House Rules, Banning, and THE Rules

[crazyredpraetorian]

Some people believe that GW's rules are the ultimate word on our hobby. On the otherhand, some stores/gaming clubs use very liberal house rules and sometimes ban units or characters that detract from their interpretation of fun. What do you think? Should we all play strictly by the rules laid out in the BRB? Does it hurt the hobby to ban characters or units? Should we modify rules to make sure everyone has a competitive chance?

[Commissar Lewis]

Well, sometimes house rules can be interpreted as legalizing cheating. Other people view the BRB as sacrosanct and defend the rules with a zeal that would put the Ecclesiarchy to shame. Others like to disallow units they feel are unfair.

In the end, it's game between two or more people. I firmly believe that whether or not the rules are followed to the letter or treated as more-or-less guidelines is up to the players involved. It all comes down to the players talking beforehand and making agreements. Though banning certain characters? That is just asinine - reminds of when I used to play Monster Hunter on the PS2 online and people would tell me I wasn't allowed to use the upwards-swing Great Sword attack.

[Chumbalaya]

Cooperatively working with your local group to make the game more enjoyable is great.

Banning units because you can't figure out how to beat them is not.

[imperialsavant]

:) I thought Jervis Johnson's comments in one of the Standard Bearer articles was a good guide.
He said the main thing about the Game was to enjoy it & have fun & if you or your opponent agree to "ammend" the rules to go for it.
Of course we need the rules or else the whole thing becomes a farce but sensible House Rules that everyone in the Club agrees on are fine if they contribute to everyones enjoyment!

[Melissia]

Unless, like in the vast majority of cases, house rules exist to increase one person's fun and diminish another's.

[BuFFo]

Some people believe that GW's rules are the ultimate word on our hobby.

Then they are in the wrong hobby.


On the otherhand, some stores/gaming clubs use very liberal house rules and sometimes ban units or characters that detract from their interpretation of fun.

Which is what Gamesworkshop games have always been about; having fun. The entire game is house rule.


What do you think?

The game is about fun. Nothing else. If you want a tourney rules based game, go play Magic.


Should we all play strictly by the rules laid out in the BRB?

Absolutely, and when yuo follow the games most 'important rule' you'll notice that the entire game is just a collection of suggestions to use your models.


Does it hurt the hobby to ban characters or units?

Not at all if both parties agree. Forcing a ban on a unsuspecting player is another thing all together.


Should we modify rules to make sure everyone has a competitive chance?

Yes. In my area, many people 'allow' necrons to use WBB after being swept in combat, and they also ignore the 25% phase out rule.

[Ivarr]

The most fun I have ever had were at a shop where "house rules" were a regular thing. For example, the shop owner had a standard rule for his Kharn/Khorne Berserker army that if a standard guard squad stood two full rounds of close combat against Berserkers or Bloodletters the guard player won the game. In 4th edition that was a much bigger deal as a single unit of Khorne troops could sweep through one squad and into another each player turn with no fear of taking fire.

It was also regular for us to make our own scenarios. There was always something new and different going on on the table. We did not ban units of any kind, and I agree for the most part that forcing a ban on another player is rude. I think that as a whole, every group/shop that I have gamed in has had unwritten agreements that certain lists are too brutal for friendly play, but that is the case even on most forums concerning the game. We have even come to the agreement that some formations and stratagems in Apocalypse are intended to sap the fun out of the game for everyone and should not be used in most cases.

Fun. That's what it is all about.

[Melissia]

and they also ignore the 25% phase out rule.Woah, that's making Necrons WAY too powerful...

[Kahoolin]

This is a weird question, as it is impossible to enforce adherence to the official rules. Maybe in a tourney setting, but even then you probably need to make judgement calls and house rules in response to vagueness in the official rules. I guess what I'm saying is that even if everyone on this forum said "nope, house rules are cheating, everyone should use everything in the BRB as it is" that wouldn't make it so. It's not like we can go into people's houses and MAKE them abandon house rules. So for those reasons I don't see how anyone could reasonable say house rules are bad - you can't take them out of context like that.


Though banning certain characters? That is just asinine - reminds of when I used to play Monster Hunter on the PS2 online and people would tell me I wasn't allowed to use the upwards-swing Great Sword attack. I don't know if that's really so bad either, it's just a child-like approach to gaming. From what I remember of being a little kid, kids instinctively know that games aren't balanced, so if one of the players discovers a technique that the others consistently can't beat, kids ban the technique so it feels "fair" to them. If the other guy keeps using the technique (breaking the groups house rules) the other kids don't let him play. I remember it wasn't till me and my mates were about 15 or 16 that we started applying the adult approach of "it's the rules, suck it up" to fun games (damn you, repetitive fireball - dragon punch Ken!).

I think it's funny that kids can feel the imbalance in games and instinctively fix it, but grown-ups put blinkers on, pretend that the game is balanced, and appeal to the rules in order to win. Nothing wrong with either approach of course, and sometimes adults try to appeal to kid's style fairness because they hate losing and that's not cool, but there's nothing wrong with banning units to enhance fun if everyone agrees I think.

[DarkLink]

Arbitrarily banning stuff and enforcing houserules is a good way of alienating a lot of players. I know that if my gaming group got mad at me for takiing 3 Land Raiders (imagine, accusing Grey Knights of being cheesy:rolleyes:), I wouldn't be playing much 40k. Though I have started to shift to using more allied sisters of battle, and thus fewer Land Raiders.

On the other hand, sticking to RAW is safer (a little), because RAW isn't arbitrary.




So long as BOTH players fully agree on how they are going to play the game, RAW or not, anything goes. If you want to make your own version of what you think 6th edition should be like, go right ahead, so long as you opponent understands and accepts the rules.

[Aldramelech]

I have gamed in environments where things were not "banned" as such, more frowned upon. The best example of this is still very much prevalent, Special Characters.

The people I game with are mostly older gamers from my age group and we were all brought up to believe that SC's were a big no-no at tournaments and "beardy" in club games. With the "new" rules SC's are very much the thing but it seems very hard to change that "No SC's" attitude.

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Hmm. I'm always wary of house rules, and Homebrew army lists, seen as they are usually attempts to break something. I'm willing to play house rules, especially if it helps something look cinematic in my head, or if it can be used to smooth out gameplay.

I never really like playing against homebrew army lists, though, seen as they can be very annoying. they're usually an attempt at making something 1337, or at trying to make it cheaper or better. Lots of the kids down at the local clubs try new stuff, but their opponents never really pick up on how much they're getting smashed by.

I dunno. I like the idea that people can create their own rules and army lists, but I know fine well that most people don't understand the game enough to be able to balance it properly, test it correctly, and make sure that the list doesn't operate beyond the limits of that army regularly. I'm sure I'll be a little happier if you let me critique it first, though, as I'll be able to pick up on how well you've done it, or if it's just a ripoff.

[Big Jim]

Woah, that's making Necrons WAY too powerful...

Really?

Even without Phase out Necrons would still suck in 5th.

[Lerra]

I dislike any rule that says "all games in this store must be played this way." Any house rules should be between you and your opponent, and not dictated by some employee at the store who has a grudge against tyranids or whatever. By default, I always play games using RAW.

[Melissia]

Really?

Even without Phase out Necrons would still suck in 5th.

Common perception says that, yes. I've seen some good necron players dominate, however.

[Miggidy Mack]

Arbitrarily banning stuff and enforcing houserules is a good way of alienating a lot of players. I know that if my gaming group got mad at me for takiing 3 Land Raiders (imagine, accusing Grey Knights of being cheesy:rolleyes:), I wouldn't be playing much 40k. Though I have started to shift to using more allied sisters of battle, and thus fewer Land Raiders.

On the other hand, sticking to RAW is safer (a little), because RAW isn't arbitrary.

So long as BOTH players fully agree on how they are going to play the game, RAW or not, anything goes. If you want to make your own version of what you think 6th edition should be like, go right ahead, so long as you opponent understands and accepts the rules.

I know my group published our house rules. We really, as a group, didn't like the idea of units operating differently from one codex to the next. Land Raiders being the biggest. So we just started doing consensus rules and debating them on the forum and at game night.

We debated calmly and found it to be a lot of fun. I don't think everyone would have the same experience. We finally put our house rules on our website and we've gotten some really good feedback on them. It's even allowed us to handle FAQ questions way before GW does.

We quickly, as a group, found that older codex's needed more flexibility to be fun. I really enjoyed having Grey Knights with drop pods, for instance. It took some testing to make sure things weren't crazy, but we found that the added options for everyone made things a lot more fun.

It then spurred us to make our own campaign setting and all kinds of fun stuff. So house rules that we use in friendly games vs. "RAW" that we use on the podcast and for tournament prep really added a lot to our gaming night.

Nobody should be forced to play with a ruleset they don't want to though. I know our game night most games began with "Wanna play Fluid or Reg?". If a store has enforced house rules that would be odd to me and I probably wouldn't go there. Nothing annoys me more than to be surprised by some crazy house rule and have my opponent say "around here we decided...". I've heard some doozies too.

[Xas]

if you both ary happy with it, then hosue rules can be much fun.

this does not include some whiney snot complaining and banning more than 1 carnifex/landraidr/leman russ/meltagun...

[Miggidy Mack]

if you both ary happy with it, then hosue rules can be much fun.

this does not include some whiney snot complaining and banning more than 1 carnifex/landraidr/leman russ/meltagun...

At least that's less passive aggressive than composition scores. I hate how comp scores just try to legislate what a realistic list in 40k is. I have yet to find a set of comp scores that don't simply punish specific codex's.

Basically a couple players think THEIR list is fine, but anything that beats them in their metagame must be "broken". Instead of adapting the way they play, they insinuate that anyone who plays with a different style is cheating by breaking the unwritten rules that exist only in their minds. Usually, it's players who have been playing since 2nd edition and don't like armies that don't look like what "an army should look like".

[Crevab]

I guess we try and go by the rules as much as possible. My group just got into Gothic and they're dubious about the officialness of the FAQ.

[BuFFo]

Really?

Even without Phase out Necrons would still suck in 5th.

Being a person who plays against these kind of Necrons, I agree.

They still suck in 5th regardless lol.

[warpcrafter]

Playing Warhammer 40,000 as if the rules are equal to the ten commandments is not only insane, it's nearly impossible. There are so many screw-ups that you create house rules to deal with them without even noticing. Unless you're a RAW fanatic, in which case you either play exclusively with others of your own major malfunction or don't really play at all, because your inflexibility drives others away from you in droves. Every wargame I've ever played eventually ended up with so many house rules that the way we played eventually bore no resemblance to the original rules. Granted, if you find yourself playing against strangers a lot, this might create some problems, unless you, I don't know, actually discuss your own particular house rules before starting the game. It's been my experience that most hurt feelings are a result of a lack of communication.

[Diagnosis Ninja]

I know my group published our house rules. We really, as a group, didn't like the idea of units operating differently from one codex to the next. Land Raiders being the biggest. So we just started doing consensus rules and debating them on the forum and at game night.

We debated calmly and found it to be a lot of fun. I don't think everyone would have the same experience. We finally put our house rules on our website and we've gotten some really good feedback on them. It's even allowed us to handle FAQ questions way before GW does.

We quickly, as a group, found that older codex's needed more flexibility to be fun. I really enjoyed having Grey Knights with drop pods, for instance. It took some testing to make sure things weren't crazy, but we found that the added options for everyone made things a lot more fun.

It then spurred us to make our own campaign setting and all kinds of fun stuff. So house rules that we use in friendly games vs. "RAW" that we use on the podcast and for tournament prep really added a lot to our gaming night.

Nobody should be forced to play with a ruleset they don't want to though. I know our game night most games began with "Wanna play Fluid or Reg?". If a store has enforced house rules that would be odd to me and I probably wouldn't go there. Nothing annoys me more than to be surprised by some crazy house rule and have my opponent say "around here we decided...". I've heard some doozies too.

Wait, you're from the DLT guys on MyBattalion? Cool. Didn't even see your avatar until I read the word "Fluid" lol

That ruleset is actually pretty awesome. I've been trying to get people to test Fluid 40k around here, but they all ***** and moan about how GW didn't do it, so no. I'm going to have to try it at some point! :P

[sirrouga]

House rules are great as they allow groups to make the game better suit their needs. As long as you make such rules as a group and discuss the changes out they can put a new light on things. Especially with the amazing high speed that the older codex are updated or even FAQ'ed. The trick is to keep things balanced and fun for everyone, that's where the hard part is and often requires TONS of play tests.

However one extremely important aspect to note is that you should be able to play without the house rules as well for when you play against strangers or new comers. If you have trouble switching between playing "standard" 40k and playing using house rules you may want to avoid that pothole. Its alright to suggest using some house rules but no one should ever force people into using their house rules.

[MarshalAdamar]

I think that GW made rules for a reason. I mean if you're just going to make up your own rules what’s the point in playing 40K

It seems that there are people that think they can write better; more balanced rules than the people that created the game. Seems a bit odd to me.

I totally agree that there are rules that seem like they need to be tweaked, I hate the difference in the POTMS between my Black Templars and regular C:SM but I really think you get into a very slippery slope.

Sure my POTMS is BS2 but I can take POTMS on every vehicle in my arsenal. So should the BT have to remove the POTMS from all my vehicles except the land raider? Should the BT have to give up the POTMS on our drop pods because C:SM doesn't have them? What about our Chaplains they have three wounds should we make a rule that says that they have only 2 and our Venerable dreadnaught are only BS4 WS4 should we change those around so they match the C:SM? And the C: SM dreads have more weapon options so should the BT have all those options even though they aren’t in our codex? And BT rhinos are 50 points should we make them 35 pts like C:SM?

Where does it end? I think you get deep into the rule of unintended consequences. Sure the older codices have some advantages because of the change to 5th, but they also carry some disadvantages some times more one than the other but it pretty much balances out.

I agree that some vague rules that are not covered in the FAQ should have a house ruling like deffrollas and such.

And if you go to a tourney they’re going to want you to play with the actual rules not house rules.

Now for special campaigns and such with a narrative I am all about the special rules and other weirdness.

But when you start mucking about in the rule mechanics you can create more problems than you solve. (IMO)

BT

[BuFFo]

I mean if you're just going to make up your own rules what’s the point in playing 40K

To have fun, and it is a FACT, found both in the main 'rule' book and the GW Website under the Errata and FAQ section that the game is designed for players to make up their own rules for exciting battles. I can quote the designers who have said the same thing for decades, but thats tedious, and over kill.


It seems that there are people that think they can write better

Possibly, but that has nothing to do with creating rules. Writing better has zero to do with inventing a rule or a mission that makes the game more fun, equally, for both players involved.


I agree that some vague rules that are not covered in the FAQ should have a house ruling like deffrollas and such.

I am lost... You are either for or against house rules... Which is it?

The problem with being AGAINST them is exactly your issue with the Deffrolas... You seem incapable of making a decision with your gaming buddies as for a ruling. You are not understanding that this game is NOT a tourney whore game like Magic the gathering. 40k is designed for you to come up with solutions for issues on your own. GW is NOT here ot hold your hand.

My store has come up with our own ruling on Defrollas when 5th edition first came out, and we've moved on since then... Why people are still waiting for GW to stick a spoon down their throats is beyond me.

Especially when the FAQ you all are waiting for is NO MORE official than a FAQ you create with your group.


And if you go to a tourney they’re going to want you to play with the actual rules not house rules.

You do understand that when you go to a tourney, you are playing by the tourney organizers HOUSE RULES right? So yes, every single tourney you ever go to has its own house rules. Even 'GW' tourneys... In the 'Ard Boyz semi finals, the Dark Eldar Nightmare Doll worked at the location I went to... But at the Finals, the Doll didn't work... Are you seeing this yet? The game is ESSENTIALLY unplayable without house rules. Thats what the hobby is built upon.


Now for special campaigns and such with a narrative I am all about the special rules and other weirdness.

Actually, you do so during your normal games... Ever use a FAQ as a source for a ruling? Yes you have, thus, you use house rules all the time.


I guess we try and go by the rules as much as possible. My group just got into Gothic and they're dubious about the officialness of the FAQ.

There is nothing to be dubious about.

All FAQs are GW house rules. Fact. End of story. A FAQ is no more official than as if if you came up with it yourself.

And I know I am going to have to shove links down people's throats here in a minute....

[Ignatius]

G.W.'s rules make a great starting point and default position. the great thing about house rules is they tend to be fluid to fit a particular narrative or situation. If it doesn't work change it , to me the whole point is for all the players to have fun. If a particular rule makes no sense change it , as long as everyone agrees . Just watch out when the rules Gestapo are about.:rolleyes:

[Melissia]

No, your house rules are not as official as a FAQ. Don't be silly.

[Commissar Lewis]

Personally, I'd love to have a group that would as a whole come up with some cool and fun rules. However, our rules-tyrant pretty much has everyone sticking to the rules 100%, and no one really creates any interesting rules. Nothing ever flies with him.

Hell, it's making me honestly think about taking a long hiatus from 40k - it's just not fun anymore. That or I should start going into the store and playing there and pretty much dropping my gaming group.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with following the rules, but c'mon this game isn't that serious. It's a game; anyone that takes it too seriously should put it in perspective.

[Crevab]

All FAQs are GW house rules. Fact. End of story. A FAQ is no more official than as if if you came up with it yourself.

And I know I am going to have to shove links down people's throats here in a minute....

Please do provide some links, as your fact sounds exceedingly silly.

[Lerra]

A GW bigshot made a few public claims that the FAQs are basically GW-published house rules, not intended to be hard-and-fast rules, etc. I believe he said the same thing about the BRB at some point, too.

[Aldramelech]

A GW bigshot made a few public claims that the FAQs are basically GW-published house rules, not intended to be hard-and-fast rules, etc. I believe he said the same thing about the BRB at some point, too.

Yep, they've said it several times. I don't understand why, but there you go.

"We've just written this great set of rules, please feel free to ignore them" :rolleyes:

[Miggidy Mack]

Wait, you're from the DLT guys on MyBattalion? Cool. Didn't even see your avatar until I read the word "Fluid" lol

That ruleset is actually pretty awesome. I've been trying to get people to test Fluid 40k around here, but they all ***** and moan about how GW didn't do it, so no. I'm going to have to try it at some point! :P

Tell them to listen to episode 50ish around there... man I really should know which one it was. We got a chance to talk to Jervis for a good chunk of time at Games-Day in Chicago. It was made very clear that if you want rules with ANY consistency you better write them yourself. Point out that we don't change anything from 5th edition, we just update the old codex's. A Land Raider from 3rd edition operates like the one from Space Marines and has that point cost. It's mostly common sense.

Games-Workshop has no intention of ever producing serious errata for their products. They are afraid that tournament players will buy their products if they do. They have open contempt at times for anyone who plays their game at a tournament.

They are afraid of the "slippery slope". If they admit something isn't perfect once, then any time they produce something that has a problem they have to fix it. Pretty soon they have to hire a single guy to produce errata on an actual schedule. This could cost them as much as $40,000 a year to get someone with a game design degree who understand statistics and technical writing.

$40,000 is almost as much as they pay a store manager! There is no way that kind of person would ever make them any money. The errata might give Daemonhunters Drop Pods. Then because that errata is free on the internet and not in a printed codex all the drop pods would suddenly catch fire and their stores would burn down. No daemon hunter player would buy a drop pod though... that would never happen.

Nope, can't justify paying someone a wage to make their game better... nope. If you don't wait 10 years for an update you aren't the person who deserves to buy from them!

[Aldramelech]

And yet they run tournaments????? They are strange sometimes........

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Miggidy: That's bloody interesting. Gonna have to try the argument again :)

Of course, they could always hire me XD. I worked towards a Games Development Degree for 2 years, and nearly have an HND in General Computing, which is about 50% Management anyways :/ I think they need to look beyond initial effects of doing something lol...

I'm gonna have to start listening to the episodes again, it's too long since I last did, lol.