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.

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

That paragraph doesn't make it any clearer than writing the rules in full under fluffy rules or under a generic title of deepstrike, but by trying to add USR keywords it just makes the paragraph unnecessarily complex and not actually read like english and more like what it is which is just a list of random keywords.

It's like flash backs of 6/7th edition and trying to figure that mess of nested circular references.

wait so a single keyword, makes the paragraph, more complex than an entire rule written in full?


Just.... what?




This argument is the most one sided thing I’ve yet seen on dakka. A lot of these big threads are totally subjective, like primaris arguments, space marine arguments, primarch arguments, recast arguments, etc. This one is like the opposite of all them - one side is rationally pointing out the objective fact that that hey, A doesn’t need to be B, and the other side is completely ignoring it and just yelling about every other letter in the alphabet. Good job guys.

Ice_can wrote:
It's like flash backs of 6/7th edition and trying to figure that mess of nested circular references.

Aside from the mess known as Independent Character, I'm not aware of any circular references with the USRs in those editions.

Not saying they weren't all a mess. Not saying that the Codex Special Rules weren't also a mess. Just wondering where you saw the circular nature of USRs being so prevalent.

Ice_can wrote:

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

That paragraph doesn't make it any clearer than writing the rules in full under fluffy rules or under a generic title of deepstrike, but by trying to add USR keywords it just makes the paragraph unnecessarily complex and not actually read like english and more like what it is which is just a list of random keywords.

It's like flash backs of 6/7th edition and trying to figure that mess of nested circular references.

Which is why you write the rule for the USR on the data sheet. The idea of using USRs is simply so rules can be standardized when possible, so that I know that your deep strike rule functions the same as my deep strike rule. The actual rules can still be printed on the data sheet to prevent having to refer to the BRB.

How many times do we have to repeat this?

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
wait so a single keyword, makes the paragraph, more complex than an entire rule written in full?

Just.... what?

This argument is the most one sided thing I’ve yet seen on dakka. A lot of these big threads are totally subjective, like primaris arguments, space marine arguments, primarch arguments, recast arguments, etc. This one is like the opposite of all them - one side is rationally pointing out the objective fact that that hey, A doesn’t need to be B, and the other side is completely ignoring it and just yelling about every other letter in the alphabet. Good job guys.

Because the paragraph is question isn't actually showing what your arguing is okay.

 alextroy wrote:

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)

It is a mess of meaningless keywords that looks like a list arranged as a paragraph with no clear definition of where one rule begins and ends and creates clear circular references at even a cursory glance.

That's not a clear concise list that reference to USR's or fule rules text it's a garbage unstructured mass of data that needs to be examined and interpretation to make sence

You can say
Acts of Faith
Sacred Rights
Devine Entity

Acts of faith
Rules text of does XYZ

Sacred Rights
Conferce a 6+ Invulnerable save to model's with 6

Devine Entity
Model has a 4+Invulnerable save
Grants +1 Invulnerable save to Geminie

But raming keyword and USR keywords into a list like that in the name of USR's doesn't make it more understandable it makes it more intimidating to the reader.

GW need a technical authoring department to improve their rules I agree but USR's are a non solution to the problem your complaining about.

For clear technical writing yes it should be consistent(GWcan't do this) should avoid jargon (USR's are esentially jargon), should avoid using complex words un necessarily, should be understanding to someone of the minimum exsisting technical skill level required to undertake the task being performed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

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

That paragraph doesn't make it any clearer than writing the rules in full under fluffy rules or under a generic title of deepstrike, but by trying to add USR keywords it just makes the paragraph unnecessarily complex and not actually read like english and more like what it is which is just a list of random keywords.

It's like flash backs of 6/7th edition and trying to figure that mess of nested circular references.

Which is why you write the rule for the USR on the data sheet. The idea of using USRs is simply so rules can be standardized when possible, so that I know that your deep strike rule functions the same as my deep strike rule. The actual rules can still be printed on the data sheet to prevent having to refer to the BRB.

How many times do we have to repeat this?

That's not a USR that standardisation, which I don't object to.

 Blndmage wrote:

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

Having standardised special rules doesn't mean that everyone has the same rules. Faction-specific special rules can still be a thing, for starters. But ultimately, special rules are only one way (and arguably the laziest way) to give an army character. Army design is a holistic thing, and should reflect the intended playstyle of that army.

So some armies will focus largely on fast-moving, lightly armoured units, while other armies will be slower and heavier armed. Some armies will feature hordes of weak troops, while others will focus on small groups of elite units. Special rules, while all drawn from the same pool, can be 'focused' - some armies would have common access to certain abilities while others would have that same rule rarely or not at all.

The illusion of flavour created by having six bespoke rules that are all essentially the same thing with a different name doesn't change the fact that they're all essentially the same rule, not does rolling all of those rules into a single USR prevent you from giving the unit fluff that details why that unit is different to the unit that does the same thing in a different army, which is all that the bespoke name does.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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

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

I would be happy to when you show me all the rules in question!

Going back to topic, what is the obsession with having USRs and this false assertions they make the game better or more streamlined?

This game has a lot of rules, yes. Did any of you actually play prior editions? It was ridiculous at the end when some units had 7 or 8 USRs that you had to look up on different parts of different books. No thanks.

If 40k had a lot less variety and less units I would agree that a USR system could be perhaps more streamlined. Not the case.

Also it should be noted that GW has not done a perfect job with the bespoke rules. Doesn't mean bespoke rules are bad, this is an issue of quality and nothing more.

 Ishagu wrote:

 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.

I would be happy to when you show me all the rules in question!

Going back to topic, what is the obsession with having USRs and this false assertions they make the game better or more streamlined.

This game has a lot of rules, yes. Did any of you actually play prior editions? It was ridiculous at the end when some units had 7 or 8 USRs that you had to look up on different parts of different books. No thanks.

It's almost like GW misused USRs, not that USRs are a flawed concept.

It's almost like this game has more unit and faction variety than any other, and using USRs to distinguish so much is a clumsy proposition.

Which is why Dante is somehow less inspiring to his troops than some Random No-Name Chapter Master against Blue Eldar?

 Ishagu wrote:

This is an issue of quality and nothing more.

This is what the argument boils down to on both sides of this issue. 40k isn't and has never been as high quality as it should be given the resources available and number of iterations the game has been through.

I love the background and models too much to sell off but I get no enjoyment from the main game. The fact the same company makes a fantastic ruleset (LotR) is all the more aggravating.

I've been looking into independent rulesets that might function to keep me gaming but have started to think of myself as far more of a collector. It has been liberating in that I don't feel like I'm wasting my time when I build and paint units/armies relegated to the scrap heap of GW balancing (an absurd portion of the line for a company that you'd think would want all kits to have rules based sales value)

 Ishagu wrote:
It's almost like this game has more unit and faction variety than any other, and using USRs to distinguish so much is a clumsy proposition.

It should be noted that gw has not done a perfect job with USRs in the past. Doesn't mean USRs are bad, it was an issue of quality and nothing more.

Yes, 40k is a game with lots of units and armies with lots of rules. But lots of those rules are the same, repeated among said units and armies under different names and slightly different wording, causing confusion for some players. Having USRs for the most often repeated rules would help clear up confusion, and give the designers templates to follow when adding such rules to new units.

They did this in 2nd Edition, it worked fine. USRs like Fear, Terror, Immune to Psychology, etc. They were on the unit entries in the codex with a standardized summary.

 Ishagu wrote:
It's almost like this game has more unit and faction variety than any other, and using USRs to distinguish so much is a clumsy proposition.

I'd invite you to check out Heavy Gear if you want to talk unit and faction variety and USR's. It manages to have a similar number of units to 40k, 9 major political blocks with several dozen subfactions, and all done with USR's and a single weapons table, and substantially more tactical depth and player interactivity than 40k. Anything you want to know about a unit, you can find on its info sheet.

It's not as well supported as 40k, and it's not a perfect game (no miniatures game is), but it shows you can absolutely do variety and USR's. Peruse the unit listing if you want to check it out http://hgbtools.infohell.net/


That said, it's also not trying do the silly things 40k does in terms of scale, like trying to represent an individual sergeant's pistol shooting at a 4 story walking monster toting fusion cannons the size of tanks like as if that's a meaningful tabletop interaction, or letting you play an entire company of heavy battle tanks or mega walkers, you might have one main battle tank or Riptide equivalent walker with ten Crisis Suit/Dreadnought sized Gears and a few bases of infantry which each represent an entire squad abstracted as a single model.

 Ishagu wrote:
It's almost like this game has more unit and faction variety than any other, and using USRs to distinguish so much is a clumsy proposition.

There is far more meaningful difference between factions in Epic than there is in 40K, and that game has a much more restrained number of special rules- almost all represented as USRs.

Complexity != depth

Not true.

Don't even try to pretend that there aren't massive differences between Eldar, GSC, Astartes, Knights

 Ishagu wrote:
Not true.

Don't even try to pretend that there aren't massive differences between Eldar, GSC, Astartes, Knights

There are massive differences between them.

But complexity and rules bloat does not equal depth.

40k is a massively complicated game-but it is also a very shallow one. That's not a good combination.

BA have how many entries? Yet, the whole thing boils down to tripiont. So, like two units and four characters matter. I imagine other lists have similar problems.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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)_/¯.

I just went through the Primer - the terrain/cover rules are pretty clear. My point about playing with the Primer and Index 1 was to highlight the accessibility benefit of doing away with USRs (and vehicle rules/templates etc).

The bespoke nature of rules is not just about the rules on the datasheets. The factions have faction-wide rules in their Codex, they have Stratagems, Warlord Trait and Relics that bring the army to life on the tabletop.

USRs are certainly a valid way of designing a game. I am just very happy with the current rules of 40K - I wasn't sure that I would. Again, there are USRs in a sense in that certain rules have pretty much identical functional wording across factions.

TangoTwoBravo, mind if I ask a few questions? Starting with, should rules with the same effect be worded the same way?

 Ishagu wrote:
Not true.

Don't even try to pretend that there aren't massive differences between Eldar, GSC, Astartes, Knights

I guess I have to post it again, this time with emphasis.

There is far more meaningful difference between factions in Epic than there is in 40K, and that game has a much more restrained number of special rules- almost all represented as USRs.

Complexity != depth

40K's got a lot of unique but redundant rules all butting up against one another in an extremely limited design space. A bunch of variants on 'shoots accurately' (re-roll 1s, re-roll fails, re-roll all, add 1 to hit, bonus hit on 6s, bonus shot on 6s), a bunch of variants on 'hard to hit' (-1 to hit, always gets cover, invuln saves), but literally no rules regarding tactical flexibility, initiative, or command and control, with morale largely coming down to either you ignore it all the time, or you pay a CP to ignore it.

The idea that the rules intentionally model the minor difference in command ability between Dante and a random Chapter Master through a subtle differentiation of special rule while a strike force of Space Marines is no easier to command or quicker to respond than an unruly horde of Orks is fething nuts.

Epic uses a limited set of USRs to accomplish game-relevant effects, and instead puts greater depth into the core rules, along with modeling impactful and lore-appropriate systems that 40K doesn't. It may not have the flavorful but ultimately mechanically irrelevant chrome of accomplishing the same buff ten different ways, but it plays quickly and significantly differentiates the factions beyond mobility, durability, and raw firepower.

On the point, catbarf.

My personal thoughts:

Stratagems offering mechanical bonuses should never have been a thing. Stratagems should have altered how a unit functioned, not just made it better. They should be situational and used to set up a strategy, not just make a unit more killy or tougher.

An example of what that might be:

At the beginning of your movement phase you can remove a unit off the table into reserve (the unit teleports out, jumps up into the hold of a passing transport etc.). Can only be used by units which can arrive by deep strike.

 JNAProductions wrote:
TangoTwoBravo, mind if I ask a few questions? Starting with, should rules with the same effect be worded the same way?

Sure - to a point.

Most if not all armies have units that can arrive mid-battle somewhere on the battlefield. The lead development team has, it appears, decided that most units arriving this way should come in more than 9" away from enemy models. I only have the Codexes for the armies that I play, but aside from the flavour aspect at the start of each rule the rules are written the same way. I have not encountered confusion in a game because Terminators have Teleport Strike and Reivers use Grav-Chutes. So you get some fun flavour text, there is still some consistency between factions (a sort-of USR if you will) but the main rule book is freed of having a section of USRs that you have to learn and refer to. Additionally, the developers have some freedom when they look at a faction, using unit rules, army rules, stratagems and warlord traits/relics to bring it to life instead of a menu of USRs. Going back to units that arrive mid-battle, one of my armies can use a Stratagem for certain units to arrive outside 6" as long as some other conditions are met. Its fluff-friendly, makes an iconic unit more viable and doesn't burden the main rule book.

During a game I only need my Codex, and of course any Codex supplements. I rarely if ever have to go into the MRB for something other than the map setup (because for some reason I can't memorize that...) Rules arguments happen on YMDC where its a game of its own, but rarely on real gaming tables in my experience.

I guess I'll ask a question. Are you designing a rules set? If you want USRs in the game you are designing then go for it. I offer that 40K 8th and AOS have demonstrated that you can have very successful games without USRs, but that doesn't mean its the only way.

My opinion on USRs. I was completely fine with them until they started having multiple USRs within a USR in different spots in the MRB. So to resolve combat I had to look for the special rule for the type of weapon my guy had equipped. Note - none of the following was in the stat line or unit entry for my terminator.

That weapon was a power fist. Power fists were strength x2. Cool double the strength of my attack. Oh they were also clumsy let me find that in the rule book. Oh clumsy means they always attack last. Got it. Oh power fists are also rending. Let me find rending in the MRB. Rending means they ignore armor saves. So I had to go to four different pages in two different books to find the type of attack for one guy.

Lets say my squad has dual lighting claws, thunder hammer / storm shield, chain fist, and power sword. For one combat phase I'm searching through both my codex and MRB for at least 10 different entries on 10 different pages. If they go back to that I'm never picking up 40k again.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

This is an issue of quality and nothing more.

This is what the argument boils down to on both sides of this issue. 40k isn't and has never been as high quality as it should be given the resources available and number of iterations the game has been through.

I love the background and models too much to sell off but I get no enjoyment from the main game. The fact the same company makes a fantastic ruleset (LotR) is all the more aggravating.

I've been looking into independent rulesets that might function to keep me gaming but have started to think of myself as far more of a collector. It has been liberating in that I don't feel like I'm wasting my time when I build and paint units/armies relegated to the scrap heap of GW balancing (an absurd portion of the line for a company that you'd think would want all kits to have rules based sales value)

Yes, this^^

Almost as if GW suffers from a self-fulfilling prophecy - Kirby (if I recall correctly) cast GW as a toy-company rather than a game-company, on the understanding that most people don't play the game, they only buy and paint the models.
What he and they might have missed is that I would make more time to play the game (and ultimately to collect more toys!) if the game were worth playing, but it is not, so... the idea that at least I was and am primarily a toy collector has come true, at least for GW, though it surely wasn't (at least in spirit) when the edict was announced.
Moreover, as I grow increasingly disgusted by GW's rules manipulations for marketing purposes, and their sad choices when it comes to narrative twists and blowing up universes, wrecking legacies, and just simply pi$$ing on loyal enthusiam for the universe, I am increasingly leaning toward opening up to not only the use of alternative rules, and not simply older editions of 40K, but also the collection of alternative minitures (e.g. Heresy labs, Mantic, Kromlech, etc...).
Once that dam breaks, my guess is that GW will accelerate its transformation into an IP company, until this is also so watered down that people will ignore it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
My opinion on USRs. I was completely fine with them until they started having multiple USRs within a USR in different spots in the MRB. So to resolve combat I had to look for the special rule for the type of weapon my guy had equipped. Note - none of the following was in the stat line or unit entry for my terminator.

That weapon was a power fist. Power fists were strength x2. Cool double the strength of my attack. Oh they were also clumsy let me find that in the rule book. Oh clumsy means they always attack last. Got it. Oh power fists are also rending. Let me find rending in the MRB. Rending means they ignore armor saves. So I had to go to four different pages in two different books to find the type of attack for one guy.

Lets say my squad has dual lighting claws, thunder hammer / storm shield, chain fist, and power sword. For one combat phase I'm searching through both my codex and MRB for at least 10 different entries on 10 different pages. If they go back to that I'm never picking up 40k again.

Ideally, these USRs may be in one collection (the MRB) and then specifically reproduced as necessary on datasheets/cards/unit summaries, etc... best of both worlds.

Yeah I think Kirby said the real hobby was spending money on models.

 jeff white wrote:
Ideally, these USRs may be in one collection (the MRB) and then specifically reproduced as necessary on datasheets/cards/unit summaries, etc... best of both worlds.

I'd be on-board with that. The one off rules that I'd spend 5-10 minutes trying to find really killed the pace of the game. Having everything on the data sheet makes it so much more convenient.

I'm wondering if anyone sees the fatal flaw in USRs that are fully written on the datasheet? Namely, altering the USR then invalidates every datasheet in every codex that uses the rule. Imagine the Errata document to point out that every unit with Deep Strike has a rules change!

 alextroy wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone sees the fatal flaw in USRs that are fully written on the datasheet? Namely, altering the USR then invalidates every datasheet in every codex that uses the rule. Imagine the Errata document to point out that every unit with Deep Strike has a rules change!

You mean what happened with FNP and Deep Strike already, only with less arguments because it's much more clear?

Also, that'd be a good reason to go to a digital ruleset.

I don't see any errata to any deep strike rule except Drop Pod Assault. Same is true for all the Ignore Wound rules. Not one lick of errata.

A better example would be the Demolisher Cannon that had to have errata created for every codex that has it except Codex: Space Marines.