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.

Consistent naming for the same thing is pretty ideal. You can even add fluff rules that do nothing but grant your consistent name. Couple that with reminder text (with the understanding that reminder text can change) and you give yourself a lot to work with:

Teleportarium - This unit gains Deep Strike.
A model with Deep Strike may deploy anywhere on the....

Now you have your fluff and what that fluff does is a universal keyword rule that can be changed if necessary AND can be referenced by other rules like say, Auspex Scan to provide consistent effects.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
GW should just give us USRs with variables- it's baffling that they don't do that. Feel No Pain X Scout Y and so on instead of a dozen different names for just slightly different rules. It's dumb.

Remember, the more similar rules with different names, the easier it is to "forget" a minute difference. After all, Smite is Smite, FNP is FNP, etc.

Exactly. Everyone knows FNP is a roll made after a failed save, and if successful, allows that model to ignore the wound. I'm just saying that making it FNP (insert number required for success here) is an elegant solution to the problem of having granularity while avoiding confusion, and also avoiding unintended consequences from balancing. If a unit was too powerful with FNP( 4+), that unit's entry alone could be changed to FNP (5+) without accidentally over-buffing or over-nerfing others. Although it does help that systems that use this also include cards with their models for reference while playing.

Giant wall of text sums up to 'no appreciable gain, but I like the other way better so bleh!' That's some oldschool juggler right there.

The main reason for the current bespoke rules is that the granularity allows for unit modifications that will not affect an entire army or armies. Also, in theory, you are not required to have your BRB with you as the rules are concise and small. To be honest I am surprised they didn't adopt the early AoS method of having the rules at the back of the Battletome/Codex. This meant you never had to take a rulebook with you, only the codex.

Now, I know there is argument for adopting USR for the most common abilities, but remember that some of the deep strike abilities tend to have important wording differences that apply differently in game. Also, having the same name between factions of similar abilities means that TFG and Rule perverts can try to change the rules of another codex by arguing that one rule supercedes another. By making each rule for each unit distinguishable from one another they can in theory avoid the worst of the rule lawyers.

Regarding datasheets I was surprised to see that Imperial Knights got Datasheet cards so my guess is that they are eventually coming for other armies in 40k.

regarding rules bloat, has it occured to you guys that rules bloat is kinda important for GW? a game where one book and 3 boxes of minis sounds great for us, but is terriable for GW's bottem line,

I think there's room for both, but then i like to cherry pick. If deepstrike is consistent everywhere, then just make a USR called deepstrike. If one unit gets +1 attack on the charge, and the other unit gets +1 attack and +1 str, do that too.

Having USRs for individual unit has both pros and cons. You can either change one rule easily, or go back and change every individual iteration of the rule one at a time, and hope you didn't miss any. Some units may want to perform differently despite a USR change? Okay, that's when you give them a snowflake rule.

I think USRs should not have been done away with. I think most other tabletop games have USRs in some way, shape, or form. MTG does it. WarmaHordes does it. Why can't 40k do it? I know in editions past GW has had USRs change from one edition to the next. This usually leaves some armies in a weird state where their rules just don't mesh anymore. I feel like this is strong evidence that if GW wants to use USRs they need to keep them consistent not just within the current edition, but also in future editions. I also think that overly convoluted rules should not be a USR. Right now a lot of models have a ton of rules that are very similar but have different names. I understand that they probably did with the intention of: 'If this ability is broken on this unit somehow we can fix it without affecting other models with the same rule'. But I think they failed to fully think this through. They fully knew going into 8th Edition that changes were going to happen to the ruleset. So why not embrace that? Why not just say 'Hey if this rule is super broken on X unit then we give it a similar nerfed ability and call it something different in order to distinguish it'. I really think this is the way to go. GW needs to embrace USRs but embrace them for long periods of time like games like Warmachine and MTG have. USRs might also work better if editions lasted longer than 3 to 4 years on average imo.

MtG basically has bespoken rules as well. Outside of the vanilla keywords, all but some rare or mythic rares have the full text of their keywords printed as reminder text, sometimes even for those vanilla keywords.

When you try to collect the vanilla keywords across WH40k you get very few. Almost every single person on this thread uses FNP or deep strike as an example, because there really aren't a lot of other keywords to unify without changing what they do now.

I also don't think that consolidating every kind of charge bonus is simplifying the rules in any way. Even MtG does "gains +X/+Y when charging/blocking" rather than keywords - unless they are mechanic-specific keywords.

TL;DR:
- YES to USR to group similar things. FNP should be FNP, deep strike should be deep strike, infiltrate should be infiltrate and the pile of "This is a plane"-rules should also be named the same across all codices.
- NO to USR being defined in a central place. The new datasheet approach is so much better for playing and learning the game. The BRB no longer being mandatory to play games is a great step forward.

And tertiary:
-The name of the rule should be indicative of what that rule actually does, rather than being a "fluffname" similar to the "fluffname" of another rule that does something completely different.
-The rules should be designed in a future-proofable/composabl3 manner.

As an example, rather than having a "weapon expert: +1 to wound with all weapons that have x in their name." ("Is an inferno cannon a flamer? Is a Baleflamer a flamer?" etc.), weapons themselves would have keywords, and you can have a <Weapon> Expert: Bonus rule (For example, FLAMER Expert: +1 to wound) and check if that weapon has the correct keyword.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
And tertiary:
-The name of the rule should be indicative of what that rule actually does, rather than being a "fluffname" similar to the "fluffname" of another rule that does something completely different.

As an example, rather than having a "weapon expert: +1 to wound with all weapons that have x in their name." ("Is an inferno cannon a flamer? Is a Baleflamer a flamer?" etc.), weapons themselves would have keywords, and you can have a <Weapon> Expert: Bonus rule (FLAMER Expert: +1 to wound) and check if that weapon has the correct keyword.

You contradict yourself. Expert is in no way an indicator of being better at wounding something.

While I agree that there should be weapon keywords "Arsonist: This units adds +1 to wound rules when using FLAMER weapons." is way superior to "Expert: Bonus rule (FLAMER Expert: +1 to wound) ". Bonus points if Arsonist is used across multiple codices, but not necessary in any way.

It's morning. The parenthesis was the "example", not the actual bonus rule. In theory, Expert would let you modify other traits/confer other rules onto a weapon. (ex. Catachans might have FLAMER Expert: ignore cover). The underlying rule is contingent on the usage of a particular weapon.

PS: As a notable RAW goof in 6th and 7th, Interceptor as worded said a "weapon with this rule." While an EWO granted the weapons carried by the model the Interceptor USR, the Interceptor Drones on a Sunshark simply had the Interceptor rule and thus RAW couldn't actually use it. A similar issue happened with a Farsight Warlord Trait that granted Shred to a unit for one turn in the Shooting Phase; Shred as defined was melee-only, unless it was actually on a ranged weapon. Thus, the Warlord trait was RAW useless.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
It's morning. The parenthesis was the "example", not the actual bonus rule. In theory, Expert would let you modify other traits/confer other rules onto a weapon. (ex. Catachans might have FLAMER Expert: ignore cover). The underlying rule is contingent on the usage of a particular weapon.

Well... what's the point then? You could just skip the keyword and end up with the same solution, with nothing lost.
A proper rule would read: "Enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks from FLAMER weapons made by CATACHAN models."
(slightly edited 8th edition Imperial Fist chapter tactics)

PS: As a notable RAW goof in 6th and 7th, Interceptor as worded said a "weapon with this rule." While an EWO granted the weapons carried by the model the Interceptor USR, the Interceptor Drones on a Sunshark simply had the Interceptor rule and thus RAW couldn't actually use it. A similar issue happened with a Farsight Warlord Trait that granted Shred to a unit for one turn in the Shooting Phase; Shred as defined was melee-only, unless it was actually on a ranged weapon. Thus, the Warlord trait was RAW useless.

Yeah, but those kinds of problems really stemm from the rules being scattered across too many publications. A problem that does not exist in 8th. As long as all rules are spelled out on a single datasheet, each datasheet can be validated on its own.

The warlord trait in 8th would simply read "Units within 6" of your warlord can re-roll failed to wound rolls in the shooting phase". Done. Zero reason to use a USR in there.

It seems like we"re going in circles here.
"Can I re-roll wounds when I Fix Bayonets?"

 Jidmah wrote:

When you try to collect the vanilla keywords across WH40k you get very few. Almost every single person on this thread uses FNP or deep strike as an example, because there really aren't a lot of other keywords to unify without changing what they do now.

To be fair, that's because both of those are based on USRs from earlier editions.

There are plenty of other rules in 8th that could be USRs - they just don't have catchy names from past editions. And lord knows none of them have catchy names from this edition.

For example, plenty of models have auras that let nearby units reroll 1s to hit or to wound. These could easily be USRs, but they don't have any common name, nor a holdover name from 7th (since no comparable USR existed).

Hell, we could easily have 'Aura' as a proper keyword - rather than a vague definition.

 Eldarsif wrote:
The main reason for the current bespoke rules is that the granularity allows for unit modifications that will not affect an entire army or armies.

In which case it should be scrapped immediately because it's demonstrably not fulfilling that purpose. In fact, GW's recent FAQs demonstrate the ridiculousness of not using USRs. Because all they can do is try and vaguely define the rule they're referring to, rather than being able to use clear keywords.

"So, you know the abilities that, like, let a unit do something like this, right? Well, those abilities now do something a bit different. Except for these units, which do what they did before."

What's more, they certainly don't bother using the unique rules to tweak specific units and only those specific units. Instead, they just make blanket statements in FAQs, sometimes listing an exception. Something they could easily do with USRs as well.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
It seems like we"re going in circles here.
"Can I re-roll wounds when I Fix Bayonets?"

That's an issue that does not exist in 8th. Either you are doing attacks with your FLAMER weapon profile or you are not. If you are using any other weapon profile to make attacks, the rule does not apply. Simple.

You are too stuck on 7th with your mindset regarding rule problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

When you try to collect the vanilla keywords across WH40k you get very few. Almost every single person on this thread uses FNP or deep strike as an example, because there really aren't a lot of other keywords to unify without changing what they do now.

To be fair, that's because both of those are based on USRs from earlier editions.

There are plenty of other rules in 8th that could be USRs - they just don't have catchy names from past editions. And lord knows none of them have catchy names from this edition.

For example, plenty of models have auras that let nearby units reroll 1s to hit or to wound. These could easily be USRs, but they don't have any common name, nor a holdover name from 7th (since no comparable USR existed).

Hell, we could easily have 'Aura' as a proper keyword - rather than a vague definition.

The thing is, you have auras that are 6", 7", 12", 18", you have auras that are 9" but require all models to be in range, some affect the entire imperium, some just space marines, some only specific sub-groups of a chapter and so on. The effects vary wildly, some have multiple effects.
Unit Aura (6", DEATH WING, Re-roll(1, To Hit)) is no improvement over
"DEATH WING units within 6" re-roll ones to hit", plus you need to put a definition somewhere.
If you try to keyword some more complex auras, it gets worse:
Unit Aura (6", ORKS, Assault bonus(+1A), Fleet) suddenly you need to define "Unit Aura", "Assault bonus" and "Fleet". Welcome halfway back to 7th edition USR.

The one thing you could keyword is the "re-roll 1 to hit" to "command aura" or similar, so when skimming a datasheet you would not need to read the whole rule, since almost every "tacical leader"-style HQ has it.
All other auras, even the "re-roll 1 to wound" appear on no more than three or four models maximum, so what is there to gain from keywording them?
The one thing I could understand would be explicitly marking all such skills with an AURA keyword, so things like relics which increase aura range can be worded more clearly.

I agree 100%, MJ. Clean, concise USRs would be a big boost.

Now, I'll say this-you should still print the whole text of the rule on the datasheet. That helps newer players, and I'm all for that.

 Jidmah wrote:

The warlord trait in 8th would simply read "Units within 6" of your warlord can re-roll failed to wound rolls in the shooting phase". Done. Zero reason to use a USR in there.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
It seems like we"re going in circles here.
"Can I re-roll wounds when I Fix Bayonets?"

7th had the same issue with Flamers btw, which is why I used them as an analogy. Remember that a Baleflamer is not a Flamer, except when it is.

Also, I'd like to point something out:

Saying "It didn't work well in 7th!" is not exactly a strong argument. I prefer 7th to 8th, and even then I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that 7th was not a good system.

A set of clean, simple, concise and precise USRs would be good for the game. Keep the full text on the page, sure. Keep a fluffy name AFTER THE RULES NAME, sure. But make the USRs actually universal.

The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.

Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:

- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.

It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The warlord trait in 8th would simply read "Units within 6" of your warlord can re-roll failed to wound rolls in the shooting phase". Done. Zero reason to use a USR in there.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
It seems like we"re going in circles here.
"Can I re-roll wounds when I Fix Bayonets?"

7th had the same issue with Flamers btw, which is why I used them as an analogy. Remember that a Baleflamer is not a Flamer, except when it is.

But we already agreed on keywords for weapons being awesome, right? Looking for a FLAMER keyword is pretty clear, the Baleflamer will have it or not.

Death Guard actually does this, all the "re-roll 1 to wound" weapons are "Plague Weapons" and we have a psychic power (Putrefying Blades) and warlord trait (Arch-Contaminator) explicitly giving those weapons benefits. Why they haven't continued on that trend? Beats me.

I'll repeat myself. I'm all for adding keywords to rules for clarity or grouping certain kinds of effect. What I'm strictly opposed to is hiding rules behind keywords instead of simply spelling them out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you're not a magic player, have look at this picture:

Any clue what that Angel can do? I guess flying and first strike are pretty easily understood, trample and haste can be guessed, and I would assume no one can guess what vigilance does. And now the kicker: A lot of magic players don't even know what "Protection from Red and Black" does properly. Sounds simple enough, right? You couldn't be further from the truth. There is literally no way to find out what that ability does without consulting the rules and/or a rules forum.

Good thing is, unlike MtG, WH40k doesn't have a space issue. If they need to, they can use an entire page for a datasheet. Therefore I see no reason to move any USR rules back into the BRB.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.

Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:

- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.

It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.

But surely this is an argument for USRs? If you have the same USR, you can add clear exceptions - so that people don't overlook a single sentence in a rule that' otherwise identical to another rule with an entirely different name.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem with "clean, simple, concise and precise USRs" is they don't reflect units that well.

Just look at the Steel Behemoth/Towering Monstrosity/similar rules; they look at first glance like a USR, since every superheavy/titanic unit has some variation, but:

- Some of them allow shooting in combat. Some don't.
- The ones that don't usually allow the unit to easily withdraw from combat somehow (e.g. Imperial Knights can step over infantry).
- Some allow falling back and shooting.
- Some allow falling back and charging.
- Some allow advancing and charging.
- Some remove the -1 to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, some do not.

It's essentially the same rule (dis fing be big, da rool), but it has at least 4 different variations I can think of off the top of my head.

But surely this is an argument for USRs? If you have the same USR, you can add clear exceptions - so that people don't overlook a single sentence in a rule that' otherwise identical to another rule with an entirely different name.

Right but what would you write as the USR?

"Steel Behemoth: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn."

Baneblade and friends: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat, and you ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Imperial Knight friendos: Steel Behemoth, except you can also step over enemy infantry and ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments: Steel Behemoth, except you can't shoot, but you can advance and charge also.
Minotaur Artillery Tank: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat.

You don't write one rule to cover a million things. You write one rule per thing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't write one rule to cover a million things. You write one rule per thing.

Whiiiiiiich is what they're doing now?

Not even all the FNP rolls are the same. Graia's, for example, only works against the wound that slays the model, but also works against casualties from Morale, unlike Iron Hands. Conversely, the Psychic Fortitude power from the Astartes power list gives you a 4+ FNP, but it only works against psychic powers.

Not even all the FNP rules are the same.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right but what would you write as the USR?

"Steel Behemoth: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn."

Baneblade and friends: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat, and you ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Imperial Knight friendos: Steel Behemoth, except you can also step over enemy infantry and ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments: Steel Behemoth, except you can't shoot, but you can advance and charge also.
Minotaur Artillery Tank: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat.

The problem is that you're trying to make one USR fit all.

Ignoring the penalty for moving and shooting Heavy Weapons should be a separate USR. Same goes for shooting normally when in combat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't write one rule to cover a million things. You write one rule per thing.

Whiiiiiiich is what they're doing now?

Not even all the FNP rolls are the same. Graia's, for example, only works against the wound that slays the model, but also works against casualties from Morale, unlike Iron Hands. Conversely, the Psychic Fortitude power from the Astartes power list gives you a 4+ FNP, but it only works against psychic powers.

Not even all the FNP rules are the same.

Not what I meant.

I meant there's not one rule that's "Fall back and shoot; ignore heavy weapons penalties; shoot in CC."

That'd be three rules.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right but what would you write as the USR?

"Steel Behemoth: This unit can fall back and shoot and charge in the same turn."

Baneblade and friends: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat, and you ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Imperial Knight friendos: Steel Behemoth, except you can also step over enemy infantry and ignore the -1 to-hit for moving and firing heavy weapons.
Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments: Steel Behemoth, except you can't shoot, but you can advance and charge also.
Minotaur Artillery Tank: Steel Behemoth, except you can also shoot while staying in combat.

The problem is that you're trying to make one USR fit all.

Ignoring the penalty for moving and shooting Heavy Weapons should be a separate USR. Same goes for shooting normally when in combat.

So the only "universality" of the "Shoot normally while in combat" rule is actually only the Baneblade chassis tanks, plus the Minotaur, Valdor, and Space Marine superheavies? Is it really more helpful than just writing on the datasheet "this unit can shoot while in combat"?

And which version of the moving and shooting heavy weapons should be a separate USR?
Grinding Advance: This model ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, but only on its Demolisher cannon.
Lumbering Advance: This model ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, but only on its turret weapon, and only if it moves half speed.
Blasphemous Machines: This model ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, and for advancing and firing assault weapons.
Battle Servitor: This model ignores the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, but can only advance d3"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't write one rule to cover a million things. You write one rule per thing.

Whiiiiiiich is what they're doing now?

Not even all the FNP rolls are the same. Graia's, for example, only works against the wound that slays the model, but also works against casualties from Morale, unlike Iron Hands. Conversely, the Psychic Fortitude power from the Astartes power list gives you a 4+ FNP, but it only works against psychic powers.

Not even all the FNP rules are the same.

Not what I meant.

I meant there's not one rule that's "Fall back and shoot; ignore heavy weapons penalties; shoot in CC."

That'd be three rules.

Don't forget the 4th rule: can fall back and charge too.

So I guess y es, you can either add 4 rules to the tank's datasheet, or you can just have one that does 4 things. "Clear and concise" indeed.

I'm still not sure what the problem with the current system is. You're going to be looking up your unit's datasheet anyway, so looking up rules in the BRB is just an extra step. Adding USRs would just make bloat worse.

Current system is vastly improved.

Many of the issues get answered via GW FAQ's.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So the only "universality" of the "Shoot normally while in combat" rule is actually only the Baneblade chassis tanks, plus the Minotaur, Valdor, and Space Marine superheavies? Is it really more helpful than just writing on the datasheet "this unit can shoot while in combat"?

If it's that uncommon, sure, write it on the model.