Switch Theme:

What's The Matter With USRs?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




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.


ATM I'm still anti-USR in terms of a game with the number of units and sub-factions 40k has. Everyone says "Most other games use them", and that's fine, but as far as I know, there aren't any other wargames with the sheer number of units 40k has, so until you can point that out, I'm not convinced? That being said, I also don't care that much. If they go back to a version of USRs that are "sane" and logical (like the ones I think most "pro-USR" folks are advocating for), you won't hear a peep out of me. If they go back to 20+ pages of USRs, with some USRs existing for no other reason than to confer other USRs, then yeah, I will definitely complain about that.

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 ?


You either never played 6th/7th (especially 7th), or you're being very disingenuous. One of the complaints about 2nd ed (towards the end of the edition), was that you needed a lot of supplemental material to play a game. 7th especially, took that and multiplied it by 5. You needed a veritable stack of books for a game of 7th. An edition that used USRs quite heavily. So what's your point? Because the thread is about USRs vs bespoke rules, and the problem you outline (which IS a legitimate problem), exists completely outside this particular debate. It's not really a "USR" or "bespoke rules" problem, and really just a GW problem in general.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 12:31:00


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




The more this thread goes on, the more I'm thinking that it doesn't matter much in terms of quality or time spent churning through books.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 12:37:11


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

The player in question wasn't aware of the FAQ. It had only dropped the day before our game.

I was perfectly aware of it.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Ishagu wrote:
The player in question wasn't aware of the FAQ. It had only dropped the day before our game.

I was perfectly aware of it.


That's not my point. Not that your group wasn't aware of the faq, but not even aware of the NEED for the faq in the first place. Because you don't look at the angles and game out how to maximize your units.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Ice_can wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


Gonna need to explain how on that one.

It's to do with human behaviour and some psychology I never bothered to learn in detail, but esentially if you provide a set of rules and tell someone these are universal rules, they tend to expect everyone to know and understand those rules.

So if your little first time player and your army doesn't have flyers so why would you read and memorise all the flyer USR's if your codex doesn't contain them. You then play billy's darkangles with darktallons and tallon masters and a whole host of other units, Billy will expect you to knwo the difference between fly and flyer and won't spell it out, leading to lots of feel bads and the earlier in your investment into the game you start falling across these got ya moments the less likely you are to be invested enough to keep playing the game when you can go do something else.

Where as with BSR's billy is more likely to expect to have to explain them in some depth from the start and will expect questions.

Eg most people will say they know tbe highway code but if you ask a non motorcyclist driver if filtering is legal most of them won't know.



You don't need to memorize all the USRs.... A good design would INCLUDE THE FULL RULES TEXT ON THE DATASHEET ALONGSIDE THE USR NAME

this has been repeated many times in the thread so far. The document with all the Usrs would serve as a bonus, not as a necessity.

That way a player reads his datasheet, sees (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and is at the exact same spot as if it was a bespoke rule like it currently is. Now next time he sees a different datasheet with (Deep strike (9"):do the thing), he'll instantly recognize it. If he doesnt remember what it does, he'll reread the rule without needing to refer to an external source. eventually he'll see (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and automatically know what it does.

One day he wants to swap armies, picks up some crisis suits and Oh! What does he see? (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) so he know what they do instantly and doesn't have to read to see that mantastrike isnt some C-C buff but just another name for deepstrike.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

It is a source of great irony to me that we still use USR shorthand for things while decrying USRs as useless.

"We can't just call everything deep strike, it's important it be bespoke!"
[later in another thread]
"Yah, with deep strike, FNP, and body guard, that tau unit with drones is pretty cool. I miss JSJ though."
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Spoletta wrote:
Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


I never played 7th, or 6th for that matter. I have played 4th-5th, Epic, BFG, and a whole ton of other games made by other companies, all of which used USRs.

This is only a 7th-vs-8th thing for the people who want to use 7th's problems to justify the changes made in 8th. In a context that includes prior GW games as well as the entire rest of the tabletop gaming industry, GW abandoning an industry standard for rules-writing because they screwed it up in 7th is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is a source of great irony to me that we still use USR shorthand for things while decrying USRs as useless.

"We can't just call everything deep strike, it's important it be bespoke!"
[later in another thread]
"Yah, with deep strike, FNP, and body guard, that tau unit with drones is pretty cool. I miss JSJ though."


Yeah, this really gets me- it's almost like having generic terms for these rules makes it easier to discuss, contextualize, and learn the game, rather than refer obliquely to 'any ability which allows a model to be set up as reinforcements blah blah blah'...

My current gaming group includes a bunch of guys who have never played before 8th, and they still all use the terms Deep Strike and Feel No Pain, having been introduced to them by players of previous editions. It's just clearer and easier to have a single term for obviously recognizable categories of abilities.

Heck, GW could just use tags for the abilities to categorize them together while still having bespoke rules for each implementation, and it would be a step in the right direction. Sure, keep thirteen million different bodyguard or deep strike rules, but give them all the [BODYGUARD] or [DEEP STRIKE] tag and now it's easy to say 'this super duper sniper ignores [BODYGUARD] abilities', or have the FAQ say '[DEEP STRIKE] can't be used on turn 1', and have writing that doesn't sound like a game of charades trying to describe a thing without actually using its name.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 13:43:12


   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Lol this thread is still going?

Guys just accept that it is a matter of personal opinions.

If you had less rule problems with 7th, then you prefer USR systems.

If you are having less rule problems with 8th, then you prefer the bespoke system.

Nothing more than that.

Personally i find 8th much more easy to learn and intuitive than 7th, but i can understand that someone else preferred 7th.


I never played 7th, or 6th for that matter. I have played 4th-5th, Epic, BFG, and a whole ton of other games made by other companies, all of which used USRs.

This is only a 7th-vs-8th thing for the people who want to use 7th's problems to justify the changes made in 8th. In a context that includes prior GW games as well as the entire rest of the tabletop gaming industry, GW abandoning an industry standard for rules-writing because they screwed it up in 7th is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


This isn't throwing anything.

GW has tried the USR approach in multiple editions now, and we know the results.

7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem. It is the USR system applied to this game, this team, these players, this release schedule.
8th edition is the bespoke system applied to this game, this team, these players, this release schedule.

Even there, it isn't a fair comparison because 8th has far more units and factions than 7th ever had, not to mention an extremely more tight release schedule.
If you want to know how 40K would be with an USR system, just look at how 7th was... just a bit worse.

I can understand players prefering the 7th rule design to 8th rules design, but any argument saying "8th is bad because in a perfect and ideal USR system you can do this and that" hold absolutely no water in this context.
If you want to convince people that the USR system would work better in this situation, please provide examples on how 7th edition managed X or Y better than 8th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 14:06:44


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


Gonna need to explain how on that one.

It's to do with human behaviour and some psychology I never bothered to learn in detail, but esentially if you provide a set of rules and tell someone these are universal rules, they tend to expect everyone to know and understand those rules.

So if your little first time player and your army doesn't have flyers so why would you read and memorise all the flyer USR's if your codex doesn't contain them. You then play billy's darkangles with darktallons and tallon masters and a whole host of other units, Billy will expect you to knwo the difference between fly and flyer and won't spell it out, leading to lots of feel bads and the earlier in your investment into the game you start falling across these got ya moments the less likely you are to be invested enough to keep playing the game when you can go do something else.

Where as with BSR's billy is more likely to expect to have to explain them in some depth from the start and will expect questions.

Eg most people will say they know tbe highway code but if you ask a non motorcyclist driver if filtering is legal most of them won't know.



You don't need to memorize all the USRs.... A good design would INCLUDE THE FULL RULES TEXT ON THE DATASHEET ALONGSIDE THE USR NAME

this has been repeated many times in the thread so far. The document with all the Usrs would serve as a bonus, not as a necessity.

That way a player reads his datasheet, sees (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and is at the exact same spot as if it was a bespoke rule like it currently is. Now next time he sees a different datasheet with (Deep strike (9"):do the thing), he'll instantly recognize it. If he doesnt remember what it does, he'll reread the rule without needing to refer to an external source. eventually he'll see (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and automatically know what it does.

One day he wants to swap armies, picks up some crisis suits and Oh! What does he see? (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) so he know what they do instantly and doesn't have to read to see that mantastrike isnt some C-C buff but just another name for deepstrike.


The rules aren't on the new players datasheets is the point you missed, they are on his opponents who will expect him to know all these USR's.

New players don't go swapping armies month to month either they generally take 6 months to a year to move to a second army.

Also if your going to print the rules in full then why do you need USR's, you talking about standardised wording, I dont object in principle to that but that isn't what USR's mean.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 14:25:32


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Ice_can wrote:


Also if your going to print the rules in full then why do you need USR's, you talking about standardised wording, I dont object in principle to that but that isn't what USR's mean.


That's pretty much the accepted best practice, as seen in multiple games including MtG which is basically the premier example of USRs done right. On cards with enough space they reprint the USRs in full for ease of reference but also to act as a reminder that is useful for helping newer players to get up to speed with what the USRs do. After a while most players don't even read the reminder text.. If a card needs more text for bespoke rules they'll just use bolded names for the USRs.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

Bespoke rules are still more interesting and ultimately varied, and for this reason I prefer them.

You are free to prefer USRs.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Ishagu wrote:
Bespoke rules are still more interesting and ultimately varied, and for this reason I prefer them.

You are free to prefer USRs.

Imagine thinking that having different names for FNP like The Flesh Is Weak and Disgustingly Resilient somehow make the game more interesting LOL

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

I'm happy they all have different names because each one is thematically linked to the faction.

Get over it lol

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm happy they all have different names because each one is thematically linked to the faction.

Get over it lol
So the more flavor on the datasheet, the better, right?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




GW doesnt give a feth about thematics.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Ice_can wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.


I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.

I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.


Gonna need to explain how on that one.

It's to do with human behaviour and some psychology I never bothered to learn in detail, but esentially if you provide a set of rules and tell someone these are universal rules, they tend to expect everyone to know and understand those rules.

So if your little first time player and your army doesn't have flyers so why would you read and memorise all the flyer USR's if your codex doesn't contain them. You then play billy's darkangles with darktallons and tallon masters and a whole host of other units, Billy will expect you to knwo the difference between fly and flyer and won't spell it out, leading to lots of feel bads and the earlier in your investment into the game you start falling across these got ya moments the less likely you are to be invested enough to keep playing the game when you can go do something else.

Where as with BSR's billy is more likely to expect to have to explain them in some depth from the start and will expect questions.

Eg most people will say they know tbe highway code but if you ask a non motorcyclist driver if filtering is legal most of them won't know.



You don't need to memorize all the USRs.... A good design would INCLUDE THE FULL RULES TEXT ON THE DATASHEET ALONGSIDE THE USR NAME

this has been repeated many times in the thread so far. The document with all the Usrs would serve as a bonus, not as a necessity.

That way a player reads his datasheet, sees (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and is at the exact same spot as if it was a bespoke rule like it currently is. Now next time he sees a different datasheet with (Deep strike (9"):do the thing), he'll instantly recognize it. If he doesnt remember what it does, he'll reread the rule without needing to refer to an external source. eventually he'll see (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) and automatically know what it does.

One day he wants to swap armies, picks up some crisis suits and Oh! What does he see? (Deep strike (9"):do the thing) so he know what they do instantly and doesn't have to read to see that mantastrike isnt some C-C buff but just another name for deepstrike.


The rules aren't on the new players datasheets is the point you missed, they are on his opponents who will expect him to know all these USR's.

New players don't go swapping armies month to month either they generally take 6 months to a year to move to a second army.

Also if your going to print the rules in full then why do you need USR's, you talking about standardised wording, I dont object in principle to that but that isn't what USR's mean.



How is that any different from what i said? Its the same situation as we have right now.

For example :

I'm a new player and play Grey knights, i see that my terminators have "teleport strike". I play against an opponent that says he uses the "manta strike" ability of his crisis suits. I ask to see the datasheet to confirm it (and learn the possibly new rule). As i read the rule on the datasheet, i notice that its the same exact rule as my "teleport strike" rule. "Oh, weird, theyre the same thing but with different names" (that was my litteral reaction first time i noticed it).

No lets take with my version :
I'm a new player and play Grey knights, i see that my terminators have "Deep strike(9")". I play against an opponent that says he uses the "Deep strike(9")" ability of his crisis suits. I ask to see the datasheet to confirm it and i see it right there in bolded letters, the game goes on since i have confirmation that they both have the same rule.



Now for a rule that isnt in my codex but is in my opponent's its the exact same situation as we have currently. I ask to see the "Savior protocols" (dunno if GK get bodyguards honestly, i don't play that army). and i read to text and understand it, cool. Next day i play against Death guard and he tells me that his deathshroud have the "Silent Bodyguard" rule, as i read it i realise that its similar to the savior protocols rule yet i still had to read a full paragraph and even then its not exactly the same way to resolve it even if its the same type of ability.

Now with my version :
The new players sees that the drone has "Bodyguard (2+)" and reads the rule. Against his DG opponent, he sees that he has the "Bodyguard(2+)" and knows how it works.

Please tell me how my version is more complex for the new player?

And yes, standardised wording is litterally what USRs mean. And you put the rules on the datasheet to keep 8th edition easily accessible, just like GW's design mantra was with it.

(Best example of that type of rule is MTG, keywords appear on cards and also have reminder text that tell you what the keyword does, you learn them by repetition)


   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Ishagu wrote:
Bespoke rules are still more interesting and ultimately varied, and for this reason I prefer them.
If you have a bunch of rules that all do literally the exact same thing, it's hard to see how they're particularly interesting or varied unless one is intentionally being pedantic. Alternatively, when there's a grip of them that are all supposed to generally do the same thing but some of them don't actually work well enough to bother with while others are easily abused and overcapable, just for the sake of being different for its own sake, that's fundamentally bad game design, like, by definition. There's a place for bespoke rules if something calls for a truly unique ability, but that's not a knock against USR's, and again, there are games that work just fine with the same wide array of units that 40k has and make do with USR's for everything just fine, and nobody finds it a problem.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 15:37:12


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Ishagu wrote:
Bespoke rules are still more interesting and ultimately varied, and for this reason I prefer them.

You are free to prefer USRs.


yes, we know, the almighty Ishagu has stated his opinion, which is fine. Yet you havnt proven that its impossible to have an implementation of USRs that doesnt give as much variety as bespoke rules.

Bodyguard (x+)
Deepstrike (x")

two basic examples that give you tons of variety right there.


Also heres an example of how you get USRs while keeping some bespoke rules

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 15:39:43


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


And as i said, it is normal that some players prefer those editions rule structure, because it is a matter of personal preference.

Let me point out though that the game was much easier to hande for the designers at the time. Far fewer publications each year, no LoW, no fliers for the most part, a lot less factions and units, no subfactions, close to no allies,..

4th and 5th held much better than 7th, but they also had a lot less to hold.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


And as i said, it is normal that some players prefer those editions rule structure, because it is a matter of personal preference.

Let me point out though that the game was much easier to hande for the designers at the time. Far fewer publications each year, no LoW, no fliers for the most part, a lot less factions and units, no subfactions, close to no allies,..

4th and 5th held much better than 7th, but they also had a lot less to hold.


a solid framework should accomodate near infinite scalability.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesnt give a feth about thematics.


What a stupid thing to say. If course they do. Their IP is their most valuable property and they care most about it.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


And as i said, it is normal that some players prefer those editions rule structure, because it is a matter of personal preference.

Let me point out though that the game was much easier to hande for the designers at the time. Far fewer publications each year, no LoW, no fliers for the most part, a lot less factions and units, no subfactions, close to no allies,..

4th and 5th held much better than 7th, but they also had a lot less to hold.


If only there was a way to control the scale creep, some sort of "designer" who was in charge of the game and could make sure that certain abstractions, domains, and game scales were obeyed. Pity GW doesn't seem to have one.

(Also, superheavy tanks and fliers totally existed. I played with them all the time. Allies also existed, via the Inquisition, and also were commonly played in 2v2 games, etc. Nothing broke.)
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





I didn't say "No allies" i said "Close to no allies". Are you really comparing 5th edition ally system to 7th edition one (In terms of complexity introduced)?

Flyers were introduced near the end of 5th, and in fact i said " No fliers for the most part".

Please read carefully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.

4th was a blast, and still is with some changes (i.e. allowing more height levels, consolidating into other combats).

5th was also great.


And as i said, it is normal that some players prefer those editions rule structure, because it is a matter of personal preference.

Let me point out though that the game was much easier to hande for the designers at the time. Far fewer publications each year, no LoW, no fliers for the most part, a lot less factions and units, no subfactions, close to no allies,..

4th and 5th held much better than 7th, but they also had a lot less to hold.


a solid framework should accomodate near infinite scalability.


I agree. But it doesn't add much to this discussion.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 15:57:40


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Spoletta wrote:
I didn't say "No allies" i said "Close to no allies". Are you really comparing 5th edition ally system to 7th edition one (In terms of complexity introduced)?

Flyers were introduced near the end of 5th, and in fact i said " No fliers for the most part".

Please read carefully.

No, I'm not comparing the two, because the 7th edition allies system is an abomination that never should have existed. Taudar, really? Black Templars get along better with the Relictors than the Adepta Sororitas? Etc. 4th's was better. Remember, part of my claim is that game designers have to keep things within scope and scale or the game will inevitably crumble.

Flyers have existed since Imperial Armor Volume 1 in 3rd edition, sir. They came on in the movement phase, were fired at by air defense units with the Anti-Aircraft rule, did a bombing or strafing run, and left before the end of the movement phase. If players on both sides brought flyers, they could fight with each other instead of entering the table (though my memory of this specific set of rules was hazy). Transport flyers could drop things off then, too, of course after being subject to anti-aircraft fire.

This implementation of flyer rules is infinitely 110% better in terms of scale than the current one or any one we've had since flyers entered the codexes out of the FW books. Remember, part of my claim is that game designers have to keep things within scope and scale or the game will inevitably crumble.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 16:05:58


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Ishagu wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
GW doesnt give a feth about thematics.


What a stupid thing to say. If course they do. Their IP is their most valuable property and they care most about it.


Then why do they constantly make non-thematic rules and armies?
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Yes, indeed, GW has tried USRs for multiple editions now, and it has resulted in some of the best editions we've ever had.


Conveniently leaving out the fact that USRs were also involved in the two editions after 5th. You know ... the ones pretty much universally considered the worst editions?

I have to say though, that this thread is the first time I've seen the pro-USR folks lay out a solid reasoning beyond just screaming about how they don't understand why the rules are on their data sheets now, and how they don't think keywords make sense. I think I can safely say I'm fine with being convinced that it's so much USRs as it is GW's handling of said USRs, but again, can anyone point to a game using them that also has the scale of 40k?

I feel like that's where it falls down, but open to being wrong. Either way, even if you get USRs back, I don't think you can really escape bespoke rules ...

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

@Martel

Lol they don't. They've doubled down on rules and abilities to mirror the lore.

Hence the Raven Guard are truly sneaky, the Iron Hands have the best vehicles, Salamanders have the best flame weapons, Iron Warriors use Cultists as human shields, etc, etc

The new Harlequin rules are amazing and very fitting of the faction. GW rules are actually getting better at mirroring the lore behind the forces.

The next step would be unique detachments to each faction.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 16:10:48


-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Tycho wrote:
can anyone point to a game using them that also has the scale of 40k?.

"scale" isn't always a good thing. I'd argue that modern 40k's issues predominantly derive from the scale being so far out of whack.

Plus, 4th edition 40k had all the same things we have now, but the scale required them to be implemented differently. They weren't gone, but they respected the scale more. Which means they felt powerful and much much less silly.
- Flyers strafed or bombed the entire battlefield and then departed in a single movement phase, immune to all but the most dedicated air defense weapons. Now? They fly in little 20"-per-side squares in a space smaller than a football field.
- Superheavy Tanks were incredibly rare (could only field one per thousand points or so, and only above 2000 points when you started unlocking the second detachment. Yes, this was a 4th edition thing). They were very powerful indeed.
- Titans were rarer still, and still more powerful, though suffered a bit from restricted firing arcs given their verticality, with the exception of the Warhound who was quite short. This felt realistic.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 16:14:30


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: