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.

 Peregrine wrote:
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?

Until you end up with a rule that you want to be be able to ignore FNP, so you say it ignores FNP. Then you have a unit that you want to get FNP even if the enemy ignores FNP, so you give them a special snowflake rule thats like FNP but not actually, and then it all goes downhill from there.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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?

Until you end up with a rule that you want to be be able to ignore FNP, so you say it ignores FNP. Then you have a unit that you want to get FNP even if the enemy ignores FNP, so you give them a special snowflake rule thats like FNP but not actually, and then it all goes downhill from there.

Or you just don't do silly things like that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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?

Until you end up with a rule that you want to be be able to ignore FNP, so you say it ignores FNP. Then you have a unit that you want to get FNP even if the enemy ignores FNP, so you give them a special snowflake rule thats like FNP but not actually, and then it all goes downhill from there.

And if by down hill, you mean a sentence on one weapon, and a sentence on one unit.

What you're saying is the same as saying: "Well, my car might be crushed by a meteor today, so I might as well just stay in bed."

At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

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.

The cityfight rules are far closer to where we should be than the minimal terrain rules everyone uses. Truth is that the BRB already had better terrain rules but they were optional so nobody uses them - they just grumble about the bad terrain rules on the internet

I agree that the cityfight terrain rules could get out of hand unless you have compensating ways to clear out dug-in units. Personally i would just have a rule that permits any unit to fight from 3" vertically away at a penalty of -1 to hit - no wobbly models, no models claiming to be where they are not, just let them attack in the fight phase. The game mechanics really struggle with vertical separation between models at the moment.

I would also definitely have rules for grenades and flamethrowers getting max numbers of shots and re-rolls to wound against dug-in units because that is cinematic and suits the image we have of those weapons. Also because shooting armies do need a way to dig out those units.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

And by buddhist monk, you mean take a decent amount of time to make sure everything syncs up properly. Not doing it is probably why they had trouble before, but it's not something that would require superhuman like skills at game creation.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

And by buddhist monk, you mean take a decent amount of time to make sure everything syncs up properly. Not doing it is probably why they had trouble before, but it's not something that would require superhuman like skills at game creation.

I agree, it requires average skills at game creation along with a technical editor. GW do not have those things.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

O levels? How old are you? They're called GCSEs and have been for decades.

That there shows a massive disconnect you have with this community and how it plays the game. USRs are a wonderful modern invention and have been implemented greatly. Just because GW didn't do it well (although let's ignore how well they did it in 4th and 5th ) doesn't make it a gak idea.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

I'm not sure what your point here is. ANY approach to writing rules is going to fail if you assume complete incompetence as an inevitable trait of the authors.

Which, if you read his posts, he does automatically assume.

I automatically assume it for GW writers the same way I automatically assume if I stick my hand into a toaster it's going to get burned. Basic Pattern Recognition.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I automatically assume it for GW writers the same way I automatically assume if I stick my hand into a toaster it's going to get burned. Basic Pattern Recognition.

Then (as much as it pains me to say it as I have been asked this many a time) why the feth are you still playing? There are far better written games out there that will cause you much less stress.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

I'm not sure what your point here is. ANY approach to writing rules is going to fail if you assume complete incompetence as an inevitable trait of the authors.

To be fair GW rules writing has had a fair number of fundamental ups in 8th edition, that should have been fixed if they had anything resembling a pier review process so I would say it's not unreasonable to expect the same level of "in"competence in USR.

I think everyone is happy that we have 8th edition and the GW are actually trying to fix the screw ups as the community highlights them, but the community shouldn't still be having to explaining the game to the designers, or why certain factions don't work and others are extremely powerful.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I automatically assume it for GW writers the same way I automatically assume if I stick my hand into a toaster it's going to get burned. Basic Pattern Recognition.

So if all GW rules writers are bad, and cant write anything good, then WHY are you on here talking about rules from GW then? I think its time to call your troll crap out and stop talking to you.

Would you agree it is a little bit counterintuitive to state and expect GW to be incompetent at writing rules, but then try to interpret those same rules following strict RAW principle?

This looks awfully a lot like Troll confessing he is trolling.

Maybe because I like the lore? Because for all the crap the rules are, the models are still the best around? Maybe because I like discussing the rules, however badly written they are? I don't have to justify my hobbies to you or anyone else.

8th is a solid game with a few glaring flaws, as opposed to 7th which was a barely functional mess. The "broken" stuff notwithstanding I actually enjoy playing the game (when LoW aren't used but that's an issue with GW's incompetence/marketing diktats at writing rules for Knights).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Maybe because I like the lore? Because for all the crap the rules are, the models are still the best around? Maybe because I like discussing the rules, however badly written they are? I don't have to justify my hobbies to you or anyone else.

Then talk about them instead of gaking all over the rules perhaps?

Yes, we know GW is hippy dippy at writing rules. It's up there with death and taxes as something that is inevitable, we don't need to be reminded of it every 5 minutes like its some kind of revelation and you're on a higher level for understanding this and us uneducated peons are not.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Maybe because I like the lore? Because for all the crap the rules are, the models are still the best around? Maybe because I like discussing the rules, however badly written they are? I don't have to justify my hobbies to you or anyone else.

Then talk about them instead of gaking all over the rules perhaps?

Yes, we know GW is hippy dippy at writing rules. It's up there with death and taxes as something that is inevitable, we don't need to be reminded of it every 5 minutes like its some kind of revelation and you're on a higher level for understanding this and us uneducated peons are not.

This entire thread revolves around the concept though. The OP wants to reintroduce USRs. There are multiple reasons why USRs are a mess, one of which is GW's inability to use them properly and reasons beside that. Maybe they work in other games, fair enough. Most other games don't have a power range from 3 kilos of moving fungus with a sharp stick to a literal walking god-engine that can raze a non-negligible part of a continent to ash. USRs simply don't work well when things get that disparate in power.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This entire thread revolves around the concept though. The OP wants to reintroduce USRs. There are multiple reasons why USRs are a mess, one of which is GW's inability to use them properly and reasons beside that. Maybe they work in other games, fair enough. Most other games don't have a power range from 3 kilos of moving fungus with a sharp stick to a literal walking god-engine that can raze a non-negligible part of a continent to ash. USRs simply don't work well when things get that disparate in power.

Oh you know I'm not talking about this thread in isolation. Don't be so obtuse.

Go and talk in the background threads or modelling. Please. For the sake of everyone.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Maybe because I like the lore? Because for all the crap the rules are, the models are still the best around? Maybe because I like discussing the rules, however badly written they are? I don't have to justify my hobbies to you or anyone else.

Then talk about them instead of gaking all over the rules perhaps?

Yes, we know GW is hippy dippy at writing rules. It's up there with death and taxes as something that is inevitable, we don't need to be reminded of it every 5 minutes like its some kind of revelation and you're on a higher level for understanding this and us uneducated peons are not.

This entire thread revolves around the concept though. The OP wants to reintroduce USRs. There are multiple reasons why USRs are a mess, one of which is GW's inability to use them properly and reasons beside that. Maybe they work in other games, fair enough. Most other games don't have a power range from 3 kilos of moving fungus with a sharp stick to a literal walking god-engine that can raze a non-negligible part of a continent to ash. USRs simply don't work well when things get that disparate in power.

Im the OP and never said i wanted USR in the rule book, i said USR or datasheet rules, aka a list of rules that a large majority of units can have.

The thread is suppose to generate talk about some nice core rules to have, not to have USR, you are the troll that is saying its about USR.

edit: spelling

Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

Stop trying to derail the thread ffs, this isnt about adding USR to the rulebook, but a few rules in general that many units should have, so shutup about USR and get back onto topic.

FLY keyword is a USR in 8th ed and no one seems to have problem with it.

The game may not need the USR of the 6/7th ed, but it sure could use some standardized glossary of terms to be used in tandum explaining the rules.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Where else are you going to define rules that are "universal" if not in the main rulebook?

this isnt about adding USR to the rulebook

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

AnomanderRake wrote: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 seem to remember more pages of them, but I usually referenced them digitally more than on paper. And as much as people keep going off on that, there weren't that many, proportionally, that referenced other ones as much as in 6th edition. In 7th they more often kept the language complete instead of referencing them. The differences were usually between model-specific and group-affect.

Where more of the problems came were the Unit Special Rules which should have been left to USRs, but weren't because of USR +1 syndrome, and the confusion with the interactions with the Independent Character special rule.

BaconCatBug wrote:At first. Maybe USRs work well in other games, bully for them. They won't work in GW written games unless literally every single staff member becomes a Buddhist monk and are replaced with people who can write rules as if they have more than three O-Levels.

Well, they're British, I'm not sure how many Buddhist Shrines are on the Isles. Does the Church of England have monasteries, or is that just a Catholic thing?

skchsan wrote:FLY keyword is a USR in 8th ed and no one seems to have problem with it.

The game may not need the USR of the 6/7th ed, but it sure could use some standardized glossary of terms to be used in tandum explaining the rules.

That's not even needed for USRs, but for things like "unsaved Wound". GW writing takes a lot of assumptions in their writing, and that's where the big fail lies with their rules writing, such as with 7th Edition's USRs.

 Charistoph wrote:

skchsan wrote:FLY keyword is a USR in 8th ed and no one seems to have problem with it.

The game may not need the USR of the 6/7th ed, but it sure could use some standardized glossary of terms to be used in tandum explaining the rules.

That's not even needed for USRs, but for things like "unsaved Wound". GW writing takes a lot of assumptions in their writing, and that's where the big fail lies with their rules writing, such as with 7th Edition's USRs.

"Unsaved Wound" is not a USR or a phrase used as a pseudo proper noun.

That's why we need a glossary of terms.

If one's (GW) going to make up words and phrases different to the normal 'parsing of english language', then you need to provide a dictionary too.

 skchsan wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

skchsan wrote:FLY keyword is a USR in 8th ed and no one seems to have problem with it.

The game may not need the USR of the 6/7th ed, but it sure could use some standardized glossary of terms to be used in tandum explaining the rules.

That's not even needed for USRs, but for things like "unsaved Wound". GW writing takes a lot of assumptions in their writing, and that's where the big fail lies with their rules writing, such as with 7th Edition's USRs.

"Unsaved Wound" is not a USR or a phrase used as a pseudo proper noun.

That's why we need a glossary of terms.

If one's (GW) going to make up words and phrases different to the normal 'parsing of english language', then you need to provide a dictionary too.

I'm in agreement. I was merely pointing out "unsaved Wound" because it has been used a lot in previous editions, as well as currently, while never being properly defined, and there was a question for it on YMDC recently regarding that same term/phrase, which provides a perfect example of necessity.

One of the most core USR from past editions was Relentless and yet its rarely listed on 8th edition units. Completely ruins things when a big stompy unit has heavy weapons and gets -1 to hit when it moves despite it was originally designed to be able to use heavy weapons without a problem.

Losing USR sucked it used to be pretty easy when talking about units with my buddies just to list off it's profile and USR. Now everything has their own rules so I gota read their codex witch bogs the game down.

 Vankraken wrote:
One of the most core USR from past editions was Relentless and yet its rarely listed on 8th edition units. Completely ruins things when a big stompy unit has heavy weapons and gets -1 to hit when it moves despite it was originally designed to be able to use heavy weapons without a problem.

Any marine (loyalist or traitor) in Terminator armor thanks you for your observation.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Terminator_Armour -> "....Offensively, it provides the strength to maintain mobility while serving as a solid heavy-weapons platform in open-field combat."