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.

"Universal special rules are back in the game – It doesn’t matter if you’re making a Dimensional Translocation or preparing Death From Below, it’s all a Deep Strike now!"
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/24/10th-edition-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answered/

I like this a lot, it made no sense to have so many version of Feel no pain that all did the same thing but were named differently.
this makes much more sense in so many cases like the example with deep strike.
What do you think?

 nordsturmking wrote:
"Universal special rules are back in the game – It doesn’t matter if you’re making a Dimensional Translocation or preparing Death From Below, it’s all a Deep Strike now!"
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/24/10th-edition-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answered/

I like this a lot, it made no sense to have so many version of Feel no pain that all did the same thing but were named differently.
this makes much more sense in so many cases like the example with deep strike.
What do you think?

I love it and have been advocating for it ever since i started playing (yes, i'm an 8th ed newbie)

Now to see if GW will implement them in a smart way (define them all at the start of the edition, no recursion, not a thousand of them)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
"Universal special rules are back in the game – It doesn’t matter if you’re making a Dimensional Translocation or preparing Death From Below, it’s all a Deep Strike now!"
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/24/10th-edition-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answered/

I like this a lot, it made no sense to have so many version of Feel no pain that all did the same thing but were named differently.
this makes much more sense in so many cases like the example with deep strike.
What do you think?

I love it and have been advocating for it ever since i started playing (yes, i'm an 8th ed newbie)

Now to see if GW will implement them in a smart way (define them all at the start of the edition, no recursion, not a thousand of them)

Exactly - standardization is unambiguously a good an necessary thing, but the real proof of the pudding will be in sticking to it and not starting to mess around with them halfway through the edition, again.

The thing people had an issue with was never really USRs themselves, which are standard practice in game design and for good reason.

The issue was 40K's use of USRs ballooning into a list of approximately three thousand different USRs in the back of the rulebook, and then half of them simply conferred other USRs.

Throw in that they weren't defined (even in brevity) on the datasheet, often had unintuitive flowery names, and missed obvious opportunities to consolidate- eg Bulky and Very Bulky should just be Bulky(#)- and yeah it was a total mess.

Standardizing and using common names for common abilities is good. Time will tell if they screw it up again.

 catbarf wrote:
The thing people had an issue with was never really USRs themselves, which are standard practice in game design and for good reason.

The issue was 40K's use of USRs ballooning into a list of approximately three thousand different USRs in the back of the rulebook, and then half of them simply conferred other USRs.

Throw in that they weren't defined (even in brevity) on the datasheet, often had unintuitive flowery names, and missed obvious opportunities to consolidate- eg Bulky and Very Bulky should just be Bulky(#)- and yeah it was a total mess.

Standardizing and using common names for common abilities is good. Time will tell if they screw it up again.

My whole approach to the new edition so far has been : cautiously optimistic. Tons of potential to be great, but GW has a track record of messing up simple things that other game manufacturer seem to have effortlessly mastered

This edition may end up good, but probably shouldn’t get hopeful yet.

But really it’s about time, I hated trying to read so much on the current edition for this.

Apple fox wrote:
This edition may end up good, but probably shouldn’t get hopeful yet.

But really it’s about time, I hated trying to read so much on the current edition for this.

had a short talk with an IRL friend about GW's language.

It's way too wordy IMO. we took the example of the exalted sorcerer reroll

Lord of the Thousand Sons (Aura): While a friendly <GREAT CULT> CORE unit is within 6" of this model, each time a model in that unit makes an attack, re-roll a hit roll of 1.

and figured out that it could be easily simplified to :

Tactician (Aura 6") : Reroll 1's to hit

And adding in the core rules that abilities always only affect friendly units (unless specified). (and "Tactician" being an USR, Notice how we would still give the definition of the USR on the datasheet)

This is a good change. I don't want to give GW too much credit for it, since they were the ones that stupidly removed them in the first place anyway despite it obviously being the best way to organise rules. I just hope they manage to stick to actual universal rules and we don't have 5 pages of them again.

I also assume all the people who said USRs would ruin the game will now stop playing.

Slipspace wrote:
This is a good change. I don't want to give GW too much credit for it, since they were the ones that stupidly removed them in the first place anyway despite it obviously being the best way to organise rules. I just hope they manage to stick to actual universal rules and we don't have 5 pages of them again.

I also assume all the people who said USRs would ruin the game will now stop playing.

I don’t think 5 pages is bad if it’s every USR written out in full, with possible example and some of the other things that fall under the category. Like explanations of common words used as well.
There are plenty of games that play just fine with them since they integrate them into the games, GW has always had issues there.
And then also often would have a special snowflake rule that layer on top badly, or changed how a rule worked entirely. It’s like a GW curse at this point. Even if they take a good idea, they will do it badly when they must have seen good examples in other games.


And exalted for the post above!

If GW wants to modify USRs for specific units, they should know from the start of the edition and give variables to USRs

I really hope we get to see a datasheet with

Feel no pain (5+)

and not

Feel no pain
----
When this unit uses its FNP ability, rolls of 5+ are successful

Slipspace wrote:
This is a good change. I don't want to give GW too much credit for it, since they were the ones that stupidly removed them in the first place anyway despite it obviously being the best way to organise rules. I just hope they manage to stick to actual universal rules and we don't have 5 pages of them again.

I also assume all the people who said USRs would ruin the game will now stop playing.

Did you stop playing during the absence of USR's out of interest? Further to that, as much as I agree that USR's are a decent way to organise common rules, as you point out GW have been bad at it previously and they stopped them because they were bad at it. You're also angry and call them stupid because they stopped doing something they were bad at?

There's a Soviet Union joke in here somewhere...

Anyway, this is a return to common sense. Obvious sense, even.

May we never hear the word "bespoke" in a WarCom article ever again!

Been saying it since 8th landed that removing USRs (and most of the core rules) was a terrible design choice. I get the dislike of the culmination that was the 3th to 7th edition USR bloat but 8th threw the baby out with the bath water in so many ways.

Can we get back proper area of effect weapons and proper cover saves again?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's a Soviet Union joke in here somewhere...

Anyway, this is a return to common sense. Obvious sense, even.

May we never hear the word "bespoke" in a WarCom article ever again!

I think rare unique unit special rules are ok but obviously should be well thought out (like any rule!)

I remember being SO glad that USRs were thrown out in 8th just because of all the bloat and nonsense. I recall we would ignore some of them like warpflame because it was extra upkeep, or how no one remembered that strikedown existed because it was so niche. Then you would have some USRs like Monstrous Creature that were heavily abused or USRs that probably should not have been applied in a blanket manner (like FnP, as opposed to FnP (6+)) and having weird stacking rules nonsense.

Heres hoping the list of USRs are short and concise and have listed interactions.

Slipspace wrote:
This is a good change. I don't want to give GW too much credit for it, since they were the ones that stupidly removed them in the first place anyway despite it obviously being the best way to organise rules. I just hope they manage to stick to actual universal rules and we don't have 5 pages of them again.

I also assume all the people who said USRs would ruin the game will now stop playing.

As said, and will stick to it, no problem with turning Deep Strike and FNP into... well, Deep Strike and FNP. That's how everyone played it anyway.
But that's not to my mind a USR system.

If they go "its a USR system and we are going to try and capture 100+ different rules like 6th and 7th" then I am suspect its going to be an improvement. It may just be a mess.

If they do a USR system and its about 10-20 rules that are genuinely universal, then fine.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's a Soviet Union joke in here somewhere...

Anyway, this is a return to common sense. Obvious sense, even.

May we never hear the word "bespoke" in a WarCom article ever again!

Sadly we've already seen the replacement phrase: 'from the ground up.' Even when they immediately contradict themselves and admit they didn't.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/24/10th-edition-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answered/

Every single element of the game has been revised and rewritten from the ground up for an entirely new, and more cohesive, experience. Plenty of rules remain the same – but there is not a single one that has not been reassessed and, if necessary, rewritten to work perfectly in the new system.

'Everything rewritten' and 'if necessary, rewritten' aren't even vaguely the same.

 Vankraken wrote:
Been saying it since 8th landed that removing USRs (and most of the core rules) was a terrible design choice. I get the dislike of the culmination that was the 3th to 7th edition USR bloat but 8th threw the baby out with the bath water in so many ways.

Can we get back proper area of effect weapons and proper cover saves again?

I'm alright with cover saves if they can't be buffed too much. It would certainly make weapons that ignore cover more valuable for sure. It was a good system for providing alternatives for weak units to survive while also greatly limiting their mobility. I remember the real problem came along when you had units that just got a cover save regardless of being in cover, or could make it better.

As for area of effect weapons....I know theres a lot of nostalgia for templates but that was one of the BIGGEST sources of contention I ever had in any games I played from 3rd-7th was over the placement, whether or not a model was under the template, and the angle of the scatter dice. It slowed down the game and if you were a template heavy army like guard it either made everyone hate you for slowing the game down. I say let it die

As will all of what they have said and shown - its very much too little to judge.

Yeah, it's a really matter of whether or not GW actually takes advantage of it or overcomplicates it like they did in previous editions. The idea of keywords when they introduced it in 8th was a neat idea, but they didn't actually implement it very well throughout 8th and only partly addressed it's lack of effective use in 9th. So I'll take their return to USR's with a grain of salt. The real test will be when they release the first few codices, as usually that's where the trouble begins when it comes to exceptions and books not interacting well with USR's.

Removing USRs was the best and most wasted opportunity for adding a depth to the game that would have been phenomenal.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Removing USRs was the best and most wasted opportunity for adding a depth to the game that would have been phenomenal.

lol, no.

So how long until those who vehemently defended the bloat pivot to supporting USRs now that GW says that they're good?

 Vankraken wrote:

Can we get back proper area of effect weapons and proper cover saves again?

Current cover saves are better than the older iteration; it's O.K. that cover can be mitigated by particularly powerful weapon. It's also GOOD that marines want to take cover against weapons fire. And it's GREAT that armor isn't an all-or-nothing affair (one of the big reasons Marines were generally weak in 3rd - 7th).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Removing USRs was the best and most wasted opportunity for adding a depth to the game that would have been phenomenal.

lol, no.

lol, yes.


People complain all the damn time about the "lore inconsistencies" and crap like that for weirdness. Things like the Phobos Infiltrators blocking Deep Strike from Daemons or the Webway tended to be griped about...or the whole nonsense about people crying about weapons ignoring invulnerable saves of Daemons or the like.

 Vankraken wrote:
Been saying it since 8th landed that removing USRs (and most of the core rules) was a terrible design choice. I get the dislike of the culmination that was the 3th to 7th edition USR bloat but 8th threw the baby out with the bath water in so many ways.

Can we get back proper area of effect weapons and proper cover saves again?

I was happy as long as the rules were on the sheet, which they did mostly. USRs that are not the same as 6th/7th USRs - as in not a byzantine maze - are welcome.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Removing USRs was the best and most wasted opportunity for adding a depth to the game that would have been phenomenal.

lol, no.

lol, yes.


People complain all the damn time about the "lore inconsistencies" and crap like that for weirdness. Things like the Phobos Infiltrators blocking Deep Strike from Daemons or the Webway tended to be griped about...or the whole nonsense about people crying about weapons ignoring invulnerable saves of Daemons or the like.

That's not an automatic result of USRs, that results from implementing USRs in a half-assed and dumb way. If you put actual effort to it nothing prevents you from having e.g. keywords and variables attached to USRs, and then have stuff like 'Ignore invulnerable saves [Warp]' or 'Feel no pain [4+]' whatever.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Removing USRs was the best and most wasted opportunity for adding a depth to the game that would have been phenomenal.

lol, no.

lol, yes.


People complain all the damn time about the "lore inconsistencies" and crap like that for weirdness. Things like the Phobos Infiltrators blocking Deep Strike from Daemons or the Webway tended to be griped about...or the whole nonsense about people crying about weapons ignoring invulnerable saves of Daemons or the like.

Yes - we're going to lose flavor. I don't see how they can handle all the current rules with USRs without making a billion of them, but then I haven't thought about the scope of it much.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Removing USRs was the best and most wasted opportunity for adding a depth to the game that would have been phenomenal.

lol, no.

lol, yes.


People complain all the damn time about the "lore inconsistencies" and crap like that for weirdness. Things like the Phobos Infiltrators blocking Deep Strike from Daemons or the Webway tended to be griped about...or the whole nonsense about people crying about weapons ignoring invulnerable saves of Daemons or the like.

Yes - we're going to lose flavor. I don't see how they can handle all the current rules with USRs without making a billion of them, but then I haven't thought about the scope of it much.

They haven’t said it’s only USRs, it’s entirely possible they will use USRs for rules that apply to many units and factions but still have one-off rules where appropriate.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes - we're going to lose flavor. I don't see how they can handle all the current rules with USRs without making a billion of them, but then I haven't thought about the scope of it much.

Hopefully GW will use all the space they saved in the codexes not including page after page of warlord traits, stratagems, and relics to put the flavor back in those
Also, I think those non-USR abilities will leave lots of space for flavor. I love how the Termagant ability makes them seem like a swarm of fish or herd of herbivores instantly reacting to the actions of predators.