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:

 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.

The RAI is clear on those.

blaktoof wrote:
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.

You need to reference "2+ books" plus all the Errata just to figure out how FLY works. USR's won't change anything in that regard and will make the game better.

blaktoof wrote:
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.

1. Why? The USR's can easily be on the datasheet. Nothing stops it saying Rage: Blahdeeblahblah on the datasheet. Your problem is with bad design choices not USR's as a concept.

2. That's really silly. If you need special names to have an army feel unique in playstyle then it's time to fire the game designers for sheer incompetence. What makes them unique is the sum of rules, statlines, unit combinations and models.

 alextroy wrote:
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.

Well, yeah, if it were a USR it'd be quicker and easier since it would just be 'replace the definition of [USR name] with the following'. Not seeing how frequency of use across the game makes it less doable. It might be more of a pain for the end user who has all print codices and really wants to update the text everywhere it appears... but then again, having inconsistent rules across codices is a pain for everyone.

blaktoof wrote:
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.

How exactly are the factions better differentiated and the game made less boring when one faction gets 're-roll fails' and another faction gets 're-roll any'? What does it represent when Orks get to re-roll either die when charging, but Behemoth is reroll both or reroll neither?

Why is the straw man always that USRs means giving every faction the same rules and sucking all the meaningful differentiation out of them?

blaktoof wrote:
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.

Not necessarily.

As has already been mentioned, you can print the copy in full on the datasheet.

If you think that is going to take up too much space, you can reprint either just the USRs used by a faction in their codex as an appendix, or just reprint the whole lot as a reference - ideally, this takes a couple of pages at the back of the book, but means you only need to refer to your Codex for all of the unit rules.

Heck, given the model GW are using at present, you can make a point of Chapter Approved (or the MFM, assuming that continues to be a thing) having a reprint of the USRs, including the latest errata, each year. Still gives you an extra book to reference, but it is one you'd be looking at anyway to get point costs, so you should probably have it with you as a reference. Or just add a third part to the two parts in the 2019 set, which is a card reference sheet with the updated USRs (again, assuming a couple of pages here, not 7th ed levels of USR).

If your USRs are written to allow for some variables - Deep Strike (9"), for example, or Bodyguard (3+) - you can cover a wider range of bespoke rules that should function the basic way but with different triggers or ranges, with one USR.

Equally, not every rule needs to be boiled down to a USR. As I think has been said a few times in this thread, USRs and bespoke rules should work together. I think I've only seen one poster advocating for a USR-only approach, which I think is going too far the other way. Realistically, we should be looking at three tiers of rules here - truly Universal Special Rules, which are used across multiple factions; Faction Special Rules, which are used by multiple units within a single faction; and bespoke rules, which are specific to a few units.

 Ishagu wrote:
You need to prove that there is a rule that doesn't function. Show us all the rule!

I showed you the datasheet Ishagu. Now you show me the rule!

blaktoof wrote:

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.

Not true in the slightest.

Now, lets look at 5th ed DE (simply as I had the book out for whatever reason).
So, everyone's favourite high leader of Commoragh- Asdrubael Vect had the following rules: Fleet, Night Vision, Power from Pain, Independent Character and Fearless.

Note how every single one of them is a USR, and one of them (PFP) is unique to DE.

He also had two (shock! "These things cannot exist simultaneously!" the detractors of USRs squeal!) unique rules. One that improved a standard rulebook rule and one that granted a bubble of a USR, which was further improved under certain circumstances.

Is this "boring"? Nope. You can easily get good rules from a solid core of USRs with a smattering of unique rules. 5th ed proved that.


Now, let's branch out to another system to show how they use USRs. Warmachine uses the same system of USRs mixed in with unique rules. Every single USR on a unit's card is represented by an icon. No text at all. Every single one is easy to remember and if you are using the app (remember, despite what many a GW fanboi crows we are living in 2020 and not the 90's. Smartphones are quite commonplace and GW needs to step up) looking up what it does in merely a click away. They also have unique rules on the back of the card. Every. Single. One of these uses defied terminology to create a universal language. Which is what is being asked for.

USRs and bespoke rules are not mutually exclusive, GW uses the worst of both worlds and it is painfully obvious to anyone who has played other games and/or previous editions of 40k.

It's pretty clear to me that the main anti-USR posters here are deliberately and willfully ignoring the fact that their arguments are built almost entirely on the strawmen:

USRs can't be printed in datasheets
USRs reduced variety


Now these are objectively not true, but no matter how many times this has been said by MANY posters, Ishagu et al have continued to say 'yes except that this is still true and therefore USRs suck'.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just refusing to accept reality.

The facts are that pretty much none of the objections raised against standardised rules aka USRs are actually true.

The only real effect is putting the onus on the designers to be more deliberate in their designs, rather than putting the onus on players to keep track of all the small variants.

Your arguments have been proven fallacious almost on every page of this thread. Unless you've got something tangible to add, I don't really see any meat to your position at all.

GW bubble in full effect.

For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.

blaktoof wrote:
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.

Why do we keep coming back to this same point?

Yet again, USRs can be printed on the datasheet just as easily as bespoke rules. Other games have done just this. This has been mentioned numerous times already.

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.

And also again: Having standardised special rules does not mean that armies can not have their own special rules, nor does it mean that every unit in every army will have the same special rules as every other unit in every other army.

babelfish wrote:
For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.

Nope I need fluffy names for everything and therefore a longer explanation of how his rules work!

Hellebore wrote:It's pretty clear to me that the main anti-USR posters here are deliberately and willfully ignoring the fact that their arguments are built almost entirely on the strawmen:

USRs can't be printed in datasheets
USRs reduced variety


Now these are objectively not true, but no matter how many times this has been said by MANY posters, Ishagu et al have continued to say 'yes except that this is still true and therefore USRs suck'.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just refusing to accept reality.

The facts are that pretty much none of the objections raised against standardised rules aka USRs are actually true.

The only real effect is putting the onus on the designers to be more deliberate in their designs, rather than putting the onus on players to keep track of all the small variants.

Your arguments have been proven fallacious almost on every page of this thread. Unless you've got something tangible to add, I don't really see any meat to your position at all.

USRs are not bad. They are just are not inherently superior to bespoke rules as some people seem to be aruging. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I only point out that there are disadvantages to them in addition to the advantages.

babelfish wrote:For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.

You think this is hard? This couldn't be easier.

Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.

babelfish wrote:
For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.

We have a winner!

We keep coming back to point 1 because 7th edition actually already existed. This was already done, and during 7th most players did not like it, and the games dev team at GW did not like it. Which is why it went away, 7th edition USRs didn't go away because they were universally liked or even enjoyed by the majority of the player base and GW is just mean- they went away because they were boring and added bloat to the game.

The designers had the option at the time to list the rules for USRs on datasheets and they chose not to because each datasheet would be too long at that point. 7th units had in some cases ridiculous amounts of rules when you looked at a datasheet and saw the unit had 3 rules specific to its datasheet +2 to 4 USRs. Listing out the rules for the USRs meant the datasheets for many units would take up 1 page or more and would change the formatting and pages needed for many codexes.

8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance. If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.

 alextroy wrote:



Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.

But Big Daddy has a special snowflake rule that says on his data sheet that he always gets a super toughness save against wounds regardless of other special rules and Big Daddy’s bodyguard’s datasheet says that he always intercedes in shooting attacks on Big Daddy regardless of any other rule...

Reconciling these data sheets and editing to be sure that there are no such conflicts will not be easier than doing similarly with USRs. Rather given the numbers of people working on these things and their past record generating 30euro FAQ compilations, we might expect a real mess if the snowflake rules approach became SOP... oh, wait...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:


8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance. If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.

One must take care when ascribing intentions to others, in order to accurately represent those intentions. Here, for example, you do not.

blaktoof wrote:
We keep coming back to point 1 because 7th edition actually already existed. This was already done, and during 7th most players did not like it, and the games dev team at GW did not like it. Which is why it went away, 7th edition USRs didn't go away because they were universally liked or even enjoyed by the majority of the player base and GW is just mean- they went away because they were boring and added bloat to the game.

The designers had the option at the time to list the rules for USRs on datasheets and they chose not to because each datasheet would be too long at that point. 7th units had in some cases ridiculous amounts of rules when you looked at a datasheet and saw the unit had 3 rules specific to its datasheet +2 to 4 USRs. Listing out the rules for the USRs meant the datasheets for many units would take up 1 page or more and would change the formatting and pages needed for many codexes.

8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance. If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.

All you're saying is that because someone crashed a car, driving cars only results in crashing.

There have been many games mentioned that aren't 40k that manage this, and 40k still manged this BEFORE 7th ed without the crap you're talking about. 40k is not so special a snow flake it's somehow immune to logic.

universal STANDARD rules are not a hard concept nor a bloated concept. Standardisation is not MORE complicated, it's less complicated. This argument flies in the face of reality.

blaktoof wrote:

The designers had the option at the time to list the rules for USRs on datasheets and they chose not to because each datasheet would be too long at that point. 7th units had in some cases ridiculous amounts of rules when you looked at a datasheet and saw the unit had 3 rules specific to its datasheet +2 to 4 USRs. Listing out the rules for the USRs meant the datasheets for many units would take up 1 page or more and would change the formatting and pages needed for many codexes.

That's not a problem with USRs, it's a problem with units having too many special rules.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance.

A different name is not a 'subtle nuance'. It's bloat.

And, honestly, subtle nuance at that level is fine in a skirmish game. In a game the size of 40K, it's just extra stuff to confuse players.

If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.

Yes, yes, I do.

And that's speaking as someone with multiple, different Marine armies. I would much prefer that they were rolled into a single codex with allocateable Chapter Tactics options to differentiate them, rather than having completely separate books that duplicate a whole bunch of stuff.

blaktoof wrote:
We keep coming back to point 1 because 7th edition actually already existed. This was already done, and during 7th most players did not like it, and the games dev team at GW did not like it. Which is why it went away, 7th edition USRs didn't go away because they were universally liked or even enjoyed by the majority of the player base and GW is just mean- they went away because they were boring and added bloat to the game.

That's a whole lot of unsupported supposition. All we know for sure is that up until 8th edition GW made use of USRs for 40k. We don't have any data about whether players liked them or not, nor can we say for sure why GW removed them. However, I could equally hazard a guess that the reason they were removed was to reduce the size of the core rules because that seems to be one of the main driving factors behind the development of 8th. USR proponents would say that's a bad route to take because all it does is create more bloat and shifts it to the wrong place.

I can tell you there wasn't much argument against the principle of USRs during all those prior editions, though there were discussions about GW's implementation of them. Seems like an odd statement to say the majority disliked them based on that info.

blaktoof wrote:
The designers had the option at the time to list the rules for USRs on datasheets and they chose not to because each datasheet would be too long at that point. 7th units had in some cases ridiculous amounts of rules when you looked at a datasheet and saw the unit had 3 rules specific to its datasheet +2 to 4 USRs. Listing out the rules for the USRs meant the datasheets for many units would take up 1 page or more and would change the formatting and pages needed for many codexes.

That's not a problem with USRs, that's purely an implementation problem. (Is there an echo in here, BTW? Seems like this may have been pointed out a million times before in this thread.)

blaktoof wrote:
8th has USRs its just not the ones the PRO USR camp wants, the pro USR camp doesn't want USRs because it "Streamlines" the game- they want the additional rules bloat certain factions had.

Point 2- USRs were boring. Many armies have rules which are highly similiar now but have subtle differences that add nuance. If you think subtle difference is bad I hope you also think having more than 1 marine codex is bad.

It's odd to think you know what the pro-USR people want when you're clearly not even reading the arguments in the first place.

I'd argue we certainly don't need all the Marine Codices and supplements we currently have, yes. I'd also argue those subtle differences are rare and rarely, if ever, add any depth to the game. I'm also intrigued by the idea that somehow the name of the rule is the most important thing about it, rather than what it actually does. The game is about playing out a simulated battle using models with certain rules, not reading rules text at each other. Given that most of the various Deep Strike rules are mechanically identical surely the important thing is they thematically match the unit's background and allow for characterful usage of the unit, not whether it's called Deep Strike or Jump Pack Assault.

 alextroy wrote:

babelfish wrote:For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.

You think this is hard? This couldn't be easier.

Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.

A unit which intercepts the hits and transfers them to itself becomes the target unit of those hits. Therefore, under my rules lawyering, those shots can still be intercepted by a bodyguard unit as neither the hits or the wounds are being ignored. Also, since wounds are allocated prior to taking saving throws, and we are not allowed to ignore wounds for any reason, we are also not allowed to take saving throws of any kind as that could potentially result in us ignoring the wound. Also, since wounds are separate to damage, any bodyguard rule which intercepts damage can still be used.

Requires an Errata and/or FAQ.

So, see how the lack of USR can be an issue and actually limit the available design space for rules? Because writing a rule which prevents the interception of attacks without it being ridiculously long or having loopholes is incredibly difficult thanks to there being over 7 different bodyguard rules you have to cover in that one rule.

On the flipside the lack of using available USRs by GW is sometimes baffling.

Do we all remember when IG weapon teams got put on a single base and all of a sudden had combined profiles (I’d also argue this is still an issue to this day), which lead to weird situations where you could one shot them with a single Krak missile yet blasts were not great against them due to the large base?

Now, what prexisting USRs could GW have used to make that unit make sense? Both of them were in the game already and one was only used on 3 units in the whole game.

You don’t need any extra bespoke rules when they already exist in the game.

I'll repost my earlier example of what a datasheet that uses USRs could look like since people seemed to have missed it.

VladimirHerzog wrote: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

 alextroy wrote:

Hellebore wrote:It's pretty clear to me that the main anti-USR posters here are deliberately and willfully ignoring the fact that their arguments are built almost entirely on the strawmen:

USRs can't be printed in datasheets
USRs reduced variety


Now these are objectively not true, but no matter how many times this has been said by MANY posters, Ishagu et al have continued to say 'yes except that this is still true and therefore USRs suck'.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just refusing to accept reality.

The facts are that pretty much none of the objections raised against standardised rules aka USRs are actually true.

The only real effect is putting the onus on the designers to be more deliberate in their designs, rather than putting the onus on players to keep track of all the small variants.

Your arguments have been proven fallacious almost on every page of this thread. Unless you've got something tangible to add, I don't really see any meat to your position at all.

USRs are not bad. They are just are not inherently superior to bespoke rules as some people seem to be aruging. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I only point out that there are disadvantages to them in addition to the advantages.

There are disadvantages, but they aren't so bad to abstain from using USRs for things that truly show up in every faction.
Nor do I think we should avoid bespoke rules.

USRs for things that are cross faction.
FSRs for things that span a faction.
Bespoke for truly unique rules.

I think the key is good judgment and moderation.

alextroy wrote:

babelfish wrote:For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.

You think this is hard? This couldn't be easier.

Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.

Now the targeted unit cannot use their armor save against any of the sniper's shots. You overshot with your rule design.

Just to try my hand at the rule in question:

Cool Sniper Guy This guy is such a cool sniper.
When shooting with this model, pick a target model for its shot, rather than a target unit. That model, and only that model, may suffer wounds as a result of this attack; if any other model would suffer wounds for any reason, the targeted model suffers the wounds instead. Furthermore, the damage from this model's shooting attack may not be ignored, though the wound may be saved as normal.

would prefer usrs thanks

jeff white wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.

But Big Daddy has a special snowflake rule that says on his data sheet that he always gets a super toughness save against wounds regardless of other special rules and Big Daddy’s bodyguard’s datasheet says that he always intercedes in shooting attacks on Big Daddy regardless of any other rule...

Why is the ground suddenly moving? It's OK, just shifting goalpost

alextroy wrote:

babelfish wrote:For those who are arguing against USRs, lets try a thought exercise.

You are a GW designer working on Supplement: throw Dark Eldar a bone. You are working on a new DE sniper. He is a super duper sniper so you want him to ignore bodyguard rules. He shoots pain bullets made from tortured souls, so he ignores FnP. How do you word his rules?

Under a USR system writing these rules takes two sentences.

You think this is hard? This couldn't be easier.

Bringer of Pain: Hits and Wounds from the Shooting attacks of this model cannot be ignored by the target unit regardless of any other rule.

Now the targeted unit cannot use their armor save against any of the sniper's shots. You overshot with your rule design.

Nice try. First off, since you are rules lawyering we can assuming your intentions are to break the rule, not understand it. Secondly, your Save does not cause you to ignore a hit or wound, it is "prevented". My rules not prevent the wound from being prevented (Save) it prevents it from being ignored (which the Bodyguard and FNP style rules do). Please try again to invalidate my one sentence rule that solves the problem.

And this forms the crux of the problem with the pro-USR camp. You seem hellbent to prove that USRs are better and bespoke is worst. Like I said before, they both have advantages and disadvantages. It's all in the implementation.

I personally would love a very small list of USRs along with a rules style guide that would allow bespoke rules to work better. We all know there are a very limited list of USR (that are not called USRs) in the rules. Adding a few more and compiling in one place would be good for the game without needed to create 50 USRs to cover every semi-common rule in the game.

 alextroy wrote:
You seem hellbent to prove that USRs are better and bespoke is worst.

"You see, the problem with your argument is that you're making a point."
This is one of the most befuddling sentences I've ever read. Of course people trying to prove USRs are better and bespoke is the worst are trying to prove USRs are better and bespoke is the worst. That's not a criticism of their position, it's just an obvious tautology.

 alextroy wrote:

First off, since you are rules lawyering we can assuming your intentions are to break the rule, not understand it.

First off, since you are rules designing we can assume your intentions are to create a good robust rule, part of that is resilience to rules lawyers.
Second, A Town Called Malus has a post were they delve further and better into analysis of your rule. You should reply to them if you truly wish to defend it.

alextroy wrote:
And this forms the crux of the problem with the pro-USR camp. You seem hellbent to prove that USRs are better and bespoke is worst. Like I said before, they both have advantages and disadvantages. It's all in the implementation.

You seemed to have missed the first half of my post, I put it here.

pothocboots wrote:
There are disadvantages, but they aren't so bad to abstain from using USRs for things that truly show up in every faction.
Nor do I think we should avoid bespoke rules.

USRs for things that are cross faction.
FSRs for things that span a faction.
Bespoke for truly unique rules.

I think the key is good judgment and moderation.

Which is not all that dissimilar to

alextroy wrote:
I personally would love a very small list of USRs along with a rules style guide that would allow bespoke rules to work better. We all know there are a very limited list of USR (that are not called USRs) in the rules. Adding a few more and compiling in one place would be good for the game without needed to create 50 USRs to cover every semi-common rule in the game.

The lead game developer has stated on a number of occasions in articles and podcast interviews that his goal with 8th edition was to make 40K more accessible: "The key word we started using a lot was accessibility.." "Datasheets help capture and maintain the essence of what a unit does...By changing them for this edition we could remove all the special rules from the rulebook and give more specific rules to individual units." Those are his words - not mine. "Another thing we did was to change where certain rules were presented. In seventh edition, as many rules as possible were crammed into the rulebook itself...Instead of of bombarding players with every single special rule upfront, we cut them from the rulebook and instead wrote them on the units' datasheets." Removing USRs from the MRB was not the only thing done to make the game more accessible, but it was certainly a deliberate aspect of the re-design. The rules load has been shifted from the MRB to the Codexes. While rules mistakes have been made, I think its worked out rather well if you consider the success of this edition.

I've said it earlier, there are still implied USRs in the game. Look at how units arrive on the battlefield mid-game. There is a core, common element in each iteration of the rule. When we look at Stratagems, Faction Special Rules, Warlord Traits and Relics we see how the bespoke system can work to bring an army fully to life while keeping the core rules as tight as possible.

For those who refer to earlier editions of the game, for what its worth I've played since 2nd Ed. I can certainly live without USRs in a big MRB. Iplay other games that have USRs, and I have to say that I enjoy not having to go the main rulebook. Now, if a game developer wants to develop their game using USRs then go for it. That's their business, its a valid design method, and the market will decide afterwards if it was a good business decision.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The lead game developer has stated on a number of occasions in articles and podcast interviews that his goal with 8th edition was to make 40K more accessible: "The key word we started using a lot was accessibility.." "Datasheets help capture and maintain the essence of what a unit does...By changing them for this edition we could remove all the special rules from the rulebook and give more specific rules to individual units." Those are his words - not mine. "Another thing we did was to change where certain rules were presented. In seventh edition, as many rules as possible were crammed into the rulebook itself...Instead of of bombarding players with every single special rule upfront, we cut them from the rulebook and instead wrote them on the units' datasheets." Removing USRs from the MRB was not the only thing done to make the game more accessible, but it was certainly a deliberate aspect of the re-design. The rules load has been shifted from the MRB to the Codexes. While rules mistakes have been made, I think its worked out rather well if you consider the success of this edition.

I've said it earlier, there are still implied USRs in the game. Look at how units arrive on the battlefield mid-game. There is a core, common element in each iteration of the rule. When we look at Stratagems, Faction Special Rules, Warlord Traits and Relics we see how the bespoke system can work to bring an army fully to life while keeping the core rules as tight as possible.

For those who refer to earlier editions of the game, for what its worth I've played since 2nd Ed. I can certainly live without USRs in a big MRB. Iplay other games that have USRs, and I have to say that I enjoy not having to go the main rulebook. Now, if a game developer wants to develop their game using USRs then go for it. That's their business, its a valid design method, and the market will decide afterwards if it was a good business decision.

the game is accessible because the rules are written on the datasheet instead of in the BRB.

again, i'll post what the implementation of USRs could look like :



what do you dislike about this if it was how datasheets were presented?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The lead game developer has stated on a number of occasions in articles and podcast interviews that his goal with 8th edition was to make 40K more accessible: "The key word we started using a lot was accessibility.." "Datasheets help capture and maintain the essence of what a unit does...By changing them for this edition we could remove all the special rules from the rulebook and give more specific rules to individual units." Those are his words - not mine. "Another thing we did was to change where certain rules were presented. In seventh edition, as many rules as possible were crammed into the rulebook itself...Instead of of bombarding players with every single special rule upfront, we cut them from the rulebook and instead wrote them on the units' datasheets." Removing USRs from the MRB was not the only thing done to make the game more accessible, but it was certainly a deliberate aspect of the re-design. The rules load has been shifted from the MRB to the Codexes. While rules mistakes have been made, I think its worked out rather well if you consider the success of this edition.

I've said it earlier, there are still implied USRs in the game. Look at how units arrive on the battlefield mid-game. There is a core, common element in each iteration of the rule. When we look at Stratagems, Faction Special Rules, Warlord Traits and Relics we see how the bespoke system can work to bring an army fully to life while keeping the core rules as tight as possible.

For those who refer to earlier editions of the game, for what its worth I've played since 2nd Ed. I can certainly live without USRs in a big MRB. Iplay other games that have USRs, and I have to say that I enjoy not having to go the main rulebook. Now, if a game developer wants to develop their game using USRs then go for it. That's their business, its a valid design method, and the market will decide afterwards if it was a good business decision.

Why is this:

Teleport Strike
During deployment, you can set this unit in a teleportarium chamber instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the end of any of your movement phases this unit can teleport to the battle-set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from any enemy models.

Along with the needed errata noting that you cannot teleport T1 and if you stay in reserves for longer than T3 you just die, better than this:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
During deployment, you may set this unit in Deep Strike reserves instead of deploying it normally. At the end of any of your movement phases, you may set this unit up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy models.

Grey Knights are masters of the sudden strike, able to teleport even marines in ordinary power armor to the battlefield from their ships above.

Adjust flavor text to taste.

You do still need errata, unless GW moved to a digital ruleset, but instead of searching for "Teleport Strike" and MAYBE getting what you need, you search for "Deep Strike" in the FAQs and get something that you KNOW applies.

Edit: Hell, this includes MORE flavor text than the bespoke rule! Isn't that a positive?