Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Here's an example rule: Deep Strike, for Grey Knights.

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
During deployment, you can choose to Deep Strike this unit with a teleport chamber instead of deploying them normally. At the end of any of your movement phases, you may have them teleport to the field-set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models.

So, you have [RULE NAME] (Value)-Fluff Name, followed in the next paragraph by the rules with minor fluff.

Make sense?

I think so, because in my head I'm already lumping that ability and anything like it together in my own unofficial USR page.

The issue I think with this change and most others is the number of units, abilities, variations of abilities, and the history of units, editions and factions. If you were designing a game from scratch USRs seem like the best thing to do to me, even if each faction pretty much had their own set. As it is now with 40k you either have to water a number of units down by making all the similar USRs the same, or have so many different USRs with numbers and whatnot after them that it's barely different than what we have now.

Either way is probably valid but I don't see it as an obvious or important change over the current system of "read things."

It could be changed with an errata.

"In the SM Codex, all instances of deploying anywhere outside of 9" is now keyworded as "Deep Strike - 9".

Others could be reworded as "Deep Strike - 12" or whatever. Same with FNP. It doesn't have to be called FNP. It could be called "Negate Wounds" to be more broadly fluff appropriate for both fleshy things that scream and bleed as well as mechanical things that squeal and spark. Or Daemons that could be a mixture of both.

When it gets down to it, whether you call it a glossary or a section of the core rules, it's about ease of communication. We are all doing it here without it existing. Refering to Deep Strike, and Feel no Pain, and other things. I don't see anyone here that's actually objecting to codifying common abilities, while still having the full rules printed on potential unit cards / data sheets.

I suppose that does help with bloat, in some way, as it would increase cross-codex consistency. You know most of the USR from your own, and regardless of the fluff name you would quickly understand what someone else's "Pinpoint accuracy" means when they say it's a "Reroll 1's to Hit Aura", 6".

An Aura could be defined as effecting models being within 6", or defined as units within 6", or models entirely within 6"... pick it. You could define Aura as an effect granted to all friendly faction units within 6", for example, and then all Auras have the same range and same concept of not helping your enemies.

Yes it makes sense but it's totally unnecessary, and suddenly every rule has to adhere to the restrictions in the global rule.

Like I said, you can make new rules.

Reroll attack rolls of 1 = Inspired
Reroll all misses = Accurate

For example:

Commander grants "Inspired" within his Aura.
Commander grants "Accurate" within his Aura.

You can create new rules. Once you've used that rule 3 or 4 times (as a games designer) create a keyword for it and stick to it when it's used.

Do we need a USR for Inspired, unless you are armed with a "Bolt" weapon, then you can reroll all attack rolls against Gretchin being granted cover by a forest? No.

But if every commander has a 6" aura that either rerolls 1's to hit or 1's to wound, there should be a common term for it. You can make them more flexible by including a variable (FNP 6+, 5+, 4+ or Bloodthirsty 1-, 2-, 3-)

Bloodthirsty lets you reroll to wound rolls of a given value or less... like Shred used to do.

If a unit has a rule that isn't covered by a USR, create a new rule. If that rule gets used 3-4 times, create a new USR for it. Units within a codex tend to share many USR's. So having a name that you at least keep common within a codex is helpful, and the wider you can spread that the better.

USRs make a lot of sense in many games, but I think we’ve all experienced how GW does them, and it’s not good. While it would in theory make the data sheets much cleaner, in reality there would be a hundred little exceptions and addendums everywhereas GW is wont to do. I prefer a relatively clean USr system ala Star Wars Legion, but 8th editions current system works better than 7th did.

I've yet to see a good reason for why USRs are needed. What do they do that individual rules don't?
If you're just going to retype the rule on each datasheet, why have a USR section at all? You're just restricting yourself to an unnecessarily rigid system for nothing in return.
If you're worried about opponents cheating because you don't know their codex, USRs won't help: "My kroot have deep strike, prove me wrong"

I mean, you could probably make it work, but once you account for every unit, it will become so unwieldy and bloated so as to be worse than the current system. So why bother?

Dandelion wrote:
I've yet to see a good reason for why USRs are needed. What do they do that individual rules don't?
If you're just going to retype the rule on each datasheet, why have a USR section at all? You're just restricting yourself to an unnecessarily rigid system for nothing in return.
If you're worried about opponents cheating because you don't know their codex, USRs won't help: "My kroot have deep strike, prove me wrong"

I mean, you could probably make it work, but once you account for every unit, it will become so unwieldy and bloated so as to be worse than the current system. So why bother?

Essentially this. Exalted.

Dandelion wrote:
I've yet to see a good reason for why USRs are needed. What do they do that individual rules don't?
If you're just going to retype the rule on each datasheet, why have a USR section at all? You're just restricting yourself to an unnecessarily rigid system for nothing in return.
If you're worried about opponents cheating because you don't know their codex, USRs won't help: "My kroot have deep strike, prove me wrong"

I mean, you could probably make it work, but once you account for every unit, it will become so unwieldy and bloated so as to be worse than the current system. So why bother?

Uniformity and ease of communication are the biggest reasons for USRs. When you say "melta" almost everyone knows that the melta rule does. So instead of having some rule like "Gyro stabilization system", "Firing solution protocol", "Grot bipod", or whatever else you want to make up to give a unit the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. You can just call it "Relentless" and basically everyone knows what that rule does. Its like trying to spell out what trample does in MtG on every single card when you can just slap trample, first strike, defender, lifelink, deathtouch, etc on the card without it taking up a ton of text space or requiring you to read each version of it to make sure it does the same mechanic.

Not saying we need super complex USRs but just some basic stuff that can be applied to units that need it (seriously relentless needs to be commonplace).

leopard wrote:
I like the keyword system we have now, what I'd suggest is push it a bit further, with <keyword> traits on weapons, so if a rule impacts <bolt> weapons its pretty clear.

would also have a definitions section in the rules, doesn't need to be long, to clearly cover such as

within
entirely within
model - e.g. do antenna, wings etc count

cover that singular references also include the plural and vice versa unless said otherwise

within and entirely within are already clarified per FAQ and are actually pretty self explanatory.
As for the "model" issue, it should just be base-to-base based TLOS system. GW needs to release a proper LOS tool like Army Painter has and not make it a third party item. Also need to get rid of multi-level ruins for normal scenarios and make it city-fight exclusive mechanism. If I had a nickel for every time wonky interaction occurred due to their measuring standards.

Warhammer came from a role play mindset where most races had access to most same or similar equipment and the race itself granted the race specific adjustments to how that all got used. There were special things for each but generally what evened things out was how stuff got kitted out. These days everything has an alien name TM and special goo so GeeDubs can own it and in so doing whatever stuff had in common got diluted and now it is difficult holding it all together. Seems USRs can specify race based abilities and much of the rest could fall on equipment profiles which also have USRs associated. So stealth cloak is an equp type and each race or unit may have a special kind of stealth cloak which does slightly different things but just saying stealth cloak tells us what to expect... Meanwhile alien race K has a jibbersmash obfuscant and race J has a turnivolence shard... They might do the same or similar things but these names don't tell us that at all. So data sheets end up doing the work instead. Dunno how this is an improvement. Def not simpler and easier.

The advantage would be that GW could create FAQs about the interaction of FNP and certain other rules without any ambiguity.

Or they could create a new beta rule akin to "Feel no Pain rolls can no longer be used against mortal wounds" without needing to explicitly call out every variant across the game.

Outside of that... not much.

 jeff white wrote:
Meanwhile alien race K has a jibbersmash obfuscant and race J has a turnivolence shard... They might do the same or similar things but these names don't tell us that at all. So data sheets end up doing the work instead. Dunno how this is an improvement. Def not simpler and easier.

I can memorize what every relic and unit does in my codex and if I forget I just go to the unit and bam there's the info.

If this was 7th I would have to find it in the sea of special rules that was the 7th rule book.

At the end of the day there isn't a "perfect" way other than just making unit cards for yourself and calling it a day.

 Vankraken wrote:

Uniformity and ease of communication are the biggest reasons for USRs. When you say "melta" almost everyone knows that the melta rule does. So instead of having some rule like "Gyro stabilization system", "Firing solution protocol", "Grot bipod", or whatever else you want to make up to give a unit the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. You can just call it "Relentless" and basically everyone knows what that rule does. Its like trying to spell out what trample does in MtG on every single card when you can just slap trample, first strike, defender, lifelink, deathtouch, etc on the card without it taking up a ton of text space or requiring you to read each version of it to make sure it does the same mechanic.

Not saying we need super complex USRs but just some basic stuff that can be applied to units that need it (seriously relentless needs to be commonplace).

So it seems you just want common terms for certain broad actions. But are they really needed? Have you had problems in games where a USR would have solved the issue? Do you struggle to convey what your units do? Is it a time issue? What exactly is the problem? I haven't had any issues in my games over special rules, so it would be helpful to see where you are running into problems.

Also, USRs are a double-edged sword for ease of communication. If I don't know every special rule by heart, they do me no good and are an active hindrance. Long term players memorize them just from repetition but once a month gamers forget those rules. And at the end of the day, we don't actually care about it's name, we care about what it does. I barely remember any names TBH.

Now, if you just want a glossary of terms, or even just definitions, that's another topic entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
The advantage would be that GW could create FAQs about the interaction of FNP and certain other rules without any ambiguity.

Or they could create a new beta rule akin to "Feel no Pain rolls can no longer be used against mortal wounds" without needing to explicitly call out every variant across the game.

Outside of that... not much.

The disadvantage would then be that it's not granular enough to carefully adjust each unit individually. So, not a whole lot gained imo.

 andysonic1 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Meanwhile alien race K has a jibbersmash obfuscant and race J has a turnivolence shard... They might do the same or similar things but these names don't tell us that at all. So data sheets end up doing the work instead. Dunno how this is an improvement. Def not simpler and easier.

I can memorize what every relic and unit does in my codex and if I forget I just go to the unit and bam there's the info.

If this was 7th I would have to find it in the sea of special rules that was the 7th rule book.

At the end of the day there isn't a "perfect" way other than just making unit cards for yourself and calling it a day.

Trouble is then you still know nuthn about the other guys shenanigans going in unless you study their cards as well...

USRs at least partialy solve this problem.

Dandelion wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

Uniformity and ease of communication are the biggest reasons for USRs. When you say "melta" almost everyone knows that the melta rule does. So instead of having some rule like "Gyro stabilization system", "Firing solution protocol", "Grot bipod", or whatever else you want to make up to give a unit the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. You can just call it "Relentless" and basically everyone knows what that rule does. Its like trying to spell out what trample does in MtG on every single card when you can just slap trample, first strike, defender, lifelink, deathtouch, etc on the card without it taking up a ton of text space or requiring you to read each version of it to make sure it does the same mechanic.

Not saying we need super complex USRs but just some basic stuff that can be applied to units that need it (seriously relentless needs to be commonplace).

So it seems you just want common terms for certain broad actions. But are they really needed? Have you had problems in games where a USR would have solved the issue? Do you struggle to convey what your units do? Is it a time issue? What exactly is the problem? I haven't had any issues in my games over special rules, so it would be helpful to see where you are running into problems.

Also, USRs are a double-edged sword for ease of communication. If I don't know every special rule by heart, they do me no good and are an active hindrance. Long term players memorize them just from repetition but once a month gamers forget those rules. And at the end of the day, we don't actually care about it's name, we care about what it does. I barely remember any names TBH.

Now, if you just want a glossary of terms, or even just definitions, that's another topic entirely.

I want both USRs for unification purposes and more importantly I want GW to start putting such mechanics back into the game so we can get some more variety in how units operate. Most common complaint I have is with the lack of relentless which was probably the most common USR used in previous editions. GW struggles to fit all the rules on a unit profile page so it really leaves little space to add more complexity to the game without turning into tiny text salad. With USRs you can just put Relentless, Fearless, etc into a unit profile and it communicates how the unit works without a block of text. Again MtG has a moderate amount of such rules and it doesn't seem to create a large barrier to entry issues. The more commonly used USRs in 7th didn't give me much trouble to learn but I will admit I didn't bother to learn them all but looking them up was simple enough with a book mark or a reference sheet.

I don't hide my disdain for 8th edition and it's lack of depth but if it's here to stay then I would like to see a bigger toolbox to work with and USRs are a good tool to have in creating unit complexity.

Most of these suggestions I'm seeing for USR aren't really improving on GW's bespoke rules method. While we could use better consistancy in how GW write similar and/or functionally identical rules, I'm seeing how creating a USR and forcing it's use would really improve them.

Yes, most "FNP" rules work exactly the same, but it is still better to have the rule written right here on the data sheet than needing to reference some page in the rulebook to know exactly how it works.

Ironically, GW has provided a number of USRs in the rules, they just don't point them out as such and put them in a section with a header. They have given us:

Fly: The Keyword of multiple rules interactions. Would we be better off if all the rules interaction of fly were removed from the part of the rules they interact with an put in a different part of the rules?

Reinforcements: The rule that covers so many circumstances and desperately needs to be mentioned by name rather than left to the user to decide actually applies in a specific circumstance.

Weapon Types: The five USRs that govern all shooting attacks.

Invulnerable Saves: Every Army has them and GW never repeats the rules on how they work on a datasheet.

Characters: Another Keyword that interacts with various rules sections.

Heroic Intervention: A character rule GW found so cool that they are now giving it out as a special treat to non-character units a a rapid pace.

Transport: 8 Paragraphs of rules under one word.

 Vankraken wrote:

I want both USRs for unification purposes and more importantly I want GW to start putting such mechanics back into the game so we can get some more variety in how units operate. Most common complaint I have is with the lack of relentless which was probably the most common USR used in previous editions. GW struggles to fit all the rules on a unit profile page so it really leaves little space to add more complexity to the game without turning into tiny text salad. With USRs you can just put Relentless, Fearless, etc into a unit profile and it communicates how the unit works without a block of text. Again MtG has a moderate amount of such rules and it doesn't seem to create a large barrier to entry issues. The more commonly used USRs in 7th didn't give me much trouble to learn but I will admit I didn't bother to learn them all but looking them up was simple enough with a book mark or a reference sheet.

I don't hide my disdain for 8th edition and it's lack of depth but if it's here to stay then I would like to see a bigger toolbox to work with and USRs are a good tool to have in creating unit complexity.

So let's see:
1) Unification purposes: I'm not entirely sure why we need uniformity in special rules. Making every unit follow the same template just hinders creative freedom in unit design.

2) More mechanics: I'm defo on board for more mechanics, and especially relentless-type rules, but I don't see what that has to do with USRs. GW can just write "ignore heavy weapon penalty for moving" instead of creating a USR. It's effectively the same.

3) Text salad: I haven't had trouble reading/understanding rules on the pages. In fact I rather like the fact that the whole rules are on the datasheet. it makes using the unit so much easier since everything you need to know about the unit is on the sheet. No back and forth nonsense between books. It might be clunky at times but it's certainly clear and easy to use.

Honestly tho, I don't even bother reading the names of the rules. I just know that unit X can do Y which is why I don't see the point in organizing the names.

Dandelion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The advantage would be that GW could create FAQs about the interaction of FNP and certain other rules without any ambiguity.

Or they could create a new beta rule akin to "Feel no Pain rolls can no longer be used against mortal wounds" without needing to explicitly call out every variant across the game.

Outside of that... not much.

The disadvantage would then be that it's not granular enough to carefully adjust each unit individually. So, not a whole lot gained imo.

You simply have to do it like MtG is doing it. If it's kind of like Lifelink, but works slightly different, don't call it Lifelink.

If it's not FNP, don't call it FNP. That thing which only works on the last wound and for moral casualties? Not FNP. Only works against mortal wounds in the psychic phase? Not FNP. Ignores wounds lost on a 3+? FNP: Whenever you would lose a wound, roll a d6. On a roll of 3+, you do not lose that wound. Bonus points for bolding the 3+ to make it more readable.

Dandelion wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

I want both USRs for unification purposes and more importantly I want GW to start putting such mechanics back into the game so we can get some more variety in how units operate. Most common complaint I have is with the lack of relentless which was probably the most common USR used in previous editions. GW struggles to fit all the rules on a unit profile page so it really leaves little space to add more complexity to the game without turning into tiny text salad. With USRs you can just put Relentless, Fearless, etc into a unit profile and it communicates how the unit works without a block of text. Again MtG has a moderate amount of such rules and it doesn't seem to create a large barrier to entry issues. The more commonly used USRs in 7th didn't give me much trouble to learn but I will admit I didn't bother to learn them all but looking them up was simple enough with a book mark or a reference sheet.

I don't hide my disdain for 8th edition and it's lack of depth but if it's here to stay then I would like to see a bigger toolbox to work with and USRs are a good tool to have in creating unit complexity.

So let's see:
1) Unification purposes: I'm not entirely sure why we need uniformity in special rules. Making every unit follow the same template just hinders creative freedom in unit design.

2) More mechanics: I'm defo on board for more mechanics, and especially relentless-type rules, but I don't see what that has to do with USRs. GW can just write "ignore heavy weapon penalty for moving" instead of creating a USR. It's effectively the same.

3) Text salad: I haven't had trouble reading/understanding rules on the pages. In fact I rather like the fact that the whole rules are on the datasheet. it makes using the unit so much easier since everything you need to know about the unit is on the sheet. No back and forth nonsense between books. It might be clunky at times but it's certainly clear and easy to use.

Honestly tho, I don't even bother reading the names of the rules. I just know that unit X can do Y which is why I don't see the point in organizing the names.

1. This is not about creative straightjacketing. This is about calling a spade a spade. This is creating Smite(X), instead of "This model does 1 or D3, d3 or d6, etc." This is definining what an attack is, how "modifiers" work versus "hit rate resets," ("Is a Culexus Assassin immune to melee vs a Stun Grenaded unit, using the Reaper Rangefinder precedent that Etherium is resetting WS/BS instead of being a flat hitrate override?", out-of-phase interactions, etc. Without needing to turn every ruling into a contradictory one.

2. "Ignore Penalty[Move&Fire Heavy]. This makes it easier to prevent people from "accidentally" conflating those rules with other ones ("treat Heavy as Assault," etc).

3. Half the issue of course is having unintuitive names (Move Through Cover could easily be Ignore Difficult Terrain, etc), similar-sounding rules that do different things (Crusader vs Zealot, Hammer of Wrath vs Strikedown), different-sounding rules that do the same thing, non-atomic rules and magic exceptions including my favorite lolwat:

Skitarii in a Dominus Maniple had Scout, but could not Outflank due to that rule (but due to another one). However, Scout was a "*" rule, meaning if at least one model had it, the whole unit had it. Adding a character from another Detachment (ex. A Rune Priest) could let a cheating player argue the unit could now outflank, since the Rune Priest now had the Outflank ability from Scout, which was also a * USR. However, RAW, the Outflank USR and the ability to Outflank were not reflexive: Just because a->b did not mean b->a. Had Scout and Outflank been decoupled, this would have been a non-issue.

It really doesn't help the discussion if half of the examples provided have been buried a year ago.

You are arguing that an edition without USR should have more USR, but keep providing us with problems that only the edition with USR had.

The whole * issue has been eliminated alongside independent characters. Either the rule is an aura that provides benefits or you simply don't have to worry about any rules not on your datasheet.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

1. This is not about creative straightjacketing. This is about calling a spade a spade. This is creating Smite(X), instead of "This model does 1 or D3, d3 or d6, etc." This is definining what an attack is, how "modifiers" work versus "hit rate resets," ("Is a Culexus Assassin immune to melee vs a Stun Grenaded unit, using the Reaper Rangefinder precedent that Etherium is resetting WS/BS instead of being a flat hitrate override?", out-of-phase interactions, etc. Without needing to turn every ruling into a contradictory one.

2. "Ignore Penalty[Move&Fire Heavy]. This makes it easier to prevent people from "accidentally" conflating those rules with other ones ("treat Heavy as Assault," etc).

3. Half the issue of course is having unintuitive names (Move Through Cover could easily be Ignore Difficult Terrain, etc), similar-sounding rules that do different things (Crusader vs Zealot, Hammer of Wrath vs Strikedown), different-sounding rules that do the same thing, non-atomic rules and magic exceptions including my favorite lolwat:

Skitarii in a Dominus Maniple had Scout, but could not Outflank due to that rule (but due to another one). However, Scout was a "*" rule, meaning if at least one model had it, the whole unit had it. Adding a character from another Detachment (ex. A Rune Priest) could let a cheating player argue the unit could now outflank, since the Rune Priest now had the Outflank ability from Scout, which was also a * USR. However, RAW, the Outflank USR and the ability to Outflank were not reflexive: Just because a->b did not mean b->a. Had Scout and Outflank been decoupled, this would have been a non-issue.

1) But you're assuming that most rules are reused from unit to unit without changes. I cannot make a USR for Steel Behemoth and Super Heavy Walker because they are different. I cannot make a USR for Grinding Advance and Pulsed Laser DIscharge because they are different. (not to mention those are the only two variants of that rule, which hardly warrants a Universal Special Rule)
What about Faction traits? Those are special rules and most of them are unique. Do we make a USR for each of them? If GW had actually copypasted the rules then a USR could work, but they haven't. The differences in similar rules impact how they work. Custodes can ignore wounds during the psychic phase only. Whereas Death Guard can ignore all wounds. The difference was intended. If you tried to account for every variation of every rule you would end up with an encyclopedia of USRs. The only way to "reduce bloat" would be to cut down on each variation.

2) Are you saying that USRs reduce cheating? There's more than one way to cheat, at that point a USR isn't going to help much. The guy could just give his units rules they don't have. And honestly, I would not bother playing a game with someone like that.

3) I barely know the names of any of the abilities my units have. They don't matter at all.

All I know is that having the full rules on the datasheet is amazing and I would never willingly go back to searching through the BRB for rules.

Dandelion wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

1. This is not about creative straightjacketing. This is about calling a spade a spade. This is creating Smite(X), instead of "This model does 1 or D3, d3 or d6, etc." This is definining what an attack is, how "modifiers" work versus "hit rate resets," ("Is a Culexus Assassin immune to melee vs a Stun Grenaded unit, using the Reaper Rangefinder precedent that Etherium is resetting WS/BS instead of being a flat hitrate override?", out-of-phase interactions, etc. Without needing to turn every ruling into a contradictory one.

2. "Ignore Penalty[Move&Fire Heavy]. This makes it easier to prevent people from "accidentally" conflating those rules with other ones ("treat Heavy as Assault," etc).

3. Half the issue of course is having unintuitive names (Move Through Cover could easily be Ignore Difficult Terrain, etc), similar-sounding rules that do different things (Crusader vs Zealot, Hammer of Wrath vs Strikedown), different-sounding rules that do the same thing, non-atomic rules and magic exceptions including my favorite lolwat:

Skitarii in a Dominus Maniple had Scout, but could not Outflank due to that rule (but due to another one). However, Scout was a "*" rule, meaning if at least one model had it, the whole unit had it. Adding a character from another Detachment (ex. A Rune Priest) could let a cheating player argue the unit could now outflank, since the Rune Priest now had the Outflank ability from Scout, which was also a * USR. However, RAW, the Outflank USR and the ability to Outflank were not reflexive: Just because a->b did not mean b->a. Had Scout and Outflank been decoupled, this would have been a non-issue.

1) But you're assuming that most rules are reused from unit to unit without changes. I cannot make a USR for Steel Behemoth and Super Heavy Walker because they are different. I cannot make a USR for Grinding Advance and Pulsed Laser DIscharge because they are different. (not to mention those are the only two variants of that rule, which hardly warrants a Universal Special Rule)
What about Faction traits? Those are special rules and most of them are unique. Do we make a USR for each of them? If GW had actually copypasted the rules then a USR could work, but they haven't. The differences in similar rules impact how they work. Custodes can ignore wounds during the psychic phase only. Whereas Death Guard can ignore all wounds. The difference was intended. If you tried to account for every variation of every rule you would end up with an encyclopedia of USRs. The only way to "reduce bloat" would be to cut down on each variation.
......

Yes! Remove all the small, pointless variations. In a game of this scale, it isn't useful to have to care about when a unit has FNP. Always? Only with one wound remaining? Only against psychic powers? Only when surrounded by grots doing gangnum style? Who cares? Those minute differences don't make units unique, or interesting. Then there's the issue of what most of these rules do. Rolls to ignore wounds, rerolling dice, +1/-1 to X, fight twice, etc. They're all so.....boring and one-dimensional.

Bloat's the result of lax game design, full stop.

A game team that's disciplined enough to create streamlined, grokkable USRs will naturally avoid rules bloat.

You give USRs to the guys who gave us 8th's keyword system? Welcome to a 25-page glossary explaining how "Zealous Interdiction (Sanguine Assault)" is the same as "Triumphal Swarm Mephitus," except models move an extra inch versus <KHORNE DAEMONS> when there's a HERETIC ASTARTES unit within 8" and line of sight.


Having worked with editors and creatives my entire life, I'm pretty sure the process that killed USRs looked like this:
• Some smart rules guy(s) looked at the GW team and evaluated their chances of getting a sensible product through that meatgrinder. ("You know George isn't going to let us publish a product that doesn't feature his precious Nurgle palanquin." "Gods, I know.")
• After some consideration, they figured the actual doable option was limiting rules writers to a quarter-page of space per datasheet. Later, after George brought up (in three consecutive meetings) that he could save 23 lines in his datasheets if they'd just let him put "Voidal Engagement Strike" in the BRB, these same smart rules guy(s) sold the top brass on a beginner-friendly 4-page ruleset. "Sorry blokes," they told the rest of the team. "Top brass now wants 4 pages of rules. We're going to have to scrap USRs, I'm afraid. I'm shattered, too."
• Later, some marketer saw the insistence on "4 pages!" and ran with it in the ad copy. No one's more stung by that than George, naturally.

(The real tragedy came when the designer saw the mutilations they were going to do to his glorious layout to make this 4-page thing work. He's expected to wake from his shock-induced coma any day now.)

I feel like USR desire would disappear if they'd provide Datasheet cards like they do with AoS. If someone wants to see the ability you hand them the card and they can read it. Is quite handy and nice to have.

For me, I am glad the USR are gone(except for FLY). I hated nothing more than having to flip through the damn mini rulebook that everyone had to buy just so they had access to the USR list.

Ultimately I must admit that I do not see any need for USR to come back as you would still have to write all the rules for that ability on each datasheet regardless(it is the paradigm for this edition and a really nice paradigm).Although I would love nothing more than if the datasheets for deepstriking abilities would have a deep strike but worded differently depending on army just so people can start arguing over semantics and which one is the true deep strike. It would be quite hilarious.

Actually happy in some ways with the removal of USR and the keyword system & data sheets.

avoids models wither being shoehorned into a USR that doesn't really fit, so they either have to live with it, or are given another "USR" thats essentially the same with minor changes.

you also then get an FAQ change to a USR to solve a problem that causes others because the designers forgot that unit "X" had it.

at least this way they have to fix the actual data sheets.

I like the idea of USR, heck my favourite game of all time Star Fleet Battles is basically built on them, the game defines five types of Phaser, and everyone uses them, how they interact with everything else is clearly laid out. When they wanted something else they created a different system, and then wrote all the interactions.

A few key concepts cover a lot of the rules (e.g. "Direct Fire Weapons" dictate how such work, phasers are then a sub type)

the draw back is you get a somewhat large rulebook, the game is very easy to play as a result, but you get a book you can beat people to death with.

What GW have done for 8th is probably a decent compromise, given their inability to create a working rules framework - see how they "simplified" the game by removing the "M" stat, and then how many USRs were created to get around this

I am quite happy with the new rules format - I don't miss long lists of USRs. I am also not sure what "bloat" is occurring.

Putting the rules in the datasheets keeps the rulebook short. It means that special rules can be tailored to specific units, and rules can be tweaked for certain units to target problem areas. It facilitates the living rule idea that I think will be good for the game in the long term.

I don't find it confusing. I offer an opponent a quick rundown of my units and their rules before the game, which usually results in them quickly explaining their units to me. I don't worry about the names of the rules, and we rarely if ever have to refer to the rulebook. I haven't had any real "gotcha" moments with opponents and the bespoke rules for their units.

I think it was a positive step for 40K and hope they stick with it. They can modify the system for years now without needing a new edition.

Only things I really miss in 8th are a decent terrain system (a rant for another day, I expect it will be sorted in an expansion though) and vehicle facings.

I gather vehicle facings were dropped to avoid confusion over where the arcs are on stuff thats not basically a box - would have thought with the data sheets we now have an illustration on each for arcs would be very easy (say different T & Sv per arc), could fold weapon arcs in very easily

Yeah, we just need better terrain rules. Current ones are terrible.

leopard wrote:
Only things I really miss in 8th are a decent terrain system (a rant for another day, I expect it will be sorted in an expansion though) and vehicle facings.

I gather vehicle facings were dropped to avoid confusion over where the arcs are on stuff thats not basically a box - would have thought with the data sheets we now have an illustration on each for arcs would be very easy (say different T & Sv per arc), could fold weapon arcs in very easily

The problem there was vehicles who were nowhere near the points that they had been costed with due to the weird facing of their weapons. Like sure Necron Monoliths / Vaults / Obelisk had some interesting weapons, but they were also literally unusable against anything but fliers and you couldn't employ all their guns except in very limited situations. I think GW decided that they didn't want to deal with the arguments about weapon arcs or facings any longer, and wanted to give people the freedom to model their vehicles more creatively without punishing those who might restrict the range of movement certain weapons had.

People had been asking for Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles to have a unified rulset for a long time, and now we've got it. It doesn't represent the individual parts failing like the old damage table used to, but it does do a decent job of representing the degradation of performance, and that makes it much more interesting in my opinion. Random 'you exploded in one shot, too bad' generally made vehicles that were not free / dirt cheap unappealing to take compared to monstrous creatures.

Also Grav under the old system. *shudder*