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.

Please check which of 8th edition's optional rules you actually use in the majority your games.

If you don't have a clear answer (for example, because you play in two different metas, one casual and one highly competitive), pick your preference.

If you don't play 8th edition because you prefer 7th or 30k - I don't care, please don't vote

If you skip other rules regularly that are not listed here, feel free to tell us which ones and why!

All of them.
Though the table size thing hasn't come up and by table won't get any larger at higher points :p

Only issue with the poll being that you can't tell how big % of players use each as each having 1 could be 1 player answering or 12 players each picking separate.

Might have been more useful to have "packages".

All of them. Though the limited detachments thing can be flexible if wanting to be fluffy or old school ; eg: wanting to make old school witch hunter list with sisters, ministorum, inquisitors and assassins at 2k) or just say point limit for game is 2001.

We tend to use all of them. We regularly break the battlefield size in a 500-1000 point game, but never if it's bigger than that. If we wanted, we would probably break the Limited Number of Detachments rule, but only if it really mattered. In a campaign, we might break all of them, because story is more important there.

I'm pretty much fine with using whatever the opponent wants, but as a default I'd assume normal matched rules but not tournament suggestions. Beta rules are kinda weird situation, I guess at this point it is easier to assume that they are used.

tneva82 wrote:
Only issue with the poll being that you can't tell how big % of players use each as each having 1 could be 1 player answering or 12 players each picking separate.

Might have been more useful to have "packages".

The usefulness depends on what you want to know

I just wanted to know what rules are enforced regularly and which aren't. For example, despite my group being pretty casual, we always use all those rules, minus the battlefield size. We simply don't have 8'x4' tables available.

I created this after reading you and a couple of other guys fight on how commonly what rules are used. If the poll results in the vast majority of people using the detachment rules, that's no longer an argument.

Every single one of them.

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Only issue with the poll being that you can't tell how big % of players use each as each having 1 could be 1 player answering or 12 players each picking separate.

Might have been more useful to have "packages".

The usefulness depends on what you want to know

I just wanted to know what rules are enforced regularly and which aren't. For example, despite my group being pretty casual, we always use all those rules, minus the battlefield size. We simply don't have 8'x4' tables available.

I created this after reading you and a couple of other guys fight on how commonly what rules are used. If the poll results in the vast majority of people using the detachment rules, that's no longer an argument.

But that's the thing. Without knowing how many voted you don't know. As is based on poll none :s used by more than 10%...

To know how common something is you need to know how many voted total. Here voters can be anywhere between 16 and 169...so if you have 12 votes how common it is?

Who cares?

We will not reach a representative sample size anyways, so any result won't be scientifically relevant either way.

The relative difference between the most used rule and whatever other rule is enough to sate my curiosity and prove general trends.

All of them.

tneva82 wrote:
To know how common something is you need to know how many voted total. Here voters can be anywhere between 16 and 169...so if you have 12 votes how common it is?

Not necessarily true here. While the % in the poll may be off, the differences between the results can be plotted, and you can see what is more or less common at a table, and by what large of a %. For example, Strategic Discipline currently is sitting at the highest number of votes; 22. Organized Event Guidelines is the lowest at 13 votes. Organized Event Guidelines are, therefore, 40% less likely to be followed than Strategic Discipline, rather than the 4% shown in the poll. If you plot each of these on a bar graph, with the Y-Axis being the percentages and the X-Axis being the rule, with the visible height capping out at the highest percentage, you can gauge very readily how popular or frequent each of these rules is compared to the others.

 Jidmah wrote:
Who cares?

We will not reach a representative sample size anyways, so any result won't be scientifically relevant either way.

The relative difference between the most used rule and whatever other rule is enough to sate my curiosity and prove general trends.

Of course since you don't have an option for people who don't use the optional rules you don't have a frame of reference for any of this as well

It could be 1000 people not using them vs the 50 or so who do and voted on your poll and you would never know

How are they optional ? I thought most of these rules are faq ?
(Not talking about thr beta, obviously)

 godardc wrote:
How are they optional ? I thought most of these rules are faq ?
(Not talking about thr beta, obviously)

Technically, these rules are all for Matched Play games. None of them apply to an Open Play or Narrative game. You can absolutely play the game quite differently by doing so. In fact, I plan to this weekend!

I'd tick all the boxes even though my gaming group plays casual and we often sprinkle in some narrative aspects to the missions. Even when we declare a mission as narrative we still use point values, but in that case most of the matched play rules are out of course. We tend to not allow unlimited summoning though as that totally breaks the balance.

Yes I know, the games I enjoyed the most were done with the old expansion «Missions de batailles» (battle missions ?) !
But by playing Matched Play, one have to play by these rules, doesn't he ?

All of them. They're now part of the standard game for matched play, and matched play is the only way to play.

(Hypothetically a narrative game, a real narrative game with a story-driven scenario unlike GW's concept of 'narrative play', could use some or none of them but it's assumed that a game like that will have completely different rules.)

 godardc wrote:
Yes I know, the games I enjoyed the most were done with the old expansion «Missions de batailles» (battle missions ?) !
But by playing Matched Play, one have to play by these rules, doesn't he ?

Some of the rules at the top are default matched play rules, but some are optional organised play suggestions. So the thread title is a little misleading. Some of them aren't optional (except insofar as everything about the game is optional of course!).

I'm newly returned to the 40k tables as of last Sat. I spent late Aug & all of Sept reading the rules, FAQs, codices for my favorite armies, getting two of my armies ready for play, & generally finding out how people in my area were playing. And as far as I could tell, the majority of the local players that I'll be dealing with are only using actual errata. Sometimes not even that. (& only 1 player knew that there was a Sept. FAQ coming & no one present at the shop last week realized it had dropped)
No Beta rules & certainly no Organized Play only stuff.
On Beta rules - the general opinion was that "We'll wait & see if they become real rules."
On Organized Play stuff - the opinion was overwhelmingly "That's nice, we're not in a tournament setting."

At my LGS we use all of those.

 godardc wrote:
Yes I know, the games I enjoyed the most were done with the old expansion «Missions de batailles» (battle missions ?) !
But by playing Matched Play, one have to play by these rules, doesn't he ?

Rule of three and the detachment limit are not normal matched play rules but are suggestions for tournaments.

None of these are "optional" rules. The only ones that could even remotely be considered optional are the Organised Play rules. A lot of them are explicit matched play rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
None of these are "optional" rules. The only ones that could even remotely be considered optional are the Organised Play rules. A lot of them are explicit matched play rules.

Shockingly, not everyone plays matched play, and a few of these are beta rules which dont have to be used even in matched play

Psychic Focus is considered optional by most?

All of them, except Psychic Focus.I don't plan to abide by the 'rule of three', either, though I haven't played since that became a thing.

Rules designed to prevent WAAC spam are simply not necessary in my meta.

All of them.

Mostly because we like to test and also because they all make sense and limit silliness.

 Billagio wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
None of these are "optional" rules. The only ones that could even remotely be considered optional are the Organised Play rules. A lot of them are explicit matched play rules.

Shockingly, not everyone plays matched play, and a few of these are beta rules which dont have to be used even in matched play

It is, in my experience, almost impossible to find an opponent willing to play anything but Matched Play.

Even my former group, who were a bunch of fluff-merchants, insisted that the basic architecture of games be Matched Play.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
None of these are "optional" rules. The only ones that could even remotely be considered optional are the Organised Play rules. A lot of them are explicit matched play rules.

Shockingly, not everyone plays matched play, and a few of these are beta rules which dont have to be used even in matched play

It is, in my experience, almost impossible to find an opponent willing to play anything but Matched Play.

Even my former group, who were a bunch of fluff-merchants, insisted that the basic architecture of games be Matched Play.

If thats your experience then thats fine (its mine too), but that doesnt mean that they are mandatory rules. People that we dont know play Open or Narrative games. I also play Open play from time to time with friends as well.

Just because you and people around you only use one ruleset doesnt mean others dont use different official rulesets. This mindset is a problem I see on dakka a lot where everyone talks like everyone elses local meta is a ITC Tournament 24/7

De jure, no they're not mandatory. De facto, they are.

I would also argue that they aren't 'optional' in open or narrative play, though. They don't exist in either, they only exist to rein in the silliness that bleeds down from tournaments to local WAACs.

 Billagio wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
None of these are "optional" rules. The only ones that could even remotely be considered optional are the Organised Play rules. A lot of them are explicit matched play rules.

Shockingly, not everyone plays matched play, and a few of these are beta rules which dont have to be used even in matched play

If you want to go down that route then literally EVERY rule is "optional" and then at that point why bother discussing anything.