Switch Theme:

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

(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 11:52:57


Post by: xerxeskingofking


While i am an old player of 40K, i went into remission the back end of 4th and never played again until 9th edition. I understand the Universal Special Rules were implemented and removed form the game during that time, and they seem, in theory, to be a good idea, or at least not a bad idea. however, form comments on threads here on dakka i get the feeling the playerbase did not like them.

what was wrong with them? were they a bad idea conceptually, or did they screw up the execution? surely, having "deep strike" and "feel no pain" rules built into the core game seems a less wordy way than the current version where everyone gets these unique abilities that have the same rules text added to the datasheet, with the same wording on each. I mean, deep strike and feel no pain are still the preferred terms to refer to these abilities , even though no one actually has rules called that anymore.

so, what went wrong? why are USRs so badly thought of? im geniunely curious if it would not be a good idea to bring them back in some limited form.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 12:10:27


Post by: Dysartes


Good idea in theory, but over time GW's implementation went downhill.

When they first arrived in the BRB, there were a couple of pages of them, and they were ones I think most people would agree with having a common rule - Deep Strike, Infiltrate, etc.

By the end of 7th, though, there were a heck of a lot of USRs in the core book, both for units and for weapons (all in one list, going by the mini-rulebook for 7th I've got), some of which weren't all that Universal at all.

In addition, I've seen people mention USRs that apparently just said "You have these two other USRs", though I couldn't see any in the aforementioned mini-rulebook when I scanned through.

If implemented with some sense and some restraint, combined with some thought about when to just use the name, and when to quote the full rule on the datasheet, I do think USRs would be an improvement for 8th/9th. I do have some caveats on their usage, though...

A, Before implementing USRs, implement a KEYWORD system for weapons, so some weapon USRs can be hung on those keywords.
B, Before beginning work on the next cycle of codexes, look at all existing books for special rules where minor variants appear across at least n different books - this is your determination of what is actually universal.
C, Allow space in both the core rulebook and each Codex for an appending including all USRs in full.
D, Where there is space on a datasheet, include the USR in full. If there isn't space, refer to the appendix in the 'dex.
E, Try to write the USRs so there can be some variation if needed - Deep Strike (n"), for example, or Feel No Pain (n+)
F, Once these USRs are agreed, don't start including variants of them unless there's a very good reason for it. If you have to do something like that, have a second rule present to modify the core USR wording.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 12:24:14


Post by: fraser1191


xerxeskingofking wrote:
so, what went wrong? why are USRs so badly thought of? im geniunely curious if it would not be a good idea to bring them back in some limited form.


In my opinion it wasn't USRs themselves but a combination of things.

For instance monstrous creature was a collection of USRs and if you didn't know them you had to check to see what USRs it had and then go look them up

Some USRs weren't worded the best.

And finally some were the same as an other but slightly different. Can't think of an example right now, sorry.

I think a couple USRs could come back very easily. Like for Tau you have "manta strike" for deepstrike. Well just slap deepstrike in brackets next too it to show the generalized name for it. Keeps the flavor best also gives you a USR to tie the rule very easily into a rule your opponent also probably has

I just don't want GW to go overboard with it again.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 12:27:41


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Some friends and I are going back to 4th edition.

Here's some examples of my issues with the 7th edition USRs:
The ZEALOT USR have a unit the Fearless and Hatred USRs. Okay... why not just have the units have Fearless and Hatred?

The Missile Lock USR was never used on anything throughout the whole edition until it randomly popped up on a Dark Angel flyer, and then was never seen again. Why is it in the Rulebook under "universal" rules if only one model has it?



(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 13:09:19


Post by: Tyel


I think USRs can work if you can completely define the rule space with say 12 (and certainly no more than 20) terms - and then every unit can just have those labels a necessary.

By 7th however you had about 100 USRs and the system was hard to learn - or even just remember - unless you played regularly. (And this wasn't the end of rules by any means, unit specific rules abounded.)

Rules like Deep Strike, FNP were fairly intuitive.

But unless you play a lot, it was easy to be confused as to the differences of say Fleet, Hammer of Wrath and Furious Charge. Or say Crusader versus Zealot, Rage versus Rampage, Preferred Enemy versus Hatred. What does Soul Blaze do again? We spent a lot of time pouring through the rule book checking up which rule meant what.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 13:13:55


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The biggest problem is GW forgot their abstractions.

"This guy charges good" was abstracted by a whole ton of rules. Furious Charge and Hammer of Wrath essentially abstracted the same idea!


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 13:46:39


Post by: Siegfriedfr


USR are like stratagems today : it's good, until it becomes bloated with redundancy and slight differences.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 13:47:45


Post by: chaos0xomega


USRs were great but poorly implemented. USRs which granted other USRs, multiple USRs that essentially did the same thing but slightly different (this one gives you +2 attacks and +1 to hit when you charge, this other one gives you +2 to hit and +1 attacks on the charge) but had had completely different names, etc. instead of following a logical progression (hey, heres an idea, how about you just make that two separate USRs, one could be called, I dunno "Flurry of Blows (X)" which gives you +x atacks on the charge and the other "Martial Expertise (X)" which gives you +x to hit on the charge, or something like that where the X is the corresponding numerical modifier that you get), etc.

Like everything GW touches it became a bloated mess and the intended purpose of USRs (that is, a quick reference shorthand you could use to describe common rules and abilities without necessitating players to have to reference their rulebooks to check what they do) never really materialized because it became too confusing for players to track. I think the real downfall of the system was that GW tried to pack too much information into a lot of them, where one USR could potentially impact multiple things at once, etc. instead of treating them as basic building blocks that could be combined together to achieve the same effect.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 14:24:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Same thing that's wrong with all of GW's rules: Implementation.

USRs are fine, and should be used to cut down on needless bloat and constant revisions, exceptions to exceptions, and slight variations of rules between Codices or even between units within a singular Codex.

But expecting GW to pull that off is, well, optimistic to say the least.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 14:47:48


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Other Wargames use USRs just fine, like Lotr or Oathmark. GW just used them badly in 6th/7th Edition.
You wouldn't need loads of them or can keep it pretty simple with rules that are in every Codex (deep strike, reroll 1s to hit, flamers) or at least very common (transhuman, feel no pain, -1damage, ignore attrition modifiers, infiltrate). And once you slapped more than 5USRs on a unit you should realize you did something wrong. Just look at the mess Primarch datasheets in HH are (Mortarion in 40K is not that much simpler, though).


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 14:49:55


Post by: Not Online!!!


Nothing normally. Just gw doing GW things.... as others pointed out. During 6th and 7th they fethed them up.

and yes, when i have USRS that refer to USRS, that further Refer to USRS, then something ain't right.
the 6th edition rulebook had 11 pages with USRS...
11. atleast the german one.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 14:54:25


Post by: Mezmorki


First of all, USR's, even at their worst, aren't as much bloat and overhead to try and remember than the pile of stratagems we have today. Even at their worst, I'd rather take USR's than the situation we have in 9th.

Secondly, the number of cases where one USR connects to other USR's was pretty minimal and the complaints are overblown. How many are there? Zealot? That's easy - unit as fearless (and easy one to remember and very common) hatred. Might need to double check rules for hatred. But if you're using a zealot unit you probably have that on recall. What others USRs led other USRs? Does anyone even remember?

The biggest complains in my opinion, was that the list of USR's was just not presented concisely. The descriptions were too wordy and included extraneous fluff detail. They could've broken USR's into some clear categories (e.g weapon/attack traits versus unit abilities) to make the list easier to navigate.

In defense of the critics, they did seem to start off in 7th by saying "let's round up every special rule from every codex and call it a USR and throw it in the BRB." There was a lot in the BRB that didn't need to be made a USR.

But still, flaws and all, I'd rather take the bloated messy USRs than the bloated messy unit abilities and strarategem menagerie.





(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 14:59:53


Post by: A.T.


3rd through 5th there was the issue of codex wait times being in excess of a decade for some factions, and GW were pretty lax with their updates.

As USRs changed and were updated so the older factions became inconsistant. Templars for instance became a shooty faction when favoured enemy changed from 3+ to hit in melee to reroll 1s, Dark Eldar had a rule called 'feel no pain' that was bore no relation to the FnP special rule, rage changed from a penalty to a bonus, old rules were inaccurately described (i.e. any time rending was described as on a 6 to hit), and so on.

Putting all the rules in a book meant that GW could just ignore inconsistancies rather than deal with updating them and dealing with cases where players didn't have all the (free) updates.
Paid updates on the other hand...


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 15:05:18


Post by: vipoid


There's nothing wrong with USRs.

However, as others have said, there was an issue with GW padding out the list of USRs with a lot of pointless crap.

- You had stuff like Zealot, which just gave a model two other USRs.

- You had various USRs that were almost identical to other USRs but with a very minor difference.

- But perhaps the worst offenders were the USRs that existed just to waste everyone's time. Fear was a great example, what with 90% of armies having some sort of morale immunity (or rerollable Ld9/10 or whatever). But the absolute peak of the fetid mound was Soul Blaze! If a unit takes an unsaved wound from a weapon with Soul Blaze it gets a Soul Blaze counter. And at the end of the turn, there's a 50% chance that a unit with a Soul Blaze counter will take a wopping d3 S4 AP5 hits, oh no! As you can imagine, weapons with this USR wreaked endless havoc on the poor, defenceless Imperial Knights, Fliers, Wraithknights, TWC, Necron Wraiths etc. that dominated 7th.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 15:15:09


Post by: chaos0xomega


ugh, I forgot about soul blaze. What a fething useless slog that one was.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 15:23:14


Post by: Gadzilla666


Well I definitely didn't forget about Fear. Yikes, was that useless most of the time. Even at a -2 modifier.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 15:23:46


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


chaos0xomega wrote:
ugh, I forgot about soul blaze. What a fething useless slog that one was.


Whenever 8th and 9th has rules that read like: "roll a D6, on a 4+ the unit gets D3 mortal wounds" I'm reminded of Soulblaze and think to myself: GW, you should have learned from this, rolling dice to roll some more dice is still not enjoyable
Overall the amount of pointless rolling has been reduced though, which I like. There's still a lot of rerolling, maybe more than before, but at least that usually has a purpose in the game. Unlike any weapon or effect in 3rd to 7th edition that wasn't AP2 or S6+.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 15:29:04


Post by: Hankovitch


The problem is GW. If they implement USRs, they will do so badly, inconsistently, and with lots of bloat. If they drop USRs in favor of expanded per-datasheet rules, they will do so badly, inconsistently, and with lots of bloat.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 15:32:11


Post by: Tannhauser42


My problem with USRs is that, eventually, they stop being universal. Armies start getting their own minor variations of the same USR, or have other rules that otherwise change/ignore the USRs.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 15:38:33


Post by: vict0988


The forum has a search function. Check general discussion and proposed rules for mentions of USR and USRs and universal. It's been argued to death.

All USRs would have to mean is applying generic terms when possible and copy-pasting those terms when possible. It does not have to be in the main rulebook and every datasheet can have the rule listed in full.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 15:42:10


Post by: vipoid


chaos0xomega wrote:
ugh, I forgot about soul blaze. What a fething useless slog that one was.


It was also just disheartening to see rules like that because it would be in lieu of other, more interesting rules.

And it was even worse with random Warlord Traits. 'Oh goody, my Warlord's weapons have the Soul Blaze special rule this game. That's almost as useful as 'Your Warlord can reroll the dice when attempting to pick his nose.''



(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 16:13:12


Post by: Strg Alt


xerxeskingofking wrote:
While i am an old player of 40K, i went into remission the back end of 4th and never played again until 9th edition. I understand the Universal Special Rules were implemented and removed form the game during that time, and they seem, in theory, to be a good idea, or at least not a bad idea. however, form comments on threads here on dakka i get the feeling the playerbase did not like them.

what was wrong with them? were they a bad idea conceptually, or did they screw up the execution? surely, having "deep strike" and "feel no pain" rules built into the core game seems a less wordy way than the current version where everyone gets these unique abilities that have the same rules text added to the datasheet, with the same wording on each. I mean, deep strike and feel no pain are still the preferred terms to refer to these abilities , even though no one actually has rules called that anymore.

so, what went wrong? why are USRs so badly thought of? im geniunely curious if it would not be a good idea to bring them back in some limited form.


USRs don´t have a bad reputation. The problem are GW´s modern 40K rulebooks as they are only good to fuel dumpster fires in winter.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 16:15:05


Post by: Polonius


USRs was at the peak of GW's policy of not listening to players, and it shows quite literally. Things that would make good USRs are things that players quickly come up with shorthand for. Feel no Pain hasn't been an official rule in what, five years now? But we all know what it means when we say "five up feel no pain." Damage Reduction is quickly becoming the shorthand for Duty Eternal and the like. Exploding sixes is cribbed from other games, but most people know what it means.

I feel like you could come up with a list of a dozen or so USRs just based on the organic way players eventually talk about the game.

Now, if you want to give GW a small amount of credit, I think that one thing 8th/9th edition implemented which was nice were super basic universal rules. Things like Fly, combined with a speed stat and some key words for infantry, bikes, etc. basically replace a laundry list of unit types. Even defining things like Aura, Blessing, Malediction, etc. helped. Now, it's easy to point out that other games have been using keywords for years prior, but hey, small victories.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 16:16:42


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
My problem with USRs is that, eventually, they stop being universal. Armies start getting their own minor variations of the same USR, or have other rules that otherwise change/ignore the USRs.


Thats actually how they should work, USR are rules everyone has access to.

Lets take a very basic example like Deepstrike, every army can deepstrike at 9", but then lets say you want to make the trygon able to deepstrike closer, you could then give it a rule (not a universal one) that allows it to use its deepstrike ability but at 3" for example. (Tho ideally you'd just have variables to your USRs , so "Deeptrike(9")".

USRs don't mean you can't have more than these rules, just that the core of your game should use them.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 16:21:54


Post by: catbarf


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
My problem with USRs is that, eventually, they stop being universal. Armies start getting their own minor variations of the same USR, or have other rules that otherwise change/ignore the USRs.


As others have pointed out, that's a GW thing through and through. There's no need for continuous one-upmanship or inventing new and unique rules for its own sake. A coherent and planned ruleset should have consistent ways of representing similar effects, with some inbuilt flexibility for varying magnitude.

9th Ed has a bunch of USRs already, GW is just loathe to call them that. Unit type keywords (eg INFANTRY) and weapon types are, functionally, USRs. You know that Rapid Fire means double shots at close range and Assault means you can advance and shoot without needing the full definition written out every single time like they do with Feel No Pain or Deep Strike.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 16:39:33


Post by: PenitentJake


Biggest issue for me was a data card telling you what rules you had, but not what the did. Even worse, they weren't in the dex- you had to look in another book to find them (the BRB).

This meant that every single dex printed under the USR system was an incomplete book. I hated it.

Fortunately, this would be an easy problem to fix if they decided to revisit the system.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 17:30:31


Post by: Dysartes


Given GW's patchy history on consistency in printing things, only having them being printed in the BRB does mean that the wording for, say, Deep Strike doesn't randomly appear differently in Codex A & B than in Codex Y & Z...

Admittedly, a competent studio wouldn't have these issues, but this is GW we're talking about.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 18:07:10


Post by: AnomanderRake


The way I tend to describe this to people is that when GW decided to remove USRs they didn't actually remove any mechanics (e.g. melta weapons still have 'bonus within half range', it's just written out in text on every weapon's entry instead of just having one 'melta' keyword), and they immediately started to have the exact editing problems Dysartes is talking about where a bunch of rules that you'd expect to be the same actually weren't. (They've cracked down on that a bit in 9th, but they've also started to slowly introduce keywords again.)


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 18:30:37


Post by: PenitentJake


In responding to Dystartes' concerns RE: editing if USR's appear in multiple books, allow me to quote Dystartes:

 Dysartes wrote:


If implemented with some sense and some restraint, combined with some thought about when to just use the name, and when to quote the full rule on the datasheet, I do think USRs would be an improvement for 8th/9th. I do have some caveats on their usage, though...

A, Before implementing USRs, implement a KEYWORD system for weapons, so some weapon USRs can be hung on those keywords.
B, Before beginning work on the next cycle of codexes, look at all existing books for special rules where minor variants appear across at least n different books - this is your determination of what is actually universal.
C, Allow space in both the core rulebook and each Codex for an appending including all USRs in full.
D, Where there is space on a datasheet, include the USR in full. If there isn't space, refer to the appendix in the 'dex.
E, Try to write the USRs so there can be some variation if needed - Deep Strike (n"), for example, or Feel No Pain (n+)
F, Once these USRs are agreed, don't start including variants of them unless there's a very good reason for it. If you have to do something like that, have a second rule present to modify the core USR wording.


In particular, note recommendations C and D. Note also that the bold for emphasis is not in fact mine, but was present in the original Dystartes quote. Personally, I think Dystartes' list of recommendations for the successful implementation of USR's is spot on. It was so good, I almost didn't post.

Regarding the editing issues on


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 18:44:44


Post by: Captain Joystick


Someone who has better memory can confirm or deny this for me, but wasn't the Land Raider's super-incredible ability to let you charge into combat straight out of the vehicle due to a USR called 'boarding ramp' or something to that effect?

I know the rule itself existed back in 5th edition but I can't remember if it was USR or codex level. All I know for sure is that for a good long while Sisters and Grey Knights were too clumsy to run out of that front door, until they fixed it with an FAQ years later to confirm that only Sisters couldn't do it.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 18:53:10


Post by: Arschbombe


Assault Vehicle. Not sure if was actually in the USR section or tucked into the vehicle rules.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 18:56:37


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Captain Joystick wrote:
Someone who has better memory can confirm or deny this for me, but wasn't the Land Raider's super-incredible ability to let you charge into combat straight out of the vehicle due to a USR called 'boarding ramp' or something to that effect?

I know the rule itself existed back in 5th edition but I can't remember if it was USR or codex level. All I know for sure is that for a good long while Sisters and Grey Knights were too clumsy to run out of that front door, until they fixed it with an FAQ years later to confirm that only Sisters couldn't do it.


I think that was assault ramps, the USR for being able to get out and assault was open topped if i am recalling correctly


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 19:14:57


Post by: vict0988


CSM had the Assault Vehicle special rule in 4th and 7th.

I cannot find the source of assault ramp, it seems SM had the USR as well.
 Polonius wrote:
USRs was at the peak of GW's policy of not listening to players, and it shows quite literally. Things that would make good USRs are things that players quickly come up with shorthand for. Feel no Pain hasn't been an official rule in what, five years now? But we all know what it means when we say "five up feel no pain." Damage Reduction is quickly becoming the shorthand for Duty Eternal and the like. Exploding sixes is cribbed from other games, but most people know what it means.

I feel like you could come up with a list of a dozen or so USRs just based on the organic way players eventually talk about the game.

Now, if you want to give GW a small amount of credit, I think that one thing 8th/9th edition implemented which was nice were super basic universal rules. Things like Fly, combined with a speed stat and some key words for infantry, bikes, etc. basically replace a laundry list of unit types. Even defining things like Aura, Blessing, Malediction, etc. helped. Now, it's easy to point out that other games have been using keywords for years prior, but hey, small victories.

7th had Blessings and Maledictions. Changing Infantry from a unit type to a keyword isn't a great invention, even if I think unit types had too many rules in 7th.

The problem is that nobody has units with Feel No Pain, so everybody has to be told at least once, even if it is in their first game.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 19:21:48


Post by: Tittliewinks22


There is hope. AoS has started to pick up USRs. They reintroduced "ward" as a mechanic that was basically WHFB's variant of FNP, and lumped on every save after save in this new "ward" USR.

I think they test everything in AoS then port it into 8th/9th. I've yet to see anything from 8th/9th port over to AoS.

Maybe one day we'll get AoS's command ability system to replace Strategems!

one can hope.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 19:24:52


Post by: Earth127


With USR not a lot.GW however really broke the camel's back by introducing to many not so universal USR's that could mean in order to have all the rules for one unit in just a codex you needed 3 pages in the codex and 3 more in the main rulebook.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 19:42:58


Post by: kodos


what went wrong was easy, GW wrote USRs in the rulebook and stopped using those with the mid-edition design shift and instead created new USRs for that specific army

and because those were only in that Codex, the next army that got the same ones had to have them in the Codex as well, but with GW being lacy at copy&paste they made mistakes so the new USR that was supposed to be the same was different

and with GW being GW, they told people in the FAQ that this is intended as GW does not make mistakes and it started to become a mess

until the new Edition with the USR being in the RB again and it all started again


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 19:54:33


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 kodos wrote:
what went wrong was easy, GW wrote USRs in the rulebook and stopped using those with the mid-edition design shift and instead created new USRs for that specific army

and because those were only in that Codex, the next army that got the same ones had to have them in the Codex as well, but with GW being lacy at copy&paste they made mistakes so the new USR that was supposed to be the same was different

and with GW being GW, they told people in the FAQ that this is intended as GW does not make mistakes and it started to become a mess

until the new Edition with the USR being in the RB again and it all started again


They didn't stop using them. On the contrary, they introduced formations and formations of formations that more often than not said: If you buy this bundle that offers no savings, get these 3-5 USRs for free!


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 19:58:30


Post by: Togusa


xerxeskingofking wrote:
While i am an old player of 40K, i went into remission the back end of 4th and never played again until 9th edition. I understand the Universal Special Rules were implemented and removed form the game during that time, and they seem, in theory, to be a good idea, or at least not a bad idea. however, form comments on threads here on dakka i get the feeling the playerbase did not like them.

what was wrong with them? were they a bad idea conceptually, or did they screw up the execution? surely, having "deep strike" and "feel no pain" rules built into the core game seems a less wordy way than the current version where everyone gets these unique abilities that have the same rules text added to the datasheet, with the same wording on each. I mean, deep strike and feel no pain are still the preferred terms to refer to these abilities , even though no one actually has rules called that anymore.

so, what went wrong? why are USRs so badly thought of? im geniunely curious if it would not be a good idea to bring them back in some limited form.


Here is my gripe with USRs from 40K 7th edition.

There were three, entirely different rules in the game with the name "Crack Shot." God that was annoying.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 20:04:41


Post by: ERJAK


One thing that I don't see get as much attention but was a huge, massive issue with USRs was the way they created unintended effects when combined.

This was mostly due to being able to add characters to squad but you would have situations where a USR would say 'a unit with USR X has Y ability" so one character with USR X added to unit 1 would give the whole unit that Y USR.

This lead to people putting multiple characters in the same unit to stack USRs so you'd end up with something that had Zealot, Hit and Run, etc, etc, until it was an unstoppable ball of rules.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 20:08:43


Post by: kodos


Sgt. Cortez wrote:

They didn't stop using them.

As an example, more than half the USRs from 4th Edition Rulebook were not used by a single faction by the end of the Edition


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 21:46:04


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Arschbombe wrote:
Assault Vehicle. Not sure if was actually in the USR section or tucked into the vehicle rules.


It was, but for almost the entire lifetime of the game it existed only on the Land Raider and variants.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 21:56:12


Post by: Mezmorki



As an example, more than half the USRs from 4th Edition Rulebook were not used by a single faction by the end of the Edition


3rd edition had 0 USRs (but 8 ranged weapon types and 5 special weapon attacks).

4th edition also had all of 22 USR's. Pretty manageable.

Bear in mind too, that in 6th and 7th, they took rules that were part of other sections and moved them all into the USRs. In 3rd-5th edition, rules related to weapon types (template, blast, etc.) were all consolidated in "Special Weapons Characteristics" section (4th had 10) or into "Special Close Combat Attacks" (4th had 10 of these). So that's 42 "USR-like" rules in 4th.

5th is about the same as 4th (22-ish listed USRs and then weapon and melee types).

6th edition had 79 USR's (I just did a quick count).

7th edition had 87 (gawd, I counted that too)



(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 22:19:34


Post by: ZebioLizard2


One of the part of USR's that worked poorly was the update schedule. If you ended up with a codex that was certainly one of the long runner ones without you could end up with relying on USR's that were meant to do entirely different things now working either against you or drastically overpowering you because of a single change.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 22:20:40


Post by: Arschbombe


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Arschbombe wrote:
Assault Vehicle. Not sure if was actually in the USR section or tucked into the vehicle rules.


It was, but for almost the entire lifetime of the game it existed only on the Land Raider and variants.


Yeah. It wasn't a USR or in the vehicle rules. It was in the Land Raider entry in the Space Marine codex.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 22:29:49


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
My problem with USRs is that, eventually, they stop being universal. Armies start getting their own minor variations of the same USR, or have other rules that otherwise change/ignore the USRs.
But that's not a problem with USRs, that's a problem with implementation. If someone has the discipline to not to that, USRs remain just that: Universal.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 23:30:58


Post by: Dysartes


 Togusa wrote:
Here is my gripe with USRs from 40K 7th edition.

There were three, entirely different rules in the game with the name "Crack Shot." God that was annoying.

Fair enough that that is a gripe - but how is that a problem with USRs, when there doesn't appear to be a "Crack Shot" USR in 7th (going by the mini-rulebook, at least)?

That reads more as a problem of "bad rule name management" by the Studio.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/18 23:46:19


Post by: Hellebore


Pretty much every complaint about USRs doesn't refer to the concept of standardised special rules, but to their implementation by GW.

I've not seen a single compelling argument for why standardising special rule types (ie deep striking, furious charging etc) is a bad thing.

The main argument I've seen is it reduces army flavour, which is a bit subjective.

From a balance and simplicity perspective, standardising common rules across armies is a no brainer.







(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 00:45:49


Post by: alextroy


While we are thinking about USRs, I think we should start a petition for 10th Edition the they add Invulnerable Save to the Statblock. This is probably the most common "ability" in the entire game.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 01:05:43


Post by: morganfreeman


ERJAK wrote:
One thing that I don't see get as much attention but was a huge, massive issue with USRs was the way they created unintended effects when combined.

This was mostly due to being able to add characters to squad but you would have situations where a USR would say 'a unit with USR X has Y ability" so one character with USR X added to unit 1 would give the whole unit that Y USR.

This lead to people putting multiple characters in the same unit to stack USRs so you'd end up with something that had Zealot, Hit and Run, etc, etc, until it was an unstoppable ball of rules.


This wasn't unintended.

In older editions (3rd through 7th - I've no experience with 2nd and earlier), Characters were very much designed to join squads. That was their intended function, and they were given rules with the full understanding that they would pass these rules on to the squads they joined. The rules were quite literally designed to with this way, with clauses pretty specifically stating that characters shared special rules with the squads they joined and vice versa.

This is basically why characters existed. Auras were incredibly rare prior to 8th edition, with most similar effects being tied to characters themselves and transferred to units they joined. If characters had been limited to only buffing themselves, and not transferring any of their special rules (universal or not) to the units they joined, the ONLY measuring stick to judge them would've been how killy they were for their points.

 Mezmorki wrote:


3rd edition had 0 USRs (but 8 ranged weapon types and 5 special weapon attacks).


Not to be incredibly nit-picky, but 3rd edition did have USRs. There were less than a dozen of them (basically Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Fleet, and a couple of others) and they were the rules which truly did appear in ALMOST every codex to some extent.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 01:10:47


Post by: H.B.M.C.


3rd Ed didn't really do USRs though. I believe that, towards the end, there were 4 different versions of True Grit (Death Guard, Grey Knights, Space Wolves and one one other).

 alextroy wrote:
While we are thinking about USRs, I think we should start a petition for 10th Edition the they add Invulnerable Save to the Statblock. This is probably the most common "ability" in the entire game.
Nah man! It's all about the bespoke rules! Got to make sure that Invulnerable Save is called out on every data sheet as a separate item in the same way as we have to keep telling you how Melta, Flamer and Plasma weapons every time we print them (sometimes more than once on the same sheet!).



(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 01:18:22


Post by: JohnHwangDD


40k players wanted their armies to be special snowflakes, so shared "universal" rules didn't work for them.

As a result, every army, every unit, every weapon has it's own special rules that appear to be unique to itself.

Personally, I'm against the entire thing, but it's not my call.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 01:19:51


Post by: edwardmyst


Just my two cents on the original reason on why USR's are hated. Nothing new here...
GW's rules writing goal continues to be NEW!NEW!NEW! MORE!MORE!MORE! Which translates to power creep. More units, more powers, more abilities, is their hook.
Yes, this isn't always a bad thing if it's your thing. In my opinion though...I know they claim balance a goal, and not every single unit in new codices have it, but power creep is their theory. So:
USR's are a good Idea.
GW cannot do USR"s because USR's cannot be made more powerful with each new codex easily (although it could be done).
Therefore: USR's good, GW theory of codex creep plus USR's? Mud.

Go play two games of OPR and see how well their USR's work in a game kept simple.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 05:18:00


Post by: mchammadad


Assault vehicle was the rule

Also, the problem was that there was a LOT of redundant USR's, particularly ones that do the same thing but with one or two extra things. "Fearless" and "Zealot" being a good example.

Fearless was auto pass morale,

Zealot was auto pass morale, with re roll hits......

yea, this was a thing


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 06:39:51


Post by: aphyon


I think we have to make a distinction between good use of USRs and bad use of USRs

As our group still plays 5th ed-the BRB has 2 1/2 pages of USRs for a grand total of 22 that included things like "fleet".

For example some tyranid units had fleet of claw, some eldar units had fleet of foot. both fall under the "fleet" USR and use the same rule.

It is easy to keep track of and does not overburden the rule set.


Where it went sideways was with 7th where they used the old BRB USR system and expanded it to the point it became bloat much like stratagems now.

Someone who has better memory can confirm or deny this for me, but wasn't the Land Raider's super-incredible ability to let you charge into combat straight out of the vehicle due to a USR called 'boarding ramp' or something to that effect?


"assault vehicle" USR. it applied to all vehicles that were open topped or had special assault ramps like the land raider.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 09:14:30


Post by: Jidmah


What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view:

1) They published a full list of USR for all units in the game as the first thing of an edition and never changed or extended it.
2) You had to reference the BRB to find out what a unit does. A codex by itself was not sufficient to find all the rules for a model.
3) There were too many of them. To many did similar things, some were just handing out other USR.
4) The whole "confers USR" mess with independent characters joining units.
5) USR were almost exclusively written with guard, marines and craftworld eldar in mind, making them fit badly with armies that worked differently.
6) Bad/no rules updates.

I think the general consensus is that USR would work well and even improve the current edition if
- they were an actual living document that is updated and extended regularly
- there was reminder text on the datasheet so you roughly know what a USR does without referencing another page, book or document.
- there is just one USR to display the same thing across armies
- no snowflake USR are given to an army as a slightly better version of an existing USR.
- no USR give USR


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 10:47:50


Post by: A.T.


 Jidmah wrote:
5) USR were almost exclusively written with guard, marines and craftworld eldar in mind, making them fit badly with armies that worked differently.
They were a consolidation of commonly re-used rules and veteran skills for the most part. 3e Marines had almost no special rules being an early book.

Fleet and tank hunters originated with the eldar (most of their stuff didn't make it into USRs). I'd be curious to know if furious charge, counter attack, slow and purposeful, and hit and run started with CSM 3.5 or a prior supplement.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 10:52:41


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Jidmah wrote:
What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view...
None of these are problems with USRs though, just GW's application of USRs and how they failed over and over again.

Aside from that, the points you raised a correct. The only thing I'd add is that USRs should be as scalable as possible. The more [Rule Name] (X), where the X allows for variables, the better.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 11:55:53


Post by: Hellebore


A.T. wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
5) USR were almost exclusively written with guard, marines and craftworld eldar in mind, making them fit badly with armies that worked differently.
They were a consolidation of commonly re-used rules and veteran skills for the most part. 3e Marines had almost no special rules being an early book.

Fleet and tank hunters originated with the eldar (most of their stuff didn't make it into USRs). I'd be curious to know if furious charge, counter attack, slow and purposeful, and hit and run started with CSM 3.5 or a prior supplement.


My recollection is that furious charge came first in the blood angels Dex and it's where it's name originated. The BA Dex was iirc the second Dexc released after marines.

Counter attack was first in the 3rd ed space wolves Dex.

SaP I think was in the first chaos codex with obliterators/thousand sons iirc.

Hit and run I think was an Eldar exarch ability on 3rd.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 12:04:41


Post by: A.T.


 Hellebore wrote:
Hit and run I think was an Eldar exarch ability on 3rd.
Withdraw had similarities in function, but the USR hit and run was the Raptor (and later seraphim) style.
Similarly furious chage by the looks of it - part of black rage in the BA book while the USR-style version appeared later in CSM. Closing in on the end of the edition it may have been that GW were already consolidating its common rules at that point.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 12:30:56


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Jidmah wrote:
What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view:

1) They published a full list of USR for all units in the game as the first thing of an edition and never changed or extended it.
2) You had to reference the BRB to find out what a unit does. A codex by itself was not sufficient to find all the rules for a model.
3) There were too many of them. To many did similar things, some were just handing out other USR.
4) The whole "confers USR" mess with independent characters joining units.
5) USR were almost exclusively written with guard, marines and craftworld eldar in mind, making them fit badly with armies that worked differently.
6) Bad/no rules updates.

I think the general consensus is that USR would work well and even improve the current edition if
- they were an actual living document that is updated and extended regularly
- there was reminder text on the datasheet so you roughly know what a USR does without referencing another page, book or document.
- there is just one USR to display the same thing across armies
- no snowflake USR are given to an army as a slightly better version of an existing USR.
- no USR give USR


1. Yes, this is literally the point of a UNIVERSAL special rule.
2. Again, this is the point of a universal special rule, the rules are consolidated in the core rulebook, these rules are hypothetically common enough that you should know what they do without needing to refer to any rulebook, no different than how the rules for things like "Rapid Fire" or "Assault weapon" are not reprinted in every codex... because those are defined in the core rulebook and you know what they mean.
3. In 4th edition there were ~22 of them as was already explained by another poster. This is not too many. The 80 or so in 7th edition was a different story.
4. This only really got messy when when both the character and the unit had conflicting USRs that created weird interactions, but generally wasn't all that complicated.
5. Universal is universal. I don't see how deep strike was written only with space marines/guard in mind. Same with infiltrate, fleet, etc.
6. Not sure I understand this one, has nothing to do with USRs. If anything it would make it easier because now you would just errata the USR in the core rulebook and it would update the rule as it applies to every unit in the game with it, as opposed to having to update each and every datasheet individually.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 13:50:07


Post by: Jidmah


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view...
None of these are problems with USRs though, just GW's application of USRs and how they failed over and over again.

Yes, that's why I specifically wrote "USR in the past".

Aside from that, the points you raised a correct. The only thing I'd add is that USRs should be as scalable as possible. The more [Rule Name] (X), where the X allows for variables, the better.

Sure, where it makes perfect sense (like FNP 5+), let's do that. Some things are debatable like Explosion (3", 6+, 1d3)/Explosion (9", 4+, 2d6).
However, I know some people are suggesting things like Command(Aura(6"), re-roll ones to hit, ADEPTUS ASTARTES CORE) or Command(targeted(12", visible), re-roll failed hits, [ADEPTUS ASTARTES CORE, ADEPUTS ASTARTES CHARACTER]) which I personally don't think will help clarity more than, for example, just bolding the relevant parts for better readability.

That's why I didn't list it as part of the consensus.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 13:55:08


Post by: vipoid


 Jidmah wrote:
What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view:

1) They published a full list of USR for all units in the game as the first thing of an edition and never changed or extended it.


This is only a problem because GW thinks it's reasonable to start a new edition with a new core rulebook and then maybe update the actual army books over the course of several years (or not at all, if they just can't be arsed updating certain factions).


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 14:31:18


Post by: Jidmah


chaos0xomega wrote:
1. Yes, this is literally the point of a UNIVERSAL special rule.

No, it's not. Having to decide which USR to put in a codex you don't even start to write until in two years is nonsense, no matter how you put it.
This is what lead to garbage USR like missile lock.

2. Again, this is the point of a universal special rule, the rules are consolidated in the core rulebook, these rules are hypothetically common enough that you should know what they do without needing to refer to any rulebook, no different than how the rules for things like "Rapid Fire" or "Assault weapon" are not reprinted in every codex... because those are defined in the core rulebook and you know what they mean.

Any time you need to look into two books to find out what a unit does, you have failed at rules writing. Many USR are both rare and complex enough to require regular reading. Infiltrate(deploy outside of deployment zone), Scout(pre-game move) or Bodyguard come to mind.
No one needs the BRB to play in 8th or 9th unless there is a rule dispute, which is the one all-upside thing about USRs disappearing.

3. In 4th edition there were ~22 of them as was already explained by another poster. This is not too many. The 80 or so in 7th edition was a different story.

4th edition ended 14 years ago, followed by more than 9 years and three editions of having more USR than necessary.
Without knowing 4th too well, I'd argue that even those 22 were too many. I think you barely need that many for 9th, which has more than four times as many units in many more armies to support than 4th did.

4. This only really got messy when when both the character and the unit had conflicting USRs that created weird interactions, but generally wasn't all that complicated.

If conflicting USR wasn't already bad enough (some conflicts were never specifically addressed by rules), you also had a wild mix of rules which applied to the entire unit while other did not.
Remember those * next to USR in 5th, what they means and which USR had them?

5. Universal is universal. I don't see how deep strike was written only with space marines/guard in mind. Same with infiltrate, fleet, etc.

How about Zealot, Crusader, Missile Lock, Brotherhood of Psykers, And They Shall Know No Fear or Power of the Machine Spirit?

6. Not sure I understand this one, has nothing to do with USRs. If anything it would make it easier because now you would just errata the USR in the core rulebook and it would update the rule as it applies to every unit in the game with it, as opposed to having to update each and every datasheet individually.

Except they didn't. There is no point in going in implementing an easy way to change the rules if you just let them rot in without ever touching them.
A broken USR on edition launch was doomed to be broken for at least an entire edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view:

1) They published a full list of USR for all units in the game as the first thing of an edition and never changed or extended it.


This is only a problem because GW thinks it's reasonable to start a new edition with a new core rulebook and then maybe update the actual army books over the course of several years (or not at all, if they just can't be arsed updating certain factions).


I agree, but in the end GW needs to implement USRs in a way that works for their release cycle. Front loading everything clearly does not work well.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 14:42:11


Post by: Unit1126PLL


USRs in 4th are a weird thing because there were 3 types:

Weapon Qualities (i.e. Rending, Twin-Linked, Barrage) that were in the Shooting Phase section

Universal Special Rules (Fleet, Slow and Purposeful) that applied to units and were in their own section

Weapon Qualities (Rending (but in CC), Power Weapon, Poison) that were in the Assault Phase section

Between both phases' weapon qualities AND the USR section, you probably had ~22. In 9th, there's probably more than 22 weapon special rules alone (I can think of at least 6 from Chaos Daemons, the least-weapon-option codex).


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 14:45:16


Post by: JNAProductions


Well-done USRs are far better than dozens of bespoke and barely different rules.

GW is bad at rules writing, though.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 15:29:10


Post by: Jidmah


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Between both phases' weapon qualities AND the USR section, you probably had ~22. In 9th, there's probably more than 22 weapon special rules alone (I can think of at least 6 from Chaos Daemons, the least-weapon-option codex).


Good point, I was just going by unit rules. In any case, you don't need to make every rule an USR though.

Skimming the daemon's wargear, I see:
- auto-hit (formerly known as "template")
- plague weapon
- re-roll to wound (is there anything gained when you USR that? Maybe make "Reroll: Wound" an USR?)
- multiple weapons that should just be pistols
- excess damage not lost (is this common enough to warrant an USR? I think many armies have just one or two weapons with this.)
- blast
- sweeping (each attack with this weapon make X hit rolls)
- extra attacks with a weapon
- Something that handles "X additional attacks with this weapon and no more than X attacks can be made with this weapon". This is a perfect example for something that would be a lot simpler with a USR, or maybe a new melee weapon type. Many people are struggling to understand these types of weapons that are meant to display mounts/attendants/extra appendages.
- unwieldy (again, do we really need an USR to handle -1 to hit?)
- there are various claws that have AP-4 on rolls of 6, but I think that is too specific for an USR
- everything else makes no sense to turn into an USR.

But yes, I also see at least 6 weapon abilities here, probably more

It's worth noting that daemons haven't received 9th edition's clean-up and are likely to see big changes. Still, almost all of those weapon abilities would be re-usable across multiple other codices, for example DG would mostly be covered by that list as well, with only Get's hot, Melta and possibly barrage (ignore LoS) being added. Afterwards, orks would just add poison and ignore cover. So you already have 3 fairly distinct codices covered with just 11-14 weapon abilities.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 15:29:59


Post by: Slipspace


 Jidmah wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
1. Yes, this is literally the point of a UNIVERSAL special rule.

No, it's not. Having to decide which USR to put in a codex you don't even start to write until in two years is nonsense, no matter how you put it.
This is what lead to garbage USR like missile lock.


The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule. That would include listing what sort of USRs they would need at that point. Then, crucially, you need to stick to that list. This is where GW always fails. We can see it now with the Tau anti-tank weapons being so vastly different to the ones SM or Necrons got. GW are simply incapable of coming up with a design direction for an edition and then sticking with it.

The alternative is to do something like the above, but give yourself the option to add other USRs as needed, through digital rules distribution. You need to have a process that only does this where absolutely necessary though and stop your designers coming up with 5 ways to represent "this unit charges well". Again, GW fails at this in every way possible. For example, if you had a rule that made weapons better at killing tanks there's no need to give Tau a completely different rule just because their Codex comes out 2 years after the base game. All you need is to apply the anti-tank USR. Combined with the possible variations in basic weapon stats that should give you plenty of scope for variation.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 15:54:15


Post by: techsoldaten


 JNAProductions wrote:
Well-done USRs are far better than dozens of bespoke and barely different rules.

GW is bad at rules writing, though.


A game with 40 USRs, where each units could 3, would yield 9800+ combinations.

That's probably sufficient to describe 95%+ of units in 40k. Statlines could do the rest.

I don't know why the rules have to be so complicated, except for profit.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 16:01:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah. GW's problem has always been a lack of vision - or, perhaps, disorganized vision.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 16:03:29


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Jidmah wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
1. Yes, this is literally the point of a UNIVERSAL special rule.

No, it's not. Having to decide which USR to put in a codex you don't even start to write until in two years is nonsense, no matter how you put it.
This is what lead to garbage USR like missile lock.


You are continuing to not comprehend what "UNIVERSAL" means. These are rules that will be used so commonly across so many books that you can, if you are even halfway competent as a game designer, identify them on day 1. If you are adding a rule in one particular codex 2 years down the line, its not really much of a universal rule, is it, as it evidently doesn't apply to anything released in the 2 years prior.

There are plenty of games out there that can and have identified core rules in his manner and have done so quite successfully. USRs (though not necessarily called as such) are basically the bread and butter of game design, they exist across the full breadth and spectrum of the hobby, and I struggle to imagine games which *don't* use them.

Any time you need to look into two books to find out what a unit does, you have failed at rules writing. Many USR are both rare and complex enough to require regular reading. Infiltrate(deploy outside of deployment zone), Scout(pre-game move) or Bodyguard come to mind.
No one needs the BRB to play in 8th or 9th unless there is a rule dispute, which is the one all-upside thing about USRs disappearing.


Disagreed. Intensely. Show me where in your codex "Rapid Fire", "Assault", "Heavy", "Blast", "Invulnerable Save", etc. are defined. Likewise, wheres that CP re-roll or overwatch strategem in your Codex? Go ahead and look. I'll wait. Yet its not an issue, because you know what these rules are and what they mean because you have a whole SECOND rulebook that defines them for you. If you were new to the game and I handed you to a codex and no other rules publication, YOU COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME. Just because you have memorized enough of the rules to play the game without a BRB does not mean that the BRB is not needed. The USRs are simply another page worth of content that you would need to keep in mind. Contrary to your assertion, things like Infilitrate, Scout, and Bodyguard are simple enough that if I mention those rules to anyone who has played the game more than a literal handful of times would know instantly to what I am referring, what they do, and how to use them. I, and other gamers, literally have conversations about these rules without needing to refer to a rulebook on a weekly basis.

4th edition ended 14 years ago, followed by more than 9 years and three editions of having more USR than necessary.
Without knowing 4th too well, I'd argue that even those 22 were too many. I think you barely need that many for 9th, which has more than four times as many units in many more armies to support than 4th did.



Nah, 5th edition also had an appropriate number of USRs. Its 6th/7th that you really had more than necessary, in large part because the "universal" rules stopped being universal. The 22 were mostly an appropriate number, though I would argue there were a few that weren't common enough to warrant inclusion.

If conflicting USR wasn't already bad enough (some conflicts were never specifically addressed by rules), you also had a wild mix of rules which applied to the entire unit while other did not.
Remember those * next to USR in 5th, what they means and which USR had them?


I really don't recall it being that convoluted, but its been about 10 years. I regard 4th, 5th, and 8th as being the only editions of the game that I could actually manage to play competently (and indeed in 5th edition I was a decently high-level competitive player). I really don't think it was as bad as you seem to think

9th edition 40k, without no USRs, is quickly approaching 7th edition levels of unplayability for me - 7th being the worst edition of the game to date, by far.

How about Zealot, Crusader, Missile Lock, Brotherhood of Psykers, And They Shall Know No Fear or Power of the Machine Spirit?


Fair enough, 2-3 of those (BoP, ATSKNF, PoftMS) should never have been USRs. Missile Lock ended up not needing to be because it basically was never used, but it could have been applied more broadly than it was and as such would have made sense as one. Zealot and Crusader popped up in enough places to warrant inclusion (and in at least a couple cases similar/identical rules were used without being referred to by name, because reasons, whcih cheapened the value of the USR by not applying it as a standardized rule).

Except they didn't. There is no point in going in implementing an easy way to change the rules if you just let them rot in without ever touching them.
A broken USR on edition launch was doomed to be broken for at least an entire edition.


Thats a GW problem rather than a USR problem. I.E an issue with implementation rather than the USR itself.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 16:06:18


Post by: Jidmah


Slipspace wrote:
The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule. That would include listing what sort of USRs they would need at that point. Then, crucially, you need to stick to that list. This is where GW always fails.

I'd argue that every company ever will fail at that, not just GW. You are kind of bound to fail with this type of approach as can't possible define everything for such a complex game before you know how things interact.

Even assuming GW would be able to write and release entire edition in one go, you would go back to your basic parameters multiple times to tweak them and then check how that change affects everything you have done so far.

We can see it now with the Tau anti-tank weapons being so vastly different to the ones SM or Necrons got. GW are simply incapable of coming up with a design direction for an edition and then sticking with it.

Is sticking to a bad design decision for an entire edition a good thing though? If they already know that lascannons are worthless this editions, would it have been better to keep giving everyone lascannons than to try to fix single-shot anti-tank?
IMO GW's failure here is not going back to fix lascannons as well.

The alternative is to do something like the above, but give yourself the option to add other USRs as needed, through digital rules distribution. You need to have a process that only does this where absolutely necessary though and stop your designers coming up with 5 ways to represent "this unit charges well". Again, GW fails at this in every way possible.

That's exactly what I wrote in my post?

For example, if you had a rule that made weapons better at killing tanks there's no need to give Tau a completely different rule just because their Codex comes out 2 years after the base game. All you need is to apply the anti-tank USR. Combined with the possible variations in basic weapon stats that should give you plenty of scope for variation.

I'm not sure if I can follow. How is tau anti-tank different from other armies anti-tank? What did I miss?


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 16:12:21


Post by: Backspacehacker


Inherently? nothing.
USR were fine, and 90% of the complaints about them were from people blowing them WAY outta proportions. Were there a lot? yes, but they were not an issue 90% of the time because your armor and your oponants army only used a given amount of them. Its not like every army used every single rule.

GWs biggest issue with them was not that there was a lot of them, it was that they sucked at presenting them. IE you had to dig through your book/codex/FAQ in order to find said rule.

The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.

Going back to an older edition, and just reading the rules, and listing out the USR that your army had in effect and then just taking 3 min before a game to go over your USR with your opponent and bam problem solved.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 16:12:49


Post by: kodos


no plan, decisions on the fly, we can fix it later, not reading their own rules, the individual team members not knowing what the others are working until the book is released etc.

Mezmorki wrote:3rd edition had 0 USRs (but 8 ranged weapon types and 5 special weapon attacks).

4th edition also had all of 22 USR's. Pretty manageable.

Bear in mind too, that in 6th and 7th, they took rules that were part of other sections and moved them all into the USRs. In 3rd-5th edition, rules related to weapon types (template, blast, etc.) were all consolidated in "Special Weapons Characteristics" section (4th had 10) or into "Special Close Combat Attacks" (4th had 10 of these). So that's 42 "USR-like" rules in 4th.

5th is about the same as 4th (22-ish listed USRs and then weapon and melee types).

6th edition had 79 USR's (I just did a quick count).

7th edition had 87 (gawd, I counted that too)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3rd Ed didn't really do USRs though. I believe that, towards the end, there were 4 different versions of True Grit (Death Guard, Grey Knights, Space Wolves and one one other).

which is exactly my point, GW had USRs in their book, but during the Edition they needed more special rules to make the different units more special but had not the discipline (or capability) to use the same rules with the same name when writing a new Codex

True Grit is a nice example, different versions in the Codex, became a USR in 4th, was not used with the new Codex released in 4th but instead a new special rule that was similar was used, removed in 5th because no one used it anyway, and SW got their own special rules for units in 7th to compensate


to get this right, they would need to think about what Special Rules would be needed in advance when writing the rule book, and than stick to those when writing the faction books
but GW does neither, they have no clue what the different faction will look like or need when writing the core, but also do not care what was written in the past and just add all new things

and they even were able to mess this up with a minimum core without any special rules that was made specially to suit their kind of rules design


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 16:22:57


Post by: A.T.


 Backspacehacker wrote:
The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.
Slow and Purposeful was a combo-rule, relentless + slow movement.

In 5th the only two redundant rules were swarms (stealth and vulnerable to blasts), and turbo-boosters (never actually included in a 5e statblock IIRC, it was part of the bike rules). They were probably included for legacy compatability with the 3e and 4e books and GW did clear out some others to keep the number down.

The slow update rate of 3e-5e did make USRs problematic to change though. It led to such fun as the suicidal tau ethereals (particularly at the start of 6th where they were hurling themselves off buildings) because a USR for 3+ to hit in combat had changed to reroll 1s for ranged and shooting without any other errata or update for older factions.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 16:29:14


Post by: Backspacehacker


A.T. wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.
Slow and Purposeful was a combo-rule, relentless + slow movement.

In 5th the only two redundant rules were swarms (stealth and vulnerable to blasts), and turbo-boosters (never actually included in a 5e statblock IIRC, it was part of the bike rules). They were probably included for legacy compatability with the 3e and 4e books and GW did clear out some others to keep the number down.

The slow update rate of 3e-5e did make USRs problematic to change though. It led to such fun as the suicidal tau ethereals (particularly at the start of 6th where they were hurling themselves off buildings) because a USR for 3+ to hit in combat had changed to reroll 1s for ranged and shooting without any other errata or update for older factions.


I understand that slow and purposful also came with the movement penalty but in the grand scheme of things, it really did not need to exist, any unit with slow and purposefully could have just taken relentless and it would have been just as fine rule wise.

But yes slow updates did not help at all. I still stand by the fact though, USR really were not as bad as people made them out to be, it was mostly people just not willing to remember a rule. Its like complaining about the to hit chart for melee, or the to wound chart from past editions it was not hard to memorize once you understood it.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 16:55:02


Post by: Jidmah


chaos0xomega wrote:
You are continuing to not comprehend what "UNIVERSAL" means. These are rules that will be used so commonly across so many books that you can, if you are even halfway competent as a game designer, identify them on day 1. If you are adding a rule in one particular codex 2 years down the line, its not really much of a universal rule, is it, as it evidently doesn't apply to anything released in the 2 years prior.

I think you are missing my point. I'm talking about what GW did with USR in past editions. With what GW defined as USR.

We also are painfully aware of how little foresight GW has. There also plenty of rules which see rare use in some armies, but are frequently used by others. GW could easily write 6 codices without hitting an obvious USR that could be shared across multiple factions.

There are plenty of games out there that can and have identified core rules in his manner and have done so quite successfully. USRs (though not necessarily called as such) are basically the bread and butter of game design, they exist across the full breadth and spectrum of the hobby, and I struggle to imagine games which *don't* use them.

All games I know which use constructs like that, frequently update and add to that list, at least during the development process. Exactly 0 put them in print and never touch them again before they start.

Disagreed. Intensely. Show me where in your codex "Rapid Fire", "Assault", "Heavy", "Blast", "Invulnerable Save", etc. are defined. Likewise, wheres that CP re-roll or overwatch strategem in your Codex? Go ahead and look. I'll wait. Yet its not an issue, because you know what these rules are and what they mean because you have a whole SECOND rulebook that defines them for you. If you were new to the game and I handed you to a codex and no other rules publication, YOU COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME. Just because you have memorized enough of the rules to play the game without a BRB does not mean that the BRB is not needed. The USRs are simply another page worth of content that you would need to keep in mind. Contrary to your assertion, things like Infilitrate, Scout, and Bodyguard are simple enough that if I mention those rules to anyone who has played the game more than a literal handful of times would know instantly to what I am referring, what they do, and how to use them. I, and other gamers, literally have conversations about these rules without needing to refer to a rulebook on a weekly basis.

Knowing what something roughly is and playing the game are two different things. Many people also just play once or twice a month, some armies don't have certain USR. People just don't know how Bodyguard works exactly (do they protect characters standing in front them? below 3 models? vehicles?), if they don't use units with that ability regularly, people don't know when to exactly do their pre-game move and what stratagems can be used when they do and how it interacts with the enemy also doing pre-game moves from the top of their head.
In contrast, most of the examples that people do know are simple one-liners without any complexity. Except CP re-roll which actually gets looked up A LOT in my group since 9th, because no one can remember what it applies to. Luckily it's in every data card deck.

And in the end, it doesn't even matter. What is the harm of putting the rules onto the datasheet anyways? It's important that they are unified, not that they are just printed once.

Nah, 5th edition also had an appropriate number of USRs. Its 6th/7th that you really had more than necessary, in large part because the "universal" rules stopped being universal. The 22 were mostly an appropriate number, though I would argue there were a few that weren't common enough to warrant inclusion.

I think we can agree on that.

I really don't recall it being that convoluted, but its been about 10 years. I regard 4th, 5th, and 8th as being the only editions of the game that I could actually manage to play competently (and indeed in 5th edition I was a decently high-level competitive player). I really don't think it was as bad as you seem to think

The first few thousand posts in this account were made in YMDC during 5th, 6th and 7th, feel free to check. IC joining and leaving units was for sure one of the hottest topics during all those editions.
But since IC are luckily no longer a part of the game, we really don't need to fight about this - they are no longer an obstacle for implementing USR properly.

9th edition 40k, without no USRs, is quickly approaching 7th edition levels of unplayability for me - 7th being the worst edition of the game to date, by far.

To be fair, introducing USR would not change a whole lot about that. 9th problems lie with the stratagem bloat and ten layers of rules applying to everyone and their dog.

Thats a GW problem rather than a USR problem. I.E an issue with implementation rather than the USR itself.

Yeah, see above. I was talking about the problems with how GW did USR. The second half of my post addressed how to do it better.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 17:15:35


Post by: Backspacehacker


SO ill add this though, if i had to pick between USR, and stratagems, i would take USR in a heart beat.

USR were a blanket thing and i could access i would say almost all of the USR if i had the core rulebook. Stratagems i have literally zero way to find out what my opponent has, or what their unit can do unless i specifically know what stratagem they have/can use.

9Th end i feel there is WAY more things that are, Gotcha, rules rather then 7th.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 17:15:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Backspacehacker wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.
Slow and Purposeful was a combo-rule, relentless + slow movement.

In 5th the only two redundant rules were swarms (stealth and vulnerable to blasts), and turbo-boosters (never actually included in a 5e statblock IIRC, it was part of the bike rules). They were probably included for legacy compatability with the 3e and 4e books and GW did clear out some others to keep the number down.

The slow update rate of 3e-5e did make USRs problematic to change though. It led to such fun as the suicidal tau ethereals (particularly at the start of 6th where they were hurling themselves off buildings) because a USR for 3+ to hit in combat had changed to reroll 1s for ranged and shooting without any other errata or update for older factions.


I understand that slow and purposful also came with the movement penalty but in the grand scheme of things, it really did not need to exist, any unit with slow and purposefully could have just taken relentless and it would have been just as fine rule wise.

But yes slow updates did not help at all. I still stand by the fact though, USR really were not as bad as people made them out to be, it was mostly people just not willing to remember a rule. Its like complaining about the to hit chart for melee, or the to wound chart from past editions it was not hard to memorize once you understood it.


I mean, in HH the Slow and Purposeful rule DOES exist alongside relentless, and they're very different. In fact:

Cataphractii Armor: Slow and Purposeful (doesn't count as moving when firing, cannot run, cannot sweeping advance, cannot fire overwatch. All of these are Slow and Purposeful consequences)
Indomitus Armor: Relentless and cannot sweeping advance. (Can still fire overwatch, can still run)
Tartaros Armor: Relentless (no drawbacks)


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 17:21:47


Post by: Backspacehacker


Yes, im not saying they dont/cant exist along side each other, i just perosnally thing they should not. If anything it should all be relentless and then if the model can not sweeping advance just say, this model/unit can not sweeping advance. No sense in making another rule specifically jsut to convey that.

I see it as, there are going to be much fewer instances where slow and purposeful is used when it would be one less rule by saying, all three of those terminators get relentless then specifically on the Cataphractii unit entry, "This unit can not make sweeping advances."

That way, rather then having a USR that specifically says it cant do x. Just have one USR and single out the unit.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 17:36:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Yes, im not saying they dont/cant exist along side each other, i just perosnally thing they should not. If anything it should all be relentless and then if the model can not sweeping advance just say, this model/unit can not sweeping advance. No sense in making another rule specifically jsut to convey that.

I see it as, there are going to be much fewer instances where slow and purposeful is used when it would be one less rule by saying, all three of those terminators get relentless then specifically on the Cataphractii unit entry, "This unit can not make sweeping advances."

That way, rather then having a USR that specifically says it cant do x. Just have one USR and single out the unit.


Well, yes, but if you found yourself with a third to two thirds of the game having that rule, then maybe it'd be better to name "Can Not Sweeping Advance" something else.

But in general I agree. Just wanted to point out they weren't identical nor were they abstracting the same phenomenon.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 18:00:00


Post by: Matt.Kingsley


I'd also point out that S&P'a effects were determined on a unit-wide basis and not a per-model basis. If 1 model had S&P, every model could move and shoot as if stationary. Relentless only benefited the model with it.

Zealot was similar in that regard - Hatred only applied on a per-model basis while Zealot's re-rolls were unit-wide. Still not a fantastic USR to have given the other half (fearless) was unit-wide and that the entry literally just directed you to Fearless and Hatred instead of also explaining what it did in of itself, but at least it was slightly different that just putting Fearless and Hatred on the model's entry. Probably should have just been handed by giving the few Zealot units (all of which where Chaplain-equivalent characters iirc) a bespoke rule that gave everyone Hatred though instead of dedicating an anemic USR to it.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 18:01:56


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Jidmah wrote:

People just don't know how Bodyguard works exactly (do they protect characters standing in front them? below 3 models? vehicles?)


The biggest issue with the Bodyguard rule is that there are at least 3 different versions of the rule, each with slightly different text, in circulation in the game right now. Because GW didn't make it a USR and allowed it to be subjected to inconsistent rules writing which creates weird corner case scenarios for some but not for others.

And in the end, it doesn't even matter. What is the harm of putting the rules onto the datasheet anyways? It's important that they are unified, not that they are just printed once.


See above about the Bodyguard rule for an example of what happens when you don't standardize and instead distribute the rule everywhere. If its just written in one place, you only need to faq/errata it in one place. If you reprint the text of the rule in every codex and on every datasheet it applies to, you now need to faq/errata *every* codex and every datasheet in order to maintain consistency, otherwise the structure of the GW rules construct fails as a result of RAW leading to the assumption that an unedited rule is left as such intentionally. On top of that, its a UX and UI issue to overload a player with too much information on a datasheet - a short list of 3-5 USR keywords + 1-2 bespoke special rules is a much more effective way of communication than providing the text in full for all 4-6 rules every time it reoccurs and threreby creating a cluttered mess of text that the player needs to sort through and parse to find what they are looking for. The whole point of a USR is its a rule so commonly encountered that you will know it intrinsically from a combination of its simplicity and your own gameplay experience. If you don't need a rules reference for Rapid Fire, you shouldn't need a rules reference for a common ability present across most factions in the game that grants +1 attack on the charge or something to that effect, and seeing it repeated constantly on every datasheet quickly becomes a nuisance for players.

If you want an example of a game where (almost) all the rules are reprinted in full on every stat card, look to Warmachine/Hordes. For the most part its fine, but every once in a while you encounter a stat card that basically illegible as a result of them reprinting the text of so many different standardized rules on the card which makes it a problem for players to find and identify the important parts that may be more unusual/unique to that unit. Even then, Warmachine/PP still has a handful of rules which they have simplified down to *symbols* which they don't reprint the text of because they are so common and it would take up too much space. Things like pathfinder, magic weapon, construct, jack marshal, eyeless sight, reach, etc. which are only defined in the core rulebook, because they are considered core elements of the gameplay experience which all mechanical interactions in the game are essentially built around.

To be fair, introducing USR would not change a whole lot about that. 9th problems lie with the stratagem bloat and ten layers of rules applying to everyone and their dog.


This is true, at this point even the best USR system wouldn't be able to fix the huge bloated mess of multi-layered rules that the edition is becoming unless strategems and superdoctrines (especially AdMech/Custodes/Necron style ones that change every edition) were eliminated.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
SO ill add this though, if i had to pick between USR, and stratagems, i would take USR in a heart beat.
USR were a blanket thing and i could access i would say almost all of the USR if i had the core rulebook. Stratagems i have literally zero way to find out what my opponent has, or what their unit can do unless i specifically know what stratagem they have/can use.
9Th end i feel there is WAY more things that are, Gotcha, rules rather then 7th.


Absolutely this.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.
Slow and Purposeful was a combo-rule, relentless + slow movement.
In 5th the only two redundant rules were swarms (stealth and vulnerable to blasts), and turbo-boosters (never actually included in a 5e statblock IIRC, it was part of the bike rules). They were probably included for legacy compatability with the 3e and 4e books and GW did clear out some others to keep the number down.
The slow update rate of 3e-5e did make USRs problematic to change though. It led to such fun as the suicidal tau ethereals (particularly at the start of 6th where they were hurling themselves off buildings) because a USR for 3+ to hit in combat had changed to reroll 1s for ranged and shooting without any other errata or update for older factions.

I understand that slow and purposful also came with the movement penalty but in the grand scheme of things, it really did not need to exist, any unit with slow and purposefully could have just taken relentless and it would have been just as fine rule wise.
But yes slow updates did not help at all. I still stand by the fact though, USR really were not as bad as people made them out to be, it was mostly people just not willing to remember a rule. Its like complaining about the to hit chart for melee, or the to wound chart from past editions it was not hard to memorize once you understood it.

I mean, in HH the Slow and Purposeful rule DOES exist alongside relentless, and they're very different. In fact:
Cataphractii Armor: Slow and Purposeful (doesn't count as moving when firing, cannot run, cannot sweeping advance, cannot fire overwatch. All of these are Slow and Purposeful consequences)
Indomitus Armor: Relentless and cannot sweeping advance. (Can still fire overwatch, can still run)
Tartaros Armor: Relentless (no drawbacks)


I would argue that this is poor implementation of USRs. What it should be is:

Cataphracti Armor: Relentless (doesn't count as moving when firing), Slow (can't run), Purposeful (can't sweeping advance), Measured (can't overwatch)
Indomitus Armor: Relentless, Purposeful
Tartaros Armor: Relentless

Slow & Purposeful creates confusion because it nests the effects of others rules within it, which on its own is fine but causes confusion for the players when the nested rules pop up independently, particularly named USRs like "relentless" which newer players often confuse with slow and purposeful, etc. The fact that things like "Slow", "Purposeful", and "Measured" don't exist as stand-alone/defined terms also means you need to write out a full sentence to explain these effects every time you want to use them, even though they are all fairly common rules both within the context of Slow & Purposeful as well as standalone rules. And then you run into the few situations (I don't know about 30k but I remember it being a thing in 40k), where a unit has "Slow & Purposeful" but then has a separate rule in order to restore access to one of the provisions that S&P took away, i.e. the unit has Slow & Purposeful + another rule that allows them to overwatch even though S&P would normally prevent it.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 19:04:08


Post by: Togusa


 Dysartes wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
Here is my gripe with USRs from 40K 7th edition.

There were three, entirely different rules in the game with the name "Crack Shot." God that was annoying.

Fair enough that that is a gripe - but how is that a problem with USRs, when there doesn't appear to be a "Crack Shot" USR in 7th (going by the mini-rulebook, at least)?

That reads more as a problem of "bad rule name management" by the Studio.


It existed in the unit profiles for Cadian Tank Commanders, Eldar Fire Dragons and one of the Space Marine Characters. I'm not too sure but there might have been a fourth instance of the rule existing for one of the sniper units from a codex I cannot remember. Each rule had the same name, but a completely different effect. While it might not have been a USR in the BRB, it was obviously intended to be a USR in various codexes. It was absolutely bad rule management, which is my point because there were other instances of this. USR seemed to be created and thrown around on a whim with no thought or care to the consequences.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 21:37:53


Post by: Jidmah


chaos0xomega wrote:
The biggest issue with the Bodyguard rule is that there are at least 3 different versions of the rule, each with slightly different text, in circulation in the game right now. Because GW didn't make it a USR and allowed it to be subjected to inconsistent rules writing which creates weird corner case scenarios for some but not for others.

Well, at least 9th edition codices so far all have the same wording.

See above about the Bodyguard rule for an example of what happens when you don't standardize and instead distribute the rule everywhere. If its just written in one place, you only need to faq/errata it in one place. If you reprint the text of the rule in every codex and on every datasheet it applies to, you now need to faq/errata *every* codex and every datasheet in order to maintain consistency, otherwise the structure of the GW rules construct fails as a result of RAW leading to the assumption that an unedited rule is left as such intentionally.

You can easily define reminder text to not be rules. That's how other games do it.

On top of that, its a UX and UI issue to overload a player with too much information on a datasheet - a short list of 3-5 USR keywords + 1-2 bespoke special rules is a much more effective way of communication than providing the text in full for all 4-6 rules every time it reoccurs and threreby creating a cluttered mess of text that the player needs to sort through and parse to find what they are looking for.

Sorry, but first of all that information overload thing is nonsense, because the alternative is to have the player memorize everything or check both a book and errata in case they don't.
It's also quite likely that the majority of USR will not change at all, and if they do, will only change to clarify edge cases. The reminder text will remain valid in most cases unless an USR causes a game-wide problem.

The whole point of a USR is its a rule so commonly encountered that you will know it intrinsically from a combination of its simplicity and your own gameplay experience. If you don't need a rules reference for Rapid Fire, you shouldn't need a rules reference for a common ability present across most factions in the game that grants +1 attack on the charge or something to that effect, and seeing it repeated constantly on every datasheet quickly becomes a nuisance for players.

Why do you need an USR for +1 attack in the charge to begin with? Unless it's +1 to attack when having charged, being charged or performing a heroic intervention, at which point it's good to remind people that it also works for heroic intervention.

If you want an example of a game where (almost) all the rules are reprinted in full on every stat card, look to Warmachine/Hordes. For the most part its fine, but every once in a while you encounter a stat card that basically illegible as a result of them reprinting the text of so many different standardized rules on the card which makes it a problem for players to find and identify the important parts that may be more unusual/unique to that unit. Even then, Warmachine/PP still has a handful of rules which they have simplified down to *symbols* which they don't reprint the text of because they are so common and it would take up too much space. Things like pathfinder, magic weapon, construct, jack marshal, eyeless sight, reach, etc. which are only defined in the core rulebook, because they are considered core elements of the gameplay experience which all mechanical interactions in the game are essentially built around.

Defined terms are not USR, and this is moving towards towards the false dilemma fallacy. Core rules are not universal special rules, full stop. Not a single USR will ever be as common as rapid fire or any of the other rules you are using as false analogies. Every player needs to know what rapid fire or heavy does, because it's a simple rule and will be part of almost every game played.
Any time a player has a reasonable interest in a reminder about what an USR does, he should find that reminder on his datasheet.

People (including you, from what I can tell from your posts) already find it difficult to keep track of all the keyworded army rules applying to their marines, and you expect those to immediately grasp what "Relentless, Slow, Purposeful, Measured, Deep Strike, Bolter Drill, And They Shall Know No Fear, Shock Assault, Combat Doctrines, Combat Squad" is without any explanation on the datasheet?


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 21:41:35


Post by: kodos


heavy and rapid fire are special rules


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 21:55:53


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah. Of the Weapon Qualities I mentioned in 4th, Rapid Fire and Heavy are among them.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 21:59:57


Post by: H.B.M.C.


As someone who wrote the armouries for 8 or so books in the 40k RPG line, I can tell you that USRs are exactly as people are describing them here, and generally the books that added more of them rather than having them all at the start (be they weapon traits, actual traits) were done for older games that didn't include the ones that were invented for later books. They should be used to encompass as much as possible from the start, and aren't something that should be 'living'.

Slipspace wrote:
The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule.
Precicely. "Living" USRs defeats the purpose of USRs.



(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/19 22:53:29


Post by: chaos0xomega


Somehow I don't think Jidmah will care about your professional opinion, consodering hes spent the entire thread arguing against pretty well established game design best practices.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 01:24:46


Post by: JohnHwangDD


chaos0xomega wrote:
Somehow I don't think Jidmah will care about your professional opinion, consodering hes spent the entire thread arguing against pretty well established game design best practices.


QFT. Maybe he's actually a GW Designer? LOL


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 01:43:19


Post by: Backspacehacker


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As someone who wrote the armouries for 8 or so books in the 40k RPG line, I can tell you that USRs are exactly as people are describing them here, and generally the books that added more of them rather than having them all at the start (be they weapon traits, actual traits) were done for older games that didn't include the ones that were invented for later books. They should be used to encompass as much as possible from the start, and aren't something that should be 'living'.

Slipspace wrote:
The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule.
Precicely. "Living" USRs defeats the purpose of USRs.



QFT here, some how GWs "living rule set" which started off as a great idea, is turning into a living monstrosity that is boarding upon being an abomination.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 07:05:44


Post by: Jidmah


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As someone who wrote the armouries for 8 or so books in the 40k RPG line, I can tell you that USRs are exactly as people are describing them here, and generally the books that added more of them rather than having them all at the start (be they weapon traits, actual traits) were done for older games that didn't include the ones that were invented for later books. They should be used to encompass as much as possible from the start, and aren't something that should be 'living'.


But doesn't that mean that you did add to the list of USR over the course of the design process and that you didn't have everything in place right from the start?

What about USR that simply didn't work as intended, did you keep the around as they were forever or did you update them?


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 09:08:03


Post by: Slipspace


 Jidmah wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule. That would include listing what sort of USRs they would need at that point. Then, crucially, you need to stick to that list. This is where GW always fails.

I'd argue that every company ever will fail at that, not just GW. You are kind of bound to fail with this type of approach as can't possible define everything for such a complex game before you know how things interact.


That's so monumentally wrong I'm beginning to wonder if you are a GW game designer in disguise. There's absolutely no reason why a designer can't sit down and figure out the scope and scale of their game, then come up with a bunch of principles to abide by, followed by a set of useful USRs that all armies can use. In practice this usually ends up being easier in a second edition of a game but there's no reason it can't apply to a brand new game too. One of the key reasons is it makes balance easier because you've restricted the available parameters for setting up your units. If you have a bunch of USRs you can make sure they're pretty well balanced before starting to write the rules for individual armies, which can save a lot of time later on.

The point is you need to both do the work before writing any rules and have the discipline to stick to your design for the duration of that edition. Take anti-tank as an example. Maybe Lascannons and other D6 damage weapons are bad (I would argue they are). The problem with GW is they either didn't sit down before writing the Necron and SM Codices and really think about how they wanted AT guns to work this edition, leading to underwhelming Lascannons and Doomsday weapons. Or they half-assed it and lazily copy-pasted even though they knew a Codex coming out in the next few months would feature D3+3 damage as a baseline for AT weapons. There's absolutely no reason GW couldn't have foreseen this problem before releasing 9th edition and adjusted AT weapons accordingly. All it takes is a decision to make AT minimum D3+3 and maybe have a heavier class of AT weapons that are, say, flat damage 5 or 6 and then stick to it. No excuses about certain guns being so much more deadly, or some races being more technologically advanced - just a single principle that puts everyone on a level playing field. I'd argue you need to do this anyway since you need to know what your AT weapons can do in order to properly design your vehicles and monsters.

The same approach applies to USRs. You figure out what rules you need and you create an appropriate USR to apply in those cases. So units that are better on the charge have a USR that can apply to them. Stealthy units get a USR that applies, whether they're super-sneaky Eldar, ethereal Daemons, or SM painted black. GW's problem is they always have to come up with some stupid excuse why this unit in particular is just so much sneakier than the rest even when there's no real reason for it.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 10:05:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Long post ahead...

 Jidmah wrote:
But doesn't that mean that you did add to the list of USR over the course of the design process and that you didn't have everything in place right from the start?
There are always going to be things that weren't thought of at the start, but the intent was to create systems that were as flexible and scalable as possible so that later additions weren't necessary unless appropriate.

For instance, I wrote the vehicle rules with a whole new set of universal vehicle traits that were designed to cover everything from Baneblades, to Deff Dreadz to Dark Eldar Venoms. So you make as many rules as you can think would cover those situations, work out what's redundant (or what works better as a scaling rule), and go from there. When you come across something that isn't universal (say a Banewolf doesn't explode in the same way other tanks do, given that it's full of toxic gas/chemicals rather than stuff that just goes BOOM), that's when you deviate from the universal rules and create a special rule. But even then, you use other existing universal rules as much as possible rather than inventing new rules wholesale. So, with that Banewolf example, people nearby don't test to catch fire, but rather use the standard rules for Toxic weapons (which are (X), and scalable within the rules).

One thing I want to make very clear is that you can't account for everything, so there are always going to be instances where something comes up later that, in hindsight, seems obvious and suddenly becomes part of every expansion going forward. A good example of that was something I didn't specifically write, but did end up using quite a bit, the 'Razor Sharp' weapon universal rule (of Weapon Qualities as they were called). That basically meant that if you got a really good hit, the penetration of the weapon doubled. That rule didn't come about in the original Dark Heresy, and was added to Rogue Trader in supplements (including one hilarious example where their Bestiary book had the rule, but didn't give it to any of the monsters - not even the Razorwing Flock, where it made the most sense! - until I pointed this out and they changed a bunch of the profiles! ).

So having to add things in later on isn't a failing of USRs either as a concept or not even necessarily in execution. It's just part of the process of development, and should never be seen as a case of abandoning USRs because "Well, you're just going to add to them anyway, so why bother?" or the concept of "living" USRs, which would defeat the USRs.

Which brings me to your second question...

 Jidmah wrote:
What about USR that simply didn't work as intended, did you keep the around as they were forever or did you update them?
Generally things would only be updated if they were functionally broken. What happened more though was iterative change.

The 40k RPGs have several sets of 'universal' rules:

1. Skills - things you test against to perform actions (search, deception, etc.).
2. Talents - Rules that give you abilities or enhance certain actions you can take (lightning attack, catfall, demagogue).
3. Traits - Inherent abilities either born of natural (or unnatural) biology, racial traits, etc. (daemonic, quadruped, winged).
4. Weapon Qualities - The things that give the various special nature to weapons (overcharge, overheat, reliable, gyro-stabilised).

And other variations stemmed from those (for instance my Only War vehicle and living mount rules, and my Black Crusade Bike rules, all had rules that were similar to the inherent 'Traits' above, imaginatively called 'Vehicle Traits' ).

... and all of these items above were pretty much set in stone from when they were written. But they were iterated upon as each game progressed, either to add granularity, add scalability, or to fix imbalances that came up as the games were played (imbalances potentially caused by a lack of granularity and/or scalability).

I'll give two examples.

An example of scalability comes a trait that Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch all had called 'Unnatural Characteristic' (we'll use Toughness as the example characteristic here). This was a multiplier of that characteristic, starting with x2. So if you have a Toughness Bonus of 4, this ability would make it 8. This was a big leap, as suddenly your reduction/sink for incoming damage jumped from 4 to 8 (plus any armour/cover). Two levels of Unnatural Toughness? Well now it's 12. It was a rule that scaled very highly, and in Deathwatch especially you could get exceptionally tough Marines (A T6 Iron Hands Marine would have a natural sink of 12 before you even got to his armour). It was also a difficult rule to give to NPCs, as you could have some very tough creatures out there, and this all or nothing multiplication limited what you could do without unbalancing things.

When Black Crusade came along, the Trait was changed from a multiplication to an addition, so Unnatural Toughness x2 became Unnatural Toughness +4. Suddenly it was far more granular, as you could literally tailor it to any figure you wanted by changing the +X figure. Marines got to keep their inherent average Toughness Bonus of 8 to show how beefy they were compared to squishy humans (who usually had a Toughness Bonus of 3 or 4 for the lucky ones), but it also meant that when a Marine player got their toughness characteristic up from 40-something to 50-something they didn't jump from Toughness Bonus 8 to 10. It was always +4, unless they found some way to add to it (usually something Nurgle-related! ).

An example of changes to USRs for the purpose of granularity is flame weaponry. In Dark Heresy, the 'Flame' weapon quality meant that it fired at an area within a cone, didn't roll to hit, and could cause people to set on fire. But what if you were using a weapon that sent out a cloud/spray of 'stuff', but it wasn't necessarily fire? Well now you've got to write exceptions to your universal rule every time that comes up. This stayed this way for a while, until the 4th game, Black Crusade, came about. Now where there was one rule, there was two: Flame and Spray. Flame set you on fire. Spray covered the rest. Now a weapon could have the same firing method as a flamer, but didn't need to have an exception written every time as to why it was't setting you on fire.

And then, when the second edition of Dark Heresy came about, both the above examples of change were included in their core rules, along with other rules that had become standard along the way (like Razor Sharp). Meanwhile errata was used to fix mistakes, rather than change the balance of things GW-style.

Slipspace wrote:
That's so monumentally wrong I'm beginning to wonder if you are a GW game designer in disguise. There's absolutely no reason why a designer can't sit down and figure out the scope and scale of their game, then come up with a bunch of principles to abide by, followed by a set of useful USRs that all armies can use.
This is precicely the methodology I followed when I wrote the 40k RPG vehicle rules. For instance, at their most basic, the different types of weapon mounting. I defined:

1. Fixed.
2. Hull-mounted.
3. Turret.
4. Sponson.
5. Co-Axial.
6. Pintle.

... right at the start, before I even wrote a single Leman Russ or Sentinel profile. I wanted to make sure that every weapon on every vehicle fit with the above basic 6 mounting types. So a Basilisk has a Fixed Earthshaker Cannon, but a Hull-Mounted Heavy Bolter, where as a Dark Eldar Venom has both a Fixed Splinter Cannon* and a Pintle-Mounted Splinter Cannon. And I wrote it to allow for things that don't fit into this scheme, like walkers. They're none of the above, really, as they can have weapons in various places, so walkers weapons are just treated as having a front-facing sponson as it's the easiest way to represent that without the need for additional special rules (or worse, per-walker special rules).

*One could make the argument that it could be Hull-Mounted, but you get the idea.




(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 10:18:45


Post by: Jidmah


Quick edit: This is not in response to you H.B.M.C., thanks for your response, will read it later.

If GW would write a good book for every uncalled for ad hominem attack in this thread, they would have written a perfect game.

There is overwhelming evidence that "write perfect USR first and foresee how everything works out for the next three years of an edition" is not a viable approach for Warhammer 40k.

At some point you need to accept that iterative processes are superior to "just get it right the first time" - which is also an accepted standard, across all kinds of industries.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 10:29:07


Post by: wuestenfux


Basing every army on USR was actually a good idea.
GW could have provided a handout of the USR in form of a worksheet for free, but they didn't.
Now players face the problem of separate special rules for each army which is certainly bad.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 11:01:49


Post by: Jidmah


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Long post ahead...

Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
But doesn't that mean that you did add to the list of USR over the course of the design process and that you didn't have everything in place right from the start?
There are always going to be things that weren't thought of at the start, but the intent was to create systems that were as flexible and scalable as possible so that later additions weren't necessary unless appropriate.

For instance, I wrote the vehicle rules with a whole new set of universal vehicle traits that were designed to cover everything from Baneblades, to Deff Dreadz to Dark Eldar Venoms. So you make as many rules as you can think would cover those situations, work out what's redundant (or what works better as a scaling rule), and go from there. When you come across something that isn't universal (say a Banewolf doesn't explode in the same way other tanks do, given that it's full of toxic gas/chemicals rather than stuff that just goes BOOM), that's when you deviate from the universal rules and create a special rule. But even then, you use other existing universal rules as much as possible rather than inventing new rules wholesale. So, with that Banewolf example, people nearby don't test to catch fire, but rather use the standard rules for Toxic weapons (which are (X), and scalable within the rules).

One thing I want to make very clear is that you can't account for everything, so there are always going to be instances where something comes up later that, in hindsight, seems obvious and suddenly becomes part of every expansion going forward. A good example of that was something I didn't specifically write, but did end up using quite a bit, the 'Razor Sharp' weapon universal rule (of Weapon Qualities as they were called). That basically meant that if you got a really good hit, the penetration of the weapon doubled. That rule didn't come about in the original Dark Heresy, and was added to Rogue Trader in supplements (including one hilarious example where their Bestiary book had the rule, but didn't give it to any of the monsters - not even the Razorwing Flock, where it made the most sense! - until I pointed this out and they changed a bunch of the profiles! ).

So having to add things in later on isn't a failing of USRs either as a concept or not even necessarily in execution. It's just part of the process of development, and should never be seen as a case of abandoning USRs because "Well, you're just going to add to them anyway, so why bother?" or the concept of "living" USRs, which would defeat the USRs.

Which brings me to your second question...

 Jidmah wrote:
What about USR that simply didn't work as intended, did you keep the around as they were forever or did you update them?
Generally things would only be updated if they were functionally broken. What happened more though was iterative change.

The 40k RPGs have several sets of 'universal' rules:

1. Skills - things you test against to perform actions (search, deception, etc.).
2. Talents - Rules that give you abilities or enhance certain actions you can take (lightning attack, catfall, demagogue).
3. Traits - Inherent abilities either born of natural (or unnatural) biology, racial traits, etc. (daemonic, quadruped, winged).
4. Weapon Qualities - The things that give the various special nature to weapons (overcharge, overheat, reliable, gyro-stabilised).

And other variations stemmed from those (for instance my Only War vehicle and living mount rules, and my Black Crusade Bike rules, all had rules that were similar to the inherent 'Traits' above, imaginatively called 'Vehicle Traits' ).

... and all of these items above were pretty much set in stone from when they were written. But they were iterated upon as each game progressed, either to add granularity, add scalability, or to fix imbalances that came up as the games were played (imbalances potentially caused by a lack of granularity and/or scalability).

I'll give two examples.

An example of scalability comes a trait that Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch all had called 'Unnatural Characteristic' (we'll use Toughness as the example characteristic here). This was a multiplier of that characteristic, starting with x2. So if you have a Toughness Bonus of 4, this ability would make it 8. This was a big leap, as suddenly your reduction/sink for incoming damage jumped from 4 to 8 (plus any armour/cover). Two levels of Unnatural Toughness? Well now it's 12. It was a rule that scaled very highly, and in Deathwatch especially you could get exceptionally tough Marines (A T6 Iron Hands Marine would have a natural sink of 12 before you even got to his armour). It was also a difficult rule to give to NPCs, as you could have some very tough creatures out there, and this all or nothing multiplication limited what you could do without unbalancing things.

When Black Crusade came along, the Trait was changed from a multiplication to an addition, so Unnatural Toughness x2 became Unnatural Toughness +4. Suddenly it was far more granular, as you could literally tailor it to any figure you wanted by changing the +X figure. Marines got to keep their inherent average Toughness Bonus of 8 to show how beefy they were compared to squishy humans (who usually had a Toughness Bonus of 3 or 4 for the lucky ones), but it also meant that when a Marine player got their toughness characteristic up from 40-something to 50-something they didn't jump from Toughness Bonus 8 to 10. It was always +4, unless they found some way to add to it (usually something Nurgle-related! ).

An example of changes to USRs for the purpose of granularity is flame weaponry. In Dark Heresy, the 'Flame' weapon quality meant that it fired at an area within a cone, didn't roll to hit, and could cause people to set on fire. But what if you were using a weapon that sent out a cloud/spray of 'stuff', but it wasn't necessarily fire? Well now you've got to write exceptions to your universal rule every time that comes up. This stayed this way for a while, until the 4th game, Black Crusade, came about. Now where there was one rule, there was two: Flame and Spray. Flame set you on fire. Spray covered the rest. Now a weapon could have the same firing method as a flamer, but didn't need to have an exception written every time as to why it was't setting you on fire.

And then, when the second edition of Dark Heresy came about, both the above examples of change were included in their core rules, along with other rules that had become standard along the way (like Razor Sharp). Meanwhile errata was used to fix mistakes, rather than change the balance of things GW-style.

Slipspace wrote:
That's so monumentally wrong I'm beginning to wonder if you are a GW game designer in disguise. There's absolutely no reason why a designer can't sit down and figure out the scope and scale of their game, then come up with a bunch of principles to abide by, followed by a set of useful USRs that all armies can use.
This is precicely the methodology I followed when I wrote the 40k RPG vehicle rules. For instance, at their most basic, the different types of weapon mounting. I defined:

1. Fixed.
2. Hull-mounted.
3. Turret.
4. Sponson.
5. Co-Axial.
6. Pintle.

... right at the start, before I even wrote a single Leman Russ or Sentinel profile. I wanted to make sure that every weapon on every vehicle fit with the above basic 6 mounting types. So a Basilisk has a Fixed Earthshaker Cannon, but a Hull-Mounted Heavy Bolter, where as a Dark Eldar Venom has both a Fixed Splinter Cannon* and a Pintle-Mounted Splinter Cannon. And I wrote it to allow for things that don't fit into this scheme, like walkers. They're none of the above, really, as they can have weapons in various places, so walkers weapons are just treated as having a front-facing sponson as it's the easiest way to represent that without the need for additional special rules (or worse, per-walker special rules).

*One could make the argument that it could be Hull-Mounted, but you get the idea.


Thanks again for your response, and it might come to you as a shock, but I do agree with absolutely everything you wrote. This is how it should be done, and this is what I tried (but clearly failed) to explain.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 14:54:51


Post by: alextroy


Personally, I'd just be happy if GW codified some of the common rules concepts into rules keywords that could be used when they write the many bespoke rules. They already use some. We are all used to Invulnerable Save and Transport.

Why can't we have Damage Reduction that is defined to include "damage cannot be reduced below 1" so that they don't need to say that in every rule?

Why can't we just have a Spray keyword that means "attacks from this weapon automatically hit, do not make a hit roll"?

They might not be USRs that eliminate whole paragraphs of rules from the datasheet, but it at least acknowledges and leverages how GW is currently writing rules with their Glossary and Rare Rules section.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 16:52:29


Post by: catbarf


Jidmah wrote:There is overwhelming evidence that "write perfect USR first and foresee how everything works out for the next three years of an edition" is not a viable approach for Warhammer 40k.


I think the point of contention here is that many of us feel it is is a viable approach for 40K, it just requires GW to get out of this cycle of churn/one-upmanship/build-the-plane-in-flight.

They would need to actually write a cohesive ruleset that is planned in advance like HBMC said. Not just writing a core rulebook and then designing codices as the edition goes on; but having a vision for how the codices will work when they write the core rules, taking into account what scope will be needed to appropriately depict each faction. It'll never be perfect, but it could be better than the mess of similar-but-different rules we have now.

In other words it's not a 40K problem, that's a GW problem.

alextroy wrote:Personally, I'd just be happy if GW codified some of the common rules concepts into rules keywords that could be used when they write the many bespoke rules. They already use some. We are all used to Invulnerable Save and Transport.


And Rapid Fire. And Obscuring. And Infantry.

When it comes down to it, keywords that have effects defined in the BRB are, for all intents and purposes, USRs.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 18:57:45


Post by: alextroy


I agree. I also don’t trust GW to properly use a 6th/7th Edition style list, nor would I want to be subjected to that horror again


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 19:03:42


Post by: Backspacehacker


 catbarf wrote:


I think the point of contention here is that many of us feel it is is a viable approach for 40K, it just requires GW to get out of this cycle of churn/one-upmanship/build-the-plane-in-flight.



110% this and qft.
9th Ed, out of any edition I have played since 5th feels the most seat of the pants and making it up as they go.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 19:40:36


Post by: chaos0xomega


Yes, 9th is incredibly disjointed in design. To some extent GW has always seemed to take a... decentralized (for lack of a better term) approach to design within the studio, with each writer seemingly taking a completely different philosophy and approach to how they design the armies assigned to them, sometimes with jarring consequences in relation to the work of the other designers, but overall it generally felt like things were kept in check by some degree of shared vision and cooperation.

Some of the recent direction with 9e though makes me feel like theres little to no internal communication and each writer is basically operating independently as though they are designing for completely different games. I can only imagine that each writer basically has their own fiefdom to do with as they please, which is why Necrons, AdMech, and AdCustodes have abilities that change every turn whereas Sisters, Aeldari, and some others have abilities based around dice shenanigans, etc.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 19:47:10


Post by: kodos


as if the GW designers never play 40k against each other


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 20:42:37


Post by: novembermike


The issue was less about the USRs themselves and more how GW used them. If you just have two things that behave similarly you don't really need a USR. If they behave differently they behave differently and that's fine. USRs are good when things interact with them. If there's a deep strike USR then infiltrators can just say "enemy units may not deep strike within 12" of this unit", which simplifies the game. GW just needed to limit their USRs to things that are high interaction, like FNP, Infiltrate, Deep Strike, etc.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/20 23:46:48


Post by: solkan


I'd say that one of GW's big issues has been that the person who writes the rulebook usually has no communication with the people who will be writing the codices. That's how you end up with USRs that don't end up getting used in anything (I think there was some stuff in the monstrous creature rules in 5th edition that were never used in that edition, as well). That, to me, was the big problem with USRs, and it caused all of the other problems with USRs.

Edit: Was it 5th edition where Poison was defined for close combat weapons (wounding on a fixed number), and then the Dark Eldar codex has to explain the idea of wounding on a fixed number for ranged weapons?

It's been a while since I've looked at the book so I might be remembering incorrectly, but I remember having the same feeling with the last edition of WHFB before the world was blown up--all of the fancy rules in the rulebook were written with no coordination with the people plotting out the army books, so there's all sorts of neat rules just doing nothing.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 00:32:19


Post by: Amishprn86


The problem isn't USR its GW can't handle simple systems and has to change and modify everything all the time.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 02:27:01


Post by: Lance845


Like everything GW does, the issue isn't necessarily in the core or underlying idea. It's their execution. GW ruins everything they touch.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 03:35:36


Post by: Voss


chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, 9th is incredibly disjointed in design. To some extent GW has always seemed to take a... decentralized (for lack of a better term) approach to design within the studio, with each writer seemingly taking a completely different philosophy and approach to how they design the armies assigned to them, sometimes with jarring consequences in relation to the work of the other designers, but overall it generally felt like things were kept in check by some degree of shared vision and cooperation.

Some of the recent direction with 9e though makes me feel like theres little to no internal communication and each writer is basically operating independently as though they are designing for completely different games. I can only imagine that each writer basically has their own fiefdom to do with as they please, which is why Necrons, AdMech, and AdCustodes have abilities that change every turn whereas Sisters, Aeldari, and some others have abilities based around dice shenanigans, etc.


My current 'favorite' in this vein is the custom traits in the new books. They really feel like different for the sake of being different, where GSC are trying to assign values to the worth (hah) of each trait and letting you take up to four and Tau are siloing them off with the bare minimum backstory possible (Sector 'C' vs Sector 'D') and Custodes get... a big angry no?


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 05:45:13


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Jidmah wrote:
If GW would write a good book for every uncalled for ad hominem attack in this thread, they would have written a perfect game.

There is overwhelming evidence that "write perfect USR first and foresee how everything works out for the next three years of an edition" is not a viable approach for Warhammer 40k.

At some point you need to accept that iterative processes are superior to "just get it right the first time" - which is also an accepted standard, across all kinds of industries.


Your reply above encapsulates the bad arguments you've been making the entire time. Noting that you argue poorly and badly is not "ad hominem," but rather simple statement of opinion based on observation, no different than saying "it's cold outside".

That 40k has been around for quite a long while, it absolutely would be a viable (and intelligent) to define a core set of USRs as the standard for each edition. It's literally what game designers are supposed to do in a core ruleset - to define the system that covers the overwhelming majority of gameplay and all of the common exceptions / variations. And then, they're supposed to follow that as they go through things so that the edition is consistent and cohesive.

GW has iterated 9 editions of 40k , each of which would have been better with a standard set of USRs used consistently across Codices. We're not still stuck playing Rogue Trader for the "first time", we're up to 9th edition decades later. After the release of 8th edition, it's clear that USRs are a vastly better approach than snowflake rules for every army, unit, model and weapon. A professional rules team that actually cared about the overall player experience could certainly do that. It's how professional systems are designed and written in many other industries, but then, GW has never really been about professionalism or that sort of thing..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
9th Ed, out of any edition I have played since 5th feels the most seat of the pants and making it up as they go.


8th Edition / 9th Edition encourages this sort of thing by its very design. The core game is so skeletal and minimalist, that everything is pushed to the Codices, so as a Codex writer has nearly absolute freedom to indulge themselves with whatever mechanics and rules they like.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 06:28:26


Post by: vict0988


Slipspace wrote:
The point is you need to both do the work before writing any rules and have the discipline to stick to your design for the duration of that edition. Take anti-tank as an example. Maybe Lascannons and other D6 damage weapons are bad (I would argue they are). The problem with GW is they either didn't sit down before writing the Necron and SM Codices and really think about how they wanted AT guns to work this edition, leading to underwhelming Lascannons and Doomsday weapons. Or they half-assed it and lazily copy-pasted even though they knew a Codex coming out in the next few months would feature D3+3 damage as a baseline for AT weapons. There's absolutely no reason GW couldn't have foreseen this problem before releasing 9th edition and adjusted AT weapons accordingly. All it takes is a decision to make AT minimum D3+3 and maybe have a heavier class of AT weapons that are, say, flat damage 5 or 6 and then stick to it. No excuses about certain guns being so much more deadly, or some races being more technologically advanced - just a single principle that puts everyone on a level playing field. I'd argue you need to do this anyway since you need to know what your AT weapons can do in order to properly design your vehicles and monsters.

How can lascannons be bad from a pure stat perspective? Are they so bad that Devastator Marines are tanks rather than damage dealers because their cost has to be so low to account for low damage output? What is the problem with lascannons? Are Guardsmen bad as well? Should all infantry have a 3+ Sv?


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 09:13:58


Post by: Lance845


 Jidmah wrote:
If GW would write a good book for every uncalled for ad hominem attack in this thread, they would have written a perfect game.

There is overwhelming evidence that "write perfect USR first and foresee how everything works out for the next three years of an edition" is not a viable approach for Warhammer 40k.

At some point you need to accept that iterative processes are superior to "just get it right the first time" - which is also an accepted standard, across all kinds of industries.


I am speaking as someone who both has a degree in game design and certifications in lean manufacturing and six sigma black belt. 1) an iterative process is just inherent. It's going to happen regardless. But 2) the more planning ahead you can do the lower the costs and the less time is wasted. As much as anything can be right the first time it should be right the first time, with the idea that continuous improvement is going to be continuous.

That being said, we are GWs customers. Not their guinea pigs. That iterative process should be happening in their office as they test things before release. We shouldn't be watching it unfold over the course of years in a single edition of the game while they slowly roll out faction books.

Go to a car manufacturer and tell them the iterative process is good and fine but let the customers test the car to see if they are safe or pass emission tests or whatever. Let the customer find out if the thing isn't going to rattle itself to pieces. Let the customers find out how the car will perform in a crash test. No, don't hire physicists and engineers to plan ahead for how it SHOULD perform. Just wing it, sell it, and see what happens. A car manufacturer designs it to succeed, tests it to see if it does, THEN releases it to the public.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 10:27:11


Post by: Blackie


 Lance845 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
If GW would write a good book for every uncalled for ad hominem attack in this thread, they would have written a perfect game.

There is overwhelming evidence that "write perfect USR first and foresee how everything works out for the next three years of an edition" is not a viable approach for Warhammer 40k.

At some point you need to accept that iterative processes are superior to "just get it right the first time" - which is also an accepted standard, across all kinds of industries.


I am speaking as someone who both has a degree in game design and certifications in lean manufacturing and six sigma black belt. 1) an iterative process is just inherent. It's going to happen regardless. But 2) the more planning ahead you can do the lower the costs and the less time is wasted. As much as anything can be right the first time it should be right the first time, with the idea that continuous improvement is going to be continuous.

That being said, we are GWs customers. Not their guinea pigs. That iterative process should be happening in their office as they test things before release. We shouldn't be watching it unfold over the course of years in a single edition of the game while they slowly roll out faction books.

Go to a car manufacturer and tell them the iterative process is good and fine but let the customers test the car to see if they are safe or pass emission tests or whatever. Let the customer find out if the thing isn't going to rattle itself to pieces. Let the customers find out how the car will perform in a crash test. No, don't hire physicists and engineers to plan ahead for how it SHOULD perform. Just wing it, sell it, and see what happens. A car manufacturer designs it to succeed, tests it to see if it does, THEN releases it to the public.


I mostly agree with you, but the car example is pretty extreme though. There are countless safety reasons behind designing cars to succeed that GW doesn't need to consider as they're only selling miniatures, books, accessories and hobby supplies.

As long as those products aren't dangerous in some way, any fault in the iterative process doesn't really matter and typically the customer has the chance to know most if not all of those faults in advance thanks to reviews, podcasts, social medias, forums, etc...

I always gave money to GW knowing exactly what I was paying for and fully willing to do that.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 10:28:33


Post by: Jidmah


 Lance845 wrote:
Go to a car manufacturer and tell them the iterative process is good and fine but let the customers test the car to see if they are safe or pass emission tests or whatever. Let the customer find out if the thing isn't going to rattle itself to pieces. Let the customers find out how the car will perform in a crash test. No, don't hire physicists and engineers to plan ahead for how it SHOULD perform. Just wing it, sell it, and see what happens. A car manufacturer designs it to succeed, tests it to see if it does, THEN releases it to the public.


Sure, but that's why cars have thousands of dollars for this baked into their costs. Of a 50k dollar BMW roughly 10% of its costs is just for this kind of stuff and they sell about as many cars per year as there are Warhammer 40k players.

I'm fairly sure that you aren't willing to spend thousands of dollars on an edition.

And it's not like cars aren't iterating. Buy the same type of car from the same series manufactured five years from each other and you'll see a lot of differences between them.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 10:33:18


Post by: Lance845


 Jidmah wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Go to a car manufacturer and tell them the iterative process is good and fine but let the customers test the car to see if they are safe or pass emission tests or whatever. Let the customer find out if the thing isn't going to rattle itself to pieces. Let the customers find out how the car will perform in a crash test. No, don't hire physicists and engineers to plan ahead for how it SHOULD perform. Just wing it, sell it, and see what happens. A car manufacturer designs it to succeed, tests it to see if it does, THEN releases it to the public.


Sure, but that's why cars have thousands of dollars for this baked into their costs. Of a 50k dollar BMW roughly 10% of its costs is just for this kind of stuff and they sell about as many cars per year as there are Warhammer 40k players.

I'm fairly sure that you aren't willing to spend thousands of dollars on an edition.

On paper GW hires game designers. The engineers and physicists who should be making sure it works the first time, and then iterating in testing behind closed doors in their office. It's so blatantly obvious how inept they are at their jobs, or hamstrung by the big wigs (it's possible they would make a good product if given the chance, but since Robbin Cruddace is one of the lead designers and he is responsible for some of the worst codexes to ever exist I doubt it).

And it's not like cars aren't iterating. Buy the same type of car from the same series manufactured five years from each other and you'll see a lot of differences between them.


Do you think you are not paying a crazy premium on GW products? Do you not feel like the design process has been baked into the cost? You get superior hardcovers with greater amounts of content for a lower price point with games that actually work from other companies.

The point is each iteration, each generation, of the car is a fully functioning car. It works. it doesn't come with a bunch of problems baked in with the car company sending me parts 3 times a year to let me know "BTW we found out these parts are gak. Here are some new parts for you to replace in your car. Don't worry. We keep on iterating!"

The iterations of cars isn't equivalent to the codexes and the update documents we constantly get. It's equivalent to a new edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:

I mostly agree with you, but the car example is pretty extreme though. There are countless safety reasons behind designing cars to succeed that GW doesn't need to consider as they're only selling miniatures, books, accessories and hobby supplies.


Extreme examples to highlight the point is the point.

As long as those products aren't dangerous in some way, any fault in the iterative process doesn't really matter and typically the customer has the chance to know most if not all of those faults in advance thanks to reviews, podcasts, social medias, forums, etc...


Yes. If a GW game is broken nobody dies. Agreed. But I am not paying thousands of dollars for GWs books. I am paying WAY more than an equivalent quality and page count hard cover. Other companies releasing those books typically have a higher quality of functioning rules with more actual content per page than what GW gives us.

I always gave money to GW knowing exactly what I was paying for and fully willing to do that.


Yup. You and everyone else who does it. Doesn't mean you are not being screwed in the process.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 10:41:51


Post by: Jidmah


The thing is, the premium is a percentage that adds up to an absolute number of moneys which you can then use to pay people doing your quality to assurance.

10% of 2 million cars is going to add up to a better quality assurance process than 80% of 2 million hard cover books.

I'd also point out that at least this edition is a fully functional game, claiming otherwise is hyperbole.
It's not without flaws, but it's not like every car produced ever is perfect and flawless, so your analogy isn't really working well.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 10:50:10


Post by: Lance845


 Jidmah wrote:
The thing is, the premium is a percentage that adds up to an absolute number of moneys which you can then use to pay people doing your quality to assurance.

10% of 2 million cars is going to add up to a better quality assurance process than 80% of 2 million hard cover books.

I'd also point out that at least this edition is a fully functional game, claiming otherwise is hyperbole.
It's not without flaws, but it's not like every car produced ever is perfect and flawless, so your analogy isn't really working well.


Then pay attention to the point. GW has game designers. For the price they charge the game should be of higher quality out the gate. Hell, for ANY price. We are not their guinea pigs who test their product so they can iterate on us over the course of years. Nobody should need to constantly access the internet to figure out how to play. And the expensive books I buy shouldn't become obsolete a couple months after hitting the shelves because they had to release an errata FAQ to fix the broken gak they sent out the door.

YOU made a point that an iterative process is superior and standard in many industries. Yup. Inside the office, behind closed doors, the iterative process is in effect everywhere. Not on the customers. Not the way GW has been doing it. YOUR point isn't really working well.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 11:41:29


Post by: Dysartes


 vict0988 wrote:
How can lascannons be bad from a pure stat perspective? Are they so bad that Devastator Marines are tanks rather than damage dealers because their cost has to be so low to account for low damage output? What is the problem with lascannons? Are Guardsmen bad as well? Should all infantry have a 3+ Sv?

Single-shot AT weapon with a good range that can roll a 1 for damage even if its target doesn't have an invulnerable save? Yeah, at the start of 9th that was underwhelming when compared with the numerous buffs received by the Multi-melta, though probably still preferred to the humble Missile Launcher.

Since then, the paradigm for AT weapons has continued to evolve, with things like d3+3 damage, etc, leading up to whatever the Broadside rail-weapon ends up being now (if we use that as the current peak of "infantry" single-shot AT, as opposed to tank single-shot AT).

The basic lascannon wasn't a good choice at the start of the edition - even on Devastators, which is why a Multi-melta Dev squad in a Drop pod is a thing - and they've gotten worse in relative terms since then.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 12:37:53


Post by: vict0988


The melta change was a mistake. The darklance change was a mistake, to me you're just arguing GW should make another mistake.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 12:44:55


Post by: vipoid


Regarding GW's "iterative process", I think it could work if GW was prepared to treat players as beta-testers, get feedback and revise things - either during the course of an edition or even prior to an edition being officially released.

Here's the catch, though - for this to work, their rules would need to be free. You don't get to charge £25-30 for a book that isn't even finished yet.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 12:49:05


Post by: vict0988


 vipoid wrote:
Regarding GW's "iterative process", I think it could work if GW was prepared to treat players as beta-testers, get feedback and revise things - either during the course of an edition or even prior to an edition being officially released.

Here's the catch, though - for this to work, their rules would need to be free. You don't get to charge £25-30 for a book that isn't even finished yet.

If it goes it goes. People have to boycott products they don't think are good value, if they get bought they keep getting produced.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 12:51:07


Post by: Dysartes


 vict0988 wrote:
The melta change was a mistake. The darklance change was a mistake, to me you're just arguing GW should make another mistake.

Interesting that you think I'm arguing - I'm not, I'm just explaining how someone could reach that viewpoint.

And Slipspace wasn't necessarily arguing for changes now either. What they were saying was that what GW has seen as "reasonable" for a single-shot AT weapon hasn't kept to the same ballpark across the edition so far, outside of weapons with identical names. As a result, weapons that were probably meant to be good at the start of the edition now look poor in comparison to a weapon released mid-edition.

What Slipspace is saying that GW should have a metric for "single-shot AT weapon" (as an example weapon type), and stick to it throughout the edition - not ramp things up when they get bored, or because a particular designer has a hard-on for the Gundam faction.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 12:59:11


Post by: kodos


GW is charging a premium price for their products, so not expecting a premium product but some alpha test that otherwise GW would need to pay people to play, and getting the people to believe it cannot be done better, is one hell of marketing that we need to give credit to GW for bulling that off

regarding the rules itself, the problems with the core rules can be explained as:
GW writes the core for the previous army books, not for the upcoming ones

9th Edi Core was written with 8th Edi armies in mind
so there is no progress in rules development but just backwards compatible patchwork that is replaced by the time too many new army rules are added to keep it working (as in 7th)


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 13:37:20


Post by: Tittliewinks22


GW: Lists out exactly what Melta, Plasma, and Flamers do in the "Abilities" section of the weapon profile because USR aren't desirable.

Also GW: Blast, Plague Weapon


Bring back USR.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 14:32:27


Post by: Slipspace


 vict0988 wrote:
The melta change was a mistake. The darklance change was a mistake, to me you're just arguing GW should make another mistake.


You're missing the point. It's not so much whether lascannons are good or bad or whether the melta change was good or bad. It's about having a set approach for AT for the game. Whether that's single-shot, with a fixed component plus a small random component, or a flat damage stat, or 2-3 shots with smaller damage per shot. GW's current approach is to give armies whatever the hell it feels like, usually resulting in an escalating power creep.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 14:43:20


Post by: catbarf


 Jidmah wrote:
Sure, but that's why cars have thousands of dollars for this baked into their costs. Of a 50k dollar BMW roughly 10% of its costs is just for this kind of stuff and they sell about as many cars per year as there are Warhammer 40k players.

I'm fairly sure that you aren't willing to spend thousands of dollars on an edition.


GW has a current market cap of $3.73 billion, already charges a premium for both models and rules, has been raking in massive profit over the past several years, and regularly implements price rises in excess of inflation anyways. Why are you talking like they're a skin-of-their-teeth startup that can't perform more extensive planning and testing without doubling consumer prices?

Smaller companies than GW are putting out tighter rulesets on far lower budgets and selling them for less. It's not a multi-million-dollar operating expense; with the Internet and willing beta testers it's cheaper than ever. Fail-fast and product-focused design are now commonplace and the whole point is to get the product right through rapid iteration before it goes to customers.

They could hire another ten staff full-time solely to help design and test their games and it would eat into their revenue by less than a fifth of a percent. Or pony up for three industry veteran designers instead of hiring for 'enthusiasm'. Or pay effectively nothing and recruit more extensive alpha testing from the community.

The idea that GW can't better plan or test their games without charging thousands of dollars for an edition is ludicrous.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 14:51:23


Post by: Platuan4th


 kodos wrote:
as if the GW designers never play 40k against each other


GW do not play the same game we do, members of the studio have confirmed this. I don't mean "play the same WD BatRep game for the most interesting version",either. It's been all but confirmed that nearly every internal game has some form of narrative scenario with rules they want to try out.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 15:06:55


Post by: A.T.


 Captain Joystick wrote:
Someone who has better memory can confirm or deny this for me, but wasn't the Land Raider's super-incredible ability to let you charge into combat straight out of the vehicle due to a USR called 'boarding ramp' or something to that effect?

I know the rule itself existed back in 5th edition but I can't remember if it was USR or codex level. All I know for sure is that for a good long while Sisters and Grey Knights were too clumsy to run out of that front door, until they fixed it with an FAQ years later to confirm that only Sisters couldn't do it.
Edition differences to some degree, it wasn't a restriction in 3rd and landraiders were exempted in 4th.
Later books (i.e. 4e Dark Angels and CSM) included the assault vehicle rule in the codex as well.

The GK got their landraider errata at the start of 4th edition (2004) even though they were included under the core rules exemption.


3e sister didn't get the assault rule in either the 4e or 5e errata, despite it being a copy/paste from the DH book. Templars didn't get their assault rule until 2011 IIRC - GWs approach to errata was rightly regarded as farcical.
The Imperial Armour 2 update (2008) gave players with older books an alternate option. That said the 3e sisters landraider was a dedicated transport, and none of their assault units could embark on vehicles anyway.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 15:14:59


Post by: kodos


 Platuan4th wrote:
 kodos wrote:
as if the GW designers never play 40k against each other

GW do not play the same game we do, members of the studio have confirmed this. I don't mean "play the same WD BatRep game for the most interesting version",either. It's been all but confirmed that nearly every internal game has some form of narrative scenario with rules they want to try out.

I know that they don't play the game that we do, but the problem is, they don't even use the same rules that we do
so whatever problem we have with the game, the devs will never understand because they are playing a different game (if they play at all)

this is not a problem exclusive to GW, also some MMOs have the same problem were additions/changes to the game are made because someone has a crazy idea that sounds good and fun on paper but because they haven't played the game, it is just that, good on paper

or you could say, 40k is so bad, even they people who are paid to play it don't use the official rules


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 17:40:31


Post by: Backspacehacker


The gak show that 9th has turned into is the main reason I abandoned 9th and went to 30k and 7th Ed again.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 17:48:23


Post by: Mezmorki


GW, by far the biggest player in the market, has the resources to hire whatever design talent they want (probably) and could allocate resources to making an incredible, tight, complete, coherent ruleset and accompanying codexes, all beautifully choreographed. The question then is, why haven't they?

I suspect, like all tenacious problems, its complex and systemic. The reality is likely a combination of all of the below items:

(A) The company is making awesome money doing what they're doing already - why spend more resources to make a "better designed product" if it may not even translate into more sales? The worst outcome would be that everyone loves the "perfect" edition and stops clamoring for a new edition. They could potentially get LESS revenue by making a better game. Even if that isn't the case, how clear is the case the a better game would translate into more profit? They probably get more return on investment by pumping more resources into marketing and PR than game design.

(B) Team management and coordination issues - Back in the day of the Rick Priestley's and Andy Chambers' the design team was smaller and most everyone had their hand in everything that was put out (their names are right there in the credits). The ability to be successful despite having loose design/workflow controls may have worked "well enough" back in the day. But now with different teams and many, many, more people involved in the process, without those controls and continuity between authors it turns into a free for all. GW could invest in those design/workflow controls - but see point (A).

(C) Production schedule and timing - GW has a lot more product they are moving compared to twenty years ago. The books are bigger, there's more artwork, new models, new supplements, new campaigns, new stuff galore. The more things that get pushed out means the schedules for delivery of all of this stuff is a driving factor. Design and playtesting takes a LOT of time to get right - it's a labor of love to put in that time. When everyone is pressed to meet deadlines, "good enough" is often what gets delivered at the end of the day.

(D) Personalities & politics - So much can come down to this. I wouldn't be surprised if some higher up fell in love with the idea of "OMG, all of 8th edition core rules fits on 12 pages?! - We need to do this!" The ego's of people involved can push things in directions that may or may not make sense. Sure, the core rules are simplified, but look what's happened to the codex bloat. Or you have different team's and leadership with different visions of how projects get delivered and not be willing to collaborate. Its easy in a big corporate situation to get into office politics that end up reflected in the product.

Again - this is all conjecture - but a combination of the above being the case wouldn't surprise me in the least.

EDIT: And it seems to be, that a lot of started around 5th edition, after many of the Rick Priestley's and Andy Chambers' of old had left or were no longer closer involved in the design process. Unsurprising to me that the impending "codex creep" started shortly there after. Followed by the escalating mess of 6th/7th and now the escalating mess of 8th/9th.

But I guess we can all look forward to 10th edition coming out in the next year or two right? Maybe they'll do a "hard reset" and we can all buy everything all over again and hope it's better this time. Something...something about the definition of insanity.




(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/21 22:46:46


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 vipoid wrote:
Here's the catch, though - for this to work, their rules would need to be free. You don't get to charge £25-30 for a book that isn't even finished yet.


Ohoho... someone hasn't played a brand-new AAA computer or console game in the past 20 years.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 00:19:37


Post by: Lance845


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Here's the catch, though - for this to work, their rules would need to be free. You don't get to charge £25-30 for a book that isn't even finished yet.


Ohoho... someone hasn't played a brand-new AAA computer or console game in the past 20 years.


Not really true. While yes, some gak gets released half finished (and yeah. the video game industry is jam packed with problems), there are also plenty that released with a lot of polish. Witcher 3 had a ton of free patches/dlc. But the game without them was a complete finished game worth it's sticker price.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 02:57:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Mezmorki wrote:
The question then is, why haven't they?
This:





(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 09:38:32


Post by: Jidmah


That nails it.

GW's goal is to make money, not to design the best game ever. It just needs to be good enough to keep drawing in new customers and while not driving away those existing customers willing to pay money.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 09:57:49


Post by: kodos


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Here's the catch, though - for this to work, their rules would need to be free. You don't get to charge £25-30 for a book that isn't even finished yet.


Ohoho... someone hasn't played a brand-new AAA computer or console game in the past 20 years.

But they call it early Access most of time and necessary patches are free

Even EA does not have the balls to charge full price for the day 1 bug fix


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 10:50:13


Post by: Lance845


 Jidmah wrote:
That nails it.

GW's goal is to make money, not to design the best game ever. It just needs to be good enough to keep drawing in new customers and while not driving away those existing customers willing to pay money.


Which then comes down to why do the individuals pay for it? Especially now, having worked out how fethed up their business practice of charging premium prices for garbage content is, why would you (or any individual who has seen behind the curtain) pay a single red cent for a book of content you know is obsolete in no time flat?

It's one thing when they got you and you didn't realize you were being got. It's entirely different when you know they are doing this and you keep doing it anyway.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 12:01:45


Post by: Jidmah


Our maybe people are making a reasonable decisions that what they are getting is worth their money because they are having fun with their products.

I know that doesn't fit the "GW conning brainless sheeple into a disfunctional game" narrative, but that's how it is.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 13:45:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I think there is more to it than that.

You can have fun with 40k miniatures playing 4th, or Mezzo's ProHammer. Those are "finished" - no churn, no obsolescence, no rebuying the same thing but slightly different.

I think there's something more to it than "it's fun so why not do it?" You can see this in the 'cult of officialdom' where actively unfun things are embraced by players with a shrug and a wince because "hey, it's official".


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 13:59:07


Post by: thegreatchimp


It's swings and roundabouts if you ask me. In 1st and 2nd ed we had datafaxes for vehicles and lots of unit specific special rules.3rd to 7th largely did away with it*. Now we're back to it.

*During this time there was a tendency in tabletop games design to reduce the number of stats on units, and supplement with USRs. It failed in its original purpose to make things simpler, because its easier to remember a bunch of numbers, but I think it added great flavour to units, because utilities and synergies are more interesting than just bunches of numbers. Another trend that will come and go.

I personally preferred the use of USRs, but I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with either approach. It's more a case of how well they're implemented. GeeDubs repeated mistake is that they revamp and simplify the game, and then gradually add so much extra material it becomes bloated and unwieldy.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 14:04:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I still remember the fifth-to-sixth changeover.

"Let's see what they fixed..."
"Well, they added challenges, which take ALL of a character's attacks on just the Sergeant!"
"O... Kay..."
"And we changed how psychic powers work!"
"But those weren't broken..."
"We added hullpoints to tanks because they were too hard to kill"
"Maybe, but you could just change the damage chart rather than add a whole second damage mechanism... still not convinced..."
"... it's an official rules update from the designers?"
...
"I'M IN LET'S PLAY SIXTH BABY HYPE HYPE!"


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 15:39:16


Post by: Mezmorki


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still remember the fifth-to-sixth changeover.

"Let's see what they fixed..."


And we added random charge distances because we wanted to punish careful planning/positioning (?)

And we added flyers and tons of flyer special rules and make em super strong because, you see, we have all these flyer models to sell

And the list goes on....



(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 15:48:05


Post by: kodos


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think there is more to it than that.

yes, russian archives and battlescribe

I would say about 2/3 to 5/6 of the people play 40k because of the models/background and they can get all the rules needed for free


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 16:42:56


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 Mezmorki wrote:
GW, by far the biggest player in the market, has the resources to hire whatever design talent they want (probably) and could allocate resources to making an incredible, tight, complete, coherent ruleset and accompanying codexes, all beautifully choreographed. The question then is, why haven't they?

(C) Production schedule and timing - GW has a lot more product they are moving compared to twenty years ago. The books are bigger, there's more artwork, new models, new supplements, new campaigns, new stuff galore. The more things that get pushed out means the schedules for delivery of all of this stuff is a driving factor. Design and playtesting takes a LOT of time to get right - it's a labor of love to put in that time. When everyone is pressed to meet deadlines, "good enough" is often what gets delivered at the end of the day.

(D) Personalities & politics - So much can come down to this. I wouldn't be surprised if some higher up fell in love with the idea of "OMG, all of 8th edition core rules fits on 12 pages?! - We need to do this!" The ego's of people involved can push things in directions that may or may not make sense. Sure, the core rules are simplified, but look what's happened to the codex bloat. Or you have different team's and leadership with different visions of how projects get delivered and not be willing to collaborate. Its easy in a big corporate situation to get into office politics that end up reflected in the product.

Again - this is all conjecture - but a combination of the above being the case wouldn't surprise me in the least.


Just wanted to echo your sentiments on C & D. It's all conjecture but having worked acquisitions in the government you really hit the nail on the head there. While GW has dramatically more capital than a smaller game/mini company being that large does come with it's own share of issues the biggest being how hard it is to pivot compared to a smaller company. That said I have to disagree on A & B, while it's true GW is making a profit and doesn't need to change that's a bit short sighted since if one part of your brand (rules / balance) becomes associated with poor quality it makes it easier for competitors to eat up your market share. Additionally stagnation in a creative market can easily lead to losing market share as well.

GW is doing great financially and market share, but if they want to remain on top spending small amounts to improve their design and play testing would be more than worthwhile in the long run.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/22 22:38:52


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 kodos wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Here's the catch, though - for this to work, their rules would need to be free. You don't get to charge £25-30 for a book that isn't even finished yet.


Ohoho... someone hasn't played a brand-new AAA computer or console game in the past 20 years.

But they call it early Access most of time and necessary patches are free

Even EA does not have the balls to charge full price for the day 1 bug fix


EA's Battlefield 2042 wasn't full price?

How about Projekt Red's Cyberpunk 2077? LOL

I've spend enough big money on computer games at launch not to do that any more. I just wait for the games to get shaken out.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/23 00:36:22


Post by: Dysartes


Even in the cases of those two, the publishers weren't charging you to get patches for the games, and definitely not at a similar price to the game, were they?

I think kodos' point there was more similar to a Custodes player - especially one with FW units - who has picked up a Codex today, only to find there are points changes in the CA being released next week. It isn't an issue if they're sticking to Codex-only units, admittedly.

We've seen a couple of times now where a book has come out, with CA following closely behind with changes to the points.

Heck, from the proposed seasons model, our theoretical tournament Custodes player (who, for argument's sake, doesn't have Warhammer+) will need to pay for a new CA to keep their Codex updated in six months, even if they got a PDF of the changes via WHC this time.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/23 02:18:56


Post by: JohnHwangDD


IIRC, CP2077 was no refunds for a full-price AAA game that obviously didn't deliver what it said it would, in direct violation of basic consumer protection law.

At least in the case of a book, players should be allowed to play RAW, based only on what's printed within the 4 corners of the document.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/23 10:32:41


Post by: Lance845


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IIRC, CP2077 was no refunds for a full-price AAA game that obviously didn't deliver what it said it would, in direct violation of basic consumer protection law.

At least in the case of a book, players should be allowed to play RAW, based only on what's printed within the 4 corners of the document.


"Should" being the operative word.

Lets not pretend that GWs history of this crap doesn't include completely broken rules that don't function on the table in any reasonable fashion. Who else remembers the Pyrovore rule that blew up the entire table? That codex was released in 6th, was the codex through all of 7th. And when they released the end of 7th FAQ document they never addressed it. The guy who wrote that codex is the lead designer for the entire game for the past 2 edition.


(oldhammer) what was wrong with USRs? @ 2022/01/23 10:46:26


Post by: kodos


not giving a full refund depends on where you bought/play it
early access has its own conditions (and I never get this anyway for a reason)
but there was no bug fix or patch you had to pay for

and the same way, you cannot buy a Custodes Army, buy the books, build the models, play 2 games and bring them back to the store and get a refund because the army is not what GW advertised it or you don't like the points changes in CA


and if we get in more details, CP2077 is still on full price I guess, the same as the Custodes Book is after CA is released because paying full price for outdated rules and full price for the update is industry standard