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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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?

Besides FLY and CHARACTER?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Besides FLY and CHARACTER?

Yes, since those are already USRs.

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Besides FLY and CHARACTER?

Yes, since those are already USRs.

Deep strike?

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Besides FLY and CHARACTER?

Yes, since those are already USRs.

Deep strike?

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.

Keeping it consistent it should say more than 9" away.

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.

True.

 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.).

(These are just off the top of my head.)

Deep Strike is not a good candidate for the reasons mentioned above. You'd need a handful of variations of USRs to cover all of the cases.

Feel No Pain could be, but you'd need:

Feel No Pain {Value} {Damage Type} {Duration} {Keyword} {Incremental}

Such as:

Feel No Pain {5+} {Psychic Mortal Wounds} {Game Turn} {Adeptus Astartes} {No}

Is this really more clear? Does this actually reduce bloat in any way shape or form?

Also, don't forget the Graia FNP rules add:
{Only Works On Last Wound of the Model}{Works On Casualties From Morale}

 Marmatag wrote:

Feel No Pain could be, but you'd need:

Feel No Pain {Value} {Damage Type} {Duration} {Keyword} {Incremental}

Such as:

Feel No Pain {5+} {Psychic Mortal Wounds} {Game Turn} {Adeptus Astartes} {No}

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'.

That is not materially different from what we have now.

I imagine that this boils down to creating a universal rule language, almost pseudo-programmatic in its nature. Some form of:

"Action Condition Value Qualifier."

Bonus
Malus
Ignore
Modify

And so on so forth.

So FNP would be: Ignore On-Roll(6+): Wound Loss.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

 Marmatag wrote:
Feel No Pain could be, but you'd need:

Feel No Pain {Value} {Damage Type} {Duration} {Keyword} {Incremental}

Such as:

Feel No Pain {5+} {Psychic Mortal Wounds} {Game Turn} {Adeptus Astartes} {No}

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?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

So FNP would be: Ignore On-Roll(6+): Wound Loss.

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.

 Marmatag wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

So FNP would be: Ignore On-Roll(6+): Wound Loss.

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself

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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 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?

Slipspace wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 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.

Perhaps a proof of concept may be in order.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

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.

"Flee Then Fire." "Flee Then Charge."

Is there really a need to split them though?

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(computer_science)

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.