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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.

Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.

 alextroy wrote:
I am not sure if it was a conscious decision on the writer's part or a rule of cool thing, but many of these are examples of ways to shift the math in GW's system of d6's. A re-rollable 4+ give a 75% chance of success, which you can't get via a 2+ or a 3+. An extra Hit (or attack) on a roll of 6 gives an average of less than a extra full attack to the model, especially if it has less than 6 attacks.

That's fair, but I would argue two things:

1. I don't believe that GW's designers have anywhere near the grasp of balance or probability required for those to be conscious decisions, and
2. Even if they were, if your game absolutely needs a higher probability than 67% but lower percentage than 83%, it is time to move to a more granular die- but I would also argue that 40K really doesn't need further granularity; it needs to stop clustering around high-probability values (50% should not be considered 'bad'; restricting your design space to either 2+ or 3+ for most things is incredibly limiting) and seek depth through core mechanics, rather than one unit being 8% more likely to hit than another or generate an extra fraction of an attack more than its peers.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.

Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.

GW was able to use a roundabout definition to identify 'Feel No Pain' rules before, when they FAQ'd that you can only use one such rule against losing a wound. Copy-paste the same wording, say 'these are now considered the Feel No Pain universal special rule', and you're good to go. Then there should be no reason for a USR drawn from a common USR pool having any different wording from the others.

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.

GW was able to use a roundabout definition to identify 'Feel No Pain' rules before, when they FAQ'd that you can only use one such rule against losing a wound. Copy-paste the same wording, say 'these are now considered the Feel No Pain universal special rule', and you're good to go.

isnt that just proving that USRs would be beneficial for the game?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.

GW was able to use a roundabout definition to identify 'Feel No Pain' rules before, when they FAQ'd that you can only use one such rule against losing a wound. Copy-paste the same wording, say 'these are now considered the Feel No Pain universal special rule', and you're good to go.

isnt that just proving that USRs would be beneficial for the game?

Yes, exactly; sorry, you caught me before my edit for clarity.

 catbarf wrote:
GW was able to use a roundabout definition to identify 'Feel No Pain' rules before, when they FAQ'd that you can only use one such rule against losing a wound. Copy-paste the same wording, say 'these are now considered the Feel No Pain universal special rule', and you're good to go. Then there should be no reason for a USR drawn from a common USR pool having any different wording from the others.

You say that as if GW is capable of copy-pasting correctly. They are a little TOO good at copypasting, considering how CA19's MFM worked out.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.

Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.

That's a really big thing that I think a lot of us might not allow for.

Us old gits that have been playing for ages know that there used to be USRs, and we know terms like Feel No Pain, Objective Secured, Deep Strike and so on. We know that effectively these USRs are still in operation, but they've all been given fluffy names and descriptions on each different unit's datasheet.

People who've only started in 8th don't have this as a frame of reference. As far as they're concerned each rule on each datasheet could easily be unique - and that's a hell of a lot of rules to be aware of. Sure, given time they'll get the message that all troops have an equivalent of Objective Secured and so on. But why not just make that plain from the outset?

Crispy78 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.

Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.

That's a really big thing that I think a lot of us might not allow for.

Us old gits that have been playing for ages know that there used to be USRs, and we know terms like Feel No Pain, Objective Secured, Deep Strike and so on. We know that effectively these USRs are still in operation, but they've all been given fluffy names and descriptions on each different unit's datasheet.

People who've only started in 8th don't have this as a frame of reference. As far as they're concerned each rule on each datasheet could easily be unique - and that's a hell of a lot of rules to be aware of. Sure, given time they'll get the message that all troops have an equivalent of Objective Secured and so on. But why not just make that plain from the outset?

We've got the same opinion on USRs.
To be fair, Feel no Pain and deepstrike are terms that most people i play with use. I've only played 8th edition and i started using it in my first 5 games.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently.

Except we were not talking about what we have currently, we were talking about my proposition here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/840/787851.page#10797286
In this version, there is a Feel no pain rule. It's not in the BRB but it exists.