What "house rules" do you use ?

[Big Dibs theDog]

My personal favourite,
(which has only improved our games thus far)
is

Committing to shooting targets before starting the Shooting Phase.

Basically you declare what target each of your Units is firing at,
BEFORE you know of any results.

Realistic (you only have a short window of opportunity)
you can't fire one Las-Cannon unit and if it doesn't work,
fire another,
and another until the tank has gone

you have to decide now how many Las-Cannons Units are going to fire at that tank,
if the Tank pops after the first one,
too bad.

Try it

it will make a General of ya !

[Miggidy Mack]

That rule seems to be designed for skilled math hammer players. It rewards those who can do the math in their head before the shooting phase. It also minimizes positioning to take advantage of luck. You can't place a Predator in a central location so that it can switch targets if your meltagun pops something else.

All in all this rule really supports players who use ALL melta or ALL long range and hurts players who want to use variety.

Traditionally I'm against core rule changes that adjust the metagame. Just like Comp Scores. Around here we always have one person roll for deployment and the other roll for mission, on the occasion we are using a generic scenario from the book.

[Denzark]

@ miggidy mack-daddy: Fair one.

[Lerra]

I can only think of a few things that we do locally that could be considered house rules. They might be hiding in some corner of the BRB, though.

We determine if a die is cocked or not by putting another die on top of it. If the die slides off, it's cocked.

Necrons don't phase out in team multiplayer games. It's way to easy to phase 1000 points of Necrons out and take their allies with them.

For LOS, we always treat converted models (or skimmers that aren't on their flying bases) as if they were the original GW model on a normal base, and not the actual model on the table. So, anyone who wants to run the giant Forgeworld greater daemon over the smaller GW one is not at a disadvantage.

[Kall3m0n]

Not that many house rules here.

Can only think of three right now:

1: to gain 4+ cover save when the whole squad is visible, it requires the squad to be within 1 inch of a low wall or something similar. It says in the rules that you have to be as close as possible, but we just put a measurement to get rid of discussions.

2: you CAN stand right on the edge of a cliff, instead of the minimum of 1 inch from the edge stated in the rules, and not do a difficult/dangerous terrain test

3: When trying out a new army you get four "noob-points" to spend the first time you play, if you have forgotten to do anything in the previous round, change of target et.c. Three "noob-points" in game two, and so on.

[Big Dibs theDog]

That rule seems to be designed for skilled math hammer players. It rewards those who can do the math in their head before the shooting phase. It also minimizes positioning to take advantage of luck. You can't place a Predator in a central location so that it can switch targets if your meltagun pops something else.

All in all this rule really supports players who use ALL melta or ALL long range and hurts players who want to use variety.

Traditionally I'm against core rule changes that adjust the metagame. Just like Comp Scores. Around here we always have one person roll for deployment and the other roll for mission, on the occasion we are using a generic scenario from the book.

I think you've got me wrong mate.

It's just committing what each unit (and every) is firing at before you roll the dice,
you cant change your mind once the rolling starts.

Doesn't matter what weapon your using,

YOU WILL NOT be able fire a gun at a tank
(is it dead)
no....so fire the next UNIT at the tank

(is it dead)
no....so fire the next unit at the tank

(is it dead)
YES !....so the next unit can fire at something else

This is what the rules allow


it is lame


committing what each of your units will fire at before you start rolling is challenging

meaning you will have to decide know how many Units will fire at that tank
if you over commit as the Tank pops on shot one
too bad
as the rest will fire at it as well
as per your order


"eh you 4, fire at that tank !"

more fun

more challenging

try it next game:)

[Nabterayl]

Miggidy's point, Big, is that under the commit-then-shoot system those who can do the math in their heads (or know the math up front) have an advantage over those who do not, because they can allocate their fire better. For instance, suppose there's a Vindicator I really want dead, and everything else is on the side. Knowing as I do that a BS4 Demolisher cannon has somewhere south of a 24% chance of destroying or disarming a Vindicator from the front, I will be very unlikely to allocate only a single Demolisher shot at that Vindicator. Another player who doesn't know that might only fire the Demolisher cannon, thinking to himself, "This is very nearly the most powerful gun in the game; it should do fine!" when in reality he has something like a 1 in 5 chance of even a Demolisher cannon doing what he wants it to do. If he wasn't forced to commit everything and then shoot, he could watch his Demolisher cannon fail, then allocate follow-up lascannon shots from another unit - whereas I would feel comfortable allocating the Demolisher cannon and three BS4 lascannon shots up front (for a roughly 50% chance to disarm or destroy).

Of course, maybe that's the effect you're going for. Or maybe your group doesn't have big discrepancies in terms of who can calculate what. I don't think it's a bad house rule; just trying to explain Miggidy's point.

The biggest house rule we have is that vehicle squadrons don't count Immobilized as destroyed or Stunned as Shaken. Instead, if a squadron member is unable to move, its squadron-mates can leave it behind, with the straggler treated as a separate unit. However, if the straggler is ever able to move again (either because it's repaired, because Stunned has worn off, or whatever), then the squadron is subject to the normal unit coherency rules. For Kill Point purposes, squadron members are treated as destroyed if they are Immobilized.

We acknowledge that this makes squadrons significantly better than they are now, and obviously benefits some armies more than others. However, we think the added realism is worth the extra gaming challenge.

[Melissia]

Only one I've thought of that I've used more trhan once is that in a 500 point game, only one troops choice is required rather than two. Cause some armies are rather limited in low points games.

[Lerra]

Big's house rule is interesting, but it seems like it would be a major disadvantage for shooting armies, especially Tau with their markerlight rules and low BS. Also, what about blowing up a tank and shooting the unit inside? Do you have to declare that you're shooting at the unit inside the tank before you blow up the tank?

For two equally shooty armies it would be a fun thing to playtest, but for say, orks vs. tau I think you'd need to give the orks some kind of handicap to compensate.

[R3con]

The only house rule we have is only 1 disruptor beacon per side in Apoc games

[Commissar Lewis]

Nah, the friend I usually play against is a fanatical devotee to the rules. Which is fine, I can see his point of view and where he's coming from, but sometimes there are some rules that are just a bit wonky that could use a house rule to fix.

[Big Dibs theDog]

Miggidy's point, Big, is that under the commit-then-shoot system those who can do the math in their heads (or know the math up front) have an advantage over those who do not, because they can allocate their fire better. For instance, suppose there's a Vindicator I really want dead, and everything else is on the side. Knowing as I do that a BS4 Demolisher cannon has somewhere south of a 24% chance of destroying or disarming a Vindicator from the front, I will be very unlikely to allocate only a single Demolisher shot at that Vindicator. Another player who doesn't know that might only fire the Demolisher cannon, thinking to himself, "This is very nearly the most powerful gun in the game; it should do fine!" when in reality he has something like a 1 in 5 chance of even a Demolisher cannon doing what he wants it to do. If he wasn't forced to commit everything and then shoot, he could watch his Demolisher cannon fail, then allocate follow-up lascannon shots from another unit - whereas I would feel comfortable allocating the Demolisher cannon and three BS4 lascannon shots up front (for a roughly 50% chance to disarm or destroy).

Of course, maybe that's the effect you're going for. Or maybe your group doesn't have big discrepancies in terms of who can calculate what. I don't think it's a bad house rule; just trying to explain Miggidy's point.

The biggest house rule we have is that vehicle squadrons don't count Immobilized as destroyed or Stunned as Shaken. Instead, if a squadron member is unable to move, its squadron-mates can leave it behind, with the straggler treated as a separate unit. However, if the straggler is ever able to move again (either because it's repaired, because Stunned has worn off, or whatever), then the squadron is subject to the normal unit coherency rules. For Kill Point purposes, squadron members are treated as destroyed if they are Immobilized.

We acknowledge that this makes squadrons significantly better than they are now, and obviously benefits some armies more than others. However, we think the added realism is worth the extra gaming challenge.

Your further explanation does help, cheers.

I guess every "house" will have its different rules,
we love the commit then fire rule
(you are aiming at the Tank so any troops spilling out can also be fired at)

we love it cos it's made some agonising decsions

some laughable over kills

and some dangerous risk management style under investment in firepower

LOL

[Big Dibs theDog]

Liking = the Noob Points to create "rewinds" when using a new army

Liking = dropping the vehicle squadron Damage Conversion thing.

Liking = 1 Troop Coice in 500 point games.

Here's another

A unit must pass a Leadership Test to NOT fire/assault the nearest unit....
(only exception is that Vehicles can be ignored in favour of other targets and vice versa)

but yeah....Leadership Test to not fire at the closest vehicle.

[DarkLink]

I once played a game where we changed how Rapid Fire weapons worked.

Rapid fire: The weapon may fire using one of the following profiles:
(weapon range, str, ap) Heavy 2
or
(weapon range, str, ap) Assault 1.

So a unit with rapid fire weapons could move and shoot once out to 24", or stay still and shoot twice out to 24" (if the range of the weapon was 24").

That game was a lot of fun. Tactical Marines went from being meh to practically a devestator squad. I played Grey Knights with Sisters, my opponent Space Marines, and holy crud, did it feel like the bullets were flying. It felt like we really were in the middle of a warzone, with how many dice were getting rolled.

It also had the unforseen side effect of making my opponents LR Crusader absolutely amazing.


I strongly suggest that everyone try out these rules at least once, so long as your armies have plenty of rapid fire weapons. It turns the board into a real shooting gallery, and was tons of fun.

[Denzark]

Current house rules is to change the objectives. Instead, we are currently using the Victory Point table from Dark Millenium (2ed) along with the mission cards from 2ed dealt at random. Fed up of KP/capture the flag/objectives, so wanted something different.

[Big Dibs theDog]

Current house rules is to change the objectives. Instead, we are currently using the Victory Point table from Dark Millenium (2ed) along with the mission cards from 2ed dealt at random. Fed up of KP/capture the flag/objectives, so wanted something different.

That's a good idea