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.

In a world of digital updates I really don't see it being a problem, particularly if you aren't mucking with the rule regularly. The Demolisher Cannon change didn't seem like a huge deal at all to me in terms of propagation.

 alextroy wrote:
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.

But there's a rule that you cannot Deep Strike T1, and if you stay in reserves after T3, you die.

AFB at the moment, but I know that the first bit is not in the rules on the datasheets, and I'm pretty sure the second isn't either.

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

All sports teams follow the same rules, are sports boring?

The excitement comes from being able to utilize your army competitively within the confines of a rules set, not rely on gimmicks to win.

And you know why they would make codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Like what for example?

 alextroy wrote:
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.

Deep Strike got the restriction of not being usable on the first turn. FNP rules got FAQ'd to not stack.

In any case, GW's had no issue with altering bespoke rules before- the Astra Militarum FAQ changed Commissars to work completely differently from what was printed in the codex. If you have the digital version, you get updated automatically. If you have the print version, you can tape in the changed rule or just keep the FAQ with the book and remember that it changed.

I don't see why this would be any different with USRs. At least it'd be easy to say 'All instances of Deep Strike now follow these new rules' rather than 'All instances of abilities which [insert cumbersome description of what deep strike does] are now subject to the following requirements that partially contradict what's in the datasheet'.

 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!

Dedicated USR Errata document. "Replace all instances of the following rules: Deep Strike - blah blah etc."


Problem solved

This is why MTG uses Reminder Text for their keywords. Reminder Text is not rules.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I just went through the Primer - the terrain/cover rules are pretty clear.

They are short. Not clear. "If a unit is entirely in cover [...]" does that mean every model must be in at least partially in the terrain? Or every model must be entirely in terrain?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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.

All those things that you cannot use with just the primer? None of those are usable without the MRB, or knowledge from someone who has the MRB.

JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
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.

But there's a rule that you cannot Deep Strike T1, and if you stay in reserves after T3, you die.

AFB at the moment, but I know that the first bit is not in the rules on the datasheets, and I'm pretty sure the second isn't either.

That's a Matched Play rule that in no way changes the datasheet for any unit. That rule that doesn't apply to Open or Narrative Play. I guess that's why it isn't on any datasheet. And don't forget that a unit in Tactical Reserves after Turn 3 being destroyed was a 8th Edition launch rule, not errata.

catbarf wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
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.

Deep Strike got the restriction of not being usable on the first turn. FNP rules got FAQ'd to not stack.

In any case, GW's had no issue with altering bespoke rules before- the Astra Militarum FAQ changed Commissars to work completely differently from what was printed in the codex. If you have the digital version, you get updated automatically. If you have the print version, you can tape in the changed rule or just keep the FAQ with the book and remember that it changed.

I don't see why this would be any different with USRs. At least it'd be easy to say 'All instances of Deep Strike now follow these new rules' rather than 'All instances of abilities which [insert cumbersome description of what deep strike does] are now subject to the following requirements that partially contradict what's in the datasheet'.

Again, FNP not stacking isn't on a single datasheet in the game. It is a new general rule, but not an errata to any unit. It is fair to say it would have been errata to a USR, but there is no USR.

And the Commissar change isn't really relevant. It is a rule used by three models in the entire game. It is always going to be a bespoke rule.

 alextroy wrote:
And the Commissar change isn't really relevant. It is a rule used by three models in the entire game. It is always going to be a bespoke rule.

Isn't really relevant? It's a direct prior example of what you would do in the hypothetical scenario that a USR gets changed, but the old version is printed on your datasheets.

1. You have a digital codex, so it updates automagically and you have the new USR on your datasheet.
2. You have a print codex, so you print out the new USR and tape it over the relevant entry in the codex.
3. You have a print codex, so you do nothing and just remember that the FAQ changed the definition of the rule.

Since GW has addressed this problem before- both in 8th Ed and in prior editions- I don't understand why it would preclude USRs. And if GW just got with the times and went fully digital on their rules, it would be a total non-issue to begin with.

I mean, the argument you're putting forward is essentially that existing rules shouldn't be patched in a way that conflicts with what's written on the datasheets- that's exactly the state from 3rd-7th that I think a lot of us were very happy to get away from, and the roundabout method of layering on restrictions and supplemental rules through FAQs spoils the idea of the datasheet having everything you need to play the unit. I'd much rather have to stick FAQ entries in my codex than have a wildly inconsistent and static ruleset beholden to print schedules and codex cycles.

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

Showed you the datasheet already!

 Ishagu wrote:
Did any of you actually play prior editions?

Yes, since 3rd.

 Ishagu wrote:
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.

Only because of IC shenanigans.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I just went through the Primer - the terrain/cover rules are pretty clear.

They are short. Not clear. "If a unit is entirely in cover [...]" does that mean every model must be in at least partially in the terrain? Or every model must be entirely in terrain?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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.

All those things that you cannot use with just the primer? None of those are usable without the MRB, or knowledge from someone who has the MRB.

At the risk of a YMDC dance-off breaking out, I think you answered your own first question. Now, terrain is heavily house-ruled, but the Primer is pretty clear.

Regarding the second, I've spoken to that earlier. You need some of the MRB before the game to make Detachments and the scenario. Warlord traits (well, one) are indeed discussed in the Primer. The point is that you don't need the MRB during the game. The rules regarding your army are in your Codex. Seriously, I can't recall the last time I had to dig through the MRB mid-game. That is what the developers were going for. GIven the success of 8th Ed it seems to have worked. I get that not everyone is happy. I left 40K when I was not happy. Then I came back when the game looked better and I stuck around.

Cheers,

T2B

 catbarf wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
And the Commissar change isn't really relevant. It is a rule used by three models in the entire game. It is always going to be a bespoke rule.

Isn't really relevant? It's a direct prior example of what you would do in the hypothetical scenario that a USR gets changed, but the old version is printed on your datasheets.

1. You have a digital codex, so it updates automagically and you have the new USR on your datasheet.
2. You have a print codex, so you print out the new USR and tape it over the relevant entry in the codex.
3. You have a print codex, so you do nothing and just remember that the FAQ changed the definition of the rule.

Since GW has addressed this problem before- both in 8th Ed and in prior editions- I don't understand why it would preclude USRs. And if GW just got with the times and went fully digital on their rules, it would be a total non-issue to begin with.

I mean, the argument you're putting forward is essentially that existing rules shouldn't be patched in a way that conflicts with what's written on the datasheets- that's exactly the state from 3rd-7th that I think a lot of us were very happy to get away from, and the roundabout method of layering on restrictions and supplemental rules through FAQs spoils the idea of the datasheet having everything you need to play the unit. I'd much rather have to stick FAQ entries in my codex than have a wildly inconsistent and static ruleset beholden to print schedules and codex cycles.

No. I'm arguing there is a big different between producing an errata that goes on 3 datasheets in one codex compared to producing an errata that needs to go on say 50 datasheets in 12 codexes.

As for digital rules to make it manageable, that's a nonexistent dream solution at this point.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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

Showed you the datasheet already!

 Ishagu wrote:
Did any of you actually play prior editions?

Yes, since 3rd.

 Ishagu wrote:
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.

Only because of IC shenanigans.

1: You haven't actually shared the relevant rules, proving categorically you are simply trolling for attention.

2: So you should agree with me, having experienced the Chaos of past editions?

3: No, the USR stacking was ridiculous even on individual units. List the rules of a gargantuan, flying monstrous creature for me if you will.

 Ishagu wrote:
1: You haven't actually shared the relevant rules, proving categorically you are simply trolling for attention.

If they were USR's in the Rulebook, you'd have them. We all know what will happen though, someone will post the rules and you'll accuse them of breaking the forum rules by sharing them.

Honestly, bespoke would work if GW had a spreadsheet with ALL rules in one place then used find and replace when they update stuff. Then push out the updates.

That would work for updates. It's still a nightmare for actually learning the rules.

Martel732 wrote:
Honestly, bespoke would work if GW had a spreadsheet with ALL rules in one place then used find and replace when they update stuff. Then push out the updates.

Not-universal special rules!

USR are a combination of two things though

1) unifying wording, creating a clear language for rules, a framework for writing all current and future rules, be they bespoke or shared across datasheets.
2) keywording rules to simplify rules interactions/maintenance

Just doing the first step would probably eliminate the vast amount of complaints voiced in this thread. There really is no downside to that, and as a matter of fact, there is plenty of proof in the industry for this to be all upside for any game if done right.

In 7th, they've already failed at step one, so no wonder step two didn't work out either.

 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.

But that's not a problem with USRs. That's a problem with the implementation of the USRs.

 Jidmah wrote:
USR are a combination of two things though

1) unifying wording, creating a clear language for rules, a framework for writing all current and future rules, be they bespoke or shared across datasheets.
2) keywording rules to simplify rules interactions/maintenance

Just doing the first step would probably eliminate the vast amount of complaints voiced in this thread. There really is no downside to that, and as a matter of fact, there is plenty of proof in the industry for this to be all upside for any game if done right.

In 7th, they've already failed at step one, so no wonder step two didn't work out either.

tbf gw also failed step 1 in 8th, which is why we have the same problem but even more issues because there are now more rules they can fail at.

overall, 8th still a improvement over 7th but personally curbing it a bit down fixing up the craks aswell as improving certain questionable aspects (cough terrain) would go along way at improving overall 40k

That and hiring someone that actually can write technical level decently.

I'd argue they can't fail at something if they haven't even tried

But yes, a technical writer is necessary.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

But that's not a problem with USRs. That's a problem with the implementation of the USRs.

Oh now you're just presenting options(sic) as facts!

 Ishagu wrote:
1: You haven't actually shared the relevant rules, proving categorically you are simply trolling for attention.

But I showed you the datasheet! That's all you need!

 Ishagu wrote:
2: So you should agree with me, having experienced the Chaos of past editions?

No.

 Ishagu wrote:
3: No, the USR stacking was ridiculous even on individual units. List the rules of a gargantuan, flying monstrous creature for me if you will.

Of course, as soon as you tell me the interaction between Quicksilver Swiftness and Belt of Russ!
You see, there aren't any gargantuan flying monstrous creature in the army I play.

Lol are you still trolling? You need to prove that there is a rule that doesn't function. Show us all the rule!

 Ishagu wrote:
Lol are you still trolling? You need to prove that there is a rule that doesn't function. Show us all the rule!

Assault Weapons and Pistols, for one.

But more seriously, you're arguing against a strawman. No one has said "The game is literally unplayable," excepting maybe BCB. What's being said is "The game could be better."

And part of making it better is making the rules easier to understand. Again, show a new player "Teleport Strike" and "Warp Emergence". There's a good chance they'll assume the rules are different.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Lol are you still trolling? You need to prove that there is a rule that doesn't function. Show us all the rule!

Assault Weapons and Pistols, for one.

But more seriously, you're arguing against a strawman. No one has said "The game is literally unplayable," excepting maybe BCB. What's being said is "The game could be better."

And part of making it better is making the rules easier to understand. Again, show a new player "Teleport Strike" and "Warp Emergence". There's a good chance they'll assume the rules are different.

They are. One puts the unit in in the Teleportaritum while the other in the Warp

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Lol are you still trolling? You need to prove that there is a rule that doesn't function. Show us all the rule!

Assault Weapons and Pistols, for one.

But more seriously, you're arguing against a strawman. No one has said "The game is literally unplayable," excepting maybe BCB. What's being said is "The game could be better."

And part of making it better is making the rules easier to understand. Again, show a new player "Teleport Strike" and "Warp Emergence". There's a good chance they'll assume the rules are different.

Fall Back for non-FLY is the new hotness. Get with the times grandpa!

Ishagu, the point we are showing is that despite you having the datasheets, there is no way for you to answer the question because USR's don't exist. You're continued insistence on trying to "gotcha" is just proving your detractors correct.

I was the one who pointed out that some USRs remain lol

5 pages ago

 Ishagu wrote:
I was the one who pointed out that some USRs remain lol

5 pages ago

So if there’s still USRs, why not make all common rules USRs? And better compile and explain the current USRs?

1. USRs require you to reference multiple books -more often-. We already need multiple books, but when he have to look through 2+ to see the units rules on its datasheet plus the rules for its USRs then we constantly need 2 books open minimum.

2. USRs are incredibly boring. The game has different factions, their rules should be different. When all assault armies have the same bonus rules its boring. USRs are boring. If you want USRs to exist lets go all the way and have 1 Marine codex total, 1 chaos codex total, 1 Eldar codex total, etc. We can ensure the least amount of books and make the game as generic as possible that way.