PDA

View Full Version : Lets hear what house-rules people are using



totgeboren
01-09-2012, 19:23
While I enjoy 6ed quite a bit, there are some areas that definitely could be tweaked for the better. So I'm curious about what rules you have encountered that doesn't sit right with you, and how you dealt with them?

I'll go first, and say that wound allocation from barrage just doesn't work. Having barrage being the best sniper weapons (much better than snipers by quite a bit), we play it so that wounds caused by barrage weapons are allocated like wounds suffered by units inside buildings. Or to but it simply, the owner of the unit gets to pick the casualties. Barrage still cause a lot of damage, but the sniping ability is toned down. As both me and my most common opponent regularly uses barrage, playing it RAW really messed up the game to the point of it just feeling silly.

To put it like this, a Guided Dark Reaper Exarch with a tempest launcher and krak shot can more or less kill any specific enemy model of his choice every shooting phase.
Oh, and my Eldar friend has been nice enough to suggest giving Runes of Warding an area like the Hood. Actually he bought the psychic cards, but there was little point for anyone to bring any psychers when they play against him as they just die from perils if they try to cast anything, and buffed Deny the Witch is hardly worth the points as he mainly uses buff powers (so you can't even Deny them), and he really wants us to use his nifty new cards. :p

Challenges... are something we use sparsely. We try to limit it to when it would be fitting, and most often we don't use it at all. Directed attacks are enough really for characters to be able to heroically strike each other down.

What have you guys run into that makes the game less fun for both of you, and what are your solutions to it?

warmonger1
01-09-2012, 21:17
I've house ruled the warlord trait roll to just roll a d6 and pick your number off any of the three tables. gives a much better chance you can get something at least semi useful.

red_drake
01-09-2012, 21:42
We always set up the table first. Before We roll for table sides.

trigger
01-09-2012, 21:54
We set up table first
Challanges are limited to what would make sense

Zothos
01-09-2012, 22:09
No ALLIES. EVER.

Jobs a good'un.

IcedCrow
01-09-2012, 22:51
Not using any at the moment. Going by all of the rules.

unknown_lifeform
01-09-2012, 23:18
Zooming fliers and swooping monstrous creatures can never claim or deny objectives. It just seems silly a fighter plane can barrel overhead and count as claiming or contesting an objective (if playing one of the missions that allows heavy support/fast attack to do so) because it happened to be over an objective the instant the game ended.

Born Again
02-09-2012, 05:28
Zooming fliers and swooping monstrous creatures can never claim or deny objectives. It just seems silly a fighter plane can barrel overhead and count as claiming or contesting an objective (if playing one of the missions that allows heavy support/fast attack to do so) because it happened to be over an objective the instant the game ended.

This makes so much sense it's not funny. We generally don't use flyers in the games I typically play, but when we do, consider this houseruled!

We also too set up the board before choosing sides. Helps to create a more balanced board lay out.

Main one we've been using is when you declare a charge, you roll for charge distance before overwatch, and overwatch only happens if the unit is in charge range. Stops 2 things: a) squads getting shot apart as a result of declaring a charge, and then finding out they only have a charge range of 2" anyway (happened an alarming amount of times), and b) beardy gits declaring a charge with a unit on the far side of the board from the unit they are charging, overwatch being out of range, and then the unit you actually wanted to charge with getting in scott free. So, the way we play it, there's still a chance that overwatch could halt a charge entirely (thanks to removing closest model first), but longer charges aren't as risky, and it stops any shenanigans with people unrealistically drawing out overwatch fire.

Szalik
02-09-2012, 08:33
b) beardy gits declaring a charge with a unit on the far side of the board from the unit they are charging, overwatch being out of range, and then the unit you actually wanted to charge with getting in scott free. So, the way we play it, there's still a chance that overwatch could halt a charge entirely (thanks to removing closest model first), but longer charges aren't as risky, and it stops any shenanigans with people unrealistically drawing out overwatch fire.

Page 20, Declare Charge, "A unit can never declare charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare charge against a unit that it cannot see."

So a typical unit must be within 12" to declare a charge. Most of the weapons will have range to overwatch. Worth pointing out to those beardy gits :p

Born Again
02-09-2012, 09:07
Ha! You're right. I hadn't had someone actually use it on me in a game, so it hadn't been too much of an issue, though someone had mentioned the tactic. Still, the alarming amount of times I've had units take a shocking number of overwatch casualties only to roll a 2 or 3 for charge range makes me think I'll be keeping the rule...

WarOnFrogs
02-09-2012, 13:30
the alarming amount of times I've had units take a shocking number of overwatch casualties only to roll a 2 or 3 for charge range makes me think I'll be keeping the rule...

Agreed! (as you know...) I'm also pushing to have a 'no challenges' house rule, as they just slow down combats and don't really seem fitting for 40K.

Maybe Warlords should be able to declare challenges, and that's it. That seems fitting.

trigger
02-09-2012, 14:11
I think HQs and upgrade characters (lukas and arjak as examples) should able to challenge and accept but that's it

I can't picture khan stoping to accept a challenge from a guard sarg no mater how how dashing he looks

Morgrad
02-09-2012, 15:22
Set up the table first
No allies
2000 points = 1 FOC

trigger
02-09-2012, 15:30
Again I think allies can work

CSM with guard or deamons or renegade lists

SM and guard or other marine codexi

Agree with 2001+ pts for second FOC and allies should probably fit into this category too
Every codex is capapable of making nice lists at 2k

Omniassiah
02-09-2012, 15:51
If played for we roll for all mysterious terrain and objectives after setup but before deployment. Just seems stupid that armies would have no intelligence units to scout the terrain before hand.

mughi3
03-09-2012, 01:47
When we play full on 6th the thing we really change is table setup. we set up the table and then roll to see what the mission is. if there is terain like trees involved we roll to see what they are as we enter them or shoot through them, basicaly if you have any interaction- see what it is.


Otherwise we just play 5th ed.

Bubble Ghost
03-09-2012, 01:52
Just two.

1. Be excellent to each other.
2. Party on, dudes.

Born Again
03-09-2012, 04:38
I'm surprised at how many people aren't using the rules for Challenges, I rather like them. I do however agree that 2nd FOC should kick in at 2001 points, but it's not that important as I virtually never play games that big.

trigger
03-09-2012, 10:10
One of the problems with challenges as an example from my army
I have a SC that gets an extra attack for every model he killed last combat phase (it's not wounds but kills).

As a example say he killed 5 models in your CC sub phase Against your guard.

I charge in my turn with a good roll I now have 11 attacks :)
You now remover that special ability by your vet sarg challenging.

IMO that's not really in the spirit of things.

There are several IC or SC out there that have similar abilities or wargear that not now be null invoid due to a silly rule.

Azulthar
03-09-2012, 11:51
We're slowly moving back to 5th when it comes to setting up the table & deployment:

- We set up the table before we roll
- He who deploys/starts first also gets to choose the table-edge
- Currently we're only using the standard long-edge deployment, but we're thinking about adding 5th's table-quarter deployment as an alternative.

Born Again
03-09-2012, 12:40
One of the problems with challenges as an example from my army
I have a SC that gets an extra attack for every model he killed last combat phase (it's not wounds but kills).

As a example say he killed 5 models in your CC sub phase Against your guard.

I charge in my turn with a good roll I now have 11 attacks :)
You now remover that special ability by your vet sarg challenging.

IMO that's not really in the spirit of things.

There are several IC or SC out there that have similar abilities or wargear that not now be null invoid due to a silly rule.

Unless I'm misunderstanding that rule, it doesn't remove it though, it just means that all those attacks must be directed against the vet sarg - greatly increasing your chances of killing him, although granted you'd much rather take out a larger number of grunts. It is a bit sneaky, but such noble sacrifice by faceless heroes is what the Imperium is made of...

Gorbad Ironclaw
03-09-2012, 16:20
I'm surprised at how many people aren't using the rules for Challenges, I rather like them.
I'm not really. They are a bit of a strange port over from Fantasy where they seem slightly more fitting, but still in the 20 years of playing that I have a total of one memorable challenges between suitable characters ( back in 4th or 5th). I think there might have been one or two other where its been combat character on combat character but 95%+ of the time its just a slightly weird metagame aspect you have to get around.

Johnnya10
03-09-2012, 17:22
Apart from setting up the table first, I'm not doing anything differently to what the BRB says. Everything seems fine.

Maelstromt
03-09-2012, 18:30
I think that the challenges are a great balancing act. You need them to give some armies/units a chance.

The above house rule on over watch seems a bit wonky though. Not having enough charge range is part of the risk you take when charging. Rolling low is an example of the withering fire putting off the charging unit!

Inquisitor Shego
03-09-2012, 18:38
We sort of have a gentleman's agreement on the 2 x force org chart thing. I've tried it twice to experiment, and the obscene amount of firepower just spoils a game

d6juggernaut
03-09-2012, 19:37
If I ever get to make house rules I'm hoping for no mysterious terrain/objective.

Zeroth
03-09-2012, 19:50
Predeploy all the terrain. We really didn't need that rule, 6th ed games are taking longer than 5th anyway, don't need them to go on even longer

WarOnFrogs
03-09-2012, 19:55
Zooming fliers and swooping monstrous creatures can never claim or deny objectives. It just seems silly a fighter plane can barrel overhead and count as claiming or contesting an objective (if playing one of the missions that allows heavy support/fast attack to do so) because it happened to be over an objective the instant the game ended.

I thought vehicles couldn't contest any more?

red_drake
03-09-2012, 20:30
Unless its in the rules that they can't:

Flying monstrous creatures can always contest, and flyers can capture/contest in the missions that let heavy support or fast attack units score

Worldeaters
03-09-2012, 21:34
Unit champions have a 2+ look out sir, so they don't look like pussys on the table. they can't issue challenges, only accept them.
Overwatch - either rapid fire guns or use pistol for the extra attack with a cc weapon in the combat.

WarOnFrogs
04-09-2012, 13:29
Unless its in the rules that they can't:

Flying monstrous creatures can always contest, and flyers can capture/contest in the missions that let heavy support or fast attack units score

Ah, thanks. Flying Monstrous Creatures contesting makes sense - after all, they're allowed to land and be all eaty. Vehicle flyers contesting doesn't really make sense; unless they have the Hover rule, which could feasibly allow them to linger on an objective shooting stuff.

Blinder
04-09-2012, 18:21
One of the problems with challenges as an example from my army
I have a SC that gets an extra attack for every model he killed last combat phase (it's not wounds but kills).

As a example say he killed 5 models in your CC sub phase Against your guard.

I charge in my turn with a good roll I now have 11 attacks :)
You now remover that special ability by your vet sarg challenging.

IMO that's not really in the spirit of things.

There are several IC or SC out there that have similar abilities or wargear that not now be null invoid due to a silly rule.

Or, you know, have your own sarge-equivalent around to take the challenge. Seargent-speedbumps are a pain for big lone baddies (greater demons, etc.) trying to mulch a blob, but most SCs should be reasonably able to expect a not-so-S-C to be on hand to put such shenanigans out of commission. It isn't perfect (overkill really should count towards resolution somehow) but challenges aren't *that* big a deal for "regular" combat types.

Corsair Princess
04-09-2012, 21:35
So far only 2:
1. For whatever reason, there are no force lances in the book, so we houserule that they can be taken.
2. Warning the opponent that you're bringing flyers (this is a temporary rule until we're all updated to 6th and/or get better at handling anti-air in general)

Formerly Wu
04-09-2012, 22:10
Flyers do not have Skyfire automatically. Only dedicated fighters or anti-air defense weapons have Skyfire; gunships do not.

What constitutes a "fighter" vs a "gunship" is a little nebulous but basically comes down to common sense. A Vendetta is a gunship. A Dakkajet or Blitza Bomma is a fighter, a Burna Bommer is not. A gunship with a defensive turret (eg Stormraven) have Skyfire for the turret only.

Ozendorph
04-09-2012, 22:43
Flyers do not have Skyfire automatically. Only dedicated fighters or anti-air defense weapons have Skyfire; gunships do not.

What constitutes a "fighter" vs a "gunship" is a little nebulous but basically comes down to common sense. A Vendetta is a gunship. A Dakkajet or Blitza Bomma is a fighter, a Burna Bommer is not. A gunship with a defensive turret (eg Stormraven) have Skyfire for the turret only.

Yeah I thought giving ALL flyers the option to skyfire was a poor choice. It basically makes it so any form of nasty ground-attack craft is also an awesome air-superiority fighter by default. Approximately a dozen ugly codex rule exceptions/modifications incoming ;)

Ultraloth
04-09-2012, 23:06
Unless its in the rules that they can't:

Flying monstrous creatures can always contest, and flyers can capture/contest in the missions that let heavy support or fast attack units score

Vehicles never contest. Doesn't matter what force organization slot counts as scoring. Just like fast attack swarms wouldn't count as scoring even if you can use units from that slot to score in a given mission. So there is no need to house rule this.

Cheeslord
04-09-2012, 23:29
Vehicles never contest. Doesn't matter what force organization slot counts as scoring. Just like fast attack swarms wouldn't count as scoring even if you can use units from that slot to score in a given mission. So there is no need to house rule this.

True that vehicles never contest, but they DO score in certain mission types (the ones including the words "even if it is a vehicle"), which may, subject to wording, make them contest too (don't have rulebook handy - currently I use my brothers to play 6th)

Faeslayer
05-09-2012, 00:18
We use the narrative method of setting up terrain (i.e. I throw it all down in a way that seems pleasing before table sides are determined), though that's in the book, so it's not really a house rule. The table is generally set up before anyone arrives at my house to play.

Once people start bringing fortifications, which I hope is soon, we'll come up with a way to deal with that. Most likely people will just be able to put a fortification where they like, but if it's on an existing terrain piece, the other player can re-place that piece wherever they like.

Other than that possible thing, it's by the book. We've had a lot of fun with random objectives and challenges and I'm creating some terrain to use as Mysterious Terrain to further complicate things. :D

onidemon
05-09-2012, 02:55
Here's one: If you don't pay a higher price for a "better" force weapon, you just pick which force weapon statline you want to use. So, since no one wants anything but a Force Axe, just play your sword-bearing librarian as if he has a force axe, don't take a pair of nippers to your librarian and glue an axe on. (Unless you really, really want to, like a friend of mine who wanted a librarian with a Gray Knight style halberd)

This house rule will go out the window when GW gets around to assigning costs to the various force weapons, and is a tide-me-over until then.

Other options for friendly games include:

- trade frag and krak missiles from a purchased launcher in exchange for the option of flak missiles.

- If a Tyranid player goes to the trouble of modeling an alien defense line, quad gun, bastion, icarus lascannon, or god forbid a tyranid hive Fortress of Redemption, than any synapse creature within synapse range of the weapon can fire the weapon at it's own BS, instead of firing one of it's own weapons.

Formerly Wu
05-09-2012, 05:36
Yeah I thought giving ALL flyers the option to skyfire was a poor choice. It basically makes it so any form of nasty ground-attack craft is also an awesome air-superiority fighter by default. Approximately a dozen ugly codex rule exceptions/modifications incoming ;)

Right. Between the simplistic depiction of aerial combat on the tabletop and the greater average hitting power of ground-attack vs air to air weapons (not to mention better armor on dedicated gunships), the RAW sets up a situation where a low-altitude hovering gunship is a better dogfighter than a dedicated air superiority fighter.

That is intrinsically silly. Thus, I choose to ignore their reality and substitute my own.

Leeman Russ
05-09-2012, 08:27
The group I game with tend to set up the table before rolling for deployment/mission and then place fortifications, which I think is more logical. We also don't use the mysterious terrain rules, but other than that we're following the rulebook everywhere else (even double FO, which we don't abuse).

Symrivven
05-09-2012, 10:07
We made some slight modifications to the mysterious terrain, dampening the extremes a bit.
A sabotaged objective will only explode once.
For warlord traits roll a d6 then choose the table.
Setup terrain beforehand. If you field a fortification substitute it for a terrain piece ( so you can't entirely block of a large section of the board)

WarOnFrogs
06-09-2012, 09:20
My local group has scrapped Warlord Traits for the time being, as the system for determining them doesn't work very well - Symrivven's suggestion of rolling D6 then choosing the table seems like a possible alternative.

Also we set up all terrain in a mutually agreeable fashion first, then roll for scenario, deployment, etc. Just speeds things up and avoids 'hill-hogging'.

Commandojimbob
06-09-2012, 09:32
My house rule is - there are no house rules - play the game as intended, although 2k games we would discuss 1 or 2 FOC's but anything over 2k is 2 Focs for sure .

However, reading the responses I do like the Warlord Trait change many have done - role a D6 and you get a choice of 3, that does make some sense. Setting up the terrain and placing the fortification again makes sense, but it is not an enshrined rule in the BRB.

Wench
09-09-2012, 08:31
Until the updated FAQ we played CSM Demon princes as fliers and not jumpers.

Blood Lance and other non template auto-hitting powers and weapons can hit swooping flyers. Players in my area feel that fliers are to strong. As a result there doesn't seem to be as much flier spam as I've seen in net lists.

We also set up terrain and roll missions and place markers before determining table sides.

metro_gnome
09-09-2012, 10:00
we let tyranid players ally with tyranids...
this gives them another 1/2 FoC slot to work with because everyone else can get one...

and yeah we are lazy about the new terrain set up rules as well...

Dwane Diblie
19-10-2012, 03:57
Thread is a little old now but I want to bring it back and see what new and interesting rules people are playing with now.

Here are a couple of mine.

Multi-Assault: If you shoot a unit and wipe it out then you can assault another unit counting as a Multi-Assault.

Relentless: When making a Multi-Assault you retain your +1 Attack for charging. (This one is still in testing)

Firing over ledges: Any model (not including Vehicles) that is on the edge of a piece of terrain can always choose to lean over and shoot enemy models below even if the model can not actualy see them due to the ledge or walls they are up against. Aditionaly they may also be shot at from below if thay can not be seen but gain +1 to their cover save. ONLY MODELS ON THE LEDGE MAY SHOOT OR HAVE WOUNDS ALLOCATED TO THEM. models back from the ledge are to far back to lean over and as a result are also safe from ground fire.
(This rule could also be used to fire around a corner if you want.)

Hatred: In addition to the normal rules for Hatred, a character must always issue and accept challanges to/from their hated opponent. If you have multipule characters then you may chose which one issues or accepts.

Flyers: Weapons that pivot up or are ontop of the vehicle are always Skyfire. Weapons that pivot down or are underneath the vehicle are never Skyfire. Fixed weapons have Skyfire when Zooming and do not have Skyfire when Hovering. Of course the vehicles own rules override these restrictions. (IE Ork Dakka Jet)

So lets hear what new rules you have come up with.

SideshowLucifer
19-10-2012, 05:22
The only house rule we play with is setting up terrain however it feels best, then fighting our battle in it. We prefer to not use house rules since so many different people from different areas play at our shop. It means we are all playing the same game no matter where you come from.

Plague Lord
19-10-2012, 12:30
2000pts - 1FoC
WE set up terrain and objectives before choosing sides.

fluffymcfluff
19-10-2012, 14:40
Like many others in this thread, we also set up the table first, determine mission and objectives then roll for warlord traits. We have also switched out the vanguard strike deployment with spearhead from 5th.