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.
Tyran wrote: If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.
It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.
Just put any rule that is used often as a USR, and put it on a lot of units that get used if needed. Or even just on the main page in the codex, and sell or have print outs for players who do not need the rules all in one place.
But realisticly, a lot of rules could be USR, and just used and put out in full on every sheet that needs it.
COuld even be used in how ever they write it out, Type rule. It fills out what the rule does !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Also it is not the only Damage rule. Making it an USR would mean making all those other Damage rules USR and that is going to get confusing fast.
I have to ask. How does this get confusing, Just put the type of gun it is, and the rules that apply to that type. Put that gun type rules in the rule book under a Weapon USR.
If needed Write it down where ever else it is needed.
Outside of pure incompetence its not more confusing than having the rule itself, the idea is that the type of weapons have consistency. So when a player says its a melta with these stats people instantly know what it means.
This is so when you have a unique rule on a weapon if can stand out and does not over complicate and add to a bloated system.
Like all other USRs, they are used to bring down complication for shared rules. So that when something special comes up, you can use what precious design space you have on that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/19 19:27:12
Andykp wrote: Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.
...if you're re-introducing a system, you can eliminate (at least some of) the flaws on that system.
In this case, just make sure no USRs are purely there to say "This unit gains the X, Y and Z USRs". It might mean a few more USRs referenced on a given datasheet, but it is clearer.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Andykp wrote: Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.
What you don't like having to consult three books to understand one rule?
Legit what kept me from starting a chaos army in 7th. Bought all the books, test painted a few minis... could NOT be assed with juggling three books to understand one rule.
How is 8th any better? To run my solo marine army I need a codex, an index, relevant FAQs, CA, the forgeworld index, and at this point potentially two or more supplements or campaign books. I'd argue the game has never been more bloated rule and book wise than this edition.
At least in 7th GW put all the marine supplements into one book.
Andykp wrote: Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.
...if you're re-introducing a system, you can eliminate (at least some of) the flaws on that system.
In this case, just make sure no USRs are purely there to say "This unit gains the X, Y and Z USRs". It might mean a few more USRs referenced on a given datasheet, but it is clearer.
Andykp just answered to the subject of this thread without bothering to read as much as the OP.
There already has been a consensus on how to re-introduce USR with most of the benefits and none of the flaws.
To summarize this thread: - We already have USR like Character, Fly, Aircraft and Heroic Intervention - Most people agree that Bodyguard, Sniper, Ingore Damage(FNP), Deep Strike, Get's Hot, Explosions, Relentless, Fight First, Stealth, Command Aura and maybe 3-4 more should be USR - Something that is not used across many units in many armies is not be a USR (melta, haywire, ATSKNF, etc.) - The same rule should have a consistent name and wording in across the entire game. - USR should still be spelled out like bespoke rules and/or there should be a list of all USR in each codex to eliminate the extra book problem. - USR should never, ever confer other USR.
I'd also like to thank everyone for contributing, lots of good points made here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/20 06:55:10
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Tyran wrote: If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.
It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.
Just put any rule that is used often as a USR, and put it on a lot of units that get used if needed. Or even just on the main page in the codex, and sell or have print outs for players who do not need the rules all in one place.
But realisticly, a lot of rules could be USR, and just used and put out in full on every sheet that needs it.
COuld even be used in how ever they write it out, Type rule. It fills out what the rule does !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Also it is not the only Damage rule. Making it an USR would mean making all those other Damage rules USR and that is going to get confusing fast.
I have to ask. How does this get confusing, Just put the type of gun it is, and the rules that apply to that type. Put that gun type rules in the rule book under a Weapon USR.
If needed Write it down where ever else it is needed.
Outside of pure incompetence its not more confusing than having the rule itself, the idea is that the type of weapons have consistency. So when a player says its a melta with these stats people instantly know what it means.
This is so when you have a unique rule on a weapon if can stand out and does not over complicate and add to a bloated system.
Like all other USRs, they are used to bring down complication for shared rules. So that when something special comes up, you can use what precious design space you have on that.
An USR should not be any rule that is used often, it should be a rule that is used universally. Melta is not used universally.
In addition, and USR should be unique, that means that it must be a rule that is different enough, niche enough, that you don't have other similar rules. There are many similar rules to Melta.
Tyran wrote: If you are going to bring back USRs, then limit yourself to actual universal rules that almost everyone has.
It would be Relentless, FNP, Snipers, Deep Strike and Explosion and I guess Zoom. I don't think we need more USRs that those 6.
Just put any rule that is used often as a USR, and put it on a lot of units that get used if needed. Or even just on the main page in the codex, and sell or have print outs for players who do not need the rules all in one place.
But realisticly, a lot of rules could be USR, and just used and put out in full on every sheet that needs it.
COuld even be used in how ever they write it out, Type rule. It fills out what the rule does !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Also it is not the only Damage rule. Making it an USR would mean making all those other Damage rules USR and that is going to get confusing fast.
I have to ask. How does this get confusing, Just put the type of gun it is, and the rules that apply to that type. Put that gun type rules in the rule book under a Weapon USR.
If needed Write it down where ever else it is needed.
Outside of pure incompetence its not more confusing than having the rule itself, the idea is that the type of weapons have consistency. So when a player says its a melta with these stats people instantly know what it means.
This is so when you have a unique rule on a weapon if can stand out and does not over complicate and add to a bloated system.
Like all other USRs, they are used to bring down complication for shared rules. So that when something special comes up, you can use what precious design space you have on that.
An USR should not be any rule that is used often, it should be a rule that is used universally. Melta is not used universally.
In addition, and USR should be unique, that means that it must be a rule that is different enough, niche enough, that you don't have other similar rules. There are many similar rules to Melta.
So if melta is the same when used, it is not really much different.. wether it’s in the rule book, or just written out on every sheet that uses it. there is not really much reason to have many similar rules, other than to ad to confusion.
If a few army have something that is unique, that is fine.
But that does not mean a rule that is not used as often does not benefit from the same consultancy, both written and in thought as a universal rule.
There are some rules that would make it on the USR, that you even used that would be used sparingly in a more thoughtful rule set.
That alone should show you why it doesn't need unification.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
So if melta is the same when used, it is not really much different.. wether it’s in the rule book, or just written out on every sheet that uses it. there is not really much reason to have many similar rules, other than to ad to confusion.
If a few army have something that is unique, that is fine.
But that does not mean a rule that is not used as often does not benefit from the same consultancy, both written and in thought as a universal rule.
There are some rules that would make it on the USR, that you even used that would be used sparingly in a more thoughtful rule set.
Yeah no, that path lead to USR bloating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/20 22:26:04
Pancakey wrote: Gotta add that complexity without adding depth. It’s all the rage @GW these days.
Yep, having to remember one rule might have slightly different number than another rule is such a pain!
How about we kill that dumb 'complexity without adding depth' in other areas too: I vote for replacing all these silly bolters, lasguns, fleshborers etc with new USG: Light Gun (wounds on 5+, no AP), Medium Gun (wounds on 4+, -1 AP), Heavy Gun (wounds on 3+, -2 AP). There, needless complexity solved!
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious. But, it is a pain when they are mechanically very similar.
This is a false equivalency. Having 5 slightly different versions of something like Feel No Pain, that could easily be Feel No Pain (X) or Ignore Wounds (X) for efficiency, is not the same as distilling all of the weapons currently in the game into 3 very bland and boring ones. There is another path that is neither "bespoke" but-not-really rules bloat or extreme simplification.
This is true. The only army that had a different wound ignoring mechanic is Graia, which is unique as it really does benefit single would models a LOT more compared to anything else.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Andykp wrote: Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.
...if you're re-introducing a system, you can eliminate (at least some of) the flaws on that system.
In this case, just make sure no USRs are purely there to say "This unit gains the X, Y and Z USRs". It might mean a few more USRs referenced on a given datasheet, but it is clearer.
Andykp just answered to the subject of this thread without bothering to read as much as the OP.
There already has been a consensus on how to re-introduce USR with most of the benefits and none of the flaws.
To summarize this thread:
- We already have USR like Character, Fly, Aircraft and Heroic Intervention
- Most people agree that Bodyguard, Sniper, Ingore Damage(FNP), Deep Strike, Get's Hot, Explosions, Relentless, Fight First, Stealth, Command Aura and maybe 3-4 more should be USR - Something that is not used across many units in many armies is not be a USR (melta, haywire, ATSKNF, etc.)
- The same rule should have a consistent name and wording in across the entire game.
- USR should still be spelled out like bespoke rules and/or there should be a list of all USR in each codex to eliminate the extra book problem.
- USR should never, ever confer other USR.
I'd also like to thank everyone for contributing, lots of good points made here.
No mate, I read your OP. And it was just what I think the game needs less of. And you asked for more. Does it matter the Nepalese of the rules. I love that the actual rule is printed on the datasheet for the unit. Recently looked back at some 7th codexs and those things were an ugly mess and this soo pun would be too. With the new system you don’t need to worry about re writing these rules if something comes up and change them. They can be tweaked and changed and easily checked on each data sheet. Worse than that the list would soon grow. And then other armies would want acces to them and before you know it you are back 7th with all the head aches it caused.
Some of us are getting older and like things simple. And it doesn’t get much simpler than something telling you what it does on it’s tin.
No mate, I read your OP. And it was just what I think the game needs less of. And you asked for more. Does it matter the Nepalese of the rules. I love that the actual rule is printed on the datasheet for the unit. Recently looked back at some 7th codexs and those things were an ugly mess and this soo pun would be too. With the new system you don’t need to worry about re writing these rules if something comes up and change them. They can be tweaked and changed and easily checked on each data sheet. Worse than that the list would soon grow. And then other armies would want acces to them and before you know it you are back 7th with all the head aches it caused.
Some of us are getting older and like things simple. And it doesn’t get much simpler than something telling you what it does on it’s tin.
So I repeat, and to your whole OP. Nooooooooo!
But, and this has been said time and again in this thread, you'd still have what it does on its tin! Nobody's advocating getting rid of the rules on the datasheets.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 07:05:53
Bharring wrote: At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
So if melta is the same when used, it is not really much different.. wether it’s in the rule book, or just written out on every sheet that uses it. there is not really much reason to have many similar rules, other than to ad to confusion.
If a few army have something that is unique, that is fine.
But that does not mean a rule that is not used as often does not benefit from the same consultancy, both written and in thought as a universal rule.
There are some rules that would make it on the USR, that you even used that would be used sparingly in a more thoughtful rule set.
Yeah no, that path lead to USR bloating.
Only for GW, since you have to fail real hard for that to bloat up a system.
And maybe, just maybe the melta rule could be used a few more times. All it is, is using consistent rulings for a special rule when it’s used. Seriously, if that leads to bloat you Failed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 07:16:15
Andykp wrote: Nooooooooooooo! They got silly. With rules referencing things as having other USRs. It was horrible.
...if you're re-introducing a system, you can eliminate (at least some of) the flaws on that system.
In this case, just make sure no USRs are purely there to say "This unit gains the X, Y and Z USRs". It might mean a few more USRs referenced on a given datasheet, but it is clearer.
Andykp just answered to the subject of this thread without bothering to read as much as the OP.
There already has been a consensus on how to re-introduce USR with most of the benefits and none of the flaws.
To summarize this thread:
- We already have USR like Character, Fly, Aircraft and Heroic Intervention
- Most people agree that Bodyguard, Sniper, Ingore Damage(FNP), Deep Strike, Get's Hot, Explosions, Relentless, Fight First, Stealth, Command Aura and maybe 3-4 more should be USR - Something that is not used across many units in many armies is not be a USR (melta, haywire, ATSKNF, etc.)
- The same rule should have a consistent name and wording in across the entire game.
- USR should still be spelled out like bespoke rules and/or there should be a list of all USR in each codex to eliminate the extra book problem.
- USR should never, ever confer other USR.
I'd also like to thank everyone for contributing, lots of good points made here.
No mate, I read your OP. And it was just what I think the game needs less of. And you asked for more. Does it matter the Nepalese of the rules. I love that the actual rule is printed on the datasheet for the unit. Recently looked back at some 7th codexs and those things were an ugly mess and this soo pun would be too. With the new system you don’t need to worry about re writing these rules if something comes up and change them. They can be tweaked and changed and easily checked on each data sheet. Worse than that the list would soon grow. And then other armies would want acces to them and before you know it you are back 7th with all the head aches it caused.
Some of us are getting older and like things simple. And it doesn’t get much simpler than something telling you what it does on it’s tin.
So I repeat, and to your whole OP. Nooooooooo!
Heck, you didn't even read the post you quoted, as you are directly contradicting its content.
Not to mention that you are flat out wrong - having 17 versions of stealth, explosion and bodyguard is the very opposite of "simple".
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
I rally did. “Most” people is not all. It’s you and your mates here. I disagree. Why shouldn’t there be lots of different types of explodes or stealth. It represents different styles and ways of doing it.
The explodes one is great to have variety. Means some things blow up east and some tough, some big and some small.
As for mr face plant if you are keeping them in the data sheet why does anything need to change at all. Going back to USR is a step backwards and will always lead to the same mess as before. I remember when they came in and it was all “ooh isn’t it elementals and simple”. And then edition or two later it’s a hot mess. If you leave the rules on the datasheet there’s no need to change a thing.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Not using USR's to organize a game is mindbogglingly stupid.
It is the ONLY sensible and correct way to organize a game.
USR should encompass everything.
Units should never have a special rule that doesn't exist as a USR. There should be no exceptions. All special rules are USR's simple as that.
There is a lot of assumptions in there. Why is it the only “correct” way? Genuine question. Why can’t one unit have a rule that no other unit has?
The game would be even more boring without special rules unique to units or armies. But for the sake of balance, clarity and gameplay, they should be fewer.
Why give different units slightly different explosions, when one rule could do all the work? Explodes X- when this unit dies, it inflicts a strength= UNIT'S TOUGHNESS (for example) hit on each enemy unit within X" Clean, understandable, yet still room for variety. A high number of special rules does not necessarily equal mechanical variety or good gameplay.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/22 04:12:01
Brutus_Apex wrote: Not using USR's to organize a game is mindbogglingly stupid.
It is the ONLY sensible and correct way to organize a game.
USR should encompass everything.
Units should never have a special rule that doesn't exist as a USR. There should be no exceptions. All special rules are USR's simple as that.
There is a lot of assumptions in there. Why is it the only “correct” way? Genuine question. Why can’t one unit have a rule that no other unit has?
The game would be even more boring without special rules unique to units or armies. But for the sake of balance, clarity and gameplay, they should be fewer.
Why give different units slightly different explosions, when one rule could do all the work? Explodes X- when this unit dies, it inflicts a strength= UNIT'S TOUGHNESS (for example) hit on each enemy unit within X" Clean, understandable, yet still room for variety. A high number of special rules does not necessarily equal mechanical variety or good gameplay.
Exactly. That's why I've been saying 3 each of Warlord Traits, Special Units, Relics, and Stratagems for subfactions. This adds that flavor that people crave without giving so many rules that you can't balance things properly.
Although four Relics to cover one each Range Weapon, Melee Weapon, Armor, and some other buffer thing makes sense too.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Explosions wise, something with an unstable reactor for an engine can explode on a 4+, something solid and reliable only on a 6+, the knight with the double reactor gets two rolls. ORK vehicles more likely to blow up than marine ones. And it isn’t hard to keep track of, it’s all on the data sheet. And stuff like that doesn’t need to be balanced, it’s random events and should have the ability to alter the battle.
I say more relics and warlord traits, love the new exarch powers and all that. Love love the chapter approved character rules too.
As for mr face plant if you are keeping them in the data sheet why does anything need to change at all. Going back to USR is a step backwards and will always lead to the same mess as before. I remember when they came in and it was all “ooh isn’t it elementals and simple”. And then edition or two later it’s a hot mess. If you leave the rules on the datasheet there’s no need to change a thing.
The point is that USRs put everyone on the same page. There's no need to double-check whether it's re-roll failed to hit rolls or just hit rolls, for example. And reprinting rules on the datasheets adds to the mnemonic effect. When you're learning the game, you get to see all the USRs there are, across all armies. You know where to find them, you read them a couple of times and begin memorising them.
Then, when you start playing a faction, you read the datasheets and far more readily build an idea of what each unit is for because you already have at least a basic idea of what this and that special rule does. But you don't have to go cross-referencing it with the rulebook. Especially because, as the special abilities of a unit will mostly be USRs, they're verbatim copies of the text in the rulebook. See, we're already gaining ground here in terms of simplicity.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Not using USR's to organize a game is mindbogglingly stupid.
It is the ONLY sensible and correct way to organize a game.
USR should encompass everything.
Units should never have a special rule that doesn't exist as a USR. There should be no exceptions. All special rules are USR's simple as that.
What?? Why? Just because you have USRs doesn't mean you can't have the occasional special snowflake rule. These should be applied with extreme stingyness, though. Perhaps have one or two units per faction that get a rule that supercedes basic game rules, let special characters have something that falls outside of the normal scope of abilities, and that's it. Or add two or three rules that act as USRs within a faction, like we have already. Summoning springs to mind here, or Synapse. If you strip away everything that can't be sensibly applied across every faction, you really are taking away an awful lot of what makes 40k fun.
I guess when looking at the way 40k operates right now you might think that special rules beyond USRs are a terrible thing, and I wouldn't blame you, but exercising some restraint when writing game rules can go a long way here.
Bharring wrote: At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
Andykp wrote: That’s not flavour though. It’s barley a choice.
Explosions wise, something with an unstable reactor for an engine can explode on a 4+, something solid and reliable only on a 6+, the knight with the double reactor gets two rolls. ORK vehicles more likely to blow up than marine ones. And it isn’t hard to keep track of, it’s all on the data sheet. And stuff like that doesn’t need to be balanced, it’s random events and should have the ability to alter the battle.
I'm completely with you on that - however, that's not even how the game works right now. Did you know that the vast majority of vehicles across all codices uses the same four explosions? Always on a 6+, light vehicles get 1 MW at 3", dreads and medium vehicles have d3 MW at 3", tanks and planes get d3 MW at 6" and heavy battle tanks have d6 at 6". This is one of the few things consistent for Eldar, Orks, Marines and AM, so in general, ork vehicles blow up exactly as often and as hard as the vehicles of any of the other big factions. Streamlining those four explosions into USR would not take away anything, the Burna Bommer would still get his non-USR insane fuel explosion and the stompa will have huge reactor explosion.
Let's take the new ork buggies as an example: Deffkilla Wartrike - Light Vehicle Explosion Boom-Dakka Snazzwagon - Burny Deff Boom (bespoke rule for exploding on 4+ and random distance) Kustom Boosta Blasta - Tank Explosion Megatrakk Scrapjet - Medium Vehicle Explosion Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy - Medium Vehicle Explosion Shokkjump Dragsta - Medium Vehicle Explosion
If you do that, you could tell at one glance that you need to read the explosion rules for the Snazzwagon, while the Kustom Boosta Blasta leaves a bigger crater than the other buggies. I actually found out this while writing this post, I played it wrong half a dozen times! Note that doing this has zero impact on balance - all values remain the same.
I say more relics and warlord traits, love the new exarch powers and all that. Love love the chapter approved character rules too.
More interesting ones, yes. More fore the sake of simply having more, no. Orks and DG might as well have two warlord traits, it would change nothing about the army - having four versions of "your warlord is harder to kill" or "your warlord does better in combat" is nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: As for mr face plant if you are keeping them in the data sheet why does anything need to change at all. Going back to USR is a step backwards and will always lead to the same mess as before. I remember when they came in and it was all “ooh isn’t it elementals and simple”. And then edition or two later it’s a hot mess. If you leave the rules on the datasheet there’s no need to change a thing.
I've pointed out twice now that putting the USR on the datasheet despite being an USR is probably the right thing to do. MtG does that (examples previously in this thread) and they have hard data to show that this is actually a great working concept - a data sheet is pretty much just a more complex magic card.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/10/22 10:02:38
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Not using USR's to organize a game is mindbogglingly stupid.
It is the ONLY sensible and correct way to organize a game.
USR should encompass everything.
Units should never have a special rule that doesn't exist as a USR. There should be no exceptions. All special rules are USR's simple as that.
USR's only work under four conditions:
1: There are no USRs that grant other USRs. 2: The game developers restrain themselves and don't grant units bespoke rule that are USR+, USR- or slight variations of a USR. 3: You don't have multiple pages of USRs that need a PhD in Multivariable Calculus to parse. 4: There are no USRs that need 3 or 4 variables to be "plugged in" to work.
GW have proven multiple times they cannot be trusted to do any of these.
Explodes is a good example, if it were a USR it would need to be coded as Explodes (<Explodes_Chance>, <Range>, <Number_of_Mortal_Wounds_Caused> ). And then you have certain models that don't have "Explodes", but "Cataclysmic Explosion", or "Catastrophic Explosion", or "Catastrophic Collapse". Also remember that 90% of people aren't going to memorise or be familiar with most rules. When the Explodes rule spells out the sequence of steps you need to do for that model on the datasheet, everyone can follow, whereas Explodes (6+,D6,D3) is going to just look like gobbledygook to most people.
Also, the concept of "Units should only have USRs" is also ludicrous. How on earth are you going to represent Warp Spider's Flicker Jump as a USR? Just remove it? There goes any and all unique flavour of different armies. A USR with only one unit using it? Hardly a UNIVERSAL special rule now is it? How do you represent Guillimans multiple aura effects that affect different keywords differently? Give him 5 or 6 USRs? Just a wall of no-context gibberish on his datasheet?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/10/22 11:47:27
Brutus_Apex wrote: Not using USR's to organize a game is mindbogglingly stupid.
It is the ONLY sensible and correct way to organize a game.
USR should encompass everything.
Units should never have a special rule that doesn't exist as a USR. There should be no exceptions. All special rules are USR's simple as that.
USR's only work under four conditions:
1: There are no USRs that grant other USRs.
2: The game developers restrain themselves and don't grant units bespoke rule that are USR+, USR- or slight variations of a USR.
3: You don't have multiple pages of USRs that need a PhD in Multivariable Calculus to parse.
4: There are no USRs that need 3 or 4 variables to be "plugged in" to work.
GW have proven multiple times they cannot be trusted to do any of these.
Explodes is a good example, if it were a USR it would need to be coded as Explodes (<Explodes_Chance>, <Range>, <Number_of_Mortal_Wounds_Caused> ). And then you have certain models that don't have "Explodes", but "Cataclysmic Explosion", or "Catastrophic Explosion", or "Catastrophic Collapse". Also remember that 90% of people aren't going to memorise or be familiar with most rules. When the Explodes rule spells out the sequence of steps you need to do for that model on the datasheet, everyone can follow, whereas Explodes (6+,D6,D3) is going to just look like gobbledygook to most people.
How would that kind of gobbledygook be any different from the models' statlines on the datasheets? You know what all that code means without having to resort to the rulebook, too, don't you? Anybody who's played 40k for a bit can parse that sort of code. The same way that most people immediately know what S4 -2 Dd3 means or what FNP 5+ is,
or even how people can read this: 2+/4++/5+++. I mean, that last bit has never ever been in any 40k rulebook.
Bharring wrote: At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
BaconCatBug wrote: Because a statblock that is (at least now) universal between every single unit in the game is not the same as full rules.
Would writing the rule like this on the datasheet solve that problem ?
Explodes(6+,3",1). When this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a D6 before removing the model from the battlefield; on a 6 it explodes and each units within 3" suffer 1 mortal wound
That way new players can learn quickly what the shorthand means, and having the shorthand present measn you dont have to read through a paragraph to make sure what this specific explosion does.
Again, MTG does this very well by giving the keyworded rule and then reminder text so you know how the keyword works.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/22 17:20:59
BaconCatBug wrote: If you're going to put reminder text on everything then why not just spell out the rule?
That's what's being said. If you read the OP, you'd see that what the majority of us who want USRs actually want is just a consolidation of rules under one name, and a unification of mechanics.
We don't need fifteen different RR1s, we don't need forty eight different Deep Strikes, we don't need eighteen different FNPs... But writing the full text of the rule on the sheet is fine. That's useful for newer players, or even older players who just had a moment of forgetfulness.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
BaconCatBug wrote: If you're going to put reminder text on everything then why not just spell out the rule?
That's what's being said. If you read the OP, you'd see that what the majority of us who want USRs actually want is just a consolidation of rules under one name, and a unification of mechanics.
We don't need fifteen different RR1s, we don't need forty eight different Deep Strikes, we don't need eighteen different FNPs... But writing the full text of the rule on the sheet is fine. That's useful for newer players, or even older players who just had a moment of forgetfulness.
That I can get behind. Flavour is one thing but when it gets in the way of mechanics is when it needs to stop.
