What USR's are Redundant?

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.

**godardc**

I do think that more USR are good for the game.
If there are less rules, there are less diversity and less tactics.

**Trasvi**

Thats why chess has trivial tactics. Not many special rules....

The presence of USRs is a good thing. If a rule is possibly going to be used in more than one book, it should be printed in the main rulebook. If you get hung up on the idea that not every single army has ATSKNF, just think of them as 'Common Special Rules' instead.

Having the rules in common makes it much easier to play against other armies. So when I come up against Space Wolves, they can say "this weapon has Shred and Rending" which everyone instantly knows about, instead of saying "this weapon has wolfsbane which is blah blah".

There are a ton of special rules and USRs that could be merged though. Sure you might lose out in some cases on a tiny bit of variation, but IMO the benefits would be massive.
One of my biggest peeves with this is weapons that confer a special rule. Eg a weapon that confers Rampage would have a special rule "Killyness" which says "The bearer has Rampage". Why not just have a tag such as "Bearer[Ramage]". Done, and it makes summary pages a hell of a lot easier to read through.

Similarly, the difference between Zealot and Hatred. Why not just have a tag such as "Confer[Hatred]" which denotes that a normally model-only special rule goes to the whole squad?

Ordnance vs Tank Hunter is one. Yes, ordnance very very slightly better in the edge where an Tank Hunter weapon may want to risk losing a Glance for a shot at Penetrating... but is that difference really enough that anyone would seriously miss it, if it meant speeding up the game?

And the biggest one for me is movement rules. We can deal with every model having every single other part of their profile detailed specifically for them, movement can fit on there too. It would let you get rid of the multitude of "this unit is fast, but in a slightly different way of being fast than X other unit, even though they're the same speed".

**Lanrak**

@Trasvi.
With thinking like that you will end up writing well defined intutive rules that cover the current game play in a fraction of the pages, and only need special rules for things that are actually special.(Just like all the other good rule sets out there.)

And who wants well defined easy to play and learn rules that cost a fraction of the price, and deliver more tactical depth?

**Slayer-Fan123**

I wouldn't get rid of Zealot simply because it IS doing something than just Fearless and Hatred.

Plus it is such a legacy rule.

**kingbobbito**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Guard don't have Slow and Purposeful, Blind, or Soul Blaze either, so they aren't universal.

Excuse me!? I believe you'll find that Knight Commander Pask's incandescent plasma blast alternate fire of the executioner has the Blind rule!

EDIT: And primaris psykers can take pyromancy, aka soul blaze.

**Unit1126PLL**

Ordnance has effects on the model firing it which Tank Hunter lacks. Ordnance and Tank Hunter also stack, but of course Tank Hunter and Tank Hunter doesn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kingbobbito wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Guard don't have Slow and Purposeful, Blind, or Soul Blaze either, so they aren't universal.
Excuse me!? I believe you'll find that Knight Commander Pask's incandescent plasma blast alternate fire of the executioner has the Blind rule!

EDIT: And primaris psykers can take pyromancy, aka soul blaze.

True true. Soul Blaze isn't in the codex anywhere - the words are not in it.

**MagicJuggler**

Making rules have qualifiers/prefixes would be neat admittedly, like how Warmachine does it.

Model has Hit and Run.
A character with Granted: Hit and Run gives Hit and Run to all models in his unit.
A character with Leadership: Hit and Run gives Hit and Run to all units in a 12" bubble or so.

**Table**

Waaaghpower wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
Any Non-Saving-Throw saving-throw [Feel No Pain, Reanimation Protocols] could be removed and replaced with +1 toughness, depending on model. For example, a typical Necron Warrior is wounded by a Bolter hit 1/8 times.

If you gave them +1 Toughness, they'd be wounded 1/6 times, and save an extra roll. You could instead bump the toughness boost to +2... which would mean a 1/12 casualty, but better odds to kill with dedicated weaponry like Plasma.

Plasma currently wounds a Necron Warrior 5/12 times [42%] ... standing in the open. If you instead gave them +2 T, they would be wounded 2/3 times [67%]. In my mind, that keeps them hard as nails to kill with Anti-Infantry guns, but still lets them get wrecked by a Battle Cannon, you know?

That pretty drastically changes the game, though. A model with multiple stacked saves but low Toughness performs very differently against high-strength weaponry than it will against low-strength high-volume-of-fire weaponry. If you want to drop special saves and just give bonuses to Toughness, that also causes conflicts with many special rules which confer bonuses to units that don't normally get it - Are Ork Boyz now going to be T5 if you attach a Painboy, and Bikers gonna be T6? Are Iron Hands going to get +1 Toughness base to represent their 6+ FNP, and then that bonus increases if they have other sources to improve it?
You mention that it'd be 1/6th of the time instead of 1/8th of the time as though it's no big deal, but it's those small changes in odds and variables, with modifiers to keep things fresh, that make the game interesting.

Armourbane vs Melta.

I sort of agree, but since Melta has certain rules which counter it, and is somewhat weaker, I think the difference is fine.

Poison vs Fleshbane.

Even more than Armourbane and Melta, these two are very different. 2+ FNP rarely exists, but FNP can grant re-rolls to wound for high Strength models, so taking a poisoned weapon on a model like a Daemon Prince can pay off in spades.

Master Crafted vs Twin-Linked vs Re-roll To Hit... come up with one rule for it and call it a day. "Accurate".

Except that all of these function differently. Master Crafted gives one re-roll, Twin Linked gives rerolls on shooting, other sources of Re-rolls to hit often have their own little modifiers. (For example, if Prescience gave the Twin-linked rules instead of Re-rolls to Hit, then it would make any Flamers it gets cast on far more powerful.) There are some redundant sources of rerolls that don't have any real reason to exist separately, but the two actual rules that you list both have separate and specific reasons to exist.

Shred vs... Tank Hunter? Come up with one rule called "Deadly".

Except that those both target different types of units. Shred doesn't work against vehicles, Tank Hunter doesn't work against infantry. (And in case you want to bring it up, Monster Hunter only works against MCs and GMCs, so it also has a reason to be separate from Shred.)

Necron Entropic Strike vs Gauss. Just call it "Disintegration".

Fair enough, I suppose.

Get rid of "Instant Death". Replace with a rule that certain weapons inflict multiple wounds [to the model] if unsaved. Call it "Smite" or something. Smite could even have a value. For example, a Power Fist has Smite 2, while a Thunder Hammer has Smite 3.

Except that this doesn't take into account how tough the target is - A Great Unclean One isn't going to care much about the Power Fist that's hitting him, but a Commisar sure will. Not to mention that some weapons (especially Melee weapons) change drastically in power level based off of who's wielding them - A Guardsman who's been hit with Enfeeble will be doing less damage with a Power Fist than a regular Space Marine with a Power Axe, but by your rule then the Power Fist would still be causing more wounds than the axe.
'Instant Death' exists to represent models getting hit by an attack so overpowered against them that it gibs them into tiny bits. That's why it scales - Certain creatures gib at different levels. That scaling is important to make balance interesting. (Otherwise, there'd be no reason to take high-toughness multi-wound models, since they're just going to go down to Smite in one hit anyways.)

Remove the Ordnance Rule.

Why? It changes the guns that it is given to dramatically. It's not redundant in the slightest.

Combine all Fearless, Stubborn, ATSKNF, etc rules into one rule called "Discipline", or some such. This ability allows the unit to reroll a failed morale check. Done.

So... Take a half dozen rules of various power levels and applications, nerf nearly all of them to the point of being almost useless, and then fuse them into a single rule? Yeah, that sounds like a terrible idea. (Just from the three you listed: Fearless offers small drawbacks and makes the unit who has it slightly more vulnerable, but offers massive protection against Leadership based issues. ATSKNF is slightly weaker and you can occasionally break and run, but it offers great utility, and Stubborn is fairly weak, but makes many units far better in Close Combat since they no longer break easily after losing a fight, making it great for bogging down enemies.)

Movement enhancing abilities / effects, like fleet, or running, or Imperial Guard Orders, or whatever. This unit has +3" movement [until end of turn, if applicable].

Again, you're boiling down many different units with variable effects into a single, weaker rule. Fleet offers the ability to run better, but it also can give a more reliable charge instead, giving tactical decisions and choices to make for the controlling player. You seem to like taking strategy and complexity out of the game.

Get rid of Snap Shots. They're bs. Let the Tau keep overwatch, as it's kind of their thing.

I'd be sort of okay with this in theory, but only if all of the rules were re-set to how they worked in 5th edition. Too many rules interact heavily with Snap Shots - Without them, Fliers become impossible to deal with for many armies, and as with so many of your other """fixes""", it takes versatility and decision making away from many, many armies. Also, it very drastically changes how powerful Melee armies will be, and while that's not inherently a bad thing, it does throw a lot of balance way out of whack.

Get rid of Invisibility. It's bs.

No arguments here, though it's not really 'Redundant' so much as it is 'Poorly thought out and overpowered'.

pretty much this.

**greatbigtree**

In my previous post, I did also include non-redundant items.

I included them as, in my opinion, they add complexity to the game without adding value to the gaming experience. The core tactics of 40k, and tactics are involved, could be made deeper through simplification of the seemingly endless randomization variables present. While not "redundant" I'd say they're pointless, deserving of streamlining.

For example, the core rules of chess are that you set up your pieces in a defined pattern on an 8x8 board. If you move you piece on top of an opposing piece, you remove that piece. By moving your pieces, you want to set up a situation in which the opponent's King piece will be captured in the next move, regardless of what your opponent does.

There are now 6 "special" rules, defining how each piece moves, a special rule for a Pawn's first move, another for allowing capture of a Pawn on first move, and one additional special rule detailing "Castling" your King. 9 special rules total, in addition to 3 basic core rules.

Admittedly, Chess isn't a tactical game, but a strategy game, but the point stands. Needless complication doesn't make a better game. Having meaningful choices makes for a better game. A tactical game requires a certain amount of randomization [To create situations of unexpected failure / success] but taken too far it becomes a "cinematic" game, in which the game mostly resolves itself through randomization, rather than meaningful input from the player. I feel 40k is currently in that situation, and that removal of some randomization outside of combat resolution is required to put it back into a tactical game category.

Anyhow, I can see how some people don't like removing items like various Ld enhancing characteristics. I honestly don't find Ld to be important ENOUGH right now, so I'd like to see a removal of those items wholesale. Or remove Ld wholesale. Does anyone except Orks, IG, and Tau even worry about Ld? Orks are the only army I can think of that would, in the course of a typical game, fail a morale check due to shooting in a situation where it would impact the game. Similarly, IG and Tau are going to be beaten in close combat, so why worry about a mechanic that simply makes them die in one turn instead of two? I'd like to see a "nerfing" of various Ld boosts, to bring back the tactical value of Ld effecting abilities.

I'm 100% on board with returning to a movement characteristic. My logic behind giving a flat boost to movement was to continue to allow random movement through difficult terrain, but with a modifier. Instead, one could institute a movement characteristic, and have moving through cover "reduce" your movement by the lesser of 2 dice, or a flat -2" modifier... lots of ways to do it. I was just trying to suggest something that would work with current rules.

A blanket rule allowing a reroll to hit is simpler than multiple variations of it.

A blanket rule allowing a reroll to damage is simpler than multiple variations of it.

There are many means to simplify 40k.

**Lanrak**

@greatbigtree.
Do you think one of the ways 40k could be simplified would be to use stats that actually cover the in game interaction better?

I believe that a re-write using the core concepts of 40k, and the tactical choices presented in 2nd ed.
Tweeked slightly to cover the expected current game play would reduce the need for special rules significantly. (EG just used for actual special abilities, not stuff that is just slightly different.)

This sort of project would get rid of all USRs, and just leave core rules and a few special rules.(EG would be like other good rule sets.)

Example of what new special rules could be.
Chemical weapons ignore targets bonuses from cover.
Chain edged weapons re roll '1s' to wound.
Master crafted weapons re rolls '1s' to hit.

This way some weapons/units could use multiple 'special rules' if needed.

Would you be interested in this sort of project?

**Waaaghpower**

greatbigtree wrote:
In my previous post, I did also include non-redundant items.

I included them as, in my opinion, they add complexity to the game without adding value to the gaming experience. The core tactics of 40k, and tactics are involved, could be made deeper through simplification of the seemingly endless randomization variables present. While not "redundant" I'd say they're pointless, deserving of streamlining.

For example, the core rules of chess are that you set up your pieces in a defined pattern on an 8x8 board. If you move you piece on top of an opposing piece, you remove that piece. By moving your pieces, you want to set up a situation in which the opponent's King piece will be captured in the next move, regardless of what your opponent does.

There are now 6 "special" rules, defining how each piece moves, a special rule for a Pawn's first move, another for allowing capture of a Pawn on first move, and one additional special rule detailing "Castling" your King. 9 special rules total, in addition to 3 basic core rules.

Admittedly, Chess isn't a tactical game, but a strategy game, but the point stands. Needless complication doesn't make a better game. Having meaningful choices makes for a better game. A tactical game requires a certain amount of randomization [To create situations of unexpected failure / success] but taken too far it becomes a "cinematic" game, in which the game mostly resolves itself through randomization, rather than meaningful input from the player. I feel 40k is currently in that situation, and that removal of some randomization outside of combat resolution is required to put it back into a tactical game category.

As you point out, Chess is a strategy game. It is nothing like 40k, other than that it is a game played with pieces on a board. Chess has no Meta, it will never receive an update to its rules, it's impossible to win a game of chess on luck. Chess has no deployment, no army building options, and no units which are better against other units. (A pawn will always be as good as a pawn, no matter who you're using it on.) This is just a crappy metaphor, because if you want 40k to be like Chess, then you... Well, you probably shouldn't be playing 40k.

Anyhow, I can see how some people don't like removing items like various Ld enhancing characteristics. I honestly don't find Ld to be important ENOUGH right now, so I'd like to see a removal of those items wholesale. Or remove Ld wholesale. Does anyone except Orks, IG, and Tau even worry about Ld? Orks are the only army I can think of that would, in the course of a typical game, fail a morale check due to shooting in a situation where it would impact the game. Similarly, IG and Tau are going to be beaten in close combat, so why worry about a mechanic that simply makes them die in one turn instead of two? I'd like to see a "nerfing" of various Ld boosts, to bring back the tactical value of Ld effecting abilities.

That's fair enough. I don't think those Leadership boosts should be removed, though, I just think that the stronger ones should be handed out more sparingly. (There are several armies with universal Fearless, and if we include ATSKNF into the mix, then about half the armies in the game ignore Fear and many other leadership-based attacks. Weakening ATSKNF just a bit and making Fearless harder to get would be all the solution we need, not removing those special rules wholesale.

I'm 100% on board with returning to a movement characteristic. My logic behind giving a flat boost to movement was to continue to allow random movement through difficult terrain, but with a modifier. Instead, one could institute a movement characteristic, and have moving through cover "reduce" your movement by the lesser of 2 dice, or a flat -2" modifier... lots of ways to do it. I was just trying to suggest something that would work with current rules.

This could be interesting with a heavy rewrite of the 40k rules, but I don't know if it would be better. Having a static 6" move, with fast things going 12", and charges being capped at 12", is a pretty core part of the 40k rules - Even basic deployment is built with this in mind, because as it currently stands, it makes first-turn assaults from normal deployment impossible unless you use some kind of special rule or shenanigans. If some units just get blanket faster movement instead of Fleet or whatever else there is available, then that would also throw basic deployment and movement rules entirely out of whack.

A blanket rule allowing a reroll to hit is simpler than multiple variations of it.

A blanket rule allowing a reroll to damage is simpler than multiple variations of it.

There are many means to simplify 40k.

In these cases, 'Simpler' doesn't always mean 'Better'. A blanket rule allowing rerolls to hit is simple, but doesn't take into account the many, many differences that all the unique rules get. (Re-rolling 1s, re-rolling in challenges, re-rolling against certain targets, re-rolling only once per attack, re-rolling only against models with a Toughness or Armor value but not both, re-rolling only if your Strength is higher than their Toughness... I could go on.)

**greatbigtree**

Lanrak wrote:
@greatbigtree.
Do you think one of the ways 40k could be simplified would be to use stats that actually cover the in game interaction better?

I believe that a re-write using the core concepts of 40k, and the tactical choices presented in 2nd ed.
Tweeked slightly to cover the expected current game play would reduce the need for special rules significantly. (EG just used for actual special abilities, not stuff that is just slightly different.)

This sort of project would get rid of all USRs, and just leave core rules and a few special rules.(EG would be like other good rule sets.)

Example of what new special rules could be.
Chemical weapons ignore targets bonuses from cover.
Chain edged weapons re roll '1s' to wound.
Master crafted weapons re rolls '1s' to hit.

This way some weapons/units could use multiple 'special rules' if needed.

Would you be interested in this sort of project?

Pretty much, yes. I really dislike the reroll 1's approach. That's just me. I'd rather see a +1 to hit, rather than rerolling dice all the time. I swear GW's concept of a good game is rolling 3 or more sets of dice to determine each action.

Yes, I'd rather see single rolls with a modifier replace multiple rolls including rerolls. Of course, you'd probably need to switch to a d10 or d12 base...

**Trasvi**

Having different variations on re-rolls allows GW extra granularity on how good they can make things, instead of having every single thing in the game step in 16% increments.

Eg: Bs3 = 50% to hit. BS3 with re-rolls = 75%. BS4 = 66%. BS3 re-roll 1's = 58%.

As you say, you could solve that issue by moving to a different dice size or combat resolution system. Or you could get rid of the problem entirely by saying the extra complexity/time added by granularity is not worth it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
As you point out, Chess is a strategy game. It is nothing like 40k, other than that it is a game played with pieces on a board. Chess has no Meta, it will never receive an update to its rules

Obviously you weren't around for the vertical castling nerf of '72.

**Backspacehacker**

Slow and purposeful vs relentless.

Honestly just make it one rule most units that have SaP don't even manage to get in charge range so screw it.

**Galef**

Fleshbane should just be Poison 2+, with the caveat that GMCs are only -1 to the Posion roll rather that a straight '6'

Melta, Armourbane and Tank Hunters could be condensed somehow into 2 rules instead of 3. Maybe just make Melta be Armourbane and cut out the half-range nonsense.

For Eldar:
Monofilament should just be Rending. Adjust the strength of the weapons accordingly.
Bladestorm should just be Shred.
Fire Dragons' Assured Destruction should just go away and the Exarch grant Tank Hunters.

-

**Kap'n Krump**

The only truly redundant USR I can think of are 'primary' and 'ordnance' weapons.

They mean the exact same thing - roll 2D6, pick highest, for armor penetration.

Primary weapons are only, generally, on superheavies, which completely ignore ordnance negative effects, so I really have no idea why they made a primary weapon designation.

**Crazyterran**

Zealot. It's literally just two other rules.

**Stormonu**

Thanks for the responses so far.

Just to note, the version I'm working on uses a Movement stat, so I am dropping some movement based rules like Fleet, Battle Focus and the like. Also, I've introduced a Size stat, so things like Bulky, Extra Bulky and the like can be removed as rules.

As I'm thinking about it, how many rules are "combined" USRs? What I mean is, they are two (or more) USRs rolled into one? For example, Zealot - which is literally Fearless and Hatred. One of the things I hate the most is to go look up a USR, only to be referred to another group of USRs - which may in turn refer to another USR...

**nareik**

Zealot is hatred and fearless that is conferred to the unit. Hatred doesn't normally share.

Perhaps, as suggested above, you could assume a pre-fix system to designate exactly who the special rule applies to?

**Matt.Kingsley**

Not only that but in 7th they removed Zealot referring to Fearless and Hatred and just wrote it all out under the entry... which technically makes non-morale based effects that don't work on Fearless models work on Zealots.

**nareik**

Hah! I had not considered that!

**CrownAxe**

nareik wrote:
Zealot is hatred and fearless that is conferred to the unit. Hatred doesn't normally share.

Perhaps, as suggested above, you could assume a pre-fix system to designate exactly who the special rule applies to?

Hatred does normally share

**Matt.Kingsley**

CrownAxe wrote:
nareik wrote:
Zealot is hatred and fearless that is conferred to the unit. Hatred doesn't normally share.

Perhaps, as suggested above, you could assume a pre-fix system to designate exactly who the special rule applies to?

Hatred does normally share

No it doesn't.
Preferred Enemy does but Hatred does not.