That is what they did with N4, anything that was a simple modifier to a skill (Hyper dynamics, Dual weapons, Superior Infiltration, Full Auto, I-kohl sort of) was transformed into a simple modifier. Anything more complex kept its own rules, but even then there was simplification. Mimetism and ODD were rolled into the same skill, with a modifier that applies to BS Attacks whenever the Mimetism Skill is used (which is always, as it is automatic and obligatory) The sticking point with this thread is if a Negative modifier applies when the bearer uses that skill, or when an enemy uses that skill against the bearer. CB chose the former, which I believe to be the more elegant solution. When a penalty applies to all enemies regardless of what the bearer is doing, such as Mimetism, it needs to be a separate skill. I believe Wuji is trying to combine both of those into the same thing depending where the penalty is written, and quickly finding out why CB did it the way they did.
To address another part of the OP, the system already allows for modifiers other than 3, 6, and 9, but keeping those three values simplifies on-the-fly mental arithmetic
Sorry poor example, but other attacks, if CB wanted to say a particular troops glue gun shot a stream instead of a globule or an E/Mitter acted like an electrical emission rather than a taser dart and these attacks interfered with the targets ability to respond. These are just some more examples but the possibilities are endless. No no, I did change the weapon (-) mod to say it applies to whatever skill or weapon the target is choosing to do against the use. So hacking, dodging, shooting are all covered. Um, well the point of all this is to get rid of all the extra rules. So if we made this into a math problem, we'd be subtracting many rules a d adding the one that states the difference between a (-) model in a profile vs (-) in weapon etc.
Completely agree with what you say about the changes in N4; I can prefer that these changes had not been made, but I do understand and accept them, but these: I can neither understand nor agree with them, and for me they are a sticking point in this thread, because without these changes the alleged negative modifier issue would not have arisen.
As Colbook pointed out it has already happened, I think CB will get to call different combinations of mods on weapons different names other than everyone having Combi-Rifles, we'll ha e Heavy Combi-Rifles for +1 Damage Rifles and Assault Rifles for +1B. The model will still be visible but the name will help with the flavor aspect of the game. Thank you for explaining things to Erland succinctly. As for finding out what CB may or may not have already figured out. I did already mention weapons and equipment with mods will apply to everything the opponent would declare in opposition. It works now. Yes I understand, but, I think if we're teaching the game even easier and reducing the number of rules, we should weigh it. And let's not just assume we know the full measure, I mean if CB were to look at this then they would want to know, just how many rules could they get rid of this way. True, we just see it so easily and then more crowded the game gets with units I imagine the more difference might be needed.
I dont understand, what is it you dont agree with. For example, Mimetism (-3) does the same thing as BS Attack (-3). Is that what you dont agree with or is it something else and if so what is it?
Amount of rules isn't the only thing that makes a system complex or confusing, having modifiers work differently depending where they are in a profile is awful from an ergonomic sense.
If there's one caveat vs many, then we should just go with the one. Stop for a second and think about. 1 vs many. My suggestion has one difference between a mod in the profile vs a mod in equipment or a weapon. All the other rules in the game have entire paragraphs and charts dedicated to them. Even if this were to only get rid of 10 rules it would still beatout the argument against this suggestion because there would only have to be 2 sentences explaining mods: (+) and (x) mods in the profile apply to the user with the listed element and only to those who target the user with said listed element, while the 2nd sentence would read along the lines of (+) and (x) mods apply only to the target of the element being used and (-) mods apply to all opposed elements against the user. I'm using the word element as a stand in for weapons, equipment etc for ease of writing this. 2 sentences vs paragraphs and charts that could be removed... I dont think you're playing this discussion fairly.
What I don't agree with is removing Special Skills and Equipment to become mere bundles of modifiers for Common Skills. On a purely mechanical/mathematical level Mimetism (-3) and BS Attack (-3) can work the same way, but the first one tells me something about the game while the second one doesn't mean anything to me. If simplifying a game is taking away something that for me makes the game what it is, to turn it into a series of positive or negative modifiers... my interest in the game becomes zero. And before you tell me that this has already happened in the change from N3 to N4, I tell you that yes, it happened, but at an acceptable level... not at the level proposed here.
An acceptable level of change, retaining character and flavor. And the proposed change is, as many are demonstrating, merely a different type of awkward.
Wouldnt a description of the unit also tell you something about the game. If the description of a ninja says it uses thermal optical camouflage to blend in with its surroundings make its movements harder to track and harder to shoot at then you looked at its profile and you saw it had BS Attack -6, it would make sense. The unit description matches the modifiers, you dont need a skill listed in the profile after you already read it in the description. Likewise for loadouts with MSV. We have versions of weapons, the description would be Mulstispectral Marksman Rifles allows sharpshooters to engage camouflaged units, done. Lastly, I'm not saying they have to do it to every possible skill but your last argument is basically trying tell me not argue. ack using examples that already exist in the game. Well, think about this how many models units that used to have ikhol reference in their description they have something like that. Let's make even more simple, how many unit descriptions detail that their power armor, helmet, implants or weapons are what increase their BS and it's not actually a natural and normal attribute value. These descriptions can go elsewhere in the game to clean up rules. I mean yaogat pretty much have their description of why they pack MSV and heavy weapons in their kit. Also, for new players, this will make learning even easier as mods will be more visible than they are now and less will have to be memorized. I'm learning the game, hmm BS means shooting, this model I like has a profile that says BS Attack (-3), I read that (-) on skills in the profile applies to the enemy. Vs hmm, what's mimetism mean. We're skipping a needless step in the learning process. As a new player, they arent reading that a unit has mimetism, their reading that the unit is a Stealth shadowy assassin who uses long ranged explosives or whatever. The skill doesnt need it's own description, the model does, there is model a person is playing called mimetism, they're playing Zeros, and Hawwas, and Swiss Guard and Ninjas. With that I'm gonna let you pick what you wanna say after this and I'm just not gonna give any more arguments because it really isnt fair for you to request me to not make valid arguments that I can support as I just did. Have a good day dude.
Your assumption here is that somehow new players have trouble with the current difficulty level of remembering different flavorful skills, which feels kind of infantilizing It's ok and good even to have some cool fluffy skills, martial arts on a ninja with a sword or mimetism on a dude covered in camo are both flavorful and more easily remembered / noticed than a fairly generic spreadsheet of plusses and minuses, which is what your proposal is boiling things down to As others have said, the simplification from N3 to N4 was great, although I do miss some of the flavor specific abilities held. That said, continuing to reduce everything to BS attack or CC attack +/- 3 goes too far in the opposite direction, arguably making things boring and more difficult to remember
Well now we've reached the point where people are repeating the same thing after I've addressed something. I've covered every argument. Now we're at a point of people valuing arguments differently. I cant say anything about that.
But how do you do all of the different parts of, say, MSV3? That’s Immunity BS-3/-6, Surprise Attack (Camouflage), Immunity: Smoke, Discover (Camouflage State) Automatic, Vulnerability (White Noise) … it’s an explosion in housekeeping for little good. The skill labels add flavor, which I personally like, but they also allow for quicker thinking and less clutter. Several more lines on a printed/app profile would most likely negate any “savings” for breaking things out even more minutely. Also, how does something like Albedo get broken out? Marksmanship? Supportware?
Completely agree. At no time have I been interested in your arguments at all and I'll explain why: 1.- If the changes you propose in the game have as a result that my interest in the game disappears and I stop playing, they are unacceptable changes. 2.- Any argument to defend those changes will be irrelevant as long as the result of the changes continues to be unacceptable.
Looks like you're exaggerating, like you're exaggerating I said every rule could be rewritten this way. But whatever right...
And the not-zero probability that an increase in bookkeeping plus stripping away character would have a soul-deadening effect on the game is even more reason to tread softly and slowly.
