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.

And I can play 5th edition with in my gaming group if we all agree to it. I don't know to many people who will do a pick up game with someone using outdated rules.

To wit, to run my marine collection as a valid army with up to date rules I need the BRB, Marine codex 2.0, the original marine index, the FW index for marines, CA, several FAQs, and I'm probably missing some content from WD that I can't think of.

On top of that to run them as a first chapter I need a supplement, which means to run a proper army I need at least 7 separate sources of rules. That is at least if not more bloat than I had to deal with in 7th and that's not even touching running any kind of soup list.

The problem with Universal Special Rules in prior editions was that eventually the main rulebook had like 12 pages of them. It was just super excessive, and nobody could remember them all.

Of course now we basically have the same problem again, only worse because the rules are no longer universal so they're spread across the main rulebook, the vigilus supplement, your codex, your codex supplement...

The only way out of this pickle is to reduce the number of special rules to the bare minimum and use basic unit statlines and weapon choices to differentiate units and armies from one another. GW actually moved in this direction by re-introducing a Movement stat, thus allowing the elimination of a dozen movement-related special rules (Beasts, Bikes, Crusader, Fleet, Slow And Purposeful, Supersonic, Vector Strike, Vector Dancer, etc).

The same thing needs to be done for other stats IMO--especially toughness. Think about how many redundant ways there are to express model's durability: toughness, wounds, save, invulnerable save, FNP save... It's a mess! Thanks to the new 8th edition would table, you could just remove a lot of that and instead simply scale up models' toughness values without breaking the game. Frankly I think save and toughness are redundant and one should be removed, but that's probably a bridge too far.

That condensed rules reference sheet that some user on here made for 7th was extremely helpful for quickly referencing what all those USRs did on top of all the unit type, terrain, weapon type, etc rules. (Basically you could resolve 95% of BRB rules questions in 7th with that thing). But I don't think many people are advocating for 40+ USRs again but I think a few core USRs are needed to help flesh out mechanics and functions such as with Relentless (why the zog is this not a core rule, it was probably the most common rule for past editions and yet GW ruined a lot of units by it's absence in 8th).

The core rules are too simple. Most of the rules are in this edition spread out in all the other documents.

In 4th/5th 40k and 6th/7th wfb the core rulebook was quite thick with rules but if you had it and learnt it + your own codex you had acess to like 90% of the rules and the other 10% was mainly stat differences between the different factions and a few special items. You only needed to see the opponents reference sheet at the back of their codex that was 1 page and read their 1-2 pages of army wide special rules to not get surprised by anything they have.

Now if I copy their whole list into battlescribe and read each unit and try to look up all their rules I still havent gotten to all the "got ya!" stratagems that exist.

The core rules is like 30% of the game at this point so it isnt surprising the basics is easy but to learn all the other rules is a massive undertaking. I have skimmed through all the codecies, read all the stratagems, read a bunch of articles and are active on 40k forums and reddit. I have been breathing 40k for the last 6 months and am an experienced gamer and have played 3 tournaments and preparing for 3 more. Yet I'm still going in partly blind in some games unless I face Imperium due to the sheer amount of different(or at least differently named) rules all over the place. Having 8 pages of core rules is a failure and not a success at this point. Sure I dont have to play with the core rules close by but looking up FAQs, rulings and scrolling through armybooks/battlescribe for special rules is taking the time instead.

Took me a day to learn 9th age for my 2 armies and those core rules are like GW games in the old days and then a few hours for each other army. Mtg I can jump back in at any time and after a few days I can play at a high level but the most casual game of all, 40k, is the hardest to learn. At least to a point you dont lose the game to a special rule you didnt know about. Moving the models is easy and make the game look simple at first but it is a convoluted mess.

GW should just look back at each of their editions, both 40k and fantasy, and then learn from what was good or bad in each and then try to compile it. They have done everything both good and bad at some point and one day they might even realise that they dont have to reinvent the wheel each edition. They have already written the rules they need before.

Pointed Stick wrote:
The problem with Universal Special Rules in prior editions was that eventually the main rulebook had like 12 pages of them. It was just super excessive, and nobody could remember them all.

Of course now we basically have the same problem again, only worse because the rules are no longer universal so they're spread across the main rulebook, the vigilus supplement, your codex, your codex supplement...

The only way out of this pickle is to reduce the number of special rules to the bare minimum and use basic unit statlines and weapon choices to differentiate units and armies from one another. GW actually moved in this direction by re-introducing a Movement stat, thus allowing the elimination of a dozen movement-related special rules (Beasts, Bikes, Crusader, Fleet, Slow And Purposeful, Supersonic, Vector Strike, Vector Dancer, etc).

The same thing needs to be done for other stats IMO--especially toughness. Think about how many redundant ways there are to express model's durability: toughness, wounds, save, invulnerable save, FNP save... It's a mess! Thanks to the new 8th edition would table, you could just remove a lot of that and instead simply scale up models' toughness values without breaking the game. Frankly I think save and toughness are redundant and one should be removed, but that's probably a bridge too far.

B.c they were not true USR, if only 4-5 units in the game has them, keep them on the datasheets only, these USR are meant for large amounts of units.

Example:
Fly
Vehicle
Deepstrike
Poison
Ignore heavy negative when moving
Re-rolls 1
Fight First

If you make the USR ones that a large amount of units normally have, then the list would only be 10 or so at the most, and b.c its so small and so many units has them it is easy to remember what they are, we all know what DS, Fly, Poison, etc.. is already, we dont need to look them up. These USR are those types of rules.

I hate it when Magic the Gathering cards don't spell out what their rules do (wth is Malice?), why would I want to deal with the much longer and more detailed dataslates not having all their information on them.

Even having 'Fly' and 'aircraft' not spelled out irritates me.

ERJAK wrote:
I hate it when Magic the Gathering cards don't spell out what their rules do (wth is Malice?), why would I want to deal with the much longer and more detailed dataslates not having all their information on them.

Even having 'Fly' and 'aircraft' not spelled out irritates me.

MTG has a really, really good middle ground called "reminder text". You write out the text of the rule, but you also have a limited pool of bolded keyword rules that appear in a lot of places and function the same way every time, as opposed to GW's insistence on giving the same rule different names/different rules the same name/different datasheets very slight variations on the same effect. GW's approach makes the game more confusing and requires you to scan a paragraph to see if there are any slight fiddly variations on the text (can I reroll "to-hit rolls", or "failed to-hit rolls"?), having keywords without reminder text (ex. Warmachine's special-rule icons) requires you to keep flipping back and forth into the rulebook, but if you had the keywords and the reminder text the game would be easier to use both for new players and experienced players.

It'd also help if they didn't attach hidden special rules to some of the things on the keyword bar and not others with regards to Fly and Character...

ERJAK wrote:
I hate it when Magic the Gathering cards don't spell out what their rules do (wth is Malice?), why would I want to deal with the much longer and more detailed dataslates not having all their information on them.

Even having 'Fly' and 'aircraft' not spelled out irritates me.

At that point why not have all army rules on the cards too, and the PfP chart, or stratagems that only effect that unit, lets just play with page size datacards for everything and you 40page codex is now a 100 page one.

I hate it when MTG bleeds into other games.

USR should be as simple and broad as possible. In Rulebook

Individual Special Rules should be limited and specific. On Dataslate

Let’s not.

More problematic aspect in 8th ed's datasheet treatment in my opinion is that there are certain units have abilities of the same name but functions differently.

Klickor wrote:
The core rules are too simple. Most of the rules are in this edition spread out in all the other documents.

In 4th/5th 40k and 6th/7th wfb the core rulebook was quite thick with rules but if you had it and learnt it + your own codex you had acess to like 90% of the rules and the other 10% was mainly stat differences between the different factions and a few special items. You only needed to see the opponents reference sheet at the back of their codex that was 1 page and read their 1-2 pages of army wide special rules to not get surprised by anything they have.

Now if I copy their whole list into battlescribe and read each unit and try to look up all their rules I still havent gotten to all the "got ya!" stratagems that exist.

I think this is exactly right. It's like they looked at a game that had genuinely gotten too complicated and raced in the opposite direction to simplify it, but couldn't resist the urge to re-complicate it that created the original problem. However because the core rules are simple, all the re-added complication comes in the form of endless redundant unit-specific rules and game-breaking strategems in an endless stream of expensive supplements.

I know, I know, GM doesn't make competitive games or try for balance. But jeez... I started playing this game 18 years ago and the rules have never really gotten any better. With each new edition, they fix some of the problems with the prior one by making the game more complicated which eventually creates a Gordian Knot that they can only imagine fixing by rewriting some or all of the core rules, which restarts the cycle (e.g. 2nd -> 3rd, 7th -> 8th).

It's like a badly managed project that just oscillates around a fixed level of suck and never converges towards something shippable.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I hate it when Magic the Gathering cards don't spell out what their rules do (wth is Malice?), why would I want to deal with the much longer and more detailed dataslates not having all their information on them.

Even having 'Fly' and 'aircraft' not spelled out irritates me.

At that point why not have all army rules on the cards too, and the PfP chart, or stratagems that only effect that unit, lets just play with page size datacards for everything and you 40page codex is now a 100 page one.

How dare the rules people expect us to actually learn our rules!

Magic has the clearest ruleset I've ever encountered. I wish GW would follow suit. I do generally dislike MTG reminder text, myself, though. Once I know what a keyword does, I am capable of recalling that information later. If Erjak ever wanted to actually know what Menace does, they would have looked it up, and found that a creature with Menace can only be blocked by two or more creatures.

tbh, I prefer the keyword system they have. A little bit of sharpening up of that system and it will prevent the misuse of things like USRs across similar factions.

It's not a bad system. If you're truly worried about understanding all of the different rules of every faction, then ask your friends that play that faction, talk to people that play that faction, or, worst case scenario, use the magic of the internet to research that faction so you know what you're getting into when fighting against it.

That was the only benefit to USRs, it made it easier for people to quickly identify a rule. But honestly, with 8th, most of the rules are -1 or +1 to something, re-roll something, or 6" bubble something, with the occasional FNP equivalent. It's not all that complex.

Talking isnt really enough. People misread rules all the time and only talk about the most obvious things. It used to be enough but the amount of special rules now is almost countless.

I used to own the core rulebook and my own codex but that was back when it gave me most of the rules and I only needed 10min to read the other books to know them at a surface level. Now I pirate all the books since the amount of actual up to date rules I get for 80$ is more like 30% than the 90% it used to be. I have read them all but there is too much information thar isnt clearly written that I need multiple games against each sub faction to learn most of the special rules. Thank god I have a phone with good battery so I can access all the pdfs during a whole day of gaming and that battlescribe exists.

Im glad I play marines/Blood Angels so I at least know the 50 different bolt weapon profiles by heart not to mention everything else marines have more of than any other faction. Cant be easy for Xenos players to know the difference between them in a game. It was one thing when it were only bolt pistol, boltet, heavy bolter, storm bolter and hurricane bolter but I cant even name all of them on the top of my head that we have now.

And subfactions having their own stratagems makes this even worse. I dont play certain factions often enough to know which strats are specific to certain sub factions or are available to everyone. I kinda know most ork and eldar strats but not who can actually use which. And then adding vigilus to that!!

Only faction that actually felt easy to learn is Tau and I havent actually played against them yet in this edition. They are all shooting and have 0 psychic powers and mostly the same upgrades on everything and very few viable units. Looks like a really boring faction but at least its easy to understand.

The actual rules are not complex at all and quite easy to understand each of them. Its just that there are so many of them and many with slightly different wording. And they are spread out not just between factions but in a single codex you can see the same rule as a subfaction tactic, a unit ability, a warlord trait, a relic, a psychic power, a stratagem or a vigilus upgrade to any of the earlier. All with just slightly different wording. This makes something that should be very easy to read and understand the complete opposite. And then add all the FAQs to that instead of a digital version that is updated.

drbored wrote:
tbh, I prefer the keyword system they have. A little bit of sharpening up of that system and it will prevent the misuse of things like USRs across similar factions.

It's not a bad system. If you're truly worried about understanding all of the different rules of every faction, then ask your friends that play that faction, talk to people that play that faction, or, worst case scenario, use the magic of the internet to research that faction so you know what you're getting into when fighting against it.

That was the only benefit to USRs, it made it easier for people to quickly identify a rule.

In magic you can research all cards on the internet as well. Yet, when my opponent tells me that his Angel has Protection from Red and Black, Trample, Flying, First Strike, Haste and Vigilance I immediately know exactly what that card can do, even if he had never seen it before.
When I drop a black "destroy all creatures" spell on that angel I also know that Protection from Black won't save it, since there is exactly one wording for that rule, and not 7 like there is for 40k bodyguards or stealth.
In addition, when MtG introduced the new Mechanic "Double Strike", they added one line which ruled what happened when a creature has both Double Strike and First Strike, without changing the Angel.
A properly maintained list of keyworded rules serves to reduce complexity and increase maintainability - both are desirable.

But honestly, with 8th, most of the rules are -1 or +1 to something, re-roll something, or 6" bubble something, with the occasional FNP equivalent. It's not all that complex.

So, without looking at the rules, what is the difference between Deathshroud Terminators protecting Typhus, Victrix Honor Guard protecting Calgar, Grot Shields protecting Ghazghkull Thrakka and Shield Drone protecting Farsight? Which of the characters can take their FNP rolls? Which ones suffer mortal wounds from snipers? Which bodyguards get to take their saves?
It's not all that complex, right?

PRIMARY WEAPON <WEAPON>: If this model moved less than half it's movement speed in the previous movement phase, during the shooting phase it may fire a <WEAPON> it is equipped with twice. Both attacks must target the same unit, and are resolved simultaneously.
STABILIZED: This model does not suffer the -1 to hit rolls for moving and firing heavy weapons.
SNIPER: This weapon may target enemy CHARACTERS even if they are not the closest enemy model.
SPRAY: This weapon automatically hits the target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

drbored wrote:
tbh, I prefer the keyword system they have. A little bit of sharpening up of that system and it will prevent the misuse of things like USRs across similar factions.

It's not a bad system. If you're truly worried about understanding all of the different rules of every faction, then ask your friends that play that faction, talk to people that play that faction, or, worst case scenario, use the magic of the internet to research that faction so you know what you're getting into when fighting against it.

That was the only benefit to USRs, it made it easier for people to quickly identify a rule.

In magic you can research all cards on the internet as well. Yet, when my opponent tells me that his Angel has Protection from Red and Black, Trample, Flying, First Strike, Haste and Vigilance I immediately know exactly what that card can do, even if he had never seen it before.
When I drop a black "destroy all creatures" spell on that angel I also know that Protection from Black won't save it, since there is exactly one wording for that rule, and not 7 like there is for 40k bodyguards or stealth.
In addition, when MtG introduced the new Mechanic "Double Strike", they added one line which ruled what happened when a creature has both Double Strike and First Strike, without changing the Angel.
A properly maintained list of keyworded rules serves to reduce complexity and increase maintainability - both are desirable.

Minor observation: Akroma, Angel of Wrath didn't have Vigilance. She had "Attacking doesn't cause Akroma, Angel of Wrath to tap" in a line below "Flying, First Strike, Trample, Haste, Protection from Black, and Protection from Red". It's the effect of Vigilance, but she didn't have the keyword since she was printed before Vigilance became a keyword and is technically not the same, which can matter in edge cases. That said, I also think she was changed to replace her unique version with Vigilance at some point.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
PRIMARY WEAPON <WEAPON>: If this model moved less than half it's movement speed in the previous movement phase, during the shooting phase it may fire a <WEAPON> it is equipped with twice. Both attacks must target the same unit, and are resolved simultaneously.
STABILIZED: This model does not suffer the -1 to hit rolls for moving and firing heavy weapons.
SNIPER: This weapon may target enemy CHARACTERS even if they are not the closest enemy model.
SPRAY: This weapon automatically hits the target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

drbored wrote:
tbh, I prefer the keyword system they have. A little bit of sharpening up of that system and it will prevent the misuse of things like USRs across similar factions.

It's not a bad system. If you're truly worried about understanding all of the different rules of every faction, then ask your friends that play that faction, talk to people that play that faction, or, worst case scenario, use the magic of the internet to research that faction so you know what you're getting into when fighting against it.

That was the only benefit to USRs, it made it easier for people to quickly identify a rule.

In magic you can research all cards on the internet as well. Yet, when my opponent tells me that his Angel has Protection from Red and Black, Trample, Flying, First Strike, Haste and Vigilance I immediately know exactly what that card can do, even if he had never seen it before.
When I drop a black "destroy all creatures" spell on that angel I also know that Protection from Black won't save it, since there is exactly one wording for that rule, and not 7 like there is for 40k bodyguards or stealth.
In addition, when MtG introduced the new Mechanic "Double Strike", they added one line which ruled what happened when a creature has both Double Strike and First Strike, without changing the Angel.
A properly maintained list of keyworded rules serves to reduce complexity and increase maintainability - both are desirable.

Minor observation: Akroma, Angel of Wrath didn't have Vigilance. She had "Attacking doesn't cause Akroma, Angel of Wrath to tap" in a line below "Flying, First Strike, Trample, Haste, Protection from Black, and Protection from Red". It's the effect of Vigilance, but she didn't have the keyword since she was printed before Vigilance became a keyword and is technically not the same, which can matter in edge cases. That said, I also think she was changed to replace her unique version with Vigilance at some point.

I think it was a second printing and onwards she has vigilance, and now even when playing the card without that keyword she has it now.
This can also be seen with the card ajani’s pridemate, as its ability was a may to account for tournament rules. But with the change to how tournament rules handle ability’s like that it has been changed to an ability that triggers regardless. In part as well to enable the card on Arena to not take up half the game time.
If I am remembering correctly lol, brain broke this early in the morning.

Grumpy again: It's "Relentless", not "Stabilized". Don't make up new rules when they've existed under another name in the past, that's confusing!

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Minor observation: Akroma, Angel of Wrath didn't have Vigilance. She had "Attacking doesn't cause Akroma, Angel of Wrath to tap" in a line below "Flying, First Strike, Trample, Haste, Protection from Black, and Protection from Red". It's the effect of Vigilance, but she didn't have the keyword since she was printed before Vigilance became a keyword and is technically not the same, which can matter in edge cases. That said, I also think she was changed to replace her unique version with Vigilance at some point.

Akroma was reprinted a couple of times with Vigilance on her afterwards, so she has Vigiliance for all intents and purposes.

There still are creatures which have abilities that work similar (when ~this attacks, untap it), but are different and WH40k should have those too. But there should be a good reason to do something different than the default, and such abilities should clearly broadcast "Read me! This is doing something different!".

USR's work fine if the company can behave itself and not make special snowflake rules that are USR+, USR- or make rules that ignore USRs.

GW can't behave itself.

In addition to the sheer quantity of USRs back in 7th, I think another large part of the problem was the amount of indirection to them.

For instance a unit has the Daemon USR. It is also a Cavalry unit. You now have to flick to the Cavalry rules to find out that Cavalry units have the USRs Fleet, and Hammer of Wrath.
You now have to flick to the USR section to find out what each of those does.
You look up the Daemon USR, which states that this USR grants it the Fear USR, and so have to find that one too.


My take is that if USRs were reintroduced, they must All be printed on the datasheet.
There should be no sub-grouping them for anything like 'unit types', and there should be none that grant the effect of another USR + some additional ability.

I'd even give the side eyes to an upgrade that granted the effect of a USR. It's possibly fine if the effect of the upgrade is printed on the datasheet. But if you have to flick to a separate list of upgrades in your codex, simply to be referred to the USR section in the core rules. Then that is a problem.
The biggest advantage to the datasheet format is that all the information to play a unit is right there. You would have to think very carefully before diluting that concept any further than it already has been.

Arson Fire wrote:
In addition to the sheer quantity of USRs back in 7th, I think another large part of the problem was the amount of indirection to them.

For instance a unit has the Daemon USR. It is also a Cavalry unit. You now have to flick to the Cavalry rules to find out that Cavalry units have the USRs Fleet, and Hammer of Wrath.
You now have to flick to the USR section to find out what each of those does.
You look up the Daemon USR, which states that this USR grants it the Fear USR, and so have to find that one too.


My take is that if USRs were reintroduced, they must All be printed on the datasheet.
There should be no sub-grouping them for anything like 'unit types', and there should be none that grant the effect of another USR + some additional ability.

I'd even give the side eyes to an upgrade that granted the effect of a USR. It's possibly fine if the effect of the upgrade is printed on the datasheet. But if you have to flick to a separate list of upgrades in your codex, simply to be referred to the USR section in the core rules. Then that is a problem.
The biggest advantage to the datasheet format is that all the information to play a unit is right there. You would have to think very carefully before diluting that concept any further than it already has been.

Yeah the only time I can think of that it worked was maybe with the Zealot USR, mostly because of the simplicity behind it.

USRs that say "this unit has the X, Y, and Z USRs" are pointless filler; just give the unit the X, Y, and Z USRs in the first place! Better to be slightly redundant than introduce an additional level of indirection. It's not rocket surgery.

So, I see a lot of people talking about the USR bloat from 6th and 7th. They're right, but I think they're forgetting things.

The USR for 3rd edition took up a page; and that was with a gigantic fluffy header. There were like, five or so.

The USR for 4th took up two pages, and that was with a gigantic fluffy header. There were.. 8, or so?

I recognize that the 15-20 pages of USR, tons of which were slight various of eachother (Hatred, Zealot, Preferred Enemy = Stealth, Shrouded, Concealed - Infiltrate, Scouts, Some-gak-I-Can't-Remember, ect ), was insane and do not support that. However all of those representing that as the only way USR could return are heavily misrepresenting the situation.

As it stands, we already have USR in codex form. Angels of Death, Shock Assault, ect. Putting together 8 or so of the most common into the BRB, to streamline, would be fine.

 morganfreeman wrote:
So, I see a lot of people talking about the USR bloat from 6th and 7th. They're right, but I think they're forgetting things.

The USR for 3rd edition took up a page; and that was with a gigantic fluffy header. There were like, five or so.

The USR for 4th took up two pages, and that was with a gigantic fluffy header. There were.. 8, or so?

I recognize that the 15-20 pages of USR, tons of which were slight various of eachother (Hatred, Zealot, Preferred Enemy), was insane and do not support that. However all of those representing that as the only way USR could return are heavily misrepresenting the situation.

As it stands, we already have USR in codex form. Angels of Death, Shock Assault, ect. Putting together 8 or so of the most common into the BRB, to streamline, would be fine.

Until GW decide that they want a special version of a USR for a single unit, or have a unit immune from another rule that ignores a USR.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
So, I see a lot of people talking about the USR bloat from 6th and 7th. They're right, but I think they're forgetting things.

The USR for 3rd edition took up a page; and that was with a gigantic fluffy header. There were like, five or so.

The USR for 4th took up two pages, and that was with a gigantic fluffy header. There were.. 8, or so?

I recognize that the 15-20 pages of USR, tons of which were slight various of eachother (Hatred, Zealot, Preferred Enemy), was insane and do not support that. However all of those representing that as the only way USR could return are heavily misrepresenting the situation.

As it stands, we already have USR in codex form. Angels of Death, Shock Assault, ect. Putting together 8 or so of the most common into the BRB, to streamline, would be fine.

Until GW decide that they want a special version of a USR for a single unit, or have a unit immune from another rule that ignores a USR.

To be completely frank, every single unit having its own USR is what we have right now. It'd be pretty much impossible to double-up both systems as they stand.

 morganfreeman wrote:

As it stands, we already have USR in codex form. Angels of Death, Shock Assault, ect. Putting together 8 or so of the most common into the BRB, to streamline, would be fine.

I prefer it this way, with the rules spelled out on the units' datasheet rather than in the big rule book, though standardization of the wording would be nice, though sometimes the differences are certainly intentional.

I would say it's appreciably easier to not have to reference other books to find the rules for things.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


I prefer it this way, with the rules spelled out on the units' datasheet rather than in the big rule book, though standardization of the wording would be nice, though sometimes the differences are certainly intentional.

I would say it's appreciably easier to not have to reference other books to find the rules for things.

But having USRs and spelling them out on the datasheets aren't mutually exclusive, are they? Consolidating all the myriad "bespoke" rules, e.g. into something like
Inspiring Aura: all friendly <SUB-FACTION> units within 6" re-roll hit rolls of 1
would still make the game more fluid. Especially if these rules were also reproduced on the datasheets.

To me, adding all those tiny distinctions between 're-roll 1s', 're-roll 1s and 2s', 're-roll 1s if you got more than one of them', 're-roll all hit rolls if your mum's birthday falls on a Thursday this year' just increases the number of times people grab their rulebooks during a game. Wouldn't the ideal be to enable a game in which nobody needed to look at a rulebook -->at all<-- except for mission setup at the beginning and scoring at the end? Yeah, of course stuff will crop up now and again and of course learning all the rules by heart takes time, but mastery of the game shouldn't come down to remembering who grants re-roll 1s, re-roll failed hits and re-roll any hit rolls or whether a scout move is part of deployment or happens at the beginning of the first battle round.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


I prefer it this way, with the rules spelled out on the units' datasheet rather than in the big rule book, though standardization of the wording would be nice, though sometimes the differences are certainly intentional.

I would say it's appreciably easier to not have to reference other books to find the rules for things.

But having USRs and spelling them out on the datasheets aren't mutually exclusive, are they? Consolidating all the myriad "bespoke" rules, e.g. into something like
Inspiring Aura: all friendly <SUB-FACTION> units within 6" re-roll hit rolls of 1
would still make the game more fluid. Especially if these rules were also reproduced on the datasheets.

To me, adding all those tiny distinctions between 're-roll 1s', 're-roll 1s and 2s', 're-roll 1s if you got more than one of them', 're-roll all hit rolls if your mum's birthday falls on a Thursday this year' just increases the number of times people grab their rulebooks during a game. Wouldn't the ideal be to enable a game in which nobody needed to look at a rulebook -->at all<-- except for mission setup at the beginning and scoring at the end? Yeah, of course stuff will crop up now and again and of course learning all the rules by heart takes time, but mastery of the game shouldn't come down to remembering who grants re-roll 1s, re-roll failed hits and re-roll any hit rolls or whether a scout move is part of deployment or happens at the beginning of the first battle round.

You can do both, and even offer unit cards with out the USR written out in full. Codex can have most of the rules, Cards with just there one special rule. And maybe a back if they need a extra. Can even just start putting the cards in the boxes.
You can even make very interesting units if you have USR sorted out well.