Switch Theme:

Warhammer 8th edition anniversary  [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 ru
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge







This week the 8th edition of Warhammer 40K turned a year old. There is no need to repeat how many spears have been broken around such a radical change in the rules, even in our blog. Let's better talk about some good things it has brought and discuss how this wargame will develop further.

First, and most importantly - the game became easier to start. Simplification of the rules can be condemned in many ways, and, for the most part, deservedly. But we cannot deny the fact that Warhammer has become much friendlier to new players. If many players used to be scared with the thickness of the rulebook, now it is quite realistic to teach a person to play in only half an hour. This is also helped by an expanded starter system. For the first time you can buy not a large set, but a medium, or a small set - but with a battlemat and kind of terrain in the box. However, the big set does not lose its relevance, because in it, again, for the first time, you can find a full-fledged hardback rulebook - another way to simplify your entry into the game.

Simplification has also resulted in the rules structure. Now, almost everything you need to know about the unit, is right in its description. Probably, in the future, there will be sets of unit’s cards - so it will be easier to navigate in their characteristics and wargear during the game. Considering that this can already be seen in the new Age of Sigmar, starter, the appearance of such cards in 40K is only a matter of time.

Naturally, after the complete rules reboot, you need to quickly put them on a new track. Just think about it - 19 codexes during this year. Phenomenal productivity. Almost all the main factions have received their books. And also, two relatively new ones - the Death Guard and the Thousand Sons never had before their own codexes.

It can be expected that after the release of Orcs and Wolves, GW will relax a little and allow themselves to experiment with completely new factions, and, probably, campaigns. Many models have not been reissued since the 3rd edition. And since they have not received their update in the codex, the best way to do this now is to include them into campaign. The timeline has started to move actively, and it is necessary to warm up the interest of the community with new events.

So, rumors about separate codexes for the Emperor’s Children and the World Eaters, new models for Abaddon, and the Eldar aspects are quite logical. And the releases of the primarchs should continue. It is likely that the next will be Leman Russ - according to GW themselves, many new miniatures have been prepared for the Wolves release. It is quite logical to find a primarch among them. Moreover. the rumors about the return have been active for a long time.

Nevertheless, there are still drawbacks that cannot be ignored, and which need to be corrected together with further update of the rules. The first, and, perhaps, the main thing is the dominance of random. It comes from replacing the template weapons with D6 and adding a damage parameter. This can be very easily solved if we add fixed amounts to the number of shots of powerful weapons. Compare: Vindicator, which shoots D3 times, and Vindicator, which shoots 3 + D3 times. Such a powerful a weapon shouldn’t shoot so unsuccessfully. Many will say that the template could have missed before. But in fact, now you still need to hit the target with such weapons using the BS models. A random number of shots adds an extra barrier between you and a successful shot. In addition, there are still completely helpless flamers ...

Another important problem is the impossibility of using the whole range of interesting rules. Even the GW themselves understand that you don’t have enough command points to fully appreciate all the capabilities of the army. Then they increased their number. But, in fact, it is still not enough. In the last campaign of Age of Sigmar, and in the upcoming new edition they are replenished every turn. In addition, this random can be affected if you take the appropriate characters and use them in a special way.

In fact, changing only these two points would immediately increase the level of player involvement in the gameplay, without complicating the rules. All the rest, which came in the new edition, is quite tolerable, and does not require any critical changes. Agree, a wargame is interesting, when something depends on you. It's interesting to think about how to arrange a unit with flamers to cover more models with templates. It’s also interesting to think about how to avoid those templates from the other side. Just putting the model in the shooting range and throwing dice - not interesting at all. It's interesting - to make up your army in a special way to get tactical superiority. It is interesting to use all the special rules and stratagems presented in the codex. And it’s not interesting – to spend all the command points on one-dice-re-roll without knowing what abilities your codex has.

That's all. There won’t be any conclusion - this part is yours. We tried to objectively list the main advantages and disadvantages of the current edition. Of course, our opinion may differ from yours. If you have something to add to this list - feel free to share this in the comments.

Join the discussion in our blog: https://warzone40k.com/warhammer-anniversary


Trying to make a best battle board at warzone40k.com
facebook.com/Warzone40k
 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Prosecutor





Disagree with Randomness being a bad attribute for the game. This is 40k *and* and a GW game. They've always been based on crazy amount of randomness. You can talk about the 'glory' of the templates, but even then we had scatter die to add a bunch of complicated randomness to the game.

Also you've forgotten that the GSC and SOB codexes are also confirmed to be in the pipeline. The GSC codex is likely right after SW/Orks.

Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.


https://www.victorwardbooks.com/ Home of Dark Days series 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




One of the big drawbacks to the simplification of the rules is their sloppy rules language. There are still too many loopholes and clarifications that have needed/still need to be addressed and GW makes finding some of those answers difficult by not having a singular reference guide.

Also you are missing the IK codex from your picture list.
   
Made in gb
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





UK

For me the best thing about 8th edition is the streamlining of the rules. Especially vehicles. I'm also not opposed to dice rolls replacing templates. As stated, the biggest issue is FAQ bloat in the form of all those scrappy PDFs.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/02/10 13:53:25


[1,800] Chaos Knights | [1,250] Thousand Sons | [1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/  
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine





 Brother Castor wrote:
For me the best thing about 8th edition is the streamlining of the rules. Especially vehicles. I'm also not opposed to dice rolls replacing templates. As stated, the biggest issue is FAQ bloat in the form of all those scrappy PDFs. Stick it all in an online database then all you need is the BRB (or Battle Primer), your codex and an app.


Agreed. Battlescribe keeps most things up to date for you points wise but all the erratta/FAQ, beta rules and such are a pain to keep track of. If I was a casual player who never went on the forums I probably wouldnt know about half these changes unless someone in a store told me about them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 14:58:53


 Tactical_Spam wrote:
You never know when that leman russ will punch you back

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Parshall, ND

As a new player: I would like to see a return of the universal rules thing I have heard about, but from the sound of it "toned down"

Just universal names for tings like

Re-roll on wounds and to hits
"feel no pain"
etc....

   
Made in us
Possessed Khorne Marine Covered in Spikes






JmOz01 wrote:
As a new player: I would like to see a return of the universal rules thing I have heard about, but from the sound of it "toned down"

Just universal names for tings like

Re-roll on wounds and to hits
"feel no pain"
etc....


They used to have this in the rulebook. Like 3 pages of universal rules and whenever you wanted to remind yourself precisely how the rule worked, you needed to consult your bible-sized rulebook. Now, you don't need to haul your rulebook off with you to every battle you fight.

It'd be nice if the special rules all had the same name, instead of a hundred names for deep strike and another hundred for infiltrate, but I'm very glad that the rules are there on the character's page. The worst thing I have to do is move to the army's special rules page. I disliked it before when you needed a reference book for the rules in your codex. My codex should contain all of the rules that it presents.

Blood for the Blood God!
Skulls for the Skull Throne! 
   
Made in us
Slashing Veteran Sword Bretheren






JmOz01 wrote:
As a new player: I would like to see a return of the universal rules thing I have heard about, but from the sound of it "toned down"

Just universal names for tings like

Re-roll on wounds and to hits
"feel no pain"
etc....


The problem with those was that you may have to reference the BRB to see what a unit can do. So you end up going back and forth between codex and BRB just to see how the unit described in the codex works. But if they added a definition sheet to the end of each codex then it could make sense.

But the other thing it did was prevent crazy powerful combinations of various units. So if I have a warlord who increases friendly units "Feel No Pain" and I bring in another unit from a different army that allows rerolls on "Feel no Pain" then I've got an unfair advantage that wasn't planned. So by giving each army their own version of the rule, it keeps their bonuses limited to themselves only.

DR:80+S++G++MB--IPw40k12#+D++++A++/fWD013R++T(T)DM+

"War is the greatest act of worship, and I perform it gladly for my Lord.... Praise Be"
-Invictus Potens, Black Templar Dreadnought 
   
Made in gb
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard



UK

Huh has it really been 8 months since I played 40k, how time flies when your playing anything else.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




McCragge

This is my favorite edition by far - well done GW.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






 Icculus wrote:
JmOz01 wrote:
As a new player: I would like to see a return of the universal rules thing I have heard about, but from the sound of it "toned down"

Just universal names for tings like

Re-roll on wounds and to hits
"feel no pain"
etc....


The problem with those was that you may have to reference the BRB to see what a unit can do. So you end up going back and forth between codex and BRB just to see how the unit described in the codex works. But if they added a definition sheet to the end of each codex then it could make sense.

But the other thing it did was prevent crazy powerful combinations of various units. So if I have a warlord who increases friendly units "Feel No Pain" and I bring in another unit from a different army that allows rerolls on "Feel no Pain" then I've got an unfair advantage that wasn't planned. So by giving each army their own version of the rule, it keeps their bonuses limited to themselves only.


GW could of easily included a one to two page reference sheet on card stock with the BRB and it could include all the USRs and Unit types. That fan made reference sheet which contained basically all the commonly needed to look up rules was only 3 or 4 pages.

The 2nd part was mainly due to poor codex design, characters joining units to make deathstar units with stacking rules (we have stacking auras now, just that GW toned down some of the crazy powerful rules), and battle brothers allowing for cross codex shenanigans with aforementioned characters (we still have a soup problem in 8th). USRs are not a bad thing to have in the main rule book but it should be for what we could consider the more core USRs like Relentless, Fearless, Deep Strike, Outflanking, Tank Hunter, etc. MtG has a handful of universal rules like First Strike, Trampeling, etc and it works because you only need to memorize a few mechanics and you see them all the time. Also the whole keyword thing limits cross interactions as you can word a character's bonus ability to only work on nearby units with the "Tau", "Nob", "Vehicle" etc keywords.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







 Kharneth wrote:

They used to have this in the rulebook. Like 3 pages of universal rules and whenever you wanted to remind yourself precisely how the rule worked, you needed to consult your bible-sized rulebook. Now, you don't need to haul your rulebook off with you to every battle you fight.

It'd be nice if the special rules all had the same name, instead of a hundred names for deep strike and another hundred for infiltrate, but I'm very glad that the rules are there on the character's page. The worst thing I have to do is move to the army's special rules page. I disliked it before when you needed a reference book for the rules in your codex. My codex should contain all of the rules that it presents.


You could have just photocopied those 3 pages if that was such a hurdle.

Keeping track of your army was never an issue for a functional human. It's all the others that are a problem. And in USR days your opponent could just say "these guys have Infiltrate, and thouse guys have Furious Charge and Rage" and you knew exactly what that was. Now you have to read all of their datasheets in depth and pay attention to minute variances in rules that kinda look the same at first glance but aren't.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 22:51:04


Posters on ignore list: 36

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Kharneth wrote:

They used to have this in the rulebook. Like 3 pages of universal rules and whenever you wanted to remind yourself precisely how the rule worked, you needed to consult your bible-sized rulebook. Now, you don't need to haul your rulebook off with you to every battle you fight.

It'd be nice if the special rules all had the same name, instead of a hundred names for deep strike and another hundred for infiltrate, but I'm very glad that the rules are there on the character's page. The worst thing I have to do is move to the army's special rules page. I disliked it before when you needed a reference book for the rules in your codex. My codex should contain all of the rules that it presents.


You could have just photocopied those 3 pages if that was such a hurdle.

Keeping track of your army was never an issue for a functional human. It's all the others that are a problem. And in USR days your opponent could just say "these guys have Infiltrate, and thouse guys have Furious Charge and Rage" and you knew exactly what that was. Now you have to read all of their datasheets in depth and pay attention to minute variances in rules that kinda look the same at first glance but aren't.


I don't understand the ridiculously corrosive tone in this post.

My gaming group had immense difficulty sorting out all of these rules and how they interacted, as well as memorizing them.

The examples you used are kind of silly, considering it doesn't take any extra effort to say, "these guys have +1 attack on the charge. These guys deploy anywhere outside of your deployment zone." Referencing rules by their function is vastly superior to referencing rules by name.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




I skipped out on 7th, but glancing at a rulebook it doesn't look like it has 3 pages of special rules. It has more like 25 pages, and that's of course only the USRs and none of the formation special rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 23:13:52


 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






meleti wrote:
I skipped out on 7th, but glancing at a rulebook it doesn't look like it has 3 pages of special rules. It has more like 25 pages, and that's of course only the USRs and none of the formation special rules.


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/597998.page

This fan made 7th edition reference sheet is 4 pages front and back and it basically gives you a BRB cheat sheet for playing the game. Why GW didn't produce something similar is beyond me.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





Nevertheless, there are still drawbacks that cannot be ignored, and which need to be corrected together with further update of the rules. The first, and, perhaps, the main thing is the dominance of random. It comes from replacing the template weapons with D6 and adding a damage parameter.


Hmm, they took the one thing where there is a bit more randomness and ignored 90% of the game were randomness was reduced...
Maybe that's because I'm a Daemon player, but in 7th. edition my warlord traits, psychic powers and even the equipment of every single character had to be randomly determined before the game... Then every turn I had to roll on the warp storm table to see what random result destroys my whole army (-1 to invuls) or cruhes my opponent. And my reserves came in at a random point of the game and scattered in random directions over the whole battlefield.

And I don't see how templates that scatter 2D6 are more random then 1D6 followed by hit rolls. I'd say both systems aren't perfect, but at least I don't randomly hit my own troops anymore...

   
Made in gb
Annoyed Blood Angel Devastator




York, UK

I think the problem with number of shots randomness comes from when you are only rolling one die.

If you replaced all instances of 1D6 with 2D3 then everything becomes a bit better. You now have a probability curve going from 2 to 6 with a greater chance of 4 than either extreme instead of flat chance from 1 to 6.

And GW's could sell loads of themed D3's to make it ever so faster on dice calculation!

[Image removed by Google due to too much awesomeness] 
   
Made in ro
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

My best compliment to 8e: I don't miss 7e at all.

AI & BFG: / BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / WWX: Union

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Chaos Terminator






Surfing the Tervigon Wave...on a baby.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Kharneth wrote:

They used to have this in the rulebook. Like 3 pages of universal rules and whenever you wanted to remind yourself precisely how the rule worked, you needed to consult your bible-sized rulebook. Now, you don't need to haul your rulebook off with you to every battle you fight.

It'd be nice if the special rules all had the same name, instead of a hundred names for deep strike and another hundred for infiltrate, but I'm very glad that the rules are there on the character's page. The worst thing I have to do is move to the army's special rules page. I disliked it before when you needed a reference book for the rules in your codex. My codex should contain all of the rules that it presents.


You could have just photocopied those 3 pages if that was such a hurdle.

Keeping track of your army was never an issue for a functional human. It's all the others that are a problem. And in USR days your opponent could just say "these guys have Infiltrate, and thouse guys have Furious Charge and Rage" and you knew exactly what that was. Now you have to read all of their datasheets in depth and pay attention to minute variances in rules that kinda look the same at first glance but aren't.


To be frank, I loathed playing against Ad-Mech and Tau in 7th because they had over half a dozen fething special rules that broke interactions with other rules.

USR ceased to actually be 'universal' after 5th edition. 6th was the deathknell with the first few formations and 7th was the edition where you had 18 billion variants of one rule with half a dozen clauses as to how it functioned.

I am happy with 8th. 8th is a solid ruleset and GW have been surprisingly attentative with rebalancing points, addressing issues in FAQs and in general have kept a far better balance in 8th than they ever did in 6th and 7th. The fact the points changes will be at least twice a year, in the big FAQs is a solid plus...you know, rather than having to wait for an entirely new codex or edition if you happen to get the overpointed unit while your opponent with their underpointed unit enjoys dominance for 4+ years without repercussions.


Now only a CSM player. 
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Disagree with Randomness being a bad attribute for the game. This is 40k *and* and a GW game. They've always been based on crazy amount of randomness. You can talk about the 'glory' of the templates, but even then we had scatter die to add a bunch of complicated randomness to the game.

Also you've forgotten that the GSC and SOB codexes are also confirmed to be in the pipeline. The GSC codex is likely right after SW/Orks.


I disagree with your disagreement. One dimensional is as one dimensional does. I prefer more dimensions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Marmatag wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Kharneth wrote:

They used to have this in the rulebook. Like 3 pages of universal rules and whenever you wanted to remind yourself precisely how the rule worked, you needed to consult your bible-sized rulebook. Now, you don't need to haul your rulebook off with you to every battle you fight.

It'd be nice if the special rules all had the same name, instead of a hundred names for deep strike and another hundred for infiltrate, but I'm very glad that the rules are there on the character's page. The worst thing I have to do is move to the army's special rules page. I disliked it before when you needed a reference book for the rules in your codex. My codex should contain all of the rules that it presents.


You could have just photocopied those 3 pages if that was such a hurdle.

Keeping track of your army was never an issue for a functional human. It's all the others that are a problem. And in USR days your opponent could just say "these guys have Infiltrate, and thouse guys have Furious Charge and Rage" and you knew exactly what that was. Now you have to read all of their datasheets in depth and pay attention to minute variances in rules that kinda look the same at first glance but aren't.


I don't understand the ridiculously corrosive tone in this post.

My gaming group had immense difficulty sorting out all of these rules and how they interacted, as well as memorizing them.

The examples you used are kind of silly, considering it doesn't take any extra effort to say, "these guys have +1 attack on the charge. These guys deploy anywhere outside of your deployment zone." Referencing rules by their function is vastly superior to referencing rules by name.


Ummm... No. Universal rules were easier than 10 different faction specific names for the very same thing,,,

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/15 17:35:29


   
Made in gb
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





UK

 Billagio wrote:
Agreed. Battlescribe keeps most things up to date for you points wise but all the erratta/FAQ, beta rules and such are a pain to keep track of.

Yeah I'm using BattleScribe as well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 13:52:55


[1,800] Chaos Knights | [1,250] Thousand Sons | [1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/  
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 Marmatag wrote:

The examples you used are kind of silly, considering it doesn't take any extra effort to say, "these guys have +1 attack on the charge. These guys deploy anywhere outside of your deployment zone." Referencing rules by their function is vastly superior to referencing rules by name.


So saying ‘At the end of any of your Movement Phases, this unit can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9” away from any enemy models. Any models that arrive on the player’s first turn must be set up entirely within their own deployment zone. Any models not set up by the end of the third battle round are considered destroyed. At least half of the total Power Level of your army must begin the game set up on the board.’ is superior just saying ‘this unit has Deep Strike’?

And ‘Roll a dice each time this model loses a wound. On a 6+, the damage is ignored and the model does not lose the wound. If a model has multiple rules of this type, it may only use one such roll per wound it is attempting to stop.’ is superior to ‘this model has a 6+ Feel No Pain’?

USRs have their uses. Which is why we all still say Deep Strike and Feel No Pain.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






kombatwombat wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:

The examples you used are kind of silly, considering it doesn't take any extra effort to say, "these guys have +1 attack on the charge. These guys deploy anywhere outside of your deployment zone." Referencing rules by their function is vastly superior to referencing rules by name.


So saying ‘At the end of any of your Movement Phases, this unit can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9” away from any enemy models. Any models that arrive on the player’s first turn must be set up entirely within their own deployment zone. Any models not set up by the end of the third battle round are considered destroyed. At least half of the total Power Level of your army must begin the game set up on the board.’ is superior just saying ‘this unit has Deep Strike’?

And ‘Roll a dice each time this model loses a wound. On a 6+, the damage is ignored and the model does not lose the wound. If a model has multiple rules of this type, it may only use one such roll per wound it is attempting to stop.’ is superior to ‘this model has a 6+ Feel No Pain’?

USRs have their uses. Which is why we all still say Deep Strike and Feel No Pain.
Until you have a unit that can "Deep Strike" 12", or D6+3", then you have to add exceptions, or make Deep Strike actually say "Deep Strike (x")", and then what happens if a unit has a rule that is similar to Deep Strike but you're limited to 6" from the table edge? Now you have to have bespoke rules anyway and it causes a massive cluster F-bomb.

And Feel No Pain is fine, but then what happens when you have a Feel No Pain that only works against mortal wounds, or mortal wounds from perils. Oh look, more exceptions, or you have to complicate the base rule by making it "Feel No Pain (x+,Condition)".

Then what about explodes? There are multiple versions, so either you make 1 standard then add layers of exceptions, or you have to make the base rule an ugly looking "Explodes (x+,x",x wounds)" format. And then what about non-standard explodes like I think the Titans have?

USR's are a good idea on paper, but that is ALL it is, as proven by the multiple editions where USRs did nothing but cause a massive headache. The only way to make USRs work is to make them totally modular and account for ALL possible variables in the USR itself, which leads to clunky USRs that have a mass of numbers after it which are unintuitive and difficult to read at a glance, along with upping the learning curve for new players. With 8th everything is on the datasheet and works as-is.

And don't get me started on how USRs caused headaches between editions, or how GW sometimes used the wrong name for a USR, thus breaking it (Anyone remember the "Furious Assault" debacle from one of the Eldar Codexes in either 5th or 6th?)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/18 02:48:16


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 BaconCatBug wrote:
kombatwombat wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:

The examples you used are kind of silly, considering it doesn't take any extra effort to say, "these guys have +1 attack on the charge. These guys deploy anywhere outside of your deployment zone." Referencing rules by their function is vastly superior to referencing rules by name.


So saying ‘At the end of any of your Movement Phases, this unit can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9” away from any enemy models. Any models that arrive on the player’s first turn must be set up entirely within their own deployment zone. Any models not set up by the end of the third battle round are considered destroyed. At least half of the total Power Level of your army must begin the game set up on the board.’ is superior just saying ‘this unit has Deep Strike’?

And ‘Roll a dice each time this model loses a wound. On a 6+, the damage is ignored and the model does not lose the wound. If a model has multiple rules of this type, it may only use one such roll per wound it is attempting to stop.’ is superior to ‘this model has a 6+ Feel No Pain’?

USRs have their uses. Which is why we all still say Deep Strike and Feel No Pain.
Until you have a unit that can "Deep Strike" 12", or D6+3", then you have to add exceptions, or make Deep Strike actually say "Deep Strike (x")", and then what happens if a unit has a rule that is similar to Deep Strike but you're limited to 6" from the table edge? Now you have to have bespoke rules anyway and it causes a massive cluster F-bomb.

And Feel No Pain is fine, but then what happens when you have a Feel No Pain that only works against mortal wounds, or mortal wounds from perils. Oh look, more exceptions, or you have to complicate the base rule by making it "Feel No Pain (x+,Condition)".

Then what about explodes? There are multiple versions, so either you make 1 standard then add layers of exceptions, or you have to make the base rule an ugly looking "Explodes (x+,x",x wounds)" format. And then what about non-standard explodes like I think the Titans have?

USR's are a good idea on paper, but that is ALL it is, as proven by the multiple editions where USRs did nothing but cause a massive headache. The only way to make USRs work is to make them totally modular and account for ALL possible variables in the USR itself, which leads to clunky USRs that have a mass of numbers after it which are unintuitive and difficult to read at a glance, along with upping the learning curve for new players. With 8th everything is on the datasheet and works as-is.

And don't get me started on how USRs caused headaches between editions, or how GW sometimes used the wrong name for a USR, thus breaking it (Anyone remember the "Furious Assault" debacle from one of the Eldar Codexes in either 5th or 6th?)


Those extra variations aren't really worth having, so remove them. Slightly different rules merely give the illusion of tactical depth and being unique and flavorful- they don't really provide those things. Differing DS distances could better be accomplished with a flat X", or even a return to the scatter die if randomization is desirable. Is it really useful and beneficial for gameplay for unit X to DS D6 +3", while unit Y DS 2d3?

Secondly,nobody is advocating for only Universal rules- that would make the game pretty boring, and it's homogenous enough already. But common abilities, like DS, FNP, ignoring -1 to hit for heavy weapons when moving and so on are better off being standardized in a logical, easy to grasp manner, which aids communication, and saves time when reading unit profiles. Not to mention that it frees the designers up from the restriction that a unit's rules must all fit on one page, which is quite arbitrary. What if more space is needed to accommodate better rules?
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Blastaar wrote:
Those extra variations aren't really worth having, so remove them.
Yeah, I'ma stop you right there.

It's 100% fluffy and mechanically sound for a Farseer to be able to ignore Perils of the Warp wounds easily, but not be able to ignore a Railgun to the face. That sentence alone shows me that while GW may be bad at writing rules, I pray to the Manperor of Mankind every day in thanks they don't let the public write the rules for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Secondly,nobody is advocating for only Universal rules- that would make the game pretty boring, and it's homogenous enough already. But common abilities, like DS, FNP, ignoring -1 to hit for heavy weapons when moving and so on are better off being standardized in a logical, easy to grasp manner, which aids communication, and saves time when reading unit profiles. Not to mention that it frees the designers up from the restriction that a unit's rules must all fit on one page, which is quite arbitrary. What if more space is needed to accommodate better rules?
You're forgetting the part where, shock and horror, they actually tried that, and it lead to 7th edition. Considering GW have no qualms about making 1 datasheet take up an entire A4 page, "it frees more space" is a non-starter as an argument. Just look at the Breacher Team or Pathfinder Team for a great example. And here is a thought, what's to stop them making a datasheet span... TWO pages? Oh wait, they already did that with the Warlord Titan! I'd much rather have the rules there on the datasheet than a block of hard to read text spouting off random numbers and forcing me to refer to the rulebook to find out what those numbers mean.


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!

This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2018/06/18 05:36:42


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you have a unit that can "Deep Strike" 12", or D6+3", then you have to add exceptions, or make Deep Strike actually say "Deep Strike (x")", and then what happens if a unit has a rule that is similar to Deep Strike but you're limited to 6" from the table edge? Now you have to have bespoke rules anyway and it causes a massive cluster F-bomb.

And Feel No Pain is fine, but then what happens when you have a Feel No Pain that only works against mortal wounds, or mortal wounds from perils. Oh look, more exceptions, or you have to complicate the base rule by making it "Feel No Pain (x+,Condition)".

Then what about explodes? There are multiple versions, so either you make 1 standard then add layers of exceptions, or you have to make the base rule an ugly looking "Explodes (x+,x",x wounds)" format. And then what about non-standard explodes like I think the Titans have?

USR's are a good idea on paper, but that is ALL it is, as proven by the multiple editions where USRs did nothing but cause a massive headache. The only way to make USRs work is to make them totally modular and account for ALL possible variables in the USR itself, which leads to clunky USRs that have a mass of numbers after it which are unintuitive and difficult to read at a glance, along with upping the learning curve for new players. With 8th everything is on the datasheet and works as-is.

And don't get me started on how USRs caused headaches between editions, or how GW sometimes used the wrong name for a USR, thus breaking it (Anyone remember the "Furious Assault" debacle from one of the Eldar Codexes in either 5th or 6th?)


I’ve never understood this attitude that unless something is instantly totally infallibly perfect, it’s a terrible idea and you should feel bad for having it. Something can be an improvement even if it doesn’t immediately solve all problems perfectly.

The situations you’re describing basically follow the pattern that I create a USR for let’s say Deep Strike for example, and use it to replace all the Deep Strike-esque rules. Then you say ‘aha! But this particular unit Deep Strikes at 10”, and that particular one 6”.’ The next step is to say well, keep the USR, and for this unit and that unit give them their special snowflake rule that modifies the Deep Strike USR for their particular oddity. Then you’d say ‘but then you’re making individual rules anyway! Why bother with the USR? So your solution sucks, USRs are terrible, I win.’ Well, by making the USR that works for 90 units out of a hundred, I have cut down to 1 USR and 10 snowflake rules. You’ve got 100 snowflake rules. So tell me, whose solution is cleaner?

It’s not like I’m even proposing something novel here. For a very long time, Deep Strike worked as a generic USR for the vast majority of units, while a small handful had their snowflake rule modifying Deep Strike with things like ‘this unit doesn’t scatter when Deep Striking’ or ‘this unit can Charge after Deep Striking’. Even in a more broad sense, standardisation is a thing for a reason. Even if your specific thing doesn’t fit the standard and you need to go bespoke. for the vast majority of people the standard makes things easier by not needing to have bespoke.

So yes, I would have a generic ‘Deep Strike’ rule, a generic ‘Feel No Pain (x+)’, and a handful of snowflake rules for those that only get their FNP against Mortal Wounds or Deep Strike at 12” or something. I’ve still eliminated an enormous quantity of rules bloat with zero loss of functionality. Even if every single unit except say Terminators and Assault Terminators needed a snowflake amendment to a Deep Strike USR, I’ve still reduced the total number of rules!

Exploding vehicles is a good example of an escalating USR. Similar to how we used to have Bulky, Very Bulky and Extremely Bulky, you could have Small Explosion, Medium Explosion, Big Explosion and Titanic Explosion. A common rule, just with escalating radii and/or damage. Now in this case you are losing the distinction between say the explosion caused by a Predator and one by a Sicaran, but that’s not depth or simulation, that’s just unnecessary complication and bloat. A Medium Explosion is good enough for both, or even Medium for one and Big for the other.

You certainly don’t need to make all USRs totally modular and to work perfectly for all situations; that’s what the snowflake alterations on the applicable unit’s data sheet are for. You just make it easy for the many and keep it complicated for the few. You’re not upping the learning curve for new players, you’re reducing it; you’re alleviating the need for a new player to learn how every single one of their vehicles subtly differ in their explosions, and just teach them one rule.

Also, GW’s poor application of USRs in the past doesn’t make the concept of USRs bad. Just because you decided to drive a screw with a hammer, doesn’t make the hammer a bad tool. A system of say ten USRs would massively cut down on a huge amount of redundant rules bloat.

Also, GW still use two USRs - fly and character. Are you telling me it would be easier if every Flying or Character unit had those rules on their individual data sheets? And when there are modifications to the Fly or Character rule, guess what? They have those snowflake alterations on their data sheet! Now, Fly and Character might not be perfect rules, but they are examples of good USR usage.

TL;DR: Used properly, USRs are a very powerful tool.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/18 06:05:29


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 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 look me in the eye and tell me that the game would be better if the rules for Fly, Character and Transports were printed on individual data sheets.

USRs. Do. Work. And. Are. Currently. Working. Period.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






kombatwombat wrote:
 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 look me in the eye and tell me that the game would be better if the rules for Fly, Character and Transports were printed on individual data sheets.

USRs. Do. Work. And. Are. Currently. Working. Period.
There is a difference between Universal SPECIAL Rules, and the Core Ruleset of a game.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 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.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: