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.

ectoplastic wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The problem of have a USR but also print it on the data sheet, is that it only works if the USR never changes, otherwise you have scenarios where either all data slates need to be FAQ'd, or the data slate and BRB don't agree on a USR. So if they have the "deep strike" rule which right now would be "set up anywhere more than 9" away from an enemy model." and then "deepstrike" gets changed to more than 8" or more than 10", do all these change or not? Or do we have Deepstrike(x), where x is the number of inches away you set up?. If it is never in the rulebook, then it might work, but even then, what do you do when you want a FNP rule that doesn't work against mortal wounds? or only works against mortal wounds, now you have FNP and some other rule anyway.

On the other hand, if you want to change every deep strike rules, for example, to be 8 or 10 inches, then you have to update every datasheet. Having different or standardized names cuts both ways. Ultimately, I think having standard names for similar abilities with specifiers (Deep strike (x), Feel No Pain (x), Stealth (x), etc) does a lot to more to make the game easier to understand than having a bunch of rules with different names do the same thing.

As for FAQs and errata, well they already have to produce some anyway. I have yet to see a game where it doesn't happen.

Edition changes will always be a big, messy affair. Whether they have USRs or not will not change that.

Yes they will have to change all of them, but unless it is a big deal they can wait until a rules update to do it, rather than doing it through errata, which relies on people having the errata/checking the errata. Anything that minimizes the need to errata a ton of units is a good thing. Take stealth, say in 8th edition was +1 to your armor save when in cover, but when 9th comes out stealth becomes a to hit modifier. that fundamentally alters every unit that has that rule, and all interactions with those units. So then do they need to change the x on every unit?, remove the rule from a number of units? An edition change in a bespoke game is much cleaner because only the base rules are changing, and while that may effect some units (say if charges go to 3D6") , it won't require nearly as many erratas, on points, rules etc, as USRs cause, or if rules are not adapted for USRs you end up with things way out of balance.



Also changing all things with a particular rule does nothing to take their points cost into account, so say they change all deepstrike to 10", this has a very different effect on assault units in deepstrike, than it does to shooty units, same if it went the other way. Yet if all points remain the same, the game is thrown out of balance, whereas changing it on a unit by unit basis allows for a much finer balance.

Also as I said, there were already so many bespoke rules on top of the USRs the USRs didn't help that much. It would be one thing, if everything just used the USRs for all abilities, but when you had a bunch of bespoke rules, piled on USRs it gets even more confusing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Essentially removing USRs makes it less common that units will have huge power swings due to an edition change. The same is true for the elimination of unit types (which stacked USRs on many units). Take things like vector strike, it was huge in 6th, then got nerfed in 8th making some units far less effective.

They didn't need to remove USR

They just needed to remove USR that were not actually USR

Finally, they just need to make USRs modifiable.
Instead of "FNP"
They make it "FNP(+X)"
Infiltrate(X"), Deep Strike(X"), Scout(X") etc

Also, on wounding roll of 6
Rend(+X) - Additional Armor Penetration
Shred(+X) - Additional Mortal Wounds
Crush(+X) - Additional Damage

Accurate(X) - Reroll hit rolls of X or Lower (Also, simply 'Accurate' for Reroll all hit rolls)
Hunter(X) - Reroll wound rolls of X or lower (Also, simply 'Hunter' for Reroll all wound rolls)

Then some basic stuff like... Relentless, Sniper, Melta

Unless I'm missing 1 or 2, these would be all the USRs.
These rules are found in vastly different armies, and are rather consistent in effect.

Then each Army would have their own Private USRs... Army Special Rules... ASR. Similar to how they do it now.
(specific names used in example are subject to change before final version)

 Talamare wrote:
They didn't need to remove USR

They just needed to remove USR that were not actually USR

Finally, they just need to make USRs modifiable.
Instead of "FNP"
They make it "FNP(+X)"
Infiltrate(X"), Deep Strike(X"), Scout(X") etc

Also, on wounding roll of 6
Rend(+X) - Additional Armor Penetration
Shred(+X) - Additional Mortal Wounds
Crush(+X) - Additional Damage

Accurate(X) - Reroll hit rolls of X or Lower
Hunter(X) - Reroll wound rolls of X or lower

Then some basic stuff like... Relentless, Sniper, Melta

Unless I'm missing 1 or 2, these would be all the USRs.
These rules are found in vastly different armies, and are rather consistent in effect.

Then each Army would have their own Private USRs... Army Special Rules... ASR. Similar to how they do it now.

That works so long as they never change what those rules do in the future. If the rules ever change it fails to work.

Breng77 wrote:

That works so long as they never change what those rules do in the future. If the rules ever change it fails to work.

No, the opposite.
It works best when they want to change the rules in the future since they only need to change a single entry.
Especially works for FAQs.

Also, all these rules are intended to be CORE mechanics. Its like if you responded...
"Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault works until they need to change how they work, then having Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault fails to work."

Breng77 wrote:
Yes they will have to change all of them, but unless it is a big deal they can wait until a rules update to do it, rather than doing it through errata, which relies on people having the errata/checking the errata. Anything that minimizes the need to errata a ton of units is a good thing. Take stealth, say in 8th edition was +1 to your armor save when in cover, but when 9th comes out stealth becomes a to hit modifier. that fundamentally alters every unit that has that rule, and all interactions with those units. So then do they need to change the x on every unit?, remove the rule from a number of units? An edition change in a bespoke game is much cleaner because only the base rules are changing, and while that may effect some units (say if charges go to 3D6") , it won't require nearly as many erratas, on points, rules etc, as USRs cause, or if rules are not adapted for USRs you end up with things way out of balance.

If they want to change a rule on a single unit, it is not simpler to change a bespoke rule than to change which USRs it has. A player will still have to look for an errata online to get his rules. For your example above, there are already multiple rules that give a -X to be hit (Hard to hit, for example). You could have a rule named Stealth and a rule named Hard to hit. Want to change a unit? Just change which USR it has. Same difference as rewording a rule on its dataslate and you don't have to explain the fluffily named rules every time you play vs someone who doesn't know your army.

Breng77 wrote:
Also changing all things with a particular rule does nothing to take their points cost into account, so say they change all deepstrike to 10", this has a very different effect on assault units in deepstrike, than it does to shooty units, same if it went the other way. Yet if all points remain the same, the game is thrown out of balance, whereas changing it on a unit by unit basis allows for a much finer balance.

Which is why you could have the Deep strike(X") USR, giving you the granularity necessary to make adjustments per unit. Same as updating differently worded no rules but with a clear nomenclature. If they decided to change how deep strike worked for everyone with the rules the way they are, they would come up with the same problem you stated above.

Breng77 wrote:
Also as I said, there were already so many bespoke rules on top of the USRs the USRs didn't help that much. It would be one thing, if everything just used the USRs for all abilities, but when you had a bunch of bespoke rules, piled on USRs it gets even more confusing.

Entirely agree that the rules were a mess. Totally disagree that having a ton of different rules is better than standardised terms.

Breng77 wrote:
Essentially removing USRs makes it less common that units will have huge power swings due to an edition change. The same is true for the elimination of unit types (which stacked USRs on many units). Take things like vector strike, it was huge in 6th, then got nerfed in 8th making some units far less effective.

No, it does not. Every edition change has seen huge power swings and using different words to mean the same thing isn't going to change that. It just makes things less clear.

Also, they did not get rid of unit types, they just (mostly, see FLY, and the terrain rules) wrote their rules on their datasheets. Which I am not arguing against, datasheets are a good idea. My problem is with using a bunch of different rule names to say the same thing, and with saying that that way of doing things solve any FAQ/errata problem. None of the problems with errata/FAQ you have cited are solved by this wording variety. Any change to any unit or any rule is going to require an errata and people going online to get the full, up to date rules for their armies. Better, clearer, more granular USRs are not more complicated to use in an update than rewriting the rule being changed on a unit's datasheet.

 Talamare wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

That works so long as they never change what those rules do in the future. If the rules ever change it fails to work.

No, the opposite.
It works best when they want to change the rules in the future since they only need to change a single entry.
Especially works for FAQs.

Also, all these rules are intended to be CORE mechanics. Its like if you responded...
"Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault works until they need to change how they work, then having Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault fails to work."

Well you're talking about 2 different things. Heavy, Assault, etc, are already universal rules.

The second you start creating USRs, you lose the flexibility in the wording.

Consider "Da Jump" versus "Gate of Infinity." If you replaced that with deep strike (x), you'd lose the granularity that these two implementations provide. Da Jump counts as moving for the purposes of firing heavy weapons, Gate of Infinity does not. These are a significant difference between these powers, and with the implementation of Deep Strike as a USR, you lose this flexibility unless you override on the GK entry, in which case, the USR is no longer a USR

 Talamare wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

That works so long as they never change what those rules do in the future. If the rules ever change it fails to work.

No, the opposite.
It works best when they want to change the rules in the future since they only need to change a single entry.
Especially works for FAQs.

Also, all these rules are intended to be CORE mechanics. Its like if you responded...
"Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault works until they need to change how they work, then having Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault fails to work."

Except that when they change the rules by single entry they need to re-test ever single unit that the rule effects. Which is the problem, if units don't receive new points costs to reflect the change, their power level changes just because the USR changed. It is actually true for weapon types as well. Just look at the change from 5th to 6th with rapid fire, every unit with rapid fire got a lot better just because of this rules change, this was not reflected in their points costs. Same with heavy weapons in that same change. Essentially many things became better/worse due to an edition change without any reflection in their cost.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ectoplastic,

The issue with just trying to change the rule is that you are changing a rule on a data slate, and not the data slate. If rules for units only change when their data slates are released, then you don't have the issue where you need a second document to refer to for multiple units. So having stealth changed to hard to hit, only works if I have the FAQ on hand while I play to show my opponent, if I am aware that an FAq happened to reflect this change etc. Whereas if the Data slates are static until a new codex release, I only need one source for each dataslate, and I know the rules on it are correct to my units abilities. So if my "stealth ability" in 8th says -1 to hit, it remains -1 to hit even in a change to 9th, instead of becoming +1 to cover for instance, then having it changed to hard to hit in an FAQ, to go back to the original intent of the rule. Instead without the USR they can just leave the data slate alone.

For deepstrike(x) that works so long as deepstrike always means "set up x" away, if they change it to mean something else then it causes an issue, so if USRs are fixed and never change their base meaning between editions this could potentially work.

Having all bespoke rules, makes little difference compared to tons of USRs + bespoke rules, especially when rule names are fairly meaningless. x rule gives me "re-rolls to hit" I just tell my opponent I have re-rolls to hit, the names are just fluff.

Edition changes are easier when unit rules don't change based on the edition change. Some power may change, but when things go from old rage - must move toward nearest unit, to new rage - +2 attacks on the charge, without any points change it is a balance issue. IF the unit keeps the original rule, the change is not nearly so large.

There are unit types, those unit types don't in and of themselves grant any special abilities.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

That works so long as they never change what those rules do in the future. If the rules ever change it fails to work.

No, the opposite.
It works best when they want to change the rules in the future since they only need to change a single entry.
Especially works for FAQs.

Also, all these rules are intended to be CORE mechanics. Its like if you responded...
"Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault works until they need to change how they work, then having Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault fails to work."

Well you're talking about 2 different things. Heavy, Assault, etc, are already universal rules.

The second you start creating USRs, you lose the flexibility in the wording.

Consider "Da Jump" versus "Gate of Infinity." If you replaced that with deep strike (x), you'd lose the granularity that these two implementations provide. Da Jump counts as moving for the purposes of firing heavy weapons, Gate of Infinity does not. These are a significant difference between these powers, and with the implementation of Deep Strike as a USR, you lose this flexibility unless you override on the GK entry, in which case, the USR is no longer a USR

Gate of Infinity - Choose a unit, Deep Strike it, It gains Relentless until the end of turn.

Woah that took like 2 seconds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

Except that when they change the rules by single entry they need to re-test ever single unit that the rule effects. Which is the problem, if units don't receive new points costs to reflect the change, their power level changes just because the USR changed. It is actually true for weapon types as well. Just look at the change from 5th to 6th with rapid fire, every unit with rapid fire got a lot better just because of this rules change, this was not reflected in their points costs. Same with heavy weapons in that same change. Essentially many things became better/worse due to an edition change without any reflection in their cost.

Did... Did you just make my argument for me?

So, USRs are bad because it will potentially change the balance of many units.
However, we have proven over multiple edition changes that overall it doesn't really matter overall

 Talamare wrote:

Gate of Infinity - Choose a unit, Deep Strike it, It gains Relentless until the end of turn.

Woah that took like 2 seconds.

I have no skin in this game, but this way you need to reference something else to resolve the rule rather than having all of the rule present on the sheet.

 Talamare wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

That works so long as they never change what those rules do in the future. If the rules ever change it fails to work.

No, the opposite.
It works best when they want to change the rules in the future since they only need to change a single entry.
Especially works for FAQs.

Also, all these rules are intended to be CORE mechanics. Its like if you responded...
"Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault works until they need to change how they work, then having Rapid Fire/Heavy/Assault fails to work."

Well you're talking about 2 different things. Heavy, Assault, etc, are already universal rules.

The second you start creating USRs, you lose the flexibility in the wording.

Consider "Da Jump" versus "Gate of Infinity." If you replaced that with deep strike (x), you'd lose the granularity that these two implementations provide. Da Jump counts as moving for the purposes of firing heavy weapons, Gate of Infinity does not. These are a significant difference between these powers, and with the implementation of Deep Strike as a USR, you lose this flexibility unless you override on the GK entry, in which case, the USR is no longer a USR

Gate of Infinity - Choose a unit, Deep Strike it, It gains Relentless until the end of turn.

Woah that took like 2 seconds.

But now you have further complicated things.

Relentless applies to movement and shooting, but psychic powers occur outside of the movement phase. So relentless actually applies already to both cases, assuming they didn't move. In 2 seconds you just buffed "Da Jump" by accident, since they wouldn't get a penalty anyway. And you allowed GK to move, and then get Gated, and then shoot with relentless, another accidental buff.

And additionally, you had to create yet another USR in an attempt to solve the problem. And Relentless will come with its own set of special cases, to which you'll create more USRs.

The problem with USRs is they limit the game development.

If you make a core book with USRs and then make other books with supplement rules aka codex, they are stuck using the USRs.

You have now just limited all future publications to having to use those USRs, if you want a new rule it has the be unit specific- meaning if you want the game to evolve with units that have new abilities you now have to create new rules which will either be on the units entry, or in the book the new unit is in somewhere. If you want USRs to still be relevant you have to include those on units that are new as well.

Eventually you evolve into a situation where units are either stagnant and all essentially have some version of USRs other factions have, or you have units with USRs and a some units with new rules which arent USRs in a core book and have to balance new rules versus old to make new ones good enough to want to take but not good enough to make old rules pointless, or you have units with a mix of USRs and new rules which means players ha e to reference multiple places in multiple books for the rules for a single unit.

USRs were a bad system for a game that wants to evolve.

 Marmatag wrote:

But now you have further complicated things.

Relentless applies to movement and shooting, but psychic powers occur outside of the movement phase. So relentless actually applies already to both cases, assuming they didn't move. In 2 seconds you just buffed "Da Jump" by accident, since they wouldn't get a penalty anyway. And you allowed GK to move, and then get Gated, and then shoot with relentless, another accidental buff.

And additionally, you had to create yet another USR in an attempt to solve the problem. And Relentless will come with its own set of special cases, to which you'll create more USRs

I didn't create a new USR to solve the problem, it was already one of the original of the list. I typed up.

Don't presume that the Relentless of 7e will be the exact same Relentless of 8e

Relentless - A model with Relentless does not suffer the penalty to shooting for moving.
(Also Fleet* - A model with Fleet does not suffer the penalty to shooting for advancing.)

Also, you need to better explain what you're talking about. How did I buff Da Jump?
What's the other accidental buff for GK? Being able to Move before Deep Striking?

*or some other name.

 Peregrine wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Funny. There is over 150 keyword rules for MtG. MtG simply adds more USRs when they want to do something new so I'm not sure how you think that would work for GW.

The difference is that MTG has thousands of "units", far more than 40k. So if you scale down the number of MTG "units" to something comparable to 40k you'd proportionally scale down the number of keywords, and you'd find that most of those keywords are repeated across large numbers of cards. GW would have no pressure to introduce hundreds of new "units" every year, and could handle most of the unit-specific rules with a carefully chosen set of USRs.

Would it be naïve to assume they keep a list of USRs and require going through their own list before a new special rule is created?
I like that all information is on the unit "card" which reduces some looking up and may be more accommodating for new gamers.
This is however assuming someone is keeping the rules creators organized.

 Talamare wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

But now you have further complicated things.

Relentless applies to movement and shooting, but psychic powers occur outside of the movement phase. So relentless actually applies already to both cases, assuming they didn't move. In 2 seconds you just buffed "Da Jump" by accident, since they wouldn't get a penalty anyway. And you allowed GK to move, and then get Gated, and then shoot with relentless, another accidental buff.

And additionally, you had to create yet another USR in an attempt to solve the problem. And Relentless will come with its own set of special cases, to which you'll create more USRs

I didn't create a new USR to solve the problem, it was already one of the original of the list. I typed up.

Don't presume that the Relentless of 7e will be the exact same Relentless of 8e

Relentless - A model with Relentless does not suffer the penalty to shooting for moving.
(Also Fleet* - A model with Fleet does not suffer the penalty to shooting for advancing.)

Also, you need to better explain what you're talking about. How did I buff Da Jump?
What's the other accidental buff for GK? Being able to Move before Deep Striking?

*or some other name.

Or rather than calling it Fleet or Relentless or Interceptor or Night Vision or so, just call it Ignore BS Penalty(Advancing), Ignore BS Penalty(Heavy Weapon), Ignore BS Penalty(Hard to Hit) or Ignore BS Penalty(Night Fighting). Make the rule say what it does, so Tesla becomes Critical Hit(+2 Hits), Sniper weapons become Ignore Targrting Restriction(Character), Critical Wound(+1 Mortal Wound), etc.and so on so forth.

 MagicJuggler wrote:


Or rather than calling it Fleet or Relentless or Interceptor or Night Vision or so, just call it Ignore BS Penalty(Advancing), Ignore BS Penalty(Heavy Weapon), Ignore BS Penalty(Hard to Hit) or Ignore BS Penalty(Night Fighting). Make the rule say what it does, so Tesla becomes Critical Hit(+2 Hits), Sniper weapons become Ignore Targrting Restriction(Character), Critical Wound(+1 Mortal Wound), etc.and so on so forth.

You know how people are complaining that their armies are pretty bland without a codex? That does the same thing.

Marmatag wrote:Consider "Da Jump" versus "Gate of Infinity." If you replaced that with deep strike (x), you'd lose the granularity that these two implementations provide. Da Jump counts as moving for the purposes of firing heavy weapons, Gate of Infinity does not. These are a significant difference between these powers, and with the implementation of Deep Strike as a USR, you lose this flexibility unless you override on the GK entry, in which case, the USR is no longer a USR

Those are spells, not USRs. They don't need to be worded according to USRs.

Breng77 wrote:@ectoplastic,

The issue with just trying to change the rule is that you are changing a rule on a data slate, and not the data slate. If rules for units only change when their data slates are released, then you don't have the issue where you need a second document to refer to for multiple units. So having stealth changed to hard to hit, only works if I have the FAQ on hand while I play to show my opponent, if I am aware that an FAq happened to reflect this change etc. Whereas if the Data slates are static until a new codex release, I only need one source for each dataslate, and I know the rules on it are correct to my units abilities. So if my "stealth ability" in 8th says -1 to hit, it remains -1 to hit even in a change to 9th, instead of becoming +1 to cover for instance, then having it changed to hard to hit in an FAQ, to go back to the original intent of the rule. Instead without the USR they can just leave the data slate alone.

For deepstrike(x) that works so long as deepstrike always means "set up x" away, if they change it to mean something else then it causes an issue, so if USRs are fixed and never change their base meaning between editions this could potentially work.

Having all bespoke rules, makes little difference compared to tons of USRs + bespoke rules, especially when rule names are fairly meaningless. x rule gives me "re-rolls to hit" I just tell my opponent I have re-rolls to hit, the names are just fluff.

Edition changes are easier when unit rules don't change based on the edition change. Some power may change, but when things go from old rage - must move toward nearest unit, to new rage - +2 attacks on the charge, without any points change it is a balance issue. IF the unit keeps the original rule, the change is not nearly so large.

There are unit types, those unit types don't in and of themselves grant any special abilities.

Oh god... We just got 8th and we should plan for 9th already? Please... no... We're not talking about the same type of changes at all. I'm focusing on in-edition tweaking to adjust balance, not a hypothetical huge rewrite of the core rules in a few years. If we take GW's apparent new philosophy to heart, it seems unlikely we will get a new edition with huge changes like we used to. The idea of dataslates is to allow them to tweak units and slightly adjust balance rather than fully rewrite how rules work. Well designed USRs are not incompatible with that. I really hope GW doesn't change editions without releasing indexes like they did this time.

Oh, and you need more than your dataslate if your model has Fly, Character, Faction rules, is Infantry, is not Infantry, is a transport...

blaktoof wrote:The problem with USRs is they limit the game development.

If you make a core book with USRs and then make other books with supplement rules aka codex, they are stuck using the USRs.

You have now just limited all future publications to having to use those USRs, if you want a new rule it has the be unit specific- meaning if you want the game to evolve with units that have new abilities you now have to create new rules which will either be on the units entry, or in the book the new unit is in somewhere. If you want USRs to still be relevant you have to include those on units that are new as well.

Eventually you evolve into a situation where units are either stagnant and all essentially have some version of USRs other factions have, or you have units with USRs and a some units with new rules which arent USRs in a core book and have to balance new rules versus old to make new ones good enough to want to take but not good enough to make old rules pointless, or you have units with a mix of USRs and new rules which means players ha e to reference multiple places in multiple books for the rules for a single unit.

USRs were a bad system for a game that wants to evolve.

No, they don't. They already do erratas and FAQs. Why not just put up updated, printable USR lists online for free? Print it out, leave it on the table next to your dataslates/codex/index. Solved. They do something like that in X-Wing all the time, including rules cards in ship packs that have new maneuvers or actions. It works very well.

No, the problem was busted codices. But no, I don't want to go back. Because I'm done with lascannons hitting a Riptide for one damage.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Or rather than calling it Fleet or Relentless or Interceptor or Night Vision or so, just call it Ignore BS Penalty(Advancing), Ignore BS Penalty(Heavy Weapon), Ignore BS Penalty(Hard to Hit) or Ignore BS Penalty(Night Fighting). Make the rule say what it does, so Tesla becomes Critical Hit(+2 Hits), Sniper weapons become Ignore Targrting Restriction(Character), Critical Wound(+1 Mortal Wound), etc.and so on so forth.

I know right!
Why call it a Lascannon or Autocannon or Terminators

Just call it Anti Tank Long Range Weapon #1, Confused Purpose Long Range Weapon #4, Expensive Survivable Man #3

Altho... back to serious
"Critical" is a good name to use for the USR for Wounding Rolls of 6.
Well done!

Critical - Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit has an additional effect. (an additional effect is triggered?)
Critical Rend(+X) - That hit has X additional AP
Critical Shred(+X) - Your target suffers X additional Mortal Wounds
Critical Crush(+X) - That hit has X additional damage
Critical Slice and Dice(+X) - Make X additional attacks with the same weapon.

Edit, know what... You make a good point here. It might be a pain to remember which one was Rend and which one was Shred
Critical - Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit has an additional effect. (an additional effect is triggered?)
Critical Penetration(+X) - That hit has X additional AP
Critical Mortal Damage(+X) - Your target suffers X additional Mortal Wounds
Critical Damage(+X) - That hit has X additional damage
Critical Attacks(+X) - Make X additional attacks with the same weapon.

You and me buddy, we on a roll!

Having to roll 6's sucks. The lascannon should do more than one wound base. Period. The doubling out mechanic sucks because T6 is a magical snowflake number that makes your model invincible except to broken stuff like grav.

 Talamare wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Or rather than calling it Fleet or Relentless or Interceptor or Night Vision or so, just call it Ignore BS Penalty(Advancing), Ignore BS Penalty(Heavy Weapon), Ignore BS Penalty(Hard to Hit) or Ignore BS Penalty(Night Fighting). Make the rule say what it does, so Tesla becomes Critical Hit(+2 Hits), Sniper weapons become Ignore Targrting Restriction(Character), Critical Wound(+1 Mortal Wound), etc.and so on so forth.

I know right!
Why call it a Lascannon or Autocannon or Terminators

Just call it Anti Tank Long Range Weapon #1, Confused Purpose Long Range Weapon #4, Expensive Survivable Man #3

Altho... back to serious
"Critical" is a good name to use for the USR for Wounding Rolls of 6.
Well done!

Critical - Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit has an additional effect. (an additional effect is triggered?)
Critical Rend(+X) - That hit has X additional AP
Critical Shred(+X) - Your target suffers X additional Mortal Wounds
Critical Crush(+X) - That hit has X additional damage
Critical Slice and Dice(+X) - Make X additional attacks with the same weapon.

Edit, know what... You make a good point here. It might be a pain to remember which one was Rend and which one was Shred
Critical - Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit has an additional effect. (an additional effect is triggered?)
Critical Penetration(+X) - That hit has X additional AP
Critical Mortal Damage(+X) - Your target suffers X additional Mortal Wounds
Critical Damage(+X) - That hit has X additional damage
Critical Attacks(+X) - Make X additional attacks with the same weapon.

You and me buddy, we on a roll!

"My Chaplain has Zealot. Does that mean he runs faster?"
"No, you're thinking of Crusader."
"But aren't all Crusaders Zealots?"
"No, technically the Zealots were a Jewish uprising against Roman occupation...oh, you mean the USRs. No, they're not mutually reflexive. Some units are Zealots, some are Crusaders, and a very small number are both."
"So what does Crusader do?"
"Roll 2 dice and pick the highest when running?"
"Wasn't that Fleet?"
"No, Fleet gives you the option to re-roll your Run or Charge distance."
"So what does Zealot do?"
"It gives you Fearless and Hatred!"
"Cool, I re-roll 1s to hit and wound!"
"No, you're thinking of Preferred Enemy!"
"But wouldn't I prefer to attack enemies I hate the most?"
"Yes, you just re-roll to hit on the charge."
"But what about my reroll to wound?"
"Possible I guess, if you have Poison and are higher strength, or you have Shred."
"Wasn't Shred the one that lets me ignore armor on 6s?"
"No, you're thinking of Rend."
"..."

Sometimes it's best to actually say what the rule does in the rule itself, rather than having similar-sounding rules with slight functional differences.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Or rather than calling it Fleet or Relentless or Interceptor or Night Vision or so, just call it Ignore BS Penalty(Advancing), Ignore BS Penalty(Heavy Weapon), Ignore BS Penalty(Hard to Hit) or Ignore BS Penalty(Night Fighting). Make the rule say what it does, so Tesla becomes Critical Hit(+2 Hits), Sniper weapons become Ignore Targrting Restriction(Character), Critical Wound(+1 Mortal Wound), etc.and so on so forth.

I know right!
Why call it a Lascannon or Autocannon or Terminators

Just call it Anti Tank Long Range Weapon #1, Confused Purpose Long Range Weapon #4, Expensive Survivable Man #3

Altho... back to serious
"Critical" is a good name to use for the USR for Wounding Rolls of 6.
Well done!

Critical - Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit has an additional effect. (an additional effect is triggered?)
Critical Rend(+X) - That hit has X additional AP
Critical Shred(+X) - Your target suffers X additional Mortal Wounds
Critical Crush(+X) - That hit has X additional damage
Critical Slice and Dice(+X) - Make X additional attacks with the same weapon.

Edit, know what... You make a good point here. It might be a pain to remember which one was Rend and which one was Shred
Critical - Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit has an additional effect. (an additional effect is triggered?)
Critical Penetration(+X) - That hit has X additional AP
Critical Mortal Damage(+X) - Your target suffers X additional Mortal Wounds
Critical Damage(+X) - That hit has X additional damage
Critical Attacks(+X) - Make X additional attacks with the same weapon.

You and me buddy, we on a roll!

"My Chaplain has Zealot. Does that mean he runs faster?"
"No, you're thinking of Crusader."
"But aren't all Crusaders Zealots?"
"No, technically the Zealots were a Jewish uprising against Roman occupation...oh, you mean the USRs. No, they're not mutually reflexive. Some units are Zealots, some are Crusaders, and a very small number are both."
"So what does Crusader do?"
"Roll 2 dice and pick the highest when running?"
"Wasn't that Fleet?"
"No, Fleet gives you the option to re-roll your Run or Charge distance."
"So what does Zealot do?"
"It gives you Fearless and Hatred!"
"Cool, I re-roll 1s to hit and wound!"
"No, you're thinking of Preferred Enemy!"
"But wouldn't I prefer to attack enemies I hate the most?"
"Yes, you just re-roll to hit on the charge."
"But what about my reroll to wound?"
"Possible I guess, if you have Poison and are higher strength, or you have Shred."
"Wasn't Shred the one that lets me ignore armor on 6s?"
"No, you're thinking of Rend."
"..."

Sometimes it's best to actually say what the rule does in the rule itself, rather than having similar-sounding rules with slight functional differences.

On the second time I read your message, I straight up agreed. So I added a block on Critical effects with more direct names.

However, a good amount of stuff is fine to have fluffier names as long as it's understandable. Not to mention that once you cut down on how many names you have it becomes less of an issue.
Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Scout, and FNP are long time terms. They should be fine.
Sniper and Melta as well.

 Talamare wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

But now you have further complicated things.

Relentless applies to movement and shooting, but psychic powers occur outside of the movement phase. So relentless actually applies already to both cases, assuming they didn't move. In 2 seconds you just buffed "Da Jump" by accident, since they wouldn't get a penalty anyway. And you allowed GK to move, and then get Gated, and then shoot with relentless, another accidental buff.

And additionally, you had to create yet another USR in an attempt to solve the problem. And Relentless will come with its own set of special cases, to which you'll create more USRs

I didn't create a new USR to solve the problem, it was already one of the original of the list. I typed up.

Don't presume that the Relentless of 7e will be the exact same Relentless of 8e

Relentless - A model with Relentless does not suffer the penalty to shooting for moving.
(Also Fleet* - A model with Fleet does not suffer the penalty to shooting for advancing.)

Also, you need to better explain what you're talking about. How did I buff Da Jump?
What's the other accidental buff for GK? Being able to Move before Deep Striking?

*or some other name.

This is the exact problem. A USR for Deep Strike was suggested. I am poking a hole in that. You came up with "give them relentless," but now you're talking about writing a new relentless rule.

And you buffed Da Jump because you turned it into a Deep Strike special rule, with Relentless, and relentless applies to the movement phase, not the psychic phase, in any form that's written down. So you removed its penalty, because you assumed psychic versions of deep strike constituted moving.

Fact of the matter is, we gain literally nothing by adding in these USRs, and it makes the game harder to balance. You've accidentally proven this point for me, lol.

Rules in their current form: no debate.
Rules in the form you're proposing: totally unclear and already under debate, we're talking about what you intended, versus what you wrote. Is that better?

 Marmatag wrote:

This is the exact problem. A USR for Deep Strike was suggested. I am poking a hole in that. You came up with "give them relentless," but now you're talking about writing a new relentless rule.

And you buffed Da Jump because you turned it into a Deep Strike special rule, with Relentless, and relentless applies to the movement phase, not the psychic phase, in any form that's written down. So you removed its penalty, because you assumed psychic versions of deep strike constituted moving.

Fact of the matter is, we gain literally nothing by adding in these USRs, and it makes the game harder to balance. You've accidentally proven this point for me, lol.

Rules in their current form: no debate.
Rules in the form you're proposing: totally unclear and already under debate, we're talking about what you intended, versus what you wrote. Is that better?

Are you willfully misunderstanding something?
I didn't mention Da Jump at all.

Deep Strike(X") - During deployment, you may set up a unit to be Deep Striked instead of placing them on the battlefield. At the end of any of your Movement Phases, set them up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than X" away from any models. Units that arrive from Deep Strike cannot move or advance further during the turn they arrive and count as having moved in the Movement phase for all rules purposes.

Gate of Infinity - Choose a unit within 6", Deep Strike it, It gains Relentless this turn.
Again, I'm not creating a rule specifically to modify Deep Strike. I have already created a rule called Relentless that does what it does.
It's a USR by itself regardless of the existence of the Deep Strike USR.
The Relentless I wrote had NOTHING TO DO with the Movement Phase... AT ALL

Relentless - A model with Relentless does not suffer the penalty to shooting for moving.

DOES NOT MENTION THE MOVEMENT PHASE. It's very clear that if that unit is shooting, it will suffer no penalties for moving. Regardless of the reason it moved.

I didn't buff Da Jump, because Da Jump wouldn't give Relentless

I very clearly wrote

 Talamare wrote:
Gate of Infinity - Choose a unit, Deep Strike it, It gains Relentless until the end of turn.

Woah that took like 2 seconds.

"GATE OF INFINITY" is what is giving Relentless for the turn.

So let's list the Facts
Rules in their current form = A TON OF DEBATE... There has already been 2 FAQs for 8e despite the GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION! Not to mention there is a sticky thread in YMDC that has another ~40 questions that needs a FAQ
Rules I'm proposing = Are Shockingly Clear... You seem to be the only one having a problem with it, and if I continue this sentence will only result in many insults heading your direction.

Like seriously... I'm literally speed typing most of this stuff and it's already clearer than 8e. Despite 8e presumably having paid writers, grammar correctors, proof readers.

People are arguing about how much arguing is necessary for a rule to reduce arguing.

Lol.

As written, gate of infinity would require that the unit be set up in deep strike reserve to be gated. "Deep strike it" isn't clear rules writing, if you don't see that, then i don't know what to tell you. Your USRs just don't cut it.

In any case, the benefit of having no USRs means that rules can be written unit by unit, model by model, making things both easier to understand and more balanced. I'm a fan of the new system. USRs in 7th were an endless argument as to how they worked together. I'm glad that is gone.

 Marmatag wrote:
As written, gate of infinity would require that the unit be set up in deep strike reserve to be gated. "Deep strike it" isn't clear rules writing, if you don't see that, then i don't know what to tell you. Your USRs just don't cut it.

In any case, the benefit of having no USRs means that rules can be written unit by unit, model by model, making things both easier to understand and more balanced. I'm a fan of the new system. USRs in 7th were an endless argument as to how they worked together. I'm glad that is gone.

Well... Since I literally copied it word for word from the 8e book. I don't doubt it isn't clear.
Let's me take a crack at it.

Deep Strike(X") - At the end of any of your Movement Phases, You may set a unit in reserves anywhere on the battlefield that is more than X" away from any models. Units that arrive from Deep Strike cannot move or advance further during the turn they arrive and count as having moved in the Movement phase for all rules purposes.

During deployment, you may set up a unit in Reserves to be Deep Striked instead of placing them on the battlefield.

Gate of Infinity - Choose a friendly GK unit within 12" of the Caster, place it in reserves then immediately Deep Strike (9") as if it was the end of your Movement Phase. That unit gains Relentless until the end of the turn.

... 39 seconds
Damn, GW should straight up just hire me.

 Talamare wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
As written, gate of infinity would require that the unit be set up in deep strike reserve to be gated. "Deep strike it" isn't clear rules writing, if you don't see that, then i don't know what to tell you. Your USRs just don't cut it.

In any case, the benefit of having no USRs means that rules can be written unit by unit, model by model, making things both easier to understand and more balanced. I'm a fan of the new system. USRs in 7th were an endless argument as to how they worked together. I'm glad that is gone.

Well... Since I literally copied it word for word from the 8e book. I don't doubt it isn't clear.
Let's me take a crack at it.

Deep Strike(X") - At the end of any of your Movement Phases, You may set a unit in reserves anywhere on the battlefield that is more than X" away from any models. Units that arrive from Deep Strike cannot move or advance further during the turn they arrive and count as having moved in the Movement phase for all rules purposes.

During deployment, you may set up a unit in Reserves to be Deep Striked instead of placing them on the battlefield.

Gate of Infinity - Choose a unit within 6" of the Caster, place it in reserves then immediately Deep Strike (9") as if it was the end of your Movement Phase. That unit gains Relentless until the end of the turn.

... 39 seconds
Damn, GW should straight up just hire me.

You said any models, did you mean that or enemy models? Because as written you can't deep strike within X" of your own models. And actually as written, any model would include itself, so I guess that means as written you can't deep strike at all.

You will also need another special rule for Genestealer Cults, and cult ambush. Because that's not deep strike as you wrote it.

Damn, GW should just straight up fire you right now.

 Marmatag wrote:

You said any models, did you mean that or enemy models? Because as written you can't deep strike within X" of your own models. And actually as written, any model would include itself, so I guess that means as written you can't deep strike at all.

You will also need another special rule for Genestealer Cults, and cult ambush. Because that's not deep strike as you wrote it.

Damn, GW should just straight up fire you right now.

Good Catch Jimmy Olsen!

"Deep Strike(X") - At the end of any of your Movement Phases, You may set a unit in reserves anywhere on the battlefield that is more than X" away from any enemy models. Units that arrive from Deep Strike cannot move or advance further during the turn they arrive and count as having moved in the Movement phase for all rules purposes.

During deployment, you may set up a unit with Deep Strike(X") in your Reserves to be Deep Striked instead of placing them on the battlefield."

This is why we hired you on as a Intern!
Fixed that, as well as clarified that only units with Deep Strike may be placed in Reserves to be Deep Striked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GSC rule is significantly more complicated than Deep Strike. It can stay as it is.

I thought for sure you would complain about Subterranean Assault!

Oh well, I mentioned it first so now I don't need to go into detail~ *whistles away*

Since Gate of Infinity says "a unit" can you pick an enemy unit?

And does that mean your models count as friendly so you can boop them next to your assault unit or does that mean enemy units count as friendly?

Also can you gate of infinity a Titan?

I really am beginning to miss how Gate of Infinity was classified as a Blessing.