So in light of my Immunity NBW poll and another thread and listening to the arguments I've come to the conclusion that though people have concerns, they do not apply those concerns equally when discussing subject which then appears inherently bias since the same standards arent being applied universally. In the near future CB will be able to get rid of many of the rules and just apply their new system of: Skill/Attribute/Equipment/Weapon +x, -x, and (x). In the next edition or 4.5 CB an say that (-) applies to models targeting the user while (+) and (x) apply to the user. Applying Immunity to such things as well. So many claimed Immunity NBW would be endless, well, in reality simplification is the evolution of the game. It remove the endlessness about it, simplifies all of it, and require less memorization as mods will be in plain sight so even charts will be fewer. In order to specify whether one is imposing mods to everyone who targets the user like with a Coordinated Attack or multiple AROs vs imposing mods on whoever the user targets. Let (-) mods in the users profile be applied to everyone who targets the user with the mentioned skill, while (-) mods on a users weapon apply only to who the user targets with that weapon and to whatever opposed skill/attack/equipment the target chooses to use against the user. Examples of current skills that can be replaced with CB new system: - "Mimetism -3" becomes "BS Attack (-3)". - "Multi Spectral Visor 1" becomes "Immunity: BS Attack (-3)". - "Martial Arts Level 2" becomes "CC Attack (+3), (-3), (+1 Damage)". - "Natural Born Warrior" becomes "Immunity CC Attack (+3), (-3), (+1 Damage)". I can do this for so many elements in the game. If the word Immunity seems like a misnomer or if you believe this isnt applicable to higher states, it's simple. Use the word Resistance instead of Immunity as the word that means to counter these effects from other models... Moreover, this allows CB to expand on units in such different ways that you'll never feel like you have a copy of something from a different army. Lastly, CB can just say +/-1,2,3 etc, so things can be very unique even if only 5% different in some things. This may be a few years away but this is the easiest way for CB to simplify their game and make learning and playing it easier.
Mimetism-3 and BS Attack (-3) are not the same. Mimetism gives a penalty to all BS Attacks against the possessing trooper. BS Attack (-3) gives a penalty to whatever the target does when the possessor declares a BS Attack
As its worded in N4 you're right and that is a slight overlook on my part, since I'm looking toward N5 CB can just change that if the symbol is (-) that it applies to all units targeting it.
That already exists. Bluecoats, Penny. Edit, I see what you mean. Well, it doesnt matter, because if they arent targeting you for an attack it doesnt matter, and you cant apply it to them if they're targeting another person. The wording for the rule just has to be changed from who you target to those who target you.
But your suggested rewriting of the modifier rules change how it functions Currently a Bluecoat gives it's target a -6 when it uses CC Attack. With your suggestion that a "-" applies to units targeting a trooper with that skill, "CC Attack -6" works differently, giving any trooper attacking a Bluecoat -6 to only CC Attacks. Likewise, we then need to come up with a new rule to replace a "Para CCW (-6)" as with your suggested rewrite it would only give a penalty to enemies using a Para CCW against the weilder.
Colbrook, think about it. Presently, the (-) of MA applies to who you're attacking if they attack you. The suggestion and likely future, is the CC Attack (-) will just apply to whoever attacks you even if you dont attack them. I mean I think I'm understanding you right and addressing it. Works the same for mimetism -3/6. I apologize I am skipping over some of what you're saying and I didn't realize. As it stands the Bluecoat has Para CCW (-6) but Has a strait CC Attack -6. Let that be the difference, its already in the wording of the CCW rule. So if the model is in the weapon then it only applies to the users target, if the model is in the profile then it applies to who targets the user.
Lets leave Martial Arts to one side for the moment as it has it's own caveats. Current CC Attack (-3) affects whatever skill the opponent Declares, whether it's Dodge, BS Attack, Hacking, etc. Your suggestion would change it so that "CC Attack -3" only applies to CC Attacks, and applies whatever skill you actually declare. I don't see how this is better, or likely.
Again, I do apologize, I did go too fast, I edited my above response and that should fix it up. I'll also edit the initial post to include these details.
Now you suggest different rules for modifiers if they're on a skill compared to a weapon, this is more complex and confusing
You did bring up a good point, who should suffer a penalty based on targeting. Su sequently this questions being targeted by multiple units. The fix is easy and the application is already used as we see the difference between Penny and the Bluecoat, once I edit the initial post you'll see its clearer and I latched up the whole you pointed out.
I think you don't give credit for how elegant the current system is. When a skill, weapon, or equipment has a positive modifier, it applies to the bearer. When a skill, weapon, or equipment has a negative modifier it applies to the enemy. If the skill, weapon, or equipment requires a target(s), the negative modifier applies only to the target(s).
Colbrook, I've praised this system alot man, I think it's amazing, the post is practically saying the mod system is so great its gonna simplify the rules so we can get rid of NBW, MA, Mimetism, MSV etc. Also, I edited the initial post to account for targeting and non targeting.
You edit still doesn't address the fact that it makes CC Attack (-6) useless against an enemy that Dodges, BS Attacks, or Hacks.
Lol, I'm not gonna lie, my mind is distracted at the moment so I'm overlooking things as I type and thinking this ornthat is implied, like me disti guishing the target etc. One more edit.
So a trooper with CC Attack (-6) will apply a -6 to whatever skill used against the trooper? So if the bearer Idles and an enemy BS Attacks they get a -6?
So by your example it seems like your saying CC Attack (-6) is in the users profile and not on the weapon, and the user is declaring to idle while not engaged. No, the -6 would not apply to the enemy declaring BS Attack. In order to impose (-6) on a model you're not in engaged with you would need to have in your profile BS Attack (-6). Meanwhile, like the Bluecoats weapon already says CC Weapon (-6), notice the -6 doesnt say CC Attack, so whatever the enemy chose to do a -6 will be applied as long as it's against the Bluecoat. So if they tried to grab an objective the mod wouldnt apply, as normal. Now one might say well yeah it applies a (-6) it's a Para CCW, just remove the word Para in front of it and leave the (-6). Now its official, this unit with this CCW is so effective in CC it can reduce whatever skill the enemy is using by 6 if the user can reach CC and uses this weapon.
Imagine a hacker so good their equipment read Hacking Device (-3). That would mean that whatever skill or attack the opponent used against the hacker if the hacker is targeting them, would suffer a -3. Ofcourse CB could just make -1 or do this to anything else and we'll trust their reason.
That's how the rules already work. It appears you've edited the first post again, it now reads: So now we're back to the issue that CC Attack (-6) on a profile only applies to enemies using the CC Attack skill, which is a huge downgrade compared to the current rules as it has no effect if the target chooses to shoot, hack, or Dodge. Plus we still have the issue that modifiers are treated differently depending where they are written, which is the opposite of a consistent system.
I sincerely hope that this path shown here is not the one followed by the game. Turning Special Skills and some Equipment into a mere bundle of modifiers would make me lose interest in playing such a game.
