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.

Oh hey cool edit.

If GW released FAQ's that quickly we wouldn't've had a problem, that I can agree with.

:3

USR are great to make a game more accessible and coherent, Look to Kings of War as an example.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People are arguing about how much arguing is necessary for a rule to reduce arguing.

Lol.

This is why we can't have nice things.

It's the "Which is the more complex game, Infinity where you can see all of the possible skills and equipment in the rulebook, or Warmachine where you need to look at the cards to see all of the possible skills and equipment?" argument.

There are some logistical facts:
1. It's easy to scare someone away from Infinity if they try to look at all of the skills at once.
2. It's easy to scare someone away from Warmachine because they show up to a game and get blind sided by the other player's cards. "That model does WHAT?!?!" And you can already point to the Warmachine/Hordes errata to see what it's going to look like when GW has to errata some of the units.

In the past, GW has been frankly self-defeating in its use of USRs. Remember when the old codices had "X: This model has the Y special rule" entries? I have to assume that there were two factions on the design team, one trying to define USRs to make the game more structured and consistent, and another faction trying to avoid using the USRs to make everything feel special and unique.

The 5e Imperial Guard codex was particularly offensive in this regard. Look at Mogul Kamir as an example:

If you look at his datacard, you see he has Khanasan's Fiercest and Vicious Temperament. So then you flip to the page for him that describes those rules.

Khanasan's Fiercest: Fearless and Furious Charge.

Vicious Temperament: Rage.

*Then* you went to the BRB!

Rather than USR's could they not have implemented Universal Keywords. So they can have all their fancy Special Rules bespoke but within the description it says the unit gains the Deepstrike Keyword.

Then in the glossary of Keywords which overviews how Keywords interact with the rules state:

Deepstrike: May deploy more than 9" away from all enemy models at the end of any of your movement phases. This counts as their entire move and may not move or advance again this phase. [Matched Play] Any units which have not veen deployed before turn 4 are destroyed.

I'm not against USRs, at all actually. I'm against naming them something different each time (and for each unit). This is stupid and makes changing a universal special rule quite difficult.

I'm also against having dozens upon dozens of USRs. 3rd-7th was a good example of this. When you create a vastly simplified game (3rd) and then spend the next 15+ years trying to make it larger, more expansive, more diverse and more detailed...you need to just re-write the rulebook. Taking a simple core rule set and then adding dozens if not hundreds of USRs makes for a terrible game. GW had its head in the sand for a looooong time on this (too long - it drove me and everyone I know away from 40K). I use a lot of automotive industry analogies because they work well.

Take a car. It's released in 2000 and it's quite good. Excellent even. It's chassis and body are, for the time, quite high-tech and competitive in the market. The car gets a mild refresh in 2003 w/ some aesthetic changes, minor updates to the seats, and a new engine option. Okay. Come 2007 and it gets a major aesthetic body change. However by now the chassis is getting a bit old. The tech is a bit poor and the engine options aren't keeping up with market standards. In 2012 the car is rebodied entirely. A new engine or two is added, but the interior space, the chassis and (by result) the safety of the car is now questionable, particularly when compared to modern cars from competing manufacturers etc. There comes a time when you need to change the chassis - the very underpinnings of the vehicle to remain competitive, effective, etc.

GW beat the 3rd ed. chassis to death. The continued heap of USRs and normal special rules were polish applied heavily to a beaten down, rusty hulk of a game.

C.Straken wrote:
Rather than USR's could they not have implemented Universal Keywords. So they can have all their fancy Special Rules bespoke but within the description it says the unit gains the Deepstrike Keyword.

Then in the glossary of Keywords which overviews how Keywords interact with the rules state:

Deepstrike: May deploy more than 9" away from all enemy models at the end of any of your movement phases. This counts as their entire move and may not move or advance again this phase. [Matched Play] Any units which have not veen deployed before turn 4 are destroyed.

That is the same thing by a different name.

As others have stated, the concept of USRs is not the problem, but rather how GW utilized them. Either having a PSR (Personal Special Rule) or ASR (Army Special Rule) being a USR by a different name, or having a PSR or ASR attribute a USR then change it internally.

And all that is nothing compared to how little they mapped their rules to sync up properly in the first place before half the USRs, ASRs, and PSRs were brought in to play. I'm specifically looking at the fiasco involved with mutliple weapon shooting and multiple targeting in 7th Edition as the biggest glaring examples, with the IC being an unmitigated confusion.

 Charistoph wrote:

C.Straken wrote:
Rather than USR's could they not have implemented Universal Keywords. So they can have all their fancy Special Rules bespoke but within the description it says the unit gains the Deepstrike Keyword.

Then in the glossary of Keywords which overviews how Keywords interact with the rules state:

Deepstrike: May deploy more than 9" away from all enemy models at the end of any of your movement phases. This counts as their entire move and may not move or advance again this phase. [Matched Play] Any units which have not veen deployed before turn 4 are destroyed.

That is the same thing by a different name.

As others have stated, the concept of USRs is not the problem, but rather how GW utilized them. Either having a PSR (Personal Special Rule) or ASR (Army Special Rule) being a USR by a different name, or having a PSR or ASR attribute a USR then change it internally.

And all that is nothing compared to how little they mapped their rules to sync up properly in the first place before half the USRs, ASRs, and PSRs were brought in to play. I'm specifically looking at the fiasco involved with mutliple weapon shooting and multiple targeting in 7th Edition as the biggest glaring examples, with the IC being an unmitigated confusion.

Argh, you got me.

I know they are the same, just like all these bespoke special rules which are the same for 90% of units with different names. Then there are the Keywords, some of which come with rules exceptions. Are these not just USR's too?

They need to pick a method and stick with it, and I think they best way would to have their Bespoke special rules which provide Keywords, which provide the exceptions. Then each bespoke special rule could provide its own exception to the Keyword if required, but this would be kept to a minimum.

Such as Deathleaper, his Bespoke Special Rule gives him the [Deepstrike] keyword, however he may deploy wholly or partially within 6" of an enemy unit with the Character keyword, he must remain 1" away from all enemy models.

Now everyone knows what Deepstrike usually does, as it is a Universal Keyword (USR) but his Bespoke rule provides an exception.

They could have done similar in 7th, but I think Keywords make it easier. Necrons in 7th could have had the FNP keyword, however attacks with the Instant Death keyword only reduce their FNP roll by 1 instead of bypassing.

(Though I hated ID anyway, and am so happy it left.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People are arguing about how much arguing is necessary for a rule to reduce arguing.

Lol.

At video game companies, this conversation is called "SCRUM", and they happen every Tuesday.

This thread is very interesting to read.

C.Straken wrote:
They need to pick a method and stick with it, and I think they best way would to have their Bespoke special rules which provide Keywords, which provide the exceptions. Then each bespoke special rule could provide its own exception to the Keyword if required, but this would be kept to a minimum.

Such as Deathleaper, his Bespoke Special Rule gives him the [Deepstrike] keyword, however he may deploy wholly or partially within 6" of an enemy unit with the Character keyword, he must remain 1" away from all enemy models.

Now everyone knows what Deepstrike usually does, as it is a Universal Keyword (USR) but his Bespoke rule provides an exception.

They could have done similar in 7th, but I think Keywords make it easier. Necrons in 7th could have had the FNP keyword, however attacks with the Instant Death keyword only reduce their FNP roll by 1 instead of bypassing.

Agreed. Whether you call them Keywords or USRs and Unit Types, we are still talking about the same functional concepts. And so long as the writers are keeping a good map of the rules in place and remember to address the proper key points, we're fine.

Even better, if one wants them scalable is to build the scalability in to the system. Much like FNP (5+), Deep Strike (9") could indicate the distance to the nearest enemy model the unit can arrive, etc.

C.Straken wrote:
(Though I hated ID anyway, and am so happy it left.)

It had its uses, but since they brought in the Damage mechanic, it really isn't needed.

Agreed. The damage mechanic and the Mortal Wound mechanic make Instant Death completely irrelevant.