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.

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

House rules are fine, but make it impossible to compare experiences and metas.

 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

The only "house rule" I ordinarily use offline is a stipulation of terrain height. "I'm aware that this tower is actually 8 inches tall; however, for the purposes of this game, for movement purposes, it is 6 inches tall, and this bit right next to it is 3 inches tall."

Other than that, ad hoc list restrictions and permissions. E.g., "Do not use this or that in the following game." Again: "I'm using this much; but you may use this many points."

Outside of that, it's GWs job to fix the rules.

Martel732 wrote:
House rules are fine, but make it impossible to compare experiences and metas.

This is part of why I haven't implemented some of the rules changes I'm working on in my spare time. The other reasons include things like not being able to use them at my FLGS because it involves a lot of effort on behalf of people who aren't good mates of mine and are unlikely to play often with me. I still like to use House Rules when playing with good mates at our FLGS or at one of our houses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
The only "house rule" I ordinarily use offline is a stipulation of terrain height. "I'm aware that this tower is actually 8 inches tall; however, for the purposes of this game, for movement purposes, it is 6 inches tall, and this bit right next to it is 3 inches tall."

Sounds fair enough.

Traditio wrote:
Outside of that, it's GWs job to fix the rules.

It's GW's job to at least try to fix their rules. This doesn't preclude us as players from attempting to do it in the meantime, but each to their own.

IllumiNini wrote:It's GW's job to at least try to fix their rules. This doesn't preclude us as players from attempting to do it in the meantime, but each to their own.

It really depends on the circumstances. If I were playing someone who plays chaos space marines, I'd make the stipulation: "Heads up: you get marks and icons for free."

Outside of things like that, the problem is the matter of opponents. What's the average player, who may not know you that well, really willing to accept on an ad hoc basis?

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:It's GW's job to at least try to fix their rules. This doesn't preclude us as players from attempting to do it in the meantime, but each to their own.

It really depends on the circumstances. If I were playing someone who plays chaos space marines, I'd make the stipulation: "Heads up: you get marks and icons for free."

Outside of things like that, the problem is the matter of opponents. What's the average player, who may not know you that well, really willing to accept on an ad hoc basis?

And that right there is the biggest problem with House Rules: Outside people you know well and/or regularly play with, enforcing any house rules at all can be difficult at best, but I'm not necessarily concerned with this because I'm never going to be able to change that. It's always going to be a case of My House Rules will only ever be used by my good mates and those people who I play with the most.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:It's GW's job to at least try to fix their rules. This doesn't preclude us as players from attempting to do it in the meantime, but each to their own.

It really depends on the circumstances. If I were playing someone who plays chaos space marines, I'd make the stipulation: "Heads up: you get marks and icons for free."

Outside of things like that, the problem is the matter of opponents. What's the average player, who may not know you that well, really willing to accept on an ad hoc basis?

And that right there is the biggest problem with House Rules: Outside people you know well and/or regularly play with, enforcing any house rules at all can be difficult at best, but I'm not necessarily concerned with this because I'm never going to be able to change that. It's always going to be a case of My House Rules will only ever be used by my good mates and those people who I play with the most.

Though, again, I do think that some cases are unobjectionable even among strangers. I don't think a CSM player will get angry or refuse a game if he's presented with the offer of free marks/icons, nor do I think a Dark Eldar player would bat an eye if a C:SM player told him that he gets x number of free points (to compensate for free rhinos).

Ultimately, and this is what it comes down to, any "house" rules have to be simple enough to be easily understood and accepted by anyone, and they have to come at the stipulation of those who play the stronger codices.

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.

The best and most reasonable "house rules," which don't require a change of rules, are self-nerfs by players of stronger codices, and that doesn't even require an extended conversation.

Again, this example comes to mind because I'm playing this game tomorrow: "I tell you what: bring your 2000 points Dark Eldar list against my 1850 C:SM battle company. I have 5 free rhinos, so it's about even anyway."

We have some unwritten rules that people try to stick too. More or less gentleman's agreements, with a few repeat offenders.

We mostly play by RAW. The two most prominent and active members in our gaming group play Eldar/SM/Tau/Necrons/Thunderdome so RAW goes in their favour almost all of the time. Everytime I feel like starting White Scars just to keep up I miss the fluff of Orks/Blood Angels to commit to painting white.

House rules that are common sense and pass the smell test are fine by me.

Frozocrone wrote:We have some unwritten rules that people try to stick too. More or less gentleman's agreements, with a few repeat offenders.

Probably the best and easiest way to go without getting into play-testing and balancing acts.

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.

The best and most reasonable "house rules," which don't require a change of rules, are self-nerfs by players of stronger codices, and that doesn't even require an extended conversation.

I don't think the Eldar players (in your example) are obliged to do anything. If they want to play their Eldar by-the-codex, then they have every right to. Not only can we not expect them to automatically House Rule their Wraithknights to be more expensive simply because the general consensus of an online community says they should be, but House Ruling should always be discussed between all players involved because you're deviating from the core set of official rules.

TLDR? Eldar players have no obligation to deviate from their codex and all House Rules should be discussed and made known.

I also disagree that they are the best and most reasonable House Rules since there is no proof that this is the case.

Traditio wrote:Again, this example comes to mind because I'm playing this game tomorrow: "I tell you what: bring your 2000 points Dark Eldar list against my 1850 C:SM battle company. I have 5 free rhinos, so it's about even anyway."

See, you've told them that they can bring 2,000 points because the game will be roughly even (since you get 150 points of stuff for free). This scenario is predicated on the fact that you have voiced your House Ruling on this, which seems to go against your idea that you don't have to tell your opponent this sort of stuff.

Only house rule that me and my buddies generally follow is when using objective cards or rolling for them we discard any that are impossible to perform and draw/roll a new one.

Other than that we sometimes restrict ourselves like no LoW, no more than 12 total psychic dice, etc, etc.

 bomtek80 wrote:
Only house rule that me and my buddies generally follow is when using objective cards or rolling for them we discard any that are impossible to perform and draw/roll a new one.

My friends and I do the same. It's a good rule. It also seems to perfectly counter the argument that those particular cards/scenarios are what make Tactical Objective cards bad haha.

 bomtek80 wrote:
Other than that we sometimes restrict ourselves like no LoW, no more than 12 total psychic dice, etc, etc.

I've done similar things in the past. They make the list building and the game more interesting because you have to find ways of working around it.

I like house rules. I employ them.

I personally hate playing with the balance of an already complicated game, but in rare cases such as friends and I wanting to do a 1v1v1 I have had to become inventive when it comes to finding a fair game type that doesn't end up with 1 person being crushed in the first few turns. I eventually came up with a mix between the relic and emperors will, which means the relic will constantly be swapping hands as it is a high priority while you can also attempt to secure objectives and things like first blood/slay the warlord if you want to be sneaky

The games are actually quite fun as if you chase after the relic you leave your objective defenses weaker and if there are two armies fighting for the relic its not uncommon for the other player to steal enemy objectives

I try to use as few house rules as possible, so I'm not confused when I go to play outside of 'the house', but I really dislike some rules so they get house ruled.

My main one is an effort to (a) remove some randomness and (b) rebalance the game away from shooting and towards melée, and that is to change standard charge distance from 2D6" to 6+D6".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
They should already be voluntarily taking it upon themselves to limit themselves to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes without even being asked.

The best and most reasonable "house rules," which don't require a change of rules, are self-nerfs by players of stronger codices, and that doesn't even require an extended conversation.

I think this is important. I don't think people have to do this, but I do it myself. For example, my new Khorne army is unbound, but I'm not going to take 3 Bloodthirsters and a Lord of Skulls. I have 4 troops, 4 elites, 2 FA, 4 heavy support and 4 HQ (of different types). That seems uncheesy to me, especially since I've avoided most of the power units in the codex, such as bikers and heldrakes. Also, by not taking a formation, I don't get certain bonuses. I think I have self-nerfed quite effectively, especially given that my opponents are some really old space marines and CSM.

I don't like house rules but will use them. Other than the obvious 'this rule just doesn't make sense so let's fudge it', there's a handful that just make things easier. The impossible Obj cards being tossed, ignoring Mysterious Obj unless there's a real reason to use the buffs and so on, I don't blink an eye at that. It's when ITC rules come into play that I get a bit grumbly on how much is different, especially when something written in the rules is thrown out and I'm not expecting it. I haven't played a game though where my opponent won't allow a take back when a sudden rule I was unaware of just threw a wrench in everything I had going on, which is why I am okay with using houseruled despite not liking them.

I like them but find they only work with like minded people. And in that respect if you find someone who wants to play things in a similar manner you probably wouldn't need as many house rules anyway.

We have about 30-40 "official" house rules for the odd 40k game we play

I honestly don't think that 7th edition is playable without them - the faqs have helped but the disparity between the 7th (and earlier) edition codexes and the later 7.5 edition Super Powered Codexes is so great that balance is a joke.

I answered "I like House Rules & employ them", but that doesn't really describe why.

Generally speaking, there are many situations where the rules aren't 100% clear. In these situations, coming up with a rule that makes sense is, essentially, a House Rule. My group was playing with Psychic Shriek not requiring a to-hit roll all through 7th so far. The ruling that the major tournaments went with was that it still DID require a to-hit roll, but because the wording was vague, both answers were equally valid. We chose the one we felt made more sense.

Additionally, I'll echo the same thing as some others in that we house-rule terrain as necessary for what we think is fun.

Lastly, we make up a number of missions and scenarios. Those are house rules technically, since they're not missions from any book.

In some ways they're effectively mandatory, I don't know of a single event, club, or FLGS where people play the game strictly "out of the box", there's always some explicit or implicit house rules with 40k because it simply doesn't function "out of the box".

That said, in terms of "house rules" like stuff for roads and whatnot or things the game doesn't cover, I'm fine as long as I know them beforehand, but I don't see them used very often at all.

some I like others I don't

fixing terrain with some house rules for example I like a lot.

Not a fan of allowing discount stompa's and other homebrew crazyness

Some I like:

1. If you draw an objective that you cannot get (no psychers or whatever to fill the requirements), discard and draw again.

2. When rolling for Warlord traits and you select the main rulebook instead of your codex, take any from the book that match that number.

3. We use AdeptiCon missions a lot, as they have good mix of Maelstrom and Smash-Face in the same mission.

There are probably some others that don't spring to mind.

We use some:
- Maelstrom cards that cannot be completed in any way are discarded and you can draw another one in its place
- We don't use GCs, SHVs nor D-weapons (no Eldar player around). Infantry LoW is ok
- Infiltrate doesn't force a unit with it to use the special rule (next FAQ will consider that as baseline rule anyway, yay!)
- Void Shields only as upgrade to fortifications (I'm the only one who sometimes bother bringing one that can have such upgrade)
- Warlord traits that allow to be re-rolled if can't be used by the model (Tau has some of those) can be re-rolled until you get an usable one
- Witchfire psychic powers without profile still have to roll To Hit (new FAQ will kill that one)
- No Flyers under 1000p; FMCs can be used if they only glide. This is most to avoid scaring newbies

Honestly, the only house rules I'm really comfortable with are specific scenarios for narrative games and campaigns and the like. I would grudgingly accept "Club Rules" that aim to fix some issues, but as a general rule I'm not a fan of changing large swathes of the rules, even in a game like 40k. Probably the only exception would be things that are obviously needed like discarding a mission objective that is impossible to complete.

We use the redraw useless maelstrom cards, and also we don't bother with mysterious objectives, as all the book keeping is a pain in the behind.

We often dont bother with night fighting too, although that's usually because we forget... tbh that's one rule I'd like gone from 8th.

Infantry without night vision? Xenos that can't see in the dark? It's all a bit of a non-starter.

I usually play with the odd house-rule here or there; things like psychic powers and warlord traits that aren't applicable can be re-rolled, +1 BS if target is within quarter range and/or if target is a Monstrous Creature or Vehicle (seriously, how does a Space Marine miss a tank at point blank range?), Explodes! result is replaced by Magazine Explosion (D3 Hull Points instead of 1, Explodes! if this destroys the vehicle), Graviton inflicts Crew Shaken instead of Immobilised and only does hull damage if crew is already shaken. D weapons are glancing hit (1), penetrating hit (2-3) or D3 additional damage (4-6), others are single Wound (1-3) or D3+1 Wounds (4-6). Vehicles have limited turns and turrets can only turn 90º per turn so to hit something behind you may require presenting the vehicle's sides, making it a more tactical decision.

Most of the rest are quick-to-play rules, such as being able to Run in the movement phase, or just things to keep the game fun, for example highly unlikely events that could end the game before it begins are usually ignored, like failing a re-rollable Leadership 10 test on a valuable unit that will flee off the table, a lucky hit that one-shots an Imperial Knight (with the above tweaks that'd be something like an Explodes! result with a D weapon with two good D3 rolls.

Eh, I'm sure there's a bunch I'm missing, but we play like this that sometimes it's hard to remember what the vanilla rules are actually like

My group plays with 2. Redraw any unuseable tactical objectives, and if you roll invisibility you can reroll so as to not have it. If you keep rolling it just keep rerolling until you don't have it

When playing AoS we house rule that measurements are from base to base.

Got grief from 40kers overhearing us having that discussion. Something like 'See? Told you AoS wasn't playable as written. Won't catch us having to house rule in 40k'.

Later those same guys were deploying their 40k armies. 'Now this Tau squad with the so-and-so guns? They're really armed with such-and-such guns for this game. Just letting you know since they're not WYSIWYG.'

I almost stubbed my toe on the irony. Or was it hypocrisy?

It very much depends on the game.

For WH40K and WHFB, sometimes houserules were needed, sometimes 'borrowed' from tournament rules (that were houserules that were shared by a larger community).

With Kings of War... mostly the only houserules have been for new armies. (And then some of those houserules went away when Uncharted Empires came out... we didn't need to fake the armies, anymore.)

For D&D/Pathfinder... house rules! baby! (Actually, some of the house rules thaat I had come up with for D&D 3.5 went away... because remarkably similar rules became official in Pathfinder.)

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
When playing AoS we house rule that measurements are from base to base.

Got grief from 40kers overhearing us having that discussion. Something like 'See? Told you AoS wasn't playable as written. Won't catch us having to house rule in 40k'.

Later those same guys were deploying their 40k armies. 'Now this Tau squad with the so-and-so guns? They're really armed with such-and-such guns for this game. Just letting you know since they're not WYSIWYG.'

I almost stubbed my toe on the irony. Or was it hypocrisy?

It was neither.

It was people playing with what they had - not adding a new rule to the game.

And, yes, if you needed to add the Base to Base rule, then they are right. (Or even if it wasn't needed but just made play easier.)

That said - needing houserules does not necessarily make AoS a bad game, though it is most certainly a game that I, personally, do not like (and not because it needs houserules.)

The Auld Grump

-