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 love reading all the interesting suggestions people post in this forum for changes to the rules. Even when the debates turn downright impolite, they usually have some neat points to consider. My question is this: which proposed rules has your group enjoyed playing with? Which ones have you incorporated into a regular part of your 40k gaming? Maybe you've homebrewed a character that is now a common sight within your army, or maybe your group resolves shooting or turn order differently. Maybe you've even switched over to a base 10 rolling system!

Alternatively, what rules have you tried and simply not cared for?

To get things started, I've recently been able to playtest a Thousand Sons fan codex of my own creation at the FLGS, and they seemed to be pretty well received. I look forward to continuing to work on them and use them with my local group. I also statted up a Warp Spiders Phoenix Lord that has proven to be useful-but-balanced in her debut game.

On the other hand, I've just played some mockup games using an armor reduction system (where weapons' AP reduces armor saves rather than having no effect on armor when the AP is higher than the armor). While I like the idea (it's similar to how Mantic Games' system works), it has proven to be unpleasantly punishing for units that want to get in close, so I'm not sure I'll be looking to use such a system again for a while.

There are a couple things that I've seen on here I liked a lot, but I can't remember anything specific. The Fan codexes make me proud of some members of this hobby for the initiative they show when they do things like that, though.

I'm not a fan of One Page 40k. I had been looking for cliff notes for the main rulebook. Instead, I found someone had tried to rewrite the game. I also have found that when people try to totally re write 40k, it doesn't work. I get that people don't like some things in 6th/7th and want to change it but the game isn't unplayable.

Of my projects I've had a chance to test out Aegis, Meridian (both linked to through my signature), and my homemade Inquisition rules; Aegis was poorly-received and is going through a rewrite (things were too tough and the bookkeeping was too difficult), Meridian was fairly well-received and I'll have more stories about it once I finish the army lists, and my homemade Inquisition rules worked quite well with a few minor tweaks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Powerfisting wrote:
I'm not a fan of One Page 40k. I had been looking for cliff notes for the main rulebook. Instead, I found someone had tried to rewrite the game. I also have found that when people try to totally re write 40k, it doesn't work. I get that people don't like some things in 6th/7th and want to change it but the game isn't unplayable.

It's not unplayable but there are things that could work better/differently. Those of us who seek a total rewrite have complaints about the core rules that can't be fixed with new Codexes. (For the record I don't particularly like One Page either, mostly because when there was a thread for my project (Aegis, linked to in my signature, not working correctly now but I'm in the process of a v2 rewrite) up he showed up and told me all the work I'd put into it was a waste of time because he made something better in one page)

Two proposed rules to tactical objectives have been incorporated into my playgroups regular sessions.

1. Tactical Objectives are secured at the beginning of your turn. This allows the enemy a chance to counter your capture.

2. You may discard and draw a new Tactical Objective for each one that you draw that is impossible to achieve. For example: Necrons drawing an objective to manifest a psker ability.

These are now just common rules around our group and really help to make Tactical Objectives more fair and dynamic.

RaptorHunter wrote:
2. You may discard and draw a new Tactical Objective for each one that you draw that is impossible to achieve. For example: Necrons drawing an objective to manifest a psker ability.

I would bet this is one of the most commonly accepted house rules. A significant portion of my group does it too.

 Powerfisting wrote:
There are a couple things that I've seen on here I liked a lot, but I can't remember anything specific. The Fan codexes make me proud of some members of this hobby for the initiative they show when they do things like that, though.

I'm not a fan of One Page 40k. I had been looking for cliff notes for the main rulebook. Instead, I found someone had tried to rewrite the game. I also have found that when people try to totally re write 40k, it doesn't work. I get that people don't like some things in 6th/7th and want to change it but the game isn't unplayable.

I haven't looked at One Page's rules for 40k on a whole, though I have begun to slowly warm up to their Kill Team variant. I might honestly play that way most often instead of normal Kill Team. I don't mind regular 40k as it stands, but for some good skirmish level gameplay, these rules feel pretty good.

Edit: Just took a look at their 40K rules, and as it isn't much different than the KT rules, I don't mind this change so much. It takes 40k and puts it into Skirmish mode, not Skirwarepic mode that it currently is in. I wouldn't mind using those rules for games under 1500 points. And to be fair, a lot of thought was put into it, and from I can tell, seems to be pretty balanced.

RaptorHunter wrote:

2. You may discard and draw a new Tactical Objective for each one that you draw that is impossible to achieve. For example: Necrons drawing an objective to manifest a psker ability.

In my 28 years with the game, this is the only house rule I have ever seen survive more than 2 actual games before being thrown out as a bad idea.

RaptorHunter wrote:
Two proposed rules to tactical objectives have been incorporated into my playgroups regular sessions.

1. Tactical Objectives are secured at the beginning of your turn. This allows the enemy a chance to counter your capture.

2. You may discard and draw a new Tactical Objective for each one that you draw that is impossible to achieve. For example: Necrons drawing an objective to manifest a psker ability.

These are now just common rules around our group and really help to make Tactical Objectives more fair and dynamic.

Add our group to the list that do the second. We also have a similar houserule concerning Warlord traits; if it's something not physically possible for your warlord to do, then re-roll (although to be fair this is actually in some of the codices, Tau for example.)

Your first one is interesting, might have to give that a go.

RaptorHunter wrote:
Two proposed rules to tactical objectives have been incorporated into my playgroups regular sessions.

1. Tactical Objectives are secured at the beginning of your turn. This allows the enemy a chance to counter your capture.

2. You may discard and draw a new Tactical Objective for each one that you draw that is impossible to achieve. For example: Necrons drawing an objective to manifest a psker ability.

These are now just common rules around our group and really help to make Tactical Objectives more fair and dynamic.

Yep, we do those as well. Much fairer and makes the game a lot more fun when you actually can stop them capturing an objective straight off.

My 40k rewrite is a smashing success in my play group.

(Full disclosure: my play group is me and one other person)

GONU was well received online and I every so often I hear from people I've never met, from foreign countries, who are running a campaign.

These two are linked in my sig.

But my real claim to fame was a magic system fix for D&D 3.5. It was about two pages and fixed everything. Several groups worldwide used it for many years and I've seen it pop up in D&D wikis here or there.

Our group has done this http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/581997.page. There were some very vocal naysayers on dakka, but thankfully, our rl group is a lot more open minded.
Everyone from our group liked the rule, and we still commonly pull it into use in non-pickup games. It's especially notable for changing the big point and remove weapons to point and almost-remove.

I personally felt it added just the right amount of extra survivability to a very expensive basic troop without going overboard.

Quite a few tournaments have adopted some of the FOC restrictions proposed here.