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.

Not really. But kind of.

I have been explaining the game to a few new players that used to play magic a lot and I noticed using magic keywords to explain certain abilities, which in turn means that using keywords for things that keep appearing all over the game would definitely make sense. Right now we basically have two "keyworded" rules - FLY and CHARACTER. But there are plenty more, so let's start collecting.

Rules for this:
Your keyword rule must be available in multiple factions. Multiple colors of Space Marines, Guardsmen under new management or similar constellations don't count.
So ATSKNF is not keyword worthy, neither is DttFE.
Your keyword can have a maximum of >2< parameters.
So, no Explosion(4+ 3", d3)
Minor reworks are allowed, but only for the sake of simplification.
No re-balancing some common mechanic that you think is too powerful - this would only derail the thread

FNP(N+) - Ignore Damage on a N+
Deep Strike - Set up unit in deep strike, at the end of any movement phase, it can be deployed anywhere that's more than 9" from any enemy units.
First Strike - Unit fights first (charging units get First Strike)
Slow Strike - Unit fights last. Slow Strike and First Strike cancel out each other
Small Explosion(N+, 1) - When this unit loses its last wound, roll a d6. On a N+ every unit within 3" suffers 1 mortal wound
Large Explosion(N+, d6) - When this unit loses its last wound, roll a d6. On a N+ every unit within 6" suffers d6 mortal wounds
Look out Sir! (<Subfaction> CHARACTER, 2+) - When resolving an attack made against a <Subfaction> CHARACTER whilst that unit is within 3" of this unit, if the wound roll is successful, you can roll one D6; on a 2+ this unit suffers 1 mortal wound and the attack sequence ends.
Relentless - This unit can ignore the penalty for shooting heavy weapons after moving.

More?

Generally I’m in favour of this, not convinced by all the names but that’s a secondary concern (I think “look out sit” would be better called “bodyguard” for instance) and I’d apply the mortal wound before making the to-wound roll.

Other rules I’d include:

Infiltrate: this unit can be deployed anywhere on the battlefield outside of the opponent’s deployment zone and more than 9” from any enemy models.

Fearless: this unit ignores morale checks.

Swift: This unit can charge the same turn as it advanced.

Vanguard: this unit can move as if it is the movement phase at the start of the first battle round immediately before the first turn.

Stealth: Enemy units subtract 1 when rolling hit rolls for attacks that target this unit if this unit is more than 12" away.
Fear (N"): Enemy units within N" of this unit reduce their leadership by 1.
Unwieldy: Subtract 1 from all hit rolls for this weapon when making attacks in the Fight phase.

Does Fear work? I'm not entirely sure it's available to multiple factions...

Snugiraffe wrote:
Stealth: Enemy units subtract 1 when rolling hit rolls for attacks that target this unit if this unit is more than 12" away.
Fear (N"): Enemy units within N" of this unit reduce their leadership by 1.
Unwieldy: Subtract 1 from all hit rolls for this weapon when making attacks in the Fight phase.

Does Fear work? I'm not entirely sure it's available to multiple factions...

Fear should work. It available to space marines (reivers, as a successor chapter trait and for Ancient with relic banner) and also for Chaos Space Marines ( Night Lords)

For Stealth I’d change it to bring it in line with the new Raven Guard rules - counts as in cover rather than a hit modifier.

Fear works, there are plenty of units which reduce morale near them all over multiple codices.

I think we would need both hard to hit (-1 to hit against this unit) and stealth (always in cover).

Meh the reason for NOT using USR is good. It allows easier tweaking of the rules on a per unit basis.

There's a difficult balance between keywords and the way 40k works. Universal Special Rules definitely had a big issue in that there were a ton of them, a ton of them didn't do anything very useful, and a ton of them changed things in similar but different ways (can you remember what the difference between "Zealot", "Hated", and "Preferred Enemy" was?). You're addressing a really important part of this problem with your "N+" abilities, because those names tell you a bit about what they do, but I'm worried that pages of these abilities in a rulebook would once again cause major confusion.

One of the reasons that Keywords work in Magic is that the rules have reminder text on the Commons and often on the Uncommons too. So you see the rule often a few times in minor situations, get used to what it does, then get a couple rares that have that same ability and some others and you already get what it does. 40k doesn't and can't really do that.


I like the list you've made so far. Those are some of the major ones that appear ALL THE TIME, plus you simplified first and last strike to be simpler in showing how they cancel out, though that rule should probably say that they cancel out "all instances" of first/last strike, so people get that they don't stack. I don't think Look Out Sir! should be Look Out Sir!(N+), so that there's differences between dedicated Look outters and happenstance Look outters.

If there's a USR that I'm still referring to frequently enough that it's how I still call it, then it's probably a good one right now.

Fearless is fine, we all still call these units Fearless, and GW just can't seem to get away from it, no matter how many times they say they will.

I don't want Swift. It's common enough that lots of factions have it, but rare enough that it's usually just 1 unit in that faction.

Vanguard, again too uncommon to be keyworded.

Stealth; common enough, but often is a trait rather than specific, and has lots of permutations that could muddy the waters (-1 to hit blanket, -1 to hit against shooting, -1 to hit against shooting over 12" away, -1 to hit in melee, not -1 to hit but rather counts as being in cover, etc.)

Fear; not common enough.

Unwieldy; I can dig it, but it doesn't even need to be specific to the Fight Phase.


--------my suggestions----------

Sniper: Attacks made with this weapon may target enemy Characters in the shooting phase, regardless of how many wounds that Character has.

(I think we all call these weapon Sniper weapons. Let's just do this and get it out of the way.)

No LoS: This weapon does not require line of sight to target and be fired at enemy units.

(This is very frequent, belongs to tons of armies, and wording it slightly differently helps make it clear that the Line of Sight portion is the only part that of the shooting process that the rule ignores - helps stop people asking if it can target characters, as that's more implicit in the wording)/

Overheat: Hit results of 1 for attacks made with this weapon cause a mortal wound to the bearer's unit after all attacks by this unit have been resolved.

(Extremely common ability, but also changed to make it simpler. Doing it this way helps any multi-wound models survive their own weapon's attacks, not just vehicles. It also allows the weapon to benefit from Fast Rolling better. Every time you get a unit with lots of multi-shot plasma weapons on multiple dudes, players just want to roll all the shots together - which is bad because you can't tell if a single model suffered multiple overheat results, so you lose more models than you should. This distributes the weapon's damage to the unit rather than the model, and does it after all attacks by the unit are done. Yes, this does mean that it's possible for more than 1 model to die to a really bad overheat, even if it's the only weapon in the unit. Too bad. The benefits of this rule definitely outweigh that.)

Quasistellar wrote:
Meh the reason for not using USR us good. It allows easier tweaking of the rules on a per unit basis.

I dont think the OP is asking for removal of datasheets where abilities can be tweaked at unit level, but rather a glossary of terms to be used as universal short hand to be used in datasheets.

Quasistellar wrote:
Meh the reason for not using USR us good. It allows easier tweaking of the rules on a per unit basis.

If only GW actually bothered to tweek units. The idea is that there are some core concepts that are universal such as relentless that should be wide spread but it doesn't make sense to have it explained every time it's in a unit entry. It's just like in MtG where you don't need to explain what trample, first strike, (land)walk, flying, etc does because they are universal mechanics and a core part of the game. A basic mechanic like relentless "can move and fire heavy weapons without penalty" doesn't need tweeking because it's a simple concept and should be universal. Fly is a USR basically but they don't call it that so why not have other core concepts included to flesh out game mechanics and make it less confusing overall.

Grumpy nitpick: "swift" should be "fleet", because that's what it's been called since forever.

I really don't see much reason to add many of them back. Only one that comes to mind is FnP because of how simple and universal it is across factions and I tend to use the word a lot when playing. Uncommon and rare abilities should not be USR as they tend to be more specific and rare.

Of the list in the original post I can only see the following things become USR as the other ones tend to have caveats depending on the faction.

FNP
Deep Strike

As these two have been the most consistent in their rules so far. Regarding Infiltrate I would not like having it as a USR as it seems to work very differently depending on the codex.

I would finally add that having the abilities declared on the sheet helps with remembering how the rule works. The problem is that if you end up stating the entire rule on the sheet anyways, keeping it as an USR becomes a moot point. I mean.

I would want as many usr as possible to make it easier to understand what my opponents units do. No one ever uses the actual name of the rules while trying to explain what it does. Like I dont say my SG have "Heirs of zkelion something" but say they get reroll to hits close to my warlord. During the game you try to use a simple as possible language and use common terms as much as possible too to make it easier and faster.

Having fluffy names and description on the datasheets is quite pointless since you have the huge fluff section in the codex for that. At the table its "deepstrike" "infiltrate" "scout/vanguard move" "fnp" or +-x to that and never the actual rules name since they dont share it.

You should still have the actual rules on the datasheet and in the codex so you dont have to search for it. But same name helps with sharing information and makes it easier to do a one page summary of your whole lists statlines and rules if most of the rules text could be exchanged for one word usrs.

Like my old wood elf codex has a reference page that fits all the units, 31 of them with statlines and special rules all on one page. Makes it so easy. My empire book is even better since it has page numbers for each unit if you need to look at the actual rules and they fit 39entries to that page and have space left for a large box with "credits" and gw trademark information.

 skchsan wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Meh the reason for not using USR us good. It allows easier tweaking of the rules on a per unit basis.

I dont think the OP is asking for removal of datasheets where abilities can be tweaked at unit level, but rather a glossary of terms to be used as universal short hand to be used in datasheets.

Exactly. If you want a bespoken rule that explicitly differs from the keyword (for example a Burna Bommer's or Mortarion's super-explosions), there should be room for that. Not every rule needs nor should to be a USR - especially army specific rules like ATSKNF have found their home in their respective codices.

However, we have a bunch of rules which can be found all over the game. They work the same or worse, similar to what other codices have.
For example, most small vehicles share the same explosion rules, most large vehicle use another common explosion, no matter whether it's an ork, eldar, imperial or tau vehicle. All snipers work the same, deep strike works the same for everyone,
and lots of armies have a commander which allows re-rolls of ones near them.
What's even worse are the abilities that don't work the same. Every time someone rolls a one or two for some plasma weapon, they need to check how it works. Is it modified or unmodified? Is it slain or does it take mortal wounds? If it takes mortal wounds, how many? Does the unit have a rule which has additional influence on this? A simple rule like "Get's hot!" could solve that whole mess, and any change to that rule would automatically fix all codices, without having to update 16 FAQs, forgetting half of them in the process and putting a copy&paste error in two of them.
Same for Bodyguards - when does it trigger? Does the unit take the shot or mortal wounds? What happens to additional mortal wounds?
Stealth is a pretty good example as well. We have dozens of variants of stealth - how awesome would it be if you could just telly your opponent "ork kommandoz have stealth, just like cammo scouts", and be done with it?

We have some universal mechanics that keep working the same independent of who is using them. Those are the ones I'm looking for.

I'd also like to ask that we don't put too much discussion into what is *not* an USR, since one's perception differs vastly depending on what armies you see in your games. For example "Swift" (aka Fleet) is rare among imperial factions, but Nids, Orks, Daemons and Eldar have it all over the place.

Frankly I'd rather we leave USRs dead for one reason: it's one less book that has to stay open on the table when questions come up about a USR.

And if you print them in every codex then they're just like javing beapoke rules making the idea of USRs pointless.

We don't need USRs, we need 40k to adopt standardized effects wording like AoS has so there are less problems with how the rules can be misread.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I would finally add that having the abilities declared on the sheet helps with remembering how the rule works. The problem is that if you end up stating the entire rule on the sheet anyways, keeping it as an USR becomes a moot point. I mean.

MtG has proven that it actually does not. When your opponent tells you that his unit has deep strike, is a sniper, FNP or has super-sonic, you know what to expect without reading the rule, even though it's spelled out right there on the datasheet.

One thing that bugs me about explosions is that I need one glance to see that my unit explodes, then I roll the explosion dice. Then I go back and need to read the entire rule to check on what roll the unit explodes, what range the explosion has and how many mortal wounds it does (Those values vary vastly for DG and Orks). I'd prefer seeing "Large Explosion (4+)" and know what to do immediately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I'd rather we leave USRs dead for one reason: it's one less book that has to stay open on the table when questions come up about a USR.

All of the USR should be no more complex than the character rules, FLY or heroic intervention - nothing like the Zealot, Hatred, Berzerker, Preferred Enemy mess we had in the past.
I seriously doubt that you check the codex on how FNP or deep strike work.

We don't need USRs, we need 40k to adopt standardized effects wording like AoS has so there are less problems with how the rules can be misread.

Having same rules work the same would be a start. They completely blew their chance of putting "unmodified roll of '1'" into the plasma wepaons of the CSM and SM 2.0 books.

Agreed with Jidmah. If I learn how "sesquipedalilocacious" works because some of my units have it I know how the rule works on other units too. It's much easier to learn a rule by heart when it is consistent.

I’m all for similar rules having unified mechanics/wording (we don’t need the 10 million variants of essentially Deepstrike) - but the full text still needs to be on the datasheet. At the same time many of the rule texts for these abilities have extraneous fluff written into them (again, the myriad Deepstrike abilities are the most egregious) that should be stripped out. ‘Just the rules, ma’am”

 skchsan wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Meh the reason for not using USR us good. It allows easier tweaking of the rules on a per unit basis.

I dont think the OP is asking for removal of datasheets where abilities can be tweaked at unit level, but rather a glossary of terms to be used as universal short hand to be used in datasheets.

Ah gotcha. Seems reasonable.

Indeed, I'd prefer USR all the way.
Gives the game a more thorough understanding.

My problem with USR in 7th was down right not knowing them. There were too many in my opinion.

For instance the Ghostkeel it's a jump pack monstrous creature, pretty easy.

Monstrous creatures have:
Fear, hammer of wrath, move through cover, relentless, and smash

Jet pack:
Bulky, deep strike, relentless. Plus the 2d6 move in the assault phase

That's a lot to know in my opinion. Mostly because the Ghostkeel only lists jump pack monstrous creature. Plus then it has stealth and supporting fire. I haven't even gotten to wargear either.

So what I'm getting at is sure let's take "ignore the move penalty to heavy weapons" and consolidate them under relentless. But not have special rules within a special rule and if possible write out the whole rule on the sheet

 fraser1191 wrote:
So what I'm getting at is sure let's take "ignore the move penalty to heavy weapons" and consolidate them under relentless. But not have special rules within a special rule and if possible write out the whole rule on the sheet

I feel they should be named as clearly and intuitively as possible.

I'm also fine with having them written on the sheet, just for ease of reference for new players.

But I disagree with some of the names-Feel No Pain, while the common nomenclature for veteran 40k players, is not as clear as Ignore Wounds.

So, instead of Feel No Pain (N+), it should be Ignore Wounds (N+).

Make sense?

USR in 40k should be like axioms in math or postulates in physics.
Like evident assertions and everybody should know them.
This is where the game should start and should be based on.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
So what I'm getting at is sure let's take "ignore the move penalty to heavy weapons" and consolidate them under relentless. But not have special rules within a special rule and if possible write out the whole rule on the sheet

I feel they should be named as clearly and intuitively as possible.

I'm also fine with having them written on the sheet, just for ease of reference for new players.

But I disagree with some of the names-Feel No Pain, while the common nomenclature for veteran 40k players, is not as clear as Ignore Wounds.

So, instead of Feel No Pain (N+), it should be Ignore Wounds (N+).

Make sense?

Yeah you can chalk up a lot of it GW's rule writers wanting a rule to sound cool instead of clear and concise.

FNP used to be much more rare from what I can remember. And only units like Nurgle marines and Mephiston had it. It were a bit more unique then and there werent lots of auras/stratagems/tactics that gave everyone one. It wasnt a pure ignore wounds mechanic either since it didnt save you from high str attacks, force weapons and other weapons that forced instant death.

The old rule worked more like its name and wasnt only cool sounding. You ignored the pain and fought on until you got hit by something that obliterated you. Quite a fitting name but the way it works now it is perhaps better to call it something else since the way it is used is perhaps a bit broad.

I've never understood why they were gotten rid of. Presumably so you could see everything relevant to a unit on its own codex entry and didn't have to flip between codex and rulebook for USR's, but you can solve the second part of this by printing all of the USR's in every codex

Also not every codex entry lists the stats of every weapon available to the unit, so there's still some page turning going on if you don't have everything memorised

The endless list of USRs clogged up the 6th and 7th edition rulebooks for pages and pages, provoking endless arguments over their meaning and requiring frequent rule checks. It turned into one of the main problems with those editions. Removing it was an excellent step forward because it simultaneously allowed for a number of things:

1) The complete core rules summary fits on 8 pages, is easy to introduce to newcomers and easy to refer to. In the vast majority of 8E games, neither me nor my opponent ever have to look at it. Myself and most other people I know don't even bring the BRB itself to local tournaments. Perfect.

2) As a result, the core rules are freely available from GW and its not strictly neccessary for new players to buy a BRB off the bat. If you bring back USRs, you appeal to that business sense by encouraging GW to leave out rules descriptions in army books and put them in the big £30-40 BRB. No thanks.

3) I now never ever have to refer to the BRB to check what the 5 different USRs on my unit and its weapons do for it while writing army lists, and that's great.

4) No longer are units awful because they're lumbered with thematic but terrible USRs that are shoehorned onto them in place of micro-adjusted rules. Now the game designers in my experience seem to spend more time considering the unit's presence and dynamic on the table and in the meta rather than assuming that a USR fits a unit just because it sounds right. Just to give one example, in place of an actually useful ability, a number of units in 6th and 7th with flame weapons just received Soulblaze, which was objectively terrible.


So, no thanks, no USRs, not now, not ever again.

Poorly implemented USRs suck.

But just because GW did them badly doesn't mean they're a bad idea.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
The endless list of USRs clogged up the 6th and 7th edition rulebooks for pages and pages, provoking endless arguments over their meaning and requiring frequent rule checks. It turned into one of the main problems with those editions. Removing it was an excellent step forward because it simultaneously allowed for a number of things:

1) The complete core rules summary fits on 8 pages, is easy to introduce to newcomers and easy to refer to. In the vast majority of 8E games, neither me nor my opponent ever have to look at it. Myself and most other people I know don't even bring the BRB itself to local tournaments. Perfect.

2) As a result, the core rules are freely available from GW and its not strictly neccessary for new players to buy a BRB off the bat. If you bring back USRs, you appeal to that business sense by encouraging GW to leave out rules descriptions in army books and put them in the big £30-40 BRB. No thanks.

3) I now never ever have to refer to the BRB to check what the 5 different USRs on my unit and its weapons do for it while writing army lists, and that's great.

4) No longer are units awful because they're lumbered with thematic but terrible USRs that are shoehorned onto them in place of micro-adjusted rules. Now the game designers in my experience seem to spend more time considering the unit's presence and dynamic on the table and in the meta rather than assuming that a USR fits a unit just because it sounds right. Just to give one example, in place of an actually useful ability, a number of units in 6th and 7th with flame weapons just received Soulblaze, which was objectively terrible.


So, no thanks, no USRs, not now, not ever again.

Except you can't really play a game with the so called free 8 page rule set. Your at a minimum going to need the actual rule book, multiple FAQs, the most recent CA, potentially both a codex and an index (indexes if you have a FW unit) and if marines are the pattern going forward at least one supplement.

Can we stop pushing the myth that 8th edition is some how less bloated or that you need less books than 6th/7th.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
The endless list of USRs clogged up the 6th and 7th edition rulebooks for pages and pages, provoking endless arguments over their meaning and requiring frequent rule checks. It turned into one of the main problems with those editions. Removing it was an excellent step forward because it simultaneously allowed for a number of things:

1) The complete core rules summary fits on 8 pages, is easy to introduce to newcomers and easy to refer to. In the vast majority of 8E games, neither me nor my opponent ever have to look at it. Myself and most other people I know don't even bring the BRB itself to local tournaments. Perfect.

2) As a result, the core rules are freely available from GW and its not strictly neccessary for new players to buy a BRB off the bat. If you bring back USRs, you appeal to that business sense by encouraging GW to leave out rules descriptions in army books and put them in the big £30-40 BRB. No thanks.

3) I now never ever have to refer to the BRB to check what the 5 different USRs on my unit and its weapons do for it while writing army lists, and that's great.

4) No longer are units awful because they're lumbered with thematic but terrible USRs that are shoehorned onto them in place of micro-adjusted rules. Now the game designers in my experience seem to spend more time considering the unit's presence and dynamic on the table and in the meta rather than assuming that a USR fits a unit just because it sounds right. Just to give one example, in place of an actually useful ability, a number of units in 6th and 7th with flame weapons just received Soulblaze, which was objectively terrible.


So, no thanks, no USRs, not now, not ever again.

Except you can't really play a game with the so called free 8 page rule set. Your at a minimum going to need the actual rule book, multiple FAQs, the most recent CA, potentially both a codex and an index (indexes if you have a FW unit) and if marines are the pattern going forward at least one supplement.

Can we stop pushing the myth that 8th edition is some how less bloated or that you need less books than 6th/7th.

Only for a certain style of play.

I can play using the free rules and Indexes all I want and still gave fun! The game works, it's playable.

I've posted this a few times already lol. I'm a strop believer in a set of basic USR, 10 or so.