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.

Bespoke rules have surely been changed in the past for balance reasons.

USR too have been changed in the past.

Every time a weapon has it's points adjusted or profile changed that's a bespoke rule change. Eg: Auto Bolt Rifle is now assault 3

Chapter tactics and relics have been altered. Those are bespoke rules.

Unique units have been updated, those are also examples.

Ishagu, you have the datasheets for the Rune Priest and KoS. Please address Unit's example now.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ishagu, you have the datasheets for the Rune Priest and KoS. Please address Unit's example now.

he can't and he won't because this example contradicts his standpoint on GW's rules quality

What's my stance on GW's rule quality?

I said that a handful of mistakes across a game featuring 20 factions, lots more sub factions and 300+ different units are bound to happen.

As long as they are willing to address mistakes I'm not too concerned. And they do so with regular Errata and FAQs.

 Ishagu wrote:
And I'm saying I prefer every faction to have bespoke rules in the same way they have bespoke weapons.

Does every faction have bespoke definitions for what weapons suffer penalties to moving, which ones can be shot in melee, and which ones can fire after Advancing?

Or do we have a small set of universal weapon types, with bespoke special rules on top of those types as (very rarely) needed?

I'm sure you could make every faction even more of a unique snowflake by giving them all 3-5 unique weapon types, half of which are just renames of the same weapon types from other codices, and printing out the full rules for every weapon type on every datasheet. Do you think that would be good design, or bad design?

Why is there so much damn snark in this thread? Can’t people discuss instead of bicker?

Spoletta wrote:
Bespoke rules have surely been changed in the past for balance reasons.

USR too have been changed in the past.

It isn't about changing actual bespoke rules or all instances of what is effectively a USR.

People are asking for an example where an FAQ changed one instance of what is an otherwise universal wording of a rule.

So an FAQ changing how one units deep strike worked in order to balance it for that unit without that change also being applied to all other deep strike rules which use the previous wording, for example.

The next step after that is whether nor not such a rule change would be impossible in a USR system which can incorporate things like Deep Strike X".

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why is there so much damn snark in this thread? Can’t people discuss instead of bicker?

Because bad faith discussions devolve into snark.

They did with one of the GSC interactions, actually. I can't recall the exact rule.

 Ishagu wrote:
What's my stance on GW's rule quality?

I said that a handful of mistakes across a game featuring 20 factions, lots more sub factions and 300+ different units are bound to happen.

As long as they are willing to address mistakes I'm not too concerned. And they do so with regular Errata and FAQs.

And yet we can go into every book and find broken rules, contradictions, units and weapons that are overcapable or just don't work, and GW releases stuff like the SM supplements that clearly are insanely overpowered on the most cursory of casual read overs at release, and remain probably the strongest armies even after Errata. A great example of GW rules "quality" is Russ tanks. They make the Tank Commander insanely good, and then *drop* its price in the Errata when nobody thought it needed to be cheaper, while the Vanquisher cannon has been non-functional (the Punisher has a greater average damage output against vehicles than the Vanquisher does) since the start of the edition three years ago, and GW's response was just to drop the cost 5pts and subsequently forget it exists

It's good that they're at least *doing* errata now, but quality has never been a high point of GW rules.

Please, I'm asking.

Find me 10 examples of broken rules that have not been corrected and cannot be resolved. You claim you find them in every book.

If you can't give me 10 examples of unplayable rules then you are telling porkies.

My problem with them is 2+ armies can have the same or relatively the same, but due to wording and CP cost 1 armies is WAY WAY WAY shittier. Example Salamanders and Imp Fist - Both have a stratagem that allows them to Select a unit in your ifght/shooting phase and then an enemy unit/model and YOUR unit adds +! to their wound rolls. Ok thats not so bad whats the problem? Well the Imperial Fist one "Tank Hunters" specifies it has to be an enemy vehicle and it costs 2 CP not 1. While the Salamanders allows them to choose ANY enemy model/unit and it only costs 1 CP.

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

How is reading one rule with two effects on the datasheet easier than reading two rules with one effect each both on the datasheet? I'm calling bs on this, the two rules with one effect each is obv. easier to read!

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

Good job everyone.

Yes! That's why we need both USR and bespoke rules, to take advantage of the pros and minimize the cons of both!!
Glad we agree that we need USR, it's cool that the conversation has now ended, it means now you can answer the question about the belt of russ and quicksilver swiftness!
Also answer the question about the belt of russ and quicksilver swiftness, you have the datasheets!

We have USRs already.

Infantry
Vehicle
Fly
Monster
Rapid Fire
Assault
Character
Macro

Etc, etc

 Ishagu wrote:
Please, I'm asking.

Find me 10 examples of broken rules that have not been corrected and cannot be resolved. You claim you find them in every book.

If you can't give me 10 examples of unplayable rules then you are telling porkies.

You've ignored mine, what makes people think you wouldn't ignore 9 more?

I'm waiting for you to show me the rules lol

I have no doubt you may well have found one!

But for someone to claim every book is filled with broken rules is just rubbish.
To the people claiming the rules are broken, 10 examples should be easy to find.

Ishagu wrote:I'm waiting for you to show me the rules lol

I have no doubt you may well have found one!

But for someone to claim every book is filled with broken rules is just rubbish.
To the people claiming the rules are broken, 10 examples should be easy to find.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Take a photo of the rules and I'll have a look at it.

I'm not familiar with every rule 100%. How often does that interaction come up? Every game you play or is it one of very few confusing interactions.

I did ask for 10 examples than can't be resolved. Maybe this is one?

So far it has come up every game since March, given that my opponent is the same person (thanks COVID). We resolved it our way, but not because of RAW. Because we had to.
Here's the datasheets for the units in question:
Keeper of Secrets:

Spoiler:

Primaris Rune Priest:

Spoiler:

This post, right here, has the datasheets.

Edit: Also, the rules FUNCTION. But they could be a lot better.

Functional is not usually a compliment. If I want to sell you a car and the best thing I can say is that it functions, would you buy that car?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Bespoke rules have surely been changed in the past for balance reasons.

USR too have been changed in the past.

It isn't about changing actual bespoke rules or all instances of what is effectively a USR.

People are asking for an example where an FAQ changed one instance of what is an otherwise universal wording of a rule.

So an FAQ changing how one units deep strike worked in order to balance it for that unit without that change also being applied to all other deep strike rules which use the previous wording, for example.

The next step after that is whether nor not such a rule change would be impossible in a USR system which can incorporate things like Deep Strike X".

There have been a few cases of USR changes which would have been not possible (or at least would have been cumbersome) if they were actual USR.
Mostly the problem comes with stacking of effects.
Take hit penalties and feel no pain for example. Depending on the source they stack, and what does or doesn't stack has been changed in the FAQs. If they were all the same rule, addressing what stack and what doesn't would been much more difficult.

 Ishagu wrote:
We have USRs already.

So we have USR.
And the game is good.
So you agree that having USR is good for the game.
I see you agree that we need USRs in the game, nice!
Also really you should answer about the Quicksilver Swiftness and Belt of Russ interaction, why don't you answer?

What's the issue with the rule? Some poor interaction with Quicksilver Swiftness?

Is it an issue with who goes first?

 Ishagu wrote:
What's the issue with the rule? Some poor interaction with Quicksilver Swiftness?

Is it an issue with who goes first?

The question is:

When a Rune Priest uses the Belt of Russ on a Keeper of Secrets, can the Keeper of Secrets then pay 2CP to jump ahead in the order with the default stratagem?

I don't have the rules for the belt of russ on hand, and I need to see the language for quicksilver Swiftness.

These aren't two armies I play and I'm not going to judge the rules from memory or how I think they function.

 Ishagu wrote:
Every time a weapon has it's points adjusted or profile changed that's a bespoke rule change. Eg: Auto Bolt Rifle is now assault 3

Chapter tactics and relics have been altered. Those are bespoke rules.

Unique units have been updated, those are also examples.

I'm not sure if you didn't understand the point that was being made or you're arguing in bad faith here. We're looking for an example of something that would otherwise have been a USR that has been updated independent of all the other mechanically identical rules, not just an example of any rule that's ever been changed.

I'm not sure how the examples you give are in any way supposed to be an argument against USRs.

 Ishagu wrote:
I don't have the rules for the belt of russ on hand, and I need to see the language for quicksilver Swiftness.

These aren't two armies I play and I'm not going to judge the rules from memory or how I think they function.

Wait, you're saying you need more than the datasheet?

But I thought

 Ishagu wrote:
All the special rules being on the unit datasheet is very streamlined.

I guess you mean the Armour of Russ, not the Belt of Russ.

I'm not looking at FAQs so i may be wrong, but provided that the other requirement for the stratagem has been met, i see no reason to not allow that.

It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

 Ishagu wrote:
It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

Because USRs cannot physically be printed on the datasheet! That's completely impossible!

 Ishagu wrote:
It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

The whole point is that it's not a USR, you know that, right?

 Ishagu wrote:
It would appear that the USR quicksilver Swiftness is causing a need to review multiple pages.

Another point goes to bespoke rules lol

And the relic Belt of Russ, don't forget.

I'm glad you agree that 8th edition didn't actually streamline anything though and it's still a pain having to look everything up, meaning players shouldn't feel bad if they can't find a rule or don't understand every interaction.

(by the way, there's no reason you couldn't print the text of a USR onto a unit's datasheet. There's no reason GW didn't do it here with the Keeper, either, other than convenience.)