PDA

View Full Version : House using and creation, opinions?



comradeda
07-01-2016, 05:35
What thought process do you have when interacting house rules? I know some people don't use them at all, and some people use them, but don't expect other people to.

Personally, when I think up house rules, I want them to something that would be considered publishable. In a previous thread, I posted a proposed set of rules for selecting mission, first turn, and so on, with the expectation that it would hypothetically replace the "roll on a huge number of tables before a game" system that GW currently uses. A bunch of people told me that was unnecessary and you could just house rule and choose a mission. But then I realised that I was writing house rules to replace GW rules.

So how do you treat them?

Would you recommend that GW encourage or adopt your house rules?

Obviously, some house rules are silly. Don't worry too much about this. This is just for opinions.

Thrax
07-01-2016, 14:36
After much input with our group, I tend to write the bulk of our changes we make to the rules. Our version is an offshoot of 4th and 5th with other bits added in and some mechanics changed. It wasn't enough to change the basic rules so we've done the same with the codices we use, trying to keep them interesting yet somewhat balanced. Doing all this is the only way we could continue playing the game instead of chasing the latest trend GW decides to push.

Grand Master Raziel
07-01-2016, 15:43
I came up with some house rules for a group of friends who all became new players almost at once. I had two motivations - give the game some semblance of balance, and reduce the amount of stuff they had to worry about out of the gate (so no Flyers, for instance). They worked. People had fun, our games have all been really close. After people had been playing for about a year, I took some of the training wheels off, but we kept the balance restrictions, because they really do help make the game more fun and curb a lot of the excesses the unadulterated rules lend themselves to. They're not very complicated, either.

1: 40% Troops minimum
2: No Allies
3: Psykers can only use their own power dice and those from the Harness the Warp roll at the beginning of the turn. They can't use power dice from another psyker.

Charistoph
07-01-2016, 15:57
The game cannot be played without House Rules popping up.

If I'm aware of an issue, I ask my opponent or TO their feelings on it.

If someone wants to try a homebrew unit with me, I ask to see the sheet for reference.

Other than that, I can be flexible.

Dkoz
07-01-2016, 16:28
I mostly just play the BRB rules and if someone wants to use house rules I try to convince them to go with the ITC rule IMNSHO they are probably the best out ther right now.

skorczeny
07-01-2016, 16:52
I write house rules for my small group.

IMO - GW should write better rules so that house rules aren't so necessary.

House rules are part of the game, and have always been. HOWEVER - It's one thing to say: '...when the odd situation arises that is not covered by the rules... talk to your opponent and come to an agreement ... or roll a D6', compared to '...it's necessary to figure out what kind of game you and your opponent want to play and can come to an agreement on - from scratch - every time you meet a new opponent - and before making an army list.' One is fine, and the other leads to people not playing the game.

DomZeqalStigaf
07-01-2016, 17:42
@skorczeny et all
I'm in the midst of attempting to write a table-top core rulebook that Fantasy, EoS, 40k, etc.. could be adapted around (which I [or the community] would then do separately for IP reasons.)

The idea is to eventually have a Pathfinder-esque adaptation where people can build a community that play the less-official game while still having the possibility of pick-up games. I understand it'll likely fail as it's the same problem of creating Electronics Standards where each person trying to fix the game incidentally competes/splinters rather than creates a secondary community. But just like the people who try to write the universal standards for hardware, I'm attempting to write the next standard for Tabletop. Meh.*

I think GW has painted themselves into a corner in a lot of ways and it would take a full overhaul to make changes they may be interested in making.


Aside from this, we have a custom Overwatch rule, an amendment to the Ork codex in a few large but key places (the mob rule, a few selections of regular wargear cleverly omitted by GW to make the codex garbage.) We've adjusted a few of the "charge from out of the game" rules back to the 5th ed version since the 2nd Ed Overwatch adaptation covers being able to protect yourself; and it's worked admirably; as it also covers the shooting side of it (Drop Pods don't get completely free shots, but instead may walk into a hail of fire; making them more likely to be placed in a sane manner, or the bravery of placement more exciting.)



*Note: It's not 40k with differences. The WS type stat has changed it's chart, the BS chart is different, the scatter is different, the keywords are different, the wound/toughness/damage system is different.. I could go on..

Inquisitor Kallus
08-01-2016, 18:40
@skorczeny et all
I'm in the midst of attempting to write a table-top core rulebook that Fantasy, EoS, 40k, etc.. could be adapted around (which I [or the community] would then do separately for IP reasons.)

The idea is to eventually have a Pathfinder-esque adaptation where people can build a community that play the less-official game while still having the possibility of pick-up games. I understand it'll likely fail as it's the same problem of creating Electronics Standards where each person trying to fix the game incidentally competes/splinters rather than creates a secondary community. But just like the people who try to write the universal standards for hardware, I'm attempting to write the next standard for Tabletop. Meh.*

I think GW has painted themselves into a corner in a lot of ways and it would take a full overhaul to make changes they may be interested in making.


Aside from this, we have a custom Overwatch rule, an amendment to the Ork codex in a few large but key places (the mob rule, a few selections of regular wargear cleverly omitted by GW to make the codex garbage.) We've adjusted a few of the "charge from out of the game" rules back to the 5th ed version since the 2nd Ed Overwatch adaptation covers being able to protect yourself; and it's worked admirably; as it also covers the shooting side of it (Drop Pods don't get completely free shots, but instead may walk into a hail of fire; making them more likely to be placed in a sane manner, or the bravery of placement more exciting.)



*Note: It's not 40k with differences. The WS type stat has changed it's chart, the BS chart is different, the scatter is different, the keywords are different, the wound/toughness/damage system is different.. I could go on..

Hi Dom, I wondered if you could elaborate on your rules, especially the 'charge from out of the game' thing?

To the OP, GW have always encouraged house rules, it used to be in the designers notes etc. They can make for some great games if done well

totgeboren
08-01-2016, 20:14
The choices in the poll weren't really all that helpful, since all but the first applies to me.

The ones I play with on a regular basis is the 'No sharing of warp charge for psychers' one, since that one is a nobrainer if you want fun games.

Other than that, we count all vehicles as squares for determining facing. According to the rulebook, Eldar tanks either have a massive rear facing, or a tiny one. Battlewagons have such a narrow front that it's silly, and home-made or converted vehicles leads to issues. Easier to just say "each facing is 90". Done.

We also allow the owner to decide who gets killed if they get hit by barrage. Barrage sniping sucks.

I think that is all... hmmm...

Smooth Boy
08-01-2016, 22:09
I'll try anything once but I generally prefer if people keep house rules simple I don't want to have to remember another half a codex. ie. I prefer to have all CAD under 2000 pts like 6th edition.

DomZeqalStigaf
08-01-2016, 22:16
Hi Dom, I wondered if you could elaborate on your rules, especially the 'charge from out of the game' thing?

*Ditch everything about overwatch.
Instead "Overwatch" is something you declare instead of shooting. It allows you to shoot at the end of one of your opponent's phases at -1 BS.

*Remove the restriction for "Units entering from Reserves" and replace it with "Deep-striking" so that units that enter on your table edge or by outflank can charge. This is mitigated by the fact that the overwatch rule above allows you to defend yourself from such units. It also allows you to defend yourself from units that exit a transport, rather than them teleport straight from the transport into your unit.

And those are the main changes for house rules (aside from the ripple effect of dealing with things that care about overwatch or detailing the rules enough that you don't get into arguments over it. It's all sane stuff like "a unit can't declare overwatch if it may only fire snapshots", which keeps things like Pinned units or Retreating units from doing weird things.)

They seem to work pretty well at making the game more fun for both sides as Shooty armies become more tactical and assault armies don't get punished arbitrarily. There may be a couple other small oddities to make it all work.

DJElam
09-01-2016, 17:05
There is one house rule that I like to play them. It's a very simple rule, should you make a mistake like forgetting to move/shoot a unit you can redo it, however only 1 redo per game. I add this rule because it's a game and it's meant to be fun, no one likes to lose a game because of a stupid mistake. I am also not against other house rules as long as we both agree them before the game.

Marshal
10-01-2016, 01:13
I think house rules are a necessary part of the game regardless. My gaming table at my place has a set of such rules posted on the wall. You play at my house, you follow my rules sort of thing. They're nothing out of the ordinary, all they do it bring back levels of ruins and the ability to auto discard and redraw maelstrom objective cards which are impossible to achieve (necrons or tau should not have the Harness the Power of the Warp card...).

cuda1179
11-01-2016, 21:29
The only real house rule that I like to use regards trees, and other pieces of terrain that are not well represented on the board. Wood, forests, etc. will give the full cover save to anything behind their area, regardless of where the "actual" trees are. I know people have issues with area terrain, but seriously some times you need to move a tank into terrain and not be a pain to do it.

comradeda
13-01-2016, 05:58
The choices in the poll weren't really all that helpful, since all but the first applies to me.


Aha, sorry. I had to choose between completeness and readability. I'm fine if you choose everything but the first choice though (N-1 system of voting).