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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Go back and read the posts above. The poster clearly has bad experience with certain members of his group enforcing house rules that have benefited their own side at the expense of others - is his refusal to permit any house rules at all unreasonable within his group?

I've had similar experience with certain friends - lets call them waac - wanting to push for house rules to give their own side a subtle benefit. "Hey guys, let's treat all this battlefield debris as 4+ cover, it looks pretty sturdy" = "I want a better cover save", "We should just abolish night fighting" = "I'm sick of being pounded by necron". You get the idea. The only way to treat such a situation is to ban all house rules completely, especially if most people are happy with vanilla 40k.

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Go back and read the posts above. The poster clearly has bad experience with certain members of his group enforcing house rules that have benefited their own side at the expense of others - is his refusal to permit any house rules at all unreasonable within his group?

Even if that's so, is it reasonable for him to force this viewpoint on others here and insist that ALL houserules are only made so people can cheat? No it is not. If you read the thread you can see a lot of house rules but nothing that just comes across as "I need to win easier."

xruslanx wrote:
I've had similar experience with certain friends - lets call them waac - wanting to push for house rules to give their own side a subtle benefit. "Hey guys, let's treat all this battlefield debris as 4+ cover, it looks pretty sturdy" = "I want a better cover save", "We should just abolish night fighting" = "I'm sick of being pounded by necron". You get the idea. The only way to treat such a situation is to ban all house rules completely, especially if most people are happy with vanilla 40k.

So you're anti any kind of variation in your games, and that's fine. But rolling up into a topic ABOUT "What kinds of house rules do you use?" and repeatedly trying to beat people over the head about this idea that every single houserule being a "cheat" is frankly ridiculious and offensive. This topic isn't called "How do YOU cheat?" and accusing every house rule out there is being misinformed at best and being a troll at worse.

Thank you for seeing my point as that how house rules have come across to me as people cheating and abusing rules to take advantage of people

zilka86 wrote:
Thank you for seeing my point as that how house rules have come across to me as people cheating and abusing rules to take advantage of people

Your point is flawed. Just because house rules don't work where you play because people abuse them doesn't make it so for everyone. The game is about having fun and if people aren't having fun then a rethink of how the game is being played needs to be done. Maybe it's using more terrain than the book calls for, maybe it's new terrain types, whatever. Anytime you play a game the first point is to have a good time, and the last is to get bent out of shape about the rules.

Yes, even if you play tournaments.

Repeatedly bashing house rules and telling everyone that they're cheating if they use them gains you no supporters and makes you look like an donkey-cave, a troll, or both. You don't want to use house-rules? Fine, that's an acceptable way to play the game, but don't insult people by claiming they're way of play is somehow illegal when they're just trying to have a fun tiem.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Go back and read the posts above. The poster clearly has bad experience with certain members of his group enforcing house rules that have benefited their own side at the expense of others - is his refusal to permit any house rules at all unreasonable within his group?

Even if that's so, is it reasonable for him to force this viewpoint on others here and insist that ALL houserules are only made so people can cheat? No it is not. If you read the thread you can see a lot of house rules but nothing that just comes across as "I need to win easier."

You know when people talk they're not always entirely literal. I was starving earlier, but I wasn't, y'know...starving.

I assume that when zilka 86 said "all houserules are cheating", he meant "the only houserules that I've really experienced have been unfair in the advantage of the person who came up with it, so I usually regard it as flat-out cheating", and not "anyone who uses houserules is a cheater".

So you're anti any kind of variation in your games, and that's fine. But rolling up into a topic ABOUT "What kinds of house rules do you use?" and repeatedly trying to beat people over the head about this idea that every single houserule being a "cheat" is frankly ridiculious and offensive. This topic isn't called "How do YOU cheat?" and accusing every house rule out there is being misinformed at best and being a troll at worse.

You are far too sensitive about being offended. I can't really elaborate on that without breaking rule #1.

zilka86 made one post, which several people responded too emotively and expressively, many calling him a troll. He then replied to a few of them. That's not "beating people over the head".

Actually having re-read it, the entire second page of this thread is disgraceful. This guy got called a troll because he doesn't like houserules.

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Go back and read the posts above. The poster clearly has bad experience with certain members of his group enforcing house rules that have benefited their own side at the expense of others - is his refusal to permit any house rules at all unreasonable within his group?

Even if that's so, is it reasonable for him to force this viewpoint on others here and insist that ALL houserules are only made so people can cheat? No it is not. If you read the thread you can see a lot of house rules but nothing that just comes across as "I need to win easier."

You know when people talk they're not always entirely literal. I was starving earlier, but I wasn't, y'know...starving.

I assume that when zilka 86 said "all houserules are cheating", he meant "the only houserules that I've really experienced have been unfair in the advantage of the person who came up with it, so I usually regard it as flat-out cheating", and not "anyone who uses houserules is a cheater".

If that's the case then he needs to work on his word choice because as it stands his posts read differently. This is the internet, not all the message can be seen due to the lack of real non-verbal communication (body language, voice quality, ect) so when making a point one must be clear. He was not clear enough.

xruslanx wrote:

So you're anti any kind of variation in your games, and that's fine. But rolling up into a topic ABOUT "What kinds of house rules do you use?" and repeatedly trying to beat people over the head about this idea that every single houserule being a "cheat" is frankly ridiculious and offensive. This topic isn't called "How do YOU cheat?" and accusing every house rule out there is being misinformed at best and being a troll at worse.

You are far too sensitive about being offended. I can't really elaborate on that without breaking rule #1.

zilka86 made one post, which several people responded too emotively and expressively, many calling him a troll. He then replied to a few of them. That's not "beating people over the head".

Actually having re-read it, the entire second page of this thread is disgraceful. This guy got called a troll because he doesn't like houserules.

He doesn't like house rules and is posting in a topic about house rules and is decrying their use. That comes across as particularly "troll-like" in nature.

As I said, if he's only talking about his experiences, he's not doing a good job and it leaves a lot open to get the wrong message out of. If he's talking about his beliefs that all house rules are evil period, then he's in the wrong thread.

Also I am not being "sensitive", you're confusing someone who disagrees with a point and is willing to debate it with someone who is much more emotional about what is going on. I disagreed with his point and debated it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

If that's the case then he needs to work on his word choice because as it stands his posts read differently. This is the internet, not all the message can be seen due to the lack of real non-verbal communication (body language, voice quality, ect) so when making a point one must be clear. He was not clear enough.

He was clear enough to me. You need to work on your English skills.

He doesn't like house rules and is posting in a topic about house rules and is decrying their use. That comes across as particularly "troll-like" in nature.


As I said, if he's only talking about his experiences, he's not doing a good job and it leaves a lot open to get the wrong message out of. If he's talking about his beliefs that all house rules are evil period, then he's in the wrong thread.

Also I am not being "sensitive", you're confusing someone who disagrees with a point and is willing to debate it with someone who is much more emotional about what is going on. I disagreed with his point and debated it.

Lol what? Saying "I don't like x" when x is the topic is "trolling"? Jesus Christ dude, not every opinion needs your approval before it can be posted.

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

If that's the case then he needs to work on his word choice because as it stands his posts read differently. This is the internet, not all the message can be seen due to the lack of real non-verbal communication (body language, voice quality, ect) so when making a point one must be clear. He was not clear enough.

He was clear enough to me. You need to work on your English skills.

Not so, for my English skills are not as deficient as you claim. The fact of the matter is he has quite clearly said that he believed house rules to only be good for giving one player and advantage and said he believed them to be cheating. He never elaborated his point. I'm actually more willing to bet you only got his meaning because you chose to be contrary to the "popular" stance as you usually do.

xruslanx wrote:

He doesn't like house rules and is posting in a topic about house rules and is decrying their use. That comes across as particularly "troll-like" in nature.

As I said, if he's only talking about his experiences, he's not doing a good job and it leaves a lot open to get the wrong message out of. If he's talking about his beliefs that all house rules are evil period, then he's in the wrong thread.

Also I am not being "sensitive", you're confusing someone who disagrees with a point and is willing to debate it with someone who is much more emotional about what is going on. I disagreed with his point and debated it.

Lol what? Saying "I don't like x" when x is the topic is "trolling"? Jesus Christ dude, not every opinion needs your approval before it can be posted.

Now whose English skills are lacking exactly? For someone who can pick such a clear meaning out of mud you seem to have trouble when it's handed to you on a silver platter atop a gilded cloth. I said he comes across as "troll-like" by doing so. As in he is showing behavior commonly associated with that of one who trolls. I also said that if he was trying to relate his experiences and options then he needs to work on his presentation instead of repeating the same point again and again because it doesn't make the point clearer, it just makes people listen to him less. If he's just coming in here to jump up and down on his stump and yell about how house rules are cheating then he's in the wrong thread, as I said before. The fact that you missed that clear statement (or at least tried to read a clear statement as something it is not) tells me that it is not my English skills that are lacking but rather your own.

Good try though.

Text removed.


Reds8n

text removed.

Reds8n

Used house rules? Well I do remember several games where me and my opponent removed the points system entirely as well as disregard most of the other rules. Oh, and also there always had to be a battle between my SM captain and his ork warboss... in melee.

Yeah, I didn't win very often.

Rumbleguts wrote:
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.

As in, if a nova power would affect 4 different units, each unit has a chance to negate the power, or just prevent it from affecting them?

 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.

So true...

zilka86 wrote:
Just trying to make my point

And this isn't the thread to do so in. Start up your own thread on the validity of house rules, then go ahead and make your point there and begin a discussion. Not like you'll listen to any other viewpoints, based on consistent past behaviour...

zilka86 wrote:
Thank you for seeing my point as that how house rules have come across to me as people cheating and abusing rules to take advantage of people

What point? You know that house rules can only be used if both players agree on their use, not just one. If you agree to let your opponent use it then it's your fault if it hampers your game.

But don't worry, just dig the hole deeper zilka - you are keeping me thoroughly entertained by your poor efforts to troll.

You've bullied him out of the thread already guys,no need to keep going

A few House rules we play by are.

1) no allies (none of us are fans of the concept)
2) we occasionally play for heads (winner gets a painted head to put on his army somewhere. I have an HQ on a 60mm base and glue them to the base around him)
3) fortifications after terrain (the terrain didn't crop up suddenly around the forts)
4)1% over point limit is ok

For me, the only house rules that I used where generally playing some sort of custom scenario, mostly because I was bored with the normal nine scenarios of 5th ed.

xruslanx wrote:
This guy got called a troll because he doesn't like houserules.

No, he's got called a troll because he's a well-known troll who does this over and over again.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
This guy got called a troll because he doesn't like houserules.

No, he's got called a troll because he's a well-known troll who does this over and over again.

It took three threads for me to be trolled, that's a new record!


....of how long it took.

One I know we have: Apocalyptic Explosions (going nuclear) are used in Apocalypse games.

Otherwise, there was some issue with the Skyshield involving putting Barrage artillery directly underneath of it and still having it be able to fire. Someone tried that with Whirlwinds and several eyebrows were raised. Nobody uses the Skyshield in our club regardless, but I think we might have banned it.

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

Did you have to make that up after someone killed a lot of things with a Slaanesh army and experienced extreme titillation?

I'll stop here now.

Personally, my favorite is assaulting the same turn as disembarking But the most important house rule for me would be have fun, (because some of the new units don't give that luxury ) . Another one is no mysterious terrain and no challenges, because pasting guard platoons is more fun that way with a DP

 Wilytank wrote:

Otherwise, there was some issue with the Skyshield involving putting Barrage artillery directly underneath of it and still having it be able to fire. Someone tried that with Whirlwinds and several eyebrows were raised. Nobody uses the Skyshield in our club regardless, but I think we might have banned it.

We're planning another singles tournament and the Skyshield and Fortress of Redemption are banned. So I guess it's definite for us.

Reveal the object values for 'The Scouring' mission, at the end of the game.

If you're rolling for Warlord traits in the BRB, roll once and pick from any column.

Set up terrain, then plop down your fortifications.

We've been using at least 1 Mysterious Terrain in each game and enjoy it. Sometimes it never comes into play, sometimes it's annoying for one or both players.

1.) Roll the die then pick the Warlord chart if using the ones in the BRB.

2.) Fortifications with deployment.

3.) Proxies are okay for a few games to see if you like a unit's rules and game effect.

I'd say Forgeworld is allowed, but that isn't a Houserule....it's stated simply as such in the books to be a rule(Sorry, I HAD to do it. :-P )

Fortifications are treated as occupied if there are models on the battlement.

Skyshield Pads - consider it a ruin for the purposes of moving and assaulting up the level.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Rumbleguts wrote:
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.

As in, if a nova power would affect 4 different units, each unit has a chance to negate the power, or just prevent it from affecting them?

More as in a beam power that might hit two units both get a chance to resist the power, or a scattering blast marker that hits an "untargeted unit". Also some of the older codex powers that hit units that don't target them. We also include the damage side of fireshield and that GK power that is very similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zilka86 wrote:
Thank you for seeing my point as that how house rules have come across to me as people cheating and abusing rules to take advantage of people

The house rules we use are mostly either things that clarify and codify grey areas in the game, or change something we consider extremely badly written or borked, such as the battlements rule and foritification. Actually quite looking forward to the rumored book in December if it gives much better fortification rules.

Power weapons as AP2.

 Banzaimash wrote:
Power weapons as AP2.

This should be put into the normal game, I mean after all, that's their point isn't it.

But seriously, my friends and I count banshee power swords as AP2 so they have a reason to exist.