Switch Theme:

What's The Matter With USRs?  [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 us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

babelfish wrote:
Spoiler:
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.





This example is full of USR rules bloat. Half of your suggested USRs are just as easily written in the rule themselves without the need for for USR.

Why have a USR ACCURACY: MELEE that you have to look up when you can just as easily write "may re-roll attack rolls of 1"? The same is true for DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE. I'm sure the same is true for whatever you envision FLEET does. You don't need a USR to to give a unit a rule that takes one sentence or less to explain.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Because we get situations where Ultramarine Chapter Masters are somehow more Inspiring than Blood Angels Chapter Masters when shooting at Blue Eldar and Skittari somehow forget how to punch people next to Cawl.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/05/03 21:34:04


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because we get situations where Ultramarine Chapter Masters are somehow more Inspiring than Blood Angels Chapter Masters when shooting at Blue Eldar and Skittari somehow forget how to punch people next to Cawl.

The issue your complaining about boils down to GW having been run by a paranoided ego maniac in the past and having been forced into a compartmentalized structure so bad it doesn't function.

Like seriously what you complaining about is not a USR's vrs Individual rules issues is a GW, specifically the 40k side who took the worst of the above paranoia don't have a functional department structure.
This isn't even a gme design issue at this point if the person writing codex A isnt allowed to talk to person writing codex B and can't see any content of codex B untill it's public then yeah you get the mess we have, but again the issue isn't rules it's bigger than that
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker



Canada

His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that. That doesn't mean, however, that they completely disappeared. I don't have every Codex, but the wording of the various Datasheet special rules for units that can arrive on the battlefield are very similar, less the lore explanation of how the unit is doing that (Jump Pack Assault, Teleport Strike, Aerial Drop, From Out of the Shadows, etc). So there is consistency in the effect and general wording, but the player does not have to refer to the MRB and the core rules are kept tighter. There is also the opportunity to have some nice lore text to help immerse the player if they like that sort of thing. Additionally, each Codex has faction-wide special rules. So its not like USRs are completely gone. Robin Cruddace explained in one interview that he has several chances to make a faction distinct and show its lore on the tabletop: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Those things are all in the Codex and stand alone.

This lets developers tweak rules from unit to unit and Codex to Codex. It gives the Codex design team some freedom, although I imagine that it makes the head designer's job a little tougher. It makes sense to me that a Sentinel, a Hellhound and a Baneblade behave differently when they are destroyed. It makes sense to me that Company Veterans, Grots, Ogryn Bodyguards and Drones protect things in different ways. Now, there are clearly more opportunities for slight variations in wordings having major unintended effects (reroll auras etc). Nothing is foolproof.

If there is a problem with a faction they can adjust the faction (doesn't mean that they always do that!). Additionally, they can now make major changes without an edition change - adjust the Codex.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.


This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.

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



 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 us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




TangoTwoBravo wrote:
His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that. That doesn't mean, however, that they completely disappeared. I don't have every Codex, but the wording of the various Datasheet special rules for units that can arrive on the battlefield are very similar, less the lore explanation of how the unit is doing that (Jump Pack Assault, Teleport Strike, Aerial Drop, From Out of the Shadows, etc). So there is consistency in the effect and general wording, but the player does not have to refer to the MRB and the core rules are kept tighter. There is also the opportunity to have some nice lore text to help immerse the player if they like that sort of thing. Additionally, each Codex has faction-wide special rules. So its not like USRs are completely gone. Robin Cruddace explained in one interview that he has several chances to make a faction distinct and show its lore on the tabletop: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Those things are all in the Codex and stand alone.

This lets developers tweak rules from unit to unit and Codex to Codex. It gives the Codex design team some freedom, although I imagine that it makes the head designer's job a little tougher. It makes sense to me that a Sentinel, a Hellhound and a Baneblade behave differently when they are destroyed. It makes sense to me that Company Veterans, Grots, Ogryn Bodyguards and Drones protect things in different ways. Now, there are clearly more opportunities for slight variations in wordings having major unintended effects (reroll auras etc). Nothing is foolproof.

If there is a problem with a faction they can adjust the faction (doesn't mean that they always do that!). Additionally, they can now make major changes without an edition change - adjust the Codex.

No, it doesn't make sense Bodyguard rules work differently. Why would bodyguards not roll to intercept the hit?

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.
 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker



Canada

 vipoid wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.


This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.


Well, I offer that 8th Edition has done very well. Parking commercial success, I find as a player that I am rarely engaged in rules debates during a game. It hasn't been perfect, but I would happily buy Robin Cruddace a beer for what he and his team did with 8th Edition.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 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.

Sure, in some instances that's great, but when you end up with a gazillion literally identical mechanics spread across a grip of books, you probably didn't need to make all of them bespoke in the first place, while going out of the way to make each different and bespoke just for its own sake just adds useless complexity without any depth and results in the situation we have now where similar mechanics work way too well in some places and far too ineffectively in others. Or even worse, ones that are intended to be identical and start drifting as authors reproduce them from memory slightly differently and editing misses it. None of these are issue unknown to 40k.

 vipoid wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.


This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.
Was that ever in doubt?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/03 23:15:46


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because we get situations where Ultramarine Chapter Masters are somehow more Inspiring than Blood Angels Chapter Masters when shooting at Blue Eldar and Skittari somehow forget how to punch people next to Cawl.
Which has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with how they decided to update the rules for Space Marines and Blood Angels. GW could have issued errata to Dante's Chapter Master aura, but they choose not to. I bet you a beer it will be updated in the next version of the Codex Blood Angels.
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker



Canada

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that. That doesn't mean, however, that they completely disappeared. I don't have every Codex, but the wording of the various Datasheet special rules for units that can arrive on the battlefield are very similar, less the lore explanation of how the unit is doing that (Jump Pack Assault, Teleport Strike, Aerial Drop, From Out of the Shadows, etc). So there is consistency in the effect and general wording, but the player does not have to refer to the MRB and the core rules are kept tighter. There is also the opportunity to have some nice lore text to help immerse the player if they like that sort of thing. Additionally, each Codex has faction-wide special rules. So its not like USRs are completely gone. Robin Cruddace explained in one interview that he has several chances to make a faction distinct and show its lore on the tabletop: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Those things are all in the Codex and stand alone.

This lets developers tweak rules from unit to unit and Codex to Codex. It gives the Codex design team some freedom, although I imagine that it makes the head designer's job a little tougher. It makes sense to me that a Sentinel, a Hellhound and a Baneblade behave differently when they are destroyed. It makes sense to me that Company Veterans, Grots, Ogryn Bodyguards and Drones protect things in different ways. Now, there are clearly more opportunities for slight variations in wordings having major unintended effects (reroll auras etc). Nothing is foolproof.

If there is a problem with a faction they can adjust the faction (doesn't mean that they always do that!). Additionally, they can now make major changes without an edition change - adjust the Codex.

No, it doesn't make sense Bodyguard rules work differently. Why would bodyguards not roll to intercept the hit?


As a Dark Angel player I would certainly prefer different wording for Company Veterans' Command Squad Bodyguard, but mine are usually just taking Sniper shots with how Character Targeting works. My point is that Grots are using a Stratagem to shield units, Shield Drones are a key part of the Tau, the Ogryn Bodyguard is intercepting on a 3+, Kell only intercepts for Creed etc. I don't want to derail this thread back into the thread that I think spawned it.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.


This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.


Well, I offer that 8th Edition has done very well. Parking commercial success, I find as a player that I am rarely engaged in rules debates during a game. It hasn't been perfect, but I would happily buy Robin Cruddace a beer for what he and his team did with 8th Edition.


It was also far easier for our group to pick up than the cross-referencing-fest of 7th, where I’d look up “Super Speedy” in my Codex and it would tell me to look up “Fleet” in another book and that would tell me what the rule was. Honestly, they achieved that ‘easier to pick up’ goal in spades. Sure, we’re now entering Bloatsville and it needs a streamlining but vipoid’s is simply a bad take.

Nah, I’ll take most rules on Datasheets and a few faction-wide rules over USRs any damn day. So much easier to learn and to play without memorising cross-indexed encyclopaedias first.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/03 23:25:02


 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"
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






It was also far easier for our group to pick up than the cross-referencing-fest of 7th, where I’d look up “Super Speedy” in my Codex and it would tell me to look up “Fleet” in another book and that would tell me what the rule was. Honestly, they achieved that ‘easier to pick up’ goal in spades.


Once again, thats not a problem with USR's. It's GW who decided to name rules different things. If they had named it "Fleet", there wouldn't be a problem.

Everything should be the same name, and be contained under a singular set of rules contained in the main rule book. Nothing should exist outside that. Thats how you properly organize a game.

And of course 8th is easier to pick up initially, it was12 pages. It's a childrens book, and it plays like one.

Now that they are slowly drip feeding us the rest of the rules is hundreds of pay to play books, faq, and erratas everyone is getting upset saying it's bloated.

If they just put all the rules in the main book and organized them properly with USR's to begin with. We wouldn't have this problem.

I feel like eveyone against USR's is being deliberately obtuse.

There is not one advantage to bespoke rules over USR's.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/05 03:24:59


Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





so many strawmen being tilted at here, to mix metaphors.

so to be clear, when people talk about USRs as a concept, they are only saying one thing:

A USR is a rule that standardises phrasing across all instances of that rule.

Standardised wording is the only thing that a USR does.

Anything else is an implementation decision that is completely separate from the USR itself.

i don't know why we're on page 8 of this thread and people still keep saying 'well because GW decided to do X with USRs in 7th, that makes USRs as a concept crap'.

Just because you crashed your car into a tree doesn't mean that the concept of cars or trees is bad...


And again this argument boils down to whether you want the game designer-centric or player-centric.

USRs help players immensely, but they make more work for designers to ensure that they don't screw units by changing USR's, they have to plan them.

The current system helps designers immensely, by allowing them to write whatever they want and not have to care what they've written previously. It makes more work for players having to read through everything all the time to figure out if something that sounds the same, like bodyguard, is actually the same or it has a different effect you'll have to remember for that specific instance only.




   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




I wouldn't mind GW style of writing, if they were actually fixing specific stuff. Yet time and time against, GW fixing means blanket nerfs to unrelated stuff. If GW thought that IH or IF were too good, then they should have changed the IH or IF rules, and not boomerang nerf DA, who clearly did not deserv a nerf.

So specific rules on units only make it potentialy easier to pick up for new player or change by GW. Because in the end you still need to check global FAQ, codex FAQ and CA, if you are a player, specialy if you don't know your opponents army. And GW is really slow on changing or fixing stuff for some armies.


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 alextroy wrote:
babelfish wrote:
Spoiler:
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.





This example is full of USR rules bloat. Half of your suggested USRs are just as easily written in the rule themselves without the need for for USR.

Why have a USR ACCURACY: MELEE that you have to look up when you can just as easily write "may re-roll attack rolls of 1"? The same is true for DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE. I'm sure the same is true for whatever you envision FLEET does. You don't need a USR to to give a unit a rule that takes one sentence or less to explain.


Because GW consistantly writes the one sentence rules in different ways, resulting in confusion, then when they decide that they want to change how those rules work they have to FAQ every version of it, which leads to further confusion and unintended interactions.

If GW wants the reroll ones mechanic to trigger on unmodified ones, with a USR it takes one FAQ to clarify that. If they use bespoke rules then you end up with everyone doing unmodifed 1's, except Tau because they forgot about one of Tau's special rules and Knights because the Knights codex came out after the FAQ but the design team for Knights missed a memo. Then you end up having to dig through four different FAQs to find out how your version of reroll 1's interacts with your version of plasma.

The end goal is clarity about how the rules a unit has work. If they want the gets hot mechanic to key off of unmodified natural 1's, it is better to have a single Gets Hot USR than to have to FAQ or clarify a dozen different versions of it. If they decide that feel no pain can't be taken against gets hot wounds, with USRs that ruling is a single sentence. With the current system they have to make sure they catch every version of gets hot and every version of feel no pain, and make sure that new units are written to be included.

If GW was substantially better at rules design and internal comunication, having everything be individual would work fine. As it is, it creates a bigger mess than having USRs would.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

babelfish wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
babelfish wrote:
Spoiler:
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.





This example is full of USR rules bloat. Half of your suggested USRs are just as easily written in the rule themselves without the need for for USR.

Why have a USR ACCURACY: MELEE that you have to look up when you can just as easily write "may re-roll attack rolls of 1"? The same is true for DEADLY STRIKE: MELEE. I'm sure the same is true for whatever you envision FLEET does. You don't need a USR to to give a unit a rule that takes one sentence or less to explain.


Because GW consistantly writes the one sentence rules in different ways, resulting in confusion, then when they decide that they want to change how those rules work they have to FAQ every version of it, which leads to further confusion and unintended interactions.

If GW wants the reroll ones mechanic to trigger on unmodified ones, with a USR it takes one FAQ to clarify that. If they use bespoke rules then you end up with everyone doing unmodifed 1's, except Tau because they forgot about one of Tau's special rules and Knights because the Knights codex came out after the FAQ but the design team for Knights missed a memo. Then you end up having to dig through four different FAQs to find out how your version of reroll 1's interacts with your version of plasma.

The end goal is clarity about how the rules a unit has work. If they want the gets hot mechanic to key off of unmodified natural 1's, it is better to have a single Gets Hot USR than to have to FAQ or clarify a dozen different versions of it. If they decide that feel no pain can't be taken against gets hot wounds, with USRs that ruling is a single sentence. With the current system they have to make sure they catch every version of gets hot and every version of feel no pain, and make sure that new units are written to be included.

If GW was substantially better at rules design and internal comunication, having everything be individual would work fine. As it is, it creates a bigger mess than having USRs would.
It seems to me you are conflating three different issues with each other and saying USRs will solve them all.

First, GW desperately needs a style guide for their rules writing. That will prevent the various unintended different writing of rules that are intended to be the same. Note that this is different from various instances of GW improving how a rule is written to be clearer. For example, they no longer say an ability gives a unit +1 attack, they say it give each model in the unit +1 attack. The new writing removes any ambiguity about what the rule does.

Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule.

Finally, you assume GW will update all the instances of a similar rules at once, requiring a bunch of FAQ entries. While there have been a few instances of this, it doesn't seem to be GW SOP.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





 alextroy wrote:

It seems to me you are conflating three different issues with each other and saying USRs will solve them all.

First, GW desperately needs a style guide for their rules writing. That will prevent the various unintended different writing of rules that are intended to be the same. Note that this is different from various instances of GW improving how a rule is written to be clearer. For example, they no longer say an ability gives a unit +1 attack, they say it give each model in the unit +1 attack. The new writing removes any ambiguity about what the rule does.

Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule.

Finally, you assume GW will update all the instances of a similar rules at once, requiring a bunch of FAQ entries. While there have been a few instances of this, it doesn't seem to be GW SOP.


no one has argued that a USR is just a standardised name, because a name isn't a rule. It's about standardised mechanics terminology. Standardisation is the heart of a USR, so talking about improving GW's writing standardisation to remove unintentional differences is supporting USRs.

Which I offered earlier as a form of Backend USR - if players are so worried about them, the developers can use it in the back end when writing them, so the rules are standardised but the players aren't bothered by them being called USRs...

Your example of gets hot is making the assumption that all rules need to be universal which, again, is not a requirement for using USRs. There is nothing stopping having unique rules that change what a USR do, but it's much clearer when this happens in a game with USRs because you can see it immediately.


So from this we can see:

  • USR's are purely for rules standardisation and ease of use
    No game that uses them is requires to only use them - there are no USR police
    Unique rules can be used alongside USRs



  • And the defence seems to keep falling back on 'GW can't do this' as an argument for not saying we need them.

    So to answer the question of the OP 'What's the Matter with USRs?', the answer is Nothing.












       
    Made in us
    Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







     alextroy wrote:
    ...Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule...


    What purpose does this serve?

    Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
       
    Made in gb
    Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





    Cardiff

    Hellebore wrote:
    so many strawmen being tilted at here, to mix metaphors.

    so to be clear, when people talk about USRs as a concept, they are only saying one thing:

    A USR is a rule that standardises phrasing across all instances of that rule.

    Standardised wording is the only thing that a USR does.

    Anything else is an implementation decision that is completely separate from the USR itself.

    i don't know why we're on page 8 of this thread and people still keep saying 'well because GW decided to do X with USRs in 7th, that makes USRs as a concept crap'.

    Just because you crashed your car into a tree doesn't mean that the concept of cars or trees is bad...


    And again this argument boils down to whether you want the game designer-centric or player-centric.

    USRs help players immensely, but they make more work for designers to ensure that they don't screw units by changing USR's, they have to plan them.

    The current system helps designers immensely, by allowing them to write whatever they want and not have to care what they've written previously. It makes more work for players having to read through everything all the time to figure out if something that sounds the same, like bodyguard, is actually the same or it has a different effect you'll have to remember for that specific instance only.






    Why does it matter how bodyguards differ? Just read the Datasheet of the unit on the table. It’s not that difficult.

     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"
     
       
    Made in ch
    Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





    Because the huge ammount off miniscule differences might lead in some cases to broken (either completly worthless or OP) rules

    A baseline suggestion that was allready made with a roll to succede could've easily allowed for granularity and simplicity.

    And that is just Bodyguard rules.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/04 08:03:16


       
    Made in de
    Fresh-Faced New User




     JohnnyHell wrote:
    Hellebore wrote:
    so many strawmen being tilted at here, to mix metaphors.

    so to be clear, when people talk about USRs as a concept, they are only saying one thing:

    A USR is a rule that standardises phrasing across all instances of that rule.

    Standardised wording is the only thing that a USR does.

    Anything else is an implementation decision that is completely separate from the USR itself.

    i don't know why we're on page 8 of this thread and people still keep saying 'well because GW decided to do X with USRs in 7th, that makes USRs as a concept crap'.

    Just because you crashed your car into a tree doesn't mean that the concept of cars or trees is bad...


    And again this argument boils down to whether you want the game designer-centric or player-centric.

    USRs help players immensely, but they make more work for designers to ensure that they don't screw units by changing USR's, they have to plan them.

    The current system helps designers immensely, by allowing them to write whatever they want and not have to care what they've written previously. It makes more work for players having to read through everything all the time to figure out if something that sounds the same, like bodyguard, is actually the same or it has a different effect you'll have to remember for that specific instance only.






    Why does it matter how bodyguards differ? Just read the Datasheet of the unit on the table. It’s not that difficult.


    It actually is that difficult. Because I do not want to read every datasheet of every unit on the table precisely to see if the wound transfers after wounding, after losing a wound, after being wounded or... I want a steady gameflow without looking in the book 20 times a turn. If you play 6 games a year with different opponents, it is very hard to keep track of these slight differences that would be better streamlined, in my opinion.

    As has been stated before in this thread, if all bodyguard or deepstrike rules worked mechanically the same, this would lead to far less confusion during games. If you are able to keep everything in your head, that is great. But please be understanding for those people who have trouble keeping track.

    I have come back to WH after a long pause, and I only played 1 game in 7th ed. It was terrible, at least for me, to keep track on why my "beast" was different from a "vehicle" in regards to melee attacks. This edition is fairly accessible, and I think GW has done a great job in this regard. Now, if they could hire a rules lawyer to make sure that all the different rules that essentially do the same actually do the same, that will be a swell 9th ed.
    Maybe they could hire BaconCatBug?
       
    Made in fi
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





     JNAProductions wrote:
    So, some people really love GW's bespoke rules approach. I'm not one of them, but I'd be curious to hear what the general thoughts are about why USRs are bad. I feel like a decent amount of ill-will towards USRs might be because GW did them pretty poorly in the past. Missile Lock, I'm looking at you!


    People want same name things to work differently. Multiple different meltaguns that don't work same way or KFF that works totally different compared to who carries(one doesn't separate between clans and doesn't work in melee, other is "I only protect deathskulls" and allows melee..

    Hurah for bespoken rules eh?

    12 factions for Lord of The Rings
    4663
    11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
    5265 pts
    5150 pts
    ~3200 pts Knights

     
       
    Made in us
    Charging Dragon Prince





    West Lafayette, IN

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't USR's supposed to eliminate ASR's, which did NOT happen? That'd be the biggest issues with USR's right there. Bloat added to bloat which necessitates more bloat to... Well, you get the point.

    www.classichammer.com

    For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

    Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
     
       
    Made in de
    Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






    A fun example for why unified rules would be awesome is a discussion that took 10 minutes out of my game yesterday:

    My Morkanaut with Shiney Bits kustom job shot at a hard to hit plane. Its Kustom-Mega-Zappa and rolled 4x1 and 2x2, while and it's Kustom-Mega-Blasta rolled a 6, triggers dakkadakkadakka which then turned into a 1.

    In the next turn, my opponent's tank commander targets a hard to hit plane as well and overcharges his plasma because he has this re-roll ones to hit order.
    His turret cannon rolls 3x2 on the first shot and a 1 (re-rolled into a 1) on the second. The plasma sponsons roll another 2 and another 2x1 (also re-rolled into 2x1).

    How many mortal wounds does the morkanaut take?
    How many mortal wounds does the tank commander take?
    Spoiler:
    Morkanaut takes 2, tank commander takes 7


    After we sorted this out issue out, the AM player was extremely frustrated over suffering damage from rolling twos (while orks didn't) and not even being able to re-roll them.
    He also only half-believed me and told me he would check it with the community later.

    This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/05/04 09:20:43


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    SemperMortis wrote:
    Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


    Yea...that's called board control.
     
       
    Made in gb
    Norn Queen






     Jidmah wrote:
    A fun example for why unified rules would be awesome is a discussion that took 10 minutes out of my game yesterday:

    My Morkanaut with Shiney Bits kustom job shot at a hard to hit plane. Its Kustom-Mega-Zappa and rolled 4x1 and 2x2, while and it's Kustom-Mega-Blasta rolled a 6, triggers dakkadakkadakka which then turned into a 1.

    In the next turn, my opponent's tank commander targets a hard to hit plane as well and overcharges his plasma because he has this re-roll ones to hit order.
    His turret cannon rolls 3x2 on the first shot and a 1 (re-rolled into a 1) on the second. The plasma sponsons roll another 2 and another 2x1 (also re-rolled into 2x1).

    How many mortal wounds does the morkanaut take?
    How many mortal wounds does the tank commander take?
    Spoiler:
    Morkanaut takes 2, tank commander takes 7


    After we sorted this out issue out, the AM player was extremely frustrated over suffering damage from rolling twos (while orks didn't) and not even being able to re-roll them.
    He also only half-believed me and told me he would check it with the community later.
    Yeah it's baffling to me why GW haven't retroactively changed Plasma to only natural 1's. I guess it's a relic of when they were pretending Primaris weren't supposed to wholesale replace Oldmarines?

    Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
    +++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
    Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
       
    Made in us
    Regular Dakkanaut




     JohnnyHell wrote:


    Why does it matter how bodyguards differ? Just read the Datasheet of the unit on the table. It’s not that difficult.


    Pre-FAQ Iron hands leviathan with Cogitated martyrdom would like a word.

    The main issue is that two similar rules might have a small distinction - Like "This unit may shoot immediately" and "This unit may shoot as if it were the shooting phase". Fairly similar terms, but the first one - if triggered in any non-shooting phase can be used to target characters. The second one cannot. Character targeting protection only works during the shooting phase (hence why you may target charging characters for overwatch even if they aren't the closest model). There was a GSC (or was it old inquisition?) psychic power that allowed you to do just that.

    That's an egregious case, but even smaller differences - once layered with other differences - can start having serious consequences for the stability of the game.

       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     JohnnyHell wrote:
    TangoTwoBravo wrote:
     vipoid wrote:
    TangoTwoBravo wrote:
    His articles and interviews indicate that the chief developer sought to make the game more accessible, and removing USRs helped to achieve that.


    This just seems like more evidence that no one on the 40k design team has a clue what they're doing, least of all their leader.


    Well, I offer that 8th Edition has done very well. Parking commercial success, I find as a player that I am rarely engaged in rules debates during a game. It hasn't been perfect, but I would happily buy Robin Cruddace a beer for what he and his team did with 8th Edition.


    It was also far easier for our group to pick up than the cross-referencing-fest of 7th, where I’d look up “Super Speedy” in my Codex and it would tell me to look up “Fleet” in another book and that would tell me what the rule was. Honestly, they achieved that ‘easier to pick up’ goal in spades. Sure, we’re now entering Bloatsville and it needs a streamlining but vipoid’s is simply a bad take.

    Nah, I’ll take most rules on Datasheets and a few faction-wide rules over USRs any damn day. So much easier to learn and to play without memorising cross-indexed encyclopaedias first.


    The 8th edition to 7th edition comparison isn't entirely fair in this case. 7th edition had all the baggage of editions 3-6 behind it and, directly, the rules and Codices from 6th edition complicating any attempt to start in that edition. 8th was a blank slate with extremely simplistic rules at its outset. Now it's an absolute mess. I've had more than one experienced opponent bemoan that trying to start a new army requires so much homework to understand how it works that the first half a dozen games are actually about learning the various rules for the army. USRs would alleviate that problem immensely by providing a common library of rules that players would pick up as they played regardless of which army they used. So switching to a new army means you have some transferable knowledge. Furthermore, USRs prevent all those little misunderstandings like the inexplicable difference between Dante and a random Space Marines Chapter Master or Ork and Imperial plasma. So I reject the notion that it's easier to learn rules in 8th than in previous editions, particularly for players who play more than one army.

    We've even seen in this thread how it's not true that all the rules you need are on your datasheet. Sisters are a good example of this. They have loads of army-wide special rules, then there's the subfaction specific ones that you need to cross-reference as well. It's simply not true to say all your rules are on the datasheet.
       
    Made in gb
    Norn Queen






    It's not even possible to say all the rules are in a single book. Barring the fact you now NEED CA for the points costs as they replace all the codex ones, some armies need upwards of 3 books now to be effective, if not outright usable.

    If you want to play, for example, Ultramarines, you need Codex: Space Marines, Codex Supplement: Ultramarines, Chapter Approved 2019, Vigilus Defiant, and Psychic Awakening: Faith and Fury.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/04 10:37:55


    Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
    +++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
    Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
       
    Made in pl
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    That is true. GK codex without the PA4 book are impossible for me to compare. It is like having a codex with 2/3 of the rules missing.

    If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
       
    Made in de
    Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






    My biker warboss is now spread across three books - index for the datasheet, codex for the relic klaw and SotB for the biggest boss stratagem.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/04 11:41:30


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    SemperMortis wrote:
    Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


    Yea...that's called board control.
     
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: