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.

The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

 Ishagu wrote:
The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

You're confusing depth with complexity.

Spoletta wrote:


Well, that's incorrect.

Tyranids have 9 different rules for deepstrike with 9 different effects. Covering them all with an USR would be quite difficult.

And i'm not even counting GSC in this.

Two things here. First, are all those different DS rules necessary? Two, yet again, USRs don't preclude the possibility of having unique rules if required. The point still stands that the vast majority of DS rules are mechanically identical so can be covered by a USR.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

You're confusing depth with complexity.

No. I do like variety though.

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Well, that's incorrect.

Tyranids have 9 different rules for deepstrike with 9 different effects. Covering them all with an USR would be quite difficult.

And i'm not even counting GSC in this.

Two things here. First, are all those different DS rules necessary? Two, yet again, USRs don't preclude the possibility of having unique rules if required. The point still stands that the vast majority of DS rules are mechanically identical so can be covered by a USR.

Ok, but the purpose of an USR is to remove the bespoke rules.

If you need to say for each of those units "This unit has deepstrike but..." then you still created the same amount of bespoke rules and simply made everything worse because i have to reference another source to understand what the model does.

There are cases where USR would work better than bespoke rules,and cases like this one where bespoke rules work better.
And yes, all 9 those deepstriking methods are necessary, they are hugely different from each other and define the role of the model, so if the solution is "Just give them all the same deepstrike!" then your argument receives a HUGE fail mark.

A good use of USR would be the ariborne rule, deepstrike has too many variations.

Spoletta wrote:
And yes, all 9 those deepstriking methods are necessary, they are hugely different from each other and define the role of the model, so if the solution is "Just give them all the same deepstrike!" then your argument receives a HUGE fail mark.

Really?
Explain to me how Swooping Assault and Death From Below are so different.

Ishagu wrote:The game would be so much more boring and limited if everything was reduced to USRs common across all models in different factions.

But the rules are mechanically identical regardless of the name so how does making them a USR make the game more boring? The exciting thing about the game is what happens on the board between the two players, not about standing around reading rules text at each other. Nobody complained about this when we did have USRs so it seems like a pretty disingenuous reason to argue against them now.

Lord Damocles wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
And yes, all 9 those deepstriking methods are necessary, they are hugely different from each other and define the role of the model, so if the solution is "Just give them all the same deepstrike!" then your argument receives a HUGE fail mark.

Really?
Explain to me how Swooping Assault and Death From Below are so different.

Yeah...are those 9 all mechanically different or just called different things? Spoletta can you list the units that have the 9 different rules as I'm genuinely curious how you can make 9 different variations on the basic Deep Strike rule. Off the top of my head I think the Lictor has a mechanically different DS rule and maybe the Trygon (or is it just the other stuff that appears alongside the Trygon?) Even if they are different, again I'll point out that this doesn't preclude you using USRs where appropriate and having bespoke rules elsewhere for rules that are actually different. A quick check of my BA Codex reveals there are 4 differently named rules for Deep Strike that all function exactly the same. That's a fething stupid way to design a game because it's an unnecessary obstacle to understanding the abilities of a unit.

Tyranids have:

Swooping Assault - not within 9"
Death From Below - not within 9"
Float Down - not within 12"
Hidden Hunter - not within 9" + re-roll charge
Infestation - place 4 infestation nodes in your deployment zone. Appear within 6" of them.
Terror From The Deep - not within 1" + inflict up to 3 mortal wounds
Subterranean Assault - not with 9" + another unit can deploy with 3"
Invasion Organism - not within 9" + units inside must disembark
Bombardment Organism - not within 9" first battle round

You forgot Pheromone Trail.

I could even go further and add those to the list:

Spore Mine Launcher/Cysts
Spawn Termagants

Spoletta wrote:
You forgot Pheromone Trail.

I could even go further and add those to the list:

Spore Mine Launcher/Cysts
Spawn Termagants

You claimed that there were only nine of them.

So how is Swooping Assault different to Death From Below..?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You forgot Pheromone Trail.

I could even go further and add those to the list:

Spore Mine Launcher/Cysts
Spawn Termagants

You claimed that there were only nine of them.

So how is Swooping Assault different to Death From Below..?

They are not, which makes it a nice number of nine as i said.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Tyranids have:

Swooping Assault - not within 9"
Death From Below - not within 9"
Float Down - not within 12"
Hidden Hunter - not within 9" + re-roll charge
Infestation - place 4 infestation nodes in your deployment zone. Appear within 6" of them.
Terror From The Deep - not within 1" + inflict up to 3 mortal wounds
Subterranean Assault - not with 9" + another unit can deploy with 3"
Invasion Organism - not within 9" + units inside must disembark
Bombardment Organism - not within 9" first battle round

Thanks for that. What I'm seeing from the list is that 6 of them obey the regular 9" rule and have an additional rule on top. In my ideal implementation at least the first 5 above would just get Deep Strike as a USR then the additional part of the rule (re-roll charge, units have to disembark etc) can be added on top. Maybe even the Bombardment Organism could be handled like that, but probably not. To me, that instantly gives you an easier rule to parse because you get the basics of it in 2 words and the additional info can be added just as it is now. Far from being a problem for USRs, I thinkt his is a good demonstration of how useful they could be.

Yeah, but that was my point.
If i have to add a bespoke rule to make it work, then everything i did was to transform a bespoke rule into an USR plus a bespoke rule.
I didn't gain anything and now i also have to reference another source.

I can understand that it has advantages, but you can understand that it also has disadvantages. In the end it comes down to personal preferences, there isn't a "correct" way to do it.

Spoletta wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point.
If i have to add a bespoke rule to make it work, then everything i did was to transform a bespoke rule into an USR plus a bespoke rule.
I didn't gain anything and now i also have to reference another source.

I can understand that it has advantages, but you can understand that it has disadvantages. In the end it comes down to personal preferences.

I don't think that's a disadvantage though. You've converted part of a bespoke rule to a universally understood USR, which is still better than a longer bespoke rule that repeats text that should be a USR. I think you have gained something: a more concise rule that also aids both players when scanning a unit's datasheet. Obviously you still need to read the other, non-USR sections but you're still gaining the benefits of the USR.

This is also not even getting into a discussion about whether you really need all those bespoke rules in the first place and whether having USRs would help alleviate that bloat.

I'm one of the apparent few "don't really care either way" guys. I see the pros and cons of both ways. It's far from the biggest issue in the game. They need to do a better job with updating rules across the board whichever direction they take which is the biggest problem when it comes to this discussion as far as I see.

Actually the second you start to pile on multiple USRs a bespoke rule system becomes easier and more streamlined.

I only need to check one rule when it's bespoke.

I agree that this isn't an issue in the current game. It might be if you have OCD about knowing every single rule. That's on you, however.

 Ishagu wrote:
Actually the second you start to pile on multiple USRs a bespoke rule system becomes easier and more streamlined.

I only need to check one rule when it's bespoke.

I agree that this isn't an issue in the current game. It might be if you have OCD about knowing every single rule. That's on you, however.

It's an issue if you play multiple armies, want to understand what your opponent is doing or just have an easy conversation about the rules.

But why have a single deep strike when I could have multiple versions of the same rule that have no relevant difference?

But we just illustrated that many do have differences.

And just because some aren't different now doesn't mean they won't be individually adjusted in future. That's the beauty of a bespoke rule.

pm713 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Actually the second you start to pile on multiple USRs a bespoke rule system becomes easier and more streamlined.

I only need to check one rule when it's bespoke.

I agree that this isn't an issue in the current game. It might be if you have OCD about knowing every single rule. That's on you, however.

It's an issue if you play multiple armies, want to understand what your opponent is doing or just have an easy conversation about the rules.

But why have a single deep strike when I could have multiple versions of the same rule that have no relevant difference?

Make Deepstrike "x

Would solve a lot of issues if x would be distance to closest enemy. and allow for decent granularity with a general 9" as of now with the exceptions beeing shorter or longer with additonal conditions.
Still a USR, still standardized but ifninitely easier to handle.

The current system is not hard to handle.

It doesn't need to be easier. It is currently easy. This game is not hard to play lol.

If you're demanding perfection with no errors from both players at all times, I suggest that you don't involve yourself in a manual game played by humans. Humans make mistakes and are not perfect, some even cheat. That's humanity for you.

 Ishagu wrote:
But we just illustrated that many do have differences.

And just because some aren't different now doesn't mean they won't be individually adjusted in future. That's the beauty of a bespoke rule.

But many don't.

That's a ridiculous argument. They could also be rendered broken, out of date, completely changed or removed in the future.

Yes they could. That's the beauty of it. Each of these rules can be changed, removed or updated without impacting other units.

Another massive pro to using bespoke rules.

The granularity is an objective advantage of bespoken rules as much as outdated bits of rules is an objective disadvantage.

So we can agree both have pros and cons. I guess that's the end of the discussion!

Good job everyone.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yes they could. That's the beauty of it. Each of these rules can be changed, removed or updated without impacting other units.

Another massive pro to using bespoke rules.

Which would hold more weight if GW ever actually did that. But they don't. And, again USRs don't prevent you having bespoke rules if you need them. Nobody's suggesting units only use USRs, just that they are used where possible to make reading datasheets easier and rules more consistent.

They adjust rules often enough. It used be as long as 10 years between an army update.

The army that hasn't received an update for longest has only been waiting two years, if that. And they are due one soon! (DG)


Let go and of your obsession over the need for things to fit neatly in the way you want them to. Admit that both systems have pros and cons.

 Ishagu wrote:
The current system is not hard to handle.

It doesn't need to be easier. It is currently easy. This game is not hard to play lol.

If you're demanding perfection with no errors from both players at all times, I suggest that you don't involve yourself in a manual game played by humans. Humans make mistakes and are not perfect, some even cheat. That's humanity for you.

The game is objectively quite hard to play when compared to...almost any other tabletop game.

Even a relatively complex game like, I don't know, terraforming mars or something, does not have the sheer quantity of rules available that you are almost explicitly required to go in NOT KNOWING how many of your opponent's rules work.

The fact that, two years into the edition, even people who never played in the edition where universal rules are a thing, still regularly explain their rules in the old terms of when we had universal rules - Deep Strike, Feel No Pain, etc - indicates to me at least that 8th could use a handful more universal rules.

Because it does have universal rules, and extremely important ones, now. What do you think "Character" "Fly" "Invulnerable Saves" etc are?

Slipspace wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yes they could. That's the beauty of it. Each of these rules can be changed, removed or updated without impacting other units.

Another massive pro to using bespoke rules.

Which would hold more weight if GW ever actually did that. But they don't. And, again USRs don't prevent you having bespoke rules if you need them. Nobody's suggesting units only use USRs, just that they are used where possible to make reading datasheets easier and rules more consistent.

The advantages of having USR quickly diminsh the more bespoke rules you are forced to use.

Either the USR system allows to remove a huge part of the bespoke rules (without removing any of the current nunances of those rules) or there is simply no reason to adopt the USR system.

By the way, there is also a midway, which is using bespoke rules and using USR only for those few cases of rules that are REALLY spread on multiple factions and always equal:

Fly
Character
Airborne
Maybe Feel No pain.
Maybe explosion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The current system is not hard to handle.

It doesn't need to be easier. It is currently easy. This game is not hard to play lol.

If you're demanding perfection with no errors from both players at all times, I suggest that you don't involve yourself in a manual game played by humans. Humans make mistakes and are not perfect, some even cheat. That's humanity for you.

The game is objectively quite hard to play when compared to...almost any other tabletop game.

Even a relatively complex game like, I don't know, terraforming mars or something, does not have the sheer quantity of rules available that you are almost explicitly required to go in NOT KNOWING how many of your opponent's rules work.

Terraforming mars is child's play game design compared to 40k.

There exists no other game (physical) with the complexity of 40k. You can compare it with games that have a reasonable fraction of it, like warmachine, and you would soon discover that they are not easier by any definition.

40k 8th IS an easy game.

I can explain the game in 15 minutes and then just say "For special rules just follow what is written on the unit".

I tried explaining Seven Wornders to a couple of non geek friends once. It was a miserable experience.

 Ishagu wrote:
They adjust rules often enough. It used be as long as 10 years between an army update.

The army that hasn't received an update for longest has only been waiting two years, if that. And they are due one soon! (DG)


Let go and of your obsession over the need for things to fit neatly in the way you want them to. Admit that both systems have pros and cons.

I never said there weren't pros to bespoke rules so I don't know where you got that idea from. No idea what the firs two paragraphs are all about. When I talk about updating rules I'm specifically talking about updating one version of what would otherwise have been a USR to make it bespoke. People keep throwing that out as a disadvantage of USRs (even though it isn't) but can't actually point to an instance of this happening.

I am disappointed my example was ignored.