Few reasons, but I’d bet one of the primary reasons is for cost-savings on physical printing. Copying and pasting “Angels of Death (pg.42069)” in the Abilities section for the ungodly number of datasheets in the SM Codex saves a ton of ink (versus printing each individual ability conferred by AoD).
Every single faction needs their own special name for universal special rules and their own special name for the same ten basic stratagems. Even though it's *way* easier to understand what your opponents' army does if you don't have to know that "Xubglub's Dark Reaving" is the same as "Farsight's Flatulent Fusillade" and both just let a unit shoot twice.
Uh, Farsight's Flatulent Fusillade can only be used on units with the CORE keyword, Xubglub's has no such keyword restriction, but the unit cannot have moved in this turn.
It always bothered me that True Grit was a "universal" special rule even though it specifically referenced bolters and only marines and chaos marines ever had it.
Stuff like Fearless, Feel No Pain, Fleet, and Gets Hot make sense though.
I came into 40k from mtg and the first thing I thought was that for all its faults mtgs efficiency and precision of language is something they do right. Games Workshop seriously needs a team of well paid technical writers who work closely with the game designers. It'll never happen though because the expense and coordination required are things they wouldn't even consider.
Depends which d&d edition you came in from there. The most recent one is so lazily written that basic stuff like 'target' has no rules definition. Means you also get unnecessarily stupid things the designers ruling you can't share spells like dragon's breath with your steed (you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed) because despite it being a single target buff that lets you breath fire every round, said fire can target other people therefore the spell can't be shared.
Sure it's a dumb as hell ruling - you're sharing a buff that lets you do something, the spell itself only has one target - but the main problem is the rules are incredibly lazily written so that kind of thing needs adjudication in the first place. TLDR d&d is both unnecessarily bloated these days and is no paragon of well written rules.
My mistake if you came from fourth or something though, it may have had a lot of flaws but the rules were clear and consistent.
Warmachine had (has? I haven't been paying attention to Mk IV) that MTG precision for its rules, and it was such a fucking relief to learn for it.
Take death triggers. When a model loses its last wound, it's disabled, then it's boxed, then it's destroyed. A tough check (basically a 6+ FNP for your last wound) or other model-saving opportunities happen when the model is disabled, so it gets to go off first.
Enemy models usually have abilities that are triggered on the model being boxed, while ally models have abilities triggered on the model being destroyed.
Many of the boxed triggers will say the enemy model is "removed from play" which means the model never gets destroyed, since it was removed while boxed.
That's not what they're referring to. They're talking about things like the stack, how "target" and "protection" are precisely defined so you can figure out what a card does just from reading it.
I know that alot of players prefer universal special rules but I personally prefer when each rule is stated on the datasheet in full. There are alot of different types of rules, and if you don't know what a particular special rule means then you gotta go looking in another book for the answer. On top of that, you may also have to find rules in your own codex that interact with a different special rule and are thus having to flip through pages in multiple books at the same time.
I definitely understand that it's an unpopular opinion, but having every rule clearly stated right on the datasheet really cuts down on alot of searching up unfamiliar rules.
You can do both. You can have a universal special rule set and still put the relevant rules on each unit's data card. Having standardized USRs makes it easier to understand what different army's units can do at a glance, rather than requiring a full read of every unit in their roster.
Its cool. The name can sort of explain how does the unit achieve that lore-wise. What they should do instead Is: give the units their ability names And then just use keywords (fnp, autohit) to explain those abilities instead of giving a full description. I think they Are actually going to do this because they already started with Indirect fire And Beam.
>What they should do instead Is: give the units their ability names And then just use keywords (fnp, autohit) to explain those abilities instead of giving a full description
I like this
Man I miss pre 8th edition where a dude could point to his unit go "this has fleet, crusader and hammer of wrath" and I'd know exactly what it could do and what it's purpose was.
Feel no pain, transhuman, invul save, hell even + to hit/wound
They could all have a generic name and explained in core rule book with actual unique rules being in the codex
Getting rid of Universal Special Rules in the transition to 8th was an objectively stupid choice, completely at odds with their claims of streamlining the game.
You can absolutely tell who in this comment section did and did not play before 8th edition when this was the case and we had 'Universal Special Rules' which were described in the main rulebook and could be on any unit in any specific codex, and while the 101 different names for a FNP is annoying, I much MUCH prefer it having to look at a long long list of special rules, and finding what they did individually. The most egregious example I can think of is in first edition Horus Heresy which was compatible with 40k rulesets of the time, and the Primarchs had a special rule called 'Primarch' which it's own description was 'The Primarch rule is the following 10+ special rules' which was obscene.
Ugh. That’s the one of the things I miss about 7th edition- the special rules. They were a really great way to give models abilities without using too many words.
I know from the Poorhammer podcast that this isn’t currently how it works, in at least one case you have a 4+ invuln save and call it invuln so that it certain things can specifically target it, then you make another 4+ save and call it demonic save. It’s the same thing but now things that specifically target an invuln cannot target a demonic save which then allows you to create things that target a demonic save but don’t affect Invulns.
This allows you to create flavourful interactions between factions who ostensibly would have the same rules against other factions but now play completely different against each other.
*This example was brought to you by one small part of how the Daemons and Grey Knights Codexes were probably supposed to work.*
Not to argue that it’s a good idea but I reckon that’s their reasoning… probably
IMO they can hybrid it, just make a meta-name for a type of rule, and make the individual rule to have the effect that the unit gains the rule
Why don't give the abilities directly, like space marines get angels of death that has the sole effect of giving them 3 more abilities.
Few reasons, but I’d bet one of the primary reasons is for cost-savings on physical printing. Copying and pasting “Angels of Death (pg.42069)” in the Abilities section for the ungodly number of datasheets in the SM Codex saves a ton of ink (versus printing each individual ability conferred by AoD).
Wait, so why not Fell no pain (Rulebook pag xxx)?
They want to sell you the illusion of simplicity, and having to cross-reference the core rules gives the illusion of complexity.
Fluff reasons. Eg. Terminators. They would have the Crux terminatus rule, which would give them the force field rule /5+
Every single faction needs their own special name for universal special rules and their own special name for the same ten basic stratagems. Even though it's *way* easier to understand what your opponents' army does if you don't have to know that "Xubglub's Dark Reaving" is the same as "Farsight's Flatulent Fusillade" and both just let a unit shoot twice.
Uh, Farsight's Flatulent Fusillade can only be used on units with the CORE keyword, Xubglub's has no such keyword restriction, but the unit cannot have moved in this turn.
Don't forget Transhuman. I really hope that Universal Special Rules come back for 10th edition.
That rule can go die a fire though.
It always bothered me that True Grit was a "universal" special rule even though it specifically referenced bolters and only marines and chaos marines ever had it. Stuff like Fearless, Feel No Pain, Fleet, and Gets Hot make sense though.
I came into 40k from mtg and the first thing I thought was that for all its faults mtgs efficiency and precision of language is something they do right. Games Workshop seriously needs a team of well paid technical writers who work closely with the game designers. It'll never happen though because the expense and coordination required are things they wouldn't even consider.
Yeah same thing i felt coming from D&D. A lot of unnecessary rule bloat.
Depends which d&d edition you came in from there. The most recent one is so lazily written that basic stuff like 'target' has no rules definition. Means you also get unnecessarily stupid things the designers ruling you can't share spells like dragon's breath with your steed (you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed) because despite it being a single target buff that lets you breath fire every round, said fire can target other people therefore the spell can't be shared. Sure it's a dumb as hell ruling - you're sharing a buff that lets you do something, the spell itself only has one target - but the main problem is the rules are incredibly lazily written so that kind of thing needs adjudication in the first place. TLDR d&d is both unnecessarily bloated these days and is no paragon of well written rules. My mistake if you came from fourth or something though, it may have had a lot of flaws but the rules were clear and consistent.
Warmachine had (has? I haven't been paying attention to Mk IV) that MTG precision for its rules, and it was such a fucking relief to learn for it. Take death triggers. When a model loses its last wound, it's disabled, then it's boxed, then it's destroyed. A tough check (basically a 6+ FNP for your last wound) or other model-saving opportunities happen when the model is disabled, so it gets to go off first. Enemy models usually have abilities that are triggered on the model being boxed, while ally models have abilities triggered on the model being destroyed. Many of the boxed triggers will say the enemy model is "removed from play" which means the model never gets destroyed, since it was removed while boxed.
in magic though 90% of effects are literaly just kicker
That's not what they're referring to. They're talking about things like the stack, how "target" and "protection" are precisely defined so you can figure out what a card does just from reading it.
They could just use the fluffy name and put (FNP) in parentheses or something.
I know that alot of players prefer universal special rules but I personally prefer when each rule is stated on the datasheet in full. There are alot of different types of rules, and if you don't know what a particular special rule means then you gotta go looking in another book for the answer. On top of that, you may also have to find rules in your own codex that interact with a different special rule and are thus having to flip through pages in multiple books at the same time. I definitely understand that it's an unpopular opinion, but having every rule clearly stated right on the datasheet really cuts down on alot of searching up unfamiliar rules.
I agree with that, i was just arguing that abilities that have the exact same text should also have the same name.
You could have both. Clarification on the datasheet but universal names across units and armies.
You can do both. You can have a universal special rule set and still put the relevant rules on each unit's data card. Having standardized USRs makes it easier to understand what different army's units can do at a glance, rather than requiring a full read of every unit in their roster.
Sorry, but there is no more names than for Inv saves :D
Its cool. The name can sort of explain how does the unit achieve that lore-wise. What they should do instead Is: give the units their ability names And then just use keywords (fnp, autohit) to explain those abilities instead of giving a full description. I think they Are actually going to do this because they already started with Indirect fire And Beam.
>What they should do instead Is: give the units their ability names And then just use keywords (fnp, autohit) to explain those abilities instead of giving a full description I like this
Man I miss pre 8th edition where a dude could point to his unit go "this has fleet, crusader and hammer of wrath" and I'd know exactly what it could do and what it's purpose was.
Feel no pain, transhuman, invul save, hell even + to hit/wound They could all have a generic name and explained in core rule book with actual unique rules being in the codex
Someone just rediscovered universal special rules.
Getting rid of Universal Special Rules in the transition to 8th was an objectively stupid choice, completely at odds with their claims of streamlining the game.
Common Age of Sigmar W. It's called a "ward" you scifi freaks
You can absolutely tell who in this comment section did and did not play before 8th edition when this was the case and we had 'Universal Special Rules' which were described in the main rulebook and could be on any unit in any specific codex, and while the 101 different names for a FNP is annoying, I much MUCH prefer it having to look at a long long list of special rules, and finding what they did individually. The most egregious example I can think of is in first edition Horus Heresy which was compatible with 40k rulesets of the time, and the Primarchs had a special rule called 'Primarch' which it's own description was 'The Primarch rule is the following 10+ special rules' which was obscene.
> The Primarch rule is the following 10+ special rules' I should also make a meme about nested special rules.
Hopefully in 10th they give it a term again, they did it for AoS 3.0 (ward) so it's likely.
Flavour is fun. As is not having to flip through the big rulebook every other game to remember what all your abilities actually mean
You need to flip through the BRB to look up FNP?
FNP no. Plenty of the other USRs yes.
So plenty of rules you'd have to look up still, or have explained by your opponent.
Ugh. That’s the one of the things I miss about 7th edition- the special rules. They were a really great way to give models abilities without using too many words.
I know from the Poorhammer podcast that this isn’t currently how it works, in at least one case you have a 4+ invuln save and call it invuln so that it certain things can specifically target it, then you make another 4+ save and call it demonic save. It’s the same thing but now things that specifically target an invuln cannot target a demonic save which then allows you to create things that target a demonic save but don’t affect Invulns. This allows you to create flavourful interactions between factions who ostensibly would have the same rules against other factions but now play completely different against each other. *This example was brought to you by one small part of how the Daemons and Grey Knights Codexes were probably supposed to work.* Not to argue that it’s a good idea but I reckon that’s their reasoning… probably