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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And I get that I do, but it comes at a price that isn’t worth paying. To me.

Ah yes, the price of CONSISTENCY! THE HORROR!

Except when GW deicde to give a unit a rule that ignores "Feel no Pain", then give another unit a special version of Feel No Pain that is called "Feel No Pain 2: Electric Boogaloo" that ignores ignore-Feel-No-Pain, and so on and so forth.

Thats a problem with GW, not with USRs as a whole.
And they can add bespoke modifiers to USRs (the polymorphine deepstrike on the callidus would be a goos example of this IMO)

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And I get that I do, but it comes at a price that isn’t worth paying. To me.

Ah yes, the price of CONSISTENCY! THE HORROR!

Except when GW deicde to give a unit a rule that ignores "Feel no Pain", then give another unit a special version of Feel No Pain that is called "Feel No Pain 2: Electric Boogaloo" that ignores ignore-Feel-No-Pain, and so on and so forth.

BCB: "GW's rules are a dumpster fire of special snow flakes!"
Also BCB: "GW should not even try to Improve the rules because it could go wrong!"

They could also drench their codices in arsenic to kill off all people who don't play the game as intended by waving around miniatures and make pew-pew noises. Let's better get rid of all rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And I get that I do, but it comes at a price that isn’t worth paying. To me.

Ah yes, the price of CONSISTENCY! THE HORROR!

Except when GW deicde to give a unit a rule that ignores "Feel no Pain", then give another unit a special version of Feel No Pain that is called "Feel No Pain 2: Electric Boogaloo" that ignores ignore-Feel-No-Pain, and so on and so forth.

This already exists:

Synapse - <HIVE FLEET> units automatically pass Morale tests if they are within 12" of any friendly <HIVE FLEET> units with this ability
The Will of the Hive Mind - The range of this model's Synapse ability is 18" rather than 12".

Abilities that alter other abilities already exist, elegantly implemented if I may say so myself.

Eloquence and being concise only needs little effort.

Such abilities need not be a part of the USR system. These can be easily implemented into the datasheet as these are not "universal" (or at least, shouldn't be).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And I get that I do, but it comes at a price that isn’t worth paying. To me.

Ah yes, the price of CONSISTENCY! THE HORROR!

Yes the price of consistency is tedium. THE HORROR!

Eating every meal the same, watching the same film again and again, the same conversation over and over again.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And I get that I do, but it comes at a price that isn’t worth paying. To me.

Ah yes, the price of CONSISTENCY! THE HORROR!

Except when GW deicde to give a unit a rule that ignores "Feel no Pain", then give another unit a special version of Feel No Pain that is called "Feel No Pain 2: Electric Boogaloo" that ignores ignore-Feel-No-Pain, and so on and so forth.

BCB: "GW's rules are a dumpster fire of special snow flakes!"
Also BCB: "GW should not even try to Improve the rules because it could go wrong!"

They could also drench their codices in arsenic to kill off all people who don't play the game as intended by waving around miniatures and make pew-pew noises. Let's better get rid of all rules.

Have you ever come across BCB before? He’s all about rules. He actually makes a valid point that you can’t rebut, because it’s true.

"We should not improve anything because it could get worse" has never been a valid point for anything, ever.

It's the kind of point that will eventually have humanity kill itself before any daemon, ork or eldar has the chance to.

Well I don’t believe it is improvement, and when the people you are asking to do the improvement have demonstrated that in the long run the so called improvement would be implemented badly it’s not a good idea.

Change for the sake of it isn’t always good. Change isn’t always an improvement. This would not be an improvement.

Andykp wrote:
Well I don’t believe it is improvement, and when the people you are asking to do the improvement have demonstrated that in the long run the so called improvement would be implemented badly it’s not a good idea.

Change for the sake of it isn’t always good. Change isn’t always an improvement. This would not be an improvement.

You seem opposed to the very idea of USRs, though. Not GW's specific implementation, which was, in the past, shoddy, but the concept itself.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You seem opposed to the very idea of USRs, though. Not GW's specific implementation, which was, in the past, shoddy, but the concept itself.

Exactly, were proposing a system that would be implemented perfectly, were not talking about how GW would do it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You seem opposed to the very idea of USRs, though. Not GW's specific implementation, which was, in the past, shoddy, but the concept itself.

Exactly, were proposing a system that would be implemented perfectly, were not talking about how GW would do it.

Perfectly is not the word I'd use. You can always improve on a game.

But "Much better than GW did," is accurate, it seems to me.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You seem opposed to the very idea of USRs, though. Not GW's specific implementation, which was, in the past, shoddy, but the concept itself.

Exactly, were proposing a system that would be implemented perfectly, were not talking about how GW would do it.

Perfectly is not the word I'd use. You can always improve on a game.

But "Much better than GW did," is accurate, it seems to me.

I meant it as how it would be implemented ''in a perfect world''. i agree anything can always be improved but disagreeing with the concept of USR for fear of how GW might implement them isnt the point of this whole thread, were proposing changes that could help make the game better.

Andykp wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And I get that I do, but it comes at a price that isn’t worth paying. To me.

Ah yes, the price of CONSISTENCY! THE HORROR!

Yes the price of consistency is tedium. THE HORROR!

Eating every meal the same, watching the same film again and again, the same conversation over and over again.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And I get that I do, but it comes at a price that isn’t worth paying. To me.

Ah yes, the price of CONSISTENCY! THE HORROR!

Except when GW deicde to give a unit a rule that ignores "Feel no Pain", then give another unit a special version of Feel No Pain that is called "Feel No Pain 2: Electric Boogaloo" that ignores ignore-Feel-No-Pain, and so on and so forth.

BCB: "GW's rules are a dumpster fire of special snow flakes!"
Also BCB: "GW should not even try to Improve the rules because it could go wrong!"

They could also drench their codices in arsenic to kill off all people who don't play the game as intended by waving around miniatures and make pew-pew noises. Let's better get rid of all rules.

Have you ever come across BCB before? He’s all about rules. He actually makes a valid point that you can’t rebut, because it’s true.

Yes because knowing Death Guard sometimes Feel No Pain and Iron Hands sometimes Feel No Pain, all lore stuff mind you, somehow takes away from your experience unless they're fluffy names with potentially different wordings that might not let the rule actually function.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yes because knowing Death Guard sometimes Feel No Pain and Iron Hands sometimes Feel No Pain, all lore stuff mind you, somehow takes away from your experience unless they're fluffy names with potentially different wordings that might not let the rule actually function.

A swing and a miss as to what my point actually is.

To reiterate: USR's are good. Consolidation of rules is good. Keywords are good. Making all "Feel No Pain" effects being called "Feel No Pain" instead of special names for everything is good. Adding special bespoke rules that are USR+ in a system that uses USRs is bad.

GW are incapable of implementing such a system correctly, thus any suggestion they attempt to do so again is missing the forest for the trees.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yes because knowing Death Guard sometimes Feel No Pain and Iron Hands sometimes Feel No Pain, all lore stuff mind you, somehow takes away from your experience unless they're fluffy names with potentially different wordings that might not let the rule actually function.

A swing and a miss as to what my point actually is.

To reiterate: USR's are good. Consolidation of rules is good. Keywords are good. Making all "Feel No Pain" effects being called "Feel No Pain" instead of special names for everything is good. Adding special bespoke rules that are USR+ in a system that uses USRs is bad.

GW are incapable of implementing such a system correctly, thus any suggestion they attempt to do so again is missing the forest for the trees.

The flaw in your reasoning: "GW is incapable of implementing a rule system correctly, thus any suggestion is moot. Let's not discuss GW rules. Ever."

Blastaar wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yes because knowing Death Guard sometimes Feel No Pain and Iron Hands sometimes Feel No Pain, all lore stuff mind you, somehow takes away from your experience unless they're fluffy names with potentially different wordings that might not let the rule actually function.

A swing and a miss as to what my point actually is.

To reiterate: USR's are good. Consolidation of rules is good. Keywords are good. Making all "Feel No Pain" effects being called "Feel No Pain" instead of special names for everything is good. Adding special bespoke rules that are USR+ in a system that uses USRs is bad.

GW are incapable of implementing such a system correctly, thus any suggestion they attempt to do so again is missing the forest for the trees.

The flaw in your reasoning: "GW is incapable of implementing a rule system correctly, thus any suggestion is moot. Let's not discuss GW rules. Ever."

The entire Proposed Rules forum is moot, it's an echo-chamber to throw out house rules that will never gain traction.

It's nice to have an outlet to vent though, even if it's just shouting into the void.

And thus, the Proposed Rules forum was closed and never opened again, as GW would ruin every proposal anyways.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Well I don’t believe it is improvement, and when the people you are asking to do the improvement have demonstrated that in the long run the so called improvement would be implemented badly it’s not a good idea.

Change for the sake of it isn’t always good. Change isn’t always an improvement. This would not be an improvement.

You seem opposed to the very idea of USRs, though. Not GW's specific implementation, which was, in the past, shoddy, but the concept itself.

I don’t see the need for USRs. I like things as they are better than what you are suggesting, and I’m guessing your hope is that these proposals you are making are adopted into 40k to “improve” it. Presumably by GW or are they going to sell the rights to you guys??

Second bacon on this being an echo chamber. I like to come here to ask for advice on my homemade rules and pick up titbits every now and again. As for real change, it’s not happening here. Sorry. But discuss the rules all you like, it’s no different than you make the call. Just know not everyone will agree with you.

Real quick, Andy, what's the difference between Manta Strike, Hunters From Hyperspace, Haunting Horrors, Death Descending, Portal Of Exile, Teleportation Matrix, Teleport Strike, Jump Pack Assault, and Meteoric Descent?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Real quick, Andy, what's the difference between Manta Strike, Hunters From Hyperspace, Haunting Horrors, Death Descending, Portal Of Exile, Teleportation Matrix, Teleport Strike, Jump Pack Assault, and Meteoric Descent?

He won't respond. He just repeats that he likes it as it is and that normalising the rules would remove fluff (despite multiple people, multiple times, pointing out how you can still have fluff whilst using normalised rules terms and wording).

The only person echoing here is Andy because he hasn't actually responded to any points raised, just constantly repeated his initial position.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Real quick, Andy, what's the difference between Manta Strike, Hunters From Hyperspace, Haunting Horrors, Death Descending, Portal Of Exile, Teleportation Matrix, Teleport Strike, Jump Pack Assault, and Meteoric Descent?

He won't respond. He just repeats that he likes it as it is and that normalising the rules would remove fluff (despite multiple people, multiple times, pointing out how you can still have fluff whilst using normalised rules terms and wording).

The only person echoing here is Andy because he hasn't actually responded to any points raised, just constantly repeated his initial position.

Agreed. I really don't understand anyone coming into the Proposed Rules forum and arguing against something on the basis that GW would screw it up. Nobody here is under the impression any of these rules will ever be made official but that's not really the purpose of the forum so trying to make out like this is a problem is disingenuous in the extreme.

Unfortunately, this whole topic has been well and truly derailed by one person repeatedly saying they're opposed to USRs for reasons they admit are pretty much unique to them. Not saying people shouldn't make dissenting views known and discuss them, but repeating "I don't like USRs because to me they make the game less fluffy and they're harder to understand" isn't exactly constructive, especially when people point out that the second part of that statement is a testable assertion as it applies to the gaming population at large rather than any one individual. The first part is personal opinion that doesn't seem to be shared by anyone else. This is actually the first time I've ever heard anyone argue in favour of not standardising rules. I think some interesting discussion did originally come from Andykp's points. There is a loss of background info when you remove bespoke rules, for example, and that's something to consider when formulating the approach to USRs but I feel like that point's been made and repeating it ad infinitum isn't helpful.

While you're at it, explain how and why Silent Bodyguard, Command Squad Bodyguard, Honour Guard of Macragge, Bodyguard, Loyal to the End, Saviour Protocols, Warden of Yvraine and Grot Shields work differently.

Can’t be bothered to look them all up but I’m guessing as you’ve chosen them all they all work in the same way to one and other. So I’ll say no difference at all.

There you go responded. The difference is the name. The name of the rule is different. Already explained many times why I prefer it that way.

Already explained that it’s just my opinion and experience. Keep repeating my opinion as it hasn’t changed and I’m getting told my opinion and experience is wrong.

I have brought up the examples of deep strike and explodes many times because they deem the most simple to use. In previous editions GW didn’t cock up deep strike, it was pretty standard if we ignore death wing shenanigans.

So it’s a good example. Was standard and universal, still exists today under many different titles. I prefer it the way it is now where each unit has its own name for it. I actually agree with one point slayer fan made. Standardised wording on rules with exactly the mechanics would be good and it’s something GW claim to do, but not standardised titles. And only on rules with the same mechanic, not ones that work similarly or math,atecially the same.

Otherwise vive la variety. (In my opinion).

Andykp wrote:
Can’t be bothered to look them all up but I’m guessing as you’ve chosen them all they all work in the same way to one and other. So I’ll say no difference at all.

There you go responded. The difference is the name. The name of the rule is different. Already explained many times why I prefer it that way.

Already explained that it’s just my opinion and experience. Keep repeating my opinion as it hasn’t changed and I’m getting told my opinion and experience is wrong.

I have brought up the examples of deep strike and explodes many times because they deem the most simple to use. In previous editions GW didn’t cock up deep strike, it was pretty standard if we ignore death wing shenanigans.

So it’s a good example. Was standard and universal, still exists today under many different titles. I prefer it the way it is now where each unit has its own name for it. I actually agree with one point slayer fan made. Standardised wording on rules with exactly the mechanics would be good and it’s something GW claim to do, but not standardised titles. And only on rules with the same mechanic, not ones that work similarly or math,atecially the same.

Otherwise vive la variety. (In my opinion).

Manta Strike, Hunters From Hyperspace, Haunting Horrors, Teleportation Matrix, Teleport Strike, Jump Pack Assault, and Meteoric Descent are identical.

Death Descending is the same, but at 12".

Portal Of Exile is a completely different rule.

And here's the thing-you mistakenly assumed they were all the same, despite one of them having a different range, and one not being a Deep Strike at all.

Whereas if they were called Deep Strike (9"), Deep Strike (9"), Deep Strike (9"), Deep Strike (12"), Portal Of Exile, Deep Strike (9"), Deep Strike (9"), Deep Strike (9"), and Deep Strike (9"), you'd be able to tell with just the names that the Monolith has a different range for Deep Strike, and that Portal Of Exile is a bespoke rule you need to learn.

For reference, Portal Of Exile is an ability that, when the Monolith is charged by a non-Vehicle, non-Monster unit, it may roll a d6. On a 4+ (top bracket, worsening by 1 per bracket) the charging unit suffers d6 Mortal Wounds.

And again-I'd be totally fine if Hunters From Hyperspace was worded like so:

Deep Strike (9")-Hunters From Hyperspace
You may set this unit in Deep Strike Reserves rather than deploying them normally. If you do so, you may deploy them as Reinforcements anywhere on the table more than 9" from enemy models at the end of any of your movement phases.

Deathmarks use the Necron's advanced hyperspace technology to exist in a small pocket dimension near the battlefield, dropping in only when the time is right.

Andykp wrote:
Can’t be bothered to look them all up but I’m guessing as you’ve chosen them all they all work in the same way to one and other. So I’ll say no difference at all.

There you go responded. The difference is the name. The name of the rule is different. Already explained many times why I prefer it that way.

As for the body guard thing, that would be wrong. Among that list are three variants of people jumping in front of other things, either by blocking hits, wounds or life loss. Not to mention the wild differences of what unit types can be be protected.

For example, Silent Bodyguard and Bodyguard have nothing in common - while Loyal To The End and Bodyguard are the same rule, but one triggers on 2+ and the other on 3+.

we just had a 'Mic drop' moment i feel like. If he doesn't understand how USRs would make the game better after that then i dont know what else we can do

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Can’t be bothered to look them all up but I’m guessing as you’ve chosen them all they all work in the same way to one and other. So I’ll say no difference at all.

There you go responded. The difference is the name. The name of the rule is different. Already explained many times why I prefer it that way.

As for the body guard thing, that would be wrong. Among that list are three variants of people jumping in front of other things, either by blocking hits, wounds or life loss. Not to mention the wild differences of what unit types can be be protected.

For example, Silent Bodyguard and Bodyguard have nothing in common - while Loyal To The End and Bodyguard are the same rule, but one triggers on 2+ and the other on 3+.

Then isn’t that a good reason to keep the rules all separate, if they work differently and trigger differently, or are suggesting you would make them all the same. As I said didn’t have time or inclination to look them all up and don’t need to.

Also would you have strategems that would trigger USRs? Like grot shield?

Not sure what the point of asking me what certain things do? I like the variety, I don’t need to memorise all the rules for all the armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
we just had a 'Mic drop' moment i feel like. If he doesn't understand how USRs would make the game better after that then i dont know what else we can do

They would make the game better for you. Worse for me. Don’t see why that’s so hard for you to grasp. I would argue as well that 8th is more popular than the editions that had USRs. Hard to find specific numbers to back that up but GWs overall figures show it is doing well off the back of it, not like under previous editions. Again cause and effect impossible to prove but 8ths popularity shows that “better” is a tricky term. Better for who? GW, they would argue now is better than before, see profits. Better for me, hell no.

So pick your mic up mate. I’ve heard the arguments in favour of USRs but am not swayed from my initial statement of hell no. USRs are a mine field and make the game duller to me, no argument made here has convinced me otherwise, but rather has gone to show how much worse it would be.

If GW decide to bring them back then I will roll with it and learn a new system again. As it is I would like to see 8th built on not changed drastically.

Andykp wrote:
They would make the game better for you. Worse for me. Don’t see why that’s so hard for you to grasp.

It's hard to grasp because you have not provided a single argument that has not been proven as objectively wrong, while your only counter-argument is "but that's not how it is for me".
It's really the same as arguing with a flat earth believer. No matter what arguments you bring and what proof you provide, they will keep insisting the earth is flat because the horizon is a line and not a curve.

You are just insisting to be right without any ground to stand on.

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
They would make the game better for you. Worse for me. Don’t see why that’s so hard for you to grasp.

It's hard to grasp because you have not provided a single argument that has not been proven as objectively wrong, while your only counter-argument is "but that's not how it is for me".
It's really the same as arguing with a flat earth believer. No matter what arguments you bring and what proof you provide, they will keep insisting the earth is flat because the horizon is a line and not a curve.

You are just insisting to be right without any ground to stand on.

I think that may be a little harsh . But you're right in so far that he has his oppinion. And you actually can't argue oppinions, you can only argue facts. And since the facts apparantly can't change his oppinion you both simply have to agree to disagree

Andykp wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

As for the body guard thing, that would be wrong. Among that list are three variants of people jumping in front of other things, either by blocking hits, wounds or life loss. Not to mention the wild differences of what unit types can be be protected.

For example, Silent Bodyguard and Bodyguard have nothing in common - while Loyal To The End and Bodyguard are the same rule, but one triggers on 2+ and the other on 3+.

Then isn’t that a good reason to keep the rules all separate, if they work differently and trigger differently, or are suggesting you would make them all the same. As I said didn’t have time or inclination to look them all up and don’t need to.

The point is you have a list of rules with similar names which work differently. That is terrible game design.

Just to make my position perfectly clear, AGAIN.

I understand the principles behind USRs well, I have played games that use them and use them well. I have played every edition of 40k. Seen good rules do and go as well as bad.

My favourite wargame ever was 40k second edition. It was great. Even with all of its faults. I deeply dislike games like magic. What I liked about 2nd was that all the info you needed was on handy cards you could keep and reference. I still have two boxes of dark millennium.

Currently I like 8th edition a lot too. It has the openness to represent lots of different things and is like a sandbox. It’s an open rule set and you can add depth and remove layers to suit.

The changes that have been suggested in this thread to me would at best, improve nothing and at worst remove things from the game I like. And it’s not out of ignorance or stupidity, it’s from enjoying different aspects of the game to you lot.

I don’t play often, not as often as I’d like, and have a number of different armies. So don’t play one army a lot but a few very rarely. I work a lot and am a single parent. So time is limited to game. I play in a small group of like minded narrative players.

I like the data cards because there is no way I could learn all the strategems for one army let alone the 5+ I collect. I would like AOS style warscroll cards like the new releases get for 40k.

Now I can hear you all thinking now, well USRs would help you remember it all. No they wouldn’t. I would still have to read the rules off the data sheets. So I hear you say, what difference does the name make. Well, I and my mates like the fluffy names. If we are reading them anyway it’s nice to read something that relates directly to the unit on the table.

That’s how we enjoy the game, all our units and characters have names and stories, some decades old. All our games tell an ongoing story. Our terminators teleporting or stormboyz stormboy striking matters to us. Now if you’re suggestions were put in place we could still enjoy the game but we wouldn’t enjoy it as much. We wouldn’t have those moments we like when something blows up because it is full of ammo, or my mate happily telling me his harlequins are using their holo-suits rather than their invulnerable save 4+ to avoid damage. It’s small things but they add up to make the experience better for us.

So arguments that standardised names and texts are easier to remember do not equate to a better gaming experience for everyone. The experience is about the whole thing not just the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghbert wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
They would make the game better for you. Worse for me. Don’t see why that’s so hard for you to grasp.

It's hard to grasp because you have not provided a single argument that has not been proven as objectively wrong, while your only counter-argument is "but that's not how it is for me".
It's really the same as arguing with a flat earth believer. No matter what arguments you bring and what proof you provide, they will keep insisting the earth is flat because the horizon is a line and not a curve.

You are just insisting to be right without any ground to stand on.

I think that may be a little harsh . But you're right in so far that he has his oppinion. And you actually can't argue oppinions, you can only argue facts. And since the facts can't change his oppinion you both simply have to agree to disagree

This.

You are saying jidmah, you can prove I would enjoy the game more if you made these changes. I accept that you might enjoy the game more with them but I know I wouldn’t based on experiences I’ve had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

As for the body guard thing, that would be wrong. Among that list are three variants of people jumping in front of other things, either by blocking hits, wounds or life loss. Not to mention the wild differences of what unit types can be be protected.

For example, Silent Bodyguard and Bodyguard have nothing in common - while Loyal To The End and Bodyguard are the same rule, but one triggers on 2+ and the other on 3+.

Then isn’t that a good reason to keep the rules all separate, if they work differently and trigger differently, or are suggesting you would make them all the same. As I said didn’t have time or inclination to look them all up and don’t need to.

The point is you have a list of rules with similar names which work differently. That is terrible game design.

But does that equate to a terrible gaming experience, not always.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a friend who insisted the correct way to make a ragu Bolognese is to add a glass of milk with the Pasata and cook it down. Now he is most likely right and better educated on the art of cookery than me, being a chef. But I prefer my daughters bolognese that has no milk in to his “proper” bolognese.

It’s a matter of taste and preference.

Andykp wrote:
Can’t be bothered to look them all up but I’m guessing as you’ve chosen them all they all work in the same way to one and other. So I’ll say no difference at all.

There you go responded. The difference is the name. The name of the rule is different. Already explained many times why I prefer it that way.

Already explained that it’s just my opinion and experience. Keep repeating my opinion as it hasn’t changed and I’m getting told my opinion and experience is wrong.

And this is how this thread has increased to 13 pages, many of which are repetitive back-and-forth with you. We are not telling you that your experience is "wrong." We have provided reasons why, for most people, as can be and has been methodically tested, codifying common rules into a framework of Universal Special Rules makes a game easier to learn, and helps people check what their game pieces do at a quick glance. You may simply not be in that group.

I have brought up the examples of deep strike and explodes many times because they deem the most simple to use. In previous editions GW didn’t cock up deep strike, it was pretty standard if we ignore death wing shenanigans.

So it’s a good example. Was standard and universal, still exists today under many different titles. I prefer it the way it is now where each unit has its own name for it. I actually agree with one point slayer fan made. Standardised wording on rules with exactly the mechanics would be good and it’s something GW claim to do, but not standardised titles. And only on rules with the same mechanic, not ones that work similarly or math,atecially the same.

The standardized titles are part of what makes USRs easy to reference and communicate. "This unit has Deep Strike." Versus "This unit has Hunters from Hperspace, those guys have Manta Strike, that one has Teleportation Matrix, and that last one has Meteoric Descent." "Umm......... okay, what do they do?" "Lemme check.... Hunters from Hyperspace lets me deploy the unit on the battlefield 9" away from an enemy unit after the game started..... Manta Strike lets me deploy these guys 9" away from an enemy unit after the game starts.... umm.. where is it........ ok... ...Teleportation Matrix guy deploys after the game starts, within 9" of an enemy unit and........ Meteoric Descent squad can be deployed after we start playing, 9" away from an enemy."


What was your opinion on USRs before 8th? Did you dislike DS and FNP in 5th?

Otherwise vive la variety. (In my opinion).

Andy, you really don't need to couch your answers with "in my opinion." This discussion is not personal, it is about rules.

That variety doesn't exist. How is it diverse to have the same rule by different names? What about gameplay? Wouldn't you like more variety and fluff during games? Is shuffling minis around, rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling saves, and calling out different phrases adequate?