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.

I always play with the most important house rule. "Don't be a dick." I run into none of the problems most people do, it makes me think people should find better friends.

 CthulhuDawg wrote:
I always play with the most important house rule. "Don't be a dick." I run into none of the problems most people do, it makes me think people should find better friends.

Problem here is when people conflate "following the rules" with "being a dick".

House ruling Primaris Marines follow the rules for Terminators regarding transport capacity of vehicles.

 Rolsheen wrote:
House ruling Primaris Marines follow the rules for Terminators regarding transport capacity of vehicles.

But don't you understand? Chadmarines are far too proud to go into a rhino designed for Manlett Marines.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The only thing we've comsidered house ruling so far are the gawdawful rules for deployment. Like... The way it's currently written, you're almost always better off losing the roll for placing objectives, because being able to pick deployment type AND which zone you start in is a game-winning advantage.

The player that "determines" deployment does not select deployment type but rolls to generate one randomly.

The use of the word "determine" does not indicate that the player has a choice, the player is simply the one that follows the rules for determining deployment zones.
And the rules for determining deployment clearly states that in matched play it is randomly generated with a die roll.

So essentially, the "determining" player is simply the one making the roll and then selecting one side.

Soulless wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
The only thing we've comsidered house ruling so far are the gawdawful rules for deployment. Like... The way it's currently written, you're almost always better off losing the roll for placing objectives, because being able to pick deployment type AND which zone you start in is a game-winning advantage.

The player that "determines" deployment does not select deployment type but rolls to generate one randomly.

The use of the word "determine" does not indicate that the player has a choice, the player is simply the one that follows the rules for determining deployment zones.
And the rules for determining deployment clearly states that in matched play it is randomly generated with a die roll.

So essentially, the "determining" player is simply the one making the roll and then selecting one side.

Has this been confirmed by a FAQ?

 Zewrath wrote:

Soulless wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
The only thing we've comsidered house ruling so far are the gawdawful rules for deployment. Like... The way it's currently written, you're almost always better off losing the roll for placing objectives, because being able to pick deployment type AND which zone you start in is a game-winning advantage.

The player that "determines" deployment does not select deployment type but rolls to generate one randomly.

The use of the word "determine" does not indicate that the player has a choice, the player is simply the one that follows the rules for determining deployment zones.
And the rules for determining deployment clearly states that in matched play it is randomly generated with a die roll.

So essentially, the "determining" player is simply the one making the roll and then selecting one side.

Has this been confirmed by a FAQ?

It's been confirmed by reading the rules.

 Zewrath wrote:

Soulless wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
The only thing we've comsidered house ruling so far are the gawdawful rules for deployment. Like... The way it's currently written, you're almost always better off losing the roll for placing objectives, because being able to pick deployment type AND which zone you start in is a game-winning advantage.

The player that "determines" deployment does not select deployment type but rolls to generate one randomly.

The use of the word "determine" does not indicate that the player has a choice, the player is simply the one that follows the rules for determining deployment zones.
And the rules for determining deployment clearly states that in matched play it is randomly generated with a die roll.

So essentially, the "determining" player is simply the one making the roll and then selecting one side.

Has this been confirmed by a FAQ?

It doesnt need an FAQ, the rules are perfectly clear, with a slight exception on using the word "determine" instead of simply stating "roll for".
This is probably because the player that makes the roll still gets to establish which of these deployment zones each player gets to deploy from.
So the "determine" is simply indicating that one player will go through the process described in the deployment rules to determine how deployment is done.

We still mostly use 7e morale, so units break and run, get pinned, etc. Vehicles measure and los from weapons and we're playing around with vehicle facing. For example, a Leman Russ would be -1 T for a side shot and -2 T for a rear. We measure distances from the model for monsters instead of the base so they can fight infantry on multi-level ruins. We also agreed on what to do for multi-level ruins, charging, and model placement. Basically, if you make the charge roll, just place models as close as possible. Standing on a narrow ledge doesn't protect the model from being charged.

We definitely kept old LoS (from weapon, not hull) and kept the house rule that when flyers crash you roll scatter and leave their carcasses on the field. It becomes dangerous terrain.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
not everyone thinks it's a problem. That's your subjective opinion

If you honestly think it's reasonable for a model/unit behind a wall that covers 75% of the model/unit to get no benefit from that cover because it isn't inside the wall, well, I don't know what to say to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Well if we're going to start down that that road then obviously we need to bring back the ability to choose which part of a vehicle we're going to aim for because you don't just fire anti tank weapons wildly at the target and it is stupid that the RAW says we can't aim more selectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

lol i agree

a simple add to terrain rules would be to keep the RAW for 8th, but to simulate cover more, Give a -1 or -2 to units that are partially obscured by terrain.

You can keep both the RAW and get the benefit of blocking terrain features.

In 2nd ed all cover caused minuses to hit, NOT cover saves or modifiers. Since 8th ed has went back to many ideas from 2nd the modifier to hit seems a natural fit.

Tactical cards that are impossible to be completed by a player can be discarded freely when they're taken.

Ex: Tau player picks a harness the warp/deny the witch card - discards and picks another
GK player with 2 units on the table (and no reserves) picks Domination - discards and picks another

Forgot earlier. Variable cover saves, because a shrubbery is not as protective as a ceremite barrier. Light cover gives +1, medium is +2, and heavy cover gives +3