Switch Theme:

What's The Matter 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 us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Vankraken wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?


Because 7th is the boogyman that some people like to break out whenever you challenge that 8th has problems. It's easy to prop up 8th and "the new GW" when you have 7th to punch on and demonize. If it was a 7th thing then it must be bad despite there being a lot of good potential in the edition (a lot of it the foundation established with 4th and 5th edition). It just got destroyed by a lot of rampant power creep sales tactics and reckless rules writing (a lot of which is still happening in 8th).

That being said I still believe 7th is still a better edition than 8th when it comes to having fun gameplay mechanics and enjoyable games. 8th is dreadfully boring and rapidly becoming the sort of bloated mess than people rag on 7th about.

AKA "It's just giraffe gak you're dealing with not elephant gak, so be grateful".

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ro
Rough Rider with Boomstick





 Vankraken wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?


Because 7th is the boogyman that some people like to break out whenever you challenge that 8th has problems. It's easy to prop up 8th and "the new GW" when you have 7th to punch on and demonize. If it was a 7th thing then it must be bad despite there being a lot of good potential in the edition (a lot of it the foundation established with 4th and 5th edition). It just got destroyed by a lot of rampant power creep sales tactics and reckless rules writing (a lot of which is still happening in 8th).

Pretty much this. I'm sure if 9th comes out with USRs, templates and facings, the same detractors now will declare it a genius move on GW's part to bring them back and that they always said they missed them (except when they said they didn't).
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

How about we stick with discussing the rules rather than denigrating other posters, hmm?

 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





to repeat the refrain:

Universal Standard Rules are simply standardisation of mechanics to streamline the game and reduce the effort of players in learning how to play.

A USR does NOT preclude the use of Bespoke Rules, it does NOT prevent you printing them on a unit's data sheet.

you can take the current game and convert many of the special rules units use to USRs and NOTHING WOULD CHANGE, except that those rules would be consistent and players would know that when their opponent said 'I'm deep striking this unit x inches', it meant the same thing as the deep strike rule found on their unit datasheets, or in their books.


There are many ways to implement USRs, just because you can conceive of a terrible way to implement them does not mean that all implentations are bad.

Bespoke rules however, for ease of learning the rules and playing the game, will never be as simple as USRs being learned once.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

USRs are fine, but they just don't seem to provide what GW wants to serve up. Let's take the various Ignore Wounds (aka Feel No Pain) as a example. GW could make a USR:

Ignore Wounds (x+): When a model in the target unit would lose a wound, on a d6 roll of X+ they do not lose that wound. On one use of Ignore Wounds can be used against any wound the model loses.

It could then assign each model this USR. You would have a functional, but rather bland rules. But we all know that GW wants thematic rules that packs flavor into the unit. That's why we have rules called Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak,Tenacious Survivor and so on. The name of the rule tells a story. Disgustingly Resilient and Ramshackle may be functionally the same, but they tell a different story.

Personally, I do think there is a good middle ground, with this being a good example:

USR (or new basic rule sidebar)
Ignore Wounds: Some models are more resilient their their statistics indicate, and have an ability that will allow them to ignore wounds lost in certain circumstances, normally on a die roll. When damage is inflicted, a model may use one ability to Ignore Wounds for each point of damage inflicted on it. If successful, that point of damage is discard to no effect.

Disgustingly Resilient: Those favored by Nurgle are inured to pain, their rotting bodies shrugging off all but the most traumatic wounds. Models with with rule may Ignore Wounds on a d6 roll of 5+.

Tenacious Surviver: This Warlord Ignore Wounds on a d6 roll of 6+.

This increase rules comprehension without moving the rules to a sterile FNP (5+) USR.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 alextroy wrote:
USRs are fine, but they just don't seem to provide what GW wants to serve up. Let's take the various Ignore Wounds (aka Feel No Pain) as a example. GW could make a USR:

Ignore Wounds (x+): When a model in the target unit would lose a wound, on a d6 roll of X+ they do not lose that wound. On one use of Ignore Wounds can be used against any wound the model loses.

It could then assign each model this USR. You would have a functional, but rather bland rules. But we all know that GW wants thematic rules that packs flavor into the unit. That's why we have rules called Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak,Tenacious Survivor and so on. The name of the rule tells a story. Disgustingly Resilient and Ramshackle may be functionally the same, but they tell a different story.

Personally, I do think there is a good middle ground, with this being a good example:

USR (or new basic rule sidebar)
Ignore Wounds: Some models are more resilient their their statistics indicate, and have an ability that will allow them to ignore wounds lost in certain circumstances, normally on a die roll. When damage is inflicted, a model may use one ability to Ignore Wounds for each point of damage inflicted on it. If successful, that point of damage is discard to no effect.

Disgustingly Resilient: Those favored by Nurgle are inured to pain, their rotting bodies shrugging off all but the most traumatic wounds. Models with with rule may Ignore Wounds on a d6 roll of 5+.

Tenacious Surviver: This Warlord Ignore Wounds on a d6 roll of 6+.

This increase rules comprehension without moving the rules to a sterile FNP (5+) USR.

Yes, exactly, and those can be written on a unit's data sheet, or in an armie's special rules, in warlord traits, strategems, etc. That's exactly what we've been arguing for.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

Apparently, 40k lore is so shallow that non-fluffy names on datasheets for the game make all units bland and samey.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

Well, based on the way GW writes the rules, you are correct.

Or maybe they want more flavor than USRs allow. You can make perfectly fine food with just salt and pepper, but that doesn't means you shouldn't use a wider variety of spices.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

 alextroy wrote:
Well, based on the way GW writes the rules, you are correct.

Or maybe they want more flavor than USRs allow. You can make perfectly fine food with just salt and pepper, but that doesn't means you shouldn't use a wider variety of spices.
So, more fluff in the datasheets is better, right?

Because if so, you should be all over my proposition for how to put USRs on datasheets. It has MORE FLUFF than what's currently present.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 JNAProductions wrote:
Apparently, 40k lore is so shallow that non-fluffy names on datasheets for the game make all units bland and samey.

Yes, apparently for many players. Personally I think what makes units boring is taking away their special abilities and replacing them with strategems. I really don't care if the rules have fluffy names. I just want them to be there. My contemptor was way more fun when it had fleet and could reliably make a charge out of a deep strike from a dreadclaw. But I guess "Machine Malifica" is more fun because it's a fancy name.
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

 JNAProductions wrote:
Apparently, 40k lore is so shallow that non-fluffy names on datasheets for the game make all units bland and samey.

Fluffy names don't even necessarily keep something from being bland! The name for the Stormboyz' version of deep strike? It's literally just called "Stormboyz Strike". Literally the least inspired thing they could have called it. "Deep Strike" would have actually been more interesting as a name,

Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

The attachment to special rules *names* for their own sake puzzles me, particularly for rules that are otherwise identical to those shared by dozens of other units, especially when it's the kind of thing that changes routinely with codex updates, edition changes, etc.

Playing this game through most of its editions, it just seems something of an odd hill to choose to take a stand on, and it's not like a single blurb of flavor text on the datasheet can't be used to do the same thing e.g. "Plaguebearers are disgustingly resilient, they benefit from FNP (5+)". You can still adjust or fine tune that to a different value and there's still flavor text if one demands it, but it accomplishes the same thing without having dozens of different rules that do the exact same thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/13 04:13:29


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem.

Why? I mean, that's such a random assumption!
7th was still kirby-land. That makes a huge difference with 8th.
Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?
 Ishagu wrote:
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

If the rule has the same name, you can always tweak the datasheet to replace the rule on one datasheet and not the other.
Also, could you please explain the interaction between quicksilver swiftness and belt of russ please?


7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th.

What makes you all believe that if GW were to do it all over it would end up as anything different?

I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.

I'm quite convinced that the 8th edition has been designed around bespoke rules due to design constraints.

When you need to rush a lot of products, you WILL generate a lot of errors. A bespoke rule system allows them to correct mistakes on one publication with minimal impact on the other ones.

I think that we can all remember changes to USR having indirect and terrificant impacts on the game, even in 5th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/13 05:35:25


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem.

Why? I mean, that's such a random assumption!
7th was still kirby-land. That makes a huge difference with 8th.
Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?
 Ishagu wrote:
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

If the rule has the same name, you can always tweak the datasheet to replace the rule on one datasheet and not the other.
Also, could you please explain the interaction between quicksilver swiftness and belt of russ please?


7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th.

What makes you all believe that if GW were to do it all over it would end up as anything different?

I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.

I'm quite convinced that the 8th edition has been designed around bespoke rules due to design constraints.

When you need to rush a lot of products, you WILL generate a lot of errors. A bespoke rule system allows them to correct mistakes on one publication with minimal impact on the other ones.

I think that we can all remember changes to USR having indirect and terrificant impacts on the game, even in 5th.

Or they could not rush the designers and giving us crap product that NEEDS that much fixing.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Spoletta wrote:
...7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th...


How so? There were rules for Flyers and Superheavies at least as far back as 3rd Edition (the original Imperial Armour book was 2000).

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 alextroy wrote:
Well, based on the way GW writes the rules, you are correct.

Or maybe they want more flavor than USRs allow. You can make perfectly fine food with just salt and pepper, but that doesn't means you shouldn't use a wider variety of spices.

Sure. But when the recipe book calls for a quarter teaspoon each of Cassia, Cinnamon, Burmannii, Korintje, Loureiroi and Citriodorum, I can't help but think it would be a damn sight easier for it to just ask for a spoon and a half of Cinnamon.

 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Spoletta wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem.

Why? I mean, that's such a random assumption!
7th was still kirby-land. That makes a huge difference with 8th.
Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?
 Ishagu wrote:
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

If the rule has the same name, you can always tweak the datasheet to replace the rule on one datasheet and not the other.
Also, could you please explain the interaction between quicksilver swiftness and belt of russ please?


7th edition is the best example because it is the most recent one and because it is the only other edition that had to handle similar stuff to 8th.

What makes you all believe that if GW were to do it all over it would end up as anything different?

I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.

I'm quite convinced that the 8th edition has been designed around bespoke rules due to design constraints.

When you need to rush a lot of products, you WILL generate a lot of errors. A bespoke rule system allows them to correct mistakes on one publication with minimal impact on the other ones.

I think that we can all remember changes to USR having indirect and terrificant impacts on the game, even in 5th.

It's not like GW have actually made meaningful bespoke individual changes to most things that would be USR's (like Deep Strike, in the vast majority of cases it's all the same "deploy 9 inches away" copy-pasta'd text), and they've essentially already done USR's with FAQ/Errata with stuff like changes to reserves, stratagem usage, CP generation, detachment limits, etc without it turning into any sort of confused rules mess (yes there were metagame impacts, but that was also the intent). Given that GW has copypastad tons of rules, simply slapping different names on them (such as Deep Strike) with little or no variation in functionality, it's hard to see what dread would have resulted from USR's for things like Deep Strike (and it's why they introduced what actually is a USR in curbing turn 1 mass DS lists instead of updating each one individually for matched play). I'm having trouble seeing where having to update a gazillion differently named but identically functioning rules is easier than adjusting one central rule, and I can't recall any USR changes in 5th that caused tremendously terrible impacts on the game off the top of my head.

As much as I feel like a broken record, I feel like I again have to point out other tabletop miniatures games like Heavy Gear, where there's as many units as 40k, and almost everything is done through a single central list of USR's.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/13 06:07:15


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.


Actually, it would be a lot easier to manage their schedule with USRs.

The rules have already been written. They just need to assign the proper USR's to the units to perform their tasks correctly.

Nothing else is needed. You don't need to make up some stuff to add, its already included in the main rules.

Additionally, it would be less of a burden for players because we already know the rules and don't have to memorize a bunch of new ones.

See how easy USR's are?

Furthermore, 7th edition fundamentally was better written than 8th. But they ignored the USR's they made in the main book and added more special rules on top to units that ruined it, also formations. You can't look to 7th as an example of USR's because they didn't do them properly in the first place because they had bespoke rules on top of USR's. Hence why it was bad.

Again, there is no real argument against USR's. Nothing is better than them, everything to the contrary has been proven wrong.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/13 06:36:49


Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 insaniak wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Well, based on the way GW writes the rules, you are correct.

Or maybe they want more flavor than USRs allow. You can make perfectly fine food with just salt and pepper, but that doesn't means you shouldn't use a wider variety of spices.

Sure. But when the recipe book calls for a quarter teaspoon each of Cassia, Cinnamon, Burmannii, Korintje, Loureiroi and Citriodorum, I can't help but think it would be a damn sight easier for it to just ask for a spoon and a half of Cinnamon.


As a matter of fact, I'm currently developing software handling exactly this problem, and I can assure you that all of them are combined under the "USR" cinnamon

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Spoiler:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I dread at what could have happened if GW had to manage an USR system with this release schedule.


Actually, it would be a lot easier to manage their schedule with USRs.

The rules have already been written. They just need to assign the proper USR's to the units to perform their tasks correctly.

Nothing else is needed. You don't need to make up some stuff to add, its already included in the main rules.

Additionally, it would be less of a burden for players because we already know the rules and don't have to memorize a bunch of new ones.

See how easy USR's are?

Furthermore, 7th edition fundamentally was better written than 8th. But they ignored the USR's they made in the main book and added more special rules on top to units that ruined it, also formations. You can't look to 7th as an example of USR's because they didn't do them properly in the first place because they had bespoke rules on top of USR's. Hence why it was bad.

Again, there is no real argument against USR's. Nothing is better than them, everything to the contrary has been proven wrong.


Don't let that be seen by Ishagu.
GW knows BEST!

Allways, especially in the case of rules and balance!!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/13 08:39:17


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Vaktathi wrote:
The attachment to special rules *names* for their own sake puzzles me, particularly for rules that are otherwise identical to those shared by dozens of other units, especially when it's the kind of thing that changes.

Same here. Taking just the argument that bespoke rules are more fluffy or thematic, I have a number of problems with it.

1. The majority of the background info for this game is not in the rules, but in the background sections of the Codex or the lore section of the rulebook. More recently there's been more novels and other Black Library material released to supplement this. Using USRs - or not - doesn't change this fact.

2. In terms of playing the game itself, whether a unit is properly represented thematically is almost entirely down to the mechanics of its rules, not their name. If I'm playing, say, Blood Angels, I want to see rules that allow me to deploy my shock assault troops direct from orbit right into the heart of the enemy and make me more dangerous when I charge. The name of the rule is orders of magnitude less relevant to how it actually works when I'm playing the game. I don't see how playing the game is significantly improved by my units having mechanically identical rules but the Death Company has Jump Pack Assault while the Terminators have Teleport Strike. What matters is how those mechanics relate to the theme of the army. The way some people talk about needing fluffy names for their rules it's like their just shouting rules names at each other across the table rather than actually playing the game.

3. Even taking all that into consideration, USRs do not prevent you using fluffy names if you want

As to whether people are in denial or too intractable, I think the frustration on the pro-USR side stems from how the other side of the argument just doesn't seem to be engaging with the points. How many times do the same issues need to be brought up and refuted in one thread? I think what we've seen is an attempt by the pro-USR side to justify their points and then those points being constantly ignored. It's frustrating in the extreme, TBH.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Heck you can still give it a fluffy name and then add the USR

Refuses to die: FNP 4+

   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Not Online!!! wrote:
Heck you can still give it a fluffy name and then add the USR

Refuses to die: FNP 4+

Yeah, we've all pointed that out, repeatedly. You can still have a fluffy name, put the full rule on the data sheet, still have bespoke rules where necessary, etc, etc. No one listens. *shrug*
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Heck you can still give it a fluffy name and then add the USR

Refuses to die: FNP 4+

Yeah, we've all pointed that out, repeatedly. You can still have a fluffy name, put the full rule on the data sheet, still have bespoke rules where necessary, etc, etc. No one listens. *shrug*

The issue is as with many discussions on Dakka is the center of both arguments tend to reach a level of agreement or atleast common understanding and then the extremists of each view point keep tryibg to move the goal posts and derailing the thread.

E.g. some have said all bodyguard rules should be the same across every unit.
All FNP's should be the same(ie FNP is ignore wounds on a 5+)

Some are calling for things like FNP or deepstrike to esentially be keywords with a variable value. Which is far more reasonable just wish I trusted the 40k designers not to find a way to duck up such a system.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

Ice_can wrote:
wish I trusted the 40k designers

Me too, man, me too. It's baffling why the designers would deliberately design a bad game.

Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
wish I trusted the 40k designers

Me too, man, me too. It's baffling why the designers would deliberately design a bad game.
Hanlon's razor applies. They aren't malicious, they just are that incompetent.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
wish I trusted the 40k designers

Me too, man, me too. It's baffling why the designers would deliberately design a bad game.
Hanlon's razor applies. They aren't malicious, they just are that incompetent.

I don't want to go that far. They're making bank, which is, after all, their goal. 8th edition really brought 40k back from the brink; it was losing market share pretty badly.

But it could be so much better still.

Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
wish I trusted the 40k designers

Me too, man, me too. It's baffling why the designers would deliberately design a bad game.
Hanlon's razor applies. They aren't malicious, they just are that incompetent.

I don't want to go that far. They're making bank, which is, after all, their goal. 8th edition really brought 40k back from the brink; it was losing market share pretty badly.

But it could be so much better still.
It making bank has nothing to do with the rules being good, it has to do with Indexhammer being dumbed down STREAMLINED; with GW finally learning how to do marketing and "wacky" social media presence; and 40k shovel-ware video games introducing people to the brand.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/13 14:44:28


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
Say what you will about Stratagems, bespoke rules, etc. 8th is waaaaay easier to pick up and play than 7th.

Only at the end of 7th you'd be correct, but we are approaching the same rules bloat we got last edition so...

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: