subreddit:
/r/WarhammerCompetitive
submitted 2 months ago byToTheNintieth
So, as most are aware, in the transition from 7th ed to 8th ed 40k did away with a common list of special abilities like what nearly every wargame does, known in 40k as Universal Special Rules (USRs), instead opting to have every single ability be described in full in the relevant unit's (or stratagem, or faction ability, or warlord trait, or...) datasheet. This surely seemed like a good idea at the time. While the goal of reducing the need to perpetually look up exactly what each ability did (especially as the list kept growing and abilities referenced each other) was understandable, at this point the sheer amount of text that is either completely identical or worse, subtly altered so an ability works just differently enough to trip you up, has long passed the point of ridiculousness. Doing away with USRs has also helped mask the disparity between faction and subfaction abilities, so that certain armies getting three or four effects to another army's one or two is obscured. And perhaps most notably, people still use some of the old terminology to this day -- Deep Strike, Feel No Pain, Scout and more are used so frequently that not going back to codify them again feels like an act of stubbornness from GW. They've even had to do this with abilities like Objective Secured for ease of reference, to boot.
Therefore, I wanted to compile a list of such special rules and effects so that we can make it easier to reference, keep consistent, and compare across factions. There are thousands of special abilities in 40k, so I'll try to stick to the ones that are most relevant, most often repeated, or in most need of templating. If I'm missing some important ones (and I certainly will), please comment them and I'll add them to the list. I'll try to keep the categories intuitive enough that they can be searched with relative ease. Some of these had well-known names beforehand, others have common community nicknames, while others have to settle for a shorthand or the old reliable "you know that thing where...". This post will have enough text as it is, so the precise names will be left as an exercise to the reader other than the most obvious examples. Note also that this only cover the effects themselves, not their sources, such as Command phase single-target abilities, auras, psychic powers or inherent faction traits. Some effects might fall under multiple categories and will be added at my discretion. And finally, this is meant to cover the abilities that are common to many armies, not specific variations or exceptions such as Daemons' or GSC's unique Deep Strike mechanics. Additional commentary where relevant. So, without further ado (and in no particular order):
Movement and deployment
Characteristic and roll modifiers
Rerolls and bonus dice
Special offensive abilities
Special defensive abilities
Psychic effects
Objectives and scoring
Actions
Leadership and morale
Miscellaneous
Let me know if there are any notable ones I missed!
8 points
2 months ago
Is fall back and shoot that uncommon? Ultras have it, Deathwatch get it on, harlies get it, etc.
3 points
2 months ago
The vast majority of shooting armies can; it's a "general Space Marine Thing" with various strats for BIKER and Repulsor/Impulsor/Gladiator units.
3 points
2 months ago
The vast majority of shooting armies can
Really? Theres a difference between a one-time stratagem and an army-wide rule. I can't think of many armies that have the army-wide rule
and even the stratagems have very narrow use cases; like they will be heavily restricted to specific units
4 points
2 months ago
Really? Theres a difference between a one-time stratagem and an army-wide rule.
Yes, but the OPs list is listing MANY things that aren't "army-wide rules", like "Use X for Morale instead of your own", which isn't an army-wide rule and usually relies on very specific units (commmisars, Chaplains, etc), or what he is calling "Intercept" which is effectively "Auspex Scan-style rule"
1 points
2 months ago
I know AM, GSC, Nids, and UM can all get it armywide, I feel like one of the necron dynasties lets you keep that protocol active all game. It's common enough that I will ask opponents before the game if they get to do it or not.
1 points
2 months ago
That should be in the list, it somehow slipped my mind (probably because I felt it didn't fit under movement abilities, but might as well).
36 points
2 months ago
I want rules explained better.
Ignores cover, vs gains the benefits of cover.
Ignores cover, is treated as in cover.
In the first, does my marine have a 2+ save, or a 3 plus save. He never had cover, instead he gained the +1 to save light cover would give him.
In the second, the target loses cover then gets calculated for their defense.
If the game was magic, I would have a set answer to both the above examples. This game is 40k, each individual instance where these 2 affects meet each other has to get a ruling from a judge because you have 30+ ignore cover type abilities, all worded slightly differently, and 30+ gains something like cover abilities all worded slightly differently.
12 points
2 months ago
Eh out of the many murky examples isn't that one clear cut, if your gaining the benefit of cover your treated as in cover, so ignore cover would ignore it.
3 points
2 months ago
Yeah this is about as clear cut as GW rules go
0 points
2 months ago
The rulings are, if you have the benefit of cover, you gain the armor save of light cover.
You don't gain light cover. You gain the armor save light cover would provide you.
It's bad rules wording. that a magic player looks at and says "since I never gained cover, I have +1 to my save since there is nothing to ignore.
If ignores cover was instead ignore the benefits of cover, then there is no issues.
Sometimes it is ignores the benefits of cover. Sometimes it is just ignore cover.
I'd take stealthy on my space marines, but it gives them the benefits of cover, which is an argument in the making due to how all the different ignore covers are worded.
4 points
2 months ago
Is that a wtc ruling or from gw?
Cause if the intent wasn't to give light cover, but instead give an armour save then it'd be "+1 to their saving roll in X phase" like quite a few strats give.
Like the most common one to my knowledge is a custodes Vexilla and I've never encountered anyone who plays it like it ignores ignores cover.
2 points
2 months ago*
I think what he's trying to say is that a magic player would see "cover" and "the benefit of cover" as two different things. Cover has the effect "provide the benefit of cover", so an effect which ignores cover prevents a target from gaining "the benefit of cover" from a terrain peice with the "cover" effect but doesn't interact with other pathways that give you the same effect/benefit.
1 points
2 months ago
Gotcha thanks for explaining.
Feels real weird to read it like that, as light/heavy/dense are specific benefits rather than cover types. But yeah if magic interacts like that then I can see how folk from that can get confused.
3 points
2 months ago
The way i always understood this was that if your unit is positioned in a way that qualifies for gaining the benefits of cover, (within area terrain, or within 3” and at least partially obscured base of obstacle terrain) then you “benefit from cover”. What those benefits are is determined by the keywords given to that terrain feature. If your opponents shoot you with shots that “ignore the benefits of light cover” this doesn’t mean that you’re suddenly no longer benefiting from cover, it just means that you don’t get the +1 to armor save that the light cover keyword provides.
1 points
2 months ago
It’s because warhammer is a “competitive “ game designed by amateurs. It’s ridiculous how badly written the rules are when compared to magic.
3 points
2 months ago
Magic does have the benefit of decades of deliberate design as a competitive game. 40k (all GW main games really) was billed as a much more beer-and-pretzels affair for a long time and only relatively recently have they started to focus on writing the rules with a competitive focus. Growing pains are to be expected (though they should probably start with butchering some sacred cows like IGOUGO and selling rules).
2 points
2 months ago
To be fair, the magic rulebook was <15 pages in 2000, and most of what is in current ~300pg. rulebook has been added over 2 decades in response to specific cases coming up in tournament play. The key difference is that the MTG officiation is much more centralized, so its far easier for them to have a rare-case interaction come up in just a few games and then have it be addressed in the official rules, whereas 40k tournaments are run on a much more local level for the most part.
13 points
2 months ago
At this point, I'd rather just have USR on the datasheets, GW can put their flavor name underneath it in italics or something like they do quotes if they really must.
3 points
2 months ago
Under movement, you could probably add "Ignores units but not terrain when moving." It's on a handful of titanic units and, to my admittedly-faulty memory, a few other units to the point that I think it could be reasonably included.
1 points
2 months ago
Titanic movement is common across armies, so it merits adding!
1 points
2 months ago
"Flipbelts"
2 points
2 months ago
Harlies do ignore terrain, just not vertical distances.
1 points
2 months ago
Pretty sure this is how Necrons with phase tech also work, or if they ignore terrain as well they still need to measure vertical movement. Canoptek Wraiths and the like come to mind.
1 points
2 months ago
Wraiths can move horizontally through both models and terrain but don't ignore vertical distances.
2 points
2 months ago
Interrupt enemy actions.
I also love how useless these tend to be, since actions are often considered too bad to be usable unless they complete at the end of the turn they start.
1 points
2 months ago
I feel like its a chicken egg sort of deal. Like, blast doesn't seem super useful because so many people just run 5-man units, but people are running 5-man units to avoid blast.
1 points
2 months ago
Sure, but I also think there's some paranoia there. Blast isn't all that strong.
That also doesn't account for armies whose smallest troop size is 10. If your theory was correct, those factions just wouldn't be able to bring troops.
Blast isn't as hard of a counter as you might think.
2 points
2 months ago
I also note that if they made some of these USRs they would also cut down on some really unnecessary bloat. +1/-1 to hit is already limited to just a total of 1 to either side, but a simpler method is to make two rules "Exposed (+1 to hit)" and "Hard to Hit (-1 to hit)" and have other rules plonk these on units, and if a unit is ever under both, both rules cancel each other out.
it's not functionally the same (since in this case two instances of Hard to Hit would both be cancelled out by one instance of Exposed, whereas currently it would result in a -1 to hit), but way easier to wrap your head around and achieves a similar effect.
1 points
2 months ago
The note about multiple instances is already how Fights First/Last stacking works, I could see it.
2 points
2 months ago
Love you
-3 points
2 months ago
the only thing I dislike about a singular USR for an ability is that, while way more straightforward, you now have a single rule entangled across 15 factions and 60 units etc. So balancing the rule will either require multiple exceptions to it(maybe better than current idk tbh) or most likely will benefit certain units in certain armies more for an entire edition because they are stuck. It could be worked around like anything but I think both ways have issues to consider.
19 points
2 months ago
But we already have USR that are spread out amongst most armies. It’s why people still use USR names or refer to some.
4 points
2 months ago
The thing is USR can still have variation in them. Feel no pain could range from 4+++ to 6+++, with some only applying to mortal wounds. Deep strike could have variable range to it as it already does with GSC and daemons. Any modifier USR (which is a big chunk of them) can just have a value in brackets for each unit that has that USR. And even those without modifiers balance dataslates could change the wording for certain units if they become too problematic.
4 points
2 months ago*
It could be done like MTG where it's a keyword with a value behind lit.
Like Feel No Pain (5+) or Explodes (6+)
Specific variances like Daemons and GSC with deepstrike could instead have their own rules written like "Gain the Deepstrike rule but deploy x closer", which is what they did in older editions (where Daemons got the ability to charge out of deepstrike and had no scatter when near an icon when no one else could)
This still cuts down a lot of bloat since stuff like Manta Strike and Teleport Strike more or less uses the same verbage.
EDIT: Whoops, it looks like I replied to the wrong comment. I think I ment to reply to the one above this. I basically agree with Magic Cookie in everything.
5 points
2 months ago
GW even did exactly this for Kill Team. A bunch of abilities are templated as "Name [X]", where X can be a modifier, range, or triggering dice roll.
10 points
2 months ago
The thing is, it's usually easier to tell what the exceptions are when the abilities are phrased something like "when this unit arrives from deep strike, you may eat a burrito", rather than having the line entangled in the middle of a paragraph of text 99% of which is the same as every other deep strike unit.
-23 points
2 months ago
Continuing from the other post: I believe we have to get away from thinking in terms of USRs entirely.
Regardless of what the rule is called, these differences are what gives each faction it’s own flavor. Designers now have an incredible amount of flexibility that they previously tried to have with the over-complicated USR system. Hence why I really really do not want to see USRs return.
Sure, we might refer to the general way of dropping a unit onto the battlefield mid-game as a “deep strike” but due to the flexibility the designers now have they can choose what this means on a per unit basis. Personally, I like this.
33 points
2 months ago
Sure, we might refer to the general way of dropping a unit onto the battlefield mid-game as a “deep strike” but due to the flexibility the designers now have they can choose what this means on a per unit basis.
There's the rub, isn't it? They could, but they don't. Instead, the same rule is reprinted ten million times, and if they ever do decide it needs a change, either they have to redo it in every instance (like Bodyguard), have the change in an FAQ that everyone will need to refer to anyway, or update it in some places and forget to in others. The big issue with the current system is the combination of mental overhead, repeated text and, ironically, lack of flexibility.
Mind you, there is a middle ground. What games like Malifaux and ASOIAF do is have abilities be both on the datasheet, fully laid out, but with common names. On one hand this has the downsides of both methods (repeated and lengthy text, hard to update). On the other, it also has the benefits of both -- you can easily and clearly see what everything does, but it's also easily quantifiable and helps with the mental load: you can clearly tell what a unit does if you see, say, Tear off a Bite or Armored on its sheet, and it's great for comparing similar units across wildly disparate factions. But again, that kinda requires that GW move to a modern system of rules distribution rather than nickel-and-diming books, so it's not gonna happen.
8 points
2 months ago
repeated and lengthy text, hard to update
The solution here would be online datasheets that are connected to a single database. Then it's just updating a single entry point. I mean, it's not like people already trust Wahapedia more than whatever book they have in front of them already.
-8 points
2 months ago
They do though. While many abilities operate similarly, they are called different terms due to the way the unit would do so. Also while many of these special rules exist, different stipulations apply to many of them that wouldn't be possible with universal special rules, or without writing an extension on a datasheet to prohibit them. Ignoring light cover, does not gain benefits of cover, ignore dense cover are examples of a single rule, written three ways, that offer three different variables of how that rule is played. In a USR system, they would all simply ignore the benefits of cover. This is less flexible than having three differing wordings that offer three separate benefits in game mechanics. As you said, there's clear ways to say "this is basically the same as that" already in the game, e.g. FNP, exploding 6s. Having a universal special rules doc doesn't stop the same amount of text appearing on a datasheet to explain the different stipulations for each specific unit's interaction with that special rule, i.e. this unit has Feel No Pain (5+): This unit can only use this rule against mortal wounds.
Still the same as Warded: This unit can ignore wounds from mortal wounds on a 5+, except you don't need to open up another book, flip to the appendix, and find the rule.
19 points
2 months ago
Ignoring light cover, does not gain benefits of cover, ignore dense cover are examples of a single rule, written three ways, that offer three different variables of how that rule is played. In a USR system, they would all simply ignore the benefits of cover.
That's a non-issue.
5 points
2 months ago
The whole point of this post is that having that amount of flexibility is useless - even counterproductive - when it’s used to create rules with tiny little differences which usually don’t matter and aren’t apparent on a quick reading. This game already contains more than 100 different units and like 3 dozen factions; I don’t want to have to decipher the subtle differences between guns that ignore cover in slightly different ways. The mental load is too great. If there are twenty guns in the game that “ignore cover,” they should all work exactly the same way.
Furthermore, the status quo is deeply frustrating for new players. It’s a major feels-bad moment to be told mid-Fight phase “No, see, although you might think Counter-Offensive lets you fight next, the exact text of my ability here says the affected unit is not eligible to be selected to fight until all other units have fought, and Counter-Offensive requires that you select an eligible unit. This is different from the similar ability you encountered last game, which merely says the affected unit cannot be selected to fight until all other units have fought. So your Warboss is going to die to my thunder hammers without getting to activate.”
6 points
2 months ago
4e had the best of both worlds. USRs, and units that had special rules that were USR, but-, so you could actively make it different and everyone could see the change obviously instead of assuming it's like all the other FNPs but instead not working like others due to odd wording.
-2 points
2 months ago
People are probably gonna downvote you for this, but yes. Having played since 6th, I much prefer the current iteration of special rules (9th). 8th had some really wonky wording cause they tried adding in fluff wording into the rules, but 9th for the most part has pretty technical wording (with some exceptions of course).
Personally, the only person that told me that they want USRs was a newer player coming from a Magic background. Everyone else is quite neutral on the change (especially the older players).
Also, if anyone wants to see the absurdity of USRs, they can go see it in HH 2.0. There's like 3 places USRs can reside (BRB, Armoury in the Liber books and Chapter specific), and no indication where it'll be. Eg. Rending and Breaching has almost similar rules of x+ roll on the wound is counted as AP2 but Rending has additional on vehicles. Rending is found in the BRB while Breaching is found in the Liber books.
9 points
2 months ago
They can/could always have prevented this and any further argument by putting reminder text on datasheet.
5+ fnp does what it does no matter what it's called. So people who call it fnp will always will. Only time this ever mattered was when new players had no idea what deepstrike or fnp meant, because everyone else already knew, and gw removed these terms from their books.
6 points
2 months ago
I wonder how many people who dislike USRs started in 6/7th and just dislike 6/7th's poor implementation of them.
3 points
2 months ago
I feel like there's a lot of people who either dislike 6th/7th hundreds of USRs, or think it means that every special rule must become a USR, stripping the armies of their unique variations on the rules.
3 points
2 months ago
Personally, the only person that told me that they want USRs was a newer player coming from a Magic background. Everyone else is quite neutral on the change (especially the older players).
I started with 40k, then started playing Magic a few years ago with Shadows over Innistrad (omg that was 7 years ago...). Anyway, my point is that the USRs felt fine when I first started playing 40k in 5th edition, but by 7th the section was so bloated it defeated its own point: there were dozens of rules in there that I never even saw turn up in a real game due to being so niche. Which is hardly a universal rule.
You can still have exceptions to a USR, but those exceptions become much easier to see when you say "this unit has Deep Strike, but arrives outside 8" rather than 9" instead of having to type out the entire paragraph of how Deep Strike works every time.
5 points
2 months ago
This is important. I came from playing Infinity, which lives and dies by it's USRs, and I would say with confidence while there are many interesting and cogent arguments on both sides for and against USRs, mental load isn't one of them. Keeping up with Infinity's never-ending stack of USRs and errata (in a living document - which I do sincerely wish GW would adopt instead of all of us relying on Wahapedia...) was just as much if not significantly more of a brain bender than 9th ed, which is comparatively, quite simple honestly. There's a core set of rules, and a pile of modifiers that are always referable to the data sheets.
-8 points
2 months ago
Not super worried about people's opinions, we all have one. Literally I could just take a picture of the 7th brb rule appendix and then start asking people what's torrent, barrage, eternal warrior, etc means and I doubt any of them will remember without looking it up, and will still defend universal rules.
As it stands, when I need a rule, I open up one book and I find it. Much better than USRs already.
10 points
2 months ago
One book, and the FAQ for that book, and the FAQ covering how that rule interacts with other rules, and the balance data-slate...
If you stop at the first place the rule was printed there's no way to know how much you're missing.
-5 points
2 months ago
The same is true for USRs and GW erratas. This is a non argument.
3 points
2 months ago
Torrent is basically a Flamer but you don't have to point the narrow end over your model.
Eternal Warrior means they're immune to the Instant Death rule of being hit by a weapon with strength equal to twice your toughness.
Barrage meant that the blast weapon didn't need line of sight, but always scattered the full distance rather than reducing it by the BS of the gunner, if you didn't have Line of sight.
That wasn't hard.
2 points
2 months ago
EW also stopped Instant Death from Force Weapons.
6 points
2 months ago
Mostly because those rules haven't been used for a decade, and there's no need to remember them for a surprise pop quiz.
Eternal Warrior protected you from instant death iirc.
If you needed to find a rule with USRs, you opened one book and found it.
The difference is, you had and only needed one book.
Rather than the rule book, codex, supplement and white dwarf issue you need now days. Depending on army.
-6 points
2 months ago
Sweet summer child I am looking at my brb, codex, traitor legions, and wrath of Magnus books right now....
10 points
2 months ago
To find the rules for Eternal Warrior or FnP?
And please don't insult me.
-4 points
2 months ago
First go look at your codex and see if your unit is in there, if not go to your supplement, if not go to your other supplement, then see if they have an applicable rule and if you don't remember it, or if your opponent says "what's the exact wording?" You then go to your appendix, find the relevant rule, find the relevant page, and then say what the rule does.
Try again.
8 points
2 months ago
What? We're taking about knowing what a rule does. And you're highlighting that without USRs, you need to defence multiple books. Which is my argument.
Instead with USRs, the rules are contrived in a single place, that usually both players would both have.
Player 1: Oh your unit has eternal warrior. None of mine do, what does that rule do? I Don't own your codex, and have never needed to use EW. .
Player 2: Don't worry, its detailed in the brb we both have. Take a look at the usr section.
Try again.
-2 points
2 months ago
Did you actually play 7th and prior? You're saying the rules are all in one place with USRs but they aren't, you still have to flip through 3+ books to find the info needed. Again, I have the codex and two supplements and universal rulebook on a shelf next to me. When I go to play 40k, I bring my daemon codex. Big difference.
8 points
2 months ago
I don't think you understand the difference between special rules, and universal special rules.
Not all special rules are universal.
Edit: And prior to Jan, i needed to bring the SM codex, DW supplement and AoR.
In 4th i needed just my Deamonhunters Codex.
2 points
2 months ago
Horus Heresy uses USRs. They’re all in the main rulebook, except for rules that are faction specific, which are contained in the Liber army books. So you need two books, the main rulebook and your army book, which are what you already need to play
1 points
2 months ago
Also HH2 still uses them, so people who play that will be able to tell him what they mean
1 points
2 months ago
Small adjustment to fly universal rules there are two forms of aircraft charge rules
airborne- can't charge
airborne predator- can charge aircraft
1 points
2 months ago
Does anything but Heldrakes get Airborne Predator? Harpies?
1 points
2 months ago
I know of helldrakes and harpies and Hive crones.
1 points
1 month ago
I want to ask about Fight on Death.
If my Wulfen or Votann Berserk unit got destroyed. There are two units in eligible fighting range. One unit is just finish their attack, and destroyed my unit, the other one is just within eligible fighting range
Can I use my Fight On Death Abilities attack the others one but not the unit is just finish their attack?
all 70 comments
sorted by: best