1) Large models (MC and Walkers) gain rule to either be able to attack 2nd or high floors of buildings/Ruins, (Add barricades 2" rule as well to make it easier and less arguing)
a) not all Walkers or MC should gain this rule, example of what can and cant; Carnifex should not, Trygons should, Wraithknight with weapon should, Wraithknight without shouldnt, Mawloc coming out shouldnt, Mawloc in melee should. Dreadknoughts should, War Walkers shouldnt

2) All MCs and vehicles should have "My fall back from combat and still shoot in the following shooting phase with -1 to hit, it may only fallback and shoot if it was engage with infantry or swarms"
a) Fly still can fall back over everything and still shoot like normal

3) Soft and Hard cover from Cities of Death narrative rules from the CA, Soft cover gives +1 save (Woods, battlescape, craters, obstacles) Hard cover gives +2 save, Ruins, Pipes, Barricades, Fortifications), add the rule "If each model in the unit is
within 1" of terrain feature they are counted as being in cover" meaning if the terrain has no base, and you are within 1" for each model in that unit you are counted as being in cover

4) Lucky Hit from Cities of Death narrative rules via CA (AKA 6's to hit always hit)

5) Hammer of Wrath, when you charge a unit not in cover, on the turn that unit charge and you didnt lose any models from Overwtach, gain +1 attack (or str, idk what would be better for the game, i feel str is better honestly), you cannot gain Hammer of Wraith rule against any unit that your opponent used the stratagem "Counter-Offensive" against your unit.

6) Give many transports some Fire Points back

I would prefer that they take the cover rules from kill team and make it a negative to hit rather than a bonus to your armor.

A few quarrels here:

Last part of 3: Terrain with no base is exactly what the "statuary" and "Barricade" terrain type is intended to handle.

Body of 3) Having tried Cities of Death, I kind of like it, but the one thing I was not a huge fan of actually was how heavily it emphasized a "shoot and camp" playstyle. Now, maybe if they resolved the stupid "I"m in a ruin upper level and I am un-assaultable" FAQ ruling this wouldn't be the case, but with Obscurement, Hard Cover, and Height Advantage, a unit of HWTs, Devastators etc was basically impossible to shift. It succeeded at making the game longer, but it was basically just "everything interesting dies turn 1-2, enjoy 3 turns of units sitting in ruins plinking at each other fishing for 4s-5s to hit and trying to wound through +2 armor cover"

5) What? Why? Melee combat being alpha-strike only kill everything nonsense is IMO a big problem with the game presently caused by how difficult it is to get IN to melee meaning that dedicated melee units damage has to be thru the roof to compensate. This change would push the game even farther in the "smashfucker/shield captain/knight gallant" nonsense direction.

2) you had me for the first part and lost me at the second. So, if my Tau Piranha charges a Land Raider, then I have stunlocked it for the rest of the game, because it can't fall back? Definitely agree something should be done about Bumper Cars nonsense.

I really think they cover should be “If you draw line of sight through terrain or the enemy models are within 1” of terrain they gain cover”.

the_scotsman wrote:
A few quarrels here:

Last part of 3: Terrain with no base is exactly what the "statuary" and "Barricade" terrain type is intended to handle.

Body of 3) Having tried Cities of Death, I kind of like it, but the one thing I was not a huge fan of actually was how heavily it emphasized a "shoot and camp" playstyle. Now, maybe if they resolved the stupid "I"m in a ruin upper level and I am un-assaultable" FAQ ruling this wouldn't be the case, but with Obscurement, Hard Cover, and Height Advantage, a unit of HWTs, Devastators etc was basically impossible to shift. It succeeded at making the game longer, but it was basically just "everything interesting dies turn 1-2, enjoy 3 turns of units sitting in ruins plinking at each other fishing for 4s-5s to hit and trying to wound through +2 armor cover"

5) What? Why? Melee combat being alpha-strike only kill everything nonsense is IMO a big problem with the game presently caused by how difficult it is to get IN to melee meaning that dedicated melee units damage has to be thru the roof to compensate. This change would push the game even farther in the "smashfucker/shield captain/knight gallant" nonsense direction.

2) you had me for the first part and lost me at the second. So, if my Tau Piranha charges a Land Raider, then I have stunlocked it for the rest of the game, because it can't fall back? Definitely agree something should be done about Bumper Cars nonsense.

2) Yes, that makes sense, why would a land raider be able to out run a flying ship that can space travel? The point is, its a tank, it should be able to run/move away or run over infantry.
~~EDIT:~~~ I understand that all vehicles should be able to shoot all the time b.c its a gun, why not shoot it at something? But there needs to be cuts off somewhere, and this is a good example, otherwise you could just take 4 and run them into something and sit there and shoot all game, locking up a unit and shooting it at the same time. Im just thinking of other situations that would break the game, this idea shouldnt but at least help players take these units

3) Cities of death does do that yes, but in 40k with 1/2 the terrain, its not as much as a problem, also, ALL terrain GW sells that are buildings, Ruins, Pipes dont have bass, players add cardboard, foam-board, wood to them for a base. Normal 40k bought terrain doesnt have bases.

5) I understand your idea/concern about this, but this gives many more units the option to be able to melee better (like marines for example) good melee units right now always over kill, adding 5-10 more wounds to a 20 wound uit that already took 30 wounds isnt changing the game.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
A few quarrels here:

Last part of 3: Terrain with no base is exactly what the "statuary" and "Barricade" terrain type is intended to handle.

Body of 3) Having tried Cities of Death, I kind of like it, but the one thing I was not a huge fan of actually was how heavily it emphasized a "shoot and camp" playstyle. Now, maybe if they resolved the stupid "I"m in a ruin upper level and I am un-assaultable" FAQ ruling this wouldn't be the case, but with Obscurement, Hard Cover, and Height Advantage, a unit of HWTs, Devastators etc was basically impossible to shift. It succeeded at making the game longer, but it was basically just "everything interesting dies turn 1-2, enjoy 3 turns of units sitting in ruins plinking at each other fishing for 4s-5s to hit and trying to wound through +2 armor cover"

5) What? Why? Melee combat being alpha-strike only kill everything nonsense is IMO a big problem with the game presently caused by how difficult it is to get IN to melee meaning that dedicated melee units damage has to be thru the roof to compensate. This change would push the game even farther in the "smashfucker/shield captain/knight gallant" nonsense direction.

2) you had me for the first part and lost me at the second. So, if my Tau Piranha charges a Land Raider, then I have stunlocked it for the rest of the game, because it can't fall back? Definitely agree something should be done about Bumper Cars nonsense.

2) Yes, that makes sense, why would a land raider be able to out run a flying ship that can space travel? The point is, its a tank, it should be able to run/move away or run over infantry.
~~EDIT:~~~ I understand that all vehicles should be able to shoot all the time b.c its a gun, why not shoot it at something? But there needs to be cuts off somewhere, and this is a good example, otherwise you could just take 4 and run them into something and sit there and shoot all game, locking up a unit and shooting it at the same time. Im just thinking of other situations that would break the game, this idea shouldnt but at least help players take these units

3) Cities of death does do that yes, but in 40k with 1/2 the terrain, its not as much as a problem, also, ALL terrain GW sells that are buildings, Ruins, Pipes dont have bass, players add cardboard, foam-board, wood to them for a base. Normal 40k bought terrain doesnt have bases.

5) I understand your idea/concern about this, but this gives many more units the option to be able to melee better (like marines for example) good melee units right now always over kill, adding 5-10 more wounds to a 20 wound uit that already took 30 wounds isnt changing the game.

A phirana is the tau equivalent of an attack bike not a tigershark or baraccuda which is what it sounds like you are describing.

And no alot of thise improvements are totally jumping the shark and missing the actual issues in the core rules.

Aight, you're justifying rules with fluff, I think this thread is done.

A 50-point tank being able to immobilize a 350-point tank would not make the game more balanced. It would do the exact opposite.

the_scotsman wrote:
Aight, you're justifying rules with fluff, I think this thread is done.

A 50-point tank being able to immobilize a 350-point tank would not make the game more balanced. It would do the exact opposite.

You know a 4 point sguy can do that now right? You are talking about 10% the models stopping it vs 100% the models like it is now.

But i guess that isnt good enough for you, so lets just keep it the way it is now and let every unit stop vehicles.

Instead of arguing or saying something not helpful, then why no contribute and say "Well i feel this way is better"

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Aight, you're justifying rules with fluff, I think this thread is done.

A 50-point tank being able to immobilize a 350-point tank would not make the game more balanced. It would do the exact opposite.

You know a 4 point sguy can do that now right? You are talking about 10% the models stopping it vs 100% the models like it is now.

But i guess that isnt good enough for you, so lets just keep it the way it is now and let every unit stop vehicles.

Instead of arguing or saying something not helpful, then why no contribute and say "Well i feel this way is better"

Uh.

You know that the way you wrote the rule, vehicles can't fall back AT ALL versus other vehicles?

Because that's what I'm reading here. If you meant simply "vehicles cannot fall back AND SHOOT versus non-infantry/swarms" then I'm on board, lol.

The way you wrote the rule, my Piranha charges your Land raider, then they are stuck, 100% cannot fall back at all, until my piranha decides to leave.

EDIT: looks like you stealth changed it. Good on ya bud. Never admit you messed up on the internet lol.

That was a typo, my english isnt the best, they can fallback like normal, ADD rule that if against infantry/swarms they can shoot.

So basically guardsmen need a 3+ save? no thanks. These changes are awful.

 Marmatag wrote:
So basically guardsmen need a 3+ save? no thanks. These changes are awful.

Everyone knows guardsmen are a problem, rules shouldnt be made from a broken unit, units should be changed if they are a problem. Thats my 2cents on your problem with it.

If you would have offer a different approach i would like to hear it, maybe +1sv and -1 to hit for hard cover, i would listen to you, but just whining? lol ok

At the same time, Marines would have a 2+ save vs -1ap, sounds good to me

So eldar could be -2 or even -3 to hit in ruins ?

what about this, there should be a difference between cover & concealment;

concealment, -1 to hit
cover, +1 to save

that way you can always at least have one or the other. i.e.

a model behind a barricade can be shot at with no negative to hit, but would gain +1 to a save.

a model on the other side of a crater/woods/ruins would be shot at with -1 to but with no modifier to the save.

a model in the first floor of ruins would be shot at with a -1 to hit and gain a +1 to their save.

if you're within 1" or base contact with the terrain you would gain -1 to be hit. if you're completely within (all models)would also gain +1 to save even if you are not completely obscured from the shooter.

vehicles could be treated the same way but would retain the 50% rule currently. anything with mc/knight/etc keyword would only gain +1 to save as they're supposedly very large and wouldn't be as able to be concealed as something smaller. maybe if you have x # of models (10+) it could remove the cover save as there might not be enough room to dive for cover with too many bodies occupying a small space.

The crazy thing is... you can just add all of these rules when you play if you and your opponent want to. If these will enhance your enjoyment, use them!

These kinds of rules would have been easier to implement much earlier into the edition before there were so many other additions. Ignoring the issues that have been posted above (which highlights a few balance issues for sure), we also have the issue of things that simply "gain the benefit of cover" needing to be clarified to be light cover (such as the Prepared positions stratagem). This would be quite a lot of stuff to replace, and is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to changes. Really, it's too late to add these kinds of rules into 40k.

Ice_can wrote:A phirana is the tau equivalent of an attack bike not a tigershark or baraccuda which is what it sounds like you are describing.

Really? I thought it was closer to the Land Speeder, still, the point stands about it not being a air/space craft.

Racerguy180 wrote:
what about this, there should be a difference between cover & concealment;

concealment, -1 to hit
cover, +1 to save

that way you can always at least have one or the other. i.e.

a model behind a barricade can be shot at with no negative to hit, but would gain +1 to a save.

a model on the other side of a crater/woods/ruins would be shot at with -1 to but with no modifier to the save.

a model in the first floor of ruins would be shot at with a -1 to hit and gain a +1 to their save.

if you're within 1" or base contact with the terrain you would gain -1 to be hit. if you're completely within (all models)would also gain +1 to save even if you are not completely obscured from the shooter.

vehicles could be treated the same way but would retain the 50% rule currently. anything with mc/knight/etc keyword would only gain +1 to save as they're supposedly very large and wouldn't be as able to be concealed as something smaller. maybe if you have x # of models (10+) it could remove the cover save as there might not be enough room to dive for cover with too many bodies occupying a small space.

The only issue I can see with this is that most people play with third party terrain and GW is very reluctant to provide rules for anything they don't currently sell. I can see an issue with trying to figure out what should be treated as what could be an issue for pick up games.

If you miss USRs just play 7th ed? Or HH, same thing really.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
If you miss USRs just play 7th ed? Or HH, same thing really.

The current GW Keyword system is a complete mess already.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The crazy thing is... you can just add all of these rules when you play if you and your opponent want to. If these will enhance your enjoyment, use them!

Assuming you can get anyone to agree. It's much easier if GW fixes the rules so that you can just play a standard game.

I generally agree.

Cover could also be -X to wound. So soft cover -1 to wound rolls, and heavy cover -2 to wound rolls.

Or other alternatively soft cover +1 to save and heavy cover -1 to wound and +1 to save. This way heavy cover would be good against Aeldari and their Rending spam.

Generally all the -2 to any rolls should be avoided because they really feth up some units because we are on D6 system.

I like the Hammer of Wrath, but falling back does NOT need a buff.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
5) Hammer of Wrath, when you charge a unit not in cover, on the turn that unit charge and you didnt lose any models from Overwtach, gain +1 attack (or str, idk what would be better for the game, i feel str is better honestly), you cannot gain Hammer of Wraith rule against any unit that your opponent used the stratagem "Counter-Offensive" against your unit.

This is such a weird rule, on top of being too complex for limited use. Charging units attacking first already represents the advantage of getting the charge, so this feels more like a "congratulations, you made all of your saves" buff than the power of charging into combat. And why is surviving overwatch with zero losses something that should be rewarded with a buff?

 Charistoph wrote:

Ice_can wrote:A phirana is the tau equivalent of an attack bike not a tigershark or baraccuda which is what it sounds like you are describing.

Really? I thought it was closer to the Land Speeder, still, the point stands about it not being a air/space craft.

I agree with you - piranahs are too large to be equal to bikes. Tetras (from forge world) are closer in size to bikes

We tried USRs. They didn't work for a reason.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
We tried USRs. They didn't work for a reason.

because they kept nesting USR's within USR's like some scary russian doll filled with nastiness and poison.

8E has USR's still (Heroic intervention, FLY, VEHICLE, TITANIC etc.) all things that are generic across all factions and don't have 18 different iterations and complex wording that says the same thing

and I would support adding a few more to consolidate on the rules variations that cause a Lot of confusion that makes its way over to YMDC.

as long as one doesn't suddenly reference another and another ...

looking at Resurrection, scout moves, infiltrate, deepstrike, Look out Sir! (Saviour protocols of all variants) Feel No Pain and not many more

Many 'Deep Strike' abilities are USR's in general sense but every unit has different name for the rule with same mechanism with similar restrictions.

Ghorgul wrote:
Many 'Deep Strike' abilities are USR's in general sense but every unit has different name for the rule with same mechanism with similar restrictions.

and IMO the game suffers for it ..

USR - Universal special rule is now USR - Unique snowflake rule

what's wrong with MANTA STRIKE - this unit gains the <DEEPSTRIKE> ability ... T'au units with this ability slink around on the mothership until the commander calls them into play

sounds the same .. but gives GW the option to just make ONE FAQ /Errata/ BETA change to the keyword rather than issuing fixes to every model in every codex that has the various iterations of the same deployment method

I mean everyone I know does it ... "This unit is deepstriking ... I'm gonna roll FNP for these wounds I just took... this unit is FLYing over the terrain or out of combat.."

these are the definition of USRs that anyone at least one edition old will never get out of their vocabulary

Racerguy180 wrote:
what about this, there should be a difference between cover & concealment;

concealment, -1 to hit
cover, +1 to save

that way you can always at least have one or the other. i.e.

a model behind a barricade can be shot at with no negative to hit, but would gain +1 to a save.

a model on the other side of a crater/woods/ruins would be shot at with -1 to but with no modifier to the save.

a model in the first floor of ruins would be shot at with a -1 to hit and gain a +1 to their save.

if you're within 1" or base contact with the terrain you would gain -1 to be hit. if you're completely within (all models)would also gain +1 to save even if you are not completely obscured from the shooter.

vehicles could be treated the same way but would retain the 50% rule currently. anything with mc/knight/etc keyword would only gain +1 to save as they're supposedly very large and wouldn't be as able to be concealed as something smaller. maybe if you have x # of models (10+) it could remove the cover save as there might not be enough room to dive for cover with too many bodies occupying a small space.

IMO This suggestion makes the most sense; would it bog the game down? Maybe a little bit, but I think it makes more sense then the current rule set.

Additionally I think there needs to be more of a penalty for falling back. Something similar to Dangerous Terrain; where if you fall back roll a die for each model falling back, on a 6 the unit suffers a Mortal Wound.

 Lord Clinto wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
what about this, there should be a difference between cover & concealment;

concealment, -1 to hit
cover, +1 to save

that way you can always at least have one or the other. i.e.

a model behind a barricade can be shot at with no negative to hit, but would gain +1 to a save.

a model on the other side of a crater/woods/ruins would be shot at with -1 to but with no modifier to the save.

a model in the first floor of ruins would be shot at with a -1 to hit and gain a +1 to their save.

if you're within 1" or base contact with the terrain you would gain -1 to be hit. if you're completely within (all models)would also gain +1 to save even if you are not completely obscured from the shooter.

vehicles could be treated the same way but would retain the 50% rule currently. anything with mc/knight/etc keyword would only gain +1 to save as they're supposedly very large and wouldn't be as able to be concealed as something smaller. maybe if you have x # of models (10+) it could remove the cover save as there might not be enough room to dive for cover with too many bodies occupying a small space.

IMO This suggestion makes the most sense; would it bog the game down? Maybe a little bit, but I think it makes more sense then the current rule set.

Additionally I think there needs to be more of a penalty for falling back. Something similar to Dangerous Terrain; where if you fall back roll a die for each model falling back, on a 6 the unit suffers a Mortal Wound.

This suggestion makes the most sense and is basically what is in the new Cityfight rules from CA2018, I encourage you to try them out. They work...okay, in my opinion. terrain and maneuver definitely feels more impactful. The problem comes from how utterly unshiftable units on upper floors of ruins become with -1 to hit and +2 to save AND the stupid cluster of FAQ rulings GW has put out to make units on upper floors totally unassaultable.

the_scotsman wrote:
This suggestion makes the most sense and is basically what is in the new Cityfight rules from CA2018, I encourage you to try them out. They work...okay, in my opinion. terrain and maneuver definitely feels more impactful. The problem comes from how utterly unshiftable units on upper floors of ruins become with -1 to hit and +2 to save AND the stupid cluster of FAQ rulings GW has put out to make units on upper floors totally unassaultable.

Well, we do love GW method of balancing where broken combos are fixed with hardcore core rule updates: 'Rule of 3', 'Increased Detachment CP generation', 'Smite', 'FLY restrictions', 'Deep strike restrictions'.

Basically any problematic thing appears they take the 'easy route' and slap this quick band aid fix that stops the broken combo but suddenly restricts x10 amount of other similarly working non-broken combos. There were many legitimately non-broken things that could be done with 1st turn deep strikes, but the worst offenders took the fun from every other thing the earlier rule allowed.

There needs to be more -hits and +saves during shooting attack to balance out the ranged/melee situation in 40k.

The general pro/cons of ranged vs melee is that you deal less damage from a far at lower rate vs deal more damage but must be up close deal.

If 40k will never fix the power discrepancy between ranged and melee, then it should deal with accuracy instead:
-if ranged, you are more prone to missing but deal damage from safe distance
-if melee, you miss less but must be up close to deal the damage

The entire reason to move away from USR's is so they could customise the rules to fit the unit. It allows Monoliths and Spore Mines to have a 12" limit and the Callidus Assassin a 9-D6" limit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The entire reason to move away from USR's is so they could customise the rules to fit the unit. It allows Monoliths and Spore Mines to have a 12" limit and the Callidus Assassin a 9-D6" limit.

Terminators get:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleportation Strike
Rules text of Deep Strike with 9"; fluff text.

Monoliths get:

Deep Strike (12")-Death From Above or whatever it's called
Rules text of Deep Strike with 12"; fluff text.

Callidus gets:

Deep Strike (Special)-Infiltration or whatever it's called
Rules text of Deep Strike with 9"-1d6"; fluff text.

Boom, bam, done. I'm fine with printing the full text of the rules on the datasheet, but it'd be nice if the names were consistent.

Ghorgul wrote:
Many 'Deep Strike' abilities are USR's in general sense but every unit has different name for the rule with same mechanism with similar restrictions.

And this is why the keyword system is an abject failure.

Ghorgul wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
This suggestion makes the most sense and is basically what is in the new Cityfight rules from CA2018, I encourage you to try them out. They work...okay, in my opinion. terrain and maneuver definitely feels more impactful. The problem comes from how utterly unshiftable units on upper floors of ruins become with -1 to hit and +2 to save AND the stupid cluster of FAQ rulings GW has put out to make units on upper floors totally unassaultable.

Well, we do love GW method of balancing where broken combos are fixed with hardcore core rule updates: 'Rule of 3', 'Increased Detachment CP generation', 'Smite', 'FLY restrictions', 'Deep strike restrictions'.

Basically any problematic thing appears they take the 'easy route' and slap this quick band aid fix that stops the broken combo but suddenly restricts x10 amount of other similarly working non-broken combos. There were many legitimately non-broken things that could be done with 1st turn deep strikes, but the worst offenders took the fun from every other thing the earlier rule allowed.

I love that this thread has become simultaneously a thread complaining about how we can't have universal rules anymore and everything has to have its own name for the rule, AND a thread complaining about how GW always balances with a sledgehammer that affects tons of units at once with a big blanket pass.

Pick one, guys. Either every unit has its own balance levers, or you balance everything at once in one swell foop.

The names don't matter. how stuff works matters. It can be deep strike 9" or deep strike 3". or be called deep strike and superior infiltration. what matters is how it affects the game and units that have those traits.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The entire reason to move away from USR's is so they could customise the rules to fit the unit. It allows Monoliths and Spore Mines to have a 12" limit and the Callidus Assassin a 9-D6" limit.

Terminators get:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleportation Strike
Rules text of Deep Strike with 9"; fluff text.

Monoliths get:

Deep Strike (12")-Death From Above or whatever it's called
Rules text of Deep Strike with 12"; fluff text.

Callidus gets:

Deep Strike (Special)-Infiltration or whatever it's called
Rules text of Deep Strike with 9"-1d6"; fluff text.

Boom, bam, done. I'm fine with printing the full text of the rules on the datasheet, but it'd be nice if the names were consistent.

And then what? Explodes becomes Explodes x+, x", x MW? Now you look at the datasheet and have no idea what Explodes does unless you open up the rulebook. The whole point of 8th was to make as much on the datasheet as possible and avoid the USR Hell of the past.

Did you miss the part where I said:

"I'm fine with printing the full text of the rules on the datasheet, but it'd be nice if the names were consistent."

And yes, Explodes could easily be Explodes (6+, 3", 1d3 MW) for a Rhino, for instance.

That way, the name alone gives experienced players all they need to know, while the newer players can read the text that's printed just below.

Or you just have one exploded rule for everything like in previous editions and not bother with special snowflakes having slight and mostly irrelevant variations.

 Peregrine wrote:
Or you just have one exploded rule for everything like in previous editions and not bother with special snowflakes having slight and mostly irrelevant variations.

I like this, except some models should have a bigger, badder explosion, like some of the fortifications.

Hard to miss: If a unit/model has 20 or more wounds, all shooting weapons targeting the unit/model gain +1 to hit.


Bring back the "medium" stuff. Give a mini-nerf to the opposing extremes of hordes/super-heavies.

 Peregrine wrote:
Or you just have one exploded rule for everything like in previous editions and not bother with special snowflakes having slight and mostly irrelevant variations.

You know draughts is a thing, right? Since you seem to be opposed to any and all difference between units. Or do you think Knights shouldn't be able to jump pieces in chess because that's a slight and mostly irrelevant variation? Peregrine Chess: Everyone gets 8 Pawns and NOTHING ELSE.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
We tried USRs. They didn't work for a reason.

I think you need to go find another windmill to tilt at because several other games out there that use USRs can tell you you're objectively wrong.

How does a thread with awful suggestions keep running?

Answer: Argument about USRs begins.

 Marmatag wrote:
How does a thread with awful suggestions keep running?

Answer: Argument about USRs begins.

Even if rules are on datasheets, they still are USR, all datasheets with a DS abilities are 99% the same, all FnP is the same (either 5+ or 6+) all Supersonic is the same.

Rather you like it or not, but USR are a must for games, 8th just put 99% of them on datasheets instead of in the BRB.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
How does a thread with awful suggestions keep running?

Answer: Argument about USRs begins.

Even if rules are on datasheets, they still are USR, all datasheets with a DS abilities are 99% the same, all FnP is the same (either 5+ or 6+) all Supersonic is the same.

Rather you like it or not, but USR are a must for games, 8th just put 99% of them on datasheets instead of in the BRB.

Considering that not all FNP is the same (some are conditional) and not all supersonic is the same (Eldar have their own special version), you've just proved my point.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
We tried USRs. They didn't work for a reason.

I think you need to go find another windmill to tilt at because several other games out there that use USRs can tell you you're objectively wrong.

Templates bad!
USR bad!
Model conversions bad!
Loyal 32 good!
Soup good!
6 books to play one “army” good!


40k is in a sad place these days.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
How does a thread with awful suggestions keep running?

Answer: Argument about USRs begins.

Even if rules are on datasheets, they still are USR, all datasheets with a DS abilities are 99% the same, all FnP is the same (either 5+ or 6+) all Supersonic is the same.

Rather you like it or not, but USR are a must for games, 8th just put 99% of them on datasheets instead of in the BRB.

Considering that not all FNP is the same (some are conditional) and not all supersonic is the same (Eldar have their own special version), you've just proved my point.

Considering the vast majority of those rules could be written in a sentence or two in the rules, I'm wondering what your point is.

FNP example: When a model in this unit is damaged, roll a die for each point of damage. For each die that equals or exceeds the FNP stat, ignore one point of damage. If a specific type of damage is listed, this unit's FNP only reduces damage of that type.

That covers 99% of the FNP style special rules.

Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

USRs would work if they were actually universal. Until then they're just some rules that may or may not apply to your specific case but you have to go looking for it anyway.
Maybe a lot of you liked them, but I really did not, especially when I was new to the game. The new system is far easier to understand and use imo.

Dandelion wrote:
USRs would work if they were actually universal. Until then they're just some rules that may or may not apply to your specific case but you have to go looking for it anyway.
Maybe a lot of you liked them, but I really did not, especially when I was new to the game. The new system is far easier to understand and use imo.

Question: Would it be any harder to remember, say, Manta Strike, Teleportation Strike, Low-Altitude Deployment, and Death From Above if they were all labeled "Deep Strike (X")"?

Because no one, to my knowledge, has suggested removing the text of the rules from the datasheet. It's fine to keep it there-it helps beginners a lot, and is even helpful for more experienced players when they need a reminder. But what's the issue with codifying rules names?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
USRs would work if they were actually universal. Until then they're just some rules that may or may not apply to your specific case but you have to go looking for it anyway.
Maybe a lot of you liked them, but I really did not, especially when I was new to the game. The new system is far easier to understand and use imo.

Question: Would it be any harder to remember, say, Manta Strike, Teleportation Strike, Low-Altitude Deployment, and Death From Above if they were all labeled "Deep Strike (X")"?

Because no one, to my knowledge, has suggested removing the text of the rules from the datasheet. It's fine to keep it there-it helps beginners a lot, and is even helpful for more experienced players when they need a reminder. But what's the issue with codifying rules names?

Because it's boring? Why make give Storm Bolters and Combi-Bolters different names? Why bother having Lasguns or Autoguns? The game has already been stripped to the bone of any and all complexity, is dealing with a few different rule names so difficult? Like you said, the rule is on the datasheet, so why does it matter what the rule name is? Also, calling it "Deep Strike (X")" suggests that they are always uniform, it's bad enough that Explodes is muddied as it is.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
USRs would work if they were actually universal. Until then they're just some rules that may or may not apply to your specific case but you have to go looking for it anyway.
Maybe a lot of you liked them, but I really did not, especially when I was new to the game. The new system is far easier to understand and use imo.

Question: Would it be any harder to remember, say, Manta Strike, Teleportation Strike, Low-Altitude Deployment, and Death From Above if they were all labeled "Deep Strike (X")"?

Because no one, to my knowledge, has suggested removing the text of the rules from the datasheet. It's fine to keep it there-it helps beginners a lot, and is even helpful for more experienced players when they need a reminder. But what's the issue with codifying rules names?

I do recall some people arguing for removing the rules from the actual datasheets, but it's been a while so my memory might be faulty. Regardless, I don't really see much benefit to labeling those rules as "deep strike" anyway. What I'm more worried about is having "deep strike" be a USR, and then throwing down some exceptions. If you know there will inevitably be exceptions why bother setting up a "universal" system at all?

Though, have you (or anyone you know) had any trouble with the format for these special rules? Have they been hard to use or something? If you're suggesting changing them, what's so bad about them now?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

So now we're just adding two new USR's. Or just two special rules to a unit/weapon/army/datasheet.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

So now we're just adding two new USR's. Or just two special rules to a unit/weapon/army/datasheet.

You seriously don't see the issues that the USR hell we had in previous editions?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

So now we're just adding two new USR's. Or just two special rules to a unit/weapon/army/datasheet.

You seriously don't see the issues that the USR hell we had in previous editions?

USRs weren't a problem in 4e, when there were two pages of them. USRs were a problem in 7e, when there were twenty pages of them and a bunch of them only existed to reference each other.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

So now we're just adding two new USR's. Or just two special rules to a unit/weapon/army/datasheet.

You seriously don't see the issues that the USR hell we had in previous editions?

USRs weren't a problem in 4e, when there were two pages of them. USRs were a problem in 7e, when there were twenty pages of them and a bunch of them only existed to reference each other.

I also play several games that are almost entirely USR's and they work great. Just because they were implemented poorly for the last couple of editions doesn't make them bad in concept.

But if you have USRs you don't have to write a bunch of separate versions of every rule, decreasing the chances that you make a mistake in over-literal RAW. And how could you not feel bad about taking away BCB's signature material?

 Peregrine wrote:
But if you have USRs you don't have to write a bunch of separate versions of every rule, decreasing the chances that you make a mistake in over-literal RAW. And how could you not feel bad about taking away BCB's signature material?

Until you end up with a rule that you want to be be able to ignore FNP, so you say it ignores FNP. Then you have a unit that you want to get FNP even if the enemy ignores FNP, so you give them a special snowflake rule thats like FNP but not actually, and then it all goes downhill from there.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But if you have USRs you don't have to write a bunch of separate versions of every rule, decreasing the chances that you make a mistake in over-literal RAW. And how could you not feel bad about taking away BCB's signature material?

Until you end up with a rule that you want to be be able to ignore FNP, so you say it ignores FNP. Then you have a unit that you want to get FNP even if the enemy ignores FNP, so you give them a special snowflake rule thats like FNP but not actually, and then it all goes downhill from there.

Or you just don't do silly things like that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But if you have USRs you don't have to write a bunch of separate versions of every rule, decreasing the chances that you make a mistake in over-literal RAW. And how could you not feel bad about taking away BCB's signature material?

Until you end up with a rule that you want to be be able to ignore FNP, so you say it ignores FNP. Then you have a unit that you want to get FNP even if the enemy ignores FNP, so you give them a special snowflake rule thats like FNP but not actually, and then it all goes downhill from there.

And if by down hill, you mean a sentence on one weapon, and a sentence on one unit.

What you're saying is the same as saying: "Well, my car might be crushed by a meteor today, so I might as well just stay in bed."

At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

the_scotsman wrote:


This suggestion makes the most sense and is basically what is in the new Cityfight rules from CA2018, I encourage you to try them out. They work...okay, in my opinion. terrain and maneuver definitely feels more impactful. The problem comes from how utterly unshiftable units on upper floors of ruins become with -1 to hit and +2 to save AND the stupid cluster of FAQ rulings GW has put out to make units on upper floors totally unassaultable.

The cityfight rules are far closer to where we should be than the minimal terrain rules everyone uses. Truth is that the BRB already had better terrain rules but they were optional so nobody uses them - they just grumble about the bad terrain rules on the internet

I agree that the cityfight terrain rules could get out of hand unless you have compensating ways to clear out dug-in units. Personally i would just have a rule that permits any unit to fight from 3" vertically away at a penalty of -1 to hit - no wobbly models, no models claiming to be where they are not, just let them attack in the fight phase. The game mechanics really struggle with vertical separation between models at the moment.

I would also definitely have rules for grenades and flamethrowers getting max numbers of shots and re-rolls to wound against dug-in units because that is cinematic and suits the image we have of those weapons. Also because shooting armies do need a way to dig out those units.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

And by buddhist monk, you mean take a decent amount of time to make sure everything syncs up properly. Not doing it is probably why they had trouble before, but it's not something that would require superhuman like skills at game creation.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

And by buddhist monk, you mean take a decent amount of time to make sure everything syncs up properly. Not doing it is probably why they had trouble before, but it's not something that would require superhuman like skills at game creation.

I agree, it requires average skills at game creation along with a technical editor. GW do not have those things.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

O levels? How old are you? They're called GCSEs and have been for decades.

That there shows a massive disconnect you have with this community and how it plays the game. USRs are a wonderful modern invention and have been implemented greatly. Just because GW didn't do it well (although let's ignore how well they did it in 4th and 5th ) doesn't make it a gak idea.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

I'm not sure what your point here is. ANY approach to writing rules is going to fail if you assume complete incompetence as an inevitable trait of the authors.

Which, if you read his posts, he does automatically assume.

I automatically assume it for GW writers the same way I automatically assume if I stick my hand into a toaster it's going to get burned. Basic Pattern Recognition.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I automatically assume it for GW writers the same way I automatically assume if I stick my hand into a toaster it's going to get burned. Basic Pattern Recognition.

Then (as much as it pains me to say it as I have been asked this many a time) why the feth are you still playing? There are far better written games out there that will cause you much less stress.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

I'm not sure what your point here is. ANY approach to writing rules is going to fail if you assume complete incompetence as an inevitable trait of the authors.

To be fair GW rules writing has had a fair number of fundamental ups in 8th edition, that should have been fixed if they had anything resembling a pier review process so I would say it's not unreasonable to expect the same level of "in"competence in USR.

I think everyone is happy that we have 8th edition and the GW are actually trying to fix the screw ups as the community highlights them, but the community shouldn't still be having to explaining the game to the designers, or why certain factions don't work and others are extremely powerful.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I automatically assume it for GW writers the same way I automatically assume if I stick my hand into a toaster it's going to get burned. Basic Pattern Recognition.

So if all GW rules writers are bad, and cant write anything good, then WHY are you on here talking about rules from GW then? I think its time to call your troll crap out and stop talking to you.

Would you agree it is a little bit counterintuitive to state and expect GW to be incompetent at writing rules, but then try to interpret those same rules following strict RAW principle?

This looks awfully a lot like Troll confessing he is trolling.

Maybe because I like the lore? Because for all the crap the rules are, the models are still the best around? Maybe because I like discussing the rules, however badly written they are? I don't have to justify my hobbies to you or anyone else.

8th is a solid game with a few glaring flaws, as opposed to 7th which was a barely functional mess. The "broken" stuff notwithstanding I actually enjoy playing the game (when LoW aren't used but that's an issue with GW's incompetence/marketing diktats at writing rules for Knights).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Maybe because I like the lore? Because for all the crap the rules are, the models are still the best around? Maybe because I like discussing the rules, however badly written they are? I don't have to justify my hobbies to you or anyone else.

Then talk about them instead of gaking all over the rules perhaps?

Yes, we know GW is hippy dippy at writing rules. It's up there with death and taxes as something that is inevitable, we don't need to be reminded of it every 5 minutes like its some kind of revelation and you're on a higher level for understanding this and us uneducated peons are not.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Maybe because I like the lore? Because for all the crap the rules are, the models are still the best around? Maybe because I like discussing the rules, however badly written they are? I don't have to justify my hobbies to you or anyone else.

Then talk about them instead of gaking all over the rules perhaps?

Yes, we know GW is hippy dippy at writing rules. It's up there with death and taxes as something that is inevitable, we don't need to be reminded of it every 5 minutes like its some kind of revelation and you're on a higher level for understanding this and us uneducated peons are not.

This entire thread revolves around the concept though. The OP wants to reintroduce USRs. There are multiple reasons why USRs are a mess, one of which is GW's inability to use them properly and reasons beside that. Maybe they work in other games, fair enough. Most other games don't have a power range from 3 kilos of moving fungus with a sharp stick to a literal walking god-engine that can raze a non-negligible part of a continent to ash. USRs simply don't work well when things get that disparate in power.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This entire thread revolves around the concept though. The OP wants to reintroduce USRs. There are multiple reasons why USRs are a mess, one of which is GW's inability to use them properly and reasons beside that. Maybe they work in other games, fair enough. Most other games don't have a power range from 3 kilos of moving fungus with a sharp stick to a literal walking god-engine that can raze a non-negligible part of a continent to ash. USRs simply don't work well when things get that disparate in power.

Oh you know I'm not talking about this thread in isolation. Don't be so obtuse.

Go and talk in the background threads or modelling. Please. For the sake of everyone.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Maybe because I like the lore? Because for all the crap the rules are, the models are still the best around? Maybe because I like discussing the rules, however badly written they are? I don't have to justify my hobbies to you or anyone else.

Then talk about them instead of gaking all over the rules perhaps?

Yes, we know GW is hippy dippy at writing rules. It's up there with death and taxes as something that is inevitable, we don't need to be reminded of it every 5 minutes like its some kind of revelation and you're on a higher level for understanding this and us uneducated peons are not.

This entire thread revolves around the concept though. The OP wants to reintroduce USRs. There are multiple reasons why USRs are a mess, one of which is GW's inability to use them properly and reasons beside that. Maybe they work in other games, fair enough. Most other games don't have a power range from 3 kilos of moving fungus with a sharp stick to a literal walking god-engine that can raze a non-negligible part of a continent to ash. USRs simply don't work well when things get that disparate in power.

Im the OP and never said i wanted USR in the rule book, i said USR or datasheet rules, aka a list of rules that a large majority of units can have.

The thread is suppose to generate talk about some nice core rules to have, not to have USR, you are the troll that is saying its about USR.

edit: spelling

Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

Stop trying to derail the thread ffs, this isnt about adding USR to the rulebook, but a few rules in general that many units should have, so shutup about USR and get back onto topic.

FLY keyword is a USR in 8th ed and no one seems to have problem with it.

The game may not need the USR of the 6/7th ed, but it sure could use some standardized glossary of terms to be used in tandum explaining the rules.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

this isnt about adding USR to the rulebook

 Amishprn86 wrote:

6 USR that needs to be added to the BRB or many Datasheets

AnomanderRake wrote:USRs weren't a problem in 4e, when there were two pages of them. USRs were a problem in 7e, when there were twenty pages of them and a bunch of them only existed to reference each other.

I seem to remember more pages of them, but I usually referenced them digitally more than on paper. And as much as people keep going off on that, there weren't that many, proportionally, that referenced other ones as much as in 6th edition. In 7th they more often kept the language complete instead of referencing them. The differences were usually between model-specific and group-affect.

Where more of the problems came were the Unit Special Rules which should have been left to USRs, but weren't because of USR +1 syndrome, and the confusion with the interactions with the Independent Character special rule.

BaconCatBug wrote:At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

Well, they're British, I'm not sure how many Buddhist Shrines are on the Isles. Does the Church of England have monasteries, or is that just a Catholic thing?

skchsan wrote:FLY keyword is a USR in 8th ed and no one seems to have problem with it.

The game may not need the USR of the 6/7th ed, but it sure could use some standardized glossary of terms to be used in tandum explaining the rules.

That's not even needed for USRs, but for things like "unsaved Wound". GW writing takes a lot of assumptions in their writing, and that's where the big fail lies with their rules writing, such as with 7th Edition's USRs.

 Charistoph wrote:

skchsan wrote:FLY keyword is a USR in 8th ed and no one seems to have problem with it.

The game may not need the USR of the 6/7th ed, but it sure could use some standardized glossary of terms to be used in tandum explaining the rules.

That's not even needed for USRs, but for things like "unsaved Wound". GW writing takes a lot of assumptions in their writing, and that's where the big fail lies with their rules writing, such as with 7th Edition's USRs.

"Unsaved Wound" is not a USR or a phrase used as a pseudo proper noun.

That's why we need a glossary of terms.

If one's (GW) going to make up words and phrases different to the normal 'parsing of english language', then you need to provide a dictionary too.

 skchsan wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

skchsan wrote:FLY keyword is a USR in 8th ed and no one seems to have problem with it.

The game may not need the USR of the 6/7th ed, but it sure could use some standardized glossary of terms to be used in tandum explaining the rules.

That's not even needed for USRs, but for things like "unsaved Wound". GW writing takes a lot of assumptions in their writing, and that's where the big fail lies with their rules writing, such as with 7th Edition's USRs.

"Unsaved Wound" is not a USR or a phrase used as a pseudo proper noun.

That's why we need a glossary of terms.

If one's (GW) going to make up words and phrases different to the normal 'parsing of english language', then you need to provide a dictionary too.

I'm in agreement. I was merely pointing out "unsaved Wound" because it has been used a lot in previous editions, as well as currently, while never being properly defined, and there was a question for it on YMDC recently regarding that same term/phrase, which provides a perfect example of necessity.

One of the most core USR from past editions was Relentless and yet its rarely listed on 8th edition units. Completely ruins things when a big stompy unit has heavy weapons and gets -1 to hit when it moves despite it was originally designed to be able to use heavy weapons without a problem.

Losing USR sucked it used to be pretty easy when talking about units with my buddies just to list off it's profile and USR. Now everything has their own rules so I gota read their codex witch bogs the game down.

 Vankraken wrote:
One of the most core USR from past editions was Relentless and yet its rarely listed on 8th edition units. Completely ruins things when a big stompy unit has heavy weapons and gets -1 to hit when it moves despite it was originally designed to be able to use heavy weapons without a problem.

Any marine (loyalist or traitor) in Terminator armor thanks you for your observation.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Terminator_Armour -> "....Offensively, it provides the strength to maintain mobility while serving as a solid heavy-weapons platform in open-field combat."

Quasistellar wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

this isnt about adding USR to the rulebook

 Amishprn86 wrote:

6 USR that needs to be added to the BRB or many Datasheets

Yes, i said USR or "Added to datasheets" b.c COVER isnt going to be on datasheets, do you not understand? Not every rule is allowed on datasheets, some do go into the brb.. hmm like cover rules. Thats why i said both, some will be in the brb someone datasheets.

So, if you want to talk about if USR should be a thing again, do it somewhere else.

Lord Clinto wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
One of the most core USR from past editions was Relentless and yet its rarely listed on 8th edition units. Completely ruins things when a big stompy unit has heavy weapons and gets -1 to hit when it moves despite it was originally designed to be able to use heavy weapons without a problem.

Any marine (loyalist or traitor) in Terminator armor thanks you for your observation.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Terminator_Armour -> "....Offensively, it provides the strength to maintain mobility while serving as a solid heavy-weapons platform in open-field combat."

Or gear heads, for that matter. Guard tank platoons, Iron Wing, and Speed Freaks would be some good examples of play style that were greatly affected by that loss, not just Deathwing and their cousins.

Amishprn86 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

this isnt about adding USR to the rulebook

 Amishprn86 wrote:

6 USR that needs to be added to the BRB or many Datasheets

Yes, i said USR or "Added to datasheets" b.c COVER isnt going to be on datasheets, do you not understand? Not every rule is allowed on datasheets, some do go into the brb.. hmm like cover rules. Thats why i said both, some will be in the brb someone datasheets.

So, if you want to talk about if USR should be a thing again, do it somewhere else.

You included the BRB in the opening statement. Then in a later statement you said it wasn't about the BRB in an absolute statement, which is countering your initial statement. And the more "universal" a rule is going to be, such as the above quoted "Relentless" was for heavy infantry, monsters, and vehicles, it would be in the rulebook. Now, a more proper statement would have been, "this isn't just about adding USRs to the rulebook."

One example was Fleet, which was semi-universal until 5th Edition. Only a few had it, so it wasn't needed to be defined just the places that had it. But when Run was put in and more models were given Fleet, it became a USR instead of a sUSR.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lord Clinto wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
One of the most core USR from past editions was Relentless and yet its rarely listed on 8th edition units. Completely ruins things when a big stompy unit has heavy weapons and gets -1 to hit when it moves despite it was originally designed to be able to use heavy weapons without a problem.

Any marine (loyalist or traitor) in Terminator armor thanks you for your observation.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Terminator_Armour -> "....Offensively, it provides the strength to maintain mobility while serving as a solid heavy-weapons platform in open-field combat."

Or gear heads, for that matter. Guard tank platoons, Iron Wing, and Speed Freaks would be some good examples of play style that were greatly affected by that loss, not just Deathwing and their cousins.

Amishprn86 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

this isnt about adding USR to the rulebook

 Amishprn86 wrote:

6 USR that needs to be added to the BRB or many Datasheets

Yes, i said USR or "Added to datasheets" b.c COVER isnt going to be on datasheets, do you not understand? Not every rule is allowed on datasheets, some do go into the brb.. hmm like cover rules. Thats why i said both, some will be in the brb someone datasheets.

So, if you want to talk about if USR should be a thing again, do it somewhere else.

You included the BRB in the opening statement. Then in a later statement you said it wasn't about the BRB in an absolute statement, which is countering your initial statement. And the more "universal" a rule is going to be, such as the above quoted "Relentless" was for heavy infantry, monsters, and vehicles, it would be in the rulebook. Now, a more proper statement would have been, "this isn't just about adding USRs to the rulebook."

One example was Fleet, which was semi-universal until 5th Edition. Only a few had it, so it wasn't needed to be defined just the places that had it. But when Run was put in and more models were given Fleet, it became a USR instead of a sUSR.

So, wait, you want cover rules on datasheets now too? And fallback rules on datasheets as well? So we should remove them from the BRB where they are right now?

Yes i mention the BRB and i also mention the Datasheets (as its int he title and opening page, hmm), but i thought people were smart enough to know that not all rules go onto the datasheets and some of them are in the BRB.

Thanks for showing me you dont understand how this works.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
So, wait, you want cover rules on datasheets now too? And fallback rules on datasheets as well? So we should remove them from the BRB where they are right now?

That is a hyperbolic strawman statement with no correlation to what you quoted.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yes i mention the BRB and i also mention the Datasheets (as its int he title and opening page, hmm), but i thought people were smart enough to know that not all rules go onto the datasheets and some of them are in the BRB.

Thanks for showing me you dont understand how this works.

No, it shows that you didn't bother reading what was written by me or by Quasistellar. Try again.

The first statement QS quoted was you saying it wasn't about adding USR to the rulebook, but then he quoted your OP about adding USRs to the rulebook (while also including the datasheets).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the long run, part of the problem is that to truly qualify it as a USR, it needs to be in the rulebook, otherwise it is only a semi-Universal Special Rule (sUSR).

 Charistoph wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
So, wait, you want cover rules on datasheets now too? And fallback rules on datasheets as well? So we should remove them from the BRB where they are right now?

That is a hyperbolic strawman statement with no correlation to what you quoted.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yes i mention the BRB and i also mention the Datasheets (as its int he title and opening page, hmm), but i thought people were smart enough to know that not all rules go onto the datasheets and some of them are in the BRB.

Thanks for showing me you dont understand how this works.

No, it shows that you didn't bother reading what was written by me or by Quasistellar. Try again.

The first statement QS quoted was you saying it wasn't about adding USR to the rulebook, but then he quoted your OP about adding USRs to the rulebook (while also including the datasheets).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the long run, part of the problem is that to truly qualify it as a USR, it needs to be in the rulebook, otherwise it is only a semi-Universal Special Rule (sUSR).

We can keep derailing the thread with this worthless talk or talk about some rules that needs to be added into the game other than "Make marines better an guardsmen cheaper" that would be good for the health of the game.

As i have said, some rules will need to be in the BRB, and some of datasheets, leave it as that and move on.

BRB should be to codex what encyclopedia is to subject specific books.

The BRB is almost without any function as battle primers cover the core rules and codex supplemental rules.

BRB should function as a reference book in which all these 40k jargons are explained rather than a shelf decoration that it is now.