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 a fan of house rules and I avoid them if I can, if I'm playing somewhere that has them I'll play along naturally.

Find the range of games I play confusing enough without adding to it.

A set of rules that is just horrible i just stop playing, there are plenty of other games.

Our local group has two house rules.

1) When rolling, pick up failures not successes. That way we can count the successes easier.

2) When random terrain calls for a river, either player can call for a lake/pond instead. Rivers tend to heavily favor one side or the other.

That... pretty well covers us.

Traditio wrote:It's not my business to whinge to a random Eldar player about how undercosted wraithknights are. Its his prerogative to count his wraithknight as though it cost an extra 100 points (preferably without even telling me). Again, it's not my prerogative to tell eldar players about how broken scatter bikes are. They should already be voluntarily taking it upon themselves to limit themselves to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes without even being asked.

See, here's a problem someone might raise with your theory, Traditio.

You expect Eldar to add extra points to their list, yet you actually endorse a Space Marine player taking free units. Your solution to the SM issue is "Your opponent gets free points too", but why does this not apply to the Eldar player's opponent? You nerf the Eldar player, instead of buffing their opponent like in the SM scenario.

Solution:
EITHER
1) The Eldar player counts their Wraithknights as 100 points more expensive, the Space Marine player should pay for their Rhinos, Razorbacks and Drop Pods (as is their prerogative ), and the opponent gets nothing. (The "everything should be paid for approach")
2) The Space Marine player gets their free transports, the Eldar player gets their normal costed Wraithknights, and the hypothetical opponent gets extra points to account for these. (The "free stuff is okay" approach")

I mean, it IS "GW's prerogative to write the balanced rules" so why should I have to count my Wraithknight as being an extra 100 points, according to your argument? I am under no obligation to do so. GW gave me the opportunity to take full scatterbike units, so it's not wrong for me to take it, according to you.

Something needs to give.

Regarding my opinions on houserules, when playing with Maelstrom cards, an objective must be held over the opponent's turn, giving them a fighting chance to stop the capturer capping it. I also divide my ruins into 3" levels, each level being either 3" or 6" higher than the last, or simply impossible to scale, and no ladders or doors are needed to pass through ruins. Aside from that, I don't think I have any other house rules. Even these can be scrapped if my opponent doesn't approve, but I've never had cause to yet.

I hate house rules big time. It is always the same people want something they cant have . So they change the rule so they can. We all know the squeeky wheel, they always complain til they get what they want or keep fixxing the game til it sucks and they are all that is left. They say god this game sucks it never had a chance and then blame the game even tho they killed it.

Like one guy or two guys around here they played everyday after school house ruled everything so much people started to play at home rather then go to the store and listen to how they fixed everything and you are doing it wrong.

Long story short two months later the store got rid of all the tables but 1 they said 40k rules killed the game and quit. After a couple months the store has more tables and we where doing fine again.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You expect Eldar to add extra points to their list, yet you actually endorse a Space Marine player taking free units. Your solution to the SM issue is "Your opponent gets free points too", but why does this not apply to the Eldar player's opponent? You nerf the Eldar player, instead of buffing their opponent like in the SM scenario.

Solution:
EITHER
1) The Eldar player counts their Wraithknights as 100 points more expensive, the Space Marine player should pay for their Rhinos, Razorbacks and Drop Pods (as is their prerogative ), and the opponent gets nothing. (The "everything should be paid for approach")
2) The Space Marine player gets their free transports, the Eldar player gets their normal costed Wraithknights, and the hypothetical opponent gets extra points to account for these. (The "free stuff is okay" approach")

I disagree with this. Unless you are spamming free drop pods and grav, even if the wraithknight were "fairly" costed, a gladius strike force would still need "free" transports for an even match-up.

I mean, it IS "GW's prerogative to write the balanced rules" so why should I have to count my Wraithknight as being an extra 100 points, according to your argument? I am under no obligation to do so. GW gave me the opportunity to take full scatterbike units, so it's not wrong for me to take it, according to you.

None of this follows from anything that I said.

Look at it this way:

A wraithknight is not worth 295 points. It's worth 400 points.

Is a tactical squad really worth 70 points in the current edition? Is a battle company (minus transports) really worth roughly a thousand points?

I don't think so. You need to throw in free rhinos to make it worth it, even if eldar, tau, etc. were properly balanced/fairly costed.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You expect Eldar to add extra points to their list, yet you actually endorse a Space Marine player taking free units. Your solution to the SM issue is "Your opponent gets free points too", but why does this not apply to the Eldar player's opponent? You nerf the Eldar player, instead of buffing their opponent like in the SM scenario.

Solution:
EITHER
1) The Eldar player counts their Wraithknights as 100 points more expensive, the Space Marine player should pay for their Rhinos, Razorbacks and Drop Pods (as is their prerogative ), and the opponent gets nothing. (The "everything should be paid for approach")
2) The Space Marine player gets their free transports, the Eldar player gets their normal costed Wraithknights, and the hypothetical opponent gets extra points to account for these. (The "free stuff is okay" approach")

I disagree with this. Unless you are spamming free drop pods and grav, even if the wraithknight were "fairly" costed, a gladius strike force would still need "free" transports for an even match-up.

I'm not assuming they're against eachother. I'm assuming each list is fighting orks. There are two games going on - Eldar vs Ork, and SM vs Ork.
Now, which approach do you take? Either the players with the stronger lists are nerfed, or the weaker list is brought up.

I mean, it IS "GW's prerogative to write the balanced rules" so why should I have to count my Wraithknight as being an extra 100 points, according to your argument? I am under no obligation to do so. GW gave me the opportunity to take full scatterbike units, so it's not wrong for me to take it, according to you.

None of this follows from anything that I said.

Look at it this way:

A wraithknight is not worth 295 points. It's worth 400 points.

Is a tactical squad really worth 70 points in the current edition? Is a battle company (minus transports) really worth roughly a thousand points?

I don't think so. You need to throw in free rhinos to make it worth it, even if eldar, tau, etc. were properly balanced/fairly costed.

A Tactical Squad is worth the points you pay. If you want to change that, change the points on the Tactical Squad instead. Do not add stuff unless it is paid for, unless you're assuming a Tactical Squad is worth only 35 points.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You expect Eldar to add extra points to their list, yet you actually endorse a Space Marine player taking free units. Your solution to the SM issue is "Your opponent gets free points too", but why does this not apply to the Eldar player's opponent? You nerf the Eldar player, instead of buffing their opponent like in the SM scenario.

Solution:
EITHER
1) The Eldar player counts their Wraithknights as 100 points more expensive, the Space Marine player should pay for their Rhinos, Razorbacks and Drop Pods (as is their prerogative ), and the opponent gets nothing. (The "everything should be paid for approach")
2) The Space Marine player gets their free transports, the Eldar player gets their normal costed Wraithknights, and the hypothetical opponent gets extra points to account for these. (The "free stuff is okay" approach")

I disagree with this. Unless you are spamming free drop pods and grav, even if the wraithknight were "fairly" costed, a gladius strike force would still need "free" transports for an even match-up.

I mean, it IS "GW's prerogative to write the balanced rules" so why should I have to count my Wraithknight as being an extra 100 points, according to your argument? I am under no obligation to do so. GW gave me the opportunity to take full scatterbike units, so it's not wrong for me to take it, according to you.

None of this follows from anything that I said.

Look at it this way:

A wraithknight is not worth 295 points. It's worth 400 points.

Is a tactical squad really worth 70 points in the current edition? Is a battle company (minus transports) really worth roughly a thousand points?

I don't think so. You need to throw in free rhinos to make it worth it, even if eldar, tau, etc. were properly balanced/fairly costed.

Yes because thats what the game designers say they are worth, like it or not thats what they are worth. You do not really get to pick which rules you like and dont with out saying it is a different game.

OgreChubbs wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You expect Eldar to add extra points to their list, yet you actually endorse a Space Marine player taking free units. Your solution to the SM issue is "Your opponent gets free points too", but why does this not apply to the Eldar player's opponent? You nerf the Eldar player, instead of buffing their opponent like in the SM scenario.

Solution:
EITHER
1) The Eldar player counts their Wraithknights as 100 points more expensive, the Space Marine player should pay for their Rhinos, Razorbacks and Drop Pods (as is their prerogative ), and the opponent gets nothing. (The "everything should be paid for approach")
2) The Space Marine player gets their free transports, the Eldar player gets their normal costed Wraithknights, and the hypothetical opponent gets extra points to account for these. (The "free stuff is okay" approach")

I disagree with this. Unless you are spamming free drop pods and grav, even if the wraithknight were "fairly" costed, a gladius strike force would still need "free" transports for an even match-up.

I mean, it IS "GW's prerogative to write the balanced rules" so why should I have to count my Wraithknight as being an extra 100 points, according to your argument? I am under no obligation to do so. GW gave me the opportunity to take full scatterbike units, so it's not wrong for me to take it, according to you.

None of this follows from anything that I said.

Look at it this way:

A wraithknight is not worth 295 points. It's worth 400 points.

Is a tactical squad really worth 70 points in the current edition? Is a battle company (minus transports) really worth roughly a thousand points?

I don't think so. You need to throw in free rhinos to make it worth it, even if eldar, tau, etc. were properly balanced/fairly costed.

Yes because thats what the game designers say they are worth, like it or not thats what they are worth. You do not really get to pick which rules you like and dont with out saying it is a different game.

You do if you use House Rules - thats kinda the point

Unless you are really saying the 7.5 edition Power Codexes are playing the same game as the rest? Using one of those codexes agianst the others is seal clubbing.

We don't play 40k, but our club does employ a few house rules.

Every game requires either eratta or house ruling, so when something comes up that we know we'll encounter again it makes sense to have a house rule.

Our club's favorite game is Song of Blades and Heroes. It's been through 4 updates or so and it's pretty well nailed down but we have a couple of house/club rules including:
-You can place your mini anywhere along the measuring stick, even if that puts you effectively around a corner
-We've disallowed the "Savage" rule which makes it too easy to achieve a gruesome kill and force a morale check on your opponents warband.

We also do alot of house-ruing to achieve certain kinds of scenarios, but that's a bit different since it's more senario specific.

When running events at conventions we tend to house-rule like crazy. The games we use are usually pretty rules light, but we'll cut whole swathes out of the rules to make sure that the participants will spend less time learning and remembering rules and more time having fun playing.

As I only play 4th edition, we run a ton of house rules. It makes the game playable and more balanced as we have spent a lot of time removing the power creep and rules abuse from all allowed codexs.

House rules just aren't my bag, baby.
I play to have fun and field my work. Yes, I've played tournaments, but only as a opportunity to play opponents I'd normally never encounter. I don't like playing against douchebags and rules Nazis so I try to avoid those lovely personality traits from flaring up by sticking to what's in 'da book. In my gaming "career", I've used/encountered house rules and they're all fine until that one game where the house rule in question turns the tide and causes somebody to lose a game they'd otherwise have possibly won. It's just not worth the bad vibes. Hence, the aversion.

I generally don't like them but if you are playing 40k, GW has let the game degenerate into such a sorry state you pretty much have to use some. Other games - no.

House rules can be great fun, but when you essentially "make up" your own rules, you need to be sure that you're doing it for the right reasons. I see a lot of people make house rules in order to "fix" things, which they perceive as being "broken". Occasionally, a game will have some broken element that genuinely needs fixing. More often, the game isn't broken, and it's just the player who is not giving the game a chance. Ironically, these "fixes" often end up breaking the game for real.

I usually try to play games the way the creator intended, and I avoid houserulling anything if possible. That way, I can be sure I'm giving the "real" game a chance, and that I'm not forming bad habits that aren't part of the meta. If I'm confident that I know a game well, and understand the meta , and I still think something needs fixing, then I might be more open to houseruling it.

The more balanced a game is , the less it will need houseruling, for the most part.

there are companies that spend no time at all trying to balance their games, and there are companies that spend a lot of time balancing their game.

Then there are those games where the assumption is that every GM has a game designer in them, waiting to get out. (Anyone remember Shockforce?)

The Auld Grump

I just am simply not experienced enough to weigh in on the matter. I've played a few games but the rules are rather complex and, playing with people who don't know my army (GKs), I sometimes screw up a rule. I recently tied a veteran player (my GKs vs. his nurgle csm) and a lot of people talk of CSM as if they are weak atm, but I had a rough time of it (I made a huge mistake and he surrounded my land raider and blew it up, killing 4 of my 5 paladins), though afterwards I realized that was only due to me making a mistake (assuming paladins have one wound when they have 2, so with the right allocation none of my paladins would have died and I would have rolled over his terminators). Honestly, next time I played him i would nerf myself but IDK how to do that without shooting myself in the foot. That being said, I am building a nurgle army because I loved his playstyle, screening my shooter with cultists so his obliterators could destroy my strike squad and nurgle units being tough as nails.

Other than that, only house rule I used pertains to cocked die. (if its off the table reroll if its on the table its up to the opponent). Luckily I play with a great group of guys so the opponent is usually magnanimous.

I also feel I have to mention that I have played 3 games with my GKs and all but on when I triedce to manifest a warp charge 2 or higher spell i got perils. So while I play an op army, I usually just end up blowing myself up anyways.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Then there are those games where the assumption is that every GM has a game designer in them, waiting to get out. (Anyone remember Shockforce?)

To be fair, the flexibility of Shockforce was kind of the selling point. The core game mechanics were pretty solid, IIRC. I really want to play that game again.

I think that any game with a unit creation mechanic is going to require some house ruling. If not to the core rules then at least some agreed-too conventions for unit-building. I've not yet seen any game with unit creation that can't be easily "broken" by even a semi-determined WAAC min-max-er.

This is part of why I find KoW so nice. The game works well (and even encourages) those who want to field interesting alternate minis. However, it doesn't have a unit creation mechanic, rather, it has a huge number of unit profiles with few customization options and a flexible allies system that allows you to mix and match enough to represent virtually any fantasy army. This is not to say it can't be min-maxed or broken by a determined list-builder, but it's less prone to that than generic games with unit-creation or popular games like 40k that have multiple layers of unit options and special rules.

 Eilif wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Then there are those games where the assumption is that every GM has a game designer in them, waiting to get out. (Anyone remember Shockforce?)

To be fair, the flexibility of Shockforce was kind of the selling point. The core game mechanics were pretty solid, IIRC. I really want to play that game again.

To be fair... I love Shockforce! I had a short campaign using the army lists that somebody had made for GI Joe. (But I do have a game designer in me, waiting to get out.... my favorite part of Traveller: the New Era was Fire, Fusion, & Steel.)

I think that any game with a unit creation mechanic is going to require some house ruling. If not to the core rules then at least some agreed-too conventions for unit-building. I've not yet seen any game with unit creation that can't be easily "broken" by even a semi-determined WAAC min-max-er.

This is part of why I find KoW so nice. The game works well (and even encourages) those who want to field interesting alternate minis. However, it doesn't have a unit creation mechanic, rather, it has a huge number of unit profiles with few customization options and a flexible allies system that allows you to mix and match enough to represent virtually any fantasy army. This is not to say it can't be min-maxed or broken by a determined list-builder, but it's less prone to that than generic games with unit-creation or popular games like 40k that have multiple layers of unit options and special rules.

The only real houserule that our group has for KoW is that you cannot choose units from taking allies that are also in your main army list. (So, Orcs cannot take Trolls as Goblin Allies, just so that they count as solid units instead of Troops.)

The Auld Grump

Eh, house rules are a bit taboo. There are some that are good, perhaps even needed, but some of them can really create a divide amongst players.

Yea the AoS model to model thing is only there because they wanted to you to be able to use your square based fantasy armies in the game. Doesn't really have anything to do with the game being unbalanced. If you're all using the same bases than measuring base to base makes the game more balanced. And there is irony in 40k players calling a game unbalanced.

For 40k applying bandaids to the rules is kind of needed tbh. I feel like a community of 40k players has a better idea of balance than a single codex writer with an agenda to push models.

 oni wrote:
Eh, house rules are a bit taboo. There are some that are good, perhaps even needed, but some of them can really create a divide amongst players.

I feel that the house rules that would cause a divide between players usually result out of something that makes a lot of sense (e.g. They only play games at GW Stores, so using lots of house rules and/or many house rules is probably frowned upon), something like the rule being poorly thought out, or something like an unwillingness to play-test. I don't think this makes it in any way taboo, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Don Savik wrote:
I feel like a community of 40k players has a better idea of balance than a single codex writer with an agenda to push models.

I think you give a number of us (myself included) a bit too much credit with this statement hahaha. We're good at identifying the fact that these is imbalance and explaining why, but often never agree on how to fix it (which is still more than can be said for the rules and codex writers haha).

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I feel like a community of 40k players has a better idea of balance than a single codex writer with an agenda to push models.

I think you give a number of us (myself included) a bit too much credit with this statement hahaha. We're good at identifying the fact that these is imbalance and explaining why, but often never agree on how to fix it (which is still more than can be said for the rules and codex writers haha).

Considering the size of some of the 'how much should X and Y cost?" threads yea you might be right there lol. I guess I really only trust houserules that clear up things in the rules. Or make unusable things (unplayable objectives/warlord traits) usable.

 Don Savik wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I feel like a community of 40k players has a better idea of balance than a single codex writer with an agenda to push models.

I think you give a number of us (myself included) a bit too much credit with this statement hahaha. We're good at identifying the fact that these is imbalance and explaining why, but often never agree on how to fix it (which is still more than can be said for the rules and codex writers haha).

Considering the size of some of the 'how much should X and Y cost?" threads yea you might be right there lol.

If the Oxford Dictionary ever needed an example for the definition of ridiculous, one of those threads would serve nicely haha.

 Don Savik wrote:
I guess I really only trust houserules that clear up things in the rules. Or make unusable things (unplayable objectives/warlord traits) usable.

Not to mention they don't really need to be balanced or play-tested or anything like that.

I neither like nor dislike house rules.

House Rules are merely a tool - a means to accomplish a certain outcome from a game mechanics standpoint. By itself a single house rule is no different than any "official" rule save for where it was published. For me, what makes or breaks house rules is the intent. Since house rules are almost always employed where RAW fails (or is perceived to fail), the intent of the house rule is of the utmost importance (RAI).

This is, of course, what makes house rules problematic in a great many settings. If someone feels the intent of the house rules goes directly against the intent of the written rules, they are likely to dismiss the house rules outright. This in turn contributes to the fracturing of the player base, which is terrible for the overall health of the hobby.

So ultimately for me it comes down to measuring whether the intent of the house rule matches with the perceived intent of the written rules (or even as broadly as the intent of "having fun" vs "not having fun"), and whether my opponent is in agreement. If all is well, then we'll use the house rules. Otherwise, I'll try to get by with RAW as much as humanly possibly (short of actual game stoppage).

I think the only house rule we consistently use is "if the dice doesn't end up on the table, you missed". If you can't hit a table from a foot away you definitely didn't hit that zombie.

I know some people who seem to think velocity is the main point of rolling dice...

What is comp other than house rules?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
What is comp other than house rules?

Comp is usually used in tournaments by a Tournament Organizer at either a game store, hotel, or a convention, so those would be Game Store Rules, TO Rules, Hotel Rules, or Convention Rules.

 IllumiNini wrote:
Hey Guys,

I'm really curious to know: What are your thoughts on House Rules?

I know that House Rules aren't seen as completely abhorrent in this community because we still have a (reasonably) active 40K Proposed Rules sub-forum, but it might not be as popular as I think it might be. So are they just too much effort to write, learn, and/or implement? Are they just wishful thinking in regards to the next set of rules? Or have you actually tried some House Rules (and/or some that have been proposed on this forum)? Are they a fun addition to games with friends and/or games at your FLGS?

I personally think House Rules are awesome. I've used a few myself, one of which includes when a vehicle travels entirely along a road that is built into the terrain (e.g. a road that runs through the middle of the board), the vehicle gets to move an additional 3" in the Movement Phase, and that's made for some interesting plays and hopefully makes for an interesting escort scenario if my mates and I ever decide to play one.

So... Thoughts?

Cheers Guys

he/she who owns the house makes the rules.