View Full Version : Planned 5e House Rules - any glaring problems we're missing?

13-08-2008, 17:51
Yes, I have not in fact played 5e yet, and am already planning a few houserules for it. Looks like a couple of tweaks are needed - many of these are actually carry overs of house rules we used in 4e. Just wanted to see what anyone thinks.

Note that:
A) We play completely casual, friendly games and the rules are designed to account for such.
B) We have Eldar, Dark Eldar, Nid, Marine and Tau armies. Any other army has not been considered since we haven't seen them in action.

General house rules:

Multiple Units in Close Combat: Determine which side wins the Close Combat normally. Each unit on the losing side takes the Ld modifier based on the number of wounds inflicted on THAT unit compared to the total wounds inflicted on enemy units.

Example: An terminator squad and a scout squad both assault some gaunts, and due to some insane rolls the marines lose. The scouts took 4 wounds, the terminators (surprise) took 0, and the gaunts took 2.
The Scouts took 2 more wounds, so they must roll at -2 Ld, as usual.
However, the terminators took 0 wounds to the gaunt's 2; so they take a Ld roll with no modifier.

Why: Its utterly counter logical that assaulting with MORE units lowers your chance of success. Getting multiple units in a position to assault isn't the easiest thing to do, and it should be rewarded rather than penalized.

Swarms: Swarms are immune to Instant Death, and never suffer Ld penalties or take extra wounds for being defeated in close combat.
Why: High power single shot attacks should be what swarms are LEAST vulnerable to! Just doesn't make sense; and they're already easy enough to kill with blasts. Not taking Ld penalties makes them more able to 'swarm' over things and engulf them, heedless of their own losses. Just makes them more swarmy! And from past experience, swarms need some help.

Vehicles: We're really tempted to tag on 6" to all the vehicle movements. They're just so darn slow (relatively) in 5e! But I'm worried about the effects of that, so we'll probably hold off and see how it goes.

Terrain: Not really a houserule, but we'll almost certainly still be treating some terrain pieces as area terrain. "This block is all full of trees, you get cover from it". Etc.

Monstrous creatures with two identical weapons may fire them both seperately, and do not need to count them as twin linked.
Why: Pay double points just to re-roll shots? You can aim two completely different weapons independently, but not two the same? No sense here.

5e clarifications:
Spore mines never give Kill Points, and can't run.
Lictors aren't at risk for deep striking into difficult terrain.

Dark Eldar
Dark Eldar get a couple of tweaks - with an early 3e Codex and no 4e codex, they've been the most out of date!

Scourges have Jet Packs instead of Jump Packs.
Hellion glaives are Asssault 1 weapons instead of Rapid Fire weapons.
The Talos Sting allocates hits normally.
Mandrakes moving while concealed can Run.

Exarchs with both warrior powers get +1 Wound.

Opinions? Any of these going to break the game? Anything we should use?

13-08-2008, 18:05
The exarch thing seems out of place. Why? Just for the sake of it? It's a nice idea, but I'm curious to the reasoning. The rest seems to clear up or 'improve' general rules and this one is really specific.

I like the multiple combat rule. I had my meganobz run and caught without suffering any wounds.

13-08-2008, 18:13
Play more, think less.

Base your houserules on experience and not theory slash internet wisdom.

13-08-2008, 20:39
I agree with Xandros, The best thing to do would be to play games in 5th ed and write House Rules as you go. Not based on any single game mind you, but based on your overall experience.

For example, if you come across a situation like with Mojaco's Meganobz only once, then maybe it's not a problem, just some bad rolling on his part. But if you charge in a Mob of Boyz and the Meganobz and the Meganobz are constantly falling back and getting swept even though they're never directly attacked, then that's a problem

The army specific rules really are out of place, and should really be made in the context of the codex or the ruleset as a whole.

The exarch idea is just right out. Don't do it. There is no reason that an exarch should gain an additional wound just because he buys more cool powers.

I agree with the Monstrous Creature rule to some degree. But If you're going to rule it that way, you should make it a blanket rule for all monstrous creatures and not just nid specific. Wraithlords are MCs too and they have the same problem.

You can't just house rule the Dark Eldar...really you need to rewrite the codex.
For example, you gave scourges jetpacks. First off, I don't think that Scourges should be able to Jump-Shoot-Jump. I've never really seen them as being agile, rather than just being fast.

I was talking with my friend about this very subject last night and I think the better option would be the following:
Scourges have Jump Packs. Scourges are equipped with Splinter Cannons. All Scourges may also be equipped with Dark Lances for +x points. Scourges have the relentless USR on the turn they Deepstrike. This means that all scourges would be running around at 12" movement with a splinter cannon while they get into position to use the Dark Lance.

13-08-2008, 21:42
Moved to rules development.

13-08-2008, 22:04
The Exarch rule is a bit odd, and may actually be a bit out of date.

The Eldar player started in 2nd edition, back when Exarchs were truly downright awesomely scary and ran around with ancient weapons of horrific power, huge stats, and spiffy power generator fields of assorted types. We thought the 3e Exarchs, by comparison, were pretty lame. Further, it was often barely worth it to take 1 warrior power, let alone both. So, at some point we were contemplating letting Exarchs buy an extra wound, and were debating the value. Then it hit - why not give them it for free IF they bought both powers? It seemed to work well, and made Exarchs a bit more impressive.

The army specific rules really are out of place, and should really be made in the context of the codex or the ruleset as a whole.
I'm curious as to what you mean by that.

I agree with the Monstrous Creature rule to some degree. But If you're going to rule it that way, you should make it a blanket rule for all monstrous creatures and not just nid specific. Wraithlords are MCs too and they have the same problem.
Actually, the blanket rule IS that Monstrous creatures can fire two weapons. Its just 'Nids that get oddly shafted when they buy two weapons the same :)

Edit: Ah, looked at the 4e Codex and you are indeed right; the Eldar Wraithlord has the same rules. Now that I'm thinking about, I don't think we ever played more than about one game of 4e after the new Codex came out.

So - thoughts? Why the penalty for getting the same weapon? Is having two weapons that are good against the same target too strong? Should Eldar get our mod, or should 'Nids lose it?

Scourges - in 4e, we just replaced Dark Lances with Blasters on Scourges (and they usually just wound up armed with Splinter Cannons anyway). Still too pricey for how fragile they are and what little they do. When I saw the Jet Pack rule in the 5e it was just a 'ding' - that's perfect for Scourges! Going to try it. If it doesn't work, well, we'll try something else.

(Need to go - more later)

14-08-2008, 15:44
Ok, thanks for the input so far...

The Exarch extra wounds is, I think, no longer needed as you mentioned. The 4e Exarch powers are generally pretty cool.

Relentless may be more appropriate for Scourges. (Though we'd just go 'Relentless' period, not at certain times :) ). In fact, it may be appropriate for Hellions to. May need to try Scourges both ways.

I'm now up in the air on Monstrous creatures. With the 4e 'Nid codex, we really thought it was just some kind of oversight. The 4e Eldar Codex makes it seem a lot more intentional. Just weird. The impact on the Wraithlord is much lower; with lots of options, they can easily get 2 weapons that complement each other well. The Carnifex...not so much.

For example, if you come across a situation like with Mojaco's Meganobz only once, then maybe it's not a problem, just some bad rolling on his part.

Well, that's kind of like "Hmm, this new car doesn't have seat belts. But I'll drive it for a while and see if I really need seat belts." Yes, I might drive for a very long time without needing seat belts, but its going to be disastrous if I DO happen to need them and don't have them.

Its obvious from the rules that problems exist with multiple units in CC; some of the anecdotal evidence on here really highlights it, and I can certainly see hitting those problems when we play. (Nor is it the first time GW has had rules for multi unit CC that go screwy; I don't think this will implode quite as badly as Epic Armageddon did, but the precedent is there).

I'm sure this fix won't cause problems; the most extreme case is that you wind up without any penalty to tests. 4e worked fine with no test penalties at all; I'm sure that in odd stray instances not having penalties will work fine as well.

Given that I'm playing with someone who is uncertain that its really worth bothering with 40K anymore, I consider it highly important to not have the game implode! :)

21-08-2008, 14:22
Play more, think less.

Base your houserules on experience and not theory slash internet wisdom.

I can't see the problem with doing a little thinking once in a while. ;)
I know by said experience that it often saves time and effort and, by the rules of cause and effect, things have to be invented before thay can be tested.
I might agree that playing 5th without the house rules first just to see if they are really needed is a good idea, but with som mixed gaming experience I think it is entirely possible to get an idea of how something is played even before moving a single miniature. At least SOME aspects of the game. And 5th isn't too different from 4th, so I think the OP isn't too crazy to try to take the house rules into 5th. Hence this thread, to ask what the people with more experience of 5th thinks about said rules.

And now back on that topic:
I think the one for the monstrous creatures looks interesting, and I have to try it sometimes to see how it feels on tabletop, maybe it will need a slight increase in cost, since it is designed with twinlinking in mind. But generally, well, it works for vehicles.

Multiple combats, it might be worth a try. I like the sound of it. A possible problem could be that some cc-troops will end up better that expected, but since you can't consolidate into combat anyway, they can get what's coming to them later. A more extreme suggestion to this problem (not playtested either) is to count who wins and loses not by side, but by squad. Lets use the example with the gaunts. With this version the terminators do not roll at all, since THEIR squad didn't loose (from their point of view), while the scouts lost by 2 points. The gaunts have also won the combat by a total of 2. (more exact wording: to see if a squad has lost the combat, count all the losses in the enemy squads it is fighting and compare to its own losses)
The effect of this would be that supporting close combat would be even more successful, and it can be a good investment to throw in some extra bodies.

I am not sure I like the vehicle thing. I can't really say why... This will have to come down to "tabletop feeling" I guess.

I can see where you are coming from with the swarms, and I like it, logically, since the swarms are separate units. If you are using this rule, I still think blasts should insta-kill them. (if it is double strength, it is instakilled as usual, but no instakills from non-blast weapons as you suggested.)
The effect of this rule will not be a great impact, but a slight buff for the swarms. The army that will feel its effect the most is imo eldar, since they have lots of multishot S6 weapons and most swarms are T3. Otherwise it is most lascannons and stuff that will feel this effect, and most of the time I think a lascannon can find a better target.

Let me suggest another house rule for you to try out:
Vehicles are allowed to fire defensive weapons on a different target than their non-defensive weapons. I have tried that one and I like it. It makes sense and encourages the use of defensive weapons. (which actually encourages players to move their vehicles)

25-08-2008, 07:00
I think the twin-link rule for tyranid monstrous creatures and wraithlords is meant to encourage variety (And it does). Else you'd never see EG a tyrant with a venom cannon and scything claws as opposed to dual scythes or dual cannons, or a wraithlord with anything but mirrored guns.