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.
It actually is an USR, or rather... Calling it USR is a bit outdated as a term. Faction Special Rule (FSR) would be a more fitting term, but surely it is not a bespoke rule.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/06 16:46:30
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!
Privateer Press have been doing the impossible for ages it seems. As have Wizkids for decades with Heroclix who literally put them on the mini's base? What kind of witchery was that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 16:47:31
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.
Actually, if I want to play 7th edition at GW, the manager WILL stop me.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.
I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.
I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that
Ishagu wrote: I'm so sorry that I can't give out advice on rules in a book I don't own for a faction I don't play.
And that's exactly the point
Imagine a world in which the rules were called "Always Strike First" and "Always Strike Last" and both of them (and any interaction between them) was included in the BRB. Wouldn't that be simpler to answer for people that don't own all the rules? Wouldn't it be easier to go to a game against, say, Space Wolves with Slaanesh and when he says "this gives you Always Strike Last" I can say "well, I have Always Strike First and I know what effect that has on me already because it was covered in the actual rules without me having to buy the SW codex!" Instead of currently where the game goes to a screeching halt and we have to bend over our codexes with squinty eyes trying to parse every individual word in each fairly lengthly rule to try to understand what's going on - and then still have questions left at the end?
That would be simpler to play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 16:59:17
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.
I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that
Ishagu wrote: We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Like I said many pages ago, I recently read designer's notes for 4th Ed, and one of the things specifically mentioned was streamlining inconsistent and bespoke special rules into easily-referenced USRs. Lack of USRs was seen as a problem into the mid-2000s. Now that we've come full circle, whatever GW is currently doing is automatically the best, I guess.
But yeah I think you've pretty well demonstrated why this 'bespoke rules are great because they're right there on the datasheet' approach isn't actually true in practice: because they often aren't, they still could be even if they were USRs, and even when bespoke rules are on the datasheet, they're often being modified by external sources that you need to go look up anyways. If the example interaction given were in the form of USRs with BRB-defined interactions, it'd be easy to resolve.
If 8th actually did only require me to have my codex and the ten pages of core rules to play, I'd be all in favor of whatever rules systems it used to get there. But it doesn't, so the convenience/compactness/conciseness argument doesn't work. I still need FAQs for the base rules, FAQs for my army, and Designer's Commentary to explain basic interactions at a bare minimum. I'll read through a codex and think I've got it, then only find through discussion online that I missed some key wording difference (maybe 'within' vs 'wholly within') that changes how a rule is played versus its counterparts in other armies. And the number of times I see people get rules wrong because they weren't aware that a rule was modified in the spring FAQ two years ago or something really kills the feeling that 8th is the most streamlined edition yet.
Those USRs didn't spring up out of nowhere. They were a response to a problem that we're now seeing repeated.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 17:03:33
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.
I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.
I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that
Don't want to barge in on this, but reading the 2 datasheets the answer looks extremely clear to me...
What is it? (Honestly curious because this actually is an issue we've not been able to find).
I answered some posts ago, but i guess that this thread is becoming huge and you can miss stuff.
I would allow to use the stratagem without any issue.
Okey dokey. That's what we arrived at, but my opponent was dejected that all his relic did was cost me 2CP more than I would've otherwise spent. And he raised a good point that it's not clear the 2CP stratagem lets me pick the unit that was Belt of Russ'd, since I have other eligible units that must go first (since they also have quicksilver swiftness).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 17:07:50
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.
But you have the datasheets! Why don't you answer if you have the datasheets? Clearly you don't want to answer.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
We used them for 20+ years and the game is better now that it is moving away from them.
Old editions are right there. No one is stopping you from playing them.
I don't want to have reference multiple sources to establish the effect of the rule. What I'm arguing against is your claim that
Don't want to barge in on this, but reading the 2 datasheets the answer looks extremely clear to me...
What is it? (Honestly curious because this actually is an issue we've not been able to find).
I answered some posts ago, but i guess that this thread is becoming huge and you can miss stuff.
I would allow to use the stratagem without any issue.
Okey dokey. That's what we arrived at, but my opponent was dejected that all his relic did was cost me 2CP more than I would've otherwise spent. And he raised a good point that it's not clear the 2CP stratagem lets me pick the unit that was Belt of Russ'd, since I have other eligible units that must go first (since they also have quicksilver swiftness).
The issue is actually with the stratagem.
I think that that one is the single stratagem with the highest number of FAQs related to it. It doesn't help that how it interacts with FIghts first and fight last abilities has been changed back and forth many times.
Ishagu wrote: Yeah, to require you to look at multiple sources to establish the effect of a rule. Lol I still don't know why you guys want more of this.
.
They don't. But given that this has been pointed out multiple times now, you're clearly just trolling at this point. Move on.
Let this thread rest guys, everyone said what he had to say.
Both design choices have merits and demerits, there isn't a correct one. The current version of 40K and AoS choose to go with bespoke rules, there's nothing more to it.
On topic: I think the rules would benefit from clearly organizing some core complex concepts into concrete USR or rules keywords. The rules are already filled with a number of these, some explicitly used and some used by inference.
All of these could be better served if the rules where consolidated into a single page with the rules clearly written out and then referenced by rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 23:10:02
Functionally there isn't a huge difference between explicitly using USRs and what currently exists. Eg. Deep strike.
What people seem to really want is consistent design language, which they clearly should do better on (and in AOS seem to be doing much better with this). Having bespoke versions of the same rules is how most special rules are. Things like the awful bodyguards rules are just bad writing. Nobody would really mind if two units had different bodyguard rules if the two rules used were each logical and simple.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 21:00:47
Spoletta wrote: Let this thread rest guys, everyone said what he had to say.
Both design choices have merits and demerits, there isn't a correct one. The current version of 40K and AoS choose to go with bespoke rules, there's nothing more to it.
That's fallacious reasoning. Having merits and demerits doesn't automatically make any merit or demerit of equal value. There are downsides to wearing seatbelts as well as upsides, I guess it's just personal preference then?
As I've continued to say throughout this conversation, STANDARDISATION of terminology is the core of what a USR is. Standardisation of language makes comprehension easier and inconsistency less likely.
That's all a USR is doing, creating standardised language for ease and consistency. How many of them, or whether there are bespoke rules alongside or augmenting them, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that standardising language is BETTER than not standardising it for reading comprehension, communication, implementation and practical use of that language - which, you know, is the sum total scope of rules use in games. To argue otherwise is fly in the face of the use of language in general.
Other suppposed merits of BRs:
Printed in a datasheet so easy to read - also possible with USRs
Allow for unique different rules - also possible with USRs, standardisation ensures that the identical component stays identical
Bespoke rules aren't nested - apart from the fact that the definition of USR's says nothing about how you implement them, the current rules nest rules inside themselves using Keywords, rules so disparate that you have to read multiple books to figure out all the effects that one keyword grants someone
The only merits of bespoke rules that USRs don't have are those relating to designers - the onus is on them to maintain consistency rather than players trying to interpret 10 finely sliced versions of the same thing. Designers need to be deliberate in their design methodology and decision making.
For players and humans in general that use language for commmunication, there are no advantages to a reduction in standardisation of language.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/06 22:28:45
The only merits of bespoke rules that USRs don't have are those relating to designers - the onus is on them to maintain consistency rather than players trying to interpret 10 finely sliced versions of the same thing. Designers need to be deliberate in their design methodology and decision making.
For players and humans in general that use language for commmunication, there are no advantages to a reduction in standardisation of language.
Rahdok wrote: 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.
It could have something to do with the absolutely broken Siegebreaker cohort, if one army absolutely does not deserve to have more ways to punish vehicals it's imperial fists.
Spoletta wrote: Let this thread rest guys, everyone said what he had to say.
Both design choices have merits and demerits, there isn't a correct one. The current version of 40K and AoS choose to go with bespoke rules, there's nothing more to it.
That's fallacious reasoning. Having merits and demerits doesn't automatically make any merit or demerit of equal value. There are downsides to wearing seatbelts as well as upsides, I guess it's just personal preference then?
As I've continued to say throughout this conversation, STANDARDISATION of terminology is the core of what a USR is. Standardisation of language makes comprehension easier and inconsistency less likely.
That's all a USR is doing, creating standardised language for ease and consistency. How many of them, or whether there are bespoke rules alongside or augmenting them, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that standardising language is BETTER than not standardising it for reading comprehension, communication, implementation and practical use of that language - which, you know, is the sum total scope of rules use in games. To argue otherwise is fly in the face of the use of language in general.
Other suppposed merits of BRs:
Printed in a datasheet so easy to read - also possible with USRs
Allow for unique different rules - also possible with USRs, standardisation ensures that the identical component stays identical
Bespoke rules aren't nested - apart from the fact that the definition of USR's says nothing about how you implement them, the current rules nest rules inside themselves using Keywords, rules so disparate that you have to read multiple books to figure out all the effects that one keyword grants someone
The only merits of bespoke rules that USRs don't have are those relating to designers - the onus is on them to maintain consistency rather than players trying to interpret 10 finely sliced versions of the same thing. Designers need to be deliberate in their design methodology and decision making.
For players and humans in general that use language for commmunication, there are no advantages to a reduction in standardisation of language.
That's not an issue of USR's or bespoke rules it's the 40k design team actually being more like 3 teams that never interact or actually have acess to any exsisting codex's.
The GW40k designers can not do technical writing, USR's wouldn't change that fact just like Bespoke rukes doesn't change that.
The secondary issue is some people believe they need to know every rule in the game as they can't trust their opponent's not to rules lawyer the langue to their advantage.
The language is on GW and they certainly should do better but even when they had USR's they still made the same mistakes.
The second issue is probably more cultural and probably needs to be examined on a meta by meta bases.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 23:15:45
The main advantage of bespoke rules vs USRs that folks are not addressing in their counterpoints is increased accessibility. The rules load has been moved out of the main rule book and into the Codexes. For a new or returning player the climb is now much less daunting, but the depth is there in the Codexes if you want it. Robin Cruddace mentions in a good 40K Voxcast that they were aiming to make the game more accessible with 8th edition, and the removal of USRs was part of that. I argue that he succeeded, and the game's success supports that. I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex. If a player tries to play a faction without a Codex then any confusion is on them! If you play ten factions then you have taken that rules load on yourself. Others chose to focus. As they say: "Beware the man with only one gun."
He also goes over how the team has four opportunities to bring a faction to life: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Mistakes have been made, but I think the team has hit its stride. I offer that the GSC book was the first of the Codexes designed once the developers had a real sense of how 8th Ed behaved. I think we are actually in a different edition than the one we were playing in August 2017.
I accept that USRs are also a valid design method. We still see their shadow in how many datasheets/strats etc are written. I figure its actually more work for the development team to go without them, but I am enjoying the result of freeing ourselves from USRs.
Enjoy your gaming regardless,
T2B
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The main advantage of bespoke rules vs USRs that folks are not addressing in their counterpoints is increased accessibility. The rules load has been moved out of the main rule book and into the Codexes. For a new or returning player the climb is now much less daunting, but the depth is there in the Codexes if you want it. Robin Cruddace mentions in a good 40K Voxcast that they were aiming to make the game more accessible with 8th edition, and the removal of USRs was part of that. I argue that he succeeded, and the game's success supports that. I am not saying that the datasheets are all you need to play the full game, but you can use the free core rules and your box of Tactical marines and play a game against somebody with a game of Chaos Marines. All you need is your Codex. If a player tries to play a faction without a Codex then any confusion is on them! If you play ten factions then you have taken that rules load on yourself. Others chose to focus. As they say: "Beware the man with only one gun."
He also goes over how the team has four opportunities to bring a faction to life: faction rules, stratagems, warlord traits and relics. Mistakes have been made, but I think the team has hit its stride. I offer that the GSC book was the first of the Codexes designed once the developers had a real sense of how 8th Ed behaved. I think we are actually in a different edition than the one we were playing in August 2017.
I accept that USRs are also a valid design method. We still see their shadow in how many datasheets/strats etc are written. I figure its actually more work for the development team to go without them, but I am enjoying the result of freeing ourselves from USRs.
Enjoy your gaming regardless,
T2B
Why can't the rules be printed in full on the datasheets with standardized names and rules text?
I don't see any benefit to bespoke rules there that makes it easier to learn-heck, it could easily make it harder! A new player could see that most of their GK units have "Teleport Strike" but see Draigo does NOT have that, and instead has "Warp Emergence", and think they have different rules because the names are different.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
