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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Snip

Oh man, my bad. I thought you wanted to ask a question not just complain and pat yourself on the back for having figured everything out.

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Snip

Oh man, my bad. I thought you wanted to ask a question not just complain and pat yourself on the back for having figured everything out.

Alright, explain to me this: What are the problems with USRs? You can't say that it causes issues when multiple units have one rule, since it's incredibly easy to errata the rule to be removed and replaced with a similar but weaker/stronger rule to make it more appropriate.

In addition, if you'll look at my exact words, I was recommending something like Deep Strike (9"), where the base USR is the same but the exact details can vary. I'd honestly prefer a set of simple, clear USRs for a lot of stuff.

Like, for instance, Khorne's units could get Charge Bonus (+1 Strength), whereas Wraithblades could get Charge Bonus (+1 Attack). I was gonna use the Red Thirst as an example, actually, but I realized that's more than just on the charge, so they can probably get a bespoke rule without it being a bother.

By not having USR's, you can change ONE of the rules when it turns out something doesn't quite work, and not have to worry about how it affects 19 other units.

You could do that anyway even with the inclusion of USR's.

You create USR's to eliminate the need to copy/paste common rules. This makes everything neat and orderly and centralizes all main rules into one general area, rather than scattering rules all over the place. Then, if you see fit, you could add an additional special rule under the unit card specifically designed for that unit.

This method has worked fine for decades. The only issue is that 7th ed. had many redundant special rules that could have been stripped down. Not eliminate USR's completely. This is a perfect example of swinging the pendulum way too far in the opposite direction.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

By not having USR's, you can change ONE of the rules when it turns out something doesn't quite work, and not have to worry about how it affects 19 other units.

You could do that anyway even with the inclusion of USR's.

You create USR's to eliminate the need to copy/paste common rules. This makes everything neat and orderly and centralizes all main rules into one general area, rather than scattering rules all over the place. Then, if you see fit, you could add an additional special rule under the unit card specifically designed for that unit.

This method has worked fine for decades. The only issue is that 7th ed. had many redundant special rules that could have been stripped down. Not eliminated completely.

Agreed here. Missile Lock, for instance, was used on, what? One unit? And five other units had similar, but not quite the same, rules?

I think you could get away with a dozen or less USRs, but using SOME would make the game easier to fully understand.

USR such as the ones in the BRB would be easy to learn if you trim them down to eliminate redundancy and have a neat reference sheet for what they do. That user made 40k reference sheet is roughly 4 pages front and back of info and basically explains most of the rules for 7th edition (not just USRs but most of the game's core mechanics) so its not impossible to keep a more complex rule set and keep it easy access for newer players to learn.

MtG has multiple universal rules that they use and it doesn't stop new people from becoming tragic addicts... I mean playing the game. Honestly one of the best things about USRs is that a unit entry can be loaded up with rules and not have to fill the entire entry up with lengthy explications about how melta, relentless, fearless, deep strike, etc works because its all there in the BRB and if you understand what deep strike does as an Ork player then you know what it does for Tau, Space Marines, Eldar, etc.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Why were they trying to avoid having the same names for the same rules?

because some rules are worth way more on some models than others. Rerolling 1's is worth a lot on space marines, but not so much on orks. A +1 to toughness is worth a lot more to a terminator than it is to a 5 man guardsman squad. Re-rolling charge distance is worth way more on a trygon than it is for telion.

By not having USR's, you can change ONE of the rules when it turns out something doesn't quite work, and not have to worry about how it affects 19 other units.

That would mean more IF THEY HAD DONE THAT. But they didn't.

In addition, let me put it this way-let's say that we have a USR for rerolling charges, called Furious. All Orks have that USR normally, as do Wulfen, Fenrisian Wolves, Cyberwolves, Black Templars, etc.

BUT! They find that Furious is too strong on, say, Wulfen. So they want to change it to only let them reroll a SINGLE die on the charge, rather than both.

Here's what they do in an errata:

Wulfen no longer have the Furious rule. Instead, they have the rule Fleet of Foot, which has the following effect:

Whenever a unit with this rule makes a charge roll, it may reroll a single one of the dice used in that roll.

Boom, bam, done. They fixed one unit without borking up any others.

And there's another big advantage to this method - if Furious needs to be amended for some reason then they can do it with a single errata instead of fixing every datasheet that has it (which probably leaves FW and index-only units with the old version).

AOS "had to remove points because points are bad"

40k "had to remove USRs because USRs are bad"

There seems to be a disconnect between GW and the players!

Pancakey wrote:
AOS "had to remove points because points are bad"

40k "had to remove USRs because USRs are bad"

There seems to be a disconnect between GW and the players!

I think we can both agree that the fan reaction to AOS and 8th edition 40k were two entirely different kettles of fish.

Pancakey wrote:
AOS "had to remove points because points are bad"

40k "had to remove USRs because USRs are bad"

There seems to be a disconnect between GW and the players!

There sometimes are. But 9 out of 10 players prefer 8th to 7th. It is simply a vastly superior edition.

Hatachi wrote:

I'm not saying that it is balanced. I'm saying that it's about as balanced as I expect the first edition of a very knew take on the rules to be.

But this falls flat in head by edition changes in 40k never being just tiny changes but sweeping changes. And ditto for codexes. They don't do gradual changes toward better balance but complete reshuffles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pismakron wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
AOS "had to remove points because points are bad"

40k "had to remove USRs because USRs are bad"

There seems to be a disconnect between GW and the players!

There sometimes are. But 9 out of 10 players prefer 8th to 7th. It is simply a vastly superior edition.

Based on what?

And vastly superior in terms of what? Not in logical rules, tactical possibilities or balance.

There is still and always has been many people moaning about pages and pages of ‘redundant USRs’ that ‘do exactly the same thing as another rule’. I’ve never understood this. As far as I’m aware, the only truly redundant rule in 7th was Zealot, which was the same as having the Hatred and Fearless USRs. And even then they may actually be slightly different, since I don’t think Hatred was passed from Independent Character to the unit, but Zealot was?

Aside from that, there were groups of USRs - for example Monstrous Creature or Primarch types being shorthand ways of saying ‘it has USRs x, y and z’.

If redundant or copied USRs were so common in 7th, surely somebody could easily give me half a dozen examples? Because I’m struggling to think of many.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Alright, explain to me this:

No thanks; you don't want to actually talk about this. You're just looking for someone to rail against because you've made up your mind already.

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Alright, explain to me this:

No thanks; you don't want to actually talk about this. You're just looking for someone to rail against because you've made up your mind already.

I'm perfectly willing to listen. And even if you believe I'm not, explaining your position more fully would help other people understand.

If you aren't able to explain your position, I'm pretty much forced to believe that you CANNOT explain it.

I’m a bit torn on the whole USR thing. They’re a great idea in theory, but like everything else can become a mess. See 7th edition 40k. Also, I think it’s hard to say good/bad in a general sense. Some games handle them differently.

KoW and Bolt Action treats them largely like GW does, except they’re generally simple additions to an already simple rule set, so they work more smoothly. Additionally most units have one or two, the other differences being handled by stats.

Runewars and the upcoming Legion tabletop games have several USRs that scale. So a unit can have Brutal (n), n being a numerical value.

USRs seem like a great idea, but I think when you have almost every single unit and weapon in a game using a “special” rule, the problem might be that your underlying core rules just aren’t capable of handling the kind of game you’ve made. Things get complicated but don’t really add anything to the mechanics. This was the issue I believe 7th ran into, and 8th seems headed to.

Conversely, it’s entirely possible to make a completely functioning game practically devoid of complicated rules but you run the risk of it feeling very bland. This is largely how I feel about KoW.

Somewhere in the middle is the perfect game... but I’ve yet to see it!

 JNAProductions wrote:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Alright, explain to me this:

No thanks; you don't want to actually talk about this. You're just looking for someone to rail against because you've made up your mind already.

I'm perfectly willing to listen. And even if you believe I'm not, explaining your position more fully would help other people understand.

If you aren't able to explain your position, I'm pretty much forced to believe that you CANNOT explain it.

Fine; You say that USR's are fine, because if something is broke, the nit can be tweaked on that card rather than across the board. Well then you end up with 2 USR's that have different applications. Your guys and my guys might both have furious charge, but suddenly we need to stop and double check which furious charge. You start wanting to have a few select simple USR's and then by the end of it you end up with 9 pages of them and the vast majority are no longer relevant. Keeping it 'bespoke' and on the sheets means me (an ork player) and my buddy (an eldar player) don't have to wade through a bunch of rules that apply to guardsmen or dark angels. I just know my rules, he knows his, and if theres any suspicion of funkyness then we can ask to see that one entry.

The choice is having rules with exceptions to them (in the form of USR's) or just rules. If you replace Deep strike with 'tellyporta strike' and 'grav assault' and 'tryon tunnel' when the rules get updated, you can just use an updated datasheet, instead of needing to have the datasheet, plus FAQ sheet with errata.

No one said that it was the ONLY way for individual unit rules to be handled, but they have already done in the other way, and it wasn't working very well. You happen to not like how its being done now, and thats fine, but it does not change the fact that its working and working well.

tneva82 wrote:

Hatachi wrote:

I'm not saying that it is balanced. I'm saying that it's about as balanced as I expect the first edition of a very knew take on the rules to be.

But this falls flat in head by edition changes in 40k never being just tiny changes but sweeping changes. And ditto for codexes. They don't do gradual changes toward better balance but complete reshuffles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pismakron wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
AOS "had to remove points because points are bad"

40k "had to remove USRs because USRs are bad"

There seems to be a disconnect between GW and the players!

There sometimes are. But 9 out of 10 players prefer 8th to 7th. It is simply a vastly superior edition.

Based on what?

And vastly superior in terms of what? Not in logical rules, tactical possibilities or balance.

Based on wallets. GW is selling this edition like never before.

Also, personally i do find it superior in terms of logical rules, tactical possibilities (especially in the assault and psychic phases) and balance.

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Alright, explain to me this:

No thanks; you don't want to actually talk about this. You're just looking for someone to rail against because you've made up your mind already.

I'm perfectly willing to listen. And even if you believe I'm not, explaining your position more fully would help other people understand.

If you aren't able to explain your position, I'm pretty much forced to believe that you CANNOT explain it.

Fine; You say that USR's are fine, because if something is broke, the nit can be tweaked on that card rather than across the board. Well then you end up with 2 USR's that have different applications. Your guys and my guys might both have furious charge, but suddenly we need to stop and double check which furious charge. You start wanting to have a few select simple USR's and then by the end of it you end up with 9 pages of them and the vast majority are no longer relevant. Keeping it 'bespoke' and on the sheets means me (an ork player) and my buddy (an eldar player) don't have to wade through a bunch of rules that apply to guardsmen or dark angels. I just know my rules, he knows his, and if theres any suspicion of funkyness then we can ask to see that one entry.

The choice is having rules with exceptions to them (in the form of USR's) or just rules. If you replace Deep strike with 'tellyporta strike' and 'grav assault' and 'tryon tunnel' when the rules get updated, you can just use an updated datasheet, instead of needing to have the datasheet, plus FAQ sheet with errata.

No one said that it was the ONLY way for individual unit rules to be handled, but they have already done in the other way, and it wasn't working very well. You happen to not like how its being done now, and thats fine, but it does not change the fact that its working and working well.

There’s no reason you can’t have usr’s and still print the full text on the actual datasheets. If the USR gets updated, you make one correction in the FAQ/errata. If GW wants to be kind, they can reprint the datasheet in full. But, to be honest, even if you had bespoke rules that were maintained seperately, you’d still have to refer to the FAQ/errata for any updates anyways. It just would be easier to maintain if you made the updates in once, instead of ten seperate times for the same thing. (Same sort of reasoning for subroutines and functions in coding - self contain the code in one place and reference it wherever needed. Rather than rewrite the code a half-dozen times in a half-dozen places, you update it once and it fixes it for all references).

 Stormonu wrote:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Alright, explain to me this:

No thanks; you don't want to actually talk about this. You're just looking for someone to rail against because you've made up your mind already.

I'm perfectly willing to listen. And even if you believe I'm not, explaining your position more fully would help other people understand.

If you aren't able to explain your position, I'm pretty much forced to believe that you CANNOT explain it.

Fine; You say that USR's are fine, because if something is broke, the nit can be tweaked on that card rather than across the board. Well then you end up with 2 USR's that have different applications. Your guys and my guys might both have furious charge, but suddenly we need to stop and double check which furious charge. You start wanting to have a few select simple USR's and then by the end of it you end up with 9 pages of them and the vast majority are no longer relevant. Keeping it 'bespoke' and on the sheets means me (an ork player) and my buddy (an eldar player) don't have to wade through a bunch of rules that apply to guardsmen or dark angels. I just know my rules, he knows his, and if theres any suspicion of funkyness then we can ask to see that one entry.

The choice is having rules with exceptions to them (in the form of USR's) or just rules. If you replace Deep strike with 'tellyporta strike' and 'grav assault' and 'tryon tunnel' when the rules get updated, you can just use an updated datasheet, instead of needing to have the datasheet, plus FAQ sheet with errata.

No one said that it was the ONLY way for individual unit rules to be handled, but they have already done in the other way, and it wasn't working very well. You happen to not like how its being done now, and thats fine, but it does not change the fact that its working and working well.

There’s no reason you can’t have usr’s and still print the full text on the actual datasheets. If the USR gets updated, you make one correction in the FAQ/errata. If GW wants to be kind, they can reprint the datasheet in full. But, to be honest, even if you had bespoke rules that were maintained seperately, you’d still have to refer to the FAQ/errata for any updates anyways. It just would be easier to maintain if you made the updates in once, instead of ten seperate times for the same thing. (Same sort of reasoning for subroutines and functions in coding - self contain the code in one place and reference it wherever needed. Rather than rewrite the code a half-dozen times in a half-dozen places, you update it once and it fixes it for all references).

Exactly. I'm not saying they shouldn't print the full rules on the sheet-that's fine, it's not needed for experienced players, but it's easier for new ones. But just simplifying naming conventions will make it easier to fully understand the system.

And if they have an updated datasheet, then you won't need an FAQ. Even if they FORMERLY had a USR, but that's what needed to be changed, they will no longer have the USR and instead have a similar but different rule. Plus, if you look at the system right now, you ALREADY need a ton of FAQs to play the game properly!

I think they got rid of USRs to avoid the temptation to add laundry list of USRs to units. With their removal, every rule a unit has needs to be written onto the units Datasheet.

8th Edition Roboute Guilliman has 5 abilities. 7th Edition Roboute Guilliman had 4 Special Rules plus how many USRs for being a Monstrous Creature (which are not on his Datasheet).

 alextroy wrote:
I think they got rid of USRs to avoid the temptation to add laundry list of USRs to units. With their removal, every rule a unit has needs to be written onto the units Datasheet.

8th Edition Roboute Guilliman has 5 abilities. 7th Edition Roboute Guilliman had 4 Special Rules plus how many USRs for being a Monstrous Creature (which are not on his Datasheet).

That's a GW problem, not a USR problem. In fact, what GW did in 7E was counter-productive to having USRs. Every freakin' faction had to have its own custom snowflake addition/modification to a USR to make a USR+. 7E Wolfen, for example. If GW hadn't tried to "top" each previous factions special rules, we wouldn't have had the out-of-control one-use-only "USRs" of 7E.

The real issue with USRs is future proofing. If rules are tied to something in the rulebook, and the rule book changes all the unit rules also change. We saw this the preferred enemy changes (among others) from 5th to 6th edition, these types of changes significantly change army and unit abilities and can cause problems that need day 1 changes for multiple armies, and for the casual player especially (who might not scour the web for Errata) are a problem.

Lets just say for instance we still had stealth and it was cover gives you +2 to armor instead of +1. Then when 9th ed comes out they change stealth to -1 to hit. Now every unit that had the stealth rule is -1 to hit. Is that what GW wanted? What are all the implications of this?

Now you could say, well just add a different USR for -1 to hit, and leave stealth alone. OK, now we start getting a ton of USRs, and no unit actually has the new USR. This was true for a long time with some USRs in 6th and 7th, basically no unit actually had said rule, but it existed. So either you then errata all the units you want to have -1 to hit instead of Stealth to have the new rule or you don't and wait for new books to give out the ability.

While I agree that having common language is helpful in some areas (I call all set up 9" away abilites "deepstrike", and ignore wound rolls like disgustingly resilient Feel no pain all the time." But some of that is just hold over from old editions. Since some units can "deepstrike" closer than 9", I usually say x unit can deepstrike more than 9" away...I could instead say Set up, I just don't

Having the special rules on the individual datasheet, even if they are the same wording with different names, makes a lot of sense to me. It's easier to just look it up and remember it. I don't see why it is such an issue and as others have said in this thread, it makes it easier if GW want to adjust just one unit's abilities.

 BlackLobster wrote:
Having the special rules on the individual datasheet, even if they are the same wording with different names, makes a lot of sense to me. It's easier to just look it up and remember it. I don't see why it is such an issue and as others have said in this thread, it makes it easier if GW want to adjust just one unit's abilities.

It's a problem because they aren't necessarily the same rule. If you have USRs and use them properly then you have consistency across the entire game. You have a bit more learning up front, but the reward is that you can quickly look at a summary of the unit's rules and know exactly what it does. For example, if Stealth is a USR that gives +1 save in cover then you can just put that on every unit and everyone immediately knows what it does. But if every unit is its own special snowflake you start to end up with one unit having Stealth: +1 save in cover, another with Stealth: +1 save in ruins, another with Stealthy: +2 save in forests, another with Stealthy Attacker: may deploy anywhere outside 9" from enemy models, and so on. It's especially dangerous if you have variants of the rule that are very similar but not exactly the same, as players can assume that it does one thing based on the name and then get an awkward surprise when they encounter how it really works.

Now, it's ok to have reminder text on a unit's rules page, for people who have trouble remembering the USRs. But they absolutely need to be in the core rules and have zero variance in how they are applied to each unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
The real issue with USRs is future proofing. If rules are tied to something in the rulebook, and the rule book changes all the unit rules also change.

The only reason this is a problem is because of GW's idiocy of releasing new editions every year and not bothering to update every codex when they do. If GW could stop releasing new rules where they change stuff for the sole purpose of justifying charging you $100+ for a new edition this problem wouldn't exist. In the rare case where there's a new edition of the core rules they could simply do an 8th edition style update (but with better quality) to every army on launch day. There's no need to worry about future proofing your rules when you never have a situation where an army is using rules written for a previous edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackLobster wrote:
even if they are the same wording with different names

Another thing to add: this is really poor design. Aside from the fact that most of those names are just going to be discarded in favor of a simple description of the mechanic (calling all special deployments "deep strike" for example) it means that you can't reference that rule in other rules. To continue the Stealth USR example, under the USR system it's very easy to make a rule that says "ignore the benefits of Stealth". But when you have a bunch of functionally identical but differently named rules you can no longer do that. You can't remove Stealth, you can only attempt to refer to a broad category with something like "ignore all bonuses to armor saves that depend on cover" and hope that you catch all of the targets without including anything that you didn't intend the rule to apply to.

The issue is that most people don't want a full reboot for every edition (GW often changes far too much actually). That said your argument is actually another against USRs if the base rules are just base rules and nothing more, there is much less reason to need edition changes just unit changes. If the special rules are in the main rulebook the only way to change them is to change said rulebook if they are in a codex or on a data sheet they can be changed more easily while leaving the edition intact.

pismakron wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
AOS "had to remove points because points are bad"

40k "had to remove USRs because USRs are bad"

There seems to be a disconnect between GW and the players!

There sometimes are. But 9 out of 10 players prefer 8th to 7th. It is simply a vastly superior edition.

That is very true, but that is not a good comparison because 7th was so abysmally bad that almost anything would have been an improvement.

In 7th if you played one of 3 factions you were basically playing with a 200-400pt (sometimes more) head start. The two easiest to play armies in the game were the biggest offenders, Tau and Eldar. Now before the fish and elf people get angry, I am not saying you guys won every tournament. I am talking about general play AND tournaments. Wraithknights, Scat bikes, spiders, Riptides, Surges and a couple other units were so criminally under costed that they were auto-takes and almost auto-wins. My army could not even handle 1 Wraithknight let alone 2-3, same with riptides. So yeah, compared to 7th nonsense, 8th is amazing.

But that ignores the giant problems with 8th and doesn't do anything to further the discussion about playtesting in 8th. So many easy problems could have been fixed PRE release if GW had spent a bit of time playtesting or hired out one of the numerous Fanboy sites to playtest, preferably not FLG since apparently they believe the Stompa is amazing.

kombatwombat wrote:
There is still and always has been many people moaning about pages and pages of ‘redundant USRs’ that ‘do exactly the same thing as another rule’. I’ve never understood this. As far as I’m aware, the only truly redundant rule in 7th was Zealot, which was the same as having the Hatred and Fearless USRs. And even then they may actually be slightly different, since I don’t think Hatred was passed from Independent Character to the unit, but Zealot was?

Aside from that, there were groups of USRs - for example Monstrous Creature or Primarch types being shorthand ways of saying ‘it has USRs x, y and z’.

If redundant or copied USRs were so common in 7th, surely somebody could easily give me half a dozen examples? Because I’m struggling to think of many.

Hatred and Fearless were innately passed. The only real difference was that Word Bearers got a Warlord Trait that let the Warlord gain Zealot, or reroll all melee if already having Zealot.

JNA and I have mentioned Missile Lock already.

USRs to consolidate: Bulky, Very Bulky, Extremely Bulky, Stealth, Shrouded, and those are a start. Furious Charge versus Rage versus Rampage versus Hammer of Wrath, Sniper (Poison, Rending, Precision Shot), arguably Poison vs Fleshbane, etc.

Slow and Purposeful simply means Relentless + No Running, Overwatching, or Sweeping. So Kataphtractons instead got "Heavy Battle Servitor", which removed the Overwatch & Sweep bits and added "may fire a second weapon." A simple Cannot(Action) USR would have made things so much cleaner IMO (as would have some "fire a second weapon" USR).

Really, that's how USRs should be built: Broad meta-extensible definitions that clarify interactions for said rules. So "Charge Bonus" itself would have the common clarifications for when the bonus actually applies, etc.

Hatred wasn't innately passed, only models with Hatred benefited from it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Snip

Oh man, my bad. I thought you wanted to ask a question not just complain and pat yourself on the back for having figured everything out.

Alright, explain to me this: What are the problems with USRs? You can't say that it causes issues when multiple units have one rule, since it's incredibly easy to errata the rule to be removed and replaced with a similar but weaker/stronger rule to make it more appropriate.

In addition, if you'll look at my exact words, I was recommending something like Deep Strike (9"), where the base USR is the same but the exact details can vary. I'd honestly prefer a set of simple, clear USRs for a lot of stuff.

Like, for instance, Khorne's units could get Charge Bonus (+1 Strength), whereas Wraithblades could get Charge Bonus (+1 Attack). I was gonna use the Red Thirst as an example, actually, but I realized that's more than just on the charge, so they can probably get a bespoke rule without it being a bother.

Makes perfectly good sense to me.
And likely why GW will never do it.
People who live in bubbles tend to think in terms of the curvature inside that bubble.
Us on the outside tend to see things from the other side of that curvature...
We have access to straight lines, for instance, while inside the bubble, everything is curved.
GW suffers from something like ivory tower syndrome, imho.
Maybe with recent outreach, someone can sneak a straight edge into that camp and pop that bubble.
Then, something like this proposal of yours would be seen as a best of all possible reconciliations of present and past efforts.
Nothing to do with playtesting, I guess. But, exalted nonetheless.