Ishagu wrote:
Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.

No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.

How dare people expect a quality product they pay substantial amounts of money for! It's ridiculous. Everyone should stop whinging, pay an extra 50% as a tip and get on with things.

I don't think I've ever seen a 30 model Infinity army. I haven't played in a few years so things may have changed, but last time I did, most armies weren't any larger than a typical 40k squad was, I think my PanO list was 10 models?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?

I believe that the frame in which 40K is designed is one of a game played by people who have agreed to have a fun game in the spirit of the hobby. It is not written to divide the assets between a separating couple or work out a business merger.

I always trust my opponent: I'm not playing for money. If a mistake is made I assume its an honest mistake - they happen and I make them. I bring my Codex with me so that I can show somebody the rules for my army if they have a question. If I am unsure on something like Wounds I look it up, but its infrequent. I play roughly two games a week in two different communities. There can be doubts when a new Codex comes out, but otherwise rules disputes are the exception and certainly not the rule. When I faced a Harlequins list on the release date for that Codex which coincided with our local tourney it was an adventure in trust, especially as my opponent only had an e-copy on his smart phone. We got through it somehow.

If an opponent is getting mad at you and threatening violence over tri-pointing it has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with the negative frame of the game that you are playing. Maybe don't play that person? It is hardly the game developer's fault that adults cannot behave themselves in each other's company. I have certainly never seen anything like that at the various FLGS and tourneys that I have played in over the years. I can recall one friend storming out of an Apocalypse game. He was at the other end of the table and I missed the lead-up, but I think that there were some external reasons to the game for his loss of control (we'd both recently redeployed from a bad part of the world). Other than that I am at a loss to explain these tales of woe.

This is the absolute truth. GW designs their game with a friendly, social contract in mind.

There are prominent posters on this forum who literally don't understand this. It's possible they exist in communities that are filled with cut-throat cheaters or incompetent players, or winning matters so much that mistakes cannot be forgiven. Or perhaps their own social shortcomings are to blame.

I've got news for players like this: 40k is not the game for you. Your attitudes are not compatible with this hobby. Play something else or develop your own 3rd party ruleset. Just stop complaining that 40k isn't what you expect it to be.

"This is the absolute truth. GW designes their game with a friendly, social contract in mind."

I guess they've never been to America.

There's nothing friendly about the fallback rule, NOR tripointing. I can tell you that with certainty.

Also, they'd lose a huge chunk of their player base if people listened to this. So I doubt GW would agree with your assessment. Even if it's true.

 Ishagu wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?

I believe that the frame in which 40K is designed is one of a game played by people who have agreed to have a fun game in the spirit of the hobby. It is not written to divide the assets between a separating couple or work out a business merger.

I always trust my opponent: I'm not playing for money. If a mistake is made I assume its an honest mistake - they happen and I make them. I bring my Codex with me so that I can show somebody the rules for my army if they have a question. If I am unsure on something like Wounds I look it up, but its infrequent. I play roughly two games a week in two different communities. There can be doubts when a new Codex comes out, but otherwise rules disputes are the exception and certainly not the rule. When I faced a Harlequins list on the release date for that Codex which coincided with our local tourney it was an adventure in trust, especially as my opponent only had an e-copy on his smart phone. We got through it somehow.

If an opponent is getting mad at you and threatening violence over tri-pointing it has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with the negative frame of the game that you are playing. Maybe don't play that person? It is hardly the game developer's fault that adults cannot behave themselves in each other's company. I have certainly never seen anything like that at the various FLGS and tourneys that I have played in over the years. I can recall one friend storming out of an Apocalypse game. He was at the other end of the table and I missed the lead-up, but I think that there were some external reasons to the game for his loss of control (we'd both recently redeployed from a bad part of the world). Other than that I am at a loss to explain these tales of woe.

This is the absolute truth. GW designs their game with a friendly, social contract in mind.

There are prominent posters on this forum who literally don't understand this. It's possible they exist in communities that are filled with cut-throat cheaters or incompetent players, or winning matters so much that mistakes cannot be forgiven. Or perhaps their own social shortcomings are to blame.

I've got news for players like this: 40k is not the game for you. Your attitudes are not compatible with this hobby. Play something else or develop your own 3rd party ruleset. Just stop complaining that 40k isn't what you expect it to be.

Why do friendly games necessitate bad or imprecise, unclear rules?

Maybe the problems is the American mindset in that case?

Consider that your view of the game is not the official view of the creators. Stop complaining about how it doesn't meet the expectations you have set yourself.

Socially able players in a friendly environment can work through rules together. And they really aren't unclear or confusing lol. Most issues have been long resolved.

Lol what are these mythical confusing rules ruining every game? Show me 10 examples of something which is currently too confusing to be resolved?

Until they come out as say that they don't want those kinds of player playing the game, there is no official view. Even if behind closed doors there is.

If you want to sell to Americans, you have to deal with the American mindset.

For example: There are two Chapter Masters on the field, each part of an opposing force.

On one side, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and can reroll 3- on-die.

On the other, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and reroll 1s and 2s on-die, but NOT 3s.

Why is that? Why is that DESIRABLE?

 JNAProductions wrote:
For example: There are two Chapter Masters on the field, each part of an opposing force.

On one side, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and can reroll 3- on-die.

On the other, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and reroll 1s and 2s on-die, but NOT 3s.

Why is that? Why is that DESIRABLE?

Different codex, different rules. Know your own rules. It's simple.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?

I believe that the frame in which 40K is designed is one of a game played by people who have agreed to have a fun game in the spirit of the hobby. It is not written to divide the assets between a separating couple or work out a business merger.

I always trust my opponent: I'm not playing for money. If a mistake is made I assume its an honest mistake - they happen and I make them. I bring my Codex with me so that I can show somebody the rules for my army if they have a question. If I am unsure on something like Wounds I look it up, but its infrequent. I play roughly two games a week in two different communities. There can be doubts when a new Codex comes out, but otherwise rules disputes are the exception and certainly not the rule. When I faced a Harlequins list on the release date for that Codex which coincided with our local tourney it was an adventure in trust, especially as my opponent only had an e-copy on his smart phone. We got through it somehow.

If an opponent is getting mad at you and threatening violence over tri-pointing it has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with the negative frame of the game that you are playing. Maybe don't play that person? It is hardly the game developer's fault that adults cannot behave themselves in each other's company. I have certainly never seen anything like that at the various FLGS and tourneys that I have played in over the years. I can recall one friend storming out of an Apocalypse game. He was at the other end of the table and I missed the lead-up, but I think that there were some external reasons to the game for his loss of control (we'd both recently redeployed from a bad part of the world). Other than that I am at a loss to explain these tales of woe.

This is the absolute truth. GW designs their game with a friendly, social contract in mind.

There are prominent posters on this forum who literally don't understand this. It's possible they exist in communities that are filled with cut-throat cheaters or incompetent players, or winning matters so much that mistakes cannot be forgiven. Or perhaps their own social shortcomings are to blame.

I've got news for players like this: 40k is not the game for you. Your attitudes are not compatible with this hobby. Play something else or develop your own 3rd party ruleset. Just stop complaining that 40k isn't what you expect it to be.

Why do friendly games necessitate bad or imprecise, unclear rules?

Because GW is too lazy to use even the most basic hypotheticals to inform their rule writing. Forget playtesting. We could tell certain things about the indices before we put anything on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For example: There are two Chapter Masters on the field, each part of an opposing force.

On one side, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and can reroll 3- on-die.

On the other, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and reroll 1s and 2s on-die, but NOT 3s.

Why is that? Why is that DESIRABLE?

Different codex, different rules. Know your own rules. It's simple.

It's not that simple. I have to know the rules for EVERY opponent to make sure they are doing things correctly.

 Ishagu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For example: There are two Chapter Masters on the field, each part of an opposing force.

On one side, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and can reroll 3- on-die.

On the other, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and reroll 1s and 2s on-die, but NOT 3s.

Why is that? Why is that DESIRABLE?

Different codex, different rules. Know your own rules. It's simple.

But WHY are they different? Why SHOULD they be different?

And if I'm the Blood Angels player (who cannot reroll 3s), I'm likely to think my opponent is making a mistake by rerolling their 3s. After all, they're both Space Marine Chapter Masters-why would they have different functioning rules on their reroll auras?

Martel732 wrote:
Until they come out as say that they don't want those kinds of player playing the game, there is no official view. Even if behind closed doors there is.

If you want to sell to Americans, you have to deal with the American mindset.

They want your money. If you pay you can play. Just keep your toxic attitudes to yourself.
I promise you that a player like you have described yourself to be will be barred from any club here in the UK.

You don't need to know every rule for every unit in every book lol. You simply can't trust your opponent. That's your problem.

<Removed>

WE fixed that by saying Dante's RAI is the new chapter master rules. It must be the RAI, or the result is absurd. Obviously, this has to be pitched to every TO, which makes it cumbersome. Again, just GW being lazy.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a 30 model Infinity army. I haven't played in a few years so things may have changed, but last time I did, most armies weren't any larger than a typical 40k squad was, I think my PanO list was 10 models?

Tournament lists in N3 are hard-capped at 2 command groups (20 orders). It's possible to exceed that with Synchronized or Servant models (multiple models that activate together); 30-model armies (at 300pts/2 command groups) are technically possible but a normal force is usually closer to 10-15 models.

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Until they come out as say that they don't want those kinds of player playing the game, there is no official view. Even if behind closed doors there is.

If you want to sell to Americans, you have to deal with the American mindset.

They want your money. If you pay you can play. Just keep your toxic attitudes to yourself.
I promise you that a player like you have described yourself to be will be barred from any club here in the UK.

Wow. So inclusive.

" You simply can't trust your opponent. That's your problem."

OF course I don't trust my opponent in this game. He's my OPPONENT.

 Ishagu wrote:
...Consider that your view of the game is not the official view of the creators. Stop complaining about how it doesn't meet the expectations you have set yourself...

So we're not allowed to express opinions unless we're parroting GW press releases?

Ishagu, do you work for GW?

@Martel

Wow, so negative. Change the channel mr "I can never trust another human being even when playing with toys"

I think most of us can agree Martel's view is overly pessimistic. When I play, I trust my opponent to not INTENTIONALLY cheat, or I just wouldn't play them.

But, Ishagu, look at my example above. You didn't really address it or any questions associated with it.

 Ishagu wrote:
Maybe the problems is the American mindset in that case?

Consider that your view of the game is not the official view of the creators. Stop complaining about how it doesn't meet the expectations you have set yourself.

Socially able players in a friendly environment can work through rules together. And they really aren't unclear or confusing lol. Most issues have been long resolved.

Lol what are these mythical confusing rules ruining every game? Show me 10 examples of something which is currently too confusing to be resolved?

any designer with any experience is not so arrogant to believe that their 'vision' for their game is exactly how it will be received.

Games are an exercise in User Experience Design, they're not vanity projects for people to show how clever they are.

If as a designer you're telling your players they're doing it wrong, then you've proven you don't know how to design something for other people.

The rules are fine lol

There aren't even 10 examples of something which is so unclear it cannot be resolved in a game with 20 factions and 300+ different units.

Give me 5 examples, please.
Maybe you don't personally like something? Maybe things aren't as want?
Where are these badly written rules that prevent the game from working?

 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Wow, so negative. Change the channel mr "I can never trust another human being even when playing with toys"

No. Specifically 40K. Going back to 2nd people are CONSTANTLY getting things wrong. 85% of the time in THEIR favor. The other 15% I make sure to point out in an attempt to be a good opponent and so my potential win isn't tainted.

Players with your attitude are EXACTLY one of the groups that I find myself needing to watch closely because you don't care about accuracy, just the "social contract".

I don't have these problems in other board games with explicit rules. Just this one.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Wow, so negative. Change the channel mr "I can never trust another human being even when playing with toys"

No. Specifically 40K. Going back to 2nd people are CONSTANTLY getting things wrong. 85% of the time in THEIR favor. The other 15% I make sure to point out in an attempt to be a good opponent and so my potential win isn't tainted.

Players with your attitude are EXACTLY one of the groups that I find myself needing to watch closely because you don't care about accuracy, just the "social contract".

And if you don't win the game you can't have any fun? Do you only play in tournaments with prize money?

This is an analogue game. You ever think that a lot of people don't care as much and just want to roll some dice? It's not just about you.

THEY should play something else. Like a dice game.

Martel732 wrote:
"This is the absolute truth. GW designes their game with a friendly, social contract in mind."

I guess they've never been to America.

There's nothing friendly about the fallback rule, NOR tripointing. I can tell you that with certainty.

Also, they'd lose a huge chunk of their player base if people listened to this. So I doubt GW would agree with your assessment. Even if it's true.

I live in America. I don't have problems gaming in a friendly way.

And what exactly is unfriendly about the Fall Back rule or tri-pointing?

Because they are big FU rules. They both generate a lot of negativity at the table. In my experience.

My games would be considered "friendly" about 66% of the time I'd say. But then there are Eldar players that I've had to sit there with their own codex open because they kept "forgetting" how their aspect warriors worked.

Martel732 wrote:
THEY should play something else. Like a dice game.

This is a dice game lol.

Socialise yourself, please. It will do you some good. And do me a favour and never come to any events in the UK. I don't ever want to play you. I can't stand the accusations of cheating or the arguments if I happen to win.

I wouldn't accuse you without evidence. But if I question your play, you better show me something to back it up. I don't think you even comprehend what I'm talking about. I'm not being mean or nasty for the sake of it. But after the second or third "mistake" during a game, I'm gonna watch like a hawk.

Ishagu-why does Dante only allow Marines to reroll 1s and 2s, but Calgar allows them to reroll any hits?

And, more importantly, why is that distinction DESIRABLE?

 Ishagu wrote:
The rules are fine lol

There aren't even 10 examples of something which is so unclear it cannot be resolved in a game with 20 factions and 300+ different units.

Give me 5 examples, please.
Maybe you don't personally like something? Maybe things aren't as want?
Where are these badly written rules that prevent the game from working?

Ishagu, do you work for GW?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ishagu-why does Dante only allow Marines to reroll 1s and 2s, but Calgar allows them to reroll any hits?

And, more importantly, why is that distinction DESIRABLE?

Why are the Blood Angels a more competitive chapter than the Ultramarines? Why are their unit selections different?

They just are. You get unique units, we get a better CM aura. Know your own rules and leave your opponent to know theirs.

 Ishagu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ishagu-why does Dante only allow Marines to reroll 1s and 2s, but Calgar allows them to reroll any hits?

And, more importantly, why is that distinction DESIRABLE?

Why are the Blood Angels a more competitive chapter than the Ultramarines? Why are their unit selections different?

They just are. You get unique units, we get a better CM aura. Know your own rules and leave your opponent to know theirs.

It has nothing to do with Dante. It is because the meta is elite castles and BA are codex: tripoint.

OK, folks, kindly wind it back a notch. The discussion here is on USRs, not the mindset of other players. Keep it civil, please.

USRs help me from having to engage in the behavior you hate so much Ishagu. You should be all for them.

 Ishagu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ishagu-why does Dante only allow Marines to reroll 1s and 2s, but Calgar allows them to reroll any hits?

And, more importantly, why is that distinction DESIRABLE?

Why are the Blood Angels a more competitive chapter than the Ultramarines? Why are their unit selections different?

They just are. You get unique units, we get a better CM aura. Know your own rules and leave your opponent to know theirs.

LOL imagine saying Blood Angels were more competitive than Ultramarines and being serious about it.

They might be at the moment. I have seen the ways of tripoint at all costs and its pretty obnoxious. Especially if BA go first.

Erm, Slayer. Where have you been?

They are currently one of the best Chapters. Probably 3rd after Iron Hands and Raven Guard.

Only because of the meta. BA crumble to psychic armies and armies with counter assault. But greedy marine players go all-in on shooting, and then get tripointed and lose.

I am fully able to play the game with Azrael's aura being worse than a chapter master from a different, newer Codex because they are from different Codexes. There is no Chapter Master USR to get confused about. Its quite clear in each Codex - no rules argument required. I can't reroll my 3s and he can. Sad for me but the game keeps going. If it really bothered me I suppose I would play that other force. It doesn't bother me (enough) so I don't. I was hoping that Ritual of the Damned would address that but, alas. Azrael's points did come down...

Regardless, no rules dispute possible. Even if my opponent said "Go ahead - reroll those 3s" I wouldn't. Its not because I am a rules stickler, but I know this particular rule and with my army I am in for a penny, in for a pound. Dance with who brought you to the dance. Etc etc.

Anyhoo - stay safe and well everyone

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am fully able to play the game with Azrael's aura being worse than a chapter master from a different, newer Codex because they are from different Codexes. There is no Chapter Master USR to get confused about. Its quite clear in each Codex - no rules argument required. I can't reroll my 3s and he can. Sad for me but the game keeps going. If it really bothered me I suppose I would play that other force. It doesn't bother me (enough) so I don't. I was hoping that Ritual of the Damned would address that but, alas. Azrael's points did come down...

Regardless, no rules dispute possible. Even if my opponent said "Go ahead - reroll those 3s" I wouldn't. Its not because I am a rules stickler, but I know this particular rule and with my army I am in for a penny, in for a pound. Dance with who brought you to the dance. Etc etc.

Anyhoo - stay safe and well everyone

It just makes no sense for Azrael or Dante, so we refuse to accept GW's oversight. The RAI is clear. At least, to us. Also, if the improved aura were on papa smurf and Bobby G only, then RAI would be far less clear. But the generic chapter masters get it (who shouldn't exist in my book), so that means Dante and Azrael must have it as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh man. I wish Ishagu was on the dev team.

Perhaps the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, as well as the Space Wolves are too divergent from the standard codex to gain the same CM aura. They trade that for other rules and unique units.

It's not confusing or unclear, and as they are different books there is no point of contention.

Yeah, there is. A major one. The RAI is clear. GW has a history of being very lazy. THere is no way that Dante should be inferior to a generic space marine chapter master. There is no justfication possible for that outcome. I realize this is a group by group issue, but it's still an issue. Because GW is so unreliable and unresponsive to questions.

BA were codex compliant in many editions as well.

Nope lol. That's your opinion. There is no clear RAI argument here.

 Ishagu wrote:
Perhaps the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, as well as the Space Wolves are too divergent from the standard codex to gain the same CM aura. They trade that for other rules and unique units.

It's not confusing or unclear, and as they are different books there is no point of contention.

It's confusing when rules for similar units are similar but not identical. I have no problem whatsoever with the Chapter Masters of different Chapters having different special rules... but in that case they should be really different, rather than just the same rule with slightly different effects. If Chapter Masters confer a re-roll, for clarity it's best to either make it the same and give them other rules to differentiate them, or make it a stepped rule (Re-roll Hits [x]) where the rule name itself defines what effect it has.

Well all its all opinion when GW is involved seemingly.

Which is why USRs are better for them.

 Ishagu wrote:
Nope lol. That's your opinion. There is no clear RAI argument here.

And why do you get to decide what might be RAI and what’s not?

 insaniak wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Perhaps the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, as well as the Space Wolves are too divergent from the standard codex to gain the same CM aura. They trade that for other rules and unique units.

It's not confusing or unclear, and as they are different books there is no point of contention.

It's confusing when rules for similar units are similar but not identical. I have no problem whatsoever with the Chapter Masters of different Chapters having different special rules... but in that case they should be really different, rather than just the same rule with slightly different effects. If Chapter Masters confer a re-roll, for clarity it's best to either make it the same and give them other rules to differentiate them, or make it a stepped rule (Re-roll Hits [x]) where the rule name itself defines what effect it has.

This is all I"m really asking for. But it ALSO makes no sense that Dante is inferior to unnamed chapter masters.

PLus, I guarantee the other chapter masters get this wording at some point in the future. THey were just lazy and cut and pasted or forgot to errata this go around.

Edited by insaniak. Stick to the topic.

Martel732 wrote:
. But it ALSO makes no sense that Dante is inferior to unnamed chapter masters.

On this, I'll disagree. It makes perfect sense for specific Chapter Masters to be inferior to generic or other named Chapter Masters in some specific respects, assuming that he makes up for it elsewhere. Every Chapter Master doesn't have to be equally as good at everything as all of his peers... that would be flavourless and dull.


Hell, while an argument can be made for Dante needing to be awesome to represent his status, there's not even any specific need for named characters in general to be better than their generic peers. The point of special characters is to be different, not necessarily better.

Fair enough, but you think Dante should be less inspiring or whatever than a generic chapter master? I think that's absurd. And for every snowflake chapter to have the same flaw? That reeks of oversight.

Almost like Chapter masters should have a USR......

Why are we arguing about why Dante's Chapter Master Aura is worst than those from Codex Space Marines. We all know it is for one simple reason. GW updated the rules for the Chapter Master Aura in the new Codex Space Marines for reasons, but hasn't issued errata for the other chapter's Chapter Master Auras. I'll be you a beer they will update them to match when they produce new Codex Blood Angels/Dark Angels/Space Wolves/Death Watch/etc.

@Martel

Dante isn't less inspiring, but perhaps he is less Tactical when it comes to ranged firepower tactics? Who knows.

The rule is different, but as Dante is a unit for a seperate codex you shouldn't expect guaranteed parity.
Lucky for you he's a unit in one of the strongest chapters.

40K has to be the only game I've ever seen where a minor distinction between two virtually identical types of re-rolls (that only comes into play when penalties are in effect) is not only seen as anything other than sloppy writing, but lauded as a meaningful way of differentiating between two factions.

Games with less single-mindedly defensive fans get rightly raked over the coals for stuff like this.

Quit trying to explain it away. Alextroy is correct.

" one of the strongest chapters."

Whose path to said power is gamey and cheap. It's hollow to be "powerful" when I despise the mode of power. I want to use units other than DC and SG. I want to use Dante. I can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Why are we arguing about why Dante's Chapter Master Aura is worst than those from Codex Space Marines. We all know it is for one simple reason. GW updated the rules for the Chapter Master Aura in the new Codex Space Marines for reasons, but hasn't issued errata for the other chapter's Chapter Master Auras. I'll be you a beer they will update them to match when they produce new Codex Blood Angels/Dark Angels/Space Wolves/Death Watch/etc.

It's also an illustration of why USRs are a good thing.

Also, I suspect Cawl-style rerolls is how they intended it all along. Then, that document came about about modifiers after rerolls and messed it all up.

 alextroy wrote:
Why are we arguing about why Dante's Chapter Master Aura is worst than those from Codex Space Marines. We all know it is for one simple reason. GW updated the rules for the Chapter Master Aura in the new Codex Space Marines for reasons, but hasn't issued errata for the other chapter's Chapter Master Auras. I'll be you a beer they will update them to match when they produce new Codex Blood Angels/Dark Angels/Space Wolves/Death Watch/etc.

When 5e Space Marines got 35pt Rhinos it took a long time before they got around to updating anyone else's.

 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Dante isn't less inspiring, but perhaps he is less Tactical when it comes to ranged firepower tactics? Who knows.

The rule is different, but as Dante is a unit for a seperate codex you shouldn't expect guaranteed parity.
Lucky for you he's a unit in one of the strongest chapters.

Why is his aura slightly different in the first place? How do these minor differences make the game more fun?

 Ishagu wrote:
Erm, Slayer. Where have you been?

They are currently one of the best Chapters. Probably 3rd after Iron Hands and Raven Guard.

LOL no they're not. Psychic Awakening gave them nothing that the standard codex can't do better. They're still the same gimmick Slamguinus and always will be because they're written that way.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Erm, Slayer. Where have you been?

They are currently one of the best Chapters. Probably 3rd after Iron Hands and Raven Guard.

LOL no they're not. Psychic Awakening gave them nothing that the standard codex can't do better. They're still the same gimmick Slamguinus and always will be because they're written that way.

That's not completely true. Box doesn't even use smash capt. What IS true is that it's always DC + SG plus support characters plus constant tripointing.

 catbarf wrote:
40K has to be the only game I've ever seen where a minor distinction between two virtually identical types of re-rolls (that only comes into play when penalties are in effect) is not only seen as anything other than sloppy writing, but lauded as a meaningful way of differentiating between two factions.

Games with less single-mindedly defensive fans get rightly raked over the coals for stuff like this.

Agreed. The idea that Dante has a different re-roll rule than random Chapter Master #758 for flavour purposes is kind of stupid when there's no actual evidence of that in his rule. It's just the older rule because GW were too lazy to update it and inexplicably refuse to use USRs. I notice nobody seemed to have a problem with his rule being the same as every other Chapter Master's before the change in the most recent SM Codex but now it's all part of the Grand Plan(tm) which us peons should just acknowledge as being superior in every way because we do not truly understand the genius of the GW design process.

I don't even disagree with the idea that maybe Dante, for example, should have a different Chapter Master bonus. Maybe he should get a more close combat-focussed rule instead of the generic re-rolls. But he doesn't, so the point is moot. Just like all these arguments against USRs that they allow for more characterful rules don't actually cite any examples, there's no foundation for such a claim. Deep Strike is the same across almost every single unit that has it on their datasheet but it's called something different in every army for...reasons. The only thing this has accomplished in practical, real-world terms is to make identifying units with the rule more difficult than it needs to be. Again, I'd like to aske anyone not in favour of USRs to explain why it's better to have two identical rules in both effect and wording called two completely different things? What advantage does that serve?

Also, for the love of God can we leave off the pointless complaints about Blood Angels from the usual suspects? This is a thread about USRs, not tri-pointing or the relative power levels of different armies.

Slipspace wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
40K has to be the only game I've ever seen where a minor distinction between two virtually identical types of re-rolls (that only comes into play when penalties are in effect) is not only seen as anything other than sloppy writing, but lauded as a meaningful way of differentiating between two factions.

Games with less single-mindedly defensive fans get rightly raked over the coals for stuff like this.

Agreed. The idea that Dante has a different re-roll rule than random Chapter Master #758 for flavour purposes is kind of stupid when there's no actual evidence of that in his rule. It's just the older rule because GW were too lazy to update it and inexplicably refuse to use USRs. I notice nobody seemed to have a problem with his rule being the same as every other Chapter Master's before the change in the most recent SM Codex but now it's all part of the Grand Plan(tm) which us peons should just acknowledge as being superior in every way because we do not truly understand the genius of the GW design process.

I don't even disagree with the idea that maybe Dante, for example, should have a different Chapter Master bonus. Maybe he should get a more close combat-focussed rule instead of the generic re-rolls. But he doesn't, so the point is moot. Just like all these arguments against USRs that they allow for more characterful rules don't actually cite any examples, there's no foundation for such a claim. Deep Strike is the same across almost every single unit that has it on their datasheet but it's called something different in every army for...reasons. The only thing this has accomplished in practical, real-world terms is to make identifying units with the rule more difficult than it needs to be. Again, I'd like to aske anyone not in favour of USRs to explain why it's better to have two identical rules in both effect and wording called two completely different things? What advantage does that serve?

Also, for the love of God can we leave off the pointless complaints about Blood Angels from the usual suspects? This is a thread about USRs, not tri-pointing or the relative power levels of different armies.

Well, that's incorrect.

Tyranids have 9 different rules for deepstrike with 9 different effects. Covering them all with an USR would be quite difficult.

And i'm not even counting GSC in this.

Why? just make all 9 work the same. Why should tyranids get 9 different rules, for more or less the same thing. Specialy when GW already did stuff like that with rules for other armies. And if somehow a rule has to be different, then just make it a 2CP stratagem.

The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

 Ishagu wrote:
The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

You're confusing depth with complexity.

Spoletta wrote:


Well, that's incorrect.

Tyranids have 9 different rules for deepstrike with 9 different effects. Covering them all with an USR would be quite difficult.

And i'm not even counting GSC in this.

Two things here. First, are all those different DS rules necessary? Two, yet again, USRs don't preclude the possibility of having unique rules if required. The point still stands that the vast majority of DS rules are mechanically identical so can be covered by a USR.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

You're confusing depth with complexity.

No. I do like variety though.

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Well, that's incorrect.

Tyranids have 9 different rules for deepstrike with 9 different effects. Covering them all with an USR would be quite difficult.

And i'm not even counting GSC in this.

Two things here. First, are all those different DS rules necessary? Two, yet again, USRs don't preclude the possibility of having unique rules if required. The point still stands that the vast majority of DS rules are mechanically identical so can be covered by a USR.

Ok, but the purpose of an USR is to remove the bespoke rules.

If you need to say for each of those units "This unit has deepstrike but..." then you still created the same amount of bespoke rules and simply made everything worse because i have to reference another source to understand what the model does.

There are cases where USR would work better than bespoke rules,and cases like this one where bespoke rules work better.
And yes, all 9 those deepstriking methods are necessary, they are hugely different from each other and define the role of the model, so if the solution is "Just give them all the same deepstrike!" then your argument receives a HUGE fail mark.

A good use of USR would be the ariborne rule, deepstrike has too many variations.

Spoletta wrote:
And yes, all 9 those deepstriking methods are necessary, they are hugely different from each other and define the role of the model, so if the solution is "Just give them all the same deepstrike!" then your argument receives a HUGE fail mark.

Really?
Explain to me how Swooping Assault and Death From Below are so different.

Ishagu wrote:The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

But the rules are mechanically identical regardless of the name so how does making them a USR make the game more boring? The exciting thing about the game is what happens on the board between the two players, not about standing around reading rules text at each other. Nobody complained about this when we did have USRs so it seems like a pretty disingenuous reason to argue against them now.

Lord Damocles wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
And yes, all 9 those deepstriking methods are necessary, they are hugely different from each other and define the role of the model, so if the solution is "Just give them all the same deepstrike!" then your argument receives a HUGE fail mark.

Really?
Explain to me how Swooping Assault and Death From Below are so different.

Yeah...are those 9 all mechanically different or just called different things? Spoletta can you list the units that have the 9 different rules as I'm genuinely curious how you can make 9 different variations on the basic Deep Strike rule. Off the top of my head I think the Lictor has a mechanically different DS rule and maybe the Trygon (or is it just the other stuff that appears alongside the Trygon?) Even if they are different, again I'll point out that this doesn't preclude you using USRs where appropriate and having bespoke rules elsewhere for rules that are actually different. A quick check of my BA Codex reveals there are 4 differently named rules for Deep Strike that all function exactly the same. That's a fething stupid way to design a game because it's an unnecessary obstacle to understanding the abilities of a unit.

Tyranids have:

Swooping Assault - not within 9"
Death From Below - not within 9"
Float Down - not within 12"
Hidden Hunter - not within 9" + re-roll charge
Infestation - place 4 infestation nodes in your deployment zone. Appear within 6" of them.
Terror From The Deep - not within 1" + inflict up to 3 mortal wounds
Subterranean Assault - not with 9" + another unit can deploy with 3"
Invasion Organism - not within 9" + units inside must disembark
Bombardment Organism - not within 9" first battle round

You forgot Pheromone Trail.

I could even go further and add those to the list:

Spore Mine Launcher/Cysts
Spawn Termagants

Spoletta wrote:
You forgot Pheromone Trail.

I could even go further and add those to the list:

Spore Mine Launcher/Cysts
Spawn Termagants

You claimed that there were only nine of them.

So how is Swooping Assault different to Death From Below..?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You forgot Pheromone Trail.

I could even go further and add those to the list:

Spore Mine Launcher/Cysts
Spawn Termagants

You claimed that there were only nine of them.

So how is Swooping Assault different to Death From Below..?

They are not, which makes it a nice number of nine as i said.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Tyranids have:

Swooping Assault - not within 9"
Death From Below - not within 9"
Float Down - not within 12"
Hidden Hunter - not within 9" + re-roll charge
Infestation - place 4 infestation nodes in your deployment zone. Appear within 6" of them.
Terror From The Deep - not within 1" + inflict up to 3 mortal wounds
Subterranean Assault - not with 9" + another unit can deploy with 3"
Invasion Organism - not within 9" + units inside must disembark
Bombardment Organism - not within 9" first battle round

Thanks for that. What I'm seeing from the list is that 6 of them obey the regular 9" rule and have an additional rule on top. In my ideal implementation at least the first 5 above would just get Deep Strike as a USR then the additional part of the rule (re-roll charge, units have to disembark etc) can be added on top. Maybe even the Bombardment Organism could be handled like that, but probably not. To me, that instantly gives you an easier rule to parse because you get the basics of it in 2 words and the additional info can be added just as it is now. Far from being a problem for USRs, I thinkt his is a good demonstration of how useful they could be.

Yeah, but that was my point.
If i have to add a bespoke rule to make it work, then everything i did was to transform a bespoke rule into an USR plus a bespoke rule.
I didn't gain anything and now i also have to reference another source.

I can understand that it has advantages, but you can understand that it also has disadvantages. In the end it comes down to personal preferences, there isn't a "correct" way to do it.

Spoletta wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point.
If i have to add a bespoke rule to make it work, then everything i did was to transform a bespoke rule into an USR plus a bespoke rule.
I didn't gain anything and now i also have to reference another source.

I can understand that it has advantages, but you can understand that it has disadvantages. In the end it comes down to personal preferences.

I don't think that's a disadvantage though. You've converted part of a bespoke rule to a universally understood USR, which is still better than a longer bespoke rule that repeats text that should be a USR. I think you have gained something: a more concise rule that also aids both players when scanning a unit's datasheet. Obviously you still need to read the other, non-USR sections but you're still gaining the benefits of the USR.

This is also not even getting into a discussion about whether you really need all those bespoke rules in the first place and whether having USRs would help alleviate that bloat.

I'm one of the apparent few "don't really care either way" guys. I see the pros and cons of both ways. It's far from the biggest issue in the game. They need to do a better job with updating rules across the board whichever direction they take which is the biggest problem when it comes to this discussion as far as I see.

Actually the second you start to pile on multiple USRs a bespoke rule system becomes easier and more streamlined.

I only need to check one rule when it's bespoke.

I agree that this isn't an issue in the current game. It might be if you have OCD about knowing every single rule. That's on you, however.

 Ishagu wrote:
Actually the second you start to pile on multiple USRs a bespoke rule system becomes easier and more streamlined.

I only need to check one rule when it's bespoke.

I agree that this isn't an issue in the current game. It might be if you have OCD about knowing every single rule. That's on you, however.

It's an issue if you play multiple armies, want to understand what your opponent is doing or just have an easy conversation about the rules.

But why have a single deep strike when I could have multiple versions of the same rule that have no relevant difference?

But we just illustrated that many do have differences.

And just because some aren't different now doesn't mean they won't be individually adjusted in future. That's the beauty of a bespoke rule.

pm713 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Actually the second you start to pile on multiple USRs a bespoke rule system becomes easier and more streamlined.

I only need to check one rule when it's bespoke.

I agree that this isn't an issue in the current game. It might be if you have OCD about knowing every single rule. That's on you, however.

It's an issue if you play multiple armies, want to understand what your opponent is doing or just have an easy conversation about the rules.

But why have a single deep strike when I could have multiple versions of the same rule that have no relevant difference?

Make Deepstrike "x

Would solve a lot of issues if x would be distance to closest enemy. and allow for decent granularity with a general 9" as of now with the exceptions beeing shorter or longer with additonal conditions.
Still a USR, still standardized but ifninitely easier to handle.

The current system is not hard to handle.

It doesn't need to be easier. It is currently easy. This game is not hard to play lol.

If you're demanding perfection with no errors from both players at all times, I suggest that you don't involve yourself in a manual game played by humans. Humans make mistakes and are not perfect, some even cheat. That's humanity for you.

 Ishagu wrote:
But we just illustrated that many do have differences.

And just because some aren't different now doesn't mean they won't be individually adjusted in future. That's the beauty of a bespoke rule.

But many don't.

That's a ridiculous argument. They could also be rendered broken, out of date, completely changed or removed in the future.

Yes they could. That's the beauty of it. Each of these rules can be changed, removed or updated without impacting other units.

Another massive pro to using bespoke rules.

The granularity is an objective advantage of bespoken rules as much as outdated bits of rules is an objective disadvantage.

So we can agree both have pros and cons. I guess that's the end of the discussion!

Good job everyone.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yes they could. That's the beauty of it. Each of these rules can be changed, removed or updated without impacting other units.

Another massive pro to using bespoke rules.

Which would hold more weight if GW ever actually did that. But they don't. And, again USRs don't prevent you having bespoke rules if you need them. Nobody's suggesting units only use USRs, just that they are used where possible to make reading datasheets easier and rules more consistent.

They adjust rules often enough. It used be as long as 10 years between an army update.

The army that hasn't received an update for longest has only been waiting two years, if that. And they are due one soon! (DG)


Let go and of your obsession over the need for things to fit neatly in the way you want them to. Admit that both systems have pros and cons.

 Ishagu wrote:
The current system is not hard to handle.

It doesn't need to be easier. It is currently easy. This game is not hard to play lol.

If you're demanding perfection with no errors from both players at all times, I suggest that you don't involve yourself in a manual game played by humans. Humans make mistakes and are not perfect, some even cheat. That's humanity for you.

The game is objectively quite hard to play when compared to...almost any other tabletop game.

Even a relatively complex game like, I don't know, terraforming mars or something, does not have the sheer quantity of rules available that you are almost explicitly required to go in NOT KNOWING how many of your opponent's rules work.

The fact that, two years into the edition, even people who never played in the edition where universal rules are a thing, still regularly explain their rules in the old terms of when we had universal rules - Deep Strike, Feel No Pain, etc - indicates to me at least that 8th could use a handful more universal rules.

Because it does have universal rules, and extremely important ones, now. What do you think "Character" "Fly" "Invulnerable Saves" etc are?

Slipspace wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yes they could. That's the beauty of it. Each of these rules can be changed, removed or updated without impacting other units.

Another massive pro to using bespoke rules.

Which would hold more weight if GW ever actually did that. But they don't. And, again USRs don't prevent you having bespoke rules if you need them. Nobody's suggesting units only use USRs, just that they are used where possible to make reading datasheets easier and rules more consistent.

The advantages of having USR quickly diminsh the more bespoke rules you are forced to use.

Either the USR system allows to remove a huge part of the bespoke rules (without removing any of the current nunances of those rules) or there is simply no reason to adopt the USR system.

By the way, there is also a midway, which is using bespoke rules and using USR only for those few cases of rules that are REALLY spread on multiple factions and always equal:

Fly
Character
Airborne
Maybe Feel No pain.
Maybe explosion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The current system is not hard to handle.

It doesn't need to be easier. It is currently easy. This game is not hard to play lol.

If you're demanding perfection with no errors from both players at all times, I suggest that you don't involve yourself in a manual game played by humans. Humans make mistakes and are not perfect, some even cheat. That's humanity for you.

The game is objectively quite hard to play when compared to...almost any other tabletop game.

Even a relatively complex game like, I don't know, terraforming mars or something, does not have the sheer quantity of rules available that you are almost explicitly required to go in NOT KNOWING how many of your opponent's rules work.

Terraforming mars is child's play game design compared to 40k.

There exists no other game (physical) with the complexity of 40k. You can compare it with games that have a reasonable fraction of it, like warmachine, and you would soon discover that they are not easier by any definition.

40k 8th IS an easy game.

I can explain the game in 15 minutes and then just say "For special rules just follow what is written on the unit".

I tried explaining Seven Wornders to a couple of non geek friends once. It was a miserable experience.

 Ishagu wrote:
They adjust rules often enough. It used be as long as 10 years between an army update.

The army that hasn't received an update for longest has only been waiting two years, if that. And they are due one soon! (DG)


Let go and of your obsession over the need for things to fit neatly in the way you want them to. Admit that both systems have pros and cons.

I never said there weren't pros to bespoke rules so I don't know where you got that idea from. No idea what the firs two paragraphs are all about. When I talk about updating rules I'm specifically talking about updating one version of what would otherwise have been a USR to make it bespoke. People keep throwing that out as a disadvantage of USRs (even though it isn't) but can't actually point to an instance of this happening.

I am disappointed my example was ignored.

Ishagu wrote:The rules are fine lol

There aren't even 10 examples of something which is so unclear it cannot be resolved in a game with 20 factions and 300+ different units.

Give me 5 examples, please.
Maybe you don't personally like something? Maybe things aren't as want?
Where are these badly written rules that prevent the game from working?

Its not about something being unclear, you're missing the point. Its about something being "almost" the same across the board. If i play multiple armies with bodyguard abilities, why do i need to learn 5 different variety? what does a timing/roll value change that makes the rules be so similar better for the game?

Ishagu wrote:The current system is not hard to handle.

It doesn't need to be easier. It is currently easy. This game is not hard to play lol.

If you're demanding perfection with no errors from both players at all times, I suggest that you don't involve yourself in a manual game played by humans. Humans make mistakes and are not perfect, some even cheat. That's humanity for you.

Why shouldnt we seek to improve? thats litterally how humans became the apex predator? "Why should we try and master fire, eating raw meat is currently easy",

Ishagu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

You're confusing depth with complexity.

No. I do like variety though.

So a bodyguard unit that intercepts the shot directly VS takes the wounds VS takes the shot but only takes one wound is better for the game in your opinion?

Ishagu wrote:Yes they could. That's the beauty of it. Each of these rules can be changed, removed or updated without impacting other units.

Another massive pro to using bespoke rules.

Sure, thats the main reason to say bespoke rules are interesting.But hey, good news! Its possible to use bespoke rules for unique rules and USRs for rules that are spread across the game (deepstrike, gets hot!)

Ishagu wrote:Actually the second you start to pile on multiple USRs a bespoke rule system becomes easier and more streamlined.

I only need to check one rule when it's bespoke.

I agree that this isn't an issue in the current game. It might be if you have OCD about knowing every single rule. That's on you, however.

good USRs dont have multiple layers like GW did in the past.

You want to only need to check a rule once Yet youre advocating to keep the rules similar yet different across codexes?

Ishagu wrote:But we just illustrated that many do have differences.

And just because some aren't different now doesn't mean they won't be individually adjusted in future. That's the beauty of a bespoke rule.

To me its a horror more than a beauty. Good systems are built on constant variables, not on almost constant ones because "they might change in the future"

Spoletta wrote:


There exists no other game (physical) with the complexity of 40k.

But complexity on it's own is not a good thing, or else FATAL and the Aliens RPG that required multiple rolls and consultation of charts per bullet fired (when guns were firing in bursts) would be the pinnacle of RPG design. Complexity should only be added when it corresponds to an increase in depth (i.e the meaningful choices available to the player).

The problem of course being that 40K doesn't convert that complexity into depth, which means that it ends up being much more shallow than games like Warmachine and Infinity in terms of meaningful choices available to the player.

So it maximises on complexity for zero gain from that complexity. In other words, 40K is an example of how to not design a game.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


There exists no other game (physical) with the complexity of 40k.

The problem of course being that 40K doesn't convert that complexity into depth, which means that it ends up being much more shallow than games like Warmachine and Infinity in terms of meaningful choices available to the player.

So it maximises on complexity for zero gain from that complexity.

i dont understand how anyone can think that 40k is more complex than infinity. Clearly their biased and have never tried it. Infinity having weapons with effective ranges and the possibility to go prone already makes it more complex than 40k lol.

40k is incredibly easy to play. All the special rules being on the unit datasheet is very streamlined.

Unless...?

The guys who oppose this don't actually own the rules? I think I've solved the mystery to their problems!
Go buy the books!

Sorry for the usual digression earlier. I don't think this guy is debating you guys in good faith.

If it were so easy, I wouldn't have to monitor a subset of opponents like a hawk.

If you think this game is easy, you are probably making a lot of mistakes.

Find better opponents? People make mistakes doing even the easiest of tasks. That's humans for you.

Or are you watching them because they cheat? That's a different issue entirely.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


There exists no other game (physical) with the complexity of 40k.

The problem of course being that 40K doesn't convert that complexity into depth, which means that it ends up being much more shallow than games like Warmachine and Infinity in terms of meaningful choices available to the player.

So it maximises on complexity for zero gain from that complexity.

i dont understand how anyone can think that 40k is more complex than infinity. Clearly their biased and have never tried it. Infinity having weapons with effective ranges and the possibility to go prone already makes it more complex than 40k lol.

In terms of clarity of rules, Infinity is much less complex thanks to its effective use of USRs. You look at a weapon or unit, see the special rules listed for it and if you know what they do then you know what they do. You look at the range brackets and the modifiers and you instantly see how they work.

And those complexities add to the meaningful choices a player has. If a unit has gun which is much more dangerous at close range, then the player needs to weigh in whether the benefit of doing more damage is offset by the risk of trying to close that distance in order to use it to its maximum effectiveness. Maybe it would be better to hold up, stay alive and use that gun as a deterrent to your opponents close range units instead, at least until you can clear out a safe path to flank the enemy. 40K has very little of such decisions, there is usually one obvious best decision (or only decision)

I've played infinity.

1: It's a skirmish game and not a good comparison.

2: It's definitely not easier to play than 40k.

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is incredibly easy to play. All the special rules being on the unit datasheet is very streamlined.

Unless...?

The guys who oppose this don't actually own the rules? I think I've solved the mystery to their problems!
Go buy the books!

Now you are using baseless assumptions and accusations. This does not help the discussion.

The general concept of the game is fairly accessible, far more than the earlier editions. This is a good thing, and having all the relevant rules on the datasheet (bar exceptions like "character" or "fly") or in the same book (e.g. "reanimation protocols") helps a lot. However, the game can get very complex ruleswise very quickly, when several special rules interact with each other, such as mortal wounds on hit with shield drones. What I think many people are looking for (including me) is that rules like the different deep strike variants of tyranids are either treated the same as "reanimation protocols" with an addendum for e.g. the reroll to charge or the disembark, or are worded identical in the paragraphs that describe the deep strike part. And that those rules are kept the same for all armies where they are applicable, which especially are deepstrike, bodyguard and feel no pain (and probably others I did not mention).

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is incredibly easy to play. All the special rules being on the unit datasheet is very streamlined.

Yep, every special rule is on every datasheet.

Like Quicksilver Swiftness for Slaanesh, which... oh, bother. Let me flip around my codex to find that, sorry, not on the datasheet. At least I only need the Datasheet to know what Demonic Ritual does... oh, wait, hmm, not there. Well, I can always look on the datasheet to find out what the Locus of Swiftness does - oh, um, never mind. Let's use the datasheet to look up Demonic then. Oh, wait, no, that's not there either...

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is incredibly easy to play. All the special rules being on the unit datasheet is very streamlined.

Unless...?

The guys who oppose this don't actually own the rules? I think I've solved the mystery to their problems!
Go buy the books!

i own all the books i need to play the game (with a shared chapter approved for the points value at my LGS). The rules are ok when you take them one at a time. The problem is that there is artificial complexity by making rules almost the same for no good reason.

But yeah, i'll skip arguing with you since you clearly came on this thread to dump your "holier than thou" attitude down our throats.
have a good day

Well seeing as I find the rules very easy to understand, and even easier to source. Why is that?

<Removed>

I'm fact there is far less contention than there was with playing in 7th, 6th and even 5th editions. What's up with that? They were swimming with USRs. That's odd.

If the game is more complex than before, why has it grown so much and attracted so many new players. Maybe the Chaos Gods are at play?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is incredibly easy to play. All the special rules being on the unit datasheet is very streamlined.

Yep, every special rule is on every datasheet.

Like Quicksilver Swiftness for Slaanesh, which... oh, bother. Let me flip around my codex to find that, sorry, not on the datasheet. At least I only need the Datasheet to know what Demonic Ritual does... oh, wait, hmm, not there. Well, I can always look on the datasheet to find out what the Locus of Swiftness does - oh, um, never mind. Let's use the datasheet to look up Demonic then. Oh, wait, no, that's not there either...

nah, the rules being 3 different places if good for the game's complexity and variety /s

 Ishagu wrote:
Well seeing as I find the rules very easy to understand, and even easier to source. Why is that?

Is my grasp of the English language far greater than most?

Can you answer my question from earlier in the thread about the interaction between the Belt of Russ and Quicksilver Swiftness and whether or not I can spend CP to interrupt as the Slaanesh player?

All you need is check the unit's datasheets, after all, since all the rules are there. It was a Rune Priest and a KoS if you need to google the datasheets.

Take a photo of the rules and I'll have a look at it.

I'm not familiar with every rule 100%. How often does that interaction come up? Every game you play or is it one of very few confusing interactions.

I did ask for 10 examples than can't be resolved. Maybe this is one?

 Ishagu wrote:
Take a photo of the rules and I'll have a look at it.

I'm not familiar with every rule 100%. How often does that interaction come up? Every game you play or is it one of very few confusing interactions.

I did ask for 10 examples than can't be resolved. Maybe this is one?

Its not about if the interactions can or can't be resolved you keep missing the point.

He's just pushing your buttons at this point. He's not debating in good faith.

Martel732 wrote:
He's just pushing your buttons at this point. He's not debating in good faith.

yeah, hes consistently been doing this for a long time sadly .

I absolutely am.

But here's my question. If we all agree that Bespoke rules and USRs both have pros and cons, why are people still arguing?

One is not better than the other. The designers don't agree with your preference after using them for 20+ years. Accept it and move on.

If GW switched back to USR tomorrow, he'd probably say that he always thought that USRs were great, and that GW was just testing the bespoken rule thing in 8th ed.

I'm enjoying this version of the game more than any in 23 years of playing.

If the next version is more fun and is a better game I will defend it.

 Ishagu wrote:
Take a photo of the rules and I'll have a look at it.

I'm not familiar with every rule 100%. How often does that interaction come up? Every game you play or is it one of very few confusing interactions.

I did ask for 10 examples than can't be resolved. Maybe this is one?

So far it has come up every game since March, given that my opponent is the same person (thanks COVID). We resolved it our way, but not because of RAW. Because we had to.
Here's the datasheets for the units in question:
Keeper of Secrets:

Primaris Rune Priest:

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm enjoying this version of the game more than any in 23 years of playing.

If the next version is more fun and is a better game I will defend it.

I think you'll defend it no matter what.

 Ishagu wrote:
I absolutely am.

But here's my question. If we all agree that Bespoke rules and USRs both have pros and cons, why are people still arguing?

One is not better than the other. The designers don't agree with your preference after using them for 20+ years. Accept it and move on.

were not saying to go 100% for one or the other. were saying that things that have the same effect should have USRS, complemented by bespoke rules. Youre arguing the wrong thing.

And I'm saying I prefer every faction to have bespoke rules in the same way they have bespoke weapons.

It allows for individual adjustment to rules, points and abilities without impacting anything else. Better for a fluid game system like what 40k is.

I am going to ask this once nicely: Stay on topic and be polite to one another, the amount of alerts this topic is generating is on the wrong side of hilarious.

Grabbed the datasheets for you so you can answer our rules question, Ishagu.

 Ishagu wrote:
But we just illustrated that many do have differences.

And just because some aren't different now doesn't mean they won't be individually adjusted in future. That's the beauty of a bespoke rule.

They don't have difference. They simply have some additional that comes up after they Deep Strike.

 Ishagu wrote:
And I'm saying I prefer every faction to have bespoke rules in the same way they have bespoke weapons.

It allows for individual adjustment to rules, points and abilities without impacting anything else. Better for a fluid game system like what 40k is.

And, again, to my knowledge, GW have never actually errata'd or changed what is effectively a USR on a unit in that way in the whole of 8th edition. Can you give me an example of where that's happened? Even if it has, you can get the exact same effect by adding a bespoke rule to the unit as well as the USR. It even takes up less space.

Slipspace wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And I'm saying I prefer every faction to have bespoke rules in the same way they have bespoke weapons.

It allows for individual adjustment to rules, points and abilities without impacting anything else. Better for a fluid game system like what 40k is.

And, again, to my knowledge, GW have never actually errata'd or changed what is effectively a USR on a unit in that way in the whole of 8th edition. Can you give me an example of where that's happened? Even if it has, you can get the exact same effect by adding a bespoke rule to the unit as well as the USR. It even takes up less space.

To my knowledge they have not, even when FLY was change the harlequins had the perfect time to show GW they are willing to change units unique rules with their Flip Belts, they did not, instead they made another Large faq for all liked rules and ignore quins.

Bespoke rules have surely been changed in the past for balance reasons.

USR too have been changed in the past.

Every time a weapon has it's points adjusted or profile changed that's a bespoke rule change. Eg: Auto Bolt Rifle is now assault 3

Chapter tactics and relics have been altered. Those are bespoke rules.

Unique units have been updated, those are also examples.

Ishagu, you have the datasheets for the Rune Priest and KoS. Please address Unit's example now.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ishagu, you have the datasheets for the Rune Priest and KoS. Please address Unit's example now.

he can't and he won't because this example contradicts his standpoint on GW's rules quality

What's my stance on GW's rule quality?

I said that a handful of mistakes across a game featuring 20 factions, lots more sub factions and 300+ different units are bound to happen.

As long as they are willing to address mistakes I'm not too concerned. And they do so with regular Errata and FAQs.

 Ishagu wrote:
And I'm saying I prefer every faction to have bespoke rules in the same way they have bespoke weapons.

Does every faction have bespoke definitions for what weapons suffer penalties to moving, which ones can be shot in melee, and which ones can fire after Advancing?

Or do we have a small set of universal weapon types, with bespoke special rules on top of those types as (very rarely) needed?

I'm sure you could make every faction even more of a unique snowflake by giving them all 3-5 unique weapon types, half of which are just renames of the same weapon types from other codices, and printing out the full rules for every weapon type on every datasheet. Do you think that would be good design, or bad design?

Why is there so much damn snark in this thread? Can’t people discuss instead of bicker?

Spoletta wrote:
Bespoke rules have surely been changed in the past for balance reasons.

USR too have been changed in the past.

It isn't about changing actual bespoke rules or all instances of what is effectively a USR.

People are asking for an example where an FAQ changed one instance of what is an otherwise universal wording of a rule.

So an FAQ changing how one units deep strike worked in order to balance it for that unit without that change also being applied to all other deep strike rules which use the previous wording, for example.

The next step after that is whether nor not such a rule change would be impossible in a USR system which can incorporate things like Deep Strike X".

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why is there so much damn snark in this thread? Can’t people discuss instead of bicker?

Because bad faith discussions devolve into snark.

They did with one of the GSC interactions, actually. I can't recall the exact rule.

 Ishagu wrote:
What's my stance on GW's rule quality?

I said that a handful of mistakes across a game featuring 20 factions, lots more sub factions and 300+ different units are bound to happen.

As long as they are willing to address mistakes I'm not too concerned. And they do so with regular Errata and FAQs.

And yet we can go into every book and find broken rules, contradictions, units and weapons that are overcapable or just don't work, and GW releases stuff like the SM supplements that clearly are insanely overpowered on the most cursory of casual read overs at release, and remain probably the strongest armies even after Errata. A great example of GW rules "quality" is Russ tanks. They make the Tank Commander insanely good, and then *drop* its price in the Errata when nobody thought it needed to be cheaper, while the Vanquisher cannon has been non-functional (the Punisher has a greater average damage output against vehicles than the Vanquisher does) since the start of the edition three years ago, and GW's response was just to drop the cost 5pts and subsequently forget it exists

It's good that they're at least *doing* errata now, but quality has never been a high point of GW rules.

Please, I'm asking.

Find me 10 examples of broken rules that have not been corrected and cannot be resolved. You claim you find them in every book.

If you can't give me 10 examples of unplayable rules then you are telling porkies.

My problem with them is 2+ armies can have the same or relatively the same, but due to wording and CP cost 1 armies is WAY WAY WAY shittier. Example Salamanders and Imp Fist - Both have a stratagem that allows them to Select a unit in your ifght/shooting phase and then an enemy unit/model and YOUR unit adds +! to their wound rolls. Ok thats not so bad whats the problem? Well the Imperial Fist one "Tank Hunters" specifies it has to be an enemy vehicle and it costs 2 CP not 1. While the Salamanders allows them to choose ANY enemy model/unit and it only costs 1 CP.

 Ishagu wrote:
I only need to check one rule when it's bespoke.

How is reading one rule with two effects on the datasheet easier than reading two rules with one effect each both on the datasheet? I'm calling bs on this, the two rules with one effect each is obv. easier to read!

 Ishagu wrote:
So we can agree both have pros and cons. I guess that's the end of the discussion!

Good job everyone.

Yes! That's why we need both USR and bespoke rules, to take advantage of the pros and minimize the cons of both!!
Glad we agree that we need USR, it's cool that the conversation has now ended, it means now you can answer the question about the belt of russ and quicksilver swiftness!
Also answer the question about the belt of russ and quicksilver swiftness, you have the datasheets!

We have USRs already.

Infantry
Vehicle
Fly
Monster
Rapid Fire
Assault
Character
Macro

Etc, etc

 Ishagu wrote:
Please, I'm asking.

Find me 10 examples of broken rules that have not been corrected and cannot be resolved. You claim you find them in every book.

If you can't give me 10 examples of unplayable rules then you are telling porkies.

You've ignored mine, what makes people think you wouldn't ignore 9 more?

I'm waiting for you to show me the rules lol

I have no doubt you may well have found one!

But for someone to claim every book is filled with broken rules is just rubbish.
To the people claiming the rules are broken, 10 examples should be easy to find.

Ishagu wrote:I'm waiting for you to show me the rules lol

I have no doubt you may well have found one!

But for someone to claim every book is filled with broken rules is just rubbish.
To the people claiming the rules are broken, 10 examples should be easy to find.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Take a photo of the rules and I'll have a look at it.

I'm not familiar with every rule 100%. How often does that interaction come up? Every game you play or is it one of very few confusing interactions.

I did ask for 10 examples than can't be resolved. Maybe this is one?

So far it has come up every game since March, given that my opponent is the same person (thanks COVID). We resolved it our way, but not because of RAW. Because we had to.
Here's the datasheets for the units in question:
Keeper of Secrets:

Spoiler:

Primaris Rune Priest:

Spoiler:

This post, right here, has the datasheets.

Edit: Also, the rules FUNCTION. But they could be a lot better.

Functional is not usually a compliment. If I want to sell you a car and the best thing I can say is that it functions, would you buy that car?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Bespoke rules have surely been changed in the past for balance reasons.

USR too have been changed in the past.

It isn't about changing actual bespoke rules or all instances of what is effectively a USR.

People are asking for an example where an FAQ changed one instance of what is an otherwise universal wording of a rule.

So an FAQ changing how one units deep strike worked in order to balance it for that unit without that change also being applied to all other deep strike rules which use the previous wording, for example.

The next step after that is whether nor not such a rule change would be impossible in a USR system which can incorporate things like Deep Strike X".

There have been a few cases of USR changes which would have been not possible (or at least would have been cumbersome) if they were actual USR.
Mostly the problem comes with stacking of effects.
Take hit penalties and feel no pain for example. Depending on the source they stack, and what does or doesn't stack has been changed in the FAQs. If they were all the same rule, addressing what stack and what doesn't would been much more difficult.

 Ishagu wrote:
We have USRs already.

So we have USR.
And the game is good.
So you agree that having USR is good for the game.
I see you agree that we need USRs in the game, nice!
Also really you should answer about the Quicksilver Swiftness and Belt of Russ interaction, why don't you answer?

What's the issue with the rule? Some poor interaction with Quicksilver Swiftness?

Is it an issue with who goes first?

 Ishagu wrote:
What's the issue with the rule? Some poor interaction with Quicksilver Swiftness?

Is it an issue with who goes first?

The question is:

When a Rune Priest uses the Belt of Russ on a Keeper of Secrets, can the Keeper of Secrets then pay 2CP to jump ahead in the order with the default stratagem?

I don't have the rules for the belt of russ on hand, and I need to see the language for quicksilver Swiftness.

These aren't two armies I play and I'm not going to judge the rules from memory or how I think they function.

 Ishagu wrote:
Every time a weapon has it's points adjusted or profile changed that's a bespoke rule change. Eg: Auto Bolt Rifle is now assault 3

Chapter tactics and relics have been altered. Those are bespoke rules.

Unique units have been updated, those are also examples.

I'm not sure if you didn't understand the point that was being made or you're arguing in bad faith here. We're looking for an example of something that would otherwise have been a USR that has been updated independent of all the other mechanically identical rules, not just an example of any rule that's ever been changed.

I'm not sure how the examples you give are in any way supposed to be an argument against USRs.

 Ishagu wrote:
I don't have the rules for the belt of russ on hand, and I need to see the language for quicksilver Swiftness.

These aren't two armies I play and I'm not going to judge the rules from memory or how I think they function.

Wait, you're saying you need more than the datasheet?

But I thought

 Ishagu wrote:
All the special rules being on the unit datasheet is very streamlined.

I guess you mean the Armour of Russ, not the Belt of Russ.

I'm not looking at FAQs so i may be wrong, but provided that the other requirement for the stratagem has been met, i see no reason to not allow that.

It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

 Ishagu wrote:
It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

Because USRs cannot physically be printed on the datasheet! That's completely impossible!

 Ishagu wrote:
It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

The whole point is that it's not a USR, you know that, right?

 Ishagu wrote:
It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

And the relic Belt of Russ, don't forget.

I'm glad you agree that 8th edition didn't actually streamline anything though and it's still a pain having to look everything up, meaning players shouldn't feel bad if they can't find a rule or don't understand every interaction.

(by the way, there's no reason you couldn't print the text of a USR onto a unit's datasheet. There's no reason GW didn't do it here with the Keeper, either, other than convenience.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I don't have the rules for the belt of russ on hand, and I need to see the language for quicksilver Swiftness.

These aren't two armies I play and I'm not going to judge the rules from memory or how I think they function.

Wait, you're saying you need more than the datasheet?

But I thought

 Ishagu wrote:
All the special rules being on the unit datasheet is very streamlined.

Oh what a tangled web he weaves...

It actually is an USR, or rather...
Calling it USR is a bit outdated as a term.
Faction Special Rule (FSR) would be a more fitting term, but surely it is not a bespoke rule.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

Because USRs cannot physically be printed on the datasheet! That's completely impossible!

Privateer Press have been doing the impossible for ages it seems. As have Wizkids for decades with Heroclix who literally put them on the mini's base? What kind of witchery was that?

Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

Actually, if I want to play 7th edition at GW, the manager WILL stop me.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

Other than lack of opponents.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that

 Ishagu wrote:
This edition is so simple to play.

Evidently not.

I'm so sorry that I can't give out advice on rules in a book I don't own for a faction I don't play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that

 Ishagu wrote:
This edition is so simple to play.

Evidently not.

Don't want to barge in on this, but reading the 2 datasheets the answer looks extremely clear to me...

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm so sorry that I can't give out advice on rules in a book I don't own for a faction I don't play.

And that's exactly the point

Imagine a world in which the rules were called "Always Strike First" and "Always Strike Last" and both of them (and any interaction between them) was included in the BRB. Wouldn't that be simpler to answer for people that don't own all the rules? Wouldn't it be easier to go to a game against, say, Space Wolves with Slaanesh and when he says "this gives you Always Strike Last" I can say "well, I have Always Strike First and I know what effect that has on me already because it was covered in the actual rules without me having to buy the SW codex!" Instead of currently where the game goes to a screeching halt and we have to bend over our codexes with squinty eyes trying to parse every individual word in each fairly lengthly rule to try to understand what's going on - and then still have questions left at the end?

That would be simpler to play.

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm so sorry that I can't give out advice on rules in a book I don't own for a faction I don't play.

So you're just playing internet contrarian?

As per usual then...

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that

 Ishagu wrote:
This edition is so simple to play.

Evidently not.

Don't want to barge in on this, but reading the 2 datasheets the answer looks extremely clear to me...

What is it? (Honestly curious because this actually is an issue we've not been able to find).

 Ishagu wrote:
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Like I said many pages ago, I recently read designer's notes for 4th Ed, and one of the things specifically mentioned was streamlining inconsistent and bespoke special rules into easily-referenced USRs. Lack of USRs was seen as a problem into the mid-2000s. Now that we've come full circle, whatever GW is currently doing is automatically the best, I guess.

But yeah I think you've pretty well demonstrated why this 'bespoke rules are great because they're right there on the datasheet' approach isn't actually true in practice: because they often aren't, they still could be even if they were USRs, and even when bespoke rules are on the datasheet, they're often being modified by external sources that you need to go look up anyways. If the example interaction given were in the form of USRs with BRB-defined interactions, it'd be easy to resolve.

If 8th actually did only require me to have my codex and the ten pages of core rules to play, I'd be all in favor of whatever rules systems it used to get there. But it doesn't, so the convenience/compactness/conciseness argument doesn't work. I still need FAQs for the base rules, FAQs for my army, and Designer's Commentary to explain basic interactions at a bare minimum. I'll read through a codex and think I've got it, then only find through discussion online that I missed some key wording difference (maybe 'within' vs 'wholly within') that changes how a rule is played versus its counterparts in other armies. And the number of times I see people get rules wrong because they weren't aware that a rule was modified in the spring FAQ two years ago or something really kills the feeling that 8th is the most streamlined edition yet.

Those USRs didn't spring up out of nowhere. They were a response to a problem that we're now seeing repeated.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that

 Ishagu wrote:
This edition is so simple to play.

Evidently not.

Don't want to barge in on this, but reading the 2 datasheets the answer looks extremely clear to me...

What is it? (Honestly curious because this actually is an issue we've not been able to find).

I answered some posts ago, but i guess that this thread is becoming huge and you can miss stuff.

I would allow to use the stratagem without any issue.

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that

 Ishagu wrote:
This edition is so simple to play.

Evidently not.

Don't want to barge in on this, but reading the 2 datasheets the answer looks extremely clear to me...

What is it? (Honestly curious because this actually is an issue we've not been able to find).

I answered some posts ago, but i guess that this thread is becoming huge and you can miss stuff.

I would allow to use the stratagem without any issue.

Okey dokey. That's what we arrived at, but my opponent was dejected that all his relic did was cost me 2CP more than I would've otherwise spent. And he raised a good point that it's not clear the 2CP stratagem lets me pick the unit that was Belt of Russ'd, since I have other eligible units that must go first (since they also have quicksilver swiftness).

 Ishagu wrote:
I don't have the rules for the belt of russ on hand, and I need to see the language for quicksilver Swiftness.

These aren't two armies I play and I'm not going to judge the rules from memory or how I think they function.

But you have the datasheets! Why don't you answer if you have the datasheets? Clearly you don't want to answer.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.

We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.

Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.

I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that

 Ishagu wrote:
This edition is so simple to play.

Evidently not.

Don't want to barge in on this, but reading the 2 datasheets the answer looks extremely clear to me...

What is it? (Honestly curious because this actually is an issue we've not been able to find).

I answered some posts ago, but i guess that this thread is becoming huge and you can miss stuff.

I would allow to use the stratagem without any issue.

Okey dokey. That's what we arrived at, but my opponent was dejected that all his relic did was cost me 2CP more than I would've otherwise spent. And he raised a good point that it's not clear the 2CP stratagem lets me pick the unit that was Belt of Russ'd, since I have other eligible units that must go first (since they also have quicksilver swiftness).

The issue is actually with the stratagem.
I think that that one is the single stratagem with the highest number of FAQs related to it. It doesn't help that how it interacts with FIghts first and fight last abilities has been changed back and forth many times.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
.

They don't. But given that this has been pointed out multiple times now, you're clearly just trolling at this point. Move on.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I don't have the rules for the belt of russ on hand, and I need to see the language for quicksilver Swiftness.

These aren't two armies I play and I'm not going to judge the rules from memory or how I think they function.

But you have the datasheets! Why don't you answer if you have the datasheets? Clearly you don't want to answer.

Because clearly he can't answer the interaction for rules not on the datasheets? Especially given that one is a relic which isn't on any datasheet?

If you want an answer, provide the rules quotes he asked for and he will answer.

Or you can look in the FAQ where I know the answer actually exist for this slightly unusual rules interaction.

Let this thread rest guys, everyone said what he had to say.

Both design choices have merits and demerits, there isn't a correct one. The current version of 40K and AoS choose to go with bespoke rules, there's nothing more to it.

Or we could leave the discussion of specific rules interactions for YMDC, and return to the actual topic.

On topic: I think the rules would benefit from clearly organizing some core complex concepts into concrete USR or rules keywords. The rules are already filled with a number of these, some explicitly used and some used by inference.

Fly, Aircraft, Heroic Intervention, Character, the Weapon Types, Aura, Transport, Reinforcements

All of these could be better served if the rules where consolidated into a single page with the rules clearly written out and then referenced by rules.

Functionally there isn't a huge difference between explicitly using USRs and what currently exists. Eg. Deep strike.

What people seem to really want is consistent design language, which they clearly should do better on (and in AOS seem to be doing much better with this). Having bespoke versions of the same rules is how most special rules are. Things like the awful bodyguards rules are just bad writing. Nobody would really mind if two units had different bodyguard rules if the two rules used were each logical and simple.

Perhaps label them "bodyguard type I" and "bodyguard type II" so it's clear that they are distinct.

Spoletta wrote:
Let this thread rest guys, everyone said what he had to say.

Both design choices have merits and demerits, there isn't a correct one. The current version of 40K and AoS choose to go with bespoke rules, there's nothing more to it.

That's fallacious reasoning. Having merits and demerits doesn't automatically make any merit or demerit of equal value. There are downsides to wearing seatbelts as well as upsides, I guess it's just personal preference then?

As I've continued to say throughout this conversation, STANDARDISATION of terminology is the core of what a USR is. Standardisation of language makes comprehension easier and inconsistency less likely.

That's all a USR is doing, creating standardised language for ease and consistency. How many of them, or whether there are bespoke rules alongside or augmenting them, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that standardising language is BETTER than not standardising it for reading comprehension, communication, implementation and practical use of that language - which, you know, is the sum total scope of rules use in games. To argue otherwise is fly in the face of the use of language in general.


Other suppposed merits of BRs:

Printed in a datasheet so easy to read - also possible with USRs

Allow for unique different rules - also possible with USRs, standardisation ensures that the identical component stays identical

Bespoke rules aren't nested - apart from the fact that the definition of USR's says nothing about how you implement them, the current rules nest rules inside themselves using Keywords, rules so disparate that you have to read multiple books to figure out all the effects that one keyword grants someone

The only merits of bespoke rules that USRs don't have are those relating to designers - the onus is on them to maintain consistency rather than players trying to interpret 10 finely sliced versions of the same thing. Designers need to be deliberate in their design methodology and decision making.

For players and humans in general that use language for commmunication, there are no advantages to a reduction in standardisation of language.

Hellebore wrote:
[

The only merits of bespoke rules that USRs don't have are those relating to designers - the onus is on them to maintain consistency rather than players trying to interpret 10 finely sliced versions of the same thing. Designers need to be deliberate in their design methodology and decision making.

For players and humans in general that use language for commmunication, there are no advantages to a reduction in standardisation of language.

This is true.

Rahdok wrote:
My problem with them is 2+ armies can have the same or relatively the same, but due to wording and CP cost 1 armies is WAY WAY WAY shittier. Example Salamanders and Imp Fist - Both have a stratagem that allows them to Select a unit in your ifght/shooting phase and then an enemy unit/model and YOUR unit adds +! to their wound rolls. Ok thats not so bad whats the problem? Well the Imperial Fist one "Tank Hunters" specifies it has to be an enemy vehicle and it costs 2 CP not 1. While the Salamanders allows them to choose ANY enemy model/unit and it only costs 1 CP.

It could have something to do with the absolutely broken Siegebreaker cohort, if one army absolutely does not deserve to have more ways to punish vehicals it's imperial fists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hellebore wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Let this thread rest guys, everyone said what he had to say.

Both design choices have merits and demerits, there isn't a correct one. The current version of 40K and AoS choose to go with bespoke rules, there's nothing more to it.

That's fallacious reasoning. Having merits and demerits doesn't automatically make any merit or demerit of equal value. There are downsides to wearing seatbelts as well as upsides, I guess it's just personal preference then?

As I've continued to say throughout this conversation, STANDARDISATION of terminology is the core of what a USR is. Standardisation of language makes comprehension easier and inconsistency less likely.

That's all a USR is doing, creating standardised language for ease and consistency. How many of them, or whether there are bespoke rules alongside or augmenting them, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that standardising language is BETTER than not standardising it for reading comprehension, communication, implementation and practical use of that language - which, you know, is the sum total scope of rules use in games. To argue otherwise is fly in the face of the use of language in general.


Other suppposed merits of BRs:

Printed in a datasheet so easy to read - also possible with USRs

Allow for unique different rules - also possible with USRs, standardisation ensures that the identical component stays identical

Bespoke rules aren't nested - apart from the fact that the definition of USR's says nothing about how you implement them, the current rules nest rules inside themselves using Keywords, rules so disparate that you have to read multiple books to figure out all the effects that one keyword grants someone

The only merits of bespoke rules that USRs don't have are those relating to designers - the onus is on them to maintain consistency rather than players trying to interpret 10 finely sliced versions of the same thing. Designers need to be deliberate in their design methodology and decision making.

For players and humans in general that use language for commmunication, there are no advantages to a reduction in standardisation of language.

That's not an issue of USR's or bespoke rules it's the 40k design team actually being more like 3 teams that never interact or actually have acess to any exsisting codex's.

The GW 40k designers can not do technical writing, USR's wouldn't change that fact just like Bespoke rukes doesn't change that.

The secondary issue is some people believe they need to know every rule in the game as they can't trust their opponent's not to rules lawyer the langue to their advantage.

The language is on GW and they certainly should do better but even when they had USR's they still made the same mistakes.

The second issue is probably more cultural and probably needs to be examined on a meta by meta bases.

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps label them "bodyguard type I" and "bodyguard type II" so it's clear that they are distinct.

Bodyguard and Meatshield

The main advantage of bespoke rules vs USRs that folks are not addressing in their counterpoints is increased accessibility. The rules load has been moved out of the main rule book and into the Codexes. For a new or returning player the climb is now much less daunting, but the depth is there in the Codexes if you want it. Robin Cruddace mentions in a good 40K Voxcast that they were aiming to make the game more accessible with 8th edition, and the removal of USRs was part of that. I argue that he succeeded, and the game's success supports that. I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex. If a player tries to play a faction without a Codex then any confusion is on them! If you play ten factions then you have taken that rules load on yourself. Others chose to focus. As they say: "Beware the man with only one gun."

He also goes over how the team has four opportunities to bring a faction to life: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Mistakes have been made, but I think the team has hit its stride. I offer that the GSC book was the first of the Codexes designed once the developers had a real sense of how 8th Ed behaved. I think we are actually in a different edition than the one we were playing in August 2017.

I accept that USRs are also a valid design method. We still see their shadow in how many datasheets/strats etc are written. I figure its actually more work for the development team to go without them, but I am enjoying the result of freeing ourselves from USRs.

Enjoy your gaming regardless,

T2B

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The main advantage of bespoke rules vs USRs that folks are not addressing in their counterpoints is increased accessibility. The rules load has been moved out of the main rule book and into the Codexes. For a new or returning player the climb is now much less daunting, but the depth is there in the Codexes if you want it. Robin Cruddace mentions in a good 40K Voxcast that they were aiming to make the game more accessible with 8th edition, and the removal of USRs was part of that. I argue that he succeeded, and the game's success supports that. I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex. If a player tries to play a faction without a Codex then any confusion is on them! If you play ten factions then you have taken that rules load on yourself. Others chose to focus. As they say: "Beware the man with only one gun."

He also goes over how the team has four opportunities to bring a faction to life: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Mistakes have been made, but I think the team has hit its stride. I offer that the GSC book was the first of the Codexes designed once the developers had a real sense of how 8th Ed behaved. I think we are actually in a different edition than the one we were playing in August 2017.

I accept that USRs are also a valid design method. We still see their shadow in how many datasheets/strats etc are written. I figure its actually more work for the development team to go without them, but I am enjoying the result of freeing ourselves from USRs.

Enjoy your gaming regardless,

T2B

Why can't the rules be printed in full on the datasheets with standardized names and rules text?

I don't see any benefit to bespoke rules there that makes it easier to learn-heck, it could easily make it harder! A new player could see that most of their GK units have "Teleport Strike" but see Draigo does NOT have that, and instead has "Warp Emergence", and think they have different rules because the names are different.

Hellebore wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Let this thread rest guys, everyone said what he had to say.

Both design choices have merits and demerits, there isn't a correct one. The current version of 40K and AoS choose to go with bespoke rules, there's nothing more to it.

That's fallacious reasoning. Having merits and demerits doesn't automatically make any merit or demerit of equal value. There are downsides to wearing seatbelts as well as upsides, I guess it's just personal preference then?

As I've continued to say throughout this conversation, STANDARDISATION of terminology is the core of what a USR is. Standardisation of language makes comprehension easier and inconsistency less likely.

That's all a USR is doing, creating standardised language for ease and consistency. How many of them, or whether there are bespoke rules alongside or augmenting them, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that standardising language is BETTER than not standardising it for reading comprehension, communication, implementation and practical use of that language - which, you know, is the sum total scope of rules use in games. To argue otherwise is fly in the face of the use of language in general.


Other suppposed merits of BRs:

Printed in a datasheet so easy to read - also possible with USRs

Allow for unique different rules - also possible with USRs, standardisation ensures that the identical component stays identical

Bespoke rules aren't nested - apart from the fact that the definition of USR's says nothing about how you implement them, the current rules nest rules inside themselves using Keywords, rules so disparate that you have to read multiple books to figure out all the effects that one keyword grants someone

The only merits of bespoke rules that USRs don't have are those relating to designers - the onus is on them to maintain consistency rather than players trying to interpret 10 finely sliced versions of the same thing. Designers need to be deliberate in their design methodology and decision making.

For players and humans in general that use language for commmunication, there are no advantages to a reduction in standardisation of language.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:The main advantage of bespoke rules vs USRs that folks are not addressing in their counterpoints is increased accessibility. The rules load has been moved out of the main rule book and into the Codexes. For a new or returning player the climb is now much less daunting, but the depth is there in the Codexes if you want it. Robin Cruddace mentions in a good 40K Voxcast that they were aiming to make the game more accessible with 8th edition, and the removal of USRs was part of that. I argue that he succeeded, and the game's success supports that. I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex. If a player tries to play a faction without a Codex then any confusion is on them! If you play ten factions then you have taken that rules load on yourself. Others chose to focus. As they say: "Beware the man with only one gun."

He also goes over how the team has four opportunities to bring a faction to life: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Mistakes have been made, but I think the team has hit its stride. I offer that the GSC book was the first of the Codexes designed once the developers had a real sense of how 8th Ed behaved. I think we are actually in a different edition than the one we were playing in August 2017.

I accept that USRs are also a valid design method. We still see their shadow in how many datasheets/strats etc are written. I figure its actually more work for the development team to go without them, but I am enjoying the result of freeing ourselves from USRs.

Enjoy your gaming regardless,

T2B

I already answered this several times.

Nothing about a rule being standardised in language changes how it can be printed or presented in the game. Any inference that it does is your imposition onto the conversation, not a fact of it.

Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke, moderated by consistent wording where appropriate. As I said, the shade of USRs are still there. I am fairly sure that the Codex developers get a brief on what stays consistent and where they can explore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellbore,

As I said, there can be and is a level of consistent wording within the bespoke rules. Changing the name for lore/immersion reasons is not confusing people. Meanwhile, there are not pages of USRs in the MRB.

Chees

The issue is that in order for a reasonable standard like:
1. If you have two rules that do the same thing, or have the same rules text, they have the same name.
2. If you have two rules that are similar, the difference between the two rules must be made obvious to the players or one of the two rules must be changed.
would require a level of coordination between the codex developers that has not been demonstrated yet.

It's entirely possible that GW's in a worse situation than other companies because it has to deal with development-translation-typesettinging-publication instead of just development-typesetting-publication for its books. That might explain how they've had a book get published with pre-errata versions of errata'd rules.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Changing the name for lore/immersion reasons is not confusing people.

Having the same rule presented with two different names is confusing, and is unnecessary.

Sure, it's nice to be able to have more flavoursome names, but if it's at the cost of having two identical rules instead of one, it's just bloat.

Meanwhile, there are not pages of USRs in the MRB.

Whether or not they are printed on the datasheets, having all of the special rules compiled in one place for easy reference is a good thing, surely...?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The main advantage of bespoke rules vs USRs that folks are not addressing in their counterpoints is increased accessibility. The rules load has been moved out of the main rule book and into the Codexes. For a new or returning player the climb is now much less daunting, but the depth is there in the Codexes if you want it. Robin Cruddace mentions in a good 40K Voxcast that they were aiming to make the game more accessible with 8th edition, and the removal of USRs was part of that. I argue that he succeeded, and the game's success supports that. I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex. If a player tries to play a faction without a Codex then any confusion is on them! If you play ten factions then you have taken that rules load on yourself. Others chose to focus. As they say: "Beware the man with only one gun."

He also goes over how the team has four opportunities to bring a faction to life: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Mistakes have been made, but I think the team has hit its stride. I offer that the GSC book was the first of the Codexes designed once the developers had a real sense of how 8th Ed behaved. I think we are actually in a different edition than the one we were playing in August 2017.

I accept that USRs are also a valid design method. We still see their shadow in how many datasheets/strats etc are written. I figure its actually more work for the development team to go without them, but I am enjoying the result of freeing ourselves from USRs.

Enjoy your gaming regardless,

T2B

Soooooooo
Deep Strike: 12"
Deep Strike: 9"
Deep Strike: 6+D3"
That seems pretty fething easy huh?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The main advantage of bespoke rules vs USRs that folks are not addressing in their counterpoints is increased accessibility. The rules load has been moved out of the main rule book and into the Codexes. For a new or returning player the climb is now much less daunting, but the depth is there in the Codexes if you want it. Robin Cruddace mentions in a good 40K Voxcast that they were aiming to make the game more accessible with 8th edition, and the removal of USRs was part of that. I argue that he succeeded, and the game's success supports that. I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex. If a player tries to play a faction without a Codex then any confusion is on them! If you play ten factions then you have taken that rules load on yourself. Others chose to focus. As they say: "Beware the man with only one gun."

He also goes over how the team has four opportunities to bring a faction to life: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Mistakes have been made, but I think the team has hit its stride. I offer that the GSC book was the first of the Codexes designed once the developers had a real sense of how 8th Ed behaved. I think we are actually in a different edition than the one we were playing in August 2017.

I accept that USRs are also a valid design method. We still see their shadow in how many datasheets/strats etc are written. I figure its actually more work for the development team to go without them, but I am enjoying the result of freeing ourselves from USRs.

Enjoy your gaming regardless,

T2B

Soooooooo
Deep Strike: 12"
Deep Strike: 9"
Deep Strike: 6+D3"
That seems pretty fething easy huh?

Only if you added the full text of the rule on the datasheet in any case, which means that if that rule had some variation from the USR in it, now you created 2 rules instead of one in the datasheet. MORE bloat.

A bespoke system properly managed works wonderfully and offers a huge slew of advantages. Ideally, a bespoke rule system is better than an USR system. The problem with the first is that it is harder to manage for the designer, and requires quite a lot of control of configuration on your documents.

GW implementation of bespoke rules surely isn't surely a perfect one, but it isn't that bad either. It is working correctly without creating any real issues on the game, just a bit of confusion here and there.

Also, but this is a strictly personal point of view, having stuff with different names but same effects, gives a lot more character to units. This for me is more important than a lawyer tight wording. I remember the last raveners we had in past editions, whose only special rule was "Deepstrike"...felt like such a lazily designed unit...

Only if you added the full text of the rule on the datasheet in any case, which means that if that rule had some variation from the USR in it, now you created 2 rules instead of one in the datasheet. MORE bloat.

A proper system using USR's should never deviate from the main set of rules. Nothing should contain rules that isn't already a USR in the main rulebook. Bespoke rules shouldn't exist.

A bespoke system properly managed works wonderfully and offers a huge slew of advantages. Ideally, a bespoke rule system is better than an USR system

I can't think of a single thing that bespoke rules offers over a properly designed USR system.

GW implementation of bespoke rules surely isn't surely a perfect one, but it isn't that bad either. It is working correctly without creating any real issues on the game, just a bit of confusion here and there.

It's bloated, messy and unmanageable.

Also, but this is a strictly personal point of view, having stuff with different names but same effects, gives a lot more character to units. This for me is more important than a lawyer tight wording. I remember the last raveners we had in past editions, whose only special rule was "Deepstrike"...felt like such a lazily designed unit...

This has nothing to do with proper rules writing. Leave the fluff in the fluff section and the rules in the rules section where they belong.

The huge problem with the current rule system is that the core game mechanics are so bare bones that it leaves little universal standard for gameplay. All these unique rules in codexes along with their interactions with stratagems have to do so with little variety or mechanical depth because the game rules cannot properly handle slapping on more mechanics (especially mechanics that the opposition has to interact with). 8th is the most shallow version of 40k I've ever seen and yet it's bloating up rapidly without adding real depth of mechanics to the game (just a lot of stacking modifiers and lethality creep).

USRs like relentless should be commonplace as nearly half the stuff in the game was designed with it's function in mind (basically all vehicles, walkers, MCs, terminators, etc). It makes designing units easier when you have easy to implement and universal rules that they follow which makes interactions between mechanics and units more complex than just move, shoot, chop, psych. Stuff like stealth (improved cover) along with actual cover mechanics being common place allowing for weapons esigned to ignore cover (but not great vs armor) instead of letting AP bypass cover. Things like poison being good against biological units but useless against mechanics but the opposite could be true for something like EMP. Again if there are universal standard rules in the game then you can create things to interact with those rules which creates variety and choice (or at least the illusion of choice). The game needs more than just USRs to get itself out of being a lowest common denominator design by committee ruleset but USRs at least give consistency.

Why have USRs when you can have MOAR dice?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Only if you added the full text of the rule on the datasheet in any case, which means that if that rule had some variation from the USR in it, now you created 2 rules instead of one in the datasheet. MORE bloat.

A proper system using USR's should never deviate from the main set of rules. Nothing should contain rules that isn't already a USR in the main rulebook. Bespoke rules shouldn't exist. Then as stated previously in this thread, you failed hard with your argument because you are limiting the design. This isn't chess, coolness and uniqueness of models is the most important factor.

A bespoke system properly managed works wonderfully and offers a huge slew of advantages. Ideally, a bespoke rule system is better than an USR system

I can't think of a single thing that bespoke rules offers over a properly designed USR system. Nonsense, especially considering your previous anwer. A system with more granularity is better by definition.

GW implementation of bespoke rules surely isn't surely a perfect one, but it isn't that bad either. It is working correctly without creating any real issues on the game, just a bit of confusion here and there.

It's bloated, messy and unmanageable. This is only your personal opinion. Facts do not support it. I can concede the bloated, but 7h edition was USR based and equally bloated.

Also, but this is a strictly personal point of view, having stuff with different names but same effects, gives a lot more character to units. This for me is more important than a lawyer tight wording. I remember the last raveners we had in past editions, whose only special rule was "Deepstrike"...felt like such a lazily designed unit...

This has nothing to do with proper rules writing. Leave the fluff in the fluff section and the rules in the rules section where they belong. This has all to do with rules writing. A rule with fluff is better than a rule without fluff for many.

You are making the mistake of comparing the current bespoke system with some kind of inexisting and ideal perfect USR system. You have to compare the current system with 5/6/7th edition state i.e. USR applied to 40K. Do you remember ITC and ETC faq documents for 7th? Please tell me how that game was perfectly working without any hiccups. 8th is clearly working better than that.

None, and I mean literally none, of the arguments above seem to be paying attention to what people are saying about USRs and none of them are reasons to not use USRs. I have no idea why people who are so against USRs seem incapable of reading what the other side is saying but it seems to happen every time this is discussed. For clarity:

USRs do not disallow the addition of bespoke rules.
USRs do not reduce granularity or stifle creativity
USRs, by definition, reduce bloat. Consider any Deep Strike rule that exists right now (whether standard 9" away or one of the more specialised ones). You can replace that with the Deep Strike USR either wholesale or with the additional rule added on top. The amount of rules text you need on the datasheet is less than the current system. The amount of time spent understanding that rule is less because you immediately understand the Deep Strike component of it without having to read half a rule before realising what it's trying to say.
USRs do not require fluff to be removed. There are plenty of ways you could format a USR that retains the fluff. However, I would argue that we currently have plenty of places where fluff is presented in the Codices and adding it to the datasheet as well doesn't seem like a big advantage to me. Again, if that was desirable it's possible even with USRs.

Also, USRs improve clarity by creating a shared language across armies that makes the game more accessible by increasing the commonality of understanding between players.. It allows FAQ documents to be shorter and more easily applied across armies by only needing to fix problems once rather than across multiple books. It makes starting and understanding a new army easier as your knowledge of rules from previous armies is transferable.

I will say I disagree with Brutus_Apex that everything should be a USR. I think bespoke rules have their place, but that place is alongside USRs. So, given the points above about what USRs do not prevent or reduce, what's the problem?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex.

No you can't. I mean, you can, if you forget about half of the rules in the game.
Without the rulebook, you don't have:
- Scenario
- Rules for CP, so no stratagem, no relics, ...
- Rules for cover. Yeah that's right the rules for cover aren't in the free pdf. I mean, you get some, they just aren't clear, and are directly in contradiction with the main rule book.
Probably missing some other stuff too.

Missions and rules for cover are in CA 2019.
The rules for CP are in your army list builder.
The only thing that might not be anywhere else are the standard deployment maps.

The basic rulebook is the one book you don't need to play 8th. I don't even know where mine is or when I have used it last.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The main advantage of bespoke rules vs USRs that folks are not addressing in their counterpoints is increased accessibility. The rules load has been moved out of the main rule book and into the Codexes. For a new or returning player the climb is now much less daunting, but the depth is there in the Codexes if you want it. Robin Cruddace mentions in a good 40K Voxcast that they were aiming to make the game more accessible with 8th edition, and the removal of USRs was part of that. I argue that he succeeded, and the game's success supports that. I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex. If a player tries to play a faction without a Codex then any confusion is on them! If you play ten factions then you have taken that rules load on yourself. Others chose to focus. As they say: "Beware the man with only one gun."

He also goes over how the team has four opportunities to bring a faction to life: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Mistakes have been made, but I think the team has hit its stride. I offer that the GSC book was the first of the Codexes designed once the developers had a real sense of how 8th Ed behaved. I think we are actually in a different edition than the one we were playing in August 2017.

I accept that USRs are also a valid design method. We still see their shadow in how many datasheets/strats etc are written. I figure its actually more work for the development team to go without them, but I am enjoying the result of freeing ourselves from USRs.

Enjoy your gaming regardless,

T2B

I agree with this. I do think there is room for a COUPLE more USRs - I'd add Deep Strike, Feel No Pain and Explodes back in, but that's about all I'd go for tbh.

Ideally a USR would be something that nearly every faction has access to, and all use in a similar way if not exactly the same way. That tracks for those three, as it tracks for the current USRs we do have, Character, Psyker, Fly, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex.

No you can't. I mean, you can, if you forget about half of the rules in the game.
Without the rulebook, you don't have:
- Scenario
- Rules for CP, so no stratagem, no relics, ...
- Rules for cover. Yeah that's right the rules for cover aren't in the free pdf. I mean, you get some, they just aren't clear, and are directly in contradiction with the main rule book.
Probably missing some other stuff too.

See that's the thing though, they kind of aren't. The rules in the main book are explicitly notated as optional, advanced rules for cover. The simple rule "If a unit is on or within cover they receive +1 to their save" is perfectly fine if both players go in with a fairly permissive attitude toward the word "in or on".

This is, after all, a game system that needs to be designed to support models ranging in size from grots to titans, that may or may not be on bases with various shapes, that can be played on everything from cardboard boxes and coke cans to 600$ dedicated terrain boards. Any terrain system they have has got to be PRETTY fething ABSTRACTED yall.

Slipspace wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Only if you added the full text of the rule on the datasheet in any case, which means that if that rule had some variation from the USR in it, now you created 2 rules instead of one in the datasheet. MORE bloat.

A proper system using USR's should never deviate from the main set of rules. Nothing should contain rules that isn't already a USR in the main rulebook. Bespoke rules shouldn't exist. Then as stated previously in this thread, you failed hard with your argument because you are limiting the design. This isn't chess, coolness and uniqueness of models is the most important factor.

A bespoke system properly managed works wonderfully and offers a huge slew of advantages. Ideally, a bespoke rule system is better than an USR system

I can't think of a single thing that bespoke rules offers over a properly designed USR system. Nonsense, especially considering your previous anwer. A system with more granularity is better by definition.

GW implementation of bespoke rules surely isn't surely a perfect one, but it isn't that bad either. It is working correctly without creating any real issues on the game, just a bit of confusion here and there.

It's bloated, messy and unmanageable. This is only your personal opinion. Facts do not support it. I can concede the bloated, but 7h edition was USR based and equally bloated.

Also, but this is a strictly personal point of view, having stuff with different names but same effects, gives a lot more character to units. This for me is more important than a lawyer tight wording. I remember the last raveners we had in past editions, whose only special rule was "Deepstrike"...felt like such a lazily designed unit...

This has nothing to do with proper rules writing. Leave the fluff in the fluff section and the rules in the rules section where they belong. This has all to do with rules writing. A rule with fluff is better than a rule without fluff for many.

You are making the mistake of comparing the current bespoke system with some kind of inexisting and ideal perfect USR system. You have to compare the current system with 5/6/7th edition state i.e. USR applied to 40K. Do you remember ITC and ETC faq documents for 7th? Please tell me how that game was perfectly working without any hiccups. 8th is clearly working better than that.

None, and I mean literally none, of the arguments above seem to be paying attention to what people are saying about USRs and none of them are reasons to not use USRs. I have no idea why people who are so against USRs seem incapable of reading what the other side is saying but it seems to happen every time this is discussed. For clarity:

USRs do not disallow the addition of bespoke rules.
USRs do not reduce granularity or stifle creativity
USRs, by definition, reduce bloat. Consider any Deep Strike rule that exists right now (whether standard 9" away or one of the more specialised ones). You can replace that with the Deep Strike USR either wholesale or with the additional rule added on top. The amount of rules text you need on the datasheet is less than the current system. The amount of time spent understanding that rule is less because you immediately understand the Deep Strike component of it without having to read half a rule before realising what it's trying to say.
USRs do not require fluff to be removed. There are plenty of ways you could format a USR that retains the fluff. However, I would argue that we currently have plenty of places where fluff is presented in the Codices and adding it to the datasheet as well doesn't seem like a big advantage to me. Again, if that was desirable it's possible even with USRs.

Also, USRs improve clarity by creating a shared language across armies that makes the game more accessible by increasing the commonality of understanding between players.. It allows FAQ documents to be shorter and more easily applied across armies by only needing to fix problems once rather than across multiple books. It makes starting and understanding a new army easier as your knowledge of rules from previous armies is transferable.

I will say I disagree with Brutus_Apex that everything should be a USR. I think bespoke rules have their place, but that place is alongside USRs. So, given the points above about what USRs do not prevent or reduce, what's the problem?

I was just answering his quite radical USR arguments. I'm personally fine with both systems.

 Jidmah wrote:
Missions and rules for cover are in CA 2019.
The rules for CP are in your army list builder.
The only thing that might not be anywhere else are the standard deployment maps.

The basic rulebook is the one book you don't need to play 8th. I don't even know where mine is or when I have used it last.

Dude, I was answering this affirmation :
---> "All you need is your Codex." <---

Also seriously, the rules for cover are re-written in CA? Like, why???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
The simple rule "If a unit is on or within cover they receive +1 to their save" is perfectly fine if both players go in with a fairly permissive attitude toward the word "in or on".

Yeah so how does that work with units that have some models that are in cover, others that are not, and some that are partially in it?
Seriously, not having the real terrain rules in the "free rulebook" is just gakky. Same with the CP system.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Missions and rules for cover are in CA 2019.
The rules for CP are in your army list builder.
The only thing that might not be anywhere else are the standard deployment maps.

The basic rulebook is the one book you don't need to play 8th. I don't even know where mine is or when I have used it last.

Dude, I was answering this affirmation :
---> "All you need is your Codex." <---

Also seriously, the rules for cover are re-written in CA? Like, why???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
The simple rule "If a unit is on or within cover they receive +1 to their save" is perfectly fine if both players go in with a fairly permissive attitude toward the word "in or on".

Yeah so how does that work with units that have some models that are in cover, others that are not, and some that are partially in it?
Seriously, not having the real terrain rules in the "free rulebook" is just gakky. Same with the CP system.

They have been updated so they were reprinted in the CA19, i don't see what is so strange in it,

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Missions and rules for cover are in CA 2019.
The rules for CP are in your army list builder.
The only thing that might not be anywhere else are the standard deployment maps.

The basic rulebook is the one book you don't need to play 8th. I don't even know where mine is or when I have used it last.

Dude, I was answering this affirmation :
---> "All you need is your Codex." <---

Also seriously, the rules for cover are re-written in CA? Like, why???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
The simple rule "If a unit is on or within cover they receive +1 to their save" is perfectly fine if both players go in with a fairly permissive attitude toward the word "in or on".

Yeah so how does that work with units that have some models that are in cover, others that are not, and some that are partially in it?
Seriously, not having the real terrain rules in the "free rulebook" is just gakky. Same with the CP system.

Most of the time, when I see people using the battle primer, they've got the rules from the miniature boxes they've bought rather than codexes. So they're not playing with stratagems anyway.

The way you'd resolve that situation is, decide whether it makes sense that the unit be in cover. Is one model in? Probably not. Is one model out? Probably is. as long as you apply your standard repeatably it honestly doesn't make that much of a difference.

I know that the idea of it gives some folks high blood pressure but a fairly large number of new players just show up to game shops and want to play a game with the minis they bought without buying rules. If you included the full cover rules from the BRB in the battle primer the booklet would be twice the number of pages, easily. The fact that we have a stack of them that gw mailed us and we can just hand them to people who wander in curious has been really great for basically the whole edition. Not having to tell people they have to buy the expensive books is great for getting new players started.

Would it be better if all the rules were just free? Yeah, I would definitely say so, but if they're going for a "freemium" product the way that GW is doing, it makes sense to leave out the full terrain rules for the sake of brevity and CP rules because if you're not buying rules you're not going to have access to stratagem lists anyway, those are in the codexes.

From my own experience trying out a new game where the rules were entirely free (infinity) the fact that they were free did precisely nothing for me at the time I was trying to learn the game because they were free but also 260 odd pages.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex.

No you can't. I mean, you can, if you forget about half of the rules in the game.
Without the rulebook, you don't have:
- Scenario
- Rules for CP, so no stratagem, no relics, ...
- Rules for cover. Yeah that's right the rules for cover aren't in the free pdf. I mean, you get some, they just aren't clear, and are directly in contradiction with the main rule book.
Probably missing some other stuff too.

The Battle Primer has quite clear rules for terrain. In fact, those rules are what I see used in the wild along with some ITC bleed-over and local variations. Before each game it is customary to discuss the terrain rules.

Scenarios, CPs, detachments, the terrain rules to which I assume you refer are all in the Advanced Rules section. You can have a perfectly satisfactory game with two new players using the Primer (and the Primer is what I bring with me). The CP and detachments are needed before the game and scenario you need at the start of the game. Once you've started playing the MRB sits in your gaming bag if you actually brought the MRB! I played for roughly three months to include a tourney with the Battle Primer and Index 1. That is part of what brought me back to 40K. I did buy the MRB when it was back in stock, but I had fun without it. It is much easier for someone to dip their toe in 40K, which was part of the design remit.

I buy the Codex for the armies that I play, bring it with me to battles and I have avoided rules arguments during games. I admit that I would prefer consistent language on things that trigger on 1s and 6s, but I am very happy playing without USRs. There are always going to be errors in execution or evolution in the game. Now, they can move the game forward without the pain of an edition change.

With how they have re-framed the game a parent can buy Know No Fear or even First Strike for his son for his birthday and have a great game of kitchen-hammer within an hour (or at least that day).

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

The easy solution is to word them like "Gigafantastic entry!: This unit has deepstrike", so that you have a distinct name to reference them.

And yet, if we follow this thread we discover that according to USR defenders, if you want to use USR:

- You need to keep the names different from each other. or it becomes too difficult to reference the specific istance of the USR on that model.
- You need to keep using bespoke rules, because no one really believes that you can use only USR and keep the same uniqueness of models.
- You need to write the full text of the rule every time, or you increase the number of sources i have to reference every time.

Practically you are asking just to have a bit more consistency with the wordings of similar rules like chapter master and body guard, which is a quality problem not a design problem.

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

Spoletta wrote:


Practically you are asking just to have a bit more consistency with the wordings of similar rules like chapter master and body guard, which is a quality problem not a design problem.

Yes! Exactly this. But the subtle difference here is, if I do not catch that there is a slight difference in wording between my bodyguard rule and your bodyguard rule, I am at fault.
I would happily accept having "no" USR and all bespoke rules that try to achieve the same being worded identical. Whether we call it a USR or "Death from below" and "Manta strike" I do not care one bit.
However, at the moment GW has shown time and time again, they are not able to. Converting this into "Death from below: Fluffy fluff text is fluffy - Deepstrike 9" " would, in my eyes, do no harm but help the rules and design team.

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

savemelmac wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Practically you are asking just to have a bit more consistency with the wordings of similar rules like chapter master and body guard, which is a quality problem not a design problem.

Yes! Exactly this. But the subtle difference here is, if I do not catch that there is a slight difference in wording between my bodyguard rule and your bodyguard rule, I am at fault.
I would happily accept having "no" USR and all bespoke rules that try to achieve the same being worded identical. Whether we call it a USR or "Death from below" and "Manta strike" I do not care one bit.
However, at the moment GW has shown time and time again, they are not able to. Converting this into "Death from below: Fluffy fluff text is fluffy - Deepstrike 9" " would, in my eyes, do no harm but help the rules and design team.

Similar rules with subtle differences are evil and usually a byproduct of rushed releases, i can agree on that. Doesn't mean that bespoke rules are bad.

Spoletta wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.

Actually NONE of the FNPs stack because of the FAQ. So that's completely wrong. You have any other examples you'd like to add?

i'm pretty sure this is what we have in mind (or something similar to this)



you get the USRs that are identifiable at a glance (bolded for her convenience ) and the description of the USRs appear on the datasheet. You could even add some italicized text under each rule to add the flavor to it. i chose not to because i feel like it would take too much room on the datasheet (and making that example already took me too long).

Then you have bespoke rules that don't need to be USRs (although Heavy suit could very well be because cataphractii and dunecrawlers also have it).
Were not asking to make EVERYTHING usr, just the things that are common to many codexes.

Now at a glance a player can tell "oh my unit has a feel no pain 5+ and shielded 5+" and his opponent would know instantly what it is since most armies have variations on that. It removes the need to read the whole paragraph or rule to make sure that its not different from a very similar one.

Lets take for example the tactical reserve rule. Instead of adding that rule (another layer). They couldve errata'd the USR and added the bit that mentions not being able to arrive on turn 1. For drop pod you could add a bespoke rule to them that said they could arrive on turn one.

EDIT: for the feel no pain, the description should say "on a 5+" instead of "on a 5 or 6", copy pasting from battlescribe

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.

Actually NONE of the FNPs stack because of the FAQ. So that's completely wrong. You have any other examples you'd like to add?

Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

Spoletta wrote:

Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

got a concrete example? i dont want to go on a wild goose chase to prove your point.

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.

Actually NONE of the FNPs stack because of the FAQ. So that's completely wrong. You have any other examples you'd like to add?

Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make regarding these universally-used rules. GW literally had to release a faq that vaguely handwaved at "Rules that cause a unit to ignore a wound" instead of just being able to universally clarify the bunches of near-identical bespoke rules.

It's been fun discussion. I think at this point, we can agree on a few things:

1. It would be great of GW wrote their rules in a more technical fashion.
2. It would be great of GW wrote their rules in a more consistent fashion.
3. People tend to like it when all the rules are readily available on their data sheets.

Unfortunately for those who like the idea of USRs, those are not in the game designers remit. Their task is to produce a game where the core rules are simple to engage and everything is very thematic. Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible and is laced with cool, but not super functional, elements. Not the best thing for gameplay, but very evocative of the world of W40K.

Spoletta wrote:
I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have accomplished exactly half of my request- you've identified disparate rules that do not accomplish exactly the same effects, now why is that disparity a good thing?

Spoletta wrote:
Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

Not being personally familiar with those rules, do they supersede the FAQ which ruled out FNP stacking? If so, then the FAQ just got even more confusing for not having clear definitions between stackable and non-stackable FNPs. If not, then that's an important interaction that rather invalidates the idea that all you need is the battle primer and codex to play.

 alextroy wrote:
Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible.

40k is not a non-complex game. In order to charge, one of the three basic actions available to a unit, the following events are required

1) Declare charging unit and units it is targeting
2) Targeted units not engaged make overwatch attacks, fully resolving hit, wound, and save rolls, removing models from charging unit.
3) roll charge distance, make charge move.
4) check for enemy chraacters who want to heroically intervene
5) Select unit to fight, move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.
6) resolve hit, wound, save, and model removal again.
7) Move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.

That is incredibly complex. assuming only 1 shooting weapon on unit A and 1 melee weapon on unit B, that's 3 die-rolling events and 1 model removal event from the defending player and 4 die-rolling events from the attacking player, 1 model removal event, and 3 seperate movement events with different restrictions.

Almost every other wargame I've ever played has resolved a basic close combat in less than half those steps.

the_scotsman wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible.

40k is not a non-complex game. In order to charge, one of the three basic actions available to a unit, the following events are required

1) Declare charging unit and units it is targeting
2) Targeted units not engaged make overwatch attacks, fully resolving hit, wound, and save rolls, removing models from charging unit.
3) roll charge distance, make charge move.
4) check for enemy chraacters who want to heroically intervene
5) Select unit to fight, move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.
6) resolve hit, wound, save, and model removal again.
7) Move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.

That is incredibly complex. assuming only 1 shooting weapon on unit A and 1 melee weapon on unit B, that's 3 die-rolling events and 1 model removal event from the defending player and 4 die-rolling events from the attacking player, 1 model removal event, and 3 seperate movement events with different restrictions.

Almost every other wargame I've ever played has resolved a basic close combat in less than half those steps.

See Apoc, Warcry, etc.., GW can make very clear and fast rules if they wanted to.

Spoletta wrote:


Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

I don't think that's correct. Can you tell us which IH ones stack? As the_scotsman points out, there is a specific FAQ from early in 8th edition that amended the various FNP-style rules to not stack, Ironically, because of the lack of USRs it was one of the most wordy and imprecise FAQ rulings GW have produced this edition, which is quite a feat.

So can you provide a concrete example of these stacking FNP rules?

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

I don't think that's correct. Can you tell us which IH ones stack? As the_scotsman points out, there is a specific FAQ from early in 8th edition that amended the various FNP-style rules to not stack, Ironically, because of the lack of USRs it was one of the most wordy and imprecise FAQ rulings GW have produced this edition, which is quite a feat.

So can you provide a concrete example of these stacking FNP rules?

T'au have one, but only against mortal wounds. It's not technically a FNP though (it's the same as FW Void Shields).

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.

Actually NONE of the FNPs stack because of the FAQ. So that's completely wrong. You have any other examples you'd like to add?

Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

Yeah, Iron Hands doesn't stack. That's why they get Ven Dreads with no extra 6+++. Keep going though.