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.
alextroy wrote: 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.
Which actually conveys more fluff/theme- the way GW currently does it:
Disgustingly Resilient- Each time a model in this unit loses a wound, roll a D6; on a roll of 5 or 6, the model does not lose that wound.
Or the way we are actually advocating:
Disgustingly Resilient- The worshippers of the god of decay are supernaturally resistant to injury, easily shrugging off wounds that would kill a mortal man. Ignore Wounds (5+)- Each time a model in this unit loses a wound, roll a D6; on a roll of 5 or 6, the model does not lose that wound. A model with multiple Ignore Wounds abilities may only roll once against each lost wound; select which ability to use before rolling.
You get the same fluffy name, you get a fluff description to go with it, you get a USR-based rules implementation for clarity and consistency, and you get a full definition of the USR on the datasheet so you don't need to go hunt it down elsewhere.
If that's too much to put on a datasheet, then you can remove the description and keep the fluffy label, with the definition of that label being a USR. Same amount of fluff as there currently is, but adding the USR keyword streamlines the rule and makes it easier to recognize at a glance.
Even if we accept the (IMO, extreme) premise that calling it Disgustingly Resilient rather than Feel No Pain is essential to differentiating armies and giving them fluff, you can still have that with USRs. This is, like, the most weirdly minor thing to cling to.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/13 15:22:50
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...
Disagree, the 50 USRs in the 7th main rulebook was a stupid format from the get-go. Simply the format of having weapon special rules with the weapon lising was a vast improvement.
I'm all for USRs, but a line had been crossed somwhere between 4th and 7th with Armorbane, Fleshbane, Shred etc. Imo there's a good distinction to be made between certain unit special rules and weapon special rules.
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...
Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.
The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.
How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/13 15:35:34
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...
Disagree, the 50 USRs in the 7th main rulebook was a stupid format from the get-go. Simply the format of having weapon special rules with the weapon lising was a vast improvement.
I'm all for USRs, but a line had been crossed somwhere between 4th and 7th with Armorbane, Fleshbane, Shred etc. Imo there's a good distinction to be made between certain unit special rules and weapon special rules.
Fleshbane probably didn't need to be a thing with Poison still existing but that overall doesn't help prove your point as those each did several things.
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.
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...
Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.
The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.
How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?
Becuase your base assumption is at fault, you are assuming that every player needs to know every rule for every faction, that is simply not true.
Peopke playing middle to top competitive will know a large percentage yeah sure but even they don't try to know every rule for every faction. That's the faulty logic in your argument.
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...
Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.
The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.
How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?
Challanges were a fantastic idea with fething terrible execution. 7th did slightly better than 6th with it but not by much.
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.
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...
Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.
The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.
How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?
Becuase your base assumption is at fault, you are assuming that every player needs to know every rule for every faction, that is simply not true. Peopke playing middle to top competitive will know a large percentage yeah sure but even they don't try to know every rule for every faction. That's the faulty logic in your argument.
You are assuming i said all. When i did not. I could have shown ALL stratagems and combos that worked on Troupes, i only highlighted literally the ones that will be played. And you are assuming i said all units which i did not. You do need to know a large amount of stratagems/combos for a large amount of units, that was the point.
There literally is no denying that you need to know well over 100 stratagems/combos to be effective in 40k right now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/13 16:09:22
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...
Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.
The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.
How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?
Becuase your base assumption is at fault, you are assuming that every player needs to know every rule for every faction, that is simply not true.
Peopke playing middle to top competitive will know a large percentage yeah sure but even they don't try to know every rule for every faction. That's the faulty logic in your argument.
You are assuming i said all. When i did not. I could have shown ALL stratagems and combos that worked on Troupes, i only highlighted literally the ones that will be played. And you are assuming i said all units which i did not. You do need to know a large amount of stratagems/combos for a large amount of units, that was the point.
There literally is no denying that you need to know well over 100 stratagems/combos to be effective in 40k right now.
Your starting out that everyone is trying to play at events and even win them for your example. That's not how a large proportion of the people even those at events are even aiming for, most will learn other factiosn rules by playing against them over time.
Also even at events some of us dont have to put up with this toxic american WAAC rules lawyering BS that you and Martel keep insisting the game is, maybe remove those people from your events and they might be better. For most people 40k is supposed to be a friendly game even in competition that they play to enjoy.
By insisting everything must by a BRBUSR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published
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...
Rules bloat yes, but 7th still had a lot of stupid detailed rules that added more bloat, like challenges and such. Honestly i do miss a lot of the rules (unit USR 100% for sure needs to come back) at least 1/4 of them was not needed at all.
The problem with 8 is there is no easy way to see all the rules like in 7th. If i want to play and win an event i need to know literally 100+ stratagems AND the combos that comes with them along with all the units rules too. No other edition had that problem. Sure some units had special rules on them, but you knew what they could do. Right now a Quin Troupe unit can, fallback, move again in combat, pile in again after you fallback, shoot when you fallback, teleport 12" away, adds +atks, adds +D, adds +1 wound, double move, triple move, -3 to be hit, 3++, fight when dies. And any combination of any of those. So if you do not know the 12 stratagems that can effect them you have no idea what 1 unit can do. Now multiple that by 200, thats what you need to know.
How is that fun? How is that better than what 3rd-7th had?
Becuase your base assumption is at fault, you are assuming that every player needs to know every rule for every faction, that is simply not true.
Peopke playing middle to top competitive will know a large percentage yeah sure but even they don't try to know every rule for every faction. That's the faulty logic in your argument.
You are assuming i said all. When i did not. I could have shown ALL stratagems and combos that worked on Troupes, i only highlighted literally the ones that will be played. And you are assuming i said all units which i did not. You do need to know a large amount of stratagems/combos for a large amount of units, that was the point.
There literally is no denying that you need to know well over 100 stratagems/combos to be effective in 40k right now.
Your starting out that everyone is trying to play at events and even win them for your example. That's not how a large proportion of the people even those at events are even aiming for, most will learn other factiosn rules by playing against them over time.
Also even at events some of us dont have to put up with this toxic american WAAC rules lawyering BS that you and Martel keep insisting the game is, maybe remove those people from your events and they might be better. For most people 40k is supposed to be a friendly game even in competition that they play to enjoy.
By insisting everything must by a BRBUSR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published
Its not about events, its about if you want to play to a degree of "i would like to know the game and be at least somewhat good" which is more players than comp.
And i'm no insisting everything be USR at all, i never said that. I am stating that what GW is doing now isn't better than USR, and from many peoples POV it is worst.
New players has to memorize a crap tone right now anyways, how is that any different? A new player coming in right now needs an insane amount of faqs just to start the game, then their armies and stratagems (sure they can look it up, but again, they will have to know them one day or another and if they at least want to play well will need to know their opponents)
USR don't mean no flexibility, we have cover this already many times, you can have USR and specialist rules for units that needs them, see 5th Genestealers and Mandrakes for special DSing rules (funny, GSC basically has Mandrakes rules from 5th). Having special units feel special might actually be a benefit for the game compare to every unit having something special. What was that saying? "When everyone is special, then no one is".
PS for the 5th time, i want a few USR, mainly unit type USR so we can balance the game a lot better, like MCs being able to fight multi floors, Bike stopping falling back vs infantry, and cover rules to help them or hurt them moreso, kinda like Fly and now Airborne.
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...
Disagree, the 50 USRs in the 7th main rulebook was a stupid format from the get-go. Simply the format of having weapon special rules with the weapon lising was a vast improvement.
I'm all for USRs, but a line had been crossed somwhere between 4th and 7th with Armorbane, Fleshbane, Shred etc. Imo there's a good distinction to be made between certain unit special rules and weapon special rules.
Fleshbane probably didn't need to be a thing with Poison still existing but that overall doesn't help prove your point as those each did several things.
I could care less what they did, what I care about is how it was presented. The presentation made the game less accessible because far too many rules for units and weapons weren't in the books that defined units and weapons. Having a list of abilities with a unit and weapon/s, then having to look at five different pages across two books for basic information, sucked. Datasheets with the rules on them is far less opaque, and way more accessible for new players.
Very true. Part way through 6th, I started making basic cards like Warmachine used. I listed the rules. While I didn't write them out, I did the next best thing by providing a reference point (book, p#) to quickly look up the rule. I started updating it for 7th, but never finished it before dropping the game over the IC rulings part way through.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Sure doesn't, and it wasn't my point. My point is pure accessibility. The format worked great in 4th edition when there were like, 5 USRs. When you hit 50 (or whatever) having them NOT also defined with unit entries or in codexes gets really awkward.
So to be clear, I'm 100% FOR USRs. Just present them well, and maybe don't try to USR every single weapon.
Very true. Part way through 6th, I started making basic cards like Warmachine used. I listed the rules. While I didn't write them out, I did the next best thing by providing a reference point (book, p#) to quickly look up the rule. I started updating it for 7th, but never finished it before dropping the game over the IC rulings part way through.
See, things like 'Independent Character' had no place in USR. It was rules likes these that caused the rule bloat. It was best reserved as a core rule (for example, in 'unit type' entry in the rulebook)
USR needs a set of core rules to be effective. These two work in tandem, and they do not replace one or the other.
The current iteration where everything you need are on the datasheets are more akin to extended core rules with keyword system serving as a really weak USR. The information written on individual datasheets can benefit from a unified USR (which defines the mechanics & jargons of the game) without muddling the individuality of the said datahsheets.
That was never a complaint about 2nd ed, from my experience. The only supplemental material you needed (or that even existed, unless you counted the Citadel Journal, which nobody used) was Dark Millenium, and the FAQs that were printed in White Dwarf. And even there, most of the FAQs weren't strictly necessary, just for clarification purposes.
The end of 2nd ed was the birth of this complaint. Compared to something like 7th, it wasn't nearly as bad, but my group definitely felt it, and Gav Thorpe actually cited this as one of the reasons for the 3rd ed streamlining (in that same interview he also said he felt like maybe they went too far). I can't find my bookmark for it atm, but if it's still online I'll post it.
Either way, my point in bringing that up was that the person I was responding to was trying to imply that the lack of USRs is the reason they need to bring so many different books to a game. I was just pointing out that this happens because of GW. It has nothing to do with whether or not there are USRs. The argument was incorrect at best and disingenuous at worst.
EDITS:
Because I cannot type or spell today ...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/13 20:41:53
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Your starting out that everyone is trying to play at events and even win them for your example. That's not how a large proportion of the people even those at events are even aiming for, most will learn other factiosn rules by playing against them over time.
And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.
It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.
By insisting everything must by a BRBUSR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published
- Nobody is insisting that everything should be a USR
- Having USRs in the main rulebook does not require players to memorise them from day 1. Hell, most of the first time players I've encountered over the years haven't even bought the rulebook yet, they've just been walked through a game or two by somebody. Nobody actually expects new players to have complete knowledge of the rules. That's not the case now, and it wasn't the case when USRs were included in the rulebook previously.
- And yes, having USRs printed in the rulebook is beneficial to people with multiple armies. That's not actually a negative.
- The 'inflexible design space' is only an issue if you want everything to be a USR, which, as has been pointed out multiple times, nobody is asking for. The existence of USRs does not preclude units from having their own special rules where that's appropriate. The goal should be to keep the use of besoke rules to those situations where they are actually necessary, rather than to remove them completely.
Your starting out that everyone is trying to play at events and even win them for your example. That's not how a large proportion of the people even those at events are even aiming for, most will learn other factiosn rules by playing against them over time.
And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.
It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.
By insisting everything must by a BRBUSR that you can learn from day 1 your tailoring the game experiance to be
Exclusionary to new players due excessive memorization
Benifical to people with multiple armies and a driven competitive focus.
Inflexible design space once USR's have been written and published
- Nobody is insisting that everything should be a USR
- Having USRs in the main rulebook does not require players to memorise them from day 1. Hell, most of the first time players I've encountered over the years haven't even bought the rulebook yet, they've just been walked through a game or two by somebody. Nobody actually expects new players to have complete knowledge of the rules. That's not the case now, and it wasn't the case when USRs were included in the rulebook previously.
- And yes, having USRs printed in the rulebook is beneficial to people with multiple armies. That's not actually a negative.
- The 'inflexible design space' is only an issue if you want everything to be a USR, which, as has been pointed out multiple times, nobody is asking for. The existence of USRs does not preclude units from having their own special rules where that's appropriate. The goal should be to keep the use of besoke rules to those situations where they are actually necessary, rather than to remove them completely.
I am on board with your idea, my issue is some people certainly write like they are pushing the far more aggressive everything is a USR version of the concept.
That I object to its, it turns it into a bland and not fun game.
The reason making it easier for people with multiple armies at the expense of making it harder for casual/newer players to learn the rules is a bad deaign decision is those with 3-4 armies are already invested, they are going to put in the extra time and money to buying every book to learn every rule.
When someone is trying to learn the game having a massive list of USR's (7th edition your spotlight awaits) is discouraging people when they are least invested in the game system. Personally of all the editions I've played 2,3,4, 7 and 8th 7th was by far the most unsellable rules set ever invented, whoever thinks that having so many USR's that you need to actually section them out made learning that game anything but an absolute chore for months is kidding themselves.
The reason making it easier for people with multiple armies at the expense of making it harder for casual/newer players to learn the rules is a bad deaign decision is those with 3-4 armies are already invested, they are going to put in the extra time and money to buying every book to learn every rule.
Putting all of the special rules in one book does not make it harder for new players. It makes it easier, because all of the rules they need are in one place. It doesn't force them to learn them all at once, any more than having any of the other rules in the rulebook forces them to learn all of those at once.
Nobody, and I seriously mean nobody is expecting a new player to know all of the rules of the game, regardless of how many books they are printed in.
... whoever thinks that having so many USR's that you need to actually section them out made learning that game anything but an absolute chore for months is kidding themselves.
But... if those rules are in the game, you still have just as much of a need to learn them if they're printed in 47 different places. The difference is simply that now it's harder and more expensive to access them all.
New players aren't trying to learn all of the special rules at once. For the most part, they're just going to learn the rules they need for their army and pick up the rest as they go along. Which, again, is easier if those rules are all in one book.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/13 23:07:02
Interesting idea for 8th - Add the rules from the MRB into each codex. Its 7 pages of rules, so why not condense them into the first part of any codex. This wasn't plausible for older editions because they had actual in depth rulesets, but if we're going with this super light, why not. Adding in the USR's and FSR's nearby would probably add no more than an additional 3-4 pages, so 11 pages added to a codex.
Meaning that nobody would need the MRB, axing that argument.
Also as an aside, to the people who keep saying you needed multiple books last edition. Really? I have a tournament friend that has literally gone and photocopied all the pieces he needed from the ~4 codices, plus all the FAQs, and don't forget the supplements either. It's in a plastic three ring binder, because it probably wouldn't fit in one the smaller ones.
When I go to tournaments I need to bring 3 books - Codex, Supplement, and MRB (because yes, disputes that come down to the MRB happen) and a folder containing the various FAQ's that relate to either of those books.
Now those FAQs are a good thing and I'd rather have them than not, but the problem is that many FAQs stem from the rules not having an overarching schema that gives structure for rule to rule interaction - like USRs.
Vilehydra wrote: Also as an aside, to the people who keep saying you needed multiple books last edition. Really? I have a tournament friend that has literally gone and photocopied all the pieces he needed from the ~4 codices, plus all the FAQs, and don't forget the supplements either. It's in a plastic three ring binder, because it probably wouldn't fit in one the smaller ones.
Which is fine if the TO is happy to accept photocopies. Some aren't, to avoid potential tampering and issues with piracy.
Vilehydra wrote: Also as an aside, to the people who keep saying you needed multiple books last edition. Really? I have a tournament friend that has literally gone and photocopied all the pieces he needed from the ~4 codices, plus all the FAQs, and don't forget the supplements either. It's in a plastic three ring binder, because it probably wouldn't fit in one the smaller ones.
Which is fine if the TO is happy to accept photocopies. Some aren't, to avoid potential tampering and issues with piracy.
Not that GW deserves money for ANY of their printed rules.
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.
skchsan wrote:See, things like 'Independent Character' had no place in USR. It was rules likes these that caused the rule bloat. It was best reserved as a core rule (for example, in 'unit type' entry in the rulebook)
Eh, it could work either way as most Unit Type rules were Special Rules, any way, but the biggest problems were how GW wrote the IC rules. It wouldn't have worked any better as Unit Type or stuck in the back with the rest of the USRs. It was messed up in its core.
skchsan wrote:USR needs a set of core rules to be effective. These two work in tandem, and they do not replace one or the other.
No, they need as set of well-written rules to be effective. The core rules were okay in 7th, but the IC rules have been bonkers since forever, only made worse when codices came out to really muck them up even more. Things like the Techmarine starting out as an IC, but can purchase a retinue, but no rules about him losing his IC rule until that mega-FAQ came out. Or how some rules would affect a unit in a unit's action, but apparently weren't supposed to include the IC in its abilities.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
- Nobody is insisting that everything should be a USR
Actually, I am. lol
insaniak wrote:Well, stop it, then.
This here also highlights that there's nothing wrong with a USR, but how you implement them is where people disagree and where dislike comes from.
Nothing about either of your positions makes a comment on whether USRs are better for the ease of learning and playing of the game, because you're just disagreeing on how they get implemented.
Which a lot of anti USR posters seem to hold onto as the problem with USRs - how they're used. But they're two different things and I wish people would acknowledge and keep them separate.
And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.
It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.
I think this is a major point as those who want to play the game likes to have different rules as those who just want to roll some dice
There are people who just want to put models on the table, roll dice and be done. Reading only what is necessary and 8th Core Rules + Datasheets of their used units is already at the limit (and some may have not even read those once before they need it on the table)
Those who read all the rules at least once before they start playing are the Event/Tournament/Beardy-Players as they want to play a game and play to win
current rules of AoS and 40k (and Kill Team) are meant to please the first type of people, who just need enough rules to have a reason to put their stuff on the table and move it.
hence why stuff like Warhammer Underworlds and similar is received so well as it serves the need to play a game without giving up on GW and have the possibility to use those models in AoS.
Problem is just that GW cannot make rules to make both groups happy at the same time and non is willing to move over to a different rule-set which fits their needs better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/14 06:09:03
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.
It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.
I think this is a major point as those who want to play the game likes to have different rules as those who just want to roll some dice
There are people who just want to put models on the table, roll dice and be done. Reading only what is necessary and 8th Core Rules + Datasheets of their used units is already at the limit (and some may have not even read those once before they need it on the table)
Those who read all the rules at least once before they start playing are the Event/Tournament/Beardy-Players as they want to play a game and play to win
current rules of AoS and 40k (and Kill Team) are meant to please the first type of people, who just need enough rules to have a reason to put their stuff on the table and move it.
hence why stuff like Warhammer Underworlds and similar is received so well as it serves the need to play a game without giving up on GW and have the possibility to use those models in AoS.
Problem is just that GW cannot make rules to make both groups happy at the same time and non is willing to move over to a different rule-set which fits their needs better.
I'm not sure that tracks. A person uninterested in learning all the rules and just wants to play the game can do that with USRs that are printed on their unit sheets.
You can convert the entire game to using a range of rules standardisations right now and how you play the game wouldn't change at all.
This is a part I don't think I get, there's this weird expectation that you MUST implement USRs in a way counter to the current BR implementation, but it's not true or a requirement for that to happen.
Bodyguard (x+)
deepstrike (x")
feel no pain (x+)
rending (APX)
Poison (X+)
Infiltrate (X")
Overheat
Invulnerable save (X+)
Melta
You can take the rules that currently exist for the list above, keep their name, put the USR in brackets afterwards and copy paste the set text for each, and no changes to how you play the game would occur, at all.
What it would do is ensure that the cognitive load on tracking rules would be less because you'd know that deep strike did the same thing for everyone and you wouldn't have to treat each rule like it's a criminal waiting to get caught.
EDIT: very few instances of differently written but almost identical rules are meaningfully different, they don't change much tactical or strategic thought and by your assessment of people that just want to play, they wouldn't care about those things anyway.
USRs are a BOON to casual players because they don't have check their rules every time. once they've played a few games they'll get the hang of the mechanics and they'll only need to worry about one version of a rule. Casual players that just want to throw dice are people that don't have time to keep track of the slight wording differences between abilities that play out on the table virtually identically anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/14 06:51:33
And they can do that, even if the rules are in the main rulebook. The problem is, those of us who do prefer to learn as much of the game as possible have a much harder time of it when the rules are scattered and inconsistent.
It's not about playing in events. You can't make effective tactical decisions when you don't know what the models on the other side of the table actually do.
I think this is a major point as those who want to play the game likes to have different rules as those who just want to roll some dice
There are people who just want to put models on the table, roll dice and be done. Reading only what is necessary and 8th Core Rules + Datasheets of their used units is already at the limit (and some may have not even read those once before they need it on the table)
Those who read all the rules at least once before they start playing are the Event/Tournament/Beardy-Players as they want to play a game and play to win
current rules of AoS and 40k (and Kill Team) are meant to please the first type of people, who just need enough rules to have a reason to put their stuff on the table and move it.
hence why stuff like Warhammer Underworlds and similar is received so well as it serves the need to play a game without giving up on GW and have the possibility to use those models in AoS.
Problem is just that GW cannot make rules to make both groups happy at the same time and non is willing to move over to a different rule-set which fits their needs better.
Wait, what? Anyone who reads the rules is an "Event/Tournament/Beardy-Player? No, sorry, I don't play events, tournaments, or have a beard (do mutton chops count?) and I still read the rules before playing any game.
What you're describing is why gw makes some rules optional/for advanced play. You can use them if you want to or not use them if you don't. That has nothing to do with USRs.
And writing rules for a game as expensive and time consuming as 40k purposefully as shallow as you describe makes no sense. Why would anyone spend so much money and time on building an army just to "put their stuff on the table and move it".
If gw would write rules with such a goal in mind it would be insulting to long time players who've invested years and large sums of money into the hobby.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/14 07:21:35
lol, but it's so much better. I promise I can make a better written game than GW. Just give me a bottle of bourbon and a weekend to write it.
Without basing it off the work GW has already done? Doubtful.
Have you ever written a game system? A campaign for 40k? Some homebrew additions to an RPG? Did it blow up in your face? How many of your players enjoyed it?
I think we can agree that many of us could easily streamline the current system into something more intuitive and less complex without losing depth, but writing it from scratch is a completely different beast.
Your suggestion of turning everything into USR and dropping bespoke rules altogether already has lots of valid counter-arguments from both sides. If you ignore constructive criticism, you are already doomed to come up with something that is worse than the status quo.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
