Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Following a lot of the 5th edition talk for a while now, and especially following the 5th edition release of the new SM codex I thought I'd post a new Poll to see what people think about the pattern of breaking the core rules with codex especific exceptions. While this is easy to spot in the new Marine Codex it is also present in a lot of other codexes, even, and especially in some cases, legacy ones.

I'm talking about mechanics that work the same for everyone except a certain army:

Combat Squads and KP/scoring unit count
Faith Points
Hive Mind
We'll Be Back
Stubborn
Book of St Lucious
Rights of Battle
Demon Codex Deployment
Hit and Run
ATSKNF
(and things like these)

What do you think?

Irritating or Fun?

I suggest that all these exceptions to the rules are generally negative things, as they tend to create situations that agravate players and are difficult to learn as they are unique situations, (or pinhole army selections into obvious patterns). Some of these concepts are not even in the core rules. I am certainly not trying to pick on any army, and I hope the thread doesnt turn into army 'X' is irritating etc. Recognizing the realities of publishing all the material needed to play the game will never be published all at once, I still suggest that at least going forward codexes could easily be written to stay in the context of the rules in the core book but aren't for some reason?

I'm of the opinion that when used in moderation, rule "breaks" can be fun and help to cement the character of an army in a concrete fashion(pun). As far as being difficult to learn, the exceptions often help me learn the core rules and vice versa. As long as there aren't too many, I like them and they are fun to learn. Gw does have a problem with creating "exception" rules that suddenly create problems for certain other rules and then not solving these issues in a timely fashion. That comes down to whether the gaming group wants to rule a certain way or not, so it doesn't have to be as much of a problem. If you are a tourney organizer, you can put out pre-approved versions of how you will rule things and solve it that way.

Hit and Run, and Stubborn, are both Universal Special Rules.

What's irritating is when there are special rules with the same name, such as Feel No Pain, the modern version and the Dark Eldar version.

Still, the fans seem to demand it. Apparently special rules with characterful names are more fun than generic rules. The trick seems to be in giving generic rules fluffy names, or making sure your base of generic special rules has the combinatoriality that they can be combined together as special rules under a fluffy name. Terminator Armour, for example.

I agree with Railguns that major breaks ought to be used to more clearly define something truly distinctive about an army.

Exceptions, or 'Special Rules' are fine. The problems really only come when you've got exceptions to exceptions.

This can be flat-out exceptions to exceptions like "AV14 vs everything except Lances except when AV14 is also Living Metal" or exceptions within exceptions, like the current unnecessary clunkiness of the Feel No Pain rule "4+ save, take after another save (one exception), except against certain strengths (exception to first exception) and against certain APs (second exception to first exception)".

Also, if you've noticed, if you say a word (like exception) over and over again - even in your head - it loses all meaning. I used it 9 times in the above paragraph, and I don't know what the word means any more...

The system of exceptions also breaks down when it's done randomly and differently from Codex to Codex. We all remember the situation in 4th Ed where they were four slightly different versions of True Grit. Sadly this situation won't improve, as GW has no interest in maintaining a consistent rulebase. So expect to have many different versions of the same rules in the days to come...

BYE

I think that one of the cool parts of the 40k rules, particularly since 3rd edition, has been that each army "breaks" core rules in one or more ways. The armies aren't just different stat lines or combinations of stat-lines: each army has a feel that is partially created by the changes to the rules that the army allows, even if the rules they break are unwritten (like the new Bolter, Bolt Pistol, CCW Chaos Marines)

Platoons are key to IG, ATSKNF is a key peice of the SM play, Nids have synapse.

The worst of the rules exceptions are "patch" rules: rules that cover up a weakness in the basic rules. Feel No Pain exists in such convoluted form because there are no armor save modifiers or ways to do multiple wounds outside of Instant Death. Living Metal is a mess for many, many reasons, not the least of which was the fragility of vehicles, the lack of modifiers, etc.

I actually like the uniqueness of it.

I like them, although sometimes I wish there was a little more you could do with the core rules.

Well looks like a 50-50 split, 7-7 when I posted this.

To those who like the exceptions I offer this example:

Harlequins are completely out of control here are their special rules:

Fleet of Foot
Flip Belt
Holosuit
Harlequins Kiss
Halucinogen Grenades
Veil of Tears
Dance of Death

6 special rules with silly names? Irritating. At least some are USRs Why not stay in the core rules of the game instead of inventing rules that are convoluted like this.

So lets simplify this mess to get a bit better list:

Flip Belt->Ignore Difficult Terrain (A unique power)
Holosuit->5+ I save (fine in the stat line as 5+I)
Harlequin's Kiss->Rending (To be better in CC)
Halucinogen Grenades ->Plasma Grenades->Frag Grenades->Assault Grenades
Veil of Tears->~Warlock Power Night Fight (make up for being T3 5+)
Dance of Death->Furious Assault
Dance of Death->Hit and Run

Use of a synonym for a USR is poorly designed. Why not just use the USR? Next rules that are unique but slightly different from existing USRs are unnecessary, again, why not just use the standard USR?

Harlequins are a mess, taking this into account here is a more reasonable list minus the synonyms and the mild variants:

Move Through Cover
Rending
Assault Grenades
Night Fight
Furious Assault
Hit and Run

Looking at this list, there are a lot of things that are redundant, after the purposes are considered:

Fleet-Faster
Move Through Cover-Faster
Rending-Better CC: vs Armor
Assault Grenades-Better CC: Order
Night Fight-Compensate for T3 5sv
Furious Assault-Better CC S
Hit and Run-Better in CC

Assuming one used only USR, Stats and Standard Wargear these effects could be logically standardized within the context of the existing game by taking everything above and changing it to:

S4
Power Weapons
Assault Grenades
3+Inv
Jump Infantry

and not require any convoluted rules and keep all the fluff in the stories. Theres a simple list.

Point is, keep the pretty names and counts as references where they fit best, in the fluff!

Augustus wrote:Harlequins are completely out of control here are their special rules:

Hold on, hold on. Not all special rules are exceptions. Exception would imply 'in place of'. Some of these (like Furious Charge) are 'as well as'. Holosuit, the Kiss, Veil of Tears and Dance of Death are additions. Rules that override existing ones (like, Fleet, which is may run D6" in shooting phase but may not assault except if you have fleet, or Flip Belts, take X terrain test except when you have a flip belt), those are exceptions. The ones that add to existing rules, whilst keeping the existing rules, they're not exceptions.

So can we please clear up what we're attempting to define here:

Actual exceptions (like Living Metal, like FNP, etc.) or anything that isn't a basic rule (move, shoot, strength value, toughness value, armour save).

Augustus wrote:6 special rules with silly names? Irritating. At least some are USRs Why not stay in the core rules of the game instead of inventing rules that are convoluted like this.

It's characterful. Truthfully everything should reference a USR unless it is a truly unique rule, but there's no reason not to have fluff-driven names for them.

Furious Charge? Is their Furious Charge the same - in the fluff - as a Khorne Berzerker's Furious Charge? No. One is a raging maniac; the other is a dancing clown. There's no reason it can't be:

Dance of Death:

*fluff fluff fluff*

All Harlis have the Furious Charge USR.

That way you've given them a USR, so that's easily defined and unchangeable, and some fluff to explain why they have it. Not irritating at all.

BYE

It all depends on the context really. So long as they are costed correctly I generally don't have a problem, however too often (St.Lucius, Combat Tactics+ATSKNF+Combat Squads, etc) I'm not sure they are costed high enough.

I agree with HBMC and Polonius. The ways different armies break the standard rules are often the most characterful and interesting part of their unique play experience. I remember the first time I tried playing as Tyranids, back in 3rd, how the Synapse radius made my swarm army FEEL like one big organism moving together, extending tendrils but with no or few independently working parts.

The key thing with special rules has to be making them clear and consistent, and minimizing the “exceptions to exceptions”, like Living Metal.

The only kind of special rules that really annoy me are when an army is designed to have a weakness, then they throw in an optional piece of wargear or unit choice which substantially ameliorates the weakness, becoming a mandatory upgrade (like the Necron Resurrection Orb). If you’re going to do that, just re-write the main rule.

I have to admit I am playing a Tyranid army as my primary army and I can't really imagine any sort of USR or regular rule that would make them feel like Tyranids when they play like hive mind does.

Even though it is an exception, which I am critical of, I can't help but recognize when the case against it is pretty weak.

I completely agree with the Necron point! I also think the book of saint lucious is the same way in a sisters army.

I also let some of my opinions about the Eldar codex layout slip into this, thanks for the perspective (but I still think it is a huge mess). Some of my critiques could probably be cleaned up by improved codex layout, I suppose the "irritating" component also comes from flipping from Army Entry->Unit Entry->Wargear Section->Main rules to understand something when it could have been either listed as a USR in the army entry or not had a cute name. Which is not entirely the same issue.

Good points all.

I have no problem with additional powers, especially if it is, for example, Harlequins Kiss....blah blah pointy death thing whats makes you asplode-counts as rending.

The rules are the functional part of the game, but for most the deciding factor for what army we play isn't what rules they have or that they are more cost efficient at having X ap2 weapon platforms or whatever. The deciding factor is the feel and theme of an army. Giving something a special rule to characterize it doesn't really work unless it has a name and imaginable action you can attribute to it that appeals to you. Rending from Genestealer claws and from assault cannon bullets are different, but they have the same game effect. Flying 12 inches with a jetpack or 12 inches with huge biological wings are different, but with the same game effect. I like that, the wrinkles are easier to learn than homogenized rules. I'm all for standardized USRs, but we can do that AND be creative.

As long as the rules don't conflict eachother (like old inferno canons VS the old unstable writing for fearless) I don't care. I would prefer the rules be well written (unlike synapse or we will be back) so as to avoid random questions. Fortunately the last couple of codexes have been fairly unambiguous so it looks like they are getting better.

My big problem is when GW uses "Almost Universal Rules", something they have thankfully been moving away from (although I'll bet there's still some examples out there.)

By this I mean Feet of Foot, Feet of Claw, etc... They're effectively the same, but have different names and may have a couple very minor technical differences. or True Grit, which worked differently for different forces.

The cleaner game rules often remind me of computer programing API guides. Individual rules are like Functions, and may have arguments. For example, True Grit should be noted in an army list as True Grit (Boltgun, Storm Bolter) to note it works with Bolters and Stormbolters in that particular use.

Right.

I think it's fine for an army to have one Army Special Rule that helps define them (or even two or three). And it's fine for a few elite units to have Unit Special Rules.

The problem is when they have contradictory exclusions. "Always count as armed with two CCWs." "Opponents never benefit from having a second CCW." Also the pseudo-USR like True Grit (which thankfully is going away - and has two different versions in different editions of the SW codex).

I wouldn't consider anything that is in the BGB as a core breaking. I get annoyed when they get something that is outside of that. Like Heroic intervention being the most blaringly obvious.

dietrich:

I think the thing about the close combat weapons is only superficially contradictory. If a model always counts as having two close combat weapons, and is engaged in combat with a model whose opponents never benefit from having a second close combat weapon, it seems clear that always having two close combat weapons does not necessitate always benefiting from two close combat weapons.

Ratbarf wrote:I wouldn't consider anything that is in the BGB as a core breaking. I get annoyed when they get something that is outside of that. Like Heroic intervention being the most blaringly obvious.

Breaks core mechanic? Check. Completely unnecessary? Check. No fluff justification whatsoever? Check. For space marines? Check.

Heroic Intervention. Stupidest. Rule. Ever.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:No fluff justification whatsoever? Check.

What are you talking about? They're Space Marines, which are heroic. They need to be able to do all the heroic stuff.
They fight aliens and don't afraid of anything.

The point is, they can do it, but why no one else? Why are they, alone, the only Jump Pack troops in the galaxy capable of doing this? Why are 10,000 year old Horus Heresy Veteran Raptors unable to do this?

BYE

They fight aliens and don't afraid of anything.

I love space marine, he fights aliens and doesn't afraid of anything!

The point is, they can do it, but why no one else? Why are they, alone, the only Jump Pack troops in the galaxy capable of doing this? Why are 10,000 year old Horus Heresy Veteran Raptors unable to do this?

Can't the orks and dark eldar do it too? The former with zaggstruck and the latter with webway gates?

Well, I guess Space Marines must be some pretty cool guys.

The deep strike rules don't make all that much sense. This goes double for drop pods. Or triple.

I like it that armies have unique special rules all to themselves. However when the special rule is a perfect copy of another special rule in the core rulebook with a minor twist I get frustrated (most people it seems don't actually read the rules all the way through!). I also don't like anything that allows you to come from off table and go directly into assault. I think those exceptions to the core setup are unfairly scattered through the codices.

Kroeger wrote:...don't like anything that allows you to come from off table and go directly into assault. I think those exceptions to the core setup are unfairly scattered through the codices.

Indeed, but it is clear that 40k has become GWs second WHFB, love it or hate it, it's an assault game now.

No Consolidation into HtH gives the lie to that. As does the loss of area terrain as a big LOS blocker. Assault is big, but still not as big as it was in 3rd.

Yup. No consolidation into HtH means that armies like Imperial Guard can seriously sucker an assault army. Space Marines can conduct fighting withdrawals from Tyranids and Orks (moreso Orks) to shoot them up, and Tau make a mockery of cover with Markerlights.

My experience is that the game is now about close ranged firefights punctuated by assaults to either mop up or clear particularly entrenched enemies.

The loss of the magic cylinder for area terrain isn't a big loss unless you were relying on a couple of sparse trees to block line of sight to a massive tank. If people are having problems with LOS being open across the board, they should do some terrain building so that they have some solid LOS blocking terrain to play with.