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.

Andy, the point is you're not really contributing anything to the discussion here. I think everyone understands you don't like USRs and we've now heard your reasons why a dozen times or more. But when your reasons boil down to "I just don't like them" it doesn't leave any room for discussion because there's no basis for dialog, just a one-dimensional statement of opinion that nobody can change. If every possible reason for using USRs is just going to be met with a response like "that doesn't work for me" how's that moving the discussion forward?

You get that this forum isn't a direct line to GW HQ? What's discussed here is all theoretical and it's not going to appear in the next version of the game. There's no inherent threat to the actual rules of 40k through anything that's discussed here so I really don't understand why you're so keen to shut down any discussion about a topic that ultimately doesn't affect you.

Andykp wrote:


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.

If all your armies had rules with the same name for the same effect, you'd have less things to learn.

Andykp wrote:

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.

your units would still teleport or use holo suits, that would not change, we even gave examples where they could keep these fluffy names alongside the USR.

something like :


or even more fluff friendly like you seem to want :


Having shorter rulesdescription makes it easier to parse, look for the bolded part and bam, you know what the unit does. you still get to keep the fluff description since that seems to be a major point for you (and i respect that).

Andykp wrote:


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.

Make them all the same and you dont have to figure out which version of ''this unit takes a hit for another one'' you are using. Having slight variations forces you to read the rule every single time to be sure. Some bodyguard abilities working on wounds taken, others on hits taken and then having some that change the damage to a single mortal wound and others use the hit damage, on top of having different trigger values (2+, 3+) is bad game design since it brings confusion.

Bodyguard (2+) Whenever a unit withing 3'' takes damage, this unit may instead take it on a 2+

and bam, you have a rule that keeps the same fluffy concept but is much quicker to parse.

Andykp wrote:

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

When i have to refer to the book to be sure what the explosion stats or which bodyguard abilities my units have, yes it means its a terrible gaming experience, i want to play a game, not spent my time looking up the codex for specific wordings.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
Andy, the point is you're not really contributing anything to the discussion here. I think everyone understands you don't like USRs and we've now heard your reasons why a dozen times or more. But when your reasons boil down to "I just don't like them" it doesn't leave any room for discussion because there's no basis for dialog, just a one-dimensional statement of opinion that nobody can change. If every possible reason for using USRs is just going to be met with a response like "that doesn't work for me" how's that moving the discussion forward?

You get that this forum isn't a direct line to GW HQ? What's discussed here is all theoretical and it's not going to appear in the next version of the game. There's no inherent threat to the actual rules of 40k through anything that's discussed here so I really don't understand why you're so keen to shut down any discussion about a topic that ultimately doesn't affect you.

Exactly, Andy, take my two examples for deepstrike and tell me exactly what you dislike about them please?

Andykp wrote:
You are saying jidmah, you can prove I would enjoy the game more if you made these changes.

See, there have been multiple suggestions directly aimed at you for implementations which keep literally everything you told us is important to your enjoyment about the game, plus things that would, as a matter of fact , improve the rules, but you can choose to ignore if you don't want them. Some suggestions even had MORE of the things you told us you would enjoy, like additional flavor text.
So, if even once, you stay immersed in your game instead of checking how stalker bolters interact with grot shields, the game would be more enjoyable for you, even if ever so slightly.

To which you then respond "But GW will screw it up anyways, so I won't enjoy it."

So bottom line is that you simply tell us that you won't enjoy anything that is not exactly how it is now. Which is irrational behavior, just like what the flat earthers are doing.

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
You are saying jidmah, you can prove I would enjoy the game more if you made these changes.

See, there have been multiple suggestions directly aimed at you for implementations which keep literally everything you told us is important to your enjoyment about the game, plus things that would, as a matter of fact , improve the rules, but you can choose to ignore if you don't want them. Some suggestions even had MORE of the things you told us you would enjoy, like additional flavor text.
So, if even once, you stay immersed in your game instead of checking how stalker bolters interact with grot shields, the game would be more enjoyable for you, even if ever so slightly.

To which you then respond "But GW will screw it up anyways, so I won't enjoy it."

So bottom line is that you simply tell us that you won't enjoy anything that is not exactly how it is now. Which is irrational behavior, just like what the flat earthers are doing.

Balls mate. I have said time and again what I don’t like about your suggestions. I have also said I would continue to play if the rules changes again as I have the last 7 times. So please don’t misrepresent what I have said. If disagreeing with you makes me a flat earther then you must be very important.

The back and forth and repetition has been down to people not getting that I just don’t agree with what makes a a good game. Jidmah again saying here that it is a “fact” that USRs would make the game “better”. It’s a crock, the experience is about so much more than the rules mechanics. I have heard so much none sense in here. Now I’m being told this forum isn’t the place for opinions. There is some serious gate keeping going on here, which grinds my gears which is why I keep replying. It’s seems to be jidmah s MO too. Don’t agree with me then you don’t belong in this conversation. Very sad.

Andykp wrote:

Balls mate. I have said time and again what I don’t like about your suggestions

No you havn't.

Tell us what you dislike about the following formatting :

Teleport strike - This unit has Deep strike (9+)
Terminators use teleporting devices to bla bla.......

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Balls mate. I have said time and again what I don’t like about your suggestions

No you havn't.

Tell us what you dislike about the following formatting :

Teleport strike - This unit has Deep strike (9+)
Terminators use teleporting devices to bla bla.......

He's saying this is either too many words or too little words. He likes the thing just the way they are. He doesn't want a coded addendum, nor he wants a rule to be deduced to simple phrases/sentences and instead would like to keep the paragraph long explanations on each and every datasheet because he just likes it that way better.

I don't like this because it's pointless. If you're gonna give something Deep Strike (9") just put Deep Strike (9") on the sheet.

Andykp wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
You are saying jidmah, you can prove I would enjoy the game more if you made these changes.

See, there have been multiple suggestions directly aimed at you for implementations which keep literally everything you told us is important to your enjoyment about the game, plus things that would, as a matter of fact , improve the rules, but you can choose to ignore if you don't want them. Some suggestions even had MORE of the things you told us you would enjoy, like additional flavor text.
So, if even once, you stay immersed in your game instead of checking how stalker bolters interact with grot shields, the game would be more enjoyable for you, even if ever so slightly.

To which you then respond "But GW will screw it up anyways, so I won't enjoy it."

So bottom line is that you simply tell us that you won't enjoy anything that is not exactly how it is now. Which is irrational behavior, just like what the flat earthers are doing.

Balls mate. I have said time and again what I don’t like about your suggestions. I have also said I would continue to play if the rules changes again as I have the last 7 times. So please don’t misrepresent what I have said. If disagreeing with you makes me a flat earther then you must be very important.

The back and forth and repetition has been down to people not getting that I just don’t agree with what makes a a good game. Jidmah again saying here that it is a “fact” that USRs would make the game “better”. It’s a crock, the experience is about so much more than the rules mechanics. I have heard so much none sense in here. Now I’m being told this forum isn’t the place for opinions. There is some serious gate keeping going on here, which grinds my gears which is why I keep replying. It’s seems to be jidmah s MO too. Don’t agree with me then you don’t belong in this conversation. Very sad.

The only "gatekeeping" in this thread is that which you choose to see. You are agitated because people disagree with you, and you dislike the idea that the method of writing and organizing rules is something that can be tested to determine what works best for the most people.

There is more to the experience than rules mechanics, but I know that for me, the mechanics are most important, because they govern what you can do. If you aren't using mechanics, you aren't playing a game. If I wanted to just talk and play pretend I'd go play 5th edition DnD.

The issue is that where you disagree on what makes a "good game" are points on rules organization and presentation that have been scientifically shown to accomplish those goals most effectively. It's like disagreeing on what makes food healthy, or an object heavy.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't like this because it's pointless. If you're gonna give something Deep Strike (9") just put Deep Strike (9") on the sheet.

I agree, but i'm trying to compromise with him. The maximum i would put is something like this :

Deepstrike (9+)
At the end of any of your movement phases, you may place this unit ......

That way you get a quick reference with a rule name that means something, and if you don't know that USR by heart, you can still refer to the description to learn it.
The most important part is that the USR itself is noticeable at first glance, hence the bolding.

The fluffy way for these units use the USRs should be put in the unit description in the codex, not the datasheet.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Balls mate. I have said time and again what I don’t like about your suggestions

No you havn't.

Tell us what you dislike about the following formatting :

Teleport strike - This unit has Deep strike (9+)
Terminators use teleporting devices to bla bla.......

He's saying this is either too many words or too little words. He likes the thing just the way they are. He doesn't want a coded addendum, nor he wants a rule to be deduced to simple phrases/sentences and instead would like to keep the paragraph long explanations on each and every datasheet because he just likes it that way better.

Fair enough, Its just strange to me that adding 5 words (in this case) is something that would ruin the gaming experience for someone.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't like this because it's pointless. If you're gonna give something Deep Strike (9") just put Deep Strike (9") on the sheet.

I agree, but i'm trying to compromise with him. The maximum i would put is something like this :

Deepstrike (9+)
At the end of any of your movement phases, you may place this unit ......

That way you get a quick reference with a rule name that means something, and if you don't know that USR by heart, you can still refer to the description to learn it.
The most important part is that the USR itself is noticeable at first glance, hence the bolding.

The fluffy way for these units use the USRs should be put in the unit description in the codex, not the datasheet.

...............................

Agreed. Include the usual write-up for each unit in the codex. It is baffling that someone could be unable to see the connection between the unit's description and its rules.

Andy is proof of why the concept of "everyone is entitled to their opinion" is just a bad concept in general.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Andy is proof of why the concept of "everyone is entitled to their opinion" is just a bad concept in general.

oh he can have any opinion he wants. The thing is if you bring an opinion that isn't in line with the rest of the people in the thread, on a rules proposition DISCUSSION forum, and you don't provide solid arguments, people are going to debunk your arguments.

And this forum is an example of if you disagree with the masses in line you are attacked personally with out any cause.

I have explained, even just on the last page in some detail what it is I like and why I like it.

If you want this forum just being the same few people saying “let’s try this.” And then everyone else saying “yeah, good idea.” Then great. But it kind loses its value as a forum.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Andy is proof of why the concept of "everyone is entitled to their opinion" is just a bad concept in general.

Rude. Proper keyboard warrior action there mate. Coming from someone who has proven that the only opinion he values is his own it’s no surprise. FYI, I’m not that keen on slayer either, but I’m probably wrong there too and they’re the best band in the world.

It's not rude, it's the truth.

And the truth is you actually haven't explained ANYTHING in detail. You just say you don't like it because fluff. That was not a reason as proven and you've just run around in circles saying "I don't like it I don't like it".

So you haven't actually contributed anything to the conversation in terms of a con for USR, so it isn't a wonder I don't value your input in the thread. Baconcatbug's argument was better than yours, and he's just saying GW sucks.

Andykp wrote:
And this forum is an example of if you disagree with the masses in line you are attacked personally with out any cause.

I have explained, even just on the last page in some detail what it is I like and why I like it.

If you want this forum just being the same few people saying “let’s try this.” And then everyone else saying “yeah, good idea.” Then great. But it kind loses its value as a forum.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Andy is proof of why the concept of "everyone is entitled to their opinion" is just a bad concept in general.

Rude. Proper keyboard warrior action there mate. Coming from someone who has proven that the only opinion he values is his own it’s no surprise. FYI, I’m not that keen on slayer either, but I’m probably wrong there too and they’re the best band in the world.

This is not what is happening, and I think you know that. Why can't you admit when you have made a mistake?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's not rude, it's the truth.

And the truth is you actually haven't explained ANYTHING in detail. You just say you don't like it because fluff. That was not a reason as proven and you've just run around in circles saying "I don't like it I don't like it".

So you haven't actually contributed anything to the conversation in terms of a con for USR, so it isn't a wonder I don't value your input in the thread. Baconcatbug's argument was better than yours, and he's just saying GW sucks.

I said that pages ago as well mate, very early doors. As the ones suggesting change I have seen no argument that convinces me I’m wrong.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And this forum is an example of if you disagree with the masses in line you are attacked personally with out any cause.

I have explained, even just on the last page in some detail what it is I like and why I like it.

If you want this forum just being the same few people saying “let’s try this.” And then everyone else saying “yeah, good idea.” Then great. But it kind loses its value as a forum.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Andy is proof of why the concept of "everyone is entitled to their opinion" is just a bad concept in general.

Rude. Proper keyboard warrior action there mate. Coming from someone who has proven that the only opinion he values is his own it’s no surprise. FYI, I’m not that keen on slayer either, but I’m probably wrong there too and they’re the best band in the world.

This is not what is happening, and I think you know that. Why can't you admit when you have made a mistake?

Only mistake I have made is disagreeing with the herd. Should have been a good sheep and you would all be patting yourselves on the back for being so clever.

Pray tell what mistake is it have made?

Andykp wrote:
Pray tell what mistake is it have made?

The only mistake you've made is confrontationally and condescendingly asking "what's wrong with me having my own opinion" all the while shutting down others' idea without any proper input other than "I don't see how this improves the game" under the pretense "I prefer the current system over all previous editions'" and then getting infuriated over people refuting your stance and pointing out your attitude.

There's nothing wrong with simply disagreeing and voicing your opposition, but if you decide to parttake in a conversation you need to bring something more than "I just don't like it". If you intentially/unintentionally insult someone/someone's comment, it's only inevitable they will bite back. Just saying.

Andykp wrote:
...Pray tell what mistake is it have made?

Your central mistake is in thinking the purpose of the thread is to convince you specifically that you're wrong and derailing the conversation down that black hole rather than trying to give the person who made the initial suggestion any feedback.

 skchsan wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Pray tell what mistake is it have made?

The only mistake you've made is confrontationally and condescendingly asking "what's wrong with me have my own opinion" all the while shutting down others' idea without any proper input other than "I don't see how this improves the game" under the pretense "I prefer the current system over all previous editions'" and then getting infuriated over people refuting your stance and pointing out your attitude.

There's nothing wrong with simply disagreeing and voicing your opposition, but if you decide to parttake in a conversation you need to bring something more than "I just don't like it". But if you intentially/unintentionally insult someone/someone's comment, it's only inevitable they will bite back. Just saying.

Fair comment mate, appreciate it. Still prefer 2nd edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
The endless list of USRs clogged up the 6th and 7th edition rulebooks for pages and pages, provoking endless arguments over their meaning and requiring frequent rule checks. It turned into one of the main problems with those editions. Removing it was an excellent step forward because it simultaneously allowed for a number of things:

1) The complete core rules summary fits on 8 pages, is easy to introduce to newcomers and easy to refer to. In the vast majority of 8E games, neither me nor my opponent ever have to look at it. Myself and most other people I know don't even bring the BRB itself to local tournaments. Perfect.

2) As a result, the core rules are freely available from GW and its not strictly neccessary for new players to buy a BRB off the bat. If you bring back USRs, you appeal to that business sense by encouraging GW to leave out rules descriptions in army books and put them in the big £30-40 BRB. No thanks.

3) I now never ever have to refer to the BRB to check what the 5 different USRs on my unit and its weapons do for it while writing army lists, and that's great.

4) No longer are units awful because they're lumbered with thematic but terrible USRs that are shoehorned onto them in place of micro-adjusted rules. Now the game designers in my experience seem to spend more time considering the unit's presence and dynamic on the table and in the meta rather than assuming that a USR fits a unit just because it sounds right. Just to give one example, in place of an actually useful ability, a number of units in 6th and 7th with flame weapons just received Soulblaze, which was objectively terrible.


So, no thanks, no USRs, not now, not ever again.

This guy gets it. And puts it more eloquently than I could. Also have seen good points made by bcb and Johnnyhell on there too.

Andykp wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Pray tell what mistake is it have made?

The only mistake you've made is confrontationally and condescendingly asking "what's wrong with me have my own opinion" all the while shutting down others' idea without any proper input other than "I don't see how this improves the game" under the pretense "I prefer the current system over all previous editions'" and then getting infuriated over people refuting your stance and pointing out your attitude.

There's nothing wrong with simply disagreeing and voicing your opposition, but if you decide to parttake in a conversation you need to bring something more than "I just don't like it". But if you intentially/unintentionally insult someone/someone's comment, it's only inevitable they will bite back. Just saying.

Fair comment mate, appreciate it. Still prefer 2nd edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
The endless list of USRs clogged up the 6th and 7th edition rulebooks for pages and pages, provoking endless arguments over their meaning and requiring frequent rule checks. It turned into one of the main problems with those editions. Removing it was an excellent step forward because it simultaneously allowed for a number of things:

1) The complete core rules summary fits on 8 pages, is easy to introduce to newcomers and easy to refer to. In the vast majority of 8E games, neither me nor my opponent ever have to look at it. Myself and most other people I know don't even bring the BRB itself to local tournaments. Perfect.

2) As a result, the core rules are freely available from GW and its not strictly neccessary for new players to buy a BRB off the bat. If you bring back USRs, you appeal to that business sense by encouraging GW to leave out rules descriptions in army books and put them in the big £30-40 BRB. No thanks.

3) I now never ever have to refer to the BRB to check what the 5 different USRs on my unit and its weapons do for it while writing army lists, and that's great.

4) No longer are units awful because they're lumbered with thematic but terrible USRs that are shoehorned onto them in place of micro-adjusted rules. Now the game designers in my experience seem to spend more time considering the unit's presence and dynamic on the table and in the meta rather than assuming that a USR fits a unit just because it sounds right. Just to give one example, in place of an actually useful ability, a number of units in 6th and 7th with flame weapons just received Soulblaze, which was objectively terrible.


So, no thanks, no USRs, not now, not ever again.

This guy gets it. And puts it more eloquently than I could. Also have seen good points made by bcb and Johnnyhell on there too.

Yes, you want to be told what you want to hear. We know.

GW rules writers are incompetent. They did not implement USRs well. The system works, it is GW "designers" who are flawed. Most minis games utilize USRs, and have clear rulesets, without losing immersion.

To achieve the simplicity of 8th, clarity and strategic depth were sacrificed.

Guys, simply let Andy have his oppinion, you can't change it anyways, no matter how often and how well put out you state the facts...it's just his personal oppinion, and you need to accept that.

I'm all for USRs, they make everything easier without losing fluff (if you doing it right, mind you), but there will always be the few naysayers who dislike it.

@Andy: We get it, you don't like them and that's ok. But saying this over and over again won't change our view either. We like them for our reasons and logic says that most people would learn new rules/understand the game much quicker with proper executed use of USRs.

Like I said, we only can agree to disagree or else this (meaningless) discussion will go on for ages

Andykp wrote:


The back and forth and repetition has been down to people not getting that I just don’t agree with what makes a a good game. Jidmah again saying here that it is a “fact” that USRs would make the game “better”. It’s a crock, the experience is about so much more than the rules mechanics. I have heard so much none sense in here. Now I’m being told this forum isn’t the place for opinions. There is some serious gate keeping going on here, which grinds my gears which is why I keep replying. It’s seems to be jidmah s MO too. Don’t agree with me then you don’t belong in this conversation. Very sad.

No, the back and forth is because you're not actually contributing to the discussion at this point. I think everyone understands what you're saying, even though many disagree with it. The problem, as I pointed out earlier, is that constantly saying "I don't like it because I don't like it" is not useful feedback. You've refused to engage with people's suggestions in the posts above, for example. There have been certain formats put forward for how the rules could be presented using USRs while maintaining the fluff aspect but you haven't responded to those at all. If they're not good, why not? I'm all for constructive criticism and differing points of view but constructive is the key word there. The frustration most (probably all) people have with your responses is they aren't helpful in guiding a discussion about new rules.

Again, we're not GW, none of these rules will make it into the next edition of the game just because we're talking about them here, nothing here has any effect on your gaming and likely never will. There is no threat to your enjoyment of the game in this thread. That makes it all the more confusing that you're talking about gatekeeping and seem so adamant in repeating your now well-known view that you don't like the proposal for your own personal reasons. Initially it was an interesting point to consider whether the removal of fluff from the datasheets was a negative or positive thing in general, then there have been suggestions for how to compromise. But you aren't interested in that. Fine. So why are you still discussing things?

You also seem to misunderstand what people like Jidmah are saying when they talk about "facts". What we're saying is that there are certain elements of game design that you can test to determine which approach is best for the most people. Rules layout and general presentation are one of those things. You'll rarely find an approach that is absolutely better for everyone but you can determine trends and find out what works best for most people. You don't even seem to acknowledge such a thing is possible, never mind useful, when designing game rules, which again contributes to the view that you're closed-minded and not engaging in meaningful, constructive discussion.

Let's try one more time. If the rule was formatted as below would you have problems with it? If so, what problems and why?

Deep Strike (9")
Terminators use teleportariums to strike deep into the heart of the enemy...

Funny Thing: There basically are USRs in AoS (And I guess in 40k as well).

I'm listening to GWs Stormcast Podcast and Jervis Johnson is talking about an internal Document called the "Standard wording Document" which has rules for evey occasion, and rule writers just use the standard wording for the rule (attack roll of 6 does X)

They just should put a nametag on most of those rules, publish them and voilla new USRs

This is a thread about discussing implementing USR.

Andy, since you are opposed to the idea in general, how about you just leave this thread be, and everyone else stops responding to Andy and talks about the topic at hand instead.

We have almost 10 pages of trying to shift Andys opinion now, at some point we all have to accept that we are shouting at a windmill here.

For me it's about speed of play. I don't enjoy having to read and analyse an entire paragraph just to confirm that this particular rule is the same as I think it is. If the paragraph could be replaced by, or summarised by, 2 words and a number, that would be awesome.
The mission format is terrible for this. You have to read an entire page word for word hunting for the one or two sentences that are different.
In short; I don't want to play a game of spot the differences while playing Warhammer. It detracts from the flow of the game dramatically.

Also, I've seen how the current format can go very wrong. At the start of the edition when we just had indexed, the Tyranid player in our group was convinced that gargoyles couldn't deep strike unless he also brought his Forge World Harridan because the fluff portion of the datasheets explained that they clung into a Harrigan before descending to the battlefield.
He quit playing entirely a few months later.