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.

 Happyjew wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
1999+1 with no FW

I never got that whole 1999+1 because you're still playing 2k which is where Double FOC opens up. Why not just say "no double FOC"?

Because typing "1999+1" is a lot quicker than "2000, no FOC" and humans on the whole are a bunch of lazy fraggers.

But it makes no logical sense when you really think about it and I've always thought it just looked silly.

Any house rule is illegal as your not following the rules from the book. Yes warlords traits suck by following the rules but that how gw ment it to be

zilka86 wrote:
Any house rule is illegal as your not following the rules from the book. Yes warlords traits suck by following the rules but that how gw ment it to be

Go read Page 8 and the "Spirit of the Game" where it mentions that the player's job extends beyond following the rules.

No Seize the Intiative

We each take turns placing a piece of terrain until we think that there is enough on the table

Every time a turn finishes you better have finished your beer otherwise it is a VP for your opponent.

No FW.

zilka86 wrote:
Any house rule is illegal as your not following the rules from the book. Yes warlords traits suck by following the rules but that how gw ment it to be

You again? This is the most blatant display of trolling I've seen from you yet. GW wrote this to be a flexible rule set. A house rule tends to be mutually agreed upon, to an extent. So long as you and your opponent are fine with the house rules, they're "legal" for your game. Then again, your gaming group sounds like it's full of pre-programmed robots based on your previous posts, so perhaps it's just your inflexibility showing through here. If you don't have any house rules of note, why post here?

BladeSwinga wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
Any house rule is illegal as your not following the rules from the book. Yes warlords traits suck by following the rules but that how gw ment it to be

You again? This is the most blatant display of trolling I've seen from you yet. GW wrote this to be a flexible rule set. A house rule tends to be mutually agreed upon, to an extent. So long as you and your opponent are fine with the house rules, they're "legal" for your game. Then again, your gaming group sounds like it's full of pre-programmed robots based on your previous posts, so perhaps it's just your inflexibility showing through here. If you don't have any house rules of note, why post here?

Because dissent doesn't sow itself?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
Any house rule is illegal as your not following the rules from the book. Yes warlords traits suck by following the rules but that how gw ment it to be

You again? This is the most blatant display of trolling I've seen from you yet. GW wrote this to be a flexible rule set. A house rule tends to be mutually agreed upon, to an extent. So long as you and your opponent are fine with the house rules, they're "legal" for your game. Then again, your gaming group sounds like it's full of pre-programmed robots based on your previous posts, so perhaps it's just your inflexibility showing through here. If you don't have any house rules of note, why post here?

Because dissent doesn't sow itself?

True, that!

Honestly I'll play with just about any house rule as long as the point is for everyone to have fun.

#1. Thou shalt not expel bodily fluids on the table or models, except in emergency situations.

#2. If thy models deep strike onto the field via burrowing, thou shalt not carve holes into the foam core or plastic mat. Wooden tables shall require consent of the owner.

#3. Titans(or other such large models) may be substituted on the field with the player's firstborn child, provided said child is no more than eighteen months old, and no more than 24" tall. Said child must also adhere to house-rule #1, or it shall be sacrificed on an altar to Tzeentch and removed from the table as a casualty.

#4. Should a sweeping advance be successful, the heads(or whatever extremity houses the brain/CPU) of the defeated models shall be permanently removed from their plastic/resin/metal shoulders, and placed upon the victorious models "spikey bitz" as trophies of their bloody conquest.

#5. No Eldar, except in emergency situations.

These are simply a few of the rules that my friend, Lord Gatlas, has instituted. He is quite the game designer.

Nidsnik Boreork wrote:
#5. No Eldar, except in emergency situations.

I'm gonna play my Eldar. It is an emergency. I need a game stat, and I only brought my Eldar.

1. FW is OK
2. Any die that doesn't rest completely flat on the table is rerolled.
3.Failed die are picked up, not successful ones
4. Heavy Bolters are Salvo 3/4
5. You can add or subtract one from your roll on the Warlord Table.

Demerits for feeding the troll, double for feeding it when you know its a troll.

Anyhow. If a enemy unit is going to be affected by your psychic power, they get a deny the witch roll, regardless of "targeting" This isn't Magic the Gathering.
FMC have to take a Wound to require a grounding test. Dazzling their eyes and bouncing bullets off their hide doesn't cause them to veer out of control and crash into the ground.
There is no difference between Instant Death and something that Removes from Play, counts as a casualty.

Nidsnik Boreork wrote:
#1. Thou shalt not expel bodily fluids on the table or models, except in emergency situations.

#2. If thy models deep strike onto the field via burrowing, thou shalt not carve holes into the foam core or plastic mat. Wooden tables shall require consent of the owner.

#3. Titans(or other such large models) may be substituted on the field with the player's firstborn child, provided said child is no more than eighteen months old, and no more than 24" tall. Said child must also adhere to house-rule #1, or it shall be sacrificed on an altar to Tzeentch and removed from the table as a casualty.

#4. Should a sweeping advance be successful, the heads(or whatever extremity houses the brain/CPU) of the defeated models shall be permanently removed from their plastic/resin/metal shoulders, and placed upon the victorious models "spikey bitz" as trophies of their bloody conquest.

#5. No Eldar, except in emergency situations.

These are simply a few of the rules that my friend, Lord Gatlas, has instituted. He is quite the game designer.

I like this post, especially #5.

The only house rule me an my friends did was firing into close combat, basically you had a 50% chance of hitting your own guys.
It was fun

I just view house rules as cheating because yor changing rules to favor a player our a type of game like ork players who don't want to use challenge rules because it nurff nobs to bad play by the rules

zilka86 wrote:
I just view house rules as cheating because yor changing rules to favor a player our a type of game like ork players who don't want to use challenge rules because it nurff nobs to bad play by the rules

how ironic that you force people to use supplements so that they can basically buff their armies more. Totally not a house rule.

No useing the books you should be useing is not q house rule its following gw rules

zilka86 wrote:
No useing the books you should be useing is not q house rule its following gw rules

Find me a single quote from GW saying that you have to use a supplement.

Case closed. You are enforcing a house rule.

We have a few house-rules based on fluff, and how we think the rules should work, including, Drop Pod doors, los with eyeless models, the Tau bomber, etc.

The only major house rule we have is no FW unless you have the actual model and rules.

zilka86 wrote:
I just view house rules as cheating because yor changing rules to favor a player our a type of game like ork players who don't want to use challenge rules because it nurff nobs to bad play by the rules

So every tournament that adds or alters rules is cheating?

Please get over yourself, the Spirit of the Game makes it clear that you're not required to use the rules as is:

"Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different from any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just a framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether the battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always to be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written."

Also this is the same game that gives you a rule that says "homebrew is okay" (page 108 about using a different system than the basic army list the codex gives you).

zilka86 wrote:
I just view house rules as cheating because yor changing rules to favor a player our a type of game like ork players who don't want to use challenge rules because it nurff nobs to bad play by the rules

I want to hit you with a dictionary.

As for rules, the center of the board is always occupied by the statue of Colonel Nick Fury and all adults not driving are to have an alcoholic beverage.

 mr_bruno wrote:
I want to hit you with a dictionary.

As for rules, the center of the board is always occupied by the statue of Colonel Nick Fury and all adults not driving are to have an alcoholic beverage.

I heartily endorse everything this man has said here.

I guess i should let people make up any rule they want so they can have a easier time winning . House rules wouldn't be so bad if people didn't use them to abuse the game

zilka86 wrote:
I guess i should let people make up any rule they want so they can have a easier time winning . House rules wouldn't be so bad if people didn't use them to abuse the game

Just stop.

My friend and I roll for warlord trait then pick the table. We also ignore the terrain placement rules and the mysterious terrain rules.
As well, we almost always play a deathmatch game, where there is no limit to the turn numbers and the winner is the player with surviving units.

My group usually ignores the relic. If we roll that it is decided the die was actually cocked. This is repeated until a non-relic mission is rolled. We also usually ignore the terrain placement rules, and most people ignore the misterious terrain stuff.

_e

Just trying to make my point

 Eldarain wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
I guess i should let people make up any rule they want so they can have a easier time winning . House rules wouldn't be so bad if people didn't use them to abuse the game

Just stop.

Lol. I love dakka's attitude towards alternate opinions.

For the majority of the people in our group, no Named Special Characters, to remove the shenanigans of "Oh look, Abaddon is here again, after I put a Railgun through him last week"

or

"Ok, Yarrick still isn't done here even though his armies have killed everyone else here about 4 times"

you get the idea

zilka86 wrote:I guess i should let people make up any rule they want so they can have a easier time winning . House rules wouldn't be so bad if people didn't use them to abuse the game

That would violate the "Spirit of the Game" I posted earlier. The point of the game is to have fun, and you have the creator's permission to NOT FOLLOW THE RULES if that gets in the way of your fun. IF one person wants rules that only benefit them, then that isn't in keeping in with the Spirit of the Game.

Seriously did you even read what I posted or did you ignore it because it contradicted your "point"?

zilka86 wrote:Just trying to make my point

Your point is that house-rules are the same as cheating.

Cheating, comes from cheat which means:

act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination.

Now how are two people coming to a Gentlemen's Agreement to play the game different for their own amusement "cheating"?

Here's a hint: they aren't.

xruslanx wrote:Lol. I love dakka's attitude towards alternate opinions.

I've seen a lot of open arms acceptance of alterante viewpoints when they're based on reason or fact, but to claim that all house rules are cheating is frankly asinine. But then again you don't seem to get that seeing as everytime you show up you keep making my lower my expectations of you. Congrats.