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.

Blastaar 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.

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.

And i'm saying that it would be meaningless.
You can't compare the current bespoke system made in this conditions with an USR system made under different conditions.

The current 40K under USR rules is 7th edition. Make your comparisons from that.

Spoletta wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Tycho wrote:


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.

Yeah, no.

I really cannot be arsed to go into why you're wrong. I'll just quote this for posterity when you try to backtrack.

Bye.

Spoletta wrote:

Blastaar 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.

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.

And i'm saying that it would be meaningless.
You can't compare the current bespoke system made in this conditions with an USR system made under different conditions.

The current 40K under USR rules is 7th edition. Make your comparisons from that.

You are saying this now. As you move the goalposts, instead of being honest. By your reasoning, we can't compare 8th to 7th, either........

I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.

If the problem with 7th was having so many USRs due to the variety of units, well, putting the USRs on the datasheet would address that.

Tycho wrote:

"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?

No, I mean the same thing you mean too.

4th Edition 40k had nearly the same number of units. Baneblades, Valkyries, all the stuff people think added later was actually present in the game as early as 3rd edition. They were less common, but that's precisely my point.

In wargame design, you have to moderate your scale (or scope, if you prefer that term). If you're playing a barroom brawl game where the difference between a switchblade and a swiss-army-knife on a guy is important, then including rules for intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads is probably out of scope.

So now we come to 40k, where the difference between two different kinds of power-thingy (a power axe and a power sword for example) is important, and you also have rules for intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, and all of it is struggling to fit in scope.

This isn't a good thing. It's not a healthy game. There's too much irrelevant nonsense being crammed into too small of a design space. 4th Edition 40k had both a bigger design space and wasn't trying to incorporate the same scope. All power weapons were the same, for example, while the comparative power of flyers and superheavy tanks meant that they were rare.

 catbarf wrote:
I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.

It's like they don't even look at these other games and just disagree for the sake of it. I'm not going to count the individual units, but can say with a degree of confidence that WMH has just as many (or extremely close to) units as 40k does.

 catbarf wrote:
I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.

because it is much harder to keep the illusion that those are really different, (while if all have their unique named rules with slighlty different mechnics maes it less obvoius and you always can say that the units are similar but different and not just straight up the same)

No, I mean the same thing you mean too.

Yeah, looks like we're on the same page then. I agree scale isn't necessarily good. I'm just asking the question in light of the fact that we can't ignore that the scale issue exists if that makes sense. Totally agree that there's a lot that's crept into regular games over the years that used to be extremely rare or Apoc only, and that this isn't necessarily good. It does create a ton of weirdness. Your example of a switchblade a ICBM happening in the same battle is pretty accurate imo.

I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.

So this has been laid out a couple times in the thread, but the thread is a mess, so I'll restate that here. Speaking for just myself obviously.

I'm not saying "It can't work for a game of this size/scope". Not at all. I'm just asking the question. As an example, 5th ed is often held up as one of the best examples of "how well" USRs can work for 40k. And this is where my question comes into play. So much of that edition became so "samey", so bland, so basically boring by half-way through the edition, it started to drop off in a lot of places. Most of the better books from that era ended up being ones that used a ton of bespoke rules to help differentiate the units further. So that's my question - the game has generally only gotten bigger. So how do you "streamline" with a set of reasonable USRS (because again, I haven't seen anyone argue that 20+ pages of USRs is the way to go), while still differentiating factions/units to maintain their unique flavor. Personally, I think you end up with a ton of new bespoke rules that ends up defeating the purpose of the USRs to begin with, but I'm more just asking the question rather than trying to make a strong argument in either direction.

I think it's actually been a pretty decent thread in spots. Some good arguments on both sides. Previously, most of the time when I've seen this debate pop-up here it's been "BESPOKE RULZE R STOOPID! WHY ARE THEIR RULES ON MY DATA CARD!?", so it's been interesting seeing some thought behind the stances.

 Ishagu wrote:
@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.

So you don't want USRs because you think they ruined 7th edition but you're basically calling for the return of formations. Okie dokey.

And as I've pointed out to you before, cultists were meant for Alpha Legion. Not Iron Warriors or any other legion.

Tycho wrote:
So that's my question - the game has generally only gotten bigger. So how do you "streamline" with a set of reasonable USR

the game got bigger because there are a lot of duplicates in the units
that is why meta chasing and mathhammer are a thing, you have several units that do the same job on the table, one is always doing it better while the others are just there to add flavour

without removing identical units you cannot streamline 40k, and USR won't change that but making it more obvious

what USR can do is to make it easier to handle identical rules without removing streamlining

why do people still use the term "deep strike" or "feel no pain" as if they were a USR? those rules do not exist any more and everyone who starts new will aks you why you call the rules from his unity by a name that is not on the datasheet.

people do it because it is easier, and the next step would be to use the same wording/text for all those rules

Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.

It's like they don't even look at these other games and just disagree for the sake of it. I'm not going to count the individual units, but can say with a degree of confidence that WMH has just as many (or extremely close to) units as 40k does.

I just looked at the Warmahordes rule book that you linked. They are doing the exact same thing GW did. Special USR emblem on the bottom of the model card - in the USRs Gunslinger is a special rule.

Is the special rule for Gunslinger on pg. 17 with the rest of the special rules? Of course its not. Its on a different page - fortunately they tell you the different page next to Gunslinger. But why even list it in the USR section if you are going to make me go to a different portion of the book to find it?

You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
@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.

So you don't want USRs because you think they ruined 7th edition but you're basically calling for the return of formations. Okie dokey.

And as I've pointed out to you before, cultists were meant for Alpha Legion. Not Iron Warriors or any other legion.

Iron warriors would disagree with you, afterall someone needs to man the trenches.

as for the "formations" wish, are you surprised?

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.

Martel is being overly aggressive about it for sure but his opinion is a correct one IMO.
I only play at the LGS level and there is only one player i know ahs a tendency to invent rules when palying against people that are less knowledgable of the game.
All the others are only looking for a fair game and we trust each other that we wont cheat.

With that in mind, it happens that some of us use rules incorrectly by accident. Many of these are from rules that fit in the "the same but not really". Best example of that is the reroll all vs reroll failed.
A friend and i both play Admech and we were used to the belisarius reroll (any hit). My friend started a pre-codex 2.0 space marine list and was playing his chapter masters as if they were the same reroll. We found out after the game that it wasnt the case and even if it probably wouldnt have changed the outcome of the game, having a better rules foundation would have fixed the issue. Thats what (i think) can be extrapolated from Martel's comment so that it applies to every player.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Tycho wrote:


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.

Yeah, no.

I really cannot be arsed to go into why you're wrong. I'll just quote this for posterity when you try to backtrack.

Bye.

Quoted

Now you can't go back up either when you realize how wrong you are


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Blastaar 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.

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.

And i'm saying that it would be meaningless.
You can't compare the current bespoke system made in this conditions with an USR system made under different conditions.

The current 40K under USR rules is 7th edition. Make your comparisons from that.

You are saying this now. As you move the goalposts, instead of being honest. By your reasoning, we can't compare 8th to 7th, either........

You can't move something that isn't there. Never had a goal in this, both systems are fine for me.

I do happen to like 8th quite a bit more than 7th though, and that's all i need to know.

You talk about rule confusion, but 7th (for me) had much more of that than 8th.

You talk about rule confusion, but 7th (for me) had much more of that than 8th.

Yeah, if you talk to tournament organizers who were active in both editions, you'll generally find that they need fewer judges per/player in 8th, and that the judges they do have tend to get far fewer questions.

IMO regardless of where you stand on USRs, 7th was a complete disaster, and likely would have been with or without said USRs. It serves as a cautionary tale more than anything else...

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?

So Angels of Death is spelled out on the datasheet now? What about Codex Discipline? What about what FLY does?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I haven't heard any explanation for why having more models in a product range makes USRs less usable.

It's like they don't even look at these other games and just disagree for the sake of it. I'm not going to count the individual units, but can say with a degree of confidence that WMH has just as many (or extremely close to) units as 40k does.

I just looked at the Warmahordes rule book that you linked. They are doing the exact same thing GW did. Special USR emblem on the bottom of the model card - in the USRs Gunslinger is a special rule.

Is the special rule for Gunslinger on pg. 17 with the rest of the special rules? Of course its not. Its on a different page - fortunately they tell you the different page next to Gunslinger. But why even list it in the USR section if you are going to make me go to a different portion of the book to find it?

You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?

If only they had some kind of app that would take you directly to the rule in question in the rulebook by simply clicking on the icon on the unit's card...

Oh wait, they do have that as it is 2020. GW have a similar feature in their digital codexes so having to hop from page to page (oh, the horror!) is not an issue.

Tycho wrote:
So this has been laid out a couple times in the thread, but the thread is a mess, so I'll restate that here. Speaking for just myself obviously.

I'm not saying "It can't work for a game of this size/scope". Not at all. I'm just asking the question. As an example, 5th ed is often held up as one of the best examples of "how well" USRs can work for 40k. And this is where my question comes into play. So much of that edition became so "samey", so bland, so basically boring by half-way through the edition, it started to drop off in a lot of places. Most of the better books from that era ended up being ones that used a ton of bespoke rules to help differentiate the units further. So that's my question - the game has generally only gotten bigger. So how do you "streamline" with a set of reasonable USRS (because again, I haven't seen anyone argue that 20+ pages of USRs is the way to go), while still differentiating factions/units to maintain their unique flavor. Personally, I think you end up with a ton of new bespoke rules that ends up defeating the purpose of the USRs to begin with, but I'm more just asking the question rather than trying to make a strong argument in either direction.

So I get that. You're concerned that either the game moves to USRs and the list gets pared back such that there's no longer variety and flavor and it becomes bland, or that everything is maintained as USRs and we wind up with 100+ USRs and it becomes an un-learnable, convoluted mess.

But what I and others have suggested is neither. I think I wrote this up on a previous page, but I think I'll restate what I would consider optimal:

-Where there are rules that are identical or variations on the same core (eg Deep Strike), give them all the same name and consistent wording. If there are variables (like, this unit can Deep Strike 6" away instead of 9"), that can be a special rule for the unit. This would help to highlight what's mechanically different about it, rather than having to recognize the nuance.

-Where there are rules that are technically different but do largely the same thing, align them to have consistent effects and turn them into USRs. I don't think the difference between 're-roll any' or 're-roll fails' really adds flavor to the game, and I don't understand why Imperial plasma can be modified to explode more or less often but Ork plasma always explodes on an unmodified 1. The distinctions between these rules don't add flavor; they're just inconsistent and inexplicable, so aligning them under consistent USRs would make them easier to learn, understand, and remember.

-Where there are rules that are actually unique to specific armies or units, keep them as unique special rules.

-Where there already are USRs (eg Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, Objective Secured, Fly), give them consistent names and then leave them alone.

Like, I feel like a lot of the anti-USR arguments in this thread are assuming that you can only pick one of the above approaches and apply it to every single rule in the game. I don't believe that's the case. I just want to see identical rules have the same name, functionally-identical rules be made actually identical so we stop having to play hunt-the-nuance, and truly special rules should be left alone. Nothing there implies sucking the flavor out of the factions; unless you really, sincerely believe that giving Orks 're-roll either die when charging' and Behemoth 're-roll both dice or neither when charging' is necessary to distinguish them from one another. If you feel that the names of special rules give them flavor, I would be completely fine with seeing an ability written like:

Teleport Insertion: insert fluff text for teleport deployment here.
Deep Strike- [insert rules text for Deep Strike here].

I just don't see why some are treating this like such an unreasonable request. Even just the fact that we casually use terms like Deep Strike and Feel No Pain here shows how useful it is to have consistent, universal language.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?

So Angels of Death is spelled out on the datasheet now? What about Codex Discipline? What about what FLY does?

No clue what you're talking about? I asked a question and you answered my question with three questions.

So are you arguing for USRs in the MRB or for more details to be on a unit card?

 Grimtuff wrote:

If only they had some kind of app that would take you directly to the rule in question in the rulebook by simply clicking on the icon on the unit's card...

Oh wait, they do have that as it is 2020. GW have a similar feature in their digital codexes so having to hop from page to page (oh, the horror!) is not an issue.

Yeah definitely never using my phone to play a table top game.

So you don't think having everything easily accessible on one page is a good idea?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
You honestly think this is easier and more efficient than just having a data sheet that has every special rule listed for that unit in one place?

So Angels of Death is spelled out on the datasheet now? What about Codex Discipline? What about what FLY does?

No clue what you're talking about? I asked a question and you answered my question with three questions.

So are you arguing for USRs in the MRB or for more details to be on a unit card?

You claimed that having to look at a different page to see what a rule does is bad and evil, I showed that this happens in 8th already. Thus, implementing USRs that consolidate things that are common to almost all (if not all) armies, such as Deep Strike, Ignore Wounds, etc. won't change anything for the worse, and will change things for the better.

Can you imagine if Combat Doctrines was spelled out on every single datasheet? Even GW realised that the "All rules on the datasheet" fiction is just that, fiction.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
@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.

So you don't want USRs because you think they ruined 7th edition but you're basically calling for the return of formations. Okie dokey.

And as I've pointed out to you before, cultists were meant for Alpha Legion. Not Iron Warriors or any other legion.

Iron warriors would disagree with you, afterall someone needs to man the trenches.

I've played Iron Warriors for many editions, not until 8E with its Fearless bubble warlord trait have cultists particularly associated with Iron Warriors, and that's mainly a reflection of metagame mechanics more than actual fluff. Prior to that, Iron Warrior's have never really especially been known for employing mortal human forces that I can recall, the only mention I can remember being Dead Sky Black Sun, where they're far more equivalent to Imperial Guard forces (and are described as having uniforms and the like if I'm remembering correctly) than anything resembling Cultists, and only really appear present on Medrengard among the constant infighting of that world, not accompanying the Iron Warriors on campaign at places like Hydra Cordatus in the book Storm of Iron (featuring many of the same characters as DSBS) or other such battles IIRC.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

You claimed that having to look at a different page to see what a rule does is bad and evil, I showed that this happens in 8th already. Thus, implementing USRs that consolidate things that are common to almost all (if not all) armies, such as Deep Strike, Ignore Wounds, etc. won't change anything for the worse, and will change things for the better.

Can you imagine if Combat Doctrines was spelled out on every single datasheet? Even GW realised that the "All rules on the datasheet" fiction is just that, fiction.

I made zero claims that they are bad or evil. I asked if it was easier and more efficient to dig through a rule book or look at the individual rules on the data sheet.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.

They don't openly lie or cheat. They "misinterpret" or "forget". Or interpret GW's crappy rules in their favor. I'd have to do this with anyone the way GW writes rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.

Martel is being overly aggressive about it for sure but his opinion is a correct one IMO.
I only play at the LGS level and there is only one player i know ahs a tendency to invent rules when palying against people that are less knowledgable of the game.
All the others are only looking for a fair game and we trust each other that we wont cheat.

With that in mind, it happens that some of us use rules incorrectly by accident. Many of these are from rules that fit in the "the same but not really". Best example of that is the reroll all vs reroll failed.
A friend and i both play Admech and we were used to the belisarius reroll (any hit). My friend started a pre-codex 2.0 space marine list and was playing his chapter masters as if they were the same reroll. We found out after the game that it wasnt the case and even if it probably wouldnt have changed the outcome of the game, having a better rules foundation would have fixed the issue. Thats what (i think) can be extrapolated from Martel's comment so that it applies to every player.

I was only being aggressive towards Ishagu. He's the exact kind of player who will both legitimately misunderstand AND read something his way. Two problems to watch out for. Part of it is that I've been fighting this since 2nd ed. "What is XXXX mean? Does it mean Y? Does it mean Z? Does it mean something that we aren't even considering?"

It is funny that earlier in the thread I was essentially accused of being resistant to change. Getting rid of USRs was part of the big change to 8th Edition, so maybe its the other way around? In any case, there is no right or wrong here. The game developers made a bold decision, and appear to have been successful. Doesn't make USRs "wrong", but the 8th Edition method has to be considered successful and a valid design choice.

If I want to play Warmachine I will play Warmachine - to each his own.

I think its hard to argue against the success of 8th Edition's shift to accessibility. Its on top of the heap with new and returning players. Slim core rules and your Codex - away you go. You learn your Faction Rules that apply to all your units- you are only taking on the rules load for your faction. You then look at the datasheets for the rules that specifically apply to the units that you are fielding - again the rules load is focused on what you are bringing in terms of units. The toughest part, I suppose, of the rules for each faction are the Stratagems. Still, you are focused on learning the rules for your dudes and not the whole enchilada so to speak. A new player can play Open Play with just what's on their card with a slimmer core rules than he would face with USRs. I've been playing Advanced Song of Blades of Heroes - cute game but the USRs are crippling to the experience.

The lore-text for units that arrive mid-battle and other common abilities is fun and harmless - I've never encountered confusion. Your USRs are there - they are implicit and not an explicit annex in the rules. Its a new way of designing rules, and it would seem that the two most successful games employ this new (old) method.

I could see players who want to play multiple factions without having the Codexes being a little frustrated with the lack of USRs. I play three factions and have the Codexes for all three plus their supplements (well, for two of them). If I suddenly wanted to play Genestealer Cults I think its reasonable that I would buy the Codex and read it before playing. Just because the game is more accessible doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn when you decide to play a new faction. Its part of the fun for me.

I know that some will reject all this - thats cool. I'll keep on playing 40K (when we can get back to playing). Unless some folks here are GW Game Developers I guess this is all academic.

"8th made money so the rules must be good" is a complete fallacy. 8th made money because GW finally realised how to market and advertise and pump out shovelware video games, thus exposing people to the brand, and literally ANYTHING would have been better than 7th.

Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem.

Why? I mean, that's such a random assumption!
7th was still kirby-land. That makes a huge difference with 8th.
Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?

 Ishagu wrote:
Also because the rule has a different name it can be modified or changed in future for one faction without affecting another.

If the rule has the same name, you can always tweak the datasheet to replace the rule on one datasheet and not the other.
Also, could you please explain the interaction between quicksilver swiftness and belt of russ please?

Tycho wrote:

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?

This is backwards. The fact that 40K has more units available than every other game out there is a reason to have USRs... because with a wider range of units, all with their own special snowflake rules, you just wind up with an exponentially larger number of rules that you need to learn to play the game.

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.

That was never a complaint about 2nd ed, from my experience. The only supplemental material you needed (or that even existed, unless you counted the Citadel Journal, which nobody used) was Dark Millenium, and the FAQs that were printed in White Dwarf. And even there, most of the FAQs weren't strictly necessary, just for clarification purposes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Lastly the rules are for different factions, so there is no reason for confusion. Know the rules that apply to your army."

Except I have to know them, too. To make sure that you do.

Sounds more like you need to find better people to play with if people are willing to lie/cheat to win a game of toy soilders and it means so much to you that you feel the need to call them out about it in such confrontational language maybe you need to re-evaluate why your even tryibg to take part in this hobby, it's suppos2d to be fun.

It's not just about trusting your opponent, though, it's about knowing the rules well enough to actually play the game. It's bloody frustrating trying to play against an army with a bunch of special rules you're not familiar with. It's an awful lot easier to learn those special rules when they're included in a concise list in the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
7th edition is the best example we have of how 40K would be with an USR sytem. .

It really, really isn't. 7th edition was a mess. 5th edition would be, IMO, the best example of 40K using a USR system.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It is funny that earlier in the thread I was essentially accused of being resistant to change. Getting rid of USRs was part of the big change to 8th Edition, so maybe its the other way around? In any case, there is no right or wrong here. The game developers made a bold decision, and appear to have been successful. Doesn't make USRs "wrong", but the 8th Edition method has to be considered successful and a valid design choice.

If I want to play Warmachine I will play Warmachine - to each his own.

I think its hard to argue against the success of 8th Edition's shift to accessibility. Its on top of the heap with new and returning players. Slim core rules and your Codex - away you go. You learn your Faction Rules that apply to all your units- you are only taking on the rules load for your faction. You then look at the datasheets for the rules that specifically apply to the units that you are fielding - again the rules load is focused on what you are bringing in terms of units. The toughest part, I suppose, of the rules for each faction are the Stratagems. Still, you are focused on learning the rules for your dudes and not the whole enchilada so to speak. A new player can play Open Play with just what's on their card with a slimmer core rules than he would face with USRs. I've been playing Advanced Song of Blades of Heroes - cute game but the USRs are crippling to the experience.

The lore-text for units that arrive mid-battle and other common abilities is fun and harmless - I've never encountered confusion. Your USRs are there - they are implicit and not an explicit annex in the rules. Its a new way of designing rules, and it would seem that the two most successful games employ this new (old) method.

I could see players who want to play multiple factions without having the Codexes being a little frustrated with the lack of USRs. I play three factions and have the Codexes for all three plus their supplements (well, for two of them). If I suddenly wanted to play Genestealer Cults I think its reasonable that I would buy the Codex and read it before playing. Just because the game is more accessible doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn when you decide to play a new faction. Its part of the fun for me.

I know that some will reject all this - thats cool. I'll keep on playing 40K (when we can get back to playing). Unless some folks here are GW Game Developers I guess this is all academic.

I would hesitate to attribute 8E's success to anything related to this particular issue.

6E and 7E made zero attempt at game balance (yeah slap D weapons on that Wraithknight, no don't increase the cost!) with zero Errata and minimal FAQ, coupled with rules source bloat and literal pay-to-win rules (hello web-exclusive skyhammer elimination formation tied to online sales bundles) with atrocious issues of execution of otherwise sound ideas, and vehicle mechanics that fundamentally didn't function well, alongside a Games Workshop that was actively and intentionally disconnected from the playerbase. GW has turned a corner on many of these things, and while 8E has many problems, GW did make great strides in improving in these areas, but I don't think the idea of USR's vs Bespoke rules really has anything to do with 8E's success either way.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Really, why should 7th represent "40k with USR" better than 5th?

Because 7th is the boogyman that some people like to break out whenever you challenge that 8th has problems. It's easy to prop up 8th and "the new GW" when you have 7th to punch on and demonize. If it was a 7th thing then it must be bad despite there being a lot of good potential in the edition (a lot of it the foundation established with 4th and 5th edition). It just got destroyed by a lot of rampant power creep sales tactics and reckless rules writing (a lot of which is still happening in 8th).

That being said I still believe 7th is still a better edition than 8th when it comes to having fun gameplay mechanics and enjoyable games. 8th is dreadfully boring and rapidly becoming the sort of bloated mess than people rag on 7th about.