule changes that have been made in FAQs, and managing all of that to be in one place and accessible for tournament play.
Google functional composition. Or method args. Or anything else related to basic OOP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: This whole discussion is silly anyway. The 8th rulset is far from bloated, and abilities being spelled out on the data sheet is the ideal way to approach it. The challenge is the sheer volume of rule changes that have been made in FAQs, and managing all of that to be in one place and accessible for tournament play.
A problem exacerbated by copypaste and inconsistent rulings.
Blastaar wrote: Magic players are also capable of learning the rules for keyword abilities and don't have this weird expectation of having them spoon-fed to them every time they play. It's weird that playing with your nose in the codex because you don't remember what your units do is desirable.
You must not have seen a card printed in the last five years
Ever since WotC called out the NWO, outside of rares and mythic rares, all rules are fully written on cards, even those for keywords like first strike or lifelink. Because they have become aware of the problems keywords pose to players. The have acknowledged the need to make keywords to create cards like Akroma, because all the rules spelled out would not fit on cards, but they try to write down rules whenever possible.
For WH40k "whenever possible" is always, since we have a full page to write down all the rules we need.
The whole point of keywords like Akroma has is that there is a standard set of rules all players know, and they can look at their opponent's cards and understand what they do.
Except about every third magic player I have met in my over two decades of playing the game gets protection wrong. I can't start to count the number of times I had to argue that Damnation can in fact destroy Akroma despite being a black spell. Which is perfectly understandable, since protection is one of the least intuitive rules in the game. For this reason they have actually stopped using protection on new cards. A lot of veteran players also don't get what Vigiliance or Haste does, considering that those keywords were not part of the game when Akroma was printed for the first time.
This perfectly demonstrates why keywords replacing rules is not a tool to increase rule clarity, but to reduce it.
Wizards also nearly always writes rules text as clearly and literally as possible, making them easy to understand and avoiding the issue of multiple players each reading the same rule to work differently.
Yeah, this is one of the best parts of magic. There are no unclear things in the rules. Zero. Some interactions are hard to understand, but none of them are undefined. GW should really strive to archive this level of rules writing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler wrote: Google functional composition. Or method args. Or anything else related to basic OOP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: This whole discussion is silly anyway. The 8th rulset is far from bloated, and abilities being spelled out on the data sheet is the ideal way to approach it. The challenge is the sheer volume of rule changes that have been made in FAQs, and managing all of that to be in one place and accessible for tournament play.
A problem exacerbated by copypaste and inconsistent rulings.
Rules are not software code. Your codex does not provide you with an IDE to look up definitions, you need to flip through multiple books to find them. This is highly undesirable, as it forces you to waste time on flipping through pages in order to find out what your unit does. Readability without cross referencing is a lot more important than maintainability in this case, therefore writing everything twice is a much better solution than not repeating yourself. In fact, it improves maintainability instead of reducing it like it does in code. If you change one of your central USR, you have no way to find out if it breaks some data sheets because you don't have debugger available, you need to cross-check every single line of rules "codes" in existence in order to find out if everything still works the way it should.
It also prevents a lot of problems that you describe in your examples from 7th - since every rule describes exactly what it does without referencing other rules, you don't get issues where the referenced rule doesn't match because it only applies to weapons/models/combat/hello kitty robots.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.
Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:
- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.
It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.
And we don't need a USR, or convoluted USR-with-exceptions for each of them, because we don't need 6 rules that almost do th same thing. Just make them the same. One USR. This convolutedness of tiny variations of th same thing is not depth, it's just worthless bloat.
Bingo! I think the real benefit of USRs isn't in some convoluted implementation like MJ seems to want to do, it's in providing consistency. There's no reason whatsoever for 4 different sets of very similar rules for near-identical vehicles when 1 will do just as well. Same with FNP. The vague, inaccurate language GW had to use when writing the FAQ about FNP-like effects should tell them something is wrong with their current approach.
I think my main problem with MJ's approach is that, as presented, it doesn't actually hugely aid clarity and, frankly, just looks ugly. I wonder if perhaps this approach is trying o generalise and codify things too much?
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.
Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:
- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.
It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.
And we don't need a USR, or convoluted USR-with-exceptions for each of them, because we don't need 6 rules that almost do th same thing. Just make them the same. One USR. This convolutedness of tiny variations of th same thing is not depth, it's just worthless bloat.
Bingo! I think the real benefit of USRs isn't in some convoluted implementation like MJ seems to want to do, it's in providing consistency. There's no reason whatsoever for 4 different sets of very similar rules for near-identical vehicles when 1 will do just as well. Same with FNP. The vague, inaccurate language GW had to use when writing the FAQ about FNP-like effects should tell them something is wrong with their current approach.
I think my main problem with MJ's approach is that, as presented, it doesn't actually hugely aid clarity and, frankly, just looks ugly. I wonder if perhaps this approach is trying o generalise and codify things too much?
I agree with lord_blackfang's views too. And as Peregrine said earlier, in a game with Avenger Gatling Cannons and aircraft, you probably don't want to get too hung-up on too many forms of FNP.
"Steel Behemoth: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn."
Baneblade and friends: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat, and you ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Imperial Knight friendos: Steel Behemoth, except you can also step over enemy infantry and ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments: Steel Behemoth, except you can't shoot, but you can advance and charge also.
Minotaur Artillery Tank: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat.
How I would do it:
Baneblade:
Titanic: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn.
Steel Behemoth: This unit can shoot even if models are within 1" of it
Relentless: This unit does not suffer -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Imerpial Knight:
Titanic: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn.
Super-heavy walker: Ignore infantry and swarms when moving. You still cannot end your move within 1" of enemy infantry or swarm models.
Relentless: This unit does not suffer -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments:
Winged Monster: This unit can charge even if it has fallen back or advanced this turn.
Minotaur Artillery Tank:
Titanic: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn.
Steel Behemoth: This unit can shoot even if models are within 1" of it
Names aren't final obviously, for example a more generic name for "Titanic" would be better so units like centurions could benefit from it without sounding silly.
IMO it's more important to distinguish the tanks and the knight as "this unit goes where it pleases" from the "can assault whatever and whenever it wants" daemon.
I like the keyword system we have now, what I'd suggest is push it a bit further, with <keyword> traits on weapons, so if a rule impacts <bolt> weapons its pretty clear.
would also have a definitions section in the rules, doesn't need to be long, to clearly cover such as
within entirely within model - e.g. do antenna, wings etc count
cover that singular references also include the plural and vice versa unless said otherwise
MagicJuggler wrote: Google functional composition. Or method args. Or anything else related to basic OOP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: This whole discussion is silly anyway. The 8th rulset is far from bloated, and abilities being spelled out on the data sheet is the ideal way to approach it. The challenge is the sheer volume of rule changes that have been made in FAQs, and managing all of that to be in one place and accessible for tournament play.
A problem exacerbated by copypaste and inconsistent rulings.
Why don't you just take a quick glance here. I like the example of the classes inheriting Animal. Both can talk, but to know how each animal talks, you can't reference the universal definition of talk(). Because it's been overridden. Which is what happens with USRs, and how USRs create rules problems and massive bloat.
To me, USR's are convenient for quick explanation. To this day, I still describe Deep Striking units as deep striking. Same thing with outflanking. I think players naturally do this on their own, even without specific USR's being named, but that naming does help players talk to each other more clearly. A unified language. For example, FNP could be called "Negate" and as long as everyone knew what "Negates on a 5+" meant it would serve the purpose. The community has kept previous terms simply because we're used to them.
I like that even if a USR isn't codified in the rule book, it's consistent across the game, like WMH does. Even if the name itself doesn't make sense, you know what the ability does, so when I attack the creature with Ashen Cloud I know that it has defensive bonuses. That creature has Pathfinder? Ok, it ignores terrain penalties for movement. That model can fly? Ok, it can ignore terrain penalties and move over other models so long as it has a place to land.
To me, USR's produce consistency. That has nothing to do with bloat. Bloat is too many models with too many variations, with rules in too many sources. It's like a report vs poetry. Reports work when there's nothing valuable left to add. Poetry works when there's nothing valuable left that you can take away. In this case, the rules are becoming a report, where more and more and more keeps being added. That's bloat. I think 8th edition could use a little cutting. Repackage the changes into a single location.
For example, you have 4 or 5 pages of main rules, right? But then FAQ's that spawn and split all over the place. So instead of making FAQ's, rerelease the rules in PDF format.
I like USR's. I don't mind if they're written out in full wherever they appear. I like them because they create clear and concise communication. I think it would be great if Auras like "Increased Accuracy" had a name for the reroll attack rolls of 1 ability. And "Increased... Brutality?" had a name for rerolling 1's to wound. I don't think it really changes rules bloat. It just makes it quicker for regular players to describe something clearly.
"What's that guy do?"
"He's a Lietunnant. He's got Increased Accuracy 6" and units within 6" get Negates 6+."
"Cool. What's that guy do?"
"He's a Commander. He's got Increased Brutality 6" and can give Fly to one model within 2" for the turn. Basically he picks the dude up and throws him."
"So what, he can throw a Dreadnaught?"
"Oh, sorry, he can only throw an "Infantry" Model."
"Holly crap, I was gonna say!"
All of which plays out much faster than needing to describe the individual rules, once people have seen them before. That's why I like USR's.
To me, USR's are convenient for quick explanation. To this day, I still describe Deep Striking units as deep striking. Same thing with outflanking. I think players naturally do this on their own, even without specific USR's being named, but that naming does help players talk to each other more clearly. A unified language. For example, FNP could be called "Negate" and as long as everyone knew what "Negates on a 5+" meant it would serve the purpose. The community has kept previous terms simply because we're used to them.
I like that even if a USR isn't codified in the rule book, it's consistent across the game, like WMH does. Even if the name itself doesn't make sense, you know what the ability does, so when I attack the creature with Ashen Cloud I know that it has defensive bonuses. That creature has Pathfinder? Ok, it ignores terrain penalties for movement. That model can fly? Ok, it can ignore terrain penalties and move over other models so long as it has a place to land.
To me, USR's produce consistency. That has nothing to do with bloat. Bloat is too many models with too many variations, with rules in too many sources. It's like a report vs poetry. Reports work when there's nothing valuable left to add. Poetry works when there's nothing valuable left that you can take away. In this case, the rules are becoming a report, where more and more and more keeps being added. That's bloat. I think 8th edition could use a little cutting. Repackage the changes into a single location.
For example, you have 4 or 5 pages of main rules, right? But then FAQ's that spawn and split all over the place. So instead of making FAQ's, rerelease the rules in PDF format.
I like USR's. I don't mind if they're written out in full wherever they appear. I like them because they create clear and concise communication. I think it would be great if Auras like "Increased Accuracy" had a name for the reroll attack rolls of 1 ability. And "Increased... Brutality?" had a name for rerolling 1's to wound. I don't think it really changes rules bloat. It just makes it quicker for regular players to describe something clearly.
"What's that guy do?"
"He's a Lietunnant. He's got Increased Accuracy 6" and units within 6" get Negates 6+."
"Cool. What's that guy do?"
"He's a Commander. He's got Increased Brutality 6" and can give Fly to one model within 2" for the turn. Basically he picks the dude up and throws him."
"So what, he can throw a Dreadnaught?"
"Oh, sorry, he can only throw an "Infantry" Model."
"Holly crap, I was gonna say!"
All of which plays out much faster than needing to describe the individual rules, once people have seen them before. That's why I like USR's.
I like how any time these rules are mentioned its with an explanation of what it means, rendering the USR completely moot.
"He has negate 5." "So that allows him to ignore wounds on a 5+?" "Yes, but only against mortal wounds." "Oh, so he's negate 5, mortal wounds." "Yeah, sorry, in the psychic phase." "Oh okay, negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase." "Oh and yeah, this only applies to ADEPTUS ASTARTES." "Right! Got it. Negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase, adeptus astartes."
Simplicity in motion.
USRs are convenient for some because they were drilled into your heads over half a decade. But that doesn't make them good, and it certainly doesn't make them convenient for anyone who doesn't have your background. You may as well replace this thread title with "I like what I already know."
Marmatag wrote: I like how any time these rules are mentioned its with an explanation of what it means, rendering the USR completely moot.
"He has negate 5."
"So that allows him to ignore wounds on a 5+?"
"Yes, but only against mortal wounds."
"Oh, so he's negate 5, mortal wounds."
"Yeah, sorry, in the psychic phase."
"Oh okay, negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase."
"Oh and yeah, this only applies to ADEPTUS ASTARTES."
"Right! Got it. Negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase, adeptus astartes."
Simplicity in motion.
USRs are convenient for some because they were drilled into your heads over half a decade. But that doesn't make them good, and it certainly doesn't make them convenient for anyone who doesn't have your background. You may as well replace this thread title with "I like what I already know."
As opposed to:
"He ignores wounds on a 4+."
"Okay-so like a save?."
"No, it's after saves."
"Okay."
"Wait, but only against mortal wounds."
"Gotcha."
"And, um, only in the psychic phase."
"Anything else?"
"Adesptus Astartes only."
So much simpler to not have common names.
It's just as easy to only say part of the rule regardless of what it's called.
MagicJuggler wrote: Google functional composition. Or method args. Or anything else related to basic OOP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: This whole discussion is silly anyway. The 8th rulset is far from bloated, and abilities being spelled out on the data sheet is the ideal way to approach it. The challenge is the sheer volume of rule changes that have been made in FAQs, and managing all of that to be in one place and accessible for tournament play.
A problem exacerbated by copypaste and inconsistent rulings.
Why don't you just take a quick glance here. I like the example of the classes inheriting Animal. Both can talk, but to know how each animal talks, you can't reference the universal definition of talk(). Because it's been overridden. Which is what happens with USRs, and how USRs create rules problems and massive bloat.
The very example you chose was an abstract "talk" being overridden in concrete implementation.
Polymorphism deals with the fact that a method like "listen(Animal animal)" doesn't care if other is a Duck, Dog, etc."
To pseudocode a Warmachine Example,
And you don't care if the Rule is Channeler, Shield Guard, Reposition[3"], etc.
Marmatag wrote: I like how any time these rules are mentioned its with an explanation of what it means, rendering the USR completely moot.
"He has negate 5."
"So that allows him to ignore wounds on a 5+?"
"Yes, but only against mortal wounds."
"Oh, so he's negate 5, mortal wounds."
"Yeah, sorry, in the psychic phase."
"Oh okay, negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase."
"Oh and yeah, this only applies to ADEPTUS ASTARTES."
"Right! Got it. Negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase, adeptus astartes."
Simplicity in motion.
USRs are convenient for some because they were drilled into your heads over half a decade. But that doesn't make them good, and it certainly doesn't make them convenient for anyone who doesn't have your background. You may as well replace this thread title with "I like what I already know."
As opposed to:
"He ignores wounds on a 4+."
"Okay-so like a save?."
"No, it's after saves."
"Okay."
"Wait, but only against mortal wounds."
"Gotcha."
"And, um, only in the psychic phase."
"Anything else?"
"Adesptus Astartes only."
So much simpler to not have common names.
It's just as easy to only say part of the rule regardless of what it's called.
Except the way this is implemented NOW is that it's one sentence on your datasheet. So you just read it. There's no translation needed. It is what it is on your datasheet.
Marmatag, I don't get what you're getting at. Particularly this negates mortal wounds against astartes in the psychic phase example that seems to keep making the rounds.
Yes, in that specific example it would be inconvenient.
But what I just explained, was made up off the top of my head while sitting at work. I didn't even explain in any detail what the rules did, but I think anyone reading the blurb at the end would get what I'm talking about. Or could imagine a situation where they could have a similar conversation with someone.
Yes, the first time I have to explain the rules... but by the 3rd game someone plays they've probably run into Negates, Inc Ac, Inc Br, and Fly. They've probably run into Deepstrike and Outflank. And if they haven't, then they will and the next time it happens you just say, "Oh yeah, I know what deep strike does.".
It's useful for in-game quickness. Seriously, it's not necessary that the same terms from old be used. They're just handy shortcuts for us that we all know what it does. That's the handy part of USR that I'm advocating. I do miss them.
MagicJuggler wrote: Google functional composition. Or method args. Or anything else related to basic OOP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: This whole discussion is silly anyway. The 8th rulset is far from bloated, and abilities being spelled out on the data sheet is the ideal way to approach it. The challenge is the sheer volume of rule changes that have been made in FAQs, and managing all of that to be in one place and accessible for tournament play.
A problem exacerbated by copypaste and inconsistent rulings.
Why don't you just take a quick glance here. I like the example of the classes inheriting Animal. Both can talk, but to know how each animal talks, you can't reference the universal definition of talk(). Because it's been overridden. Which is what happens with USRs, and how USRs create rules problems and massive bloat.
The very example you chose was an abstract "talk" being overridden in concrete implementation.
Polymorphism deals with the fact that a method like "listen(Animal animal)" doesn't care if other is a Duck, Dog, etc."
To pseudocode a Warmachine Example,
And you don't care if the Rule is Channeler, Shield Guard, Reposition[3"], etc.
This is applying a rule but the whole point is that the individual rules you apply won't be the same for two disparate units. For instance, Disgustingly Resilient versus Tigirus 4+ ignore mortal wounds spell. It is absolutely baffling to me that you supplied this piece of code since it deals with applying rules not implementing them. Where are the implementations of "Rule?" Can you show me why you'd implement a global, static Rule for Feel No Pain? It makes no sense.
Marmatag wrote: I like how any time these rules are mentioned its with an explanation of what it means, rendering the USR completely moot.
"He has negate 5."
"So that allows him to ignore wounds on a 5+?"
"Yes, but only against mortal wounds."
"Oh, so he's negate 5, mortal wounds."
"Yeah, sorry, in the psychic phase."
"Oh okay, negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase."
"Oh and yeah, this only applies to ADEPTUS ASTARTES."
"Right! Got it. Negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase, adeptus astartes."
Simplicity in motion.
USRs are convenient for some because they were drilled into your heads over half a decade. But that doesn't make them good, and it certainly doesn't make them convenient for anyone who doesn't have your background. You may as well replace this thread title with "I like what I already know."
As opposed to:
"He ignores wounds on a 4+."
"Okay-so like a save?."
"No, it's after saves."
"Okay."
"Wait, but only against mortal wounds."
"Gotcha."
"And, um, only in the psychic phase."
"Anything else?"
"Adesptus Astartes only."
So much simpler to not have common names.
It's just as easy to only say part of the rule regardless of what it's called.
Except the way this is implemented NOW is that it's one sentence on your datasheet. So you just read it. There's no translation needed. It is what it is on your datasheet.
So why is it you can easily read "This power negates wounds dealt on a 4+ from mortal wounds only during the psychic phase. It has a Warp Charge of 7 and can be cast on any Adeptus Astartes unit within 18 inches," but you can't easily read "Negate (4+) [Psychic Phase, Mortal Wounds Only]. Warp Charge 7, 18" range, Adeptus Astartes unit only,"?
Marmatag, I don't get what you're getting at. Particularly this negates mortal wounds against astartes in the psychic phase example that seems to keep making the rounds.
Yes, in that specific example it would be inconvenient.
But what I just explained, was made up off the top of my head while sitting at work. I didn't even explain in any detail what the rules did, but I think anyone reading the blurb at the end would get what I'm talking about. Or could imagine a situation where they could have a similar conversation with someone.
Yes, the first time I have to explain the rules... but by the 3rd game someone plays they've probably run into Negates, Inc Ac, Inc Br, and Fly. They've probably run into Deepstrike and Outflank. And if they haven't, then they will and the next time it happens you just say, "Oh yeah, I know what deep strike does.".
It's useful for in-game quickness. Seriously, it's not necessary that the same terms from old be used. They're just handy shortcuts for us that we all know what it does. That's the handy part of USR that I'm advocating. I do miss them.
Having a general nomenclature that is the same across abilities can be quick, but it's not required. There's a difference between quick reference and hard&fast rules.
The reason we bring up specific cases is because USRs fall apart rapidly because these edge cases are real.
The way these are being referenced now has nothing to do with implementation.
The appropriate definition based on current usage would be:
Feel No Pain - Sometimes abilities allow you to ignore wounds. These will have various names, such as Disgustingly Resilient, and Catalyst. For simplicity these can generally be referred to as "Feel No Pain." I think this is totally superfluous though and only has value because people are used to it. "I don't like change" is an insufficient argument to justify bringing back USR.
Magic Juggler is going a step further and actually describing how it works in the rule, rather than having it be a polymorphic construct. This is what i disagree with as it leads to insane bloat and the rules ultimately become totally obfuscated.
Marmatag wrote: I like how any time these rules are mentioned its with an explanation of what it means, rendering the USR completely moot.
"He has negate 5." "So that allows him to ignore wounds on a 5+?" "Yes, but only against mortal wounds." "Oh, so he's negate 5, mortal wounds." "Yeah, sorry, in the psychic phase." "Oh okay, negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase." "Oh and yeah, this only applies to ADEPTUS ASTARTES." "Right! Got it. Negate 5, mortal wounds, psychic phase, adeptus astartes."
Simplicity in motion.
USRs are convenient for some because they were drilled into your heads over half a decade. But that doesn't make them good, and it certainly doesn't make them convenient for anyone who doesn't have your background. You may as well replace this thread title with "I like what I already know."
As opposed to:
"He ignores wounds on a 4+." "Okay-so like a save?." "No, it's after saves." "Okay." "Wait, but only against mortal wounds." "Gotcha." "And, um, only in the psychic phase." "Anything else?" "Adesptus Astartes only."
So much simpler to not have common names.
It's just as easy to only say part of the rule regardless of what it's called.
Except the way this is implemented NOW is that it's one sentence on your datasheet. So you just read it. There's no translation needed. It is what it is on your datasheet.
So why is it you can easily read "This power negates wounds dealt on a 4+ from mortal wounds only during the psychic phase. It has a Warp Charge of 7 and can be cast on any Adeptus Astartes unit within 18 inches," but you can't easily read "Negate (4+) [Psychic Phase, Mortal Wounds Only]. Warp Charge 7, 18" range, Adeptus Astartes unit only,"?
I just don't see a functional difference here. The only thing is you have to have a general definition of negate and now should ANY rule update that core definition, your USR is useless.
Can we stop dick-wagging about computer code? You're both able to do it, many of us aren't. You are beautiful and amazing snowflakes. Speaking in a way that can't be commonly understood undermines both positions.
Does anyone argue against USR's being convenient for quick communication between players in-game?
Blastaar wrote: Magic players are also capable of learning the rules for keyword abilities and don't have this weird expectation of having them spoon-fed to them every time they play. It's weird that playing with your nose in the codex because you don't remember what your units do is desirable.
You must not have seen a card printed in the last five years
Ever since WotC called out the NWO, outside of rares and mythic rares, all rules are fully written on cards, even those for keywords like first strike or lifelink. Because they have become aware of the problems keywords pose to players. The have acknowledged the need to make keywords to create cards like Akroma, because all the rules spelled out would not fit on cards, but they try to write down rules whenever possible.
For WH40k "whenever possible" is always, since we have a full page to write down all the rules we need.
I've been playing recently, actually. I overlooked the reminder text because I know what everything does. I'm not opposed to reminders or references per se, 40k could introduce unit cards like many other games have and that would be fine. It's this idea some seem to have that looking rules up a few times during the game in a BRB is a tremendous nuisance, and that in fact retaining any of the rules between games is a burden, as is learning to play by making mistakes your first few games (the price you pay for a complex game)- so it's better to simplify it in the extreme instead, because putting effort into something is bad- that I am objecting to.
And it isn't as though 8th isn't bloated- the bloat merely moved from USRs to many pointless variations on the same few rules.
Does anyone argue against USR's being convenient for quick communication between players in-game?
I do.
USRs only speed it up if you already know them. Having the effects listed specifically on the sheet speeds the game up for anyone who isn't like you.
"Ignores wounds on a 5+."
"Has 5+ Feel No Pain."
Is one REALLY that much faster and clearer than the other? Pretend you're talking to someone who didn't play in 7th edition. Their literal first question will be: "what is feel no pain?"
Does anyone argue against USR's being convenient for quick communication between players in-game?
I do.
USRs only speed it up if you already know them. Having the effects listed specifically on the sheet speeds the game up for anyone who isn't like you.
"Ignores wounds on a 5+."
"Has 5+ Feel No Pain."
Is one REALLY that much faster and clearer than the other? Pretend you're talking to someone who didn't play in 7th edition. Their literal first question will be: "what is feel no pain?"
Which is why there should be a section explaining what non-obvious rules do.
And here's the thing-I don't think anyone cares about removing the full text of the rule from the units. That can stay-it does indeed help new players. We just want consistent names.
Because, which is clearer?
"This unit has Manta Strike, this one has Teleportarium Chamber, this one has Low-Orbit Assault, this one has Underground Drilling, and this one has Ancient Teleportation Vaults."
Or...
"These units all have Deep Strike (9"), except the last one, which has Deep Strike (12")."
Does anyone argue against USR's being convenient for quick communication between players in-game?
I do.
USRs only speed it up if you already know them. Having the effects listed specifically on the sheet speeds the game up for anyone who isn't like you.
"Ignores wounds on a 5+."
"Has 5+ Feel No Pain."
Is one REALLY that much faster and clearer than the other? Pretend you're talking to someone who didn't play in 7th edition. Their literal first question will be: "what is feel no pain?"
Which is why there should be a section explaining what non-obvious rules do.
And here's the thing-I don't think anyone cares about removing the full text of the rule from the units. That can stay-it does indeed help new players. We just want consistent names.
Because, which is clearer?
"This unit has Manta Strike, this one has Teleportarium Chamber, this one has Low-Orbit Assault, this one has Underground Drilling, and this one has Ancient Teleportation Vaults."
Or...
"These units all have Deep Strike (9"), except the last one, which has Deep Strike (12")."
If you don't know, you still have to ask. The difference being, if Deep Strike was called Deep Strike universally, once you learned it once, you wouldn't have question it for every other unit.
MagicJuggler wrote: Google functional composition. Or method args. Or anything else related to basic OOP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: This whole discussion is silly anyway. The 8th rulset is far from bloated, and abilities being spelled out on the data sheet is the ideal way to approach it. The challenge is the sheer volume of rule changes that have been made in FAQs, and managing all of that to be in one place and accessible for tournament play.
A problem exacerbated by copypaste and inconsistent rulings.
Why don't you just take a quick glance here. I like the example of the classes inheriting Animal. Both can talk, but to know how each animal talks, you can't reference the universal definition of talk(). Because it's been overridden. Which is what happens with USRs, and how USRs create rules problems and massive bloat.
The very example you chose was an abstract "talk" being overridden in concrete implementation.
Polymorphism deals with the fact that a method like "listen(Animal animal)" doesn't care if other is a Duck, Dog, etc."
To pseudocode a Warmachine Example,
And you don't care if the Rule is Channeler, Shield Guard, Reposition[3"], etc.
This is applying a rule but the whole point is that the individual rules you apply won't be the same for two disparate units. For instance, Disgustingly Resilient versus Tigirus 4+ ignore mortal wounds spell. It is absolutely baffling to me that you supplied this piece of code since it deals with applying rules not implementing them. Where are the implementations of "Rule?" Can you show me why you'd implement a global, static Rule for Feel No Pain? It makes no sense.
The very point of both the "listen" example in the polymorphic wikipage you sent, as well as in the Field Marshal example is that neither method has to actually care about the underlying implementations underneath, since they would have had to been defined in order to actually be instantiated.
I chose Field Marshal, because it literally provides one rule (Channeler, Shield Guard, etc), and says "all models in the 'WarNoun's battlegroup get this ability."
Adapting this 40k terminology, having a Grants Unit[USR] USR would have prevented the bloat that came with some rules having * and others not having it. So you could have Stealth/Grants Unit[Stealth] instead of Stealth/"this model gets +1 cover save", Grants Unit[Hit & Run]/Hit & Run, instead of Hit&Run/"A non-vehicle unit that only contains non-terminator/non-centurion White Scars models counts as having the Hit & Run rule," etc.
Having rules like "Weapon Bonus[Rule]" would allow you to say "this bonus only applies when making attacks with this weapon", to avoid the need for copypaste clauses or edgecases, like what happened with Shred and Interceptor.
Many rules are the composite of several building blocks. Decoupling those blocks allows for more mileage from rules, without needing to create "not a rule" exceptions (which was half the issue with 7th codexes.)
FNP is one example. But the current wording also includes something along the line of unsaved wounds, and in the event of a multi-damage attack you save against each wound individually, not like a saving throw that happens before the number of wounds is determined. So, yes, saying this unit has FNP is faster than describing the process of the entire rule.
Yes, you need to explain it the first time your opponent runs into it. But I don't play against brand new players every single game. Usually, I've played against someone that has heard of a reroll 1's aura. Having a term for it makes it quicker for casual players.
What about,
"Friendly faction units within 6" of this model may reroll attack rolls of 1."
After the first explanation, you're going to shorthand that down to, "Reroll 1's to hit within 6." USR's make that portable between units, factions, even editions in some cases. I don't have to know what an Autarch's exact wording is. A person could just say "he's got an Accuracy aura" and boom. I know what it does. Clear and concise.
Does anyone argue against USR's being convenient for quick communication between players in-game?
I do.
USRs only speed it up if you already know them. Having the effects listed specifically on the sheet speeds the game up for anyone who isn't like you.
"Ignores wounds on a 5+."
"Has 5+ Feel No Pain."
Is one REALLY that much faster and clearer than the other? Pretend you're talking to someone who didn't play in 7th edition. Their literal first question will be: "what is feel no pain?"
I think the advantage would be that once you learn it that first time, you never have to learn it again, and it would sightly decrease the cognitive load of learning so many different units abilities. It also has the exponential effect of letting the knowledge gained about one unit suddenly apply to large numbers of other units. A person could learn their army, and probably understand 50% of another army innately, rather than starting from scratch.
All a USR really is is a rule that is used over and over again, and always means the same thing. I actually think that having these abilities pre determined can be a good thing from a game design standpoint, as they are fairly easy to quantify and compare across units, and gives designers a pool of things to choose from before they create a new unit or codex specific rule.
Ultimately different versions of similar rules don't add very much to the game other than to make it more complicated. I think that we naturally already think in USRs, because of the way our brains lump together similar characteristics of units.
I think the current system works okay though. I would prefer that in the cases they do have abilities that do the same thing they would call them the same thing. I also think weapon keywords are a great idea.
Marmatag wrote: I just don't see how you gain anything with this. Saying "5 up ignores wounds" is just as fast as saying "5 up feel no pain."
I think it's a very small effect for sure.
It would let you create a glossary of sorts where you could have units and then their special rules names only which could be kinda cool, though.
Now, see a glossary is something i would be 100% behind, because it doesn't actually create rules but streamlines communication.
"Generally rules allow you to ignore wounds, such as disgustingly resilient. To speed up gameplay, you can refer to these as 'feel no pain.'" It doesn't say what feel no pain is, just that these rules can be abbreviated in this way. Thus the implementation is still left to the rules themselves while getting a term for them. For feel no pain it's kind of pointless, but deep strike might be helpful.
"Rules that allow you to place models from tactical reserves onto the gaming table during a match can generally be called "deep strike," to speed up gameplay." Again not saying that deep strike means you have to land outside of a bubble, or that it doesn't allow you to move, or that you're restricted to a table edge, etc.
Also, to be clear, I have no objection to having the USR rules printed on data cards and the like. It is good to have reference readily available.
All I'm saying is that putting a keyword to a common ability makes sense for consistency and convenience.
If something is close, but different, give it another name. You could call being able to move and fire heavy weapons without penalty Relentless. Or Heavy Lifter. Or Big Chunk of Meat. You could call it anything. And if you have a rule that lets a model ignore movement penalties if they only move half-distance or less, you could call that Steady, or Strongarm, or Meatball... man I'm hungry... and as long as it's consistent my Ogryns can have Big Chunk of Meat and Russes can have Meatball and everyone knows what it does.
"What do Ogryns do?"
"They're Big Chunks of Meat, unlike the Russes, they're Meatballs."
"Oh, ok. I know what you're talking about because this isn't the first game I've ever played. Man I'm hungry now. What was with these rule designers? Glad I've got a Pasta Maker to deal with those Meatballs."
Marmatag wrote: I just don't see how you gain anything with this. Saying "5 up ignores wounds" is just as fast as saying "5 up feel no pain."
I think it's a very small effect for sure.
It would let you create a glossary of sorts where you could have units and then their special rules names only which could be kinda cool, though.
Now, see a glossary is something i would be 100% behind, because it doesn't actually create rules but streamlines communication.
"Generally rules allow you to ignore wounds, such as disgustingly resilient. To speed up gameplay, you can refer to these as 'feel no pain.'" It doesn't say what feel no pain is, just that these rules can be abbreviated in this way. Thus the implementation is still left to the rules themselves while getting a term for them. For feel no pain it's kind of pointless, but deep strike might be helpful.
"Rules that allow you to place models from tactical reserves onto the gaming table during a match can generally be called "deep strike," to speed up gameplay." Again not saying that deep strike means you have to land outside of a bubble, or that it doesn't allow you to move, or that you're restricted to a table edge, etc.
I also think a place with info at the back of the book with things like:
for every unit wouldn't be out of place for an easy skim of a codex. If the rule is a variation of the normal rule, but a * by it and people could flip to the page.
Marmatag wrote: I just don't see how you gain anything with this. Saying "5 up ignores wounds" is just as fast as saying "5 up feel no pain."
I think it's a very small effect for sure.
It would let you create a glossary of sorts where you could have units and then their special rules names only which could be kinda cool, though.
Now, see a glossary is something i would be 100% behind, because it doesn't actually create rules but streamlines communication.
"Generally rules allow you to ignore wounds, such as disgustingly resilient. To speed up gameplay, you can refer to these as 'feel no pain.'" It doesn't say what feel no pain is, just that these rules can be abbreviated in this way. Thus the implementation is still left to the rules themselves while getting a term for them. For feel no pain it's kind of pointless, but deep strike might be helpful.
"Rules that allow you to place models from tactical reserves onto the gaming table during a match can generally be called "deep strike," to speed up gameplay." Again not saying that deep strike means you have to land outside of a bubble, or that it doesn't allow you to move, or that you're restricted to a table edge, etc.
It really, REALLY seems like you think we're advocating removing the text of rules from datasheets.
Marmatag wrote: I just don't see how you gain anything with this. Saying "5 up ignores wounds" is just as fast as saying "5 up feel no pain."
I think it's a very small effect for sure.
It would let you create a glossary of sorts where you could have units and then their special rules names only which could be kinda cool, though.
Now, see a glossary is something i would be 100% behind, because it doesn't actually create rules but streamlines communication.
"Generally rules allow you to ignore wounds, such as disgustingly resilient. To speed up gameplay, you can refer to these as 'feel no pain.'" It doesn't say what feel no pain is, just that these rules can be abbreviated in this way. Thus the implementation is still left to the rules themselves while getting a term for them. For feel no pain it's kind of pointless, but deep strike might be helpful.
"Rules that allow you to place models from tactical reserves onto the gaming table during a match can generally be called "deep strike," to speed up gameplay." Again not saying that deep strike means you have to land outside of a bubble, or that it doesn't allow you to move, or that you're restricted to a table edge, etc.
Why? That's more clutter, not less. A glossary should merely contain rules and their descriptions, not give permission to use certain optional names for certain types of rules.
Feel No Pain (X+) Done. All you have to learn is that FNP= ignore wounds on a roll of this number or higher. The X allows the required number for success to change depending on the unit or army in question.
Here's an example rule: Deep Strike, for Grey Knights.
Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike During deployment, you can choose to Deep Strike this unit with a teleport chamber instead of deploying them normally. At the end of any of your movement phases, you may have them teleport to the field-set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models.
So, you have [RULE NAME] (Value)-Fluff Name, followed in the next paragraph by the rules with minor fluff.
Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike During deployment, you can choose to Deep Strike this unit with a teleport chamber instead of deploying them normally. At the end of any of your movement phases, you may have them teleport to the field-set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models.
So, you have [RULE NAME] (Value)-Fluff Name, followed in the next paragraph by the rules with minor fluff.
Make sense?
I think so, because in my head I'm already lumping that ability and anything like it together in my own unofficial USR page.
The issue I think with this change and most others is the number of units, abilities, variations of abilities, and the history of units, editions and factions. If you were designing a game from scratch USRs seem like the best thing to do to me, even if each faction pretty much had their own set. As it is now with 40k you either have to water a number of units down by making all the similar USRs the same, or have so many different USRs with numbers and whatnot after them that it's barely different than what we have now.
Either way is probably valid but I don't see it as an obvious or important change over the current system of "read things."
"In the SM Codex, all instances of deploying anywhere outside of 9" is now keyworded as "Deep Strike - 9".
Others could be reworded as "Deep Strike - 12" or whatever. Same with FNP. It doesn't have to be called FNP. It could be called "Negate Wounds" to be more broadly fluff appropriate for both fleshy things that scream and bleed as well as mechanical things that squeal and spark. Or Daemons that could be a mixture of both.
When it gets down to it, whether you call it a glossary or a section of the core rules, it's about ease of communication. We are all doing it here without it existing. Refering to Deep Strike, and Feel no Pain, and other things. I don't see anyone here that's actually objecting to codifying common abilities, while still having the full rules printed on potential unit cards / data sheets.
I suppose that does help with bloat, in some way, as it would increase cross-codex consistency. You know most of the USR from your own, and regardless of the fluff name you would quickly understand what someone else's "Pinpoint accuracy" means when they say it's a "Reroll 1's to Hit Aura", 6".
An Aura could be defined as effecting models being within 6", or defined as units within 6", or models entirely within 6"... pick it. You could define Aura as an effect granted to all friendly faction units within 6", for example, and then all Auras have the same range and same concept of not helping your enemies.
Reroll attack rolls of 1 = Inspired
Reroll all misses = Accurate
For example:
Commander grants "Inspired" within his Aura.
Commander grants "Accurate" within his Aura.
You can create new rules. Once you've used that rule 3 or 4 times (as a games designer) create a keyword for it and stick to it when it's used.
Do we need a USR for Inspired, unless you are armed with a "Bolt" weapon, then you can reroll all attack rolls against Gretchin being granted cover by a forest? No.
But if every commander has a 6" aura that either rerolls 1's to hit or 1's to wound, there should be a common term for it. You can make them more flexible by including a variable (FNP 6+, 5+, 4+ or Bloodthirsty 1-, 2-, 3-)
Bloodthirsty lets you reroll to wound rolls of a given value or less... like Shred used to do.
If a unit has a rule that isn't covered by a USR, create a new rule. If that rule gets used 3-4 times, create a new USR for it. Units within a codex tend to share many USR's. So having a name that you at least keep common within a codex is helpful, and the wider you can spread that the better.
USRs make a lot of sense in many games, but I think we’ve all experienced how GW does them, and it’s not good. While it would in theory make the data sheets much cleaner, in reality there would be a hundred little exceptions and addendums everywhereas GW is wont to do. I prefer a relatively clean USr system ala Star Wars Legion, but 8th editions current system works better than 7th did.
I've yet to see a good reason for why USRs are needed. What do they do that individual rules don't?
If you're just going to retype the rule on each datasheet, why have a USR section at all? You're just restricting yourself to an unnecessarily rigid system for nothing in return.
If you're worried about opponents cheating because you don't know their codex, USRs won't help: "My kroot have deep strike, prove me wrong"
I mean, you could probably make it work, but once you account for every unit, it will become so unwieldy and bloated so as to be worse than the current system. So why bother?
Dandelion wrote: I've yet to see a good reason for why USRs are needed. What do they do that individual rules don't?
If you're just going to retype the rule on each datasheet, why have a USR section at all? You're just restricting yourself to an unnecessarily rigid system for nothing in return.
If you're worried about opponents cheating because you don't know their codex, USRs won't help: "My kroot have deep strike, prove me wrong"
I mean, you could probably make it work, but once you account for every unit, it will become so unwieldy and bloated so as to be worse than the current system. So why bother?
Dandelion wrote: I've yet to see a good reason for why USRs are needed. What do they do that individual rules don't?
If you're just going to retype the rule on each datasheet, why have a USR section at all? You're just restricting yourself to an unnecessarily rigid system for nothing in return.
If you're worried about opponents cheating because you don't know their codex, USRs won't help: "My kroot have deep strike, prove me wrong"
I mean, you could probably make it work, but once you account for every unit, it will become so unwieldy and bloated so as to be worse than the current system. So why bother?
Uniformity and ease of communication are the biggest reasons for USRs. When you say "melta" almost everyone knows that the melta rule does. So instead of having some rule like "Gyro stabilization system", "Firing solution protocol", "Grot bipod", or whatever else you want to make up to give a unit the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. You can just call it "Relentless" and basically everyone knows what that rule does. Its like trying to spell out what trample does in MtG on every single card when you can just slap trample, first strike, defender, lifelink, deathtouch, etc on the card without it taking up a ton of text space or requiring you to read each version of it to make sure it does the same mechanic.
Not saying we need super complex USRs but just some basic stuff that can be applied to units that need it (seriously relentless needs to be commonplace).
leopard wrote: I like the keyword system we have now, what I'd suggest is push it a bit further, with <keyword> traits on weapons, so if a rule impacts <bolt> weapons its pretty clear.
would also have a definitions section in the rules, doesn't need to be long, to clearly cover such as
within entirely within model - e.g. do antenna, wings etc count
cover that singular references also include the plural and vice versa unless said otherwise
within and entirely within are already clarified per FAQ and are actually pretty self explanatory.
As for the "model" issue, it should just be base-to-base based TLOS system. GW needs to release a proper LOS tool like Army Painter has and not make it a third party item. Also need to get rid of multi-level ruins for normal scenarios and make it city-fight exclusive mechanism. If I had a nickel for every time wonky interaction occurred due to their measuring standards.
Warhammer came from a role play mindset where most races had access to most same or similar equipment and the race itself granted the race specific adjustments to how that all got used. There were special things for each but generally what evened things out was how stuff got kitted out. These days everything has an alien name TM and special goo so GeeDubs can own it and in so doing whatever stuff had in common got diluted and now it is difficult holding it all together. Seems USRs can specify race based abilities and much of the rest could fall on equipment profiles which also have USRs associated. So stealth cloak is an equp type and each race or unit may have a special kind of stealth cloak which does slightly different things but just saying stealth cloak tells us what to expect... Meanwhile alien race K has a jibbersmash obfuscant and race J has a turnivolence shard... They might do the same or similar things but these names don't tell us that at all. So data sheets end up doing the work instead. Dunno how this is an improvement. Def not simpler and easier.
The advantage would be that GW could create FAQs about the interaction of FNP and certain other rules without any ambiguity.
Or they could create a new beta rule akin to "Feel no Pain rolls can no longer be used against mortal wounds" without needing to explicitly call out every variant across the game.
jeff white wrote: Meanwhile alien race K has a jibbersmash obfuscant and race J has a turnivolence shard... They might do the same or similar things but these names don't tell us that at all. So data sheets end up doing the work instead. Dunno how this is an improvement. Def not simpler and easier.
I can memorize what every relic and unit does in my codex and if I forget I just go to the unit and bam there's the info.
If this was 7th I would have to find it in the sea of special rules that was the 7th rule book.
At the end of the day there isn't a "perfect" way other than just making unit cards for yourself and calling it a day.
Uniformity and ease of communication are the biggest reasons for USRs. When you say "melta" almost everyone knows that the melta rule does. So instead of having some rule like "Gyro stabilization system", "Firing solution protocol", "Grot bipod", or whatever else you want to make up to give a unit the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. You can just call it "Relentless" and basically everyone knows what that rule does. Its like trying to spell out what trample does in MtG on every single card when you can just slap trample, first strike, defender, lifelink, deathtouch, etc on the card without it taking up a ton of text space or requiring you to read each version of it to make sure it does the same mechanic.
Not saying we need super complex USRs but just some basic stuff that can be applied to units that need it (seriously relentless needs to be commonplace).
So it seems you just want common terms for certain broad actions. But are they really needed? Have you had problems in games where a USR would have solved the issue? Do you struggle to convey what your units do? Is it a time issue? What exactly is the problem? I haven't had any issues in my games over special rules, so it would be helpful to see where you are running into problems.
Also, USRs are a double-edged sword for ease of communication. If I don't know every special rule by heart, they do me no good and are an active hindrance. Long term players memorize them just from repetition but once a month gamers forget those rules. And at the end of the day, we don't actually care about it's name, we care about what it does. I barely remember any names TBH.
Now, if you just want a glossary of terms, or even just definitions, that's another topic entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: The advantage would be that GW could create FAQs about the interaction of FNP and certain other rules without any ambiguity.
Or they could create a new beta rule akin to "Feel no Pain rolls can no longer be used against mortal wounds" without needing to explicitly call out every variant across the game.
Outside of that... not much.
The disadvantage would then be that it's not granular enough to carefully adjust each unit individually. So, not a whole lot gained imo.
jeff white wrote: Meanwhile alien race K has a jibbersmash obfuscant and race J has a turnivolence shard... They might do the same or similar things but these names don't tell us that at all. So data sheets end up doing the work instead. Dunno how this is an improvement. Def not simpler and easier.
I can memorize what every relic and unit does in my codex and if I forget I just go to the unit and bam there's the info.
If this was 7th I would have to find it in the sea of special rules that was the 7th rule book.
At the end of the day there isn't a "perfect" way other than just making unit cards for yourself and calling it a day.
Trouble is then you still know nuthn about the other guys shenanigans going in unless you study their cards as well...
Uniformity and ease of communication are the biggest reasons for USRs. When you say "melta" almost everyone knows that the melta rule does. So instead of having some rule like "Gyro stabilization system", "Firing solution protocol", "Grot bipod", or whatever else you want to make up to give a unit the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. You can just call it "Relentless" and basically everyone knows what that rule does. Its like trying to spell out what trample does in MtG on every single card when you can just slap trample, first strike, defender, lifelink, deathtouch, etc on the card without it taking up a ton of text space or requiring you to read each version of it to make sure it does the same mechanic.
Not saying we need super complex USRs but just some basic stuff that can be applied to units that need it (seriously relentless needs to be commonplace).
So it seems you just want common terms for certain broad actions. But are they really needed? Have you had problems in games where a USR would have solved the issue? Do you struggle to convey what your units do? Is it a time issue? What exactly is the problem? I haven't had any issues in my games over special rules, so it would be helpful to see where you are running into problems.
Also, USRs are a double-edged sword for ease of communication. If I don't know every special rule by heart, they do me no good and are an active hindrance. Long term players memorize them just from repetition but once a month gamers forget those rules. And at the end of the day, we don't actually care about it's name, we care about what it does. I barely remember any names TBH.
Now, if you just want a glossary of terms, or even just definitions, that's another topic entirely.
I want both USRs for unification purposes and more importantly I want GW to start putting such mechanics back into the game so we can get some more variety in how units operate. Most common complaint I have is with the lack of relentless which was probably the most common USR used in previous editions. GW struggles to fit all the rules on a unit profile page so it really leaves little space to add more complexity to the game without turning into tiny text salad. With USRs you can just put Relentless, Fearless, etc into a unit profile and it communicates how the unit works without a block of text. Again MtG has a moderate amount of such rules and it doesn't seem to create a large barrier to entry issues. The more commonly used USRs in 7th didn't give me much trouble to learn but I will admit I didn't bother to learn them all but looking them up was simple enough with a book mark or a reference sheet.
I don't hide my disdain for 8th edition and it's lack of depth but if it's here to stay then I would like to see a bigger toolbox to work with and USRs are a good tool to have in creating unit complexity.
Most of these suggestions I'm seeing for USR aren't really improving on GW's bespoke rules method. While we could use better consistancy in how GW write similar and/or functionally identical rules, I'm seeing how creating a USR and forcing it's use would really improve them.
Yes, most "FNP" rules work exactly the same, but it is still better to have the rule written right here on the data sheet than needing to reference some page in the rulebook to know exactly how it works.
Ironically, GW has provided a number of USRs in the rules, they just don't point them out as such and put them in a section with a header. They have given us:
Fly: The Keyword of multiple rules interactions. Would we be better off if all the rules interaction of fly were removed from the part of the rules they interact with an put in a different part of the rules?
Reinforcements: The rule that covers so many circumstances and desperately needs to be mentioned by name rather than left to the user to decide actually applies in a specific circumstance.
Weapon Types: The five USRs that govern all shooting attacks.
Invulnerable Saves: Every Army has them and GW never repeats the rules on how they work on a datasheet.
Characters: Another Keyword that interacts with various rules sections.
Heroic Intervention: A character rule GW found so cool that they are now giving it out as a special treat to non-character units a a rapid pace.
I want both USRs for unification purposes and more importantly I want GW to start putting such mechanics back into the game so we can get some more variety in how units operate. Most common complaint I have is with the lack of relentless which was probably the most common USR used in previous editions. GW struggles to fit all the rules on a unit profile page so it really leaves little space to add more complexity to the game without turning into tiny text salad. With USRs you can just put Relentless, Fearless, etc into a unit profile and it communicates how the unit works without a block of text. Again MtG has a moderate amount of such rules and it doesn't seem to create a large barrier to entry issues. The more commonly used USRs in 7th didn't give me much trouble to learn but I will admit I didn't bother to learn them all but looking them up was simple enough with a book mark or a reference sheet.
I don't hide my disdain for 8th edition and it's lack of depth but if it's here to stay then I would like to see a bigger toolbox to work with and USRs are a good tool to have in creating unit complexity.
So let's see:
1) Unification purposes: I'm not entirely sure why we need uniformity in special rules. Making every unit follow the same template just hinders creative freedom in unit design.
2) More mechanics: I'm defo on board for more mechanics, and especially relentless-type rules, but I don't see what that has to do with USRs. GW can just write "ignore heavy weapon penalty for moving" instead of creating a USR. It's effectively the same.
3) Text salad: I haven't had trouble reading/understanding rules on the pages. In fact I rather like the fact that the whole rules are on the datasheet. it makes using the unit so much easier since everything you need to know about the unit is on the sheet. No back and forth nonsense between books. It might be clunky at times but it's certainly clear and easy to use.
Honestly tho, I don't even bother reading the names of the rules. I just know that unit X can do Y which is why I don't see the point in organizing the names.
Jidmah wrote: The advantage would be that GW could create FAQs about the interaction of FNP and certain other rules without any ambiguity.
Or they could create a new beta rule akin to "Feel no Pain rolls can no longer be used against mortal wounds" without needing to explicitly call out every variant across the game.
Outside of that... not much.
The disadvantage would then be that it's not granular enough to carefully adjust each unit individually. So, not a whole lot gained imo.
You simply have to do it like MtG is doing it. If it's kind of like Lifelink, but works slightly different, don't call it Lifelink.
If it's not FNP, don't call it FNP. That thing which only works on the last wound and for moral casualties? Not FNP. Only works against mortal wounds in the psychic phase? Not FNP. Ignores wounds lost on a 3+? FNP: Whenever you would lose a wound, roll a d6. On a roll of 3+, you do not lose that wound. Bonus points for bolding the 3+ to make it more readable.
I want both USRs for unification purposes and more importantly I want GW to start putting such mechanics back into the game so we can get some more variety in how units operate. Most common complaint I have is with the lack of relentless which was probably the most common USR used in previous editions. GW struggles to fit all the rules on a unit profile page so it really leaves little space to add more complexity to the game without turning into tiny text salad. With USRs you can just put Relentless, Fearless, etc into a unit profile and it communicates how the unit works without a block of text. Again MtG has a moderate amount of such rules and it doesn't seem to create a large barrier to entry issues. The more commonly used USRs in 7th didn't give me much trouble to learn but I will admit I didn't bother to learn them all but looking them up was simple enough with a book mark or a reference sheet.
I don't hide my disdain for 8th edition and it's lack of depth but if it's here to stay then I would like to see a bigger toolbox to work with and USRs are a good tool to have in creating unit complexity.
So let's see:
1) Unification purposes: I'm not entirely sure why we need uniformity in special rules. Making every unit follow the same template just hinders creative freedom in unit design.
2) More mechanics: I'm defo on board for more mechanics, and especially relentless-type rules, but I don't see what that has to do with USRs. GW can just write "ignore heavy weapon penalty for moving" instead of creating a USR. It's effectively the same.
3) Text salad: I haven't had trouble reading/understanding rules on the pages. In fact I rather like the fact that the whole rules are on the datasheet. it makes using the unit so much easier since everything you need to know about the unit is on the sheet. No back and forth nonsense between books. It might be clunky at times but it's certainly clear and easy to use.
Honestly tho, I don't even bother reading the names of the rules. I just know that unit X can do Y which is why I don't see the point in organizing the names.
1. This is not about creative straightjacketing. This is about calling a spade a spade. This is creating Smite(X), instead of "This model does 1 or D3, d3 or d6, etc." This is definining what an attack is, how "modifiers" work versus "hit rate resets," ("Is a Culexus Assassin immune to melee vs a Stun Grenaded unit, using the Reaper Rangefinder precedent that Etherium is resetting WS/BS instead of being a flat hitrate override?", out-of-phase interactions, etc. Without needing to turn every ruling into a contradictory one.
2. "Ignore Penalty[Move&Fire Heavy]. This makes it easier to prevent people from "accidentally" conflating those rules with other ones ("treat Heavy as Assault," etc).
3. Half the issue of course is having unintuitive names (Move Through Cover could easily be Ignore Difficult Terrain, etc), similar-sounding rules that do different things (Crusader vs Zealot, Hammer of Wrath vs Strikedown), different-sounding rules that do the same thing, non-atomic rules and magic exceptions including my favorite lolwat:
Skitarii in a Dominus Maniple had Scout, but could not Outflank due to that rule (but due to another one). However, Scout was a "*" rule, meaning if at least one model had it, the whole unit had it. Adding a character from another Detachment (ex. A Rune Priest) could let a cheating player argue the unit could now outflank, since the Rune Priest now had the Outflank ability from Scout, which was also a * USR. However, RAW, the Outflank USR and the ability to Outflank were not reflexive: Just because a->b did not mean b->a. Had Scout and Outflank been decoupled, this would have been a non-issue.
It really doesn't help the discussion if half of the examples provided have been buried a year ago.
You are arguing that an edition without USR should have more USR, but keep providing us with problems that only the edition with USR had.
The whole * issue has been eliminated alongside independent characters. Either the rule is an aura that provides benefits or you simply don't have to worry about any rules not on your datasheet.
1. This is not about creative straightjacketing. This is about calling a spade a spade. This is creating Smite(X), instead of "This model does 1 or D3, d3 or d6, etc." This is definining what an attack is, how "modifiers" work versus "hit rate resets," ("Is a Culexus Assassin immune to melee vs a Stun Grenaded unit, using the Reaper Rangefinder precedent that Etherium is resetting WS/BS instead of being a flat hitrate override?", out-of-phase interactions, etc. Without needing to turn every ruling into a contradictory one.
2. "Ignore Penalty[Move&Fire Heavy]. This makes it easier to prevent people from "accidentally" conflating those rules with other ones ("treat Heavy as Assault," etc).
3. Half the issue of course is having unintuitive names (Move Through Cover could easily be Ignore Difficult Terrain, etc), similar-sounding rules that do different things (Crusader vs Zealot, Hammer of Wrath vs Strikedown), different-sounding rules that do the same thing, non-atomic rules and magic exceptions including my favorite lolwat:
Skitarii in a Dominus Maniple had Scout, but could not Outflank due to that rule (but due to another one). However, Scout was a "*" rule, meaning if at least one model had it, the whole unit had it. Adding a character from another Detachment (ex. A Rune Priest) could let a cheating player argue the unit could now outflank, since the Rune Priest now had the Outflank ability from Scout, which was also a * USR. However, RAW, the Outflank USR and the ability to Outflank were not reflexive: Just because a->b did not mean b->a. Had Scout and Outflank been decoupled, this would have been a non-issue.
1) But you're assuming that most rules are reused from unit to unit without changes. I cannot make a USR for Steel Behemoth and Super Heavy Walker because they are different. I cannot make a USR for Grinding Advance and Pulsed Laser DIscharge because they are different. (not to mention those are the only two variants of that rule, which hardly warrants a Universal Special Rule)
What about Faction traits? Those are special rules and most of them are unique. Do we make a USR for each of them? If GW had actually copypasted the rules then a USR could work, but they haven't. The differences in similar rules impact how they work. Custodes can ignore wounds during the psychic phase only. Whereas Death Guard can ignore all wounds. The difference was intended. If you tried to account for every variation of every rule you would end up with an encyclopedia of USRs. The only way to "reduce bloat" would be to cut down on each variation.
2) Are you saying that USRs reduce cheating? There's more than one way to cheat, at that point a USR isn't going to help much. The guy could just give his units rules they don't have. And honestly, I would not bother playing a game with someone like that.
3) I barely know the names of any of the abilities my units have. They don't matter at all.
All I know is that having the full rules on the datasheet is amazing and I would never willingly go back to searching through the BRB for rules.
1. This is not about creative straightjacketing. This is about calling a spade a spade. This is creating Smite(X), instead of "This model does 1 or D3, d3 or d6, etc." This is definining what an attack is, how "modifiers" work versus "hit rate resets," ("Is a Culexus Assassin immune to melee vs a Stun Grenaded unit, using the Reaper Rangefinder precedent that Etherium is resetting WS/BS instead of being a flat hitrate override?", out-of-phase interactions, etc. Without needing to turn every ruling into a contradictory one.
2. "Ignore Penalty[Move&Fire Heavy]. This makes it easier to prevent people from "accidentally" conflating those rules with other ones ("treat Heavy as Assault," etc).
3. Half the issue of course is having unintuitive names (Move Through Cover could easily be Ignore Difficult Terrain, etc), similar-sounding rules that do different things (Crusader vs Zealot, Hammer of Wrath vs Strikedown), different-sounding rules that do the same thing, non-atomic rules and magic exceptions including my favorite lolwat:
Skitarii in a Dominus Maniple had Scout, but could not Outflank due to that rule (but due to another one). However, Scout was a "*" rule, meaning if at least one model had it, the whole unit had it. Adding a character from another Detachment (ex. A Rune Priest) could let a cheating player argue the unit could now outflank, since the Rune Priest now had the Outflank ability from Scout, which was also a * USR. However, RAW, the Outflank USR and the ability to Outflank were not reflexive: Just because a->b did not mean b->a. Had Scout and Outflank been decoupled, this would have been a non-issue.
1) But you're assuming that most rules are reused from unit to unit without changes. I cannot make a USR for Steel Behemoth and Super Heavy Walker because they are different. I cannot make a USR for Grinding Advance and Pulsed Laser DIscharge because they are different. (not to mention those are the only two variants of that rule, which hardly warrants a Universal Special Rule)
What about Faction traits? Those are special rules and most of them are unique. Do we make a USR for each of them? If GW had actually copypasted the rules then a USR could work, but they haven't. The differences in similar rules impact how they work. Custodes can ignore wounds during the psychic phase only. Whereas Death Guard can ignore all wounds. The difference was intended. If you tried to account for every variation of every rule you would end up with an encyclopedia of USRs. The only way to "reduce bloat" would be to cut down on each variation.
......
Yes! Remove all the small, pointless variations. In a game of this scale, it isn't useful to have to care about when a unit has FNP. Always? Only with one wound remaining? Only against psychic powers? Only when surrounded by grots doing gangnum style? Who cares? Those minute differences don't make units unique, or interesting. Then there's the issue of what most of these rules do. Rolls to ignore wounds, rerolling dice, +1/-1 to X, fight twice, etc. They're all so.....boring and one-dimensional.
A game team that's disciplined enough to create streamlined, grokkable USRs will naturally avoid rules bloat.
You give USRs to the guys who gave us 8th's keyword system? Welcome to a 25-page glossary explaining how "Zealous Interdiction (Sanguine Assault)" is the same as "Triumphal Swarm Mephitus," except models move an extra inch versus <KHORNE DAEMONS> when there's a HERETIC ASTARTES unit within 8" and line of sight.
Having worked with editors and creatives my entire life, I'm pretty sure the process that killed USRs looked like this:
• Some smart rules guy(s) looked at the GW team and evaluated their chances of getting a sensible product through that meatgrinder. ("You know George isn't going to let us publish a product that doesn't feature his precious Nurgle palanquin." "Gods, I know.")
• After some consideration, they figured the actual doable option was limiting rules writers to a quarter-page of space per datasheet. Later, after George brought up (in three consecutive meetings) that he could save 23 lines in his datasheets if they'd just let him put "Voidal Engagement Strike" in the BRB, these same smart rules guy(s) sold the top brass on a beginner-friendly 4-page ruleset. "Sorry blokes," they told the rest of the team. "Top brass now wants 4 pages of rules. We're going to have to scrap USRs, I'm afraid. I'm shattered, too."
• Later, some marketer saw the insistence on "4 pages!" and ran with it in the ad copy. No one's more stung by that than George, naturally.
(The real tragedy came when the designer saw the mutilations they were going to do to his glorious layout to make this 4-page thing work. He's expected to wake from his shock-induced coma any day now.)
I feel like USR desire would disappear if they'd provide Datasheet cards like they do with AoS. If someone wants to see the ability you hand them the card and they can read it. Is quite handy and nice to have.
For me, I am glad the USR are gone(except for FLY). I hated nothing more than having to flip through the damn mini rulebook that everyone had to buy just so they had access to the USR list.
Ultimately I must admit that I do not see any need for USR to come back as you would still have to write all the rules for that ability on each datasheet regardless(it is the paradigm for this edition and a really nice paradigm).Although I would love nothing more than if the datasheets for deepstriking abilities would have a deep strike but worded differently depending on army just so people can start arguing over semantics and which one is the true deep strike. It would be quite hilarious.
Actually happy in some ways with the removal of USR and the keyword system & data sheets.
avoids models wither being shoehorned into a USR that doesn't really fit, so they either have to live with it, or are given another "USR" thats essentially the same with minor changes.
you also then get an FAQ change to a USR to solve a problem that causes others because the designers forgot that unit "X" had it.
at least this way they have to fix the actual data sheets.
I like the idea of USR, heck my favourite game of all time Star Fleet Battles is basically built on them, the game defines five types of Phaser, and everyone uses them, how they interact with everything else is clearly laid out. When they wanted something else they created a different system, and then wrote all the interactions.
A few key concepts cover a lot of the rules (e.g. "Direct Fire Weapons" dictate how such work, phasers are then a sub type)
the draw back is you get a somewhat large rulebook, the game is very easy to play as a result, but you get a book you can beat people to death with.
What GW have done for 8th is probably a decent compromise, given their inability to create a working rules framework - see how they "simplified" the game by removing the "M" stat, and then how many USRs were created to get around this
I am quite happy with the new rules format - I don't miss long lists of USRs. I am also not sure what "bloat" is occurring.
Putting the rules in the datasheets keeps the rulebook short. It means that special rules can be tailored to specific units, and rules can be tweaked for certain units to target problem areas. It facilitates the living rule idea that I think will be good for the game in the long term.
I don't find it confusing. I offer an opponent a quick rundown of my units and their rules before the game, which usually results in them quickly explaining their units to me. I don't worry about the names of the rules, and we rarely if ever have to refer to the rulebook. I haven't had any real "gotcha" moments with opponents and the bespoke rules for their units.
I think it was a positive step for 40K and hope they stick with it. They can modify the system for years now without needing a new edition.
Only things I really miss in 8th are a decent terrain system (a rant for another day, I expect it will be sorted in an expansion though) and vehicle facings.
I gather vehicle facings were dropped to avoid confusion over where the arcs are on stuff thats not basically a box - would have thought with the data sheets we now have an illustration on each for arcs would be very easy (say different T & Sv per arc), could fold weapon arcs in very easily
leopard wrote: Only things I really miss in 8th are a decent terrain system (a rant for another day, I expect it will be sorted in an expansion though) and vehicle facings.
I gather vehicle facings were dropped to avoid confusion over where the arcs are on stuff thats not basically a box - would have thought with the data sheets we now have an illustration on each for arcs would be very easy (say different T & Sv per arc), could fold weapon arcs in very easily
The problem there was vehicles who were nowhere near the points that they had been costed with due to the weird facing of their weapons. Like sure Necron Monoliths / Vaults / Obelisk had some interesting weapons, but they were also literally unusable against anything but fliers and you couldn't employ all their guns except in very limited situations. I think GW decided that they didn't want to deal with the arguments about weapon arcs or facings any longer, and wanted to give people the freedom to model their vehicles more creatively without punishing those who might restrict the range of movement certain weapons had.
People had been asking for Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles to have a unified rulset for a long time, and now we've got it. It doesn't represent the individual parts failing like the old damage table used to, but it does do a decent job of representing the degradation of performance, and that makes it much more interesting in my opinion. Random 'you exploded in one shot, too bad' generally made vehicles that were not free / dirt cheap unappealing to take compared to monstrous creatures.
, out-of-phase interactions, etc. Without needing to turn every ruling into a contradictory one.