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.
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
Raven Guard rules aren't really all that sneaky, they're hard to hit (essentially an "evasion" mechanic more suited to something super agile), these are not the same thing. GW has never managed "stealth" particularly well. Iron Hands likewise never used to be known for having the best vehicles, and in fact in older lore were at a dearth for such, particularly Dreadnoughts, and that was part of why they revered them so much, and they were far more known for extensive use of bionics than having Übertanks. Iron Warriors were siege, artillery, and armored warfare experts, they were never about the mass use of cultists as human shields (at least not anymoreso than any other CSM's, and such forces mentioned in things like Dead Sky Black Sun were far more Guard equivalents than cultists) the cultist thing is merely an outgrowth of a single Warlord trait synergizing well with meatshields in this particular edition, not anything particularly fluffy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 16:27:38
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.
Tycho wrote: 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?
6th and 7th also had models that could move, therefore 8th is just as bad.
6th and 7th were not crap because of USRs, they were crap, IN PART, because USRs were misused to try and replace bespoke rules. And even that was a water molecule, in a drop, in a BUCKET of the reasons why 6th and 7th were bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 16:39:26
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.
I think you mentioned up-thread that you haven't played 8th Edition? I do play, and honestly, rules disputes are very rare. The rules load is redistributed from the MRB so you are only dealing with the rules you need for your army. I played in a 30 player tournament at the start of 8th after only two real games and very well - no big rules issues. I still have to look up the odd Wounds characteristic or confirm the nature of my vehicle's explosion but that's it. I have my Codex with me if there is a question or concern, but the focus on on the tabletop. I do offer my stratagem cards to my opponent if he is new to my army, but they are pretty simple. I offer a quick run-down of my key rules/stratagems to my opponent at the start of the game.
This is all anecdotal, but the commercial success of 8th Edition indicates that the method is working. As for preferred gaming systems, I hope you get some enjoyment out of them. Its your time. I enjoy some element of conversational rules-writing. The MRB is not a divorce settlement, and technical manuals are very dry. To each his own I guess.
I didn't intent to imply that a lack of USRs leads to arguments necessarily, but it does lead to spending more time explaining what each other's rules actually do because of the minute differences, and the lack of standardized rules text leads to confusion as well. Players should be expected, and capable of learning their rules.
Technical writing and flavor are not mutually exclusive.. Were 6th and 5th edition dry? Is Infinity dry? Malifaux (this one even has lots of bespoke rules, and everything written out on the model's card)? Rules text must be written in the clearest, most literal phrasing possible, but their names can be flavorful while still alluding to what the rule does, and there can still be a sentence of flavor text to go along with it.
How meaningful are the slight variations of universal-but-not rules in 8th, really?
Unique rules should be used sparingly, when there is actually a meaningful difference or to give a unit special/flavorful gameplay. As an addition to the stat line, core mechanics, USRs, faction special rules, and equipment. If a game designer can't differentiate units or armies in any way other than pasting on unique rules, they are terrible at their job.
These "problems" do not exist. People who are so upset over the concept of USRs are simply resisting change, and assuming that their return must inevitably lead us to the problems of 7th edition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 16:42:16
Ishagu wrote: Every datasheet has some flavour linking it to the lore. Units that excel at shooting have better BS.
Are you seriously saying that a 12,000 year old, genecrafted, transhuman perfect warrior of humanity created by the Emperor's hand himself, outfitted with the best weapons and armour the Imperium can create (and are gold, because gold is objectively the best colour) is just as capable at shooting as a Senior Man in a Fancy Hat who executes 15 year olds who get scared by LITERALLY FETHING DAEMONS?
BS is literally the last thing that can help differentiate units because the D6 system crushes the available differentiation.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 16:42:38
Ishagu wrote: I'm happy they all have different names because each one is thematically linked to the faction.
Get over it lol
How on earth does that make the game better?
Another stupid question.
How on earth is the game better by being linked to the lore that supports it? Are you serious?
Go play chess if you don't care about the universe the game takes place in. A lovely, balanced, lore free experience.
I'm very serious. The same rule being called disgustingly resilient and whatever else isn't tying things to the lore. It's not thematic, it's not fluffy, it just complicates discussing the game for no reason.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
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.
Contains basically no fluff, other than the name.
Or...
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.
Contains the same flavor (in the form of the name Teleport Strike) and has EVEN MORE FLUFF. Now, since I wrote this flavor text, it could definitely be improved, but the general point should be clear.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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?
Ever heard of Warmahordes?
Just as many factions as 40k. 15 as of right now, and that is not even counting the subfactions via theme forces.
And guess what? It uses defined terms, keywords USRs and unique rules all in harmony. What makes 40k so special that it cannot achieve that (ignoring the fact they totally did so in 5th ed 40k...)?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Ishagu wrote: No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.
Pretty straightforward
Are you missing the point intentionally?
What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
Ishagu wrote: No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.
Pretty straightforward
Are you missing the point intentionally?
What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.
There doesn't need to be a difference. The effect can be the same but it was gained through different means in the lore, and is appropriate to the specific faction.
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.
Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 17:17:12
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.
Contains basically no fluff, other than the name.
Or...
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.
Contains the same flavor (in the form of the name Teleport Strike) and has EVEN MORE FLUFF. Now, since I wrote this flavor text, it could definitely be improved, but the general point should be clear.
Which of those is better? The one with more fluff, or less?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Ishagu wrote: No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.
Pretty straightforward
Are you missing the point intentionally?
What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.
There doesn't need to be a difference. The effect can be the same but it was gained through different means in the lore.
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.
Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army.
Flimsy. You don't need to alter specific rules that often that USR would be a huge issue and really you can just have a little flexibility by having rules like FNP (X) and altering X.
Cool. I play multiple armies so it's nice to not need to remember that "these rules sound different but aren't really". Also there's this thing called wanting to know what other armies can do so you can talk about them or teach someone you're getting into the game or just because you're interested.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
Ishagu wrote: No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.
Pretty straightforward
Are you missing the point intentionally?
What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.
There doesn't need to be a difference. The effect can be the same but it was gained through different means in the lore, and is appropriate to the specific faction.
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.
Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army.
How does using Feel no pain (x+) make it impossible to modify in the future?
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.
Contains basically no fluff, other than the name.
Or...
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.
Contains the same flavor (in the form of the name Teleport Strike) and has EVEN MORE FLUFF. Now, since I wrote this flavor text, it could definitely be improved, but the general point should be clear.
He's been asked many times yet has dodged all these posts
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ishagu wrote: No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.
Pretty straightforward
What if this was written on the datasheet instead:
Feel No Pain (5+): The desease (sic) -ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.
Is the game ruined now?
Same for this, in his mind USRs would be only the name of the rule with no parameters or description, and forcing the player to look up the rule in the book, hes being purposely obtuse and he keeps trolling
Ishagu wrote: No it really doesn't. The desease-ridden, half dead followers of Nurgle are blessed with a disgusting form of resilience.
Pretty straightforward
Are you missing the point intentionally?
What's the difference between disgustingly resilient and fanatical devotion? Nothing at all. They're two completely different sounding rules that do the same thing. It's just complicating things and unless you're trying to die on a stupidity hill or intentionally gatekeeping the hobby there's no reason to think that's good. They don't make the game fluffier they just make it harder to enjoy.
There doesn't need to be a difference. The effect can be the same but it was gained through different means in the lore, and is appropriate to the specific faction.
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.
Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army.
Go look at other game systems, hell; even older editions of 40k and see how utterly, embarrassingly wrong you are.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
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.
This has absolutely nothing to do with 7th edition. If 7th edition is your sole reference for USRs, your problem is not with USRs, but with the terrible decisions made and the incompetence of the rules team during the lifetime of that edition. Many people like Olive Garden, but most of those people have never gone to any other Italian restaurant, so have no idea what they're missing. I've said it before, and I will say it again: Read through the rulebooks of non-GW games that use USRs, and notice the difference.
This is not a matter of opinion, this is fact. USRs are necessary to avoid confusion, and ensure all players understand what the rules actually do. Standardization works best, in most cases. I have not seen anyone suggesting that there should be zero unique rules.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 17:31:57
"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.
Sorry, I guess I meant "scope"?
I didn't literally mean the scale of minis (which was honestly out-of-whack the second you had a 7" long tank sitting next to a guy who's pistol only fired 6 inches ...). What I meant was the sheer number of units. That's my bigger question. I agree that I've played plenty of games where USRs worked and I had a fun time. But without exception, those games had fewer factions, as well as fewer units per faction, so I just wonder if they would really help all that much in this case? Leaving aside the issues GW has with it's rules writing (like the tendency for bloat, etc), I feel like you don't gain much streamlining if you consolidate a bunch of super similar rules into a small, reasonable set of USRs (like many have advocated for here), you're still going to need/get a ton of bespoke rules anyway, so what do you really gain?
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..."
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?
Ever heard of Warmahordes?
Just as many factions as 40k. 15 as of right now, and that is not even counting the subfactions via theme forces.
And guess what? It uses defined terms, keywords USRs and unique rules all in harmony. What makes 40k so special that it cannot achieve that (ignoring the fact they totally did so in 5th ed 40k...)?
Warmahordes is about a quarter of 40K in terms of models. That is before considering that warmahordes units don't have variations on wargear.
It simply isn't the same scale, and yet they managed to break the system twice already.
This has absolutely nothing to do with 7th edition. If 7th edition is your sole reference for USRs, your problem is not with USRs, but with the terrible decisions made and the incompetence of the rules team during the lifetime of that edition. Many people like Olive Garden, but most of those people have never gone to any other Italian restaurant, so have no idea what they're missing. I've said it before, and I will say it again: Read through the rulebooks of non-GW games that use USRs, and notice the difference.
Warmahordes is about a quarter of 40K in terms of models. That is before considering that warmahordes units don't have variations on wargear.
It simply isn't the same scale, and yet they managed to break the system twice already.
Exalted. Thank you.
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..."
