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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
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?

Exactly. This is where consistent wording is key and a lot better for the game.

But having the option for variety is good too. As I said earlier, explodes is a good example, size, stability and construction all factor into how vehicles explode in a game, so the rules have enough variety in to cover this, with different chances of explosion, size and lethality.

Not all rules have to be different to earn a different name but I would rather see a fusion blaster have exactly the same rule on it as a melta gun bit not have a Universal name for that rule instead, in fact weapons don’t have titles for their rules. Just the rules written, which is better than just having the word melta. The rule is right there.

It’s good to see slayer fan telling us all again what makes the game better for us. I remember USR and they made the game worse to me. Not better. Worse.

Andykp wrote:
But having the option for variety is good too. As I said earlier, explodes is a good example, size, stability and construction all factor into how vehicles explode in a game, so the rules have enough variety in to cover this, with different chances of explosion, size and lethality.

Not all rules have to be different to earn a different name but I would rather see a fusion blaster have exactly the same rule on it as a melta gun bit not have a Universal name for that rule instead, in fact weapons don’t have titles for their rules. Just the rules written, which is better than just having the word melta. The rule is right there.

It’s good to see slayer fan telling us all again what makes the game better for us. I remember USR and they made the game worse to me. Not better. Worse.

Why does having consistent names make the game worse?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Andykp wrote:
But having the option for variety is good too. As I said earlier, explodes is a good example, size, stability and construction all factor into how vehicles explode in a game, so the rules have enough variety in to cover this, with different chances of explosion, size and lethality.

Not all rules have to be different to earn a different name but I would rather see a fusion blaster have exactly the same rule on it as a melta gun bit not have a Universal name for that rule instead, in fact weapons don’t have titles for their rules. Just the rules written, which is better than just having the word melta. The rule is right there.

It’s good to see slayer fan telling us all again what makes the game better for us. I remember USR and they made the game worse to me. Not better. Worse.

Why does having consistent names make the game worse?

Exactly. The ONLY Feel No Equivalent that actually functions different is AdMech's Graia. That's literally it.

Andykp wrote:

 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.

Why are fluffy names so important? How do flavorful names add to the narrative of gameplay better than rules that function in flavorful ways?

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.

Pray tell, where did you find the evidence that those who prefer USRs over a jumbled mess are in the minority?

GW implemented USRs poorly. This does not make them bad. Have you played any non-GW games? Other rulesets, written by competent people, utilize USRs, and do not have the issues GW games have.

Good implementation:

consistent naming

printed on the data sheet
rules text written clearly and concisely, making it easy to remember

If players need to constantly reference the rulebook while playing (after learning how the game works) there is a major problem in the way that game is written.

what you are all suggesting merely adds restrictions, adding restrictions and Generalising the names only leads to reduction in narrative. Every unit having the same rules or names for things is by definition less characterful. Having there own names allows for them to be pretty much the same rules, like the “feel no pain”. Or more varied. You have the choice.

As for you being in the minority. The fact that USRs are gone, the fact that half a dozen people or sons are arguing in their favour as opposed to everyone else who is just getting on with the game all suggest you are in the minority.

Your assumption that consistent naming is somehow superior to flavoursome naming is based on your preference only. No actual “fact”. I agree, printing on the datasheet is important.

I have played other games but always enjoy 40k more because of the whole package. I like the rules and open nature of them, I love the back ground, and the models are the best going in my opinion.

The game is better for removal of USRs in my opinion. And GW make the best wargame out there, because of the reasons above.

I guess in your opinion things are different, but that doesn’t make you right and me wrong. Just disagreeing.

Andykp wrote:
what you are all suggesting merely adds restrictions, adding restrictions and Generalising the names only leads to reduction in narrative. Every unit having the same rules or names for things is by definition less characterful. Having there own names allows for them to be pretty much the same rules, like the “feel no pain”. Or more varied. You have the choice.

"Generalising the names only leads to reduction in narrative" implies that is all it does which is false since it makes the systems of the game easier to learn and memorize. I can't think of a single game that doesn't use generalized names other than GW games. Imagine a mod for Heroes of Might and Magic that renamed and used new art for every skill/talent for each individual faction to increase the narrative experience, would anyone use it?

what you are all suggesting merely adds restrictions, adding restrictions and Generalising the names only leads to reduction in narrative. Every unit having the same rules or names for things is by definition less characterful. Having there own names allows for them to be pretty much the same rules, like the “feel no pain”. Or more varied. You have the choice.

Rules are just the code that make the game function. They are required to be concise, organized and operate their function correctly with minimal impact on other non-related rules within the game. They aren't there to add to the narrative. The player and his army is.

The whole point of rules and USR's is to make it as easy as possible for the gamers to interact with each other in the context of the game. Having bespoke rules does the opposite of this. I shouldn't have to look up 30 separate rules for a single unit to unit interaction because they are all different. There should be specific rules that every unit follows that are named for exactly what they are to avoid confusion.

If the game functioned better with less janky rules interactions, you would have more time to forge the narrative because you aren't spending all that extra time with your head in a book trying to figure out what rule X does and arguing about which of the many FAQ/Errata/Facebook rules changes you need to search through.

That’s just opinion, in my opinion, and thankfully GWs the current way is better. For me.

Andykp wrote:
That’s just opinion, in my opinion, and thankfully GWs the current way is better. For me.

Actually it's not. Game design is a subject that can be studied at colleges, just like engineering or computer sciences.

Having a coherent ruleset with properly key worded rules has been proven to improve learning speed and reduces the need to reference rules while playing. There are papers and blog entries on those topics from multiple successful gaming companies. So yes, that is indeed a fact.

You also can't tell me that having to read an entire paragraph (or multiple, for some units) each time something happens to your unit improves your immersion. Awesome stuff happens on the board, not in your rule book. Someone looking for maximum immersion should be striving for a rule set that needs to be referenced as little as possible.

Andykp wrote:what you are all suggesting merely adds restrictions, adding restrictions and Generalising the names only leads to reduction in narrative. Every unit having the same rules or names for things is by definition less characterful. Having there own names allows for them to be pretty much the same rules, like the “feel no pain”. Or more varied. You have the choice.

As for you being in the minority. The fact that USRs are gone, the fact that half a dozen people or sons are arguing in their favour as opposed to everyone else who is just getting on with the game all suggest you are in the minority.

Your assumption that consistent naming is somehow superior to flavoursome naming is based on your preference only. No actual “fact”. I agree, printing on the datasheet is important.

I have played other games but always enjoy 40k more because of the whole package. I like the rules and open nature of them, I love the back ground, and the models are the best going in my opinion.

The game is better for removal of USRs in my opinion. And GW make the best wargame out there, because of the reasons above.

I guess in your opinion things are different, but that doesn’t make you right and me wrong. Just disagreeing.

Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
That’s just opinion, in my opinion, and thankfully GWs the current way is better. For me.

Andy, you didn't answer my question. Have you played any miniatures games made by other companies? On a technical level, ie., clarity, player agency, balance, etc, GW games are rather poor.

Instead of your units behaving on the table top the way they fight in the lore, you would rather have "fluffy" names for everything because they provide "narrative?" Is the gameplay truly what you enjoy about 40k?

Actually it's not. Game design is a subject that can be studied at colleges, just like engineering or computer sciences.

Having a coherent ruleset with properly key worded rules has been proven to improve learning speed and reduces the need to reference rules while playing. There are papers and blog entries on those topics from multiple successful gaming companies. So yes, that is indeed a fact.

You also can't tell me that having to read an entire paragraph (or multiple, for some units) each time something happens to your unit improves your immersion. Awesome stuff happens on the board, not in your rule book. Someone looking for maximum immersion should be striving for a rule set that needs to be referenced as little as possible.

Precisely. USRs are a far better tool for organization and learning. It is mystifying that people are arguing against something that, if implemented properly, would be to their benefit.

You messed up your quotes pretty hard there.

If you read the post I did answer your question. But will again. Yes I have played other games. But GW games are always the most enjoyable games for me because the over all experience comes down to more than just mechanics. It’s the back ground, the models and the history. I’ve been playing 40k for 30 years. I’m pretty invested in the game and it’s back ground.

We can study many things at college doesn’t make them quantifiable sciences. Game experience is down to many things, and I’m only talking about what works for me. I’m presenting a different opinion on the argument. USR were a part of the game I hated, not just because they were a mess but I found them difficult to learn stopped immersion, I was constantly having to reference the main rule book along with the codex and often forget many of them applied.

What you are all proposing is changing the titles to make them all the same and removing a bit of variety in them. I don’t see the benefit of losing that variety, which I like, for having the same names. As long as they are on the datasheet the name doesn’t matter and the variety adds to the game in my opinion.

40k isn’t a fixed game, it’s developing because tats GW business model, so if you have fixed USRs then at some point they would end up messing with them to give units a special ability or rule. GW business model means it would end up a mess again. That’s not a problem with USRs but it is a fact of USR in 40k. Already in this topic there has been creep from the original list, to adding this and that.

In summary, I am telling you my opinion, what I enjoy about the game and what I haven’t enjoyed in other and previous versions. As I said, being as how GW has gone the other way from on this it would suggest that I am not alone in thieve opinions. That’s why I’m arguing against it, because it wouldn’t benefit me, not everyone enjoys things the same way as you don

...because it isn't a mess right now as is?

Andykp wrote:
If you read the post I did answer your question. But will again. Yes I have played other games. But GW games are always the most enjoyable games for me because the over all experience comes down to more than just mechanics. It’s the back ground, the models and the history. I’ve been playing 40k for 30 years. I’m pretty invested in the game and it’s back ground.

We can study many things at college doesn’t make them quantifiable sciences. Game experience is down to many things, and I’m only talking about what works for me. I’m presenting a different opinion on the argument. USR were a part of the game I hated, not just because they were a mess but I found them difficult to learn stopped immersion, I was constantly having to reference the main rule book along with the codex and often forget many of them applied.

What you are all proposing is changing the titles to make them all the same and removing a bit of variety in them. I don’t see the benefit of losing that variety, which I like, for having the same names. As long as they are on the datasheet the name doesn’t matter and the variety adds to the game in my opinion.

40k isn’t a fixed game, it’s developing because tats GW business model, so if you have fixed USRs then at some point they would end up messing with them to give units a special ability or rule. GW business model means it would end up a mess again. That’s not a problem with USRs but it is a fact of USR in 40k. Already in this topic there has been creep from the original list, to adding this and that.

In summary, I am telling you my opinion, what I enjoy about the game and what I haven’t enjoyed in other and previous versions. As I said, being as how GW has gone the other way from on this it would suggest that I am not alone in thieve opinions. That’s why I’m arguing against it, because it wouldn’t benefit me, not everyone enjoys things the same way as you don

The thing is that what you dislike about USRs (apart from the fluff being removed from datasheets) is the way GW implemented them in the past. We offered solutions to this, some even included fluff as flavor text but kept a clear universal name for the rule itself. If the fluff is a big thing for you in the game, why does it need to be on the datasheet? I see datasheets are a notecard that i can quickly refer to to know what my unit's stats and abilities are. I don't need to remember the fluffy way a certain unit deepstrikes mid game. I read the unit descriptions in the codex to learn how they operate in the lore and i apply this knowledge when i describe my unit's actions ("My infiltrators find their way to objective 4 undetected and unleash a volley of flechettes into your unsuspecting obliterators"). Do i need my datasheet to have the information to make a description like that? no i don't, when i look at the datasheet, the less text the better.

As for GW giving units special abilties, well written USR's allow for this very easily. As i noted before, take the deepstrike rule for the callidus assassin :

Deep Strike (This unit can be deployed on the battlefield at the end of any of its controller's movement phase, more than 9" away from any enemy unit)
Polymorphine Whenever this unit uses its Deep strike ability, substract 1d6 from the minimal distance allowed. the callidus uses polymorphine, ad drug that restructures their bodies, reshaping bones, rearranging nerve endings and altering tissues, allowing them to perfectly impersonate a chosen individual and infiltrate the enemy ranks before striking at the perfect moment

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If you read the post I did answer your question. But will again. Yes I have played other games. But GW games are always the most enjoyable games for me because the over all experience comes down to more than just mechanics. It’s the back ground, the models and the history. I’ve been playing 40k for 30 years. I’m pretty invested in the game and it’s back ground.

We can study many things at college doesn’t make them quantifiable sciences. Game experience is down to many things, and I’m only talking about what works for me. I’m presenting a different opinion on the argument. USR were a part of the game I hated, not just because they were a mess but I found them difficult to learn stopped immersion, I was constantly having to reference the main rule book along with the codex and often forget many of them applied.

What you are all proposing is changing the titles to make them all the same and removing a bit of variety in them. I don’t see the benefit of losing that variety, which I like, for having the same names. As long as they are on the datasheet the name doesn’t matter and the variety adds to the game in my opinion.

40k isn’t a fixed game, it’s developing because tats GW business model, so if you have fixed USRs then at some point they would end up messing with them to give units a special ability or rule. GW business model means it would end up a mess again. That’s not a problem with USRs but it is a fact of USR in 40k. Already in this topic there has been creep from the original list, to adding this and that.

In summary, I am telling you my opinion, what I enjoy about the game and what I haven’t enjoyed in other and previous versions. As I said, being as how GW has gone the other way from on this it would suggest that I am not alone in thieve opinions. That’s why I’m arguing against it, because it wouldn’t benefit me, not everyone enjoys things the same way as you don

The thing is that what you dislike about USRs (apart from the fluff being removed from datasheets) is the way GW implemented them in the past. We offered solutions to this, some even included fluff as flavor text but kept a clear universal name for the rule itself. If the fluff is a big thing for you in the game, why does it need to be on the datasheet? I see datasheets are a notecard that i can quickly refer to to know what my unit's stats and abilities are. I don't need to remember the fluffy way a certain unit deepstrikes mid game. I read the unit descriptions in the codex to learn how they operate in the lore and i apply this knowledge when i describe my unit's actions ("My infiltrators find their way to objective 4 undetected and unleash a volley of flechettes into your unsuspecting obliterators"). Do i need my datasheet to have the information to make a description like that? no i don't, when i look at the datasheet, the less text the better.

As for GW giving units special abilties, well written USR's allow for this very easily. As i noted before, take the deepstrike rule for the callidus assassin :

Deep Strike (This unit can be deployed on the battlefield at the end of any of its controller's movement phase, more than 9" away from any enemy unit)
Polymorphine Whenever this unit uses its Deep strike ability, substract 1d6 from the minimal distance allowed. the callidus uses polymorphine, ad drug that restructures their bodies, reshaping bones, rearranging nerve endings and altering tissues, allowing them to perfectly impersonate a chosen individual and infiltrate the enemy ranks before striking at the perfect moment

I just see it as an unnecessary step. I stated in my post that the problems lay with GW implementing USR but I also stated that you are asking them to do it again. So the same will happen eventually. When USRs came in in third edition they were relatively clean and uncluttered but they also rolled up a lot of unique units special rules and they became normal. Eventually every army had to have x unit or y. And flavour was lost. Armies became homogenous and boring.

I don’t see 8th as a mess. I like it. It allows me to play the game I want with the depth or lack of I want easily. It’s easy to add layers and make it more complex and also remove them. USRs wouldn’t add to that experience for me. Like I say. It’s my opinion. You can’t state your opinion and expect me accept it as fact. It’s personal taste.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, how is replacing one rule with two rules better than just having one. The assassin example above. One simple rule called polymorphine replaced with another that references a second rule. More complicated and more space on the datasheet.

As is much simpler.

 Jidmah wrote:
You messed up your quotes pretty hard there.

Yes, something went haywire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
If you read the post I did answer your question. But will again. Yes I have played other games. But GW games are always the most enjoyable games for me because the over all experience comes down to more than just mechanics. It’s the back ground, the models and the history. I’ve been playing 40k for 30 years. I’m pretty invested in the game and it’s back ground.

We can study many things at college doesn’t make them quantifiable sciences. Game experience is down to many things, and I’m only talking about what works for me. I’m presenting a different opinion on the argument. USR were a part of the game I hated, not just because they were a mess but I found them difficult to learn stopped immersion, I was constantly having to reference the main rule book along with the codex and often forget many of them applied.

What you are all proposing is changing the titles to make them all the same and removing a bit of variety in them. I don’t see the benefit of losing that variety, which I like, for having the same names. As long as they are on the datasheet the name doesn’t matter and the variety adds to the game in my opinion.

40k isn’t a fixed game, it’s developing because tats GW business model, so if you have fixed USRs then at some point they would end up messing with them to give units a special ability or rule. GW business model means it would end up a mess again. That’s not a problem with USRs but it is a fact of USR in 40k. Already in this topic there has been creep from the original list, to adding this and that.

In summary, I am telling you my opinion, what I enjoy about the game and what I haven’t enjoyed in other and previous versions. As I said, being as how GW has gone the other way from on this it would suggest that I am not alone in thieve opinions. That’s why I’m arguing against it, because it wouldn’t benefit me, not everyone enjoys things the same way as you don

You are correct, you did answer. I was tired and missed it.

I completely understand the attachment to the background and stories, but those things aren't really gameplay. One of my largest gripes with 8th is that the mechanics do not support the background. Sure, there are different names for very similar or identical abilities, but that doesn't add any immersion when they all work out the same in games. There are issues outside of USRs-instead-of-bespoke-rules, as well. Take light skimmers such as land speeders, and vypers- vehicles presumably designed and calibrated precisely for combat at high speeds, yet if they move they receive -1 to hit. You receive a penalty for using these units in their intended role, as supported by background. That isn't "immersive" or "fluffy" either. At least not for me. I hate the disconnect between lore and rules.

Bringing back USRs would actually aid variety, because then designers can add variables to that rule to allow granularity, they become easier to balance because that variable can be adjusted for individual units, and they are easily communicated with your opponents and easily understood at a glance, without reading a paragraph of text.

GW did not implement USRs well. Players should not need to reference the main rulebook too often. USRs should be printed in the back of every codex in the reference section. And the names of USRs need to describe what the rule does in some way. DS being the popular example. Most players probably refer to their "deploy anywhere on the battlefield outside 9" of an enemy unit after the game has begun" rule as DS, regardless of the name used in a given codex, because that aids communication between players on what their units ae capable of, and helps players learn their own armies, when they can read the name "Deep Strike" and automatically know what that means.

Is an assault marine squad jumping out of a storm raven deep striking?

Are telllyporting Orks deep striking?

Are demons entering real space from the warp deep striking?

Is this really less flavorful than each unit having a special fluff name?

The variety in 8th is illusory- different names for nearly identical or completely identical abilities. Not to be one of "those" people, but If the background, lore and history are what you enjoy, why play the game at all? It sounds like you could read the novels, paint minis and be perfectly happy.

Blastaar wrote:
[
The variety in 8th is illusory- different names for nearly identical or completely identical abilities. Not to be one of "those" people, but If the background, lore and history are what you enjoy, why play the game at all? It sounds like you could read the novels, paint minis and be perfectly happy.

Who plays 40k for the game? It is a poor ruleset and has been a poor ruleset since forever. We play because of the IP, the background, the lore and the history.

If we didn't play because that, we would be playing any better written game.

Tyran wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
[
The variety in 8th is illusory- different names for nearly identical or completely identical abilities. Not to be one of "those" people, but If the background, lore and history are what you enjoy, why play the game at all? It sounds like you could read the novels, paint minis and be perfectly happy.

Who plays 40k for the game? It is a poor ruleset and has been a poor ruleset since forever. We play because of the IP, the background, the lore and the history.

If we didn't play because that, we would be playing any better written game.

Sure, the game has cool lore, and is widely available. But if it isn't fun to play, why bother? Find something to play one enjoys, even if it takes aa bit of effort to get other people interested.

Andykp wrote:
But having the option for variety is good too. As I said earlier, explodes is a good example, size, stability and construction all factor into how vehicles explode in a game, so the rules have enough variety in to cover this, with different chances of explosion, size and lethality.

Not all rules have to be different to earn a different name but I would rather see a fusion blaster have exactly the same rule on it as a melta gun bit not have a Universal name for that rule instead, in fact weapons don’t have titles for their rules. Just the rules written, which is better than just having the word melta. The rule is right there.

It’s good to see slayer fan telling us all again what makes the game better for us. I remember USR and they made the game worse to me. Not better. Worse.

Example of USR translation (again):

On USR:

Explode (N, X", D): When model with this rule is reduced to 0 wounds, it has a chance to explode, causing damage to near by units. Roll a d6 before removing from the battle field. On a roll of N, it explodes, and each unit within X" suffer D wounds. Refer to datasheet for values of N, X & D.

On Datasheet:

Frenzied Death Throes: Explode (6, 3", 3). When this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a d6 before removing from the battle field. On a roll of 6, it lashes out in its death throes, and each unit within 3" suffer 3 wounds.

Explodes!: Explode (6, 3", d3). When this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a d6 before removing from the battle field. On a roll of 6, it explodes, and each unit within 3" suffer d3 wounds.

It's simple. The proposed USR isn't something that destroys the creative boundaries of all the fluffy fluff texts and realms of variations.

If you so despise the word "Melta" being used on weapons that function the same way but is named without the usage of the word "melta", then:

On USR:
Heatgun: When within half range of a weapon with this rule rolls two d6 when determining damage and discard the lower result.

On Datasheet:
Fusion Blaster: Abilities: Heatgun. If the target is within half range of this weapon, roll two dice when inflicting damage with it and discard the lowest result.

It only adds few more words to the already lengthy datasheet. All it does is provide official in-game terms for all the nomenclatures and colloquial phrases we'd use in a game.

I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do. It's a good and fun game. However, it still can be and should be improved.

Blastaar wrote:

Tyran wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
[
The variety in 8th is illusory- different names for nearly identical or completely identical abilities. Not to be one of "those" people, but If the background, lore and history are what you enjoy, why play the game at all? It sounds like you could read the novels, paint minis and be perfectly happy.

Who plays 40k for the game? It is a poor ruleset and has been a poor ruleset since forever. We play because of the IP, the background, the lore and the history.

If we didn't play because that, we would be playing any better written game.

Sure, the game has cool lore, and is widely available. But if it isn't fun to play, why bother? Find something to play one enjoys, even if it takes aa bit of effort to get other people interested.

If an IP doesn't interest me I'm unlikely to play a game regardless of how well it is designed. 40k is still acceptable enough for me to enjoy the IP.

But what about you? Why do you play 40k and not any of the many better written games?

 skchsan wrote:

Andykp wrote:
But having the option for variety is good too. As I said earlier, explodes is a good example, size, stability and construction all factor into how vehicles explode in a game, so the rules have enough variety in to cover this, with different chances of explosion, size and lethality.

Not all rules have to be different to earn a different name but I would rather see a fusion blaster have exactly the same rule on it as a melta gun bit not have a Universal name for that rule instead, in fact weapons don’t have titles for their rules. Just the rules written, which is better than just having the word melta. The rule is right there.

It’s good to see slayer fan telling us all again what makes the game better for us. I remember USR and they made the game worse to me. Not better. Worse.

Example of USR translation (again):

On USR:

Explode (N, X", D): When model with this rule is reduced to 0 wounds, it has a chance to explode, causing damage to near by units. Roll a d6 before removing from the battle field. On a roll of N, it explodes, and each unit within X" suffer D wounds. Refer to datasheet for values of N, X & D.

On Datasheet:

Frenzied Death Throes: Explode (6, 3", 3). When this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a d6 before removing from the battle field. On a roll of 6, it lashes out in its death throes, and each unit within 3" suffer 3 wounds.

Explodes!: Explode (6, 3", d3). When this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a d6 before removing from the battle field. On a roll of 6, it explodes, and each unit within 3" suffer d3 wounds.

It's simple. The proposed USR isn't something that destroys the creative boundaries of all the fluffy fluff texts and realms of variations.

If you so despise the word "Melta" being used on weapons that function the same way but is named without the usage of the word "melta", then:

On USR:
Heatgun: When within half range of a weapon with this rule rolls two d6 when determining damage and discard the lower result.

On Datasheet:
Fusion Blaster: Abilities: Heatgun. If the target is within half range of this weapon, roll two dice when inflicting damage with it and discard the lowest result.

It only adds few more words to the already lengthy datasheet. All it does is provide official in-game terms for all the nomenclatures and colloquial phrases we'd use in a game.

If you're spelling out the rules on the datasheet anyway what is the point of having USRs?
Also, you want N+, not just N. Writing rules isn't that easy now, is it?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you're spelling out the rules on the datasheet anyway what is the point of having USRs?

It's a proven concept, most notably implemented by Magic: The Gathering. You get the best of both worlds - all rules in one place and a unique reference to identify a rule.
Some examples:
- GW could publish errata changing all versions of FNP to no longer work on mortal wounds, without creating their usually incomplete list of rules or errata only half the affected codices or some vague wording which you would almost definitely nitpick to be non-functional
- Stratagems or abilities could directly reference "Deep Strike" and you would no longer have to wonder whether a psychic power or summoned daemons are reinforcement.
- You no longer need to read ever single rule because GW might have randomly switched around the wording for the exodites version of re-roll ones and made it work differently in edge cases. Either it has the USR, then it works the same for everyone, or it's a unique rule.
- Once you understand an memorize how "Body Guard" works, you never need to learn it again for another codex - just like fly or character.

The datasheet can take up a whole page if it must, and even the weapon profiles can be on other pages. If space is not an issue, there is no reason to not just keep the one benefit of the current system.

I like playing 40k and enjoy the IP and background as much as the game. I’ve said a few times now, I’m my opinion we do not need USRs and it wouldn’t add to the game. All the examples given do not seem simpler to me but more complex and it is a matter of time before they start referencing other rules and becoming the same mess the did before.

It isn’t broken. It’s all fine to me.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you're spelling out the rules on the datasheet anyway what is the point of having USRs?

I believe you're too hung up on the past iterations/implementation of USR's in 40k when having USR "A" meant that unit has USR "B", "C", "F", "Y", "AA", "AZ", "ABF" and "ZZZ".

It's better to understand what's being proposed as a glossary of terms - a dictionary of sorts which rest of the game references back to.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you're spelling out the rules on the datasheet anyway what is the point of having USRs?

I believe you're too hung up on the past iterations/implementation of USR's in 40k when having USR "A" meant that unit has USR "B", "C", "F", "Y", "AA", "AZ", "ABF" and "ZZZ".

It's better to understand what's being proposed as a glossary of terms - a dictionary of sorts which rest of the game references back to.

Which I agree would be fantastic. Any competent rules writer would be able to utilise that to improve their game.

The issue is that GW is not a competent rules writer. Having "Feel No Pain" works fine until GW decide they want Graia to have a special snowflake version of Feel No Pain, and then we end up with the same exact rules bloat as we had before.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The issue is that GW is not a competent rules writer. Having "Feel No Pain" works fine until GW decide they want Graia to have a special snowflake version of Feel No Pain, and then we end up with the same exact rules bloat as we had before.

It's not black and white though. Having better versions of an USR is fine as long as you limit that behavior. Having a better version of FNP for one army or a single character/elite unit is fine. Having various better versions scattered across multiple rank and file units is not.

Tyran wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Tyran wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
[
The variety in 8th is illusory- different names for nearly identical or completely identical abilities. Not to be one of "those" people, but If the background, lore and history are what you enjoy, why play the game at all? It sounds like you could read the novels, paint minis and be perfectly happy.

Who plays 40k for the game? It is a poor ruleset and has been a poor ruleset since forever. We play because of the IP, the background, the lore and the history.

If we didn't play because that, we would be playing any better written game.

Sure, the game has cool lore, and is widely available. But if it isn't fun to play, why bother? Find something to play one enjoys, even if it takes aa bit of effort to get other people interested.

If an IP doesn't interest me I'm unlikely to play a game regardless of how well it is designed. 40k is still acceptable enough for me to enjoy the IP.

But what about you? Why do you play 40k and not any of the many better written games?

I don't anymore. The only game I play regularly at the moment is Magic. I am hoping to find time to get some minis for other games, like Malifaux, done and bring them to the LGS and get people interested.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The issue is that GW is not a competent rules writer. Having "Feel No Pain" works fine until GW decide they want Graia to have a special snowflake version of Feel No Pain, and then we end up with the same exact rules bloat as we had before.

It's not black and white though. Having better versions of an USR is fine as long as you limit that behavior. Having a better version of FNP for one army or a single character/elite unit is fine. Having various better versions scattered across multiple rank and file units is not.

Some of those issues are ameliorated by utilizing variables. FNP is especially easy- Feel No Pain X. Leading to FNP 4+ or FNP 5+ or FNP 6+, or even FNP 3+ or 2+. GW gets so obsessive about making units "unique" and/or "fluffy" that they lose sight of clear communication and good gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
I like playing 40k and enjoy the IP and background as much as the game. I’ve said a few times now, I’m my opinion we do not need USRs and it wouldn’t add to the game. All the examples given do not seem simpler to me but more complex

How is Feel No Pain, since it has been mentioned, by many different names less complex than units possessing one of the following:

Feel No Pain 2+

Feel No Pain 3+

Feel no Pain 4+

Feel No Pain 5+

Feel No Pain 6+

and it is a matter of time before they start referencing other rules and becoming the same mess the did before.

This is not a problem with USRs. It is a problem with GW's ineptitude.

It isn’t broken. It’s all fine to me.

You enjoy the game, that's great. But it is not a well-written, clear, tight ruleset, regardless of whether any of us enjoy it or not.

Blastaar wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The issue is that GW is not a competent rules writer. Having "Feel No Pain" works fine until GW decide they want Graia to have a special snowflake version of Feel No Pain, and then we end up with the same exact rules bloat as we had before.

It's not black and white though. Having better versions of an USR is fine as long as you limit that behavior. Having a better version of FNP for one army or a single character/elite unit is fine. Having various better versions scattered across multiple rank and file units is not.

Some of those issues are ameliorated by utilizing variables. FNP is especially easy- Feel No Pain X. Leading to FNP 4+ or FNP 5+ or FNP 6+, or even FNP 3+ or 2+. GW gets so obsessive about making units "unique" and/or "fluffy" that they lose sight of clear communication and good gameplay.

That's not what he meant. He was referencing some AoS rule that gives one army a better version of FNP because it somehow interacts differently with their other rules. Someone who actually knows AoS might be better at explaining this.

A good example would be Disgustingly Resilient, Ramshackle and Quantum Shielding. All three reduce damage taken. DR ist just FNP 5+, Ramshackle reduces damage to 1 if you roll a 6+ and Quantum Shielding reduces damage to 0 if you roll under its damage value.
In the end, all reduce damage, but they do it differently. Or as BCB would say "Special Snowflake" versions of the same rule.