Why not just have those units and situations reference the USR from the applicable BRB instead?
One word-BLOAT
Just like what
GW did with stratagems, formations and
USRs by 7th edition there were just too many of them. the 22
USRs in the 5th ed
BRB were enough. the new ones created in 6th/7th are not necessary and detract from overall gameplay as well as keeping the core rules centered within the confines of 5th edition.
Wound Allocation - agreed that 4th was generally better. Do you have any system in place for handling units with mixed armor saves?
The same way 5th ed covers units with different toughness values for speed and simplicity-use the majority. most players obviously choose to remove the less armored models first.
It's interesting to see how much overlap there is with these core rule changes and the core hybrid base that ProHammer uses (a similar mix of 4th + 5th ed rules).
It isn't that surprising really. as experienced war gamers we understand how and why things work in the game to make it more immersive and playable. so we come to the same conclusions when we are seeking the same goals for the game.
We are also not changing things to push alternate goals like promoting a new edition, model sales etc....
This may be needed to keep a game "fresh and new" in the industry however, it isn't needed for a good rule set for a game to be enjoyable. occasionally a game can do it and be fine (classic battletech has maintained the same core rules mechanics for over 30 years) the problem for
GW is change for the sake of change even when the changes are some of the most inept replacements of good mechanics/rules. the old saying about the pendulum swing is real with
GW. fix the one glaring issue everybody sees and complained about...and then 10 more where there was not an issue.