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.

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?

Warp Spiders:

Movement 14"
Unit Type: Jump Troop
Ranged Defense USR: -1 to hit
Advance and Fire USR

Thats it. The rest is needless basically. Adjust costs to reflect unit.

In a perfect world Aura's don't exist because they're bad for the game. Characters should join units again like they used to, or absolute worst case scenario, they only impact one unit per turn and a unit can only gain a maximum of 2 buffs per turn.

But if you insist:

Ranged Bonus Aura USR: Range:12"/Target: <imperium> /Modifier: reroll to hit

I would even get rid of re-rolls at this point TBH. Having played against my friends World Eaters army, I can tell you that re-rolls and modifiers are now half of the game.

Put the USR's on the unit card if you need to. The point is, it's much more organized.

Even if a unit needs its own bespoke special rule that will never be used on another unit,

Or even if an army requires their own twist on a special rule,

It's so much easier to understand and recall when you have a universal set of building blocks to reference. Okay, so this unit can deep strike, but its special thing is that it can come in T1?

Special Rules:
Deep Strike
Lightning Assault- This unit may enter the game via Deep Strike on Turn 1. All other restrictions for Deep Strike apply.

There you go. At a glance we know both the common rule that the unit uses, as well as exactly how it deviates from that common rule, rather than having to play hunt-the-discrepancy in the paragraph of bespoke deep strike text.

I would strongly argue that the game doesn't need as many one-off special rules as it does to be interesting, but even if you really do need a million variations on Deep Strike or Melta or Explodes, it's better design to use the base rule as a USR and explicitly call out how the variant deviates from that base rule.

I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

The problem with fluff names, is that the added verbiage with no mechanical use adds more "stuff" to the game to sift through, and increases the likelihood of confusion. I want to see fluff in what my units do on the table, not in the names of rules.

Blastaar wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

The problem with fluff names, is that the added verbiage with no mechanical use adds more "stuff" to the game to sift through, and increases the likelihood of confusion. I want to see fluff in what my units do on the table, not in the names of rules.

That's fair, but some people really want those in there.

The bolding and italicizing should make it clear, at least.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

The problem with fluff names, is that the added verbiage with no mechanical use adds more "stuff" to the game to sift through, and increases the likelihood of confusion. I want to see fluff in what my units do on the table, not in the names of rules.

That's fair, but some people really want those in there.


The bolding and italicizing should make it clear, at least.

GW could follow WOTC's naming style from MTG.

Flash A spell with Flash may be played any time you could play an instant. Helps describe what it does, but also has good flavor.

I know that flavor is the #1 priority for some folks, but what could be more flavorful than your army, or favorite unit, actually playing on the table the way it fights in the lore?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

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?

Warp Spiders:

Movement 14"
Unit Type: Jump Troop
Ranged Defense USR: -1 to hit
Advance and Fire USR

Thats it. The rest is needless basically. Adjust costs to reflect unit.

In a perfect world Aura's don't exist because they're bad for the game. Characters should join units again like they used to, or absolute worst case scenario, they only impact one unit per turn and a unit can only gain a maximum of 2 buffs per turn.

But if you insist:

Ranged Bonus Aura USR: Range:12"/Target: <imperium> /Modifier: reroll to hit

I would even get rid of re-rolls at this point TBH. Having played against my friends World Eaters army, I can tell you that re-rolls and modifiers are now half of the game.

Put the USR's on the unit card if you need to. The point is, it's much more organized.

Fair play to you if that’s better than the rules as is but to me that sounds and looks god awful. It’s is confusing and gives no idea about the units character or what it does. That’s worse than 7th edition.


USR were one of the big problems with earlier editions. They were a mess and confusing, I can see you have all made suggestions about improving on the old ways but it’s still a backwards step for most people. The new way is always there on the data sheet and easy to reference. If I could ask for one improvement it would be producing data cards for units like in AoS. But thankfully USR are gone and most likely won’t return.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

The problem with fluff names, is that the added verbiage with no mechanical use adds more "stuff" to the game to sift through, and increases the likelihood of confusion. I want to see fluff in what my units do on the table, not in the names of rules.

That's fair, but some people really want those in there.

The bolding and italicizing should make it clear, at least.

Indeed. I'd find it pretty bland if they got rid of the flavor texts. Also, that's one of the fun parts of the hobby, isn't it? "Here's my stratagem, hur hur, I'll read the derpy fluff text first and you may wonder what it does!"
Some scenarios and battlezones also make use of the flavor text in that they say for example: This battle has no clear sky therefore any unit that comes from low orbit can't be put in reserves, but teleporting units still can.

Andykp wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

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?

Warp Spiders:

Movement 14"
Unit Type: Jump Troop
Ranged Defense USR: -1 to hit
Advance and Fire USR

Thats it. The rest is needless basically. Adjust costs to reflect unit.

In a perfect world Aura's don't exist because they're bad for the game. Characters should join units again like they used to, or absolute worst case scenario, they only impact one unit per turn and a unit can only gain a maximum of 2 buffs per turn.

But if you insist:

Ranged Bonus Aura USR: Range:12"/Target: <imperium> /Modifier: reroll to hit

I would even get rid of re-rolls at this point TBH. Having played against my friends World Eaters army, I can tell you that re-rolls and modifiers are now half of the game.

Put the USR's on the unit card if you need to. The point is, it's much more organized.

Fair play to you if that’s better than the rules as is but to me that sounds and looks god awful. It’s is confusing and gives no idea about the units character or what it does. That’s worse than 7th edition.


USR were one of the big problems with earlier editions. They were a mess and confusing, I can see you have all made suggestions about improving on the old ways but it’s still a backwards step for most people. The new way is always there on the data sheet and easy to reference. If I could ask for one improvement it would be producing data cards for units like in AoS. But thankfully USR are gone and most likely won’t return.

You can put USRs on the datasheet, and its much easyer to shrink down on cards/cheat sheets as well. Its just a plainly better system that should not be worse than current unless the people writing them suck.
USRs just where not a big problem, crap rules where. And that has fallow into 8th edition in all but name.
Leave it to GW to fix nothing with the system, but the name and a few words to make it seem like a new and improoved way of doing things.

Guess it also helps that the main games i play all have decent referance access, for everything. With GW stilll trying to work out the Ios Enhanced books as a potential.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

Yeah, that looks great. Could be formatted to look more pretty, but in general I think this is how it should be done

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

The problem with fluff names, is that the added verbiage with no mechanical use adds more "stuff" to the game to sift through, and increases the likelihood of confusion. I want to see fluff in what my units do on the table, not in the names of rules.

That's fair, but some people really want those in there.

The bolding and italicizing should make it clear, at least.

Indeed. I'd find it pretty bland if they got rid of the flavor texts. Also, that's one of the fun parts of the hobby, isn't it? "Here's my stratagem, hur hur, I'll read the derpy fluff text first and you may wonder what it does!"
Some scenarios and battlezones also make use of the flavor text in that they say for example: This battle has no clear sky therefore any unit that comes from low orbit can't be put in reserves, but teleporting units still can.

You can still keep a lot of flaver in USRs, and often it enhance it since often things can be similar but act different in the way they use common things. This how Warmachine and other games i play use USRs. They still have lots of special rules and flaver, but use the USRs to explane common things that really all work the same way, even if some things do it slightly different way.

If you look at warp spiders, you could do movement 8, ghostly and bounding leap 5 with a special rule for there weapon. Maybe fly could be used as well. If you made them in warmachine. But you can have loads of flaver using them well, without and need for special unique rules, if you are thinking about your setting as a whole. Rather than as a COOL Simulator. And writing down how they acheve what how they use there special thing well

Andykp wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

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?

Warp Spiders:

Movement 14"
Unit Type: Jump Troop
Ranged Defense USR: -1 to hit
Advance and Fire USR

Thats it. The rest is needless basically. Adjust costs to reflect unit.

In a perfect world Aura's don't exist because they're bad for the game. Characters should join units again like they used to, or absolute worst case scenario, they only impact one unit per turn and a unit can only gain a maximum of 2 buffs per turn.

But if you insist:

Ranged Bonus Aura USR: Range:12"/Target: <imperium> /Modifier: reroll to hit

I would even get rid of re-rolls at this point TBH. Having played against my friends World Eaters army, I can tell you that re-rolls and modifiers are now half of the game.

Put the USR's on the unit card if you need to. The point is, it's much more organized.

Fair play to you if that’s better than the rules as is but to me that sounds and looks god awful. It’s is confusing and gives no idea about the units character or what it does. That’s worse than 7th edition.


USR were one of the big problems with earlier editions. They were a mess and confusing, I can see you have all made suggestions about improving on the old ways but it’s still a backwards step for most people. The new way is always there on the data sheet and easy to reference. If I could ask for one improvement it would be producing data cards for units like in AoS. But thankfully USR are gone and most likely won’t return.

The layout and naming can of course be adjusted if necessary. It gives plenty of character about the unit too. They are very fast and hard to hit, likely some sort of rapid response unit. You may think it lacks fluff but most people don't. Also, nobody has siuggested completely removing unique rules for units and I think a USR system only works well if it only deals with truly universal rules. So it may be that certain units do end up with their own unique special rules on the datasheet if that's needed.

The complaints in your last paragraph are about how GW implemented USRs, not the concept itself. I've yet to see a good reason why having a bespoke, uniquely named rule on a datasheet is somehow better or easier than having a common rule on the same datasheet, even though many people have brought it up as a problem. The only difference I can think of is that the bespoke rule needs to be read for each and every unit while a USR does not.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

I like this, too, but I'd even separate further. More like this:

Manta Strike
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

DEEP STRIKE (9")
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.

So the datasheet format would like this:

statline
equipment

brief fluff description of
ability 1
ability 2
etc.

RULES NAME and game mechanics of
ability 1
ability 2
etc.

list of keywords

Most of the time, you're not really going to be looking up fluff explanations for why a unit can act as it can during the game, are you? I mean, if you don't know what the unit can do, why is it part of your army list?
I get that the flavour part should be on the datasheet, it just makes the whole thing look and feel much smarter. But detailed descriptions of the units' fluff are included in the codex and I'm willing to bet that anybody interested in the fluff aspects is going to read the whole codex, not just the datasheets. Add page references to the datasheets if you want.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

I like this, too, but I'd even separate further. More like this:

Manta Strike
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

DEEP STRIKE (9")
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.

So the datasheet format would like this:

statline
equipment

brief fluff description of
ability 1
ability 2
etc.

RULES NAME and game mechanics of
ability 1
ability 2
etc.

list of keywords

Most of the time, you're not really going to be looking up fluff explanations for why a unit can act as it can during the game, are you? I mean, if you don't know what the unit can do, why is it part of your army list?
I get that the flavour part should be on the datasheet, it just makes the whole thing look and feel much smarter. But detailed descriptions of the units' fluff are included in the codex and I'm willing to bet that anybody interested in the fluff aspects is going to read the whole codex, not just the datasheets. Add page references to the datasheets if you want.

Having fluff mixed with rules was a disaster, less so now that's it's so little, but it grows the datasheets way longer than they need to be. It's a slog to flip through all those fluff parts, we still have a tasteful image or two but in 7th it was just a constant rain of models between datasheets. In 6th the rules where halfway on the other side of the options and costs of the unit with models nudged inbetween which was even worse. Go back at the start of your book and read the fluff, I don't care that there's golden light when your unit enters the table unless it has an actual effect on the game I don't need to know, I'm playing matched play not narrative. At least now I don't have to be reminded of all the fluff my units have that isn't represented in the rules, it's all safely hidden away at the start of my codex.

 vict0988 wrote:

Snugiraffe wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think it should work like this:

Deep Strike (9")-Manta Strike
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

Basically, the format should be:

Rules Text-Fluff Name
Complete text of the rule's game mechanics.
Optional flavor text.

I like this, too, but I'd even separate further. More like this:

Manta Strike
This unit deploys in low-orbiting Orca Dropships, preparing to drop down at any moment, surviving only by the dint of their powerful suit thrusters.

DEEP STRIKE (9")
This unit may be placed in Reserves instead of being deployed normally. If placed in Reserves, it may show up as Reinforcements at the end of your movement phase, anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models.

So the datasheet format would like this:

statline
equipment

brief fluff description of
ability 1
ability 2
etc.

RULES NAME and game mechanics of
ability 1
ability 2
etc.

list of keywords

Most of the time, you're not really going to be looking up fluff explanations for why a unit can act as it can during the game, are you? I mean, if you don't know what the unit can do, why is it part of your army list?
I get that the flavour part should be on the datasheet, it just makes the whole thing look and feel much smarter. But detailed descriptions of the units' fluff are included in the codex and I'm willing to bet that anybody interested in the fluff aspects is going to read the whole codex, not just the datasheets. Add page references to the datasheets if you want.

Having fluff mixed with rules was a disaster, less so now that's it's so little, but it grows the datasheets way longer than they need to be. It's a slog to flip through all those fluff parts, we still have a tasteful image or two but in 7th it was just a constant rain of models between datasheets. In 6th the rules where halfway on the other side of the options and costs of the unit with models nudged inbetween which was even worse. Go back at the start of your book and read the fluff, I don't care that there's golden light when your unit enters the table unless it has an actual effect on the game I don't need to know, I'm playing matched play not narrative. At least now I don't have to be reminded of all the fluff my units have that isn't represented in the rules, it's all safely hidden away at the start of my codex.

I often think a lot of that gets in the way of good narrative, Once on the table you really need to know very basics of how. And mostly its all about the what is happening. Good Narrative is often built on the basics of a setting. Its such a shallow way of providing narrative to the setting for the game itself.
Its why i sorta think 40k is actuly kinda bland as a game, its full of a lot of fancy words to explane things, but narrative speaking not much movement is happening around the table. With a lot of units being covered in rules that do little more than provide them the ability to run head first at the enemy. Or sit and shoot, with the only realy movement being to find the target.
Honestly i think the game would flow better if a lot of these rules where used to create interesting battlefields for narrative games.

For things like mordheim, we have weather tables. rules for buildings on fire, and for little things to brighten up the narrative of the city the players are exploring, as well as expanding on the after game rolls.
SInce often the best part of the narrative is being able to sit and talk about what happen in the game, why we sit and roll. And before the game starts, where it could go as things begin to happen

 vict0988 wrote:
Most of the time, you're not really going to be looking up fluff explanations for why a unit can act as it can during the game, are you? I mean, if you don't know what the unit can do, why is it part of your army list?
I get that the flavour part should be on the datasheet, it just makes the whole thing look and feel much smarter. But detailed descriptions of the units' fluff are included in the codex and I'm willing to bet that anybody interested in the fluff aspects is going to read the whole codex, not just the datasheets. Add page references to the datasheets if you want.

Having fluff mixed with rules was a disaster, less so now that's it's so little, but it grows the datasheets way longer than they need to be. It's a slog to flip through all those fluff parts, we still have a tasteful image or two but in 7th it was just a constant rain of models between datasheets. In 6th the rules where halfway on the other side of the options and costs of the unit with models nudged inbetween which was even worse. Go back at the start of your book and read the fluff, I don't care that there's golden light when your unit enters the table unless it has an actual effect on the game I don't need to know, I'm playing matched play not narrative. At least now I don't have to be reminded of all the fluff my units have that isn't represented in the rules, it's all safely hidden away at the start of my codex.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Most of the time, you're not really going to be looking up fluff explanations for why a unit can act as it can during the game, are you? I mean, if you don't know what the unit can do, why is it part of your army list?
I get that the flavour part should be on the datasheet, it just makes the whole thing look and feel much smarter. But detailed descriptions of the units' fluff are included in the codex and I'm willing to bet that anybody interested in the fluff aspects is going to read the whole codex, not just the datasheets. Add page references to the datasheets if you want.

Having fluff mixed with rules was a disaster, less so now that's it's so little, but it grows the datasheets way longer than they need to be. It's a slog to flip through all those fluff parts, we still have a tasteful image or two but in 7th it was just a constant rain of models between datasheets. In 6th the rules where halfway on the other side of the options and costs of the unit with models nudged inbetween which was even worse. Go back at the start of your book and read the fluff, I don't care that there's golden light when your unit enters the table unless it has an actual effect on the game I don't need to know, I'm playing matched play not narrative. At least now I don't have to be reminded of all the fluff my units have that isn't represented in the rules, it's all safely hidden away at the start of my codex.

There are quite a few people that like to have their fluff on the datasheet though, and you don't really lose anything from having it there - not every rules has a flavor text attached to be too bad.
As with all these things, you basically need someone to keep a close eye on the designers not running away with that idea as they do with everything.

You lose out on having a neat non-bloated codex. Why isn't there a treatise on the war of 1912 in the datasheet for a Warboss? I'm sure there are some nice treaties on the war of 1912 out there, the reason there isn't and shouldn't be is because there is a time and place for everything. Read your fluff when you're at home, don't force it down my throat with silly names or with flowery language in the rules when I'm trying to enjoy the game. With MTG the cards are the place you read the fluff, there isn't a codex containing fluff blurbs from every card and the cards would be half empty without the fluff text a lot of the time, with 40k you just need less pages dedicated to the units, then you can add the FW units to the codex. You can add all the bloat you want at the start of the codex, add a treatise on the war of 1912 as well, IDC, keep it off my datasheet.

Obviously this is all just one robots' opinion and if you prefer different aesthetics than me then that's perfectly reasonable. I'm just putting it out there that I don't like it and what I would prefer.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Most of the time, you're not really going to be looking up fluff explanations for why a unit can act as it can during the game, are you? I mean, if you don't know what the unit can do, why is it part of your army list?
I get that the flavour part should be on the datasheet, it just makes the whole thing look and feel much smarter. But detailed descriptions of the units' fluff are included in the codex and I'm willing to bet that anybody interested in the fluff aspects is going to read the whole codex, not just the datasheets. Add page references to the datasheets if you want.

Having fluff mixed with rules was a disaster, less so now that's it's so little, but it grows the datasheets way longer than they need to be. It's a slog to flip through all those fluff parts, we still have a tasteful image or two but in 7th it was just a constant rain of models between datasheets. In 6th the rules where halfway on the other side of the options and costs of the unit with models nudged inbetween which was even worse. Go back at the start of your book and read the fluff, I don't care that there's golden light when your unit enters the table unless it has an actual effect on the game I don't need to know, I'm playing matched play not narrative. At least now I don't have to be reminded of all the fluff my units have that isn't represented in the rules, it's all safely hidden away at the start of my codex.

There are quite a few people that like to have their fluff on the datasheet though, and you don't really lose anything from having it there - not every rules has a flavor text attached to be too bad.
As with all these things, you basically need someone to keep a close eye on the designers not running away with that idea as they do with everything.

You lose out on having a neat non-bloated codex. Why isn't there a treatise on the war of 1912 in the datasheet for a Warboss? I'm sure there are some nice treaties on the war of 1912 out there, the reason there isn't and shouldn't be is because there is a time and place for everything. Read your fluff when you're at home, don't force it down my throat with silly names or with flowery language in the rules when I'm trying to enjoy the game. With MTG the cards are the place you read the fluff, there isn't a codex containing fluff blurbs from every card and the cards would be half empty without the fluff text a lot of the time, with 40k you just need less pages dedicated to the units, then you can add the FW units to the codex. You can add all the bloat you want at the start of the codex, add a treatise on the war of 1912 as well, IDC, keep it off my datasheet.

Obviously this is all just one robots' opinion and if you prefer different aesthetics than me then that's perfectly reasonable. I'm just putting it out there that I don't like it and what I would prefer.

I really like how warmachine does it in some of there books, they have a datasheet, Similar to GW in a way, and next to it is a bunch of the story/fluff and such for the unit. Easy to Print out photo copy, and great for reference in a app as well. And lots of room for special rules and such to make units interesting.
But there are units that do not really need any special rules at all, as they only really need to give them basic rules to make then interesting in the rules.

 vict0988 wrote:
You lose out on having a neat non-bloated codex. Why isn't there a treatise on the war of 1912 in the datasheet for a Warboss? I'm sure there are some nice treaties on the war of 1912 out there, the reason there isn't and shouldn't be is because there is a time and place for everything.

You obviously don't put the whole friggin' fluff section into the rules. It's about a few one-liners below bespoke rules, which are currently mixed in with actual rules text.

Read your fluff when you're at home, don't force it down my throat with silly names or with flowery language in the rules when I'm trying to enjoy the game.

If you hate fluff to an extend where it ruins your game, I suggest not using a codex at all - customized battle scribe print-outs are probably what you are looking for.
I'm also pretty sure that this attitude would result in your opponent not enjoying the game.

With MTG the cards are the place you read the fluff, there isn't a codex containing fluff blurbs from every card and the cards would be half empty without the fluff text a lot of the time, with 40k you just need less pages dedicated to the units, then you can add the FW units to the codex. You can add all the bloat you want at the start of the codex, add a treatise on the war of 1912 as well, IDC, keep it off my datasheet.

Because codex pages aren't half empty and/or filled with pictures, right? No, wait.
There are even plenty datasheets which have empty spaces in them, it's perfectly fine to put fluff there.

Obviously this is all just one robots' opinion and if you prefer different aesthetics than me then that's perfectly reasonable. I'm just putting it out there that I don't like it and what I would prefer.

Plenty of people have expressed that they prefer some small bits of fluff in their rules, just like in the example above.
It's just you who arbitrarily assumed that each datasheet gets filled to the brim with fluff and then got upset about it.

They could always make 2 datasheets or if we had USR the player base would probably make modified sheets that only kept the rules without the fluff.

All I want is a version with clean and concise rules for when playing in a competitive environment. I dont want to spend needless time searching for the important words in a rule under time pressure. Fine if I borrow a army for a casual game at the club to have that extra text to get in the right mood for an army I dont know much about. But I dont need more fluff for my BA when I look at the rules. I already know it since I bought the damn models over a decade ago!

We cant really have that now since the fluff is in the actual rules for some stupid reason. You cant really modify the datasheets without changing the rules text as it is now even if many rules are functionally the same.

Better rules allow all players to benefit. Both competitive and casual players. It isnt a zero sum game that one side have to lose out.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Obviously this is all just one robots' opinion and if you prefer different aesthetics than me then that's perfectly reasonable. I'm just putting it out there that I don't like it and what I would prefer.

Plenty of people have expressed that they prefer some small bits of fluff in their rules, just like in the example above.
It's just you who arbitrarily assumed that each datasheet gets filled to the brim with fluff and then got upset about it.

To be fair, that's probably why vict0988 said it's only his personal preference and opinion?

Klickor wrote:
They could always make 2 datasheets or if we had USR the player base would probably make modified sheets that only kept the rules without the fluff.

All I want is a version with clean and concise rules for when playing in a competitive environment. I dont want to spend needless time searching for the important words in a rule under time pressure. Fine if I borrow a army for a casual game at the club to have that extra text to get in the right mood for an army I dont know much about. But I dont need more fluff for my BA when I look at the rules. I already know it since I bought the damn models over a decade ago!

That's why I suggested this formatting:

statline
equipment

brief fluff description of
ability 1
ability 2
etc.

RULES NAME and game mechanics of
ability 1
ability 2
etc.

list of keywords

See, the rules text is in bold. Jumps right out at ya. What would be neatest, of course, is to have fluff and pics on one side and stats and rules on the other side of a nice, snazzy datacard. GW could sell them for atrociouscompletely reasonable prices, too.

I would love something like the warmachine cards.
But you really need USRs to keep it short and simple and still have room for some fluff at the end

Fair play to you if that’s better than the rules as is but to me that sounds and looks god awful. It’s is confusing and gives no idea about the units character or what it does. That’s worse than 7th edition.


USR were one of the big problems with earlier editions. They were a mess and confusing, I can see you have all made suggestions about improving on the old ways but it’s still a backwards step for most people. The new way is always there on the data sheet and easy to reference. If I could ask for one improvement it would be producing data cards for units like in AoS. But thankfully USR are gone and most likely won’t return.

Apart from the fact that I was simplifying my idea for USR's for the sake of brevity in an online forum. I fail to understand what you find confusing, or how it is in any way worse than 7th and especially bespoke rules, which themselves are a mess and confusing by their very nature.

Could you elaborate?

Andykp wrote:
...But thankfully USR are gone and most likely won’t return.

I'm confused. Copy-paste USRs aren't gone. Melta (weapons that roll twice/take the better for damage), poison (weapons that wound on a fixed value), rending (weapons that get better AP on a 6 to wound), sniper (weapons that can pick out and target characters), and plenty more. The difference is that they're a paragraph of text now instead of a title followed by reminder text so you have to read a paragraph of text to figure out whether GW decided to change the wording slightly on this datasheet/weapon statline ("...reroll any hit rolls..." vs. "...reroll failed hit rolls...", anyone?)

USRs are still here and they're worse than they ever were.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Andykp wrote:
...But thankfully USR are gone and most likely won’t return.

I'm confused. Copy-paste USRs aren't gone. Melta (weapons that roll twice/take the better for damage), poison (weapons that wound on a fixed value), rending (weapons that get better AP on a 6 to wound), sniper (weapons that can pick out and target characters), and plenty more. The difference is that they're a paragraph of text now instead of a title followed by reminder text so you have to read a paragraph of text to figure out whether GW decided to change the wording slightly on this datasheet/weapon statline ("...reroll any hit rolls..." vs. "...reroll failed hit rolls...", anyone?)

USRs are still here and they're worse than they ever were.

Those are not Universal Special Rules, then. A Universal Special Rule is a rule that always has the same exact name on every page on which it is printed. Variations are easily handled by utilizing variables.

Do not conflate Games Workshop rules writers' ineptitude with the usefulness of an organizational tool.

I'm trying to point out that the function of the USR still exists, it's just being handled worse than it would be if they were real USRs, because people saying "USRs are gone hurray!" confuse me.

It's more like 10 pages of entire USRs, of which 80% you will never use, and USRs giving USRs are gone.

I quote from the Space Marines Other Publications errata, 3/9/2019:

"Angels of Death
Add the following ability to all datasheets (excluding Grey Knights, Adepta Sororitas and Inquisition datasheets): ‘This unit has the following abilities: And They Shall Know No Fear, Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault and Combat Doctrines.'"

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Fair play to you if that’s better than the rules as is but to me that sounds and looks god awful. It’s is confusing and gives no idea about the units character or what it does. That’s worse than 7th edition.


USR were one of the big problems with earlier editions. They were a mess and confusing, I can see you have all made suggestions about improving on the old ways but it’s still a backwards step for most people. The new way is always there on the data sheet and easy to reference. If I could ask for one improvement it would be producing data cards for units like in AoS. But thankfully USR are gone and most likely won’t return.

Apart from the fact that I was simplifying my idea for USR's for the sake of brevity in an online forum. I fail to understand what you find confusing, or how it is in any way worse than 7th and especially bespoke rules, which themselves are a mess and confusing by their very nature.

Could you elaborate?

Bespoke rules are all written on the datasheet and named and act according to the fluff. They to me make more sense than the abbreviated numbers you used that have no correlation to the narrative. It’s not worse than 7th but that is a very low bench mark. 7th was a hot mess with USRs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Andykp wrote:
...But thankfully USR are gone and most likely won’t return.

I'm confused. Copy-paste USRs aren't gone. Melta (weapons that roll twice/take the better for damage), poison (weapons that wound on a fixed value), rending (weapons that get better AP on a 6 to wound), sniper (weapons that can pick out and target characters), and plenty more. The difference is that they're a paragraph of text now instead of a title followed by reminder text so you have to read a paragraph of text to figure out whether GW decided to change the wording slightly on this datasheet/weapon statline ("...reroll any hit rolls..." vs. "...reroll failed hit rolls...", anyone?)

USRs are still here and they're worse than they ever were.

Blanket USRs are gone where there was pages of rules in the main book that needed referencing, and would often reference other special USR, then some units or armies would by pass or alter USRs. Now each unit has its rules printed on the datasheet, they are varied and specific to that unit. Not always but often. They are easy to read and check. Not having to go to another book and and flick between pages of abilities.

I understand you and others preferred that but you are in the minority and GW saw fit to change it because it was a problem. It put people off and caused confusion. Is the new way perfect, no. But it’s better.

Except many of the rules ARE Universal-they're just called different things.

What's the difference between the special rules for a Melta, a Fusion Gun, and a Fusion Blaster?