So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about whyUSRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!
I don't think most gamers were opposed to USRs to begin with. GW chose to go the bespoke approach so that they had more freedom to give units unique rules rather than being limited to the 'pool' of available USRs.
Of course, in practice that approach just gives you a confusing bunch of similar rules that should have been a single USR...
So, to answer the actual question - the potential problem with USRs is simply that they can limit unique unit design. That can be mitigated by having a broad range of different USRs, and by introducing unit-specific rules where appropriate and keeping USRs for the bulk of your rules design.
USRs could be good, but it is a matter of execution. There are a number of reasons they are considered to be bad by some:
1. Too many USRs. Look at the 6th or 7th Edition Rulebooks and look at the absolute bloat of USRs. Remember that some USRs are literally, you have these two USRs. And then there are the USRs that are just a better version of a different USR. It was just an absolute mess.
2. The presence of all those USRs still didn't prevent a multitude of unique special rules, some which were just slight adjustments of USRs.
3. All your rules on the data sheet is just better than having a bunch of words you have two look up to determine what the heck your unit does.
4. Units changing via USR adjustments. Wasn't it great when Rending got nerfed by being moved from 6's to Hit to 6's to Wound without adjusting the points cost of any of the Rending weapons?
Now all that being said, GW could really use a few USRs, or keyword rules, to clean up the rules overall. It would be great if Reinforcements was a rule and the various other rules could reference. Then you would never have to decide if a particular unit was Reinforcements and rules that target Reinforcements would also be very clear.
Nothing. They were a punching bag for people who didn't actually understand what was or wasn't a design problem, and their removal has had a negative impact not a positive one.
Nothing. They were a punching bag for people who didn't actually understand what was or wasn't a design problem, and their removal has had a negative impact not a positive one.
I don't think there's a single accurate thing in that statement ....
In a vacuum, there's nothing wrong with either approach, but if you don't think GW's handling of them was completely botched, then it might actually be you who doesn't understand the design problem. We are in a significantly better place than we were in 7th. It's not even close.
So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about why USRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!
Yeah, like others pointed out, it's largely GW's handling of USRs vs actually having a problem with the concept of USRs. You ended up with pages upon pages of them, and just got silly - "My unit has this USR, so let me turn to that page in the BRB aaaannnnnddddd .... it's a USR that exists for the sole purpose of conveying 6 other USRs that I now have to look up ...
I also feel like of those were getting "made up as they went along" rather than really planning out how they would work, which caused additional problems, and then there's the granularity with corrections - GW: "Ok, we have to nerf unit x, so let's edit the USR that's breaking them. Excellent! That unit has now been brought in line." The player base "Yeah, but you broke three other units in the wrong direction by doing that, so now, one unit is "fixed", and three others that weren't problems now suck. So thanks?" Giving each unit bespoke rules allows for a significant amount of granularity in correcting things without causing unintended consequences. To each his own, but I don't understand the people who think that approach is somehow worse. The ability to fix a unit without breaking anything else is pretty huge. Such adjustments become nearly impossible if you're working with the USR system of old.
For me, yeah, it's a little awkward conversationally to not be able to refer to a single rule like "Deep-Strike", but we seem to just refer to it by that anyway, so I'm not sure that even matters. I really don't miss the old USR system at all. I think that system works well for a less complex game (something like index 40K for example), but once you start to build it out, it just becomes cumbersome and complicated. Especially when you have rules writers that don't always seem to understand the cause and effect their own rules will have on one another.
Keywords and special unit rules that do almost the same things, but for no reason aren't identical, are just the worst implementation of USRs.
That's not really correct though. As several people have pointed out - there are very good reasons why the names are different. It always surprises me when people struggle so hard with that concept ...
The part about accountability is especially confusing as it allows them to directly take ownership of mistakes and problems much more quickly. Can you name one or two that you feel specifically bother you? It's one ting to simply say you just personally prefer the older system, but a lot of the objections I see to the new system tend to just be non-specific rants. I'd be interested in hearing specifics as to what you miss about the USRs that you aren't getting in the new system.
After spending a lot of time switching between Infinity (models have skills, and they're all in the rulebook) and Malifaux (model skills on the cards, even if it's a skill that lots of models have), the issue with USR's is:
- If you put the skill on the dataslate/card/whatever in full text, you don't have to stop and look up the rule in the rulebook if you forget or don't know what it does.
- If you're constantly adding new armies and models that have new rules, designers need to be able to actively update the USR list in order to keep it up to date and relevant.
- Even the names of abilities has a role in giving a model flavor, and USRs don't have the same amount of flavor as multiple similar skills with individualized names.
I lived through the first Chaos Demons codex, where there were unit abilities that were just "This unit has Rending" or "This unit has Power Weapons" under a fancy name. It was sufficiently annoying that I ended up writing my own reference sheet for the army. But now I've been able to witness the "You're killing all of the flavor of that model!" outcries that the Malifaux developers had to deal with when they tried to consolidate a bunch of similar weapons and attacks and skills on different models.
Stop and think about it. You've got a Bloodletter with Power Weapon, and a Terminator with Power Weapon. Obviously they've got two completely different explanations for why they're using the Power Weapon rules. Do you put that in the unit entry, so that Bloodletters have Demonic Swords and Terminators have Power Sword or Power Mace, or do you put that in the unit description where it gets lost?
And, to really harp on the middle point in my list, 40K's big issue is that there really isn't any feasible way for the person writing the rulebook to be able to anticipate all of the rules that are going to be written for armies five or six years later. So you get situations like Poison they write a rule for Poisoned Weapons, correctly guess that the future will want to use 6+, 5+, 4+, etc., but don't correctly guess that the same rule should work for ranged weapons and CC weapons. (I think it was 3rd edition where this happened, with the Dark Eldar...)
The other important thing is that the benefit of USRs is that once you're familiar with all of them, it makes learning what a new unit does easy. But the downside is that you have to invest all of that work in learning all of the various USRs. Until then, every time you see a USR, you have to stop and look it up in the rulebook.
Of course, not using USRs leads to all sorts of different problems: the existence of multiple rules that may or may not have subtle but important differences that are easy to overlook; having to print (and errata) the same identical text in multiple places; and the fact that experienced players are going end up with a de facto USR list in their heads.
There should be a maxim concerning system design which states that complexity can never be destroyed, only swept under a rug. It could use USR as the example.
There should be a maxim concerning system design which states that complexity can never be destroyed, only swept under a rug. It could use USR as the example.
That's pretty perfect. I still think a basic set of USRs can work well for a simpler game, but modern 40k is just too big in every sense of the word, and if you want to keep giving the factions their own unique feel, you probably have to walk away from the traditional USR approach.
Nothing should have any bespoke rules. Nothing does anything outside of what the main rules already encompass.
USR's should make up the entirety of all rules. Make them concise and named exactly for what they do.
Example:
Melee to hit bonus: +1
In this example a unit gains +1 to hit in melee. Easy.
Shooting defence armour bonus: +2
In this example a unit gains +2 armour save against shooting.
Bespoke rules have brought rules bloat to a new and unimaginable level of tedium. I have to reference 3 to 4 different books just to find out what everything does. It's unimaginably stupid. No one in their right mind would ever organize a game in a way to make things actually more time consuming and complicated to look up and understand how the game is played. It's mind boggling that people would want bespoke rules.
The point about adjusting a single rule when balance needs to be adjusted shouldn't even be an issue if the unit was costed correctly.
Currently we have hundreds of units that do slight variations of the same thing depending on how GW felt at the time, and it's insane to keep track of.
I have to reference 3 to 4 different books just to find out what everything does.
You had to do this with the old system too. That has nothing to do with whether they're using USRs or not.
I think the issue with what you're describing is that we ultimately land in a spot like we had at the end of 3rd and 5th edition where the game was really stale and boring, and a lot of armies were very "samey", or like what we had at the end of 6th and 7th where just had USRs on top of USRs, with USRs that only convey other USRs, etc etc.
It's been a while since I played a non-40k wargame, but I can't think of any I've played over the years that were large, complex, and had a successful USR system. I've really only seen that work with smaller, less complex games.
I think the lack of USRs has lead to a lot of Flavorless bloat, rather than better game design.
With often some of them just being the same thing with a different name, or a very similar rule just doing the same thing a different way. Hope you got one that works.
Even games with USRs, often have Unique special rules as well.
with a lot having FactionSRs and even TypeSR.
You can even put the whole USR on the page in a codex, and sell Cards and such with it in ShortText with just the Name.
Nothing. They were a punching bag for people who didn't actually understand what was or wasn't a design problem, and their removal has had a negative impact not a positive one.
I don't think there's a single accurate thing in that statement ....
In a vacuum, there's nothing wrong with either approach, but if you don't think GW's handling of them was completely botched, then it might actually be you who doesn't understand the design problem. We are in a significantly better place than we were in 7th. It's not even close.
I didn't say GW's handling of it was fine. I'm saying people complained mindlessly about "USR's are a problem!" and now they are gone when the problem was never USR's, it was GW's bad design choices. USR's would be a very useful addition to the current state of 40k as this thread and another recent one about the ridiculous body guard rules demonstrate. USR's didn't have to die at all, but people complained about the wrong stuff until GW listened.
It reminds of that time in the real world where we had this great idea for the refrigerator, but then the first refrigerator design was too clunky, so we all raged and raged about the audacity of them thinking the refrigerator was a good idea, and collectively decided to stick with the icebox and meat salting from then onwards.
Oh wait, no, we didn't do that, because that would be absolutely idiotic.
"throwing out the baby with the bathwater" is the idiom I believe.
I've worked on a number of books that had a heady dose of Universal Special Rules.
These were, specifically, the Skill/Talent rules and Weapon Quality rules from the 40KRPGs. These were in big important sections of the core rulebook, and everything that was written was based off of those.
Over time more of these were added, meaning that you ended up with some rules that were only in expansion books rather than the core book. But it was also based on time, so by the time you reached the latter core rule books, all the previous "expansion only" rules were consolidated into their big skill/talent/weapon rule sections.
The aim was to use the central rules as often as possible as to avoid giving every new piece of equipment a unique rule. It didn't always work, some items (especially things that aren't weapons) can't work in a one-size fits all environment, and most units (basically elite units and above) had one special rule that was unique to them to give them flavour, but otherwise everything operated off this central set of rules and abilities.
40k needs something like this. Writing out the rule for each thing over and over again is a waste of page space, and given how often we see little variations it hasn't helped the speed of the game as you need to keep checking what each unit does as it might have something similar but not exactly the same as another unit.
Things like plasma weapons' ability to kill you should be codified as a single rule, so we don't have some that cause mortal wounds, and some that kill the user outright (like Chaos Rhinos can die instantly from a combi-plasma rolling 1, which makes zero sense).
40k would be better served with a central set of common rules. Keywords are not a substitute for this.
I find this discussion amusing. Back in the day, 40k had very few USR's, and many units had their own special rules described in the Codex as armywide special rules, or unit entry as unique special rules. Many WM/H players bemoaned how PP approach of very large number of USR's which covered everything was much better.
So then GW moved towards that approach and most units and armies lost their special rules and they were moved to core rulebook. Result: people started moaning how there was 'USR bloat' and way too many USR's...
As for 40kRPG's, I wouldn't really use it as a positive example as I thought the system was horribly bloated towards the end, and completely unmanageable.
I’m not opposed to them and they really do streamline the game.
My take is that they just aren’t for everything.
Sometimes you need layers of something in order for it to actually be effective or worth using.
Take old WHFB for example.
It had USRs for light and heavy armour, shields, mounts etc.
It then also had additional separate rules for units that had particularly strong armour or better mounts.
I think there’s only so much you can streamline with USRs before you dull the game too much.
We know exactly why GW decided to ditch USRs, because we were told it in White Dwarf articles - they wanted to make the core rules as short ('accessible') as possible (quite why they wanted to do that isn't as clear...)
USRs would absolutely help 40k and I genuinely don't get why people object to them so strongly. There are a couple of caveats first though:
1. The presence of USRs does not preclude the existence of unique rules for units
2. USRs should be genuinely universal and not bundle up other USRs
For a good example of why the current approach is stupid you only have to look at 40k's first big FAQ. That was the one where they had to change how FNP saves worked by restricting you to only taking one of these type of saves. In order to do this they had to basically list a whole bunch of those types of saves "Disgustingly Resilient, Black Rage, Delightful Agonies...and y'know, sort of anything else that's kind of similar". With a USR system they could easily have changed that entire rule at once while making it easily referenced rather than hoping your readers understand what you're talking about. Also, I suspect if they'd have had a USR system they wouldn't have even made this mistake in the first place because they'd have caught the issue of stacking rules with the same name before it became a problem. In fact, previous editions of the game had a specific callout for USRs that stacked, with the default being that they didn't.
USRs make parsing rules easier. The argument that you have to remember what each USR does is kind of a strange one when we're talking here about true universal rules, not any random rule that applies to a handful of units. This sort of system is used in different types of games to great effect. Besides that we already have USRs with Fly and the whole Angels of Death set of rules and they don't cause problems. USRs tell you at a glance what a unit can do. I can see immediately that a unit can Deep Strike and has a re-roll aura instead of having to figure out what the hell Manta Strike means. It's bad enough that it took me 3-4 reads of the new Lemartes datasheet to spot that he still gives re-rolls to Death Company units by default - again, because the rule's called something unique rather than being easily spotted at a glance. I can also more easily explain units to people unfamiliar with them by using USRS. I could even just hand them the datasheet and they could take in all the info in about 5 seconds instead of having to read through 5 individual rules only to find that by the time they get to the last line it's identical to a rule from their army but called something unintelligible to them. USRs also prevent bloat by restricting design space to only the things you need and any system that uses USRs needs to think very carefully before breaking them. This was one of GW's big failings in the past. Restricting design space is a good thing because it makes balancing easier by preventing some weird wording of a rule that's functionally identical to a whole bunch of others from having an unintended interaction that can break the game.
Perhaps most telling of all in favour of USRs is that even new gamers in my group who didn't play any 40k prior to 8th edition are happy referring to rules as Feel No Pain and Deep Strike.
Backfire wrote: I find this discussion amusing. Back in the day, 40k had very few USR's, and many units had their own special rules described in the Codex as armywide special rules, or unit entry as unique special rules. Many WM/H players bemoaned how PP approach of very large number of USR's which covered everything was much better.
So then GW moved towards that approach and most units and armies lost their special rules and they were moved to core rulebook. Result: people started moaning how there was 'USR bloat' and way too many USR's...
That just shows that the problem is GW - because GW are bad at writing rules - and not USRs themselves.
Prior to 4th edition you'd get situations where you had Furious Charge, Furious Assault, and Berserk Charge all having different effects to represent the same thing (and good luck remembering which version did what on which unit).
4th edition introduced USRs, but GW being GW couldn't stick to a single design philosophy for more than a year, and so we ended up with loads of unit-specific special rules again, and then by 7th edition we had USRs which were just other USRs bundled together, or USRs which were never actually used by more than one or two units (this is essentially the same problem which resulted in formations made up of other formations, which were made up of OTHER formations!)
I preferred USR. It was much smoother to me that units shared a universal rule, rather than having their own specific one. It's come up a few times in games where the game has stalled for one of us to looks something up, and the other says "I think that it would be "X" because my unit has a rule like that written as "X", but we can't know for sure."
I would have any roll-based USR be a rule with a bracketed number - EG "feel no pain (5+)" or "reroll to hit (1-)", "reroll to hit (2-)", "reroll to hit (all)". (reroll 1's, reroll 1's and 2's, reroll all)
"Fast Charge (1)" - +1" to charge moves
Fast Charge (2) - add 2 to charge moves
"Furious charge" - charge after advancing
Disengage (shoot) - can shoot after falling back
Disengage (charge) - can charge after falling back
Disengage - can act normally after falling back
Fleet of foot (2) - add 2" to advance moves
etc.
I would prefer this so much - it would need intuitive names, which may be less "cool" but far easier for rules reference.
This way when someone says "my unit has Fleet of foot(2), I'll just look it up and see what it does", there's a fair chance their opponent will know - and they won't have to know a slew of unique rules, word for word, for their opponents codex. Game goes faster, and everyone's a winner.
Jackal90 wrote: I’m not opposed to them and they really do streamline the game.
My take is that they just aren’t for everything.
Sometimes you need layers of something in order for it to actually be effective or worth using.
Take old WHFB for example.
It had USRs for light and heavy armour, shields, mounts etc.
It then also had additional separate rules for units that had particularly strong armour or better mounts.
I think there’s only so much you can streamline with USRs before you dull the game too much.
I think this approach is absolutely fine.
My issue is with having 400 rules with different names that all do the same thing.
GW doesn't know how to write USRs. They always make new USRs that just appear on one unit so they stop being USR and instead of using generic USR they make slighly different USR.
So they stopped trying to do that, accepted their inability and just wrote what the rule does on each unit.
Jackal90 wrote: I’m not opposed to them and they really do streamline the game.
My take is that they just aren’t for everything.
Sometimes you need layers of something in order for it to actually be effective or worth using.
Take old WHFB for example.
It had USRs for light and heavy armour, shields, mounts etc.
It then also had additional separate rules for units that had particularly strong armour or better mounts.
I think there’s only so much you can streamline with USRs before you dull the game too much.
I think this approach is absolutely fine.
My issue is with having 400 rules with different names that all do the same thing.
I think as long as 3+ units in the game have a rule that does exactly the same, USR it.
They have to put it in the army book as well though.
Nice to not have to dig through a huge book for rules when against new armies or when a new edition hits.
Keywords and special unit rules that do almost the same things, but for no reason aren't identical, are just the worst implementation of USRs.
That's not really correct though. As several people have pointed out - there are very good reasons why the names are different. It always surprises me when people struggle so hard with that concept ...
The part about accountability is especially confusing as it allows them to directly take ownership of mistakes and problems much more quickly. Can you name one or two that you feel specifically bother you? It's one ting to simply say you just personally prefer the older system, but a lot of the objections I see to the new system tend to just be non-specific rants. I'd be interested in hearing specifics as to what you miss about the USRs that you aren't getting in the new system.
Accountability because they don't have a standard to measure against so they can throw out almost identical but not quite rules, which excuses poor work. Very few of these almost the same rules are importantly different. They're different for their own sake.
A USR simply creates a standardised measure for a mechanic in the game.
They can still be printed on unit cards, they can also appear in rulebooks. they can also appear as an update in chapter approved every year if needed.
But they mean that when you tell me you're deep striking, I can look at my own units rules to see what it does and know it does the same thing. They mean that you won't have to keep rereading each new rule that comes out because it might be worded different and create an effect no one expected.
What USRs won't do is:
Constrain the number of special rules in the game. All they do is ensure that you aren't duplicating the same thing over and over again and provide standardisation
Require you to look in more places than currently - you can replace every rule in every current location in the game with a standardised version of said rule and no extra burden is at hand
Require you to stack special rules inside each other - this was a choice for USR implementation, not a requirement.
All a USR is, is the standardisation of a particular way of doing the same thing, regardless of what unit it is. Just as Rolling to hit is a USR, so should deep strike, characters, aircraft etc be a USR.
USR's aren't about their name, they're about rule standardisation. So long as the mechanic is identical for that purpose, it doesn't matter what they're called - hell they could make INVISIBLE USRs, whose sole purpose is back end development consistency and only the designers need ever blight their eyes with such horrors...
There have been plenty discussions on the USR topic and a consent of how USR could work for 40k.
A rough summary: People want to have keyworded rules for things that appear in many codices, like explosions, deep strike, melta, overheating weapons, ignore damage or bodyguards.
The rules should still be on the datasheet, but the wording should be absolutely identical for all of them. Variable parts of those keyworded rules should be visible at the first glance, explosions are the perfect example of how to not do it. Instead, something like Explosion(6+, 6", d3 Mortal Wounds) followed by the detailed explanation we have now would be preferable.
Bespoke rules can replace keyworded rules when the are different enough. These get different names to clearly show to the reader that something special is going on. If a bespoke rule partially does the same thing as a keyworded rule, it should be split in two.
The main argument against such a system is that GW will most likely feth it up anyways and leave us with a mess worse than we have now. An obvious advantage of the current system is that no matter how bad they screw up, it will never affect more than one codex.
You could probably rewrite the current rules with little effort into using no more than two pages of USR and lose little to nothing in the process while making the rules easier to learn and remember.
Same have said it before, the issue is GW. I like USRs but it was getting out of control and was looking forward to what bespoke rules could be..until we got them.
You'd really need a good mix and clean.
We even have some pseudo USR in rapid fire/heavy and such. They could have given guns bespoke rules too but luckily they didn't.
The vast majority of effects can be summarized in some kind of stat/modifier rule, like you had with say, poison (X) or FNP.
You can still have fancy bespoke rules and previous editions also still had those despite USR.
You just need to standardize a bit and not just give everything a USR or bespoke rule.
JNAProductions wrote: So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about whyUSRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!
Nothing wrong with USRs, it's how GW uses them.
USRs that grant multiple USRs, and the tendency to make bespoke rules so rules that ignore USRs don't ignore them is what the problem is.
I think the above posts some it up quite well. USRs aren’t the problem, it’s GW’s implementation and unwillingness to stick to the framework as new units/codex releases come along.
As to the problem of nerfing: one unit being overpowered so they adjust a USR but end up making 3 other units so bad they become unusable, perhaps they can remove the USR in question from the OP unit and replace it with a bespoke rule in the errata. As others have said, there’s no need to do away with bespoke rules entirely.
From my perspective if they were to reintroduce USRs I think they should rewrite them from the bottom up. There are a lot of legacy names for USRs like FNP, Poison etc. These might be comfy for existing players but don’t really help new players. I’d prefer if the rules did away with the lore aspect and were named purely based on what the rule does mechanically. Eg. Instead of “FNP (5+)” it would be “ignore damage (5+); instead of “Poison (4+)” it would be “Aways Wounds (4+)” etc. The rule could be constrained with something like “ this weapon Always Wounds (4+) when attacking Infantry” or that it doesn’t work against targets with a specific keyword eg. Vehicle and so on.
The problem with GW's implementation of USRs is that they weren't universal. A couple people have already mentioned this, but GW's massive problem is they can't keep their design straight for more than a year, and that means that USRs from the year before are inadequate and USRs proliferate. Consider the following example:
Desired Abstraction: "This guy's really nasty and brutal when he charges, alright?"
3rd edition, prior to USRs: Every unit and their mum with that desired abstraction operated slightly differently, like they do today. Berzerk Charge, Furious Charge, etc.
4th Edition, USRs introduced: +1 strength and +1 extra attack on top of the usual charge bonuses.
5th Edition, USRs mostly continued unchanged while GW ruined other stuff like the terrain rules: the same as 4th... except not, because there's now the Rage special rule, which gives you +1 extra attack when you charge but not +1 strength.
6th Edition: Furious Charge loses the extra attack bonus; Rage becomes +2 attacks, and Hammer of Wrath is added because why not.
7th Edition: Rampage is added to the glut of "this guy charges hard guys, mmkay?" rules, adding not +1, nor +2, nor +3 attacks, but +d3. And it didn't add any strength.
Tell me, GW, why "this guy charges hard" needed the following different variations:
Furious Charge
Hammer of Wrath
Rage
Rampage
Of course, in the age of 'bespoke' rules, it's even worse:
'ere we go: you get stuff (I forget what, +1 attack?) if you roll a 10+ on your charge.
Order of the Bloody Rose conviction: you get +1 attack if you charge, period.
Space Marine thingymabobber (the assault one): you get +1 attack if you charge, heroically intervene, or are charged
Astra Militarum stratagem: If you charge, you hit on a 2+, but only if you're a tank.
All of these are essentially "this wotsit charges (or is charged) goodly" but with such inconsistent abstractions that I can't even.
The problem with GW's implementation of USRs is that they weren't universal. A couple people have already mentioned this, but GW's massive problem is they can't keep their design straight for more than a year, and that means that USRs from the year before are inadequate and USRs proliferate. Consider the following example:
Desired Abstraction: "This guy's really nasty and brutal when he charges, alright?"
3rd edition, prior to USRs: Every unit and their mum with that desired abstraction operated slightly differently, like they do today. Berzerk Charge, Furious Charge, etc.
4th Edition, USRs introduced: +1 strength and +1 extra attack on top of the usual charge bonuses.
5th Edition, USRs mostly continued unchanged while GW ruined other stuff like the terrain rules: the same as 4th... except not, because there's now the Rage special rule, which gives you +1 extra attack when you charge but not +1 strength.
6th Edition: Furious Charge loses the extra attack bonus; Rage becomes +2 attacks, and Hammer of Wrath is added because why not.
7th Edition: Rampage is added to the glut of "this guy charges hard guys, mmkay?" rules, adding not +1, nor +2, nor +3 attacks, but +d3. And it didn't add any strength.
Tell me, GW, why "this guy charges hard" needed the following different variations:
Furious Charge
Hammer of Wrath
Rage
Rampage
Of course, in the age of 'bespoke' rules, it's even worse:
'ere we go: you get stuff (I forget what, +1 attack?) if you roll a 10+ on your charge.
Order of the Bloody Rose conviction: you get +1 attack if you charge, period.
Space Marine thingymabobber (the assault one): you get +1 attack if you charge, heroically intervene, or are charged
Astra Militarum stratagem: If you charge, you hit on a 2+, but only if you're a tank.
All of these are essentially "this wotsit charges (or is charged) goodly" but with such inconsistent abstractions that I can't even.
Well, Quick to Anger (BR Convinction) works the same as... I want to say Angels of Death...(The SM ability)
But I think you're over simplifing it to say "I charge good" for all of them. They created half a dozen different versions of 'the same thing' because 40K is meant to be an asymmetrical game and one with an eye watering number of options.
Lammia wrote: 'Ere We Go is a reroll on the charge rill iirc, which is a pretty default bonus for the actual charging as opposed to the combat bonuses...
Ah, I thought they got a bonus for rolling 10 or higher on the charge dice.
This is the problem with bespoke rules, though. In fact this is exactly the problem.
And to the poster who said it's GOOD to have that many different abstractions for 'this guy charges well' - then I don't know what to tell you. That many different abstractions is a huge PITA in balance, barely affects games (woo, rage and rampage are so close to identical it hurts and the differences between them are basically irrelevant! Glad THEY exist!), and doesn't get you any more options (it's not like you could gamble and choose Rampage instead of Rage. You just got what you got, and if the other guy got something crappier (like Hammer of Wrath) then you pitied him).
I think what I find funny is most games moved AWAY from having every rule be independent so it could be changed and moved TO what are basically USRs where Ability X is Ability X no matter what unit it's on so it's consistent and there's a common language with the rules.
Yet 40k did the opposite approach and has a dozen of what is basically the same ability which may or may not work the same.
Lammia wrote: 'Ere We Go is a reroll on the charge rill iirc, which is a pretty default bonus for the actual charging as opposed to the combat bonuses...
except it lets you reroll both or any dice, which is different from most other charge rerolls.
I think the game rules would benefit from maybe a dozen universal rules keywords while keeping bespoke rules. Then the bespoke rules could save space referring back to those rules keywords. Deep Strike, Feel No Pain, and Fly are great examples of nearly universal concepts that are used time and time again and would be great centralized. Any rules that can't be explained in one or two sentences is a good place for a rules keyword.
I don't think the game would benefit from dozens of rules to reflect +1 to this, -1 to that, and re-roll those. Those are best just written on the data sheet.
alextroy wrote: I think the game rules would benefit from maybe a dozen universal rules keywords while keeping bespoke rules. Then the bespoke rules could save space referring back to those rules keywords. Deep Strike, Feel No Pain, and Fly are great examples of nearly universal concepts that are used time and time again and would be great centralized. Any rules that can't be explained in one or two sentences is a good place for a rules keyword.
I don't think the game would benefit from dozens of rules to reflect +1 to this, -1 to that, and re-roll those. Those are best just written on the data sheet.
But it already HAS a dozen rules for +1 this, -1 that, and reroll those.
Plus, just because a USR is Universal doesn't mean you can't write it out on the datasheet. I've said it before, but this is how I'd do USRs.
Spoiler:
Rules Name-Fluff Name Rules text.
Fluff Text.
Such as...
Spoiler:
Ignore Wounds (5+)-Disgustingly Resilient Roll a die each time this model loses a wound. On a 5+, that wound is not lost.
Bloated by Nurgle's blessings, this model is so fecundly tough that it's capable of shrugging off even mighty blows as they slough off dead and useless flesh.
If GW were to make rules-only datacards, you'd only include the rules name and the rules text, none of the fluff stuff, but in the full-fledged codex, you'd include all the fluff too.
Orks get to selectively reroll any or all dice when charging, while Hive Fleet Behemoth has to reroll none or both. Why? Who knows!
Ork plasma overheats on an unmodified 1. Guard plasma overheats on a modified 1, so it's affected by accuracy buffs and penalties. Why? Who knows!
I always hear 'bespoke special rules are best because it gives each army flavor' and I have yet to see a compelling example. Some rules are different for no apparent reason, some are better or worse for no apparent reason. It's just a mess.
alextroy wrote:I don't think the game would benefit from dozens of rules to reflect +1 to this, -1 to that, and re-roll those. Those are best just written on the data sheet.
I'd agree with this if GW hadn't gone and fethed up the simplest buffs by introducing this inconsistency between 're-roll fails' and 're-roll any', which in combination with the unintuitive rerolls-before-modifiers system makes for a material difference resulting from a subtle difference in wording.
It doesn't have to be a USR. It just has to be consistent. The objective of a USR is not 'give every special rule its own name and put it in the rulebook' so much as 'make special rules that do the same thing work the same way'.
1. USRs can still be printed on datasheets for reference just like your precious bespoke rules.
2. Consistent rules with very few exceptions makes for better balance. For example, the only guys without a standard FNP is AdMech Graia.
3. "But GW won't do it right" is not a good argument. You need to hold them to a higher standard and not just accept it the way it is. GW isn't the only part of the problem, you are as well with inaction.
it's not just an issue of flavour by forced "not really but actually really " difference but rather also of equal long pikes.
If the draw back is "get's hot" then it should apply equally if the weapons costed correctly unless they are priced in with the potential interactions, which they are often not.
Lammia wrote: 'Ere We Go is a reroll on the charge rill iirc, which is a pretty default bonus for the actual charging as opposed to the combat bonuses...
Ah, I thought they got a bonus for rolling 10 or higher on the charge dice.
You are probably remembering 7th edition rules, certain formations and detachments gave orks hammer of wrath if they rolled 10+ on a charge.
Lammia wrote: 'Ere We Go is a reroll on the charge rill iirc, which is a pretty default bonus for the actual charging as opposed to the combat bonuses...
Ah, I thought they got a bonus for rolling 10 or higher on the charge dice.
You are probably remembering 7th edition rules, certain formations and detachments gave orks hammer of wrath if they rolled 10+ on a charge.
Yeah, GW simply made the wrong conclusion. Yes, people were arguing about some of the unnecessary USRs in 6th/7th edition. And these rules really were bad. Some people here are saying the base rules of 7th weren't that bad, it was just the formations - no. Just take a look at these pages upon pages of USRs of which one I think has never been used on any model, one was two USRs in one, and others were stuff like Soul blaze which... could have been described as: This USR robs you of 5min of your lifetime in every round with no effect.
But I don't think anyone argued that because of that USRs should be gone completely. And they aren't, there's FLY, which ironically could need a bit of refinement imo, whether you're a tau battlesuit or a heldrake...
And some of the USRs that could/ should come back are obvious - namely the ones' that are still used by older players - deep strike, infiltrate, fnp. Maybe a couple of others. I wouldn't be surprised to even see some USRs return in the next rulebook. If GW is clever they'll work with them exactly as JNA suggests.
A lot of this could be helped if GW really treated their living game system as a living game system, and were more willing to patch existing documents beyond points changes.
Is 'explodes on a natural 1' how all plasma is intended to work going forward? Cool, so make that a game-wide patch, roll it into the digital codices, and let us print and tape it into the physical ones if we want. Or is that only supposed to be for Orks? Well fething why?
The use of USRs just makes these sorts of updates easier. If all plasma weapon still had Gets Hot! as a rule, and GW wanted to go from 'modifiers apply' to 'only rolls of 1', then they would just be altering Gets Hot! rather than needing to call out each weapon by name.
Consistency, quick recognition, and ease of change are the main points of USRs- they can still show up with their text in full on the datasheet if desired, you'll just need to alter that quick reference text if the rule changes. As others have said, the problem isn't USRs, the problem is GW mishandling them.
catbarf wrote: A lot of this could be helped if GW really treated their living game system as a living game system, and were more willing to patch existing documents beyond points changes.
Is 'explodes on a natural 1' how all plasma is intended to work going forward? Cool, so make that a game-wide patch, roll it into the digital codices, and let us print and tape it into the physical ones if we want. Or is that only supposed to be for Orks? Well fething why?
The use of USRs just makes these sorts of updates easier. If all plasma weapon still had Gets Hot! as a rule, and GW wanted to go from 'modifiers apply' to 'only rolls of 1', then they would just be altering Gets Hot! rather than needing to call out each weapon by name.
Consistency, quick recognition, and ease of change are the main points of USRs- they can still show up with their text in full on the datasheet if desired, you'll just need to alter that quick reference text if the rule changes. As others have said, the problem isn't USRs, the problem is GW mishandling them.
Weapon keywords would be nice. But you still get potential issues with 'this thing over needs fixing' "ok, fixed" 'wait now this doesn't work'
catbarf wrote: A lot of this could be helped if GW really treated their living game system as a living game system, and were more willing to patch existing documents beyond points changes.
Is 'explodes on a natural 1' how all plasma is intended to work going forward? Cool, so make that a game-wide patch, roll it into the digital codices, and let us print and tape it into the physical ones if we want. Or is that only supposed to be for Orks? Well fething why?
The use of USRs just makes these sorts of updates easier. If all plasma weapon still had Gets Hot! as a rule, and GW wanted to go from 'modifiers apply' to 'only rolls of 1', then they would just be altering Gets Hot! rather than needing to call out each weapon by name.
Consistency, quick recognition, and ease of change are the main points of USRs- they can still show up with their text in full on the datasheet if desired, you'll just need to alter that quick reference text if the rule changes. As others have said, the problem isn't USRs, the problem is GW mishandling them.
Weapon keywords would be nice. But you still get potential issues with 'this thing over needs fixing' "ok, fixed" 'wait now this doesn't work'
what do you mean? if you fix the base USR instead of the weapons profile and theres still something that is OP/UP, just adjust the points of that specific weapon. And if youre talking about generic rules then yeah, thats the thing. to implement USRs, 40k needs a rewrite. Honestly even without USRs it needs a rewrite. I'd be curious to see a fan-made ruleset with simplified rules that use USRs, i'd wager the game would become much more enjoyable if it had a solid ruleset.
Backfire wrote: As for 40kRPG's, I wouldn't really use it as a positive example as I thought the system was horribly bloated towards the end, and completely unmanageable.
catbarf wrote: A lot of this could be helped if GW really treated their living game system as a living game system, and were more willing to patch existing documents beyond points changes.
Is 'explodes on a natural 1' how all plasma is intended to work going forward? Cool, so make that a game-wide patch, roll it into the digital codices, and let us print and tape it into the physical ones if we want. Or is that only supposed to be for Orks? Well fething why?
The use of USRs just makes these sorts of updates easier. If all plasma weapon still had Gets Hot! as a rule, and GW wanted to go from 'modifiers apply' to 'only rolls of 1', then they would just be altering Gets Hot! rather than needing to call out each weapon by name.
Consistency, quick recognition, and ease of change are the main points of USRs- they can still show up with their text in full on the datasheet if desired, you'll just need to alter that quick reference text if the rule changes. As others have said, the problem isn't USRs, the problem is GW mishandling them.
Weapon keywords would be nice. But you still get potential issues with 'this thing over needs fixing' "ok, fixed" 'wait now this doesn't work'
what do you mean? if you fix the base USR instead of the weapons profile and theres still something that is OP/UP, just adjust the points of that specific weapon. And if youre talking about generic rules then yeah, thats the thing. to implement USRs, 40k needs a rewrite. Honestly even without USRs it needs a rewrite. I'd be curious to see a fan-made ruleset with simplified rules that use USRs, i'd wager the game would become much more enjoyable if it had a solid ruleset.
catbarf wrote: A lot of this could be helped if GW really treated their living game system as a living game system, and were more willing to patch existing documents beyond points changes.
Is 'explodes on a natural 1' how all plasma is intended to work going forward? Cool, so make that a game-wide patch, roll it into the digital codices, and let us print and tape it into the physical ones if we want. Or is that only supposed to be for Orks? Well fething why?
The use of USRs just makes these sorts of updates easier. If all plasma weapon still had Gets Hot! as a rule, and GW wanted to go from 'modifiers apply' to 'only rolls of 1', then they would just be altering Gets Hot! rather than needing to call out each weapon by name.
Consistency, quick recognition, and ease of change are the main points of USRs- they can still show up with their text in full on the datasheet if desired, you'll just need to alter that quick reference text if the rule changes. As others have said, the problem isn't USRs, the problem is GW mishandling them.
Weapon keywords would be nice. But you still get potential issues with 'this thing over needs fixing' "ok, fixed" 'wait now this doesn't work'
what do you mean? if you fix the base USR instead of the weapons profile and theres still something that is OP/UP, just adjust the points of that specific weapon. And if youre talking about generic rules then yeah, thats the thing. to implement USRs, 40k needs a rewrite. Honestly even without USRs it needs a rewrite. I'd be curious to see a fan-made ruleset with simplified rules that use USRs, i'd wager the game would become much more enjoyable if it had a solid ruleset.
It's not always about points...
I know, but you havnt provided any example of what you mean.
JNAProductions wrote: So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about whyUSRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!
The simplest answer to understand why a lot of people hated USR's is these people played before 8th edition. Up until now, there hasn't been an edition of the game where all codexes had been updated at the same time in over a decade. There would be times where a codex limped through multiple editions, no updates, no rules changes, no points tweaks, nothing. The poor dark eldar went TWELVE YEARS at one point.
This is important. Because GW was incompetent or just didn't seem to care, USR's would change every single edition, with drastic effects on how an army played because of it. For example, there used to be a rule called Furious Charge. Added 1 to your S and your Initiative stat (who swings first in combat). Blood angels and orks got it across the board for the most part and it was crucial to how they played. Then one edition GW changes it to where it only gives +1 S, but does nothing to change the orks and Blood angels codexes. So now, you have two books built with this key ability in mind suddenly neutered, with 0 compensation. Every new edition, unless you were the standard marines codex, you could go months or even years with completely busted USR's in your army.
This is why people hated USR's and wanted them gone in 8th. We expected GW to just drag it's feet on codexes again and many armies not getting a proper book till 9th or 10th. Having all your special rules and abilities written on your datasheet "future proofs" the unit and ensures it continues to work how it should. So that way if the Guard codex for example wasn't updated for 3 years, all my rules still work regardless of what GW could potentially do to it's USRs. In a world where all codexes actually get updated on an edition, USR's still make sense, but also run into an issue of inflexibility. So you either end up with one USR that may be a bit much on some units and not enough on others, or 3 or 4 similar rules that are all slightly different but essentially do the same thing, like stealth/shrouded, or fearless/stubborn/zealot sometimes/ATSKNF/etc
I think people would be open to USR's, but if we go back, GW HAS to release all codexes simultaneously, or free indexes at the start of each new edition. Otherwise we go right back to our old problem where each edition breaks armies overnight.
JNAProductions wrote: So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about whyUSRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!
The simplest answer to understand why a lot of people hated USR's is these people played before 8th edition. Up until now, there hasn't been an edition of the game where all codexes had been updated at the same time in over a decade. There would be times where a codex limped through multiple editions, no updates, no rules changes, no points tweaks, nothing. The poor dark eldar went TWELVE YEARS at one point.
This is important. Because GW was incompetent or just didn't seem to care, USR's would change every single edition, with drastic effects on how an army played because of it. For example, there used to be a rule called Furious Charge. Added 1 to your S and your Initiative stat (who swings first in combat). Blood angels and orks got it across the board for the most part and it was crucial to how they played. Then one edition GW changes it to where it only gives +1 S, but does nothing to change the orks and Blood angels codexes. So now, you have two books built with this key ability in mind suddenly neutered, with 0 compensation. Every new edition, unless you were the standard marines codex, you could go months or even years with completely busted USR's in your army.
This is why people hated USR's and wanted them gone in 8th. We expected GW to just drag it's feet on codexes again and many armies not getting a proper book till 9th or 10th. Having all your special rules and abilities written on your datasheet "future proofs" the unit and ensures it continues to work how it should. So that way if the Guard codex for example wasn't updated for 3 years, all my rules still work regardless of what GW could potentially do to it's USRs. In a world where all codexes actually get updated on an edition, USR's still make sense, but also run into an issue of inflexibility. So you either end up with one USR that may be a bit much on some units and not enough on others, or 3 or 4 similar rules that are all slightly different but essentially do the same thing, like stealth/shrouded, or fearless/stubborn/zealot sometimes/ATSKNF/etc
I think people would be open to USR's, but if we go back, GW HAS to release all codexes simultaneously, or free indexes at the start of each new edition. Otherwise we go right back to our old problem where each edition breaks armies overnight.
So it's not an inherent issue with USRs, it's GW borking it up?
I will offer the advantages of bespoke rules as opposed to USRs. Likely an unpopular point of view in the this thread, but hey.
First, it allows for redistribution of the rules load. This in turn makes the game more accessible. Instead of a large core rule book with the USRs you can have a thin set of core rules that can be downloaded for free or given away in stores. You buy your box of miniatures and with the datasheet included in the assembly instructions you can play the game straight away with the unit(s) that you have. Two players only need to manage/carry the rules that are on their datasheets and not worry about cross-referencing mid-game with USRs in the main book.
Second, it allows the designers greater flexibility when creating units/Codexes and also to fix problems afterwards. I understand that some people only want one rule for a given capability, but it is a valid design method to have a variety of bespoke ways for different units to similar functions. A Company Veteran, for instance, is neither a Shield Drone nor a Grot.
Having been in the 8th Edition era for almost three years, I have to say that I prefer the bespoke method. GW can change editions without having to actually do an edition change with all the associated pain. As Codexes get updated we see new design ideas in the datasheets.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: First, it allows for redistribution of the rules load. This in turn makes the game more accessible. Instead of a large core rule book with the USRs you can have a thin set of core rules that can be downloaded for free or given away in stores. You buy your box of miniatures and with the datasheet included in the assembly instructions you can play the game straight away with the unit(s) that you have. Two players only need to manage/carry the rules that are on their datasheets and not worry about cross-referencing mid-game with USRs in the main book.
This isn't an advantage to bespoke rules, it's an advantage to printing rules on the datasheet.
Print the USR on the datasheet and you get the same effect. If the USR is changed, it should be updated automatically for digital copies, and you can manually patch a physical copy. GW does this all the time with FAQs; for example, the significant changes to how Commissars work in the Astra Militarum codex.
Worst case we could just have a USR quick reference sheet. Heck, I could really use some reference sheets even without USRs. Having to go into the rulebook to remember how each piece of terrain is supposed to work or what exactly the Fly keyword does is annoying, let alone having to get into the FAQs to find alterations to mechanics like Deep Strike.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Second, it allows the designers greater flexibility when creating units/Codexes and also to fix problems afterwards. I understand that some people only want one rule for a given capability, but it is a valid design method to have a variety of bespoke ways for different units to similar functions. A Company Veteran, for instance, is neither a Shield Drone nor a Grot.
I have still yet to hear an example where this is actually used to good effect. What about the bodyguard rule for Marine bodyguards is more fluffy/fitting than the bodyguard rule for Shield Drones? What does it mean that Ork plasma explodes on an unmodified 1, but all other plasma explodes on a modified 1? Why do some characters allow you to re-roll fails, while others allow you to re-roll any or all dice? Why do Orks re-roll any or all dice when they charge, but Behemoth rerolls all or none? What does any of it mean?
I've played games that use the bespoke rules approach to give factions and units their own distinct flavor. It's not a universally bad piece of game design. But GW is using it in a way that provides none of its benefits and all of its weaknesses, so I'd say it's the wrong approach to 40K.
As others have said, the issue was largely poor implementation.
GW had multiple different USR's which did functionally the same thing but with a different modifier value (i.e. 4+ instead of 5+) - they should have been one USR written as USR(X) where X was the number of the modifier (i.e. "USR(5+)" means that the USR gives you whatever bonus on a 5+ roll).
GW also had USR's which conferred other USRs - this should never have been a thing to begin with and instead let USRs stand alone and call them out individually.
It just ended up with a massive amount of bloat that made it hard to remember what was what, and because they were only listed by name in a codex you had to flip open your core rulebook to find out what they meant. To make things a bit worse, DESPITE how many USRs there were, there still proved to be a lot of very common special rules which were *not* covered by USRs that probably should have been, so it kind of became the case of "what the hell is the point?"
chaos0xomega wrote: As others have said, the issue was largely poor implementation.
GW had multiple different USR's which did functionally the same thing but with a different modifier value (i.e. 4+ instead of 5+) - they should have been one USR written as USR(X) where X was the number of the modifier (i.e. "USR(5+)" means that the USR gives you whatever bonus on a 5+ roll).
GW also had USR's which conferred other USRs - this should never have been a thing to begin with and instead let USRs stand alone and call them out individually.
It just ended up with a massive amount of bloat that made it hard to remember what was what, and because they were only listed by name in a codex you had to flip open your core rulebook to find out what they meant. To make things a bit worse, DESPITE how many USRs there were, there still proved to be a lot of very common special rules which were *not* covered by USRs that probably should have been, so it kind of became the case of "what the hell is the point?"
Very much this but then GW (in typical GW fashion) threw the baby out with the bath water so now we have basically zero USR's and a ton of similar but different codex specific rules for mechanics that should be universal. On top of that because the majority of game mechanics and rules are codex specific, it makes it so rules are stuck interacting with the small hand full of basic core rules because you cannot write codex rules designed to interact with rules from a different codex. All of this resulting in having all the bloat of past editions with the depth of a kiddie pool.
Also I like to point out how the common parlance for a lot of these mechanics are called "melta, gets hot, relentless, deep strike, feel no pain, poison, look out sir, etc" because they basically do exactly what those USRs did without having to need a dozen different versions with nearly identical practical application.
As has been said numerous times, USR are fine conceptually.
Back in Ye Olden Days (3rd-4th and sorta-kinda 5th edition) the USR's all fit on 1-2 pages in the BRB. They were generic, but common, rules which gave flavor. Things like Fleet (modern run), Move Through Cover, and deep strike featured there.
Ontop of that, every army would have a couple of special USR's in their codex, such as Waaaaaagh! and They Shall Know No Fear.
Lastly, special units would have special rules unique to them. Such as Lictors having a unique terrain-based version of Deep Strike.
The problem with everything being bespoke is that it's extraordinarily difficult to tell if things are supposed to function differently.
For example, we have something like 6 different versions of the 'body guard' concept. Is this because different armies / units are supposed to be better at it, or just because they were written at different times by different people? Deep Strike suffers from the same issue, with the rule being written differently across many codex', meaning that you have to keep track of tons of different variations of the same rule which are functionally the same but offer different gimmies / loopholes to work around crap.
USR should be brought back on a couple of pages in the BRB to cover generic abilities. Stuff like +1 to hit & reroll auras, deep strikes, always strikes first, ect. This would make it so you could be confident if something was supposed to work a certain way. It'd also come with the benefit of KNOWING when a unit is supposed to have a special version of Deep Strike, rather than just janky and lazy cross-codex writing..
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nothing. They were a punching bag for people who didn't actually understand what was or wasn't a design problem, and their removal has had a negative impact not a positive one.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nothing. They were a punching bag for people who didn't actually understand what was or wasn't a design problem, and their removal has had a negative impact not a positive one.
This.
It's simply the people that only grow up in the GW ecosystem praising them for whatever changes they made in a given edition. Exactly the same thing happened with blast templates (which we are now stuck with a bass ackwards system that apparently Dakka approves of as everyone on here spaced their models out at max coherency every game. Yeah, pull the other one... ). GW gets rid of them and BLAST TEMPLATES ARE THE DEVIL! is heard from the usual GW kool aid chuggers.
Exactly the same with USRs. Exactly the same with metal models. How many times have you heard someone spout the tired old bullgak of "mEtAl MoDeLs AlWaYs FaLl ApArT!!!" as if plastic is the be all and end all of materials and they simply aren't just using gak glue?
GW removes USRs and the usual crowd lap it up as a good thing. Try playing some other games and you'll see how good they can be.
I would prefer 40k moving even closer to an AoS-style datasheet where it is almost completely self-contained and tells you basically everything the unit can do outside of the stuff that changes depending on allegiance and the like.
It's simply much more convenient. It's all spelled out right there and you don't have to do the page flipping.
That basically renders the concept of USRs redundant even if you use the same wording for abilities on many sheets.
It also recognizes that it's an asymmetrical, huge, and expanding game and that a tight list of USRs (which is is the only way they are actually useful) is a fool's errand. Nothing is going to last through a whole round of releases and updates and new ideas over the course of years. People want diversity in play-styles and new stuff because it's interesting and that inevitably demands rules that work in different or new ways. Because of this any USR list will inevitably expand and excepted to poinlessness.
rbstr wrote: I would prefer 40k moving even closer to an AoS-style datasheet where it is almost completely self-contained and tells you basically everything the unit can do outside of the stuff that changes depending on allegiance and the like.
It's simply much more convenient. It's all spelled out right there and you don't have to do the page flipping.
That basically renders a list of USRs redundant.
It also recognizes that it's a huge and expanding game and that a tight list of USRs is a fool's errand. Nothing is going to last through a whole round of releases and updates and new ideas over the course of years. People want new stuff because it's interesting and that inevitably demands rules that work in new/different ways than before. Because of this any USR list will inevitably expand and excepted to poinlessness.
So why do we need six different methods of bodyguarding?
I, and most others, I think, are 100% on board with writing the rules on the datasheet. That's good for accessibility, and minimizing mental overhead. But it'd be nice if rules that do the same thing were worded the same way.
It literally does the complete opposite of everything you just said.
Bespoke rules means you constantly have to sift through hundreds of pages to find the exact unit you are looking for to see what tiny variation of Rule X this unit does.
USR are by their very nature more organized and simple because every. single. unit. follows that rule exactly how it's laid out in the main rule book. You learn it once and it's done. You don't have to learn 100 different variations of it.
AoS is the perfect example of how not to make a rules system. It's one of the worst systems ever devised. It's completely ass backwards.
The game should be expanded upon within the construct of the main system. If it doesn't, then don't expand in that way.
Thats the main issue with modern GW rules. They are so sloppy and slapped together with the vaguest rules possible, it doesn't account for expansion because the main rules were never built properly to begin with. There's simple no foundation for any meaningful additions outside pure bloat.
Everyone in favour of Bespoke rules says the same thing, well all the rules are there on the card so its easier to find. You understand USR's could be written on the card too, right? It completely destroys your main argument.
rbstr wrote: I would prefer 40k moving even closer to an AoS-style datasheet where it is almost completely self-contained and tells you basically everything the unit can do outside of the stuff that changes depending on allegiance and the like.
It's simply much more convenient. It's all spelled out right there and you don't have to do the page flipping.
That basically renders the concept of USRs redundant even if you use the same wording for abilities on many sheets.
It also recognizes that it's an asymmetrical, huge, and expanding game and that a tight list of USRs (which is is the only way they are actually useful) is a fool's errand. Nothing is going to last through a whole round of releases and updates and new ideas over the course of years. People want diversity in play-styles and new stuff because it's interesting and that inevitably demands rules that work in different or new ways. Because of this any USR list will inevitably expand and excepted to poinlessness.
The problem with this is communication. USRs make it easy to explain to our opponent what your stuff does. Bespoke-everything does not. Nor is it necessary or useful to create many variations of the same effect, as is now the case with FnP, DS, etc.
If the core rules were deep and rich, the rules people wouldn't need to create so many new rules, or new kits, to keep the game interesting in the first place.
rbstr wrote: I would prefer 40k moving even closer to an AoS-style datasheet where it is almost completely self-contained and tells you basically everything the unit can do outside of the stuff that changes depending on allegiance and the like.
It's simply much more convenient. It's all spelled out right there and you don't have to do the page flipping.
That basically renders the concept of USRs redundant even if you use the same wording for abilities on many sheets.
It also recognizes that it's an asymmetrical, huge, and expanding game and that a tight list of USRs (which is is the only way they are actually useful) is a fool's errand. Nothing is going to last through a whole round of releases and updates and new ideas over the course of years. People want diversity in play-styles and new stuff because it's interesting and that inevitably demands rules that work in different or new ways. Because of this any USR list will inevitably expand and excepted to poinlessness.
As i said in my previous post, USRs are simply for consistency in rules and universal understanding of mechanics.
Having everything spelled out on the sheet in no way makes USRs redundant - you can have invisible ones that are purely for the back end development so that the designers keep the mechanics the same.
It's also not accurate to conflate 'tight list' with USRs as though they require them. As it's purpose is rules consistency, it doesn't matter how many there are, only that when they are repeated, they are the same.
There is no reason at all to have 6 different body guard rules, 4 different deep strike rules, 5 different mighty charge rules. And by doing this you actively make the game more difficult for players to learn.
Your army and mine using the same mechanics means if I've learnt 'bodyguard', 'deep strike', 'mighty charge' then when you say 'those guys are using the bodyguard rule' I know EXACTLY what you're saying and can actually play the game properly.
It's simply much more convenient. It's all spelled out right there and you don't have to do the page flipping.
That basically renders the concept of USRs redundant even if you use the same wording for abilities on many sheets.
As far as I’m concerned, far from making USRs redundant, using the same wording for abilities is exactly the point of USRs.
Why do all "bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question, whole thing is arbitrary - they are different in order to be different. That's the whole point of having a diverse set a factions.
Savior Protocols and Silent Bodyguard explicitly do not do the exact same things because they aren't supposed to behave the same way.
There's a difference in risk/reward and how integral to they army the rules are. For example: S.Protocols is designed to improve survivability of a fairly fragile army by puting wounds on cheap units, with a trade off that you automatically take a mortal without rolling a save (that may have prevented the damage). S.Bodyguard lets you bounce a hit off an important character to a unit with really good saves and take the risk of hurting an expensive unit. Grots just flat out die to intercept hits, but that's what Grots are supposed to do, die in numbers that were previously considered impossible!
Could the drones operate like the Deathshroud terminators instead? Sure. But, even with the potential toughness changes, your shield drones would get a 4++ to bounce the wound entirely and have the the 5+++ after. So they got quite a bit stronger and they're supposed to apply to more units in the army than the termies are. So now you've gotta change the rest of the drone stats to achieve similar performance to before - which gets back to the facts it's all arbitrary in order to give armies and units certain a certain play-style.
Certainly, some bodyguard units are not good at that role. But it's not an issue that gets solved by simply having Bodyguard(2+), whichever version you pick to use, on all the drones, celestians, and termies.
Why do all "bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question, whole thing is arbitrary - they are different in order to be different. That's the whole point of having a diverse set a factions.
Savior Protocols and Silent Bodyguard explicitly do not do the exact same things because they aren't supposed to behave the same way.
There's a difference in risk/reward and how integral to they army the rules are. For example: S.Protocols is designed to improve survivability of a fairly fragile army by puting wounds on cheap units, with a trade off that you automatically take a mortal without rolling a save (that may have prevented the damage). S.Bodyguard lets you bounce a hit off an important character to a unit with really good saves and take the risk of hurting an expensive unit. Grots just flat out die to intercept hits, but that's what Grots are supposed to do, die in numbers that were previously considered impossible!
Could the drones operate like the Deathshroud terminators instead? Sure. But, even with the potential toughness changes, your shield drones would get a 4++ to bounce the wound entirely and have the the 5+++ after. So they got quite a bit stronger and they're supposed to apply to more units in the army than the termies are. So now you've gotta change the rest of the drone stats to achieve similar performance to before - which gets back to the facts it's all arbitrary in order to give armies and units certain a certain play-style.
Certainly, some bodyguard units are not good at that role. But it's not an issue that gets solved by simply having Bodyguard(2+), whichever version you pick to use, on all the drones, celestians, and termies.
I agree that any game needs variety, but you just made a distinction without a difference.
Why do all "bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question, whole thing is arbitrary - they are different in order to be different. That's the whole point of having a diverse set a factions.
Savior Protocols and Silent Bodyguard explicitly do not do the exact same things because they aren't supposed to behave the same way.
There's a difference in risk/reward and how integral to they army the rules are. For example: S.Protocols is designed to improve survivability of a fairly fragile army by puting wounds on cheap units, with a trade off that you automatically take a mortal without rolling a save (that may have prevented the damage). S.Bodyguard lets you bounce a hit off an important character to a unit with really good saves and take the risk of hurting an expensive unit. Grots just flat out die to intercept hits, but that's what Grots are supposed to do, die in numbers that were previously considered impossible!
Could the drones operate like the Deathshroud terminators instead? Sure. But, even with the potential toughness changes, your shield drones would get a 4++ to bounce the wound entirely and have the the 5+++ after. So they got quite a bit stronger and they're supposed to apply to more units in the army than the termies are. So now you've gotta change the rest of the drone stats to achieve similar performance to before - which gets back to the facts it's all arbitrary in order to give armies and units certain a certain play-style.
Certainly, some bodyguard units are not good at that role. But it's not an issue that gets solved by simply having Bodyguard(2+), whichever version you pick to use, on all the drones, celestians, and termies.
I imagine it makes playing against all these variants of mechanics more understandable instead of having to look up in their rule book every time your opponent does (insert codex specific name of game mechanic here) to understand what is going on. Its one thing to learn your own army's rules but its a pain trying to remember what all these mechanics do for all these other armies. Not to mention remembering what each faction's units and stratagems do. A lot of the stuff isn't complex to understand but its clunky trying to remember every name of every variation of a rule or mechanic.
USR as a high level core mechanics levek concept work like keyword (Reserves), (Deepstrike) might work but the issue is not everyone playing the game agrees on the level of simplification and similarities that should have to be excepted just so you can know every armies rules.
Not to mention it also will inevitably lead to units being over/undercosted or otherwise functionally broken for 6-9 months when some new units breaks one of these USR and that USR gets FAQ/Erattaed to balance the unit despite it screwing up other units.
USR's work in a static design space where sufficent pre release testing etc has been undertaken that's not the GW way see Iron hands if they had even half their bonuses as USR's could you imagine how game breaking it would have been to deathguard and a number of other codex's to see some of the USR's nerfed to rebalance them.
USR as a high level core mechanics levek concept work like keyword (Reserves), (Deepstrike) might work but the issue is not everyone playing the game agrees on the level of simplification and similarities that should have to be excepted just so you can know every armies rules.
Not to mention it also will inevitably lead to units being over/undercosted or otherwise functionally broken for 6-9 months when some new units breaks one of these USR and that USR gets FAQ/Erattaed to balance the unit despite it screwing up other units.
USR's work in a static design space where sufficent pre release testing etc has been undertaken that's not the GW way see Iron hands if they had even half their bonuses as USR's could you imagine how game breaking it would have been to deathguard and a number of other codex's to see some of the USR's nerfed to rebalance them.
But this isn't even about balance-this is about making the game simple and easy to understand.
I think Privateer Press has the USR concept locked down pretty well*, I think GW should study and take notes. Warmachine/Hordes basically has a tiered USR system:
Theres what I call "tier 1" USRs which are *extremely* common and exist across multiple models in multiple factions and are "core mechanics" that feature strongly in general gameplay and have complex rule interactions - not things like +X modifiers to stats, but things that have actual meaning, such as Stealth which makes a model untargetable outside of 5", Pathfinder which allows a model to ignore the effects of terrain when moving, magical weapon that allows them to attack ethereal models, etc. Theres maybe a dozen or so of these (possibly more? I've never bothered to count them), and they are simply represented with a symbol in the relevant area of their stat cards - theres no need to write out all the details of the rule on the stat cards because their use is so common and they are generally so distinct that there is no confusion and everyone who has played more than a handful of games knows exactly what they do.
"Tier 2" USRs make up the bulk of the rules in the game, and they are generally either more mundane and less memorable due to shared commonality (i.e. Unyielding = +2 ARM while in melee range of an enemy model, Iron Flesh = +2 Arm and does not suffer blast damage), or because they are not common across models and factions (Berserk = When this model destroys one or more models with a melee attack, immediately after the attack is resolved it must make one additional melee attack against another model in its melee range), or because they are very flavorful and rare (Dark Domination = a paragraph of rules I will not type out that describes how this model can take control of an enemy model), OR because they are specific (Vendetta(X) = The model gains boosted attack and damage rolls against X models (where X is a keyword)). These make up the majority of rules found on any statcard and are written out in full so that the rules reference is immediately in front of you when you need it, and they are consistent across all models and factions - no having to deal with 6 different versions of the bodyguard rule or deep strike, etc.
"Tier 3" USRs are the only place where I think the games go awry, and are the reason for the * in my first sentence. These are typically "Tier 2" USRs which confer another Tier 2 USR, usually as the result of a spell (ex - Death Field: While within 3" of this model, friendly models gain Dark Shroud. Death Field lasts for one turn. (While in the melee range of a model with Dark Shroud, enemy models suffer -2ARM)"). I understand why these exist, and yes they do spell out all the details of the USR they are conferring so that you don't need to look it up, but to me this has always been the one weak spot in the game, as it is basically a shorthand for saying "this USR allows me to cast this other USR, or USRs, on another model". This means that if someone tells me that they are casting Death Field (for example) my mind cannot automatically go to knowing what that means, instead I have to mentally jump from Death Field to Dark Shroud, and then from there translate Dark Shroud into its effect - thats assuming that I even remember that Death Field = Dark Shroud in the first place. To me, it would be easier to just call this 'Aura 3": Dark Shroud', which immediately tells me that its giving dark shroud to any other model within 3" of itself, no need to associate the term with another "shell" term. Some of these can get pretty complex, but I'm strongly of the opinion that they could develop an effective "shorthand" that communicates all the relevant elements of an ability without needing to rely on a "shell".
It's simply the people that only grow up in the GW ecosystem praising them for whatever changes they made in a given edition. Exactly the same thing happened with blast templates (which we are now stuck with a bass ackwards system that apparently Dakka approves of as everyone on here spaced their models out at max coherency every game. Yeah, pull the other one... ). GW gets rid of them and BLAST TEMPLATES ARE THE DEVIL! is heard from the usual GW kool aid chuggers.
Blast templates honestly suck and have from the very beginning, the fact that many here on dakka didn't realize any better until after the fact doesn't change that. I was very happy to see them pulled from the game, and very angry to see Warlord introduce them into Bolt Action 2nd Edition.
Mind you, I'm not sure that what GW replaced them with is an improvement, if GW was going to make template weapons do random number of hits then it should have done so in a manner which restricted the variance on the outcome, i.e. 3+d3 or some other method that sets a floor of some sort so that they aren't subject to wild swings of chance that make them functionally useless as a weapon.
USR as a high level core mechanics levek concept work like keyword (Reserves), (Deepstrike) might work but the issue is not everyone playing the game agrees on the level of simplification and similarities that should have to be excepted just so you can know every armies rules.
Not to mention it also will inevitably lead to units being over/undercosted or otherwise functionally broken for 6-9 months when some new units breaks one of these USR and that USR gets FAQ/Erattaed to balance the unit despite it screwing up other units.
USR's work in a static design space where sufficent pre release testing etc has been undertaken that's not the GW way see Iron hands if they had even half their bonuses as USR's could you imagine how game breaking it would have been to deathguard and a number of other codex's to see some of the USR's nerfed to rebalance them.
"GW is bad at rules" is a poor argument for opposing (or supporting) specific chooses like USRs.
There are certainly Faction-based rules that use a single word/couple of words to represent something across a Faction (Inner Circle, Shock Assault, And They Shall Know No Fear etc etc), so its not like GW had completely abandoned the idea of USRs. They just put them in a Codex and not the main rule book. The keyword system also preserves some aspect of a single word unpacking a bunch of associated meaning. This makes their game design more flexible. I understand that this may drive some folks crazy. While I appreciate some level of consistency, I also appreciate variety. Bespoke rules offer that as the game progresses. I think that some don't like the GW method of FAQs for each book, but it allows for those "spot fixes" of bespoke rules that would not be possible with USRs.
In the 8th Ed Codex for my main faction got a new unit with a new ability. At least one other unit in another faction has since received that ability with identical working but in a different mechanism (Warlord Trait). I look at two Bike units in different Codexes that I have. One has Matchless Swiftness with an 8" fixed advance while the other has a 6" fixed advance. Based on the units it makes sense and why not just have it on the relevant datasheets instead of clogging up the main rulebook with a USR that would vary anyway. When you throw in Stratagems, Relics and Warlord Traits the idea of having a comprehensive list of USRs in the main rule book looks a little untenable. Its a sprawling game, and it seems to be doing rather well for what its worth.
This isn't an advantage to bespoke rules, it's an advantage to printing rules on the datasheet.
Very much this. Including the rules on the datasheet doesn't preclude them being universal and consistent.
This is actually the approach we're going with for Maelstrom's Edge V2 - rules will all be printed on a unit's rules sheet, but we're keeping to as tight a set of special rules as we can while maintaining some flavour.
WhiteDog wrote: At some point, there were just too many USRs. I like USRs as long as the number of universal rule stays low enough.
I really don't get this argument. A game as wide-ranging as 40K is always going to have a lot of special rules... but consolidating them into USRs ultimately gives you fewer rules to learn than the current approach of multiple, similar-but-not-identical, bespoke rules.
Whatever people may say about so called bespoke rules being easier to update, they are more difficult in use. Sure, they appear on my data sheet with a special name, but if I want to play against you then I need to also learn yours and those special names and also those of every other bespoke rule for every other faction. it would be a lot easier and indeed faster to say “bodyguard USR 4+” than “bespoke BS because yada so 4+”. With the first, I can glance at a summary of units with USRs written next to them and know immediately about what every unit can do. With bespoke rules, I have to learn a new language every time I play a different army written by a different writer. Point here is that dropping USRs was even dumber than dissing USRs from an actual use standpoint especially given GW’s lip service about streamlining the game and making it more accessible. All I hear from GW is the Friedman fallacy with every announcement and I will be surprised if they else but disintegrate any remaining goodwill remaining in the grognard community still present after the fiascos of Ao$ and nu$tarte$.
People have been saying things like "Why should the bodyguard rules be the same for everyone!".
The great thing about USRs means that they can still use the same rule, but allow for flexibility in use.
Rather than a "Bodyguard" that applies to everyone in a blanket way, you have "Bodyguard (X)", and the "X" determines how good something is at being a bodyguard. It allows you to balance singular bodyguards (Ogryn Bodyguard) vs large numerous bodyguard units (Shield Drone squadrons) without having to invent new rules to balance the varying levels of quality.
It's an elegant solution that allows you to keep the amount of different rules to a minimum whilst still allowing for a form of standardised variation.
JNAProductions wrote: So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about whyUSRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!
40k has too many goofy things it tries to do for USRs to be feasible. There were several pages of USRs in the 7th ed BRB and most units STILL had some sort of bespoke rule. Bespoke rules just work better for how 40k tries to function as a game.
This isn't an advantage to bespoke rules, it's an advantage to printing rules on the datasheet.
Very much this. Including the rules on the datasheet doesn't preclude them being universal and consistent.
This is actually the approach we're going with for Maelstrom's Edge V2 - rules will all be printed on a unit's rules sheet, but we're keeping to as tight a set of special rules as we can while maintaining some flavour.
WhiteDog wrote: At some point, there were just too many USRs. I like USRs as long as the number of universal rule stays low enough.
I really don't get this argument. A game as wide-ranging as 40K is always going to have a lot of special rules... but consolidating them into USRs ultimately gives you fewer rules to learn than the current approach of multiple, similar-but-not-identical, bespoke rules.
40k doesn't want rules that are universal and consistent. It does, and always has wanted to do wacky gak. 40k wants to have 20 different versions of deepstrike because it wants the option to have one where the ork misses and self destructs, and the one where they're actually warp entities and can land perfectly, the one where every model is now left handed, etc.
Even when they did have USRs, they had so many modifiers for each across so many different units that they ended up becoming essentially bespoke rules anyway. Which is what eventually created the issues with deathstars and such because the USRs would interact with each other in odd, unintended ways because they tried to be universal when everything about the design paradigm for 40k wants to be special snowflake.
You can argue that USRs are simpler or w/e, sure. But for what 40k tries to be, a ridiculous heavy metal album cover of a game/setting, bespoke rules just make more sense.
jeff white wrote: Whatever people may say about so called bespoke rules being easier to update, they are more difficult in use. Sure, they appear on my data sheet with a special name, but if I want to play against you then I need to also learn yours and those special names and also those of every other bespoke rule for every other faction. it would be a lot easier and indeed faster to say “bodyguard USR 4+” than “bespoke BS because yada so 4+”. With the first, I can glance at a summary of units with USRs written next to them and know immediately about what every unit can do. With bespoke rules, I have to learn a new language every time I play a different army written by a different writer. Point here is that dropping USRs was even dumber than dissing USRs from an actual use standpoint especially given GW’s lip service about streamlining the game and making it more accessible. All I hear from GW is the Friedman fallacy with every announcement and I will be surprised if they else but disintegrate any remaining goodwill remaining in the grognard community still present after the fiascos of Ao$ and nu$tarte$.
This "easier and faster" is only true if the intention of the rule is for it to always be applied in the same way. Not that many rules in 40k are meant to be applied the same way. Which is why the old USR system broke down. When you have a USR with a half dozen caveats and modifiers attached to it, that's just a bespoke rule that might also accidentally feth something up somewhere else. You had to learn a new language with every unit AND you had to contend with weird interaction between USRs.
AoS, since it's first generals handbook, but especially since AoS 2, has always been a far better tournament game than either 40k or WHFB had ever been. Before that it was a better grognard, homebrew, design my own rules because feth authority style game that GW had put out since rogue trader. It wasn't 'grognards' who hated AoS, it was just people who got shanghaid into buying a stupid amount of models by WHFB's asinine army construction rules and terrible pricing structure.
The old space marine models were gak and desperately needed an update because they looked so much like comic relief characters next to the newer stuff (An oldmarine army next to the new SoB plastics is about the same as putting the 2nd Ed Tyranid warriors up against the plastic Warriors. They literally look, not just like a joke, but like they're SUPPOSED to be a joke.) that they needed the majority of at least the infantry line completely redone. They chose to do this by going the primaris route rather than just redoing the old marines. Was this the best way to go about it? Probably, but they couldn't leave the most popular army in the game, the one that is supposed to be drawing in new players by being bad ass space super-soldier looking like clowns. The idea that there is a version of this update happens where you DON'T eventually kind of have to replace your entire minimarine force is utterly nonsensical and frankly shows a deep misunderstanding of how reality works.
JNAProductions wrote: So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about whyUSRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!
40k has too many goofy things it tries to do for USRs to be feasible. There were several pages of USRs in the 7th ed BRB and most units STILL had some sort of bespoke rule. Bespoke rules just work better for how 40k tries to function as a game.
This isn't an advantage to bespoke rules, it's an advantage to printing rules on the datasheet.
Very much this. Including the rules on the datasheet doesn't preclude them being universal and consistent.
This is actually the approach we're going with for Maelstrom's Edge V2 - rules will all be printed on a unit's rules sheet, but we're keeping to as tight a set of special rules as we can while maintaining some flavour.
WhiteDog wrote: At some point, there were just too many USRs. I like USRs as long as the number of universal rule stays low enough.
I really don't get this argument. A game as wide-ranging as 40K is always going to have a lot of special rules... but consolidating them into USRs ultimately gives you fewer rules to learn than the current approach of multiple, similar-but-not-identical, bespoke rules.
40k doesn't want rules that are universal and consistent. It does, and always has wanted to do wacky gak. 40k wants to have 20 different versions of deepstrike because it wants the option to have one where the ork misses and self destructs, and the one where they're actually warp entities and can land perfectly, the one where every model is now left handed, etc.
Even when they did have USRs, they had so many modifiers for each across so many different units that they ended up becoming essentially bespoke rules anyway. Which is what eventually created the issues with deathstars and such because the USRs would interact with each other in odd, unintended ways because they tried to be universal when everything about the design paradigm for 40k wants to be special snowflake.
You can argue that USRs are simpler or w/e, sure. But for what 40k tries to be, a ridiculous heavy metal album cover of a game/setting, bespoke rules just make more sense.
So what's the problem with just giving those Ork units Deep Strike regularly? Or type down Deep Strike: Caveat XYZ? Consistent wording and then the piece of garbage fluff part?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I will offer the advantages of bespoke rules as opposed to USRs. Likely an unpopular point of view in the this thread, but hey.
First, it allows for redistribution of the rules load. This in turn makes the game more accessible. Instead of a large core rule book with the USRs you can have a thin set of core rules that can be downloaded for free or given away in stores. You buy your box of miniatures and with the datasheet included in the assembly instructions you can play the game straight away with the unit(s) that you have. Two players only need to manage/carry the rules that are on their datasheets and not worry about cross-referencing mid-game with USRs in the main book.
Second, it allows the designers greater flexibility when creating units/Codexes and also to fix problems afterwards. I understand that some people only want one rule for a given capability, but it is a valid design method to have a variety of bespoke ways for different units to similar functions. A Company Veteran, for instance, is neither a Shield Drone nor a Grot.
Having been in the 8th Edition era for almost three years, I have to say that I prefer the bespoke method. GW can change editions without having to actually do an edition change with all the associated pain. As Codexes get updated we see new design ideas in the datasheets.
Cheers,
T2B
I don't think anyone disagrees with you. Having all the rules on the datasheet instead somewhere in another book is one of the things that worked well in 8th.
What most people (including me) are saying is that his could be improved on by standardizing certain rules to work the same for everyone (overheating weapons, bodyguards, re-rolls) so you don't need to scan each rule for minor differences and keywording certain things improve clarity and facilitate interaction with other rules (deep strike, explosions, auras).
I've gone through old codices all the way back to 3rd recently, and 8th edition codices are by far the most readable ones with almost all rules in places where they make sense. I could flip open a codex I've never read before and quickly find all the rules related to one model, weapon profiles, relics or psychic powers.
40k doesn't want rules that are universal and consistent. It does, and always has wanted to do wacky gak. 40k wants to have 20 different versions of deepstrike because it wants the option to have one where the ork misses and self destructs, and the one where they're actually warp entities and can land perfectly, the one where every model is now left handed, etc.
This argument would be a lot more convincing if there were any examples of it in practice. GW simply isn't using this freedom to provide more options as you state. AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith. Now, I could be wrong about that, but this is actually an argument in favour of USRs. We have literally dozens of deep strike rules that are worded identically but named completely differently for no reason. Tau are a great example. I completely missed the fact Crisis Suits get to Deep Strike at first because the ability is called Manta Strike, which actually sounds to me like some sort of offensive buff. I have to read through everything just to get some really basic information about a unit. It's clunky, archaic and deeply stupid. I want to spend my time playing the game, not reading the rules. Remembering a dozen or so USRs is much easier than a million bespoke ones.
At the moment I need to read the entire rules to understand what it does, rather than being able to instantly parse the effects from a standardised rule name. That's bad. It's bad for learning the game and it's bad for structuring the game from a design perspective. Explosion rules are a great example. We need 3 numbers to use them (the roll to see if you explode, the distance and the number of wounds) but these are buried in a paragraph of text rather than presented usefully for use in the actual game. It's infuriating. Also, some vehicles and monsters don't explode but we have to read through every last rule on their datasheet to see if that's the case because there are no USRs so we can't just quickly scan to confirm the Explodes rule isn't present.
What exactly is wrong with having to read the rules to play the game?
In GW's mind, Warhammer 40,000 is not a game where you roll up to a table against a random opponent and toss down a game. It is an experience to plan and savor. Their rules reflect that.
Well it takes more time, you get fewer game per hour, or worse you don't fit a whole game wihin an hour and have to pay for the next hour too. It isn't very fun to have to play double for a game, just because checking of different rules made you play 75min, instead of the normal 50+.
40k doesn't want rules that are universal and consistent. It does, and always has wanted to do wacky gak. 40k wants to have 20 different versions of deepstrike because it wants the option to have one where the ork misses and self destructs, and the one where they're actually warp entities and can land perfectly, the one where every model is now left handed, etc.
This argument would be a lot more convincing if there were any examples of it in practice. GW simply isn't using this freedom to provide more options as you state. AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith. Now, I could be wrong about that, but this is actually an argument in favour of USRs. We have literally dozens of deep strike rules that are worded identically but named completely differently for no reason. Tau are a great example. I completely missed the fact Crisis Suits get to Deep Strike at first because the ability is called Manta Strike, which actually sounds to me like some sort of offensive buff. I have to read through everything just to get some really basic information about a unit. It's clunky, archaic and deeply stupid. I want to spend my time playing the game, not reading the rules. Remembering a dozen or so USRs is much easier than a million bespoke ones.
At the moment I need to read the entire rules to understand what it does, rather than being able to instantly parse the effects from a standardised rule name. That's bad. It's bad for learning the game and it's bad for structuring the game from a design perspective. Explosion rules are a great example. We need 3 numbers to use them (the roll to see if you explode, the distance and the number of wounds) but these are buried in a paragraph of text rather than presented usefully for use in the actual game. It's infuriating. Also, some vehicles and monsters don't explode but we have to read through every last rule on their datasheet to see if that's the case because there are no USRs so we can't just quickly scan to confirm the Explodes rule isn't present.
Loyalist marines drop pods rules are different in that they can deep strike turn one. Meanwhile csm dreadclaws are slower for some reason.....
alextroy wrote: What exactly is wrong with having to read the rules to play the game?
In GW's mind, Warhammer 40,000 is not a game where you roll up to a table against a random opponent and toss down a game. It is an experience to plan and savor. Their rules reflect that.
That's a load of rubbish. To use an analogy of food:
Clear and concise rules are a meal where each component is carefully planned out and prepared and plated effectively. You see a piece of steak on the plate and at a glance you can be "yup, that is steak".
Gws approach where you have to read everything to understand how it works as nothing has standardised naming conventions or language is akin to everything from the previous meal example being blended together and slopped onto the plate. Sure, it has all of the same ingredients but at a glance you can't tell. You have to taste it to tell if there is steak in there.
The issue isn't "having to read the rules". It is having to, in practice, read every rule multiple times as you cannot tell it is the same rule at a glance and you can't assume they are the same as there are a couple of versions of that rule out there that are different.
If every version of the deep strike rule that used the same wording had the same name, then it would actually make the versions that are special stand out as being different.
40k doesn't want rules that are universal and consistent. It does, and always has wanted to do wacky gak. 40k wants to have 20 different versions of deepstrike because it wants the option to have one where the ork misses and self destructs, and the one where they're actually warp entities and can land perfectly, the one where every model is now left handed, etc.
This argument would be a lot more convincing if there were any examples of it in practice. GW simply isn't using this freedom to provide more options as you state. AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith. Now, I could be wrong about that, but this is actually an argument in favour of USRs. We have literally dozens of deep strike rules that are worded identically but named completely differently for no reason. Tau are a great example. I completely missed the fact Crisis Suits get to Deep Strike at first because the ability is called Manta Strike, which actually sounds to me like some sort of offensive buff. I have to read through everything just to get some really basic information about a unit. It's clunky, archaic and deeply stupid. I want to spend my time playing the game, not reading the rules. Remembering a dozen or so USRs is much easier than a million bespoke ones.
At the moment I need to read the entire rules to understand what it does, rather than being able to instantly parse the effects from a standardised rule name. That's bad. It's bad for learning the game and it's bad for structuring the game from a design perspective. Explosion rules are a great example. We need 3 numbers to use them (the roll to see if you explode, the distance and the number of wounds) but these are buried in a paragraph of text rather than presented usefully for use in the actual game. It's infuriating. Also, some vehicles and monsters don't explode but we have to read through every last rule on their datasheet to see if that's the case because there are no USRs so we can't just quickly scan to confirm the Explodes rule isn't present.
Loyalist marines drop pods rules are different in that they can deep strike turn one. Meanwhile csm dreadclaws are slower for some reason.....
To be fair, the FW rules are a little behind and everyone had T1 Deep Strike when those Dreadclaw rules were created.
alextroy wrote: What exactly is wrong with having to read the rules to play the game?
In GW's mind, Warhammer 40,000 is not a game where you roll up to a table against a random opponent and toss down a game. It is an experience to plan and savor. Their rules reflect that.
That's a load of rubbish. To use an analogy of food:
Clear and concise rules are a meal where each component is carefully planned out and prepared. You see a piece of steak on the plate and at a glance you can be "yup, that is steak"
Gws approach where you have to read everything to understand how it works as nothing has standardised naming conventions or language is akin to everything from the previous meal example being blended together and slopped onto the plate. Sure, it has all of the same ingredients but at a glance you can't tell. You have to taste it to tell if there is steak in there.
Nah.
To stick with the analogy, GWs rules are a giant buffet with hundreds of different meats, vegetables, deserts, seafoods, whatever.
Its up to the players to pick a selection of things they enjoy to create their favourite meal.
Unfortunately, a toxic minority of people that play that game has taken the weird approach that everything must be on the plate all the time, and that excluding certain aspects of the overall buffet / game and playing without, say, Forge World or Special Characters or Flyers or whatever for a game, to thereby get varied and carefully curated flavours each time is somehow heresy against the game itself.
alextroy wrote: What exactly is wrong with having to read the rules to play the game?
I think the point is that having to read the same rule 100 times to make sure that it's the same rule is not good design.
Take the example of Magic the Gathering. I can read the Flying rule ("This creature can't be blocked except by creatures with Flying") once and then I know what it does.
Even if the rule is printed in full on other cards, I don't need to read the entirety of it. I only need to see 'Flying' to know what the rule is. Because it has the same name on all cards and always works the same way.
In contrast, when you have a single rule that is called Manta Strike or Strike from the Shadows or Parachute Jump or Drill Helmets Incoming, it forces me to read the full text every time to make sure that it is actually 'Deep Strike' and not 'Deep Strike but with a Minute Difference'. What is the point? Why not just have a single rule called 'Deep Strike'? That way you only need to learn the rule once.
Last night I was flipping through an old copy of White Dwarf from just before the launch of 4th Ed, while looking for a hobby article.
I came across a pre-launch designer's notes written by Andy Chambers, explaining the reasoning behind some of the changes.
One of the big ones was specifically consolidating special rules into USRs. It called out how some charge-related rule was implemented three different ways in different armies in 3rd, and it just made more sense to roll them all under a single umbrella.
Oh, and one of the other big changes that it noted was that units were incentivized too heavily to remain stationary in order to shoot, and the game boiled down to either all melee or all static shooting, so they upped the mobility of tanks and let infantry Rapid Fire at short range even if they moved. Now in 8th we're back to vehicles and Marines remaining static so that they can shoot twice and it's more of a shooting gallery than ever.
GW's biggest problem, IMO, is an inability to learn and then retain that knowledge. Too much churn, too many cooks in the kitchen.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Loyalist marines drop pods rules are different in that they can deep strike turn one. Meanwhile csm dreadclaws are slower for some reason.....
To be fair, the FW rules are a little behind and everyone had T1 Deep Strike when those Dreadclaw rules were created.
True, but the point is that loyalist drop pods have differing deep strike rules from others. That's still not an argument against USRs as rules deviating from the norm could be explained in the units data slate. Just giving an example.
The only compelling reason I can see for the approach GW went with is so you can change X rule but not Y rule, meaning factions can be updated in isolation without adjusting a USR that affects everyone. Now normally that's a bad thing but with the bloat 40k has and how different rules affect things differently since factions are seemingly designed in isolation it's not a bad thing other than adding even more bloat. Part of 40k's problem is that rules affect everyone differently so they aren't consistent effects, therefore having X work one way for one army and Y that's almost X but not quite work differently for another army actually works.
I'm sort of torn because on one hand I like the idea that there's consistency but on the other hand you don't need everything to work the same way. Different things sometimes need to be treated differently even if they are similar.
The TL/DR? 7th had USRs, 7th wasn't great at the time and was awful in hindsight. See also resistance to blast templates, vehicle facings (and vehicle rules in general) and lots of other things. This isn't drinking the GW koolaid, its just not liking how things were, and therefore not seeing why we'd want to to go back.
Anyway:
As I see it the basic clash is between "40k (or whatever) as a game" and "40k as reflecting fluff on the tabletop".
For the former, you could come up with a very restricted set of USRs that described everything a model can ever do on the tabletop, and that's that. For the second, you can't.
Chess is an excellent game - but (at least IMO) its not a very good reflection of what a medieval battle would be like, beyond a conceptual level.
Trying to capture the fluff is why the 7th edition rule book had 89 USRs. You also had about a dozen potential unit types that you needed to know, in order to know what USRs your unit got just from existing. And it wasn't as if units didn't also have special rules on top of this.
Would it hurt the game if "deepstrike" became a keyword? Probably not - as people say, its overwhelmingly the same rule, just with a few fluff based words being changed on the datasheet. Those with exceptions could have those on their datasheet. On the other hand I don't find it difficult to look at the datasheet and go "oh look, its a version of the deep strike rule".
Same for say "feel no pain" - or possibly the bodyguard rule (although in that instance, I feel the differences are due to trying to convey the unit acting in a different way).
Once you move beyond this though I don't think its especially useful. What is the benefit between saying "this unit has the [better charge] rule" versus just writing "this unit can reroll failed charges"? It might stop sloppiness and so rules interpretation questions - for example whether its "failed charges" or "all charges", whether they can reroll one dice or both etc - but really those are different abilities that you might want to convey in the rules. Which means more USRs. Which is how you got so many in 7th edition.
Rather than checking your datasheet, you have to check your datasheet for "Rule" and then look up that rule in the rulebook. People's brains do work differently, but I find it easier to learn the rules on a datasheet than an encyclopedia of unit types and USRs.
This is why printing the USRs in the data sheet should be done as well as in the rule book and codex.
One of the biggest turn offs I’ve seen for new players is the lack of USRs. It leads to a lot of “gotcha” moments.
And where an experienced player might see a rule and see a version of FNP or deep strike, you tell your newbie opponent that your unit has “feel no pain” they will look at you blankly and you have to explain the rule. Similarly with deep strike et al.
The worst part of no USRs for a new player is when you read your units data sheet and get excited about their ubiquitous cool and fluffy rule only to discover that your opponent can do the same thing, they’ve just called it by a different name. This leads to a pretty significant sense of disillusionment in the game and the fluff and I’ve seen it turn players off from the game entirely.
Bespoke rules adds nothing to the game of any value.
All it does is slow things down, make things less organized and make things convoluted.
There are literally no up sides to Bespoke rules over USR's.
7th ed was a stronger rules set than 8th because of USR's. But again GW chose to make useless ones, call them weird names, and created some USR's that were a combination of 2 or more already existing USR's.
USR's are not the enemy here, GW writing is. They never implemented it properly.
People's brains do work differently, but I find it easier to learn the rules on a datasheet than an encyclopedia of unit types and USRs
Again, USR's can also be printed on the datasheet. This is not an argument in favour of Bespoke rules. The bonus of USR's is that they can be in both an encyclopedia (where they should be, because it's the only proper way to organize a game) and on the datasheet.
Sure, 7th had 89 USR's. Wanna take a wild guess at how many bespoke rules 8th has? It's probably in the hundreds if not thousands. Guess what? I can memorize 90 something USR's and use that to speed the game along because I know what each unit does based on the USR's it contains in its profile. I can't do that when everything is different. It makes things way too convoluted, it slows the game down so much and provides literally no benefit to the user.
Again, there should be no exceptions. Everything should follow the core mechanics of the game. Stop making special snowflake rules. USR's to replace literally everything. Nothing exists outside of the main rules.
Aash wrote: TThe worst part of no USRs for a new player is when you read your units data sheet and get excited about their ubiquitous cool and fluffy rule only to discover that your opponent can do the same thing, they’ve just called it by a different name. This leads to a pretty significant sense of disillusionment in the game and the fluff and I’ve seen it turn players off from the game entirely.
I would agree with this.
It seems like creating the illusion of flavour.
It means that a lot of models look like they have a pile of flavourful rules... until you read what they do and realise that they're all just standard rules with pretentious names.
One of the big ones was specifically consolidating special rules into USRs. It called out how some charge-related rule was implemented three different ways in different armies in 3rd, and it just made more sense to roll them all under a single umbrella.
That would be True Grit. Which is also a good indicator who has not played this game long enough to experience first hand what a problem it was and why USRs are good. That rule only had 3 different versions (SWs, DG and GKs) but every single one was subtly different. SWs it worked on bolters only, DG included combi weapons (IIRC) and GK one was storm bolters. Every single time someone got it wrong.
Slipspace wrote: AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith. Now, I could be wrong about that, but this is actually an argument in favour of USRs. We have literally dozens of deep strike rules that are worded identically but named completely differently for no reason.
And these outliers can be easily fixed wit hproper USR.
Slipspace wrote: AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith. Now, I could be wrong about that, but this is actually an argument in favour of USRs. We have literally dozens of deep strike rules that are worded identically but named completely differently for no reason.
And these outliers can be easily fixed wit hproper USR.
And people mentionned Drop pods, well theres a way to fix them that would also fix the CSM ones.
Precise Deepstrike (9") : This unit can deepstrike on turn 1.
IMO, a cleaner approach would be something like this:
Monolith Special Rules:
Deep Strike Monolithic Teleport- When arriving on the battlefield via Deep Strike, this model may not be set up within 12" of enemy units, rather than 9" as normal.
Drop Pod Special Rules:
Deep Strike Assault Strike- This unit may arrive on the battlefield via Deep Strike during the first Battle Round.
Instead of giving every USR a bunch of attached variables (in this case, deployment range), for the ones where 90% of them work the same just have the basic USR, and then bespoke unit-specific rules as needed.
The USR provides the core framework, and then the special rule explicitly defines how the unit deviates from that baseline. No needing to parse the entire block of deep strike rules text to figure out whether this one is the same as all the others or if there's some subtle distinction. It's basically the approach we already have with Rapid Fire and Bolter Discipline- Rapid Fire is a USR that applies to lots of armies, and then Bolter Discipline is a bespoke rule which modifies it.
Slipspace wrote: AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith. Now, I could be wrong about that, but this is actually an argument in favour of USRs. We have literally dozens of deep strike rules that are worded identically but named completely differently for no reason.
And these outliers can be easily fixed wit hproper USR.
And people mentionned Drop pods, well theres a way to fix them that would also fix the CSM ones.
Precise Deepstrike (9") : This unit can deepstrike on turn 1.
IMO, a cleaner approach would be something like this:
Monolith Special Rules:
Deep Strike Monolithic Teleport- When arriving on the battlefield via Deep Strike, this model may not be set up within 12" of enemy units, rather than 9" as normal.
Drop Pod Special Rules:
Deep Strike Assault Strike- This unit may arrive on the battlefield via Deep Strike during the first Battle Round.
Instead of giving every USR a bunch of attached variables (in this case, deployment range), for the ones where 90% of them work the same just have the basic USR, and then bespoke unit-specific rules as needed.
The USR provides the core framework, and then the special rule explicitly defines how the unit deviates from that baseline. No needing to parse the entire block of deep strike rules text to figure out whether this one is the same as all the others or if there's some subtle distinction. It's basically the approach we already have with Rapid Fire and Bolter Discipline- Rapid Fire is a USR that applies to lots of armies, and then Bolter Discipline is a bespoke rule which modifies it.
either way works IMO, im just defaulting to having a parameter to dermine what can change because i came from MTG. Bespoke rules that affect a USR have to be used sparingly i find, otherwise you just end up ignoring USRs.
alextroy wrote: What exactly is wrong with having to read the rules to play the game?
In GW's mind, Warhammer 40,000 is not a game where you roll up to a table against a random opponent and toss down a game. It is an experience to plan and savor. Their rules reflect that.
That's a load of rubbish. To use an analogy of food:
Clear and concise rules are a meal where each component is carefully planned out and prepared. You see a piece of steak on the plate and at a glance you can be "yup, that is steak"
Gws approach where you have to read everything to understand how it works as nothing has standardised naming conventions or language is akin to everything from the previous meal example being blended together and slopped onto the plate. Sure, it has all of the same ingredients but at a glance you can't tell. You have to taste it to tell if there is steak in there.
Nah.
To stick with the analogy, GWs rules are a giant buffet with hundreds of different meats, vegetables, deserts, seafoods, whatever.
Its up to the players to pick a selection of things they enjoy to create their favourite meal.
Unfortunately, a toxic minority of people that play that game has taken the weird approach that everything must be on the plate all the time, and that excluding certain aspects of the overall buffet / game and playing without, say, Forge World or Special Characters or Flyers or whatever for a game, to thereby get varied and carefully curated flavours each time is somehow heresy against the game itself.
A giant buffet that are restricted to only allowing certain people to have access to certain things, often times require large amount of money get access to more of it that may not be allowed to be combined with other parts of the buffet, some parts having dishes that are named the same but are different while also some dishes we're told are different but are actually the same. And even if it's different, the "flavor" provided might be a deterrent to the dish than actually an improvement, like trying to eat a steak that's been drenched in garlic salt. All of which has clear differences in effort to put into it, making it at least look not like a "carefully curated flavours " but someone making crap up as they go along and yelling "That was my plan all along!" when it works
More importantly, no one wants to completely remove unique special rules. Those bespoke rules should be actually bespoke and when they are used they should be noted for being different rather than "Wait, is this actually Soba noodles, or is this just the spaghetti again in a different bowl?". Even then, USRs can be done to allow an amount of flexibility.
Also, "toxic"? Really? I know Dakka Dakka is not the nicest place, but you have not been part of a toxic community if this discussion is what you're calling "toxic".
AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith.
Nonesenes. There are loads of different ones.
GSC, Custodes and Grey Knights have a 3" one.
Dark Angels have a 6" one.
There is a Tau Deepstrike that has no minimal-distance and you could deep strike into close combat, if you wanted to.
Etc.., etc..
Those are all strategems, not abilities that the unit has inherently, and wouldn't be represented on a data sheet as either a bespoke rule or USR. And strategems typically break the core rules so not really what we're talking about.
Except for the tau one. Don't know what you're talking about there, unless it's "wall of mirrors", which is also a stratagem, isn't true deep strike but just repositioning a unit already on the board, and still is subject to the "no closer than 9 from enemy units" rule. If it's something else I don't know about, please educate me.
The problem with USRs is that they make it hard to get an understanding of what a unit does when they have multiple USRs. When you're trying to see how a model plays, looking at their rulesheet and seeing it just say, "see page 7, then page 43, then page 12" is hard to keep straight and appreciate. Even worse when you rely on published material and add new USRs in expansions.
Now the advantage of USRs is that it makes the game easier to understand as a whole. If your models mostly have the same rules as my models, or even if your rules are familiar to me because they're shared with something else I'm familiar with, it makes the game a lot easier to understand. A good way to do this without a lookup table is just to have consistent, codified wordings and timing structures to your rules and to reuse rules whenever possible.
The challenge in all of this is maintenance. You have to have systems in place to understand the impact of a change and the more printed materials you have the more change invalidates them. I'm much happier with digital solutions because of this personally, but that's a whole new rabbit hole to chase.
Except for the tau one. Don't know what you're talking about there, unless it's "wall of mirrors", which is also a stratagem, isn't true deep strike but just repositioning a unit already on the board, and still is subject to the "no closer than 9 from enemy units" rule. If it's something else I don't know about, please educate me.
I think the Tau one is the Homing Beacon special rule. You place a marker within 1" of a Stealth Suit at the beginning of the movement phase and at the end of the movement phase you can deploy any unit held in reserve wholly within 6" of the marker (no limit on distance to enemy models).
Which is its own thing and the rule specifically calls out that you use it instead of Manta Strike (the Tau name for deep strike). So it would not be affected in the slightest by Deep Strike becoming a USR.
AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith.
Nonesenes. There are loads of different ones.
GSC, Custodes and Grey Knights have a 3" one.
Dark Angels have a 6" one.
There is a Tau Deepstrike that has no minimal-distance and you could deep strike into close combat, if you wanted to.
Etc.., etc..
Those are all strategems, not abilities that the unit has inherently, and wouldn't be represented on a data sheet as either a bespoke rule or USR. And strategems typically break the core rules so not really what we're talking about.
Except for the tau one. Don't know what you're talking about there, unless it's "wall of mirrors", which is also a stratagem, isn't true deep strike but just repositioning a unit already on the board, and still is subject to the "no closer than 9 from enemy units" rule. If it's something else I don't know about, please educate me.
Nah you're correct. That poster is just defending GWs garbage writing as usual.
LunarSol wrote: The problem with USRs is that they make it hard to get an understanding of what a unit does when they have multiple USRs. When you're trying to see how a model plays, looking at their rulesheet and seeing it just say, "see page 7, then page 43, then page 12" is hard to keep straight and appreciate. Even worse when you rely on published material and add new USRs in expansions.
As said many, many times throughout the thread, having USRs does not prevent you from still printing the rules for them on the unit sheet.
Except for the tau one. Don't know what you're talking about there, unless it's "wall of mirrors", which is also a stratagem, isn't true deep strike but just repositioning a unit already on the board, and still is subject to the "no closer than 9 from enemy units" rule. If it's something else I don't know about, please educate me.
I think the Tau one is the Homing Beacon special rule. you place a marker within 1" of a Stealth suit at the beginning of the movement phase and at the end you can deploy any unit held in reserve wholly within 6" of the marker.
Which is its own thing and the rule specifically calls out that you use it instead of Manta Strike (the Tau name for deep strike). So it would not be affected in the slightest by Deep Strike becoming a USR.
Thanks, never saw that one used. I'll have to look it up. Know thy enemy and all that.
Good to know it doesn't affect the whole USR discussion.
LunarSol wrote: The problem with USRs is that they make it hard to get an understanding of what a unit does when they have multiple USRs. When you're trying to see how a model plays, looking at their rulesheet and seeing it just say, "see page 7, then page 43, then page 12" is hard to keep straight and appreciate. Even worse when you rely on published material and add new USRs in expansions.
this is not a problem created by USRs and actually it should be the opposite as in a good rulebook, all USRs would be in the same spot
LunarSol wrote: The problem with USRs is that they make it hard to get an understanding of what a unit does when they have multiple USRs. When you're trying to see how a model plays, looking at their rulesheet and seeing it just say, "see page 7, then page 43, then page 12" is hard to keep straight and appreciate. Even worse when you rely on published material and add new USRs in expansions.
Now the advantage of USRs is that it makes the game easier to understand as a whole. If your models mostly have the same rules as my models, or even if your rules are familiar to me because they're shared with something else I'm familiar with, it makes the game a lot easier to understand. A good way to do this without a lookup table is just to have consistent, codified wordings and timing structures to your rules and to reuse rules whenever possible.
The challenge in all of this is maintenance. You have to have systems in place to understand the impact of a change and the more printed materials you have the more change invalidates them. I'm much happier with digital solutions because of this personally, but that's a whole new rabbit hole to chase.
No one is saying "Don't print the text of the rule on the datasheet". What I and most others are saying is that we want rules that do the same thing to be written the same way, and have unified mechanical names.
Those are all strategems, not abilities that the unit has inherently, and wouldn't be represented on a data sheet as either a bespoke rule or USR. And strategems typically break the core rules so not really what we're talking about.
Except for the tau one. Don't know what you're talking about there, unless it's "wall of mirrors", which is also a stratagem, isn't true deep strike but just repositioning a unit already on the board, and still is subject to the "no closer than 9 from enemy units" rule. If it's something else I don't know about, please educate me.
I dont see where that distinction between stratagems, abilities, etc.. comes from.
The "ability" of a Space Marine Lieutenant to re-roll 1 to wound is the "stratagem" of an Eldar Farseer. The "ability" of a Khorne Berzerker to fight twice is the "stratagem" of a Sister Repentia unit. The "ability" of a Wulfen to fight-in-death is the "stratagem" of a Grey Knight Paladin. The "ability" of a Plague Marine to shrug wounds on 5+ is the "stratagem" of a Tau Crisis Suit unit. The "ability" of a Leman Russ tank to shoot twice is the "stratagem" of a Slaanesh Obliterator unit. The "ability" for a Terminator to Deep Strike is the "stratagem" of a Wraithblade unit, etc.. Etc.., etc..
They are all rules and abilities that "break the game" (e.g. you dont have to start the game on the board in your deployment zone as is the "default"), whether you gain this ability innately or pay some type of cost, be it CP, WL-traits, relics, force-org slots, etc.., doesnt really affect the nature of where that rules-breaking-ability comes from.
The Tau rule is the basic Homing Beacon rule for Stealth Suits.
Those are all strategems, not abilities that the unit has inherently, and wouldn't be represented on a data sheet as either a bespoke rule or USR. And strategems typically break the core rules so not really what we're talking about.
Except for the tau one. Don't know what you're talking about there, unless it's "wall of mirrors", which is also a stratagem, isn't true deep strike but just repositioning a unit already on the board, and still is subject to the "no closer than 9 from enemy units" rule. If it's something else I don't know about, please educate me.
I dont see where that distinction between stratagems, abilities, etc.. comes from.
The "ability" of a Space Marine Lieutenant to re-roll 1 to wound is the "stratagem" of an Eldar Farseer. The "ability" of a Khorne Berzerker to fight twice is the "stratagem" of a Sister Repentia unit. The "ability" of a Wulfen to fight-in-death is the "stratagem" of a Grey Knight Paladin. The "ability" for a Terminator to Deep Strike is the "stratagem" of a Wraithblade unit, etc..
They are all rules and abilities that "break the game" (e.g. you dont have to start the game on the board in your deployment zone as is the "default"), whether you gain this ability innately or pay some type of cost, be it CP, WL-traits, relics, force-org slots, etc.., doesnt really affect the nature of where that rules-breaking-ability comes from.
The Tau rule is the basic Homing Beacon rule for Stealth Suits.
Strats could confer USRs.
For instance, Webway Strike could be:
Select one ELDAR Unit for 1 CP or two units for 3 CP. Each selected unit gains Deep Strike (9")-they may be set in reserves instead of deployed normally on the table. Then, at the end of your second or third movement phase, you may deploy them anywhere on the table more than 9" from any enemy models.
And something like Khorne Berserkers fighting twice? That could be bespoke. Very, very few units in the game have that rule, so I don't see any need for it to be made universal.
Select one ELDAR Unit for 1 CP or two units for 3 CP. Each selected unit gains Deep Strike (9")-they may be set in reserves instead of deployed normally on the table. Then, at the end of your second or third movement phase, you may deploy them anywhere on the table more than 9" from any enemy models.
And something like Khorne Berserkers fighting twice? That could be bespoke. Very, very few units in the game have that rule, so I don't see any need for it to be made universal.
Sure.
But that wasnt the point. The false claim was there are only 2 exceptions to the more common 9" version of "arrive mid-battle-field-rules". And while 9" is a pretty common, there are many other variants, certainly more than just two.
Select one ELDAR Unit for 1 CP or two units for 3 CP. Each selected unit gains Deep Strike (9")-they may be set in reserves instead of deployed normally on the table. Then, at the end of your second or third movement phase, you may deploy them anywhere on the table more than 9" from any enemy models.
And something like Khorne Berserkers fighting twice? That could be bespoke. Very, very few units in the game have that rule, so I don't see any need for it to be made universal.
But it is a very common rule.
It just comes with an uncommonly low cost for Berzerkers as they dont have to pay CP, pass a 4+ roll, invest a WL-trait, etc..
Select one ELDAR Unit for 1 CP or two units for 3 CP. Each selected unit gains Deep Strike (9")-they may be set in reserves instead of deployed normally on the table. Then, at the end of your second or third movement phase, you may deploy them anywhere on the table more than 9" from any enemy models.
And something like Khorne Berserkers fighting twice? That could be bespoke. Very, very few units in the game have that rule, so I don't see any need for it to be made universal.
Sure.
But that wasnt the point. The false claim was there are only 2 exceptions to the more common 9" version of "arrive mid-battle-field-rules". And while 9" is a pretty common, there are many other variants, certainly more than just two.
Select one ELDAR Unit for 1 CP or two units for 3 CP. Each selected unit gains Deep Strike (9")-they may be set in reserves instead of deployed normally on the table. Then, at the end of your second or third movement phase, you may deploy them anywhere on the table more than 9" from any enemy models.
And something like Khorne Berserkers fighting twice? That could be bespoke. Very, very few units in the game have that rule, so I don't see any need for it to be made universal.
But it is a very common rule.
It just comes with an uncommonly low cost for Berzerkers as they dont have to pay CP, pass a 4+ roll, invest a WL-trait, etc..
Really? Very common? Let me crack open some Dexes...
Sisters have 27 units. None Fight Twice natively.
Space Marines (the main Dex) have 76 units (I think-I may have lost count a bit). None Fight Twice natively.
CSM have 45 units (in the first 8th edition Dex). 41 if you don't count the Daemons troops. Two can FIght Twice natively.
That's just over 1%, and that's probably an OVERESTIMATION of the proportion. Because, to my knowledge, Berserkers and Kharne are literally the ONLY UNITS that can Fight Twice always. I think Drazhar also can Fight Twice if he charges, so... Three units can do it natively.
Our group has adopted our own variation of 40K since 5th Ed., but we always see what new things an edition has that we might incorporate. When we heard of the 'bespoke' rules and the removal of USR's, we couldn't believe it at first, having been informed that this was supposedly a serious attempt at streamlining the game. Granted, we only currently have 25 USR's in our rules, but removing them entirely and listing all the rules under each unit alone with no or slight variation to a basic rule is a very backwards way of simplification.
Select one ELDAR Unit for 1 CP or two units for 3 CP. Each selected unit gains Deep Strike (9")-they may be set in reserves instead of deployed normally on the table. Then, at the end of your second or third movement phase, you may deploy them anywhere on the table more than 9" from any enemy models.
And something like Khorne Berserkers fighting twice? That could be bespoke. Very, very few units in the game have that rule, so I don't see any need for it to be made universal.
Sure.
But that wasnt the point. The false claim was there are only 2 exceptions to the more common 9" version of "arrive mid-battle-field-rules". And while 9" is a pretty common, there are many other variants, certainly more than just two.
Yes, but all those abilities you mentioned come from strategems, and therefore are not on data sheets. If every ability that a unit could gain from outside sources was on its data sheet then the page count in the average codex would be tripled. And as JNAProductions pointed out any common ability that a stratagem, warlord trait, etc gives to a unit could be explained by referencing the USR.
More odd, specific abilities, like the tau one you mentioned, would need to be bespoke rules for that particular unit.
Accountability because they don't have a standard to measure against so they can throw out almost identical but not quite rules, which excuses poor work. Very few of these almost the same rules are importantly different. They're different for their own sake.
A USR simply creates a standardised measure for a mechanic in the game.
They can still be printed on unit cards, they can also appear in rulebooks. they can also appear as an update in chapter approved every year if needed.
But they mean that when you tell me you're deep striking, I can look at my own units rules to see what it does and know it does the same thing. They mean that you won't have to keep rereading each new rule that comes out because it might be worded different and create an effect no one expected.
What USRs won't do is:
Constrain the number of special rules in the game. All they do is ensure that you aren't duplicating the same thing over and over again and provide standardisation
Require you to look in more places than currently - you can replace every rule in every current location in the game with a standardised version of said rule and no extra burden is at hand
Require you to stack special rules inside each other - this was a choice for USR implementation, not a requirement.
All a USR is, is the standardisation of a particular way of doing the same thing, regardless of what unit it is. Just as Rolling to hit is a USR, so should deep strike, characters, aircraft etc be a USR.
USR's aren't about their name, they're about rule standardisation. So long as the mechanic is identical for that purpose, it doesn't matter what they're called - hell they could make INVISIBLE USRs, whose sole purpose is back end development consistency and only the designers need ever blight their eyes with such horrors...
That's all fair, but I don't think I've ever seen a game with the number of distinct factions, sub-factions, and untis-per-each that 40k has, that stayed with USRs once they got anywhere near that size. I feel like most of the time, you end up with maybe a very limited number of USRs, and then a boatload of bespoke rules anyway because, at the scale 40k has, USRs really do end up limiting how you can differentiate each army unless you also start adding back in all the bespoke rules to begin with ... which leaves us in a similar place to where we are now, but with maybe a small handful of rules that are now identical across all armies. I think, if GW really wanted to switch back to USRs, they'd have to almost rewrite the game to properly include it without loosing the unique distinctions between armies.
All it does is slow things down, make things less organized and make things convoluted.
There are literally no up sides to Bespoke rules over USR's.
7th ed was a stronger rules set than 8th because of USR's. But again GW chose to make useless ones, call them weird names, and created some USR's that were a combination of 2 or more already existing USR's.
USR's are not the enemy here, GW writing is. They never implemented it properly.
People's brains do work differently, but I find it easier to learn the rules on a datasheet than an encyclopedia of unit types and USRs
Again, USR's can also be printed on the datasheet. This is not an argument in favour of Bespoke rules. The bonus of USR's is that they can be in both an encyclopedia (where they should be, because it's the only proper way to organize a game) and on the datasheet.
Sure, 7th had 89 USR's. Wanna take a wild guess at how many bespoke rules 8th has? It's probably in the hundreds if not thousands. Guess what? I can memorize 90 something USR's and use that to speed the game along because I know what each unit does based on the USR's it contains in its profile. I can't do that when everything is different. It makes things way too convoluted, it slows the game down so much and provides literally no benefit to the user.
Again, there should be no exceptions. Everything should follow the core mechanics of the game. Stop making special snowflake rules. USR's to replace literally everything. Nothing exists outside of the main rules.
So, no. USR's never will replace everything. People taking a more measured approach have made a better argument than this. Many have said a USR should only be a USR if it applies to a minimum number of factions, because if it doesn't it's not universal. The more factions it applies to, the more making it a USR is justified. Deepstrike is a decent example of a good candidate for a USR. Acts of Faith are an example of a bad candidate for a USR.
For the record, I agree with a previous poster who said that even the name of a rule influences the character of the army- Daemonic Incursion just feels different than a teleport homer and ditto on the webway portal. In actual practice though, the conversation during a game usually doesn't use the name of the rule; instead, the people I play with tend to just state the rule. Which means USR's don't really bring a lot either. Maybe in the day of USRs there were a handful that were common enough that we'd use the name- deepstrike and FNP come to mind. But most of the time, in any edition I've played, when I ask if a unit has any special rules I should know about, my opponents almost always listed the effects of the various rules rather than their names. It's certainly what I do when people ask me. Even when USR's existed, it was never taken for granted that my opponents knew them all.
And finally, the greatest weakness with USRs is a design one. If every unit is a collection of USRs, you can't modify rules for a single unit without modifying them for everyone who has the rule. So you try to nerf a single OP unit due to a combination, and you end up nerfing 5 other units that weren't OP. It works the other way too; a unit that under performs can't get a rule tweak without making every other unit that shares the rule OP. The ability to do whatever needs to be done to a unit without impacting other units is the thing that bespoke units brings to the game from a design perspective.
Universal rules lead to armies that feel similar. If you want a game where armies feel similar, you'll like USRs. If you don't like armies that feel similar, you won't.
Both systems have advantages, and both systems have disadvantages. Personally, I don't have a problem with the game as is; I think that more damage would be done to the game by hitting a reset button than could be gained by any number of improvements- especially something as big as implementation of USR's, because, of necessity, it would invalidate everything we have right now, and we'd all have to sit through another year of almost pure Marines releases, while the rest of us all sit around waiting for GW to catch up.
Now if we're talking straight game theory without worrying about the practical effect on the game we have, well honestly, as long as the full text of any USR is duplicated on the data card of any unit that has it, fine. As I said, I remember rule effects, not rule names, so it really doesn't make a difference to me. But if they don't duplicate the text, then that's a hard no, even before the prctical implications are taken into effect.
Sisters have 27 units. None Fight Twice natively.
Space Marines (the main Dex) have 76 units (I think-I may have lost count a bit). None Fight Twice natively.
CSM have 45 units (in the first 8th edition Dex). 41 if you don't count the Daemons troops. Two can FIght Twice natively.
That's just over 1%, and that's probably an OVERESTIMATION of the proportion. Because, to my knowledge, Berserkers and Kharne are literally the ONLY UNITS that can Fight Twice always. I think Drazhar also can Fight Twice if he charges, so... Three units can do it natively.
Again, the rule to fight twice is very common and in most Codexes.
Whether it is linked to a CP cost, a WL trait, a spell, a Litany or some other roll-above-X condition or "free" is in the case of Berzerkers doesnt change the rule.
Yes, but all those abilities you mentioned come from strategems, and therefore are not on data sheets. If every ability that a unit could gain from outside sources was on its data sheet then the page count in the average codex would be tripled. And as JNAProductions pointed out any common ability that a stratagem, warlord trait, etc gives to a unit could be explained by referencing the USR.
More odd, specific abilities, like the tau one you mentioned, would need to be bespoke rules for that particular unit.
Again. The rules is the same.
Access to the rule differs.
Re-roll 1s to wound is the same rules, whether its "native" to a Marine Lieutenant, a Stratagam for a Craftworld Farseer or a Relic-based Effect for Space Wolves.
The access cost is different, but the rule is identical. If you separate them by where they are printed, you re defeating the point of USR in the first place. The idea is to summarize and standardise similar/identical rules, but than you split them up again because you want to differentiate between "ability" or "stratagem" or "psychic power", even if the rule itself is identical? At that point, you re probably better off with the current system instead of "USR-but-not-really-and-only-if-its-printed-in-section-A-of-the-rules-but-not-section-B"
Sisters have 27 units. None Fight Twice natively.
Space Marines (the main Dex) have 76 units (I think-I may have lost count a bit). None Fight Twice natively.
CSM have 45 units (in the first 8th edition Dex). 41 if you don't count the Daemons troops. Two can FIght Twice natively.
That's just over 1%, and that's probably an OVERESTIMATION of the proportion. Because, to my knowledge, Berserkers and Kharne are literally the ONLY UNITS that can Fight Twice always. I think Drazhar also can Fight Twice if he charges, so... Three units can do it natively.
Again, the rule to fight twice is very common and in most Codexes.
Whether it is linked to a CP cost, a WL trait, a spell, a Litany or some other roll-above-X condition or "free" is in the case of Berzerkers doesnt change the rule.
It only changes the costs to access the rule.
Okay. So if we have three units total and one rule per codex on average, that's something like 20 cases it get used.
That doesn't need to be a USR. And if you think it does, okay-we can disagree on this.
Yes, but all those abilities you mentioned come from strategems, and therefore are not on data sheets. If every ability that a unit could gain from outside sources was on its data sheet then the page count in the average codex would be tripled. And as JNAProductions pointed out any common ability that a stratagem, warlord trait, etc gives to a unit could be explained by referencing the USR.
More odd, specific abilities, like the tau one you mentioned, would need to be bespoke rules for that particular unit.
Again. The rules is the same.
Access to the rule differs.
Re-roll 1s to wound is the same rules, whether its "native" to a Marine Lieutenant, a Stratagam for a Craftworld Farseer or a Relic-based Effect for Space Wolves.
The access cost is different, but the rule is identical. If you separate them by where they are printed, you re defeating the point of USR in the first place. The idea is to summarize and standardise similar/identical rules, but than you split them up again because you want to differentiate between "ability" or "stratagem" or "psychic power", even if the rule itself is identical? At that point, you re probably better off with the current system instead of "USR-but-not-really-and-only-if-its-printed-in-section-A-of-the-rules-but-not-section-B"
So...
Lieutenants have, on their datasheet:
<CHAPTER> Aura (6")-Reroll 1s To-Wound-Tactical Precision Friendly <CHAPTER> units within 6" may reroll wound rolls of 1.
A lieutenant is a leader of marines, a veteran of a thousand battles, With their accurate and precise orders, they help their comrades shoot and fight to inflict maximum devastation.
Eldar, meanwhile, have a stratagem that says:
Stratagem Name-X CP Select an Eldar FARSEER unit at the start of your movement phase. For the remainder of the turn, that model gains the <CRAFTWORLD> Aura (6")-Reroll 1s To-Wound ability, which means "Friendly <CRAFTWORLD> units within 6" may reroll wound rolls of 1."
I don't know the name or exact rules of that strat, but if it lasts only a single phase or only in shooting or whatever, you can tweak it.
Okay. So if we have three units total and one rule per codex on average, that's something like 20 cases it get used.
That doesn't need to be a USR. And if you think it does, okay-we can disagree on this.
Sure. But than Deepstrike doesnt need to be a USR either. It has 40 cases instead of 20? So what.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: I don't know the name or exact rules of that strat, but if it lasts only a single phase or only in shooting or whatever, you can tweak it.
Which is the same with Deepstrike-style rules. Many are different in some way. Thus it makes sense to do them as bespoke rules unique to each datasheet (stratagem, whatever).
Okay. So if we have three units total and one rule per codex on average, that's something like 20 cases it get used.
That doesn't need to be a USR. And if you think it does, okay-we can disagree on this.
Sure. But than Deepstrike doesnt need to be a USR either. It has 40 cases instead of 20? So what.
That's disingenuous. Virtually every codex has multiple units that Deep Strike, as a rule in many places.
Most Codecs have zero-to-one, occasionally two, instances of Fighting Twice.
Edit: And you misunderstood what I said.
I meant that the ability could be granted for only one phase, AS PART OF THE STRAT. Not the USR. Or the range could be tweaked, by making it "<CRAFTWORLD> Aura (9")-Reroll 1s To-Wound" if it's supposed to be 9". Or if it affects all Eldar, you could change <CRAFTWORLD> for AELDARI.
Okay. So if we have three units total and one rule per codex on average, that's something like 20 cases it get used.
That doesn't need to be a USR. And if you think it does, okay-we can disagree on this.
Sure. But than Deepstrike doesnt need to be a USR either. It has 40 cases instead of 20? So what.
That's disingenuous. Virtually every codex has multiple units that Deep Strike, as a rule in many places.
Most Codecs have zero-to-one, occasionally two, instances of Fighting Twice.
Do they? Daemons have 1. Knights have zero (if you considere outflank a separate rule). Grey Knights have 2. Craftworld have 2. Admech have 2. Harlequins have 1. GSC as pre-eminent "deepstrike army" have 3. Etc..
Okay. So if we have three units total and one rule per codex on average, that's something like 20 cases it get used.
That doesn't need to be a USR. And if you think it does, okay-we can disagree on this.
Sure. But than Deepstrike doesnt need to be a USR either. It has 40 cases instead of 20? So what.
That's disingenuous. Virtually every codex has multiple units that Deep Strike, as a rule in many places.
Most Codecs have zero-to-one, occasionally two, instances of Fighting Twice.
Do they? Daemons have 1. Knights have zero (if you considere outflank a separate rule). Grey Knights have 2. Craftworld have 2. Admech have 2. Harlequins have 1. GSC as pre-eminent "deepstrike army" have 3. Etc..
Seems very comparable.
Really? Grey Knights have only TWO UNITS that can Deep Strike?
Eldar, the same?
Unless you mean that Grey Knights only have two unique variations on Deep Strike, in which case, enlighten me. What's the differences between them?
I meant that the ability could be granted for only one phase, AS PART OF THE STRAT. Not the USR. Or the range could be tweaked, by making it "<CRAFTWORLD> Aura (9")-Reroll 1s To-Wound" if it's supposed to be 9". Or if it affects all Eldar, you could change <CRAFTWORLD> for AELDARI.
Sure. But both referencing an USR in a separate publication, the USR-reference text and the tweak is overall more clumsy than simply making it a bespoke rule that just does what it is supposed to do without triple-cross references and modifications.
Okay. So if we have three units total and one rule per codex on average, that's something like 20 cases it get used.
That doesn't need to be a USR. And if you think it does, okay-we can disagree on this.
Sure. But than Deepstrike doesnt need to be a USR either. It has 40 cases instead of 20? So what.
That's disingenuous. Virtually every codex has multiple units that Deep Strike, as a rule in many places.
Most Codecs have zero-to-one, occasionally two, instances of Fighting Twice.
Do they? Daemons have 1. Knights have zero (if you considere outflank a separate rule). Grey Knights have 2. Craftworld have 2. Admech have 2. Harlequins have 1. GSC as pre-eminent "deepstrike army" have 3. Etc..
Seems very comparable.
Really? Grey Knights have only TWO UNITS that can Deep Strike?
Eldar, the same?
Unless you mean that Grey Knights only have two unique variations on Deep Strike, in which case, enlighten me. What's the differences between them?
I meant that the ability could be granted for only one phase, AS PART OF THE STRAT. Not the USR. Or the range could be tweaked, by making it "<CRAFTWORLD> Aura (9")-Reroll 1s To-Wound" if it's supposed to be 9". Or if it affects all Eldar, you could change <CRAFTWORLD> for AELDARI.
Sure. But both referencing an USR in a separate publication, the USR-reference text and the tweak is overall more clumsy than simply making it a bespoke rule that just does what it is supposed to do without triple-cross references and modifications.
What cross-referencing? Everything you need is right there.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Many are different in some way. Thus it makes sense to do them as bespoke rules unique to each datasheet (stratagem, whatever).
What you're missing is that there are elements that are overwhelmingly common to all of them. Besides Drop Pods, none are allowed to appear in the first Battle Round. Aside from a few that modify the minimum distance, virtually all have a minimum 9" deployment distance.
All have the same wording around being placed in reserved during deployment, appearing at the end of a Movement phase, and setting up the entire unit so that every model is outside of the minimum distance.
They're all just variations on the same rule. So there is no reason that Deep Strike itself can't be a universal rule, with the few units that have exceptions or special behavior having those as their bespoke special rules. That way you immediately know whether a unit has a variant on Deep Strike or not, the wording is consistent across codices, FAQs don't have to do this awkward 'any ability that lets you appear on the board as reserves' phrasing to patch the rule, and at a very basic level the game gets easier to understand and teach.
The very fact that we colloquially use terms like Deep Strike, Objective Secured, and Feel No Pain despite the fact that these are not the names of the rules for most factions directly shows the utility of having universal language.
What is the MECHANICAL difference between Khorne Berzerkers fighting twice and Repentia fighting twice?
The rules are identical.
Okay. I get it-you think that Fighting Twice should be a USR.
I disagree, not because the rules should be WORDED DIFFERENTLY, but because I don't feel it crops up often enough.
To make my position more clear, if two rules do the same thing, they should have the same name and the same rules text. (As I demonstrated above, I'm totally fine with adding fluff names and fluff text-but the MECHANICS should be the same.)
But there should be an index of USRs in the main rulebook, containing all common USRs. This does NOT mean the rules would not be printed on the datasheet-it just means that you can learn all the common rules of the game from your main rulebook, not by pouring every single datasheet.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Many are different in some way. Thus it makes sense to do them as bespoke rules unique to each datasheet (stratagem, whatever).
What you're missing is that there are elements that are overwhelmingly common to all of them. Besides Drop Pods, none are allowed to appear in the first Battle Round. Aside from a few that modify the minimum distance, virtually all have a minimum 9" deployment distance.
All have the same wording around being placed in reserved during deployment, appearing at the end of a Movement phase, and setting up the entire unit so that every model is outside of the minimum distance.
They're all just variations on the same rule. So there is no reason that Deep Strike itself can't be a universal rule, with the few units that have exceptions or special behavior having those as their bespoke special rules. That way you immediately know whether a unit has a variant on Deep Strike or not, the wording is consistent across codices, FAQs don't have to do this awkward 'any ability that lets you appear on the board as reserves' phrasing to patch the rule, and at a very basic level the game gets easier to understand and teach.
The very fact that we colloquially use terms like Deep Strike, Objective Secured, and Feel No Pain despite the fact that these are not the names of the rules for most factions directly shows the utility of having universal language.
Sure. Just as colloquially people use the term "fight twice" for a variety of different rules as well.
Again, why would one be bespoke to every unit and strat but the other must, must, must have a USR that must cover both Drop Pods coming 1st turn both narrative and matched play, 9" away and Mawlocs coming 1" away but within 6" of other Mawlocs (and not turn 1 in the matched-play variant) but with a MW splash effect?
Sunny Side Up wrote: Many are different in some way. Thus it makes sense to do them as bespoke rules unique to each datasheet (stratagem, whatever).
What you're missing is that there are elements that are overwhelmingly common to all of them. Besides Drop Pods, none are allowed to appear in the first Battle Round. Aside from a few that modify the minimum distance, virtually all have a minimum 9" deployment distance.
All have the same wording around being placed in reserved during deployment, appearing at the end of a Movement phase, and setting up the entire unit so that every model is outside of the minimum distance.
They're all just variations on the same rule. So there is no reason that Deep Strike itself can't be a universal rule, with the few units that have exceptions or special behavior having those as their bespoke special rules. That way you immediately know whether a unit has a variant on Deep Strike or not, the wording is consistent across codices, FAQs don't have to do this awkward 'any ability that lets you appear on the board as reserves' phrasing to patch the rule, and at a very basic level the game gets easier to understand and teach.
The very fact that we colloquially use terms like Deep Strike, Objective Secured, and Feel No Pain despite the fact that these are not the names of the rules for most factions directly shows the utility of having universal language.
Sure. Just as colloquially people use the term "fight twice" for a variety of different rules as well.
Again, why would one be bespoke to every unit and strat but the other must, must, must have a USR that must cover both Drop Pods coming 1st turn both narrative and matched play, 9" away and Mawlocs coming 1" away but within 6" of other Mawlocs (and not turn 1 in the matched-play variant) but with a MW splash effect?
Seems illogical and inconsistent.
Most units have Deep Strike (9"). Such as, off the top of my head...
Terminators
Crisis Suits
Strike Squads
Suppressors
Seraphim
Lictors
Stormboys
Monoliths have Deep Strike (12") because GW hates them. But, it's pretty clear what they do-they Deep Strike more than 12" away.
Drop Pods have Deep Strike (9"), as well as a rule called Quick Deepstrike, which allows them to drop turn 1.
Mawlocs have Deep Strike (Special). It then explains what the Mawloc's Deep Strike does, which includes the 1" from enemy models, 6" from other Mawlocs, and cannot charge restrictions, as well as the mortal wounds it does. It's still Deep Strike, and is therefore treated as Reinforcements and part of the "Cannot Deep Strike T1" restriction.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Many are different in some way. Thus it makes sense to do them as bespoke rules unique to each datasheet (stratagem, whatever).
What you're missing is that there are elements that are overwhelmingly common to all of them. Besides Drop Pods, none are allowed to appear in the first Battle Round. Aside from a few that modify the minimum distance, virtually all have a minimum 9" deployment distance.
All have the same wording around being placed in reserved during deployment, appearing at the end of a Movement phase, and setting up the entire unit so that every model is outside of the minimum distance.
They're all just variations on the same rule. So there is no reason that Deep Strike itself can't be a universal rule, with the few units that have exceptions or special behavior having those as their bespoke special rules. That way you immediately know whether a unit has a variant on Deep Strike or not, the wording is consistent across codices, FAQs don't have to do this awkward 'any ability that lets you appear on the board as reserves' phrasing to patch the rule, and at a very basic level the game gets easier to understand and teach.
The very fact that we colloquially use terms like Deep Strike, Objective Secured, and Feel No Pain despite the fact that these are not the names of the rules for most factions directly shows the utility of having universal language.
Sure. Just as colloquially people use the term "fight twice" for a variety of different rules as well.
Again, why would one be bespoke to every unit and strat but the other must, must, must have a USR that must cover both Drop Pods coming 1st turn both narrative and matched play, 9" away and Mawlocs coming 1" away but within 6" of other Mawlocs (and not turn 1 in the matched-play variant) but with a MW splash effect?
Seems illogical and inconsistent.
Most units have Deep Strike (9"). Such as, off the top of my head...
Terminators
Crisis Suits
Strike Squads
Suppressors
Seraphim
Lictors
Stormboys
Monoliths have Deep Strike (12") because GW hates them. But, it's pretty clear what they do-they Deep Strike more than 12" away.
Drop Pods have Deep Strike (9"), as well as a rule called Quick Deepstrike, which allows them to drop turn 1.
Mawlocs have Deep Strike (Special). It then explains what the Mawloc's Deep Strike does, which includes the 1" from enemy models, 6" from other Mawlocs, and cannot charge restrictions, as well as the mortal wounds it does. It's still Deep Strike, and is therefore treated as Reinforcements and part of the "Cannot Deep Strike T1" restriction.
Sure. And the same could be for fight twice.
Terminators get Fight Twice, End of Phase, must be within 1" (3CP)
Suppressors get Fight Twice, End of Phase, must be within 1" (3CP)
Berzerkers get Fight Twice immediately (free)
Eversors get Fight Twice, End of Phase, take some MW (2CP)
Daemonettes get Fight Twice, must cast spell, Psychic Phase
Slaanesh Possessed get Fight Twice, must cast spell, Psychic Phase.
Khorne Possessed get Fight Twice, End of Phase, (3CP)
Imperial Knights get Fight Twice, immediately (3CP)
Aberrants get Fight Twice, End of Phase, sub-faction-specific only, also give -1 LD debuff (3CP)
Sunny Side Up wrote: Many are different in some way. Thus it makes sense to do them as bespoke rules unique to each datasheet (stratagem, whatever).
What you're missing is that there are elements that are overwhelmingly common to all of them. Besides Drop Pods, none are allowed to appear in the first Battle Round. Aside from a few that modify the minimum distance, virtually all have a minimum 9" deployment distance.
All have the same wording around being placed in reserved during deployment, appearing at the end of a Movement phase, and setting up the entire unit so that every model is outside of the minimum distance.
They're all just variations on the same rule. So there is no reason that Deep Strike itself can't be a universal rule, with the few units that have exceptions or special behavior having those as their bespoke special rules. That way you immediately know whether a unit has a variant on Deep Strike or not, the wording is consistent across codices, FAQs don't have to do this awkward 'any ability that lets you appear on the board as reserves' phrasing to patch the rule, and at a very basic level the game gets easier to understand and teach.
The very fact that we colloquially use terms like Deep Strike, Objective Secured, and Feel No Pain despite the fact that these are not the names of the rules for most factions directly shows the utility of having universal language.
Sure. Just as colloquially people use the term "fight twice" for a variety of different rules as well.
Again, why would one be bespoke to every unit and strat but the other must, must, must have a USR that must cover both Drop Pods coming 1st turn both narrative and matched play, 9" away and Mawlocs coming 1" away but within 6" of other Mawlocs (and not turn 1 in the matched-play variant) but with a MW splash effect?
Seems illogical and inconsistent.
Most units have Deep Strike (9"). Such as, off the top of my head...
Terminators
Crisis Suits
Strike Squads
Suppressors
Seraphim
Lictors
Stormboys
Monoliths have Deep Strike (12") because GW hates them. But, it's pretty clear what they do-they Deep Strike more than 12" away.
Drop Pods have Deep Strike (9"), as well as a rule called Quick Deepstrike, which allows them to drop turn 1.
Mawlocs have Deep Strike (Special). It then explains what the Mawloc's Deep Strike does, which includes the 1" from enemy models, 6" from other Mawlocs, and cannot charge restrictions, as well as the mortal wounds it does. It's still Deep Strike, and is therefore treated as Reinforcements and part of the "Cannot Deep Strike T1" restriction.
Sure. And the same could be for fight twice.
Terminators get Fight Twice, End of Phase, must be within 1" (3CP)
Suppressors get Fight Twice, End of Phase, must be within 1" (3CP)
Berzerkers get Fight Twice immediately (free)
Eversors get Fight Twice, End of Phase, take some MW (2CP)
Imperial Knights get Fight Twice, immediately (3CP)
Aberrants get Fight Twice, End of Phase, sub-faction-specific only, also give -1 LD debuff (3CP)
Etc..
Seems like the same concept.
Again, either both or neither.
Spoilered for length.
And no, it's not the same.
One is an ability inherent to the unit. The other is an outside ability. The outside can very well reference USRs, grant USRs, modify USRs, whatever. But you shouldn't include every single possible ability on a unit, in case something grants it to them.
One is an ability inherent to the unit. The other is an outside ability. The outside can very well reference USRs, grant USRs, modify USRs, whatever. But you shouldn't include every single possible ability on a unit, in case something grants it to them.
Why would you?
Why would that make a difference for "learning common rules from the rulebook"?
Where the rule comes from in a fluff-perspective as something "these guys just do" or "that magic stone over there conveys upon them" or "that basically-magic-glowing-piece-of-technology-on-the-space-ship-in-orbit-allows-them-to-do-it" is pretty much irrelevant from a mechanical perspective.
Just because a rule such as "fight twice" is printed on page 27 of the datahseet in a Codex or page 83 in the stratagem-section of the codex doesnt change anything in how you resolve it mechanically on the table.
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
Imagine being so disingenuous you think a Stratagem for an ability is the same as Deep Strike or FNP, when we still use those fething terms in the first place instead of the stupid names GW gave us. Hell some people, including me, still use Shred and stuff like that.
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.
The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.
In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine being so disingenuous you think a Stratagem for an ability is the same as Deep Strike or FNP, when we still use those fething terms in the first place instead of the stupid names GW gave us. Hell some people, including me, still use Shred and stuff like that.
I have never seen people use the, quote, "stupid names GW gave us" over just saying "I fight twice" or "I should twice" or whatever, whether its stratagem-based or ability-based or psychic-power-based or whatever.
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
No it is even in regards to Ressources different.
And mechanically it also is not allways the same, some only triggering on death f.e. etc.
You not making that difference even though it is inherent in unit cost and or outside cost aka cp is a massive difference just as deepstrike natively and deepstrike ability distributors are and vary Overall.
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.
The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.
In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.
Sure. But again, (almost) all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, Army Rules such as Dark Angels, etc).
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.
The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.
In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.
Sure. But again, all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, etc..
Let me try another tact.
You see the abilities currently on a datasheet? For Terminators, their Invulnerable save and their Deep Strike; for Plaguebearers or Plague Marines, their FNP; for Scouts, their infiltration...
See those abilities? I want those to stay on the datasheet, but with consistent names and wording.
If it's not on the datasheet, I would still want it to have consistent names and wording, but it doesn't need to be added to the datasheet.
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.
The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.
In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.
Sure. But again, all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, etc..
Let me try another tact.
You see the abilities currently on a datasheet? For Terminators, their Invulnerable save and their Deep Strike; for Plaguebearers or Plague Marines, their FNP; for Scouts, their infiltration...
See those abilities? I want those to stay on the datasheet, but with consistent names and wording.
If it's not on the datasheet, I would still want it to have consistent names and wording, but it doesn't need to be added to the datasheet.
Does that make sense?
What would be the point?
If it is on the datasheet, you may as well give them a "thematic name" and vary them a bit for fun. They are on the datasheet after all.
If the wording and naming is identical, make it a strat, an army rule, etc.. and just give a references (e.g. "Angels of Death" for Marines or "Instinctive Behaviour" for Nids).
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.
The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.
In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.
Sure. But again, all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, etc..
Let me try another tact.
You see the abilities currently on a datasheet? For Terminators, their Invulnerable save and their Deep Strike; for Plaguebearers or Plague Marines, their FNP; for Scouts, their infiltration...
See those abilities? I want those to stay on the datasheet, but with consistent names and wording.
If it's not on the datasheet, I would still want it to have consistent names and wording, but it doesn't need to be added to the datasheet.
Does that make sense?
What would be the point?
If it is on the datasheet, you may as well give them a "thematic name" and vary them a bit for fun. They are on the datasheet after all.
Which is why my ideal datasheet would have rules like this:
Rules Name-Fluff Name Full text of the rule's game effects.
Fluff text about the rule.
Because a big issue is NEW players. New players don't have old names to fall back on, like FNP, Objective Secured, Deep Strike... They could try using the different names, and that's just gonna cause confusion.
Rules Name-Fluff Name Full text of the rule's game effects.
Fluff text about the rule.
Because a big issue is NEW players. New players don't have old names to fall back on, like FNP, Objective Secured, Deep Strike... They could try using the different names, and that's just gonna cause confusion.
Sounds like a good idea.
But if youd wanted to standardise it that way, why only arbitrarily in the "abilities" section and not just do it properly and just the same in other places (e.g. Auras, Strats. WL traits, Spells, etc.).
All your Re-roll 1s Abilities, Spells, Captain-Auras, Wisdom-of-Dreadnought strats would have their fluff name, the rules name, the rules text and an access condition (e.g. the unit itself, nearby units and the unit itself, a CP Cost, a "roll-above-X-in-the-psychic-phase-condition", etc..).
I'm not sure why this is an argument because I would be fine with seeing Fight Twice or Shoot Twice become USRs. Just have a short blurb in the rulebook that says 'some units have this ability or are granted it by a stratagem, they can make another attack at the end of the phase, it can be directed at a different unit from their first attack', essentially a short FAQ to clear up design intent, and be done with it. If the USR rules were printed on the datasheets (or in the relevant stratagems) too then there's no loss.
Rules Name-Fluff Name Full text of the rule's game effects.
Fluff text about the rule.
Because a big issue is NEW players. New players don't have old names to fall back on, like FNP, Objective Secured, Deep Strike... They could try using the different names, and that's just gonna cause confusion.
Sounds like a good idea.
But if youd wanted to standardise it that way, why only arbitrarily in the "abilities" section and not just do it properly and just the same in other places (e.g. Auras, Strats. WL traits, Spells, etc.).
All your Re-roll 1s Abilities, Spells, Captain-Auras, Wisdom-of-Dreadnought strats would have their fluff name, the rules name, the rules text and an access condition (e.g. the unit itself, nearby units and the unit itself, a CP Cost, a "roll-above-X-in-the-psychic-phase-condition", etc..).
Same for Deepstrike, Fight Twice, FnPs, Etc..
That's what we're talking about. If a rule is common enough among factions it gets a USR that explains its effect, so everyone has a common understanding of it, that rule could then be explained on the units data sheet. If it's conferred by a stratagem, warlord trait, etc it says "unit gains USR X" plus the price etc, explained in its entry in the strategem, warlord trait, etc section. If it's not common, such as your tau example, it's a bespoke rule for that particular unit, otherwise you get the giant mess of USRs we had in 7th.
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.
The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.
In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.
Sure. But again, (almost) all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, Army Rules such as Dark Angels, etc).
This conversation has never been about rules on strategems. It has been about the rules that appear in unit entries and for forces as a whole. You're arguing against a straw man.
It is entirely possible that you could streamline strategems to grant USRs to units rather than making them unique.
But the discussion has always been that a unit entry should have standardised wording for every instance of the same effect.
Your argument is just as much against the current system where strategems don't appear in unit entries, as it is against USRs. Because you're not arguing the same point at all.
One thing to consider is situations like Fleet. For a long time it was a unique rule that was written on everyone's unit entry who had it. Then it became a USR at the same time its old affect was made a standard rule: Run. Now, the unit's entry doesn't match what the USR says.
This is where the GW problem comes in. If Fleet is changed from one edition's codex to another, but another army's book doesn't get updated, which do they go with, especially if GW forgets to errata it for 6 months?
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's not a point against USRs though. That's just an another example of GW's terrible implementation.
Yep. Demonstrating perfectly the point made in my original post:
What's The Matter With USRs?
Spoiler:
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nothing. They were a punching bag for people who didn't actually understand what was or wasn't a design problem, and their removal has had a negative impact not a positive one.
rbstr wrote: Why do all bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question
Of course there is an answer to the question you just asked. "To make it way easier to remember how all the bodyguards in the game work.
If the bodyguard you face use the same rule as the bodyguard you use in your army, it's going to be way easier to know how they work.
Now I'm not saying that every body guard units need to work the exact same way. What I am saying, though, is that you should only create a new way for bodyguards to work if it is actually necessary, rather than just having "introduce a new bodyguard rule that is subtly different from other bodyguard rules in ways that aren't immediately obvious" be the default option.
This works by :
- having one or two very generic body guard rules that are used a lot, and that people will know by heart and recognize.
- having the bodyguard rules that are different from those one or two generic ones be VERY different, not just a very small change
There. Problem solved. Now people can know easily which body guard rules they are facing.
rbstr wrote: Why do all bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question
Of course there is an answer to the question you just asked. "To make it way easier to remember how all the bodyguards in the game work.
If the bodyguard you face use the same rule as the bodyguard you use in your army, it's going to be way easier to know how they work.
Now I'm not saying that every body guard units need to work the exact same way. What I am saying, though, is that you should only create a new way for bodyguards to work if it is actually necessary, rather than just having "introduce a new bodyguard rule that is subtly different from other bodyguard rules in ways that aren't immediately obvious" be the default option.
This works by :
- having one or two very generic body guard rules that are used a lot, and that people will know by heart and recognize.
- having the bodyguard rules that are different from those one or two generic ones be VERY different, not just a very small change
There. Problem solved. Now people can know easily which body guard rules they are facing.
rbstr wrote: Why do all bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question
Of course there is an answer to the question you just asked. "To make it way easier to remember how all the bodyguards in the game work.
If the bodyguard you face use the same rule as the bodyguard you use in your army, it's going to be way easier to know how they work.
Now I'm not saying that every body guard units need to work the exact same way. What I am saying, though, is that you should only create a new way for bodyguards to work if it is actually necessary, rather than just having "introduce a new bodyguard rule that is subtly different from other bodyguard rules in ways that aren't immediately obvious" be the default option.
This works by :
- having one or two very generic body guard rules that are used a lot, and that people will know by heart and recognize.
- having the bodyguard rules that are different from those one or two generic ones be VERY different, not just a very small change
There. Problem solved. Now people can know easily which body guard rules they are facing.
Especially if your Bodyguard rules allow for parameters - either in terms of what can be protected, or what activation roll is required for the ability to work. With those, even two rules can cover a wide variety of situations and skill levels.
the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.
Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"
and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.
RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc
And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA
Karol wrote: the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.
Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"
and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.
RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc
And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA
Issue with that is having to reference a different rulebook.
Karol wrote: the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.
Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"
and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.
RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc
And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA
Issue with that is having to reference a different rulebook.
As opposed to having reference the FAQ and FAQs of other armies to be sure the rule still says what it does?
Karol wrote: the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.
Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"
and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.
RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc
And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA
Issue with that is having to reference a different rulebook.
You still have to do that anyway, if there are different rules or rules that work similar, but not really the same. They don't even have to do the big book rule stuff. just write the rules in a clear way. Bold the non lore parts, use the same words for similar rules. Don't have different words describe a similar action. And if they are writen different then make them work different too.
Karol wrote: the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.
Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this. "All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"
and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.
RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc
And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA
Issue with that is having to reference a different rulebook.
You still have to do that anyway, if there are different rules or rules that work similar, but not really the same. They don't even have to do the big book rule stuff. just write the rules in a clear way. Bold the non lore parts, use the same words for similar rules. Don't have different words describe a similar action. And if they are writen different then make them work different too.
And while they’re at it, if they could rewrite the rules using properly proofed technical English for rules terminology. The use of the words “wound/wounded” in the rules is a note perfect example of how not to write rules.
If "wounded/wound" was a bolded status explained in the rule book, then I don't think there would be much of a problem.
I only played one edition. But the rule system seems to assume people to not only know the rules, but the history of w40k, supposed intentions of the design team and have an ability to know which words are just for it to sound cool, and words that are there to actually describe rules.
Slipspace wrote: AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith. Now, I could be wrong about that, but this is actually an argument in favour of USRs. We have literally dozens of deep strike rules that are worded identically but named completely differently for no reason.
And these outliers can be easily fixed wit hproper USR.
And people mentionned Drop pods, well theres a way to fix them that would also fix the CSM ones.
Precise Deepstrike (9") : This unit can deepstrike on turn 1.
IMO, a cleaner approach would be something like this:
Monolith Special Rules:
Deep Strike Monolithic Teleport- When arriving on the battlefield via Deep Strike, this model may not be set up within 12" of enemy units, rather than 9" as normal.
Drop Pod Special Rules:
Deep Strike Assault Strike- This unit may arrive on the battlefield via Deep Strike during the first Battle Round.
Instead of giving every USR a bunch of attached variables (in this case, deployment range), for the ones where 90% of them work the same just have the basic USR, and then bespoke unit-specific rules as needed.
The USR provides the core framework, and then the special rule explicitly defines how the unit deviates from that baseline. No needing to parse the entire block of deep strike rules text to figure out whether this one is the same as all the others or if there's some subtle distinction. It's basically the approach we already have with Rapid Fire and Bolter Discipline- Rapid Fire is a USR that applies to lots of armies, and then Bolter Discipline is a bespoke rule which modifies it.
This is much, much worse. More words means more time spent reading and processing to reach the same destination as Deepstrike X.
JNAProductions wrote: Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.
Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.
If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.
The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.
One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.
The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.
In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.
Sure. But again, all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, etc..
Let me try another tact.
You see the abilities currently on a datasheet? For Terminators, their Invulnerable save and their Deep Strike; for Plaguebearers or Plague Marines, their FNP; for Scouts, their infiltration...
See those abilities? I want those to stay on the datasheet, but with consistent names and wording.
If it's not on the datasheet, I would still want it to have consistent names and wording, but it doesn't need to be added to the datasheet.
Does that make sense?
What would be the point?
If it is on the datasheet, you may as well give them a "thematic name" and vary them a bit for fun. They are on the datasheet after all.
If the wording and naming is identical, make it a strat, an army rule, etc.. and just give a references (e.g. "Angels of Death" for Marines or "Instinctive Behaviour" for Nids).
Ease of communication with your opponent, as well as being able to remember the rules for your army instead of needing to play with the codex open.
If all re-rolls, deep strikes etc work the same for all armies, then there is fewer stuff to learn. And less gatcha moments, just because someones rule is a bit different, but that bit makes it a lot more powerful.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: A better way to go about it would be Deep Strike: 12" Turn 2 for a Monolith for example, and Drop Pod written as Deep Strike: 9" Turn 1
Does that make sense or nah
To me that's not a USR that more a concise way of actually summarising the relevent technical information required to play the rule.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: A better way to go about it would be Deep Strike: 12" Turn 2 for a Monolith for example, and Drop Pod written as Deep Strike: 9" Turn 1
Does that make sense or nah
Nah. I think with something like Deep Strike where there are comparatively few exceptions you don't need any of the extraneous stuff about minimum distance. Keep it simple and just make the Deep Strike USR the 9" turn 2 onwards rule. Anything that has a modified version of that can then either have a separate modifier after the Deep Strike USR or a completely different rule. For things like re-rolls or Feel No Pain or Explosions some numerical values after the rule might be handy but I think a lot of the suggestions I've seen for USRs seem to overcomplicate them a bit too much. Just capture the universal part of it and nothing more.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also why shouldn't all bodyguards work the same? Roll to intercept the hit, which seems like something they should all do?
I can see one reason. To make very cheap bodyguard less effective per model than elite bodyguard at tanking high D weapons.
Make the cheap per model bodyguard use one model to soak one wound, and the expensive per model bodyguard tank a whole high D weapon shot.
Okay, so let's assume USR's are awesome. I'm not sold, but let's assume.
Okay, so the new rulebook drops tomorrow. Do we invalidate all 24 codices tomorrow too? Or do they limp along as is, with all development shunted to rewriting and and invalidating all 24 of them one at a time?
I mean really, is this cure better than the disease?
Wanna know how your rule works? Read the data card. Really, that's the system we have now.
Don't worry about new players- they learn the game one army at a time anyway, and all they have to do is read the card.
Don't worry about knowing exactly how your opponent's rules work; ask. Your opponent will probably explain it more concisely than the card, but if you need it, there it is.
Would it have been better to use standard wording for identical rules, even if not going full on USR? Sure. Would it have been better to be full on USR as long as the full text was printed on the card? Sure.
Is it worth invalidating 24 codices either in one fell swoop or over a period of two years where all new development stops?
JNAProductions wrote: Don’t forget to read the FAQs too! Because they have vital info.
And not just your own FAQs, you need to read everyone elses FAQs too. You even need to read FAQs that don't even exist anymore. Did you know that units that "don't take up detachment slots" were clarified via FAQ that they can't fulfill mandatory minimums? Bad news for Orks, SoB and Inquisitors! Where is this clarification? In the CA2018 FAQ...
Okay, so the new rulebook drops tomorrow. Do we invalidate all 24 codices tomorrow too? Or do they limp along as is, with all development shunted to rewriting and and invalidating all 24 of them one at a time?
Indeed. It's a pity we're still living in the 1930s and there's no such thing as internet.
Otherwise GW could put all their rules online and release all the faction rules at the same time as they release a new edition.
Okay, so the new rulebook drops tomorrow. Do we invalidate all 24 codices tomorrow too? Or do they limp along as is, with all development shunted to rewriting and and invalidating all 24 of them one at a time?
Indeed. It's a pity we're still living in the 1930s and there's no such thing as internet.
Otherwise GW could put all their rules online and release all the faction rules at the same time as they release a new edition.
Cutting physical production of books out of the equation does not eliminate the need for product development time. To write an entire edition with fully developed faction rules, you'd still have to halt development of anything else for a year to get it done.
They pretty much did this with the Indexes when 8th dropped, but the only way they could get so much out at once was to reduce every army to a skeletal framework without any real character.
How do you even sell it if it's digital? There's no way you can drop 25 books worth of intellectual property all at once for a single price and have anyone willing to pay it. And even if they did, the amount of information you'd get all at once would be overwhelming. Unless you're talking about having people still having to pay for the content by army.
Even so, that robs the company of the ability to time model releases to the release of their publications, which is a very important marketing strategy.
And either way, you're still talking about invalidating everything we have, which is my biggest objection to USRs.
GW did that in the shift to USRs last time and it worked fine.
But it's a false dichotomy to claim that there's only two approaches.
You can easily release a new edition with new USRs with the next two codexes (I assume a 9th marine and a 9th chaos) using them and say that every other codex uses the rules it has until it's replaced.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, so let's assume USR's are awesome. I'm not sold, but let's assume.
Okay, so the new rulebook drops tomorrow. Do we invalidate all 24 codices tomorrow too? Or do they limp along as is, with all development shunted to rewriting and and invalidating all 24 of them one at a time?
I mean really, is this cure better than the disease?
Wanna know how your rule works? Read the data card. Really, that's the system we have now.
Don't worry about new players- they learn the game one army at a time anyway, and all they have to do is read the card.
Don't worry about knowing exactly how your opponent's rules work; ask. Your opponent will probably explain it more concisely than the card, but if you need it, there it is.
Would it have been better to use standard wording for identical rules, even if not going full on USR? Sure. Would it have been better to be full on USR as long as the full text was printed on the card? Sure.
Is it worth invalidating 24 codices either in one fell swoop or over a period of two years where all new development stops?
Nope. Not even close. Just read your card.
GW already invalidated anyone that bought a Space Marine codex shortly before 2.0 came out or what happened in 7th the moment you got into Gathering Storm or the Marine Supplements or the Legion Supplement, etc., so you act like that's a brand new concept.
Ah for the days when the people who wrote the rules played RPGs. These days, actual models are merely tokens for cards, as the mindset is CCG meets video console. No depth. Just “fluff” as a gloss over a card game for attention spans the length of a fruit fly’s middle finger. This is the reason the USRs are out and data cards are in. Next step is stop using models altogether. Who needs them. Put two cards together and read the instructions...
JNAProductions wrote: Don’t forget to read the FAQs too! Because they have vital info.
And not just your own FAQs, you need to read everyone elses FAQs too. You even need to read FAQs that don't even exist anymore. Did you know that units that "don't take up detachment slots" were clarified via FAQ that they can't fulfill mandatory minimums? Bad news for Orks, SoB and Inquisitors! Where is this clarification? In the CA2018 FAQ...
I mean, that's a pretty logical conclusion. Do I wish they wrote it in a way that the rule lawyers of the world can understand without an FAQ? Sure. But it's not the hardest rule to understand.
And either way, you're still talking about invalidating everything we have, which is my biggest objection to USRs.
This should always be assumed as a possibility with any game edition change, and has absolutely happened with 40k in the past. That's the nature of these types of games. Even when it didn't happen with an edition change, it often left armies sometimes up to two editions out of date with how long it took GW to get through its rotation, and while technically "playable", it also meant they weren't always terribly functional or consistent with rules (like how drop pods at one point had 3 different functionalities and multiple Assault Cannon profiles depending on codex).
They don't have to invalidate everything. All the deep strike bespoke rules for example have the same text. A New rulebook could simply list all the bespoke rule names up to date and say, these all count as "deep strike" now.
There are missions where it's relevant to know whether your deep striker falls from the sky or is teleported, but that's something the players can discuss themselves beforehand, it doesn't need an own rule (and doesn't have one now aside from the describing text).
Cutting physical production of books out of the equation does not eliminate the need for product development time. To write an entire edition with fully developed faction rules, you'd still have to halt development of anything else for a year to get it done.
And? That seems infinitely better than continuing to develop books that you know will be invalidated in a few months.
And if you want to make sure that people aren't losing interest, how about involving your players? Tell them that there will be a new edition coming within a year. Not only that, ask them to help playtest your rules. Especially when your own designers are unable to spot even the most basic of issues.
They pretty much did this with the Indexes when 8th dropped, but the only way they could get so much out at once was to reduce every army to a skeletal framework without any real character.
How is 'printing massive books' the same as 'having all rules online'?
You realise that you don't have to charge for everything, right? Especially when you're already overcharging for your miniatures.
Yes, you lose money on rules but you also make it vastly easier for people to actually start your game and for existing players to start new armies.
If you want to make codices that combine the rules with endlessly recycled fluff, write them afterwards. You know, when you've corrected the mistakes you should have spotted before printing but didn't.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: They don't have to invalidate everything. All the deep strike bespoke rules for example have the same text. A New rulebook could simply list all the bespoke rule names up to date and say, these all count as "deep strike" now.
There are missions where it's relevant to know whether your deep striker falls from the sky or is teleported, but that's something the players can discuss themselves beforehand, it doesn't need an own rule (and doesn't have one now aside from the describing text).
Exactly. Depending on what you want to convert to a USR I don't think it would actually be that difficult to update the current Codices using the FAQ system. Since each army tends to use only 1 or 2 identically named rules for each USR you just need a list at the end of the FAQ that says something like "Replace all instances of Teleport Strike with Deep Strike (list of page numbers or datasheet names here). I suspect it would take less than a page for each Codex using that sort of format. Then from here on out you use the USR whenever you write a new Codex.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, so the new rulebook drops tomorrow. Do we invalidate all 24 codices tomorrow too? Or do they limp along as is, with all development shunted to rewriting and and invalidating all 24 of them one at a time?
I mean really, is this cure better than the disease?
Uh, what? What is the problem?
Is the problem that the new codexes will have new rules that are different from the old codexes? Or that armies will get replacement codexes?
Because in both case I got bad news for you: the "cure" that you deem "worse than the disease" isn't a cure, it is GW doing what GW has always done and what GW will always do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Missed Codex Space Marines v2? Or, like, the index, the 7th edition codex, the 6th edition codex, the 6th edition codex, the ...
The "cure" will happen regardless of whether or not remove the "disease". So might as well use it to remove the "disease".
I fail to see why people feel the rules should be entirely bespoke or USR - a flexible system will have a bit of both.
Macro rules: Fly, FnP, Deepstrike Etc,. The rules that are shared across all armies. A repository should be in the BRB.
Codex rules: ATSKNF, FtGG, Combat Drugs., The rules that are only present to the codex, but are used multiple times throughout the codex. Unit types (Like terminators, if they had special rules associated with the armor) would also be referenced here. Most codexes already do something similar for Chapter Tactics equivalents.
Unit rules: Bespoke rules that are specific to that unit. If a unit has a special rule, like the Sanctus ability to shoot when they deepstrike it would be noted here.
Alongside some common sense guidelines like
- Don't nest rules. In 7th ed, the Zealot just gave the unit the Hatred and Crusader(?) USR. When there is no need for that nesting.
- Revise most rules to be generic - Disgustingly resilient becomes Ignore Wounds (5+).
It would go a long way in cleaning up the mess.
GW has proven themselves to be inadequate at writing rules, but they have also shot themselves in the foot with this style of writing - The rules did not allow for appropriate depth, and to try and add that depth they just piled on unique rules. Fixing this is not a magic solution thats going to fix all the problems with the game, but it would help
Zealot gave Hatred to the whole unit rather than Hatred being only able to affect the model with it instead. With how the IC rules worked it had to be a thing I guess.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Zealot gave Hatred to the whole unit rather than Hatred being only able to affect the model with it instead. With how the IC rules worked it had to be a thing I guess.
Or didn't work, depending on who you talked to.
One of the biggest problems, besides bloat, of any Special Rule (USR or Codex-based Special Rule) was lost along with that USR.
Vilehydra wrote: I fail to see why people feel the rules should be entirely bespoke or USR - a flexible system will have a bit of both.
Macro rules: Fly, FnP, Deepstrike Etc,. The rules that are shared across all armies. A repository should be in the BRB.
Codex rules: ATSKNF, FtGG, Combat Drugs., The rules that are only present to the codex, but are used multiple times throughout the codex. Unit types (Like terminators, if they had special rules associated with the armor) would also be referenced here. Most codexes already do something similar for Chapter Tactics equivalents.
Unit rules: Bespoke rules that are specific to that unit. If a unit has a special rule, like the Sanctus ability to shoot when they deepstrike it would be noted here.
Alongside some common sense guidelines like
- Don't nest rules. In 7th ed, the Zealot just gave the unit the Hatred and Crusader(?) USR. When there is no need for that nesting.
- Revise most rules to be generic - Disgustingly resilient becomes Ignore Wounds (5+).
It would go a long way in cleaning up the mess.
GW has proven themselves to be inadequate at writing rules, but they have also shot themselves in the foot with this style of writing - The rules did not allow for appropriate depth, and to try and add that depth they just piled on unique rules. Fixing this is not a magic solution thats going to fix all the problems with the game, but it would help
Yeah, this is exactly what people who are saying USR's are fine are saying. There's equal room for unique rules with USR's for the shared rules (hell there's LITERALLY more room on the datasheet).
Vilehydra wrote: I fail to see why people feel the rules should be entirely bespoke or USR - a flexible system will have a bit of both.
Macro rules: Fly, FnP, Deepstrike Etc,. The rules that are shared across all armies. A repository should be in the BRB.
Codex rules: ATSKNF, FtGG, Combat Drugs., The rules that are only present to the codex, but are used multiple times throughout the codex. Unit types (Like terminators, if they had special rules associated with the armor) would also be referenced here. Most codexes already do something similar for Chapter Tactics equivalents.
Unit rules: Bespoke rules that are specific to that unit. If a unit has a special rule, like the Sanctus ability to shoot when they deepstrike it would be noted here.
Alongside some common sense guidelines like
- Don't nest rules. In 7th ed, the Zealot just gave the unit the Hatred and Crusader(?) USR. When there is no need for that nesting.
- Revise most rules to be generic - Disgustingly resilient becomes Ignore Wounds (5+).
It would go a long way in cleaning up the mess.
GW has proven themselves to be inadequate at writing rules, but they have also shot themselves in the foot with this style of writing - The rules did not allow for appropriate depth, and to try and add that depth they just piled on unique rules. Fixing this is not a magic solution thats going to fix all the problems with the game, but it would help
Yeah, this is exactly what people who are saying USR's are fine are saying. There's equal room for unique rules with USR's for the shared rules (hell there's LITERALLY more room on the datasheet).
Effectively is this not the case? Deep strike is functionally the same on all relevant units, reroll hits etc. There are some cases where it should have been standardised, yes. It doesn't feel like the problem with the rules comes from a lack of USRs, but from a liberal application of rules. Layers and layers of them. Plus too many rerolls.
There's a design incoherency. On one hand they wanted all the rules for a unit on its datasheet so that it can be used in an accessible way and therefore moved away from USRs - a noble idea on its own. On the other they've added layers of army wide rules/strategems etc. that require looking elsewhere anyway. It undermines the initial design principle.
Yeah. Let me take my recent Codex: Sisters of Battle.
So, let's look at, say, my literal only troop choice.
I got all the rules on my datasheet, I don't need to look at other pages!! All on page 82!
Oh but wait, I don't have the profile for half of the weapons available. Those are on page 96 and 97.
Oh but wait, I don't have text for the Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites and Shield of Faith rules! I need pages 75 and 76 too!
But wait, it's not written on the datasheet but I need to know that I have the Strength of Faith special rule from page 100!
But wait, it is also not written on the datasheet, but I need to know the rules for my order conviction, on page 101 too!
I also need to know page 102 to 105 for the stratagems.
I only need 11 pages to play a basic troop from my army. With USR maybe I would need 12 and that's totally unacceptable.
Oh if I had chosen a basic HQ the rules would have gone up to requiring 13 pages at least because one extra page for the warlord trait, and one extra page for the relic. Nice!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yeah. Let me take my recent Codex: Sisters of Battle.
So, let's look at, say, my literal only troop choice.
I got all the rules on my datasheet, I don't need to look at other pages!! All on page 82!
Oh but wait, I don't have the profile for half of the weapons available. Those are on page 96 and 97.
Oh but wait, I don't have text for the Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites and Shield of Faith rules! I need pages 75 and 76 too!
But wait, it's not written on the datasheet but I need to know that I have the Strength of Faith special rule from page 100!
But wait, it is also not written on the datasheet, but I need to know the rules for my order conviction, on page 101 too!
I also need to know page 102 to 105 for the stratagems.
I only need 11 pages to play a basic troop from my army. With USR maybe I would need 12 and that's totally unacceptable.
Oh if I had chosen a basic HQ the rules would have gone up to requiring 13 pages at least because one extra page for the warlord trait, and one extra page for the relic. Nice!
The number of pages is irrelevant. Standardized names and rules wording helps players to remember their rules in the first place.
At bare minimum, a player should be able to learn and remember:
Stat lines
Weapon profiles
Common rules in their codex
Core rules mechanics
If retention is still an issue, GW could (and should) fo what most other miniatures games do- include a units' stat card in the box.
Ishagu wrote: If you need to adjust something without impacting multiple books you have to use bespoke rules.
For this reason alone bespoke rules are superior to USRs.
Not really. In the vast majority of cases you want to adjust everything at once (like the approach GW took with the FNP saves...that weren't all called the same thing so were a realm pain to errata). If there does ha[pen to be a single unit entry you want to errata to include, say, a modified Deep Strike you can simply errata that unit's entry to remove Deep Strike and add the bespoke rule.
Again, though, I would ask if there are any real-world examples of this being done by GW? Seems like a lot of the arguments against USRs don't hold much water and deal with hypotheticals that simply have never come up in practice.
You can do this with a mix of USR and bespoke rules.
A USR is too weak/powerful on one specific unit? Give that unit a bespoke rule that enhances/dehances the USR.
Example: The Unit "Adjective Nounverb Mk2 Electric Boogaloo" has Ignore Wounds (4+) but you don't want them to tank mind bullets. That unit now has "Susceptible To Wibbly Wobbly Warpy Wimey... Stuff: The Ignore Wounds ability cannot be used by models in this unit during the Psychic phase."
I’m very much in favour of USRs, if done well. ( see my post earlier in this thread and in other similar threads in the past. )
That being said, the only argument against USRs (other than then being poorly implemented) that I think has merit is new editions changing the definition/function/mechanics of USRs and the impact that would have on existing datasheets/codexes. And I understand that this has in fact happened in the change from one edition to the next in the past, especially with codexes not being updated at all across subsequent editions.
However I think this again isn’t really an issue with USRs themselves, but rather with GW’s model of publishing editions and codexes/expansions/campaign books etc. With the 8th edition system of erratas, FAQs and Chapter Approved, the worst of this should be able to be avoided.
I want to add to some of the things that have been said before. The current system is basically the worst of both worlds. There are some USR's, lots of individual rules that are effectively the same thing, and a lot of clunkyness and ambiguities.
Having two Space Marine and Tau bodyguard rules be different isn't an inherently bad thing. Having them be in an awkwardly worded way that is unintuitive to understand and unclear if it is intentional is a bad thing.
I feel like the correct solution is a set of core USR's that are in the main rulebook, a set of army specific USR's that are in the codex, and bespoke rules that are on the data sheet.
The core USR's are things like deep strike, gets hot, fight twice, rerolls, move through cover, bodyguard, strikes first, so on. The core USR's are the things you expect to be present in very codex in some form or another. Not every codex will necessarily have access to every USR, but USR's should cover the rules that not having that rule in a codex is a big noticable thing.
For example, if you pulled a random codex, you would assume that it has a way to fight twice in it. Maybe it is built into a unit, or a warlord trait, or a strat. Regardless of how access is granted, you would be surprised if you shuffled all the codexes randomly and the one you picked didn't have fight twice in it somehow.
The faction USR's are the things like ATSKNF, synapse, and so forth. They go in the codex, reprinted as appropriate in multiple codexes that cover the same general faction (looking at you Space Marines).
Bespoke rules then go on the data sheet, and add to or modify the USR's.
Unlike most people in the thread, I don't think that USR's should be printed out on the data sheet. This is because i think reducing clutter in the data sheet is a good idea.
Instead I think that the USR section from the main rule book should be reprinted in each codex as an appendix, followed by a reprint of the faction USR's. This means that the faction USR's will be printed twice in the same book. The idea is that the USR's are provided in context with the rest of the rules and faction information, and then again in an easy to access appendix that is conveniently located right next to the universal USRs.
To me a properly writen unit entry would look like such:
Hormagant
(Fluff about Hormagants, in a clearly seperated paragraph that is in a font used for fluff and never used for rules)
Stat block, unit size, so forth
INSTINCTIVE BEHAVIOR (Codex:Tyranids)
FLEET (Universal)
BOUNDING LEAP: when this unit piles in and consolidates, it may move up to 6".
HUNGERING SWARM: if this unit has 20 or more models, it gains DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE (Universal)
Wargear:
Scything Talons: Models equiped with Scything Talons gain ACCURACY: MELEE (Universal). Models equipped with more than once set of Scything Talons may make 1 additional attack with this weapon when it fights.
Instinctive Behavior is the Tyranids USR for the synapse mechanic.
Fleet would be the main rulebook USR for improved running (hormies lost this and i want them to have it back).
Deadly Strike would be reroll 1's to wound. I'd have something like Improved Deadly Strike for reroll 1's and 2's, and Extraordinary Deadly Strike for reroll all, with Melee for melee, shooting for shooting, and no term for both. So Deadly Strike: MELEE would be reroll 1's to would in CC, and EXTRAORDINARY DEADLY STRIKE would be reroll all failed wounds rolls.
ACCURACY would be the to hit verson of Deadly Strike, and follow the same structure.
As a side note, someone upthread mentioned the idea of having datasheet abilities that use CP, and I really like that idea, particularly as a HQ/Commander mechanic.
For example, I could see the Swarmlord having an ability which hands out one of the reroll USR's for a CP, or a Neurothrope handing a bespoke improved psycic ability for CP. I think this would add depth to the game, and could be balanced with points changes or with CP cost changes.
Amishprn86 wrote: We ALWAYS had unique rules with USR's tho................
what point are you trying to make
We have had USR and uniques rules for many years, they work together easily. Some in here are making it seem like that never was a thing, or it could be a new thing. My point is we have done that for awhile now.
I want to add to some of the things that have been said before. The current system is basically the worst of both worlds. There are some USR's, lots of individual rules that are effectively the same thing, and a lot of clunkyness and ambiguities.
Having two Space Marine and Tau bodyguard rules be different isn't an inherently bad thing. Having them be in an awkwardly worded way that is unintuitive to understand and unclear if it is intentional is a bad thing.
I feel like the correct solution is a set of core USR's that are in the main rulebook, a set of army specific USR's that are in the codex, and bespoke rules that are on the data sheet.
The core USR's are things like deep strike, gets hot, fight twice, rerolls, move through cover, bodyguard, strikes first, so on. The core USR's are the things you expect to be present in very codex in some form or another. Not every codex will necessarily have access to every USR, but USR's should cover the rules that not having that rule in a codex is a big noticable thing.
For example, if you pulled a random codex, you would assume that it has a way to fight twice in it. Maybe it is built into a unit, or a warlord trait, or a strat. Regardless of how access is granted, you would be surprised if you shuffled all the codexes randomly and the one you picked didn't have fight twice in it somehow.
The faction USR's are the things like ATSKNF, synapse, and so forth. They go in the codex, reprinted as appropriate in multiple codexes that cover the same general faction (looking at you Space Marines).
Bespoke rules then go on the data sheet, and add to or modify the USR's.
Unlike most people in the thread, I don't think that USR's should be printed out on the data sheet. This is because i think reducing clutter in the data sheet is a good idea.
Instead I think that the USR section from the main rule book should be reprinted in each codex as an appendix, followed by a reprint of the faction USR's. This means that the faction USR's will be printed twice in the same book. The idea is that the USR's are provided in context with the rest of the rules and faction information, and then again in an easy to access appendix that is conveniently located right next to the universal USRs.
To me a properly writen unit entry would look like such:
Hormagant
(Fluff about Hormagants, in a clearly seperated paragraph that is in a font used for fluff and never used for rules)
Stat block, unit size, so forth
INSTINCTIVE BEHAVIOR (Codex:Tyranids)
FLEET (Universal)
BOUNDING LEAP: when this unit piles in and consolidates, it may move up to 6".
HUNGERING SWARM: if this unit has 20 or more models, it gains DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE (Universal)
Wargear:
Scything Talons: Models equiped with Scything Talons gain ACCURACY: MELEE (Universal). Models equipped with more than once set of Scything Talons may make 1 additional attack with this weapon when it fights.
Instinctive Behavior is the Tyranids USR for the synapse mechanic.
Fleet would be the main rulebook USR for improved running (hormies lost this and i want them to have it back).
Deadly Strike would be reroll 1's to wound. I'd have something like Improved Deadly Strike for reroll 1's and 2's, and Extraordinary Deadly Strike for reroll all, with Melee for melee, shooting for shooting, and no term for both. So Deadly Strike: MELEE would be reroll 1's to would in CC, and EXTRAORDINARY DEADLY STRIKE would be reroll all failed wounds rolls.
ACCURACY would be the to hit verson of Deadly Strike, and follow the same structure.
As a side note, someone upthread mentioned the idea of having datasheet abilities that use CP, and I really like that idea, particularly as a HQ/Commander mechanic.
For example, I could see the Swarmlord having an ability which hands out one of the reroll USR's for a CP, or a Neurothrope handing a bespoke improved psycic ability for CP. I think this would add depth to the game, and could be balanced with points changes or with CP cost changes.
This example is full of USR rules bloat. Half of your suggested USRs are just as easily written in the rule themselves without the need for for USR.
Why have a USR ACCURACY: MELEE that you have to look up when you can just as easily write "may re-roll attack rolls of 1"? The same is true for DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE. I'm sure the same is true for whatever you envision FLEET does. You don't need a USR to to give a unit a rule that takes one sentence or less to explain.
Because we get situations where Ultramarine Chapter Masters are somehow more Inspiring than Blood Angels Chapter Masters when shooting at Blue Eldar and Skittari somehow forget how to punch people next to Cawl.
BaconCatBug wrote: Because we get situations where Ultramarine Chapter Masters are somehow more Inspiring than Blood Angels Chapter Masters when shooting at Blue Eldar and Skittari somehow forget how to punch people next to Cawl.
The issue your complaining about boils down to GW having been run by a paranoided ego maniac in the past and having been forced into a compartmentalized structure so bad it doesn't function.
Like seriously what you complaining about is not a USR's vrs Individual rules issues is a GW, specifically the 40k side who took the worst of the above paranoia don't have a functional department structure.
This isn't even a gme design issue at this point if the person writing codex A isnt allowed to talk to person writing codex B and can't see any content of codex B untill it's public then yeah you get the mess we have, but again the issue isn't rules it's bigger than that
His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that. That doesn't mean, however, that they completely disappeared. I don't have every Codex, but the wording of the various Datasheet special rules for units that can arrive on the battlefield are very similar, less the lore explanation of how the unit is doing that (Jump Pack Assault, Teleport Strike, Aerial Drop, From Out of the Shadows, etc). So there is consistency in the effect and general wording, but the player does not have to refer to the MRB and the core rules are kept tighter. There is also the opportunity to have some nice lore text to help immerse the player if they like that sort of thing. Additionally, each Codex has faction-wide special rules. So its not like USRs are completely gone. Robin Cruddace explained in one interview that he has several chances to make a faction distinct and show its lore on the tabletop: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Those things are all in the Codex and stand alone.
This lets developers tweak rules from unit to unit and Codex to Codex. It gives the Codex design team some freedom, although I imagine that it makes the head designer's job a little tougher. It makes sense to me that a Sentinel, a Hellhound and a Baneblade behave differently when they are destroyed. It makes sense to me that Company Veterans, Grots, Ogryn Bodyguards and Drones protect things in different ways. Now, there are clearly more opportunities for slight variations in wordings having major unintended effects (reroll auras etc). Nothing is foolproof.
If there is a problem with a faction they can adjust the faction (doesn't mean that they always do that!). Additionally, they can now make major changes without an edition change - adjust the Codex.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.
This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that. That doesn't mean, however, that they completely disappeared. I don't have every Codex, but the wording of the various Datasheet special rules for units that can arrive on the battlefield are very similar, less the lore explanation of how the unit is doing that (Jump Pack Assault, Teleport Strike, Aerial Drop, From Out of the Shadows, etc). So there is consistency in the effect and general wording, but the player does not have to refer to the MRB and the core rules are kept tighter. There is also the opportunity to have some nice lore text to help immerse the player if they like that sort of thing. Additionally, each Codex has faction-wide special rules. So its not like USRs are completely gone. Robin Cruddace explained in one interview that he has several chances to make a faction distinct and show its lore on the tabletop: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Those things are all in the Codex and stand alone.
This lets developers tweak rules from unit to unit and Codex to Codex. It gives the Codex design team some freedom, although I imagine that it makes the head designer's job a little tougher. It makes sense to me that a Sentinel, a Hellhound and a Baneblade behave differently when they are destroyed. It makes sense to me that Company Veterans, Grots, Ogryn Bodyguards and Drones protect things in different ways. Now, there are clearly more opportunities for slight variations in wordings having major unintended effects (reroll auras etc). Nothing is foolproof.
If there is a problem with a faction they can adjust the faction (doesn't mean that they always do that!). Additionally, they can now make major changes without an edition change - adjust the Codex.
No, it doesn't make sense Bodyguard rules work differently. Why would bodyguards not roll to intercept the hit?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.
This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.
Well, I offer that 8th Edition has done very well. Parking commercial success, I find as a player that I am rarely engaged in rules debates during a game. It hasn't been perfect, but I would happily buy Robin Cruddace a beer for what he and his team did with 8th Edition.
Ishagu wrote: If you need to adjust something without impacting multiple books you have to use bespoke rules.
For this reason alone bespoke rules are superior to USRs.
Sure, in some instances that's great, but when you end up with a gazillion literally identical mechanics spread across a grip of books, you probably didn't need to make all of them bespoke in the first place, while going out of the way to make each different and bespoke just for its own sake just adds useless complexity without any depth and results in the situation we have now where similar mechanics work way too well in some places and far too ineffectively in others. Or even worse, ones that are intended to be identical and start drifting as authors reproduce them from memory slightly differently and editing misses it. None of these are issue unknown to 40k.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.
This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.
BaconCatBug wrote: Because we get situations where Ultramarine Chapter Masters are somehow more Inspiring than Blood Angels Chapter Masters when shooting at Blue Eldar and Skittari somehow forget how to punch people next to Cawl.
Which has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with how they decided to update the rules for Space Marines and Blood Angels. GW could have issued errata to Dante's Chapter Master aura, but they choose not to. I bet you a beer it will be updated in the next version of the Codex Blood Angels.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that. That doesn't mean, however, that they completely disappeared. I don't have every Codex, but the wording of the various Datasheet special rules for units that can arrive on the battlefield are very similar, less the lore explanation of how the unit is doing that (Jump Pack Assault, Teleport Strike, Aerial Drop, From Out of the Shadows, etc). So there is consistency in the effect and general wording, but the player does not have to refer to the MRB and the core rules are kept tighter. There is also the opportunity to have some nice lore text to help immerse the player if they like that sort of thing. Additionally, each Codex has faction-wide special rules. So its not like USRs are completely gone. Robin Cruddace explained in one interview that he has several chances to make a faction distinct and show its lore on the tabletop: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Those things are all in the Codex and stand alone.
This lets developers tweak rules from unit to unit and Codex to Codex. It gives the Codex design team some freedom, although I imagine that it makes the head designer's job a little tougher. It makes sense to me that a Sentinel, a Hellhound and a Baneblade behave differently when they are destroyed. It makes sense to me that Company Veterans, Grots, Ogryn Bodyguards and Drones protect things in different ways. Now, there are clearly more opportunities for slight variations in wordings having major unintended effects (reroll auras etc). Nothing is foolproof.
If there is a problem with a faction they can adjust the faction (doesn't mean that they always do that!). Additionally, they can now make major changes without an edition change - adjust the Codex.
No, it doesn't make sense Bodyguard rules work differently. Why would bodyguards not roll to intercept the hit?
As a Dark Angel player I would certainly prefer different wording for Company Veterans' Command Squad Bodyguard, but mine are usually just taking Sniper shots with how Character Targeting works. My point is that Grots are using a Stratagem to shield units, Shield Drones are a key part of the Tau, the Ogryn Bodyguard is intercepting on a 3+, Kell only intercepts for Creed etc. I don't want to derail this thread back into the thread that I think spawned it.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.
This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.
Well, I offer that 8th Edition has done very well. Parking commercial success, I find as a player that I am rarely engaged in rules debates during a game. It hasn't been perfect, but I would happily buy Robin Cruddace a beer for what he and his team did with 8th Edition.
It was also far easier for our group to pick up than the cross-referencing-fest of 7th, where I’d look up “Super Speedy” in my Codex and it would tell me to look up “Fleet” in another book and that would tell me what the rule was. Honestly, they achieved that ‘easier to pick up’ goal in spades. Sure, we’re now entering Bloatsville and it needs a streamlining but vipoid’s is simply a bad take.
Nah, I’ll take most rules on Datasheets and a few faction-wide rules over USRs any damn day. So much easier to learn and to play without memorising cross-indexed encyclopaedias first.
It was also far easier for our group to pick up than the cross-referencing-fest of 7th, where I’d look up “Super Speedy” in my Codex and it would tell me to look up “Fleet” in another book and that would tell me what the rule was. Honestly, they achieved that ‘easier to pick up’ goal in spades.
Once again, thats not a problem with USR's. It's GW who decided to name rules different things. If they had named it "Fleet", there wouldn't be a problem.
Everything should be the same name, and be contained under a singular set of rules contained in the main rule book. Nothing should exist outside that. Thats how you properly organize a game.
And of course 8th is easier to pick up initially, it was12 pages. It's a childrens book, and it plays like one.
Now that they are slowly drip feeding us the rest of the rules is hundreds of pay to play books, faq, and erratas everyone is getting upset saying it's bloated.
If they just put all the rules in the main book and organized them properly with USR's to begin with. We wouldn't have this problem.
I feel like eveyone against USR's is being deliberately obtuse.
There is not one advantage to bespoke rules over USR's.
so many strawmen being tilted at here, to mix metaphors.
so to be clear, when people talk about USRs as a concept, they are only saying one thing:
A USR is a rule that standardises phrasing across all instances of that rule.
Standardised wording is the only thing that a USR does.
Anything else is an implementation decision that is completely separate from the USR itself.
i don't know why we're on page 8 of this thread and people still keep saying 'well because GW decided to do X with USRs in 7th, that makes USRs as a concept crap'.
Just because you crashed your car into a tree doesn't mean that the concept of cars or trees is bad...
And again this argument boils down to whether you want the game designer-centric or player-centric.
USRs help players immensely, but they make more work for designers to ensure that they don't screw units by changing USR's, they have to plan them.
The current system helps designers immensely, by allowing them to write whatever they want and not have to care what they've written previously. It makes more work for players having to read through everything all the time to figure out if something that sounds the same, like bodyguard, is actually the same or it has a different effect you'll have to remember for that specific instance only.
I wouldn't mind GW style of writing, if they were actually fixing specific stuff. Yet time and time against, GW fixing means blanket nerfs to unrelated stuff. If GW thought that IH or IF were too good, then they should have changed the IH or IF rules, and not boomerang nerf DA, who clearly did not deserv a nerf.
So specific rules on units only make it potentialy easier to pick up for new player or change by GW. Because in the end you still need to check global FAQ, codex FAQ and CA, if you are a player, specialy if you don't know your opponents army. And GW is really slow on changing or fixing stuff for some armies.
I want to add to some of the things that have been said before. The current system is basically the worst of both worlds. There are some USR's, lots of individual rules that are effectively the same thing, and a lot of clunkyness and ambiguities.
Having two Space Marine and Tau bodyguard rules be different isn't an inherently bad thing. Having them be in an awkwardly worded way that is unintuitive to understand and unclear if it is intentional is a bad thing.
I feel like the correct solution is a set of core USR's that are in the main rulebook, a set of army specific USR's that are in the codex, and bespoke rules that are on the data sheet.
The core USR's are things like deep strike, gets hot, fight twice, rerolls, move through cover, bodyguard, strikes first, so on. The core USR's are the things you expect to be present in very codex in some form or another. Not every codex will necessarily have access to every USR, but USR's should cover the rules that not having that rule in a codex is a big noticable thing.
For example, if you pulled a random codex, you would assume that it has a way to fight twice in it. Maybe it is built into a unit, or a warlord trait, or a strat. Regardless of how access is granted, you would be surprised if you shuffled all the codexes randomly and the one you picked didn't have fight twice in it somehow.
The faction USR's are the things like ATSKNF, synapse, and so forth. They go in the codex, reprinted as appropriate in multiple codexes that cover the same general faction (looking at you Space Marines).
Bespoke rules then go on the data sheet, and add to or modify the USR's.
Unlike most people in the thread, I don't think that USR's should be printed out on the data sheet. This is because i think reducing clutter in the data sheet is a good idea.
Instead I think that the USR section from the main rule book should be reprinted in each codex as an appendix, followed by a reprint of the faction USR's. This means that the faction USR's will be printed twice in the same book. The idea is that the USR's are provided in context with the rest of the rules and faction information, and then again in an easy to access appendix that is conveniently located right next to the universal USRs.
To me a properly writen unit entry would look like such:
Hormagant
(Fluff about Hormagants, in a clearly seperated paragraph that is in a font used for fluff and never used for rules)
Stat block, unit size, so forth
INSTINCTIVE BEHAVIOR (Codex:Tyranids)
FLEET (Universal)
BOUNDING LEAP: when this unit piles in and consolidates, it may move up to 6".
HUNGERING SWARM: if this unit has 20 or more models, it gains DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE (Universal)
Wargear:
Scything Talons: Models equiped with Scything Talons gain ACCURACY: MELEE (Universal). Models equipped with more than once set of Scything Talons may make 1 additional attack with this weapon when it fights.
Instinctive Behavior is the Tyranids USR for the synapse mechanic.
Fleet would be the main rulebook USR for improved running (hormies lost this and i want them to have it back).
Deadly Strike would be reroll 1's to wound. I'd have something like Improved Deadly Strike for reroll 1's and 2's, and Extraordinary Deadly Strike for reroll all, with Melee for melee, shooting for shooting, and no term for both. So Deadly Strike: MELEE would be reroll 1's to would in CC, and EXTRAORDINARY DEADLY STRIKE would be reroll all failed wounds rolls.
ACCURACY would be the to hit verson of Deadly Strike, and follow the same structure.
As a side note, someone upthread mentioned the idea of having datasheet abilities that use CP, and I really like that idea, particularly as a HQ/Commander mechanic.
For example, I could see the Swarmlord having an ability which hands out one of the reroll USR's for a CP, or a Neurothrope handing a bespoke improved psycic ability for CP. I think this would add depth to the game, and could be balanced with points changes or with CP cost changes.
This example is full of USR rules bloat. Half of your suggested USRs are just as easily written in the rule themselves without the need for for USR.
Why have a USR ACCURACY: MELEE that you have to look up when you can just as easily write "may re-roll attack rolls of 1"? The same is true for DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE. I'm sure the same is true for whatever you envision FLEET does. You don't need a USR to to give a unit a rule that takes one sentence or less to explain.
Because GW consistantly writes the one sentence rules in different ways, resulting in confusion, then when they decide that they want to change how those rules work they have to FAQ every version of it, which leads to further confusion and unintended interactions.
If GW wants the reroll ones mechanic to trigger on unmodified ones, with a USR it takes one FAQ to clarify that. If they use bespoke rules then you end up with everyone doing unmodifed 1's, except Tau because they forgot about one of Tau's special rules and Knights because the Knights codex came out after the FAQ but the design team for Knights missed a memo. Then you end up having to dig through four different FAQs to find out how your version of reroll 1's interacts with your version of plasma.
The end goal is clarity about how the rules a unit has work. If they want the gets hot mechanic to key off of unmodified natural 1's, it is better to have a single Gets Hot USR than to have to FAQ or clarify a dozen different versions of it. If they decide that feel no pain can't be taken against gets hot wounds, with USRs that ruling is a single sentence. With the current system they have to make sure they catch every version of gets hot and every version of feel no pain, and make sure that new units are written to be included.
If GW was substantially better at rules design and internal comunication, having everything be individual would work fine. As it is, it creates a bigger mess than having USRs would.
I want to add to some of the things that have been said before. The current system is basically the worst of both worlds. There are some USR's, lots of individual rules that are effectively the same thing, and a lot of clunkyness and ambiguities.
Having two Space Marine and Tau bodyguard rules be different isn't an inherently bad thing. Having them be in an awkwardly worded way that is unintuitive to understand and unclear if it is intentional is a bad thing.
I feel like the correct solution is a set of core USR's that are in the main rulebook, a set of army specific USR's that are in the codex, and bespoke rules that are on the data sheet.
The core USR's are things like deep strike, gets hot, fight twice, rerolls, move through cover, bodyguard, strikes first, so on. The core USR's are the things you expect to be present in very codex in some form or another. Not every codex will necessarily have access to every USR, but USR's should cover the rules that not having that rule in a codex is a big noticable thing.
For example, if you pulled a random codex, you would assume that it has a way to fight twice in it. Maybe it is built into a unit, or a warlord trait, or a strat. Regardless of how access is granted, you would be surprised if you shuffled all the codexes randomly and the one you picked didn't have fight twice in it somehow.
The faction USR's are the things like ATSKNF, synapse, and so forth. They go in the codex, reprinted as appropriate in multiple codexes that cover the same general faction (looking at you Space Marines).
Bespoke rules then go on the data sheet, and add to or modify the USR's.
Unlike most people in the thread, I don't think that USR's should be printed out on the data sheet. This is because i think reducing clutter in the data sheet is a good idea.
Instead I think that the USR section from the main rule book should be reprinted in each codex as an appendix, followed by a reprint of the faction USR's. This means that the faction USR's will be printed twice in the same book. The idea is that the USR's are provided in context with the rest of the rules and faction information, and then again in an easy to access appendix that is conveniently located right next to the universal USRs.
To me a properly writen unit entry would look like such:
Hormagant
(Fluff about Hormagants, in a clearly seperated paragraph that is in a font used for fluff and never used for rules)
Stat block, unit size, so forth
INSTINCTIVE BEHAVIOR (Codex:Tyranids)
FLEET (Universal)
BOUNDING LEAP: when this unit piles in and consolidates, it may move up to 6".
HUNGERING SWARM: if this unit has 20 or more models, it gains DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE (Universal)
Wargear:
Scything Talons: Models equiped with Scything Talons gain ACCURACY: MELEE (Universal). Models equipped with more than once set of Scything Talons may make 1 additional attack with this weapon when it fights.
Instinctive Behavior is the Tyranids USR for the synapse mechanic.
Fleet would be the main rulebook USR for improved running (hormies lost this and i want them to have it back).
Deadly Strike would be reroll 1's to wound. I'd have something like Improved Deadly Strike for reroll 1's and 2's, and Extraordinary Deadly Strike for reroll all, with Melee for melee, shooting for shooting, and no term for both. So Deadly Strike: MELEE would be reroll 1's to would in CC, and EXTRAORDINARY DEADLY STRIKE would be reroll all failed wounds rolls.
ACCURACY would be the to hit verson of Deadly Strike, and follow the same structure.
As a side note, someone upthread mentioned the idea of having datasheet abilities that use CP, and I really like that idea, particularly as a HQ/Commander mechanic.
For example, I could see the Swarmlord having an ability which hands out one of the reroll USR's for a CP, or a Neurothrope handing a bespoke improved psycic ability for CP. I think this would add depth to the game, and could be balanced with points changes or with CP cost changes.
This example is full of USR rules bloat. Half of your suggested USRs are just as easily written in the rule themselves without the need for for USR.
Why have a USR ACCURACY: MELEE that you have to look up when you can just as easily write "may re-roll attack rolls of 1"? The same is true for DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE. I'm sure the same is true for whatever you envision FLEET does. You don't need a USR to to give a unit a rule that takes one sentence or less to explain.
Because GW consistantly writes the one sentence rules in different ways, resulting in confusion, then when they decide that they want to change how those rules work they have to FAQ every version of it, which leads to further confusion and unintended interactions.
If GW wants the reroll ones mechanic to trigger on unmodified ones, with a USR it takes one FAQ to clarify that. If they use bespoke rules then you end up with everyone doing unmodifed 1's, except Tau because they forgot about one of Tau's special rules and Knights because the Knights codex came out after the FAQ but the design team for Knights missed a memo. Then you end up having to dig through four different FAQs to find out how your version of reroll 1's interacts with your version of plasma.
The end goal is clarity about how the rules a unit has work. If they want the gets hot mechanic to key off of unmodified natural 1's, it is better to have a single Gets Hot USR than to have to FAQ or clarify a dozen different versions of it. If they decide that feel no pain can't be taken against gets hot wounds, with USRs that ruling is a single sentence. With the current system they have to make sure they catch every version of gets hot and every version of feel no pain, and make sure that new units are written to be included.
If GW was substantially better at rules design and internal comunication, having everything be individual would work fine. As it is, it creates a bigger mess than having USRs would.
It seems to me you are conflating three different issues with each other and saying USRs will solve them all.
First, GW desperately needs a style guide for their rules writing. That will prevent the various unintended different writing of rules that are intended to be the same. Note that this is different from various instances of GW improving how a rule is written to be clearer. For example, they no longer say an ability gives a unit +1 attack, they say it give each model in the unit +1 attack. The new writing removes any ambiguity about what the rule does.
Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule.
Finally, you assume GW will update all the instances of a similar rules at once, requiring a bunch of FAQ entries. While there have been a few instances of this, it doesn't seem to be GW SOP.
It seems to me you are conflating three different issues with each other and saying USRs will solve them all.
First, GW desperately needs a style guide for their rules writing. That will prevent the various unintended different writing of rules that are intended to be the same. Note that this is different from various instances of GW improving how a rule is written to be clearer. For example, they no longer say an ability gives a unit +1 attack, they say it give each model in the unit +1 attack. The new writing removes any ambiguity about what the rule does.
Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule.
Finally, you assume GW will update all the instances of a similar rules at once, requiring a bunch of FAQ entries. While there have been a few instances of this, it doesn't seem to be GW SOP.
no one has argued that a USR is just a standardised name, because a name isn't a rule. It's about standardised mechanics terminology. Standardisation is the heart of a USR, so talking about improving GW's writing standardisation to remove unintentional differences is supporting USRs.
Which I offered earlier as a form of Backend USR - if players are so worried about them, the developers can use it in the back end when writing them, so the rules are standardised but the players aren't bothered by them being called USRs...
Your example of gets hot is making the assumption that all rules need to be universal which, again, is not a requirement for using USRs. There is nothing stopping having unique rules that change what a USR do, but it's much clearer when this happens in a game with USRs because you can see it immediately.
So from this we can see:
USR's are purely for rules standardisation and ease of use
No game that uses them is requires to only use them - there are no USR police
Unique rules can be used alongside USRs
And the defence seems to keep falling back on 'GW can't do this' as an argument for not saying we need them.
So to answer the question of the OP 'What's the Matter with USRs?', the answer is Nothing.
alextroy wrote: ...Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule...
Hellebore wrote: so many strawmen being tilted at here, to mix metaphors.
so to be clear, when people talk about USRs as a concept, they are only saying one thing:
A USR is a rule that standardises phrasing across all instances of that rule.
Standardised wording is the only thing that a USR does.
Anything else is an implementation decision that is completely separate from the USR itself.
i don't know why we're on page 8 of this thread and people still keep saying 'well because GW decided to do X with USRs in 7th, that makes USRs as a concept crap'.
Just because you crashed your car into a tree doesn't mean that the concept of cars or trees is bad...
And again this argument boils down to whether you want the game designer-centric or player-centric.
USRs help players immensely, but they make more work for designers to ensure that they don't screw units by changing USR's, they have to plan them.
The current system helps designers immensely, by allowing them to write whatever they want and not have to care what they've written previously. It makes more work for players having to read through everything all the time to figure out if something that sounds the same, like bodyguard, is actually the same or it has a different effect you'll have to remember for that specific instance only.
Why does it matter how bodyguards differ? Just read the Datasheet of the unit on the table. It’s not that difficult.
Hellebore wrote: so many strawmen being tilted at here, to mix metaphors.
so to be clear, when people talk about USRs as a concept, they are only saying one thing:
A USR is a rule that standardises phrasing across all instances of that rule.
Standardised wording is the only thing that a USR does.
Anything else is an implementation decision that is completely separate from the USR itself.
i don't know why we're on page 8 of this thread and people still keep saying 'well because GW decided to do X with USRs in 7th, that makes USRs as a concept crap'.
Just because you crashed your car into a tree doesn't mean that the concept of cars or trees is bad...
And again this argument boils down to whether you want the game designer-centric or player-centric.
USRs help players immensely, but they make more work for designers to ensure that they don't screw units by changing USR's, they have to plan them.
The current system helps designers immensely, by allowing them to write whatever they want and not have to care what they've written previously. It makes more work for players having to read through everything all the time to figure out if something that sounds the same, like bodyguard, is actually the same or it has a different effect you'll have to remember for that specific instance only.
Why does it matter how bodyguards differ? Just read the Datasheet of the unit on the table. It’s not that difficult.
It actually is that difficult. Because I do not want to read every datasheet of every unit on the table precisely to see if the wound transfers after wounding, after losing a wound, after being wounded or... I want a steady gameflow without looking in the book 20 times a turn. If you play 6 games a year with different opponents, it is very hard to keep track of these slight differences that would be better streamlined, in my opinion.
As has been stated before in this thread, if all bodyguard or deepstrike rules worked mechanically the same, this would lead to far less confusion during games. If you are able to keep everything in your head, that is great. But please be understanding for those people who have trouble keeping track.
I have come back to WH after a long pause, and I only played 1 game in 7th ed. It was terrible, at least for me, to keep track on why my "beast" was different from a "vehicle" in regards to melee attacks. This edition is fairly accessible, and I think GW has done a great job in this regard. Now, if they could hire a rules lawyer to make sure that all the different rules that essentially do the same actually do the same, that will be a swell 9th ed.
Maybe they could hire BaconCatBug?
JNAProductions wrote: So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about whyUSRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!
People want same name things to work differently. Multiple different meltaguns that don't work same way or KFF that works totally different compared to who carries(one doesn't separate between clans and doesn't work in melee, other is "I only protect deathskulls" and allows melee..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't USR's supposed to eliminate ASR's, which did NOT happen? That'd be the biggest issues with USR's right there. Bloat added to bloat which necessitates more bloat to... Well, you get the point.
A fun example for why unified rules would be awesome is a discussion that took 10 minutes out of my game yesterday:
My Morkanaut with Shiney Bits kustom job shot at a hard to hit plane. Its Kustom-Mega-Zappa and rolled 4x1 and 2x2, while and it's Kustom-Mega-Blasta rolled a 6, triggers dakkadakkadakka which then turned into a 1.
In the next turn, my opponent's tank commander targets a hard to hit plane as well and overcharges his plasma because he has this re-roll ones to hit order.
His turret cannon rolls 3x2 on the first shot and a 1 (re-rolled into a 1) on the second. The plasma sponsons roll another 2 and another 2x1 (also re-rolled into 2x1).
How many mortal wounds does the morkanaut take?
How many mortal wounds does the tank commander take?
Spoiler:
Morkanaut takes 2, tank commander takes 7
After we sorted this out issue out, the AM player was extremely frustrated over suffering damage from rolling twos (while orks didn't) and not even being able to re-roll them.
He also only half-believed me and told me he would check it with the community later.
Jidmah wrote: A fun example for why unified rules would be awesome is a discussion that took 10 minutes out of my game yesterday:
My Morkanaut with Shiney Bits kustom job shot at a hard to hit plane. Its Kustom-Mega-Zappa and rolled 4x1 and 2x2, while and it's Kustom-Mega-Blasta rolled a 6, triggers dakkadakkadakka which then turned into a 1.
In the next turn, my opponent's tank commander targets a hard to hit plane as well and overcharges his plasma because he has this re-roll ones to hit order.
His turret cannon rolls 3x2 on the first shot and a 1 (re-rolled into a 1) on the second. The plasma sponsons roll another 2 and another 2x1 (also re-rolled into 2x1).
How many mortal wounds does the morkanaut take?
How many mortal wounds does the tank commander take?
Spoiler:
Morkanaut takes 2, tank commander takes 7
After we sorted this out issue out, the AM player was extremely frustrated over suffering damage from rolling twos (while orks didn't) and not even being able to re-roll them.
He also only half-believed me and told me he would check it with the community later.
Yeah it's baffling to me why GW haven't retroactively changed Plasma to only natural 1's. I guess it's a relic of when they were pretending Primaris weren't supposed to wholesale replace Oldmarines?
Why does it matter how bodyguards differ? Just read the Datasheet of the unit on the table. It’s not that difficult.
Pre-FAQ Iron hands leviathan with Cogitated martyrdom would like a word.
The main issue is that two similar rules might have a small distinction - Like "This unit may shoot immediately" and "This unit may shoot as if it were the shooting phase". Fairly similar terms, but the first one - if triggered in any non-shooting phase can be used to target characters. The second one cannot. Character targeting protection only works during the shooting phase (hence why you may target charging characters for overwatch even if they aren't the closest model). There was a GSC (or was it old inquisition?) psychic power that allowed you to do just that.
That's an egregious case, but even smaller differences - once layered with other differences - can start having serious consequences for the stability of the game.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.
This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.
Well, I offer that 8th Edition has done very well. Parking commercial success, I find as a player that I am rarely engaged in rules debates during a game. It hasn't been perfect, but I would happily buy Robin Cruddace a beer for what he and his team did with 8th Edition.
It was also far easier for our group to pick up than the cross-referencing-fest of 7th, where I’d look up “Super Speedy” in my Codex and it would tell me to look up “Fleet” in another book and that would tell me what the rule was. Honestly, they achieved that ‘easier to pick up’ goal in spades. Sure, we’re now entering Bloatsville and it needs a streamlining but vipoid’s is simply a bad take.
Nah, I’ll take most rules on Datasheets and a few faction-wide rules over USRs any damn day. So much easier to learn and to play without memorising cross-indexed encyclopaedias first.
The 8th edition to 7th edition comparison isn't entirely fair in this case. 7th edition had all the baggage of editions 3-6 behind it and, directly, the rules and Codices from 6th edition complicating any attempt to start in that edition. 8th was a blank slate with extremely simplistic rules at its outset. Now it's an absolute mess. I've had more than one experienced opponent bemoan that trying to start a new army requires so much homework to understand how it works that the first half a dozen games are actually about learning the various rules for the army. USRs would alleviate that problem immensely by providing a common library of rules that players would pick up as they played regardless of which army they used. So switching to a new army means you have some transferable knowledge. Furthermore, USRs prevent all those little misunderstandings like the inexplicable difference between Dante and a random Space Marines Chapter Master or Ork and Imperial plasma. So I reject the notion that it's easier to learn rules in 8th than in previous editions, particularly for players who play more than one army.
We've even seen in this thread how it's not true that all the rules you need are on your datasheet. Sisters are a good example of this. They have loads of army-wide special rules, then there's the subfaction specific ones that you need to cross-reference as well. It's simply not true to say all your rules are on the datasheet.
It's not even possible to say all the rules are in a single book. Barring the fact you now NEED CA for the points costs as they replace all the codex ones, some armies need upwards of 3 books now to be effective, if not outright usable.
If you want to play, for example, Ultramarines, you need Codex: Space Marines, Codex Supplement: Ultramarines, Chapter Approved 2019, Vigilus Defiant, and Psychic Awakening: Faith and Fury.
Jidmah wrote: My biker warboss is now spread across three books - index for the datasheet, codex for the relic klaw and SotB for the biggest boss stratagem.
Small upside is that's shortly going to be 2 books once legends becomes offical.
Jidmah wrote: Warboss on Warbike is not in legends, it's in the index right now and will probably be in the new FW books.
Along with Sky Slashers and Shrikes, the Warboss on Warbike did not make it into legends. This means Index: Xenos 2 is the only index still "legal" or "relevant" as everything else has been superseded.
There is an argument that the Leman Russ Demolisher datasheet can still be used, but it's really a Moot Point since it loses Grinding Advance so no-one will take it.
Jidmah wrote: My biker warboss is now spread across three books - index for the datasheet, codex for the relic klaw and SotB for the biggest boss stratagem.
Small upside is that's shortly going to be 2 books once legends becomes offical.
Legends is official, and has been from the start. The only thing "special" about Legends is that GW explicitly state they are not tailored for Organised Play. They are legal in matched play. People often conflate Organised Play suggestions for actual Matched Play rules (Rule of 3 being the biggest offender).
alextroy wrote: ...Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule...
What purpose does this serve?
It kills the model for Plasma, which are primarily 1 Wound Infantry, while causing a bit of damage to multi-wound Tau Battlesuits. There is a real difference and I think the purpose is rather obvious.
Yes, there is a difference and that is fine, but why can Plasma get hot on 2's and Ion weapons don't? At the very least they should all not be affected by modifiers.
That being said, I don't think there needs to be a difference, all the Plasma thing does is cause issues with Vehicles such as Chaos Rhinos and Leman Russes.
alextroy wrote: ...Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule...
What purpose does this serve?
It kills the model for Plasma, which are primarily 1 Wound Infantry, while causing a bit of damage to multi-wound Tau Battlesuits. There is a real difference and I think the purpose is rather obvious.
No, why is it important that they be different? Why does Imperial plasma need to RFP your Razorbacks? Is the game made more interesting in some way by having two versions of the rule?
Jidmah wrote: Warboss on Warbike is not in legends, it's in the index right now and will probably be in the new FW books.
Along with Sky Slashers and Shrikes, the Warboss on Warbike did not make it into legends. This means Index: Xenos 2 is the only index still "legal" or "relevant" as everything else has been superseded.
There is an argument that the Leman Russ Demolisher datasheet can still be used, but it's really a Moot Point since it loses Grinding Advance so no-one will take it.
Jidmah wrote: My biker warboss is now spread across three books - index for the datasheet, codex for the relic klaw and SotB for the biggest boss stratagem.
Small upside is that's shortly going to be 2 books once legends becomes offical.
Legends is official, and has been from the start. The only thing "special" about Legends is that GW explicitly state they are not tailored for Organised Play. They are legal in matched play. People often conflate Organised Play suggestions for actual Matched Play rules (Rule of 3 being the biggest offender).
Well with no flow chart to allow wargear etc to carry over and index's not being sold why should they be seen as valid anymore?
People are quick enough to shout that forgeworld should be banned but taking units from books that are no longer available to anyone is okay.
AnomanderRake wrote: No, why is it important that they be different? Why does Imperial plasma need to RFP your Razorbacks? Is the game made more interesting in some way by having two versions of the rule?
Agreed. That being said, the difference does have a "balance" reason. For whatever reason T'au overheats can be tanked by the Intern carrying a single Burst Cannon while Bi'gdic'kmarty can fire all 3 of his CIB all day with no issues, but when Brother Aximand gets yeeted out of existence by venting plasma Brother Iamnotalpharus can't pick it up to keep shooting at the enemy. To me it really should be the other way around, a Crisis suit can't mid-battle slap on a fallen comrade's weapons to their hard points. But this is all due to GW's poor writing and wanting to avoid the Nob Bikers of yore. All overheats should simply just cause a mortal wound per 1 rolled and if this lets you tank them on grunts, so be it.
Ishagu wrote: Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?
This edition is so simple to play.
Ok, tell me, without looking, how Ynnari or Cult Ambush are meant to work. Or what a Battle Sister squad has. Or whether I can use the Quantum Deflection stratagem to ignore wounds from Bolters.
8th is a Gordian Knot of Special Snowflake Rules and Special Snowflake FAQs
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yeah. Let me take my recent Codex: Sisters of Battle. So, let's look at, say, my literal only troop choice. I got all the rules on my datasheet, I don't need to look at other pages!! All on page 82! Oh but wait, I don't have the profile for half of the weapons available. Those are on page 96 and 97. Oh but wait, I don't have text for the Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites and Shield of Faith rules! I need pages 75 and 76 too! But wait, it's not written on the datasheet but I need to know that I have the Strength of Faith special rule from page 100! But wait, it is also not written on the datasheet, but I need to know the rules for my order conviction, on page 101 too! I also need to know page 102 to 105 for the stratagems.
I only need 11 pages to play a basic troop from my army. With USR maybe I would need 12 and that's totally unacceptable. Oh if I had chosen a basic HQ the rules would have gone up to requiring 13 pages at least because one extra page for the warlord trait, and one extra page for the relic. Nice!
Don't forget needing CA19 to find out how many points each Battle Sister costs.
Ishagu wrote: Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?
This edition is so simple to play.
That has unequivocally not been my experience. The core rules are simple, yes, but I think people overlook just how difficult it can be to get a handle on how an army functions without playing it week-in week-out or studying all the disparate rules for it that are often scattered all over the place. As I mentioned previously, one of my regular opponents has recently picked up Sisters of Battle and one of the things he struggles with is figuring out all the nuances of the army. It's not because 40k is in any way deep or difficult to master, it's entirely down to the way the rules are spread out across multiple parts of the Codex and every unit has bespoke rules, which makes it unnecessarily difficult to figure out what each unit does, and that's before you take Stratagems into account, which are often actually required to get the full effectiveness out of a unit. This is an experienced gamer who's been playing various different games for years.
40k has managed to become a game that is both massively complicated and ridiculously shallow at the same time. It's actually quite an impressive achievement.
Ishagu wrote: Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?
This edition is so simple to play.
I mean sure, if you ignore the multiple books full of Errata and changes, dozens of web forums here and elsewhere on the internet devoted to interpreting rules, and continually expanded rules base spread across dozens of sources that few can keep track of.
40k is a very complex wargame. It's not a "deep" game, tactically it's about as shallow as is possible to get for a wargame, but that does not make it a simple game.
BaconCatBug wrote: Don't forget needing CA19 to find out how many points each Battle Sister costs.
No, the codex came out after CA19 so I don't need CA yet.
But the Limited Edition Adepta Sororitas: Sisters Of Battle Boxed Set (2019-11-29) came out before CA19 and MFM19 (2019-12-07). The codex that released "after" CA is just a cover variant, not a new book (as opposed to the SM and CSM books which were new books altogether, although the CSM one might not be who knows it's a moot point anyway), thus the MFM points overrule the codex ones as they are more recent.
My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.
I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.
I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.
Odd.... USRs minimize the frequency of consulting rulebooks due to the standardized wording and consistent names. Players should be able to remember the core rules as well as the stat lines, weapon profiles, and common rules for their own army without needing to open the codex. Otherwise they haven't learned their army's rules at all.
I wouldn't call the core of 8th "clean." Shallow, more like.
A game can be complex, and clean and accessible simultaneously. GW's rules team simply isn't competent enough to do so.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.
I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.
the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing gamers that 12 pages of rules was all you needed....
TangoTwoBravo wrote: My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.
I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.
Odd.... USRs minimize the frequency of consulting rulebooks due to the standardized wording and consistent names. Players should be able to remember the core rules as well as the stat lines, weapon profiles, and common rules for their own army without needing to open the codex. Otherwise they haven't learned their army's rules at all.
I wouldn't call the core of 8th "clean." Shallow, more like.
A game can be complex, and clean and accessible simultaneously. GW's rules team simply isn't competent enough to do so.
I pretty much only consult the Codex for my main army to confirm a Wounds characteristic or perhaps to confirm the Explodes characteristic when I roll a 6. My point about having your Codex is that there is no debate in a game when we both have our books and we have different wordings for abilities (Azrael vs Cawl reroll for instance). I play in two 40K communities and rarely have rules debates (usually regarding new Stratagems). I also play Flames of War and every game seems to be a rulebook search.
Having said that, I won't try to convince you to admire 40K. If its not to your liking then its not to your liking! I walked away when I no longer found 40K fun, and came back when it looked promising and found 8th to my liking.
jeff white wrote: Card games require less imagination and interpretation. Point and click. Trouble enters when one wants more than a card game.
I don't think that's a fair characterization. MTG, at least, is a rich, deep, tactical game. With extremely specific wording for rules, down to the presence or absence of the word "may."
TangoTwoBravo wrote: My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.
I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.
Odd.... USRs minimize the frequency of consulting rulebooks due to the standardized wording and consistent names. Players should be able to remember the core rules as well as the stat lines, weapon profiles, and common rules for their own army without needing to open the codex. Otherwise they haven't learned their army's rules at all.
I wouldn't call the core of 8th "clean." Shallow, more like.
A game can be complex, and clean and accessible simultaneously. GW's rules team simply isn't competent enough to do so.
I pretty much only consult the Codex for my main army to confirm a Wounds characteristic or perhaps to confirm the Explodes characteristic when I roll a 6. My point about having your Codex is that there is no debate in a game when we both have our books and we have different wordings for abilities (Azrael vs Cawl reroll for instance). I play in two 40K communities and rarely have rules debates (usually regarding new Stratagems). I also play Flames of War and every game seems to be a rulebook search.
Having said that, I won't try to convince you to admire 40K. If its not to your liking then its not to your liking! I walked away when I no longer found 40K fun, and came back when it looked promising and found 8th to my liking.
Yeah, I quit 40k a few months before 8th was announced, and am waiting for a tactically deep edition (unlikely, I know).
Odd.... USRs minimize the frequency of consulting rulebooks due to the standardized wording and consistent names. Players should be able to remember the core rules as well as the stat lines, weapon profiles, and common rules for their own army without needing to open the codex. Otherwise they haven't learned their army's rules at all.
This has not been my experience at all. I've played since third edition and throughout 4th and 5th edition I was the only person in my gaming groups (there were 3 of them) that knew my own army well enough to even remember my own weapon stats to not have to look them up every time I rolled the dice. I would often have people just make up what a USR did based on how they vaguely remembered it working and if I didn't know it was wrong I'd have the choice of either bringing the game to a grinding halt to look it up, or let it slide.
6th and 7th were worse - the people I played with were much better at knowing their own rules but having "nested" USRs that provide other USRs, or codex-specific exclusions was a real drag.
I much prefer 8th. Maybe my mindset has changed over the years, I no longer have the time to read and re-read rulebooks and have lengthy discussions about how X interacts with Y. I don't play nearly enough to memorise everything. All I have to remember are the rules that apply to my whole detachment and weapon stats. Other than that everything is right there in one spot on the datasheet. Nowadays when I do get a game in I spend more time actually playing and less time cross checking USRs between the BRB and Codex.
That said, I also play Star Wars Legion a little which makes heavy use of USRs. USRs CAN be good if implemented well and in a consistent manner. Consistency isn't GW's strong point. For 40k, I'm glad they changed away from that model. I just wish they stuck with it a little more...
jeff white wrote: Card games require less imagination and interpretation. Point and click. Trouble enters when one wants more than a card game.
I don't think that's a fair characterization. MTG, at least, is a rich, deep, tactical game. With extremely specific wording for rules, down to the presence or absence of the word "may."
As a long time MTG player, nah. The rules writing is on point. I'm not sure that its fair to say the depth of 40k is responsible for all the rule feth ups either, they could easily be written more cohorently. However MTG has nowhere near the depth of 40k or ANY tabletop miniature game I've seen. It's effectively poker with more player interaction, deckbuilding has depth (depending on the format), but actually playing the game is one of the most straightforward 'competitive' games out there.
Funnily enough, it has been scientifically proven that MtG is more complex than WH40k
Also note that when you argue that deck building doesn't count towards the game's complexity, then nether do any armies or any units, relics, warlord traits, powers or other rules that are not on your army list, as well as stratagems you cannot use because of your army selection.
I'm also very sure that WH40k rules can be written with the exact same amount of precision as the MtG comprehensive rules, eliminating all RAW discussions for all times.
The only big difference between playing a TCG and a tabletop game are the natural imprecision of measuring, moving and checking LOS - and none of that has anything to do with game rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: thus the MFM points overrule the codex ones as they are more recent.
Wait, there are MFM points? I'm not even sure what MFM stands for. Are they different from the points in the codex? What are the differences?
MFM means Munitorum Field Manual, it's the second book in the Chapter Approved 2019 double pack. The MFM, unlike previous CAs, replaces ALL points costs, not just ones that have changed. The MFM 2019 is the single repository for all points costs for books released before it (books released after will have their own points costs except when the MFM also has those points in advance maybe and, presumably, superseded by MFM20).
In 20 years in the hobby I have come across people being dishonest a handful of times. It's not a concern for me.
This is a game we play for fun. It is not a sport that generates our income. If people can't facilitate each other's enjoyment they should not be playing or be avoided.
I had a great total of ONE (1) rule discussion in 8th, and it was fixed as soon as we checked the FAQs.
7th was a nightmare compared to that. All games had at least 1 rule dispute and after the game ended, you realized that you played at least a couple of rules incorrectly.
Warmachine was also like that when i played in MK2 and even worse in MK1.
8th may be suffering from bloat, true, but at least almost every interaction of rules is clear.
I believe entirely that the people who complain about the rules or about these mythical boogie-man opponents that will cheat them at every opportunity don't actually play the game often.
Yeah, I've only ever had one rules dispute/discussion in 8th and it was over the Concordance of Power stratagem and how it interacted with Runes of Battle powers. That happened solely because those psychic powers have unique manifestation mechanics compared to practically every other psychic discipline in the game.
Other than that, a quick check in a codex or an FAQ has been enough and has taken up a minute or two of game time at most.
Bosskelot wrote: Yeah, I've only ever had one rules dispute/discussion in 8th and it was over the Concordance of Power stratagem and how it interacted with Runes of Battle powers. That happened solely because those psychic powers have unique manifestation mechanics compared to practically every other psychic discipline in the game.
Other than that, a quick check in a codex or an FAQ has been enough and has taken up a minute or two of game time at most.
How can that be? I learned on this forum that you need 150 documents to play a game of 40K and that GW is unable to write rules
Ishagu wrote: Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?
This edition is so simple to play.
Many people are legitimately confused about very similar rules playing different for no reason.
They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.
As for RAW v RAI, this isn't something that comes up frequently at all anymore, especially with the regular FAQs that clarify things.
I don't trust my opponent. At all. Neither should you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: I believe entirely that the people who complain about the rules or about these mythical boogie-man opponents that will cheat them at every opportunity don't actually play the game often.
No one said it was intentional. Well, I didn't anyway.
My local narrative campaign had to implement a comprehensive and clear warning, next game lost, ban for 2 weeks, ban for life process because people kept getting rules wrong and it wasn't clear whether they were doing it intentionally or not.
Most of it is confusion - after the first warning, people usually correct their behavior. Sometimes, I'll correct them about what their own army does during their own game without telling the GM so they don't get a warning, especially if it's clear it's just a result of confusion.
Ishagu wrote: They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.
Thanks for the perfect response, Grimtuff
Seriously, the only thing I can trust my friends with is getting their own rules wrong. Not to mention all the players just picking up the game, new armies or models.
And that's not even considering the one or two WAAC players blatantly lying about their rules.
Plus, GW writes terrible rules and Americans are always looking for the best interpretation to help their position. That's why we are such good lawyers.
Ishagu wrote: Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.
No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.
I have no idea what relevance this has. How does "hobby spirit" help myself or my opponents understand badly-written english?
GW: "Garble warble glabbety gla!"
Me: "GW, I don't understand you."
Ishagu: "Well, if you were One with the Force, you could understand..."
Me: "Why do I need to be one with the Force to understand? Why can't they just write good rules?"
Ishagu wrote: Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.
No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.
I have no idea what relevance this has. How does "hobby spirit" help myself or my opponents understand badly-written english?
GW: "Garble warble glabbety gla!"
Me: "GW, I don't understand you."
Ishagu: "Well, if you were One with the Force, you could understand..."
Me: "Why do I need to be one with the Force to understand? Why can't they just write good rules?"
The sad part is that real life legislators aren't much better.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny that people can't seem to handle the concept that multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true at once:
8th Edition rules have much less interaction issues than former editions, but GW continues to be bad a writing rules.
Trust your opponent, but don't be afraid to verify when you think they are mistaken.
People tend to be honest, but they also have a natural tendency to interpret rules in a way that advantages themselves.
Plus the final thing:
The rules can be sometimes so convoluted that they're just difficult to understand. An example from a recent game (not even online but with a roommate) was the Belt of Russ vs. Quicksilver Swiftness. What the outcome is is that the Belt of Russ makes you "fight in the normal order" if you have a rule that normally lets you go first. The Belt of Russ otherwise makes you go last.
Since Slaanesh Quicksilver Swiftness makes you go first and the belt of Russ makes you go last, the auxiliary clause kicks in and the Slaanesh unit goes normally. But if you miss one "instead" in the Belt of Russ wording that's not intuitively placed? The whole thing gets muddier, because it sounds like both the main clause and the auxiliary rule apply.
Now for another question:
Once I've been made to go in the normal order as a Slaanesh daemon, can I spend 2CP to interrupt chargers after the first charging unit goes like a normal unit could? If so, all the Belt of Russ did was make me spend 2CP when I wouldn't otherwise have had to. Is that the intended interaction? Why or why not?
Ishagu wrote: They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.
Thanks for the perfect response, Grimtuff
Seriously, the only thing I can trust my friends with is getting their own rules wrong. Not to mention all the players just picking up the game, new armies or models.
And that's not even considering the one or two WAAC players blatantly lying about their rules.
Indeed. I can trust my supposedly “toxic” friends in getting rules right but strangers? Nope. Been burnt too many times. There is a reason Tau players have such a bad rep for the mental gymnastics they perform with some rules, having stolen the crown from Eldar players in editions past.
Universal rules are just clear and make for a cleaner game and a better playing experience. Now, when playing one of my best friends at Warmachine it has been noted by our FLGS owner we look a little like we’re arguing to an outsider when a rules issue comes up, but it’s not. It’s a conscious effort to understand the universally same rules in front of us so we know how it works. With 40k you simply cannot do that as X is not always X because reasons.
I refer back to my previous example from past editions of True Grit. That only had 3 different versions of the rule under the same name but still everyone got it wrong.
Ishagu wrote: I believe entirely that the people who complain about the rules or about these mythical boogie-man opponents that will cheat them at every opportunity don't actually play the game often.
The go on a tour through central or eastern europe and check what making a mule out of someone means. Specialy if they aren't local or if they have a lower social status in the local community.
To me saying the stories about no worries about cheating, people buying armies every two months and playing what ever they like and winning are just as mythical.
The difference between a cohorent rule set and lack of it. Is that having one has yet to hurt anyone.
He does have a point that if you're having these kinds of issues at your LGS then it must be a real gakky community. Like yeah, GW can be shoddy with their writing but even with tight, well-written and clean rules it sounds like playing in your areas would be a fething miserable experience.
Ishagu wrote: Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.
No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.
I'm not sure what relevance "hobby spirit" has to the quality of the rules or the relative advantages/disadvantages of USRs vs the current situation. I'm not even sure what "hobby spirit" is. Is it like common sense (i.e not very common at all)? Why does it only seem to be a requirement for GW games?
Bosskelot wrote: He does have a point that if you're having these kinds of issues at your LGS then it must be a real gakky community. Like yeah, GW can be shoddy with their writing but even with tight, well-written and clean rules it sounds like playing in your areas would be a fething miserable experience.
Yes, but the same problems don't exist with the same people in other games.
Bosskelot wrote: He does have a point that if you're having these kinds of issues at your LGS then it must be a real gakky community. Like yeah, GW can be shoddy with their writing but even with tight, well-written and clean rules it sounds like playing in your areas would be a fething miserable experience.
I dunno, if you're aware the rules are in fact shoddy, maybe don't making sweeping judgments about communities you have no experience with?
I have seen a fair games of infinity and historicals played at my store. And played by the same people that play w40k, and most people that play w40k play it for a long time, some longer then I live. I have never seen as much rules checking, "forgetting" in those other games as I did in w40k games.
Some problems seem to be a lot bigger, when people play w40k. Every game probably has its fair share of bad stuff, but I haven't yet heard from an infinity player that he doesn't trust his opponent unit load outs or point costs. I have no idea how they do it, but their list checks post game are like 2 min. And with w40k, if you wanted to be precise it could take hours, specialy with a soup list.
Bosskelot wrote: He does have a point that if you're having these kinds of issues at your LGS then it must be a real gakky community. Like yeah, GW can be shoddy with their writing but even with tight, well-written and clean rules it sounds like playing in your areas would be a fething miserable experience.
I dunno, if you're aware the rules are in fact shoddy, maybe don't making sweeping judgments about communities you have no experience with?
When I've been able to play 200+ games of 8th edition at my LGS, over half of which are vs random strangers and encounter basically none of the awful opponents people in this thread seem to come across then I will happily judge the state of those other communities.
It's either that or people here are being incredibly hyperbolic. Take your pick.
Karol wrote: I have seen a fair games of infinity and historicals played at my store. And played by the same people that play w40k, and most people that play w40k play it for a long time, some longer then I live. I have never seen as much rules checking, "forgetting" in those other games as I did in w40k games.
Some problems seem to be a lot bigger, when people play w40k. Every game probably has its fair share of bad stuff, but I haven't yet heard from an infinity player that he doesn't trust his opponent unit load outs or point costs. I have no idea how they do it, but their list checks post game are like 2 min. And with w40k, if you wanted to be precise it could take hours, specialy with a soup list.
I mean, it's a skirmish game, so to compare it you'd have to compare a 250-point game of infinity with a 250-point game of 40k. Or I guess kill team.
Ishagu wrote: Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?
This edition is so simple to play.
Many people are legitimately confused about very similar rules playing different for no reason.
They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.
As for RAW v RAI, this isn't something that comes up frequently at all anymore, especially with the regular FAQs that clarify things.
Isn't it possible for me to mix up my rules if i play multiple armies that for some reason have same-but-not-really rules? I don't care about other players at my LGS, if they cheat its on their conscience, i dont play solely to win. Or when a player learns a new army, why do they have to learn new variations of the same-but-not-really rule? Sure its fine once you learned the rules, but theres always a possibilty that you mix up variants accidentally, i know ive done it in the past and felt bad about it.
Ishagu wrote:I believe entirely that the people who complain about the rules or about these mythical boogie-man opponents that will cheat them at every opportunity don't actually play the game often.
Its not about my opponents, its about me. I dont want to cheat, not even accidentally.
I don't get why youre so against a better re-write of the rules. You litterally come in a thread about USRs to tell people that want USRs that theyre toxic TFGs. i dont see the relevance in your posts.
Karol wrote: I have seen a fair games of infinity and historicals played at my store. And played by the same people that play w40k, and most people that play w40k play it for a long time, some longer then I live. I have never seen as much rules checking, "forgetting" in those other games as I did in w40k games.
Some problems seem to be a lot bigger, when people play w40k. Every game probably has its fair share of bad stuff, but I haven't yet heard from an infinity player that he doesn't trust his opponent unit load outs or point costs. I have no idea how they do it, but their list checks post game are like 2 min. And with w40k, if you wanted to be precise it could take hours, specialy with a soup list.
I mean, it's a skirmish game, so to compare it you'd have to compare a 250-point game of infinity with a 250-point game of 40k. Or I guess kill team.
Not only that, infinity actually HAS complexity to it. Yes you gotta check the rules a lot when you start out but each army has the same USRs so switching armies once you know one is easier. Even the weapons are USRs, the models change but a combi-rifle is a combi-rifle, no matter the army.
Some problems seem to be a lot bigger, when people play w40k. Every game probably has its fair share of bad stuff, but I haven't yet heard from an infinity player that he doesn't trust his opponent unit load outs or point costs. I have no idea how they do it, but their list checks post game are like 2 min. And with w40k, if you wanted to be precise it could take hours, specialy with a soup list.
The infinity community is a lot more respectful from what i've seen. When i was told that infinity is "intent driven" i instantly fell in love. If you move a model with the intent of having it in cover from a specific model while seeing another one you communicate with your opponent and both of you make it happen. If you want your model to take a path that keeps it hidden, you do the same thing, you check with your opponent to make sure it would be possible.
Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?
I believe that the frame in which 40K is designed is one of a game played by people who have agreed to have a fun game in the spirit of the hobby. It is not written to divide the assets between a separating couple or work out a business merger.
I always trust my opponent: I'm not playing for money. If a mistake is made I assume its an honest mistake - they happen and I make them. I bring my Codex with me so that I can show somebody the rules for my army if they have a question. If I am unsure on something like Wounds I look it up, but its infrequent. I play roughly two games a week in two different communities. There can be doubts when a new Codex comes out, but otherwise rules disputes are the exception and certainly not the rule. When I faced a Harlequins list on the release date for that Codex which coincided with our local tourney it was an adventure in trust, especially as my opponent only had an e-copy on his smart phone. We got through it somehow.
If an opponent is getting mad at you and threatening violence over tri-pointing it has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with the negative frame of the game that you are playing. Maybe don't play that person? It is hardly the game developer's fault that adults cannot behave themselves in each other's company. I have certainly never seen anything like that at the various FLGS and tourneys that I have played in over the years. I can recall one friend storming out of an Apocalypse game. He was at the other end of the table and I missed the lead-up, but I think that there were some external reasons to the game for his loss of control (we'd both recently redeployed from a bad part of the world). Other than that I am at a loss to explain these tales of woe.
Martel732 wrote: I've been physically threatened over tripointing. Nothing says FLGS like threats of bodily harm!
That's fething terrifying!
I've had popular folks at FLGS be super transphobic and make verbal threats, but nothing physical. Even then, when called on to do something, the store backed down and made I think very much not a friendly place. Now I have no store to play at.
Martel732 wrote: I've been physically threatened over tripointing. Nothing says FLGS like threats of bodily harm!
That's fething terrifying!
I've had popular folks at FLGS be super transphobic and make verbal threats, but nothing physical. Even then, when called on to do something, the store backed down and made I think very much not a friendly place. Now I have no store to play at.
Same guy constantly bragged about his guns, too. I realize this skews my view a bit about tripointing, but it illustrates the principle.
BaconCatBug wrote: thus the MFM points overrule the codex ones as they are more recent.
Wait, there are MFM points? I'm not even sure what MFM stands for. Are they different from the points in the codex? What are the differences?
MFM means Munitorum Field Manual, it's the second book in the Chapter Approved 2019 double pack. The MFM, unlike previous CAs, replaces ALL points costs, not just ones that have changed. The MFM 2019 is the single repository for all points costs for books released before it (books released after will have their own points costs except when the MFM also has those points in advance maybe and, presumably, superseded by MFM20).
Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?
now I haven't played prior 8th, but I would expect that if deep strike was identical to everyone the trust thing doesn't really have to happen. You just know the rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman 787851 10789127 wrote:
I mean, it's a skirmish game, so to compare it you'd have to compare a 250-point game of infinity with a 250-point game of 40k. Or I guess kill team.
From what I understand 300pts is the normal sized game of infinity with anywhere between 20 or 30 models. Why should it be compared to a game runs a squad of models most of the time. Plus we are talking about a whole game expiriance here, which includes stuff how easy the rules are, how much the armies cost, how long it takes to play etc.
But now I've been able to witness the "You're killing all of the flavor of that model!" outcries that the Malifaux developers had to deal with when they tried to consolidate a bunch of similar weapons and attacks and skills on different models.
"Why do I need to be one with the Force to understand? Why can't they just write good rules?"
