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 was just wondering what house rules you guys use, if any, to make the game smoother/funnier/more interesting.

Personally, my group tends to ignore terrain placement rules and mysterious objectives, and just set up the board to look cool and fair (we usually get a 3rd player to do this impartially).

I also tend to allow opponents to go over by 5-10 points when building a list if they need to to fit in another squad (we usually build lists once we know who we're playing), as I'm not overly fussed by making sure the game is entirely 'balanced'.

So, dakka what do you do to add to the game?

Ignore terrain placement rules. Both players just shuffle terrain around until both are happy with it.

Warlord traits - roll dice first, then pice the result from any available table.

I use the exact same rules as Loki. Everything seems to work out so much better that way.

My wife normally places the terrain for us.

Oh, and no flyers

Only use the terrain thingie, we place untill we are comfy with it.

It seems the terrain rules are generally ignored, then. I played one game with them, ad the board just looked so stupid and mismatched we just ignored them in future.

I like the idea of picking warlord traits from any table, might make them a bit more useful. I might give that a try. When you roll counter-attack as a space wolf, you know it's going to be one of those games...

We also have no fliers, but that's largely just because none of us want them, I'd be fine if people did bring them, but I wouldn't personally, and neither would most of the players I game with.

I think most people do follow the terrain-rules
Pg 120 is about Narrative Terrain: "set up the terrain to create a fantastic looking battlefield".

The rule that we do change is the order in which those things are done.
Most games are usually played in my gaming room, so I try to set up some good looking battlefield before people are here.
People are fine with me doing that because we haven't decided on the 'deployment map' nor have we picked a side.
We also try to be "narrative" while placing objectives.

Another thing we do is build a list after knowing who we will be playing against.
I always try to adjust the 'strength of my list' to the people I will be playing with.
It's not fun to go full out against one of my best friends who only happens to have 1k points of Orks.
And I never complain about being a bit over the limit if I know that will result in a more entertaining match.

I use the terrain rules to great effect personally...I look at it like this...neither ary would meet on a battlefield where they are badly disadvantaged.

Being able to place those hills or trees in places that allow you to flank a specific unit or hide a unit with the barrage rule is what war is all about when you really meet your enemy on the battlefield.

Terrain placement generally benefits more intelligent players.

As for house rules for codecies and clarifications...we heavily use the GW FAQs alongside yakface's INAT

I see your point that the terrain rules can add tactical depth, but on the other hand, do you not think the board and terrain should influence your tactics during the game, rather than becoming part of them?

If I'm landing on a planet I am definitely choosing where to touch down...so yes I do believe its a part of them.

Narrative terrain. (the 'normal' way is stupid..)

Ignore mysterious anything. It really just is irritating and takes time. I still don't see the point or need for it.

 ductvader wrote:
If I'm landing on a planet I am definitely choosing where to touch down...so yes I do believe its a part of them.

Fair enough, I just don't think you would ever find a 'perfect battlefield' where everything was positioned just right. I guess it just comes down to preference.

 Paradigm wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
If I'm landing on a planet I am definitely choosing where to touch down...so yes I do believe its a part of them.

Fair enough, I just don't think you would ever find a 'perfect battlefield' where everything was positioned just right. I guess it just comes down to preference.

Everything is not just right though...your opponent is screwing with your terrain and you're screwing with theirs.

But, I would never force it upon someone. I think it just adds one more tactical element to game play.

FOC changes. Anyone wanting to include extra units above the FOC allowance must pay a premium from their points pool.

Depends on size of game and army make up.

 ductvader wrote:
If I'm landing on a planet I am definitely choosing where to touch down...so yes I do believe its a part of them.

But it doesn't work like that.
You have to take objectives in almost every mission, the objectives pick the playing field.
You are not an invasion force, you're a small elite force that has to take out important objectives.
(Unless you are playing Apocalypse)

So in short: You don't choose where you touch down, the Emperor does.

So you're saying I have no choice in how I approach an objective?

Or that I have no choice in what an objective is to my force?

I think the point you're making is solved by objective placement rules.

Yeah, you don't have that choice.
If the boss tells you to take out "that mine!", than you take out the mine. Even if the terrain around it isn't perfectly suited to your advance.
The Imperium doesn't really take it well if captains refuse an order

The only house RULE I play with is all area terrain is mysterious when playing with the missus, because she likes the tables for that, and never mysterious objectives because they're just dumb.

I do have certain personal things like never bringing a flyer (I have tau, though, so am at no real disadvantage if I'm happy to bring allies), and not pulling out all the stops against people I know my force is stronger than.

That said, I'd love to house rule out MCs getting cover because of the location of their toe, but have none myself, so don't feel its fair.

Kangodo wrote:
Yeah, you don't have that choice.
If the boss tells you to take out "that mine!", than you take out the mine. Even if the terrain around it isn't perfectly suited to your advance.
The Imperium doesn't really take it well if captains refuse an order

I am the boss...in this game we're the general's general's general.

Ahaa.. You might want to re-read your Warhammer books
You're a captain in charge of a mission.

The only real house rule my group uses is if you are on a ruin but not obscured by it, you get a 5+ cover save.

I also don't write a lost until I arrive on open gaming night, as I don't know who I'm going to play, how many points, which army they want to kill...

 ductvader wrote:
I use the terrain rules to great effect personally...I look at it like this...neither ary would meet on a battlefield where they are badly disadvantaged.

Being able to place those hills or trees in places that allow you to flank a specific unit or hide a unit with the barrage rule is what war is all about when you really meet your enemy on the battlefield.

Terrain placement generally benefits more intelligent players.

As for house rules for codecies and clarifications...we heavily use the GW FAQs alongside yakface's INAT

You mean it greatly benefits the poorest sportsmen. "Oh, I love that ADL you custom-made for your Orks, excuse me while I put a two-story hill down right in front of it even though it makes no sense whatsoever that you would have one behind a hill, hurr".

 Yodhrin wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
I use the terrain rules to great effect personally...I look at it like this...neither ary would meet on a battlefield where they are badly disadvantaged.

Being able to place those hills or trees in places that allow you to flank a specific unit or hide a unit with the barrage rule is what war is all about when you really meet your enemy on the battlefield.

Terrain placement generally benefits more intelligent players.

As for house rules for codecies and clarifications...we heavily use the GW FAQs alongside yakface's INAT

You mean it greatly benefits the poorest sportsmen. "Oh, I love that ADL you custom-made for your Orks, excuse me while I put a two-story hill down right in front of it even though it makes no sense whatsoever that you would have one behind a hill, hurr".

No...I mean what I mean...

We try and setup a sensible table before starting play. we still roll to see who sets up where, so we make sure it's a neutral taboe.

We also ignore terrain placement rules and go for narrative terrain.

Also we often just decide on mission how we want instead of rolling.

Other than that we have an unwritten house rule of "if they are great dont pick more than two". Meaning no 3 heldrakes or 3 squads of long fangs normally. Its more like a netiquette than a rule because no one attends tournaments or is interested in that. But even then no one would play an optimised tournament list at our clubs wednesday game nights.

I don't think I've ever used the terrain placement rules in either areas I played in. I think we tried it once, rolled the terrain pieces and realized how dumb it was and ended up just making something balanced for both sides.

Some people prefer to roll and pick your warlord trait table, but I generally just pick strategic and rolling with it. I'm thinking about just playing games without it since it's mostly a crap shoot. For example a 1 on the strategic table can be devastatingly effective on a ruin filled table while other traits can be useless to people.

We stopped playing with objectives a long time ago. It just stopped being fun when you're trying to control an objective that explodes or trying to contest an objective that halves charge distance. I also don't think we've really played using mysterious terrain rules.

We also try to fit in any specialized terrain. Like with Kroot that have stealth in forests, we either include forests or just declare a piece of terrain to be forest like. Most of the terrain we use is ruins because of the size and coverage fits in well while looking nice for 40k armies and it just seems bad when units have abilities that aren't useful in a certain game even though they're paying the points for it.

We use:
Warlord Traits / Psychic Powers - Roll then pick table (and psykers roll everything simultaneously, then pick which tables, and which to swap for primaris)
Transports - we secretly write down which units are in which transports, to add to the secrecy and realism of the game.
Mysterious Terrain/Objectives - Never use, we hate them.
Terrain - We just set up a mutually agreeable table, then roll off to pick sides.
We also house rule some rules to match what we think is the intent of the rule.

What we do..

One guy sets up terrain, the other guy picks sides. Unless he's an imperial guard player. Then you punch him in the face and add the 99% of terrain he was going leave off the board.

We treat ruins as a 4+ area terrain, and you are always obscured and always have LoS both ways. Saves a lot of time arguing about the 25% and who can see what. (i can see his left butt cheek thru that bullet hole! etc..)

Everything is mysterious! forests, rivers, pools, and of course objectives! A little mystery adds to the fun. We had a game won because a squad was whittled down to 2 men, and the sabotaged objective blew up at turn five and killed them. Of course my Leman Russ parked in this carnivorous jungle has skyfire!

Fortifications deployed after terrain is set up , only big one I can think about right now.

Makumba wrote:
Fortifications deployed after terrain is set up , only big one I can think about right now.

This SHOULD be the norm, placing terrain after forts makes no sense. "im going to build this fort or erect this defense line here"........"wtf? a building(or hill) just grew right in front of us. guess we're just fethed" lol sillyness makes me laugh