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.

 oni wrote:
The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.

The end result of this is that currently I need to remember that an Imperial plasma cannon explodes on a roll of 1 subject to modifiers, but an Ork plasma cannon explodes on a natural 1. Storm Troopers gives me an extra shot on a 6 subject to modifiers, but Dakka Dakka Dakka triggers an extra shot on an unmodified 6. Some character auras let you re-roll dice that missed before modifiers, but other units let you re-roll any dice. I need to remember the specific nuances of every unit's rule, because conceptually they're similar but not quite the same.

IMO 'they can adjust one unit without affecting others' is a negative, not a positive. I'd rather have consistent rules that might need a points tweak in CA than all bespoke variations. What we have now is effectively like having 50+ USRs, many of which are slight variations on a theme, and it's a real pain to keep track of.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For everyone who says "It's easier to adjust rules when they're bespoke," two things:

1) GW has already adjusted many rules at once, which is way easier when they're USRs instead of bespoke.

2) If a unit has a USR and it's too powerful/too weak with it, but other units are fine, literally all it takes to adjust that one unit but no others is an Errata saying "This unit no longer has this USR. Instead, it has [DIFFERENT RULE]."

The ENTIRE. BLOOMING. POINT. of USR's is to eliminate special snowflake rules. USRs don't work when you then have to give everyone a slightly different rule because the USR is too good or bad on the unit. It's one of the reasons why USR's don't work.

The full text of Explodes, Melta, Poisoned, 6-to-wound-does-something/6-to-hit-does-something (Warmachine had a rule called "Critical (some effect)" to cover this, it'd be trivial to write "Critical (extra AP)" or "Critical (mortal wound)" down as a USR), some-extra-bonus-for-cover (Stealth: This model adds +2 to its saves while benefitting from cover), Relentless, Unwieldy, FNP, Deep Strike, etc. are written out over and over and over again with different names on datasheets across a large number of Codexes. USRs are already part of 8th edition. They'd probably work better if you didn't have to read a paragraph to make sure it doesn't differ very slightly from the paragraph in your book every time you wanted to figure out what something does, though.

Exactly, we have a semi USR based system in place already, the problem is :

tell me what the explosion rules are for a :
Onager dunecrawler
foetid blight drone
knight castellan

Theyre all the same concept (deal MWs around the unit), but GW decided to make them have slight variations so now i have to make sure to either ask my opponent what the explosion profile is before movement so that i can be sure i wont get touched by their "auto-explode" stratagems.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For everyone who says "It's easier to adjust rules when they're bespoke," two things:

1) GW has already adjusted many rules at once, which is way easier when they're USRs instead of bespoke.

2) If a unit has a USR and it's too powerful/too weak with it, but other units are fine, literally all it takes to adjust that one unit but no others is an Errata saying "This unit no longer has this USR. Instead, it has [DIFFERENT RULE]."

The ENTIRE. BLOOMING. POINT. of USR's is to eliminate special snowflake rules. USRs don't work when you then have to give everyone a slightly different rule because the USR is too good or bad on the unit. It's one of the reasons why USR's don't work.

Yeah, that's actually what resulted in 7th ed.
GW wanted to give units slightly different USR, which resulted in a bloated mess.

If you want USR, either keep it simple and consistent (which is what I recommend), or introduce grades of USR (like FNP 6+, FNP 5+)
The problem of everything having a bespoke rule is that it its actually harder to keep track of and forget things.

Its easier to flub the rules if every unit in the army has some different variation of the same rule. Consistency is good in both game design and programming.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For everyone who says "It's easier to adjust rules when they're bespoke," two things:

1) GW has already adjusted many rules at once, which is way easier when they're USRs instead of bespoke.

2) If a unit has a USR and it's too powerful/too weak with it, but other units are fine, literally all it takes to adjust that one unit but no others is an Errata saying "This unit no longer has this USR. Instead, it has [DIFFERENT RULE]."

The ENTIRE. BLOOMING. POINT. of USR's is to eliminate special snowflake rules. USRs don't work when you then have to give everyone a slightly different rule because the USR is too good or bad on the unit. It's one of the reasons why USR's don't work.

Yeah, that's actually what resulted in 7th ed.
GW wanted to give units slightly different USR, which resulted in a bloated mess.

If you want USR, either keep it simple and consistent (which is what I recommend), or introduce grades of USR (like FNP 6+, FNP 5+)
The problem of everything having a bespoke rule is that it its actually harder to keep track of and forget things.

Its easier to flub the rules if every unit in the army has some different variation of the same rule. Consistency is good in both game design and programming.

Gotta add that complexity without adding depth. It’s all the rage @GW these days.

 oni wrote:
No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

And that's a great thing, assuming GW did that.

HOWEVER, they're lazy and only do point adjustments to try and balance units now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 oni wrote:
No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

And that's a great thing, assuming GW did that.

HOWEVER, they're lazy and only do point adjustments to try and balance units now.

Those were really funny looking points changes for Ynnari and Guilliman.

As usual, GW did it best in lotr. There they introduced USRs when they abandoned them in their other systems. Units can have USRs and sometimes they have a bespoke rule. however, Lotr keeps its profiles usually simpler, it's less complex than 40K, but tactically much deeper. Most units have 1 special rule or none, their differences come from profiles and equipment. And it's also possible to have a hobbit militia and a Mumak in that game and both are viable choices. What I'm saying is, there are people at GW that are capable of writing concise rules and well defined special rules, but I'm not sure if they're working on 40K...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 oni wrote:
No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

And that's a great thing, assuming GW did that.

HOWEVER, they're lazy and only do point adjustments to try and balance units now.

Those were really funny looking points changes for Ynnari and Guilliman.

Roboute was more an exception to the rule, and the other was a full on reboot so I wouldn't count that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 oni wrote:
No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

And that's a great thing, assuming GW did that.

HOWEVER, they're lazy and only do point adjustments to try and balance units now.

Those were really funny looking points changes for Ynnari and Guilliman.

Those were entirely new datasheets, how would them USRs in previous datasheets prevent a new datasheet from having bespoke rules? Why wasn't Guilliman's datasheet changed a month into Indexhammer? How would USRs prevent GW from replacing Infiltrate with Deep Strike for Craftworld Rangers?

Why isn't ws called cs in codex Necrons? After all, it's not their weapon skill, it's their coded skill. Why not replace toughness with durability for vehicles and endurance for monsters? Why have any terms at all? Why even use the same dice between factions? AdMech should use D2s because they love binary and Necrons should use D12s because that's the number of Warriors in a box, Drukhari and Daemons use D6 because they are evil like the Devil. That would make each faction feel truly unique and would ensure balance never becomes an option. They could also print rules for terrain for each individual faction, that would allow them to fix terrain for Marines, one faction at a time.

 vict0988 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 oni wrote:
No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

And that's a great thing, assuming GW did that.

HOWEVER, they're lazy and only do point adjustments to try and balance units now.

Those were really funny looking points changes for Ynnari and Guilliman.

Those were entirely new datasheets, how would them USRs in previous datasheets prevent a new datasheet from having bespoke rules? Why wasn't Guilliman's datasheet changed a month into Indexhammer? How would USRs prevent GW from replacing Infiltrate with Deep Strike for Craftworld Rangers?

Why isn't ws called cs in codex Necrons? After all, it's not their weapon skill, it's their coded skill. Why not replace toughness with durability for vehicles and endurance for monsters? Why have any terms at all? Why even use the same dice between factions? AdMech should use D2s because they love binary and Necrons should use D12s because that's the number of Warriors in a box, Drukhari and Daemons use D6 because they are evil like the Devil. That would make each faction feel truly unique and would ensure balance never becomes an option. They could also print rules for terrain for each individual faction, that would allow them to fix terrain for Marines, one faction at a time.

This nightmare seems plausible given the current trajectory of “why the f**k not?” , when it comes to rules writing at GW.

That is only fine though, if you get a good set of rules. When GW makes csm 2.0 and their anwser to why, is why the feth not, it kind of a lowers the moral of people playing the game for the future.

If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.

It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.

Tyran wrote:
If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.

It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.

Melta and the way GW is going a short version of 6s cause MW would probably end up worthwhile.

pm713 wrote:

Tyran wrote:
If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.

It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.

Melta and the way GW is going a short version of 6s cause MW would probably end up worthwhile.

Melta is not an universal rule, it is a gun that not everyone has.

As for 6s cause MW, also not something everyone has and it has a few variations.

pm713 wrote:

Tyran wrote:
If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.

It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.

Melta and the way GW is going a short version of 6s cause MW would probably end up worthwhile.

I think melta is a very good example of something that shouldn't be a USR - very few weapons actually have that rule, and quite a few armies don't even have meltas, and little is gained from generalizing such a niche ability. It's pretty much perfect where it is now.

GK have a fly rule that isn't fly on one unit.

Karol wrote:
GK have a fly rule that isn't fly on one unit.

Which provides a good example of why USR are a good thing. There's no good reason why that unit (Interceptors, I assume?) couldn't just be given the Fly USR. Sure, it may not perfectly represent their teleport shenanigans but it's close enough and has the huge benefit of being instantly understood by everyone.

Karol wrote:
GK have a fly rule that isn't fly on one unit.

what unit?

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:
GK have a fly rule that isn't fly on one unit.

Which provides a good example of why USR are a good thing. There's no good reason why that unit (Interceptors, I assume?) couldn't just be given the Fly USR. Sure, it may not perfectly represent their teleport shenanigans but it's close enough and has the huge benefit of being instantly understood by everyone.

FLY is already pretty much an USR. It being an actual USR would change nothing.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
GK have a fly rule that isn't fly on one unit.

what unit?

interceptors. they move if they were flying. but they can't do the disengage and shot thing other fly units can perform. [obligatory can't have GK stuff too good rant].

Pancakey wrote:
Gotta add that complexity without adding depth. It’s all the rage @GW these days.

Yep, having to remember one rule might have slightly different number than another rule is such a pain!

How about we kill that dumb 'complexity without adding depth' in other areas too: I vote for replacing all these silly bolters, lasguns, fleshborers etc with new USG: Light Gun (wounds on 5+, no AP), Medium Gun (wounds on 4+, -1 AP), Heavy Gun (wounds on 3+, -2 AP). There, needless complexity solved!

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
GK have a fly rule that isn't fly on one unit.

what unit?

interceptors. they move if they were flying. but they can't do the disengage and shot thing other fly units can perform. [obligatory can't have GK stuff too good rant].

Yeah, it's not like they were given something much more powerful in return, ability to deep strike from table anywhere you want, an extremely rare and potent ability. Oh wait...

 Jidmah wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Tyran wrote:
If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.

It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.

Melta and the way GW is going a short version of 6s cause MW would probably end up worthwhile.

I think melta is a very good example of something that shouldn't be a USR - very few weapons actually have that rule, and quite a few armies don't even have meltas, and little is gained from generalizing such a niche ability. It's pretty much perfect where it is now.

But almost all armies have a version of it. I don't really see it as niche when almost everyone has it.

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Tyran wrote:
If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.

It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.

Melta and the way GW is going a short version of 6s cause MW would probably end up worthwhile.

I think melta is a very good example of something that shouldn't be a USR - very few weapons actually have that rule, and quite a few armies don't even have meltas, and little is gained from generalizing such a niche ability. It's pretty much perfect where it is now.

But almost all armies have a version of it. I don't really see it as niche when almost everyone has it.

It's still just two guns (melta&multimelta) across hundreds of imperial dataslates - what's the point of unifying that? And far as I know, craftworld eldar and tau are the only factions that have access to melta outside of imperium and former imperium.

Also it is not the only Damage rule. Making it an USR would mean making all those other Damage rules USR and that is going to get confusing fast.

I don't think that we need USRs just because a rules concept is utilized in slight variations across many units. However, I think we do need a few more 'keyword' concepts utilized in the rules. Too many concepts are applied via inference rather than explicit reference.

Let's take Reinforcements for an example. There are many ways that units become subject to the Reinforcement rules, but the rule that makes that happen never actually tell you so. Instead, you need to infer that a rule applies. Wouldn't it be vastly better if it was explicitly stated? You could do the same for Reserves. With proper wording of those two rules you'd go from:

Ariel Drop: During deployment, you can set this unit in a high-altitude transport, ready to deploy via grab-chute, instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the end of any of your Movement phases the unit can make an ariel drop - set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from enemy models.

To a more rules concise:

Ariel Drop: During deployment, this unit goes into Reserves in a high-altitude transport, ready to deploy via grab-chute, instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the end of any of your Movement phases this unit can be set up as Reinforcements anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" away from enemy models.

This gives a more concise rules while still allowing for unique rules on the data sheet. It's not like there are not a number of these concepts hiding in the rules already (Fly, Aircraft, Weapon Types, Character, Heroic Intervention).

Basically, we don't need to drain the character from the rules in favor of USRs, we need to codify reoccurring concepts in the rules so that you always know when and how to apply them correctly.

Concepts that definitely would benefit are:
Aura
Bodyguard and Intercept Hit
Ignore Damage (aka Feel No Pain)
Reinforcements
Reserves

Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.

Andykp wrote:
Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.

What you don't like having to consult three books to understand one rule?

Legit what kept me from starting a chaos army in 7th. Bought all the books, test painted a few minis... could NOT be assed with juggling three books to understand one rule.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.

What you don't like having to consult three books to understand one rule?

Legit what kept me from starting a chaos army in 7th. Bought all the books, test painted a few minis... could NOT be assed with juggling three books to understand one rule.

Like you do now?

Hell, just to build a list, you might have to consult your Codex, Chapter Approved, and FAQs (all for JUST POINTS COSTS). Then we get into the mess that is the actual rules FAQs...

 JNAProductions wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.

What you don't like having to consult three books to understand one rule?

Legit what kept me from starting a chaos army in 7th. Bought all the books, test painted a few minis... could NOT be assed with juggling three books to understand one rule.

Like you do now?

Hell, just to build a list, you might have to consult your Codex, Chapter Approved, and FAQs (all for JUST POINTS COSTS). Then we get into the mess that is the actual rules FAQs...

Meanwhile when you run an FW index army......

 Irbis wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Gotta add that complexity without adding depth. It’s all the rage @GW these days.

Yep, having to remember one rule might have slightly different number than another rule is such a pain!

How about we kill that dumb 'complexity without adding depth' in other areas too: I vote for replacing all these silly bolters, lasguns, fleshborers etc with new USG: Light Gun (wounds on 5+, no AP), Medium Gun (wounds on 4+, -1 AP), Heavy Gun (wounds on 3+, -2 AP). There, needless complexity solved!

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious. But, it is a pain when they are mechanically very similar.

This is a false equivalency. Having 5 slightly different versions of something like Feel No Pain, that could easily be Feel No Pain (X) or Ignore Wounds (X) for efficiency, is not the same as distilling all of the weapons currently in the game into 3 very bland and boring ones. There is another path that is neither "bespoke" but-not-really rules bloat or extreme simplification.