PDA

View Full Version : Should relevant USR's be in the codexi?



Godeskian
02-06-2011, 10:23
Should USR's be in the codex if units in the codex have the USR? I ask because the Grey Knight codex includes rules such as 'Stealth', as for instance given to units with a librarian. However nowhere in the book does it give a description of what Stealth does. Similarly, the Grey Knights can use Melta weapons, and despite having a little aside box in the wargear section, the two paragraphs in it are taken up with fluff, not with what melta weapons actually DO.

Sure, you can go to the core rulebook, and yes the rules are in there, but wouldn't it make more sense to have all the relevant USR's in the codex?

Memnos
02-06-2011, 10:26
Well... No. In the same way that the books don't have a full description of what your BS does, or what Strength and Toughness do.

It's a universal special rule. Universal rules go in the main book that covers the whole... Well... Universe in the gaming system.

SgtTaters
02-06-2011, 10:26
GW wants you to buy the core rulebook

that's why, that's the only reason why. They want you buy that fat textbook like it's a college course.

Lord Damocles
02-06-2011, 10:27
The whole point of USRs is that they're in the main rulebook.

They're universal.



If you put USRs in the codex, then special weapon rules in the codex, where do you draw the line? Would you put rules for unit types in the codex? Rules for shooting? Why bother with the main rulebook at all, and just put *all* the relevant parts in the codex?

otakuzoku
02-06-2011, 10:35
sure but this is GW and they need to make sure you buy a copy of the rule book. thay should all have a 2 pages at the back with all the relavent bs charts and reminders on movement as well, just for pure practicality reasons and speed

Born Again
02-06-2011, 10:42
Repeating that rule in every army where it comes up kind of defeats the point of "Universal" special rules.

MajorWesJanson
02-06-2011, 10:44
Having USRs in the main book and not the codices helps with keeping things consistent. Remember how things like Smoke Launchers and Storm Shields were a mess for a while? Putting USRs in the codex would lead to problems with codex trumps rulebook if they change a USR in 6th edition. Then it would not be Universal anymore.

Sami
02-06-2011, 11:00
Putting USRs in the codex would lead to problems with codex trumps rulebook if they change a USR in 6th edition. Then it would not be Universal anymore.

This. The rules for USRs can and have changed between editions. Hence, having them all in one place means you know exactly which version of the rule you should be using.

By having the USRs in one place, every player knows that when he sees a unit with "Feel No Pain", it will work the same regardless of when the codex was released.

Grimtuff
02-06-2011, 11:39
Case in point: True Grit (which now no longer exists). At one point in the game there were 3 different versions of it, one for SW, one for CSM and one for GK.

Universal special rules should remain universal.

Lord-Caerolion
02-06-2011, 12:00
As others have said, it works fine just in the rulebook. There's even a disclaimer on each codex, saying you need to have the rulebook to get full use of what's written inside. Otherwise, we'll have a sliding slope until each codex is a mini-rulebook, jacking up the price for each and every codex, with the rulebook becoming obsolete.
Universal things should be listed in the main rulebook, not in the codexes. Otherwise, as mentioned above, we end up with the situations of having multiple definitions of the same rule.

Bob Hunk
02-06-2011, 12:27
Repeating that rule in every army where it comes up kind of defeats the point of "Universal" special rules.

This.


Having USRs in the main book and not the codices helps with keeping things consistent. Remember how things like Smoke Launchers and Storm Shields were a mess for a while? Putting USRs in the codex would lead to problems with codex trumps rulebook if they change a USR in 6th edition. Then it would not be Universal anymore.

And this. :)

Godeskian
02-06-2011, 12:46
Okay then, I think I have my answer.

Mind you, I agree with virtually everyone's posts, I simply hadn't considered it in that light. To me the very first thing you do, before you even buy your first box of plastics, is slap a copy of the main rulebook down on the counter for purchase. Codexi, paints, mini's, they're all things you grab off the shelves AFTER the main rule book.

I'll confess that I have written myself a few cheatsheets (such as an excell file containing all the stats for my models and weapons) to save on wear and tear on my codex, and I've got a similar one for USR's that I made from the main rulebook since the thing is heavy when added to my carry cases, my codex, paints, brushes, dice, measuring tapes etc and I usually leave the main rulebook at home and just travel with the codex plus cheatsheets.

But I see why everyone is so down on the idea, and having the USR's in one place does avoid having different versions of the same rules. There's enough pedantry surrounding RAW as it is, no need to add more.

Many thanks all,

loveless
02-06-2011, 15:13
To me the very first thing you do, before you even buy your first box of plastics, is slap a copy of the main rulebook down on the counter for purchase. Codexi, paints, mini's, they're all things you grab off the shelves AFTER the main rule book.

Agreed. Obviously, buying Assault on Black Reach works in this case, too.

----

Somewhat related to the absence of USR definitions - anyone notice the lack of any stats whatsoever for the Harlequins' Shuriken Pistols in the Dark Eldar book? Even the summary says "See the WH40K Rulebook". I assume it's due to Shuriken weapons getting reworked rules in the next iteration, but it just strikes me as awkward.

Nezalhualixtlan
02-06-2011, 15:32
The problem with putting USRs in the Codex is what some of the old Codexes suffer from, inconsistency. It's explicit that the rules in the Codex trump the rules in the main Rulebook. If you define a USR in the Codex then, but a later version of the Rulebook changes a USR, then you have the problem of a different USR being used foro the older Codex again. It would violate the "universal" nature of the universal special rule. It's really problematic. You see the same problem in older Marine codexes now where they had to go back and update things like Storm Shields to be the stats in the more recent codexes via Errata in the FAQs.

It's sort of like a database, or modular computer programming. If one 'item' or object is going to have a value that you want to be shared across multiple iterations and instances, then you generally only want to hold it's value in one place that everything else just references, in order to avoid confusion, promote consistency, and to make it as easy as possible to update.

So I would firmly say "No", USRs should not be in different Codexes. And in fact I would argue that more equipment that is shared across codexes that could easily be a "type" of equipment (the way they do with "Power weapons" or "Power Fists", or "Lightning Claws" etc) should be included in the main Rulebook that the codexes reference so that updates to their rules will fan out and modify any army that uses them appropriately when changed.

Xelkireth
02-06-2011, 15:46
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

You wanna know why? Because then there start being divergent universal special rules. And that's ridiculous. I have enough problems trying to remember all the ins and outs of different codices.

big squig
02-06-2011, 19:14
There was a time when rules like furious charge and counter-attack were in each codex...but because of that they all had slightly different wording. Putting them in the rulebook ensured this wouldn't happen again.

Sami
02-06-2011, 19:24
Agreed. Obviously, buying Assault on Black Reach works in this case, too.

----

Somewhat related to the absence of USR definitions - anyone notice the lack of any stats whatsoever for the Harlequins' Shuriken Pistols in the Dark Eldar book? Even the summary says "See the WH40K Rulebook". I assume it's due to Shuriken weapons getting reworked rules in the next iteration, but it just strikes me as awkward.

Was fixed with the DE FAQ.

Nurgling Chieftain
02-06-2011, 19:28
...anyone notice the lack of any stats whatsoever for the Harlequins' Shuriken Pistols in the Dark Eldar book?They FAQ'd that in. :cool: EDIT: Dammit Sami stop Mandraking me. :D


Case in point: True Grit (which now no longer exists). At one point in the game there were 3 different versions of it, one for SW, one for CSM and one for GK.Oh geez that was awful. And all three were different in subtle ways that would become significant under certain circumstances. People would ask, "Does True Grit work when..." and you'd have to give them two or three different answers. :cries:


And in fact I would argue that more equipment that is shared across codexes that could easily be a "type" of equipment (the way they do with "Power weapons" or "Power Fists", or "Lightning Claws" etc) should be included in the main Rulebook that the codexes reference so that updates to their rules will fan out and modify any army that uses them appropriately when changed.At this point they really ought to just put the entire vanilla Space Marine codex in the main rulebook.

Torpedo Vegas
02-06-2011, 19:29
Agreed. Obviously, buying Assault on Black Reach works in this case, too.

----

Somewhat related to the absence of USR definitions - anyone notice the lack of any stats whatsoever for the Harlequins' Shuriken Pistols in the Dark Eldar book? Even the summary says "See the WH40K Rulebook". I assume it's due to Shuriken weapons getting reworked rules in the next iteration, but it just strikes me as awkward.

Its in the back of the BRB under Eldar weapons. Thats actually a pretty keen observation though, maybe they are gonna rework shuriken weapons. This is how rumors get started.

Egaeus
02-06-2011, 19:49
There was a time when rules like furious charge and counter-attack were in each codex...but because of that they all had slightly different wording. Putting them in the rulebook ensured this wouldn't happen again.

Well, to be fair there was a time when it seemed like GW was trying to keep "special rules" well, special...but there's only so many "tricks" one can work with a system like 40K has, or it simply becomes easier to just borrow something that already exists.

Having slightly different wording to me is more a mark of a sloppy editing process then any inherent problem with repeating rules. "And They Shall Know No Fear" was a USR in 4th edition but not in 5th, but it's reprinted in every Loyalist Marine Codex.

I suppose what gets me is that even with "Universal Special Rules" they are still churning out additional special rules for many units simply to make them seem different. So I'm curious to see when 6th comes along what, if any, perviously simply special rules become "universal".

loveless
02-06-2011, 20:22
Was fixed with the DE FAQ.


They FAQ'd that in. :cool: EDIT: Dammit Sami stop Mandraking me. :D


This doesn't mean I find it any less annoying to look at in my book! :p

I wasn't even aware there was a DE FAQ...shows how little I pay attention to the FAQ updates

Nurgling Chieftain
02-06-2011, 21:55
As FAQ's go, it wasn't very exciting. Nothing like the Space Wolf FAQ changing core rulings for the entire game, and then changing them back shortly thereafter.

big squig
02-06-2011, 21:59
I suppose what gets me is that even with "Universal Special Rules" they are still churning out additional special rules for many units simply to make them seem different. So I'm curious to see when 6th comes along what, if any, perviously simply special rules become "universal".

and I'd much rather they didn't do that as well. I'd be much happier with the game if there were nearly no unique special rules and instead the codexes mostly stuck to USRs.

Egaeus
02-06-2011, 22:39
and I'd much rather they didn't do that as well. I'd be much happier with the game if there were nearly no unique special rules and instead the codexes mostly stuck to USRs.

I suppose that I see two broad types of "special rules".

The first type is what I would term "mechanics tricks" which is simply a modification in some way of the core game mechanics. For example, Blood Claws' "Berserk Charge" could easily become a USR: "Models get +X attacks when they assault" where X will be greater than the usual one, but using the variable allows the potential for it to become "Super Berserk Charge" if it were more than 2. These types of rules would be easy to create as USRs and done with variables (if desired) could still allow some flexibility (So for example Blood Claws would have "Berserk Charge +2" whereas some other unit could potentially have "Berserk Charge +3").

The other types is "actual" special rules...things that wouldn't be simple to explain or work very well in a general sense. For example the Mawloc's "Terror from the Deep". Now to a degree I would argue that these special rules do keep the game interesting, but too much creates wonky rules and balance situations, especially when GW aren't always clear on how their core rules are supposed to work (for example, they really like giving out "Outflank" when "Outflank" is not really a specific rule in itself but a special ability granted by Infiltrate or Scout. Now we can easily understand how it's supposed to work, just that in the context of the rules it just isn't right).

Nurgling Chieftain
02-06-2011, 23:26
They tried streamlining (Dark Angels-CSM), it wasn't received so well. Like it or hate it, "cool special rules" moves models. There's really no fundamental reason why "Berserk Charge" shouldn't just be "Furious Assault" (which is apparently good enough for, um, Berserkers :rolleyes: ).

Imperialis_Dominatus
03-06-2011, 00:00
At this point they really ought to just put the entire vanilla Space Marine codex in the main rulebook.

Hey, then they'd still get the first rules update every edition... and it would knock out a Codex slot! Everyone wins!