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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

USRs. Do. Not. Work. Period. They complicate the game rather than streamline it, as proven by every single edition where they were a thing.

You are 100% wrong here(as usual for a proven liar). Done right as shown in many other games USR a) reduce rule bloat b) makes things clearer c) makes things less likely to break up.

Without USR you have things like smoke launchers in army A working different to army B. Like GW has managed to do. Or stormshields working differently in 2 different armies.

USR work. Of course if you do it poorly they don't work but equally sloppy rulewriting will result in even bigger mess without USR.

kombatwombat wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:
Also, GW still use two USRs - fly and character.

They aren't USRs, because they are a core function of the movement and shooting rules, and are part of the Keyword system introduced in 8th.

If you need to special snowflake things despite having USRs, then you have a flawed USR system, plain and simple. We tried that method and look how 7th ended up.

They are common additional special rules not applicable to all units, but applicable to enough units that they’re grouped into the Big Rule Book for ease of use and so that they don’t have to be repeated lots of times.

Seems like a pretty good definition of Universal Special Rules to me. When I get home tonight I’ll try to take a look at the introduction to the USR section of the 7th Ed book to find their exact wording.

As for your last point, if you have USRs with snowflake additions, you don’t have a ‘USRs only’ ruleset in the pettiest, most militant sense. What you do have, though, is a better game.

7th edition proves you wrong on the "better game" assertion.

I don't think "randomness" is an issue with 8th, it's just that some units (eg Vindicators) translated poorly. It's just not worth it's points, if it was D6 / 2D6 vs 10+ models it'd be usable for it's points. Sure, you could go 3+D3 / 6+D6 instead, but that's just a matter of points - for D6 vs 3+D3 the later would simply need to be more expensive. Both work fine though.

And a keyword that adds special stuff to any unit that has it is the same as a USR. If it walks like a duck, ...

And a keyword that adds special stuff to any unit that has it is the same as a USR. If it walks like a duck, ...

Yeah the thing is does it really walk like a duck? Or to be less funny, while it doesn't matter if a rule exists as an USR or keyword, the problem with GW is that they never got their in game language tight. They put "fluff" speak in to rules, they use different terms to describe the same effect or worse they use the same terms which they then make work different with a FAQ or errata. An USR is not perfect, but at least this would mean that everyone is using the same set of rules. It would be, and this my own opinion of course, a lot more clean. The close GW gets to MtG style of ruleset writing the better. Clear rules never hurt anyone, vogue fluff drive we do it for the cool ones killed games.

nekooni wrote:
I don't think "randomness" is an issue with 8th, it's just that some units (eg Vindicators) translated poorly. It's just not worth it's points, if it was D6 / 2D6 vs 10+ models it'd be usable for it's points. Sure, you could go 3+D3 / 6+D6 instead, but that's just a matter of points - for D6 vs 3+D3 the later would simply need to be more expensive. Both work fine though.

And a keyword that adds special stuff to any unit that has it is the same as a USR. If it walks like a duck, ...

So would you class Unit Types in previous editions as USRs? They technically added special stuff to any unit that has it.

Just interested, because I'd argue the Character keyword is more like the Character unit type from 6th and 7th than a USR (as they were classified in 6th and 7th).

USRs have never lasted. Every edition GW said they would just use them to remove bloat. As a result you get a few boring/weak codexes without many bespoke special rules.

Then this is quickly abandoned, until you end up with say Wulfren, who combined half a dozen USRs with a page of bespoke rules.

I find learning the datasheets you use and your opponents tend to use far easier than remembering the 25 pages from 7th, and how certain unit types got them without it being stated (i.e. flying monstrous creatures get X, Y and Z), plus special exceptions anyway.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So would you class Unit Types in previous editions as USRs? They technically added special stuff to any unit that has it.

Just interested, because I'd argue the Character keyword is more like the Character unit type from 6th and 7th than a USR (as they were classified in 6th and 7th).

You know, I probably would argue that Unit Types are just groupings of Special Rules. Similar to how the 30k Primarch USR is just a grouping of about ten USRs.

BaconCatBug wrote:7th edition proves you wrong on the "better game" assertion.

You’re seriously going to hang all the sins of 7th Ed on the fact that it used USRs?! As opposed to say Formations, Invisible Deathstars, or woeful balancing?

Also, aside from ‘better’ being entirely subjective, it wasn’t the core ruleset that broke 7th. It was the Codexes. Ask the 30k community - they’re still happily playing 7th Ed without major drama. If you asked them which Edition was ‘better’, I imagine the majority would be happy to be in 7th:

But there is a lot more then 25 pages of data sheets. And there is a ton of exceptions in the game, and that is without starting to soup up stuff or take errata/faq in to account, or house rules etc

kombatwombat wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So would you class Unit Types in previous editions as USRs? They technically added special stuff to any unit that has it.

Just interested, because I'd argue the Character keyword is more like the Character unit type from 6th and 7th than a USR (as they were classified in 6th and 7th).

You know, I probably would argue that Unit Types are just groupings of Special Rules. Similar to how the 30k Primarch USR is just a grouping of about ten USRs.

That's fine then since you're consistant. That's an understandable view point, even if I don't really agree with it completely.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I don't think "randomness" is an issue with 8th, it's just that some units (eg Vindicators) translated poorly. It's just not worth it's points, if it was D6 / 2D6 vs 10+ models it'd be usable for it's points. Sure, you could go 3+D3 / 6+D6 instead, but that's just a matter of points - for D6 vs 3+D3 the later would simply need to be more expensive. Both work fine though.

And a keyword that adds special stuff to any unit that has it is the same as a USR. If it walks like a duck, ...

So would you class Unit Types in previous editions as USRs? They technically added special stuff to any unit that has it.

Just interested, because I'd argue the Character keyword is more like the Character unit type from 6th and 7th than a USR (as they were classified in 6th and 7th).

Basically - yes. They're special rules that're part of the core rule set and therefore apply to all factions, but don't apply to ALL units (like e.g. basic movement) - so they're functionally not different from what USRs were.

They weren't called that, but an Infantry unit with Zealot meant you had to look up Infantry, Zealot, then Hatred and Fearless. 8th has most of those details on the datasheet now.

My biggest problem is with terrain. It really sucks now. I say now - I skipped editions 3-7. Things like woods should block LOS - the fact for modelling reasons and the desire to put models on terrain I have not recreated the environment that makes jungle fighting a challenge in forests everywhere does not mean they are transparent.

Really stuff like woods, ruins, hills etc need some abstraction. A sensible one is a ruin or wood blocks LOS through the other side and anything inside or out can be seen or see out if it is within 4 inches of the edge.

Sticking with targeting you shouldn't be able to shoot a target if all you can see is a gun barrel, aerial or makeshift sheet suspended above a vehicle for a sun shade. The lascannon shot should be able to expose you to the suns harsh rays, not blow the vehicle up. Something like you have to see the body (including things like turrets) of the target to shoot would be a sensible one.

And finally stuff like flamer weapons or vindicator shells need some sort of boost when facing hordes. My solution would be to have a second statline that used the targets unit count. So far example a flamer would be
8", 4str, 1 damage, 0 sv mod, d6 auto hit shots
OR
8", 3str, 1 damage, 0 sv mod, 1/2 the models in the target unit in range are auto hit.

Something like a deathwatch weapon that has 2d6 base might auto hit every model in the target unit in range. And so on.

Essentially focusing the fire or waving it around widely.

I agree it would be nice to have terrain have some abstraction (but as we all know, playing by the rules is for nerds like me, so just make stuff up why dontch'a). Even if it was just "You can't draw LOS though Woods or Ruins (but can draw LOS into and out of them).

As for flamers, I don't see any way of realistically fixing them. Lowering the cost doesn't make them any less useless, due to the 9" reinforcements bubble.

If they made them 1 hit for every 3 models within range, then maybe they'd be worth the asking price they have right now.

I don't get the hate for the divorce from USR. Because, as stated right above, using USRs always devolves to: break out the core rulebook to read it word for word because my USR does something cool when this happens... does your USR trigger?

That situation probably still happens, but now everything you need to know about the unit is literally printed on the data slate for that unit. The only things that are no on that unit directly are references to Army Rules which are usually 1-15 pages right before the data slate.

Most of these rules do not interact with each other. And rules that do interact like opposing infiltrators, both things still happen.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is: where do you want the mess? At the micro level (the codex), or the macro level (the BRB)? 7th edition is a fine example of what happens when you manage it from the macro level... everything is just a permutation of those rules (and thus can feel bland, or get the special combo of rules that is just wowsers!). You do everything at the micro level and everything feels like a snowflake, and the game itself lacks central cohesion.

Players will want it either way, and fortunately, there are rule sets for either way. All you need is someone just as disgruntled with the current "in" set of rules to play a throw-back game.

I really feel a lot of the consternation with 8th edition boils down to an old man in his rocking chair on the front porch talking about "kids these days", "when I was young", "the good old days", and "stop making all that ruckus out there".

It is one thing to lament the good times we had in the past, it is another thing to get shackled by that at the expense of the present. The game is pretty good in the current format, but it is certainly not perfect. No edition of 40k has ever been perfect, it has just been different. That difference is what keeps GW making money, thus making models, thus in business. Converting entire play bases on the notion of nostalgia only hurts the entire industry, including that player base.

Hypothetical: Digging up your old copy of Fallout instead of playing Fallout 76 because you heard there are no mods, while still supporting Bethesda, does not help the generation of Fallout 5, nor does it allow you to interface with the mass of people who (theoretically) suggest Fallout 76 is a really good game. Sure, you get to play what you enjoy... and that's absolutely fine. But eventually, you just get left off the train because you've become so embittered with nostalgia :(

nekooni wrote:

They weren't called that, but an Infantry unit with Zealot meant you had to look up Infantry, Zealot, then Hatred and Fearless. 8th has most of those details on the datasheet now.

Maybe that’s the difference, though...

See, I never had to look up Zealot, or Hatred or Fearless. Those were all USRs, and common enough ones at that, that I knew offhand what they all did. What army was using them was irrelevant - I knew most of the USRs off by heart, and the very few I didn’t know were because they were very uncommon. If you couldn’t memorise the USRs though- and I mean by playing, not by sitting at a desk writing them out a hundred times - maybe you had to look up every USR each time one was used. If you had to look up every rule every time, maybe the Codex referencing a BRB rule made that more difficult.

So maybe that’s why the pro-USR camp and the anti-USR camp can’t see the other’s point of view? To the people who could and did memorise the USRs, the loss of them means they either have to learn thousands of rules rather than tens, accept they can’t learn them all and feel lost, or waste time constantly looking at books. Meanwhile those people who couldn’t remember the USRs are now finding that they’re doing less page turning and can’t see why you would ever want to go back.

kombatwombat wrote:

nekooni wrote:

They weren't called that, but an Infantry unit with Zealot meant you had to look up Infantry, Zealot, then Hatred and Fearless. 8th has most of those details on the datasheet now.

Maybe that’s the difference, though...

See, I never had to look up Zealot, or Hatred or Fearless. Those were all USRs, and common enough ones at that, that I knew offhand what they all did. What army was using them was irrelevant - I knew most of the USRs off by heart, and the very few I didn’t know were because they were very uncommon. If you couldn’t memorise the USRs though- and I mean by playing, not by sitting at a desk writing them out a hundred times - maybe you had to look up every USR each time one was used. If you had to look up every rule every time, maybe the Codex referencing a BRB rule made that more difficult.

So maybe that’s why the pro-USR camp and the anti-USR camp can’t see the other’s point of view? To the people who could and did memorise the USRs, the loss of them means they either have to learn thousands of rules rather than tens, accept they can’t learn them all and feel lost, or waste time constantly looking at books. Meanwhile those people who couldn’t remember the USRs are now finding that they’re doing less page turning and can’t see why you would ever want to go back.

I'm a rules sponge. I'm also a huge rules lawyer. I didn't have a problem with USRs, except how they were handled in certain ways. That being said, I'm all for 8th edition and how it's set up. I could be biased, because it's not like Necrons ever had many special rules in the first place, but it's nice to have everything that unit does and can potentially do all on one page. Keywords are a lot easier than remembering unit types (Which I admit even I had a problem with sometimes. The hell is a Jet Pack Cavalry?), and because of that you're not automatically given free rules because of that. Now, units don't have to fit into a specific "template" unit type and get handed rules just because. Then take into account my two friends who are either new to the game or are very bad at games and rules and would normally rely on me to teach them everything. Now, I can simply say "read that one page", and be done with it. So much simpler for me.

I'm firmly on BCB's side, here.

USRs were much worse than the current set-up. Both sides of this argument are opinionated, not factual. I don't know why anyone here is trying to prove or convince anyone of anything. We've seen it played out both ways and we disagree about which system we prefer.

I find the current set-up to be very user-friendly. I buy the codex, I look at the units I like, and their rules are right there in front of me. I don't need to buy a rulebook, my gaming group can share one. There are pros and cons to either system and it ends up coming down to your priorities.

I tried getting back into 40k in 7th, it was walking into a wall of USR jargon. Comparatively 8th is dead easy to understand.

As an exercise in trying to understand how the rules were defined and interact I sat down to try and make a deterministic method of generating the actual rule text for any given miniature. A few weeks of looking things up and poking around I was reasonably convinced it simply wasn't possible due to how many special cases there were in USR interactions, custom rule interactions and custom rules overriding USR or custom interactions.

If we're going back to them, they need to be a one stop shop rule that doesn't get modified. Alternatively, set them up with parameters, Feel No Pain is now Wound Negation(5+) or something.

But as it stands, full rules listing on the unit card is fine for me, because it means I have to check two places maximum for units, my codex and my notes based on chapter approved and FAQs. No chasing rules through three or four books to be able to build a world eaters army would be wonderful. Particularly when there's no notation of where a particular USR is sourced from.

kombatwombat wrote:

nekooni wrote:

They weren't called that, but an Infantry unit with Zealot meant you had to look up Infantry, Zealot, then Hatred and Fearless. 8th has most of those details on the datasheet now.

Maybe that’s the difference, though...

See, I never had to look up Zealot, or Hatred or Fearless. Those were all USRs, and common enough ones at that, that I knew offhand what they all did. What army was using them was irrelevant - I knew most of the USRs off by heart, and the very few I didn’t know were because they were very uncommon. If you couldn’t memorise the USRs though- and I mean by playing, not by sitting at a desk writing them out a hundred times - maybe you had to look up every USR each time one was used. If you had to look up every rule every time, maybe the Codex referencing a BRB rule made that more difficult.

So maybe that’s why the pro-USR camp and the anti-USR camp can’t see the other’s point of view? To the people who could and did memorise the USRs, the loss of them means they either have to learn thousands of rules rather than tens, accept they can’t learn them all and feel lost, or waste time constantly looking at books. Meanwhile those people who couldn’t remember the USRs are now finding that they’re doing less page turning and can’t see why you would ever want to go back.

It was a major headache (and in the case of Zealot a serious case of "what the feth?") when I started in 7th. Of course it got better, but that doesn't excuse it being a bad experience for any new player.
And it's not true that you have to memorize thousands of rules now. You just look at the datasheet - and voila, everything you need to know is there. If you didn't know the USRs a unit had, you knowing all the USRs didn't help you either. It's still the same process: Look at the Datasheet, see "Stealth" or "Camouflage - gets +2 instead of +1 to saves when in cover". It's like 2 seconds more to read (or tell to the other player), but saves a ton of time and sanity for any new player.

And if you had a USR with the specific unit or formation overruling / modifying it it was even worse.

They could have had the best of both words and kept the USR terminology, but provided the rules explanation on each datasheet.

Instead of have a bunch of identical rules with unique names in each codex, they could just use the simple "Deep Strike" or "Infiltrate" special rule with the explanation right there. Then they could have the occasional unique special rule listed where ever it needed to be. Keep them out of the rulebook, though. You shouldn't need to carry that giant book to your battles. A rule primer and codex should be good enough.

Honestly the worst part about Zealot was that it went from "everyone in the unit gets Fearless and Hatred" in 6th to "the unit is immune to morale and re-rolls To Hit rolls if they charged" in 7th.
Very similar, but different enough to the point where some things effected Zealots but not Fearless models (mainly a bunch of the DE weapons no one took).

8th Edition got me and my wife playing. My wife isn't usually much of a wargamer, but she loves her Tyranids, and she found it pretty easy to pick this up and play. A couple quick practice sessions and she pretty much had the rules down.

I don't have a range of experiences to compare it to, and we don't play at a very competitive level, but it's a fun game and it was great at getting us involved, and I think that has to be step one for any wargame.

I like incidentally the everything rulesy on a unit card approach over what the above describe as looking up rules references a lot. The downside is not knowing much about other armies as their info is just with them, not in a core book.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I like incidentally the everything rulesy on a unit card approach over what the above describe as looking up rules references a lot. The downside is not knowing much about other armies as their info is just with them, not in a core book.

The thing is, though, even if the rules for all the different armies' special rules were in the rulebook you'd still not know what each one had. What would happen is you'd open up your Tyranid codex and it'd say "all units within synapse are Fearless," but then you'd be left wondering "what does Fearless do?" And you'd have to look it up in the rulebook. So when you get to your enemy's army, you have no idea what USR he has on his units unless you've seen his codex. Then, unless you know all of the USRs, you might still need your opponent to explain the rule anyway.

I can't tell you how much I hated buying a codex and finding rules in them that I needed ANOTHER BOOK to get the rules for.

I didnt play 40k before 8th but went in with excitement when it released!

But the absolutely stupid amount of dice and dierolls in this game just keeps me from wanting to play it anymore...I love the tables, the models, lore and everything about it except the rules. And its not just the rules being a little dull, they are boring af so i cant get myself to enjoy it at all.

I collect and paint currently, looking forward with excitement to Titanicus, a possibly reboot of BFG and possibly getting into Necromunda this year but 40k...no, not until an alternate ruleset or a new edition comes...Maybe killteam, if its different.

Whatever the case, at least 8th got me hobbying again so thats something!

GW should shamelessly rip off Mantic's approach to rules writing. Keep the verbiage to a bare minimum and completely divorce rules from fluff. Sure, this dragon has the ability to breathe a torrent of flame and yes, this rolling war machine belches grape shot, they both have Breath Weapon 10. No fluff description in the rules paragraph. A USR is simply a name for an effect. I think the data slate route is GW pretty much admitting that they aren't disciplined enough to write tight USRs without waxing lyrical and muddying the issue.

USRs went awry when they started getting into the codices and wanted specific rules to override or enhance USRs. Now you've created a reference circle where you need to find the USR, read it, now find your rule, read it, now hash out the differences between what your rule is doing and what the USR says you do.

If 40k goes USR, it leaves no space for the codices to individualize themselves. They have to leverage universal traits in a unique combination to give character to that army. But now... why have 30 different army books when really, everything you need is in the BRB? Why not just extend it by 30-60 pages to list all of the point costs and selections? The codices should just be fluff driven instead...

I personally like getting away from USRs for the circle-jerking rules defining they brought, and needing excessive amounts of books to steadily reference to figure out what the heck happens when my Furious Assault, Zealot, and Crusader unit makes an assault... oh wait, did they have Crusader? Crap, sorry guys... also, my Unwieldy guys should have been on init 1, not -1 to hit rolls. Whoops. Totally forgot they had that, too.

8E lured me back, so it has its good points. I absolutely love having the rules on the data sheet, and it feels like the game isn’t as convoluted to learn as it previously was. The new way vehicles are handed - with generous # of wounds and the lack of the penetration table is something I enjoy.

I am, however, concerned by how much firepower was increased, and I greatly dislike the removal of templates for D6 hits (though I don’t miss the scatter die). Deep strike has likewise gotten out of hand - gone are the days of maneuvering to a firing position before combat begins; we now just jump to turn three and wonder why the game is over two turns earlier.

Speaking of DEEPSTRIKE, I really think GW should have gone for consistency in rule effects instead of descriptive one-off names for essentially the same effect. Forget the argument of putting USR’s in the BRB, Things like Teleportarium, Manta Strike and the like should have just been named “Deep Strike”. Same for other, similar rules. Yes, write out the effects in the data sheet, but give them uniform names so folks can learn them quickly for the armies they don’t have.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
USRs. Do. Not. Work. Period. They complicate the game rather than streamline it, as proven by every single edition where they were a thing.

You want standardisation, well, they are standardised. They just are verbose on each datasheet rather than using clunky USRs, which gives them the OPTION of making specialised variants ala Farseers etc if they need to. It also lets them treat different units, well, differently. Do we need a USR of how a Supersonic Flyer moves, then have special snowflake special rules for Eldar Flyers? Do we have two USRs instead? Or, we can just make different units have different rules!

Yes. They. Do. But in games made by other companies, where they work just fine. They also combine them with non-unversal rules successfully, too! But it's not really USRs you're so upset about, is it? it's GW's inability to write a good ruleset. Take a gander at the MEDGe rules if you haven't, it's a great example of rules that are clear, concise, flavorful, and deep all at once. It's amazing what happens when designers spend quality time on the core of a game!

 Kharneth wrote:

The thing is, though, even if the rules for all the different armies' special rules were in the rulebook you'd still not know what each one had. What would happen is you'd open up your Tyranid codex and it'd say "all units within synapse are Fearless," but then you'd be left wondering "what does Fearless do?" And you'd have to look it up in the rulebook. So when you get to your enemy's army, you have no idea what USR he has on his units unless you've seen his codex. Then, unless you know all of the USRs, you might still need your opponent to explain the rule anyway.

I can't tell you how much I hated buying a codex and finding rules in them that I needed ANOTHER BOOK to get the rules for.

As an aside, do people really not buy (or at least pirate) the BRB anymore? That seems incredible to me.

The thing is, I wasn’t left wondering ‘what does Fearless do?’. I knew what it did, because it was a USR and hence I’d probably seen it before. That’s the whole point of USRs; they’re a shorthand way of understanding what something does. They don’t completely eliminate the need to tell your opponent what your army does since there are still snowflake rules and modifications, but they make it a lot faster, cleaner, and easier to remember on the go.

In 7th Ed my Rulebook and Codex would stay firmly in my bag until a really unusual conflict came up, which was once in every few games. I knew my USRs and my snowflakes, my opponent knew their USRs and snowflakes, and we could quickly rattle off to each other the USRs and spend a quick minute explaining the snowflakes. In 8th, the Codex is permanently open on the table and I’m constantly going ‘damn, how did this particular thing explode again?’ or trying to quickly read my opponent’s Codex to understand what their thing does all while feeling I’m wasting their game time. Plus I have to spend way more valuable time at the start of the game trying to explain my army to my opponent and vice versa. Put simply, I feel like I now have to waste time explaining and looking up things that I used to have an internal shorthand cheat sheet for.

I think the best way I can describe it is this: in the days of USRs, it felt like I was speaking Australian English and my opponent was speaking American English. Sure, the accents might take a little work sometimes and occasionally your opponent would have to explain a word to you or you’d both have to look up an obscure word in a dictionary, but we essentially spoke the same language. Nowadays it feels like I’m speaking Hindi and my opponent is speaking Czech. We both have to spend the entire time with our noses buried in a phrasebook to figure out what the hell the other is on about.

it's not that people don't buy it but there where so many USRs interacting with so many snowflakes it started to get a little hard to keep up with, I do like the rules for everything being on a model's sheet. even if they go back to USR it'd be nice if they put the full rules of a USR on each models sheet that has it, less page flipping