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.

Don’t forget to read the FAQs too! Because they have vital info.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Don’t forget to read the FAQs too! Because they have vital info.

And not just your own FAQs, you need to read everyone elses FAQs too. You even need to read FAQs that don't even exist anymore. Did you know that units that "don't take up detachment slots" were clarified via FAQ that they can't fulfill mandatory minimums? Bad news for Orks, SoB and Inquisitors! Where is this clarification? In the CA2018 FAQ...

PenitentJake wrote:

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?

Indeed. It's a pity we're still living in the 1930s and there's no such thing as internet.

Otherwise GW could put all their rules online and release all the faction rules at the same time as they release a new edition.

 vipoid wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

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?

Indeed. It's a pity we're still living in the 1930s and there's no such thing as internet.

Otherwise GW could put all their rules online and release all the faction rules at the same time as they release a new edition.

Cutting physical production of books out of the equation does not eliminate the need for product development time. To write an entire edition with fully developed faction rules, you'd still have to halt development of anything else for a year to get it done.

They pretty much did this with the Indexes when 8th dropped, but the only way they could get so much out at once was to reduce every army to a skeletal framework without any real character.

How do you even sell it if it's digital? There's no way you can drop 25 books worth of intellectual property all at once for a single price and have anyone willing to pay it. And even if they did, the amount of information you'd get all at once would be overwhelming. Unless you're talking about having people still having to pay for the content by army.

Even so, that robs the company of the ability to time model releases to the release of their publications, which is a very important marketing strategy.

And either way, you're still talking about invalidating everything we have, which is my biggest objection to USRs.

Invalidating everything we have would be a god send to this terribly written game.

Burn the whole thing to the ground and start from scratch with USR's please.

Take this old dog out back and put it out of its misery.

GW did that in the shift to USRs last time and it worked fine.

But it's a false dichotomy to claim that there's only two approaches.

You can easily release a new edition with new USRs with the next two codexes (I assume a 9th marine and a 9th chaos) using them and say that every other codex uses the rules it has until it's replaced.

PenitentJake wrote:
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.

GW already invalidated anyone that bought a Space Marine codex shortly before 2.0 came out or what happened in 7th the moment you got into Gathering Storm or the Marine Supplements or the Legion Supplement, etc., so you act like that's a brand new concept.

Ah for the days when the people who wrote the rules played RPGs. These days, actual models are merely tokens for cards, as the mindset is CCG meets video console. No depth. Just “fluff” as a gloss over a card game for attention spans the length of a fruit fly’s middle finger. This is the reason the USRs are out and data cards are in. Next step is stop using models altogether. Who needs them. Put two cards together and read the instructions...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Don’t forget to read the FAQs too! Because they have vital info.

And not just your own FAQs, you need to read everyone elses FAQs too. You even need to read FAQs that don't even exist anymore. Did you know that units that "don't take up detachment slots" were clarified via FAQ that they can't fulfill mandatory minimums? Bad news for Orks, SoB and Inquisitors! Where is this clarification? In the CA2018 FAQ...

I mean, that's a pretty logical conclusion. Do I wish they wrote it in a way that the rule lawyers of the world can understand without an FAQ? Sure. But it's not the hardest rule to understand.

PenitentJake wrote:


And either way, you're still talking about invalidating everything we have, which is my biggest objection to USRs.

This should always be assumed as a possibility with any game edition change, and has absolutely happened with 40k in the past. That's the nature of these types of games. Even when it didn't happen with an edition change, it often left armies sometimes up to two editions out of date with how long it took GW to get through its rotation, and while technically "playable", it also meant they weren't always terribly functional or consistent with rules (like how drop pods at one point had 3 different functionalities and multiple Assault Cannon profiles depending on codex).

They don't have to invalidate everything. All the deep strike bespoke rules for example have the same text. A New rulebook could simply list all the bespoke rule names up to date and say, these all count as "deep strike" now.
There are missions where it's relevant to know whether your deep striker falls from the sky or is teleported, but that's something the players can discuss themselves beforehand, it doesn't need an own rule (and doesn't have one now aside from the describing text).

PenitentJake wrote:

Cutting physical production of books out of the equation does not eliminate the need for product development time. To write an entire edition with fully developed faction rules, you'd still have to halt development of anything else for a year to get it done.

And? That seems infinitely better than continuing to develop books that you know will be invalidated in a few months.

And if you want to make sure that people aren't losing interest, how about involving your players? Tell them that there will be a new edition coming within a year. Not only that, ask them to help playtest your rules. Especially when your own designers are unable to spot even the most basic of issues.

PenitentJake wrote:

They pretty much did this with the Indexes when 8th dropped, but the only way they could get so much out at once was to reduce every army to a skeletal framework without any real character.

How is 'printing massive books' the same as 'having all rules online'?

PenitentJake wrote:

How do you even sell it if it's digital?

You realise that you don't have to charge for everything, right? Especially when you're already overcharging for your miniatures.

Yes, you lose money on rules but you also make it vastly easier for people to actually start your game and for existing players to start new armies.

If you want to make codices that combine the rules with endlessly recycled fluff, write them afterwards. You know, when you've corrected the mistakes you should have spotted before printing but didn't.

PenitentJake wrote:

And either way, you're still talking about invalidating everything we have, which is my biggest objection to USRs.

Why is it good for a new edition with bespoke rules to invalidate everything we had but bad for a new edition with USRs to do the same?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
They don't have to invalidate everything. All the deep strike bespoke rules for example have the same text. A New rulebook could simply list all the bespoke rule names up to date and say, these all count as "deep strike" now.
There are missions where it's relevant to know whether your deep striker falls from the sky or is teleported, but that's something the players can discuss themselves beforehand, it doesn't need an own rule (and doesn't have one now aside from the describing text).

Exactly. Depending on what you want to convert to a USR I don't think it would actually be that difficult to update the current Codices using the FAQ system. Since each army tends to use only 1 or 2 identically named rules for each USR you just need a list at the end of the FAQ that says something like "Replace all instances of Teleport Strike with Deep Strike (list of page numbers or datasheet names here). I suspect it would take less than a page for each Codex using that sort of format. Then from here on out you use the USR whenever you write a new Codex.

PenitentJake wrote:
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?

Uh, what? What is the problem?
Is the problem that the new codexes will have new rules that are different from the old codexes? Or that armies will get replacement codexes?
Because in both case I got bad news for you: the "cure" that you deem "worse than the disease" isn't a cure, it is GW doing what GW has always done and what GW will always do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Missed Codex Space Marines v2? Or, like, the index, the 7th edition codex, the 6th edition codex, the 6th edition codex, the ...
The "cure" will happen regardless of whether or not remove the "disease". So might as well use it to remove the "disease".

I fail to see why people feel the rules should be entirely bespoke or USR - a flexible system will have a bit of both.

Macro rules: Fly, FnP, Deepstrike Etc,. The rules that are shared across all armies. A repository should be in the BRB.

Codex rules: ATSKNF, FtGG, Combat Drugs., The rules that are only present to the codex, but are used multiple times throughout the codex. Unit types (Like terminators, if they had special rules associated with the armor) would also be referenced here. Most codexes already do something similar for Chapter Tactics equivalents.

Unit rules: Bespoke rules that are specific to that unit. If a unit has a special rule, like the Sanctus ability to shoot when they deepstrike it would be noted here.

Alongside some common sense guidelines like
- Don't nest rules. In 7th ed, the Zealot just gave the unit the Hatred and Crusader(?) USR. When there is no need for that nesting.
- Revise most rules to be generic - Disgustingly resilient becomes Ignore Wounds (5+).
It would go a long way in cleaning up the mess.

GW has proven themselves to be inadequate at writing rules, but they have also shot themselves in the foot with this style of writing - The rules did not allow for appropriate depth, and to try and add that depth they just piled on unique rules. Fixing this is not a magic solution thats going to fix all the problems with the game, but it would help

Zealot gave Hatred to the whole unit rather than Hatred being only able to affect the model with it instead. With how the IC rules worked it had to be a thing I guess.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Zealot gave Hatred to the whole unit rather than Hatred being only able to affect the model with it instead. With how the IC rules worked it had to be a thing I guess.

Or didn't work, depending on who you talked to.

One of the biggest problems, besides bloat, of any Special Rule (USR or Codex-based Special Rule) was lost along with that USR.

Vilehydra wrote:
I fail to see why people feel the rules should be entirely bespoke or USR - a flexible system will have a bit of both.

Macro rules: Fly, FnP, Deepstrike Etc,. The rules that are shared across all armies. A repository should be in the BRB.

Codex rules: ATSKNF, FtGG, Combat Drugs., The rules that are only present to the codex, but are used multiple times throughout the codex. Unit types (Like terminators, if they had special rules associated with the armor) would also be referenced here. Most codexes already do something similar for Chapter Tactics equivalents.

Unit rules: Bespoke rules that are specific to that unit. If a unit has a special rule, like the Sanctus ability to shoot when they deepstrike it would be noted here.

Alongside some common sense guidelines like
- Don't nest rules. In 7th ed, the Zealot just gave the unit the Hatred and Crusader(?) USR. When there is no need for that nesting.
- Revise most rules to be generic - Disgustingly resilient becomes Ignore Wounds (5+).
It would go a long way in cleaning up the mess.

GW has proven themselves to be inadequate at writing rules, but they have also shot themselves in the foot with this style of writing - The rules did not allow for appropriate depth, and to try and add that depth they just piled on unique rules. Fixing this is not a magic solution thats going to fix all the problems with the game, but it would help

Yeah, this is exactly what people who are saying USR's are fine are saying. There's equal room for unique rules with USR's for the shared rules (hell there's LITERALLY more room on the datasheet).

We ALWAYS had unique rules with USR's tho................

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We ALWAYS had unique rules with USR's tho................

what point are you trying to make

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
I fail to see why people feel the rules should be entirely bespoke or USR - a flexible system will have a bit of both.

Macro rules: Fly, FnP, Deepstrike Etc,. The rules that are shared across all armies. A repository should be in the BRB.

Codex rules: ATSKNF, FtGG, Combat Drugs., The rules that are only present to the codex, but are used multiple times throughout the codex. Unit types (Like terminators, if they had special rules associated with the armor) would also be referenced here. Most codexes already do something similar for Chapter Tactics equivalents.

Unit rules: Bespoke rules that are specific to that unit. If a unit has a special rule, like the Sanctus ability to shoot when they deepstrike it would be noted here.

Alongside some common sense guidelines like
- Don't nest rules. In 7th ed, the Zealot just gave the unit the Hatred and Crusader(?) USR. When there is no need for that nesting.
- Revise most rules to be generic - Disgustingly resilient becomes Ignore Wounds (5+).
It would go a long way in cleaning up the mess.

GW has proven themselves to be inadequate at writing rules, but they have also shot themselves in the foot with this style of writing - The rules did not allow for appropriate depth, and to try and add that depth they just piled on unique rules. Fixing this is not a magic solution thats going to fix all the problems with the game, but it would help

Yeah, this is exactly what people who are saying USR's are fine are saying. There's equal room for unique rules with USR's for the shared rules (hell there's LITERALLY more room on the datasheet).

Effectively is this not the case? Deep strike is functionally the same on all relevant units, reroll hits etc. There are some cases where it should have been standardised, yes. It doesn't feel like the problem with the rules comes from a lack of USRs, but from a liberal application of rules. Layers and layers of them. Plus too many rerolls.

There's a design incoherency. On one hand they wanted all the rules for a unit on its datasheet so that it can be used in an accessible way and therefore moved away from USRs - a noble idea on its own. On the other they've added layers of army wide rules/strategems etc. that require looking elsewhere anyway. It undermines the initial design principle.

Yeah. Let me take my recent Codex: Sisters of Battle.
So, let's look at, say, my literal only troop choice.
I got all the rules on my datasheet, I don't need to look at other pages!! All on page 82!
Oh but wait, I don't have the profile for half of the weapons available. Those are on page 96 and 97.
Oh but wait, I don't have text for the Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites and Shield of Faith rules! I need pages 75 and 76 too!
But wait, it's not written on the datasheet but I need to know that I have the Strength of Faith special rule from page 100!
But wait, it is also not written on the datasheet, but I need to know the rules for my order conviction, on page 101 too!
I also need to know page 102 to 105 for the stratagems.

I only need 11 pages to play a basic troop from my army. With USR maybe I would need 12 and that's totally unacceptable.
Oh if I had chosen a basic HQ the rules would have gone up to requiring 13 pages at least because one extra page for the warlord trait, and one extra page for the relic. Nice!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah. Let me take my recent Codex: Sisters of Battle.
So, let's look at, say, my literal only troop choice.
I got all the rules on my datasheet, I don't need to look at other pages!! All on page 82!
Oh but wait, I don't have the profile for half of the weapons available. Those are on page 96 and 97.
Oh but wait, I don't have text for the Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites and Shield of Faith rules! I need pages 75 and 76 too!
But wait, it's not written on the datasheet but I need to know that I have the Strength of Faith special rule from page 100!
But wait, it is also not written on the datasheet, but I need to know the rules for my order conviction, on page 101 too!
I also need to know page 102 to 105 for the stratagems.

I only need 11 pages to play a basic troop from my army. With USR maybe I would need 12 and that's totally unacceptable.
Oh if I had chosen a basic HQ the rules would have gone up to requiring 13 pages at least because one extra page for the warlord trait, and one extra page for the relic. Nice!

The number of pages is irrelevant. Standardized names and rules wording helps players to remember their rules in the first place.

At bare minimum, a player should be able to learn and remember:

Stat lines
Weapon profiles
Common rules in their codex
Core rules mechanics

If retention is still an issue, GW could (and should) fo what most other miniatures games do- include a units' stat card in the box.

If you need to adjust something without impacting multiple books you have to use bespoke rules.

For this reason alone bespoke rules are superior to USRs.

 Ishagu wrote:
If you need to adjust something without impacting multiple books you have to use bespoke rules.

For this reason alone bespoke rules are superior to USRs.

Not really. In the vast majority of cases you want to adjust everything at once (like the approach GW took with the FNP saves...that weren't all called the same thing so were a realm pain to errata). If there does ha[pen to be a single unit entry you want to errata to include, say, a modified Deep Strike you can simply errata that unit's entry to remove Deep Strike and add the bespoke rule.

Again, though, I would ask if there are any real-world examples of this being done by GW? Seems like a lot of the arguments against USRs don't hold much water and deal with hypotheticals that simply have never come up in practice.

You can do this with a mix of USR and bespoke rules.

A USR is too weak/powerful on one specific unit? Give that unit a bespoke rule that enhances/dehances the USR.

Example:
The Unit "Adjective Nounverb Mk2 Electric Boogaloo" has Ignore Wounds (4+) but you don't want them to tank mind bullets. That unit now has "Susceptible To Wibbly Wobbly Warpy Wimey... Stuff: The Ignore Wounds ability cannot be used by models in this unit during the Psychic phase."

I’m very much in favour of USRs, if done well. ( see my post earlier in this thread and in other similar threads in the past. )

That being said, the only argument against USRs (other than then being poorly implemented) that I think has merit is new editions changing the definition/function/mechanics of USRs and the impact that would have on existing datasheets/codexes. And I understand that this has in fact happened in the change from one edition to the next in the past, especially with codexes not being updated at all across subsequent editions.

However I think this again isn’t really an issue with USRs themselves, but rather with GW’s model of publishing editions and codexes/expansions/campaign books etc. With the 8th edition system of erratas, FAQs and Chapter Approved, the worst of this should be able to be avoided.

Like I said, the only FNP variant that's different is AdMech Graia and that particular Deathwatch Warlord Trait.

I want to add to some of the things that have been said before. The current system is basically the worst of both worlds. There are some USR's, lots of individual rules that are effectively the same thing, and a lot of clunkyness and ambiguities.

Having two Space Marine and Tau bodyguard rules be different isn't an inherently bad thing. Having them be in an awkwardly worded way that is unintuitive to understand and unclear if it is intentional is a bad thing.

I feel like the correct solution is a set of core USR's that are in the main rulebook, a set of army specific USR's that are in the codex, and bespoke rules that are on the data sheet.

The core USR's are things like deep strike, gets hot, fight twice, rerolls, move through cover, bodyguard, strikes first, so on. The core USR's are the things you expect to be present in very codex in some form or another. Not every codex will necessarily have access to every USR, but USR's should cover the rules that not having that rule in a codex is a big noticable thing.

For example, if you pulled a random codex, you would assume that it has a way to fight twice in it. Maybe it is built into a unit, or a warlord trait, or a strat. Regardless of how access is granted, you would be surprised if you shuffled all the codexes randomly and the one you picked didn't have fight twice in it somehow.

The faction USR's are the things like ATSKNF, synapse, and so forth. They go in the codex, reprinted as appropriate in multiple codexes that cover the same general faction (looking at you Space Marines).

Bespoke rules then go on the data sheet, and add to or modify the USR's.

Unlike most people in the thread, I don't think that USR's should be printed out on the data sheet. This is because i think reducing clutter in the data sheet is a good idea.

Instead I think that the USR section from the main rule book should be reprinted in each codex as an appendix, followed by a reprint of the faction USR's. This means that the faction USR's will be printed twice in the same book. The idea is that the USR's are provided in context with the rest of the rules and faction information, and then again in an easy to access appendix that is conveniently located right next to the universal USRs.

To me a properly writen unit entry would look like such:

Hormagant
(Fluff about Hormagants, in a clearly seperated paragraph that is in a font used for fluff and never used for rules)

Stat block, unit size, so forth
INSTINCTIVE BEHAVIOR (Codex:Tyranids)
FLEET (Universal)
BOUNDING LEAP: when this unit piles in and consolidates, it may move up to 6".
HUNGERING SWARM: if this unit has 20 or more models, it gains DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE (Universal)

Wargear:
Scything Talons: Models equiped with Scything Talons gain ACCURACY: MELEE (Universal). Models equipped with more than once set of Scything Talons may make 1 additional attack with this weapon when it fights.

Instinctive Behavior is the Tyranids USR for the synapse mechanic.

Fleet would be the main rulebook USR for improved running (hormies lost this and i want them to have it back).

Deadly Strike would be reroll 1's to wound. I'd have something like Improved Deadly Strike for reroll 1's and 2's, and Extraordinary Deadly Strike for reroll all, with Melee for melee, shooting for shooting, and no term for both. So Deadly Strike: MELEE would be reroll 1's to would in CC, and EXTRAORDINARY DEADLY STRIKE would be reroll all failed wounds rolls.

ACCURACY would be the to hit verson of Deadly Strike, and follow the same structure.



As a side note, someone upthread mentioned the idea of having datasheet abilities that use CP, and I really like that idea, particularly as a HQ/Commander mechanic.

For example, I could see the Swarmlord having an ability which hands out one of the reroll USR's for a CP, or a Neurothrope handing a bespoke improved psycic ability for CP. I think this would add depth to the game, and could be balanced with points changes or with CP cost changes.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We ALWAYS had unique rules with USR's tho................

what point are you trying to make

We have had USR and uniques rules for many years, they work together easily. Some in here are making it seem like that never was a thing, or it could be a new thing. My point is we have done that for awhile now.