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.

Dudeface wrote:
I mean aren't you instead pulling out the rulebook to check the wording of the USR after having pulled out the Codex to check the unity entry this way round, it's less words but more actual book checking unless you memorise them all?

The obvious answer is print it as a USR and have that relevant rule in full on the unit, or reprinted in the codex.

In most games you have the USR definitions, or at least summaries thereof, somewhere in your set of quick-reference materials. Either the ones relevant to your army are on your printed army quick-reference sheet (the one with all your stats, abilities, and equipment for your army), or they're on the back of the unit card, or they're somewhere on the game's core rules quick reference sheet(s).

So if you just need to know what abilities a unit has, they're on your army reference sheet or unit stat card along with the statlines and equipment for that unit. If you need to know what those abilities do, you have a summary somewhere on hand in your reference material. If you need the full legalistic definition that covers edge cases and resolves all ambiguity, then you crack open a rulebook. The amount of effort you need to spend to get an answer scales, and most of the time you'll just glance at a unit sheet, see a couple of standardized keywords, and that's all you need. You memorize the USRs the same way you've already memorized what 'deep strike' and 'feel no pain' mean, you just see standardized/recognizable terminology at a glance, and don't get caught out by edge cases when GW decides that this unit's deep strike works very slightly differently from everyone else's.

The current approach of fully-written-out abilities that only appear in codex entries, codices and rulebook not laid out in a manner conducive to in-game reference, and a total lack of play aids is making zero effort to be a playable system. The current expectation is that you do need to memorize basically everything or rely on an app, because playing the game with your codex open as you flip back and forth between unit entries and stratagem lists and the wargear stats gets old real quickly.

Also, for a game like Magic, all the rules are available online. So you can google "MtG Trample" and find out what it does with ease.

The Gatherer site is really good, including relevant rulings beneath the card's full description.

I don't mind having USRs if it codifies the rules writing. I, however, would not want GW to skimp on the datasheet text in favor of a single word USR. I still have bad memories of the USR system from 6th and 7th where you had to keep the core rulebook with you and the relevant pages tabbed because a Blood Angel has a slightly different rule from another.

So when an experienced player sees "Resilience(1)" they will go "ah of course", but then there would be extra text for the beginners that explained on the datasheet what resilience does.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, for a game like Magic, all the rules are available online. So you can google "MtG Trample" and find out what it does with ease.

The Gatherer site is really good, including relevant rulings beneath the card's full description.

That brings up an interesting idea. With Wahapedia, actually "having" a physical codex present with you for a game is now redundant, correct? Yes, yes, pirates and scalywags, yada yada yada. But honestly if GW purchased and ran something like this, and made a digital repository of all rules and stats, wouldn't that solve "Bloat"? You no longer need 7 books, you just need the website.

Dudeface wrote:
The obvious answer is print it as a USR and have that relevant rule in full on the unit, or reprinted in the codex.

Reprinting USRs on unit entries defeats the purpose of USRs, but yes, you would literally have a USR section in each Codex, and it wouldn't change from book to book.

Again, I'm sorry but I just don't see it.

I've never had someone go but what does "Wraithbone Form" mean? What does "Armoured Exoskeleton" mean?

You read the datasheet once, go "okay this unit has -1 damage" and move on. I don't find that complicated. Its not rendered less complicated by just having Unnatural Resilience as an ability - that you either need to know or look up.

Yes, I'm sure a lot of the basic rules across the game could be turned into USRs. But every time this comes up we go through and find there just aren't that many of them - and they aren't the ones players have problems with. Yes there are many rules that could just be turned into deep strike. Or infiltrate. Or FNP. Or even things like reroll 1s to hit or to wound, exploding 6s to hit, no rerolls and so on. The community tends to give these abilities names based on the first time we see them or most common occurance.

I feel complexity comes from things stacking - i.e. Ad Mech which can have up to half a dozen rules effecting how you unit shoots. Making it so that unit would be acting under 6 keywords doesn't change that computation. You need to know the rules - and keep track of whether they are in effect. Or you have rules - typically the purity bonuses, but also things like stratagems etc - which are just not intuitive and so anyone not playing frequently has to check and read and possibly debate whether they are understanding it correctly and should use it now or later etc.

I don't want to go back to a system of Zealot and Crusader, Furious Charge and Hammer of Wrath, Relentless and Slow and Purposeful or say Rage and Rampage.

I don't disagree that a system of USRs can work. Lets pick something like Bolt Action (which is a game I don't know as well as 40k, but know a bit). That's a USR driven ruleset. But +/- it works because infantry are 3 types of infantry - and vehicles are also sort of grouped up, as are largely the weapons. I'm simplifying it a bit but it doesn't have a 1000 (or whatever the total is) units, and maybe 1000 different weapon profiles that all sort of want to be bespoke as 40k does.

Now you can say "yeah, that's the problem" - but I don't see GW changing that.
Adding say "Deepstrike" as a keyword and putting on the units which effectively have that rule may make the game a bit cleaner - but that wouldn't change the issues people who find 9th too complicated have. Or at least I don't think so anyway.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The obvious answer is print it as a USR and have that relevant rule in full on the unit, or reprinted in the codex.

Reprinting USRs on unit entries defeats the purpose of USRs

no it doesn't, writing the rules in full on the datasheet ON TOP of the name of the USR is the best way for players to learn them


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

You read the datasheet once, go "okay this unit has -1 damage" and move on. I don't find that complicated. Its not rendered less complicated by just having Unnatural Resilience as an ability - that you either need to know or look up.
.

it works with -1 damage because its simple, the complaint people have is with more complex abilities that are almost the same between codexes.

Tell me, what is the difference between the Lychguard "bodyguard" rule and the Victrix honor guard "bodyguard" rule.
Tell me, what is the difference between the explosion of a killa kan a kataphron destroyer and a land speeder

etc.

Having properly setup USRs (like other wargames do) will simply make the game more easily parseable for players. You somehow pushing back AGAINST that is truly baffling

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
no it doesn't, writing the rules in full on the datasheet ON TOP of the name of the USR is the best way for players to learn them

It creates more opportunities for errors and more opportunities for undisciplined changes.

Universal Rules should be kept central in a single part of any given book.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The obvious answer is print it as a USR and have that relevant rule in full on the unit, or reprinted in the codex.

Reprinting USRs on unit entries defeats the purpose of USRs

no it doesn't, writing the rules in full on the datasheet ON TOP of the name of the USR is the best way for players to learn them

Why should they do it, if they are writen in full. There is zero entice for them to do it. On the other hang carrying 1 less book, and being able to understand your opponents data sheet without having to crack the rule book and go USR by USR, very much is an entice to learn the rules fast. Even more so, if your inability to learn them, means fewer or no players want to play against you.

It is like with everything. You see something or someone shows you how it is done, and then it is up to you to memorise it. If coach is going to come and go through all the movement over and over again, you will not only not learn them properly, but also you will not invent anything yourself. So in w40k terms, if someone gets used to reading the rules in full, then telling them it is a ++4 or it works like Deep Strike, will again create slow down moments when you have to explain someone stuff again or even worse read it to them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
no it doesn't, writing the rules in full on the datasheet ON TOP of the name of the USR is the best way for players to learn them

It creates more opportunities for errors and more opportunities for undisciplined changes.

Universal Rules should be kept central in a single part of any given book.

USRs should be both written out in the book and in the datasheet, just like that :



so you see at a glance what the USRs are once you have learned them. (that obviously requires the company that produces these makes it clear what the most up to date version is.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:


So in w40k terms, if someone gets used to reading the rules in full, then telling them it is a ++4 or it works like Deep Strike, will again create slow down moments when you have to explain someone stuff again or even worse read it to them.

"So my unit has teleport strike, which means that During deployment, if every model in this unit has this ability, then you can set up this unit in a teleportarium chamber instead of setting it up on the battlefield. If you do, then in the Reinforcements step of one of your Movement phases you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models."

vs :

"So my unit has deepstrike"

yeah, clearly the second option creates a slow down moment (hint, if we already say "its has deepstrike", it means its already an USR, its just that GW didnt get the memo)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
USRs should be both written out in the book and in the datasheet, just like that :

Spoiler:

How many books does this game have? I'm unfamiliar with the methods in which it presents its rules?

Either way, I continue to disagree completely.

The point of universal rules is so that they're not repeated over and over again across the same book.

A Melta weapon should just have "Melta" in its rules. You shouldn't reprint the Melta rules every time a Melta weapon appears on a unit card.

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
it's less words but more actual book checking unless you memorise them all?

Condensing the content to the point where you can easily memorize it all is the entire point of the universal special rules.

yeah, its mind numbing seeing all the people trying to somehow prove that USRs are a bad thing. Theres a reason pretty much all games use them.

Try playing a game of MTG where every keyword is written in full (and some differences are added between cards, just because) and i swear the game will be super painful.

GW introduced lawyer-speech in their rules because they couldnt be assed to have a solid framework.

I won't argue that USR's aren't a good thing, it's a reason we refer to FNP saves etc even now. But I don't see the harm in them being reprinted where useful. The entire shift to data cards now are so the players (in theory) have all the relevant stuff for their army in one place/book, which I don't see as anything to be negative towards.

And yet not all units even have thier options detailed.
See WE terminators.
To find out what any of thier optional gear does do you simply look down thier sheet?
NO! You flip to the back of the book.
Why? Because they geniuses decided to waste 1/2 a oages worth of space on a giant picture of the trrmies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The obvious answer is print it as a USR and have that relevant rule in full on the unit, or reprinted in the codex.

Reprinting USRs on unit entries defeats the purpose of USRs, but yes, you would literally have a USR section in each Codex, and it wouldn't change from book to book.

The benefit to USRs is clearing up communication between players, there is no benefit to small datasheets, how would VladimirHerzog's IG11 become better without the reminder text? If you need to look up whether your unit has Deep Strike, you probably also need to know what Deep Strike does. I'd be willing to extend this to FLY, having maybe 10 of these USR that go in the core rules I think you could get away with, but I don't think having 10 is better than having 1 and I know having more than 30 abilities in codexes without those rules being in the codexes which use them and only in the core rules is awful. At least reprinting the rule in the codex is the minimal effort to make a codex halfway worth it and GW shouldn't be errataing FLY and Deep Strike every 6 months. The game is already being updated with a new edition every 3 years, that's often enough to change shared abilities.

If you don't want to print all the relevant weapons and special rules on each datasheet then maybe the datasheet model isn't right for you, I'm trying out a model which just skips that part so you have unit entries with what the unit is equipped with and can replace their wargear with, but no rules you need outside list building. Then a unit statblock with all the associated abilities listed. Then the rules for every ability that units in the codex have is listed in alphabetical order. Then wargear. Then the rules for the abilities of the wargear. Text is repeated as little as possible and you can fit the codex on hardware from 1980. The downside is that trying to get a handle on points-efficiency without having the rules next to the points is a pain. The second problem is that the codex is a lot harder to use until you have memorized how all the abilities in the codex work. The datasheets, with USRs printed in full on every datasheet model is the most beginner-friendly option.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I don't mind having USRs if it codifies the rules writing. I, however, would not want GW to skimp on the datasheet text in favor of a single word USR. I still have bad memories of the USR system from 6th and 7th where you had to keep the core rulebook with you and the relevant pages tabbed because a Blood Angel has a slightly different rule from another.

USR's are actually what exist to prevent "blood angels having slightly different rule from another".

It's when you have dataspecific rules you get those. There's no quarantee anymore that bolter in the hand of a tactical marine is same as bolter in hand of a devastator.

there are 2 different things here, USRs and what GW is doing with USRs

USRs are good, it does not matter if they are in each Datasheet or not, those are names for simple universal rules that people who play for a while will remember
no need to write in each datasheet what Fly is doing

What GW has done in the past is something different as they like to mix in fluff text with rules and name rules according to fluff different for each faction
hence re-printing the USR on each datasheet will result in different names with the same text and different text with the same wording
they were not able to just copy&paste USR text in the past and doubt the will be able to do it now

Except what we have now is not USR. As there's rules that are almost but not quite the same it's not by definition USR.

What we got is what players wanted pre-8th. Bespoke rules. So now we have no right to even expect rules to be same because whole point of bespoke rules is rules can differ...

Well players got what they wanted.

Prediction for 10th: It will last approximately three years and people will still be having this exact same argument in the "predictions for 11th" thread in 2026.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Either way, I continue to disagree completely.

The point of universal rules is so that they're not repeated over and over again across the same book.

A Melta weapon should just have "Melta" in its rules. You shouldn't reprint the Melta rules every time a Melta weapon appears on a unit card.

Meet in the middle? The BRB has two pages of USRs over the two pages of the book after the index; for arguments sake let's say that there's 20 USRs.

Then your datasheet has the relevant USRs on them. Let's say this particular unit has Deep Strike, Melta and Resilient 1 (Resilient being a reduce damage by x rule) printed on it.

Then the codex has the same two pages from the BRB with the USRs at the back of the book. Even if this army doesn't use USRs x or y, they're printed in the back for convenience.

So datasheets have less clutter, but you know exactly where all of your USRs are and can literally just flip whatever book you have with you to its last pages for reference.

I like that during this discourse the issue of GWs codex formatting hasn't been mentioned. I can't be the only person that's noticed that the back cover summery page(s) got removed or that there is no clear delineation between where one unit type ends and another starts or that units aren't organised by alphabetical order within their categories?
Someone mentioned having to have the core rule book next to you with a tab on the USR section like it was a bad thing but I much prefer that over flipping around 20 pages of badly organised unit entries to find a single sentence.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I like that during this discourse the issue of GWs codex formatting hasn't been mentioned. I can't be the only person that's noticed that the back cover summery page(s) got removed or that there is no clear delineation between where one unit type ends and another starts or that units aren't organised by alphabetical order within their categories?
Someone mentioned having to have the core rule book next to you with a tab on the USR section like it was a bad thing but I much prefer that over flipping around 20 pages of badly organised unit entries to find a single sentence.

It's as if GW lacks an editor to go over formating and writing.

But that is honestly nothing new.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I like that during this discourse the issue of GWs codex formatting hasn't been mentioned. I can't be the only person that's noticed that the back cover summery page(s) got removed or that there is no clear delineation between where one unit type ends and another starts or that units aren't organised by alphabetical order within their categories?
Someone mentioned having to have the core rule book next to you with a tab on the USR section like it was a bad thing but I much prefer that over flipping around 20 pages of badly organised unit entries to find a single sentence.

It's as if GW lacks an editor to go over formating and writing.

But that is honestly nothing new.

They have at least three distinct problems in this regard:

- they wildly change codex design for no apparent reason and without unifying design guidelines
- they make no clear distinction between 'fluff' writers and 'technical' writers
- they lack editing and oversight over what is written

The combination of these leads to convoluted rules, rules that are all over the place, unorganized volumes, rules that should work the same not doing so because of differences and ambiguities in writing, rules working differentely than the writers intended, a high numbers of 'misprints' or omissions, day 0 FAQs and so on.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Prediction for 10th: It will last approximately three years and people will still be having this exact same argument in the "predictions for 11th" thread in 2026.

As game is so simple it doesn't take time to master it got to spend time some other way around

Tsagualsa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I like that during this discourse the issue of GWs codex formatting hasn't been mentioned. I can't be the only person that's noticed that the back cover summery page(s) got removed or that there is no clear delineation between where one unit type ends and another starts or that units aren't organised by alphabetical order within their categories?
Someone mentioned having to have the core rule book next to you with a tab on the USR section like it was a bad thing but I much prefer that over flipping around 20 pages of badly organised unit entries to find a single sentence.

It's as if GW lacks an editor to go over formating and writing.

But that is honestly nothing new.

They have at least three distinct problems in this regard:

- they wildly change codex design for no apparent reason and without unifying design guidelines
- they make no clear distinction between 'fluff' writers and 'technical' writers
- they lack editing and oversight over what is written

The combination of these leads to convoluted rules, rules that are all over the place, unorganized volumes, rules that should work the same not doing so because of differences and ambiguities in writing, rules working differentely than the writers intended, a high numbers of 'misprints' or omissions, day 0 FAQs and so on.

And all of those would be resolved by an editor going over and asigning tasks aswell as organising propperly the wirters with their task aswell as firstly being able to create a basis ruleset aswell as an USR set that is adaptable for all factions.

Hence why 30k is in that regard a superior ruleset, because it has or atleast looks to have had that unified basegame vision for the ruleset.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
USRs should be both written out in the book and in the datasheet, just like that :

Spoiler:

How many books does this game have? I'm unfamiliar with the methods in which it presents its rules?

Legion has, as far as I know, just one small rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I don't mind having USRs if it codifies the rules writing. I, however, would not want GW to skimp on the datasheet text in favor of a single word USR. I still have bad memories of the USR system from 6th and 7th where you had to keep the core rulebook with you and the relevant pages tabbed because a Blood Angel has a slightly different rule from another.

USR's are actually what exist to prevent "blood angels having slightly different rule from another".

It's when you have dataspecific rules you get those. There's no quarantee anymore that bolter in the hand of a tactical marine is same as bolter in hand of a devastator.

USRs in GW games prevent nothing. It's why I mention 6th and 7th.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
USRs should be both written out in the book and in the datasheet, just like that :

Spoiler:

How many books does this game have? I'm unfamiliar with the methods in which it presents its rules?

Legion has, as far as I know, just one small rulebook.

it is ~58 pages with ~17 being keywords/USR
this is more a regular sized rulebook

tneva82 wrote:
Well players got what they wanted.

players wanted less bloat as well
thing is, players always say they want a less complex ruleset with "fluffy" bespoke rules

yet what most mean is less complicated and more clear rules were units act on the table according to the background (and not the opposite)

 kodos wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
USRs should be both written out in the book and in the datasheet, just like that :

Spoiler:

How many books does this game have? I'm unfamiliar with the methods in which it presents its rules?

Legion has, as far as I know, just one small rulebook.

it is ~58 pages with ~17 being keywords/USR
this is more a regular sized rulebook

tneva82 wrote:
Well players got what they wanted.

players wanted less bloat as well
thing is, players always say they want a less complex ruleset with "fluffy" bespoke rules

yet what most mean is less complicated and more clear rules were units act on the table according to the background (and not the opposite)

People got a skewed perception of how large 'regular' rulebooks need to be from GW's tomes

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
USRs should be both written out in the book and in the datasheet, just like that :

Spoiler:

How many books does this game have? I'm unfamiliar with the methods in which it presents its rules?

Either way, I continue to disagree completely.

The point of universal rules is so that they're not repeated over and over again across the same book.

A Melta weapon should just have "Melta" in its rules. You shouldn't reprint the Melta rules every time a Melta weapon appears on a unit card.

The Core Rules (free on Atomic Mass Game's Site) Have a glossary in the back, but all units and thier wargear is on card. Unit cards (which is in the picture) and wargear/unit/skill cards (much smaller, almost like mini playing cards in size) both have the special rules listed on them and is the only way to get a particular units stats. There's no codexes, but every box of models has the relevant unit card and the (in theory) most common upgrades. Clone troopers for example, contain: the Phase 1 Trooper unit card, 4 troopers, the upgrade cards for an extra trooper, a Gatling gun trooper, and a rifle trooper, models for all three of those, cards for smoke Grenades and Electrobinoculars, and a token sheet with all necessary tokens.

Everything you need to know, especially once you've memorized the core mechanics, is on the cards for you.

So the main way they present the rules is via cards. Makes sense to put all the rules on them then.

The same cannot be said for a Codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How many books does this game have? I'm unfamiliar with the methods in which it presents its rules?

One book : the core rules.

and then every faction has cards for its units/upgrades


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the main way they present the rules is via cards. Makes sense to put all the rules on them then.

The same cannot be said for a Codex.

not to derail the conversation towards a new topic but i also don't understand why GW doesnt do unit cards, they do it for AoS and it helps a lot. It's much easier to have cards in front of you than to need to shuffle through a codex and see what the various datasheet are.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
not to derail the conversation towards a new topic but i also don't understand why GW doesnt do unit cards, they do it for AoS and it helps a lot. It's much easier to have cards in front of you than to need to shuffle through a codex and see what the various datasheet are.

Well, one of the advantages of USRs is that it makes cards much easier to format, though obviously that isn't strictly necessary.

But really, this gets back to what I was saying before, which is that the 40K team writes rules as if they just need to work in abstract rather than actually played on the tabletop. No quick reference sheets, no unit cards, no all-in-one summary of stats on the last page of the book, no summaries of abilities, stratagems vomited up as a giant list without even organized by when you can use them, mechanics like ka'tahs where they expect you to create the necessary play aids yourself- even with changing nothing about how the rules are currently written, there is so much you could do to make it easier to actually play.

Even OnePageRules, a family of games written by like one dude, has an online army builder that lets you export the statlines and wargear of your whole army with relevant USRs reproduced in full at the bottom. Does GW just expect we're all using their app?