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.

Spoletta wrote:
I did, but as usual people ignore my posts...

You have accomplished exactly half of my request- you've identified disparate rules that do not accomplish exactly the same effects, now why is that disparity a good thing?

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

Not being personally familiar with those rules, do they supersede the FAQ which ruled out FNP stacking? If so, then the FAQ just got even more confusing for not having clear definitions between stackable and non-stackable FNPs. If not, then that's an important interaction that rather invalidates the idea that all you need is the battle primer and codex to play.

 alextroy wrote:
Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible.

40k is not a non-complex game. In order to charge, one of the three basic actions available to a unit, the following events are required

1) Declare charging unit and units it is targeting
2) Targeted units not engaged make overwatch attacks, fully resolving hit, wound, and save rolls, removing models from charging unit.
3) roll charge distance, make charge move.
4) check for enemy chraacters who want to heroically intervene
5) Select unit to fight, move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.
6) resolve hit, wound, save, and model removal again.
7) Move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.

That is incredibly complex. assuming only 1 shooting weapon on unit A and 1 melee weapon on unit B, that's 3 die-rolling events and 1 model removal event from the defending player and 4 die-rolling events from the attacking player, 1 model removal event, and 3 seperate movement events with different restrictions.

Almost every other wargame I've ever played has resolved a basic close combat in less than half those steps.

the_scotsman wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible.

40k is not a non-complex game. In order to charge, one of the three basic actions available to a unit, the following events are required

1) Declare charging unit and units it is targeting
2) Targeted units not engaged make overwatch attacks, fully resolving hit, wound, and save rolls, removing models from charging unit.
3) roll charge distance, make charge move.
4) check for enemy chraacters who want to heroically intervene
5) Select unit to fight, move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.
6) resolve hit, wound, save, and model removal again.
7) Move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.

That is incredibly complex. assuming only 1 shooting weapon on unit A and 1 melee weapon on unit B, that's 3 die-rolling events and 1 model removal event from the defending player and 4 die-rolling events from the attacking player, 1 model removal event, and 3 seperate movement events with different restrictions.

Almost every other wargame I've ever played has resolved a basic close combat in less than half those steps.

See Apoc, Warcry, etc.., GW can make very clear and fast rules if they wanted to.

Spoletta wrote:


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

I don't think that's correct. Can you tell us which IH ones stack? As the_scotsman points out, there is a specific FAQ from early in 8th edition that amended the various FNP-style rules to not stack, Ironically, because of the lack of USRs it was one of the most wordy and imprecise FAQ rulings GW have produced this edition, which is quite a feat.

So can you provide a concrete example of these stacking FNP rules?

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


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

I don't think that's correct. Can you tell us which IH ones stack? As the_scotsman points out, there is a specific FAQ from early in 8th edition that amended the various FNP-style rules to not stack, Ironically, because of the lack of USRs it was one of the most wordy and imprecise FAQ rulings GW have produced this edition, which is quite a feat.

So can you provide a concrete example of these stacking FNP rules?

T'au have one, but only against mortal wounds. It's not technically a FNP though (it's the same as FW Void Shields).

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.

Yeah, Iron Hands doesn't stack. That's why they get Ven Dreads with no extra 6+++. Keep going though.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The Battle Primer has quite clear rules for terrain.

Is that a joke? Clear? lol

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I played for roughly three months to include a tourney with the Battle Primer and Index 1.

Yeah, and I played without the MRB or the index with my Sisters before they got their codex. What's your point?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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).

Sure. And before they could too before, when we had USR. I mean, just ignore them the way you ignore stratagems ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Stack meaning that your roll both, there are none.

Stack meaning that the rule says "If you already save on 6+ then now you save on 5+." Or "If you already save on 6+, reroll 1's" there are some (not many).

I don't remember the exact rule because my factions don't have it, but have it played against me at times.

Spoletta wrote:
Stack meaning that your roll both, there are none.

Stack meaning that the rule says "If you already save on 6+ then now you save on 5+." Or "If you already save on 6+, reroll 1's" there are some (not many).

I don't remember the exact rule because my factions don't have it, but have it played against me at times.

then you probably mistook Warlord traits or other abilities for a "stacking" feel no pain. If you get two sources of FNP, you only get to pick one. THe specific FNP rules might add that you can reroll but thats a different thing.

See? The game is SO easy! We're all just morons!

the_scotsman wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible.

40k is not a non-complex game. In order to charge, one of the three basic actions available to a unit, the following events are required

1) Declare charging unit and units it is targeting
2) Targeted units not engaged make overwatch attacks, fully resolving hit, wound, and save rolls, removing models from charging unit.
3) roll charge distance, make charge move.
4) check for enemy chraacters who want to heroically intervene
5) Select unit to fight, move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.
6) resolve hit, wound, save, and model removal again.
7) Move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.

That is incredibly complex. assuming only 1 shooting weapon on unit A and 1 melee weapon on unit B, that's 3 die-rolling events and 1 model removal event from the defending player and 4 die-rolling events from the attacking player, 1 model removal event, and 3 seperate movement events with different restrictions.

Almost every other wargame I've ever played has resolved a basic close combat in less than half those steps.

That is not at all what I meant by complexity. The rules complexity is pushed farther and farther away from the basic rules. Everything rules wrinkle not covered by the basic unit stats, basic weapon stats, and a small selection of rules concepts are divorced from the core rules. They are placed in the Codex, Unit Entries, Scenarios, or Advanced Rules. That keeps the "game" as simple and approachable as possible since everything else is a special case defined when you need it.

the_scotsman wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible.

40k is not a non-complex game. In order to charge, one of the three basic actions available to a unit, the following events are required

1) Declare charging unit and units it is targeting
2) Targeted units not engaged make overwatch attacks, fully resolving hit, wound, and save rolls, removing models from charging unit.
3) roll charge distance, make charge move.
4) check for enemy chraacters who want to heroically intervene
5) Select unit to fight, move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.
6) resolve hit, wound, save, and model removal again.
7) Move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.

That is incredibly complex. assuming only 1 shooting weapon on unit A and 1 melee weapon on unit B, that's 3 die-rolling events and 1 model removal event from the defending player and 4 die-rolling events from the attacking player, 1 model removal event, and 3 seperate movement events with different restrictions.

Almost every other wargame I've ever played has resolved a basic close combat in less than half those steps.

I would not call this complex but just unnecessary complicated

 kodos wrote:
I would not call this complex but just unnecessary complicated

I think the word you're looking for is "deep".

It's complicated/complex. But it's not deep.

 kodos wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Thus the complexity is pushed down to the lowest level possible.

40k is not a non-complex game. In order to charge, one of the three basic actions available to a unit, the following events are required

1) Declare charging unit and units it is targeting
2) Targeted units not engaged make overwatch attacks, fully resolving hit, wound, and save rolls, removing models from charging unit.
3) roll charge distance, make charge move.
4) check for enemy chraacters who want to heroically intervene
5) Select unit to fight, move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.
6) resolve hit, wound, save, and model removal again.
7) Move each model in the unit up to 3" that must move them closer to the closest enemy model, regardless of whether that enemy model is in the unit(s) they charged.

That is incredibly complex. assuming only 1 shooting weapon on unit A and 1 melee weapon on unit B, that's 3 die-rolling events and 1 model removal event from the defending player and 4 die-rolling events from the attacking player, 1 model removal event, and 3 seperate movement events with different restrictions.

Almost every other wargame I've ever played has resolved a basic close combat in less than half those steps.

I would not call this complex but just unnecessary complicated

I would not call your icon a wolf but rather a wild pack hunting canine mammal.

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.

Exactly. I'm limiting the design to what is contained in the main book. Im not stacking nonsense rules upon nonsense rules. Thats how you organize things properly. Failed hard? lmao. No. This is the only answer to organization.

You don't get more granularity. The exact same amount can be achieved with USRs. What you do get is inconsistent rules that are scattered everywhere in multiple sources.

How do facts not support it? How many resources do you need for this game? Literally hundreds of books, FAQ's and Erratas. Nothing is organized. Have you seen the main rule book? You have to flip back and forth between that thing just to find out how to have a normal game with points. There's more pages on correcting the rules than there are rules. Get outta here with "facts".

Fluff has nothing to do with the way rules should appear on a datasheet. Theres no sense in arguing this.

7th edition was fethed up. But it's the exact same thing as 8th just in the opposite direction. 7th ed. didn't do USR's properly either. They had Bespoke rules on many of the individual units. And again, I'm going to argue bespoke rules shouldn't exist.

If you don't eliminate all divergence from the central rules you are doing it wrong. It must be all contained centrally. Thats how a game is organized properly. And yes, its going to be more limited because thats how it should work.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

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.

Exactly. I'm limiting the design to what is contained in the main book. Im not stacking nonsense rules upon nonsense rules. Thats how you organize things properly. Failed hard? lmao. No. This is the only answer to organization.

You don't get more granularity. The exact same amount can be achieved with USRs. What you do get is inconsistent rules that are scattered everywhere in multiple sources.

How do facts not support it? How many resources do you need for this game? Literally hundreds of books, FAQ's and Erratas. Nothing is organized. Have you seen the main rule book? You have to flip back and forth between that thing just to find out how to have a normal game with points. There's more pages on correcting the rules than there are rules. Get outta here with "facts".

Fluff has nothing to do with the way rules should appear on a datasheet. Theres no sense in arguing this.

7th edition was fethed up. But it's the exact same thing as 8th just in the opposite direction. 7th ed. didn't do USR's properly either. They had Bespoke rules on many of the individual units. And again, I'm going to argue bespoke rules shouldn't exist.

If you don't eliminate all divergence from the central rules you are doing it wrong. It must be all contained centrally. Thats how a game is organized properly. And yes, its going to be more limited because thats how it should work.

That sounds really boring.
If everyone has the same rules, what makes factions different? Why bother with codexes?

Same base rules =/= same playstyle in a unit and also =/= a unit can not also amend a USR to force a different rule. Just b.c they fallout of the sky the same way doesn't mean they are the same, an Assault Marine is not the same as Mandrakes, each will be played completely differently and even DS at different times for different reasons.

We have also seen this all throughout 3rd-5th when USR was more than a thing. We had the core DS rule that worked for 90% of units but then there were a few that had something different, see Mandrakes and Ymgrl Genestealers for an example (4th-5th codecs).

This mentality that its all or nothing and if all is the same then literally all is the same is getting freaking ridiculous now.

BUT if everyone core rules and structure for power/points was based off and built the same from the start, then added changes and adaptations the game and books would be better balanced. Right now there is no starting point for balance, its just GW making a cool datasheet and giving it a ball park point cost b.c they literally have no idea how it'll work in our new system of systems (see history of 8th for a clear example, 6 storm raven,120 razorwing flocks, 160 conscripts, 12 assassins, 60 court of archons, large amounts of hero spam aka flyrants, commanders, dawneagle captains, after Ro3 see knights, UW spam, Ynnari, Dark reaper spam, Flyer spam, etc.. the list goes on and on).

Balance in general in 8th is bad b.c there is no universal anything.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Same base rules =/= same playstyle in a unit and also =/= a unit can not also amend a USR to force a different rule. Just b.c they fallout of the sky the same way doesn't mean they are the same, an Assault Marine is not the same as Mandrakes, each will be played completely differently and even DS at different times for different reasons.

We have also seen this all throughout 3rd-5th when USR was more than a thing. We had the core DS rule that worked for 90% of units but then there were a few that had something different, see Mandrakes and Ymgrl Genestealers for an example (4th-5th codecs).

This mentality that its all or nothing and if all is the same then literally all is the same is getting freaking ridiculous now.

BUT if everyone core rules and structure for power/points was based off and built the same from the start, then added changes and adaptations the game and books would be better balanced. Right now there is no starting point for balance, its just GW making a cool datasheet and giving it a ball park point cost b.c they literally have no idea how it'll work in our new system of systems (see history of 8th for a clear example, 6 storm raven,120 razorwing flocks, 160 conscripts, 12 assassins, 60 court of archons, large amounts of hero spam aka flyrants, commanders, dawneagle captains, after Ro3 see knights, UW spam, Ynnari, Dark reaper spam, Flyer spam, etc.. the list goes on and on).

Balance in general in 8th is bad b.c there is no universal anything.

No valance is off in 8th noy because of rules for the most part unrestrained allies and strategums are responsible for a lot of those issues along with reroll everything aura's.
Yes it was bad game design but a reroll all wounds be it a USR or what we have now is still game breaking/not worth playing.

Aura's effecting area's and CP system a much bigger contributers to those issues.
And CP is one of the USR's of eight edition and guess what probably one of the worst things to happen to balance yet.

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

Missed that. What are the changes in the updated version?

A lot of opinions presented as facts by the people pushing USRs.

 Ishagu wrote:
A lot of options presented as facts by the people pushing USRs.

Yes, factually there are many options available when implementing USRs. I'm glad you recognize that.

pothocboots wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
A lot of options presented as facts by the people pushing USRs.

Yes, factually there are many options available when implementing USRs. I'm glad you recognize that.

That's the spirit! Hoist him by his own typo-laden petard...

Anyone that says Streamlining or Consolidstion = Chess aren't arguing honestly and should be ignored anyway.

 Ishagu wrote:
A lot of options presented as facts by the people pushing USRs.

There is a difference in pushing for it and asking for "some" to add more balance to the game.

I want USR for Unit types again, we really need that in 8th, MC, vehicles, walkers, bikes etc..

Examples:
MC: can attack ground, first, 2nd floors if they are on the ground floor
Bikes: Infantry can not fallback from them
Infantry: Always granted cover if block by 50% los
etc..

Not all USR are DS, Outflank, Zealot, HoW, etc..

Speaking of HoW, bring that back lol. I miss it (just a personal wish).

 Ishagu wrote:
A lot of options presented as facts by the people pushing USRs.

Explain the interaction between Quicksilver swiftness and Belt of Russ please.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone that says Streamlining or Consolidstion = Chess aren't arguing honestly and should be ignored anyway.

That's a favorite on this board, though!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
A lot of options presented as facts by the people pushing USRs.

Explain the interaction between Quicksilver swiftness and Belt of Russ please.

We've already been told to take that discussion to YMTC.

Now back to the discussion:

Ultimately GW decided to go with bespoke rules so that they didn't need to crowd the basic rules with USRs and to create more thematically compelling unit datasheets. After all, which of these sounds more interesting:

Saint Celestine
Abilities: Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites, Shield of Faith, Healing Tears, The Armor of Saint Katherine, Saintly Blessing, Miraculous Intervention

Or
Sain Celestine
Abilities: Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites, Invulnerable 6+ (Shield of Faith), Healer (All Wounds/1 Model w Full Wounds, Geminae Superia only), Invulnerable Save 4+, Invulnerable Bonus +1 (Aura 6", Infantry, Shield of Faith only), Invulnerable Bonus +1 (Aura 6", Geminae Superia), Force Aura (6+, 6", Adeptus Ministrorum and Astra Mililtarum)

 alextroy wrote:

Ultimately GW decided to go with bespoke rules so that they didn't need to crowd the basic rules with USRs and to create more thematically compelling unit datasheets. After all, which of these sounds more interesting:

Saint Celestine
Abilities: Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites, Shield of Faith, Healing Tears, The Armor of Saint Katherine, Saintly Blessing, Miraculous Intervention

Or
Sain Celestine
Abilities: Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites, Invulnerable 6+ (Shield of Faith), Healer (All Wounds/1 Model w Full Wounds, Geminae Superia only), Invulnerable Save 4+, Invulnerable Bonus +1 (Aura 6", Infantry, Shield of Faith only), Invulnerable Bonus +1 (Aura 6", Geminae Superia), Force Aura (6+, 6", Adeptus Ministrorum and Astra Mililtarum)

Honestly? The second one because I actually know what she does.

pothocboots wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Ultimately GW decided to go with bespoke rules so that they didn't need to crowd the basic rules with USRs and to create more thematically compelling unit datasheets. After all, which of these sounds more interesting:

Saint Celestine
Abilities: Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites, Shield of Faith, Healing Tears, The Armor of Saint Katherine, Saintly Blessing, Miraculous Intervention

Or
Sain Celestine
Abilities: Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites, Invulnerable 6+ (Shield of Faith), Healer (All Wounds/1 Model w Full Wounds, Geminae Superia only), Invulnerable Save 4+, Invulnerable Bonus +1 (Aura 6", Infantry, Shield of Faith only), Invulnerable Bonus +1 (Aura 6", Geminae Superia), Force Aura (6+, 6", Adeptus Ministrorum and Astra Mililtarum)

Honestly? The second one because I actually know what she does.

I actually find the second paragraph to just be a *%#* NO, paragraph of Bull, that I now know I'm going to have to spend 10 minuites trying to figure out who, what, why and what does that mean with the BRB like 7th edition.

Again-USRs does not mean you cannot write the rules on the datasheet.