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.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you're going to put reminder text on everything then why not just spell out the rule?
That's what's being said. If you read the OP, you'd see that what the majority of us who want USRs actually want is just a consolidation of rules under one name, and a unification of mechanics.
We don't need fifteen different RR1s, we don't need forty eight different Deep Strikes, we don't need eighteen different FNPs... But writing the full text of the rule on the sheet is fine. That's useful for newer players, or even older players who just had a moment of forgetfulness.
That I can get behind. Flavour is one thing but when it gets in the way of mechanics is when it needs to stop.
Exactly. The ONLY army with a different FNP mechanic is Graia and that's it. Everyone else has the same darn rule.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Andykp wrote: So what you are really arguing for here is just renaming some of the rules and actually changing nothing.
yes and no, We do want GW to unify the rules names, that way anyone can say "i have a 5+Feel no pain" or my weapons "Gets hot" on a 1.
what this brings is consistency and an easier understanding of the rules. How many different variants of explode is there? with a rule like i suggested, explosion stays in the game but it becomes more readable.
It also becomes easier to change the rules if needed. Lets say they decide to make flamers do one hit per model in the target unit, instead of needing to go through multiple different codexes, they could simply update the USR.
Creating a viable ruleset is similar to programming, you want clear variables and if one is used at multiple different places in the code, you create a constant variable.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you're going to put reminder text on everything then why not just spell out the rule?
Easier rules comprehension. "My unit has stealth" is easier to communicate and understand than "while this unit is in the open it gains the benefit of cover, when it's not in the open, it gets -1 to hit". You only need to learn and understand the rule once, and you know what it does for every unit it appears on - unlike "Explodes!" which comes in dozens of variants, which basically forces you to read it every time on every datasheet.
Andykp wrote: So what you are really arguing for here is just renaming some of the rules and actually changing nothing.
yes and no, We do want GW to unify the rules names, that way anyone can say "i have a 5+Feel no pain" or my weapons "Gets hot" on a 1.
what this brings is consistency and an easier understanding of the rules. How many different variants of explode is there? with a rule like i suggested, explosion stays in the game but it becomes more readable.
It also becomes easier to change the rules if needed. Lets say they decide to make flamers do one hit per model in the target unit, instead of needing to go through multiple different codexes, they could simply update the USR.
Creating a viable ruleset is similar to programming, you want clear variables and if one is used at multiple different places in the code, you create a constant variable.
This.
In addition, some rules should be consolidated and thus changed. Something like Bodyguard should work the same for everyone - there is no reason do have different rules depending on whether an Ultramarine with as shield, a tau drone, a Death Guard Terminator or a grot jumps into a missile aimed at someone worth protecting. Or Get's Hot - all dangerous weapon whould have "On an _unmodified_ hit roll of one, after resolving all shots, the firing unit takes one mortal for each 1 rolled". Having multiple rules work slightly different (plasma cannon vs helbrute plasma cannon vs kustom mega cannon) doesn't provide any meaningful rules depth nor does it change the background - all of them will hurt or kill whoever is firing them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: 1: There are no USRs that grant other USRs.
2: The game developers restrain themselves and don't grant units bespoke rule that are USR+, USR- or slight variations of a USR.
3: You don't have multiple pages of USRs that need a PhD in Multivariable Calculus to parse.
4: There are no USRs that need 3 or 4 variables to be "plugged in" to work.
I have a question about the second one. Do think that USR+- rules should be used sparsely, or not at all?
I'm actually struggling for a good example, because with properly worded rules you can split pretty much any USR+ rule into the USR and a bonus For example Ghost Helm would just be FNP 5+ and +3 to FNP if you are saving against MW from perils.
However, there might be a reason to give something like a special character a better version of some USR that usually is not variable.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/10/23 09:40:43
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
GW should not unify the rules because it makes it harder to balance individual factions.
How is it better when changing the power of a rule affects multiple factions instead of just one? A 5+ FNP might be super powerful on one type of unit, and be perfectly reasonable on another from a different codex.
The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules. It doesn't matter how man factions have a similar rule by a different name, you don't need to know it. Unifying rules does not speed up the game, 7th edition was slower than 8th despite using smaller armies with USRs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 09:58:07
Ishagu wrote: GW should not unify the rules because it makes it harder to balance individual factions.
How is it better when changing the power of a rule affects multiple factions instead of just one? A 5+ FNP might be super powerful on one type of unit, and be perfectly reasonable on another from a different codex.
The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules. It doesn't matter how man factions have a similar rule by a different name, you don't need to know it. Unifying rules does not speed up the game, 7th edition was slower than 8th despite using smaller armies with USRs.
But you could just point the different units differently...I mean BS 3+ is worth much more on one unit than on the other and still there is a concept of Ballistic Skill.
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
There is more to the game than points - they don't account for the value of a unit in every situations.
Example: 5 Devastators with Heavy Bolters are very valuable when shooting at Orks on an open table.
Those same 5 Devs are useless when battling Custodes on a table covered in terrain and no firing lanes. Should they have a different value based on the table and opponent? In one game they could remove dozens of models, in another 0.
It's much harder to balance a game than people realise. Honestly it's surprising to see all the complaints. 40k has more units and factions than anything comparable, it's a unique beast. If you think you can do better go right ahead. I eagerly anticipate the community made books for every unit and factions, I'll give it a go.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/23 10:21:25
Ishagu wrote: GW should not unify the rules because it makes it harder to balance individual factions.
How is it better when changing the power of a rule affects multiple factions instead of just one? A 5+ FNP might be super powerful on one type of unit, and be perfectly reasonable on another from a different codex.
The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules. It doesn't matter how man factions have a similar rule by a different name, you don't need to know it. Unifying rules does not speed up the game, 7th edition was slower than 8th despite using smaller armies with USRs.
I'd dispute quite heavily that 7th was slower than 8th. Also, even if that was the case, it doesn't mean the reason for the slowness was the existence of USR. USRs allow easy understanding of units and armies you've never faced before. If you can tell me your guys have FNP, these units Deep Strike and these guys have Furious Charge, I know what to expect without having to know any more about your units and I don't have to worry about any tiny differences between almost identical special rules. Also, the idea I only need to concern myself with my own army's rules is wrong. I'm playing against someone else, so I really do need to know what their army is capable of. USRs are a huge aid to this understanding. GW are, I think, the only games company I know of that doesn't use USRs. It's literally an industry standard, and for good reason.
A bad reason not to use them is because you might want small differences between special rules on your units. That's bad game design. Part of designing a tight, solid ruleset is restricting your available tools to only what is necessary. There's no good reason why a unit has to have a slightly different version of FNP, for example. That's the tool you have to work with so that's what you use.
Ishagu wrote: There is more to the game than points - they don't account for the value of a unit in every situations.
Example: 5 Devastators with Heavy Bolters are very valuable when shooting at Orks on an open table.
Those same 5 Devs are useless when battling Custodes on a table covered in terrain and no firing lanes. Should they have a different value based on the table and opponent? In one game they could remove dozens of models, in another 0.
It's much harder to balance a game than people realise. Honestly it's surprising to see all the complaints. 40k has more units and factions than anything comparable, it's a unique beast. If you think you can do better go right ahead. I eagerly anticipate the community made books for every unit and factions, I'll give it a go.
But this has nothing to do with USR
I'm not saying it is easy to balance a game and your argument proves nothing except why no one plays Heavy Bolters
Joking aside, the point stands: if one unit benefits more from trait X, just price it accordingly. The Heavy Bolter in your example is worth more than the big Shoota on an Ork boy although their stats are comparable. Building one-sided lists that only focus on one type of weapon (anti-tank, anti-Infantery, etc) is not a problem. It is a positive challenge of a wargame to creat an "allcomers" List
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
Ishagu wrote: No, I'm saying that individual special rules are better than USRs because they allow for individual unit and faction balance adjustments.
The name of rules are of 0 impact to the player. You don't need to know the name of every FNP variant, just the one your army uses.
But your approach does not solve the problem.
One unit benefits more from "it does not die on 5+" than another from "Indominable 5+", is exactly the same as
One unit benefits more from "FNP 5+" than another from "FNP 5+".
like you said...the name of the rule has no impact
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
Yes, but if one unit is too powerful as a result of that rule in combination with other things, and the other isn't, changing "It does not die" doesn't affect the less powerful unit with "Indominable"
This is much better for game balancing. Consolidating all the rules into one is far worse for game balancing. It's why the "Monster" rule in 7th edition led to so many broken things in combination with certain units, and nothing at all with others.
Why would GW make it more difficult to adjust individual units? That is crap rule design.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 10:52:52
I don’t need to know what other units do, just what my units do. Now it largely says it right there on the datasheet. Much easier, and was the design principle for doing it. The few army USRs not listed in full tend to be on one or maybe two pages in the Codex.
The dumbest days of 7th included such gems as looking up a USR in the Codex, and when you found it it basically said “it’s the same as this BRBUSR”, so you had to look that up. All for the sake of some flavour text that added noting and made the rule harder to find. That was infinitely dumber and less user friendly than giving you the rule in the same place as your unit rules. 7th is a hot mess of this kind of nonsense.
I see absolutely zero reasons to switch back. Luckily GW aren’t changing so I don’t have to worry.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Ishagu wrote: Yes, but if one unit is too powerful as a result of that rule in combination with other things, and the other isn't, changing "It does not die" doesn't affect the less powerful unit with "Indominable"
This is much better for game balancing. Consolidating all the rules into one is far worse for game balancing. It's why the "Monster" rule in 7th edition led to so many broken things in combination with certain units, and nothing at all with others.
Why would GW make it more difficult to adjust individual units? That is crap rule design.
you can easily adjust individual units....just highten their point cost....or swap FNP 5+ to 6+
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
It's not more difficult though. You make a bespoke rule for the unit that modifies the USR. Having a baseline USR to operate from ("this unit has FNP except against wounds rather than damage") is easier to describe than if all rules were bespoke ("this unit has an extra save against wounds that it can take after failing an ordinary save").
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
JohnnyHell wrote: I don’t need to know what other units do, just what my units do. Now it largely says it right there on the datasheet. Much easier, and was the design principle for doing it. The few army USRs not listed in full tend to be on one or maybe two pages in the Codex.
The dumbest days of 7th included such gems as looking up a USR in the Codex, and when you found it it basically said “it’s the same as this BRBUSR”, so you had to look that up. All for the sake of some flavour text that added noting and made the rule harder to find. That was infinitely dumber and less user friendly than giving you the rule in the same place as your unit rules. 7th is a hot mess of this kind of nonsense.
I see absolutely zero reasons to switch back. Luckily GW aren’t changing so I don’t have to worry.
eeerm....what? you can't be serious. Of course you need to know what your enemies units do! If you waste your shooting because of some sort of invulnerable safe or special rule.
"Know thy enemy"
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
Ishagu wrote: GW should not unify the rules because it makes it harder to balance individual factions.
How is it better when changing the power of a rule affects multiple factions instead of just one? A 5+ FNP might be super powerful on one type of unit, and be perfectly reasonable on another from a different codex.
The rule would not be "Feel no Pain", but "Feel No Pain 5+" or "Feel No Pain 6+".
JohnnyHell wrote: I don’t need to know what other units do, just what my units do.
Ishagu wrote: The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules. It doesn't matter how man factions have a similar rule by a different name, you don't need to know it. Unifying rules does not speed up the game,
"The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules" is nice and dandy. Did you know ork boyz automatically kill anything that can see them? Oh, and the KFF makes them immune to damage. On top of that, if a tankbusta misses a shot with a missile, your entire space marine chapter gets blown up, and the story will get retcon'ed later so the eldar did it.
Properly done USR start making a difference the second your opponent points at a unit and asks "what does that do?".
7th edition was slower than 8th despite using smaller armies with USRs.
7th USR weren't USR though. They were random rules printed in a different place.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/10/23 11:09:57
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
JohnnyHell wrote: I don’t need to know what other units do, just what my units do. Now it largely says it right there on the datasheet. Much easier, and was the design principle for doing it. The few army USRs not listed in full tend to be on one or maybe two pages in the Codex.
The dumbest days of 7th included such gems as looking up a USR in the Codex, and when you found it it basically said “it’s the same as this BRBUSR”, so you had to look that up. All for the sake of some flavour text that added noting and made the rule harder to find. That was infinitely dumber and less user friendly than giving you the rule in the same place as your unit rules. 7th is a hot mess of this kind of nonsense.
I see absolutely zero reasons to switch back. Luckily GW aren’t changing so I don’t have to worry.
eeerm....what? you can't be serious. Of course you need to know what your enemies units do! If you waste your shooting because of some sort of invulnerable safe or special rule.
"Know thy enemy"
In which case I’ll look at my enemy’s Datasheets. And not have to cross reference anything. You have only strengthened my point. ;-)
Ishagu wrote: GW should not unify the rules because it makes it harder to balance individual factions.
How is it better when changing the power of a rule affects multiple factions instead of just one? A 5+ FNP might be super powerful on one type of unit, and be perfectly reasonable on another from a different codex.
The rule would not be "Feel no Pain", but "Feel No Pain 5+" or "Feel No Pain 6+".
JohnnyHell wrote: I don’t need to know what other units do, just what my units do.
Ishagu wrote: The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules. It doesn't matter how man factions have a similar rule by a different name, you don't need to know it. Unifying rules does not speed up the game, 7th edition was slower than 8th despite using smaller armies with USRs.
7th USR weren't USR though. They were random rules printed in a different place.
"The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules" is nice and dandy. Did you know ork boyz automatically kill anything that can see them? Oh, and the KFF makes them immune to damage. On top of that, if a tankbusta misses a shot with a missile, your entire space marine chapter gets blown up, and the story will get retcon'ed later so the eldar did it.
Properly done USR start making a difference the game better the second your opponent points at a unit and asks "what does that do?".
Just show them the Datasheet. USRs don’t help speed up ‘what does this do’ over that, tbh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 11:09:32
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not more difficult though. You make a bespoke rule for the unit that modifies the USR. Having a baseline USR to operate from ("this unit has FNP except against wounds rather than damage") is easier to describe than if all rules were bespoke ("this unit has an extra save against wounds that it can take after failing an ordinary save").
Lol points is not the only way to balance the game. Again you are limiting the ability for individual adjustments.
You are free to make your own 40k rules. Let me know when you've done a better job and I'll give them a try.
JohnnyHell wrote: I don’t need to know what other units do, just what my units do. Now it largely says it right there on the datasheet. Much easier, and was the design principle for doing it. The few army USRs not listed in full tend to be on one or maybe two pages in the Codex.
The dumbest days of 7th included such gems as looking up a USR in the Codex, and when you found it it basically said “it’s the same as this BRBUSR”, so you had to look that up. All for the sake of some flavour text that added noting and made the rule harder to find. That was infinitely dumber and less user friendly than giving you the rule in the same place as your unit rules. 7th is a hot mess of this kind of nonsense.
I see absolutely zero reasons to switch back. Luckily GW aren’t changing so I don’t have to worry.
eeerm....what? you can't be serious. Of course you need to know what your enemies units do! If you waste your shooting because of some sort of invulnerable safe or special rule.
"Know thy enemy"
In which case I’ll look at my enemy’s Datasheets. And not have to cross reference anything. You have only strengthened my point. ;-)
Ishagu wrote: GW should not unify the rules because it makes it harder to balance individual factions.
How is it better when changing the power of a rule affects multiple factions instead of just one? A 5+ FNP might be super powerful on one type of unit, and be perfectly reasonable on another from a different codex.
The rule would not be "Feel no Pain", but "Feel No Pain 5+" or "Feel No Pain 6+".
JohnnyHell wrote: I don’t need to know what other units do, just what my units do.
Ishagu wrote: The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules. It doesn't matter how man factions have a similar rule by a different name, you don't need to know it. Unifying rules does not speed up the game, 7th edition was slower than 8th despite using smaller armies with USRs.
7th USR weren't USR though. They were random rules printed in a different place.
"The only thing you should concern yourself is your army rules" is nice and dandy. Did you know ork boyz automatically kill anything that can see them? Oh, and the KFF makes them immune to damage. On top of that, if a tankbusta misses a shot with a missile, your entire space marine chapter gets blown up, and the story will get retcon'ed later so the eldar did it.
Properly done USR start making a difference the game better the second your opponent points at a unit and asks "what does that do?".
Just show them the Datasheet. USRs don’t help speed up ‘what does this do’ over that, tbh.
Yeah and if the datasheet would say FNP 5+ instead of "Asyrians endurance" you'd cleary see what the unit could and could not do....no sir, thank YOU for strenghthening MY point
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also as many people have said already: Like in magic (which is incredible successfull competetively btw) the USRs will be explained shortly on each datasheet
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/23 11:16:11
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
JohnnyHell wrote: Just show them the Datasheet. USRs don’t help speed up ‘what does this do’ over that, tbh.
Welcome to the thread. This specific concern has been addressed multiple times now, just on the previous page. Please read it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 11:19:52
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
If you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of what all USRs do then great. If not they’re an impediment. They suck when learning. You haven’t proved what you think you have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 11:19:44
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not more difficult though. You make a bespoke rule for the unit that modifies the USR. Having a baseline USR to operate from ("this unit has FNP except against wounds rather than damage") is easier to describe than if all rules were bespoke ("this unit has an extra save against wounds that it can take after failing an ordinary save").
Lol points is not the only way to balance the game. Again you are limiting the ability for individual adjustments.
You are free to make your own 40k rules. Let me know when you've done a better job and I'll give them a try.
The discussion about how points are a viable tool to balance a wargame has nothing to do with USRs whatsoever
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
JohnnyHell wrote: Just show them the Datasheet. USRs don’t help speed up ‘what does this do’ over that, tbh.
Welcome to the thread. This specific concern has been addressed multiple times now, even on this very page. Please read it.
Thanks for the condescension. You holding a different view in no way refutes mine. I believe USRs for 40K are functionally inferior. Change my mind instead of insulting me, thanks. “Addressed” implies compelling reasoning has been provided that means I’m in the wrong. I’ve not seen any whilst reading the whole thread before posting.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: If you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of what all USRs do then great. If not they’re an impediment. They sick when learning. You haven’t proved what you think you have.
But you'd need an even bigger knowledge base for learning every!!! individual rule in every codex!
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
JohnnyHell wrote: Just show them the Datasheet. USRs don’t help speed up ‘what does this do’ over that, tbh.
Welcome to the thread. This specific concern has been addressed multiple times now, even on this very page. Please read it.
Thanks for the condescension. You holding a different view in no way refutes mine. I believe USRs for 40K are functionally inferior. Change my mind instead of insulting me, thanks. “Addressed” implies compelling reasoning has been provided that means I’m in the wrong. I’ve not seen any whilst reading the whole thread before posting.
There has been a clear answer on how to solve your problem, if you can't be arsed to read it, why should I waste my time explaining it to you?
For the record, you are the fifth person in five pages to bring up this point, after not reading the thread.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
You have 12 USR which are all explained in the core rules AND on every datasheet which uses them
ergo you'll have to learn 12 rules by heart, or just read the data cards (often only skimming them, since you're familiar with most of them after a certain point)
VS:
You have 57 individual rules spread across all codices, so you HAVE to read the datasheet as well and can't learn them as good as well because they differ in minute details.
Worst case Scenario: You can't learn the USRs by heart (lack of time, mental problems etc) so you'll read them of the datasheet everytime...NOTHING changes for you, nothing!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 11:24:37
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend.
JohnnyHell wrote: If you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of what all USRs do then great.
You don't need to. Read the thread to find out why.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 11:24:36
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
JohnnyHell wrote: Just show them the Datasheet. USRs don’t help speed up ‘what does this do’ over that, tbh.
Welcome to the thread. This specific concern has been addressed multiple times now, even on this very page. Please read it.
Thanks for the condescension. You holding a different view in no way refutes mine. I believe USRs for 40K are functionally inferior. Change my mind instead of insulting me, thanks. “Addressed” implies compelling reasoning has been provided that means I’m in the wrong. I’ve not seen any whilst reading the whole thread before posting.
There has been a clear answer on how to solve your problem, if you can't be arsed to read it, why should I waste my time explaining it to you?
For the record, you are the fifth person in five pages to bring up this point, after not reading the thread.
Condescension again. You don’t win people over by berating them. Guess I’ll bow out as you just want to attack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 11:28:05
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
