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.

 Khaine wrote:
My area doesn't tend to bother with house ruling, but I definitely am not going to be playing against some of the extreme horde netlists that are starting to surface (hundreds of brimstone horrors, Green Tide, Conscripts etc). No fun for anyone involved.

Since extreme horde lists require, well, an extreme horde of models... I don't know how common these will functionally be.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Khaine wrote:
My area doesn't tend to bother with house ruling, but I definitely am not going to be playing against some of the extreme horde netlists that are starting to surface (hundreds of brimstone horrors, Green Tide, Conscripts etc). No fun for anyone involved.

Since extreme horde lists require, well, an extreme horde of models... I don't know how common these will functionally be.

With the exception of the Horrors, and forgetting Necron Warriors, most of those are actually quite common. Maybe not specifically Conscripts, but it wouldn't be hard to separate the old Infantry Blob Squad Platoons to being Conscripts, SWS, and HWS.

I think this is edition is mostly great. However the biggest letdown is cover. Its basically not a factor anymore. Ill be modifying some cover rules for sure. I can live with the rest.

My group and I have a lot of ideas, but we also have enough experience to know we should play the game many times first - sometimes someone was indeed smarter than the we thought.

I can say, that after several games - a lot of the ones we thought at first (similar to most on this list) - feel no longer necessary.

The one that has bubbled up - is more a clarification - shooting through units - prolly going to give a cover save.
(we discussed all sorts of complicated versions....but realized we were making it silly).

Play the game - embrace the reality that it is a game, and the abstractness of what it represents.

(no a tank does not move, stop, then shoot. It shoots while it moves, and moves all over the place in many facings - the end of our movement phase is just a sliver of time of an incredibly dynamic situation - embrace this - and many of the self inflicted woes of the game disappear).

I won't be playing with any outside of whatever TOs might put into place for events I go to. If I wanted to play a home brew sci-fi game I would just make my own ruleset from scratch.

 Lance845 wrote:
I feel like it's very unlikely that people won't be picking and choosing the parts they like from "3 ways to play" to get the game they enjoy.

I tend to agree with this, chances are you're gonna see stuff like narritive games with points. matched play games not enforcing the rule of 1 etc

What it sounds like is it's not matched or narrative play that people are actually interested in, but open play with picking and choosing different rules from different sets.

Who would have thought from all the narrative vs matched that it would have been open that was most popular.

Going to be changing so Primaris can use any space marine transport (Rhino, Razorback, Land Raider, etc.)

I'll probably be redoing the entirety of the Iron Hands rules to actually fit their original fluff (most notably pre-Ward fluff). Terminator sergeants, Iron Fathers, No Chaplains, Dread HQs ect.

I'm going to give regular rules a shot, but I am definitely thinking of dropping my harlequins invul save to a 5+. They just dont feel like a glass cannon with a 4++ save...

jcd386 wrote:
I also find it amusing that is is likely that most of the people here haven't played a single game of 8th yet and already want to change it. Get over yourselves and try it out for 10 or so games and see if you are not just being whiny for no reason.

Fact #1: Everybody has different tastes.
Fact #2: Due to #1 everybody is looking at different things from games.
Fact #3: Due to #2 no game can cover everybody's tastes. Indeed it can only cover one fully. Designer.
Fact #4: Due to #3 I don't even need to play a game to know there's going to be things I want to change. Not whining. Simple fact. Game aint' 100% perfect for everybody. This includes me.
Fact #5: Due to #4 I either house rules or play with imperfect game.

Why play game that's not 100% to my taste when I can move game closer to 100%? Not fully as opponent's tastes also needs to be considered but closer than GW or any other company could do.

If you wait for 3rd party to provide 100% perfect game for you you wait infinite time. Since I don't have infinity to wait and I don't see point playing game that's any worse than it could be for me I know from the get-go I will be house ruling. This is regardless of game. You name a game, I can provide things I don't like about it. I don't like something, rather than live with it I fix it.

At the moment: none. I can't really understand people making big changes to the rules until after they've played at least 10-12 games with a variety of lists so they can grasp the nuances of the rules more effectively.

Something like allowing a redraw of objective cards that are literally impossible is maybe fair enough, but some of the suggestions here seem really extreme without actually giving the game a chance.

I have two big problems with house rules.

1. They can get in the way of getting pick-up games or introducing new players to the game. There's nothing worse than seeing a fresh-faced new gamer turned off by being told a bunch of the rules they've been avidly getting their heads around on their own don't apply.

2. They often lead to a never-ending cycle of house ruling where one house rule affects the power level of certain units, which then need to be house-ruled to be effective, which then requires another house rule...

No game is perfect, not even one I house rule myself. For me it's just easier to keep things as close to the original rules as possible.

Maelstrom objective lock is still too strong. The command point thing does not solve getting an entire hand of objectives that are actually impossible (not hard).

So we'll probably still be going with two rules:
1. Immediately discard and redraw impossible objectives.
2. If you scored none, you can discard all of them at the end of the turn.

my group is flirting with a way to let orks, tau, and necrons get allies in matched play cause they used to all have a few ally possibilities but not anymore while imperium and eldar players have quite a variety to choose from

We might house rule out Psychic Focus, or adapt it.

As it reads right now, only 1 model can attempt a psychic power, and that power cannot be attempted by any other models through the phase, giving you a very serious diminishing returns on Psykers.

I would think a fair house rule would be, you can only succeed 1 time per power. There's no reason Librarian A watched Librarian B fail to cast a power, so therefore he can't attempt it. And from a game balance perspective, you don't see more than 1 cast per power per turn, and it means that if a power is really important to you, you could take 2 librarians to make sure it goes off.

orkychaos wrote:
I won't be playing with any outside of whatever TOs might put into place for events I go to. If I wanted to play a home brew sci-fi game I would just make my own ruleset from scratch.

This. I'll see what TOs start to do and do that. So far the rules are tight enough that anything more than that is unnecessary. I've played 4 games of 8th so far and I don't miss any of the old rules. I watched a unit of 20 Bloodletters survive three rounds of shooting before being vaporized (no Icon either), so I'm sold.

jcd386 wrote:

I also find it amusing that is is likely that most of the people here haven't played a single game of 8th yet and already want to change it. Get over yourselves and try it out for 10 or so games and see if you are not just being whiny for no reason.

No need to play 8th edition. There are enough battle reps on YT, showing the highly illogical and plain stupid things in 8th edition.

Too early to tell - I don't have the books and not got any games in yet.

Ignore some of the stupid effects that the "modifiers are applied after re-rolls" rule causes. It seem completely stupid that you can have a 4+ save with a reroll and -1 modifier, roll a 4, not get the reroll and then fail once the modifier hits. I would be shocked if that entire system is not unintended, and was either an early draft or is FAQed.

 thekerrick wrote:
I think this is edition is mostly great. However the biggest letdown is cover. Its basically not a factor anymore.

My marines beg to differ.

2+ armor saves for days!

To the OP:

No, with two exceptions. The rules are fine as is. 7th edition was terrible. 8th edition is vastly more balanced, streamlined and, dare I say it, "fun."

The individual points costs and unit rules need tweaking, but that's GW's business.

So what are the exceptions?

1. Terrain. The rules explicitly tell you to make up your own rules for non-standard terrain pieces.

2. Matched play restrictions apply to non-matched play missions.

So, in practice, what will this look like:

"Ok, I want to play this mission. All matched play restrictions apply, of course, yes? Furthermore, do you see this terrain piece? Counts as forest. Sounds good?"

I can't see many people taking issue with either of those things.

The only house rule my area plays with is if you draw a tactical objective that isn't possible. You may discard and draw another. IE. Kill a flyer on the opponents side when they don't have any.

Having not had a chance to read the rules in the flesh and get any games in, I can't say for sure. I will, however, more than likely come up with some Narrative scenarios that have different objectives or situations for the players to handle.

Having a much more slimmed down rule set makes it easier to layer on additional modular rules down the line, like Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Kill Team, or others.

Our group is house ruling that the one command point can be used to make your opponent reroll his dice

So far with us, Apply modifiers and then Re-Roll, Plasma only Explodes on a Natural 1

We don't use psychic focus. Instead powers don't stack with themselves. So I cannot cast the horror (-1 ld and to hit) on the same unit 3 times for a -3, but I can cast the horror 3 times on 3 different units.

We extend the terrain rules for shooting through terrain in City Ruins to any terrain piece at least 3" tall. I.E. if you are shooting at a infantry unit on the other side of some woods they get cover if you have to draw los through the terrain piece. Any non infantry need to be 50% obscured.

Rerolls on a flat value apply on a natural roll. I.E. reroll to hi rolls of 1 takes place before modifiers. Rerolls on broad triggers take place after modifiers I.E. reroll failed to hit rolls would be done after any -1 or whatever modifiers are applied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a unit is not in coherency and cannot reestablish coherency in one movement they must move in the most direct route possible to reestablish coherency and can do nothing else until coherency is reestablished.

Basically, lets say you conga line out 30 orc boys and someone kills 20 out the middle for whatever reason. both groups of 5 have to move towards each other as much as is legally possible. If at the end of the Movement Phase they are not in coherency they cannot shoot or charge.

This is much better than just standing still for the rest of the game.

I'll be adding templates back in.