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.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

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

Are you playing 8th edition?

Using consistent naming for identical or similar (that should be identical) effects is a good idea. Having a blank keyword that players forget is an important ability and need to look up elsewhere for specifics is not. The one place where something like a USR is when a rule defines a classification of model and has a variety of major interactions. Flying is generally one of these examples for the majority of games.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 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.

As has been said, USR and rules-on-data-sheet are not mutually exclusive.

Basically, we should have USR so we don't have 73 different 'deep strike' rules. Especially when so many of them have ever-so-slight differences in verbiage in such a way that it doesn't add any functionality, but makes various rules interactions into a big hairy mess (Unstoppable Green Tide + Da Jump, for example).

We should have some USR. Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Heroic Presence (Reroll 1's to hit, and some such), Scout (pre-game move), and a couple of others. We only need a handful.

For the rules that are supposed to be different (super-duper-special deepstrike, reroll-everything, ect), continue with how we have it now. So the snowflake units, like Girly-man and Abby, get their special versions of rules whilst we don't have reroll 1s by a different name for every faction.

Lastly, again, we already have USR. Space marine units all have the Shock Assault rule, but do not have it described on their data sheets. You have to leaf to a particular page of the codex to review what Shock Assault does. Having a handful (less than 10) generic USR which are all neatly stored on a single page in the BRB would not be problematic, nor would it slow down the game. At least in comparison to how it currently stands, where I have to read every every single version of Deepstrike on every datasheet, just to make sure it works like most of the other iterations of Deepstrike. The alternative of having a generic 'deepstrike' (even if it's copy > pasted onto all data sheets) USR would actually speed the game up, because I'd be able to tell which rules are "Deepstrike + Benefits" due them having a name that's not simply Deepstrike.

The only viable argument against USR is to prevent the rules bloat of 6th + 7th. And while valid, what's being proposed here is a return to the 1-2 pages with 4-7 rules of 3rd and 4th. Also, the whole "I shouldn't have to look into another book!" thing is a really head-tilter for anyone playing 8th. Where I have to have my main codex, BRB, multiple versions of CA, multple FAQ documents for my codex + generic rules, probably the index for my army, and if I run allies I have to have their codex + index + FAQ documents as well. Oh, also Vigilus / ect for specialist detachments, + any modified 'battlezone' books, such as City Fight.

In 3rd edition, I needed my BRB + codex, + Dark Angels supplement. In 4th, I needed the same, + maybe City Fight if we were running it. That's less than half as many rules sources as modern 40k without even including the FAQ documents. Suffice it to say, the whole "Keep it simple so we don't need as many books as we have in the past!" is not a valid argument for anyone playing 8th.

Don't change anything about the current data sheets.

Simply standardise the rule names and abilities and cut and paste across all units.

They become USRs from a design perspective and a gameplay perspective. But they aren't listed like that when you use them

I think the game already has some USRs, but they exist as keywords: FLY, CHARACTER, and now AIRCRAFT. These rules have a huge impact on the nature of the units, so I'd like for any new USRs to be of similar importance.
That said, they could standardize the names for the more common abilities (deep strike, infiltrate etc...) because that doesn't stop them from creating unique twists on those abilities for, say, assassins.
Each codex could also have a reference sheet in the back for quick review of the abilities in the codex.

Dandelion wrote:
I think the game already has some USRs, but they exist as keywords: FLY, CHARACTER, and now AIRCRAFT. These rules have a huge impact on the nature of the units, so I'd like for any new USRs to be of similar importance.
That said, they could standardize the names for the more common abilities (deep strike, infiltrate etc...) because that doesn't stop them from creating unique twists on those abilities for, say, assassins.
Each codex could also have a reference sheet in the back for quick review of the abilities in the codex.

This is how most games use them, ether as faction mechanics. Should not need necron Regen written out on every unit, it only needs to be easy access.
And something like Feel no Pain every army has access to, so does not need to be on every sheet as well. Well formatted books should be all that is needed, and I do not think it would be too hard to print some of them in a codex as well.
With a reference to the USR page in the main rules. Do not even need a page number, just keep the USR section named the same with a new rule book.
The issue GW has is bloat. They need to special snowflake everything, and then snowflake things up to make sure they are more snowflake. It’s sorta hero syndrome in game terms.
And they have largely just replaced all there simplification from a lack of many USR with other systems that probably cause way more issues with over complicated systems layer on top of themselves.

Take the 6th rulebook and tweak the USRs as much as you like.

USRs as keywords. The rules for these keywords are all on a free pdf to download, one double sided A4 maximum. When errata updates a USR, it only needs to update the wording in that PDF as it isn't printed anywhere else, preventing GW from forgetting where all of their own rules are used and missing a unit when errata'ing.

People can just print off this single page and tuck it into their codex/army box/whatever.

I'd like to see the same key rules mentioned above going back to USR but if settle for them just using the same name. If it's deep strike, just call it that.

More than sticking to a single page or two of USRs would be for the team to keep all SRs down. How many rules do space marines get, rather than accept that on the Open battlefields like they seem to encourage that a single space marine is not worth much more than other infantry.

What leads to people forgetting rules is when you have a rule that only works when player this one faction, since everyone else ignores it. Or ignores it in there own special way.
Or SR that gives a bunch of USRs, with no extra effects.
On top of a bunch of cards, powers and everything else that leads to massive bloat in the system.

A bit of a side, this can also be poor names. A rule like relentless does a specific thing, but it’s name does not really fit with every unit that may use the specific rule. And with GW doing so much on the feelsies they may not put that rule on units that may need it, but may not fit the name.

10 ish USR are fine imo, everyone can remember that.

Apple fox wrote:More than sticking to a single page or two of USRs would be for the team to keep all SRs down. How many rules do space marines get, rather than accept that on the Open battlefields like they seem to encourage that a single space marine is not worth much more than other infantry.

Spoiler:

What leads to people forgetting rules is when you have a rule that only works when player this one faction, since everyone else ignores it. Or ignores it in there own special way.
Or SR that gives a bunch of USRs, with no extra effects.
On top of a bunch of cards, powers and everything else that leads to massive bloat in the system.

A bit of a side, this can also be poor names. A rule like relentless does a specific thing, but it’s name does not really fit with every unit that may use the specific rule. And with GW doing so much on the feelsies they may not put that rule on units that may need it, but may not fit the name.

they seem to encourage a large amount of terrain(at least according to CA18 terrain rules). Planet bowling ball is for the unimaginative player that just wants to sit back and shoot.

You could also just put the USR in the back of every codex.

Yes an index or reference as Jidmah suggested would be good. The codexes could do with better reference sheets anyway at the back, even more concise and better laid out

I always thought that they should be universally named but with a number to allow for adjustments.

So Feel No Pain becomes "Feel No Pain D6 6+". Where as some things have it as "Feel No Pain 2D6 5+" depending on how it activates.

Or alternatively if there's an Aura to increase hit rolls it should be something like "Inspiring 6" +1" or "Inspiring 3" +2" or the like.

Then distinctions between Terrifying and Horrifying just become in a number at the end and therefore you know what it does from the USR list, but then you know what effect it has on the rolls too at a glance.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
USRs as keywords. The rules for these keywords are all on a free pdf to download, one double sided A4 maximum. When errata updates a USR, it only needs to update the wording in that PDF as it isn't printed anywhere else, preventing GW from forgetting where all of their own rules are used and missing a unit when errata'ing.

People can just print off this single page and tuck it into their codex/army box/whatever.

The 7th edition 4 page rules summary basically fit the majority of GW's bloaty rules on 8 sides of standard size paper and make referencing basically anything from the BRB a breeze. Zero reason why GW couldn't do the same with 8th/9th/whatever as a simple PDF you print off and boom all your core rules easy to reference.

USRs improve the information density. That can be used for either a streamlined game *or* a more detailed game. So if you want to cull bloat, you can do that with USRs without sacrificing depth (or as much depth). If you want more depth, you can get more with less (or no addtional) bloat.

Whether you want more depth or less complexity, USRs would improve it.

I kinda feel like we wouldn't be having this discussion if GW had just arsed to release Datasheet cards like they did with AoS. When my opponent is unsure about something in my army they can easily get one of my warscrolls to look it up while I move, plan, or whatever.

Hell, or release the codex abilities with the Maelstrom of War and psychic cards. They did that with the Power from Pain.

This is a great idea! Bringing back the USRs would make the game more fun. Bring back army lists too!

USRs, as long there is about 10 of them to unify the most frequent things like sniper, flamer, -1 to hit after moving etc. is fine, but I don't want it to return to the point I had to carry two A4s of USRs only. No, thank you.

I hate USRs and I think the game is far better without them. I hated having to refer to other books in editions gone by to calculate my full rules. It was stupid, clunky and discouraged new players from joining the hobby. The new remit with no USRs (excluding a few such as those for flyers) is far better.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I hate USRs and I think the game is far better without them. I hated having to refer to other books in editions gone by to calculate my full rules. It was stupid, clunky and discouraged new players from joining the hobby. The new remit with no USRs (excluding a few such as those for flyers) is far better.

So you dont dislike USRs but the shoddy way GW writes its rules and publishes books. Two very different things and should not be mixed up.

Especially since the problem still persists with multiple rules documents needed to play just without USRs. You still need at least 3 books to play right now, core rules, codex and CA. Maybe even a supplement or vigilus book too even if mono codex and most likely having the index too. Preferably you would also need the FAQs and erratas too for another few documents. Without battlescribe I wouldnt even have bothered to get back in 8th when I found out I needed 3+ separete books to even make a legal army list from what I owned.

Klickor wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I hate USRs and I think the game is far better without them. I hated having to refer to other books in editions gone by to calculate my full rules. It was stupid, clunky and discouraged new players from joining the hobby. The new remit with no USRs (excluding a few such as those for flyers) is far better.

So you dont dislike USRs but the shoddy way GW writes its rules and publishes books. Two very different things and should not be mixed up.

Especially since the problem still persists with multiple rules documents needed to play just without USRs. You still need at least 3 books to play right now, core rules, codex and CA. Maybe even a supplement or vigilus book too even if mono codex and most likely having the index too. Preferably you would also need the FAQs and erratas too for another few documents. Without battlescribe I wouldnt even have bothered to get back in 8th when I found out I needed 3+ separete books to even make a legal army list from what I owned.

I agree with the sentiments in this. You could put the USRs in the back of every book for reference. If they're organised well they'll take up less space than a weapons list.

The concept of USRs for me is not to have them in one distinct book and having to refer to that... it's that everyone knows what they are. Everyone in my local groups refers to Feel No Pain, not disgustingly resilient. I mean you can give them a fancy name in the fluffybits, but refer to the USR afterwards!

No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

Stormonu wrote:I’m all for similar rules having unified mechanics/wording (we don’t need the 10 million variants of essentially Deepstrike) - but the full text still needs to be on the datasheet. At the same time many of the rule texts for these abilities have extraneous fluff written into them (again, the myriad Deepstrike abilities are the most egregious) that should be stripped out. ‘Just the rules, ma’am”

Exactly, use them like MTG uses them

so a new player can read what exactly hexproof and convoke are, then later on when he tells his opponent "my creature has hexproof" and "i convoked it with these creatures" he knows what it means.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

thats exactly the problem ,and part of the rules bloat that we have right now.
Its easier to remember what the rules are when there are no exceptions. Having so many variants of Gets Hot! or Explodes means that you often have to double check which version you have. and if you ever want to change that rule (gets hot only triggers on unmodified 1's and always deals 1 mortal wound) you have to go through plenty of codexes / index / White dwarfs / etc. to fix it, instead of just changing the USR.

For everyone who says "It's easier to adjust rules when they're bespoke," two things:

1) GW has already adjusted many rules at once, which is way easier when they're USRs instead of bespoke.

2) If a unit has a USR and it's too powerful/too weak with it, but other units are fine, literally all it takes to adjust that one unit but no others is an Errata saying "This unit no longer has this USR. Instead, it has [DIFFERENT RULE]."

 oni wrote:
No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

How often do they actually nerf/buff units by changing their bespoke rules rather than having to clarify them in FAQs and Erratas? They could change individual units rules but isnt it just easier to give them an USR and then if the unit is bad lower its price instead of changing that units bespoke deepstrike rule to be 8" instead of 9"?

I see more that they think they have written a rule like a USR and then they notice a few months later that the wording was different and changes it in a document. With USR it would have been correct the first time. GW likes to do sweeping changes to mechanics and USR would make it easier to change it to all units. LIke its now they forget to change some of the more unusal units since they have to change each unit individually if they need to change mechanics.

Sanguinary Guard have encarmine weapons that they are the only unit that use. For some reason they pay more for them than what librarians do only because they have a different name and have been forgotten in the point updates in chapter approved. This makes this unit really bad. If instead they had relic blades or force weapons or even power weapons instead of encarmine weapons they would have ben priced like every other unit. But since they have unique rules they are forgotten.

Sure unique rules could be better if you had a great team writing and updating the rules and taking advantage of them being unique but all I see is them forgetting stuff instead.

 oni wrote:
No. Lets not and just say we did. USR's were an uncontrollable monster. Things are much better without them.

The great thing about bespoke unit rules is that each unit can be adjusted without effecting anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How easily the minds of children forget.

The minds of children at least seem to read the thread before responding.

 JNAProductions wrote:
For everyone who says "It's easier to adjust rules when they're bespoke," two things:

1) GW has already adjusted many rules at once, which is way easier when they're USRs instead of bespoke.

2) If a unit has a USR and it's too powerful/too weak with it, but other units are fine, literally all it takes to adjust that one unit but no others is an Errata saying "This unit no longer has this USR. Instead, it has [DIFFERENT RULE]."

The ENTIRE. BLOOMING. POINT. of USR's is to eliminate special snowflake rules. USRs don't work when you then have to give everyone a slightly different rule because the USR is too good or bad on the unit. It's one of the reasons why USR's don't work.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For everyone who says "It's easier to adjust rules when they're bespoke," two things:

1) GW has already adjusted many rules at once, which is way easier when they're USRs instead of bespoke.

2) If a unit has a USR and it's too powerful/too weak with it, but other units are fine, literally all it takes to adjust that one unit but no others is an Errata saying "This unit no longer has this USR. Instead, it has [DIFFERENT RULE]."

The ENTIRE. BLOOMING. POINT. of USR's is to eliminate special snowflake rules. USRs don't work when you then have to give everyone a slightly different rule because the USR is too good or bad on the unit. It's one of the reasons why USR's don't work.

I've said before, but can't you have the basis of the USR the same... and then add a number for small tweaks individual to that unit.

So Feel No Pain [D6 6+] goes on some units, while Feel No Pain [2D6 12+] might go on another. We'll all know what "Feel No Pain" is and what it means. and it can be described on the unit datasheet.. but each unit can have a variation on it... and that's if we want to vary them. Not all will have variations.

We don't need to have Deepstrike, Teleportarium, Underground Assault, Droppod Assault, High Altitude Deployment or wharever skills. Just Deepstrike [9"+] for most units to say that you can deepstrike 9+ inches away from an enemy.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For everyone who says "It's easier to adjust rules when they're bespoke," two things:

1) GW has already adjusted many rules at once, which is way easier when they're USRs instead of bespoke.

2) If a unit has a USR and it's too powerful/too weak with it, but other units are fine, literally all it takes to adjust that one unit but no others is an Errata saying "This unit no longer has this USR. Instead, it has [DIFFERENT RULE]."

The ENTIRE. BLOOMING. POINT. of USR's is to eliminate special snowflake rules. USRs don't work when you then have to give everyone a slightly different rule because the USR is too good or bad on the unit. It's one of the reasons why USR's don't work.

The full text of Explodes, Melta, Poisoned, 6-to-wound-does-something/6-to-hit-does-something (Warmachine had a rule called "Critical (some effect)" to cover this, it'd be trivial to write "Critical (extra AP)" or "Critical (mortal wound)" down as a USR), some-extra-bonus-for-cover (Stealth: This model adds +2 to its saves while benefitting from cover), Relentless, Unwieldy, FNP, Deep Strike, etc. are written out over and over and over again with different names on datasheets across a large number of Codexes. USRs are already part of 8th edition. They'd probably work better if you didn't have to read a paragraph to make sure it doesn't differ very slightly from the paragraph in your book every time you wanted to figure out what something does, though.