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:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.

Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.

If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.

The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.

One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.

The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.

In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.

Sure. But again, (almost) all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, Army Rules such as Dark Angels, etc).






.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.

Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.

If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.

The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.

One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.

The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.

In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.

Sure. But again, all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, etc..

Let me try another tact.

You see the abilities currently on a datasheet? For Terminators, their Invulnerable save and their Deep Strike; for Plaguebearers or Plague Marines, their FNP; for Scouts, their infiltration...

See those abilities? I want those to stay on the datasheet, but with consistent names and wording.

If it's not on the datasheet, I would still want it to have consistent names and wording, but it doesn't need to be added to the datasheet.

Does that make sense?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.

Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.

If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.

The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.

One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.

The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.

In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.

Sure. But again, all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, etc..

Let me try another tact.

You see the abilities currently on a datasheet? For Terminators, their Invulnerable save and their Deep Strike; for Plaguebearers or Plague Marines, their FNP; for Scouts, their infiltration...

See those abilities? I want those to stay on the datasheet, but with consistent names and wording.

If it's not on the datasheet, I would still want it to have consistent names and wording, but it doesn't need to be added to the datasheet.

Does that make sense?

What would be the point?

If it is on the datasheet, you may as well give them a "thematic name" and vary them a bit for fun. They are on the datasheet after all.

If the wording and naming is identical, make it a strat, an army rule, etc.. and just give a references (e.g. "Angels of Death" for Marines or "Instinctive Behaviour" for Nids).

Which is why my ideal datasheet would have rules like this:

Rules Name-Fluff Name
Full text of the rule's game effects.

Fluff text about the rule.

Because a big issue is NEW players. New players don't have old names to fall back on, like FNP, Objective Secured, Deep Strike... They could try using the different names, and that's just gonna cause confusion.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is why my ideal datasheet would have rules like this:

Rules Name-Fluff Name
Full text of the rule's game effects.

Fluff text about the rule.

Because a big issue is NEW players. New players don't have old names to fall back on, like FNP, Objective Secured, Deep Strike... They could try using the different names, and that's just gonna cause confusion.

Sounds like a good idea.

But if youd wanted to standardise it that way, why only arbitrarily in the "abilities" section and not just do it properly and just the same in other places (e.g. Auras, Strats. WL traits, Spells, etc.).

All your Re-roll 1s Abilities, Spells, Captain-Auras, Wisdom-of-Dreadnought strats would have their fluff name, the rules name, the rules text and an access condition (e.g. the unit itself, nearby units and the unit itself, a CP Cost, a "roll-above-X-in-the-psychic-phase-condition", etc..).

Same for Deepstrike, Fight Twice, FnPs, Etc..

I'm not sure why this is an argument because I would be fine with seeing Fight Twice or Shoot Twice become USRs. Just have a short blurb in the rulebook that says 'some units have this ability or are granted it by a stratagem, they can make another attack at the end of the phase, it can be directed at a different unit from their first attack', essentially a short FAQ to clear up design intent, and be done with it. If the USR rules were printed on the datasheets (or in the relevant stratagems) too then there's no loss.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is why my ideal datasheet would have rules like this:

Rules Name-Fluff Name
Full text of the rule's game effects.

Fluff text about the rule.

Because a big issue is NEW players. New players don't have old names to fall back on, like FNP, Objective Secured, Deep Strike... They could try using the different names, and that's just gonna cause confusion.

Sounds like a good idea.

But if youd wanted to standardise it that way, why only arbitrarily in the "abilities" section and not just do it properly and just the same in other places (e.g. Auras, Strats. WL traits, Spells, etc.).

All your Re-roll 1s Abilities, Spells, Captain-Auras, Wisdom-of-Dreadnought strats would have their fluff name, the rules name, the rules text and an access condition (e.g. the unit itself, nearby units and the unit itself, a CP Cost, a "roll-above-X-in-the-psychic-phase-condition", etc..).

Same for Deepstrike, Fight Twice, FnPs, Etc..

That's what we're talking about. If a rule is common enough among factions it gets a USR that explains its effect, so everyone has a common understanding of it, that rule could then be explained on the units data sheet. If it's conferred by a stratagem, warlord trait, etc it says "unit gains USR X" plus the price etc, explained in its entry in the strategem, warlord trait, etc section. If it's not common, such as your tau example, it's a bespoke rule for that particular unit, otherwise you get the giant mess of USRs we had in 7th.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.

Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.

If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.

The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.

One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.

The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.

In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.

Sure. But again, (almost) all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, Army Rules such as Dark Angels, etc).

This conversation has never been about rules on strategems. It has been about the rules that appear in unit entries and for forces as a whole. You're arguing against a straw man.

It is entirely possible that you could streamline strategems to grant USRs to units rather than making them unique.

But the discussion has always been that a unit entry should have standardised wording for every instance of the same effect.

Your argument is just as much against the current system where strategems don't appear in unit entries, as it is against USRs. Because you're not arguing the same point at all.

One thing to consider is situations like Fleet. For a long time it was a unique rule that was written on everyone's unit entry who had it. Then it became a USR at the same time its old affect was made a standard rule: Run. Now, the unit's entry doesn't match what the USR says.

This is where the GW problem comes in. If Fleet is changed from one edition's codex to another, but another army's book doesn't get updated, which do they go with, especially if GW forgets to errata it for 6 months?

That's not a point against USRs though. That's just an another example of GW's terrible implementation.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's not a point against USRs though. That's just an another example of GW's terrible implementation.

Yep. Demonstrating perfectly the point made in my original post:


What's The Matter With USRs?

It's pretty clear the current system isn't designed for user friendliness, it's designed for designer friendliness.

Rather than holding the onus for rules, they've put it on the players to keep track of.

this way, GW's writers are never wrong when they put something out, it's just another 'unique' rule...

Hellebore wrote:
It's pretty clear the current system isn't designed for user friendliness, it's designed for designer friendliness.

Rather than holding the onus for rules, they've put it on the players to keep track of.

this way, GW's writers are never wrong when they put something out, it's just another 'unique' rule...

i mean it isn't as if balance has suffered from that..... how could it /s...

rbstr wrote:
Why do all bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question

Of course there is an answer to the question you just asked. "To make it way easier to remember how all the bodyguards in the game work.
If the bodyguard you face use the same rule as the bodyguard you use in your army, it's going to be way easier to know how they work.

Now I'm not saying that every body guard units need to work the exact same way. What I am saying, though, is that you should only create a new way for bodyguards to work if it is actually necessary, rather than just having "introduce a new bodyguard rule that is subtly different from other bodyguard rules in ways that aren't immediately obvious" be the default option.
This works by :
- having one or two very generic body guard rules that are used a lot, and that people will know by heart and recognize.
- having the bodyguard rules that are different from those one or two generic ones be VERY different, not just a very small change
There. Problem solved. Now people can know easily which body guard rules they are facing.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

rbstr wrote:
Why do all bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question

Of course there is an answer to the question you just asked. "To make it way easier to remember how all the bodyguards in the game work.
If the bodyguard you face use the same rule as the bodyguard you use in your army, it's going to be way easier to know how they work.

Now I'm not saying that every body guard units need to work the exact same way. What I am saying, though, is that you should only create a new way for bodyguards to work if it is actually necessary, rather than just having "introduce a new bodyguard rule that is subtly different from other bodyguard rules in ways that aren't immediately obvious" be the default option.
This works by :
- having one or two very generic body guard rules that are used a lot, and that people will know by heart and recognize.
- having the bodyguard rules that are different from those one or two generic ones be VERY different, not just a very small change
There. Problem solved. Now people can know easily which body guard rules they are facing.

This. /thread

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

rbstr wrote:
Why do all bodyguards" need to operate the same way? There's no actual answer to either question

Of course there is an answer to the question you just asked. "To make it way easier to remember how all the bodyguards in the game work.
If the bodyguard you face use the same rule as the bodyguard you use in your army, it's going to be way easier to know how they work.

Now I'm not saying that every body guard units need to work the exact same way. What I am saying, though, is that you should only create a new way for bodyguards to work if it is actually necessary, rather than just having "introduce a new bodyguard rule that is subtly different from other bodyguard rules in ways that aren't immediately obvious" be the default option.
This works by :
- having one or two very generic body guard rules that are used a lot, and that people will know by heart and recognize.
- having the bodyguard rules that are different from those one or two generic ones be VERY different, not just a very small change
There. Problem solved. Now people can know easily which body guard rules they are facing.

Especially if your Bodyguard rules allow for parameters - either in terms of what can be protected, or what activation roll is required for the ability to work. With those, even two rules can cover a wide variety of situations and skill levels.

the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.

Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"

and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.

RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc

And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA

Karol wrote:
the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.

Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"

and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.

RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc

And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA

Issue with that is having to reference a different rulebook.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Karol wrote:
the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.

Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"

and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.

RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc

And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA

Issue with that is having to reference a different rulebook.

As opposed to having reference the FAQ and FAQs of other armies to be sure the rule still says what it does?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Karol wrote:
the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.

Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"

and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.

RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc

And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA

Issue with that is having to reference a different rulebook.

You still have to do that anyway, if there are different rules or rules that work similar, but not really the same. They don't even have to do the big book rule stuff. just write the rules in a clear way. Bold the non lore parts, use the same words for similar rules. Don't have different words describe a similar action. And if they are writen different then make them work different too.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Karol wrote:
the way GW writes their rules also seems to be a problem to me. They aren't very clear with the way the rules get constructed. There is lore stuff that has nothing to do with rules, they use different words to describe the same stuf etc.

Why can't all re-roll 1s to hit rules look like this.
"All models within X" of this model get RE-ROLL1"

and then the rule book says that "re-roll 1" means you can re-roll every roll 1 on to hit.

RE-ROLL2 can be re-roll 1 to wound etc

And if GW decides they want to change a rule they can easily do it in an FAQ or CA

Issue with that is having to reference a different rulebook.

You still have to do that anyway, if there are different rules or rules that work similar, but not really the same. They don't even have to do the big book rule stuff. just write the rules in a clear way. Bold the non lore parts, use the same words for similar rules. Don't have different words describe a similar action. And if they are writen different then make them work different too.

And while they’re at it, if they could rewrite the rules using properly proofed technical English for rules terminology. The use of the words “wound/wounded” in the rules is a note perfect example of how not to write rules.

If "wounded/wound" was a bolded status explained in the rule book, then I don't think there would be much of a problem.

I only played one edition. But the rule system seems to assume people to not only know the rules, but the history of w40k, supposed intentions of the design team and have an ability to know which words are just for it to sound cool, and words that are there to actually describe rules.

Also why shouldn't all bodyguards work the same? Roll to intercept the hit, which seems like something they should all do?

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
AFAIK, out of all the deep strike rules only 2 operate differently to the regular 9" distance ones - the Callidus and the Monolith. Now, I could be wrong about that, but this is actually an argument in favour of USRs. We have literally dozens of deep strike rules that are worded identically but named completely differently for no reason.

And these outliers can be easily fixed wit hproper USR.

Monolith : Deepstrike (12")
Callidus : Deepstrike (9 - D3")

And people mentionned Drop pods, well theres a way to fix them that would also fix the CSM ones.

Precise Deepstrike (9") : This unit can deepstrike on turn 1.

IMO, a cleaner approach would be something like this:

Monolith Special Rules:
Deep Strike
Monolithic Teleport- When arriving on the battlefield via Deep Strike, this model may not be set up within 12" of enemy units, rather than 9" as normal.

Drop Pod Special Rules:
Deep Strike
Assault Strike- This unit may arrive on the battlefield via Deep Strike during the first Battle Round.

Instead of giving every USR a bunch of attached variables (in this case, deployment range), for the ones where 90% of them work the same just have the basic USR, and then bespoke unit-specific rules as needed.

The USR provides the core framework, and then the special rule explicitly defines how the unit deviates from that baseline. No needing to parse the entire block of deep strike rules text to figure out whether this one is the same as all the others or if there's some subtle distinction. It's basically the approach we already have with Rapid Fire and Bolter Discipline- Rapid Fire is a USR that applies to lots of armies, and then Bolter Discipline is a bespoke rule which modifies it.

This is much, much worse. More words means more time spent reading and processing to reach the same destination as Deepstrike X.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Sunny Side Up, please articulate your position. You seem to be typing nonsense.

Again. What is this "outside" and "native" you talk about.

If I fight twice with a unit of Imperial Fist Intercessors or a unit of Khorne Berzerkers is the exact same mechanical resolution. You pile-in, you roll the dice, you resolve wounds, consolidate, etc.. exactly like you do for one or the other.

The separation of "outside" and "native" is just fluff and convenience of where there was white space in the Codex to print it.

One unit has it as a rule that is always active-the unit just HAS IT.

The other is an ability that is NOT part of their datasheet-it is activated by spending CP.

In the same way that "Reroll hit rolls of 1" is NOT a Terminator ability-it's an ability they can be granted by being near a Captain.

Sure. But again, all re-roll 1s are identical. (and people dont use the various names for the gazillion re-roll 1 abilities in the game, whether the access to the ability is native (e.g. Long Fangs), Aura-characters (Captains), Spells, Strats, etc..

Let me try another tact.

You see the abilities currently on a datasheet? For Terminators, their Invulnerable save and their Deep Strike; for Plaguebearers or Plague Marines, their FNP; for Scouts, their infiltration...

See those abilities? I want those to stay on the datasheet, but with consistent names and wording.

If it's not on the datasheet, I would still want it to have consistent names and wording, but it doesn't need to be added to the datasheet.

Does that make sense?

What would be the point?

If it is on the datasheet, you may as well give them a "thematic name" and vary them a bit for fun. They are on the datasheet after all.

If the wording and naming is identical, make it a strat, an army rule, etc.. and just give a references (e.g. "Angels of Death" for Marines or "Instinctive Behaviour" for Nids).

Ease of communication with your opponent, as well as being able to remember the rules for your army instead of needing to play with the codex open.

If all re-rolls, deep strikes etc work the same for all armies, then there is fewer stuff to learn. And less gatcha moments, just because someones rule is a bit different, but that bit makes it a lot more powerful.

A better way to go about it would be Deep Strike: 12" Turn 2 for a Monolith for example, and Drop Pod written as Deep Strike: 9" Turn 1

Does that make sense or nah

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A better way to go about it would be Deep Strike: 12" Turn 2 for a Monolith for example, and Drop Pod written as Deep Strike: 9" Turn 1

Does that make sense or nah

To me that's not a USR that more a concise way of actually summarising the relevent technical information required to play the rule.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A better way to go about it would be Deep Strike: 12" Turn 2 for a Monolith for example, and Drop Pod written as Deep Strike: 9" Turn 1

Does that make sense or nah

Nah. I think with something like Deep Strike where there are comparatively few exceptions you don't need any of the extraneous stuff about minimum distance. Keep it simple and just make the Deep Strike USR the 9" turn 2 onwards rule. Anything that has a modified version of that can then either have a separate modifier after the Deep Strike USR or a completely different rule. For things like re-rolls or Feel No Pain or Explosions some numerical values after the rule might be handy but I think a lot of the suggestions I've seen for USRs seem to overcomplicate them a bit too much. Just capture the universal part of it and nothing more.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also why shouldn't all bodyguards work the same? Roll to intercept the hit, which seems like something they should all do?

I can see one reason. To make very cheap bodyguard less effective per model than elite bodyguard at tanking high D weapons.
Make the cheap per model bodyguard use one model to soak one wound, and the expensive per model bodyguard tank a whole high D weapon shot.

Okay, so let's assume USR's are awesome. I'm not sold, but let's assume.

Okay, so the new rulebook drops tomorrow. Do we invalidate all 24 codices tomorrow too? Or do they limp along as is, with all development shunted to rewriting and and invalidating all 24 of them one at a time?

I mean really, is this cure better than the disease?

Wanna know how your rule works? Read the data card. Really, that's the system we have now.

Don't worry about new players- they learn the game one army at a time anyway, and all they have to do is read the card.

Don't worry about knowing exactly how your opponent's rules work; ask. Your opponent will probably explain it more concisely than the card, but if you need it, there it is.

Would it have been better to use standard wording for identical rules, even if not going full on USR? Sure. Would it have been better to be full on USR as long as the full text was printed on the card? Sure.

Is it worth invalidating 24 codices either in one fell swoop or over a period of two years where all new development stops?

Nope. Not even close. Just read your card.