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.

1. Ignore terrain placement/ fortification rules.
2. Dont use Hull Points.
3. Pick what game we play.
4. You can go 15 points over the point limit, but if you do, the other player may go 30 points over the point limit.
5. Sometimes we put a view blocker over half the table so you cant see the enemy's deployment.
6. General leniency.

None of that deployment feth.
My old gaming store never ever ever used that deployment.

I just moved, and our new one only does it that way.

Having experienced both, it is funner to do it way 1. It's cooler, better and looks best. You also dont/can't screw up terrain, because you don't know what side your going to be on. And if there's a bourd wide advantage, well you can see that and change it. Even steven

@Ryan_A: no hull points? Do you use the old '-2 on table' for glancing hits, or just ignore them entirely? Either way, with 6 being the only table result to destroy the vehicle, do you not find they are far more survivable even than in 5th? I also like the idea of hidden deployment, sounds like that could be fun.

We use two house rules (technically three, but the third is due to a lack of rules knowledge on the game master's part). First off is the one that everybody seems to do, narrative terrain rather than the silly rules in the book. Second is that we basically ignore mysterious objectives/terrain, partly because nobody ever remembers to do it, partly because nobody ever remembers what each one does, and partly because they rarely affect the game in any meaningful way (Whoopie, my guardsmen with nothing but lasguns can skyfire at my opponent's nonexistent flyers).

Last rule is that we (apparently) use the 5th edition rules for cover. That is to say, if you've got half of your unit in cover, you've got your whole unit in cover. I'm actually kind of amazed at this one, because like I said, it's entirely based on a lack of knowledge of the rules. Two people are aware of how cover is supposed to work in 6th, and I'm one of them. As a hint, the other is NOT the guy who's running things up at the FLGS.

The 'roll for warlord traits then pick from the list' method should just be faq'd as the correct way to do things.

Lately my group has been combining kill points and objectives. Seems to balance things a bit, that should really have been one of the mission types. Certainly wouldn't miss The Relic if they replaced it with that.

We just place terrain in aesthetically pleasing locations, people that purposefully stick mountains in front of their opponents' fortifications are awful people and most likely secretly lizard aliens.

We try and create a balanced board, unless we are doing a narrative.

If there's an item you like, but it's messed up(either due to costs, just weak, or it's just completely useless outside very specific situations) we will allow a debate on whether to make it cheaper.

For example our group changed the cost of Gift of Mutation down to 5 points. Course after that I rolled Stubborn, Eternal Warrior, and Eternal Warrior on three Noise Marine Champions in one game. Which would be why we made it cheaper.

My gaming group rerolls any die/dice that aren't in open terrain, even if they're completely flat on a template or similar.

We set up narrative. Occasionally will roll to see how many we place, as there is some disagreement around how much should be on the board and how high they should be – I do tend to cave though to make other people happy on this issue =P
We generally class most of terrain a little differently, sometimes changing from one game to another. Much of what is put down we count as normal area terrain.

We usually do this: if you roll on the warlord table and the thing you get is completely unuseable by your army (having no outflanking units for example) we get 1 reroll,
whatever that is sticks however so you could get something crap, but there's a higher chance of getting something that actually does anything.

The "roll the die then pick the table" for warlord traits is the norm almost everywhere now, so that is one we use.

Agree on terrain placement and do it before fortifications.

Mysterious ________ is also ignored, with the exception of objectives as that is one of the few ways to gain skyfire in some armies.

 deviantduck wrote:

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.

The irony of this quote is that, at my store, the main reason I like playing the IG player is that he has the best and most varied terrain, which he made himself. And he only plays IG. He has a super rocky setup for one of them that actually can hide a wraithknight, and he made it back it 5ht.

Cover saves are a separate save entirely that is taken after your opponent rolls to hit. So opponent rolls to hit, you roll your cover save, then your opponent rolls to wound against anyone who failed their cover save, then if the model is wounded and still allowed a regular save or invulnerable save they get to roll that. It never made much sense to me and my gaming group that a model would only get a cover save OR an armor save. In actual combat if you're hiding behind cover you don't take your body armor off.

 Jim wrote:
Cover saves are a separate save entirely that is taken after your opponent rolls to hit. So opponent rolls to hit, you roll your cover save, then your opponent rolls to wound against anyone who failed their cover save, then if the model is wounded and still allowed a regular save or invulnerable save they get to roll that. It never made much sense to me and my gaming group that a model would only get a cover save OR an armor save. In actual combat if you're hiding behind cover you don't take your body armor off.

You have to be kidding.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Jim wrote:
Cover saves are a separate save entirely that is taken after your opponent rolls to hit. So opponent rolls to hit, you roll your cover save, then your opponent rolls to wound against anyone who failed their cover save, then if the model is wounded and still allowed a regular save or invulnerable save they get to roll that. It never made much sense to me and my gaming group that a model would only get a cover save OR an armor save. In actual combat if you're hiding behind cover you don't take your body armor off.

You have to be kidding.

I am not kidding. Do my house rules offend you?

 Jim wrote:
Cover saves are a separate save entirely that is taken after your opponent rolls to hit. So opponent rolls to hit, you roll your cover save, then your opponent rolls to wound against anyone who failed their cover save, then if the model is wounded and still allowed a regular save or invulnerable save they get to roll that. It never made much sense to me and my gaming group that a model would only get a cover save OR an armor save. In actual combat if you're hiding behind cover you don't take your body armor off.

Now this one is interesting, as it does show a more logical system of cover, rather than the frankly idiotic one in place at the moment. However, although it does benefit all armies equally (more than can be said for the current version) do you not find it slows the game and makes some unts close to unkillable? For example, imagine a scout squad in bolstered ruins with camo cloaks and therefore a 2+ cover. Hard enough to kill at it is, and then by allowing them a 4+ armour as well, you double their survivability. I'm interested to hear how this has affected your games and even your local meta (if it has).


On the subject of cover, what do people think of adopting the system used my many other rulesets that soft cover= -1 to hit, hard cover = -2 to hit? Still makes cover relevant even for armoured troops, which is one of the key problems with the current rules. This system is used in WFB as well as Mantic's sci-fi/fantasy games, and seems to work far better.

For me and my son at least, it's You move, I move, You shoot, I shoot, more like LotR.

Lot more smoother and funner for us. If anything it adds tactics to the game. No longer it's I do everything, you do everything. I can actually hide someone if I see he is about to shoot them or not.

Also adding in the Heroic Intervention from LotR, adds more depth to the game for us as well.

We play in the basement/coffee table, so doesn't effect anyone else.

Davor wrote:
For me and my son at least, it's You move, I move, You shoot, I shoot, more like LotR.

Lot more smoother and funner for us. If anything it adds tactics to the game. No longer it's I do everything, you do everything. I can actually hide someone if I see he is about to shoot them or not.

Also adding in the Heroic Intervention from LotR, adds more depth to the game for us as well.

We play in the basement/coffee table, so doesn't effect anyone else.

Speaking as a vet from the early days of LOTR, I love this idea. Heroic actions and Might points would actually be pretty easy to port into 40k. Do you also use LOTR-type priority roles, or just have the same person going first every turn? Also, with charging and assaults, do you essentially resolve 2 assault phases as one side charges/fights and then the other, or just do charges for both sides and fight once?

Might have to give this a go...

 Paradigm wrote:

Davor wrote:
For me and my son at least, it's You move, I move, You shoot, I shoot, more like LotR.

Lot more smoother and funner for us. If anything it adds tactics to the game. No longer it's I do everything, you do everything. I can actually hide someone if I see he is about to shoot them or not.

Also adding in the Heroic Intervention from LotR, adds more depth to the game for us as well.

We play in the basement/coffee table, so doesn't effect anyone else.

Speaking as a vet from the early days of LOTR, I love this idea. Heroic actions and Might points would actually be pretty easy to port into 40k. Do you also use LOTR-type priority roles, or just have the same person going first every turn? Also, with charging and assaults, do you essentially resolve 2 assault phases as one side charges/fights and then the other, or just do charges for both sides and fight once?

Might have to give this a go...

We use priority rules as well. This way there will be no more "last turn Rhino rush" like there was in normal 5th edition rules. Makes you think more, knowing you might not have the last turn, in what to do. as for assaults, we just do the one at the end of the turn. If it's your turn to move, and you are in B2B for combat then like in LotR, you are locked in combat till the end of the turn.

Yes there is hick ups, but then again, isn't there hick ups in any edition of 40K?

Also there is more interaction, nobody gets bored when me, the Tyranid player is moving 100+ minis, and shooting. He has ADHD, so it helps out a lot as well. Games go faster as well. At least it seems to go faster since we are having more fun.

Davor wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Davor wrote:
For me and my son at least, it's You move, I move, You shoot, I shoot, more like LotR.

Lot more smoother and funner for us. If anything it adds tactics to the game. No longer it's I do everything, you do everything. I can actually hide someone if I see he is about to shoot them or not.

Also adding in the Heroic Intervention from LotR, adds more depth to the game for us as well.

We play in the basement/coffee table, so doesn't effect anyone else.

Speaking as a vet from the early days of LOTR, I love this idea. Heroic actions and Might points would actually be pretty easy to port into 40k. Do you also use LOTR-type priority roles, or just have the same person going first every turn? Also, with charging and assaults, do you essentially resolve 2 assault phases as one side charges/fights and then the other, or just do charges for both sides and fight once?

Might have to give this a go...

We use priority rules as well. This way there will be no more "last turn Rhino rush" like there was in normal 5th edition rules. Makes you think more, knowing you might not have the last turn, in what to do. as for assaults, we just do the one at the end of the turn. If it's your turn to move, and you are in B2B for combat then like in LotR, you are locked in combat till the end of the turn.

Yes there is hick ups, but then again, isn't there hick ups in any edition of 40K?

Also there is more interaction, nobody gets bored when me, the Tyranid player is moving 100+ minis, and shooting. He has ADHD, so it helps out a lot as well. Games go faster as well. At least it seems to go faster since we are having more fun.

Sounds good, and I like the idea of priority being able to go either way, that was one of my favourite parts of LOTR.

Most of my group only play 5th. The rest of us pretty much cherry pick the parts of 6th that work with 5th (for example, overwatch firing) and incorporate those.

Like others in the thread, we set up terrain before deploying armies.

Less a house rule and more a custom scenario is for both players to use the same army list, from a codex(s) both players are familiar with, and using that. It certainly provokes different reactions from people, but it's interesting if nothing else.

 -Loki- wrote:
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.

There are terrain rules?

 Paradigm wrote:

 Jim wrote:
Cover saves are a separate save entirely that is taken after your opponent rolls to hit. So opponent rolls to hit, you roll your cover save, then your opponent rolls to wound against anyone who failed their cover save, then if the model is wounded and still allowed a regular save or invulnerable save they get to roll that. It never made much sense to me and my gaming group that a model would only get a cover save OR an armor save. In actual combat if you're hiding behind cover you don't take your body armor off.

Now this one is interesting, as it does show a more logical system of cover, rather than the frankly idiotic one in place at the moment. However, although it does benefit all armies equally (more than can be said for the current version) do you not find it slows the game and makes some unts close to unkillable? For example, imagine a scout squad in bolstered ruins with camo cloaks and therefore a 2+ cover. Hard enough to kill at it is, and then by allowing them a 4+ armour as well, you double their survivability. I'm interested to hear how this has affected your games and even your local meta (if it has).


On the subject of cover, what do people think of adopting the system used my many other rulesets that soft cover= -1 to hit, hard cover = -2 to hit? Still makes cover relevant even for armoured troops, which is one of the key problems with the current rules. This system is used in WFB as well as Mantic's sci-fi/fantasy games, and seems to work far better.

Depends on the tactics each army is using. I mainly play against Space Marines and my opponent loves drop pods, so cover doesn't come into play that often. And if it does, I play IG, so the big guns don't generally allow armor saves to begin with (and there is no hiding from Marbo). And once again, I play IG, so I typically don't get an armor save to begin with. So I guess it really doesn't affect the speed of the game too much imo.

But my opponent does love to drop Scouts into bolstered ruins and give them a 2+ cover save. In which case I generally just ignore them because snipe rifles don't matter as a Guard player, and one rocket launcher in the squad isn't enough to change my battle plans.

Fair enough, I can see how those armies maybe don't change that much, was just curious. I can see those rules making some eldar and tau stuff ridiculous, but on the other hand, I imagine it's fairer overall as the same cover boost all unit's survivability by the same percentage.

 Paradigm wrote:
Fair enough, I can see how those armies maybe don't change that much, was just curious. I can see those rules making some eldar and tau stuff ridiculous, but on the other hand, I imagine it's fairer overall as the same cover boost all unit's survivability by the same percentage.

Yeah, every unit benefits the same. If anything it makes you hug cover more and maybe makes the game last a few extra minutes longer. But we haven't found it make that much of a difference.

At the gaming club I go to, the house (club) rule in place is that any SM tacs or devs with missile launchers can purchase flakk missiles for + 10pts per model, like the DA codex.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
At the gaming club I go to, the house (club) rule in place is that any SM tacs or devs with missile launchers can purchase flakk missiles for + 10pts per model, like the DA codex.

LMFAO. Funny how it is turned around, before it was DA using the SM codex, now it's the SM codex using the DA.

If a vehicle doesn't explode, but is destroyed, roll a D6 at the beginning of the owner's movement phase.

5+ = BOOM!
Next turn, 4+. Next turn, 3+. Yada yada.

Things dying from big explosions is incredibly entertaining.

If it isn't in range it can't wound.
If a unit is affected by a psychic power, it gets a Deny the Witch.
A wound causes a grounding test, not a hit.

Rumbleguts wrote:
If it isn't in range it can't wound.
If a unit is affected by a psychic power, it gets a Deny the Witch.

Arent they normal 6th ed rules anyway?

He who kills the cheer, buys the beer.

Don't be a dick.

These two house rules make for much more pleasant play