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.

After playing a couple of games at a friends house, q thought came to me.....well, more of a wonder, really. I wonder how many people have taken control of their own gaming experience?

I was thinking that outside of GW, most gaming rules sets give control of the game back to the players/owners.....and allow them to develop the games setting as they see fit. It seems to me, that GW has somehow instilled a type of unspoken control over how their games are played.

People often complain about army stats, and gaming rules, etc etc, but why not re-write the rules to better suit you and your gaming group?

Is it due to the GW games days and tournament dats that people feel restricted to playing the game in the GW way? or is it something else?

So my question: How many people here, have taken back their hobby from the GW control police? and in what way?

Well to be fair, Jervis and Rick have both suggested folks do stuff their own way in the past, and more reccently as well. The latest campaign ideas in the new White Dwarf have also been of a similar vein.

As to myself and my group aye for sure, some things I can reference off the top of my head, (other than Special Characters and new units we've made up which I think is pretty normal behaviour.)

Icons in my CSM army do not remove the bonuses when removed, only the ability for Lesser Daemons to focus in on the unit.

On tanks other than normal restrictions, ie one weapon if you move 6-12" with a Tank. All weapons can be fired regardless of strength at 6" or 12" for a fast.

We have others but those are two in particular we felt didn't make any sense.

We use some house rules, just to list a few:
Models under a template are the only ones that can be removed due to wounds.
Custom characters are allowed when based on something compareable (balanced).

Delephont wrote:After playing a couple of games at a friends house, q thought came to me.....well, more of a wonder, really. I wonder how many people have taken control of their own gaming experience?

I was thinking that outside of GW, most gaming rules sets give control of the game back to the players/owners.....and allow them to develop the games setting as they see fit. It seems to me, that GW has somehow instilled a type of unspoken control over how their games are played.

People often complain about army stats, and gaming rules, etc etc, but why not re-write the rules to better suit you and your gaming group?

Is it due to the GW games days and tournament dats that people feel restricted to playing the game in the GW way? or is it something else?

So my question: How many people here, have taken back their hobby from the GW control police? and in what way?

There are NO GW police. There are slightly over zealous Tournament players online who demand everyone stick to what is purely official and current.

Converting models, adapting rules etc have been part of GW gaming since the word go. It's the Gamers who refused to stop being spoon fed.

The rules set in place by GW offer a bit of uniform to the game experience. If I wanted to try another FLGS instead of my usual hangout, I could, knowing the game I enjoy will have the same rules as everywhere else.

House rules that alter the game slightly, and I mean slightly, keep the game going.

Like our house rule, if no one can agree on a ruling for anything. We roll on it and let fate decide. Should someone finally find the answer later on, there we go, but for that moment, instead of taking time out of playing the game, or possibly getting heated over the issue, we take care of it in a simple manner and move on.

Maybe Im just scared to move out of that comfort zone of having the rules told to me, or maybe Im lazy. But Im happy.

Delephont wrote:After playing a couple of games at a friends house, q thought came to me.....well, more of a wonder, really. I wonder how many people have taken control of their own gaming experience?

I was thinking that outside of GW, most gaming rules sets give control of the game back to the players/owners.....and allow them to develop the games setting as they see fit. It seems to me, that GW has somehow instilled a type of unspoken control over how their games are played.

People often complain about army stats, and gaming rules, etc etc, but why not re-write the rules to better suit you and your gaming group?

Is it due to the GW games days and tournament dats that people feel restricted to playing the game in the GW way? or is it something else?

So my question: How many people here, have taken back their hobby from the GW control police? and in what way?

Sorry... What was that? I was to busy checkin out your avatar

Here is the blunt but honest answer for most situations where this "cant" happen; people are being lazy.
Here it is with a cherry on top; ; people are being lazy with a cherry on top.

It involves math, and some trial and error, that could result in fantastic gaming but most people that are not lazy, prefer to power game and taunt their opponents with painting or modeling or what have you. I know for a fact that GW has made codices to make them money, it is what they do. Now... if you change the rules and make them fair the power gamers overpriced units are now "actually" overpriced. Is it just me or does plastic seem to turn into a gasoline economy with GW? Where in the hell did this new dollar come from on the models?

Anyway before I start to rant, props to you if you can find people to try this stuff with. If you can't, then your just back in the boat with the rest of us, or onto a new hobby. Moving onto a new hobby is not a terrible alternative in this recession, many other wargames have very balanced rules and some really cool minis.

The game is what you make of it. There are plenty of gamers out there that have house rules, but house rules are for you and your friends only.

There is no room for personal interpretation and house rules in tournaments. There needs to be a solid 'it works like this whether you like it or not' structure. A lot of that gets carried over to non tournament games then.

Any time where you're playing an opponent who isn't in your inner circle of friends who use said house rules you need go by the book. If everyone were to use their house rules, none of us would be playing the same game.

Proposing rules at Tourneys is utterly preposterous. Not much more to say beyond that; yet again, just don't play in these environments if they urk you so.

HI all.
I sometimes include GW products in my gaming hobby.

I find it ironic that some folks are saying you have to stick to GW rules for 40k for concistancy , when the rules are open to many varied interpritations and GW cannot be bothered to issue meaningful FAQS or address game play issues in less than 3 to 4 year cycles.

GW state thier rule sets for 40k and WH are not developed with competative play in mind.(Just selling the latest minature releases.)

So why pay for poorly written and supported rule sets , when you can find FREE TO DOWNLOAD rule sets that give better game play -rules ratios , and do not dictate what models you should use.

Lucky for GW thier appear to be lots of very lazy gamers who want to be spoon fed everything.

The rest of us can get much better value for money.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Delephont wrote:After playing a couple of games at a friends house, q thought came to me.....well, more of a wonder, really. I wonder how many people have taken control of their own gaming experience?

I was thinking that outside of GW, most gaming rules sets give control of the game back to the players/owners.....and allow them to develop the games setting as they see fit. It seems to me, that GW has somehow instilled a type of unspoken control over how their games are played.

Huh?

It's pretty much the exact opposite. GW actively promotes house rules, recommends house rules and custom scenarios in all their products, provides examples of such, and makes products like Mighty Empires that are essentially toolkits to use with your own house rules.

GW is far more houserule-friendly than Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, Rackham, Wizards of the Coast, Reaper, Battlefront or Fantasy Flight.

None of those companies ban house rules, but none of them promote it as a core part of their business the way GW does.

I pretty much agree with Wrexasaur with this. Do it, or dont is how I look at the rules.
We also have some house rules that we used to change some things. It still bugs me reading these kinds of threads and read the same complaints from the same people. Either deal with GW, change the way you play GW game... or get away from GW. Its that simple

Friends and I have incorperated "house rules" in to friendly home games when we feel GW rules are contrary to coman sense,or we just see a better way to execute a situation,howver,for FLGS/tourny play I do my best to play by GW rules (except those pesky wysiwyg rules).
As for using GW minis to "create" our own home games,a buddy and I made our own "zombie game" using IG minis and a horde of WHFB zombies,we basicly borrowed some Mordhiem rules and wrote up alot of our own,maybe I'll post it...someday.

I think some of you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying we should introduce house rules as part of tournament play! I mentioned that as possibly one of the limiting factors for people wishing to tweek the rules in their own environment.

Maybe they feel they need to constantly play by the rules as they are set out, because to introduce new rules will create a comfort zone of play that they won't get at the next tournament.

To those who feel you should play the rules or buy a different game, you may be right. However, is it so beyond the wit of man to use the WH40K rules set asa foundation? Why create your own game, when there is one already there that you can add to, delete from, whatever....to create your own personal gaming experience!

HI Delephont.
I agree that gamers should take responcibility for thier own hobby.To what level is up to the individual.

However as the rules to 40k HAVE NEVER BEEN WRITTEN FOR THE 40K GAME.(Just a conversion from WH rules 3rd ed, to help sell Scifi minis to the WH players....20 years ago!)
Why do you feel its necissary to use this comparitivley over complicated counterintuitive rules set?

Most of the other rule sets I use have maximum game play for minimum rules, 40k rules are completley the opposite.

Why not Down load other FREE rule sets like Stargrunt2 and Chain Reaction 3?
If you are going to convert and adapt rules to suit yourself why pay money out for a rule set you are not going to 'use as is'?

Happy gaming
Lanrak.

Wrexasaur wrote:Anyway before I start to rant, props to you if you can find people to try this stuff with. If you can't, then your just back in the boat with the rest of us, or onto a new hobby. Moving onto a new hobby is not a terrible alternative in this recession, many other wargames have very balanced rules and some really cool minis.

That is what I wrote just to be clear.

I would recommend finding people if it is that important to you. I am sure you can find a few people online, the trick is finding them in real life. I have no doubt you can find at least one person to try out new rules with. If people are so set on winning the tourneys (which are decided by dice...how very competitive) don't play with them. I think it would be great to try rules out, but to really make a good game involves a lot of work; modding not so much work, but more than enough to scare off your average gamer. Personally, I don't think you really want to play with these guys/gals anyway, they just want to make you cry ( ). So find a forum where you can meet people and adjust the rules, or your beginning to sound like a bit of a whiner yourself (no offense).

Btw... this is coming from a guy who makes plank of wood with hand-saws for fun, and thinks in chinese (even though he doesnt speak it) .

This all sounds a lot like Linux people. "Why do people use WINDOWS, it's expensive and crap while Linux is free and amazing and bawwwww." But without the fact that Linux is actually used for a lot of applications.

Wargaming is subject to the Network Effect pretty strongly.

The problem is that if you and I play Game A but Joe and Bob play Game B, you and I can't ever play Joe and Bob without learning Game B or teaching Game A.

40k probably isn't the best rules set for 28mm Sci Fi, but it is the most popular, and a lot of people (myself included) are willing to sacrifice some quality for a lot of compatibility.

I'm not saying you're wrong for feeling differently, but you are going to find it difficult to find people to play Game B when Game A takes up something like 90% of the market.

How important "Official 40k" is to your gaming enjoyment really comes down to who you normally play with. If you normally game with a bunch of people you know quite well, then it is entirely feasible to chuck any "official" stuff out the window and do whatever the heck you like - whether that is house rules or playing a completely different game altogether.

If your normal opponents are strangers however, you must rely on a pre-agreed set of rules. Otherwise inordinate time is taken up resolving the matter.

And this seems to be the problem as I see it. "Tournament gamers" (for want of a better expression) expect the rules to be written so that two players who have never met can have a quarrel-free game from the get-go. GW however does not write rules with this expectation. They address their rules at gamers with a much more laid-back attitude to games and are, for whatever reason, more disposed to freewheel.

Certainly you don't get GW as a corporate entity (although what happens with an off-message local store manager may be different sometimes) pushing their "official" rules down your throat, unless its some formal tournament or something.

I've heard of this game "Star grunt"....but I can't seem to find it online.....just links to agents who wish to sell it.

Strange.

I don't agree with every rule, but I console myself my learning them, understanding how to work with or around them, and knowing that everyone else has to follow the same set of rules.

Lanrak wrote:the rules to 40k HAVE NEVER BEEN WRITTEN FOR THE 40K GAME. (Just a conversion from WH rules 3rd ed, to help sell Scifi minis to the WH players....20 years ago!)

Why do you feel its necissary to use this comparitivley over complicated counterintuitive rules set?

Why not Down load other FREE rule sets like Stargrunt2 and Chain Reaction 3?

I dunno about that. 40k3 through 40k5 are pretty much "40k rules for 40k". And they're pretty darn good, as far as these things go.

Using 40k is a lot easier than creating a ruleset from scratch, and does a good enough job for our gaming group.

Stargrunt and whatever mean that we'd all have to stop and learn a whole new ruleset from scratch, which might not meet our needs and require more patching over to become acceptable. Just because my car gets a flat tire, I don't buy a brand new car.

I think it's natural to introduce house rules in groups, the only problem comes if you play in multiple places with different rules or tournaments. I mean say you play at a FLGS, a local GW and with some friends, that could be three different rule sets, sometimes just using the rules as written helps with that

House rules are part and parcel of the game.

My prime example is Challenges in Warhammer Fantasy. My flatmate and I do not allocate attacks in HTH. Instead, we issue challenges, and have a gentlemens agreement that we will meet the challenge with an equal or superior character.

This is just how we feel it should be. Challenges can dramatically swing combats, and we don't think the rank and file would be particularly enamoured with their lord and master if when issued a challenge by the enemy Death Machine, they instead shove their nearest and most expendable underling into the head kicking.

But outside of it, we stick to our own agreement, but don't enforce it on opponents. We do let them know thats how we roll however, and if they want to roll that way, cool. If not, cool.

However, we don't really mess with the core mechanics of the rules. We've both been playing since 4th Edition Fantasy, so we are well used to the pitfalls and have our ways of resolving them ingrained into us.

Consider that house rule stolen Mad Doc.

I also remember the appendix to the Warhammer 6th ed. rulebook said something along the lines of "This is how clipping works RAW. No, we don't like it other - we suggest you adopt a gentlemanly solution with your opponent." As a result, most people I play with seem to have formed a common standard of clippage avoidage on their own.

I think I shall now refer to choosing the most expenable model to fight the enemy general as 'Kirking'.

Kirking - Adjective.

To send an anonymous underling to certain death to save your own neck.

'FACE ME AND FACE YOUR DEATH!' bellow the blood maddened Lord of Khorne, his twin axes dripping with gore as he beat them against his chest. 'KHORNE WISHES TO DRINK FROM YOUR SKULL, ELECTOR COWARD!'

The Elector Count's gaze swept before the scene of carnage that had unfolded moments before as the Lord of Khorne slaughtered his way through the Stir Watchers. Nervously, he looked to his own men, trying not to show his fear, knowing that their resolve was his own. He drew the Ancestral Runefang from it's bejewelled scabbard, marvelling at it's edge, still unblemished after thousands of years defending the Empire. With a flourish, the Elector Count turned, and patting the nearby Sergant on the buttocks declared 'Sergant Roteshemd. Are you going to let him talk to me like that. Get in there and defend my honour man!'

Kirked - Verb (past tense)

Put into an unfavourable situation by someone infinitely better trained, equipped and able to it, simply because even with their training, equipment and ability, there is a small chance of death, or worse. Like getting a hair out of place.

It's not "Kirking" - it's more properly referred to (and commonly understood) as "red-shirting"...

- In many 4X games, it is good practice to red-shirt new planets before committing resources.

Hi again.
JohnHwanngDD.

I dunno about that. 40k3 through 40k5 are pretty much "40k rules for 40k". And they're pretty darn good, as far as these things go.

Using 40k is a lot easier than creating a ruleset from scratch, and does a good enough job for our gaming group.

Stargrunt and whatever mean that we'd all have to stop and learn a whole new ruleset from scratch, which might not meet our needs and require more patching over to become acceptable. Just because my car gets a flat tire, I don't buy a brand new car.

Just to point out that the basic game mechanics in 40k are still the same as WH ,and they only got rid of the mechanics that made in game results proportional-intuitive,( movment rates and some modifiers.)
If 40k 3rd to 5th ed is a UNIT based game featuring 'troops and machines', why is the focus of the rules INDIVIDUAL troopers, and has to 'bolt on' rules for vehicles?
The rules for 40k have to include over TWENTY exceptions to the basic (WH) rules, add SIXTEEN PAGES of bolt on vehicles rules , and over FIFTY army -unit specific rules to get the in game play how the devs feel it should be?How can you say the rules were written for 40k game play?

As other rule sets give masses more game pay with FEWER pages of JUST BASIC rules,than 40k.It is blatently obvious,( in comparison) 40k has NEVER had a rule set written specificaly for 40k game play.

If you gaming group is happpy with 40k rules 'as is' then fine and dandy!

I was simply pointing out that generic free to down load rule sets are more suitable for alteration than the highly unstable 40k rules.

As the OP was talking about creating your own hobby, why pay out good money for rules IF you are NOT going to use them as is.

And to answer you annalagy about a flat tyre.
Why BUY an expencive brand new car you think is ok-ish with the intent to heavily modify it.
When you can get a free car parts online so you can create the car you realy want .

Its just down to the amount of effort you want to put in I suppose.

I just suggested modifying games other than 40k as 40k is just too 'abstract and hollistic' in comparison.
GW have been writing rules with the focus on supporting minature sales for over a decade now.Looking at alternative rule sets can show how game play can be put first.


Link for Ground Zero Games free to download rules.{Stargrunt. (RT), Full thrust (BFG)and Dirtside.(EA)}
http://www.groundzerogames.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=9&id=29&Itemid=50


TTFN
Lanrak.

GW encourages house rules, conversions, and player-created content. Hell, Apocalypse was basically billed as 'get all your models together, go crazy on the options, and go kill each other', as a way of finally writing down the arbitrations they'd made for store-based huge battles.

I think they know they have no hope of controlling how you game, so they don't bother, and just encourage you to tweak it.
Even my local GW store discourages rules-lawyering while playing. Rules are discussed briefly, and if a resolution isn't reached, they roll on it and turn the discussion over to the peanut gallery, because there's always a few people around willing to argue minutae.

Lanrak wrote:Hi again.

the basic game mechanics in 40k are still the same as WH ,and they only got rid of the mechanics that made in game results proportional-intuitive,

If 40k 3rd to 5th ed is a UNIT based game featuring 'troops and machines', why is the focus of the rules INDIVIDUAL troopers, and has to 'bolt on' rules for vehicles?
The rules for 40k have to include over TWENTY exceptions to the basic (WH) rules, add SIXTEEN PAGES of bolt on vehicles rules , and over FIFTY army -unit specific rules to get the in game play how the devs feel it should be?How can you say the rules were written for 40k game play?

As other rule sets give masses more game pay with FEWER pages of JUST BASIC rules,than 40k.

If you gaming group is happpy with 40k rules 'as is' then fine and dandy!

As the OP was talking about creating your own hobby, why pay out good money for rules IF you are NOT going to use them as is.

Why BUY an expencive brand new car you think is ok-ish with the intent to heavily modify it.

Looking at alternative rule sets can show how game play can be put first.

Hiya!

Actually, 40k added the mechanics to make the game far more proportional and intuitive - all models can see, shoot, & fight; each model fights in I order; all models can move their full distance, no challenges, no modifiers, etc. 40k is vastly cleaner than WFB.

First off, WH is an inferior game to 40k. Second, the fact they are different is a GOOD thing. Third, no game system that I can think of treats vehicles with the same level of detail of 40k, and 40k has done a pretty good job of integrating vehicles into the game rules. Finally, WFB has far deeper army-specific rule exceptions than anything in 40k short of the Necron CTan - 2 different WH armies (say, Daemons vs Beasts) are basically playing different games. With all of the changes, 40k5 is so different from WFB7 how can you say that they're the same?

I've played with VOR and VOID, and they're not so special. PP isn't especially special, either. IMO, it's simply not worth wasting my time over some obscure minor game system for no benefit. If I cared, I could roll my own. But I now have a life, so I can let that crap go.

Damn straight. We'll be happy with our choice, and we're happy with the way the ruleset is going. But the key point that a lot of you forget is that 40k is about the game, not the rules. GW has NEVER been about the rules. And my group is smart enough to recognize that. Maybe you should get a bit smarter about GW, too.

In a large group, it's easier to pull 99% from the basic ruleset and add 1% house / scenario rules, than to build 100% new.

First off, it's simply easier to have printed & bound rulesets available that people can own. Second, 40k is fairly comprehensive. Third, 40k has basically NO problems in the basic rulebook. Finally, the choice isn't to use something as-is or not at all.

When that new car meets 99% of your needs, and all you need is a new set of tires, it's slowed to spend hours and hours trying to build something in your garage. 40k doesn't need heavy modification for our needs.

No, looking at more rulesets it's basically a waste of time, when you really don't care about the rules to begin with.

Anyhow, it appears you have an axe to grind with GW and 40k. Take it somewhere else.
____

Back to the OP, I've taken control of our gaming experience because I've shifted my attitude and focus from just "winning" (zero-sum) to playing (collaboration). This is more in-line with the rest of my group, and I'm having generally better experiences because of it. As above, I don't need to care about specific games or rulesets or whatever, as long as the game itself plays out in an interesting way.

HI .
JohnHwangDD.
The rules for WH were developed for massed ranked up units emulating ancient to napoleonic type engagments in a fantacy setting.(They work ok for this.)

If you dont like this type of game fair enough.

Rogue trader simply used 3rd ed WH rules for a skirmish game .

Since then GW have just messed about with the basic WH game mechanics to try to make them fit current 40k game play.

40k game play is massivley different to WH.(Completley different games systems).So why is 40k saddled with 70% of WH game mechanics?(And the rest poorly implemented and concieved quick fixes.)

You like 40k rules ok.

But game play is determined by the rules.So if the 'game is more important than the 40k rules' , surley this proves the rules are not adequate?

I only suggested looking at alternative for those that are NOT happy with 40k.

As its easier to modify generic rules sets to suit your own need than a rule set as abstract and holistic as 40k.
And for those wishing to modify thier games , 40k is too restrictive in the way it is written.( GW profssional game developers have struggled with it for over a decade.)

I do not have an axe to grind, just trying to make more people aware of alternatives. And if you are truley to take control of your hobby experiance , you have to be well informed to make the right decision for you .Dont you?


Happy gaming .
Lanrak.

Delephont wrote:People often complain about army stats, and gaming rules, etc etc, but why not re-write the rules to better suit you and your gaming group?

Been there. Done that.

It started before 4th Ed came out. With 3rd Ed + Trial Assault Rules + Trial Vehicle Rules, Codex Eldar became essentially unusuable. Vypers were about the only really good unit left, so we set about re-writing the Eldar Codex. It was called "Codex Eldar Revisited". When 4th Ed came out, we decided that we hated the rules so much that we were going to redo everything, and thus the "Warhammer 40,000 Revisited Project" was born.

Fast forward to now and we have a complete rulebook that is just about finished, along with serveral Codices ranging from basically done (Eldar, Marines, Tyranids), mostly done (Chaos, Necrons) and still in prototype stages (Tau, Guard, Orks). Playtesting - as in proper non-GW-playtesting takes a long time - and is a lot of fun. It's also opened up modelling aspects, allowing us to build models with weapon combos that you'd 'never' do in regular 40K because they suck. Another huge benefit of writing your own ruleset is that you don't need to sell new model kits, so unlike GW you can balance the rules for all units, and not to ensure a constant turn-around of product.

It's far more fun to play 40K when you're playing the way you want to play rather than fighting with stupid rules and the team of idiots behind them.