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.

If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

I'm a youngster, so I don't get that reference!

I am old enough to remember VHS (that's how I watched Star Wars for the first time) but I never knew Beta Max.

I'm a youngster, so I don't get that reference!

Lucky you.

Basically the VHS/Beta Max war came down to this:

Beta Max was a superior product visually and sonically, but VHS was cheaper and easier to produce. Because it was cheaper and easier, the Porn industry decided that it would use that medium and the rest is history.

Once the Porn industry decided to use it, everyone bought one.

The same thing happened again between BluRay and HD DVD, but that one was short lived because streaming became a thing.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I'm a youngster, so I don't get that reference!

Lucky you.

Basically the VHS/Beta Max war came down to this:

Beta Max was a superior product visually and sonically, but VHS was cheaper and easier to produce. Because it was cheaper and easier, the Porn industry decided that it would use that medium and the rest is history.

Once the Porn industry decided to use it, everyone bought one.

The same thing happened again between BluRay and HD DVD, but that one was short lived because streaming became a thing.

The porn thing is more an urban myth. VHS just got more manufacturers using it and got the majority market share which allowed it to utilise economy of scale, which in turn made it easier for VHS to move into new markets.

The porn thing is more an urban myth. VHS just got more manufacturers using it and got the majority market share which allowed it to utilise economy of scale, which in turn made it easier for VHS to move into new markets.

Thats not what I learned in my recording engineering program when they talked about the merits of each medium, but if you have some real data to show me then let me know.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.

I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers

yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

The porn thing is more an urban myth. VHS just got more manufacturers using it and got the majority market share which allowed it to utilise economy of scale, which in turn made it easier for VHS to move into new markets.

Thats not what I learned in my recording engineering program when they talked about the merits of each medium, but if you have some real data to show me then let me know.

VHS machines were cheaper, for one. VHS tapes could also record double or more what a Betamax tape could (1 hour, so not enough for a game of football, or american football, or a film) until Betamax brought out a 2 hour tape which also resulted in the loss of its superior resolution. Betamax eventually got the SuperBeta which brought its resolution back up and exceeded that of the original Betamax tape but by then its market share was very small.

Then consider what people are watching these tapes on. Do you think that the average consumer in the late 70s was watching their tapes on a TV where 10 lines of difference was in any way meaningful or noticeable?

Basically, Betamax had better resolution which might not even be noticeable on your home television. But it was much more expensive and you couldn't even fit an entire film or sports game/match on one cassette. Which product is the majority of consumers going to pick? This is reflected in the market shares. By 1980 VHS controlled 60% of the North American market share.

Then there was the development of the S-VHS which had massively increased resolution over standard VHS. It did not replace VHS. Consumers didn't care about resolution.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.

I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers

But why does standardized wording make it harder to get into the game?

That's a key point you've not addressed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

The porn thing is more an urban myth. VHS just got more manufacturers using it and got the majority market share which allowed it to utilise economy of scale, which in turn made it easier for VHS to move into new markets.

Thats not what I learned in my recording engineering program when they talked about the merits of each medium, but if you have some real data to show me then let me know.

VHS machines were cheaper, for one. VHS tapes could also record double or more what a Betamax tape could (1 hour, so not enough for a game of football, or american football, or a film) until Betamax brought out a 2 hour tape which also resulted in the loss of its superior resolution. Betamax eventually got the SuperBeta which brought its resolution back up and exceeded that of the original Betamax tape but by then its market share was very small.

Then consider what people are watching these tapes on. Do you think that the average consumer in the late 70s was watching their tapes on a TV where 10 lines of difference was in any way meaningful or noticeable?

Basically, Betamax had better resolution which might not even be noticeable on your home television. But it was much more expensive and you couldn't even fit an entire film or sports game/match on one cassette. Which product is the majority of consumers going to pick? This is reflected in the market shares. By 1980 VHS controlled 60% of the North American market share.

Then there was the development of the S-VHS which had massively increased resolution over standard VHS. It did not replace VHS. Consumers didn't care about resolution.

And here is a youtube playlist by Technology Connections backing you up and explaining why Beta was a terrible and doomed from the start standard. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv0jwu7G_DFUrcyMYAkUPODENwP4gYCmf

And yes, he addresses the "Porn on VHS won the war" myth. Sony did not have any lock-down on what could be recorded to Beta because they did not distribute content on Beta themselves (unlike stuff like the CED which did).

Karol wrote:
yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?

I've said it before, I can't recall needing the MRB in-game in a long time. Yes you need supplements/updates if you are playing Matched Play and are keeping up with the Meta. So?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.

I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers

But why does standardized wording make it harder to get into the game?

That's a key point you've not addressed.

I've said that there is indeed standardized working in some datasheet rules and stratagems between factions. Its not always word for word, but its there. Look at the Mandrakes' From Out of the Shadows and the Tempestous Scions Aerial Drop. Both rules end the same way and have the same effect. The point was to remove them from the core rules to ease accessibility. I can't see how the Astra Militarum and Drukhari players would be confused if they have their respective Codexes.

VHS machines were cheaper, for one. VHS tapes could also record double or more what a Betamax tape could (1 hour, so not enough for a game of football, or american football, or a film) until Betamax brought out a 2 hour tape which also resulted in the loss of its superior resolution. Betamax eventually got the SuperBeta which brought its resolution back up and exceeded that of the original Betamax tape but by then its market share was very small.

Then consider what people are watching these tapes on. Do you think that the average consumer in the late 70s was watching their tapes on a TV where 10 lines of difference was in any way meaningful or noticeable?

Basically, Betamax had better resolution which might not even be noticeable on your home television. But it was much more expensive and you couldn't even fit an entire film or sports game/match on one cassette. Which product is the majority of consumers going to pick? This is reflected in the market shares. By 1980 VHS controlled 60% of the North American market share.

Then there was the development of the S-VHS which had massively increased resolution over standard VHS. It did not replace VHS. Consumers didn't care about resolution.

Right, and these factors were what made the VHS more desirable for the average consumer. Which is why the Porn industry went with VHS, and Porn is a reason consumers went with VHS, because it was supported on that platform. Its a vicious circle.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, except for the fact that the porn industry has always had a noticeable impact on consumer technology.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

I've said that there is indeed standardized working in some datasheet rules and stratagems between factions. Its not always word for word, but its there. Look at the Mandrakes' From Out of the Shadows and the Tempestous Scions Aerial Drop. Both rules end the same way and have the same effect. The point was to remove them from the core rules to ease accessibility. I can't see how the Astra Militarum and Drukhari players would be confused if they have their respective Codexes

But if they do the same thing, why name them something different and why not just keep them centrally located inside the core rules?

Because honestly, thats way easier for me to keep track of.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:


I'm not sure what you're arguing, except for the fact that the porn industry has always had a noticeable impact on consumer technology.

Because needless pedantry and Dakka. Name a more iconic duo.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.

I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers

Sorry if i have offended you, that wasn't my intention.

I addressed the accessibility issue. You put the full rules on the datasheet, that way players learn by seeing it over and over. You can also have an annex in the MRB that has all those USRs but if theyre present on the datasheets it not 100% required.

This achieves exactly the same thing you want but with more consistency between books, that way you get : Easier rules update (errata), and easier time for players switching armies.

It also stops minor niggling differences, like "Reroll failed rolls" and "Reroll any rolls".

Karol wrote:
yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?

Let's break this down when comparing 7th and 8th Edition:

Rulebook - Check on both cases, although the need to refer to the rulebooks is significantly lower in 8th Edition
Codex - Check in both cases
Up to date CA - Superior to having a 1-2 Edition old codex. Point to 8th Edition
Supplements - Superior to not having new units or rules for 1-2 Editions. Point to 8th Edition
FAQ/Errata - Regular documents compared to next to none (or was it none) during 7th. Point to 8th Edition.

So 0-3 points 7th to 8th edition.

Wait. This has nothing to do with USR versus bespoke rules, only GW's decision to provide more frequent products and product support.

So which is superior, USRs or Bespoke Rules? Neither. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The better choice depends on your goal.

 alextroy wrote:

Karol wrote:
yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?

Let's break this down when comparing 7th and 8th Edition:

Rulebook - Check on both cases, although the need to refer to the rulebooks is significantly lower in 8th Edition
Codex - Check in both cases
Up to date CA - Superior to having a 1-2 Edition old codex. Point to 8th Edition
Supplements - Superior to not having new units or rules for 1-2 Editions. Point to 8th Edition
FAQ/Errata - Regular documents compared to next to none (or was it none) during 7th. Point to 8th Edition.

So 0-3 points 7th to 8th edition.

Wait. This has nothing to do with USR versus bespoke rules, only GW's decision to provide more frequent products and product support.

So which is superior, USRs or Bespoke Rules? Neither. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The better choice depends on your goal.

What are the advantages of Bespoke rules as general use?

Again-it's fine to have bespoke rules alongside USRs. The Monolith's Portal of Exile does NOT need to be a USR.

But why should its Death Descending be bespoke, instead of a Deep Strike USR?

For the people arguing for USRs to be fully printed on the datasheet, you are really just arguing for the current rules but have the name of the rule changes so it's the same for every instance of the same rules text for every faction.

Which is really just an argument about generic vs bespoke naming for rules. Not USR vs no USR.

Alex/others-

There is a difference in having the 7th Ed rulebook and 8th rulebook plus other books. The 8th edition rulebook in most cases can be fully replaced by the battle primer. It's a lot easier to look at the battle primer + codex+ whatever then a 300 p rulebook+codex+whatever.

blaktoof wrote:
For the people arguing for USRs to be fully printed on the datasheet, you are really just arguing for the current rules but have the name of the rule changes so it's the same for every instance of the same rules text for every faction.

Which is really just an argument about generic vs bespoke naming for rules. Not USR vs no USR.

Alex/others-

There is a difference in having the 7th Ed rulebook and 8th rulebook plus other books. The 8th edition rulebook in most cases can be fully replaced by the battle primer. It's a lot easier to look at the battle primer + codex+ whatever then a 300 p rulebook+codex+whatever.

No, we want the actual rules to have the same text too. Such as Calgar's "Reroll any" versus Dante's "Reroll failed." Or the mess that is boydguard rules to be cleaned up.

 JNAProductions wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
For the people arguing for USRs to be fully printed on the datasheet, you are really just arguing for the current rules but have the name of the rule changes so it's the same for every instance of the same rules text for every faction.

Which is really just an argument about generic vs bespoke naming for rules. Not USR vs no USR.

Alex/others-

There is a difference in having the 7th Ed rulebook and 8th rulebook plus other books. The 8th edition rulebook in most cases can be fully replaced by the battle primer. It's a lot easier to look at the battle primer + codex+ whatever then a 300 p rulebook+codex+whatever.

No, we want the actual rules to have the same text too. Such as Calgar's "Reroll any" versus Dante's "Reroll failed." Or the mess that is boydguard rules to be cleaned up.

That's what I said, unless you are also saying you want to change all the rules to be the same.

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.

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.

Wild how you can think that pro-USR people want to cut out all the unique rules that make factions different and simultaneously think that pro-USR people want to heap on extra special rules for every faction as well.

Are we bad because we want to cut out unique rules so that every faction is the same, or are we bad because we want to throw tons of special rules at every faction? It can't be both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, we want the actual rules to have the same text too. Such as Calgar's "Reroll any" versus Dante's "Reroll failed." Or the mess that is boydguard rules to be cleaned up.

That's what I said, unless you are also saying you want to change all the rules to be the same.

The idea is that one or the other should be changed so that those both use the same rule, yes. Unless you have a particularly compelling reason (with fluff justification, of course) for why two subtly different but mechanically nearly identical buffs should both exist rather than just using one or the other for the sake of consistency.

 catbarf wrote:

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.

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.

Wild how you can think that pro-USR people want to cut out all the unique rules that make factions different and simultaneously think that pro-USR people want to heap on extra special rules for every faction as well.

Are we bad because we want to cut out unique rules so that every faction is the same, or are we bad because we want to throw tons of special rules at every faction? It can't be both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, we want the actual rules to have the same text too. Such as Calgar's "Reroll any" versus Dante's "Reroll failed." Or the mess that is boydguard rules to be cleaned up.

That's what I said, unless you are also saying you want to change all the rules to be the same.

The idea is that those should be the same rule, yes. Unless you have a particularly compelling reason (with fluff justification, of course) for why two subtly different but mechanically nearly identical buffs should both exist rather than just using one or the other for the sake of consistency.

wild how you perceive "reality"

I didn't make that direct claim, there are members of the "USRs were the best thing ever!" camp that from what they type want to make all the rules the same, there are members of that group that want some rules the same across all factions then some units have additional rules on their datasheet ontop of that, and there are group of both of those that want those printed on the datasheet vs. printed in the rulebook- maybe even both!

See in yours+others mind the "buffs" should be mechanically the same. That's the issue. In the actual real game as it is now in 8th many buffs are identical, but have different names. Some are similar but different, and have different names. Then some are just different buffs.

Asking for universal naming, and asking for rules to be the same aren't always the same thing. In 7th they often were, there were countless assault units for example (and 40k had a lot of factions in 7th as well...) that basically had a statline, equipment options, and furious charge. Some people may think that whenever a dedicated assault unit charges it should have the exact same rules bonus as every other assault unit in the game, some people would like there to be differences. Maybe this unit over here gets +1 to hit instead of +1 Strength. That however doesn't work in the USR all units have the same rules world (which is boring as all hell btw...) Yeah you could then say "but this unit just wouldn't get that USR and would have a special rule on its datasheet" at which point you are arguing that not all rules are the same, but maybe some rules are and have a generic name. Which is a naming argument, because right now in 8th a lot of rules are exactly the same but have different names/flavor text across factions.

In an ideal world, the game designers would have thought about all Special Rules needed for the game during initial rule design, and have written all of them in the USR part of the Core Book.
And during Codex relase only those USR would be used in different combinations and maybe with different names to fit the fluff (or one name would cover 2 or more USR for the fluff)

But this is not possible as there will be always something coming up you missed that need to be added later
as long as this are just some rules for one specific faction that are in line with the Core Book wording, everything is fine and no one has a problem with that bespoken rules

It is only a problem if each unit needs its own version of the same USR, with name and rules text, something that started with 7th, but was already a problem in 4th (there we had USR in the core book, that no one used at the end of the game as with each codex new rules were added instead of using the existing ones)

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.

I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers

What on Earth is stopping GW's designers, or any designers anywhere, from printing different words on a data sheet than bespoke rules text? This is an argument people are trying to make? "But-but-but the computers and printers are unable to utilize that space differently!"

What is "accessible" about not knowing any of your opponent's rules when you play a game, needing to stop playing to ask for clarification?

What is "accessible" about rules being written in a conversational, ambiguous, and inconsistent style that renders players unable to remember, aka learn their rules and to play without their nose in their codex?

For that matter, what makes it impossible for GW to use stat cards for units?

People so vehemently opposed to a more structured rules system really need to grab a copy of the rulebook for MEDGe, or Malifaux or something. They have no idea of what they speak.

blaktoof wrote:
wild how you perceive "reality"

I didn't make that direct claim, there are members of the "USRs were the best thing ever!" camp that from what they type want to make all the rules the same, there are members of that group that want some rules the same across all factions then some units have additional rules on their datasheet ontop of that, and there are group of both of those that want those printed on the datasheet vs. printed in the rulebook- maybe even both!

So when you were saying 'the PRO USR camp' wants additional rules bloat, you actually meant 'some non-specific subset of the pro-USR camp' wants additional rules bloat, and presumably that this is a different subset from the ones that want to make the game boring via excessive streamlining, which was your initial complaint.

Color me shocked that you're against clearer and more concise writing in game rules.

blaktoof wrote:
See in yours+others mind the "buffs" should be mechanically the same. That's the issue. In the actual real game as it is now in 8th many buffs are identical, but have different names. Some are similar but different, and have different names. Then some are just different buffs.

Asking for universal naming, and asking for rules to be the same aren't always the same thing. In 7th they often were, there were countless assault units for example (and 40k had a lot of factions in 7th as well...) that basically had a statline, equipment options, and furious charge. Some people may think that whenever a dedicated assault unit charges it should have the exact same rules bonus as every other assault unit in the game, some people would like there to be differences. Maybe this unit over here gets +1 to hit instead of +1 Strength. That however doesn't work in the USR all units have the same rules world (which is boring as all hell btw...) Yeah you could then say "but this unit just wouldn't get that USR and would have a special rule on its datasheet" at which point you are arguing that not all rules are the same, but maybe some rules are and have a generic name. Which is a naming argument, because right now in 8th a lot of rules are exactly the same but have different names/flavor text across factions.

1. Rules that do the same thing should have the same name and be the same rule.

2. Rules that do more or less the same thing, and have the same fluff purpose, and generally behave the same way, but have different mechanical implementations, should be consolidated into a single rule.

3. Rules that serve different purposes, represent different things, and operate mechanically differently, should remain as separate rules.

This really isn't especially complicated. It's easier to learn (and write) the game when all the different deep strike rules are actually all called Deep Strike, we really don't need so many different ways to implement 'nearby allies shoot better' (re-roll 1s, re-roll fails, re-roll any, add 1 to the roll, bonus shots on 6s, bonus hits on 6s), and neither of those principles precludes having meaningfully different rules between factions.

If ten different units are all melee troops that should get a bonus on the charge, what is actually different about them? Do they have different equipment? Different weapons? Different mobility options? Different deployment systems? Different resistance to morale? Different resilience to shooting? Different strength in combat? Different responsiveness to command and control? Different unit sizes? If the only thing actually differentiating them from one another is some bespoke implementation of a 'fights better on the charge' rule, that's not meaningful variety, it's just a shallow illusion of variety. Chrome for its own sake, getting in the way of good design.

The difference in command ability between Dante and a generic Chapter Master shouldn't just be that one grants the ability to re-roll fails and the other grants the ability to re-roll any. If establishing consistent mechanisms would make those characters identical, then that's a huge red flag that as it currently stands there is not much real difference between them; just a subtle mechanical distinction with no fluff basis that only comes into play when suffering a -1 to hit penalty.

Epic differentiated armies fine with USRs. Battlefleet Gothic did too. Heck, 40K did too when you go back to 4th-5th Ed, and so has damn near every non-GW game in the past two decades. This framing of the problem as specifically 7th vs 8th is such an absolute straw man.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Karol wrote:
yeah it worked great. now instead of two books, your codex and the rule book. you need the rulebook, the up to date CA, the codex, the supplements that fix your codex and any rules you need from WD, be if codex fixs or stuff like imperial assasins etc. Is the ,it worked, defined as made people buy more stuff ?

I've said it before, I can't recall needing the MRB in-game in a long time. Yes you need supplements/updates if you are playing Matched Play and are keeping up with the Meta. So?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.

And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.

Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.

Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.

I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.

What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.

Cheers

But why does standardized wording make it harder to get into the game?

That's a key point you've not addressed.

I've said that there is indeed standardized working in some datasheet rules and stratagems between factions. Its not always word for word, but its there. Look at the Mandrakes' From Out of the Shadows and the Tempestous Scions Aerial Drop. Both rules end the same way and have the same effect. The point was to remove them from the core rules to ease accessibility. I can't see how the Astra Militarum and Drukhari players would be confused if they have their respective Codexes.

But then they are relying on consulting their books during the game, because they can't remember what their stuff- or their opponent's stuff- does. Standardized wording improves player retention, makes communication a simple matter of speaking the name of the rule, and clearly and accurately communicates what the rule actually does.

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't make that direct claim, there are members of the "USRs were the best thing ever!" camp that from what they type want to make all the rules the same, there are members of that group that want some rules the same across all factions then some units have additional rules on their datasheet ontop of that, and there are group of both of those that want those printed on the datasheet vs. printed in the rulebook- maybe even both!

The consensus across multiple of these threads, as I have posted before, is that rules that are functionally identical or extremely close should be unified under one keyword for clarity and consistency. As matter of fact (there are scientific studies on this), this reduces the learning curve and reduces the need to reference rules during games. It also reduces the need to read the entire prose text searching for easily missed differences between otherwise identical rules, reduces confusion when rules questions come up ("What counts as aura?") and facilitates rules-writing (
Deep Strike or Ignore Damage rules are a perfect example of this.

It's also a fact that writing all rules in one place makes games easier to learn and more enjoyable to play, while having to reference other places (gaming manuals, a glossary, other books, comprehensive rules) annoys players and reduces their enjoyment of the game. Therefore other games have had great success with printing so-called reminder texts with their keywords, providing a quick explanation on them where you need them, and having a bullet-proof, more complex rule available for look-up.

So what the "USR-crowd" wants isn't contradictory at all, but a best practice that has been tested and proven by the industry that is designing complex games like TCGs, RPGs, complex board games or wargames.

See in yours+others mind the "buffs" should be mechanically the same. That's the issue. In the actual real game as it is now in 8th many buffs are identical, but have different names. Some are similar but different, and have different names. Then some are just different buffs.

Don't forget we also have rules which have the same name, represent the same thing in the lore but still are different for no apparent reason.

Asking for universal naming, and asking for rules to be the same aren't always the same thing. In 7th they often were, there were countless assault units for example (and 40k had a lot of factions in 7th as well...) that basically had a statline, equipment options, and furious charge. Some people may think that whenever a dedicated assault unit charges it should have the exact same rules bonus as every other assault unit in the game, some people would like there to be differences. Maybe this unit over here gets +1 to hit instead of +1 Strength. That however doesn't work in the USR all units have the same rules world (which is boring as all hell btw...)

Sorry, but you got that wrong. +1 to hit and +1 strength are so vastly different things, that there is no reason to unify them under one USR.
USR are there to cover all stuff that many units can do. Bespoke rule are for making units interesting. That's why you need both for a good game.
Dante not being able to re-roll dice in niche scenarios is not interesting. Necron Lords providing powerful buffs to single units instead small ones to all around them is.

Which is a naming argument, because right now in 8th a lot of rules are exactly the same but have different names/flavor text across factions.

The issue are not the rules that are, but the ones that are not. These lead to confusion and frustration among players, something that is objectively bad for a game.
See my previous example of the morkanaut and the LRBT before (I can repost it if you like), which left the AM player utterly frustrated about how his tank commander took 7 mortal wounds for shooting a plane, while morkanaut rolling the same result would only have taken one. There is no good reason for the rules to be this way.

Minor nitpick, Jidmah-Necron Lords actually have the Lieutenant Aura, though restricted to Infantry only. It's Overlords who have the single-unit buff.

Otherwise, excellent post.

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.

Well as I'm a GW writer what I'll actually do is rewrite the USR from memory but misword it subtly enough that it looks the same at a glance the closest we will ever get to testing it then print it in one codex different from previous instances, there by leaving every exsisting codex and BRB incorrect as nrw rules replace old rules and making this 1 codex now required to play any army which uses that USR.

The people arguing for USR's are the ones misisng the issue.
It's GW need to learn to technical writing and authering.