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.
Tyran wrote: People get pissed of when you call their unique mechanics unnecessary and seek to remove them.
And thematically speaking, FNP does not represent quantum shielding at all.
Here, I'll agree that Quantum Shielding should stay unique. I dislike the rule, but not because it's unique-it's actually a GOOD example of a unique rule!
I dislike it because it punishes you for having a good stat. Far as I know, literally the ONLY OTHER THING in the game that does that is Grav weaponry, and it either needs to be more prominent (trade-offs based on good stats that come with risks) or nonexistent (good stats are good, pay points for them).
But, if GW went to USRs, Quantum Shielding could and should, in my opinion, stay as-is.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Andykp wrote: If you’re going to be rude I will have to come back. I was happy to leave it as opinions but you insist that your opinion is objective fact. Things being easier or more difficult to remember is subjective. The way people prefer games to work is subjective, that’s why some people enjoy 40k others enjoy chess.
They are not subjective, there is science and statistics behind it. It's exactly as subjective as medical research. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. If you think that me pointing that out is arrogance, so be it.
Magic the gathering is this holy grail of keywords and USRs according to you and others on here. In does not appeal to me at all and never has. Where as I’m sure it appeals to many simply due to the elegance and the precise nature of its game design.
By a rough estimate in favor of WH40k, just paper MtG is thirty times more successful and is drawing in more than half the entire WH40k comunity worth of new players worth each year - before considering the incredibly successful MtGA software. One of the major reasons why MtG is so successful while most other TCG are not is because it's so intuitive to learn, despite having a ruleset that makes 8th with it's pile of books look tiny.
As for the ORKS I was talking about variety with in the codex. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. Have a USR for explodes dreadnought or explodes heavy vehicles is the system we have now. U just have to read the entry. I struggle to remember the USRs and like looking them up.
This is going in circles. The explodes rule will be in the same place. You will have the same explosions for your ork vehicles. Having to read a rule is in no way superior to not having to read a rule. All your arguments have been debunked, yet you keep bringing them up. It's almost like you don't care about anything but your opinion to be confirmed.
Quantum shielding, I enjoy that roll, it is a bit all or nothing but that adds to the drama and the frustration on my opponents part too. I play necrons and you could switch reanimating to a fell no pain. But it wouldn’t be as characterful. Same with quantum shielding. The way it is now necrons feel resilient and relentless, they just keep coming. And they feel unique. Diferent from other armies. Alien.
If you go back to my post about Quantum Shielding, I explicitly said to keep it a bespoke rule instead of doing FNP(e = mc²) like the other poster suggested, which would also have resulted in the exact same game play. I think bespoke rules are a good tool to make rules for something unique like necrons. It's a terrible tool for something that is used exactly the same across the entire game like explosions or deep strike.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 08:16:12
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Andykp wrote: The posts above had no end of acronyms, abbreviation and then discussion about removing unique rules to make things fit with USRs. It was a head ache to read and is an example of what will happen if USR come back in.
And yes you are correct! I am not into loopholes.
Feel No pain 4+, Feel No Pain 5+ etc. is too complicated? Really?
No but FNPx+/y and the like is. Then DR becomes FNP and quantum shielding needs to change to represent this that and the other. That’s just one rule. How about explodes, is that going to be EXPLODES 6+/6”/D6. Or 4+/9”/D6. Or what ever. Flicking through the ORK codex alone and every heavy support has a unique explodes. I like that. It makes sense. A kan exploding is less than a dread. A gun wagon is full of ammo so will blow up on a 4+ but a bonebreaka on a 6+. It’s a little bit of flavour but as it’s written in the data sheet it’s causes no issues.
To reimplement USRs in 40k, there would need to be some streamlining and removal of redundant rules. With FNP N+, other rules that also reduce damage, like Quantum Shielding are unnecessary bloat. Think of mechanics as a finite resource. With a USR like FNP, or DS, is it worth using that finite resource on a rule that does the same thing, for a slightly different "feel?" Or would that resource be best used on an army-wide USR, or unit-unique rule, that adds more meaningful gameplay and interaction?
Plus, rules ike Quantum Shielding that are all-or-nothing are problematic by possessing such high variance. Imagine you play Necrons, and your Command Barge gets obliterated in one volley half of the time because you fail your QS roll. Not very fun, is it?
Explosions are pretty easy.
EXPLODES When this unit is destroyed, roll one D6. If the result is N or greater, all units within X" take AMOUNT OF DAMAGE.
The bespoke rules method is flawed. It hinders communication between players, and learning/knowledge of one's army. Paradoxically, unique rules for everything makes it more difficult to make units stand out, because they are totally disconnected from the core rules. Special rules work best when only some units have them.
Yeah no, Quantum Shielding is different enough from FNP.
It really isn't. Both function as an extra layer of wound reduction on top of armor saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: Can we at least agree that USRs (along with perhaps bespoke rules that can modify how a USR works for that unit) would be great in theory but GW are incapable of delivering on it?
We could, but then we may as well cease discussing the rules of GW games permanently. I don't think that's constructive.
Except that FNP in statistical terms averages to a fixed percentage reduction of wounds while Quantum shielding is a variable reduction of wounds based on the Damage.
Yes, the math differs, but the intention and application of the two is the same. Roll to avoid damage. One of the things about GW design I find so irritating is that much of their rules mechanics relies solely on tinkering with the probability of something, not creating more choices for players to make.
Let's not keep unnecessary, or even outright bad mechanics just because they are familiar and comfortable.
I think the big debate with USRs is around things like this. At what point do you use a unique special rule and at what point do you convert to a USR instead. If I were to implement USRs in the current 40k the first thing I'd do is simply convert all the various FNP or Deep Strike rules into a USR, along with the Explodes rules. These are pretty trivial changes and largely non-controversial too (barring one specific person, it seems). However, I don't think trying to squeeze every rule into a USR-shaped box is the best approach.
For rules like QS, I'd keep it as is. In this specific case I think it's one of the few rules Necrons have that makes them seem like a technologically advanced terrifying enemy to face. The idea that all your anti-tank is now largely useless and you'll need to adapt your standard strategy to defeat them is perfectly encapsulated in that one rule. Unfortunately, it doesn't work so well in practice because the best anti-tank in the game is usually things like Autocannons or other mid-strength D2 or D3 weapons, but I like how the rule messes with an opponent's target priority.
Jidmah wrote: Kanz have the same explosion as all light vehicles in the game.
Deff Dreads have the same explosion as all dreads in the game.
Battlwagons have the same explosion as all heavy tanks in the game.
All of them even appear on multiple datasheets in the ork codex! They are the very opposite of unique.
You not knowing that is proof by itself of how a coherent use of keywords would reduce complexity and increase understanding of the game rules.
Needing to read every single explodes rule in every vehicle datasheet is objectively worse than not needing to do that for the vast majority of vehicles, not a matter of taste.
Your opinion is that incoherent, hard to learn and memorize rules are superior to what professional game designers of highly successful games in all genres have established for almost twenty years now.
But there are people arguing that times were better when cars did not have seat belts and airbags, so I'll just stop here and leave you to your opinion.
If you’re going to be rude I will have to come back. I was happy to leave it as opinions but you insist that your opinion is objective fact. Things being easier or more difficult to remember is subjective. The way people prefer games to work is subjective, that’s why some people enjoy 40k others enjoy chess.
You're wrong about the subjective nature of rules in this case. Things being easier or more difficult to remember is a testable outcome. We can run experiments to determine whether one thing or another is more effective. It doesn't apply equally to everyone but in general we should be able to take two different approaches to writing a rule, test on a bunch of people, and make a determination about which is easiest to remember. There's a reason almost every other successful game uses some version of USRs.
As for the ORKS I was talking about variety with in the codex. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. Have a USR for explodes dreadnought or explodes heavy vehicles is the system we have now. U just have to read the entry. I struggle to remember the USRs and like looking them up.
You like looking them up? I think you might be unique in the gaming population then. I don't know a single person (gamer or otherwise) who likes looking stuff up that they should be able to remember. At no gaming table ever have I heard someone happily exclaim "let's look it up!" What I have heard is "how big's that explosion?" followed by an unnecessary length of time finding the actual rule on the datasheet (a lot of these rules aren't even called Explodes, which is maddening) then reading a paragraph of text to pick out three numbers. I think the problem people are having with your argument is that this approach is self-evidently worse than having a summary with those three numbers written out in bold on one line next to a standardised rule name.
I’m off again now, forgotten just how arrogant jidmah comes across as in here.
I have to say, I disagree. I think the problem, as I highlight above, is that your stance seems very intractable and you haven't really explained why having rules buried in a bunch of background text is a good thing. For example, people have mentioned you could retain the background text if you want, but simply use the USR system to make the mechanics of the rule more easily accessible to people. In fact, if you make greater use of USRs it might even allow more space on the datasheet which could be used to add a small section of fluff text to each unit, enhancing the background information rather than reducing it. Also, nobody seemed to have a problem with the fluffiness of FNP for Plague Marines in previous editions so I don't understand why it would suddenly be unfluffy for them to have FNP instead of Disgustingly Resilient. All these USRs could have small fluff-based explanations in the rulebook to explain the kind of things they represent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 08:59:26
Tyran wrote: People get pissed of when you call their unique mechanics unnecessary and seek to remove them.
And thematically speaking, FNP does not represent quantum shielding at all.
Here, I'll agree that Quantum Shielding should stay unique. I dislike the rule, but not because it's unique-it's actually a GOOD example of a unique rule!
I dislike it because it punishes you for having a good stat. Far as I know, literally the ONLY OTHER THING in the game that does that is Grav weaponry, and it either needs to be more prominent (trade-offs based on good stats that come with risks) or nonexistent (good stats are good, pay points for them).
But, if GW went to USRs, Quantum Shielding could and should, in my opinion, stay as-is.
I dunno, when you actually write down the mechanical rule of Quantum Shielding ("Roll below <Characteristic> to reduce damage to X"), it is something that would be very easy to make into a universal defined mechanic denoted by a keyword which can be inserted into rules which use it.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Tyran wrote: People get pissed of when you call their unique mechanics unnecessary and seek to remove them.
And thematically speaking, FNP does not represent quantum shielding at all.
Here, I'll agree that Quantum Shielding should stay unique. I dislike the rule, but not because it's unique-it's actually a GOOD example of a unique rule!
I dislike it because it punishes you for having a good stat. Far as I know, literally the ONLY OTHER THING in the game that does that is Grav weaponry, and it either needs to be more prominent (trade-offs based on good stats that come with risks) or nonexistent (good stats are good, pay points for them).
But, if GW went to USRs, Quantum Shielding could and should, in my opinion, stay as-is.
I dunno, when you actually write down the mechanical rule of Quantum Shielding ("Roll below <Characteristic> to reduce damage to X"), it is something that would be very easy to make into a universal defined mechanic denoted by a keyword which can be inserted into rules which use it.
And I think this is where people start having problems with USRs, and rightly so. Everything doesn't have to be a USR. It's fine to leave QS as is, especially when only one army uses this rule.
Tyran wrote: People get pissed of when you call their unique mechanics unnecessary and seek to remove them.
And thematically speaking, FNP does not represent quantum shielding at all.
Here, I'll agree that Quantum Shielding should stay unique. I dislike the rule, but not because it's unique-it's actually a GOOD example of a unique rule!
I dislike it because it punishes you for having a good stat. Far as I know, literally the ONLY OTHER THING in the game that does that is Grav weaponry, and it either needs to be more prominent (trade-offs based on good stats that come with risks) or nonexistent (good stats are good, pay points for them).
But, if GW went to USRs, Quantum Shielding could and should, in my opinion, stay as-is.
I dunno, when you actually write down the mechanical rule of Quantum Shielding ("Roll below <Characteristic> to reduce damage to X"), it is something that would be very easy to make into a universal defined mechanic denoted by a keyword which can be inserted into rules which use it.
And I think this is where people start having problems with USRs, and rightly so. Everything doesn't have to be a USR. It's fine to leave QS as is, especially when only one army uses this rule.
Maybe not, but defining the mechanics is useful. Lack of a definition of mechanics is how we have some plasma weapons which cause a mortal wound, some which remove the model outright, some which happen on unmodified 1 and some which happen on modified 1.
If GW had defined the mechanic of "roll = 1, suffer damage X" in structured language attached to a keyword then all of that could have been avoided as all of those rules would reference that single mechanic with a single word.
Same with quantum shieldings underlying game mechanism, if you define it then everything which will operate using that mechanic will work the same way, you won't end up with some being equal to or under whilst others need to be under, some which apply to unmodified <stat> whilst others don't etc.
This is the whole point of having a keyword system, so your rules can reference a keyword which tells the player exactly how something works at a glance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 12:36:17
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Tyran wrote: People get pissed of when you call their unique mechanics unnecessary and seek to remove them.
And thematically speaking, FNP does not represent quantum shielding at all.
Here, I'll agree that Quantum Shielding should stay unique. I dislike the rule, but not because it's unique-it's actually a GOOD example of a unique rule!
I dislike it because it punishes you for having a good stat. Far as I know, literally the ONLY OTHER THING in the game that does that is Grav weaponry, and it either needs to be more prominent (trade-offs based on good stats that come with risks) or nonexistent (good stats are good, pay points for them).
But, if GW went to USRs, Quantum Shielding could and should, in my opinion, stay as-is.
I dunno, when you actually write down the mechanical rule of Quantum Shielding ("Roll below <Characteristic> to reduce damage to X"), it is something that would be very easy to make into a universal defined mechanic denoted by a keyword which can be inserted into rules which use it.
And I think this is where people start having problems with USRs, and rightly so. Everything doesn't have to be a USR. It's fine to leave QS as is, especially when only one army uses this rule.
Maybe not, but defining the mechanics is useful. Lack of a definition of mechanics is how we have some plasma weapons which cause a mortal wound, some which remove the model outright, some which happen on unmodified 1 and some which happen on modified 1.
If GW had defined the mechanic of "roll = 1, suffer damage X" in structured language attached to a keyword then all of that could have been avoided as all of those rules would reference that single mechanic with a single word.
Same with quantum shieldings underlying game mechanism, if you define it then everything which will operate using that mechanic will work the same way, you won't end up with some being equal to or under whilst others need to be under, some which apply to unmodified <stat> whilst others don't etc.
This is the whole point of having a keyword system, so your rules can reference a keyword which tells the player exactly how something works at a glance.
The fact that plasma has different "gets hot!" rules is because its used across most armies and doenst have a USR. QS is a necron-only thing that doesn't need a USR. USRs need to stay simple and relevant. not every rule needs to be made into a USR. If quantum shielding was used across many armies, then sure it would be fine to make it a USR.
I’m not saying you can’t say that more people can remember standardised things better than various things. Or that such things speed up games even. I’m talking about what someone enjoys from a wargame. You cannot quantify and objectify what some one enjoys. I’m not talking about what is statistically easier to remember for the majority of people. I’m talking about how I learn and what I enjoy. To say that this is the best way because test show more people can learn that way doesn’t mean that’s best for everyone.
The same studies and things you are talking about will also show you that people learn, remember and process things differently. There is no universal system that works for everyone.
What I’m talking about is subjective. It’s the overall experience of a game. Lots of people like marvel movies. I don’t. It’s subjective.
I don’t enjoy playing a game that is rigid and almost mathematically strict games. I like playing narrative and open games, with flavour and fluff.
I don’t get excited at looking things up but also don’t remember pages of abstract rules that have no connection to the models they are supposed to represent.
My argument against the changes you are proposing is that it would remove things from the game I like and the option to have more variety, it would add things that would reduce my enjoyment of the game. The only thing I have heard that wouldn’t be too bad was that it could be applied so lightly that it would be pointless, just changing the titles on some data sheets.
You are the ones proposing the change, it’s on you to convince people that it’s better. Repeatedly saying it us because game design says so, doesn’t change the fact it would remove things I like and add things I dint like.
The range of how to apply it is not agreed either. Some of you want it applied to the point of removing any flavour for the sake of convenience at the price of fluff. Others so softly that you might as well not bother. Let’s take explodes again as the example. J suggests that making explodes a USR with different variants such as large vehicle or titanic would be “better” and would change nothing as all vehicles have this anyway. Except some vehicles have variants on it that would be lost, so he suggests that you can add variants on the datasheets to keep these. So explodes with a description becomes explodes:vehicle type or explodes:special. As he’s suggested nothing except the title changes. So why bother. They are already called explodes. You would still have to remember all the variants or read them off the datasheets. I argue that to make any difference you have to make explodes one single rule that covers all explosions. And therefore boring.
Only thing I agree with is that GW have shown they can’t do what you want in a way that works and survives a few years of new releases. I don’t think it’s incompetence but more having a diferent goal in mind. I don’t think they want a tight concise rule set. I think they want one that suits all tastes.
How is it possible that I give you four different explanations on how to unify explosions and how it improve the game for everyone and you still don't understand how it is supposed to work. *flips table in frustration*
No wonder you are so opposed to it
I guess you are right, there is just no point in us discussing this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 14:21:47
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
If all heavy vehicles have the same explode and every dread the same etc you would only have to remember the odd one out and not check the book everytime.
I didnt actually know they already are working like an USR since they have different names and wording despite being the same. Just 4 different instead of a single one.
If they had the same name people would probably have caught it more often and not have needed to spend so much time looking it up all the time.
There are quite some things I personaly would like in the game that I dont think everyone would agree with and I cant say they would make 40k a better game so I dont even suggest them. I can separate from what I personaly would like in the game and what is actually good for most people and not just me.
Good USR is something that almost everyone benefits from except a few super casual gamers that get excited for looking up rules. The same people who disliked gws manhandling of USR in the past because you had to look up rules more than needed. I think its better to just ignore this crowd since they dont actually know what they want.
Jidmah wrote: How is it possible that I give you four different explanations on how to unify explosions and how it improve the game for everyone and you still don't understand how it is supposed to work. *flips table in frustration*
No wonder you are so opposed to it
I guess you are right, there is just no point in us discussing this.
it feels like a pretty good troll at thie point. purposely ignoring our examples and repeating the same argument over and over.
Andykp wrote: I’m not saying you can’t say that more people can remember standardised things better than various things. Or that such things speed up games even. I’m talking about what someone enjoys from a wargame. You cannot quantify and objectify what some one enjoys. I’m not talking about what is statistically easier to remember for the majority of people. I’m talking about how I learn and what I enjoy. To say that this is the best way because test show more people can learn that way doesn’t mean that’s best for everyone.
The same studies and things you are talking about will also show you that people learn, remember and process things differently. There is no universal system that works for everyone.
What I’m talking about is subjective. It’s the overall experience of a game. Lots of people like marvel movies. I don’t. It’s subjective.
I don’t enjoy playing a game that is rigid and almost mathematically strict games. I like playing narrative and open games, with flavour and fluff.
I don’t get excited at looking things up but also don’t remember pages of abstract rules that have no connection to the models they are supposed to represent.
My argument against the changes you are proposing is that it would remove things from the game I like and the option to have more variety, it would add things that would reduce my enjoyment of the game. The only thing I have heard that wouldn’t be too bad was that it could be applied so lightly that it would be pointless, just changing the titles on some data sheets.
You are the ones proposing the change, it’s on you to convince people that it’s better. Repeatedly saying it us because game design says so, doesn’t change the fact it would remove things I like and add things I dint like.
The range of how to apply it is not agreed either. Some of you want it applied to the point of removing any flavour for the sake of convenience at the price of fluff. Others so softly that you might as well not bother. Let’s take explodes again as the example. J suggests that making explodes a USR with different variants such as large vehicle or titanic would be “better” and would change nothing as all vehicles have this anyway. Except some vehicles have variants on it that would be lost, so he suggests that you can add variants on the datasheets to keep these. So explodes with a description becomes explodes:vehicle type or explodes:special. As he’s suggested nothing except the title changes. So why bother. They are already called explodes. You would still have to remember all the variants or read them off the datasheets. I argue that to make any difference you have to make explodes one single rule that covers all explosions. And therefore boring.
Only thing I agree with is that GW have shown they can’t do what you want in a way that works and survives a few years of new releases. I don’t think it’s incompetence but more having a diferent goal in mind. I don’t think they want a tight concise rule set. I think they want one that suits all tastes.
Codifying special rules doesn't remove flavor. Is flavor something that, for you, exists only in names of things and background stories? Instead of utilizing USRs, which would actually open things up for more fluffy rules and interactions, you would prefer to keep it as-is, where there is very little mechanical variety, but flavor names for everything instead? I don't understand. It sounds like you don't want fluffy gameplay at all. What's the difference, really, between plague marines having Disgustingly Resilent, or Feel No Pain? Is one really fluffier than the other? Heck, in this case, I'd much rather tell my opponent my guys feel no pain, because it sounds cooler!
"Mathematically strict" games, whatever those are, aren't devoid of flavor. Malifaux has rules written clearly and concisely, and positively oozes flavor. MEDGe has loads as well, despite using rules such as Burst X, Drag Unit X" EMP X and so forth. Every unit still has a write-up on where it comes from, how it operates, etc, so it is obvious what its rules represent. Flavor doesn't exist in one place, but in the entire ruleset, when written holistically. GW writes their rules in layers, that rarely care about each other. Many other games, MEDGe especially, are more like a spider web- an interwoven construct greater than the sum of its parts.
Andy, nothing, I repeat, nothing suits all tastes. That, and yes, incompetence, is why 40k is always such a mess. GW has no clue who 40k is for. Hence the shallow gameplay based on stacking aura buffs and rolling better than your opponent, that includes grots and imperial knights, primarchs, even full-on titans, with rules with fluff names that don't actually enable fluff-play, and on and on. 40k is as unfocused as a game can be.
I think you have become comfortable with 8th edition, and are opposed to any sort of change, merely because it is change.
I have seen all 8 editions come and go. Even more if you count epic too. I’m very used to change. But a step backwards is just that. 8th is the best the game has been since second edition. I didn’t like removing movement characteristics, or invalidating my entire ORK army. The changes from 7th to 8th were for the most part positive. I play only with power level now, something that was brand new. Good change.
The variety in the rules isn’t just about names. To go back to ORKS, a gunwagon blows up on a 4+ to represent it being full of ammo. A battle wagon on a 6+. Like other vehicles of there size. So you say that can all remain the same lose no flavour but all be under blanket USR. So either you must remove the gunwagons rule or keep it, if you remove it then that’s a shame, it’s a nice touch. If you keep it then nothing changes so what’s the point.
So to bring back USRs and it have any significant effect you need to remove variants in those rules. I don’t think that’s a good idea. “Depp strike” works the same for lots of units across the board, it’s all 9” away. So why change the name of the all. What’s the point? How does it make the game better for me? It’s no easier to remember and doesn’t improve the experience in anyway. I don’t feel more confused deploying my sicaran infiltrators using infiltrators rule rather than deep strike. And I can next game teleport my terminators the same way, next to a vehicle an blow it up. Then take a second to check how it explodes.
What you all seem to be saying is that you know what makes a good game and everyone else is wrong. Good means diferent things to different people. Luckily the biggest wargame company in the world making the most popular wargame out there for the last 30 years are incompetent and make a game I enjoy as much as ever.
Andykp wrote: I have seen all 8 editions come and go. Even more if you count epic too. I’m very used to change. But a step backwards is just that. 8th is the best the game has been since second edition. I didn’t like removing movement characteristics, or invalidating my entire ORK army. The changes from 7th to 8th were for the most part positive. I play only with power level now, something that was brand new. Good change.
The variety in the rules isn’t just about names. To go back to ORKS, a gunwagon blows up on a 4+ to represent it being full of ammo. A battle wagon on a 6+. Like other vehicles of there size. So you say that can all remain the same lose no flavour but all be under blanket USR. So either you must remove the gunwagons rule or keep it, if you remove it then that’s a shame, it’s a nice touch. If you keep it then nothing changes so what’s the point.
The point is to make it quicker to reference your own rules, and easier for players to communicate what their units do during the game. None of the examples on how a USR Explodes could work prevents a gun wagon blowing up on a 4+, and a battlewagon on a 6+. None at all. Obviously you haven't been reading our posts, just reacting to the very idea of what you think Universal Special Rules are.
So to bring back USRs and it have any significant effect you need to remove variants in those rules. I don’t think that’s a good idea. “Depp strike” works the same for lots of units across the board, it’s all 9” away. So why change the name of the all. What’s the point? How does it make the game better for me? It’s no easier to remember and doesn’t improve the experience in anyway. I don’t feel more confused deploying my sicaran infiltrators using infiltrators rule rather than deep strike. And I can next game teleport my terminators the same way, next to a vehicle an blow it up. Then take a second to check how it explodes.
See above.
Your experience is not necessarily representative of the average player experience. USRs are simply a cleaner, less verbose, faster to understand way to communicate rules on data sheets and reference cards, that avoids potential confusion by missing that one word or two that makes a bespoke rule only 97% identical to a similar rule, for no gain other than fluffy names. Bespoke rules are messy.
You lose absolutely nothing narratively with USRs. Players actually gain fluffier gameplay.
What you all seem to be saying is that you know what makes a good game and everyone else is wrong. Good means diferent things to different people. Luckily the biggest wargame company in the world making the most popular wargame out there for the last 30 years are incompetent and make a game I enjoy as much as ever.
You are mistaken, myself and others are not telling people that our "way" is correct, and that you see it that way shows that you are being more emotional than rational, and now you are being defensive, and trotting out the bandwagon fallacy. A thing is not necessarily good, or an idea true, merely because it is popular. What makes a game fun is subjective. What makes a game well-designed, to provide an optimal player experience, to execute its focus well is actually objective. It's like McDonald's vs. a home cooked, vegetable-heavy meal. One is objectively, scientifically provably better than the other, regardless of personal preference. This is separate (somewhat) from how fun it is. Chess has a tight ruleset, but I don't enjoy it as much as other games. You are confusing your personal feelings with the bigger picture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 23:36:34
Andykp wrote: I have seen all 8 editions come and go. Even more if you count epic too. I’m very used to change. But a step backwards is just that. 8th is the best the game has been since second edition. I didn’t like removing movement characteristics, or invalidating my entire ORK army. The changes from 7th to 8th were for the most part positive. I play only with power level now, something that was brand new. Good change.
The variety in the rules isn’t just about names. To go back to ORKS, a gunwagon blows up on a 4+ to represent it being full of ammo. A battle wagon on a 6+. Like other vehicles of there size. So you say that can all remain the same lose no flavour but all be under blanket USR. So either you must remove the gunwagons rule or keep it, if you remove it then that’s a shame, it’s a nice touch. If you keep it then nothing changes so what’s the point.
This shows you either haven't been reading the suggestions posted or you haven't understood them, or you're being wilfully obtuse. Explodes is actually a good example of how USRs are better than bespoke paragraphs of text. You get to list all the necessary info in fewer than 10 characters overall and still retain the ability to have slight variations. So you can have your Gunwagon explode on a 4+, or your Plagueburst Crawler have a radius of 7" if you want. The info is still there, it's just presented differently. The point proponents of USRs are making is that this presentation of information is superior because it is easier to parse and is easier to keep consistent. That first point about it being easier to parse is a testable hypothesis, BTW, and nothing to do with subjective opinions.
So to bring back USRs and it have any significant effect you need to remove variants in those rules. I don’t think that’s a good idea. “Depp strike” works the same for lots of units across the board, it’s all 9” away. So why change the name of the all. What’s the point? How does it make the game better for me? It’s no easier to remember and doesn’t improve the experience in anyway. I don’t feel more confused deploying my sicaran infiltrators using infiltrators rule rather than deep strike. And I can next game teleport my terminators the same way, next to a vehicle an blow it up. Then take a second to check how it explodes.
It is both easier to remember and easier to communicate. This is especially true for new players, when veterans traditionally fall back to descriptions like Deep Strike and Feel No Pain, which can leave new players confused. The prevalence of people referring to the vast collection of "ignore wounds" as FNP is compelling evidence that having a USR instead of loads of bespoke rules enables more effective, clearer communication. I'd turn your question about Deep Strike around. If they all work the same way across lots of units why have different names for the same rule? How does that help with anything?
What you all seem to be saying is that you know what makes a good game and everyone else is wrong. Good means diferent things to different people. Luckily the biggest wargame company in the world making the most popular wargame out there for the last 30 years are incompetent and make a game I enjoy as much as ever.
Popular isn't the same as good and I think outside of the most rabid fanboys you wouldn't find too many people claiming that 40k is the best ruleset out of all wargames that exist right now. Besides, even the best implementations of anything have room for improvement.
The biggest problem I have with this discussion is that you completely fail to engage with many of the points people are bringing up, instead falling back to "personally, I disagree" without actually providing compelling reasoning as to why. There's nothing constructive about your criticism. The whole point of this forum is to discuss potential improvements to the rules and I think there have been some important counterpoints raised against USRs. You brought up the potential loss of background information on datasheets, for example. That has been addressed multiple times in multiple different ways - USRs are more concise, therefore possibly leaving more space for a fluff section on the datasheet itself, you can have the USR summary before the fluff description of the rule, or you could just make sure each unit's fluff description in the Codex gives good reasoning for why they have the rules they do. You haven't really addressed why any of these solutions would be worse. You've also failed to address why it's been absolutely fine from a background POV for units in previous editions to have Deep Strike or Feel No Pain but only now it's suddenly so much better to have unique rules for each and every one of them.
Andykp wrote: I have seen all 8 editions come and go. Even more if you count epic too. I’m very used to change. But a step backwards is just that. 8th is the best the game has been since second edition. I didn’t like removing movement characteristics, or invalidating my entire ORK army. The changes from 7th to 8th were for the most part positive. I play only with power level now, something that was brand new. Good change.
The variety in the rules isn’t just about names. To go back to ORKS, a gunwagon blows up on a 4+ to represent it being full of ammo. A battle wagon on a 6+. Like other vehicles of there size. So you say that can all remain the same lose no flavour but all be under blanket USR. So either you must remove the gunwagons rule or keep it, if you remove it then that’s a shame, it’s a nice touch. If you keep it then nothing changes so what’s the point.
This shows you either haven't been reading the suggestions posted or you haven't understood them, or you're being wilfully obtuse. Explodes is actually a good example of how USRs are better than bespoke paragraphs of text. You get to list all the necessary info in fewer than 10 characters overall and still retain the ability to have slight variations. So you can have your Gunwagon explode on a 4+, or your Plagueburst Crawler have a radius of 7" if you want. The info is still there, it's just presented differently. The point proponents of USRs are making is that this presentation of information is superior because it is easier to parse and is easier to keep consistent. That first point about it being easier to parse is a testable hypothesis, BTW, and nothing to do with subjective opinions.
So to bring back USRs and it have any significant effect you need to remove variants in those rules. I don’t think that’s a good idea. “Depp strike” works the same for lots of units across the board, it’s all 9” away. So why change the name of the all. What’s the point? How does it make the game better for me? It’s no easier to remember and doesn’t improve the experience in anyway. I don’t feel more confused deploying my sicaran infiltrators using infiltrators rule rather than deep strike. And I can next game teleport my terminators the same way, next to a vehicle an blow it up. Then take a second to check how it explodes.
It is both easier to remember and easier to communicate. This is especially true for new players, when veterans traditionally fall back to descriptions like Deep Strike and Feel No Pain, which can leave new players confused. The prevalence of people referring to the vast collection of "ignore wounds" as FNP is compelling evidence that having a USR instead of loads of bespoke rules enables more effective, clearer communication. I'd turn your question about Deep Strike around. If they all work the same way across lots of units why have different names for the same rule? How does that help with anything?
What you all seem to be saying is that you know what makes a good game and everyone else is wrong. Good means diferent things to different people. Luckily the biggest wargame company in the world making the most popular wargame out there for the last 30 years are incompetent and make a game I enjoy as much as ever.
Popular isn't the same as good and I think outside of the most rabid fanboys you wouldn't find too many people claiming that 40k is the best ruleset out of all wargames that exist right now. Besides, even the best implementations of anything have room for improvement.
The biggest problem I have with this discussion is that you completely fail to engage with many of the points people are bringing up, instead falling back to "personally, I disagree" without actually providing compelling reasoning as to why. There's nothing constructive about your criticism. The whole point of this forum is to discuss potential improvements to the rules and I think there have been some important counterpoints raised against USRs. You brought up the potential loss of background information on datasheets, for example. That has been addressed multiple times in multiple different ways - USRs are more concise, therefore possibly leaving more space for a fluff section on the datasheet itself, you can have the USR summary before the fluff description of the rule, or you could just make sure each unit's fluff description in the Codex gives good reasoning for why they have the rules they do. You haven't really addressed why any of these solutions would be worse. You've also failed to address why it's been absolutely fine from a background POV for units in previous editions to have Deep Strike or Feel No Pain but only now it's suddenly so much better to have unique rules for each and every one of them.
I’m not suggesting any change. I’m suggesting keeping it as is. You turn my question around but you are the ones saying that calling all means of arriving 9” away from the enemy mid game deep strike makes for a better game. It’s not about a reason to keep it the same, it’s about what is the benefit of changing it. I found it less immersive when it was all called deep strike. Much better that terminators is called teleport, like it used to be when they were the only ones doing it. I prefer the current way over the last way. I’m not saying I speak for the majority or anything, I’m talking about my preference. And thankfully GWs.
I didn’t like units all having the same rules the last few editions. Armies felt homogenised and stale. Each army had a deep strike unit, a relentless unit, a means of giving FNP to a unit. Everything deepstriking felt the same. I’m not keen this edition on units that infiltrate arriving the same way as teleporting units. So address your last point it wasn’t fine in the past. It sucked.
What you are suggesting , TO ME, is not an improvement to the game. It’s a change with little or no benefit to it and a system that has been used and has gone horribly wrong in the hands of the developers before. Your arguments of being more concise is flawed as of the convoluted way the needed up in previous editions and you cannot guarantee the same wouldn’t happen again, it already has in this thread of ideas. And your arguments of being easier to learn aren’t true for me either and is irrelevant when all the rules are printed on the datasheet anyway. As for somehow making the game more fluffy, that’s a none sense. Again for me, in the past it felt less immersive and less narrative a game. Are my arguments compelling, probably not to anyone who prefers USRs but they are to me. People calling various rules FNP is not a compelling argument. It’s a hang over from previous editions. I still call over watch shooting snap fire from adeptus titanicus and spacemarine and my psykers cast spells not manifest powers. A compelling argument would show me some tangible improvement to the game for me. At best from your suggestions things would stay the same but with gakker names for things.
Most people enjoy playing and remembering rules and not looking at datasheets during gameplay. Standardized rules let you do that. Current rules forces a breaking of the flow of the game to double check the units datasheet/rules since they arent named the same and both players need extra communication to be on the same page.
Way more imersion breaking than having less accurate rule names.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/02 12:23:14
Klickor wrote: Most people enjoy playing and remembering rules and not looking at datasheets during gameplay. Standardized rules let you do that. Current rules forces a breaking of the flow of the game to double check the units datasheet/rules since they arent named the same and both players need extra communication to be on the same page.
Way more imersion breaking than having less accurate rule names.
That depends on how often you get to play and how well you remember these things. I’m just talking about how I feel about it. And as I say luckily for GW seems to agree. Or it did when it made 8th.
Unless you play the same few opponents and lists very regularly you are not gonna remember everything or even close to it. There are so many factions and units that the average person cant learn them before there is a new codex/update/faq etc that changes it.
Back in 4th/5th it wasnt hard to learn most armies. Learning all the rules available to codex marines and their 6 supplements is probably at the same level of effort as learning all of 4th editions armies. Might even be harder to learn all the marine stuff now.
Andykp wrote: I have seen all 8 editions come and go. Even more if you count epic too. I’m very used to change. But a step backwards is just that. 8th is the best the game has been since second edition. I didn’t like removing movement characteristics, or invalidating my entire ORK army. The changes from 7th to 8th were for the most part positive. I play only with power level now, something that was brand new. Good change.
The variety in the rules isn’t just about names. To go back to ORKS, a gunwagon blows up on a 4+ to represent it being full of ammo. A battle wagon on a 6+. Like other vehicles of there size. So you say that can all remain the same lose no flavour but all be under blanket USR. So either you must remove the gunwagons rule or keep it, if you remove it then that’s a shame, it’s a nice touch. If you keep it then nothing changes so what’s the point.
This shows you either haven't been reading the suggestions posted or you haven't understood them, or you're being wilfully obtuse. Explodes is actually a good example of how USRs are better than bespoke paragraphs of text. You get to list all the necessary info in fewer than 10 characters overall and still retain the ability to have slight variations. So you can have your Gunwagon explode on a 4+, or your Plagueburst Crawler have a radius of 7" if you want. The info is still there, it's just presented differently. The point proponents of USRs are making is that this presentation of information is superior because it is easier to parse and is easier to keep consistent. That first point about it being easier to parse is a testable hypothesis, BTW, and nothing to do with subjective opinions.
So to bring back USRs and it have any significant effect you need to remove variants in those rules. I don’t think that’s a good idea. “Depp strike” works the same for lots of units across the board, it’s all 9” away. So why change the name of the all. What’s the point? How does it make the game better for me? It’s no easier to remember and doesn’t improve the experience in anyway. I don’t feel more confused deploying my sicaran infiltrators using infiltrators rule rather than deep strike. And I can next game teleport my terminators the same way, next to a vehicle an blow it up. Then take a second to check how it explodes.
It is both easier to remember and easier to communicate. This is especially true for new players, when veterans traditionally fall back to descriptions like Deep Strike and Feel No Pain, which can leave new players confused. The prevalence of people referring to the vast collection of "ignore wounds" as FNP is compelling evidence that having a USR instead of loads of bespoke rules enables more effective, clearer communication. I'd turn your question about Deep Strike around. If they all work the same way across lots of units why have different names for the same rule? How does that help with anything?
What you all seem to be saying is that you know what makes a good game and everyone else is wrong. Good means diferent things to different people. Luckily the biggest wargame company in the world making the most popular wargame out there for the last 30 years are incompetent and make a game I enjoy as much as ever.
Popular isn't the same as good and I think outside of the most rabid fanboys you wouldn't find too many people claiming that 40k is the best ruleset out of all wargames that exist right now. Besides, even the best implementations of anything have room for improvement.
The biggest problem I have with this discussion is that you completely fail to engage with many of the points people are bringing up, instead falling back to "personally, I disagree" without actually providing compelling reasoning as to why. There's nothing constructive about your criticism. The whole point of this forum is to discuss potential improvements to the rules and I think there have been some important counterpoints raised against USRs. You brought up the potential loss of background information on datasheets, for example. That has been addressed multiple times in multiple different ways - USRs are more concise, therefore possibly leaving more space for a fluff section on the datasheet itself, you can have the USR summary before the fluff description of the rule, or you could just make sure each unit's fluff description in the Codex gives good reasoning for why they have the rules they do. You haven't really addressed why any of these solutions would be worse. You've also failed to address why it's been absolutely fine from a background POV for units in previous editions to have Deep Strike or Feel No Pain but only now it's suddenly so much better to have unique rules for each and every one of them.
I’m not suggesting any change. I’m suggesting keeping it as is. You turn my question around but you are the ones saying that calling all means of arriving 9” away from the enemy mid game deep strike makes for a better game. It’s not about a reason to keep it the same, it’s about what is the benefit of changing it. I found it less immersive when it was all called deep strike. Much better that terminators is called teleport, like it used to be when they were the only ones doing it. I prefer the current way over the last way. I’m not saying I speak for the majority or anything, I’m talking about my preference. And thankfully GWs.
I didn’t like units all having the same rules the last few editions. Armies felt homogenised and stale. Each army had a deep strike unit, a relentless unit, a means of giving FNP to a unit. Everything deepstriking felt the same. I’m not keen this edition on units that infiltrate arriving the same way as teleporting units. So address your last point it wasn’t fine in the past. It sucked.
What you are suggesting , TO ME, is not an improvement to the game. It’s a change with little or no benefit to it and a system that has been used and has gone horribly wrong in the hands of the developers before. Your arguments of being more concise is flawed as of the convoluted way the needed up in previous editions and you cannot guarantee the same wouldn’t happen again, it already has in this thread of ideas. And your arguments of being easier to learn aren’t true for me either and is irrelevant when all the rules are printed on the datasheet anyway. As for somehow making the game more fluffy, that’s a none sense. Again for me, in the past it felt less immersive and less narrative a game. Are my arguments compelling, probably not to anyone who prefers USRs but they are to me. People calling various rules FNP is not a compelling argument. It’s a hang over from previous editions. I still call over watch shooting snap fire from adeptus titanicus and spacemarine and my psykers cast spells not manifest powers. A compelling argument would show me some tangible improvement to the game for me. At best from your suggestions things would stay the same but with gakker names for things.
Games Workshop poorly implementing immersive gameplay in previous editions is not a good reason to avoid doing so properly, or to keep silly rule names with a paragraph of text that must be read to understand the rule, because there is no standardized way to write them so players can understand them quickly.
DS is fine. A rule's name doesn't need to be immersive. It needs to describe what the rule does at a glance. Teleport, aerial insertion, or whatever are all forms of deep striking. That is enough. Immersion should be in the lore and the gameplay.
"I like it this way, and GW says I'm right" is a weak argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 05:06:13
No weaker than it’s this or that and that’s that. Which is your argument here. A rules name helps me with immersion, a bit of fluff is nice, deep strike might be enough for you but prefer a bit more detail.
Andykp wrote: No weaker than it’s this or that and that’s that. Which is your argument here. A rules name helps me with immersion, a bit of fluff is nice, deep strike might be enough for you but prefer a bit more detail.
What I am trying to understand is why the names of things help with immersion, but mechanics that match unit/army fluff by allowing them to do fluffy things is not immersive. I am advocating for rules with more detail, not less. What about the background for units in the codex? How is half a page describing a unit or character not as immersive as a universal-but-not rule with a fluff name?
"It's this or that and that's that" is incredibly reductionist.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/04 17:46:46
Andykp wrote: No weaker than it’s this or that and that’s that. Which is your argument here. A rules name helps me with immersion, a bit of fluff is nice, deep strike might be enough for you but prefer a bit more detail.
What i'd like to understand is why you absolutely want a "fluffy" name and description on the datasheet? Datasheet are cheat sheets, made to quickly refer to to know what a unit's rules are. The longer you make a description (like right now where you have long paragraphs for simple rules) the longer it takes to refer to my cheat sheet and it slows down the game (marginally but it adds up if you need to look at the rules 5+ times in a game).
The fluff wouldn't dissapear because the datasheet doesn't have it anymore. The codexes are basically 75% fluff vs 25% rules. If you want to learn the fluff, read the codex instead of the datasheet. You'll learn fast enough that the way terminators deep strike is that they teleport into battle.
And imagine if were talking about other rules than deepstrike. Lets take plasma exploding on 1's for example. as it stands , theres 0 fluff that goes with that rule, its a pure description of what happens, with no special name either. Giving plasma a "Gets hot!" USR wouldn`t reduce the fluff (it would actually increase it) and would also mean that all plasmas behave the same instead of doing 1 mortal OR slaying on a unmodified/modified hit roll of 1.
Putting the plasma rules on the datasheet under “gets hot” would add to the info on there making it worse, as it is weapon rules are on the weapon stats. In plain text. Not a title and a rules reference.
As for wanting “fluffy names” they make more sense to me than calling everything deep strike, they make no difference to the amount of text on there. I come from the generation that watched the hero quest adverts with kids announcing “broadsword” and “fire of wrath”. The names add to the moment for me. (Again only speaking about personal experience here, and others in my group).
If the names don’t matter then you end up with psychic powers called D3 mortal wounds on 6+ and deepstrike a unit on a 5+, or guns called rapid fire 2, str 4.
Andykp wrote: Putting the plasma rules on the datasheet under “gets hot” would add to the info on there making it worse, as it is weapon rules are on the weapon stats. In plain text. Not a title and a rules reference.
As for wanting “fluffy names” they make more sense to me than calling everything deep strike, they make no difference to the amount of text on there. I come from the generation that watched the hero quest adverts with kids announcing “broadsword” and “fire of wrath”. The names add to the moment for me. (Again only speaking about personal experience here, and others in my group).
If the names don’t matter then you end up with psychic powers called D3 mortal wounds on 6+ and deepstrike a unit on a 5+, or guns called rapid fire 2, str 4.
I get that, I do. But it comes at a price that just isn't worth it.
No, you get weapons named BOLTGUN Rg 24" Str4 Sh2
Or psychic powers named ELDRITCH STORM something something rules text here because I don't remember off the top of my head.
You might be confusing Universal Special Rules [uppercase] with rules [lower case] in general. The point is that rules that are just that- universal- used by every army, use the same name, and are written using the same, easily parsed formula on data sheets.
Psychic powers are psychic powers, that would presumably each be unique, barring "universal" powers common amongst armies/races.
Deep strike is deep strike- regardless of the mode of transportation the effect is the same. It is a waste of developer time as well as player time renaming rules that would otherwise be called deep strike and writing their rules text in full on each data sheet, when they can simply use [Deepstrike N"] and move on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 22:19:11
Andykp wrote: And I get that I do, but it comes at a price that isn’t worth paying. To me.
Ah yes, the price of CONSISTENCY! THE HORROR!
Except when GW deicde to give a unit a rule that ignores "Feel no Pain", then give another unit a special version of Feel No Pain that is called "Feel No Pain 2: Electric Boogaloo" that ignores ignore-Feel-No-Pain, and so on and so forth.
