Switch Theme:

(oldhammer) what was wrong 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 de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view...
None of these are problems with USRs though, just GW's application of USRs and how they failed over and over again.

Yes, that's why I specifically wrote "USR in the past".

Aside from that, the points you raised a correct. The only thing I'd add is that USRs should be as scalable as possible. The more [Rule Name] (X), where the X allows for variables, the better.

Sure, where it makes perfect sense (like FNP 5+), let's do that. Some things are debatable like Explosion (3", 6+, 1d3)/Explosion (9", 4+, 2d6).
However, I know some people are suggesting things like Command(Aura(6"), re-roll ones to hit, ADEPTUS ASTARTES CORE) or Command(targeted(12", visible), re-roll failed hits, [ADEPTUS ASTARTES CORE, ADEPUTS ASTARTES CHARACTER]) which I personally don't think will help clarity more than, for example, just bolding the relevant parts for better readability.

That's why I didn't list it as part of the consensus.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Jidmah wrote:
What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view:

1) They published a full list of USR for all units in the game as the first thing of an edition and never changed or extended it.


This is only a problem because GW thinks it's reasonable to start a new edition with a new core rulebook and then maybe update the actual army books over the course of several years (or not at all, if they just can't be arsed updating certain factions).

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 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!!!"


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


 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 de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






chaos0xomega wrote:
1. Yes, this is literally the point of a UNIVERSAL special rule.

No, it's not. Having to decide which USR to put in a codex you don't even start to write until in two years is nonsense, no matter how you put it.
This is what lead to garbage USR like missile lock.

2. Again, this is the point of a universal special rule, the rules are consolidated in the core rulebook, these rules are hypothetically common enough that you should know what they do without needing to refer to any rulebook, no different than how the rules for things like "Rapid Fire" or "Assault weapon" are not reprinted in every codex... because those are defined in the core rulebook and you know what they mean.

Any time you need to look into two books to find out what a unit does, you have failed at rules writing. Many USR are both rare and complex enough to require regular reading. Infiltrate(deploy outside of deployment zone), Scout(pre-game move) or Bodyguard come to mind.
No one needs the BRB to play in 8th or 9th unless there is a rule dispute, which is the one all-upside thing about USRs disappearing.

3. In 4th edition there were ~22 of them as was already explained by another poster. This is not too many. The 80 or so in 7th edition was a different story.

4th edition ended 14 years ago, followed by more than 9 years and three editions of having more USR than necessary.
Without knowing 4th too well, I'd argue that even those 22 were too many. I think you barely need that many for 9th, which has more than four times as many units in many more armies to support than 4th did.

4. This only really got messy when when both the character and the unit had conflicting USRs that created weird interactions, but generally wasn't all that complicated.

If conflicting USR wasn't already bad enough (some conflicts were never specifically addressed by rules), you also had a wild mix of rules which applied to the entire unit while other did not.
Remember those * next to USR in 5th, what they means and which USR had them?

5. Universal is universal. I don't see how deep strike was written only with space marines/guard in mind. Same with infiltrate, fleet, etc.

How about Zealot, Crusader, Missile Lock, Brotherhood of Psykers, And They Shall Know No Fear or Power of the Machine Spirit?

6. Not sure I understand this one, has nothing to do with USRs. If anything it would make it easier because now you would just errata the USR in the core rulebook and it would update the rule as it applies to every unit in the game with it, as opposed to having to update each and every datasheet individually.

Except they didn't. There is no point in going in implementing an easy way to change the rules if you just let them rot in without ever touching them.
A broken USR on edition launch was doomed to be broken for at least an entire edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
What was wrong with USR in the past from my point of view:

1) They published a full list of USR for all units in the game as the first thing of an edition and never changed or extended it.


This is only a problem because GW thinks it's reasonable to start a new edition with a new core rulebook and then maybe update the actual army books over the course of several years (or not at all, if they just can't be arsed updating certain factions).


I agree, but in the end GW needs to implement USRs in a way that works for their release cycle. Front loading everything clearly does not work well.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/19 14:41:19


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







USRs in 4th are a weird thing because there were 3 types:

Weapon Qualities (i.e. Rending, Twin-Linked, Barrage) that were in the Shooting Phase section

Universal Special Rules (Fleet, Slow and Purposeful) that applied to units and were in their own section

Weapon Qualities (Rending (but in CC), Power Weapon, Poison) that were in the Assault Phase section

Between both phases' weapon qualities AND the USR section, you probably had ~22. In 9th, there's probably more than 22 weapon special rules alone (I can think of at least 6 from Chaos Daemons, the least-weapon-option codex).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/19 14:43:16


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Well-done USRs are far better than dozens of bespoke and barely different rules.

GW is bad at rules writing, though.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Between both phases' weapon qualities AND the USR section, you probably had ~22. In 9th, there's probably more than 22 weapon special rules alone (I can think of at least 6 from Chaos Daemons, the least-weapon-option codex).


Good point, I was just going by unit rules. In any case, you don't need to make every rule an USR though.

Skimming the daemon's wargear, I see:
- auto-hit (formerly known as "template")
- plague weapon
- re-roll to wound (is there anything gained when you USR that? Maybe make "Reroll: Wound" an USR?)
- multiple weapons that should just be pistols
- excess damage not lost (is this common enough to warrant an USR? I think many armies have just one or two weapons with this.)
- blast
- sweeping (each attack with this weapon make X hit rolls)
- extra attacks with a weapon
- Something that handles "X additional attacks with this weapon and no more than X attacks can be made with this weapon". This is a perfect example for something that would be a lot simpler with a USR, or maybe a new melee weapon type. Many people are struggling to understand these types of weapons that are meant to display mounts/attendants/extra appendages.
- unwieldy (again, do we really need an USR to handle -1 to hit?)
- there are various claws that have AP-4 on rolls of 6, but I think that is too specific for an USR
- everything else makes no sense to turn into an USR.

But yes, I also see at least 6 weapon abilities here, probably more

It's worth noting that daemons haven't received 9th edition's clean-up and are likely to see big changes. Still, almost all of those weapon abilities would be re-usable across multiple other codices, for example DG would mostly be covered by that list as well, with only Get's hot, Melta and possibly barrage (ignore LoS) being added. Afterwards, orks would just add poison and ignore cover. So you already have 3 fairly distinct codices covered with just 11-14 weapon abilities.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/19 15:42:04


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
1. Yes, this is literally the point of a UNIVERSAL special rule.

No, it's not. Having to decide which USR to put in a codex you don't even start to write until in two years is nonsense, no matter how you put it.
This is what lead to garbage USR like missile lock.


The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule. That would include listing what sort of USRs they would need at that point. Then, crucially, you need to stick to that list. This is where GW always fails. We can see it now with the Tau anti-tank weapons being so vastly different to the ones SM or Necrons got. GW are simply incapable of coming up with a design direction for an edition and then sticking with it.

The alternative is to do something like the above, but give yourself the option to add other USRs as needed, through digital rules distribution. You need to have a process that only does this where absolutely necessary though and stop your designers coming up with 5 ways to represent "this unit charges well". Again, GW fails at this in every way possible. For example, if you had a rule that made weapons better at killing tanks there's no need to give Tau a completely different rule just because their Codex comes out 2 years after the base game. All you need is to apply the anti-tank USR. Combined with the possible variations in basic weapon stats that should give you plenty of scope for variation.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well-done USRs are far better than dozens of bespoke and barely different rules.

GW is bad at rules writing, though.


A game with 40 USRs, where each units could 3, would yield 9800+ combinations.

That's probably sufficient to describe 95%+ of units in 40k. Statlines could do the rest.

I don't know why the rules have to be so complicated, except for profit.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah. GW's problem has always been a lack of vision - or, perhaps, disorganized vision.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 Jidmah wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
1. Yes, this is literally the point of a UNIVERSAL special rule.

No, it's not. Having to decide which USR to put in a codex you don't even start to write until in two years is nonsense, no matter how you put it.
This is what lead to garbage USR like missile lock.


You are continuing to not comprehend what "UNIVERSAL" means. These are rules that will be used so commonly across so many books that you can, if you are even halfway competent as a game designer, identify them on day 1. If you are adding a rule in one particular codex 2 years down the line, its not really much of a universal rule, is it, as it evidently doesn't apply to anything released in the 2 years prior.

There are plenty of games out there that can and have identified core rules in his manner and have done so quite successfully. USRs (though not necessarily called as such) are basically the bread and butter of game design, they exist across the full breadth and spectrum of the hobby, and I struggle to imagine games which *don't* use them.

Any time you need to look into two books to find out what a unit does, you have failed at rules writing. Many USR are both rare and complex enough to require regular reading. Infiltrate(deploy outside of deployment zone), Scout(pre-game move) or Bodyguard come to mind.
No one needs the BRB to play in 8th or 9th unless there is a rule dispute, which is the one all-upside thing about USRs disappearing.


Disagreed. Intensely. Show me where in your codex "Rapid Fire", "Assault", "Heavy", "Blast", "Invulnerable Save", etc. are defined. Likewise, wheres that CP re-roll or overwatch strategem in your Codex? Go ahead and look. I'll wait. Yet its not an issue, because you know what these rules are and what they mean because you have a whole SECOND rulebook that defines them for you. If you were new to the game and I handed you to a codex and no other rules publication, YOU COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME. Just because you have memorized enough of the rules to play the game without a BRB does not mean that the BRB is not needed. The USRs are simply another page worth of content that you would need to keep in mind. Contrary to your assertion, things like Infilitrate, Scout, and Bodyguard are simple enough that if I mention those rules to anyone who has played the game more than a literal handful of times would know instantly to what I am referring, what they do, and how to use them. I, and other gamers, literally have conversations about these rules without needing to refer to a rulebook on a weekly basis.

4th edition ended 14 years ago, followed by more than 9 years and three editions of having more USR than necessary.
Without knowing 4th too well, I'd argue that even those 22 were too many. I think you barely need that many for 9th, which has more than four times as many units in many more armies to support than 4th did.



Nah, 5th edition also had an appropriate number of USRs. Its 6th/7th that you really had more than necessary, in large part because the "universal" rules stopped being universal. The 22 were mostly an appropriate number, though I would argue there were a few that weren't common enough to warrant inclusion.

If conflicting USR wasn't already bad enough (some conflicts were never specifically addressed by rules), you also had a wild mix of rules which applied to the entire unit while other did not.
Remember those * next to USR in 5th, what they means and which USR had them?


I really don't recall it being that convoluted, but its been about 10 years. I regard 4th, 5th, and 8th as being the only editions of the game that I could actually manage to play competently (and indeed in 5th edition I was a decently high-level competitive player). I really don't think it was as bad as you seem to think

9th edition 40k, without no USRs, is quickly approaching 7th edition levels of unplayability for me - 7th being the worst edition of the game to date, by far.

How about Zealot, Crusader, Missile Lock, Brotherhood of Psykers, And They Shall Know No Fear or Power of the Machine Spirit?


Fair enough, 2-3 of those (BoP, ATSKNF, PoftMS) should never have been USRs. Missile Lock ended up not needing to be because it basically was never used, but it could have been applied more broadly than it was and as such would have made sense as one. Zealot and Crusader popped up in enough places to warrant inclusion (and in at least a couple cases similar/identical rules were used without being referred to by name, because reasons, whcih cheapened the value of the USR by not applying it as a standardized rule).

Except they didn't. There is no point in going in implementing an easy way to change the rules if you just let them rot in without ever touching them.
A broken USR on edition launch was doomed to be broken for at least an entire edition.


Thats a GW problem rather than a USR problem. I.E an issue with implementation rather than the USR itself.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Slipspace wrote:
The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule. That would include listing what sort of USRs they would need at that point. Then, crucially, you need to stick to that list. This is where GW always fails.

I'd argue that every company ever will fail at that, not just GW. You are kind of bound to fail with this type of approach as can't possible define everything for such a complex game before you know how things interact.

Even assuming GW would be able to write and release entire edition in one go, you would go back to your basic parameters multiple times to tweak them and then check how that change affects everything you have done so far.

We can see it now with the Tau anti-tank weapons being so vastly different to the ones SM or Necrons got. GW are simply incapable of coming up with a design direction for an edition and then sticking with it.

Is sticking to a bad design decision for an entire edition a good thing though? If they already know that lascannons are worthless this editions, would it have been better to keep giving everyone lascannons than to try to fix single-shot anti-tank?
IMO GW's failure here is not going back to fix lascannons as well.

The alternative is to do something like the above, but give yourself the option to add other USRs as needed, through digital rules distribution. You need to have a process that only does this where absolutely necessary though and stop your designers coming up with 5 ways to represent "this unit charges well". Again, GW fails at this in every way possible.

That's exactly what I wrote in my post?

For example, if you had a rule that made weapons better at killing tanks there's no need to give Tau a completely different rule just because their Codex comes out 2 years after the base game. All you need is to apply the anti-tank USR. Combined with the possible variations in basic weapon stats that should give you plenty of scope for variation.

I'm not sure if I can follow. How is tau anti-tank different from other armies anti-tank? What did I miss?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/19 16:06:48


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Inherently? nothing.
USR were fine, and 90% of the complaints about them were from people blowing them WAY outta proportions. Were there a lot? yes, but they were not an issue 90% of the time because your armor and your oponants army only used a given amount of them. Its not like every army used every single rule.

GWs biggest issue with them was not that there was a lot of them, it was that they sucked at presenting them. IE you had to dig through your book/codex/FAQ in order to find said rule.

The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.

Going back to an older edition, and just reading the rules, and listing out the USR that your army had in effect and then just taking 3 min before a game to go over your USR with your opponent and bam problem solved.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

no plan, decisions on the fly, we can fix it later, not reading their own rules, the individual team members not knowing what the others are working until the book is released etc.

Mezmorki wrote:3rd edition had 0 USRs (but 8 ranged weapon types and 5 special weapon attacks).

4th edition also had all of 22 USR's. Pretty manageable.

Bear in mind too, that in 6th and 7th, they took rules that were part of other sections and moved them all into the USRs. In 3rd-5th edition, rules related to weapon types (template, blast, etc.) were all consolidated in "Special Weapons Characteristics" section (4th had 10) or into "Special Close Combat Attacks" (4th had 10 of these). So that's 42 "USR-like" rules in 4th.

5th is about the same as 4th (22-ish listed USRs and then weapon and melee types).

6th edition had 79 USR's (I just did a quick count).

7th edition had 87 (gawd, I counted that too)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3rd Ed didn't really do USRs though. I believe that, towards the end, there were 4 different versions of True Grit (Death Guard, Grey Knights, Space Wolves and one one other).

which is exactly my point, GW had USRs in their book, but during the Edition they needed more special rules to make the different units more special but had not the discipline (or capability) to use the same rules with the same name when writing a new Codex

True Grit is a nice example, different versions in the Codex, became a USR in 4th, was not used with the new Codex released in 4th but instead a new special rule that was similar was used, removed in 5th because no one used it anyway, and SW got their own special rules for units in 7th to compensate


to get this right, they would need to think about what Special Rules would be needed in advance when writing the rule book, and than stick to those when writing the faction books
but GW does neither, they have no clue what the different faction will look like or need when writing the core, but also do not care what was written in the past and just add all new things

and they even were able to mess this up with a minimum core without any special rules that was made specially to suit their kind of rules design

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Backspacehacker wrote:
The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.
Slow and Purposeful was a combo-rule, relentless + slow movement.

In 5th the only two redundant rules were swarms (stealth and vulnerable to blasts), and turbo-boosters (never actually included in a 5e statblock IIRC, it was part of the bike rules). They were probably included for legacy compatability with the 3e and 4e books and GW did clear out some others to keep the number down.

The slow update rate of 3e-5e did make USRs problematic to change though. It led to such fun as the suicidal tau ethereals (particularly at the start of 6th where they were hurling themselves off buildings) because a USR for 3+ to hit in combat had changed to reroll 1s for ranged and shooting without any other errata or update for older factions.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






A.T. wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.
Slow and Purposeful was a combo-rule, relentless + slow movement.

In 5th the only two redundant rules were swarms (stealth and vulnerable to blasts), and turbo-boosters (never actually included in a 5e statblock IIRC, it was part of the bike rules). They were probably included for legacy compatability with the 3e and 4e books and GW did clear out some others to keep the number down.

The slow update rate of 3e-5e did make USRs problematic to change though. It led to such fun as the suicidal tau ethereals (particularly at the start of 6th where they were hurling themselves off buildings) because a USR for 3+ to hit in combat had changed to reroll 1s for ranged and shooting without any other errata or update for older factions.


I understand that slow and purposful also came with the movement penalty but in the grand scheme of things, it really did not need to exist, any unit with slow and purposefully could have just taken relentless and it would have been just as fine rule wise.

But yes slow updates did not help at all. I still stand by the fact though, USR really were not as bad as people made them out to be, it was mostly people just not willing to remember a rule. Its like complaining about the to hit chart for melee, or the to wound chart from past editions it was not hard to memorize once you understood it.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






chaos0xomega wrote:
You are continuing to not comprehend what "UNIVERSAL" means. These are rules that will be used so commonly across so many books that you can, if you are even halfway competent as a game designer, identify them on day 1. If you are adding a rule in one particular codex 2 years down the line, its not really much of a universal rule, is it, as it evidently doesn't apply to anything released in the 2 years prior.

I think you are missing my point. I'm talking about what GW did with USR in past editions. With what GW defined as USR.

We also are painfully aware of how little foresight GW has. There also plenty of rules which see rare use in some armies, but are frequently used by others. GW could easily write 6 codices without hitting an obvious USR that could be shared across multiple factions.

There are plenty of games out there that can and have identified core rules in his manner and have done so quite successfully. USRs (though not necessarily called as such) are basically the bread and butter of game design, they exist across the full breadth and spectrum of the hobby, and I struggle to imagine games which *don't* use them.

All games I know which use constructs like that, frequently update and add to that list, at least during the development process. Exactly 0 put them in print and never touch them again before they start.

Disagreed. Intensely. Show me where in your codex "Rapid Fire", "Assault", "Heavy", "Blast", "Invulnerable Save", etc. are defined. Likewise, wheres that CP re-roll or overwatch strategem in your Codex? Go ahead and look. I'll wait. Yet its not an issue, because you know what these rules are and what they mean because you have a whole SECOND rulebook that defines them for you. If you were new to the game and I handed you to a codex and no other rules publication, YOU COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME. Just because you have memorized enough of the rules to play the game without a BRB does not mean that the BRB is not needed. The USRs are simply another page worth of content that you would need to keep in mind. Contrary to your assertion, things like Infilitrate, Scout, and Bodyguard are simple enough that if I mention those rules to anyone who has played the game more than a literal handful of times would know instantly to what I am referring, what they do, and how to use them. I, and other gamers, literally have conversations about these rules without needing to refer to a rulebook on a weekly basis.

Knowing what something roughly is and playing the game are two different things. Many people also just play once or twice a month, some armies don't have certain USR. People just don't know how Bodyguard works exactly (do they protect characters standing in front them? below 3 models? vehicles?), if they don't use units with that ability regularly, people don't know when to exactly do their pre-game move and what stratagems can be used when they do and how it interacts with the enemy also doing pre-game moves from the top of their head.
In contrast, most of the examples that people do know are simple one-liners without any complexity. Except CP re-roll which actually gets looked up A LOT in my group since 9th, because no one can remember what it applies to. Luckily it's in every data card deck.

And in the end, it doesn't even matter. What is the harm of putting the rules onto the datasheet anyways? It's important that they are unified, not that they are just printed once.

Nah, 5th edition also had an appropriate number of USRs. Its 6th/7th that you really had more than necessary, in large part because the "universal" rules stopped being universal. The 22 were mostly an appropriate number, though I would argue there were a few that weren't common enough to warrant inclusion.

I think we can agree on that.

I really don't recall it being that convoluted, but its been about 10 years. I regard 4th, 5th, and 8th as being the only editions of the game that I could actually manage to play competently (and indeed in 5th edition I was a decently high-level competitive player). I really don't think it was as bad as you seem to think

The first few thousand posts in this account were made in YMDC during 5th, 6th and 7th, feel free to check. IC joining and leaving units was for sure one of the hottest topics during all those editions.
But since IC are luckily no longer a part of the game, we really don't need to fight about this - they are no longer an obstacle for implementing USR properly.

9th edition 40k, without no USRs, is quickly approaching 7th edition levels of unplayability for me - 7th being the worst edition of the game to date, by far.

To be fair, introducing USR would not change a whole lot about that. 9th problems lie with the stratagem bloat and ten layers of rules applying to everyone and their dog.

Thats a GW problem rather than a USR problem. I.E an issue with implementation rather than the USR itself.

Yeah, see above. I was talking about the problems with how GW did USR. The second half of my post addressed how to do it better.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






SO ill add this though, if i had to pick between USR, and stratagems, i would take USR in a heart beat.

USR were a blanket thing and i could access i would say almost all of the USR if i had the core rulebook. Stratagems i have literally zero way to find out what my opponent has, or what their unit can do unless i specifically know what stratagem they have/can use.

9Th end i feel there is WAY more things that are, Gotcha, rules rather then 7th.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Backspacehacker wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.
Slow and Purposeful was a combo-rule, relentless + slow movement.

In 5th the only two redundant rules were swarms (stealth and vulnerable to blasts), and turbo-boosters (never actually included in a 5e statblock IIRC, it was part of the bike rules). They were probably included for legacy compatability with the 3e and 4e books and GW did clear out some others to keep the number down.

The slow update rate of 3e-5e did make USRs problematic to change though. It led to such fun as the suicidal tau ethereals (particularly at the start of 6th where they were hurling themselves off buildings) because a USR for 3+ to hit in combat had changed to reroll 1s for ranged and shooting without any other errata or update for older factions.


I understand that slow and purposful also came with the movement penalty but in the grand scheme of things, it really did not need to exist, any unit with slow and purposefully could have just taken relentless and it would have been just as fine rule wise.

But yes slow updates did not help at all. I still stand by the fact though, USR really were not as bad as people made them out to be, it was mostly people just not willing to remember a rule. Its like complaining about the to hit chart for melee, or the to wound chart from past editions it was not hard to memorize once you understood it.


I mean, in HH the Slow and Purposeful rule DOES exist alongside relentless, and they're very different. In fact:

Cataphractii Armor: Slow and Purposeful (doesn't count as moving when firing, cannot run, cannot sweeping advance, cannot fire overwatch. All of these are Slow and Purposeful consequences)
Indomitus Armor: Relentless and cannot sweeping advance. (Can still fire overwatch, can still run)
Tartaros Armor: Relentless (no drawbacks)
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Yes, im not saying they dont/cant exist along side each other, i just perosnally thing they should not. If anything it should all be relentless and then if the model can not sweeping advance just say, this model/unit can not sweeping advance. No sense in making another rule specifically jsut to convey that.

I see it as, there are going to be much fewer instances where slow and purposeful is used when it would be one less rule by saying, all three of those terminators get relentless then specifically on the Cataphractii unit entry, "This unit can not make sweeping advances."

That way, rather then having a USR that specifically says it cant do x. Just have one USR and single out the unit.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Backspacehacker wrote:
Yes, im not saying they dont/cant exist along side each other, i just perosnally thing they should not. If anything it should all be relentless and then if the model can not sweeping advance just say, this model/unit can not sweeping advance. No sense in making another rule specifically jsut to convey that.

I see it as, there are going to be much fewer instances where slow and purposeful is used when it would be one less rule by saying, all three of those terminators get relentless then specifically on the Cataphractii unit entry, "This unit can not make sweeping advances."

That way, rather then having a USR that specifically says it cant do x. Just have one USR and single out the unit.


Well, yes, but if you found yourself with a third to two thirds of the game having that rule, then maybe it'd be better to name "Can Not Sweeping Advance" something else.

But in general I agree. Just wanted to point out they weren't identical nor were they abstracting the same phenomenon.
   
Made in au
Black Templar Chaplain with Hate to Spare







I'd also point out that S&P'a effects were determined on a unit-wide basis and not a per-model basis. If 1 model had S&P, every model could move and shoot as if stationary. Relentless only benefited the model with it.

Zealot was similar in that regard - Hatred only applied on a per-model basis while Zealot's re-rolls were unit-wide. Still not a fantastic USR to have given the other half (fearless) was unit-wide and that the entry literally just directed you to Fearless and Hatred instead of also explaining what it did in of itself, but at least it was slightly different that just putting Fearless and Hatred on the model's entry. Probably should have just been handed by giving the few Zealot units (all of which where Chaplain-equivalent characters iirc) a bespoke rule that gave everyone Hatred though instead of dedicating an anemic USR to it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/19 18:00:28


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 Jidmah wrote:

People just don't know how Bodyguard works exactly (do they protect characters standing in front them? below 3 models? vehicles?)


The biggest issue with the Bodyguard rule is that there are at least 3 different versions of the rule, each with slightly different text, in circulation in the game right now. Because GW didn't make it a USR and allowed it to be subjected to inconsistent rules writing which creates weird corner case scenarios for some but not for others.

And in the end, it doesn't even matter. What is the harm of putting the rules onto the datasheet anyways? It's important that they are unified, not that they are just printed once.


See above about the Bodyguard rule for an example of what happens when you don't standardize and instead distribute the rule everywhere. If its just written in one place, you only need to faq/errata it in one place. If you reprint the text of the rule in every codex and on every datasheet it applies to, you now need to faq/errata *every* codex and every datasheet in order to maintain consistency, otherwise the structure of the GW rules construct fails as a result of RAW leading to the assumption that an unedited rule is left as such intentionally. On top of that, its a UX and UI issue to overload a player with too much information on a datasheet - a short list of 3-5 USR keywords + 1-2 bespoke special rules is a much more effective way of communication than providing the text in full for all 4-6 rules every time it reoccurs and threreby creating a cluttered mess of text that the player needs to sort through and parse to find what they are looking for. The whole point of a USR is its a rule so commonly encountered that you will know it intrinsically from a combination of its simplicity and your own gameplay experience. If you don't need a rules reference for Rapid Fire, you shouldn't need a rules reference for a common ability present across most factions in the game that grants +1 attack on the charge or something to that effect, and seeing it repeated constantly on every datasheet quickly becomes a nuisance for players.

If you want an example of a game where (almost) all the rules are reprinted in full on every stat card, look to Warmachine/Hordes. For the most part its fine, but every once in a while you encounter a stat card that basically illegible as a result of them reprinting the text of so many different standardized rules on the card which makes it a problem for players to find and identify the important parts that may be more unusual/unique to that unit. Even then, Warmachine/PP still has a handful of rules which they have simplified down to *symbols* which they don't reprint the text of because they are so common and it would take up too much space. Things like pathfinder, magic weapon, construct, jack marshal, eyeless sight, reach, etc. which are only defined in the core rulebook, because they are considered core elements of the gameplay experience which all mechanical interactions in the game are essentially built around.

To be fair, introducing USR would not change a whole lot about that. 9th problems lie with the stratagem bloat and ten layers of rules applying to everyone and their dog.


This is true, at this point even the best USR system wouldn't be able to fix the huge bloated mess of multi-layered rules that the edition is becoming unless strategems and superdoctrines (especially AdMech/Custodes/Necron style ones that change every edition) were eliminated.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
SO ill add this though, if i had to pick between USR, and stratagems, i would take USR in a heart beat.
USR were a blanket thing and i could access i would say almost all of the USR if i had the core rulebook. Stratagems i have literally zero way to find out what my opponent has, or what their unit can do unless i specifically know what stratagem they have/can use.
9Th end i feel there is WAY more things that are, Gotcha, rules rather then 7th.


Absolutely this.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
The second biggest issue was that there were basically duplicate rules that really did not need to exist, like recklessness and slow and purposeful really did not need to exist side by side.
Slow and Purposeful was a combo-rule, relentless + slow movement.
In 5th the only two redundant rules were swarms (stealth and vulnerable to blasts), and turbo-boosters (never actually included in a 5e statblock IIRC, it was part of the bike rules). They were probably included for legacy compatability with the 3e and 4e books and GW did clear out some others to keep the number down.
The slow update rate of 3e-5e did make USRs problematic to change though. It led to such fun as the suicidal tau ethereals (particularly at the start of 6th where they were hurling themselves off buildings) because a USR for 3+ to hit in combat had changed to reroll 1s for ranged and shooting without any other errata or update for older factions.

I understand that slow and purposful also came with the movement penalty but in the grand scheme of things, it really did not need to exist, any unit with slow and purposefully could have just taken relentless and it would have been just as fine rule wise.
But yes slow updates did not help at all. I still stand by the fact though, USR really were not as bad as people made them out to be, it was mostly people just not willing to remember a rule. Its like complaining about the to hit chart for melee, or the to wound chart from past editions it was not hard to memorize once you understood it.

I mean, in HH the Slow and Purposeful rule DOES exist alongside relentless, and they're very different. In fact:
Cataphractii Armor: Slow and Purposeful (doesn't count as moving when firing, cannot run, cannot sweeping advance, cannot fire overwatch. All of these are Slow and Purposeful consequences)
Indomitus Armor: Relentless and cannot sweeping advance. (Can still fire overwatch, can still run)
Tartaros Armor: Relentless (no drawbacks)


I would argue that this is poor implementation of USRs. What it should be is:

Cataphracti Armor: Relentless (doesn't count as moving when firing), Slow (can't run), Purposeful (can't sweeping advance), Measured (can't overwatch)
Indomitus Armor: Relentless, Purposeful
Tartaros Armor: Relentless

Slow & Purposeful creates confusion because it nests the effects of others rules within it, which on its own is fine but causes confusion for the players when the nested rules pop up independently, particularly named USRs like "relentless" which newer players often confuse with slow and purposeful, etc. The fact that things like "Slow", "Purposeful", and "Measured" don't exist as stand-alone/defined terms also means you need to write out a full sentence to explain these effects every time you want to use them, even though they are all fairly common rules both within the context of Slow & Purposeful as well as standalone rules. And then you run into the few situations (I don't know about 30k but I remember it being a thing in 40k), where a unit has "Slow & Purposeful" but then has a separate rule in order to restore access to one of the provisions that S&P took away, i.e. the unit has Slow & Purposeful + another rule that allows them to overwatch even though S&P would normally prevent it.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps





United States

 Dysartes wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
Here is my gripe with USRs from 40K 7th edition.

There were three, entirely different rules in the game with the name "Crack Shot." God that was annoying.

Fair enough that that is a gripe - but how is that a problem with USRs, when there doesn't appear to be a "Crack Shot" USR in 7th (going by the mini-rulebook, at least)?

That reads more as a problem of "bad rule name management" by the Studio.


It existed in the unit profiles for Cadian Tank Commanders, Eldar Fire Dragons and one of the Space Marine Characters. I'm not too sure but there might have been a fourth instance of the rule existing for one of the sniper units from a codex I cannot remember. Each rule had the same name, but a completely different effect. While it might not have been a USR in the BRB, it was obviously intended to be a USR in various codexes. It was absolutely bad rule management, which is my point because there were other instances of this. USR seemed to be created and thrown around on a whim with no thought or care to the consequences.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






chaos0xomega wrote:
The biggest issue with the Bodyguard rule is that there are at least 3 different versions of the rule, each with slightly different text, in circulation in the game right now. Because GW didn't make it a USR and allowed it to be subjected to inconsistent rules writing which creates weird corner case scenarios for some but not for others.

Well, at least 9th edition codices so far all have the same wording.

See above about the Bodyguard rule for an example of what happens when you don't standardize and instead distribute the rule everywhere. If its just written in one place, you only need to faq/errata it in one place. If you reprint the text of the rule in every codex and on every datasheet it applies to, you now need to faq/errata *every* codex and every datasheet in order to maintain consistency, otherwise the structure of the GW rules construct fails as a result of RAW leading to the assumption that an unedited rule is left as such intentionally.

You can easily define reminder text to not be rules. That's how other games do it.

On top of that, its a UX and UI issue to overload a player with too much information on a datasheet - a short list of 3-5 USR keywords + 1-2 bespoke special rules is a much more effective way of communication than providing the text in full for all 4-6 rules every time it reoccurs and threreby creating a cluttered mess of text that the player needs to sort through and parse to find what they are looking for.

Sorry, but first of all that information overload thing is nonsense, because the alternative is to have the player memorize everything or check both a book and errata in case they don't.
It's also quite likely that the majority of USR will not change at all, and if they do, will only change to clarify edge cases. The reminder text will remain valid in most cases unless an USR causes a game-wide problem.

The whole point of a USR is its a rule so commonly encountered that you will know it intrinsically from a combination of its simplicity and your own gameplay experience. If you don't need a rules reference for Rapid Fire, you shouldn't need a rules reference for a common ability present across most factions in the game that grants +1 attack on the charge or something to that effect, and seeing it repeated constantly on every datasheet quickly becomes a nuisance for players.

Why do you need an USR for +1 attack in the charge to begin with? Unless it's +1 to attack when having charged, being charged or performing a heroic intervention, at which point it's good to remind people that it also works for heroic intervention.

If you want an example of a game where (almost) all the rules are reprinted in full on every stat card, look to Warmachine/Hordes. For the most part its fine, but every once in a while you encounter a stat card that basically illegible as a result of them reprinting the text of so many different standardized rules on the card which makes it a problem for players to find and identify the important parts that may be more unusual/unique to that unit. Even then, Warmachine/PP still has a handful of rules which they have simplified down to *symbols* which they don't reprint the text of because they are so common and it would take up too much space. Things like pathfinder, magic weapon, construct, jack marshal, eyeless sight, reach, etc. which are only defined in the core rulebook, because they are considered core elements of the gameplay experience which all mechanical interactions in the game are essentially built around.

Defined terms are not USR, and this is moving towards towards the false dilemma fallacy. Core rules are not universal special rules, full stop. Not a single USR will ever be as common as rapid fire or any of the other rules you are using as false analogies. Every player needs to know what rapid fire or heavy does, because it's a simple rule and will be part of almost every game played.
Any time a player has a reasonable interest in a reminder about what an USR does, he should find that reminder on his datasheet.

People (including you, from what I can tell from your posts) already find it difficult to keep track of all the keyworded army rules applying to their marines, and you expect those to immediately grasp what "Relentless, Slow, Purposeful, Measured, Deep Strike, Bolter Drill, And They Shall Know No Fear, Shock Assault, Combat Doctrines, Combat Squad" is without any explanation on the datasheet?

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

heavy and rapid fire are special rules

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah. Of the Weapon Qualities I mentioned in 4th, Rapid Fire and Heavy are among them.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

As someone who wrote the armouries for 8 or so books in the 40k RPG line, I can tell you that USRs are exactly as people are describing them here, and generally the books that added more of them rather than having them all at the start (be they weapon traits, actual traits) were done for older games that didn't include the ones that were invented for later books. They should be used to encompass as much as possible from the start, and aren't something that should be 'living'.

Slipspace wrote:
The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule.
Precicely. "Living" USRs defeats the purpose of USRs.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/19 22:05:41


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




New Jersey, State of Perfection

Somehow I don't think Jidmah will care about your professional opinion, consodering hes spent the entire thread arguing against pretty well established game design best practices.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

chaos0xomega wrote:
Somehow I don't think Jidmah will care about your professional opinion, consodering hes spent the entire thread arguing against pretty well established game design best practices.


QFT. Maybe he's actually a GW Designer? LOL

   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As someone who wrote the armouries for 8 or so books in the 40k RPG line, I can tell you that USRs are exactly as people are describing them here, and generally the books that added more of them rather than having them all at the start (be they weapon traits, actual traits) were done for older games that didn't include the ones that were invented for later books. They should be used to encompass as much as possible from the start, and aren't something that should be 'living'.

Slipspace wrote:
The point is the designers are supposed to set the parameters for the game before they ever write a single rule.
Precicely. "Living" USRs defeats the purpose of USRs.



QFT here, some how GWs "living rule set" which started off as a great idea, is turning into a living monstrosity that is boarding upon being an abomination.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: