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.
2018/06/15 16:16:51
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/15 16:20:11
2018/06/15 16:31:33
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Well said, GBT.
I especially like the bit about throwing a dread.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2018/06/15 16:35:05
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/15 16:37:02
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 16:42:06
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2018/06/15 16:45:50
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
2018/06/15 16:53:50
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 16:54:01
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
2018/06/15 16:57:19
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 16:58:22
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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,"?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2018/06/15 17:02:10
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/06/15 17:06:31
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 17:04:37
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/15 17:05:25
2018/06/15 17:09:22
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
2018/06/15 17:11:29
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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?"
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 17:19:47
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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")."
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2018/06/15 17:22:04
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 17:24:13
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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")."
This. Being universal means being consistent.
2018/06/15 17:24:51
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2018/06/15 17:26:24
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/15 17:29:14
2018/06/15 17:27:00
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
Golly, if only there was a section in the rules that explained that for you.
Except i don't need to ask that question outside of USR land because it's right there on the datasheet.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 17:31:04
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
2018/06/15 17:32:23
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
2018/06/15 17:37:06
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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."
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 17:40:45
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/15 17:48:06
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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."
- Pasta Maker = Melta.
2018/06/15 17:50:33
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
2018/06/15 18:06:28
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Which we're not. We just want consistent naming.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2018/06/15 18:07:24
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Deep Strike (X") Same thing.
2018/06/15 18:12:36
Subject: How to reduce bloat with better USR usage.
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.
Make sense?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
