Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/10 19:06:22


Post by: Martel732


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Lol are you still trolling? You need to prove that there is a rule that doesn't function. Show us all the rule!
Assault Weapons and Pistols, for one.

But more seriously, you're arguing against a strawman. No one has said "The game is literally unplayable," excepting maybe BCB. What's being said is "The game could be better."

And part of making it better is making the rules easier to understand. Again, show a new player "Teleport Strike" and "Warp Emergence". There's a good chance they'll assume the rules are different.


The RAI is clear on those.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/10 19:16:50


Post by: BaconCatBug


blaktoof wrote:
1. USRs require you to reference multiple books -more often-. We already need multiple books, but when he have to look through 2+ to see the units rules on its datasheet plus the rules for its USRs then we constantly need 2 books open minimum.

2. USRs are incredibly boring. The game has different factions, their rules should be different. When all assault armies have the same bonus rules its boring. USRs are boring. If you want USRs to exist lets go all the way and have 1 Marine codex total, 1 chaos codex total, 1 Eldar codex total, etc. We can ensure the least amount of books and make the game as generic as possible that way.
You need to reference "2+ books" plus all the Errata just to figure out how FLY works. USR's won't change anything in that regard and will make the game better.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/10 19:20:13


Post by: pm713


blaktoof wrote:
1. USRs require you to reference multiple books -more often-. We already need multiple books, but when he have to look through 2+ to see the units rules on its datasheet plus the rules for its USRs then we constantly need 2 books open minimum.

2. USRs are incredibly boring. The game has different factions, their rules should be different. When all assault armies have the same bonus rules its boring. USRs are boring. If you want USRs to exist lets go all the way and have 1 Marine codex total, 1 chaos codex total, 1 Eldar codex total, etc. We can ensure the least amount of books and make the game as generic as possible that way.

1. Why? The USR's can easily be on the datasheet. Nothing stops it saying Rage: Blahdeeblahblah on the datasheet. Your problem is with bad design choices not USR's as a concept.

2. That's really silly. If you need special names to have an army feel unique in playstyle then it's time to fire the game designers for sheer incompetence. What makes them unique is the sum of rules, statlines, unit combinations and models.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/10 20:07:18


Post by: catbarf


 alextroy wrote:
No. I'm arguing there is a big different between producing an errata that goes on 3 datasheets in one codex compared to producing an errata that needs to go on say 50 datasheets in 12 codexes.


Well, yeah, if it were a USR it'd be quicker and easier since it would just be 'replace the definition of [USR name] with the following'. Not seeing how frequency of use across the game makes it less doable. It might be more of a pain for the end user who has all print codices and really wants to update the text everywhere it appears... but then again, having inconsistent rules across codices is a pain for everyone.

blaktoof wrote:
2. USRs are incredibly boring. The game has different factions, their rules should be different. When all assault armies have the same bonus rules its boring.


How exactly are the factions better differentiated and the game made less boring when one faction gets 're-roll fails' and another faction gets 're-roll any'? What does it represent when Orks get to re-roll either die when charging, but Behemoth is reroll both or reroll neither?

Why is the straw man always that USRs means giving every faction the same rules and sucking all the meaningful differentiation out of them?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/10 20:52:34


Post by: Dysartes


blaktoof wrote:
1. USRs require you to reference multiple books -more often-. We already need multiple books, but when he have to look through 2+ to see the units rules on its datasheet plus the rules for its USRs then we constantly need 2 books open minimum.

Not necessarily.

As has already been mentioned, you can print the copy in full on the datasheet.

If you think that is going to take up too much space, you can reprint either just the USRs used by a faction in their codex as an appendix, or just reprint the whole lot as a reference - ideally, this takes a couple of pages at the back of the book, but means you only need to refer to your Codex for all of the unit rules.

Heck, given the model GW are using at present, you can make a point of Chapter Approved (or the MFM, assuming that continues to be a thing) having a reprint of the USRs, including the latest errata, each year. Still gives you an extra book to reference, but it is one you'd be looking at anyway to get point costs, so you should probably have it with you as a reference. Or just add a third part to the two parts in the 2019 set, which is a card reference sheet with the updated USRs (again, assuming a couple of pages here, not 7th ed levels of USR).

If your USRs are written to allow for some variables - Deep Strike (9"), for example, or Bodyguard (3+) - you can cover a wider range of bespoke rules that should function the basic way but with different triggers or ranges, with one USR.

Equally, not every rule needs to be boiled down to a USR. As I think has been said a few times in this thread, USRs and bespoke rules should work together. I think I've only seen one poster advocating for a USR-only approach, which I think is going too far the other way. Realistically, we should be looking at three tiers of rules here - truly Universal Special Rules, which are used across multiple factions; Faction Special Rules, which are used by multiple units within a single faction; and bespoke rules, which are specific to a few units.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/10 20:57:21


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 Ishagu wrote:
You need to prove that there is a rule that doesn't function. Show us all the rule!

I showed you the datasheet Ishagu. Now you show me the rule!


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/10 21:13:54


Post by: Grimtuff


blaktoof wrote:

2. USRs are incredibly boring. The game has different factions, their rules should be different. When all assault armies have the same bonus rules its boring. USRs are boring. If you want USRs to exist lets go all the way and have 1 Marine codex total, 1 chaos codex total, 1 Eldar codex total, etc. We can ensure the least amount of books and make the game as generic as possible that way.


Not true in the slightest.

Now, lets look at 5th ed DE (simply as I had the book out for whatever reason).
So, everyone's favourite high leader of Commoragh- Asdrubael Vect had the following rules: Fleet, Night Vision, Power from Pain, Independent Character and Fearless.

Note how every single one of them is a USR, and one of them (PFP) is unique to DE.

He also had two (shock! "These things cannot exist simultaneously!" the detractors of USRs squeal!) unique rules. One that improved a standard rulebook rule and one that granted a bubble of a USR, which was further improved under certain circumstances.

Is this "boring"? Nope. You can easily get good rules from a solid core of USRs with a smattering of unique rules. 5th ed proved that.


Now, let's branch out to another system to show how they use USRs. Warmachine uses the same system of USRs mixed in with unique rules. Every single USR on a unit's card is represented by an icon. No text at all. Every single one is easy to remember and if you are using the app (remember, despite what many a GW fanboi crows we are living in 2020 and not the 90's. Smartphones are quite commonplace and GW needs to step up) looking up what it does in merely a click away. They also have unique rules on the back of the card. Every. Single. One of these uses defied terminology to create a universal language. Which is what is being asked for.

USRs and bespoke rules are not mutually exclusive, GW uses the worst of both worlds and it is painfully obvious to anyone who has played other games and/or previous editions of 40k.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/10 23:42:43


Post by: Hellebore


It's pretty clear to me that the main anti-USR posters here are deliberately and willfully ignoring the fact that their arguments are built almost entirely on the strawmen:

USRs can't be printed in datasheets
USRs reduced variety


Now these are objectively not true, but no matter how many times this has been said by MANY posters, Ishagu et al have continued to say 'yes except that this is still true and therefore USRs suck'.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just refusing to accept reality.

The facts are that pretty much none of the objections raised against standardised rules aka USRs are actually true.

The only real effect is putting the onus on the designers to be more deliberate in their designs, rather than putting the onus on players to keep track of all the small variants.

Your arguments have been proven fallacious almost on every page of this thread. Unless you've got something tangible to add, I don't really see any meat to your position at all.





What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 00:47:54


Post by: Eldarain


GW bubble in full effect.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 01:34:48


Post by: babelfish


For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 02:47:11


Post by: insaniak


blaktoof wrote:
1. USRs require you to reference multiple books -more often-. We already need multiple books, but when he have to look through 2+ to see the units rules on its datasheet plus the rules for its USRs then we constantly need 2 books open minimum.

Why do we keep coming back to this same point?

Yet again, USRs can be printed on the datasheet just as easily as bespoke rules. Other games have done just this. This has been mentioned numerous times already.


2. USRs are incredibly boring. The game has different factions, their rules should be different. When all assault armies have the same bonus rules its boring. USRs are boring. If you want USRs to exist lets go all the way and have 1 Marine codex total, 1 chaos codex total, 1 Eldar codex total, etc. We can ensure the least amount of books and make the game as generic as possible that way.

And also again: Having standardised special rules does not mean that armies can not have their own special rules, nor does it mean that every unit in every army will have the same special rules as every other unit in every other army.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 03:19:12


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


babelfish wrote:
For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.


Nope I need fluffy names for everything and therefore a longer explanation of how his rules work!


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 04:22:09


Post by: alextroy


Hellebore wrote:It's pretty clear to me that the main anti-USR posters here are deliberately and willfully ignoring the fact that their arguments are built almost entirely on the strawmen:

USRs can't be printed in datasheets
USRs reduced variety


Now these are objectively not true, but no matter how many times this has been said by MANY posters, Ishagu et al have continued to say 'yes except that this is still true and therefore USRs suck'.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just refusing to accept reality.

The facts are that pretty much none of the objections raised against standardised rules aka USRs are actually true.

The only real effect is putting the onus on the designers to be more deliberate in their designs, rather than putting the onus on players to keep track of all the small variants.

Your arguments have been proven fallacious almost on every page of this thread. Unless you've got something tangible to add, I don't really see any meat to your position at all.
USRs are not bad. They are just are not inherently superior to bespoke rules as some people seem to be aruging. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I only point out that there are disadvantages to them in addition to the advantages.

babelfish wrote:For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.
You think this is hard? This couldn't be easier.

Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 04:24:25


Post by: jeff white


babelfish wrote:
For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.



We have a winner!


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 04:27:18


Post by: blaktoof


We keep coming back to point 1 because 7th edition actually already existed. This was already done, and during 7th most players did not like it, and the games dev team at GW did not like it. Which is why it went away, 7th edition USRs didn't go away because they were universally liked or even enjoyed by the majority of the player base and GW is just mean- they went away because they were boring and added bloat to the game.

The designers had the option at the time to list the rules for USRs on datasheets and they chose not to because each datasheet would be too long at that point. 7th units had in some cases ridiculous amounts of rules when you looked at a datasheet and saw the unit had 3 rules specific to its datasheet +2 to 4 USRs. Listing out the rules for the USRs meant the datasheets for many units would take up 1 page or more and would change the formatting and pages needed for many codexes.

8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance. If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 04:34:05


Post by: jeff white


 alextroy wrote:



Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.


But Big Daddy has a special snowflake rule that says on his data sheet that he always gets a super toughness save against wounds regardless of other special rules and Big Daddy’s bodyguard’s datasheet says that he always intercedes in shooting attacks on Big Daddy regardless of any other rule...

Reconciling these data sheets and editing to be sure that there are no such conflicts will not be easier than doing similarly with USRs. Rather given the numbers of people working on these things and their past record generating 30euro FAQ compilations, we might expect a real mess if the snowflake rules approach became SOP... oh, wait...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:


8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance. If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.


One must take care when ascribing intentions to others, in order to accurately represent those intentions. Here, for example, you do not.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 04:51:30


Post by: Hellebore


blaktoof wrote:
We keep coming back to point 1 because 7th edition actually already existed. This was already done, and during 7th most players did not like it, and the games dev team at GW did not like it. Which is why it went away, 7th edition USRs didn't go away because they were universally liked or even enjoyed by the majority of the player base and GW is just mean- they went away because they were boring and added bloat to the game.

The designers had the option at the time to list the rules for USRs on datasheets and they chose not to because each datasheet would be too long at that point. 7th units had in some cases ridiculous amounts of rules when you looked at a datasheet and saw the unit had 3 rules specific to its datasheet +2 to 4 USRs. Listing out the rules for the USRs meant the datasheets for many units would take up 1 page or more and would change the formatting and pages needed for many codexes.

8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance. If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.


All you're saying is that because someone crashed a car, driving cars only results in crashing.

There have been many games mentioned that aren't 40k that manage this, and 40k still manged this BEFORE 7th ed without the crap you're talking about. 40k is not so special a snow flake it's somehow immune to logic.

universal STANDARD rules are not a hard concept nor a bloated concept. Standardisation is not MORE complicated, it's less complicated. This argument flies in the face of reality.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 06:15:12


Post by: insaniak


blaktoof wrote:

The designers had the option at the time to list the rules for USRs on datasheets and they chose not to because each datasheet would be too long at that point. 7th units had in some cases ridiculous amounts of rules when you looked at a datasheet and saw the unit had 3 rules specific to its datasheet +2 to 4 USRs. Listing out the rules for the USRs meant the datasheets for many units would take up 1 page or more and would change the formatting and pages needed for many codexes.

That's not a problem with USRs, it's a problem with units having too many special rules.





Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance.

A different name is not a 'subtle nuance'. It's bloat.

And, honestly, subtle nuance at that level is fine in a skirmish game. In a game the size of 40K, it's just extra stuff to confuse players.



If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.

Yes, yes, I do.

And that's speaking as someone with multiple, different Marine armies. I would much prefer that they were rolled into a single codex with allocateable Chapter Tactics options to differentiate them, rather than having completely separate books that duplicate a whole bunch of stuff.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 08:30:11


Post by: Slipspace


blaktoof wrote:
We keep coming back to point 1 because 7th edition actually already existed. This was already done, and during 7th most players did not like it, and the games dev team at GW did not like it. Which is why it went away, 7th edition USRs didn't go away because they were universally liked or even enjoyed by the majority of the player base and GW is just mean- they went away because they were boring and added bloat to the game.


That's a whole lot of unsupported supposition. All we know for sure is that up until 8th edition GW made use of USRs for 40k. We don't have any data about whether players liked them or not, nor can we say for sure why GW removed them. However, I could equally hazard a guess that the reason they were removed was to reduce the size of the core rules because that seems to be one of the main driving factors behind the development of 8th. USR proponents would say that's a bad route to take because all it does is create more bloat and shifts it to the wrong place.

I can tell you there wasn't much argument against the principle of USRs during all those prior editions, though there were discussions about GW's implementation of them. Seems like an odd statement to say the majority disliked them based on that info.

blaktoof wrote:
The designers had the option at the time to list the rules for USRs on datasheets and they chose not to because each datasheet would be too long at that point. 7th units had in some cases ridiculous amounts of rules when you looked at a datasheet and saw the unit had 3 rules specific to its datasheet +2 to 4 USRs. Listing out the rules for the USRs meant the datasheets for many units would take up 1 page or more and would change the formatting and pages needed for many codexes.


That's not a problem with USRs, that's purely an implementation problem. (Is there an echo in here, BTW? Seems like this may have been pointed out a million times before in this thread.)

blaktoof wrote:
8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance. If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.


It's odd to think you know what the pro-USR people want when you're clearly not even reading the arguments in the first place.

I'd argue we certainly don't need all the Marine Codices and supplements we currently have, yes. I'd also argue those subtle differences are rare and rarely, if ever, add any depth to the game. I'm also intrigued by the idea that somehow the name of the rule is the most important thing about it, rather than what it actually does. The game is about playing out a simulated battle using models with certain rules, not reading rules text at each other. Given that most of the various Deep Strike rules are mechanically identical surely the important thing is they thematically match the unit's background and allow for characterful usage of the unit, not whether it's called Deep Strike or Jump Pack Assault.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 08:44:42


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 alextroy wrote:


babelfish wrote:For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.
You think this is hard? This couldn't be easier.

Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.


A unit which intercepts the hits and transfers them to itself becomes the target unit of those hits. Therefore, under my rules lawyering, those shots can still be intercepted by a bodyguard unit as neither the hits or the wounds are being ignored. Also, since wounds are allocated prior to taking saving throws, and we are not allowed to ignore wounds for any reason, we are also not allowed to take saving throws of any kind as that could potentially result in us ignoring the wound. Also, since wounds are separate to damage, any bodyguard rule which intercepts damage can still be used.

Requires an Errata and/or FAQ.

So, see how the lack of USR can be an issue and actually limit the available design space for rules? Because writing a rule which prevents the interception of attacks without it being ridiculously long or having loopholes is incredibly difficult thanks to there being over 7 different bodyguard rules you have to cover in that one rule.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 09:09:37


Post by: Grimtuff


On the flipside the lack of using available USRs by GW is sometimes baffling.

Do we all remember when IG weapon teams got put on a single base and all of a sudden had combined profiles (I’d also argue this is still an issue to this day), which lead to weird situations where you could one shot them with a single Krak missile yet blasts were not great against them due to the large base?

Now, what prexisting USRs could GW have used to make that unit make sense? Both of them were in the game already and one was only used on 3 units in the whole game.

You don’t need any extra bespoke rules when they already exist in the game.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 13:31:17


Post by: VladimirHerzog


I'll repost my earlier example of what a datasheet that uses USRs could look like since people seemed to have missed it.


VladimirHerzog wrote: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



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 13:35:19


Post by: pothocboots


 alextroy wrote:
Hellebore wrote:It's pretty clear to me that the main anti-USR posters here are deliberately and willfully ignoring the fact that their arguments are built almost entirely on the strawmen:

USRs can't be printed in datasheets
USRs reduced variety


Now these are objectively not true, but no matter how many times this has been said by MANY posters, Ishagu et al have continued to say 'yes except that this is still true and therefore USRs suck'.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just refusing to accept reality.

The facts are that pretty much none of the objections raised against standardised rules aka USRs are actually true.

The only real effect is putting the onus on the designers to be more deliberate in their designs, rather than putting the onus on players to keep track of all the small variants.

Your arguments have been proven fallacious almost on every page of this thread. Unless you've got something tangible to add, I don't really see any meat to your position at all.
USRs are not bad. They are just are not inherently superior to bespoke rules as some people seem to be aruging. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I only point out that there are disadvantages to them in addition to the advantages.


There are disadvantages, but they aren't so bad to abstain from using USRs for things that truly show up in every faction.
Nor do I think we should avoid bespoke rules.

USRs for things that are cross faction.
FSRs for things that span a faction.
Bespoke for truly unique rules.

I think the key is good judgment and moderation.

alextroy wrote:
babelfish wrote:For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.
You think this is hard? This couldn't be easier.

Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.


Now the targeted unit cannot use their armor save against any of the sniper's shots. You overshot with your rule design.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 13:43:51


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Just to try my hand at the rule in question:

Cool Sniper Guy This guy is such a cool sniper.
When shooting with this model, pick a target model for its shot, rather than a target unit. That model, and only that model, may suffer wounds as a result of this attack; if any other model would suffer wounds for any reason, the targeted model suffers the wounds instead. Furthermore, the damage from this model's shooting attack may not be ignored, though the wound may be saved as normal.

would prefer usrs thanks


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 13:47:05


Post by: alextroy


jeff white wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.


But Big Daddy has a special snowflake rule that says on his data sheet that he always gets a super toughness save against wounds regardless of other special rules and Big Daddy’s bodyguard’s datasheet says that he always intercedes in shooting attacks on Big Daddy regardless of any other rule...
Why is the ground suddenly moving? It's OK, just shifting goalpost

alextroy wrote:
babelfish wrote:For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.
You think this is hard? This couldn't be easier.

Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.


Now the targeted unit cannot use their armor save against any of the sniper's shots. You overshot with your rule design.
Nice try. First off, since you are rules lawyering we can assuming your intentions are to break the rule, not understand it. Secondly, your Save does not cause you to ignore a hit or wound, it is "prevented". My rules not prevent the wound from being prevented (Save) it prevents it from being ignored (which the Bodyguard and FNP style rules do). Please try again to invalidate my one sentence rule that solves the problem.

And this forms the crux of the problem with the pro-USR camp. You seem hellbent to prove that USRs are better and bespoke is worst. Like I said before, they both have advantages and disadvantages. It's all in the implementation.

I personally would love a very small list of USRs along with a rules style guide that would allow bespoke rules to work better. We all know there are a very limited list of USR (that are not called USRs) in the rules. Adding a few more and compiling in one place would be good for the game without needed to create 50 USRs to cover every semi-common rule in the game.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 14:32:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 alextroy wrote:
You seem hellbent to prove that USRs are better and bespoke is worst.

"You see, the problem with your argument is that you're making a point."
This is one of the most befuddling sentences I've ever read. Of course people trying to prove USRs are better and bespoke is the worst are trying to prove USRs are better and bespoke is the worst. That's not a criticism of their position, it's just an obvious tautology.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 15:04:17


Post by: pothocboots


 alextroy wrote:

First off, since you are rules lawyering we can assuming your intentions are to break the rule, not understand it.


First off, since you are rules designing we can assume your intentions are to create a good robust rule, part of that is resilience to rules lawyers.
Second, A Town Called Malus has a post were they delve further and better into analysis of your rule. You should reply to them if you truly wish to defend it.

alextroy wrote:
And this forms the crux of the problem with the pro-USR camp. You seem hellbent to prove that USRs are better and bespoke is worst. Like I said before, they both have advantages and disadvantages. It's all in the implementation.


You seemed to have missed the first half of my post, I put it here.

pothocboots wrote:
There are disadvantages, but they aren't so bad to abstain from using USRs for things that truly show up in every faction.
Nor do I think we should avoid bespoke rules.

USRs for things that are cross faction.
FSRs for things that span a faction.
Bespoke for truly unique rules.

I think the key is good judgment and moderation.


Which is not all that dissimilar to

alextroy wrote:
I personally would love a very small list of USRs along with a rules style guide that would allow bespoke rules to work better. We all know there are a very limited list of USR (that are not called USRs) in the rules. Adding a few more and compiling in one place would be good for the game without needed to create 50 USRs to cover every semi-common rule in the game.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 15:28:18


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


The lead game developer has stated on a number of occasions in articles and podcast interviews that his goal with 8th edition was to make 40K more accessible: "The key word we started using a lot was accessibility.." "Datasheets help capture and maintain the essence of what a unit does...By changing them for this edition we could remove all the special rules from the rulebook and give more specific rules to individual units." Those are his words - not mine. "Another thing we did was to change where certain rules were presented. In seventh edition, as many rules as possible were crammed into the rulebook itself...Instead of of bombarding players with every single special rule upfront, we cut them from the rulebook and instead wrote them on the units' datasheets." Removing USRs from the MRB was not the only thing done to make the game more accessible, but it was certainly a deliberate aspect of the re-design. The rules load has been shifted from the MRB to the Codexes. While rules mistakes have been made, I think its worked out rather well if you consider the success of this edition.

I've said it earlier, there are still implied USRs in the game. Look at how units arrive on the battlefield mid-game. There is a core, common element in each iteration of the rule. When we look at Stratagems, Faction Special Rules, Warlord Traits and Relics we see how the bespoke system can work to bring an army fully to life while keeping the core rules as tight as possible.

For those who refer to earlier editions of the game, for what its worth I've played since 2nd Ed. I can certainly live without USRs in a big MRB. Iplay other games that have USRs, and I have to say that I enjoy not having to go the main rulebook. Now, if a game developer wants to develop their game using USRs then go for it. That's their business, its a valid design method, and the market will decide afterwards if it was a good business decision.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 15:32:40


Post by: VladimirHerzog


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The lead game developer has stated on a number of occasions in articles and podcast interviews that his goal with 8th edition was to make 40K more accessible: "The key word we started using a lot was accessibility.." "Datasheets help capture and maintain the essence of what a unit does...By changing them for this edition we could remove all the special rules from the rulebook and give more specific rules to individual units." Those are his words - not mine. "Another thing we did was to change where certain rules were presented. In seventh edition, as many rules as possible were crammed into the rulebook itself...Instead of of bombarding players with every single special rule upfront, we cut them from the rulebook and instead wrote them on the units' datasheets." Removing USRs from the MRB was not the only thing done to make the game more accessible, but it was certainly a deliberate aspect of the re-design. The rules load has been shifted from the MRB to the Codexes. While rules mistakes have been made, I think its worked out rather well if you consider the success of this edition.

I've said it earlier, there are still implied USRs in the game. Look at how units arrive on the battlefield mid-game. There is a core, common element in each iteration of the rule. When we look at Stratagems, Faction Special Rules, Warlord Traits and Relics we see how the bespoke system can work to bring an army fully to life while keeping the core rules as tight as possible.

For those who refer to earlier editions of the game, for what its worth I've played since 2nd Ed. I can certainly live without USRs in a big MRB. Iplay other games that have USRs, and I have to say that I enjoy not having to go the main rulebook. Now, if a game developer wants to develop their game using USRs then go for it. That's their business, its a valid design method, and the market will decide afterwards if it was a good business decision.


the game is accessible because the rules are written on the datasheet instead of in the BRB.

again, i'll post what the implementation of USRs could look like :



what do you dislike about this if it was how datasheets were presented?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 15:37:21


Post by: JNAProductions


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The lead game developer has stated on a number of occasions in articles and podcast interviews that his goal with 8th edition was to make 40K more accessible: "The key word we started using a lot was accessibility.." "Datasheets help capture and maintain the essence of what a unit does...By changing them for this edition we could remove all the special rules from the rulebook and give more specific rules to individual units." Those are his words - not mine. "Another thing we did was to change where certain rules were presented. In seventh edition, as many rules as possible were crammed into the rulebook itself...Instead of of bombarding players with every single special rule upfront, we cut them from the rulebook and instead wrote them on the units' datasheets." Removing USRs from the MRB was not the only thing done to make the game more accessible, but it was certainly a deliberate aspect of the re-design. The rules load has been shifted from the MRB to the Codexes. While rules mistakes have been made, I think its worked out rather well if you consider the success of this edition.

I've said it earlier, there are still implied USRs in the game. Look at how units arrive on the battlefield mid-game. There is a core, common element in each iteration of the rule. When we look at Stratagems, Faction Special Rules, Warlord Traits and Relics we see how the bespoke system can work to bring an army fully to life while keeping the core rules as tight as possible.

For those who refer to earlier editions of the game, for what its worth I've played since 2nd Ed. I can certainly live without USRs in a big MRB. Iplay other games that have USRs, and I have to say that I enjoy not having to go the main rulebook. Now, if a game developer wants to develop their game using USRs then go for it. That's their business, its a valid design method, and the market will decide afterwards if it was a good business decision.
Why is this:

Teleport Strike
During deployment, you can set this unit in a teleportarium chamber instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the end of any of your movement phases this unit can teleport to the battle-set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models.
Along with the needed errata noting that you cannot teleport T1 and if you stay in reserves for longer than T3 you just die, better than this:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
During deployment, you may set this unit in Deep Strike reserves instead of deploying it normally. At the end of any of your movement phases, you may set this unit up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy models.

Grey Knights are masters of the sudden strike, able to teleport even marines in ordinary power armor to the battlefield from their ships above.
Adjust flavor text to taste.

You do still need errata, unless GW moved to a digital ruleset, but instead of searching for "Teleport Strike" and MAYBE getting what you need, you search for "Deep Strike" in the FAQs and get something that you KNOW applies.

Edit: Hell, this includes MORE flavor text than the bespoke rule! Isn't that a positive?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 15:41:20


Post by: Brutus_Apex


If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 15:42:29


Post by: JNAProductions


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.
I'm a youngster, so I don't get that reference!

I am old enough to remember VHS (that's how I watched Star Wars for the first time) but I never knew Beta Max.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 15:46:55


Post by: Brutus_Apex


I'm a youngster, so I don't get that reference!


Lucky you.

Basically the VHS/Beta Max war came down to this:

Beta Max was a superior product visually and sonically, but VHS was cheaper and easier to produce. Because it was cheaper and easier, the Porn industry decided that it would use that medium and the rest is history.

Once the Porn industry decided to use it, everyone bought one.

The same thing happened again between BluRay and HD DVD, but that one was short lived because streaming became a thing.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 15:57:32


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I'm a youngster, so I don't get that reference!


Lucky you.

Basically the VHS/Beta Max war came down to this:

Beta Max was a superior product visually and sonically, but VHS was cheaper and easier to produce. Because it was cheaper and easier, the Porn industry decided that it would use that medium and the rest is history.

Once the Porn industry decided to use it, everyone bought one.

The same thing happened again between BluRay and HD DVD, but that one was short lived because streaming became a thing.


The porn thing is more an urban myth. VHS just got more manufacturers using it and got the majority market share which allowed it to utilise economy of scale, which in turn made it easier for VHS to move into new markets.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 16:05:33


Post by: Brutus_Apex


The porn thing is more an urban myth. VHS just got more manufacturers using it and got the majority market share which allowed it to utilise economy of scale, which in turn made it easier for VHS to move into new markets.


Thats not what I learned in my recording engineering program when they talked about the merits of each medium, but if you have some real data to show me then let me know.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 16:24:26


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 16:38:05


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 16:41:57


Post by: Karol


yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 16:47:06


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The porn thing is more an urban myth. VHS just got more manufacturers using it and got the majority market share which allowed it to utilise economy of scale, which in turn made it easier for VHS to move into new markets.


Thats not what I learned in my recording engineering program when they talked about the merits of each medium, but if you have some real data to show me then let me know.


VHS machines were cheaper, for one. VHS tapes could also record double or more what a Betamax tape could (1 hour, so not enough for a game of football, or american football, or a film) until Betamax brought out a 2 hour tape which also resulted in the loss of its superior resolution. Betamax eventually got the SuperBeta which brought its resolution back up and exceeded that of the original Betamax tape but by then its market share was very small.

Then consider what people are watching these tapes on. Do you think that the average consumer in the late 70s was watching their tapes on a TV where 10 lines of difference was in any way meaningful or noticeable?

Basically, Betamax had better resolution which might not even be noticeable on your home television. But it was much more expensive and you couldn't even fit an entire film or sports game/match on one cassette. Which product is the majority of consumers going to pick? This is reflected in the market shares. By 1980 VHS controlled 60% of the North American market share.

Then there was the development of the S-VHS which had massively increased resolution over standard VHS. It did not replace VHS. Consumers didn't care about resolution.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 16:53:43


Post by: JNAProductions


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers
But why does standardized wording make it harder to get into the game?

That's a key point you've not addressed.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 17:05:45


Post by: BaconCatBug


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The porn thing is more an urban myth. VHS just got more manufacturers using it and got the majority market share which allowed it to utilise economy of scale, which in turn made it easier for VHS to move into new markets.


Thats not what I learned in my recording engineering program when they talked about the merits of each medium, but if you have some real data to show me then let me know.


VHS machines were cheaper, for one. VHS tapes could also record double or more what a Betamax tape could (1 hour, so not enough for a game of football, or american football, or a film) until Betamax brought out a 2 hour tape which also resulted in the loss of its superior resolution. Betamax eventually got the SuperBeta which brought its resolution back up and exceeded that of the original Betamax tape but by then its market share was very small.

Then consider what people are watching these tapes on. Do you think that the average consumer in the late 70s was watching their tapes on a TV where 10 lines of difference was in any way meaningful or noticeable?

Basically, Betamax had better resolution which might not even be noticeable on your home television. But it was much more expensive and you couldn't even fit an entire film or sports game/match on one cassette. Which product is the majority of consumers going to pick? This is reflected in the market shares. By 1980 VHS controlled 60% of the North American market share.

Then there was the development of the S-VHS which had massively increased resolution over standard VHS. It did not replace VHS. Consumers didn't care about resolution.
And here is a youtube playlist by Technology Connections backing you up and explaining why Beta was a terrible and doomed from the start standard. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv0jwu7G_DFUrcyMYAkUPODENwP4gYCmf

And yes, he addresses the "Porn on VHS won the war" myth. Sony did not have any lock-down on what could be recorded to Beta because they did not distribute content on Beta themselves (unlike stuff like the CED which did).


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 17:08:44


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Karol wrote:
yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?


I've said it before, I can't recall needing the MRB in-game in a long time. Yes you need supplements/updates if you are playing Matched Play and are keeping up with the Meta. So?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers
But why does standardized wording make it harder to get into the game?

That's a key point you've not addressed.


I've said that there is indeed standardized working in some datasheet rules and stratagems between factions. Its not always word for word, but its there. Look at the Mandrakes' From Out of the Shadows and the Tempestous Scions Aerial Drop. Both rules end the same way and have the same effect. The point was to remove them from the core rules to ease accessibility. I can't see how the Astra Militarum and Drukhari players would be confused if they have their respective Codexes.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 17:15:08


Post by: Brutus_Apex


VHS machines were cheaper, for one. VHS tapes could also record double or more what a Betamax tape could (1 hour, so not enough for a game of football, or american football, or a film) until Betamax brought out a 2 hour tape which also resulted in the loss of its superior resolution. Betamax eventually got the SuperBeta which brought its resolution back up and exceeded that of the original Betamax tape but by then its market share was very small.

Then consider what people are watching these tapes on. Do you think that the average consumer in the late 70s was watching their tapes on a TV where 10 lines of difference was in any way meaningful or noticeable?

Basically, Betamax had better resolution which might not even be noticeable on your home television. But it was much more expensive and you couldn't even fit an entire film or sports game/match on one cassette. Which product is the majority of consumers going to pick? This is reflected in the market shares. By 1980 VHS controlled 60% of the North American market share.

Then there was the development of the S-VHS which had massively increased resolution over standard VHS. It did not replace VHS. Consumers didn't care about resolution.


Right, and these factors were what made the VHS more desirable for the average consumer. Which is why the Porn industry went with VHS, and Porn is a reason consumers went with VHS, because it was supported on that platform. Its a vicious circle.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, except for the fact that the porn industry has always had a noticeable impact on consumer technology.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've said that there is indeed standardized working in some datasheet rules and stratagems between factions. Its not always word for word, but its there. Look at the Mandrakes' From Out of the Shadows and the Tempestous Scions Aerial Drop. Both rules end the same way and have the same effect. The point was to remove them from the core rules to ease accessibility. I can't see how the Astra Militarum and Drukhari players would be confused if they have their respective Codexes


But if they do the same thing, why name them something different and why not just keep them centrally located inside the core rules?

Because honestly, thats way easier for me to keep track of.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 17:29:32


Post by: Grimtuff


 Brutus_Apex wrote:


I'm not sure what you're arguing, except for the fact that the porn industry has always had a noticeable impact on consumer technology.


Because needless pedantry and Dakka. Name a more iconic duo.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 17:30:06


Post by: VladimirHerzog


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers


Sorry if i have offended you, that wasn't my intention.

I addressed the accessibility issue. You put the full rules on the datasheet, that way players learn by seeing it over and over. You can also have an annex in the MRB that has all those USRs but if theyre present on the datasheets it not 100% required.

This achieves exactly the same thing you want but with more consistency between books, that way you get : Easier rules update (errata), and easier time for players switching armies.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 17:33:23


Post by: JNAProductions


It also stops minor niggling differences, like "Reroll failed rolls" and "Reroll any rolls".


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 18:52:00


Post by: alextroy


Karol wrote:
yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?
Let's break this down when comparing 7th and 8th Edition:

Rulebook - Check on both cases, although the need to refer to the rulebooks is significantly lower in 8th Edition
Codex - Check in both cases
Up to date CA - Superior to having a 1-2 Edition old codex. Point to 8th Edition
Supplements - Superior to not having new units or rules for 1-2 Editions. Point to 8th Edition
FAQ/Errata - Regular documents compared to next to none (or was it none) during 7th. Point to 8th Edition.

So 0-3 points 7th to 8th edition.

Wait. This has nothing to do with USR versus bespoke rules, only GW's decision to provide more frequent products and product support.

So which is superior, USRs or Bespoke Rules? Neither. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The better choice depends on your goal.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 19:07:56


Post by: JNAProductions


 alextroy wrote:
Karol wrote:
yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?
Let's break this down when comparing 7th and 8th Edition:

Rulebook - Check on both cases, although the need to refer to the rulebooks is significantly lower in 8th Edition
Codex - Check in both cases
Up to date CA - Superior to having a 1-2 Edition old codex. Point to 8th Edition
Supplements - Superior to not having new units or rules for 1-2 Editions. Point to 8th Edition
FAQ/Errata - Regular documents compared to next to none (or was it none) during 7th. Point to 8th Edition.

So 0-3 points 7th to 8th edition.

Wait. This has nothing to do with USR versus bespoke rules, only GW's decision to provide more frequent products and product support.

So which is superior, USRs or Bespoke Rules? Neither. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The better choice depends on your goal.
What are the advantages of Bespoke rules as general use?

Again-it's fine to have bespoke rules alongside USRs. The Monolith's Portal of Exile does NOT need to be a USR.

But why should its Death Descending be bespoke, instead of a Deep Strike USR?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 19:13:30


Post by: blaktoof


For the people arguing for USRs to be fully printed on the datasheet, you are really just arguing for the current rules but have the name of the rule changes so it's the same for every instance of the same rules text for every faction.

Which is really just an argument about generic vs bespoke naming for rules. Not USR vs no USR.

Alex/others-

There is a difference in having the 7th Ed rulebook and 8th rulebook plus other books. The 8th edition rulebook in most cases can be fully replaced by the battle primer. It's a lot easier to look at the battle primer + codex+ whatever then a 300 p rulebook+codex+whatever.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 19:17:06


Post by: JNAProductions


blaktoof wrote:
For the people arguing for USRs to be fully printed on the datasheet, you are really just arguing for the current rules but have the name of the rule changes so it's the same for every instance of the same rules text for every faction.

Which is really just an argument about generic vs bespoke naming for rules. Not USR vs no USR.

Alex/others-

There is a difference in having the 7th Ed rulebook and 8th rulebook plus other books. The 8th edition rulebook in most cases can be fully replaced by the battle primer. It's a lot easier to look at the battle primer + codex+ whatever then a 300 p rulebook+codex+whatever.
No, we want the actual rules to have the same text too. Such as Calgar's "Reroll any" versus Dante's "Reroll failed." Or the mess that is boydguard rules to be cleaned up.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 19:20:15


Post by: blaktoof


 JNAProductions wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
For the people arguing for USRs to be fully printed on the datasheet, you are really just arguing for the current rules but have the name of the rule changes so it's the same for every instance of the same rules text for every faction.

Which is really just an argument about generic vs bespoke naming for rules. Not USR vs no USR.

Alex/others-

There is a difference in having the 7th Ed rulebook and 8th rulebook plus other books. The 8th edition rulebook in most cases can be fully replaced by the battle primer. It's a lot easier to look at the battle primer + codex+ whatever then a 300 p rulebook+codex+whatever.
No, we want the actual rules to have the same text too. Such as Calgar's "Reroll any" versus Dante's "Reroll failed." Or the mess that is boydguard rules to be cleaned up.


That's what I said, unless you are also saying you want to change all the rules to be the same.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 19:23:53


Post by: catbarf


blaktoof wrote:2. USRs are incredibly boring. The game has different factions, their rules should be different. When all assault armies have the same bonus rules its boring. USRs are boring. If you want USRs to exist lets go all the way and have 1 Marine codex total, 1 chaos codex total, 1 Eldar codex total, etc. We can ensure the least amount of books and make the game as generic as possible that way.


blaktoof wrote:8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.


Wild how you can think that pro-USR people want to cut out all the unique rules that make factions different and simultaneously think that pro-USR people want to heap on extra special rules for every faction as well.

Are we bad because we want to cut out unique rules so that every faction is the same, or are we bad because we want to throw tons of special rules at every faction? It can't be both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
No, we want the actual rules to have the same text too. Such as Calgar's "Reroll any" versus Dante's "Reroll failed." Or the mess that is boydguard rules to be cleaned up.


That's what I said, unless you are also saying you want to change all the rules to be the same.


The idea is that one or the other should be changed so that those both use the same rule, yes. Unless you have a particularly compelling reason (with fluff justification, of course) for why two subtly different but mechanically nearly identical buffs should both exist rather than just using one or the other for the sake of consistency.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 19:32:24


Post by: blaktoof


 catbarf wrote:
blaktoof wrote:2. USRs are incredibly boring. The game has different factions, their rules should be different. When all assault armies have the same bonus rules its boring. USRs are boring. If you want USRs to exist lets go all the way and have 1 Marine codex total, 1 chaos codex total, 1 Eldar codex total, etc. We can ensure the least amount of books and make the game as generic as possible that way.


blaktoof wrote:8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.


Wild how you can think that pro-USR people want to cut out all the unique rules that make factions different and simultaneously think that pro-USR people want to heap on extra special rules for every faction as well.

Are we bad because we want to cut out unique rules so that every faction is the same, or are we bad because we want to throw tons of special rules at every faction? It can't be both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
No, we want the actual rules to have the same text too. Such as Calgar's "Reroll any" versus Dante's "Reroll failed." Or the mess that is boydguard rules to be cleaned up.


That's what I said, unless you are also saying you want to change all the rules to be the same.


The idea is that those should be the same rule, yes. Unless you have a particularly compelling reason (with fluff justification, of course) for why two subtly different but mechanically nearly identical buffs should both exist rather than just using one or the other for the sake of consistency.


wild how you perceive "reality"

I didn't make that direct claim, there are members of the "USRs were the best thing ever!" camp that from what they type want to make all the rules the same, there are members of that group that want some rules the same across all factions then some units have additional rules on their datasheet ontop of that, and there are group of both of those that want those printed on the datasheet vs. printed in the rulebook- maybe even both!

See in yours+others mind the "buffs" should be mechanically the same. That's the issue. In the actual real game as it is now in 8th many buffs are identical, but have different names. Some are similar but different, and have different names. Then some are just different buffs.

Asking for universal naming, and asking for rules to be the same aren't always the same thing. In 7th they often were, there were countless assault units for example (and 40k had a lot of factions in 7th as well...) that basically had a statline, equipment options, and furious charge. Some people may think that whenever a dedicated assault unit charges it should have the exact same rules bonus as every other assault unit in the game, some people would like there to be differences. Maybe this unit over here gets +1 to hit instead of +1 Strength. That however doesn't work in the USR all units have the same rules world (which is boring as all hell btw...) Yeah you could then say "but this unit just wouldn't get that USR and would have a special rule on its datasheet" at which point you are arguing that not all rules are the same, but maybe some rules are and have a generic name. Which is a naming argument, because right now in 8th a lot of rules are exactly the same but have different names/flavor text across factions.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 20:01:04


Post by: kodos


In an ideal world, the game designers would have thought about all Special Rules needed for the game during initial rule design, and have written all of them in the USR part of the Core Book.
And during Codex relase only those USR would be used in different combinations and maybe with different names to fit the fluff (or one name would cover 2 or more USR for the fluff)

But this is not possible as there will be always something coming up you missed that need to be added later
as long as this are just some rules for one specific faction that are in line with the Core Book wording, everything is fine and no one has a problem with that bespoken rules

It is only a problem if each unit needs its own version of the same USR, with name and rules text, something that started with 7th, but was already a problem in 4th (there we had USR in the core book, that no one used at the end of the game as with each codex new rules were added instead of using the existing ones)


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 20:10:10


Post by: Blastaar


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers


What on Earth is stopping GW's designers, or any designers anywhere, from printing different words on a data sheet than bespoke rules text? This is an argument people are trying to make? "But-but-but the computers and printers are unable to utilize that space differently!"

What is "accessible" about not knowing any of your opponent's rules when you play a game, needing to stop playing to ask for clarification?

What is "accessible" about rules being written in a conversational, ambiguous, and inconsistent style that renders players unable to remember, aka learn their rules and to play without their nose in their codex?

For that matter, what makes it impossible for GW to use stat cards for units?

People so vehemently opposed to a more structured rules system really need to grab a copy of the rulebook for MEDGe, or Malifaux or something. They have no idea of what they speak.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 20:14:26


Post by: catbarf


blaktoof wrote:
wild how you perceive "reality"

I didn't make that direct claim, there are members of the "USRs were the best thing ever!" camp that from what they type want to make all the rules the same, there are members of that group that want some rules the same across all factions then some units have additional rules on their datasheet ontop of that, and there are group of both of those that want those printed on the datasheet vs. printed in the rulebook- maybe even both!


So when you were saying 'the PRO USR camp' wants additional rules bloat, you actually meant 'some non-specific subset of the pro-USR camp' wants additional rules bloat, and presumably that this is a different subset from the ones that want to make the game boring via excessive streamlining, which was your initial complaint.

Color me shocked that you're against clearer and more concise writing in game rules.

blaktoof wrote:
See in yours+others mind the "buffs" should be mechanically the same. That's the issue. In the actual real game as it is now in 8th many buffs are identical, but have different names. Some are similar but different, and have different names. Then some are just different buffs.

Asking for universal naming, and asking for rules to be the same aren't always the same thing. In 7th they often were, there were countless assault units for example (and 40k had a lot of factions in 7th as well...) that basically had a statline, equipment options, and furious charge. Some people may think that whenever a dedicated assault unit charges it should have the exact same rules bonus as every other assault unit in the game, some people would like there to be differences. Maybe this unit over here gets +1 to hit instead of +1 Strength. That however doesn't work in the USR all units have the same rules world (which is boring as all hell btw...) Yeah you could then say "but this unit just wouldn't get that USR and would have a special rule on its datasheet" at which point you are arguing that not all rules are the same, but maybe some rules are and have a generic name. Which is a naming argument, because right now in 8th a lot of rules are exactly the same but have different names/flavor text across factions.


1. Rules that do the same thing should have the same name and be the same rule.

2. Rules that do more or less the same thing, and have the same fluff purpose, and generally behave the same way, but have different mechanical implementations, should be consolidated into a single rule.

3. Rules that serve different purposes, represent different things, and operate mechanically differently, should remain as separate rules.

This really isn't especially complicated. It's easier to learn (and write) the game when all the different deep strike rules are actually all called Deep Strike, we really don't need so many different ways to implement 'nearby allies shoot better' (re-roll 1s, re-roll fails, re-roll any, add 1 to the roll, bonus shots on 6s, bonus hits on 6s), and neither of those principles precludes having meaningfully different rules between factions.

If ten different units are all melee troops that should get a bonus on the charge, what is actually different about them? Do they have different equipment? Different weapons? Different mobility options? Different deployment systems? Different resistance to morale? Different resilience to shooting? Different strength in combat? Different responsiveness to command and control? Different unit sizes? If the only thing actually differentiating them from one another is some bespoke implementation of a 'fights better on the charge' rule, that's not meaningful variety, it's just a shallow illusion of variety. Chrome for its own sake, getting in the way of good design.

The difference in command ability between Dante and a generic Chapter Master shouldn't just be that one grants the ability to re-roll fails and the other grants the ability to re-roll any. If establishing consistent mechanisms would make those characters identical, then that's a huge red flag that as it currently stands there is not much real difference between them; just a subtle mechanical distinction with no fluff basis that only comes into play when suffering a -1 to hit penalty.

Epic differentiated armies fine with USRs. Battlefleet Gothic did too. Heck, 40K did too when you go back to 4th-5th Ed, and so has damn near every non-GW game in the past two decades. This framing of the problem as specifically 7th vs 8th is such an absolute straw man.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 20:15:20


Post by: Blastaar


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Karol wrote:
yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?


I've said it before, I can't recall needing the MRB in-game in a long time. Yes you need supplements/updates if you are playing Matched Play and are keeping up with the Meta. So?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers
But why does standardized wording make it harder to get into the game?

That's a key point you've not addressed.


I've said that there is indeed standardized working in some datasheet rules and stratagems between factions. Its not always word for word, but its there. Look at the Mandrakes' From Out of the Shadows and the Tempestous Scions Aerial Drop. Both rules end the same way and have the same effect. The point was to remove them from the core rules to ease accessibility. I can't see how the Astra Militarum and Drukhari players would be confused if they have their respective Codexes.


But then they are relying on consulting their books during the game, because they can't remember what their stuff- or their opponent's stuff- does. Standardized wording improves player retention, makes communication a simple matter of speaking the name of the rule, and clearly and accurately communicates what the rule actually does.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 20:50:24


Post by: Jidmah


blaktoof wrote:
I didn't make that direct claim, there are members of the "USRs were the best thing ever!" camp that from what they type want to make all the rules the same, there are members of that group that want some rules the same across all factions then some units have additional rules on their datasheet ontop of that, and there are group of both of those that want those printed on the datasheet vs. printed in the rulebook- maybe even both!

The consensus across multiple of these threads, as I have posted before, is that rules that are functionally identical or extremely close should be unified under one keyword for clarity and consistency. As matter of fact (there are scientific studies on this), this reduces the learning curve and reduces the need to reference rules during games. It also reduces the need to read the entire prose text searching for easily missed differences between otherwise identical rules, reduces confusion when rules questions come up ("What counts as aura?") and facilitates rules-writing (
Deep Strike or Ignore Damage rules are a perfect example of this.

It's also a fact that writing all rules in one place makes games easier to learn and more enjoyable to play, while having to reference other places (gaming manuals, a glossary, other books, comprehensive rules) annoys players and reduces their enjoyment of the game. Therefore other games have had great success with printing so-called reminder texts with their keywords, providing a quick explanation on them where you need them, and having a bullet-proof, more complex rule available for look-up.

So what the "USR-crowd" wants isn't contradictory at all, but a best practice that has been tested and proven by the industry that is designing complex games like TCGs, RPGs, complex board games or wargames.

See in yours+others mind the "buffs" should be mechanically the same. That's the issue. In the actual real game as it is now in 8th many buffs are identical, but have different names. Some are similar but different, and have different names. Then some are just different buffs.

Don't forget we also have rules which have the same name, represent the same thing in the lore but still are different for no apparent reason.

Asking for universal naming, and asking for rules to be the same aren't always the same thing. In 7th they often were, there were countless assault units for example (and 40k had a lot of factions in 7th as well...) that basically had a statline, equipment options, and furious charge. Some people may think that whenever a dedicated assault unit charges it should have the exact same rules bonus as every other assault unit in the game, some people would like there to be differences. Maybe this unit over here gets +1 to hit instead of +1 Strength. That however doesn't work in the USR all units have the same rules world (which is boring as all hell btw...)

Sorry, but you got that wrong. +1 to hit and +1 strength are so vastly different things, that there is no reason to unify them under one USR.
USR are there to cover all stuff that many units can do. Bespoke rule are for making units interesting. That's why you need both for a good game.
Dante not being able to re-roll dice in niche scenarios is not interesting. Necron Lords providing powerful buffs to single units instead small ones to all around them is.

Which is a naming argument, because right now in 8th a lot of rules are exactly the same but have different names/flavor text across factions.

The issue are not the rules that are, but the ones that are not. These lead to confusion and frustration among players, something that is objectively bad for a game.
See my previous example of the morkanaut and the LRBT before (I can repost it if you like), which left the AM player utterly frustrated about how his tank commander took 7 mortal wounds for shooting a plane, while morkanaut rolling the same result would only have taken one. There is no good reason for the rules to be this way.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 20:52:16


Post by: JNAProductions


Minor nitpick, Jidmah-Necron Lords actually have the Lieutenant Aura, though restricted to Infantry only. It's Overlords who have the single-unit buff.

Otherwise, excellent post.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 21:10:15


Post by: Ice_can


babelfish wrote:
For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.


Well as I'm a GW writer what I'll actually do is rewrite the USR from memory but misword it subtly enough that it looks the same at a glance the closest we will ever get to testing it then print it in one codex different from previous instances, there by leaving every exsisting codex and BRB incorrect as nrw rules replace old rules and making this 1 codex now required to play any army which uses that USR.

The people arguing for USR's are the ones misisng the issue.
It's GW need to learn to technical writing and authering.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 21:28:56


Post by: catbarf


Ice_can wrote:
Well as I'm a GW writer what I'll actually do is rewrite the USR from memory but misword it subtly enough that it looks the same at a glance the closest we will ever get to testing it then print it in one codex different from previous instances, there by leaving every exsisting codex and BRB incorrect as nrw rules replace old rules and making this 1 codex now required to play any army which uses that USR.


If it's a USR, then we already know what the USR is supposed to say, and can play it according to the correct rules, even if the helpful reminder text is inexplicably wrong.

If it's not a USR, then we use the rule as written because the design intent is not clear, and wait for an FAQ that might make it work the same as the other rules or might never come.

Also: If it's a USR, presumably there'd be a USR library of standardized wording alongside the standardized datasheet formatting and standardized weapon stat tables. If GW can reprint common Imperial weapons in multiple codices without designers just re-typing it from memory and getting it wrong, they have the bare minimum of competence to re-use USRs.

Ice_can wrote:
The people arguing for USR's are the ones misisng the issue.
It's GW need to learn to technical writing and authering.


Standardization is part of technical writing.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 21:36:18


Post by: Ice_can


 Jidmah wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
I didn't make that direct claim, there are members of the "USRs were the best thing ever!" camp that from what they type want to make all the rules the same, there are members of that group that want some rules the same across all factions then some units have additional rules on their datasheet ontop of that, and there are group of both of those that want those printed on the datasheet vs. printed in the rulebook- maybe even both!

The consensus across multiple of these threads, as I have posted before, is that rules that are functionally identical or extremely close should be unified under one keyword for clarity and consistency. As matter of fact (there are scientific studies on this), this reduces the learning curve and reduces the need to reference rules during games. It also reduces the need to read the entire prose text searching for easily missed differences between otherwise identical rules, reduces confusion when rules questions come up ("What counts as aura?") and facilitates rules-writing (
Deep Strike or Ignore Damage rules are a perfect example of this.

It's also a fact that writing all rules in one place makes games easier to learn and more enjoyable to play, while having to reference other places (gaming manuals, a glossary, other books, comprehensive rules) annoys players and reduces their enjoyment of the game. Therefore other games have had great success with printing so-called reminder texts with their keywords, providing a quick explanation on them where you need them, and having a bullet-proof, more complex rule available for look-up.

So what the "USR-crowd" wants isn't contradictory at all, but a best practice that has been tested and proven by the industry that is designing complex games like TCGs, RPGs, complex board games or wargames.

See in yours+others mind the "buffs" should be mechanically the same. That's the issue. In the actual real game as it is now in 8th many buffs are identical, but have different names. Some are similar but different, and have different names. Then some are just different buffs.

Don't forget we also have rules which have the same name, represent the same thing in the lore but still are different for no apparent reason.

Asking for universal naming, and asking for rules to be the same aren't always the same thing. In 7th they often were, there were countless assault units for example (and 40k had a lot of factions in 7th as well...) that basically had a statline, equipment options, and furious charge. Some people may think that whenever a dedicated assault unit charges it should have the exact same rules bonus as every other assault unit in the game, some people would like there to be differences. Maybe this unit over here gets +1 to hit instead of +1 Strength. That however doesn't work in the USR all units have the same rules world (which is boring as all hell btw...)

Sorry, but you got that wrong. +1 to hit and +1 strength are so vastly different things, that there is no reason to unify them under one USR.
USR are there to cover all stuff that many units can do. Bespoke rule are for making units interesting. That's why you need both for a good game.
Dante not being able to re-roll dice in niche scenarios is not interesting. Necron Lords providing powerful buffs to single units instead small ones to all around them is.

Which is a naming argument, because right now in 8th a lot of rules are exactly the same but have different names/flavor text across factions.

The issue are not the rules that are, but the ones that are not. These lead to confusion and frustration among players, something that is objectively bad for a game.
See my previous example of the morkanaut and the LRBT before (I can repost it if you like), which left the AM player utterly frustrated about how his tank commander took 7 mortal wounds for shooting a plane, while morkanaut rolling the same result would only have taken one. There is no good reason for the rules to be this way.

None of that would have been changed bt USR's they way GW's team write rules.

All your really highlighting is the same old GW problems
1 They lack any effective Technical writing training
2 They lack any effective Proof reading process
3 That they lack comunication and a unified vision for the game that is clearly comunicated and maintained during the edition.

It's not USR's vrs ISR's it's GW's 40k Rules team need to "Git Good"
Like AoS, Titanicus, necromunda, Warcry even Appocolypse shows they can do better, the issue is somewhere between the 40k rules team and the Management.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Well as I'm a GW writer what I'll actually do is rewrite the USR from memory but misword it subtly enough that it looks the same at a glance the closest we will ever get to testing it then print it in one codex different from previous instances, there by leaving every exsisting codex and BRB incorrect as nrw rules replace old rules and making this 1 codex now required to play any army which uses that USR.


If it's a USR, then we already know what the USR is supposed to say, and can play it according to the correct rules, even if the helpful reminder text is inexplicably wrong.

If it's not a USR, then we use the rule as written because the design intent is not clear, and wait for an FAQ that might make it work the same as the other rules or might never come.

Also: If it's a USR, presumably there'd be a USR library of standardized wording alongside the standardized datasheet formatting and standardized weapon stat tables. If GW can reprint common Imperial weapons in multiple codices without designers just re-typing it from memory and getting it wrong, they have the bare minimum of competence to re-use USRs.

Ice_can wrote:
The people arguing for USR's are the ones misisng the issue.
It's GW need to learn to technical writing and authering.


Standardization is part of technical writing.

I'm not being flippent with this example this is what GW 40k has done before.

Except that's going against the rules presedent that the latest published version of a rule supersedes any previous version, so no your wouldn't be playing with the origonal version as it's no longer valid.

Well actually you should be waiting for an Errata not and FAQ, but That a GW isum. FAQ's are something that really only came out of the main studio post 8th edition.

You have to have seen the instances through out GW's history of them failing at this and heck we still have plenty of units that have the same weapons with different stats.

Not to mention they way GW is going about 8th edition now with blanket changes to certain things Double shooting IG and Marine tanks etc this isn't always best for the game either.

Standardization however does not automatically equal USR's though.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 23:11:59


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Blastaar wrote:
Spoiler:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers


What on Earth is stopping GW's designers, or any designers anywhere, from printing different words on a data sheet than bespoke rules text? This is an argument people are trying to make? "But-but-but the computers and printers are unable to utilize that space differently!"

What is "accessible" about not knowing any of your opponent's rules when you play a game, needing to stop playing to ask for clarification?

What is "accessible" about rules being written in a conversational, ambiguous, and inconsistent style that renders players unable to remember, aka learn their rules and to play without their nose in their codex?

For that matter, what makes it impossible for GW to use stat cards for units?

People so vehemently opposed to a more structured rules system really need to grab a copy of the rulebook for MEDGe, or Malifaux or something. They have no idea of what they speak.



I think you mentioned up-thread that you haven't played 8th Edition? I do play, and honestly, rules disputes are very rare. The rules load is redistributed from the MRB so you are only dealing with the rules you need for your army. I played in a 30 player tournament at the start of 8th after only two real games and very well - no big rules issues. I still have to look up the odd Wounds characteristic or confirm the nature of my vehicle's explosion but that's it. I have my Codex with me if there is a question or concern, but the focus on on the tabletop. I do offer my stratagem cards to my opponent if he is new to my army, but they are pretty simple. I offer a quick run-down of my key rules/stratagems to my opponent at the start of the game.

This is all anecdotal, but the commercial success of 8th Edition indicates that the method is working. As for preferred gaming systems, I hope you get some enjoyment out of them. Its your time. I enjoy some element of conversational rules-writing. The MRB is not a divorce settlement, and technical manuals are very dry. To each his own I guess.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 23:23:12


Post by: Ishagu


I agree with the above.

I have only had a few rule disputes after years of play in 8th edition, and all had been addressed via FAQ.

One involved a Tay player who was using the pre FAQ shield drone wound transference, and that was the only one that actually caused an issue in a game. This is a while back now.

I've spotted other rules thar could definitely cause issues, but in nearly all cases they were FAQd prior to a game where I encountered them.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 23:25:57


Post by: blaktoof


Just to further play devils advocate..

Some of the subtle differences listed by people who want unification would somewhat be a shame to lose.

re-roll failed vs re-roll all vs re-roll any give different statistical ranges, things like this are a way to break away from the statistics of rolling a d6 with/without re-roll and give more variation within rules.

Paired with the stat being re-rolled for it's similar to saying roll a d6 need a 3+ roll a d8 need a 3+ roll a d10 need a 3+ but staying within the d6 system.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 23:47:54


Post by: catbarf


blaktoof wrote:
Just to further play devils advocate..


Saying things you actually believe isn't playing devil's advocate. You've made it clear how you feel about USRs.

blaktoof wrote:
re-roll failed vs re-roll all vs re-roll any give different statistical ranges, things like this are a way to break away from the statistics of rolling a d6 with/without re-roll and give more variation within rules.


What is a fluffy, game-significant example where the difference between those rules is used to deliberate effect?

What does it mean that Dante and a random Chapter Master provide the same benefit to normal shooting, but if you're at a -1 penalty, suddenly the regular Chapter Master is better?

If the distinction doesn't actually make for a tangible benefit to the game system, then it's just chrome. Nobody disputes that there are minor mechanical differences between these inconsistent rules; the argument is that nothing of value would be lost by streamlining them.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 23:53:24


Post by: insaniak


blaktoof wrote:

re-roll failed vs re-roll all vs re-roll any give different statistical ranges,....

I would totally agree that these are distinct mechanics in their own right... in which case they should all be represented by distinct, separate (uniquely-named) rules.

Edit - although the practical difference between 'reroll failed' and 'reroll any' are miniscule, so those two are probably best consolidated, really.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 23:53:37


Post by: blaktoof


Catbarf,

So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.

Also I do like your screen name.fyi


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/11 23:54:59


Post by: JNAProductions


blaktoof wrote:
So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.
No, I'm pretty sure most all of us would prefer "Reroll any" because it's much more intuitive.

Alternatively, reroll failed, but also make rerolls happen AFTER modifiers. (Would also require changing things like a Captain's aura to reroll natural 1s, instead of reroll 1s, but hey.)


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 00:01:39


Post by: insaniak


 JNAProductions wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.
No, I'm pretty sure most all of us would prefer "Reroll any" because it's much more intuitive.

Alternatively, reroll failed, but also make rerolls happen AFTER modifiers. (Would also require changing things like a Captain's aura to reroll natural 1s, instead of reroll 1s, but hey.)

Yeah, I lean towards 'reroll failed' because it avoids people gaming the system when some interaction of rules makes it seem advantageous to fail a roll for some reason.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 00:22:00


Post by: Hellebore


Having an internal master list of rules text that writers copy and paste from is hardly a complex matter.

Nor is training your staff to look at what they're writing and determine if they're using a USR and then go and copy and paste from the master list rather than write it themselves.


The arguments against this seem to get more bizarre by the second, it's either demonstrably false strawmen about USRs or its that professional writers are employed in an unprofessional way that uses no basic training methods or work strategies.

Even GW in 80s when it was a garage company could still use these basic of basic work methods.

It's not grocery scanning...


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 00:30:01


Post by: catbarf


blaktoof wrote:
So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.


If modifiers were applied before rerolls, then yes. Otherwise, re-roll all. The interaction between re-roll fails and modifiers is quite unintuitive.

After that streamlining, if it were decided that it was a problem that Dante and Random Chapter Master provide the same buff, then that would be a prime opportunity to give one of them a more significant and different ability. Instead of a very subtly different flavor of bonus to shooting, maybe Dante should be more inspiring to melee combat, or only buff short-ranged shooting, or something else to fit the character of the Blood Angels. Then he'd be distinct from the generic profile, not just have a slightly different buff because... reasons.

I don't have any problem with bespoke, unique special rules when they're actually bespoke, unique, and used because no USR exists that provides the desired effect. Nobody's said the game should be pared down to ten USRs and all the rest of the special rules in the game scrapped; but there are clearly a bunch of mechanics that are either identical or virtually identical and could stand to be streamlined. Minimizing cognitive load and facilitating recognition of common rules are both good game design.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 00:35:28


Post by: Hellebore


 catbarf wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.


If modifiers were applied before rerolls, then yes. Otherwise, re-roll all. The interaction between re-roll fails and modifiers is quite unintuitive.

After that streamlining, if it were decided that it was a problem that Dante and Random Chapter Master provide the same buff, then that would be a prime opportunity to give one of them a more significant and different ability. Instead of a very subtly different flavor of bonus to shooting, maybe Dante should be more inspiring to melee combat, or only buff short-ranged shooting, or something else to fit the character of the Blood Angels. Then he'd be distinct from the generic profile, not just have a slightly different buff because... reasons.

I don't have any problem with bespoke, unique special rules when they're actually bespoke, unique, and used because no USR exists that provides the desired effect. Nobody's said the game should be pared down to ten USRs and all the rest of the special rules in the game scrapped; but there are clearly a bunch of mechanics that are either identical or virtually identical and could stand to be streamlined. Minimizing cognitive load and facilitating recognition of common rules are both good game design.


Exactly. And a living rulebook as it develops and new armies come out could even see new USRs appear out of what were originally BRs. This is actually what happened in 3rd-5th for things like feel no pain and fleet. Something started out as a single rule for a single unit or army, over time was seen as useful in other armies until you saw multiple versions of them floating around so they decided to consolidate them into a single rule.

USRs have never precluded bespoke rules and didn't even during the previous editions when they were used.

They are and have always been a standardisation of text to facilitate ease of use. And has been said a dozen times or more in this thread, the standardisation of text says nothing about any other aspect of the rules - whether they nest, whether they preclude BRs etc. And has been said before, the current BRs nest anyway by using Keywords.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 00:54:04


Post by: babelfish


I feel like there is room for a wide range of similar mechanic's iside a USR system. The difference between reroll 1's and reroll failed is minor for say, interceptors, but mutch bigger for, say, lootas.

I like having the half dozen different "better at charging" mechanics, because i think it gives room to have "ok at charging" and "pretty good at charging" and "oh god it got jimmy" dynamics by giving adding on buffs. I also think that those different mechanics need to be standardized using USRs.

You could have something like Rage (extra attacks on the charge), Preferred Enemy (reroll 1s), Furious Charge (reroll charges) all be ways to make a unit better at charging. Get one of them on a unit, its ok at charging. Get all three, now it is at the "oh god, not the face!" level.

You can even have things like Mildly Annoyed (1 extra attack om the charge) or Kinda Irritable Charge (reroll one die) for things like Tau who are good at charging by Tau standards.

You are better off having USRs instead of bespoke rules because when you add a new mechanic, like say, a strat that the entire imperium gets that gives roll 3 dice on the charge, your FAQ only has to address one or two USRs instead of every single version of that concept in every single imperial book.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 01:00:51


Post by: Ishagu


For that reason it's worse, not better.

An ability might be too powerful on one unit, too weak on another. You want to adjust the ability on the one that's too strong without impacting the rest.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 01:03:30


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
For that reason it's worse, not better.

An ability might be too powerful on one unit, too weak on another. You want to adjust the ability on the one that's too strong without impacting the rest.
So, let's say Deep Striking 9" away is too powerful on Kommandos-they can make that charge way too reliably and do too much damage. (I know, that's not the case-but roll with me here.)

That means that instead of having Deep Strike (9") you adjust it to Deep Strike (10") or 11" or whatever number is needed.

Still a USR. But easy to make a change to a single unit without nerfing whole swathes of units.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 01:07:51


Post by: insaniak


Or you just alter the unit's stats, or equipment, or whatever else makes them too powerful in combination with the special rule/s.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 01:43:49


Post by: catbarf


Or just price them appropriately for how powerful they are in combination with that ability. A unit with a high charge distance gets more mileage out of deep strike than an artillery piece, so, the charging unit should pay more for that ability. That's how it currently works anyways, since virtually all deep striking units have the same wording and 9" restriction.

The premise that GW currently uses bespoke special rules as a means of giving weaker abilities to units that would otherwise be too strong with the 'common' form is suspect to begin with.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 01:58:37


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
I agree with the above.

I have only had a few rule disputes after years of play in 8th edition, and all had been addressed via FAQ.

One involved a Tay player who was using the pre FAQ shield drone wound transference, and that was the only one that actually caused an issue in a game. This is a while back now.

I've spotted other rules thar could definitely cause issues, but in nearly all cases they were FAQd prior to a game where I encountered them.



Then your group isn't trying hard enough. My playgroup looks for exploits to break as soon as the rules drop.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 08:15:39


Post by: Slipspace


 Ishagu wrote:
For that reason it's worse, not better.

An ability might be too powerful on one unit, too weak on another. You want to adjust the ability on the one that's too strong without impacting the rest.


You have so many options here to fix this problem it's almost like you aren't trying.

You could: adjust the unit's points; change their stats; change their equipment; change keywords; or use a bespoke rule in this instance instead of the USR. Yet again, I can't believe this needs to be restated: having USRs doesn't preclude using bespoke rules where required.

But this all seems fairly moot since I can't think of any examples of the kind of thing you're describing and despite repeated requests none of the "USRs are bad" proponents have provided an actual example of this "subtly different but for a good reason" type of rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked.


I'm not convinced it has. It's a fairly well understood principle of game design that once games get beyond a certain level of complexity USRs are an effective way of organising your rules. That's why virtually every game other than 40k uses them. They have advantages in terms of transferable knowledge, ease of updating and clarity as well as facilitating easier and quicker communication between players. You menti0oned GW's designer talking about their design goals but I think your post lacked critical analysis of whether they succeeded or not. I can state any kind of goal I want to, following whatever internal set of policies, but a statement is not proof of success. I've seen far too many experienced gamers struggle to pick up a new 40k army and far too much flipping through a new Codex to believe GW succeeded in creating a more streamlined game in practice.

On the surface it is streamlined. The rulebook is very small and at first it appears everything you need is easily to hand on your unit's datasheet. Except it isn't. You have army-wide USRs in the form of faction and sub-faction abilities. The new Sisters Codex even introduces the peak-GW concept of a semi-USR by having things like Zealot be a USR that only applies to a single army, probably because they're realised their datasheets are starting to get bloated with all this bespoke rules text that wouldn't need to be there with USRs. Then there's the stacks and stacks of stratagems you need to know on top of that. You could massively reduce the cognitive load by using USRs. Then you can immediately see that a unit has a bunch of known rules and maybe some unique ones too. Transferable knowledge is a huge benefit pretty much anywhere you can use it. Deliberately designing your system not to facilitate that is stupid.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 10:00:13


Post by: Ishagu


The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 10:09:57


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. The complexity in the game might not be too taxing but it also completely fails to create meaningful player choices. So it is detrimental to the experience as it offers nothing.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 10:15:21


Post by: Slipspace


 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 10:21:24


Post by: Ice_can


Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist as a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 10:22:56


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Ice_can wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


Gonna need to explain how on that one.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 10:37:44


Post by: Ice_can


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


Gonna need to explain how on that one.

It's to do with human behaviour and some psychology I never bothered to learn in detail, but esentially if you provide a set of rules and tell someone these are universal rules, they tend to expect everyone to know and understand those rules.

So if your little first time player and your army doesn't have flyers so why would you read and memorise all the flyer USR's if your codex doesn't contain them. You then play billy's darkangles with darktallons and tallon masters and a whole host of other units, Billy will expect you to knwo the difference between fly and flyer and won't spell it out, leading to lots of feel bads and the earlier in your investment into the game you start falling across these got ya moments the less likely you are to be invested enough to keep playing the game when you can go do something else.

Where as with BSR's billy is more likely to expect to have to explain them in some depth from the start and will expect questions.

Eg most people will say they know tbe highway code but if you ask a non motorcyclist driver if filtering is legal most of them won't know.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 12:07:01


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


Yeah, it kinda is. And still fails to be deep. It just makes it so I have to look at every datasheet for every rule my opponent invokes.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 12:13:52


Post by: Ishagu


Lol you guys are funny. Maybe it's too complex for you? Play a different game.

In no way is 40k too difficult to play.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 12:19:41


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ishagu wrote:
Lol you guys are funny. Maybe it's too complex for you? Play a different game.

In no way is 40k too difficult to play.


You didn't say too difficult to play. You said complexity which is detrimental to the experience. Something can be overly complex which makes it less enjoyable while still being possible to do.

Maybe the english language is too complex for you? Try a different language.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 12:22:25


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
Lol you guys are funny. Maybe it's too complex for you? Play a different game.

In no way is 40k too difficult to play.


You are the one with the group that can't figure out the sketchy rule interactions until AFTER the FAQ. I don't think your group tries that hard, and probably gets a lot wrong and doesn't realize it.

The issue is that it's way too much work and confusion for far too little payoff. Look! The marine gunline wins again! Or <insert whatever army GW has busted this faq cycle>


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 12:29:58


Post by: Tycho


If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.


ATM I'm still anti-USR in terms of a game with the number of units and sub-factions 40k has. Everyone says "Most other games use them", and that's fine, but as far as I know, there aren't any other wargames with the sheer number of units 40k has, so until you can point that out, I'm not convinced? That being said, I also don't care that much. If they go back to a version of USRs that are "sane" and logical (like the ones I think most "pro-USR" folks are advocating for), you won't hear a peep out of me. If they go back to 20+ pages of USRs, with some USRs existing for no other reason than to confer other USRs, then yeah, I will definitely complain about that.

yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?


You either never played 6th/7th (especially 7th), or you're being very disingenuous. One of the complaints about 2nd ed (towards the end of the edition), was that you needed a lot of supplemental material to play a game. 7th especially, took that and multiplied it by 5. You needed a veritable stack of books for a game of 7th. An edition that used USRs quite heavily. So what's your point? Because the thread is about USRs vs bespoke rules, and the problem you outline (which IS a legitimate problem), exists completely outside this particular debate. It's not really a "USR" or "bespoke rules" problem, and really just a GW problem in general.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 12:36:38


Post by: Martel732


The more this thread goes on, the more I'm thinking that it doesn't matter much in terms of quality or time spent churning through books.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 13:02:31


Post by: Ishagu


The player in question wasn't aware of the FAQ. It had only dropped the day before our game.

I was perfectly aware of it.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 13:12:55


Post by: Spoletta


Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 13:14:57


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
The player in question wasn't aware of the FAQ. It had only dropped the day before our game.

I was perfectly aware of it.


That's not my point. Not that your group wasn't aware of the faq, but not even aware of the NEED for the faq in the first place. Because you don't look at the angles and game out how to maximize your units.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 13:21:24


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Ice_can wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


Gonna need to explain how on that one.

It's to do with human behaviour and some psychology I never bothered to learn in detail, but esentially if you provide a set of rules and tell someone these are universal rules, they tend to expect everyone to know and understand those rules.

So if your little first time player and your army doesn't have flyers so why would you read and memorise all the flyer USR's if your codex doesn't contain them. You then play billy's darkangles with darktallons and tallon masters and a whole host of other units, Billy will expect you to knwo the difference between fly and flyer and won't spell it out, leading to lots of feel bads and the earlier in your investment into the game you start falling across these got ya moments the less likely you are to be invested enough to keep playing the game when you can go do something else.

Where as with BSR's billy is more likely to expect to have to explain them in some depth from the start and will expect questions.

Eg most people will say they know tbe highway code but if you ask a non motorcyclist driver if filtering is legal most of them won't know.



You don't need to memorize all the USRs.... A good design would INCLUDE THE FULL RULES TEXT ON THE DATASHEET ALONGSIDE THE USR NAME

this has been repeated many times in the thread so far. The document with all the Usrs would serve as a bonus, not as a necessity.

That way a player reads his datasheet, sees (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and is at the exact same spot as if it was a bespoke rule like it currently is. Now next time he sees a different datasheet with (Deep strike (9"):do the thing), he'll instantly recognize it. If he doesnt remember what it does, he'll reread the rule without needing to refer to an external source. eventually he'll see (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and automatically know what it does.

One day he wants to swap armies, picks up some crisis suits and Oh! What does he see? (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) so he know what they do instantly and doesn't have to read to see that mantastrike isnt some C-C buff but just another name for deepstrike.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 13:23:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


It is a source of great irony to me that we still use USR shorthand for things while decrying USRs as useless.

"We can't just call everything deep strike, it's important it be bespoke!"
[later in another thread]
"Yah, with deep strike, FNP, and body guard, that tau unit with drones is pretty cool. I miss JSJ though."


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 13:37:19


Post by: catbarf


Spoletta wrote:
Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


I never played 7th, or 6th for that matter. I have played 4th-5th, Epic, BFG, and a whole ton of other games made by other companies, all of which used USRs.

This is only a 7th-vs-8th thing for the people who want to use 7th's problems to justify the changes made in 8th. In a context that includes prior GW games as well as the entire rest of the tabletop gaming industry, GW abandoning an industry standard for rules-writing because they screwed it up in 7th is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is a source of great irony to me that we still use USR shorthand for things while decrying USRs as useless.

"We can't just call everything deep strike, it's important it be bespoke!"
[later in another thread]
"Yah, with deep strike, FNP, and body guard, that tau unit with drones is pretty cool. I miss JSJ though."


Yeah, this really gets me- it's almost like having generic terms for these rules makes it easier to discuss, contextualize, and learn the game, rather than refer obliquely to 'any ability which allows a model to be set up as reinforcements blah blah blah'...

My current gaming group includes a bunch of guys who have never played before 8th, and they still all use the terms Deep Strike and Feel No Pain, having been introduced to them by players of previous editions. It's just clearer and easier to have a single term for obviously recognizable categories of abilities.

Heck, GW could just use tags for the abilities to categorize them together while still having bespoke rules for each implementation, and it would be a step in the right direction. Sure, keep thirteen million different bodyguard or deep strike rules, but give them all the [BODYGUARD] or [DEEP STRIKE] tag and now it's easy to say 'this super duper sniper ignores [BODYGUARD] abilities', or have the FAQ say '[DEEP STRIKE] can't be used on turn 1', and have writing that doesn't sound like a game of charades trying to describe a thing without actually using its name.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 14:06:15


Post by: Spoletta


 catbarf wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


I never played 7th, or 6th for that matter. I have played 4th-5th, Epic, BFG, and a whole ton of other games made by other companies, all of which used USRs.

This is only a 7th-vs-8th thing for the people who want to use 7th's problems to justify the changes made in 8th. In a context that includes prior GW games as well as the entire rest of the tabletop gaming industry, GW abandoning an industry standard for rules-writing because they screwed it up in 7th is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


This isn't throwing anything.

GW has tried the USR approach in multiple editions now, and we know the results.

7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem. It is the USR system applied to this game, this team, these players, this release schedule.
8th edition is the bespoke system applied to this game, this team, these players, this release schedule.

Even there, it isn't a fair comparison because 8th has far more units and factions than 7th ever had, not to mention an extremely more tight release schedule.
If you want to know how 40K would be with an USR system, just look at how 7th was... just a bit worse.

I can understand players prefering the 7th rule design to 8th rules design, but any argument saying "8th is bad because in a perfect and ideal USR system you can do this and that" hold absolutely no water in this context.
If you want to convince people that the USR system would work better in this situation, please provide examples on how 7th edition managed X or Y better than 8th.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 14:07:34


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 14:23:25


Post by: Ice_can


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


Gonna need to explain how on that one.

It's to do with human behaviour and some psychology I never bothered to learn in detail, but esentially if you provide a set of rules and tell someone these are universal rules, they tend to expect everyone to know and understand those rules.

So if your little first time player and your army doesn't have flyers so why would you read and memorise all the flyer USR's if your codex doesn't contain them. You then play billy's darkangles with darktallons and tallon masters and a whole host of other units, Billy will expect you to knwo the difference between fly and flyer and won't spell it out, leading to lots of feel bads and the earlier in your investment into the game you start falling across these got ya moments the less likely you are to be invested enough to keep playing the game when you can go do something else.

Where as with BSR's billy is more likely to expect to have to explain them in some depth from the start and will expect questions.

Eg most people will say they know tbe highway code but if you ask a non motorcyclist driver if filtering is legal most of them won't know.



You don't need to memorize all the USRs.... A good design would INCLUDE THE FULL RULES TEXT ON THE DATASHEET ALONGSIDE THE USR NAME

this has been repeated many times in the thread so far. The document with all the Usrs would serve as a bonus, not as a necessity.

That way a player reads his datasheet, sees (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and is at the exact same spot as if it was a bespoke rule like it currently is. Now next time he sees a different datasheet with (Deep strike (9"):do the thing), he'll instantly recognize it. If he doesnt remember what it does, he'll reread the rule without needing to refer to an external source. eventually he'll see (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and automatically know what it does.

One day he wants to swap armies, picks up some crisis suits and Oh! What does he see? (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) so he know what they do instantly and doesn't have to read to see that mantastrike isnt some C-C buff but just another name for deepstrike.


The rules aren't on the new players datasheets is the point you missed, they are on his opponents who will expect him to know all these USR's.

New players don't go swapping armies month to month either they generally take 6 months to a year to move to a second army.

Also if your going to print the rules in full then why do you need USR's, you talking about standardised wording, I dont object in principle to that but that isn't what USR's mean.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 14:47:04


Post by: Slipspace


Ice_can wrote:


Also if your going to print the rules in full then why do you need USR's, you talking about standardised wording, I dont object in principle to that but that isn't what USR's mean.


That's pretty much the accepted best practice, as seen in multiple games including MtG which is basically the premier example of USRs done right. On cards with enough space they reprint the USRs in full for ease of reference but also to act as a reminder that is useful for helping newer players to get up to speed with what the USRs do. After a while most players don't even read the reminder text.. If a card needs more text for bespoke rules they'll just use bolded names for the USRs.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:21:52


Post by: Ishagu


Bespoke rules are still more interesting and ultimately varied, and for this reason I prefer them.

You are free to prefer USRs.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:23:54


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Ishagu wrote:
Bespoke rules are still more interesting and ultimately varied, and for this reason I prefer them.

You are free to prefer USRs.

Imagine thinking that having different names for FNP like The Flesh Is Weak and Disgustingly Resilient somehow make the game more interesting LOL


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:25:35


Post by: Ishagu


I'm happy they all have different names because each one is thematically linked to the faction.

Get over it lol


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:28:57


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
I'm happy they all have different names because each one is thematically linked to the faction.

Get over it lol
So the more flavor on the datasheet, the better, right?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:32:41


Post by: Martel732


GW doesnt give a feth about thematics.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:35:07


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Ice_can wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


Gonna need to explain how on that one.

It's to do with human behaviour and some psychology I never bothered to learn in detail, but esentially if you provide a set of rules and tell someone these are universal rules, they tend to expect everyone to know and understand those rules.

So if your little first time player and your army doesn't have flyers so why would you read and memorise all the flyer USR's if your codex doesn't contain them. You then play billy's darkangles with darktallons and tallon masters and a whole host of other units, Billy will expect you to knwo the difference between fly and flyer and won't spell it out, leading to lots of feel bads and the earlier in your investment into the game you start falling across these got ya moments the less likely you are to be invested enough to keep playing the game when you can go do something else.

Where as with BSR's billy is more likely to expect to have to explain them in some depth from the start and will expect questions.

Eg most people will say they know tbe highway code but if you ask a non motorcyclist driver if filtering is legal most of them won't know.



You don't need to memorize all the USRs.... A good design would INCLUDE THE FULL RULES TEXT ON THE DATASHEET ALONGSIDE THE USR NAME

this has been repeated many times in the thread so far. The document with all the Usrs would serve as a bonus, not as a necessity.

That way a player reads his datasheet, sees (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and is at the exact same spot as if it was a bespoke rule like it currently is. Now next time he sees a different datasheet with (Deep strike (9"):do the thing), he'll instantly recognize it. If he doesnt remember what it does, he'll reread the rule without needing to refer to an external source. eventually he'll see (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and automatically know what it does.

One day he wants to swap armies, picks up some crisis suits and Oh! What does he see? (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) so he know what they do instantly and doesn't have to read to see that mantastrike isnt some C-C buff but just another name for deepstrike.


The rules aren't on the new players datasheets is the point you missed, they are on his opponents who will expect him to know all these USR's.

New players don't go swapping armies month to month either they generally take 6 months to a year to move to a second army.

Also if your going to print the rules in full then why do you need USR's, you talking about standardised wording, I dont object in principle to that but that isn't what USR's mean.



How is that any different from what i said? Its the same situation as we have right now.

For example :

I'm a new player and play Grey knights, i see that my terminators have "teleport strike". I play against an opponent that says he uses the "manta strike" ability of his crisis suits. I ask to see the datasheet to confirm it (and learn the possibly new rule). As i read the rule on the datasheet, i notice that its the same exact rule as my "teleport strike" rule. "Oh, weird, theyre the same thing but with different names" (that was my litteral reaction first time i noticed it).

No lets take with my version :
I'm a new player and play Grey knights, i see that my terminators have "Deep strike(9")". I play against an opponent that says he uses the "Deep strike(9")" ability of his crisis suits. I ask to see the datasheet to confirm it and i see it right there in bolded letters, the game goes on since i have confirmation that they both have the same rule.



Now for a rule that isnt in my codex but is in my opponent's its the exact same situation as we have currently. I ask to see the "Savior protocols" (dunno if GK get bodyguards honestly, i don't play that army). and i read to text and understand it, cool. Next day i play against Death guard and he tells me that his deathshroud have the "Silent Bodyguard" rule, as i read it i realise that its similar to the savior protocols rule yet i still had to read a full paragraph and even then its not exactly the same way to resolve it even if its the same type of ability.

Now with my version :
The new players sees that the drone has "Bodyguard (2+)" and reads the rule. Against his DG opponent, he sees that he has the "Bodyguard(2+)" and knows how it works.

Please tell me how my version is more complex for the new player?

And yes, standardised wording is litterally what USRs mean. And you put the rules on the datasheet to keep 8th edition easily accessible, just like GW's design mantra was with it.

(Best example of that type of rule is MTG, keywords appear on cards and also have reminder text that tell you what the keyword does, you learn them by repetition)




What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:35:43


Post by: Vaktathi


 Ishagu wrote:
Bespoke rules are still more interesting and ultimately varied, and for this reason I prefer them.
If you have a bunch of rules that all do literally the exact same thing, it's hard to see how they're particularly interesting or varied unless one is intentionally being pedantic. Alternatively, when there's a grip of them that are all supposed to generally do the same thing but some of them don't actually work well enough to bother with while others are easily abused and overcapable, just for the sake of being different for its own sake, that's fundamentally bad game design, like, by definition. There's a place for bespoke rules if something calls for a truly unique ability, but that's not a knock against USR's, and again, there are games that work just fine with the same wide array of units that 40k has and make do with USR's for everything just fine, and nobody finds it a problem.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:37:18


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Ishagu wrote:
Bespoke rules are still more interesting and ultimately varied, and for this reason I prefer them.

You are free to prefer USRs.


yes, we know, the almighty Ishagu has stated his opinion, which is fine. Yet you havnt proven that its impossible to have an implementation of USRs that doesnt give as much variety as bespoke rules.

Bodyguard (x+)
Deepstrike (x")

two basic examples that give you tons of variety right there.


Also heres an example of how you get USRs while keeping some bespoke rules



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:38:30


Post by: Spoletta


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


And as i said, it is normal that some players prefer those editions rule structure, because it is a matter of personal preference.

Let me point out though that the game was much easier to hande for the designers at the time. Far fewer publications each year, no LoW, no fliers for the most part, a lot less factions and units, no subfactions, close to no allies,..

4th and 5th held much better than 7th, but they also had a lot less to hold.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:40:41


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


And as i said, it is normal that some players prefer those editions rule structure, because it is a matter of personal preference.

Let me point out though that the game was much easier to hande for the designers at the time. Far fewer publications each year, no LoW, no fliers for the most part, a lot less factions and units, no subfactions, close to no allies,..

4th and 5th held much better than 7th, but they also had a lot less to hold.


a solid framework should accomodate near infinite scalability.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:50:28


Post by: Ishagu


Martel732 wrote:
GW doesnt give a feth about thematics.


What a stupid thing to say. If course they do. Their IP is their most valuable property and they care most about it.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:53:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


And as i said, it is normal that some players prefer those editions rule structure, because it is a matter of personal preference.

Let me point out though that the game was much easier to hande for the designers at the time. Far fewer publications each year, no LoW, no fliers for the most part, a lot less factions and units, no subfactions, close to no allies,..

4th and 5th held much better than 7th, but they also had a lot less to hold.


If only there was a way to control the scale creep, some sort of "designer" who was in charge of the game and could make sure that certain abstractions, domains, and game scales were obeyed. Pity GW doesn't seem to have one.

(Also, superheavy tanks and fliers totally existed. I played with them all the time. Allies also existed, via the Inquisition, and also were commonly played in 2v2 games, etc. Nothing broke.)


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 15:55:15


Post by: Spoletta


I didn't say "No allies" i said "Close to no allies". Are you really comparing 5th edition ally system to 7th edition one (In terms of complexity introduced)?

Flyers were introduced near the end of 5th, and in fact i said " No fliers for the most part".

Please read carefully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


And as i said, it is normal that some players prefer those editions rule structure, because it is a matter of personal preference.

Let me point out though that the game was much easier to hande for the designers at the time. Far fewer publications each year, no LoW, no fliers for the most part, a lot less factions and units, no subfactions, close to no allies,..

4th and 5th held much better than 7th, but they also had a lot less to hold.


a solid framework should accomodate near infinite scalability.


I agree. But it doesn't add much to this discussion.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:04:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Spoletta wrote:
I didn't say "No allies" i said "Close to no allies". Are you really comparing 5th edition ally system to 7th edition one (In terms of complexity introduced)?

Flyers were introduced near the end of 5th, and in fact i said " No fliers for the most part".

Please read carefully.

No, I'm not comparing the two, because the 7th edition allies system is an abomination that never should have existed. Taudar, really? Black Templars get along better with the Relictors than the Adepta Sororitas? Etc. 4th's was better. Remember, part of my claim is that game designers have to keep things within scope and scale or the game will inevitably crumble.

Flyers have existed since Imperial Armor Volume 1 in 3rd edition, sir. They came on in the movement phase, were fired at by air defense units with the Anti-Aircraft rule, did a bombing or strafing run, and left before the end of the movement phase. If players on both sides brought flyers, they could fight with each other instead of entering the table (though my memory of this specific set of rules was hazy). Transport flyers could drop things off then, too, of course after being subject to anti-aircraft fire.

This implementation of flyer rules is infinitely 110% better in terms of scale than the current one or any one we've had since flyers entered the codexes out of the FW books. Remember, part of my claim is that game designers have to keep things within scope and scale or the game will inevitably crumble.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:06:02


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
GW doesnt give a feth about thematics.


What a stupid thing to say. If course they do. Their IP is their most valuable property and they care most about it.


Then why do they constantly make non-thematic rules and armies?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:07:28


Post by: Tycho


Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.


Conveniently leaving out the fact that USRs were also involved in the two editions after 5th. You know ... the ones pretty much universally considered the worst editions?

I have to say though, that this thread is the first time I've seen the pro-USR folks lay out a solid reasoning beyond just screaming about how they don't understand why the rules are on their data sheets now, and how they don't think keywords make sense. I think I can safely say I'm fine with being convinced that it's so much USRs as it is GW's handling of said USRs, but again, can anyone point to a game using them that also has the scale of 40k?

I feel like that's where it falls down, but open to being wrong. Either way, even if you get USRs back, I don't think you can really escape bespoke rules ...


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:08:57


Post by: Ishagu


@Martel

Lol they don't. They've doubled down on rules and abilities to mirror the lore.

Hence the Raven Guard are truly sneaky, the Iron Hands have the best vehicles, Salamanders have the best flame weapons, Iron Warriors use Cultists as human shields, etc, etc

The new Harlequin rules are amazing and very fitting of the faction. GW rules are actually getting better at mirroring the lore behind the forces.

The next step would be unique detachments to each faction.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:13:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Tycho wrote:
can anyone point to a game using them that also has the scale of 40k?.

"scale" isn't always a good thing. I'd argue that modern 40k's issues predominantly derive from the scale being so far out of whack.

Plus, 4th edition 40k had all the same things we have now, but the scale required them to be implemented differently. They weren't gone, but they respected the scale more. Which means they felt powerful and much much less silly.
- Flyers strafed or bombed the entire battlefield and then departed in a single movement phase, immune to all but the most dedicated air defense weapons. Now? They fly in little 20"-per-side squares in a space smaller than a football field.
- Superheavy Tanks were incredibly rare (could only field one per thousand points or so, and only above 2000 points when you started unlocking the second detachment. Yes, this was a 4th edition thing). They were very powerful indeed.
- Titans were rarer still, and still more powerful, though suffered a bit from restricted firing arcs given their verticality, with the exception of the Warhound who was quite short. This felt realistic.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:22:46


Post by: Vaktathi


 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Lol they don't. They've doubled down on rules and abilities to mirror the lore.

Hence the Raven Guard are truly sneaky, the Iron Hands have the best vehicles, Salamanders have the best flame weapons, Iron Warriors use Cultists as human shields, etc, etc
Raven Guard rules aren't really all that sneaky, they're hard to hit (essentially an "evasion" mechanic more suited to something super agile), these are not the same thing. GW has never managed "stealth" particularly well. Iron Hands likewise never used to be known for having the best vehicles, and in fact in older lore were at a dearth for such, particularly Dreadnoughts, and that was part of why they revered them so much, and they were far more known for extensive use of bionics than having Übertanks. Iron Warriors were siege, artillery, and armored warfare experts, they were never about the mass use of cultists as human shields (at least not anymoreso than any other CSM's, and such forces mentioned in things like Dead Sky Black Sun were far more Guard equivalents than cultists) the cultist thing is merely an outgrowth of a single Warlord trait synergizing well with meatshields in this particular edition, not anything particularly fluffy.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:29:50


Post by: pm713


 Ishagu wrote:
I'm happy they all have different names because each one is thematically linked to the faction.

Get over it lol

How on earth does that make the game better?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:34:41


Post by: Ishagu


Removed - BrookM


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:36:22


Post by: JNAProductions


Ishagu, is more flavor on the datasheets better?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:38:40


Post by: BaconCatBug


Tycho wrote:
Conveniently leaving out the fact that USRs were also involved in the two editions after 5th. You know ... the ones pretty much universally considered the worst editions?
6th and 7th also had models that could move, therefore 8th is just as bad.

6th and 7th were not crap because of USRs, they were crap, IN PART, because USRs were misused to try and replace bespoke rules. And even that was a water molecule, in a drop, in a BUCKET of the reasons why 6th and 7th were bad.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:38:45


Post by: Ishagu


@JNA

Every datasheet has some flavour linking it to the lore. Units that excel at shooting have better BS, etc, etc

What's your point?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:39:27


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
Every datasheet has some flavour linking it to the lore. Units that excel at shooting have better BS.
That is not an answer to my question.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:40:21


Post by: Ishagu


Removed - BrookM


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:41:18


Post by: Blastaar


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Spoiler:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.


Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.


I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers


What on Earth is stopping GW's designers, or any designers anywhere, from printing different words on a data sheet than bespoke rules text? This is an argument people are trying to make? "But-but-but the computers and printers are unable to utilize that space differently!"

What is "accessible" about not knowing any of your opponent's rules when you play a game, needing to stop playing to ask for clarification?

What is "accessible" about rules being written in a conversational, ambiguous, and inconsistent style that renders players unable to remember, aka learn their rules and to play without their nose in their codex?

For that matter, what makes it impossible for GW to use stat cards for units?

People so vehemently opposed to a more structured rules system really need to grab a copy of the rulebook for MEDGe, or Malifaux or something. They have no idea of what they speak.



I think you mentioned up-thread that you haven't played 8th Edition? I do play, and honestly, rules disputes are very rare. The rules load is redistributed from the MRB so you are only dealing with the rules you need for your army. I played in a 30 player tournament at the start of 8th after only two real games and very well - no big rules issues. I still have to look up the odd Wounds characteristic or confirm the nature of my vehicle's explosion but that's it. I have my Codex with me if there is a question or concern, but the focus on on the tabletop. I do offer my stratagem cards to my opponent if he is new to my army, but they are pretty simple. I offer a quick run-down of my key rules/stratagems to my opponent at the start of the game.

This is all anecdotal, but the commercial success of 8th Edition indicates that the method is working. As for preferred gaming systems, I hope you get some enjoyment out of them. Its your time. I enjoy some element of conversational rules-writing. The MRB is not a divorce settlement, and technical manuals are very dry. To each his own I guess.


I didn't intent to imply that a lack of USRs leads to arguments necessarily, but it does lead to spending more time explaining what each other's rules actually do because of the minute differences, and the lack of standardized rules text leads to confusion as well. Players should be expected, and capable of learning their rules.

Technical writing and flavor are not mutually exclusive.. Were 6th and 5th edition dry? Is Infinity dry? Malifaux (this one even has lots of bespoke rules, and everything written out on the model's card)? Rules text must be written in the clearest, most literal phrasing possible, but their names can be flavorful while still alluding to what the rule does, and there can still be a sentence of flavor text to go along with it.

How meaningful are the slight variations of universal-but-not rules in 8th, really?

Unique rules should be used sparingly, when there is actually a meaningful difference or to give a unit special/flavorful gameplay. As an addition to the stat line, core mechanics, USRs, faction special rules, and equipment. If a game designer can't differentiate units or armies in any way other than pasting on unique rules, they are terrible at their job.

These "problems" do not exist. People who are so upset over the concept of USRs are simply resisting change, and assuming that their return must inevitably lead us to the problems of 7th edition.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:41:34


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Ishagu wrote:
Every datasheet has some flavour linking it to the lore. Units that excel at shooting have better BS.
Are you seriously saying that a 12,000 year old, genecrafted, transhuman perfect warrior of humanity created by the Emperor's hand himself, outfitted with the best weapons and armour the Imperium can create (and are gold, because gold is objectively the best colour) is just as capable at shooting as a Senior Man in a Fancy Hat who executes 15 year olds who get scared by LITERALLY FETHING DAEMONS?

BS is literally the last thing that can help differentiate units because the D6 system crushes the available differentiation.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:42:46


Post by: Ishagu


Removed - BrookM


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:50:13


Post by: pm713


 Ishagu wrote:
pm713 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
I'm happy they all have different names because each one is thematically linked to the faction.

Get over it lol

How on earth does that make the game better?


Another stupid question.

How on earth is the game better by being linked to the lore that supports it? Are you serious?

Go play chess if you don't care about the universe the game takes place in. A lovely, balanced, lore free experience.

I'm very serious. The same rule being called disgustingly resilient and whatever else isn't tying things to the lore. It's not thematic, it's not fluffy, it just complicates discussing the game for no reason.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:51:56


Post by: Ishagu


No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:54:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Ishagu wrote:
No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward


What if this was written on the datasheet instead:

Feel No Pain (5+): The desease (sic) -ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Is the game ruined now?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 16:58:47


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
Do I want more lore on the datasheet?

Your question is stupid lol
I'll take that as a yes. So, which is better?

Teleport Strike
During deployment, you can set this unit in a teleportarium chamber instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the end of any of your movement phases this unit can teleport to the battle-set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models.
Contains basically no fluff, other than the name.

Or...

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
During deployment, you may set this unit in Deep Strike reserves instead of deploying it normally. At the end of any of your movement phases, you may set this unit up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy models.

Grey Knights are masters of the sudden strike, able to teleport even marines in ordinary power armor to the battlefield from their ships above.
Contains the same flavor (in the form of the name Teleport Strike) and has EVEN MORE FLUFF. Now, since I wrote this flavor text, it could definitely be improved, but the general point should be clear.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:00:46


Post by: Grimtuff


Tycho wrote:


ATM I'm still anti-USR in terms of a game with the number of units and sub-factions 40k has. Everyone says "Most other games use them", and that's fine, but as far as I know, there aren't any other wargames with the sheer number of units 40k has, so until you can point that out, I'm not convinced?


Ever heard of Warmahordes?

Just as many factions as 40k. 15 as of right now, and that is not even counting the subfactions via theme forces.

And guess what? It uses defined terms, keywords USRs and unique rules all in harmony. What makes 40k so special that it cannot achieve that (ignoring the fact they totally did so in 5th ed 40k...)?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:01:29


Post by: Manchu


Just a friendly reminder that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:01:36


Post by: kodos


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward


What if this was written on the datasheet instead:

Feel No Pain (5+): The desease (sic) -ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Is the game ruined now?


yes as you removed all the flavour and differences not only between units but also factions

if you remove the different names of the same rules people will realise that there is no difference at all and this ruins the game

/s


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:12:10


Post by: pm713


 Ishagu wrote:
No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward

Are you missing the point intentionally?

What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:14:47


Post by: Ishagu


pm713 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward

Are you missing the point intentionally?

What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.


There doesn't need to be a difference. The effect can be the same but it was gained through different means in the lore, and is appropriate to the specific faction.

Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:18:13


Post by: JNAProductions


More fluff is more good, correct?

So, again:

Teleport Strike
During deployment, you can set this unit in a teleportarium chamber instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the end of any of your movement phases this unit can teleport to the battle-set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models.
Contains basically no fluff, other than the name.

Or...

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
During deployment, you may set this unit in Deep Strike reserves instead of deploying it normally. At the end of any of your movement phases, you may set this unit up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy models.

Grey Knights are masters of the sudden strike, able to teleport even marines in ordinary power armor to the battlefield from their ships above.
Contains the same flavor (in the form of the name Teleport Strike) and has EVEN MORE FLUFF. Now, since I wrote this flavor text, it could definitely be improved, but the general point should be clear.
Which of those is better? The one with more fluff, or less?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:19:21


Post by: pm713


 Ishagu wrote:
pm713 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward

Are you missing the point intentionally?

What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.


There doesn't need to be a difference. The effect can be the same but it was gained through different means in the lore.

Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army.

Flimsy. You don't need to alter specific rules that often that USR would be a huge issue and really you can just have a little flexibility by having rules like FNP (X) and altering X.

Cool. I play multiple armies so it's nice to not need to remember that "these rules sound different but aren't really". Also there's this thing called wanting to know what other armies can do so you can talk about them or teach someone you're getting into the game or just because you're interested.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:21:58


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Ishagu wrote:
pm713 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward

Are you missing the point intentionally?

What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.


There doesn't need to be a difference. The effect can be the same but it was gained through different means in the lore, and is appropriate to the specific faction.

Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army.


How does using Feel no pain (x+) make it impossible to modify in the future?


JNAProductions wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Do I want more lore on the datasheet?

Your question is stupid lol
I'll take that as a yes. So, which is better?

Teleport Strike
During deployment, you can set this unit in a teleportarium chamber instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the end of any of your movement phases this unit can teleport to the battle-set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models.
Contains basically no fluff, other than the name.

Or...

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
During deployment, you may set this unit in Deep Strike reserves instead of deploying it normally. At the end of any of your movement phases, you may set this unit up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy models.

Grey Knights are masters of the sudden strike, able to teleport even marines in ordinary power armor to the battlefield from their ships above.
Contains the same flavor (in the form of the name Teleport Strike) and has EVEN MORE FLUFF. Now, since I wrote this flavor text, it could definitely be improved, but the general point should be clear.


He's been asked many times yet has dodged all these posts


Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward


What if this was written on the datasheet instead:

Feel No Pain (5+): The desease (sic) -ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Is the game ruined now?


Same for this, in his mind USRs would be only the name of the rule with no parameters or description, and forcing the player to look up the rule in the book, hes being purposely obtuse and he keeps trolling


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:24:55


Post by: Grimtuff


 Ishagu wrote:
pm713 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.

Pretty straightforward

Are you missing the point intentionally?

What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.


There doesn't need to be a difference. The effect can be the same but it was gained through different means in the lore, and is appropriate to the specific faction.

Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army.


Go look at other game systems, hell; even older editions of 40k and see how utterly, embarrassingly wrong you are.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:30:38


Post by: Blastaar


Spoletta wrote:
Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


This has absolutely nothing to do with 7th edition. If 7th edition is your sole reference for USRs, your problem is not with USRs, but with the terrible decisions made and the incompetence of the rules team during the lifetime of that edition. Many people like Olive Garden, but most of those people have never gone to any other Italian restaurant, so have no idea what they're missing. I've said it before, and I will say it again: Read through the rulebooks of non-GW games that use USRs, and notice the difference.

This is not a matter of opinion, this is fact. USRs are necessary to avoid confusion, and ensure all players understand what the rules actually do. Standardization works best, in most cases. I have not seen anyone suggesting that there should be zero unique rules.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:32:46


Post by: Tycho


"scale" isn't always a good thing. I'd argue that modern 40k's issues predominantly derive from the scale being so far out of whack.


Sorry, I guess I meant "scope"?

I didn't literally mean the scale of minis (which was honestly out-of-whack the second you had a 7" long tank sitting next to a guy who's pistol only fired 6 inches ...). What I meant was the sheer number of units. That's my bigger question. I agree that I've played plenty of games where USRs worked and I had a fun time. But without exception, those games had fewer factions, as well as fewer units per faction, so I just wonder if they would really help all that much in this case? Leaving aside the issues GW has with it's rules writing (like the tendency for bloat, etc), I feel like you don't gain much streamlining if you consolidate a bunch of super similar rules into a small, reasonable set of USRs (like many have advocated for here), you're still going to need/get a ton of bespoke rules anyway, so what do you really gain?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:36:38


Post by: Spoletta


 Grimtuff wrote:
Tycho wrote:


ATM I'm still anti-USR in terms of a game with the number of units and sub-factions 40k has. Everyone says "Most other games use them", and that's fine, but as far as I know, there aren't any other wargames with the sheer number of units 40k has, so until you can point that out, I'm not convinced?


Ever heard of Warmahordes?

Just as many factions as 40k. 15 as of right now, and that is not even counting the subfactions via theme forces.

And guess what? It uses defined terms, keywords USRs and unique rules all in harmony. What makes 40k so special that it cannot achieve that (ignoring the fact they totally did so in 5th ed 40k...)?


Warmahordes is about a quarter of 40K in terms of models. That is before considering that warmahordes units don't have variations on wargear.

It simply isn't the same scale, and yet they managed to break the system twice already.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:37:18


Post by: Grimtuff


Blastaar wrote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with 7th edition. If 7th edition is your sole reference for USRs, your problem is not with USRs, but with the terrible decisions made and the incompetence of the rules team during the lifetime of that edition. Many people like Olive Garden, but most of those people have never gone to any other Italian restaurant, so have no idea what they're missing. I've said it before, and I will say it again: Read through the rulebooks of non-GW games that use USRs, and notice the difference.


Let's get them started.
http://files.privateerpress.com/allnewwar/Prime-Digest-Rules-2016-v2.pdf

Warmachine rulebook. I'll make it even easier for them- skip to page 17.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:37:36


Post by: Martel732


"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:37:52


Post by: Tycho



Warmahordes is about a quarter of 40K in terms of models. That is before considering that warmahordes units don't have variations on wargear.

It simply isn't the same scale, and yet they managed to break the system twice already.


Exalted. Thank you.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:38:04


Post by: Spoletta


Blastaar wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


This has absolutely nothing to do with 7th edition. If 7th edition is your sole reference for USRs, your problem is not with USRs, but with the terrible decisions made and the incompetence of the rules team during the lifetime of that edition. Many people like Olive Garden, but most of those people have never gone to any other Italian restaurant, so have no idea what they're missing. I've said it before, and I will say it again: Read through the rulebooks of non-GW games that use USRs, and notice the difference.

This is not a matter of opinion, this is fact. USRs are necessary to avoid confusion, and ensure all players understand what the rules actually do. Standardization works best, in most cases. I have not seen anyone suggesting that there should be zero unique rules.


And i'm saying that it would be meaningless.
You can't compare the current bespoke system made in this conditions with an USR system made under different conditions.

The current 40K under USR rules is 7th edition. Make your comparisons from that.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:38:32


Post by: Grimtuff


Spoletta wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Tycho wrote:


ATM I'm still anti-USR in terms of a game with the number of units and sub-factions 40k has. Everyone says "Most other games use them", and that's fine, but as far as I know, there aren't any other wargames with the sheer number of units 40k has, so until you can point that out, I'm not convinced?


Ever heard of Warmahordes?

Just as many factions as 40k. 15 as of right now, and that is not even counting the subfactions via theme forces.

And guess what? It uses defined terms, keywords USRs and unique rules all in harmony. What makes 40k so special that it cannot achieve that (ignoring the fact they totally did so in 5th ed 40k...)?


Warmahordes is about a quarter of 40K in terms of models. That is before considering that warmahordes units don't have variations on wargear.

It simply isn't the same scale, and yet they managed to break the system twice already.


Yeah, no.

I really cannot be arsed to go into why you're wrong. I'll just quote this for posterity when you try to backtrack.

Bye.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:47:20


Post by: Blastaar


Spoletta wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


This has absolutely nothing to do with 7th edition. If 7th edition is your sole reference for USRs, your problem is not with USRs, but with the terrible decisions made and the incompetence of the rules team during the lifetime of that edition. Many people like Olive Garden, but most of those people have never gone to any other Italian restaurant, so have no idea what they're missing. I've said it before, and I will say it again: Read through the rulebooks of non-GW games that use USRs, and notice the difference.

This is not a matter of opinion, this is fact. USRs are necessary to avoid confusion, and ensure all players understand what the rules actually do. Standardization works best, in most cases. I have not seen anyone suggesting that there should be zero unique rules.


And i'm saying that it would be meaningless.
You can't compare the current bespoke system made in this conditions with an USR system made under different conditions.

The current 40K under USR rules is 7th edition. Make your comparisons from that.


You are saying this now. As you move the goalposts, instead of being honest. By your reasoning, we can't compare 8th to 7th, either........


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:54:48


Post by: catbarf


I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.

If the problem with 7th was having so many USRs due to the variety of units, well, putting the USRs on the datasheet would address that.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 17:59:12


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Tycho wrote:
"scale" isn't always a good thing. I'd argue that modern 40k's issues predominantly derive from the scale being so far out of whack.


Sorry, I guess I meant "scope"?

I didn't literally mean the scale of minis (which was honestly out-of-whack the second you had a 7" long tank sitting next to a guy who's pistol only fired 6 inches ...). What I meant was the sheer number of units. That's my bigger question. I agree that I've played plenty of games where USRs worked and I had a fun time. But without exception, those games had fewer factions, as well as fewer units per faction, so I just wonder if they would really help all that much in this case? Leaving aside the issues GW has with it's rules writing (like the tendency for bloat, etc), I feel like you don't gain much streamlining if you consolidate a bunch of super similar rules into a small, reasonable set of USRs (like many have advocated for here), you're still going to need/get a ton of bespoke rules anyway, so what do you really gain?


No, I mean the same thing you mean too.

4th Edition 40k had nearly the same number of units. Baneblades, Valkyries, all the stuff people think added later was actually present in the game as early as 3rd edition. They were less common, but that's precisely my point.

In wargame design, you have to moderate your scale (or scope, if you prefer that term). If you're playing a barroom brawl game where the difference between a switchblade and a swiss-army-knife on a guy is important, then including rules for intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads is probably out of scope.

So now we come to 40k, where the difference between two different kinds of power-thingy (a power axe and a power sword for example) is important, and you also have rules for intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, and all of it is struggling to fit in scope.

This isn't a good thing. It's not a healthy game. There's too much irrelevant nonsense being crammed into too small of a design space. 4th Edition 40k had both a bigger design space and wasn't trying to incorporate the same scope. All power weapons were the same, for example, while the comparative power of flyers and superheavy tanks meant that they were rare.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 18:08:36


Post by: Grimtuff


 catbarf wrote:
I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.


It's like they don't even look at these other games and just disagree for the sake of it. I'm not going to count the individual units, but can say with a degree of confidence that WMH has just as many (or extremely close to) units as 40k does.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 18:35:16


Post by: kodos


 catbarf wrote:
I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.


because it is much harder to keep the illusion that those are really different, (while if all have their unique named rules with slighlty different mechnics maes it less obvoius and you always can say that the units are similar but different and not just straight up the same)


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 18:35:28


Post by: Tycho


No, I mean the same thing you mean too.


Yeah, looks like we're on the same page then. I agree scale isn't necessarily good. I'm just asking the question in light of the fact that we can't ignore that the scale issue exists if that makes sense. Totally agree that there's a lot that's crept into regular games over the years that used to be extremely rare or Apoc only, and that this isn't necessarily good. It does create a ton of weirdness. Your example of a switchblade a ICBM happening in the same battle is pretty accurate imo.

I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.


So this has been laid out a couple times in the thread, but the thread is a mess, so I'll restate that here. Speaking for just myself obviously.

I'm not saying "It can't work for a game of this size/scope". Not at all. I'm just asking the question. As an example, 5th ed is often held up as one of the best examples of "how well" USRs can work for 40k. And this is where my question comes into play. So much of that edition became so "samey", so bland, so basically boring by half-way through the edition, it started to drop off in a lot of places. Most of the better books from that era ended up being ones that used a ton of bespoke rules to help differentiate the units further. So that's my question - the game has generally only gotten bigger. So how do you "streamline" with a set of reasonable USRS (because again, I haven't seen anyone argue that 20+ pages of USRs is the way to go), while still differentiating factions/units to maintain their unique flavor. Personally, I think you end up with a ton of new bespoke rules that ends up defeating the purpose of the USRs to begin with, but I'm more just asking the question rather than trying to make a strong argument in either direction.

I think it's actually been a pretty decent thread in spots. Some good arguments on both sides. Previously, most of the time when I've seen this debate pop-up here it's been "BESPOKE RULZE R STOOPID! WHY ARE THEIR RULES ON MY DATA CARD!?", so it's been interesting seeing some thought behind the stances.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 18:36:26


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Lol they don't. They've doubled down on rules and abilities to mirror the lore.

Hence the Raven Guard are truly sneaky, the Iron Hands have the best vehicles, Salamanders have the best flame weapons, Iron Warriors use Cultists as human shields, etc, etc

The new Harlequin rules are amazing and very fitting of the faction. GW rules are actually getting better at mirroring the lore behind the forces.

The next step would be unique detachments to each faction.

So you don't want USRs because you think they ruined 7th edition but you're basically calling for the return of formations. Okie dokey.

And as I've pointed out to you before, cultists were meant for Alpha Legion. Not Iron Warriors or any other legion.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 18:49:56


Post by: kodos


Tycho wrote:
So that's my question - the game has generally only gotten bigger. So how do you "streamline" with a set of reasonable USR


the game got bigger because there are a lot of duplicates in the units
that is why meta chasing and mathhammer are a thing, you have several units that do the same job on the table, one is always doing it better while the others are just there to add flavour

without removing identical units you cannot streamline 40k, and USR won't change that but making it more obvious

what USR can do is to make it easier to handle identical rules without removing streamlining

why do people still use the term "deep strike" or "feel no pain" as if they were a USR? those rules do not exist any more and everyone who starts new will aks you why you call the rules from his unity by a name that is not on the datasheet.

people do it because it is easier, and the next step would be to use the same wording/text for all those rules


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:01:30


Post by: Ice_can


Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:03:03


Post by: Jjohnso11


 Grimtuff wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.


It's like they don't even look at these other games and just disagree for the sake of it. I'm not going to count the individual units, but can say with a degree of confidence that WMH has just as many (or extremely close to) units as 40k does.


I just looked at the Warmahordes rule book that you linked. They are doing the exact same thing GW did. Special USR emblem on the bottom of the model card - in the USRs Gunslinger is a special rule.

Is the special rule for Gunslinger on pg. 17 with the rest of the special rules? Of course its not. Its on a different page - fortunately they tell you the different page next to Gunslinger. But why even list it in the USR section if you are going to make me go to a different portion of the book to find it?

You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:06:35


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Lol they don't. They've doubled down on rules and abilities to mirror the lore.

Hence the Raven Guard are truly sneaky, the Iron Hands have the best vehicles, Salamanders have the best flame weapons, Iron Warriors use Cultists as human shields, etc, etc

The new Harlequin rules are amazing and very fitting of the faction. GW rules are actually getting better at mirroring the lore behind the forces.

The next step would be unique detachments to each faction.

So you don't want USRs because you think they ruined 7th edition but you're basically calling for the return of formations. Okie dokey.

And as I've pointed out to you before, cultists were meant for Alpha Legion. Not Iron Warriors or any other legion.


Iron warriors would disagree with you, afterall someone needs to man the trenches.

as for the "formations" wish, are you surprised?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:07:14


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Ice_can wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.


Martel is being overly aggressive about it for sure but his opinion is a correct one IMO.
I only play at the LGS level and there is only one player i know ahs a tendency to invent rules when palying against people that are less knowledgable of the game.
All the others are only looking for a fair game and we trust each other that we wont cheat.

With that in mind, it happens that some of us use rules incorrectly by accident. Many of these are from rules that fit in the "the same but not really". Best example of that is the reroll all vs reroll failed.
A friend and i both play Admech and we were used to the belisarius reroll (any hit). My friend started a pre-codex 2.0 space marine list and was playing his chapter masters as if they were the same reroll. We found out after the game that it wasnt the case and even if it probably wouldnt have changed the outcome of the game, having a better rules foundation would have fixed the issue. Thats what (i think) can be extrapolated from Martel's comment so that it applies to every player.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:07:44


Post by: Spoletta


 Grimtuff wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Tycho wrote:


ATM I'm still anti-USR in terms of a game with the number of units and sub-factions 40k has. Everyone says "Most other games use them", and that's fine, but as far as I know, there aren't any other wargames with the sheer number of units 40k has, so until you can point that out, I'm not convinced?


Ever heard of Warmahordes?

Just as many factions as 40k. 15 as of right now, and that is not even counting the subfactions via theme forces.

And guess what? It uses defined terms, keywords USRs and unique rules all in harmony. What makes 40k so special that it cannot achieve that (ignoring the fact they totally did so in 5th ed 40k...)?


Warmahordes is about a quarter of 40K in terms of models. That is before considering that warmahordes units don't have variations on wargear.

It simply isn't the same scale, and yet they managed to break the system twice already.


Yeah, no.

I really cannot be arsed to go into why you're wrong. I'll just quote this for posterity when you try to backtrack.

Bye.


Quoted

Now you can't go back up either when you realize how wrong you are


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


This has absolutely nothing to do with 7th edition. If 7th edition is your sole reference for USRs, your problem is not with USRs, but with the terrible decisions made and the incompetence of the rules team during the lifetime of that edition. Many people like Olive Garden, but most of those people have never gone to any other Italian restaurant, so have no idea what they're missing. I've said it before, and I will say it again: Read through the rulebooks of non-GW games that use USRs, and notice the difference.

This is not a matter of opinion, this is fact. USRs are necessary to avoid confusion, and ensure all players understand what the rules actually do. Standardization works best, in most cases. I have not seen anyone suggesting that there should be zero unique rules.


And i'm saying that it would be meaningless.
You can't compare the current bespoke system made in this conditions with an USR system made under different conditions.

The current 40K under USR rules is 7th edition. Make your comparisons from that.


You are saying this now. As you move the goalposts, instead of being honest. By your reasoning, we can't compare 8th to 7th, either........


You can't move something that isn't there. Never had a goal in this, both systems are fine for me.

I do happen to like 8th quite a bit more than 7th though, and that's all i need to know.

You talk about rule confusion, but 7th (for me) had much more of that than 8th.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:17:12


Post by: Tycho


You talk about rule confusion, but 7th (for me) had much more of that than 8th.


Yeah, if you talk to tournament organizers who were active in both editions, you'll generally find that they need fewer judges per/player in 8th, and that the judges they do have tend to get far fewer questions.

IMO regardless of where you stand on USRs, 7th was a complete disaster, and likely would have been with or without said USRs. It serves as a cautionary tale more than anything else...


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:20:31


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Jjohnso11 wrote:
You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?
So Angels of Death is spelled out on the datasheet now? What about Codex Discipline? What about what FLY does?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:34:17


Post by: Grimtuff


 Jjohnso11 wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.


It's like they don't even look at these other games and just disagree for the sake of it. I'm not going to count the individual units, but can say with a degree of confidence that WMH has just as many (or extremely close to) units as 40k does.


I just looked at the Warmahordes rule book that you linked. They are doing the exact same thing GW did. Special USR emblem on the bottom of the model card - in the USRs Gunslinger is a special rule.

Is the special rule for Gunslinger on pg. 17 with the rest of the special rules? Of course its not. Its on a different page - fortunately they tell you the different page next to Gunslinger. But why even list it in the USR section if you are going to make me go to a different portion of the book to find it?

You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?


If only they had some kind of app that would take you directly to the rule in question in the rulebook by simply clicking on the icon on the unit's card...

Oh wait, they do have that as it is 2020. GW have a similar feature in their digital codexes so having to hop from page to page (oh, the horror!) is not an issue.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:48:24


Post by: catbarf


Tycho wrote:
So this has been laid out a couple times in the thread, but the thread is a mess, so I'll restate that here. Speaking for just myself obviously.

I'm not saying "It can't work for a game of this size/scope". Not at all. I'm just asking the question. As an example, 5th ed is often held up as one of the best examples of "how well" USRs can work for 40k. And this is where my question comes into play. So much of that edition became so "samey", so bland, so basically boring by half-way through the edition, it started to drop off in a lot of places. Most of the better books from that era ended up being ones that used a ton of bespoke rules to help differentiate the units further. So that's my question - the game has generally only gotten bigger. So how do you "streamline" with a set of reasonable USRS (because again, I haven't seen anyone argue that 20+ pages of USRs is the way to go), while still differentiating factions/units to maintain their unique flavor. Personally, I think you end up with a ton of new bespoke rules that ends up defeating the purpose of the USRs to begin with, but I'm more just asking the question rather than trying to make a strong argument in either direction.


So I get that. You're concerned that either the game moves to USRs and the list gets pared back such that there's no longer variety and flavor and it becomes bland, or that everything is maintained as USRs and we wind up with 100+ USRs and it becomes an un-learnable, convoluted mess.

But what I and others have suggested is neither. I think I wrote this up on a previous page, but I think I'll restate what I would consider optimal:

-Where there are rules that are identical or variations on the same core (eg Deep Strike), give them all the same name and consistent wording. If there are variables (like, this unit can Deep Strike 6" away instead of 9"), that can be a special rule for the unit. This would help to highlight what's mechanically different about it, rather than having to recognize the nuance.

-Where there are rules that are technically different but do largely the same thing, align them to have consistent effects and turn them into USRs. I don't think the difference between 're-roll any' or 're-roll fails' really adds flavor to the game, and I don't understand why Imperial plasma can be modified to explode more or less often but Ork plasma always explodes on an unmodified 1. The distinctions between these rules don't add flavor; they're just inconsistent and inexplicable, so aligning them under consistent USRs would make them easier to learn, understand, and remember.

-Where there are rules that are actually unique to specific armies or units, keep them as unique special rules.

-Where there already are USRs (eg Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, Objective Secured, Fly), give them consistent names and then leave them alone.

Like, I feel like a lot of the anti-USR arguments in this thread are assuming that you can only pick one of the above approaches and apply it to every single rule in the game. I don't believe that's the case. I just want to see identical rules have the same name, functionally-identical rules be made actually identical so we stop having to play hunt-the-nuance, and truly special rules should be left alone. Nothing there implies sucking the flavor out of the factions; unless you really, sincerely believe that giving Orks 're-roll either die when charging' and Behemoth 're-roll both dice or neither when charging' is necessary to distinguish them from one another. If you feel that the names of special rules give them flavor, I would be completely fine with seeing an ability written like:

Teleport Insertion: insert fluff text for teleport deployment here.
Deep Strike- [insert rules text for Deep Strike here].

I just don't see why some are treating this like such an unreasonable request. Even just the fact that we casually use terms like Deep Strike and Feel No Pain here shows how useful it is to have consistent, universal language.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 19:54:45


Post by: Jjohnso11


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Jjohnso11 wrote:
You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?
So Angels of Death is spelled out on the datasheet now? What about Codex Discipline? What about what FLY does?


No clue what you're talking about? I asked a question and you answered my question with three questions.

So are you arguing for USRs in the MRB or for more details to be on a unit card?

 Grimtuff wrote:

If only they had some kind of app that would take you directly to the rule in question in the rulebook by simply clicking on the icon on the unit's card...

Oh wait, they do have that as it is 2020. GW have a similar feature in their digital codexes so having to hop from page to page (oh, the horror!) is not an issue.


Yeah definitely never using my phone to play a table top game.

So you don't think having everything easily accessible on one page is a good idea?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 20:03:51


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Jjohnso11 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Jjohnso11 wrote:
You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?
So Angels of Death is spelled out on the datasheet now? What about Codex Discipline? What about what FLY does?


No clue what you're talking about? I asked a question and you answered my question with three questions.

So are you arguing for USRs in the MRB or for more details to be on a unit card?
You claimed that having to look at a different page to see what a rule does is bad and evil, I showed that this happens in 8th already. Thus, implementing USRs that consolidate things that are common to almost all (if not all) armies, such as Deep Strike, Ignore Wounds, etc. won't change anything for the worse, and will change things for the better.

Can you imagine if Combat Doctrines was spelled out on every single datasheet? Even GW realised that the "All rules on the datasheet" fiction is just that, fiction.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 20:16:27


Post by: Vaktathi


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Lol they don't. They've doubled down on rules and abilities to mirror the lore.

Hence the Raven Guard are truly sneaky, the Iron Hands have the best vehicles, Salamanders have the best flame weapons, Iron Warriors use Cultists as human shields, etc, etc

The new Harlequin rules are amazing and very fitting of the faction. GW rules are actually getting better at mirroring the lore behind the forces.

The next step would be unique detachments to each faction.

So you don't want USRs because you think they ruined 7th edition but you're basically calling for the return of formations. Okie dokey.

And as I've pointed out to you before, cultists were meant for Alpha Legion. Not Iron Warriors or any other legion.


Iron warriors would disagree with you, afterall someone needs to man the trenches.

I've played Iron Warriors for many editions, not until 8E with its Fearless bubble warlord trait have cultists particularly associated with Iron Warriors, and that's mainly a reflection of metagame mechanics more than actual fluff. Prior to that, Iron Warrior's have never really especially been known for employing mortal human forces that I can recall, the only mention I can remember being Dead Sky Black Sun, where they're far more equivalent to Imperial Guard forces (and are described as having uniforms and the like if I'm remembering correctly) than anything resembling Cultists, and only really appear present on Medrengard among the constant infighting of that world, not accompanying the Iron Warriors on campaign at places like Hydra Cordatus in the book Storm of Iron (featuring many of the same characters as DSBS) or other such battles IIRC.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 20:17:08


Post by: Jjohnso11


 BaconCatBug wrote:

You claimed that having to look at a different page to see what a rule does is bad and evil, I showed that this happens in 8th already. Thus, implementing USRs that consolidate things that are common to almost all (if not all) armies, such as Deep Strike, Ignore Wounds, etc. won't change anything for the worse, and will change things for the better.

Can you imagine if Combat Doctrines was spelled out on every single datasheet? Even GW realised that the "All rules on the datasheet" fiction is just that, fiction.


I made zero claims that they are bad or evil. I asked if it was easier and more efficient to dig through a rule book or look at the individual rules on the data sheet.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 21:00:16


Post by: Martel732


Ice_can wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.


They don't openly lie or cheat. They "misinterpret" or "forget". Or interpret GW's crappy rules in their favor. I'd have to do this with anyone the way GW writes rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.


Martel is being overly aggressive about it for sure but his opinion is a correct one IMO.
I only play at the LGS level and there is only one player i know ahs a tendency to invent rules when palying against people that are less knowledgable of the game.
All the others are only looking for a fair game and we trust each other that we wont cheat.

With that in mind, it happens that some of us use rules incorrectly by accident. Many of these are from rules that fit in the "the same but not really". Best example of that is the reroll all vs reroll failed.
A friend and i both play Admech and we were used to the belisarius reroll (any hit). My friend started a pre-codex 2.0 space marine list and was playing his chapter masters as if they were the same reroll. We found out after the game that it wasnt the case and even if it probably wouldnt have changed the outcome of the game, having a better rules foundation would have fixed the issue. Thats what (i think) can be extrapolated from Martel's comment so that it applies to every player.


I was only being aggressive towards Ishagu. He's the exact kind of player who will both legitimately misunderstand AND read something his way. Two problems to watch out for. Part of it is that I've been fighting this since 2nd ed. "What is XXXX mean? Does it mean Y? Does it mean Z? Does it mean something that we aren't even considering?"


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 21:32:14


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


It is funny that earlier in the thread I was essentially accused of being resistant to change. Getting rid of USRs was part of the big change to 8th Edition, so maybe its the other way around? In any case, there is no right or wrong here. The game developers made a bold decision, and appear to have been successful. Doesn't make USRs "wrong", but the 8th Edition method has to be considered successful and a valid design choice.

If I want to play Warmachine I will play Warmachine - to each his own.

I think its hard to argue against the success of 8th Edition's shift to accessibility. Its on top of the heap with new and returning players. Slim core rules and your Codex - away you go. You learn your Faction Rules that apply to all your units- you are only taking on the rules load for your faction. You then look at the datasheets for the rules that specifically apply to the units that you are fielding - again the rules load is focused on what you are bringing in terms of units. The toughest part, I suppose, of the rules for each faction are the Stratagems. Still, you are focused on learning the rules for your dudes and not the whole enchilada so to speak. A new player can play Open Play with just what's on their card with a slimmer core rules than he would face with USRs. I've been playing Advanced Song of Blades of Heroes - cute game but the USRs are crippling to the experience.

The lore-text for units that arrive mid-battle and other common abilities is fun and harmless - I've never encountered confusion. Your USRs are there - they are implicit and not an explicit annex in the rules. Its a new way of designing rules, and it would seem that the two most successful games employ this new (old) method.

I could see players who want to play multiple factions without having the Codexes being a little frustrated with the lack of USRs. I play three factions and have the Codexes for all three plus their supplements (well, for two of them). If I suddenly wanted to play Genestealer Cults I think its reasonable that I would buy the Codex and read it before playing. Just because the game is more accessible doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn when you decide to play a new faction. Its part of the fun for me.

I know that some will reject all this - thats cool. I'll keep on playing 40K (when we can get back to playing). Unless some folks here are GW Game Developers I guess this is all academic.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 21:33:58


Post by: BaconCatBug


"8th made money so the rules must be good" is a complete fallacy. 8th made money because GW finally realised how to market and advertise and pump out shovelware video games, thus exposing people to the brand, and literally ANYTHING would have been better than 7th.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 21:34:40


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem.

Why? I mean, that's such a random assumption!
7th was still kirby-land. That makes a huge difference with 8th.
Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?
 Ishagu wrote:
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

If the rule has the same name, you can always tweak the datasheet to replace the rule on one datasheet and not the other.
Also, could you please explain the interaction between quicksilver swiftness and belt of russ please?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 21:56:02


Post by: insaniak


Tycho wrote:

ATM I'm still anti-USR in terms of a game with the number of units and sub-factions 40k has. Everyone says "Most other games use them", and that's fine, but as far as I know, there aren't any other wargames with the sheer number of units 40k has, so until you can point that out, I'm not convinced?

This is backwards. The fact that 40K has more units available than every other game out there is a reason to have USRs... because with a wider range of units, all with their own special snowflake rules, you just wind up with an exponentially larger number of rules that you need to learn to play the game.



One of the complaints about 2nd ed (towards the end of the edition), was that you needed a lot of supplemental material to play a game.

That was never a complaint about 2nd ed, from my experience. The only supplemental material you needed (or that even existed, unless you counted the Citadel Journal, which nobody used) was Dark Millenium, and the FAQs that were printed in White Dwarf. And even there, most of the FAQs weren't strictly necessary, just for clarification purposes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.

It's not just about trusting your opponent, though, it's about knowing the rules well enough to actually play the game. It's bloody frustrating trying to play against an army with a bunch of special rules you're not familiar with. It's an awful lot easier to learn those special rules when they're included in a concise list in the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem. .

It really, really isn't. 7th edition was a mess. 5th edition would be, IMO, the best example of 40K using a USR system.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 22:00:16


Post by: Vaktathi


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It is funny that earlier in the thread I was essentially accused of being resistant to change. Getting rid of USRs was part of the big change to 8th Edition, so maybe its the other way around? In any case, there is no right or wrong here. The game developers made a bold decision, and appear to have been successful. Doesn't make USRs "wrong", but the 8th Edition method has to be considered successful and a valid design choice.

If I want to play Warmachine I will play Warmachine - to each his own.

I think its hard to argue against the success of 8th Edition's shift to accessibility. Its on top of the heap with new and returning players. Slim core rules and your Codex - away you go. You learn your Faction Rules that apply to all your units- you are only taking on the rules load for your faction. You then look at the datasheets for the rules that specifically apply to the units that you are fielding - again the rules load is focused on what you are bringing in terms of units. The toughest part, I suppose, of the rules for each faction are the Stratagems. Still, you are focused on learning the rules for your dudes and not the whole enchilada so to speak. A new player can play Open Play with just what's on their card with a slimmer core rules than he would face with USRs. I've been playing Advanced Song of Blades of Heroes - cute game but the USRs are crippling to the experience.

The lore-text for units that arrive mid-battle and other common abilities is fun and harmless - I've never encountered confusion. Your USRs are there - they are implicit and not an explicit annex in the rules. Its a new way of designing rules, and it would seem that the two most successful games employ this new (old) method.

I could see players who want to play multiple factions without having the Codexes being a little frustrated with the lack of USRs. I play three factions and have the Codexes for all three plus their supplements (well, for two of them). If I suddenly wanted to play Genestealer Cults I think its reasonable that I would buy the Codex and read it before playing. Just because the game is more accessible doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn when you decide to play a new faction. Its part of the fun for me.

I know that some will reject all this - thats cool. I'll keep on playing 40K (when we can get back to playing). Unless some folks here are GW Game Developers I guess this is all academic.
I would hesitate to attribute 8E's success to anything related to this particular issue.

6E and 7E made zero attempt at game balance (yeah slap D weapons on that Wraithknight, no don't increase the cost!) with zero Errata and minimal FAQ, coupled with rules source bloat and literal pay-to-win rules (hello web-exclusive skyhammer elimination formation tied to online sales bundles) with atrocious issues of execution of otherwise sound ideas, and vehicle mechanics that fundamentally didn't function well, alongside a Games Workshop that was actively and intentionally disconnected from the playerbase. GW has turned a corner on many of these things, and while 8E has many problems, GW did make great strides in improving in these areas, but I don't think the idea of USR's vs Bespoke rules really has anything to do with 8E's success either way.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 22:06:17


Post by: Vankraken


 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?


Because 7th is the boogyman that some people like to break out whenever you challenge that 8th has problems. It's easy to prop up 8th and "the new GW" when you have 7th to punch on and demonize. If it was a 7th thing then it must be bad despite there being a lot of good potential in the edition (a lot of it the foundation established with 4th and 5th edition). It just got destroyed by a lot of rampant power creep sales tactics and reckless rules writing (a lot of which is still happening in 8th).

That being said I still believe 7th is still a better edition than 8th when it comes to having fun gameplay mechanics and enjoyable games. 8th is dreadfully boring and rapidly becoming the sort of bloated mess than people rag on 7th about.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 22:21:20


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Vankraken wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?


Because 7th is the boogyman that some people like to break out whenever you challenge that 8th has problems. It's easy to prop up 8th and "the new GW" when you have 7th to punch on and demonize. If it was a 7th thing then it must be bad despite there being a lot of good potential in the edition (a lot of it the foundation established with 4th and 5th edition). It just got destroyed by a lot of rampant power creep sales tactics and reckless rules writing (a lot of which is still happening in 8th).

That being said I still believe 7th is still a better edition than 8th when it comes to having fun gameplay mechanics and enjoyable games. 8th is dreadfully boring and rapidly becoming the sort of bloated mess than people rag on 7th about.

AKA "It's just giraffe gak you're dealing with not elephant gak, so be grateful".


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 22:28:49


Post by: Arbitrator


 Vankraken wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?


Because 7th is the boogyman that some people like to break out whenever you challenge that 8th has problems. It's easy to prop up 8th and "the new GW" when you have 7th to punch on and demonize. If it was a 7th thing then it must be bad despite there being a lot of good potential in the edition (a lot of it the foundation established with 4th and 5th edition). It just got destroyed by a lot of rampant power creep sales tactics and reckless rules writing (a lot of which is still happening in 8th).

Pretty much this. I'm sure if 9th comes out with USRs, templates and facings, the same detractors now will declare it a genius move on GW's part to bring them back and that they always said they missed them (except when they said they didn't).


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 22:40:51


Post by: insaniak


How about we stick with discussing the rules rather than denigrating other posters, hmm?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/12 23:45:50


Post by: Hellebore


to repeat the refrain:

Universal Standard Rules are simply standardisation of mechanics to streamline the game and reduce the effort of players in learning how to play.

A USR does NOT preclude the use of Bespoke Rules, it does NOT prevent you printing them on a unit's data sheet.

you can take the current game and convert many of the special rules units use to USRs and NOTHING WOULD CHANGE, except that those rules would be consistent and players would know that when their opponent said 'I'm deep striking this unit x inches', it meant the same thing as the deep strike rule found on their unit datasheets, or in their books.


There are many ways to implement USRs, just because you can conceive of a terrible way to implement them does not mean that all implentations are bad.

Bespoke rules however, for ease of learning the rules and playing the game, will never be as simple as USRs being learned once.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 02:31:05


Post by: alextroy


USRs are fine, but they just don't seem to provide what GW wants to serve up. Let's take the various Ignore Wounds (aka Feel No Pain) as a example. GW could make a USR:

Ignore Wounds (x+): When a model in the target unit would lose a wound, on a d6 roll of X+ they do not lose that wound. On one use of Ignore Wounds can be used against any wound the model loses.

It could then assign each model this USR. You would have a functional, but rather bland rules. But we all know that GW wants thematic rules that packs flavor into the unit. That's why we have rules called Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak,Tenacious Survivor and so on. The name of the rule tells a story. Disgustingly Resilient and Ramshackle may be functionally the same, but they tell a different story.

Personally, I do think there is a good middle ground, with this being a good example:

USR (or new basic rule sidebar)
Ignore Wounds: Some models are more resilient their their statistics indicate, and have an ability that will allow them to ignore wounds lost in certain circumstances, normally on a die roll. When damage is inflicted, a model may use one ability to Ignore Wounds for each point of damage inflicted on it. If successful, that point of damage is discard to no effect.

Disgustingly Resilient: Those favored by Nurgle are inured to pain, their rotting bodies shrugging off all but the most traumatic wounds. Models with with rule may Ignore Wounds on a d6 roll of 5+.

Tenacious Surviver: This Warlord Ignore Wounds on a d6 roll of 6+.

This increase rules comprehension without moving the rules to a sterile FNP (5+) USR.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 02:54:57


Post by: Gadzilla666


 alextroy wrote:
USRs are fine, but they just don't seem to provide what GW wants to serve up. Let's take the various Ignore Wounds (aka Feel No Pain) as a example. GW could make a USR:

Ignore Wounds (x+): When a model in the target unit would lose a wound, on a d6 roll of X+ they do not lose that wound. On one use of Ignore Wounds can be used against any wound the model loses.

It could then assign each model this USR. You would have a functional, but rather bland rules. But we all know that GW wants thematic rules that packs flavor into the unit. That's why we have rules called Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak,Tenacious Survivor and so on. The name of the rule tells a story. Disgustingly Resilient and Ramshackle may be functionally the same, but they tell a different story.

Personally, I do think there is a good middle ground, with this being a good example:

USR (or new basic rule sidebar)
Ignore Wounds: Some models are more resilient their their statistics indicate, and have an ability that will allow them to ignore wounds lost in certain circumstances, normally on a die roll. When damage is inflicted, a model may use one ability to Ignore Wounds for each point of damage inflicted on it. If successful, that point of damage is discard to no effect.

Disgustingly Resilient: Those favored by Nurgle are inured to pain, their rotting bodies shrugging off all but the most traumatic wounds. Models with with rule may Ignore Wounds on a d6 roll of 5+.

Tenacious Surviver: This Warlord Ignore Wounds on a d6 roll of 6+.

This increase rules comprehension without moving the rules to a sterile FNP (5+) USR.

Yes, exactly, and those can be written on a unit's data sheet, or in an armie's special rules, in warlord traits, strategems, etc. That's exactly what we've been arguing for.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 03:00:16


Post by: JNAProductions


Apparently, 40k lore is so shallow that non-fluffy names on datasheets for the game make all units bland and samey.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 03:44:33


Post by: alextroy


Well, based on the way GW writes the rules, you are correct.

Or maybe they want more flavor than USRs allow. You can make perfectly fine food with just salt and pepper, but that doesn't means you shouldn't use a wider variety of spices.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 03:45:22


Post by: JNAProductions


 alextroy wrote:
Well, based on the way GW writes the rules, you are correct.

Or maybe they want more flavor than USRs allow. You can make perfectly fine food with just salt and pepper, but that doesn't means you shouldn't use a wider variety of spices.
So, more fluff in the datasheets is better, right?

Because if so, you should be all over my proposition for how to put USRs on datasheets. It has MORE FLUFF than what's currently present.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 03:46:18


Post by: Gadzilla666


 JNAProductions wrote:
Apparently, 40k lore is so shallow that non-fluffy names on datasheets for the game make all units bland and samey.

Yes, apparently for many players. Personally I think what makes units boring is taking away their special abilities and replacing them with strategems. I really don't care if the rules have fluffy names. I just want them to be there. My contemptor was way more fun when it had fleet and could reliably make a charge out of a deep strike from a dreadclaw. But I guess "Machine Malifica" is more fun because it's a fancy name.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 03:48:20


Post by: Luke_Prowler


 JNAProductions wrote:
Apparently, 40k lore is so shallow that non-fluffy names on datasheets for the game make all units bland and samey.

Fluffy names don't even necessarily keep something from being bland! The name for the Stormboyz' version of deep strike? It's literally just called "Stormboyz Strike". Literally the least inspired thing they could have called it. "Deep Strike" would have actually been more interesting as a name,


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 04:09:53


Post by: Vaktathi


The attachment to special rules *names* for their own sake puzzles me, particularly for rules that are otherwise identical to those shared by dozens of other units, especially when it's the kind of thing that changes routinely with codex updates, edition changes, etc.

Playing this game through most of its editions, it just seems something of an odd hill to choose to take a stand on, and it's not like a single blurb of flavor text on the datasheet can't be used to do the same thing e.g. "Plaguebearers are disgustingly resilient, they benefit from FNP (5+)". You can still adjust or fine tune that to a different value and there's still flavor text if one demands it, but it accomplishes the same thing without having dozens of different rules that do the exact same thing.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 05:34:49


Post by: Spoletta


 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem.

Why? I mean, that's such a random assumption!
7th was still kirby-land. That makes a huge difference with 8th.
Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?
 Ishagu wrote:
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

If the rule has the same name, you can always tweak the datasheet to replace the rule on one datasheet and not the other.
Also, could you please explain the interaction between quicksilver swiftness and belt of russ please?


7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th.

What makes you all believe that if GW were to do it all over it would end up as anything different?

I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.

I'm quite convinced that the 8th edition has been designed around bespoke rules due to design constraints.

When you need to rush a lot of products, you WILL generate a lot of errors. A bespoke rule system allows them to correct mistakes on one publication with minimal impact on the other ones.

I think that we can all remember changes to USR having indirect and terrificant impacts on the game, even in 5th.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 05:44:17


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Spoletta wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem.

Why? I mean, that's such a random assumption!
7th was still kirby-land. That makes a huge difference with 8th.
Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?
 Ishagu wrote:
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

If the rule has the same name, you can always tweak the datasheet to replace the rule on one datasheet and not the other.
Also, could you please explain the interaction between quicksilver swiftness and belt of russ please?


7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th.

What makes you all believe that if GW were to do it all over it would end up as anything different?

I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.

I'm quite convinced that the 8th edition has been designed around bespoke rules due to design constraints.

When you need to rush a lot of products, you WILL generate a lot of errors. A bespoke rule system allows them to correct mistakes on one publication with minimal impact on the other ones.

I think that we can all remember changes to USR having indirect and terrificant impacts on the game, even in 5th.

Or they could not rush the designers and giving us crap product that NEEDS that much fixing.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 05:46:48


Post by: AnomanderRake


Spoletta wrote:
...7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th...


How so? There were rules for Flyers and Superheavies at least as far back as 3rd Edition (the original Imperial Armour book was 2000).


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 05:53:24


Post by: insaniak


 alextroy wrote:
Well, based on the way GW writes the rules, you are correct.

Or maybe they want more flavor than USRs allow. You can make perfectly fine food with just salt and pepper, but that doesn't means you shouldn't use a wider variety of spices.

Sure. But when the recipe book calls for a quarter teaspoon each of Cassia, Cinnamon, Burmannii, Korintje, Loureiroi and Citriodorum, I can't help but think it would be a damn sight easier for it to just ask for a spoon and a half of Cinnamon.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 05:58:15


Post by: Vaktathi


Spoletta wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem.

Why? I mean, that's such a random assumption!
7th was still kirby-land. That makes a huge difference with 8th.
Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?
 Ishagu wrote:
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

If the rule has the same name, you can always tweak the datasheet to replace the rule on one datasheet and not the other.
Also, could you please explain the interaction between quicksilver swiftness and belt of russ please?


7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th.

What makes you all believe that if GW were to do it all over it would end up as anything different?

I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.

I'm quite convinced that the 8th edition has been designed around bespoke rules due to design constraints.

When you need to rush a lot of products, you WILL generate a lot of errors. A bespoke rule system allows them to correct mistakes on one publication with minimal impact on the other ones.

I think that we can all remember changes to USR having indirect and terrificant impacts on the game, even in 5th.

It's not like GW have actually made meaningful bespoke individual changes to most things that would be USR's (like Deep Strike, in the vast majority of cases it's all the same "deploy 9 inches away" copy-pasta'd text), and they've essentially already done USR's with FAQ/Errata with stuff like changes to reserves, stratagem usage, CP generation, detachment limits, etc without it turning into any sort of confused rules mess (yes there were metagame impacts, but that was also the intent). Given that GW has copypastad tons of rules, simply slapping different names on them (such as Deep Strike) with little or no variation in functionality, it's hard to see what dread would have resulted from USR's for things like Deep Strike (and it's why they introduced what actually is a USR in curbing turn 1 mass DS lists instead of updating each one individually for matched play). I'm having trouble seeing where having to update a gazillion differently named but identically functioning rules is easier than adjusting one central rule, and I can't recall any USR changes in 5th that caused tremendously terrible impacts on the game off the top of my head.

As much as I feel like a broken record, I feel like I again have to point out other tabletop miniatures games like Heavy Gear, where there's as many units as 40k, and almost everything is done through a single central list of USR's.




What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 06:29:22


Post by: Brutus_Apex


I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.


Actually, it would be a lot easier to manage their schedule with USRs.

The rules have already been written. They just need to assign the proper USR's to the units to perform their tasks correctly.

Nothing else is needed. You don't need to make up some stuff to add, its already included in the main rules.

Additionally, it would be less of a burden for players because we already know the rules and don't have to memorize a bunch of new ones.

See how easy USR's are?

Furthermore, 7th edition fundamentally was better written than 8th. But they ignored the USR's they made in the main book and added more special rules on top to units that ruined it, also formations. You can't look to 7th as an example of USR's because they didn't do them properly in the first place because they had bespoke rules on top of USR's. Hence why it was bad.

Again, there is no real argument against USR's. Nothing is better than them, everything to the contrary has been proven wrong.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 06:40:27


Post by: Jidmah


 insaniak wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Well, based on the way GW writes the rules, you are correct.

Or maybe they want more flavor than USRs allow. You can make perfectly fine food with just salt and pepper, but that doesn't means you shouldn't use a wider variety of spices.

Sure. But when the recipe book calls for a quarter teaspoon each of Cassia, Cinnamon, Burmannii, Korintje, Loureiroi and Citriodorum, I can't help but think it would be a damn sight easier for it to just ask for a spoon and a half of Cinnamon.


As a matter of fact, I'm currently developing software handling exactly this problem, and I can assure you that all of them are combined under the "USR" cinnamon


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 08:38:56


Post by: Not Online!!!


Spoiler:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.


Actually, it would be a lot easier to manage their schedule with USRs.

The rules have already been written. They just need to assign the proper USR's to the units to perform their tasks correctly.

Nothing else is needed. You don't need to make up some stuff to add, its already included in the main rules.

Additionally, it would be less of a burden for players because we already know the rules and don't have to memorize a bunch of new ones.

See how easy USR's are?

Furthermore, 7th edition fundamentally was better written than 8th. But they ignored the USR's they made in the main book and added more special rules on top to units that ruined it, also formations. You can't look to 7th as an example of USR's because they didn't do them properly in the first place because they had bespoke rules on top of USR's. Hence why it was bad.

Again, there is no real argument against USR's. Nothing is better than them, everything to the contrary has been proven wrong.


Don't let that be seen by Ishagu.
GW knows BEST!

Allways, especially in the case of rules and balance!!


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 09:31:02


Post by: Slipspace


 Vaktathi wrote:
The attachment to special rules *names* for their own sake puzzles me, particularly for rules that are otherwise identical to those shared by dozens of other units, especially when it's the kind of thing that changes.

Same here. Taking just the argument that bespoke rules are more fluffy or thematic, I have a number of problems with it.

1. The majority of the background info for this game is not in the rules, but in the background sections of the Codex or the lore section of the rulebook. More recently there's been more novels and other Black Library material released to supplement this. Using USRs - or not - doesn't change this fact.

2. In terms of playing the game itself, whether a unit is properly represented thematically is almost entirely down to the mechanics of its rules, not their name. If I'm playing, say, Blood Angels, I want to see rules that allow me to deploy my shock assault troops direct from orbit right into the heart of the enemy and make me more dangerous when I charge. The name of the rule is orders of magnitude less relevant to how it actually works when I'm playing the game. I don't see how playing the game is significantly improved by my units having mechanically identical rules but the Death Company has Jump Pack Assault while the Terminators have Teleport Strike. What matters is how those mechanics relate to the theme of the army. The way some people talk about needing fluffy names for their rules it's like their just shouting rules names at each other across the table rather than actually playing the game.

3. Even taking all that into consideration, USRs do not prevent you using fluffy names if you want

As to whether people are in denial or too intractable, I think the frustration on the pro-USR side stems from how the other side of the argument just doesn't seem to be engaging with the points. How many times do the same issues need to be brought up and refuted in one thread? I think what we've seen is an attempt by the pro-USR side to justify their points and then those points being constantly ignored. It's frustrating in the extreme, TBH.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 10:56:43


Post by: Not Online!!!


Heck you can still give it a fluffy name and then add the USR

Refuses to die: FNP 4+


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 12:59:24


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
Heck you can still give it a fluffy name and then add the USR

Refuses to die: FNP 4+

Yeah, we've all pointed that out, repeatedly. You can still have a fluffy name, put the full rule on the data sheet, still have bespoke rules where necessary, etc, etc. No one listens. *shrug*


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 13:57:22


Post by: Ice_can


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Heck you can still give it a fluffy name and then add the USR

Refuses to die: FNP 4+

Yeah, we've all pointed that out, repeatedly. You can still have a fluffy name, put the full rule on the data sheet, still have bespoke rules where necessary, etc, etc. No one listens. *shrug*

The issue is as with many discussions on Dakka is the center of both arguments tend to reach a level of agreement or atleast common understanding and then the extremists of each view point keep tryibg to move the goal posts and derailing the thread.

E.g. some have said all bodyguard rules should be the same across every unit.
All FNP's should be the same(ie FNP is ignore wounds on a 5+)

Some are calling for things like FNP or deepstrike to esentially be keywords with a variable value. Which is far more reasonable just wish I trusted the 40k designers not to find a way to duck up such a system.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 14:03:14


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Ice_can wrote:
wish I trusted the 40k designers

Me too, man, me too. It's baffling why the designers would deliberately design a bad game.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 14:10:28


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
wish I trusted the 40k designers

Me too, man, me too. It's baffling why the designers would deliberately design a bad game.
Hanlon's razor applies. They aren't malicious, they just are that incompetent.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 14:18:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
wish I trusted the 40k designers

Me too, man, me too. It's baffling why the designers would deliberately design a bad game.
Hanlon's razor applies. They aren't malicious, they just are that incompetent.

I don't want to go that far. They're making bank, which is, after all, their goal. 8th edition really brought 40k back from the brink; it was losing market share pretty badly.

But it could be so much better still.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 14:43:40


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
wish I trusted the 40k designers

Me too, man, me too. It's baffling why the designers would deliberately design a bad game.
Hanlon's razor applies. They aren't malicious, they just are that incompetent.

I don't want to go that far. They're making bank, which is, after all, their goal. 8th edition really brought 40k back from the brink; it was losing market share pretty badly.

But it could be so much better still.
It making bank has nothing to do with the rules being good, it has to do with Indexhammer being dumbed down STREAMLINED; with GW finally learning how to do marketing and "wacky" social media presence; and 40k shovel-ware video games introducing people to the brand.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 15:14:46


Post by: Insectum7


Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 15:17:33


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 15:19:43


Post by: catbarf


 alextroy wrote:
It could then assign each model this USR. You would have a functional, but rather bland rules. But we all know that GW wants thematic rules that packs flavor into the unit. That's why we have rules called Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak,Tenacious Survivor and so on. The name of the rule tells a story. Disgustingly Resilient and Ramshackle may be functionally the same, but they tell a different story.


Which actually conveys more fluff/theme- the way GW currently does it:

Disgustingly Resilient- Each time a model in this unit loses a wound, roll a D6; on a roll of 5 or 6, the model does not lose that wound.


Or the way we are actually advocating:

Disgustingly Resilient- The worshippers of the god of decay are supernaturally resistant to injury, easily shrugging off wounds that would kill a mortal man.
Ignore Wounds (5+)- Each time a model in this unit loses a wound, roll a D6; on a roll of 5 or 6, the model does not lose that wound. A model with multiple Ignore Wounds abilities may only roll once against each lost wound; select which ability to use before rolling.


You get the same fluffy name, you get a fluff description to go with it, you get a USR-based rules implementation for clarity and consistency, and you get a full definition of the USR on the datasheet so you don't need to go hunt it down elsewhere.

If that's too much to put on a datasheet, then you can remove the description and keep the fluffy label, with the definition of that label being a USR. Same amount of fluff as there currently is, but adding the USR keyword streamlines the rule and makes it easier to recognize at a glance.

Even if we accept the (IMO, extreme) premise that calling it Disgustingly Resilient rather than Feel No Pain is essential to differentiating armies and giving them fluff, you can still have that with USRs. This is, like, the most weirdly minor thing to cling to.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 15:29:41


Post by: Insectum7


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...

Disagree, the 50 USRs in the 7th main rulebook was a stupid format from the get-go. Simply the format of having weapon special rules with the weapon lising was a vast improvement.

I'm all for USRs, but a line had been crossed somwhere between 4th and 7th with Armorbane, Fleshbane, Shred etc. Imo there's a good distinction to be made between certain unit special rules and weapon special rules.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 15:35:04


Post by: Amishprn86


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...


Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.

The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.

How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 16:03:56


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...

Disagree, the 50 USRs in the 7th main rulebook was a stupid format from the get-go. Simply the format of having weapon special rules with the weapon lising was a vast improvement.

I'm all for USRs, but a line had been crossed somwhere between 4th and 7th with Armorbane, Fleshbane, Shred etc. Imo there's a good distinction to be made between certain unit special rules and weapon special rules.

Fleshbane probably didn't need to be a thing with Poison still existing but that overall doesn't help prove your point as those each did several things.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 16:04:27


Post by: Ice_can


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...


Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.

The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.

How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?

Becuase your base assumption is at fault, you are assuming that every player needs to know every rule for every faction, that is simply not true.
Peopke playing middle to top competitive will know a large percentage yeah sure but even they don't try to know every rule for every faction. That's the faulty logic in your argument.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 16:04:52


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...


Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.

The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.

How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?

Challanges were a fantastic idea with fething terrible execution. 7th did slightly better than 6th with it but not by much.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 16:08:56


Post by: Amishprn86


Ice_can wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...


Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.

The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.

How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?

Becuase your base assumption is at fault, you are assuming that every player needs to know every rule for every faction, that is simply not true.
Peopke playing middle to top competitive will know a large percentage yeah sure but even they don't try to know every rule for every faction. That's the faulty logic in your argument.


You are assuming i said all. When i did not. I could have shown ALL stratagems and combos that worked on Troupes, i only highlighted literally the ones that will be played. And you are assuming i said all units which i did not. You do need to know a large amount of stratagems/combos for a large amount of units, that was the point.

There literally is no denying that you need to know well over 100 stratagems/combos to be effective in 40k right now.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 17:34:53


Post by: Ice_can


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...


Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.

The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.

How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?

Becuase your base assumption is at fault, you are assuming that every player needs to know every rule for every faction, that is simply not true.
Peopke playing middle to top competitive will know a large percentage yeah sure but even they don't try to know every rule for every faction. That's the faulty logic in your argument.


You are assuming i said all. When i did not. I could have shown ALL stratagems and combos that worked on Troupes, i only highlighted literally the ones that will be played. And you are assuming i said all units which i did not. You do need to know a large amount of stratagems/combos for a large amount of units, that was the point.

There literally is no denying that you need to know well over 100 stratagems/combos to be effective in 40k right now.

Your starting out that everyone is trying to play at events and even win them for your example. That's not how a large proportion of the people even those at events are even aiming for, most will learn other factiosn rules by playing against them over time.
Also even at events some of us dont have to put up with this toxic american WAAC rules lawyering BS that you and Martel keep insisting the game is, maybe remove those people from your events and they might be better. For most people 40k is supposed to be a friendly game even in competition that they play to enjoy.

By insisting everything must by a BRB USR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 18:27:54


Post by: Amishprn86


Ice_can wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...


Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.

The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.

How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?

Becuase your base assumption is at fault, you are assuming that every player needs to know every rule for every faction, that is simply not true.
Peopke playing middle to top competitive will know a large percentage yeah sure but even they don't try to know every rule for every faction. That's the faulty logic in your argument.


You are assuming i said all. When i did not. I could have shown ALL stratagems and combos that worked on Troupes, i only highlighted literally the ones that will be played. And you are assuming i said all units which i did not. You do need to know a large amount of stratagems/combos for a large amount of units, that was the point.

There literally is no denying that you need to know well over 100 stratagems/combos to be effective in 40k right now.

Your starting out that everyone is trying to play at events and even win them for your example. That's not how a large proportion of the people even those at events are even aiming for, most will learn other factiosn rules by playing against them over time.
Also even at events some of us dont have to put up with this toxic american WAAC rules lawyering BS that you and Martel keep insisting the game is, maybe remove those people from your events and they might be better. For most people 40k is supposed to be a friendly game even in competition that they play to enjoy.

By insisting everything must by a BRB USR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published


Its not about events, its about if you want to play to a degree of "i would like to know the game and be at least somewhat good" which is more players than comp.

And i'm no insisting everything be USR at all, i never said that. I am stating that what GW is doing now isn't better than USR, and from many peoples POV it is worst.

New players has to memorize a crap tone right now anyways, how is that any different? A new player coming in right now needs an insane amount of faqs just to start the game, then their armies and stratagems (sure they can look it up, but again, they will have to know them one day or another and if they at least want to play well will need to know their opponents)

USR don't mean no flexibility, we have cover this already many times, you can have USR and specialist rules for units that needs them, see 5th Genestealers and Mandrakes for special DSing rules (funny, GSC basically has Mandrakes rules from 5th). Having special units feel special might actually be a benefit for the game compare to every unit having something special. What was that saying? "When everyone is special, then no one is".

PS for the 5th time, i want a few USR, mainly unit type USR so we can balance the game a lot better, like MCs being able to fight multi floors, Bike stopping falling back vs infantry, and cover rules to help them or hurt them moreso, kinda like Fly and now Airborne.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 19:08:15


Post by: Insectum7


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...

Disagree, the 50 USRs in the 7th main rulebook was a stupid format from the get-go. Simply the format of having weapon special rules with the weapon lising was a vast improvement.

I'm all for USRs, but a line had been crossed somwhere between 4th and 7th with Armorbane, Fleshbane, Shred etc. Imo there's a good distinction to be made between certain unit special rules and weapon special rules.

Fleshbane probably didn't need to be a thing with Poison still existing but that overall doesn't help prove your point as those each did several things.

I could care less what they did, what I care about is how it was presented. The presentation made the game less accessible because far too many rules for units and weapons weren't in the books that defined units and weapons. Having a list of abilities with a unit and weapon/s, then having to look at five different pages across two books for basic information, sucked. Datasheets with the rules on them is far less opaque, and way more accessible for new players.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 19:10:21


Post by: JNAProductions


And none of that precludes having USRs.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 19:15:46


Post by: Charistoph


 JNAProductions wrote:
And none of that precludes having USRs.

Very true. Part way through 6th, I started making basic cards like Warmachine used. I listed the rules. While I didn't write them out, I did the next best thing by providing a reference point (book, p#) to quickly look up the rule. I started updating it for 7th, but never finished it before dropping the game over the IC rulings part way through.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 19:22:50


Post by: Insectum7


 JNAProductions wrote:
And none of that precludes having USRs.

Sure doesn't, and it wasn't my point. My point is pure accessibility. The format worked great in 4th edition when there were like, 5 USRs. When you hit 50 (or whatever) having them NOT also defined with unit entries or in codexes gets really awkward.

So to be clear, I'm 100% FOR USRs. Just present them well, and maybe don't try to USR every single weapon.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 19:50:45


Post by: skchsan


 Charistoph wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
And none of that precludes having USRs.

Very true. Part way through 6th, I started making basic cards like Warmachine used. I listed the rules. While I didn't write them out, I did the next best thing by providing a reference point (book, p#) to quickly look up the rule. I started updating it for 7th, but never finished it before dropping the game over the IC rulings part way through.
See, things like 'Independent Character' had no place in USR. It was rules likes these that caused the rule bloat. It was best reserved as a core rule (for example, in 'unit type' entry in the rulebook)

USR needs a set of core rules to be effective. These two work in tandem, and they do not replace one or the other.

The current iteration where everything you need are on the datasheets are more akin to extended core rules with keyword system serving as a really weak USR. The information written on individual datasheets can benefit from a unified USR (which defines the mechanics & jargons of the game) without muddling the individuality of the said datahsheets.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 20:33:13


Post by: Tycho


That was never a complaint about 2nd ed, from my experience. The only supplemental material you needed (or that even existed, unless you counted the Citadel Journal, which nobody used) was Dark Millenium, and the FAQs that were printed in White Dwarf. And even there, most of the FAQs weren't strictly necessary, just for clarification purposes.


The end of 2nd ed was the birth of this complaint. Compared to something like 7th, it wasn't nearly as bad, but my group definitely felt it, and Gav Thorpe actually cited this as one of the reasons for the 3rd ed streamlining (in that same interview he also said he felt like maybe they went too far). I can't find my bookmark for it atm, but if it's still online I'll post it.

Either way, my point in bringing that up was that the person I was responding to was trying to imply that the lack of USRs is the reason they need to bring so many different books to a game. I was just pointing out that this happens because of GW. It has nothing to do with whether or not there are USRs. The argument was incorrect at best and disingenuous at worst.


EDITS:

Because I cannot type or spell today ...


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 20:34:31


Post by: insaniak


Ice_can wrote:

Your starting out that everyone is trying to play at events and even win them for your example. That's not how a large proportion of the people even those at events are even aiming for, most will learn other factiosn rules by playing against them over time.

And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.

It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.


By insisting everything must by a BRB USR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published

- Nobody is insisting that everything should be a USR

- Having USRs in the main rulebook does not require players to memorise them from day 1. Hell, most of the first time players I've encountered over the years haven't even bought the rulebook yet, they've just been walked through a game or two by somebody. Nobody actually expects new players to have complete knowledge of the rules. That's not the case now, and it wasn't the case when USRs were included in the rulebook previously.

- And yes, having USRs printed in the rulebook is beneficial to people with multiple armies. That's not actually a negative.

- The 'inflexible design space' is only an issue if you want everything to be a USR, which, as has been pointed out multiple times, nobody is asking for. The existence of USRs does not preclude units from having their own special rules where that's appropriate. The goal should be to keep the use of besoke rules to those situations where they are actually necessary, rather than to remove them completely.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 22:53:31


Post by: Ice_can


 insaniak wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

Your starting out that everyone is trying to play at events and even win them for your example. That's not how a large proportion of the people even those at events are even aiming for, most will learn other factiosn rules by playing against them over time.

And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.

It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.


By insisting everything must by a BRB USR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published

- Nobody is insisting that everything should be a USR

- Having USRs in the main rulebook does not require players to memorise them from day 1. Hell, most of the first time players I've encountered over the years haven't even bought the rulebook yet, they've just been walked through a game or two by somebody. Nobody actually expects new players to have complete knowledge of the rules. That's not the case now, and it wasn't the case when USRs were included in the rulebook previously.

- And yes, having USRs printed in the rulebook is beneficial to people with multiple armies. That's not actually a negative.

- The 'inflexible design space' is only an issue if you want everything to be a USR, which, as has been pointed out multiple times, nobody is asking for. The existence of USRs does not preclude units from having their own special rules where that's appropriate. The goal should be to keep the use of besoke rules to those situations where they are actually necessary, rather than to remove them completely.

I am on board with your idea, my issue is some people certainly write like they are pushing the far more aggressive everything is a USR version of the concept.
That I object to its, it turns it into a bland and not fun game.

The reason making it easier for people with multiple armies at the expense of making it harder for casual/newer players to learn the rules is a bad deaign decision is those with 3-4 armies are already invested, they are going to put in the extra time and money to buying every book to learn every rule.

When someone is trying to learn the game having a massive list of USR's (7th edition your spotlight awaits) is discouraging people when they are least invested in the game system. Personally of all the editions I've played 2,3,4, 7 and 8th 7th was by far the most unsellable rules set ever invented, whoever thinks that having so many USR's that you need to actually section them out made learning that game anything but an absolute chore for months is kidding themselves.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 23:06:43


Post by: insaniak


Ice_can wrote:

The reason making it easier for people with multiple armies at the expense of making it harder for casual/newer players to learn the rules is a bad deaign decision is those with 3-4 armies are already invested, they are going to put in the extra time and money to buying every book to learn every rule.

Putting all of the special rules in one book does not make it harder for new players. It makes it easier, because all of the rules they need are in one place. It doesn't force them to learn them all at once, any more than having any of the other rules in the rulebook forces them to learn all of those at once.

Nobody, and I seriously mean nobody is expecting a new player to know all of the rules of the game, regardless of how many books they are printed in.


... whoever thinks that having so many USR's that you need to actually section them out made learning that game anything but an absolute chore for months is kidding themselves.

But... if those rules are in the game, you still have just as much of a need to learn them if they're printed in 47 different places. The difference is simply that now it's harder and more expensive to access them all.

New players aren't trying to learn all of the special rules at once. For the most part, they're just going to learn the rules they need for their army and pick up the rest as they go along. Which, again, is easier if those rules are all in one book.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 23:10:18


Post by: Vilehydra


Interesting idea for 8th - Add the rules from the MRB into each codex. Its 7 pages of rules, so why not condense them into the first part of any codex. This wasn't plausible for older editions because they had actual in depth rulesets, but if we're going with this super light, why not. Adding in the USR's and FSR's nearby would probably add no more than an additional 3-4 pages, so 11 pages added to a codex.

Meaning that nobody would need the MRB, axing that argument.

Also as an aside, to the people who keep saying you needed multiple books last edition. Really? I have a tournament friend that has literally gone and photocopied all the pieces he needed from the ~4 codices, plus all the FAQs, and don't forget the supplements either. It's in a plastic three ring binder, because it probably wouldn't fit in one the smaller ones.

When I go to tournaments I need to bring 3 books - Codex, Supplement, and MRB (because yes, disputes that come down to the MRB happen) and a folder containing the various FAQ's that relate to either of those books.

Now those FAQs are a good thing and I'd rather have them than not, but the problem is that many FAQs stem from the rules not having an overarching schema that gives structure for rule to rule interaction - like USRs.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 23:17:35


Post by: insaniak


Vilehydra wrote:
Also as an aside, to the people who keep saying you needed multiple books last edition. Really? I have a tournament friend that has literally gone and photocopied all the pieces he needed from the ~4 codices, plus all the FAQs, and don't forget the supplements either. It's in a plastic three ring binder, because it probably wouldn't fit in one the smaller ones.

Which is fine if the TO is happy to accept photocopies. Some aren't, to avoid potential tampering and issues with piracy.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/13 23:57:15


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 insaniak wrote:
Vilehydra wrote:
Also as an aside, to the people who keep saying you needed multiple books last edition. Really? I have a tournament friend that has literally gone and photocopied all the pieces he needed from the ~4 codices, plus all the FAQs, and don't forget the supplements either. It's in a plastic three ring binder, because it probably wouldn't fit in one the smaller ones.

Which is fine if the TO is happy to accept photocopies. Some aren't, to avoid potential tampering and issues with piracy.


Not that GW deserves money for ANY of their printed rules.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 01:51:15


Post by: Charistoph


skchsan wrote:See, things like 'Independent Character' had no place in USR. It was rules likes these that caused the rule bloat. It was best reserved as a core rule (for example, in 'unit type' entry in the rulebook)

Eh, it could work either way as most Unit Type rules were Special Rules, any way, but the biggest problems were how GW wrote the IC rules. It wouldn't have worked any better as Unit Type or stuck in the back with the rest of the USRs. It was messed up in its core.

skchsan wrote:USR needs a set of core rules to be effective. These two work in tandem, and they do not replace one or the other.

No, they need as set of well-written rules to be effective. The core rules were okay in 7th, but the IC rules have been bonkers since forever, only made worse when codices came out to really muck them up even more. Things like the Techmarine starting out as an IC, but can purchase a retinue, but no rules about him losing his IC rule until that mega-FAQ came out. Or how some rules would affect a unit in a unit's action, but apparently weren't supposed to include the IC in its abilities.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 03:58:25


Post by: Brutus_Apex


- Nobody is insisting that everything should be a USR


Actually, I am. lol


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 04:36:35


Post by: insaniak


Well, stop it, then.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 04:49:02


Post by: Hellebore


Brutus_Apex wrote:
- Nobody is insisting that everything should be a USR


Actually, I am. lol


insaniak wrote:Well, stop it, then.



This here also highlights that there's nothing wrong with a USR, but how you implement them is where people disagree and where dislike comes from.

Nothing about either of your positions makes a comment on whether USRs are better for the ease of learning and playing of the game, because you're just disagreeing on how they get implemented.


Which a lot of anti USR posters seem to hold onto as the problem with USRs - how they're used. But they're two different things and I wish people would acknowledge and keep them separate.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 05:32:27


Post by: Brutus_Apex


 insaniak wrote:
Well, stop it, then.


lol, but it's so much better. I promise I can make a better written game than GW. Just give me a bottle of bourbon and a weekend to write it.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 06:08:43


Post by: kodos


 insaniak wrote:

And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.

It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.


I think this is a major point as those who want to play the game likes to have different rules as those who just want to roll some dice

There are people who just want to put models on the table, roll dice and be done. Reading only what is necessary and 8th Core Rules + Datasheets of their used units is already at the limit (and some may have not even read those once before they need it on the table)

Those who read all the rules at least once before they start playing are the Event/Tournament/Beardy-Players as they want to play a game and play to win

current rules of AoS and 40k (and Kill Team) are meant to please the first type of people, who just need enough rules to have a reason to put their stuff on the table and move it.
hence why stuff like Warhammer Underworlds and similar is received so well as it serves the need to play a game without giving up on GW and have the possibility to use those models in AoS.


Problem is just that GW cannot make rules to make both groups happy at the same time and non is willing to move over to a different rule-set which fits their needs better.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 06:47:13


Post by: Hellebore


 kodos wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.

It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.


I think this is a major point as those who want to play the game likes to have different rules as those who just want to roll some dice

There are people who just want to put models on the table, roll dice and be done. Reading only what is necessary and 8th Core Rules + Datasheets of their used units is already at the limit (and some may have not even read those once before they need it on the table)

Those who read all the rules at least once before they start playing are the Event/Tournament/Beardy-Players as they want to play a game and play to win

current rules of AoS and 40k (and Kill Team) are meant to please the first type of people, who just need enough rules to have a reason to put their stuff on the table and move it.
hence why stuff like Warhammer Underworlds and similar is received so well as it serves the need to play a game without giving up on GW and have the possibility to use those models in AoS.


Problem is just that GW cannot make rules to make both groups happy at the same time and non is willing to move over to a different rule-set which fits their needs better.


I'm not sure that tracks. A person uninterested in learning all the rules and just wants to play the game can do that with USRs that are printed on their unit sheets.

You can convert the entire game to using a range of rules standardisations right now and how you play the game wouldn't change at all.

This is a part I don't think I get, there's this weird expectation that you MUST implement USRs in a way counter to the current BR implementation, but it's not true or a requirement for that to happen.

Bodyguard (x+)
deepstrike (x")
feel no pain (x+)
rending (APX)
Poison (X+)
Infiltrate (X")
Overheat
Invulnerable save (X+)
Melta

You can take the rules that currently exist for the list above, keep their name, put the USR in brackets afterwards and copy paste the set text for each, and no changes to how you play the game would occur, at all.

What it would do is ensure that the cognitive load on tracking rules would be less because you'd know that deep strike did the same thing for everyone and you wouldn't have to treat each rule like it's a criminal waiting to get caught.

EDIT: very few instances of differently written but almost identical rules are meaningfully different, they don't change much tactical or strategic thought and by your assessment of people that just want to play, they wouldn't care about those things anyway.

USRs are a BOON to casual players because they don't have check their rules every time. once they've played a few games they'll get the hang of the mechanics and they'll only need to worry about one version of a rule. Casual players that just want to throw dice are people that don't have time to keep track of the slight wording differences between abilities that play out on the table virtually identically anyway.







What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 07:19:06


Post by: Gadzilla666


 kodos wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.

It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.


I think this is a major point as those who want to play the game likes to have different rules as those who just want to roll some dice

There are people who just want to put models on the table, roll dice and be done. Reading only what is necessary and 8th Core Rules + Datasheets of their used units is already at the limit (and some may have not even read those once before they need it on the table)

Those who read all the rules at least once before they start playing are the Event/Tournament/Beardy-Players as they want to play a game and play to win

current rules of AoS and 40k (and Kill Team) are meant to please the first type of people, who just need enough rules to have a reason to put their stuff on the table and move it.
hence why stuff like Warhammer Underworlds and similar is received so well as it serves the need to play a game without giving up on GW and have the possibility to use those models in AoS.


Problem is just that GW cannot make rules to make both groups happy at the same time and non is willing to move over to a different rule-set which fits their needs better.

Wait, what? Anyone who reads the rules is an "Event/Tournament/Beardy-Player? No, sorry, I don't play events, tournaments, or have a beard (do mutton chops count?) and I still read the rules before playing any game.

What you're describing is why gw makes some rules optional/for advanced play. You can use them if you want to or not use them if you don't. That has nothing to do with USRs.

And writing rules for a game as expensive and time consuming as 40k purposefully as shallow as you describe makes no sense. Why would anyone spend so much money and time on building an army just to "put their stuff on the table and move it".

If gw would write rules with such a goal in mind it would be insulting to long time players who've invested years and large sums of money into the hobby.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 07:29:16


Post by: Jidmah


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
Well, stop it, then.


lol, but it's so much better. I promise I can make a better written game than GW. Just give me a bottle of bourbon and a weekend to write it.


Without basing it off the work GW has already done? Doubtful.

Have you ever written a game system? A campaign for 40k? Some homebrew additions to an RPG? Did it blow up in your face? How many of your players enjoyed it?

I think we can agree that many of us could easily streamline the current system into something more intuitive and less complex without losing depth, but writing it from scratch is a completely different beast.

Your suggestion of turning everything into USR and dropping bespoke rules altogether already has lots of valid counter-arguments from both sides. If you ignore constructive criticism, you are already doomed to come up with something that is worse than the status quo.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 07:32:50


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.

It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.


I think this is a major point as those who want to play the game likes to have different rules as those who just want to roll some dice

There are people who just want to put models on the table, roll dice and be done. Reading only what is necessary and 8th Core Rules + Datasheets of their used units is already at the limit (and some may have not even read those once before they need it on the table)

Those who read all the rules at least once before they start playing are the Event/Tournament/Beardy-Players as they want to play a game and play to win

current rules of AoS and 40k (and Kill Team) are meant to please the first type of people, who just need enough rules to have a reason to put their stuff on the table and move it.
hence why stuff like Warhammer Underworlds and similar is received so well as it serves the need to play a game without giving up on GW and have the possibility to use those models in AoS.


Problem is just that GW cannot make rules to make both groups happy at the same time and non is willing to move over to a different rule-set which fits their needs better.

Wait, what? Anyone who reads the rules is an "Event/Tournament/Beardy-Player? No, sorry, I don't play events, tournaments, or have a beard (do mutton chops count?) and I still read the rules before playing any game.

What you're describing is why gw makes some rules optional/for advanced play. You can use them if you want to or not use them if you don't. That has nothing to do with USRs.

And writing rules for a game as expensive and time consuming as 40k purposefully as shallow as you describe makes no sense. Why would anyone spend so much money and time on building an army just to "put their stuff on the table and move it".

If gw would write rules with such a goal in mind it would be insulting to long time players who've invested years and large sums of money into the hobby.


i fail to see the issue with you can't make all the people happy.

The core issue is, that regardless of system, GW fails gloriously at even the most basic technical writing.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 07:42:23


Post by: Gadzilla666


Which isn't an issue with USRS or bespoke rules. It's an issue with gw's rules writing. And they can do better. They have before.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 08:11:40


Post by: Slipspace


USRs are an immense help to new players. Yes, it can make the core rules bigger and a bi more intimidating to start with, but that's more of a book design and layout issue. There are plenty of ways to set up the rulebook to get around that sort of problem and most games already use some variant of Quick Start rules, with a separate full Rules Reference. I think that's better because it makes most of the rules accessible to everyone.

The example earlier in the thread about not knowing what units can do is a very good one and one of the main reasons people can get frustrated playing the game - these are all gotcha rules that you simply have to memorise if you want to know them all. And it's not just about highly competitive players needing to do that, it's anyone who is more than just a beginner playing their first few games.

Speaking of that type of not-quite-beginner player, USRs would help them a lot. Before lockdown my group had a new player show up with Space Wolves. He knew the basic rules pretty well but didn't have much experience with playing the actual game with his army so a bunch of us played against him over the next few weeks. In pretty much every game we'd be having to explain concepts that should have been USRs but it was quite difficult because of the lack of common language between us - we couldn't refer to Feel No Pain, for example. On top of that, even if we knew a rule existed and we were trying to help this player get to know his own rules, the lack of USRs made that more difficult than it needed to be. We'd know a rule existed but we couldn't always easily find it on a unit's datasheet (FNP on the Wulfen was an example of that because of the sheer number of rules they have). When you know a rule exists and still take too long to find it I think that's an indication the system isn't working well. The same would happen when we'd try to explain our own rules to him. The lack of common wording made things more difficult than it should have been. Taking the example above, explaining what Disgustingly Resilient does involved him reading the rule, questioning what it was trying to say then, after seeing it being used a few times, realising it's the same as the rule his Wulfen have. That led to a very puzzled player asking why they're called something different.

Interestingly enough, after half a dozen games he was using the same Deep Strike and Feel No Pain terminology as the more experienced players.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 09:39:25


Post by: kodos


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Wait, what? Anyone who reads the rules is an "Event/Tournament/Beardy-Player? No, sorry, I don't play events, tournaments, or have a beard (do mutton chops count?) and I still read the rules before playing any game.

That seems to be the main argument of those who are against USR's, if you read the full rules before you play the game (or go that far and learned them) you are not a casual player anymore and therefore not the target group of the game

It is not that I would agree with that, but going by that logic the whole argument about 40k being a good and simple game starts making sense as the less pages you need to read to start rolling dice the better, and therefore even one page of USR's is a page too much

PS: the term beardy came originally from the old Warhammer times were there were so many rules that only the older players (who often had a beard) were able to read and remember everything while the kids/teens only read the basic rules
so yes, if you know most of the rules, you are not casual but a beardy player

 Hellebore wrote:

I'm not sure that tracks. A person uninterested in learning all the rules and just wants to play the game can do that with USRs that are printed on their unit sheets.

You can convert the entire game to using a range of rules standardisations right now and how you play the game wouldn't change at all.
[...]
USRs are a BOON to casual players because they don't have check their rules every time. once they've played a few games they'll get the hang of the mechanics and they'll only need to worry about one version of a rule. Casual players that just want to throw dice are people that don't have time to keep track of the slight wording differences between abilities that play out on the table virtually identically anyway.

of course, but it will make the rulebook have more pages and forces the "casual player" to read more than he would need (as he would read by accident USR's that are not needed for his faction

I like USR's and if I compare the mess that 40k is to something more well written like Warpath or Starship Troopers, I don't really want to touch the 40k rules any more
same for Kill Team after playing Deadzone, but I like playing the game and for me good rules are needed to enjoy playing a game

casual players benefit more from well written and balanced rules than any WAAC player ever will, yet people here claim the opposite just because well written rules will add more words that need to be read.
A reason why I would never suggest any GW game for someone who wants to start playing Wargames (it is a nice event/tournament system because you can find an event everywhere without needing to drive for hours)


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 10:38:08


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Here's a thought: USRs in their own little booklet. You have them in your rulebook and also have a little booklet tucked in there with them also listed on.

So now when you need to look one up you can just flip open the booklet rather than finding the USR section in the rulebook.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 10:48:15


Post by: BaconCatBug


If only there was some way to use the reflective properties of the book to create some sort of electrically charged field that we could attract small particles of toner to a drum to then fuse those toner particles onto some paper, but I guess that's only for SciFi land.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 11:20:39


Post by: Ice_can


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Here's a thought: USRs in their own little booklet. You have them in your rulebook and also have a little booklet tucked in there with them also listed on.

So now when you need to look one up you can just flip open the booklet rather than finding the USR section in the rulebook.


Or even more radical why not just stop adding the same old fluff since 3rd edition to the book to bulk it out and make charging sill prices for 20 pages of actual content seem not to bad and then meaning you now have a 1kg weight to carry around before you start carrying your models, but that's mildly off topic.

Using keywording or something for geniunely USR's with variables is one thing(1), but some are saying everything should be a onesize fits all USR(2) and some would say some rules need to be non USR's(3) and some don't want any USR's just GW to git good at writing rules.



1 FNP(X+)
Every time a model with this rule looses a wound on a die roll of (X+) that wound is not lost.

2 FNP
Every time a model with this rule looses a wound on a die roll of 5+ that wound is not lost

3 Protector of the Future (apocothory)
Friendly Models within 6 inches of this model Gain a FNP(6+) see 2 if they alreay have a FNP rule they may reroll the FNP die.

4
Discustingly resilient
Every time a model with this rule looses a wound on a die roll of 5+ that wound is not lost

The Flesh is Weak
Every time a model with this rule looses a wound on a die roll of 6+ that wound is not lost



The only one that IMHO doesn't work is 2 as you need to have the entire game designed before you print the BRB.

1 Can cover a lot but kinda has some issues for say custodes FNP agaisnt psychic powers, Tarranis Knights not getting theirs against psyhcic. Both are FNP(number+) abilities but with different exclusions.

4 Works if GW would learn that Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V works and basically is how 8th should have been.

3, I belive is best as it uses USR's were appropriate but allows for appropriate variations but uses consistent approach to wording to avoid confusion.

Bodyguards is another rule that people complain about but highlights why I think 3 is the best option

Bodyguard(x+)
When a faction unit within 3 inches of a model with this rule is hit with an attack you may roll a die, on an (x+) this attack is resolved against the model with this rule.

Grotshield
When an ork unit within 3 inches of a grott unit is chosen as the target of an attack play this strategum.
For each hit scored against this unit roll a die, on a result of 2+ a grot from the unit is killed and the attack sequence ends.

Living Shield (Tyrant guard)
When a Hivefleet Hivetyrent is within 3 inches of a model with this rule is hit with an attack roll a die, on an (x+) this attack is resolved against the Tyrant Guard


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 11:32:42


Post by: BaconCatBug


Ice_can wrote:
1 Can cover a lot but kinda has some issues for say custodes FNP agaisnt psychic powers, Tarranis Knights not getting theirs against psyhcic. Both are FNP(number+) abilities but with different exclusions.
While I dislike the concept of "USR-", this can be fixed with a bespoke rule. "Aegis of the Emperor: Models with this ability have a 5+ invulnerable save. Superior Golden Helms: Models with this ability have Ignore Wounds (6+) against Mortal Wounds inflicted in the Psychic Phase."


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 11:50:08


Post by: Ice_can


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
1 Can cover a lot but kinda has some issues for say custodes FNP agaisnt psychic powers, Tarranis Knights not getting theirs against psyhcic. Both are FNP(number+) abilities but with different exclusions.
While I dislike the concept of "USR-", this can be fixed with a bespoke rule. "Aegis of the Emperor: Models with this ability have a 5+ invulnerable save. Superior Golden Helms: Models with this ability have Ignore Wounds (6+) against Mortal Wounds inflicted in the Psychic Phase."

So option 3 then where you mix USR's with Bespoke rules but also make the rules as consistently worded as possible.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 12:52:22


Post by: BaconCatBug


I'd actually prefer option 1, but if there MUST be a modification to a USR, you can do it with USR plus Bespoke rule that modifies the USR for that unit alone.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 14:15:58


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th.

How is being the "most recent one" means it is in any way representative to what GW would do if they added USR again? What's the logic here?
Also it wasn't the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th.

Spoletta wrote:
What makes you all believe that if GW were to do it all over it would end up as anything different?

I got several reasons really :
- A change of CEO, going together with a massive change of mentality
- Changes in the design team, both with member leaving and joining, and experience gained by members remaining
- The very simple and very real fact that editions all changed stuff, so: observation
And really, if you are going to deny that last one item, keep in mind that you are the one who really really wants to compare to 7th, meaning you DO believe previous editions were different.

Ice_can wrote:
By insisting everything must by a BRB USR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published

I am perfectly fine with things being non-BRB but still USR, the way some Warmachine rules.
On the datasheet, you get :

Flavour name: flavour text.
USR name: USR rule.

You just don't get the rule in the BRB.
Makes it trivial to see when rules are the same, make fixing rules interaction easier, doesn't require cross-referencing any more than the current option, doesn't expose new players to any more complexity than is required for the specific models they want to play, makes it easier for them to recognize what their opponents rule do, prevent missing slight difference in implementation.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 14:33:24


Post by: BaconCatBug


Because GW are super good about making sure rules that are the same are worded the same, amirite?

Cries in Dante


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 15:14:52


Post by: Blastaar


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW are super good about making sure rules that are the same are worded the same, amirite?

Cries in Dante


That is an excuse. Following the reasoning of "GW is bad at rules, so discussing X about rules is pointless," then we should never be discussing the rules in any way, shape, or form. We know the rules folks do their jobs quite poorly. This is why these threads continue to pop up.



What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 17:28:27


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW are super good about making sure rules that are the same are worded the same, amirite?

Cries in Dante

If you mess it up, fix it in an errata. That's what GW should do imo.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/14 18:32:33


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW are super good about making sure rules that are the same are worded the same, amirite?

Cries in Dante

If you mess it up, fix it in an errata. That's what GW should do imo.
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 04:37:43


Post by: Brutus_Apex


Without basing it off the work GW has already done? Doubtful.

Have you ever written a game system? A campaign for 40k? Some homebrew additions to an RPG? Did it blow up in your face? How many of your players enjoyed it?

I think we can agree that many of us could easily streamline the current system into something more intuitive and less complex without losing depth, but writing it from scratch is a completely different beast.

Your suggestion of turning everything into USR and dropping bespoke rules altogether already has lots of valid counter-arguments from both sides. If you ignore constructive criticism, you are already doomed to come up with something that is worse than the status quo.


I should have known when I wrote this, that I'd have to defend it.

It was mostly a joke. I know it would take longer than a weekend to write a game from the ground up.

Yes, I do think that many of us could write a better, more streamlined version of 8th.

However, I have yet to see an argument that makes me reconsider my "All USRs" outlook. I'm not ignoring constructive criticism, I'm saying that I think my approach is the best. So if you have some constructive criticism, please enlighten me.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 08:03:54


Post by: Slipspace


 Brutus_Apex wrote:


Yes, I do think that many of us could write a better, more streamlined version of 8th.

However, I have yet to see an argument that makes me reconsider my "All USRs" outlook. I'm not ignoring constructive criticism, I'm saying that I think my approach is the best. So if you have some constructive criticism, please enlighten me.


The main one has been pointed out: lack of flexibility leading to less creativity and variety. USRs are fantastic at codifying genuinely universal rules but there are times when a rule should be unique and you need to move away from USRs. I think you'd quickly lose a lot of the character of many units and armies if you completely removed anything that wasn't a USR and you'd quickly lose the usefulness of USRs if you converted too many bespoke rules to use them, which would end up with a worse version of the situation we had in 7th with a huge list of USRs, many of which were used in very few places.

So, hypothetically, how would you deal with a unit like Dark Eldar Wyches? They get Power from Pain, Combat Drugs and a Cult special rule along with a conditional Invulnerable and a rule that modifies Fallback. Should all of those things become USRs? Should some things be removed? Note, there are much more complicated units than Wyches out there but this is a useful example as a starting point.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 08:11:49


Post by: Not Online!!!


i guess he could avoid the critic if he'd differ between general USR and army wide USR.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 08:14:43


Post by: Slipspace


Not Online!!! wrote:
i guess he could avoid the critic if he'd differ between general USR and army wide USR.


Only partially. There are still plenty of good, useful and fluffy rules that are unique to units that I don't think it makes sense to lose.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 08:25:53


Post by: Jidmah


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW are super good about making sure rules that are the same are worded the same, amirite?

Cries in Dante


To be fair, this is more an organisational problem within GW than a matter of game design.

Since you are a developer, you should be familiar with Conway's law - it applies to writing game rules just like it applies to software development.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 08:29:08


Post by: Not Online!!!


Slipspace wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
i guess he could avoid the critic if he'd differ between general USR and army wide USR.


Only partially. There are still plenty of good, useful and fluffy rules that are unique to units that I don't think it makes sense to lose.


then make them army specific?

F.e. nobody i think wants to replace cult ambush with just infiltration.
Power from pain is another candidate, etc.
the same goes for the reflexes beeing shared by witchcults.

Depending on how well they are written they also allow for better granularity and modifications on the fly to specific units without changing the whole rule again and again.
But for that i remain adamant, GW needs to get competent technical writers for their rules.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 08:32:53


Post by: insaniak


Spoiler:
Slipspace wrote:

The main one has been pointed out: lack of flexibility leading to less creativity and variety. USRs are fantastic at codifying genuinely universal rules but there are times when a rule should be unique and you need to move away from USRs. I think you'd quickly lose a lot of the character of many units and armies if you completely removed anything that wasn't a USR and you'd quickly lose the usefulness of USRs if you converted too many bespoke rules to use them, which would end up with a worse version of the situation we had in 7th with a huge list of USRs, many of which were used in very few places.

So, hypothetically, how would you deal with a unit like Dark Eldar Wyches? They get Power from Pain, Combat Drugs and a Cult special rule along with a conditional Invulnerable and a rule that modifies Fallback. Should all of those things become USRs? Should some things be removed? Note, there are much more complicated units than Wyches out there but this is a useful example as a starting point.

Part of the problem here is that there's a perception that special rules are necessary to add character to the unit. And that approach ultimately just winds up with having too many special rules.

In a small skirmish game, every unit having multiple special rules isn't a huge problem, because there's less overall to keep track of. But for a game the size of 40k, the ideal (IMO) would be for most units in the game to not have special rules at all, outside of army wide stuff.

And once you drastically reduce the number of special rules units are carrying around, you also reduce the number of special rules the game actually needs, and special rules start to actually seem, well, special.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 08:36:56


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW are super good about making sure rules that are the same are worded the same, amirite?

Cries in Dante


To be fair, this is more an organisational problem within GW than a matter of game design.

Since you are a developer, you should be familiar with Conway's law - it applies to writing game rules just like it applies to software development.

Can't speak for BCB but I'd never heard of it. It certainly is a good explanation of gw's rules writing issues. I can only imagine if the writers of the csm update (don't call it a "new" codex) had actually been aware of what the writers of c:sm 2.0 were planning what would have changed.

Thanks for this.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 10:11:20


Post by: Slipspace


 insaniak wrote:
Spoiler:
Slipspace wrote:

The main one has been pointed out: lack of flexibility leading to less creativity and variety. USRs are fantastic at codifying genuinely universal rules but there are times when a rule should be unique and you need to move away from USRs. I think you'd quickly lose a lot of the character of many units and armies if you completely removed anything that wasn't a USR and you'd quickly lose the usefulness of USRs if you converted too many bespoke rules to use them, which would end up with a worse version of the situation we had in 7th with a huge list of USRs, many of which were used in very few places.

So, hypothetically, how would you deal with a unit like Dark Eldar Wyches? They get Power from Pain, Combat Drugs and a Cult special rule along with a conditional Invulnerable and a rule that modifies Fallback. Should all of those things become USRs? Should some things be removed? Note, there are much more complicated units than Wyches out there but this is a useful example as a starting point.

Part of the problem here is that there's a perception that special rules are necessary to add character to the unit. And that approach ultimately just winds up with having too many special rules.

In a small skirmish game, every unit having multiple special rules isn't a huge problem, because there's less overall to keep track of. But for a game the size of 40k, the ideal (IMO) would be for most units in the game to not have special rules at all, outside of army wide stuff.

And once you drastically reduce the number of special rules units are carrying around, you also reduce the number of special rules the game actually needs, and special rules start to actually seem, well, special.


I don't disagree, and for clarity I should say I'm 100% behind USRs as a concept and believe the game would be vastly better for all if they were implemented properly. However, I think taking an approach where there are 0 bespoke special rules isn't the way to go. Even after converting to USRs I think we'd be left with too many bespoke rules and many should probably be culled but I think the number that would be left would be greater than 0.

On that note, it could be argued the very presence of bespoke rules and total absence of USRs leads to a proliferation of unnecessary special rules in place of more carefully considered alternatives. For example, the Baal Predator has an utterly useless rule to represent its overcharged engines - +2"it can Advance faster than a regular Predator but all of its weapons are Heavy, so it's a pointless rule. I suspect they were so focussed on the "ooh, shiny!" special rule they didn't just take the obvious approach and give it +2" movement.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 10:46:16


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW are super good about making sure rules that are the same are worded the same, amirite?

Cries in Dante


To be fair, this is more an organisational problem within GW than a matter of game design.

Since you are a developer, you should be familiar with Conway's law - it applies to writing game rules just like it applies to software development.

Can't speak for BCB but I'd never heard of it. It certainly is a good explanation of gw's rules writing issues. I can only imagine if the writers of the csm update (don't call it a "new" codex) had actually been aware of what the writers of c:sm 2.0 were planning what would have changed.

Thanks for this.


Doesn't shed a good light on GW now does it?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 10:59:05


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW are super good about making sure rules that are the same are worded the same, amirite?

Cries in Dante


To be fair, this is more an organisational problem within GW than a matter of game design.

Since you are a developer, you should be familiar with Conway's law - it applies to writing game rules just like it applies to software development.

Can't speak for BCB but I'd never heard of it. It certainly is a good explanation of gw's rules writing issues. I can only imagine if the writers of the csm update (don't call it a "new" codex) had actually been aware of what the writers of c:sm 2.0 were planning what would have changed.

Thanks for this.


Doesn't shed a good light on GW now does it?

No, it doesn't. I've long held that the lack of communication and coordination between the various rules writers is why we have such unbalanced approaches to codex and other rules sources. The recent disparity between the wd updates for harlequins and deathwatch is a prime example. All the more reason we need some standard language for common rules shared across most factions. If nothing else than to give the various writers templates to work from since they don't seem to talk to their counterparts.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 12:33:50


Post by: Charistoph


insaniak wrote:Part of the problem here is that there's a perception that special rules are necessary to add character to the unit. And that approach ultimately just winds up with having too many special rules.

In a small skirmish game, every unit having multiple special rules isn't a huge problem, because there's less overall to keep track of. But for a game the size of 40k, the ideal (IMO) would be for most units in the game to not have special rules at all, outside of army wide stuff.

And once you drastically reduce the number of special rules units are carrying around, you also reduce the number of special rules the game actually needs, and special rules start to actually seem, well, special.

And this is where 7th Ed got really bogged down. Units would have up to 3 USRs, not including what comes with the Unit Type, and often have 1-2 Army Special Rules, then they would add up to 3 more Model Special Rules (using "model" instead of "unit" or "unique" to distinguish from "universal" in TLA).

Then after setting up the datasheets with USRs, ASRs, and MSRs, you'd have fun things like Chapter Tactics, which added a couple more Special Rules, and then Detachment Special Rules and LAYERED Detachment Special Rules (like the Decurion and Gladius Detachments) on top of all that. That is a just a huge mess waiting to happen.

8th Edition hasn't really gone away from this completely, as Strategems have taken the place of Detachment Special Rules, and instead of have a large mix of different types of special rules, they're just all ASRs and MSRs. Sure, they're trimmed down a little, but how many units literally have no Special Rules at all?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 13:22:44


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 13:46:49


Post by: catbarf


Slipspace wrote:So, hypothetically, how would you deal with a unit like Dark Eldar Wyches? They get Power from Pain, Combat Drugs and a Cult special rule along with a conditional Invulnerable and a rule that modifies Fallback. Should all of those things become USRs? Should some things be removed? Note, there are much more complicated units than Wyches out there but this is a useful example as a starting point.


Well, let's unpack those rules.

Power From Pain is an army-wide rule that you get just for being Drukhari. So, that already is an army-specific USR, no change needed.

Combat Drugs is a Wych Cult specific rule, but lots of Wych units get it. That's another army-specific USR, so again, no change needed.

The conditional Invulnerable is a melee-only save for being fast, right? Wyches aren't the only unit with that kind of ability, so that's a prime candidate for a game-wide USR- call it Dodge (x+).

And lastly, you have to win a roll-off to fall back against them. That's very similar in concept, but not execution, to some abilities in other armies (like Toxicrenes being able to deny fallback). So, I could see No Retreat becoming another game-wide USR, and standardizing the effects across armies.

Basically we have two Drukhari-wide USRs, and then two rules that while specific to Wyches are also identical or very similar to abilities in other armies, which to me suggests that they could become USRs. With some intelligent formatting on the datasheet, I think you could make these 'hierarchical' special rule sets more intuitive to learn. It seems that Wyches don't actually have any totally unique abilities- and considering they're a basic Troops unit, I think that's perfectly fine.

Slipspace wrote:On that note, it could be argued the very presence of bespoke rules and total absence of USRs leads to a proliferation of unnecessary special rules in place of more carefully considered alternatives. For example, the Baal Predator has an utterly useless rule to represent its overcharged engines - +2"it can Advance faster than a regular Predator but all of its weapons are Heavy, so it's a pointless rule. I suspect they were so focussed on the "ooh, shiny!" special rule they didn't just take the obvious approach and give it +2" movement.


From a game design perspective, in an ideal world nothing has special rules.

A special rule is inherently an admission that you are breaking from the baseline and boundaries you've set in the interest of generating a particular effect that your rules cannot accommodate. The best games I've played figure out what differentiates their elements, then write those differences into the core rules. This can lead to some pretty complex wargames, but it also means everyone's on the same playing field and you never have to re-juggle your mental model because you've just learned the enemy can ignore rules or gets their own mechanics that show up nowhere else.

Now, that said, 40K has never really been a serious wargame designed in this way, and I can already hear the moaning about the loss of army flavor and how bland the 3rd Ed indices were- but as a general design principle it's still valid. If you can use the core profile rather than a bespoke special rule to accomplish a particular effect, better to use the core profile. And if you can use a USR or special rule that is part of the core rules (eg Fly, or in prior editions the Bike or Jump Pack abilities), then that's still better than a bespoke rule.

There are a number of special rules I've seen in 8th that, IMO, would be better represented as simply core profile adjustments. The Baal Predator is a good example. Units with innate re-rolls could just be given better WS or BS. Units that generate extra hits on certain rolls in melee could just have more attacks. The inconsistent use of special rules in lieu of core stats that are ostensibly meant to reflect the same qualities gives the game more of a CCG-esque than simulationist feel, and certainly contributes to it being difficult to learn.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 13:59:06


Post by: alextroy


 catbarf wrote:
There are a number of special rules I've seen in 8th that, IMO, would be better represented as simply core profile adjustments. The Baal Predator is a good example. Units with innate re-rolls could just be given better WS or BS. Units that generate extra hits on certain rolls in melee could just have more attacks. The inconsistent use of special rules in lieu of core stats that are ostensibly meant to reflect the same qualities gives the game more of a CCG-esque than simulationist feel, and certainly contributes to it being difficult to learn.

I am not sure if it was a conscious decision on the writer's part or a rule of cool thing, but many of these are examples of ways to shift the math in GW's system of d6's. A re-rollable 4+ give a 75% chance of success, which you can't get via a 2+ or a 3+. An extra Hit (or attack) on a roll of 6 gives an average of less than a extra full attack to the model, especially if it has less than 6 attacks.

That, and we all know that special rules a fun until you start tripping over too many of them. How many is too many? That's a personal question.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 14:32:44


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.



Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 14:38:49


Post by: catbarf


 alextroy wrote:
I am not sure if it was a conscious decision on the writer's part or a rule of cool thing, but many of these are examples of ways to shift the math in GW's system of d6's. A re-rollable 4+ give a 75% chance of success, which you can't get via a 2+ or a 3+. An extra Hit (or attack) on a roll of 6 gives an average of less than a extra full attack to the model, especially if it has less than 6 attacks.


That's fair, but I would argue two things:

1. I don't believe that GW's designers have anywhere near the grasp of balance or probability required for those to be conscious decisions, and
2. Even if they were, if your game absolutely needs a higher probability than 67% but lower percentage than 83%, it is time to move to a more granular die- but I would also argue that 40K really doesn't need further granularity; it needs to stop clustering around high-probability values (50% should not be considered 'bad'; restricting your design space to either 2+ or 3+ for most things is incredibly limiting) and seek depth through core mechanics, rather than one unit being 8% more likely to hit than another or generate an extra fraction of an attack more than its peers.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.



Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.


GW was able to use a roundabout definition to identify 'Feel No Pain' rules before, when they FAQ'd that you can only use one such rule against losing a wound. Copy-paste the same wording, say 'these are now considered the Feel No Pain universal special rule', and you're good to go. Then there should be no reason for a USR drawn from a common USR pool having any different wording from the others.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 14:41:59


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.


GW was able to use a roundabout definition to identify 'Feel No Pain' rules before, when they FAQ'd that you can only use one such rule against losing a wound. Copy-paste the same wording, say 'these are now considered the Feel No Pain universal special rule', and you're good to go.


isnt that just proving that USRs would be beneficial for the game?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 14:42:52


Post by: catbarf


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.


GW was able to use a roundabout definition to identify 'Feel No Pain' rules before, when they FAQ'd that you can only use one such rule against losing a wound. Copy-paste the same wording, say 'these are now considered the Feel No Pain universal special rule', and you're good to go.


isnt that just proving that USRs would be beneficial for the game?


Yes, exactly; sorry, you caught me before my edit for clarity.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 14:57:56


Post by: BaconCatBug


 catbarf wrote:
GW was able to use a roundabout definition to identify 'Feel No Pain' rules before, when they FAQ'd that you can only use one such rule against losing a wound. Copy-paste the same wording, say 'these are now considered the Feel No Pain universal special rule', and you're good to go. Then there should be no reason for a USR drawn from a common USR pool having any different wording from the others.
You say that as if GW is capable of copy-pasting correctly. They are a little TOO good at copypasting, considering how CA19's MFM worked out.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 15:17:56


Post by: Crispy78


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.



Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.


That's a really big thing that I think a lot of us might not allow for.

Us old gits that have been playing for ages know that there used to be USRs, and we know terms like Feel No Pain, Objective Secured, Deep Strike and so on. We know that effectively these USRs are still in operation, but they've all been given fluffy names and descriptions on each different unit's datasheet.

People who've only started in 8th don't have this as a frame of reference. As far as they're concerned each rule on each datasheet could easily be unique - and that's a hell of a lot of rules to be aware of. Sure, given time they'll get the message that all troops have an equivalent of Objective Secured and so on. But why not just make that plain from the outset?


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 15:47:14


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Crispy78 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
And which is easier, fixing a single rule in a single location, or fixing dozens of rules on dozens of datasheets, each one being a point of failure where errors could creep in?

It's not a big deal, really. "All Feel No Pain rules get changed to blahblah" isn't that hard.



Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently. So yes, it becomes a big deal when it comes to errata, BCB is right.


That's a really big thing that I think a lot of us might not allow for.

Us old gits that have been playing for ages know that there used to be USRs, and we know terms like Feel No Pain, Objective Secured, Deep Strike and so on. We know that effectively these USRs are still in operation, but they've all been given fluffy names and descriptions on each different unit's datasheet.

People who've only started in 8th don't have this as a frame of reference. As far as they're concerned each rule on each datasheet could easily be unique - and that's a hell of a lot of rules to be aware of. Sure, given time they'll get the message that all troops have an equivalent of Objective Secured and so on. But why not just make that plain from the outset?



We've got the same opinion on USRs.
To be fair, Feel no Pain and deepstrike are terms that most people i play with use. I've only played 8th edition and i started using it in my first 5 games.


What's The Matter With USRs? @ 2020/05/15 16:57:21


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Except theres no "Feel no Pain" rules currently.

Except we were not talking about what we have currently, we were talking about my proposition here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/840/787851.page#10797286
In this version, there is a Feel no pain rule. It's not in the BRB but it exists.