What's The Matter With USRs?

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.

**pm713**

Ishagu wrote:
Such a depressing outlook from some of you guys. No hobby spirit from yourselves or your communities.

No idea why you're in the hobby if things are as grim for you as you claim.

How dare people expect a quality product they pay substantial amounts of money for! It's ridiculous. Everyone should stop whinging, pay an extra 50% as a tip and get on with things.

**Vaktathi**

I don't think I've ever seen a 30 model Infinity army. I haven't played in a few years so things may have changed, but last time I did, most armies weren't any larger than a typical 40k squad was, I think my PanO list was 10 models?

**Ishagu**

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?

I believe that the frame in which 40K is designed is one of a game played by people who have agreed to have a fun game in the spirit of the hobby. It is not written to divide the assets between a separating couple or work out a business merger.

I always trust my opponent: I'm not playing for money. If a mistake is made I assume its an honest mistake - they happen and I make them. I bring my Codex with me so that I can show somebody the rules for my army if they have a question. If I am unsure on something like Wounds I look it up, but its infrequent. I play roughly two games a week in two different communities. There can be doubts when a new Codex comes out, but otherwise rules disputes are the exception and certainly not the rule. When I faced a Harlequins list on the release date for that Codex which coincided with our local tourney it was an adventure in trust, especially as my opponent only had an e-copy on his smart phone. We got through it somehow.

If an opponent is getting mad at you and threatening violence over tri-pointing it has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with the negative frame of the game that you are playing. Maybe don't play that person? It is hardly the game developer's fault that adults cannot behave themselves in each other's company. I have certainly never seen anything like that at the various FLGS and tourneys that I have played in over the years. I can recall one friend storming out of an Apocalypse game. He was at the other end of the table and I missed the lead-up, but I think that there were some external reasons to the game for his loss of control (we'd both recently redeployed from a bad part of the world). Other than that I am at a loss to explain these tales of woe.

This is the absolute truth. GW designs their game with a friendly, social contract in mind.

There are prominent posters on this forum who literally don't understand this. It's possible they exist in communities that are filled with cut-throat cheaters or incompetent players, or winning matters so much that mistakes cannot be forgiven. Or perhaps their own social shortcomings are to blame.

I've got news for players like this: 40k is not the game for you. Your attitudes are not compatible with this hobby. Play something else or develop your own 3rd party ruleset. Just stop complaining that 40k isn't what you expect it to be.

**Martel732**

"This is the absolute truth. GW designes their game with a friendly, social contract in mind."

I guess they've never been to America.

There's nothing friendly about the fallback rule, NOR tripointing. I can tell you that with certainty.

Also, they'd lose a huge chunk of their player base if people listened to this. So I doubt GW would agree with your assessment. Even if it's true.

**JNAProductions**

Ishagu wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?

I believe that the frame in which 40K is designed is one of a game played by people who have agreed to have a fun game in the spirit of the hobby. It is not written to divide the assets between a separating couple or work out a business merger.

I always trust my opponent: I'm not playing for money. If a mistake is made I assume its an honest mistake - they happen and I make them. I bring my Codex with me so that I can show somebody the rules for my army if they have a question. If I am unsure on something like Wounds I look it up, but its infrequent. I play roughly two games a week in two different communities. There can be doubts when a new Codex comes out, but otherwise rules disputes are the exception and certainly not the rule. When I faced a Harlequins list on the release date for that Codex which coincided with our local tourney it was an adventure in trust, especially as my opponent only had an e-copy on his smart phone. We got through it somehow.

If an opponent is getting mad at you and threatening violence over tri-pointing it has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with the negative frame of the game that you are playing. Maybe don't play that person? It is hardly the game developer's fault that adults cannot behave themselves in each other's company. I have certainly never seen anything like that at the various FLGS and tourneys that I have played in over the years. I can recall one friend storming out of an Apocalypse game. He was at the other end of the table and I missed the lead-up, but I think that there were some external reasons to the game for his loss of control (we'd both recently redeployed from a bad part of the world). Other than that I am at a loss to explain these tales of woe.

This is the absolute truth. GW designs their game with a friendly, social contract in mind.

There are prominent posters on this forum who literally don't understand this. It's possible they exist in communities that are filled with cut-throat cheaters or incompetent players, or winning matters so much that mistakes cannot be forgiven. Or perhaps their own social shortcomings are to blame.

I've got news for players like this: 40k is not the game for you. Your attitudes are not compatible with this hobby. Play something else or develop your own 3rd party ruleset. Just stop complaining that 40k isn't what you expect it to be.

Why do friendly games necessitate bad or imprecise, unclear rules?

**Ishagu**

Maybe the problems is the American mindset in that case?

Consider that your view of the game is not the official view of the creators. Stop complaining about how it doesn't meet the expectations you have set yourself.

Socially able players in a friendly environment can work through rules together. And they really aren't unclear or confusing lol. Most issues have been long resolved.

Lol what are these mythical confusing rules ruining every game? Show me 10 examples of something which is currently too confusing to be resolved?

**Martel732**

Until they come out as say that they don't want those kinds of player playing the game, there is no official view. Even if behind closed doors there is.

If you want to sell to Americans, you have to deal with the American mindset.

**JNAProductions**

For example: There are two Chapter Masters on the field, each part of an opposing force.

On one side, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and can reroll 3- on-die.

On the other, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and reroll 1s and 2s on-die, but NOT 3s.

Why is that? Why is that DESIRABLE?

**Ishagu**

JNAProductions wrote:
For example: There are two Chapter Masters on the field, each part of an opposing force.

On one side, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and can reroll 3- on-die.

On the other, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and reroll 1s and 2s on-die, but NOT 3s.

Why is that? Why is that DESIRABLE?

Different codex, different rules. Know your own rules. It's simple.

**Martel732**

JNAProductions wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Since we are talking about USRs, for those who don't trust their opponents, did you trust them in previous editions?

I believe that the frame in which 40K is designed is one of a game played by people who have agreed to have a fun game in the spirit of the hobby. It is not written to divide the assets between a separating couple or work out a business merger.

I always trust my opponent: I'm not playing for money. If a mistake is made I assume its an honest mistake - they happen and I make them. I bring my Codex with me so that I can show somebody the rules for my army if they have a question. If I am unsure on something like Wounds I look it up, but its infrequent. I play roughly two games a week in two different communities. There can be doubts when a new Codex comes out, but otherwise rules disputes are the exception and certainly not the rule. When I faced a Harlequins list on the release date for that Codex which coincided with our local tourney it was an adventure in trust, especially as my opponent only had an e-copy on his smart phone. We got through it somehow.

If an opponent is getting mad at you and threatening violence over tri-pointing it has nothing to do with USRs and everything to do with the negative frame of the game that you are playing. Maybe don't play that person? It is hardly the game developer's fault that adults cannot behave themselves in each other's company. I have certainly never seen anything like that at the various FLGS and tourneys that I have played in over the years. I can recall one friend storming out of an Apocalypse game. He was at the other end of the table and I missed the lead-up, but I think that there were some external reasons to the game for his loss of control (we'd both recently redeployed from a bad part of the world). Other than that I am at a loss to explain these tales of woe.

This is the absolute truth. GW designs their game with a friendly, social contract in mind.

There are prominent posters on this forum who literally don't understand this. It's possible they exist in communities that are filled with cut-throat cheaters or incompetent players, or winning matters so much that mistakes cannot be forgiven. Or perhaps their own social shortcomings are to blame.

I've got news for players like this: 40k is not the game for you. Your attitudes are not compatible with this hobby. Play something else or develop your own 3rd party ruleset. Just stop complaining that 40k isn't what you expect it to be.
Why do friendly games necessitate bad or imprecise, unclear rules?

Because GW is too lazy to use even the most basic hypotheticals to inform their rule writing. Forget playtesting. We could tell certain things about the indices before we put anything on the table.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ishagu wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
For example: There are two Chapter Masters on the field, each part of an opposing force.

On one side, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and can reroll 3- on-die.

On the other, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and reroll 1s and 2s on-die, but NOT 3s.

Why is that? Why is that DESIRABLE?

Different codex, different rules. Know your own rules. It's simple.

It's not that simple. I have to know the rules for EVERY opponent to make sure they are doing things correctly.

**JNAProductions**

Ishagu wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
For example: There are two Chapter Masters on the field, each part of an opposing force.

On one side, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and can reroll 3- on-die.

On the other, the Intercessors shooting at a Flier hit on a 4+ on-die, and reroll 1s and 2s on-die, but NOT 3s.

Why is that? Why is that DESIRABLE?

Different codex, different rules. Know your own rules. It's simple.

But WHY are they different? Why SHOULD they be different?

And if I'm the Blood Angels player (who cannot reroll 3s), I'm likely to think my opponent is making a mistake by rerolling their 3s. After all, they're both Space Marine Chapter Masters-why would they have different functioning rules on their reroll auras?

**Ishagu**

Martel732 wrote:
Until they come out as say that they don't want those kinds of player playing the game, there is no official view. Even if behind closed doors there is.

If you want to sell to Americans, you have to deal with the American mindset.

They want your money. If you pay you can play. Just keep your toxic attitudes to yourself.
I promise you that a player like you have described yourself to be will be barred from any club here in the UK.

You don't need to know every rule for every unit in every book lol. You simply can't trust your opponent. That's your problem.

<Removed>

**Martel732**

WE fixed that by saying Dante's RAI is the new chapter master rules. It must be the RAI, or the result is absurd. Obviously, this has to be pitched to every TO, which makes it cumbersome. Again, just GW being lazy.

**AnomanderRake**

Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a 30 model Infinity army. I haven't played in a few years so things may have changed, but last time I did, most armies weren't any larger than a typical 40k squad was, I think my PanO list was 10 models?

Tournament lists in N3 are hard-capped at 2 command groups (20 orders). It's possible to exceed that with Synchronized or Servant models (multiple models that activate together); 30-model armies (at 300pts/2 command groups) are technically possible but a normal force is usually closer to 10-15 models.

**Martel732**

Ishagu wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Until they come out as say that they don't want those kinds of player playing the game, there is no official view. Even if behind closed doors there is.

If you want to sell to Americans, you have to deal with the American mindset.

They want your money. If you pay you can play. Just keep your toxic attitudes to yourself.
I promise you that a player like you have described yourself to be will be barred from any club here in the UK.

Wow. So inclusive.

" You simply can't trust your opponent. That's your problem."

OF course I don't trust my opponent in this game. He's my OPPONENT.

**AnomanderRake**

Ishagu wrote:
...Consider that your view of the game is not the official view of the creators. Stop complaining about how it doesn't meet the expectations you have set yourself...

So we're not allowed to express opinions unless we're parroting GW press releases?

Ishagu, do you work for GW?

**Ishagu**

@Martel

Wow, so negative. Change the channel mr "I can never trust another human being even when playing with toys"

**JNAProductions**

I think most of us can agree Martel's view is overly pessimistic. When I play, I trust my opponent to not INTENTIONALLY cheat, or I just wouldn't play them.

But, Ishagu, look at my example above. You didn't really address it or any questions associated with it.

**Hellebore**

Ishagu wrote:
Maybe the problems is the American mindset in that case?

Consider that your view of the game is not the official view of the creators. Stop complaining about how it doesn't meet the expectations you have set yourself.

Socially able players in a friendly environment can work through rules together. And they really aren't unclear or confusing lol. Most issues have been long resolved.

Lol what are these mythical confusing rules ruining every game? Show me 10 examples of something which is currently too confusing to be resolved?

any designer with any experience is not so arrogant to believe that their 'vision' for their game is exactly how it will be received.

Games are an exercise in User Experience Design, they're not vanity projects for people to show how clever they are.

If as a designer you're telling your players they're doing it wrong, then you've proven you don't know how to design something for other people.

**Ishagu**

The rules are fine lol

There aren't even 10 examples of something which is so unclear it cannot be resolved in a game with 20 factions and 300+ different units.

Give me 5 examples, please.
Maybe you don't personally like something? Maybe things aren't as want?
Where are these badly written rules that prevent the game from working?

**Martel732**

Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Wow, so negative. Change the channel mr "I can never trust another human being even when playing with toys"

No. Specifically 40K. Going back to 2nd people are CONSTANTLY getting things wrong. 85% of the time in THEIR favor. The other 15% I make sure to point out in an attempt to be a good opponent and so my potential win isn't tainted.

Players with your attitude are EXACTLY one of the groups that I find myself needing to watch closely because you don't care about accuracy, just the "social contract".

I don't have these problems in other board games with explicit rules. Just this one.

**Ishagu**

Martel732 wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
@Martel

Wow, so negative. Change the channel mr "I can never trust another human being even when playing with toys"

No. Specifically 40K. Going back to 2nd people are CONSTANTLY getting things wrong. 85% of the time in THEIR favor. The other 15% I make sure to point out in an attempt to be a good opponent and so my potential win isn't tainted.

Players with your attitude are EXACTLY one of the groups that I find myself needing to watch closely because you don't care about accuracy, just the "social contract".

And if you don't win the game you can't have any fun? Do you only play in tournaments with prize money?

This is an analogue game. You ever think that a lot of people don't care as much and just want to roll some dice? It's not just about you.

**Martel732**

THEY should play something else. Like a dice game.

**alextroy**

Martel732 wrote:
"This is the absolute truth. GW designes their game with a friendly, social contract in mind."

I guess they've never been to America.

There's nothing friendly about the fallback rule, NOR tripointing. I can tell you that with certainty.

Also, they'd lose a huge chunk of their player base if people listened to this. So I doubt GW would agree with your assessment. Even if it's true.

I live in America. I don't have problems gaming in a friendly way.

And what exactly is unfriendly about the Fall Back rule or tri-pointing?

**Martel732**

Because they are big FU rules. They both generate a lot of negativity at the table. In my experience.

My games would be considered "friendly" about 66% of the time I'd say. But then there are Eldar players that I've had to sit there with their own codex open because they kept "forgetting" how their aspect warriors worked.

**Ishagu**

Martel732 wrote:
THEY should play something else. Like a dice game.

This is a dice game lol.

Socialise yourself, please. It will do you some good. And do me a favour and never come to any events in the UK. I don't ever want to play you. I can't stand the accusations of cheating or the arguments if I happen to win.

**Martel732**

I wouldn't accuse you without evidence. But if I question your play, you better show me something to back it up. I don't think you even comprehend what I'm talking about. I'm not being mean or nasty for the sake of it. But after the second or third "mistake" during a game, I'm gonna watch like a hawk.

**JNAProductions**

Ishagu-why does Dante only allow Marines to reroll 1s and 2s, but Calgar allows them to reroll any hits?

And, more importantly, why is that distinction DESIRABLE?

**AnomanderRake**

Ishagu wrote:
The rules are fine lol

There aren't even 10 examples of something which is so unclear it cannot be resolved in a game with 20 factions and 300+ different units.

Give me 5 examples, please.
Maybe you don't personally like something? Maybe things aren't as want?
Where are these badly written rules that prevent the game from working?

Ishagu, do you work for GW?

**Ishagu**

JNAProductions wrote:
Ishagu-why does Dante only allow Marines to reroll 1s and 2s, but Calgar allows them to reroll any hits?

And, more importantly, why is that distinction DESIRABLE?

Why are the Blood Angels a more competitive chapter than the Ultramarines? Why are their unit selections different?

They just are. You get unique units, we get a better CM aura. Know your own rules and leave your opponent to know theirs.