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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Technically I'm not sure if you would have to roll separately as all wounds would be done simultaneously so the model would simply go from it's wounds pre-shooting attack to its new wound total (and save) which would be used for the next shooting attack. Otherwise you'd have to roll saves in batches already for a unit of DA terminators with a mix of TH/SS and PF/SB models.

You... You do have to do that.

It's been ages since I've actually played a game... In any case given that such a scenario already exists there's no reason not to go with my version of Quantum Shielding, it literally slots right in using already existing systems.

He just explained the reason, just because GW can't write rules that create fun gameplay doesn't mean fanwriters should not aspire to write rules that don't drag out the game into endlessly rolling 1-4 dice at a time to resolve what could be one roll. Fanwriters fill both the roles of filling in all the content GW doesn't want to fill out and replace the existing rules that are badly designed or written.

The game's obviously fun to a vast swathe of people already or it wouldn't continue to dominate the market year after year. Even when it was 'dead' in 7th it was still crushing.

Fun=/=Perfect.

I enjoy Resident Evil 5, despite it being a crappy game. I enjoy D&D 3.P, despite it being an absolutely ENORMOUS mess. I enjoy 40k, despite the rules being some of the worse on the market.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Technically I'm not sure if you would have to roll separately as all wounds would be done simultaneously so the model would simply go from it's wounds pre-shooting attack to its new wound total (and save) which would be used for the next shooting attack. Otherwise you'd have to roll saves in batches already for a unit of DA terminators with a mix of TH/SS and PF/SB models.

You... You do have to do that.

It's been ages since I've actually played a game... In any case given that such a scenario already exists there's no reason not to go with my version of Quantum Shielding, it literally slots right in using already existing systems.

He just explained the reason, just because GW can't write rules that create fun gameplay doesn't mean fanwriters should not aspire to write rules that don't drag out the game into endlessly rolling 1-4 dice at a time to resolve what could be one roll. Fanwriters fill both the roles of filling in all the content GW doesn't want to fill out and replace the existing rules that are badly designed or written.

The game's obviously fun to a vast swathe of people already or it wouldn't continue to dominate the market year after year. Even when it was 'dead' in 7th it was still crushing.

So any product that is highly distributed is beyond criticism and any mod you make should never endevour to be better than the original in terms of execution? GW don't know how to create well-designed rules and fun rules, they're just throwing gak at the wall, 40k wasn't crushing in 7th and especially not in 6th. Good gameplay makes the game more fun. It should not take more than 10 steps to resolve a shooting attack against a unit. Stuff like the Repulsor Executioner is also badly designed, who cares if the ironhail heavy stubber is S4 or 5? Make it S5 so you can resolve it along with the gatling cannon and heavy bolters. How about the icarus ironhail gun? Another profile that has to be done seperately because it has an average of 3 hits vs non-FLY units and 5 hits vs FLY units unlike the regular ironhail stubber that does 4 hits vs both. How about making the the icarus stubber shoot 4 shots vs non-FLY and 8 shots vs FLY? The numbers are slightly different (2,67 and 5,33 hits instead of 3 and 5), but you get to resolve the damn weapons at the same time. Ultimately you can go from resolving 7 weapon profiles down to 4. Charging a Repulsor Executioner isn't likely to kill the charging models, but throw in a Chapter Master and a Lieutenant and it might just bore you to death that's how many seperate rolls are required (although the -1/+1 from the icarus heavy stubber doesn't come into play so it's just 6 separate profiles).

8th is a great game despite these flaws IMO and blindly copying bad design elements found in official releases makes relatively little sense. It appears from GW's article of the Fight phase that they were unaware that they had accidentally evolved the Fight phase from tic tac toe in previous editions to chess in 8th, something that is good or bad depending on what type of game you like, considering how many people hate the chess aspect it's hard to even give GW credit despite how much I love this aspect of the game. It's pretty easy to understand what OP wants with his rule, that it requires a few more words to explain through text is okay if it makes the game more fun to actually play.

 vict0988 wrote:
So any product that is highly distributed is beyond criticism and any mod you make should never endevour to be better than the original in terms of execution? GW don't know how to create well-designed rules and fun rules, they're just throwing gak at the wall, 40k wasn't crushing in 7th and especially not in 6th. Good gameplay makes the game more fun. It should not take more than 10 steps to resolve a shooting attack against a unit. Stuff like the Repulsor Executioner is also badly designed, who cares if the ironhail heavy stubber is S4 or 5? Make it S5 so you can resolve it along with the gatling cannon and heavy bolters. How about the icarus ironhail gun? Another profile that has to be done seperately because it has an average of 3 hits vs non-FLY units and 5 hits vs FLY units unlike the regular ironhail stubber that does 4 hits vs both. How about making the the icarus stubber shoot 4 shots vs non-FLY and 8 shots vs FLY? The numbers are slightly different (2,67 and 5,33 hits instead of 3 and 5), but you get to resolve the damn weapons at the same time. Ultimately you can go from resolving 7 weapon profiles down to 4. Charging a Repulsor Executioner isn't likely to kill the charging models, but throw in a Chapter Master and a Lieutenant and it might just bore you to death that's how many seperate rolls are required (although the -1/+1 from the icarus heavy stubber doesn't come into play so it's just 6 separate profiles).

8th is a great game despite these flaws IMO and blindly copying bad design elements found in official releases makes relatively little sense. It appears from GW's article of the Fight phase that they were unaware that they had accidentally evolved the Fight phase from tic tac toe in previous editions to chess in 8th, something that is good or bad depending on what type of game you like, considering how many people hate the chess aspect it's hard to even give GW credit despite how much I love this aspect of the game. It's pretty easy to understand what OP wants with his rule, that it requires a few more words to explain through text is okay if it makes the game more fun to actually play.

If you're going to propose new rules, shouldn't they look like something GW would actually write? My rules proposals are realistic in that they're changes GW might actually implement given past rules they've written. Otherwise, we're back to the issue the proposed rules section has always had in that none of these changes will see play outside of the table of the person who created them and one or two other board members.

If you want rules changes, write them as if you expect GW to publish them and fire off an email to GW corporate. Otherwise, you're just howling into the void.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
So any product that is highly distributed is beyond criticism and any mod you make should never endevour to be better than the original in terms of execution? GW don't know how to create well-designed rules and fun rules, they're just throwing gak at the wall, 40k wasn't crushing in 7th and especially not in 6th. Good gameplay makes the game more fun. It should not take more than 10 steps to resolve a shooting attack against a unit. Stuff like the Repulsor Executioner is also badly designed, who cares if the ironhail heavy stubber is S4 or 5? Make it S5 so you can resolve it along with the gatling cannon and heavy bolters. How about the icarus ironhail gun? Another profile that has to be done seperately because it has an average of 3 hits vs non-FLY units and 5 hits vs FLY units unlike the regular ironhail stubber that does 4 hits vs both. How about making the the icarus stubber shoot 4 shots vs non-FLY and 8 shots vs FLY? The numbers are slightly different (2,67 and 5,33 hits instead of 3 and 5), but you get to resolve the damn weapons at the same time. Ultimately you can go from resolving 7 weapon profiles down to 4. Charging a Repulsor Executioner isn't likely to kill the charging models, but throw in a Chapter Master and a Lieutenant and it might just bore you to death that's how many seperate rolls are required (although the -1/+1 from the icarus heavy stubber doesn't come into play so it's just 6 separate profiles).

8th is a great game despite these flaws IMO and blindly copying bad design elements found in official releases makes relatively little sense. It appears from GW's article of the Fight phase that they were unaware that they had accidentally evolved the Fight phase from tic tac toe in previous editions to chess in 8th, something that is good or bad depending on what type of game you like, considering how many people hate the chess aspect it's hard to even give GW credit despite how much I love this aspect of the game. It's pretty easy to understand what OP wants with his rule, that it requires a few more words to explain through text is okay if it makes the game more fun to actually play.

If you're going to propose new rules, shouldn't they look like something GW would actually write? My rules proposals are realistic in that they're changes GW might actually implement given past rules they've written. Otherwise, we're back to the issue the proposed rules section has always had in that none of these changes will see play outside of the table of the person who created them and one or two other board members.

If you want rules changes, write them as if you expect GW to publish them and fire off an email to GW corporate. Otherwise, you're just howling into the void.

I would hope that anyone who proposes rule changes would write them much better than how GW does. GWs rules writing is some of the worst I have ever seen from a company that is more than 1 dude working in his garage. In order for proposed rules to see widespread use GW would actually have to take that kind of feed back, change their priorities internally, hire actual game designers and editors, etc etc...

It doesn't matter how you write your proposed rules. GW isn't going to use them.

 Lance845 wrote:
I would hope that anyone who proposes rule changes would write them much better than how GW does. GWs rules writing is some of the worst I have ever seen from a company that is more than 1 dude working in his garage. In order for proposed rules to see widespread use GW would actually have to take that kind of feed back, change their priorities internally, hire actual game designers and editors, etc etc...

It doesn't matter how you write your proposed rules. GW isn't going to use them.

*Looks at the OPs first post*

Is that mess better than GWs writing?

For that matter, which games with a release cycle like GWs do you play? For example, PP writes a novel for rules that could take a line and issues errata so often they stopped printing physical rules because of it.

Yeah, wording could be a lot cleaner. But, at least I’m not being paid for this-this is all free.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I would hope that anyone who proposes rule changes would write them much better than how GW does. GWs rules writing is some of the worst I have ever seen from a company that is more than 1 dude working in his garage. In order for proposed rules to see widespread use GW would actually have to take that kind of feed back, change their priorities internally, hire actual game designers and editors, etc etc...

It doesn't matter how you write your proposed rules. GW isn't going to use them.

*Looks at the OPs first post*

Is that mess better than GWs writing?

For that matter, which games with a release cycle like GWs do you play? For example, PP writes a novel for rules that could take a line and issues errata so often they stopped printing physical rules because of it.

GW should stop their release schedule since they cannot publish a single release that does not require an errata to fix things they messed up in it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

GWs release schedule is a choice THEY MAKE that they are incapable to keeping up with while meeting anything even remotely resembling a standard of quality.

GW SHOULD stop printing physical rules. They become obsolete within a month because of their crap quality.

Even when the release schedule was slower it was a massive feth up. For 2 editions the Tyranid Codex has the Pyrovore rule blow up the entire table RAW. At the end of 7th when they released an FAQ errata to that codex they DID NOT correct that issue. It's basically impossible for the OP to be worse than GW.

 Lance845 wrote:
GW should stop their release schedule since they cannot publish a single release that does not require an errata to fix things they messed up in it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

GWs release schedule is a choice THEY MAKE that they are incapable to keeping up with while meeting anything even remotely resembling a standard of quality.

GW SHOULD stop printing physical rules. They become obsolete within a month because of their crap quality.

Even when the release schedule was slower it was a massive feth up. For 2 editions the Tyranid Codex has the Pyrovore rule blow up the entire table RAW. At the end of 7th when they released an FAQ errata to that codex they DID NOT correct that issue. It's basically impossible for the OP to be worse than GW.

Have you seen the rules for D&D 5e? There was errata for that and this was a flagship release in development for years.

How about Pathfinder 2e? There was errata for that too.

Hearthstone? Cards get rebalanced or retired from that game all the time.

Even board games like Scythe, a great game by the way, have had to release errata and correct misprints and unforeseen balance issues.

If you think that GW is exceptionally poor at writing rules because they have to print a relatively small volume of corrections you have unrealistic expectations.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
GW should stop their release schedule since they cannot publish a single release that does not require an errata to fix things they messed up in it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

GWs release schedule is a choice THEY MAKE that they are incapable to keeping up with while meeting anything even remotely resembling a standard of quality.

GW SHOULD stop printing physical rules. They become obsolete within a month because of their crap quality.

Even when the release schedule was slower it was a massive feth up. For 2 editions the Tyranid Codex has the Pyrovore rule blow up the entire table RAW. At the end of 7th when they released an FAQ errata to that codex they DID NOT correct that issue. It's basically impossible for the OP to be worse than GW.

Have you seen the rules for D&D 5e? There was errata for that and this was a flagship release in development for years.

How about Pathfinder 2e? There was errata for that too.

Hearthstone? Cards get rebalanced or retired from that game all the time.

Even board games like Scythe, a great game by the way, have had to release errata and correct misprints and unforeseen balance issues.

If you think that GW is exceptionally poor at writing rules because they have to print a relatively small volume of corrections you have unrealistic expectations.

1 faq errata for every publication they have ever released is not relatively small. 8 pages of core rules that have clear logic errors that have YET to be corrected in the several years since release is worse than everyone else. DnD actually works as a game. In all it's editions. 40k doesn't RAW. Even when the answers are obvious, the fact remains that the rules writing just does not work as written. You think thats BETTER then everyone else? Equal to? Insanity.

 Lance845 wrote:
1 faq errata for every publication they have ever released is not relatively small. 8 pages of core rules that have clear logic errors that have YET to be corrected in the several years since release is worse than everyone else. DnD actually works as a game. In all it's editions. 40k doesn't RAW. Even when the answers are obvious, the fact remains that the rules writing just does not work as written. You think thats BETTER then everyone else? Equal to? Insanity.

D&D, unless you meant the Department of National Defense, isn't a competitive game and thus has a different standard of working than 40k does. Also, D&D 5e doesn't actually work by RAW because they failed to write rules for several important interactions and covered them with an additional book released at a later date.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1 faq errata for every publication they have ever released is not relatively small. 8 pages of core rules that have clear logic errors that have YET to be corrected in the several years since release is worse than everyone else. DnD actually works as a game. In all it's editions. 40k doesn't RAW. Even when the answers are obvious, the fact remains that the rules writing just does not work as written. You think thats BETTER then everyone else? Equal to? Insanity.

D&D, unless you meant the Department of National Defense, isn't a competitive game and thus has a different standard of working than 40k does. Also, D&D 5e doesn't actually work by RAW because they failed to write rules for several important interactions and covered them with an additional book released at a later date.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Incorrect. What major interactions are missing from dnds core rules that is not covered by the general rule of picking a skill, setting a dc, and rolling a d20?

You sir, are full of crap.

 Lance845 wrote:
Incorrect. What major interactions are missing from dnds core rules that is not covered by the general rule of picking a skill, setting a dc, and rolling a d20?

You sir, are full of crap.

Let me get started.

5e fails nearly completely when it comes to giving guidelines, let alone actual monetary values, for character wealth by level. Given the nature of the game too many or too few magic items make things completely broken.

5e failed so hard at character balance an entire Ranger subclass had to be rewritten post-launch.

The encounter builder flat-out fails to build reasonably balanced encounters.

Giant owls exist and break most combat scenarios if summoned.

By RAW you could fail to gain hit points when you levelled up if you Constitution had a negative modifier.

Bards had an ability that could only choose spells from a single class rather than any combination of classes as intended.

Spellcasters could use their spell slots to cast spells from any class so long as they had a method to learn said spells.

Song of rest could restore additional hit points even if the character hearing the song didn't take an action that would restore hit points.

Fighters could, by RAW, feint against an opponent and still have advantage on their next attack against them years later.

The Monk's elemental attunement ability didn't have a listed range.

Monk's got Eternal Mountain Defense 6 levels earlier than intended.

Sorcerers could use spell points to amass infinite spell slots.

Twinned Spell could work on spells that didn't have targets.

Pact of the Tome gave the Warlock spells they potentially couldn't cast.

The Warlocks Eldritch Invocations class feature was undefined in terms of if the features were gated by classes level or spell level.

Wizards couldn't technically cast cantrips as they weren't listed as being in their spellbooks and wizards couldn't explicitly cast spells that weren't in their spellbooks.

That's just for the classes, we haven't reached feats, equipment, or spell descriptions yet.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Incorrect. What major interactions are missing from dnds core rules that is not covered by the general rule of picking a skill, setting a dc, and rolling a d20?

You sir, are full of crap.

Let me get started.

Awesome.

5e fails nearly completely when it comes to giving guidelines, let alone actual monetary values, for character wealth by level. Given the nature of the game too many or too few magic items make things completely broken.

Not a core function of the game. How much wealth and what the players can purchase with it is dependent on setting. In Eberron getting a wand minigun isn't out of the question. In Dark Sun having a sword made out of steel is nigh impossible.

5e failed so hard at character balance an entire Ranger subclass had to be rewritten post-launch.

Not a core function of the game. But if you want to bitch about balance may I direct you to the entire history of 40k forever.

The encounter builder flat-out fails to build reasonably balanced encounters.

As pointed out, it's dependent on group size, class make up, and wealth and ultimately up to the DM how hard or easy any fight should be. Also not a part of the core rules.

Giant owls exist and break most combat scenarios if summoned.

Not a core function of the game. See 40ks balance.

By RAW you could fail to gain hit points when you levelled up if you Constitution had a negative modifier.

So?

Bards had an ability that could only choose spells from a single class rather than any combination of classes as intended.

Not a core function of the game. And, so?

Spellcasters could use their spell slots to cast spells from any class so long as they had a method to learn said spells.

Yup. Benefit of cross classing. So?

Song of rest could restore additional hit points even if the character hearing the song didn't take an action that would restore hit points.

So?

Fighters could, by RAW, feint against an opponent and still have advantage on their next attack against them years later.

Weird. Sounds like feints still worked though, so?

The Monk's elemental attunement ability didn't have a listed range.

Not a core function of the game. Also, so what?

Monk's got Eternal Mountain Defense 6 levels earlier than intended.

Not a core function of the game still. See 40ks balance.

Sorcerers could use spell points to amass infinite spell slots.

Not infinite. They run out of spell points eventually. Just a lot.Still no core functions of the game here...

Twinned Spell could work on spells that didn't have targets.

So?

Pact of the Tome gave the Warlock spells they potentially couldn't cast.

And?

The Warlocks Eldritch Invocations class feature was undefined in terms of if the features were gated by classes level or spell level.

Is all you have class features? I am waiting for a core mechanic of 5th to not function.

Wizards couldn't technically cast cantrips as they weren't listed as being in their spellbooks and wizards couldn't explicitly cast spells that weren't in their spellbooks.

That's just for the classes, we haven't reached feats, equipment, or spell descriptions yet.

Cool so you don't.

Counter Point:

In 40k 8th edition a weapon being assault or pistol cannot be used after advancing or within 1" of an enemy unit respectively. The rules in the 8 page primer clearly state that the order of operation is

1) pick a unit to shoot, the unit cannot be selected if it is within 1" of an enemy unit or if it advanced during the previous movement phase.

The weapons allow the model to shoot that specific weapon, but you are never given permission to pick the unit before you ever get to picking the weapon. There fore you can't use either of them in their intended situations.This isn't an issue that impacts a class (read army) this is a core function of the game that impacts every player/army in the game. And it's part of the only 8 pages of rules needed to play. Not the special rule minutia of the individual armies/classes. And, more important to this discussion, it's never been corrected in the 3 years this game has been out.

Please, find me a CORE rule of dnd that just doesn't work AND Wizards has failed to correct since publication.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If you're going to propose new rules, shouldn't they look like something GW would actually write? My rules proposals are realistic in that they're changes GW might actually implement given past rules they've written. Otherwise, we're back to the issue the proposed rules section has always had in that none of these changes will see play outside of the table of the person who created them and one or two other board members.

If you want rules changes, write them as if you expect GW to publish them and fire off an email to GW corporate. Otherwise, you're just howling into the void.

GW have written both good and bad rules, you say you don't play the game so you probably don't even know what the existing rule does, several of my opponents have gotten surprised by how exactly Quantum Shielding currently works despite me trying to explain it to the best of my ability before the game starts. Also, I don't believe there is anything more alien about the rule I've written than the original rule, it doesn't need any examples to make clear how it works.

Quantum Shielding: Each time this model fails a saving throw, roll a D6. If the result is less than the damage inflicted by that attack, the damage is ignored (e.g. if this model suffers 4 damage, if you then roll a 3 or less the damage is ignored). Quantum Shielding cannot prevent damage caused by mortal wounds.

Quantum Shielding: This model has a 7+ invulnerable save. In addition, at the start of each phase add a number equal to the number in the damage table above to this model's saving throws until the end of the phase.

Take the old Chapter Master Stratagem that worked on failed hit rolls which led to wonky interactions with penalties to hit, while mathematically consistent in terms of effect, it was confusing to a lot of players. Now the new one is easy to understand letting you re-roll any hit rolls you desire, but it is underpriced given how good it is against units with penalties to hit. The old one had better balance, the new one has better design, nothing says GW cannot do both if they wanted to. Now this isn't totally analogous, the Chapter Master wonkiness was a matter of simplification, this is a matter of speeding up the game, but GW have updated rules to improve the design.

OP's first post was explaining the concept, not how the rule would be written exactly. I don't get the point of writing rules that are not fun to play with. Even if GW were to copy you, the rules wouldn't become any better if all you're doing is taking the lowest hanging fruit like GW first did with the Chapter Master Stratagem. We should strive to write in a manner similar to GW when possible whether creating new rules or updating old ones, so copy & paste when GW has written a similar rule and that rule was written well enough, that doesn't mean a slightly more complicated rule cannot be better if it prevents the game from dragging out because you have to roll a dozen dice individually. I don't believe GW has speed of play at all in their scopes as a goal right now so the game is riddled with issues that slow the game down to a halt and that most people house-rule or ignore to speed up the game. Stuff like fast-rolling saving throws, radium and shuriken weapons.

The Rulebook + Codexes + Supplements + CA format is not ideal from a balance or gameplay perspective, it will necessarily be unbalanced most of the time despite GW working faster than ever. Every rule and unit should have a beta phase and all rules and pts should be updated simultaneously or wait for the next balance update. If GW dropped the codex model and instead went back to indexes updated once every 2-4 years and released these updates rules alongside a version of CA entirely focussed on matched play Stratagems, Relics, WL traits and pts then the game could be balanced all at once. Supplements and codexes should stay far away from matched play and could provide all the open play and narrative content CA is currently including. GW is a model company, the rules should stay out of the way and just allow people to get on with it, forcing people to bring up to 4 Codexes and up to 6 supplements, CA and the main rulebook, as well as up to 11 Erratas, is silly.

 Lance845 wrote:

5e fails nearly completely when it comes to giving guidelines, let alone actual monetary values, for character wealth by level. Given the nature of the game too many or too few magic items make things completely broken.

Not a core function of the game. How much wealth and what the players can purchase with it is dependent on setting. In Eberron getting a wand minigun isn't out of the question. In Dark Sun having a sword made out of steel is nigh impossible.

D&D's when first developed literally didn't have experience points and levelled your character based on the gold they acquired. To say that loot isn't a core aspect of the game is dishonest in the extreme.

As pointed out, it's dependent on group size, class make up, and wealth and ultimately up to the DM how hard or easy any fight should be. Also not a part of the core rules.

So army composition isn't a core part of 40k's core rules then? Also, D&D is a game with the majority of its rules focused around combat encounters if it can't make those simple to design it has failed at its core.

By RAW you could fail to gain hit points when you levelled up if you Constitution had a negative modifier.

So?

That's literally not how any edition of the game has ever worked and was entirely unintentional as it was fixed via errata. It's literally an example of a core mechanic of the game, as levelling up is a core mechanic of an RPG, not functioning correctly.

Bards had an ability that could only choose spells from a single class rather than any combination of classes as intended.

Not a core function of the game. And, so?

Yes, class features are core functions of the game. You literally cannot play D&D without choosing a class and using their class features. This is literally from a core rulebook in which the rules which form the core of the game are from.

Are you just fething dense or deliberately obtuse?

Spellcasters could use their spell slots to cast spells from any class so long as they had a method to learn said spells.

Yup. Benefit of cross classing. So?

Entirely unintentional and removed via errata.

Song of rest could restore additional hit points even if the character hearing the song didn't take an action that would restore hit points.

So?

You literally had an ability that could activate at a time where it would have no effect.

Fighters could, by RAW, feint against an opponent and still have advantage on their next attack against them years later.

Weird. Sounds like feints still worked though, so?

Imagine if in 40k a rule that was supposed to have an until end of turn clause just didn't, so you'd cast a psychic power on an enemy unit and it would just stay forever until triggered. I doubt you'd simply call that weird.

The Monk's elemental attunement ability didn't have a listed range.

Not a core function of the game. Also, so what?

The ability literally couldn't function without a stated range. Imagine a ranged weapon in 40k just having a blank box where it's range stat should be.

Monk's got Eternal Mountain Defense 6 levels earlier than intended.

Not a core function of the game still. See 40ks balance.

Can you play a game of D&D using the Player's Handbook, a core rulebook, without using class features? No, thusly class features are core rules.

Sorcerers could use spell points to amass infinite spell slots.

Not infinite. They run out of spell points eventually. Just a lot.Still no core functions of the game here...

They had an unbounded level of spell slots, which means that could have infinite spell slots in an infinite amount of time but could never use them. Also, again class features are core rules because classes are a core part of D&D.

Pact of the Tome gave the Warlock spells they potentially couldn't cast.

And?

Writing rules that literally don't function is an example of terrible rule writing.

The Warlocks Eldritch Invocations class feature was undefined in terms of if the features were gated by classes level or spell level.

Is all you have class features? I am waiting for a core mechanic of 5th to not function.

Define exactly what you mean by core rules. I'm defining core rules as rules from the core rulebooks of D&D.

Also, here's a core rule that flat out doesn't really work.

If you start drowning while already at 0 HP in 5e it's undefined as to exactly what happens. It could lead to situations where a character is called upon to make death saves from two sources, or where they stabilize from one source of death saves but not from drowning... It's a mess.

There's also the noble art of Diplomancy, still alive and well.

Using only rules found in the core books a 6th level character can overcome Nearly Impossible tasks persuasion test 9.75% of the time solo. If they have a friend those odds increase to ~32%. A 32% chance to just end any given encounter, ask a god to grant you something you really ought not to have, etc. It's even funnier if you use the same methods with Deception and Intimidate.

---

I just realized that your example of a rule that doesn't work isn't one...

1) Nobody has ever played the game that way and if a rule is universally understood to work it is by definition a functional rule.

2) Nothing in the rules tell you to follow the numbered sequence. Rule 2 explicitly references needing to have first chosen a unit, but rules 1 and 3 don't actually reference anything, so technically you can choose weapons before you choose a unit and nothing breaks.

It's dumb, but...

---

Bonus Fact:

D&D 3.5 characters could be healed by drowning themselves. So, by RAW, if your character was dropped to negative HP in or near to a body of water and by happenstance (or active planning) fell into a body of water they could intentionally fail the check against drowning and fall unconscious setting themselves to 0 HP. If you don't think that step works, the second step of drowning explicitly sets a characters HP to -1 which in many cases still represents a fair amount of healing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
That's so much mor complicated than it is now.
Why change something that's thematic and actually works?

Because, as I said, it actively punishes your opponent for having good stats. With the exception of Grav weaponry (damage increase if armor save is 3+ or better) I can't think of anything else in the game that does that. (FWIW, Grav should change too, methinks.)

And I don't see how it's that complicated. You add +2/+1/0 to your save rolls. That and gaining an invulnerable save is all there is to it. The only thing that might come off as complicated is that it doesn't update constantly, only at the start of each phase, but that's to stop slow-playing by trying to plink off the last wound of a bracket with Bolters before your Lascannons come in, for example.

Edit: Maybe I explained it poorly? Since one person thinks it's complicated and someone else doesn't understand it, I probably did.

Let me try again.

A Ghost Ark has a 4+ save. With my proposed Quantum Shielding, it also has a 7+ Invulnerable save (normally impossible to make, but with the rest of Quantum Shielding, quite doable). While in its top bracket (so at 50% or more wounds) it adds +2 to all save rolls. While in its middle bracket, +1. While on its last bracket, no bonus.

So, a full wounds Ghost Ark is targeted by a Bolter. The weapon wounds once, meaning you have to take just one save. Since the Ark is at its top bracket, it adds +2 to its save roll. You would roll 1d6+2, aiming to get a 4+, or, in effect, having a 2+ save.
Against a Heavy Bolter, you would roll 1d6+2-1, or, since you have an effective 2+ with an AP-1 weapon, you'd need a 3+.
Against a Melta, you'd have to rely on your Invuln, which is 7+ on 1d6+2, or an effective 5+.

This degrades as you take wounds, so on the middle bracket, you have an effective 3+/6++.

Does that make more sense?

Could you enlighten me why this mechanic should not exist?
The rule "punishes" heavy hitting anti tank weapons.
Therefore this gives weapons that are desinged to destroy light vehicles (like autocannons) a moment to shine.
And as you mentoined yourself there are units in the necron roster that are still weak to the heavy hitters, Monoliths.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Define exactly what you mean by core rules. I'm defining core rules as rules from the core rulebooks of D&D.

A core rule is a rule that effects the basic structure of the gameplay for the entire game. Like, MTG has the phases, tapping cards, mana costs. The rules on the cards themselves often break or modify the core rules.So for dnd you have making characters, attributes, attribute modifiers, skills proficiency, the d20, HP, etc etc... DCs and AC (which is just a combat DC).

Also, here's a core rule that flat out doesn't really work.

If you start drowning while already at 0 HP in 5e it's undefined as to exactly what happens. It could lead to situations where a character is called upon to make death saves from two sources, or where they stabilize from one source of death saves but not from drowning... It's a mess.

It's not a mess. If you are at 0 HP you are making death saving throws. If you take damage from any source you gain a failure. 3 failures and you die. You can't have 2 sources because it's a binary situation. You are either in death saves or you are not

There's also the noble art of Diplomancy, still alive and well.

Using only rules found in the core books a 6th level character can overcome Nearly Impossible tasks persuasion test 9.75% of the time solo. If they have a friend those odds increase to ~32%. A 32% chance to just end any given encounter, ask a god to grant you something you really ought not to have, etc. It's even funnier if you use the same methods with Deception and Intimidate.

Yup. But it WORKS. As written it functions.

---

I just realized that your example of a rule that doesn't work isn't one...

1) Nobody has ever played the game that way and if a rule is universally understood to work it is by definition a functional rule.

Incorrect. RAI being obvious doesn't make RAW any less terrible. GWs RAW is terrible.

2) Nothing in the rules tell you to follow the numbered sequence. Rule 2 explicitly references needing to have first chosen a unit, but rules 1 and 3 don't actually reference anything, so technically you can choose weapons before you choose a unit and nothing breaks.

Yes it does. The shooting phase rules do. You have no permission to pick a model to shoot before you pick a unit to shoot. It's a permission based rule set. Otherwise the game would allow you to shoot with 1 termagant from this unit, then 5 from a different unit, then 2 tryanid warriors (out of 9) so on and so forth. It doesn't.

It's dumb, but...

---

Bonus Fact:

D&D 3.5 characters could be healed by drowning themselves. So, by RAW, if your character was dropped to negative HP in or near to a body of water and by happenstance (or active planning) fell into a body of water they could intentionally fail the check against drowning and fall unconscious setting themselves to 0 HP. If you don't think that step works, the second step of drowning explicitly sets a characters HP to -1 which in many cases still represents a fair amount of healing.

Counter point:

Nid codex from Jan 2014:



RAW, every unit on the table suffers a number of Str 3, AP- hits for every model within d6" of the pyrovore. Pack a unit of 30 termagants in around it and the whole table suffers 30 hits. That rule remains unchanged to this day.


It seems pretty obvious that your a fan of GWs who makes excuses for their incompetence and hand waves away all their terrible crap they produce. Just... stop.

My goal wasn't to get into a rules error measuring contest, merely top point out the writing rules is difficult and basically everybody who's ever had to do it has messed it up badly at some point along the way. Your stance that GW is far and away the worst ever at writing rules shows a myopic view of the situation and highlights your ignorance on the subject.

Take it from somebody who's taken a technical writing course, it's harder than you think to write out instructions that everybody, regardless of background, language proficiency, etc. will all understand correctly. So my bias is towards cleanly written rules even if they might add an extra step or two to actual gameplay. My other bias is making fan rules look and function as close to official rules as possible. Hence my writing of the new QS rule the way I did.

I see your technical writing course and raise you my ba in game design. Writing rules CAN be hard. But a profesional company with over 30 years developing the same game is given a gross amount of lee way for their crap quality product. Others might be worse. But nobody with gws pedigree has consistently produced such poor quality over and over again. They are, categorically, the worst.

 Lance845 wrote:
I see your technical writing course and raise you my ba in game design. Writing rules CAN be hard. But a profesional company with over 30 years developing the same game is given a gross amount of lee way for their crap quality product. Others might be worse. But nobody with gws pedigree has consistently produced such poor quality over and over again. They are, categorically, the worst.

Given your degree, its surprising that you fail to recognize just how many companies fail to write clear concise, functional rules. The sheer amount of errata for literally every system under the sun should have done that years ago.

Also, GWs uncorrected rules, are generally non-issue in practice because unlike what does make the FAQs there isn't actually that much confusion about the rule at actual tables.

Lastly, if you dislike GWs work that much use your BA and write your own system. I'm working on my own RPG at the moment as a creative outlet, it's a great way to blow off some creative steam.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I see your technical writing course and raise you my ba in game design. Writing rules CAN be hard. But a profesional company with over 30 years developing the same game is given a gross amount of lee way for their crap quality product. Others might be worse. But nobody with gws pedigree has consistently produced such poor quality over and over again. They are, categorically, the worst.

Given your degree, its surprising that you fail to recognize just how many companies fail to write clear concise, functional rules. The sheer amount of errata for literally every system under the sun should have done that years ago.

The number of companies that write faulty rules are far outweighed by the number that write clear concise and functional rules. There are no errors in any form of poker. Monopoly, risk, etc etc... Again, it's just GW stands out above (bellow?) the rest for the sheer volume of it coupled with the decades they have spent working on this singular game.

Also, GWs uncorrected rules, are generally non-issue in practice because unlike what does make the FAQs there isn't actually that much confusion about the rule at actual tables.

Irrelevant. I judge GW on their own merit free from other peoples interpretations of RAI and how they get past it. GW stands or doesn't on their own.

Lastly, if you dislike GWs work that much use your BA and write your own system. I'm working on my own RPG at the moment as a creative outlet, it's a great way to blow off some creative steam.

::thumbs up:: I am about to enter the 4th iteration of my pet project TTRPG (probably after I finish an upcoming move). Game design is great. If you want to chat about our designs I am happy to! Lets do it in PMs though.

 Lance845 wrote:
The number of companies that write faulty rules are far outweighed by the number that write clear concise and functional rules. There are no errors in any form of poker. Monopoly, risk, etc etc... Again, it's just GW stands out above (bellow?) the rest for the sheer volume of it coupled with the decades they have spent working on this singular game.

You're comparing a game as complex as Warhammer 40k to Poker and expecting that to be taken seriously... Show me a game within an order of magnitude of the rules volume that Warhammer 40k has that doesn't have any errata.

Irrelevant. I judge GW on their own merit free from other peoples interpretations of RAI and how they get past it. GW stands or doesn't on their own.

That's not how games are played though. If your definition only works in theory but not in practice then your definition sucks.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The number of companies that write faulty rules are far outweighed by the number that write clear concise and functional rules. There are no errors in any form of poker. Monopoly, risk, etc etc... Again, it's just GW stands out above (bellow?) the rest for the sheer volume of it coupled with the decades they have spent working on this singular game.

You're comparing a game as complex as Warhammer 40k to Poker and expecting that to be taken seriously... Show me a game within an order of magnitude of the rules volume that Warhammer 40k has that doesn't have any errata.

The individual components of 40k are simple and brief. 1 Data sheet takes very little to proof read. the 8 pages of core rules are less pages of rules then many games. This order of magnitude crap is because they don't work in a structured way. For instance, how come savior protocols on drones is written with completely different sentence structure from lychguards protector rule despite doing the exact same thing with only the KEYWORDS needing to be swapped? It's because GW itself isn't organized and is not following a simple structured method for development. This order of magnitude of complexity is an excuse. You make structured rules by being structured and following discipline.

Magic the Gathering.

Also, consider this. Programing language is basically rules writing. If than statements. Defining terms and objects. If it was so impossible to write rules free of logic errors then no software would ever be developed.

Irrelevant. I judge GW on their own merit free from other peoples interpretations of RAI and how they get past it. GW stands or doesn't on their own.

That's not how games are played though. If your definition only works in theory but not in practice then your definition sucks.

My definition isn't based in theory it's based in reality. I read the words they wrote on the page and I go, "That doesn't work" because it doesn't. The fact that me and my opponenet then reword the rules so we can play a game doesn't change that the words on the page are wrong. For the money we pay we should be able to play without having to do that.

But Quantum Shielding in its current iteration is a damage mitigating mechanic, not a wound mitigation.

I don't think it's a faithful translation of what QS is, unless your goal is specifically to revert it back to what it was prior to 8th ed.

QS is more effective against high DAMAGE weapons, not high S & AP, and currently the most sought after weapons in the game are 2D weapons.

 Lance845 wrote:
Magic the Gathering.

Oh, my sweet summer child, you are so very wrong about MtG.

"When Card Name enters the battlefield, exile target creature or artifact until Card Name leaves the battlefield. You may cast that card for as long as it remains exiled, and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast that spell."

Without googling, I removed the card's actual name to make it slightly more difficult for you to do so, tell me what had to be changed about this card to prevent an unfixable infinite loop which the game's rules have no means of resolving.

Also, consider this. Programing language is basically rules writing. If than statements. Defining terms and objects. If it was so impossible to write rules free of logic errors then no software would ever be developed.

I guess all code is shipped bug-free and on time then and that bug fixes post-launch aren't analogous to errata.

My definition isn't based in theory it's based in reality. I read the words they wrote on the page and I go, "That doesn't work" because it doesn't. The fact that me and my opponenet then reword the rules so we can play a game doesn't change that the words on the page are wrong. For the money we pay we should be able to play without having to do that.

Have you ever 'misplayed' that rule?

Also, counterpoint, games aren't played by reading the rules alone. A game among children may have rules, generally understood by all playing, that aren't formally codified and yet they still play the game to their own satisfaction. Would their playtime be improved by having a rigerous codification and enforcement of the rules of their game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
But Quantum Shielding in its current iteration is a damage mitigating mechanic, not a wound mitigation.

I don't think it's a faithful translation of what QS is, unless your goal is specifically to revert it back to what it was prior to 8th ed.

QS is more effective against high DAMAGE weapons, not high S & AP, and currently the most sought after weapons in the game are 2D weapons.

Who's this directed at?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Who's this directed at?

At the OP. I think you'd have more productive discussion if you moved your MtG discussion into PM's.

 skchsan wrote:
But Quantum Shielding in its current iteration is a damage mitigating mechanic, not a wound mitigation.

I don't think it's a faithful translation of what QS is, unless your goal is specifically to revert it back to what it was prior to 8th ed.

QS is more effective against high DAMAGE weapons, not high S & AP, and currently the most sought after weapons in the game are 2D weapons.

Have you read the fluff for QS? It's the most generic thing that's ever been written and could be satisfied by a flat invul save and nothing else. The shield ceasing to function after a penetrating hit was entirely a rules writer's fancy back in 5th and the same is true for the shield not functioning against low D weapons in 8th. According to fluff the Triarch Stalker is the only one that has it, maybe it should just be removed from the Arks and Barges? (Bad idea IMO, but I don't think the fluff goes against it).

OP said why he doesn't like the rule, it makes premium weapons people paid for not function as they should, making people feel like they wasted their investment in anti-tank weapons. Conversely, when your opponent gets lots of D3/2/3 damage weapons and easily destroys your tanks it feels unfair that they are so relatively squishy compared to when you are targeted by high Damage weapons. Then there is the thing about it becoming more and more swingy as the damage increases, on 4 damage there's a 50/50 of taking 0 or 4, at 6 damage there's an 83/17 chance of taking 0 or 6 damage, that's a lot of damage that could be inflicted from one bad dice roll and it isn't gradual at all, no in-between.

There is another thing to consider in terms of target saturation because Monoliths are currently very vulnerable to lascannons and bright lances and QS vehicles are not. Should you bring both Ghost Arks and Monoliths your opponent can effortlessly split fire. Most Marine vehicles are very similar, most are T7 3+ Sv, a few have a 5++ and a couple have 4++, some have 2+ and/or T8. But QS creates a way more stark difference between our vehicles than between any other faction. Considering the Monolith's old abilities it could have QS and some people have argued that it should, personally I feel that QS is too feels badsy most of the time.