6 USR that needs to be added to the BRB or many Datasheets

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.

**the_scotsman**

Lord Clinto wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
what about this, there should be a difference between cover & concealment;

concealment, -1 to hit
cover, +1 to save

that way you can always at least have one or the other. i.e.

a model behind a barricade can be shot at with no negative to hit, but would gain +1 to a save.

a model on the other side of a crater/woods/ruins would be shot at with -1 to but with no modifier to the save.

a model in the first floor of ruins would be shot at with a -1 to hit and gain a +1 to their save.

if you're within 1" or base contact with the terrain you would gain -1 to be hit. if you're completely within (all models)would also gain +1 to save even if you are not completely obscured from the shooter.

vehicles could be treated the same way but would retain the 50% rule currently. anything with mc/knight/etc keyword would only gain +1 to save as they're supposedly very large and wouldn't be as able to be concealed as something smaller. maybe if you have x # of models (10+) it could remove the cover save as there might not be enough room to dive for cover with too many bodies occupying a small space.

IMO This suggestion makes the most sense; would it bog the game down? Maybe a little bit, but I think it makes more sense then the current rule set.

Additionally I think there needs to be more of a penalty for falling back. Something similar to Dangerous Terrain; where if you fall back roll a die for each model falling back, on a 6 the unit suffers a Mortal Wound.

This suggestion makes the most sense and is basically what is in the new Cityfight rules from CA2018, I encourage you to try them out. They work...okay, in my opinion. terrain and maneuver definitely feels more impactful. The problem comes from how utterly unshiftable units on upper floors of ruins become with -1 to hit and +2 to save AND the stupid cluster of FAQ rulings GW has put out to make units on upper floors totally unassaultable.

**Ghorgul**

the_scotsman wrote:
This suggestion makes the most sense and is basically what is in the new Cityfight rules from CA2018, I encourage you to try them out. They work...okay, in my opinion. terrain and maneuver definitely feels more impactful. The problem comes from how utterly unshiftable units on upper floors of ruins become with -1 to hit and +2 to save AND the stupid cluster of FAQ rulings GW has put out to make units on upper floors totally unassaultable.

Well, we do love GW method of balancing where broken combos are fixed with hardcore core rule updates: 'Rule of 3', 'Increased Detachment CP generation', 'Smite', 'FLY restrictions', 'Deep strike restrictions'.

Basically any problematic thing appears they take the 'easy route' and slap this quick band aid fix that stops the broken combo but suddenly restricts x10 amount of other similarly working non-broken combos. There were many legitimately non-broken things that could be done with 1st turn deep strikes, but the worst offenders took the fun from every other thing the earlier rule allowed.

**skchsan**

There needs to be more -hits and +saves during shooting attack to balance out the ranged/melee situation in 40k.

The general pro/cons of ranged vs melee is that you deal less damage from a far at lower rate vs deal more damage but must be up close deal.

If 40k will never fix the power discrepancy between ranged and melee, then it should deal with accuracy instead:
-if ranged, you are more prone to missing but deal damage from safe distance
-if melee, you miss less but must be up close to deal the damage

**BaconCatBug**

The entire reason to move away from USR's is so they could customise the rules to fit the unit. It allows Monoliths and Spore Mines to have a 12" limit and the Callidus Assassin a 9-D6" limit.

**JNAProductions**

BaconCatBug wrote:
The entire reason to move away from USR's is so they could customise the rules to fit the unit. It allows Monoliths and Spore Mines to have a 12" limit and the Callidus Assassin a 9-D6" limit.

Terminators get:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleportation Strike
Rules text of Deep Strike with 9"; fluff text.

Monoliths get:

Deep Strike (12")-Death From Above or whatever it's called
Rules text of Deep Strike with 12"; fluff text.

Callidus gets:

Deep Strike (Special)-Infiltration or whatever it's called
Rules text of Deep Strike with 9"-1d6"; fluff text.

Boom, bam, done. I'm fine with printing the full text of the rules on the datasheet, but it'd be nice if the names were consistent.

**Pancakey**

Ghorgul wrote:
Many 'Deep Strike' abilities are USR's in general sense but every unit has different name for the rule with same mechanism with similar restrictions.

And this is why the keyword system is an abject failure.

**the_scotsman**

Ghorgul wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
This suggestion makes the most sense and is basically what is in the new Cityfight rules from CA2018, I encourage you to try them out. They work...okay, in my opinion. terrain and maneuver definitely feels more impactful. The problem comes from how utterly unshiftable units on upper floors of ruins become with -1 to hit and +2 to save AND the stupid cluster of FAQ rulings GW has put out to make units on upper floors totally unassaultable.
Well, we do love GW method of balancing where broken combos are fixed with hardcore core rule updates: 'Rule of 3', 'Increased Detachment CP generation', 'Smite', 'FLY restrictions', 'Deep strike restrictions'.

Basically any problematic thing appears they take the 'easy route' and slap this quick band aid fix that stops the broken combo but suddenly restricts x10 amount of other similarly working non-broken combos. There were many legitimately non-broken things that could be done with 1st turn deep strikes, but the worst offenders took the fun from every other thing the earlier rule allowed.

I love that this thread has become simultaneously a thread complaining about how we can't have universal rules anymore and everything has to have its own name for the rule, AND a thread complaining about how GW always balances with a sledgehammer that affects tons of units at once with a big blanket pass.

Pick one, guys. Either every unit has its own balance levers, or you balance everything at once in one swell foop.

**Karol**

The names don't matter. how stuff works matters. It can be deep strike 9" or deep strike 3". or be called deep strike and superior infiltration. what matters is how it affects the game and units that have those traits.

**BaconCatBug**

JNAProductions wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
The entire reason to move away from USR's is so they could customise the rules to fit the unit. It allows Monoliths and Spore Mines to have a 12" limit and the Callidus Assassin a 9-D6" limit.

Terminators get:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleportation Strike
Rules text of Deep Strike with 9"; fluff text.

Monoliths get:

Deep Strike (12")-Death From Above or whatever it's called
Rules text of Deep Strike with 12"; fluff text.

Callidus gets:

Deep Strike (Special)-Infiltration or whatever it's called
Rules text of Deep Strike with 9"-1d6"; fluff text.

Boom, bam, done. I'm fine with printing the full text of the rules on the datasheet, but it'd be nice if the names were consistent.

And then what? Explodes becomes Explodes x+, x", x MW? Now you look at the datasheet and have no idea what Explodes does unless you open up the rulebook. The whole point of 8th was to make as much on the datasheet as possible and avoid the USR Hell of the past.

**JNAProductions**

Did you miss the part where I said:

"I'm fine with printing the full text of the rules on the datasheet, but it'd be nice if the names were consistent."

And yes, Explodes could easily be Explodes (6+, 3", 1d3 MW) for a Rhino, for instance.

That way, the name alone gives experienced players all they need to know, while the newer players can read the text that's printed just below.

**Peregrine**

Or you just have one exploded rule for everything like in previous editions and not bother with special snowflakes having slight and mostly irrelevant variations.

**Amishprn86**

Peregrine wrote:
Or you just have one exploded rule for everything like in previous editions and not bother with special snowflakes having slight and mostly irrelevant variations.

I like this, except some models should have a bigger, badder explosion, like some of the fortifications.

**Sunny Side Up**

Hard to miss: If a unit/model has 20 or more wounds, all shooting weapons targeting the unit/model gain +1 to hit.

Bring back the "medium" stuff. Give a mini-nerf to the opposing extremes of hordes/super-heavies.

**BaconCatBug**

Peregrine wrote:
Or you just have one exploded rule for everything like in previous editions and not bother with special snowflakes having slight and mostly irrelevant variations.

You know draughts is a thing, right? Since you seem to be opposed to any and all difference between units. Or do you think Knights shouldn't be able to jump pieces in chess because that's a slight and mostly irrelevant variation? Peregrine Chess: Everyone gets 8 Pawns and NOTHING ELSE.

**Grimtuff**

BaconCatBug wrote:
We tried USRs. They didn't work for a reason.

I think you need to go find another windmill to tilt at because several other games out there that use USRs can tell you you're objectively wrong.

**Marmatag**

How does a thread with awful suggestions keep running?

Answer: Argument about USRs begins.

**Amishprn86**

Marmatag wrote:
How does a thread with awful suggestions keep running?

Answer: Argument about USRs begins.

Even if rules are on datasheets, they still are USR, all datasheets with a DS abilities are 99% the same, all FnP is the same (either 5+ or 6+) all Supersonic is the same.

Rather you like it or not, but USR are a must for games, 8th just put 99% of them on datasheets instead of in the BRB.

**BaconCatBug**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
How does a thread with awful suggestions keep running?

Answer: Argument about USRs begins.

Even if rules are on datasheets, they still are USR, all datasheets with a DS abilities are 99% the same, all FnP is the same (either 5+ or 6+) all Supersonic is the same.

Rather you like it or not, but USR are a must for games, 8th just put 99% of them on datasheets instead of in the BRB.

Considering that not all FNP is the same (some are conditional) and not all supersonic is the same (Eldar have their own special version), you've just proved my point.

**Pancakey**

Grimtuff wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
We tried USRs. They didn't work for a reason.

I think you need to go find another windmill to tilt at because several other games out there that use USRs can tell you you're objectively wrong.

Templates bad!
USR bad!
Model conversions bad!
Loyal 32 good!
Soup good!
6 books to play one “army” good!

40k is in a sad place these days.

**Mmmpi**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
How does a thread with awful suggestions keep running?

Answer: Argument about USRs begins.

Even if rules are on datasheets, they still are USR, all datasheets with a DS abilities are 99% the same, all FnP is the same (either 5+ or 6+) all Supersonic is the same.

Rather you like it or not, but USR are a must for games, 8th just put 99% of them on datasheets instead of in the BRB.
Considering that not all FNP is the same (some are conditional) and not all supersonic is the same (Eldar have their own special version), you've just proved my point.

Considering the vast majority of those rules could be written in a sentence or two in the rules, I'm wondering what your point is.

FNP example: When a model in this unit is damaged, roll a die for each point of damage. For each die that equals or exceeds the FNP stat, ignore one point of damage. If a specific type of damage is listed, this unit's FNP only reduces damage of that type.

That covers 99% of the FNP style special rules.

**BaconCatBug**

Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

**Dandelion**

USRs would work if they were actually universal. Until then they're just some rules that may or may not apply to your specific case but you have to go looking for it anyway.
Maybe a lot of you liked them, but I really did not, especially when I was new to the game. The new system is far easier to understand and use imo.

**JNAProductions**

Dandelion wrote:
USRs would work if they were actually universal. Until then they're just some rules that may or may not apply to your specific case but you have to go looking for it anyway.
Maybe a lot of you liked them, but I really did not, especially when I was new to the game. The new system is far easier to understand and use imo.

Question: Would it be any harder to remember, say, Manta Strike, Teleportation Strike, Low-Altitude Deployment, and Death From Above if they were all labeled "Deep Strike (X")"?

Because no one, to my knowledge, has suggested removing the text of the rules from the datasheet. It's fine to keep it there-it helps beginners a lot, and is even helpful for more experienced players when they need a reminder. But what's the issue with codifying rules names?

**BaconCatBug**

JNAProductions wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
USRs would work if they were actually universal. Until then they're just some rules that may or may not apply to your specific case but you have to go looking for it anyway.
Maybe a lot of you liked them, but I really did not, especially when I was new to the game. The new system is far easier to understand and use imo.

Question: Would it be any harder to remember, say, Manta Strike, Teleportation Strike, Low-Altitude Deployment, and Death From Above if they were all labeled "Deep Strike (X")"?

Because no one, to my knowledge, has suggested removing the text of the rules from the datasheet. It's fine to keep it there-it helps beginners a lot, and is even helpful for more experienced players when they need a reminder. But what's the issue with codifying rules names?

Because it's boring? Why make give Storm Bolters and Combi-Bolters different names? Why bother having Lasguns or Autoguns? The game has already been stripped to the bone of any and all complexity, is dealing with a few different rule names so difficult? Like you said, the rule is on the datasheet, so why does it matter what the rule name is? Also, calling it "Deep Strike (X")" suggests that they are always uniform, it's bad enough that Explodes is muddied as it is.

**Dandelion**

JNAProductions wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
USRs would work if they were actually universal. Until then they're just some rules that may or may not apply to your specific case but you have to go looking for it anyway.
Maybe a lot of you liked them, but I really did not, especially when I was new to the game. The new system is far easier to understand and use imo.

Question: Would it be any harder to remember, say, Manta Strike, Teleportation Strike, Low-Altitude Deployment, and Death From Above if they were all labeled "Deep Strike (X")"?

Because no one, to my knowledge, has suggested removing the text of the rules from the datasheet. It's fine to keep it there-it helps beginners a lot, and is even helpful for more experienced players when they need a reminder. But what's the issue with codifying rules names?

I do recall some people arguing for removing the rules from the actual datasheets, but it's been a while so my memory might be faulty. Regardless, I don't really see much benefit to labeling those rules as "deep strike" anyway. What I'm more worried about is having "deep strike" be a USR, and then throwing down some exceptions. If you know there will inevitably be exceptions why bother setting up a "universal" system at all?

Though, have you (or anyone you know) had any trouble with the format for these special rules? Have they been hard to use or something? If you're suggesting changing them, what's so bad about them now?

**Mmmpi**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

So now we're just adding two new USR's. Or just two special rules to a unit/weapon/army/datasheet.

**BaconCatBug**

Mmmpi wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

So now we're just adding two new USR's. Or just two special rules to a unit/weapon/army/datasheet.

You seriously don't see the issues that the USR hell we had in previous editions?

**AnomanderRake**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Mmmpi wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

So now we're just adding two new USR's. Or just two special rules to a unit/weapon/army/datasheet.
You seriously don't see the issues that the USR hell we had in previous editions?

USRs weren't a problem in 4e, when there were two pages of them. USRs were a problem in 7e, when there were twenty pages of them and a bunch of them only existed to reference each other.

**Mmmpi**

AnomanderRake wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Mmmpi wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Until you get rules that now ignore FNP, which leads to special rules that are FNP but not really so they get to ignore those rules that ignore FNP.

So now we're just adding two new USR's. Or just two special rules to a unit/weapon/army/datasheet.
You seriously don't see the issues that the USR hell we had in previous editions?

USRs weren't a problem in 4e, when there were two pages of them. USRs were a problem in 7e, when there were twenty pages of them and a bunch of them only existed to reference each other.

I also play several games that are almost entirely USR's and they work great. Just because they were implemented poorly for the last couple of editions doesn't make them bad in concept.

**Peregrine**

But if you have USRs you don't have to write a bunch of separate versions of every rule, decreasing the chances that you make a mistake in over-literal RAW. And how could you not feel bad about taking away BCB's signature material?