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.

Was on another forum where we discussed issues that could be improved with the game. One of the players suggested eliminating some of the senseless rolling the rules make you go about doing which I though was fairly interesting.

So I figured I'd try the discussion out here.

What we discussed was removing the roll for Warlord traits and Psyker powers entirely. Rather than roll, simply pick what you want to use, especially as too often people get stuck with absolutely useless traits and powers.

You know that it'd result in like.. around four traits being used and all the rest forgotten? Basically how it was with psychic power disciplines. Also cherry-picking all the best powers would greatly benefit already powerful Eldar and now Daemons, only making the disproportion worse while not doing anything good to armies such as Tau that don't have convenient way to include psychic powers into their army.

For your idea to work they'd have to make all the warlord traits equally viable, so that every one of them would find some use on the table in some particular builds/armies.

 Klerych wrote:
You know that it'd result in like.. around four traits being used and all the rest forgotten?

This. It would be a good idea if the tables were balanced and there were good reasons to use all of the options. Since they're not "pick your trait/power" means more cookie-cutter lists with the same obvious choices. If you don't like the random rolls just remove the whole warlord trait system entirely.

If you were to go with such a system you would first need to rebalanced the warlord traits and psychic powers in a way so that no one choice is the obvious one to pick. Otherwise I like it since the whole your warlord never knowing what they are good at until the start of each battle really does not make much sense.

I'm sorry, but that would break warhammer 40k quite a bit more. Woo-hoo! Greater Daemon automatically gets invisibility, levitation, and iron arm!

Mephiston automatically gets Iron Arm, Endurance, and Levitation, and Tigarius who's with him automatically gets shrouding, dominate and invisibility!

Etc, Etc. You can see where this would lead.

Won't lie, didn't even think about possible abuses to it and nobody even mentioned it on other boards lol. Guess there would need to be a lot more work to it.


Another question as we are on the subject of House Rules.

What kind of house rules do you guys play by?

 Lobomalo wrote:


What kind of house rules do you guys play by?

Don't pee on the seat.

Don't steal my winegums.

Bring Beer?jager.

Any rules dispute brought up in game is to be resolved through the means of a game of chess.

I like your rules.

You literally stop mid game to play chess though?

FYI, there's an entire subforum devoted to houseruling, right here. You're welcome.

We play with a few.

We ignore the deployment types most of the time, just do long edges. Night fighting is another thing we don't bother with.

We treat units as solid objects for the purposes of cover, both ways; no shooting through other units and giving cover saves, you just can't do it.

Sometimes we'll do roll Warlord Trait and then pick that number from any rulebook table (if you use codex table, you have to keep it though).

Pretty much the only house rule we play with concerns terrain.

We just have a third party set the terrain up for a game, rather than the two players. SO much better that way.

We usually try to set up terrain before we even create the teams. We try to make it as realistic and fair as possible.
The fairness is ensured because we don't even know what side we'll be on.
Sometimes we even redo the terrain after sides have been picked if both teams agree that it would get ridiculous, annoying or unrealistic to fight a battle with the current set-up.

Vanguard Strike is a set-up we almost always reroll.
We don't have big rooms and 9 out of 10 times it would interfere with us actually playing the game.

Besides terrain we don't have any real house-rules.
I am sure there are a lot of things we played wrong because we simply didn't know about it.
Just a few months ago we found out we've been doing the "overwatch and multiple charges" wrong, no wonder assault-armies were doing so crappy.

Just remembered another one, but it's less a rule change and more a budgetary one.

Say you have Death Company as is the case with the BA army I am working on and you don't have enough bits to have the model holding a bolt pistol and chainsword and so you have to use a boltgun, or say you convert regular tactical marines into assault of Death Company and they have only boltguns as was the case with the DV set from what I hear.

As long as you apply the points properly and let people know ahead of time, it doesn't matter what weapons the model is holding. You only have dudes with Plasma Cannons and you want to have them as Missile Launchers, that's fine, just mark out which model has it, pay the points and that's fine.

I'm not going to make people go out and buy more stuff just to have the proper looking models.

For my Group, we treat Astra Miltarum as allies of convenience with CSM and Tyranids, however we did put a restriction on the bugs that you have to have a squad of genestealers with a broodlord as a reflection of the Genestealer cult background..

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
If you were to go with such a system you would first need to rebalanced the warlord traits and psychic powers in a way so that no one choice is the obvious one to pick. Otherwise I like it since the whole your warlord never knowing what they are good at until the start of each battle really does not make much sense.

Having some traits be beneficial and others be total crap for some armies seems to make randomly rolling just as bad as picking.

Getting a CC bonus for Tau doesn't make for an interesting result on a random roll after all.

The traits should be rebalanced, which would result in randomly rolling or picking and choosing being interesting ways to play.

 Lobomalo wrote:
I like your rules.

You literally stop mid game to play chess though?

At first it was a joke. Then we actually brought a chess set and set it up on the side. No one dared argue during a game.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
I like your rules.

You literally stop mid game to play chess though?

At first it was a joke. Then we actually brought a chess set and set it up on the side. No one dared argue during a game.

That is so awesome.

Lobomalo wrote:Was on another forum where we discussed issues that could be improved with the game. One of the players suggested eliminating some of the senseless rolling the rules make you go about doing which I though was fairly interesting.

So I figured I'd try the discussion out here.

What we discussed was removing the roll for Warlord traits and Psyker powers entirely. Rather than roll, simply pick what you want to use, especially as too often people get stuck with absolutely useless traits and powers.

This could work, but how do you feel about 2 Chapter Masters, both eternal warrior, with 2+/3++ and a 6+ FNP on one and a 4+ FNP on the other accompanied by libbys that all have Iron Arm and Life Leach? Maybe give one Endurance for the 4+FNP, and giving one CM a 2+ FNP?

I practically roll this in every game that I run my 2 CMs and 3-6 libbys in, all on bikes.
It's ridiculously powerful.

Mr. Burning wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
I like your rules.

You literally stop mid game to play chess though?

At first it was a joke. Then we actually brought a chess set and set it up on the side. No one dared argue during a game.

I laughed rather evilly at this, honestly.
No idea why. It was rather amusing.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
I like your rules.

You literally stop mid game to play chess though?

At first it was a joke. Then we actually brought a chess set and set it up on the side. No one dared argue during a game.

That is so awesome.

I'm almost tempted to try this, but the speed at which I play chess, it'd take longer than the 40k game.