Switch Theme:

Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
Special rules that have slightly different variations and can be condensed into USRs are really a handful of rules. While the idea is definitely a right one and deserves to be implemented, at the end of the day it wouldn't really have a significant impact on bloat.


I disagree. It would massively help communication between players by providing a common vocabulary. It would also aid transition between armies because you don't have to re-learn everything from scratch, or re-discover what the name for Deep Strike is for your new army. It also makes pointing out differences much easier. If 99% of units have standard Deep Strike but the other 1% have a modified version of it, using USRs makes it really obvious when one rules is different, because it will use a different name, or at least call out the difference in some way.

If you were going to go back to USRs (which I think GW absolutely should) the single most important thing is to make sure they are definitely universal. The problem with 7th, in particular, was that the list of USRs contained things that were really not very universal at all, and rarely used.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

But what are those rules than can be condensed into USRs?

Deep strike, feel no pain and explosions basically.

Problem with 7th was the cross reference: a model like Celestine had 10+ USRs to remember and none of them was described under her datasheet or even her codex. I hate doing the cross refence, especially if I have to double check from a different book. I mean, 3-4 faction related USRs to cross reference aren't an issue, but a bunch from the rulebook? I'd accept that concept only if those rules were fully described in the units' datasheets, like they are now. Then it would be an improvement.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 10:49:50



 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Slipspace wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Special rules that have slightly different variations and can be condensed into USRs are really a handful of rules. While the idea is definitely a right one and deserves to be implemented, at the end of the day it wouldn't really have a significant impact on bloat.


I disagree. It would massively help communication between players by providing a common vocabulary. It would also aid transition between armies because you don't have to re-learn everything from scratch, or re-discover what the name for Deep Strike is for your new army. It also makes pointing out differences much easier. If 99% of units have standard Deep Strike but the other 1% have a modified version of it, using USRs makes it really obvious when one rules is different, because it will use a different name, or at least call out the difference in some way.

If you were going to go back to USRs (which I think GW absolutely should) the single most important thing is to make sure they are definitely universal. The problem with 7th, in particular, was that the list of USRs contained things that were really not very universal at all, and rarely used.


I wholeheartedly agree with the above. In addition to USRs actually being universal, if they were to be formally re-introduced, they should be limited in number and USRs shouldn't grant other USRs.

For me, the key is about a shared vocabulary first and foremost, I wouldn't object to datasheets having the full rules of USRs written out as special rules currently are. As others have said, the need to flip between books or to different parts of books is cumbersome.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Dysartes wrote:
Assuming we got down to a sensible amount of USRs - and I'm thinking 1-2 pages at most - there is absolutely nothing stopping that page or two being repreinted in each 'dex as an appendix.
That's actually a really good idea. Makes 'em truly universal.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Part of the reaction against USRs in the past is, I think, a consequence of how they were presented as the editions rolled on. By 7th edition, the USRs took up dozens and dozens of pages because of how they were laid out on the page and written. Each one had a solid paragraph of unnecessary "fluff" at the start, the ruling themselves were often written in an overly verbose manner, paragraph style, with big headings. It all meant they were way less concise than they could be and as a player you were constantly having to flip through pages of USRs. It was annoying.

But I maintain that USRs are 100% the way to go, they just need to be presented concisely. I managed to fit all of the USR's for ProHammer (which basically covers everything from 7th) on about 3 pages in some nice tidy bullet lists. Makes it SOOO much easier to access them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 11:24:09


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Aight, so six pages in, time to fess up folks, otherwise it's gonna haunt your internet karma soul forever in the afterlife and you'll be cursed to only post on sockpuppets by Stan, Prince of Heck, Manager of Minor Infractions: Who made up the one-post-ever OP who just happened to pop in and start up a controversy then leave never to post again?

"Old Editions Best Editions" Crowd, was it you? Mezmorki? Aphyon? Jeff White?

"I hate everything GW does and post continuously out of spite" guys? AnomanderRake? auticus? Tneva?

Come on, come up to the front of the class and tell the truth, you'll feel better.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Maybe it was an inside job by somebody who actually enjoys the game to let the opposition look especially silly and desperate.

Next level posting jk, obviously

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 11:43:52


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Dysartes wrote:

Assuming we got down to a sensible amount of USRs - and I'm thinking 1-2 pages at most - there is absolutely nothing stopping that page or two being repreinted in each 'dex as an appendix.


Absolutely agree with this.

Hell, I think not doing this was what soured people to USRs in the past. Especially when they were presented as an army-wide rule. So you'd have something like Blood Fury: Blood Angel Models have the Furious Charge special rule (see main Rulebook). As you say, there was no reason why they couldn't have just reprinted the relevant rule in full but instead it directed players to search through an entirely different book to find out what it did.


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


What about auras? Particularly the common ones like reroll 1s to hit? Do you think they can be made into universal rules? (Personally, I'd much prefer to just scrap the damn things but it seems GW is still in love with them.)

 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.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

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.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 the_scotsman wrote:
Come on, come up to the front of the class and tell the truth, you'll feel better.


I'm sure Peakab00 will be logging in any time now, if they can remember their password.

------

I don't feel USRs matter. On paper yes, a system where you have about 10 rules, and every unit in the game can be understood by having one or more of those rules, is undoubtedly simpler. But GW will never limit themselves to such (despite, in edition after edition, saying they would.) Which is why you end up with dozens of USRs, many of which applied to a tiny number of units, and then still had plenty of unique special rules for this and that unit anyway.

It clearly bugs some people a lot that there are a dozen different rules that give a unit "deepstrike" - but it just doesn't bother me. I don't think that's meaningful complexity or bloat.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


I'm still having a hard time following how USRs help. When I introduce a dreadnought I remind them it has minus one damage. I don't tell them it has 'Duty Eternal' or whatever the name is for Chaos. I say Deepstrike or 'this weapon is like melta except it is +2 short +4 long'.

   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


I'm still having a hard time following how USRs help. When I introduce a dreadnought I remind them it has minus one damage. I don't tell them it has 'Duty Eternal' or whatever the name is for Chaos. I say Deepstrike or 'this weapon is like melta except it is +2 short +4 long'.


It helps because it keeps the rules in one place. Everyone owns the rulebook (or should, at least). If someone says "I have Feel No Pain [X]" everyone knows what that is. The fact that the community even still refers to it as that speaks volumes.


 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




Southampton, UK

 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


I'm still having a hard time following how USRs help. When I introduce a dreadnought I remind them it has minus one damage. I don't tell them it has 'Duty Eternal' or whatever the name is for Chaos. I say Deepstrike or 'this weapon is like melta except it is +2 short +4 long'.


It helps because it keeps the rules in one place. Everyone owns the rulebook (or should, at least). If someone says "I have Feel No Pain [X]" everyone knows what that is. The fact that the community even still refers to it as that speaks volumes.


My son started playing in 8th and doesn't have that frame of reference in the first place. He doesn't yet fully appreciate that every codex has the same damn rule for deep strike / feel no pain / objective secured etc, and just calls it something different...
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






People have made some good points in regards to USRs but for me it boils down to this:
The rules for the game (e.g. turns, phases, how to play the game) should be in the BRB.
The rules for my army (e.g. special rules, weapon rules) should be in my Codex.
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.
My biggest bugbear about 30k is that I need 3 books to play a Legion. It's why I prefer playing Militia, it's all mostly contained within one book.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 12:33:49


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Crispy78 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
It helps because it keeps the rules in one place. Everyone owns the rulebook (or should, at least). If someone says "I have Feel No Pain [X]" everyone knows what that is. The fact that the community even still refers to it as that speaks volumes.


My son started playing in 8th and doesn't have that frame of reference in the first place. He doesn't yet fully appreciate that every codex has the same damn rule for deep strike / feel no pain / objective secured etc, and just calls it something different...


Fair points, but when I say -1 damage it would then become "whatever USR", which then they need to go lookup if they don't recall the rule where I gave them all the info immediately. Deepstrike is just jargon at this point so I'd imagine new players would reference it as 'reinforcements 9" away'. It'd be an interesting study in any case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
People have made some good points in regards to USRs but for me it boils down to this:
The rules for the game (e.g. turns, phases, how to play the game) should be in the BRB.
The rules for my army (e.g. special rules, weapon rules) should be in my Codex.
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.


This is solved by the suggestion to put USRs in codexes, but could become problematic is USRs are added.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 12:25:57


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 the_scotsman wrote:
Aight, so six pages in, time to fess up folks, otherwise it's gonna haunt your internet karma soul forever in the afterlife and you'll be cursed to only post on sockpuppets by Stan, Prince of Heck, Manager of Minor Infractions: Who made up the one-post-ever OP who just happened to pop in and start up a controversy then leave never to post again?

"Old Editions Best Editions" Crowd, was it you? Mezmorki? Aphyon? Jeff White?

"I hate everything GW does and post continuously out of spite" guys? AnomanderRake? auticus? Tneva?

Come on, come up to the front of the class and tell the truth, you'll feel better.


Lol. Wasn't me!

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Gert wrote:
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.
If that's the only sticking point, then it's easily solved. The USRs are put into each 'Dex, verbatim. They're in every book, and an update to one means an update to all. Means everyone is using the same basic rules for the most common special rules in the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This is solved by the suggestion to put USRs in codexes, but could become problematic is USRs are added.
That's rules bloat, but would only require a meagre level of discipline to avoid.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Gert wrote:
People have made some good points in regards to USRs but for me it boils down to this:
The rules for the game (e.g. turns, phases, how to play the game) should be in the BRB.
The rules for my army (e.g. special rules, weapon rules) should be in my Codex.
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.
My biggest bugbear about 30k is that I need 3 books to play a Legion. It's why I prefer playing Militia, it's all mostly contained within one book.

I agree, but I think the flavour names don't provide enough benefit compared to the benefit of simplicity that using the same universal name for a rule does. Did GW change Reinforcement rules on a per unit basis in 8th when beta strikes were too powerful? No, the purported benefits of the flavour names was all fugazi. Necrons don't even have DS described on the datasheet for a lot of units, but still have for other units. You might imagine that it's based on whether there was room to describe the rule, but it is based on whether fluff-wise the unit is arriving via one way or another, the actual rule is identical.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Daedalus81 wrote:


This is solved by the suggestion to put USRs in codexes, but could become problematic is USRs are added.


They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full. But same thing has the same name for all codexes. So if a USR changes a single FAQ works for everyone. There's no need to write USRs in the rulebook.

Cross referencing is just as annoying than re-rolls.


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

The flavour of the rule's origin is something that could find it's place in the (half-)page long unit description imho. I get the idea behind it, but I think it is a bit unnecessary to have the same exact rule under several different names across the factions.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Blackie wrote:But what are those rules than can be condensed into USRs?

Deep strike, feel no pain and explosions basically.


I'd add Infiltrate, probably the re-roll 1s auras, -1 damage, Gets Hot! and maybe one or two others. Ultimately I'm not sure the number of USRs matters as much as the principle of it being the best way to organise your rules.

Gert wrote:People have made some good points in regards to USRs but for me it boils down to this:
The rules for the game (e.g. turns, phases, how to play the game) should be in the BRB.
The rules for my army (e.g. special rules, weapon rules) should be in my Codex.
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.
My biggest bugbear about 30k is that I need 3 books to play a Legion. It's why I prefer playing Militia, it's all mostly contained within one book.


But you already have rules split across multiple books. The rules for Aircraft may not apply to your army but they're in the BRB, for example. 9th is already well on its way to having more non-Codex supplements than any other edition. The best way to manage rules is digitally, but GW are at least 10 years behind the curve on that one. If that doesn't happen then the best way is through USRs, for all the reasons I previously described. You can also easily reprint the rules text for USRs in a unit's entry and in the Codex itself so everything remains self-contained. The major advantage of USRs is they give a common ground for everyone and aid communication. They also prevent really stupid scenarios like we saw with SoB where they had a -1 damage rule that didn't specify "to a minimum of 1 damage". USRs really are all-win, if managed properly.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 vipoid wrote:
What about auras? Particularly the common ones like reroll 1s to hit? Do you think they can be made into universal rules? (Personally, I'd much prefer to just scrap the damn things but it seems GW is still in love with them.)
Every day I've been thinking about 40k rules issues whilst out walking (most people listen to music - I rewrite rules! ).

So far I've got a spreadsheet where I've just written down every idea that's popped into my head. I'm almost at 200 lines, some being just names of rules, some being more detailed.

For example, "Insane Durability (X) - Reduces all Damage suffered by the value in the parentheses (to a min of 1?)", and "Unnatural Toughness (X) - Cannot be wounded by a result higher/lower than the value in parentheses". Stuff like that.

When it comes to Auras I want granularity, uniformity, and stratification. Auras right now as they are do not scale, in the sense that any aura is an aura. This means that rules can treat auras in a different way, when really they shouldn't. This becomes especially apparent when you have something that shuts down an Aura, but does that make sense? Some Auras come from psychic abilities, others from technology. Why should they all be treated the same? By the same token, there should be commonality.

For that reason I would divide Auras into 4 groups - Command Auras (eg. a Captain Auras), Psychic Auras (eg. Psychic Fortress), Technological Auras (eg. Kustom Force Field) and the fourth one is "Fear Auras" but in truth I haven't thought that one though. This would allow for simple rules interactions allowing for scalable and specific abilities (ie. some Necron ability that shuts down Technological Auras, or a Cullexus that shuts down Psychic Auras). And with the inclusion of USRs, you could do something, for example, with a Space Marine Captain:

Command Aura (6) - Keen Tactician

So it's a Command Aura, as defined in the rules as applying to units with the 'Core' Keyword, has a radius of 6", and when looking up the Keen Tactician USR, you find it is "Provides re-rolls of 1's To Hit".

Again, just pulling it (and specific names) out of almost nothing, but that's the way I'd put it.

 Blackie wrote:
They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full.
That would defeat the purpose of USRs. The whole point is to compress the rules by reducing instances of the same rule being repeated over and over. Having a central source - hence UNIVERSAL special rules - in each 'Dex would mostly achieve this goal.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/20 13:15:04


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Slipspace wrote:
But you already have rules split across multiple books. The rules for Aircraft may not apply to your army but they're in the BRB, for example.

Yet those are not special rules or army rules, they're core rules of the game. Are SM the only army with Flyers? No, nearly every single army in the game has Flyers just like they all have Infantry, Tanks, Characters and Monsters. Those are "how to play the game" rules which should be in the BRB.

9th is already well on its way to having more non-Codex supplements than any other edition.

Which doesn't matter unless you are either playing with all those supplements or have a need to know every single rule in the game for some reason.

The best way to manage rules is digitally, but GW are at least 10 years behind the curve on that one. If that doesn't happen then the best way is through USRs, for all the reasons I previously described. You can also easily reprint the rules text for USRs in a unit's entry and in the Codex itself so everything remains self-contained. The major advantage of USRs is they give a common ground for everyone and aid communication. They also prevent really stupid scenarios like we saw with SoB where they had a -1 damage rule that didn't specify "to a minimum of 1 damage". USRs really are all-win, if managed properly.

Well that's the caveat, isn't it? It's only good if it's managed well. I'd rather leave things the way they are and keep all my army-specific and special rules in my Codex than rely on USRs being "managed properly".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 13:23:12


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 Blackie wrote:
They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full.
That would defeat the purpose of USRs. The whole point is to compress the rules by reducing instances of the same rule being repeated over and over. Having a central source - hence UNIVERSAL special rules - in each 'Dex would mostly achieve this goal.



I disagree. USRs main advantage is sharing the same name for the same rule for everyone. The advantage is that things are easier to remember and communication between players is simpler. Having to cross-reference isn't an advantage. And yes it takes time to remember the USRs without cross-referencing, I had to cross-reference for several games before remembering without mistakes the current morale rules for the orks, or all the Space Marines/Space Wolves ones and I hate that I have several army rules scattered between the main SM book and the SW supplement. I wouldn't want to do it for even more rules.

An ideal datasheet would have anything that a player needs to know about that unit in that specific page.


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gert wrote:


Well that's the caveat, isn't it? It's only good if it's managed well. I'd rather leave things the way they are and keep all my army-specific and special rules in my Codex than rely on USRs being "managed properly".


Why? Pretty much every other wargame and card game on the planet manages to do it properly. I assume nobody here's under the impression we're likely to get GW to actually change their approach so all we can ever do is propose and discuss alternatives in situations like this, without any real possibility of them happening in the near future. Doesn't change the fact it would still be a better way to organise the game.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

"It might be difficult, so let's not try!" is not a compelling argument.

 Blackie wrote:
I disagree. USRs main advantage is sharing the same name for the same rule for everyone. The advantage is that things are easier to remember and communication between players is simpler. Having to cross-reference isn't an advantage. And yes it takes time to remember the USRs without cross-referencing, I had to cross-reference for several games before remembering without mistakes the current morale rules for the orks, or all the Space Marines/Space Wolves ones and I hate that I have several army rules scattered between the main SM book and the SW supplement. I wouldn't want to do it for even more rules.
Again you talk of cross-referencing, as if looking at a different page in the same book was an insurmountable task, or a grand inconvenience that will suck time away from the game. If the back two pages of every Codex (and, yes, Codex Supplement) was the same USRs that are in the core rulebook this would never be a problem.

 Blackie wrote:
An ideal datasheet would have anything that a player needs to know about that unit in that specific page.
It's a waste of page space, and it's the chief reason why fluff in Codices is decreasing.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/20 13:32:37


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Let's agree to disagree.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 13:33:10


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full.
That would defeat the purpose of USRs. The whole point is to compress the rules by reducing instances of the same rule being repeated over and over. Having a central source - hence UNIVERSAL special rules - in each 'Dex would mostly achieve this goal.



I don't fully agree. MtG does a good job with this. Where there's space they'll write out the full rule for a USR on the card. If not, they'll just use the bolded keyword. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. You can combine multiple approaches if you need to and if it makes sense.
   
Made in ca
Charing Cold One Knight





I am personally just a fan of having the rule on the datasheet and be done with it. I hated nothing more than in previous editions to cross-reference between the codex and rule book, especially since some USR were sometimes codex specific and I only encountered them on specific armies, making the USR feel much like a codex specific thing either way.

However, it would be nice to have a lexicon in the rulebook where you get default names for types of rules. They kind of did that with the new Ward rule in AoS 3.0 All the tomes have their own version of a Ward rule, but in general they are referred to as a Ward Rule. In other words, the BRB would have a lexicon for effects, but not detailed listing of codex specific effects.

Again you talk of cross-referencing, as if looking at a different page in the same book was an insurmountable task, or a grand inconvenience that will suck time away from the game. If the back two pages of every Codex (and, yes, Codex Supplement) was the same USRs that are in the core rulebook this would never be a problem.


Not insurmountable, just drags the gameplay way too much in a lot of games I've had. Because if people remember there are a few USR-type rules in each codex already and with most players not being some pro tourney wizard they are very likely to check up on the rule again and again to remind them that they are not misreading something which will add up in a lot of games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 14:10:37


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: