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.

Hellebore wrote:

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.

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

I already answered this several times.

Nothing about a rule being standardised in language changes how it can be printed or presented in the game. Any inference that it does is your imposition onto the conversation, not a fact of it.

Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke, moderated by consistent wording where appropriate. As I said, the shade of USRs are still there. I am fairly sure that the Codex developers get a brief on what stays consistent and where they can explore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellbore,

As I said, there can be and is a level of consistent wording within the bespoke rules. Changing the name for lore/immersion reasons is not confusing people. Meanwhile, there are not pages of USRs in the MRB.

Chees

The issue is that in order for a reasonable standard like:
1. If you have two rules that do the same thing, or have the same rules text, they have the same name.
2. If you have two rules that are similar, the difference between the two rules must be made obvious to the players or one of the two rules must be changed.
would require a level of coordination between the codex developers that has not been demonstrated yet.

It's entirely possible that GW's in a worse situation than other companies because it has to deal with development-translation-typesettinging-publication instead of just development-typesetting-publication for its books. That might explain how they've had a book get published with pre-errata versions of errata'd rules.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Changing the name for lore/immersion reasons is not confusing people.

Having the same rule presented with two different names is confusing, and is unnecessary.

Sure, it's nice to be able to have more flavoursome names, but if it's at the cost of having two identical rules instead of one, it's just bloat.

Meanwhile, there are not pages of USRs in the MRB.

Whether or not they are printed on the datasheets, having all of the special rules compiled in one place for easy reference is a good thing, surely...?

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

Soooooooo
Deep Strike: 12"
Deep Strike: 9"
Deep Strike: 6+D3"
That seems pretty fething easy huh?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

Soooooooo
Deep Strike: 12"
Deep Strike: 9"
Deep Strike: 6+D3"
That seems pretty fething easy huh?

Only if you added the full text of the rule on the datasheet in any case, which means that if that rule had some variation from the USR in it, now you created 2 rules instead of one in the datasheet. MORE bloat.

A bespoke system properly managed works wonderfully and offers a huge slew of advantages. Ideally, a bespoke rule system is better than an USR system. The problem with the first is that it is harder to manage for the designer, and requires quite a lot of control of configuration on your documents.

GW implementation of bespoke rules surely isn't surely a perfect one, but it isn't that bad either. It is working correctly without creating any real issues on the game, just a bit of confusion here and there.

Also, but this is a strictly personal point of view, having stuff with different names but same effects, gives a lot more character to units. This for me is more important than a lawyer tight wording. I remember the last raveners we had in past editions, whose only special rule was "Deepstrike"...felt like such a lazily designed unit...

Only if you added the full text of the rule on the datasheet in any case, which means that if that rule had some variation from the USR in it, now you created 2 rules instead of one in the datasheet. MORE bloat.

A proper system using USR's should never deviate from the main set of rules. Nothing should contain rules that isn't already a USR in the main rulebook. Bespoke rules shouldn't exist.

A bespoke system properly managed works wonderfully and offers a huge slew of advantages. Ideally, a bespoke rule system is better than an USR system

I can't think of a single thing that bespoke rules offers over a properly designed USR system.

GW implementation of bespoke rules surely isn't surely a perfect one, but it isn't that bad either. It is working correctly without creating any real issues on the game, just a bit of confusion here and there.

It's bloated, messy and unmanageable.

Also, but this is a strictly personal point of view, having stuff with different names but same effects, gives a lot more character to units. This for me is more important than a lawyer tight wording. I remember the last raveners we had in past editions, whose only special rule was "Deepstrike"...felt like such a lazily designed unit...

This has nothing to do with proper rules writing. Leave the fluff in the fluff section and the rules in the rules section where they belong.

The huge problem with the current rule system is that the core game mechanics are so bare bones that it leaves little universal standard for gameplay. All these unique rules in codexes along with their interactions with stratagems have to do so with little variety or mechanical depth because the game rules cannot properly handle slapping on more mechanics (especially mechanics that the opposition has to interact with). 8th is the most shallow version of 40k I've ever seen and yet it's bloating up rapidly without adding real depth of mechanics to the game (just a lot of stacking modifiers and lethality creep).

USRs like relentless should be commonplace as nearly half the stuff in the game was designed with it's function in mind (basically all vehicles, walkers, MCs, terminators, etc). It makes designing units easier when you have easy to implement and universal rules that they follow which makes interactions between mechanics and units more complex than just move, shoot, chop, psych. Stuff like stealth (improved cover) along with actual cover mechanics being common place allowing for weapons esigned to ignore cover (but not great vs armor) instead of letting AP bypass cover. Things like poison being good against biological units but useless against mechanics but the opposite could be true for something like EMP. Again if there are universal standard rules in the game then you can create things to interact with those rules which creates variety and choice (or at least the illusion of choice). The game needs more than just USRs to get itself out of being a lowest common denominator design by committee ruleset but USRs at least give consistency.

Why have USRs when you can have MOAR dice?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Only if you added the full text of the rule on the datasheet in any case, which means that if that rule had some variation from the USR in it, now you created 2 rules instead of one in the datasheet. MORE bloat.

A proper system using USR's should never deviate from the main set of rules. Nothing should contain rules that isn't already a USR in the main rulebook. Bespoke rules shouldn't exist. Then as stated previously in this thread, you failed hard with your argument because you are limiting the design. This isn't chess, coolness and uniqueness of models is the most important factor.

A bespoke system properly managed works wonderfully and offers a huge slew of advantages. Ideally, a bespoke rule system is better than an USR system

I can't think of a single thing that bespoke rules offers over a properly designed USR system. Nonsense, especially considering your previous anwer. A system with more granularity is better by definition.

GW implementation of bespoke rules surely isn't surely a perfect one, but it isn't that bad either. It is working correctly without creating any real issues on the game, just a bit of confusion here and there.

It's bloated, messy and unmanageable. This is only your personal opinion. Facts do not support it. I can concede the bloated, but 7h edition was USR based and equally bloated.

Also, but this is a strictly personal point of view, having stuff with different names but same effects, gives a lot more character to units. This for me is more important than a lawyer tight wording. I remember the last raveners we had in past editions, whose only special rule was "Deepstrike"...felt like such a lazily designed unit...

This has nothing to do with proper rules writing. Leave the fluff in the fluff section and the rules in the rules section where they belong. This has all to do with rules writing. A rule with fluff is better than a rule without fluff for many.

You are making the mistake of comparing the current bespoke system with some kind of inexisting and ideal perfect USR system. You have to compare the current system with 5/6/7th edition state i.e. USR applied to 40K. Do you remember ITC and ETC faq documents for 7th? Please tell me how that game was perfectly working without any hiccups. 8th is clearly working better than that.

None, and I mean literally none, of the arguments above seem to be paying attention to what people are saying about USRs and none of them are reasons to not use USRs. I have no idea why people who are so against USRs seem incapable of reading what the other side is saying but it seems to happen every time this is discussed. For clarity:

USRs do not disallow the addition of bespoke rules.
USRs do not reduce granularity or stifle creativity
USRs, by definition, reduce bloat. Consider any Deep Strike rule that exists right now (whether standard 9" away or one of the more specialised ones). You can replace that with the Deep Strike USR either wholesale or with the additional rule added on top. The amount of rules text you need on the datasheet is less than the current system. The amount of time spent understanding that rule is less because you immediately understand the Deep Strike component of it without having to read half a rule before realising what it's trying to say.
USRs do not require fluff to be removed. There are plenty of ways you could format a USR that retains the fluff. However, I would argue that we currently have plenty of places where fluff is presented in the Codices and adding it to the datasheet as well doesn't seem like a big advantage to me. Again, if that was desirable it's possible even with USRs.

Also, USRs improve clarity by creating a shared language across armies that makes the game more accessible by increasing the commonality of understanding between players.. It allows FAQ documents to be shorter and more easily applied across armies by only needing to fix problems once rather than across multiple books. It makes starting and understanding a new army easier as your knowledge of rules from previous armies is transferable.

I will say I disagree with Brutus_Apex that everything should be a USR. I think bespoke rules have their place, but that place is alongside USRs. So, given the points above about what USRs do not prevent or reduce, what's the problem?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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.

No you can't. I mean, you can, if you forget about half of the rules in the game.
Without the rulebook, you don't have:
- Scenario
- Rules for CP, so no stratagem, no relics, ...
- Rules for cover. Yeah that's right the rules for cover aren't in the free pdf. I mean, you get some, they just aren't clear, and are directly in contradiction with the main rule book.
Probably missing some other stuff too.

Missions and rules for cover are in CA 2019.
The rules for CP are in your army list builder.
The only thing that might not be anywhere else are the standard deployment maps.

The basic rulebook is the one book you don't need to play 8th. I don't even know where mine is or when I have used it last.

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

I agree with this. I do think there is room for a COUPLE more USRs - I'd add Deep Strike, Feel No Pain and Explodes back in, but that's about all I'd go for tbh.

Ideally a USR would be something that nearly every faction has access to, and all use in a similar way if not exactly the same way. That tracks for those three, as it tracks for the current USRs we do have, Character, Psyker, Fly, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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.

No you can't. I mean, you can, if you forget about half of the rules in the game.
Without the rulebook, you don't have:
- Scenario
- Rules for CP, so no stratagem, no relics, ...
- Rules for cover. Yeah that's right the rules for cover aren't in the free pdf. I mean, you get some, they just aren't clear, and are directly in contradiction with the main rule book.
Probably missing some other stuff too.

See that's the thing though, they kind of aren't. The rules in the main book are explicitly notated as optional, advanced rules for cover. The simple rule "If a unit is on or within cover they receive +1 to their save" is perfectly fine if both players go in with a fairly permissive attitude toward the word "in or on".

This is, after all, a game system that needs to be designed to support models ranging in size from grots to titans, that may or may not be on bases with various shapes, that can be played on everything from cardboard boxes and coke cans to 600$ dedicated terrain boards. Any terrain system they have has got to be PRETTY fething ABSTRACTED yall.

Slipspace wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Only if you added the full text of the rule on the datasheet in any case, which means that if that rule had some variation from the USR in it, now you created 2 rules instead of one in the datasheet. MORE bloat.

A proper system using USR's should never deviate from the main set of rules. Nothing should contain rules that isn't already a USR in the main rulebook. Bespoke rules shouldn't exist. Then as stated previously in this thread, you failed hard with your argument because you are limiting the design. This isn't chess, coolness and uniqueness of models is the most important factor.

A bespoke system properly managed works wonderfully and offers a huge slew of advantages. Ideally, a bespoke rule system is better than an USR system

I can't think of a single thing that bespoke rules offers over a properly designed USR system. Nonsense, especially considering your previous anwer. A system with more granularity is better by definition.

GW implementation of bespoke rules surely isn't surely a perfect one, but it isn't that bad either. It is working correctly without creating any real issues on the game, just a bit of confusion here and there.

It's bloated, messy and unmanageable. This is only your personal opinion. Facts do not support it. I can concede the bloated, but 7h edition was USR based and equally bloated.

Also, but this is a strictly personal point of view, having stuff with different names but same effects, gives a lot more character to units. This for me is more important than a lawyer tight wording. I remember the last raveners we had in past editions, whose only special rule was "Deepstrike"...felt like such a lazily designed unit...

This has nothing to do with proper rules writing. Leave the fluff in the fluff section and the rules in the rules section where they belong. This has all to do with rules writing. A rule with fluff is better than a rule without fluff for many.

You are making the mistake of comparing the current bespoke system with some kind of inexisting and ideal perfect USR system. You have to compare the current system with 5/6/7th edition state i.e. USR applied to 40K. Do you remember ITC and ETC faq documents for 7th? Please tell me how that game was perfectly working without any hiccups. 8th is clearly working better than that.

None, and I mean literally none, of the arguments above seem to be paying attention to what people are saying about USRs and none of them are reasons to not use USRs. I have no idea why people who are so against USRs seem incapable of reading what the other side is saying but it seems to happen every time this is discussed. For clarity:

USRs do not disallow the addition of bespoke rules.
USRs do not reduce granularity or stifle creativity
USRs, by definition, reduce bloat. Consider any Deep Strike rule that exists right now (whether standard 9" away or one of the more specialised ones). You can replace that with the Deep Strike USR either wholesale or with the additional rule added on top. The amount of rules text you need on the datasheet is less than the current system. The amount of time spent understanding that rule is less because you immediately understand the Deep Strike component of it without having to read half a rule before realising what it's trying to say.
USRs do not require fluff to be removed. There are plenty of ways you could format a USR that retains the fluff. However, I would argue that we currently have plenty of places where fluff is presented in the Codices and adding it to the datasheet as well doesn't seem like a big advantage to me. Again, if that was desirable it's possible even with USRs.

Also, USRs improve clarity by creating a shared language across armies that makes the game more accessible by increasing the commonality of understanding between players.. It allows FAQ documents to be shorter and more easily applied across armies by only needing to fix problems once rather than across multiple books. It makes starting and understanding a new army easier as your knowledge of rules from previous armies is transferable.

I will say I disagree with Brutus_Apex that everything should be a USR. I think bespoke rules have their place, but that place is alongside USRs. So, given the points above about what USRs do not prevent or reduce, what's the problem?

I was just answering his quite radical USR arguments. I'm personally fine with both systems.

 Jidmah wrote:
Missions and rules for cover are in CA 2019.
The rules for CP are in your army list builder.
The only thing that might not be anywhere else are the standard deployment maps.

The basic rulebook is the one book you don't need to play 8th. I don't even know where mine is or when I have used it last.

Dude, I was answering this affirmation :
---> "All you need is your Codex." <---

Also seriously, the rules for cover are re-written in CA? Like, why???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
The simple rule "If a unit is on or within cover they receive +1 to their save" is perfectly fine if both players go in with a fairly permissive attitude toward the word "in or on".

Yeah so how does that work with units that have some models that are in cover, others that are not, and some that are partially in it?
Seriously, not having the real terrain rules in the "free rulebook" is just gakky. Same with the CP system.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Missions and rules for cover are in CA 2019.
The rules for CP are in your army list builder.
The only thing that might not be anywhere else are the standard deployment maps.

The basic rulebook is the one book you don't need to play 8th. I don't even know where mine is or when I have used it last.

Dude, I was answering this affirmation :
---> "All you need is your Codex." <---

Also seriously, the rules for cover are re-written in CA? Like, why???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
The simple rule "If a unit is on or within cover they receive +1 to their save" is perfectly fine if both players go in with a fairly permissive attitude toward the word "in or on".

Yeah so how does that work with units that have some models that are in cover, others that are not, and some that are partially in it?
Seriously, not having the real terrain rules in the "free rulebook" is just gakky. Same with the CP system.

They have been updated so they were reprinted in the CA19, i don't see what is so strange in it,

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Missions and rules for cover are in CA 2019.
The rules for CP are in your army list builder.
The only thing that might not be anywhere else are the standard deployment maps.

The basic rulebook is the one book you don't need to play 8th. I don't even know where mine is or when I have used it last.

Dude, I was answering this affirmation :
---> "All you need is your Codex." <---

Also seriously, the rules for cover are re-written in CA? Like, why???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
The simple rule "If a unit is on or within cover they receive +1 to their save" is perfectly fine if both players go in with a fairly permissive attitude toward the word "in or on".

Yeah so how does that work with units that have some models that are in cover, others that are not, and some that are partially in it?
Seriously, not having the real terrain rules in the "free rulebook" is just gakky. Same with the CP system.

Most of the time, when I see people using the battle primer, they've got the rules from the miniature boxes they've bought rather than codexes. So they're not playing with stratagems anyway.

The way you'd resolve that situation is, decide whether it makes sense that the unit be in cover. Is one model in? Probably not. Is one model out? Probably is. as long as you apply your standard repeatably it honestly doesn't make that much of a difference.

I know that the idea of it gives some folks high blood pressure but a fairly large number of new players just show up to game shops and want to play a game with the minis they bought without buying rules. If you included the full cover rules from the BRB in the battle primer the booklet would be twice the number of pages, easily. The fact that we have a stack of them that gw mailed us and we can just hand them to people who wander in curious has been really great for basically the whole edition. Not having to tell people they have to buy the expensive books is great for getting new players started.

Would it be better if all the rules were just free? Yeah, I would definitely say so, but if they're going for a "freemium" product the way that GW is doing, it makes sense to leave out the full terrain rules for the sake of brevity and CP rules because if you're not buying rules you're not going to have access to stratagem lists anyway, those are in the codexes.

From my own experience trying out a new game where the rules were entirely free (infinity) the fact that they were free did precisely nothing for me at the time I was trying to learn the game because they were free but also 260 odd pages.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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.

No you can't. I mean, you can, if you forget about half of the rules in the game.
Without the rulebook, you don't have:
- Scenario
- Rules for CP, so no stratagem, no relics, ...
- Rules for cover. Yeah that's right the rules for cover aren't in the free pdf. I mean, you get some, they just aren't clear, and are directly in contradiction with the main rule book.
Probably missing some other stuff too.

The Battle Primer has quite clear rules for terrain. In fact, those rules are what I see used in the wild along with some ITC bleed-over and local variations. Before each game it is customary to discuss the terrain rules.

Scenarios, CPs, detachments, the terrain rules to which I assume you refer are all in the Advanced Rules section. You can have a perfectly satisfactory game with two new players using the Primer (and the Primer is what I bring with me). The CP and detachments are needed before the game and scenario you need at the start of the game. Once you've started playing the MRB sits in your gaming bag if you actually brought the MRB! I played for roughly three months to include a tourney with the Battle Primer and Index 1. That is part of what brought me back to 40K. I did buy the MRB when it was back in stock, but I had fun without it. It is much easier for someone to dip their toe in 40K, which was part of the design remit.

I buy the Codex for the armies that I play, bring it with me to battles and I have avoided rules arguments during games. I admit that I would prefer consistent language on things that trigger on 1s and 6s, but I am very happy playing without USRs. There are always going to be errors in execution or evolution in the game. Now, they can move the game forward without the pain of an edition change.

With how they have re-framed the game a parent can buy Know No Fear or even First Strike for his son for his birthday and have a great game of kitchen-hammer within an hour (or at least that day).

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

The easy solution is to word them like "Gigafantastic entry!: This unit has deepstrike", so that you have a distinct name to reference them.

And yet, if we follow this thread we discover that according to USR defenders, if you want to use USR:

- You need to keep the names different from each other. or it becomes too difficult to reference the specific istance of the USR on that model.
- You need to keep using bespoke rules, because no one really believes that you can use only USR and keep the same uniqueness of models.
- You need to write the full text of the rule every time, or you increase the number of sources i have to reference every time.

Practically you are asking just to have a bit more consistency with the wordings of similar rules like chapter master and body guard, which is a quality problem not a design problem.

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

Spoletta wrote:


Practically you are asking just to have a bit more consistency with the wordings of similar rules like chapter master and body guard, which is a quality problem not a design problem.

Yes! Exactly this. But the subtle difference here is, if I do not catch that there is a slight difference in wording between my bodyguard rule and your bodyguard rule, I am at fault.
I would happily accept having "no" USR and all bespoke rules that try to achieve the same being worded identical. Whether we call it a USR or "Death from below" and "Manta strike" I do not care one bit.
However, at the moment GW has shown time and time again, they are not able to. Converting this into "Death from below: Fluffy fluff text is fluffy - Deepstrike 9" " would, in my eyes, do no harm but help the rules and design team.

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

savemelmac wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Practically you are asking just to have a bit more consistency with the wordings of similar rules like chapter master and body guard, which is a quality problem not a design problem.

Yes! Exactly this. But the subtle difference here is, if I do not catch that there is a slight difference in wording between my bodyguard rule and your bodyguard rule, I am at fault.
I would happily accept having "no" USR and all bespoke rules that try to achieve the same being worded identical. Whether we call it a USR or "Death from below" and "Manta strike" I do not care one bit.
However, at the moment GW has shown time and time again, they are not able to. Converting this into "Death from below: Fluffy fluff text is fluffy - Deepstrike 9" " would, in my eyes, do no harm but help the rules and design team.

Similar rules with subtle differences are evil and usually a byproduct of rushed releases, i can agree on that. Doesn't mean that bespoke rules are bad.

Spoletta wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.

Actually NONE of the FNPs stack because of the FAQ. So that's completely wrong. You have any other examples you'd like to add?

i'm pretty sure this is what we have in mind (or something similar to this)



you get the USRs that are identifiable at a glance (bolded for her convenience ) and the description of the USRs appear on the datasheet. You could even add some italicized text under each rule to add the flavor to it. i chose not to because i feel like it would take too much room on the datasheet (and making that example already took me too long).

Then you have bespoke rules that don't need to be USRs (although Heavy suit could very well be because cataphractii and dunecrawlers also have it).
Were not asking to make EVERYTHING usr, just the things that are common to many codexes.

Now at a glance a player can tell "oh my unit has a feel no pain 5+ and shielded 5+" and his opponent would know instantly what it is since most armies have variations on that. It removes the need to read the whole paragraph or rule to make sure that its not different from a very similar one.

Lets take for example the tactical reserve rule. Instead of adding that rule (another layer). They couldve errata'd the USR and added the bit that mentions not being able to arrive on turn 1. For drop pod you could add a bespoke rule to them that said they could arrive on turn one.

EDIT: for the feel no pain, the description should say "on a 5+" instead of "on a 5 or 6", copy pasting from battlescribe

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.

Actually NONE of the FNPs stack because of the FAQ. So that's completely wrong. You have any other examples you'd like to add?

Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

Spoletta wrote:

Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

got a concrete example? i dont want to go on a wild goose chase to prove your point.

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Then we get into the customization benefits of bespoke

Please give us an example of where a subtle inconsistency between two otherwise identical rules, which is what USRs would ostensibly address, is a net positive to the game.

I and others have been consistently asking for an example in response to the constant refrain of 'but bespoke lets you have more flavorful, unique rules' and have yet to see one.

I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have a problem with the stacking of effects. As long as you have same effects under different names, you can easily refer to "This rule stacks with x, doesn't stack with y". If all the rules have the same name, it becomes much more complex and verbose to explain what stacks and what doesn't.

If you did post an example I think I missed it too. Can you give an actual example that has happened in 8th edition of changing otherwise identical rules to be different to allow the selective stacking you're talking about. I understand the theory of what you're saying but that doesn't mean anything if it never happens in reality.

And even if it did happen that's not a USR problem as you can - and indeed should - change the USR on the unit's datasheet to a bespoke rule in your theoretical scenario.

The first ones that come to mind are the various Feel no Pain rolls.
By general rule they don't stack, but sometimes they do, or sometimes one gives you a reroll to the other one...
How the FNP effects stack with each other has been changed in the history of 8th, they didn't always work in the same way.

Similar things happen if you want to make the hit penalty an USR. Some stack, some doesn't.

Actually NONE of the FNPs stack because of the FAQ. So that's completely wrong. You have any other examples you'd like to add?

Very wrong. The ones on your blood angels don't stack. Check the other factions, especially IH and you will find those.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make regarding these universally-used rules. GW literally had to release a faq that vaguely handwaved at "Rules that cause a unit to ignore a wound" instead of just being able to universally clarify the bunches of near-identical bespoke rules.

It's been fun discussion. I think at this point, we can agree on a few things:

1. It would be great of GW wrote their rules in a more technical fashion.
2. It would be great of GW wrote their rules in a more consistent fashion.
3. People tend to like it when all the rules are readily available on their data sheets.

Unfortunately for those who like the idea of USRs, those are not in the game designers remit. Their task is to produce a game where the core rules are simple to engage and everything is very thematic. Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible and is laced with cool, but not super functional, elements. Not the best thing for gameplay, but very evocative of the world of W40K.