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.
Tyel wrote: I don't think USRs would have made any difference. Nor do I think the issue is the thinness of the basic rules - which are frankly a strength.
The problem is the rule stack. You have:
Unit special rules.
Weapon special rules
Faction special Rules.
Faction purity bonus rules - which became increasingly complicated/powerful.
Subfaction Special Rules - which went from say 1 active buff to 2 or 4.
Character Buffs/abilities.
WLT/Relic Buffs.
Psychic Powers.
Stratagems.
And that bloat becomes less of an issue if your base rules are universal. If you are disciplined about it and have a solid core of scalable universal rules, then everything you've described above would be fine because everything would be working on the same basis, rather than slight variations or incremental changes (or outright inventions/paradigm shifts) between books.
Yup. Sticking to a basic set of USRs, preferably scalable, instead of writing each faction's rules separately, would have helped prevent the "bloat" and "power creep". The point is to have a plan from the start, and stick to it. Instead of just "making it up as you go along".
And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1). Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1). Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1). Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1). Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1). Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/02/28 03:54:06
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
That's the amazing thing with the core rules this edition is that the "rules writers" can fully use keywords and add USR to their advantage, but decided not to
Breton wrote: So not only are Hellblasters "bad", they set the "bottom" of PRIMARIS INFANTRY heavy weapons. Eradicators - as Gravis - are "better" than both Desolators and Hellblasters so they set the top end. This leaves Desloators in the Meh zone because Hellblasters weren't repriced in relation to Devastators.
Helblasters get 5 weapons per squad. Devs get 4 plus Cherub / Signum. Often this is phrased as no ablative wounds, but losing the Sarge nicks the BS2 shot/s. Helblasters pay 35 per weapon and Devs effectively pay 29. This closes the gap a bit.
I wasn't really counting the Once Per Battle Cherub or the Signum. And no, it doesn't really close the gap because the Devs still pay less per unit. You can't say I'm taking some Hellblasters and my Sgt is leaving his Incinerator at home, so he's cheaper.
If you imagine playing against someone bringing lots of terminators ( quite likely ) the outcome of LC vs OC HPI is below.
I was just stilling with Plasma all around for the comparison, but if you want to point out Devs have more varied options than minor deviations in range, and average ROF, its kind of just another point in my favor that Hellblasters probably should have had a deeper look at their PPM than they got in the MFM.
Devastators are ~ 5PPM more than their Tactical Marine base body. Hellblasters are ~12PPM more than their Intercessor Marine base body.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yup. Sticking to a basic set of USRs, preferably scalable, instead of writing each faction's rules separately, would have helped prevent the "bloat" and "power creep". The point is to have a plan from the start, and stick to it. Instead of just "making it up as you go along".
That requires discipline. And that is not something GW40k writers seemingly have. Probably because all the disciplined writers went to 30k
Well, more disciplined, afterall 30k is still a GWtm Product tm, but it still is miles better in this regard.
That's the amazing thing with the core rules this edition is that the "rules writers" can fully use keywords and add USR to their advantage, but decided not to
This is the sole thing that i rekon is better than 30k rules foundation wise right now is the keyword system... IF IT WOULD'VE BEEN USED.
Alas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/28 09:07:49
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Breton wrote: In this particular instance, I feel sorry for the GW writers. I'm old enough to remember when USR's were called Bloat and the bane of happy players.
They were bloat in an era where there were 7 pages of USR, and a handful of them were never used or were a USR that was just two other USRs in one.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
But... how does this help? Do you go around thinking "Dreadnoughts have Duty Eternal" rather than "Dreadnoughts reduce damage taken by 1"?
I know - because people have been going on about it for years - that some people can't cope that all the above rules are the same but with different names. Or that there's 20+ rules which mean "you can deepstrike" etc.
But to my mind that's not bloat. Read the rule once, oh its deepstrike, okay, move on with your life. If you are ever in doubt, its on the datasheet right there. That isn't the source of 9th's complexity. The very fact that you could make it a USR system implies that it isn't an issue.
Bloat/Complexity is "okay its in my 2nd command phase so I can activate Rendax Stance 1 or 2 to be active. Hang on what do they do, let me check, oh wait since I'm Emperor's Chosen doesn't that mean I can have both, is that all the time or just one turn? Let me check again" etc. Now I'm sure you could break say Martial K'atah down to "you can activate one of this list of about 12 USRs (except when you get 2)" but thats the source of complication. Not exchanging all the rules that just mean "-1 damage" for a USR, "FNP" for a USR, "Deepstrike" for a USR etc.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
But... how does this help? Do you go around thinking "Dreadnoughts have Duty Eternal" rather than "Dreadnoughts reduce damage taken by 1"?
I know - because people have been going on about it for years - that some people can't cope that all the above rules are the same but with different names. Or that there's 20+ rules which mean "you can deepstrike" etc.
But to my mind that's not bloat. Read the rule once, oh its deepstrike, okay, move on with your life. If you are ever in doubt, its on the datasheet right there. That isn't the source of 9th's complexity. The very fact that you could make it a USR system implies that it isn't an issue.
Bloat/Complexity is "okay its in my 2nd command phase so I can activate Rendax Stance 1 or 2 to be active. Hang on what do they do, let me check, oh wait since I'm Emperor's Chosen doesn't that mean I can have both, is that all the time or just one turn? Let me check again" etc. Now I'm sure you could break say Martial K'atah down to "you can activate one of this list of about 12 USRs (except when you get 2)" but thats the source of complication. Not exchanging all the rules that just mean "-1 damage" for a USR, "FNP" for a USR, "Deepstrike" for a USR etc.
Well, it helps in that in his above examples, I don't need to remember several different abilities are exactly the same - I also don't need to make sure they are the same. I know they have been better about it in 9th, but in 8th a lot of the rules were similar but markedly not the same and you needed to go through it to figure it out. It just gives one more layer of simplicity as knowing say Bodyguard (X+) is a rule, I then know that Bodyguard (4+) means they succeed on a 4 or higher, while Bodyguard (3+) means they succeed on a 3 or higher.
The problem is GW has a penchant for making lots of similar but not quite different rules, so having the USRs could give them a template to work with, and that way its more noticeable to the player when they DO make things different. In the specific example you quoted, by making a USR that is scalable, you are able to play with the numbers without having to make a whole new rule. Want something extra soaky? Unnatural Resilience (2), want a super soaker? Unnatural Resilience (3), etc.
The problem 40k had with USRs before was that there were a ton of them, some were rarely used, others were "you get these 2 USRs", and so on.
But... how does this help? Do you go around thinking "Dreadnoughts have Duty Eternal" rather than "Dreadnoughts reduce damage taken by 1"?
I know - because people have been going on about it for years - that some people can't cope that all the above rules are the same but with different names. Or that there's 20+ rules which mean "you can deepstrike" etc.
But to my mind that's not bloat. Read the rule once, oh its deepstrike, okay, move on with your life. If you are ever in doubt, its on the datasheet right there. That isn't the source of 9th's complexity. The very fact that you could make it a USR system implies that it isn't an issue.
The way HBMC setup the rules opens up design space for GW, while making it simpler for players. It's BECAUSE players call it deepstrike/transhuman/melta/etc. that it's dumb for GW not to use these terms (or at least a common one).
Take the start of 8th when all "melta" equivalent got changed to D6+2 instead of best of 2D6, they had to do a big list of every "melta" weapon. If they had a solid ruleset based on USRs, they could have done a single update that said :
Melta : when firing this weapon from half range, its damage characteristic is D6+2
USRs are 100% the way to go and the best way to approach game design. They just have to make a list of USRs at the beggining of the edition and not feth with it by adding a ton more (and never ever bring back the dumb "this USRs means you have these USRs")
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
Flavour text and especially abilities or wargear that grants other abilities can rot. A rule does not become thematic because it has been adapted as appropriate for the faction, but because the rules evoke the fluff and models making the rules feel thematic and right.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
Flavour text and especially abilities or wargear that grants other abilities can rot. A rule does not become thematic because it has been adapted as appropriate for the faction, but because the rules evoke the fluff and models making the rules feel thematic and right.
i think the "flavor text" that HBMC gave is actually a bonus, in a way, if GW wants to change how Duty eternal is represented, they can keep the same flavor while giving it a different effect/USR
for example, they could decide to do :
Duty Eternal : This models fights on death (parting shot USR or something)
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
Flavour text and especially abilities or wargear that grants other abilities can rot. A rule does not become thematic because it has been adapted as appropriate for the faction, but because the rules evoke the fluff and models making the rules feel thematic and right.
In some cases it's the right way to go - you can only have so many rules that give you 'This unit can reroll 1s to wound' or whatever, and that construction allows you to have some flavor in the unit description/datasheet, but just list the pertinent USRs on an e.g. summary sheet. Also, it removes a layer of confusion that arises when you have a bunch of almost, but not quite identical rules because of slight differences in wording between codices or over time.
Ideally, you'd look for a system to be able to handle the bulk of all armies and units mostly with USRs, and save special rules for the cases where they're really needed because a given unit is just *that* special and out-of-the-box.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
Personally, I'd put the flavour in the rule itself. e.g.:
Unnatural Resilience (X): Whether through advanced armour, sorcerous enhancements or alien physiology, some models are able to blunt incoming attacks - turning otherwise fatal strikes into mere flesh-wounds. A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
I think it would make things easier than having several different names for the same USR.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1). Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1). Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1). Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1). Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1). Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
Flavour text and especially abilities or wargear that grants other abilities can rot. A rule does not become thematic because it has been adapted as appropriate for the faction, but because the rules evoke the fluff and models making the rules feel thematic and right.
i think the "flavor text" that HBMC gave is actually a bonus, in a way, if GW wants to change how Duty eternal is represented, they can keep the same flavor while giving it a different effect/USR
for example, they could decide to do :
Duty Eternal : This models fights on death (parting shot USR or something)
That, apparently, is the reason why they did the opposite of most games and instead of having rules defined and applied, went to each rule has its own reprint of what it does. So they could, if they wanted to, change Duty Eternal but not Cheating Eldar Bullgak (love that one lol). The problem is that bloats things even more because everything has to be done separately. It reminds me of Warmachine Mk1 where they did similar; "Fly" was different for various units based on whatever (e.g. regular wings vs. tattered wings for undead), and Mk2 codified it so that Fly was Fly was Fly no matter what allowed you to fly; the language was consistent so you knew what it did from the core rules.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/02/28 15:01:08
Breton wrote: I was just stilling with Plasma all around for the comparison, but if you want to point out Devs have more varied options than minor deviations in range, and average ROF, its kind of just another point in my favor that Hellblasters probably should have had a deeper look at their PPM than they got in the MFM.
Devastators are ~ 5PPM more than their Tactical Marine base body. Hellblasters are ~12PPM more than their Intercessor Marine base body.
Oh I totally agree that they need a look, but the gap isn't massive enough for me to think they were trying to ignore them. As with many things -- they screw up ( *cough* Inceptors ).
The bad things are the amount of stratagems, stale mission design, and imbalanced secondaries. The missions are basically written for the same cookie cutter table tournaments have been using since 5th. NOVA has way better missions and secondaries than what's in the rulebook. I also think 6 month seasons are too short for people who have actual lives outside of 40k. The only people that can keep up are the guys who live at home with no jobs and can hang out at the FLGS/Warhammer store all day. People with 40hr+ jobs and other hobbies that split time with 40k are not going to learn all new rules, point costs, and missions every 6 months. I'm lucky if I've even played all the missions before the new ones are released. It's just another excuse to get $30-40 off us every 6 months when it should be a free PDF. Dota updates heroes every 2 weeks, which is fine if the game and heroes are free and don't require buying/building/painting just to be invalidated before that process is even finished.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
Flavour text and especially abilities or wargear that grants other abilities can rot. A rule does not become thematic because it has been adapted as appropriate for the faction, but because the rules evoke the fluff and models making the rules feel thematic and right.
In some cases it's the right way to go - you can only have so many rules that give you 'This unit can reroll 1s to wound' or whatever, and that construction allows you to have some flavor in the unit description/datasheet, but just list the pertinent USRs on an e.g. summary sheet. Also, it removes a layer of confusion that arises when you have a bunch of almost, but not quite identical rules because of slight differences in wording between codices or over time.
Ideally, you'd look for a system to be able to handle the bulk of all armies and units mostly with USRs, and save special rules for the cases where they're really needed because a given unit is just *that* special and out-of-the-box.
When is re-roll 1s to wound an appropriate ability for a unit to have? If it is appropriate for a unit to be able to fly over other units then give it FLY. If it is appropriate for a unit to arrive anywhere from reinforcements give it Deep Strike. The fluff does not belong on the datasheet, the ability to Deep Strike is what is thematic, not whatever arbitrary name you change it to, the fluff mechanics of the unit's Deep Strike ability should be explained elsewhere. That's not to say you shouldn't use thematic names for abilities that will be unique to the faction, the chance of another designer wanting to use Reanimation Protocols or Combat Doctrines in another codex is zero, so there is no need to use generic names like Back From the Dead and Ordered Armour Penetration. If it isn't clear what Deep Strike or FLY is representing for the datasheet then the datasheet probably shouldn't have it. Why do Warp Spiders have FLY? Because they can teleport to the other side of units. Why do Scarabs have FLY? Because they can fly. Why do Tactical Squads have FLY? No reason for them to have it, so they shouldn't have it. You should be able to apply the same to a re-roll 1s ability, if the ability doesn't make sense without flavour text giving an excuse for it existing, it should be removed. I could make an excuse for any unit to be able to re-roll 1s, but it would be just that, an excuse for bad game design.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you can do so without losing the flavour text as well.
The USR Unnatural Resilience (X): A model with this special rule reduces all incoming damage by the amount indicated, to a minimum of 1 (eg. a model with Unnatural Resilience (2) wounded hit by a Damage 4 weapon would reduce that to Damage 2).
Codex Entries Duty Eternal: Space Marine Dreadnoughts have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Crazed Longevity: Helbrutes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Synaptic Redundancy: Carnifexes have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Auto-Repair Sub-Systems: Riptides have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Dead 'Ard Construkshun: Deff Dreadz have Unnatural Resilience (1).
Cheating Eldar Bull gak: Wraithlords have Unnatural Resilience (16).
And so on.
But... how does this help? Do you go around thinking "Dreadnoughts have Duty Eternal" rather than "Dreadnoughts reduce damage taken by 1"?
It means you just see Unnatural Resilience and instantly know what rule you're dealing with, rather than needing to read through it to make sure it's the same rule you know. It also means you can see at a glance that, oh, the Eldar version works a little differently, rather than that being a detail you might miss. It means you don't need to parse the whole thing to avoid getting caught out by some little nitpicky distinction (see: 're-roll any' versus 're-roll all' versus 're-roll misses').
And lastly it means that if/when the core writers adjust the rule, they can just change it, instead of the awkward word salad we got when GW had to restrict deep strike by describing what deep strike abilities look like.
Tyel wrote: If you are ever in doubt, its on the datasheet right there.
And to this point- 'on the datasheet right there' in practice means having to pull out the codex and flip to the appropriate unit entry, because you can't put the full text of every ability on a quick-reference sheet. USRs allow a more concise presentation of rules. You use a shorthand name for a consistent mechanic so that it's easier to refer to and to facilitate the usability heuristic of recognition over recall, and then if necessary you can pull out the list of USRs and read the full text.
I mean, this is pretty much Game Design 101. I can't think of any other modern games that do this USRs-without-calling-them-USRs thing that 40K does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/01 14:57:09
I mean aren't you instead pulling out the rulebook to check the wording of the USR after having pulled out the Codex to check the unity entry this way round, it's less words but more actual book checking unless you memorise them all?
The obvious answer is print it as a USR and have that relevant rule in full on the unit, or reprinted in the codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/01 17:57:26
Dudeface wrote: it's less words but more actual book checking unless you memorise them all?
Condensing the content to the point where you can easily memorize it all is the entire point of the universal special rules.
yeah, its mind numbing seeing all the people trying to somehow prove that USRs are a bad thing. Theres a reason pretty much all games use them.
Try playing a game of MTG where every keyword is written in full (and some differences are added between cards, just because) and i swear the game will be super painful.
GW introduced lawyer-speech in their rules because they couldnt be assed to have a solid framework.
Dudeface wrote: it's less words but more actual book checking unless you memorise them all?
Condensing the content to the point where you can easily memorize it all is the entire point of the universal special rules.
yeah, its mind numbing seeing all the people trying to somehow prove that USRs are a bad thing. Theres a reason pretty much all games use them.
Try playing a game of MTG where every keyword is written in full (and some differences are added between cards, just because) and i swear the game will be super painful.
GW introduced lawyer-speech in their rules because they couldnt be assed to have a solid framework.
I won't argue that USR's aren't a good thing, it's a reason we refer to FNP saves etc even now. But I don't see the harm in them being reprinted where useful. The entire shift to data cards now are so the players (in theory) have all the relevant stuff for their army in one place/book, which I don't see as anything to be negative towards.
I won't argue that USR's aren't a good thing, it's a reason we refer to FNP saves etc even now. But I don't see the harm in them being reprinted where useful. The entire shift to data cards now are so the players (in theory) have all the relevant stuff for their army in one place/book, which I don't see as anything to be negative towards.
I miscommunicated what i meant.
I meant "Imagine if MTG had the full rules text (with variations) on every card INSTEAD of just the keyword"
Repetition is the best way to approach it, have reminder text written on every datasheet that way players will learn what keywords do just by looking at the datasheet, no need to refer to the book.
Now, that obviously breaks if GW ever makes a change to an USR but its still a start (and until the rules are 100% digital, i don't think theres a perfect method of distributing them)
I won't argue that USR's aren't a good thing, it's a reason we refer to FNP saves etc even now. But I don't see the harm in them being reprinted where useful. The entire shift to data cards now are so the players (in theory) have all the relevant stuff for their army in one place/book, which I don't see as anything to be negative towards.
I miscommunicated what i meant.
I meant "Imagine if MTG had the full rules text (with variations) on every card INSTEAD of just the keyword"
Repetition is the best way to approach it, have reminder text written on every datasheet that way players will learn what keywords do just by looking at the datasheet, no need to refer to the book.
Now, that obviously breaks if GW ever makes a change to an USR but its still a start (and until the rules are 100% digital, i don't think theres a perfect method of distributing them)
MTG does it in a quite ingenious way: the common cards - which have usually not many keywords on any given card, and are overall 'simpler', have keywords and reminder/explainer text in brackets, while the rarer cards usually have not. Since a player will encounter vastly more commons than higher rarities, the commons kind of act as a tutorial. Then of course there are a couple dozen of 'evergreen' keywords that show up so often that they only really need reminder text in core and introductory sets aimed at new players. Also, MTG made a conscious effort to give the more common keywords names that are kind of intuitive: even if you have no real idea about game mechanics, you could probably guess what First Strike, Fly, Double Strike or Haste would do.
14000 points 