Simple House Rules to Improve Play Experience

[NinthMusketeer]

Warhammer always has it's rough edges. Every game, every edition has it's own set of issues that players need to deal with while waiting for GW to (maybe) address them. But we all play Warhammer anyways and a lot of us love it despite those flaws because there are a huge number of fun things going on as well. Accordingly this thread is not about fixing problems outright, but easy band-aids that can be applied to take the edge off bad rule areas and allow the good more room to shine. They do not change the rules of the game but act as 'polite agreements' to avoid certain aspects, and thus preserve the core gameplay experience. YMMV of course, so take what you like and please comment if you have ideas of your own!

Heroes with a wounds characteristic of 10 or more cannot be given the Amulet of Destiny artifact.  A 5+ ward is a statistical 50% increase in wounds; on average, it will take 3 damage for 2 wounds to stick. So a 10-wound hero with a 5+ ward will need an average of 15 damage to kill, which is far too great a boost for one artifact to give. Let alone factoring in healing and heroes with larger wound pools.

A model cannot perform a monstrous rampage in the same turn it carried out a heroic action. Third edition buffed heroes and buffed monsters. That double-buffed hero monsters, leading them to dominance of casual and competitive tables alike. This reigns the effect in just a little, and creates more interesting tactical choices rather than free double-dipping.

Round 2 automatically uses the same turn order as round 1. Random initiative is a matter hotly debated since the dawn of AoS, but both sides can agree that a round 1-2 double is the most influential. Further, the best way to recover from that is to get a 2-3 double in return but in matched play this comes with a hefty penalty (the player going second in round 3 can remove an objective). This makes a round 1-2 double even stronger. On the other hand, a 2-3 double can be a serious tactical choice; being able to pull an objective from the field may very much be worth giving up that opportunity for.

Edited August 27, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[jamie.white]

Double turn is part of the core  gameplay experience, by removing it from turn two you are fundamentally altering the core game play experience. 
 

most of your rule changes are subjective , to things you feel are bad . I mean by all means go for it but threads like this are mega subjective and don’t often go anywhere , 🙂 

[Landohammer]

I actually like these changes, though I would still hesitate to enforce them at any event I ran. But if the community wanted some comp, this would be a good start. 

 

[NinthMusketeer]

2 hours ago, jamie.white said:

most of your rule changes are subjective , to things you feel are bad . I mean by all means go for it but threads like this are mega subjective and don’t often go anywhere , 🙂 

Well I have hundreds of games under my belt starting from the launch of AoS where I contributed to fan comps before the first GHB. I built my local community from the ground up, created an entirely remastered version of the original Path to Glory, have both participated in and run numerous events both narrative and competitive (including third edition ones), served as a judge at LVO, and tested these house rules with my local community to see their efficacy and collect feedback.

What's your experience?

Edited August 26, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Noserenda]

Ahhh so you dont want critique then? Your maths on the first part seem shaky though.

[NinthMusketeer]

I am happy to receive critique. I am not happy to receive baseless insults.

Can you explain how the math is shakey?

[AdamR]

Are you ok with armies that have similar artefacts to the Amulet of Destiny being allowed to give them to higher wound models? Wouldn't that just be a return to a case of haves and have nots that 3rd was ostensibly trying to repair?

Also , you'll prize double turns from my cold dead fingers 🤣🤣🤣. Don't want to get doubled turn 1-2? Build a low drop list and go second. Job jobbed.

 

Dunno if my opinion counts though as I haven't been contributing to fan comps since before the first ghb...😜

[GrogTheGrognard]

18 minutes ago, AdamR said:

Are you ok with armies that have similar artefacts to the Amulet of Destiny being allowed to give them to higher wound models? Wouldn't that just be a return to a case of haves and have nots that 3rd was ostensibly trying to repair?

Also , you'll prize double turns from my cold dead fingers 🤣🤣🤣. Don't want to get doubled turn 1-2? Build a low drop list and go second. Job jobbed.

 

Dunno if my opinion counts though as I haven't been contributing to fan comps since before the first ghb...😜

I would assume that if the house rule agreement is to not take Amulet of Destiny on a 10+ wound model then any artifact that functions in a similar fashion (ward save of 5+ or better) would also be out.  

 

My personal question for the OP. Do you think there should be a limit to how many monsters someone brings to the table, baring armies like SoB that are pure monster, for a better experience or do you find that no matter how many monsters someone brings it doesn't change gameplay too much in either direction?

Edited August 26, 2021 by GrogTheGrognard

[Ragest]

The 5++ fnp artifact should be forbidden for 10+ wound heroes, the same as the heroic action of self healing.

[NinthMusketeer]

44 minutes ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

My personal question for the OP. Do you think there should be a limit to how many monsters someone brings to the table, baring armies like SoB that are pure monster, for a better experience or do you find that no matter how many monsters someone brings it doesn't change gameplay too much in either direction?

No. I don't feel like monsters are really the problem; hero monsters are. If anything regular monsters right now feel a bit pointless, because they are so much less effective than their counterparts.

[NinthMusketeer]

2 hours ago, AdamR said:

Are you ok with armies that have similar artefacts to the Amulet of Destiny being allowed to give them to higher wound models? Wouldn't that just be a return to a case of haves and have nots that 3rd was ostensibly trying to repair?

Also , you'll prize double turns from my cold dead fingers 🤣🤣🤣. Don't want to get doubled turn 1-2? Build a low drop list and go second. Job jobbed.

It brings up some questions; who are the haves and the have notes in this? What are the hero-artifact combos being used, and why do they throw the balance out of whack? A given artifact in the context of a certain army (or even specifically keyword within it) is very different from making that artifact available to everyone. I don't feel like runesmiters on magmadroths are really crushing the meta.

As for your second point; your answer is FAR more restrictive than mine. It severely limits army customizability, and it's a stance that you have expressed very defensively. Why do you feel you need the 1-2 double so badly?

Edited August 26, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Joseph Mackay]

1 hour ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

I would assume that if the house rule agreement is to not take Amulet of Destiny on a 10+ wound model then any artifact that functions in a similar fashion (ward save of 5+ or better) would also be out.  

 

My personal question for the OP. Do you think there should be a limit to how many monsters someone brings to the table, baring armies like SoB that are pure monster, for a better experience or do you find that no matter how many monsters someone brings it doesn't change gameplay too much in either direction?

Gargants have an artefact for a 6+ ward, they have no heroes with less than 35 wounds so they shouldn’t be allowed to use one of their artefacts?

this is the problem with house rules, unintended consequences 

[NinthMusketeer]

10 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Gargants have an artefact for a 6+ ward, they have no heroes with less than 35 wounds so they shouldn’t be allowed to use one of their artefacts?

this is the problem with house rules, unintended consequences 

Neither my version nor his have any impact on 6+ ward save items.

[The Red King]

I think I like the double turn rule because if I'm reading this right it leaves it in play from turn 3 onward but doesnt allow for alpha striking twice before the enemy can respond.

 

That said I'm surprised you didnt touch the most contentious point of 3.0, coherency.

[Kadeton]

At the moment, I actually think that house rules which change the scoring aspects of the game (missions, objective layout, battle tactics, grand strategies) would have a much greater impact on how fun and interesting (and balanced!) games of AoS are than changes to the Core Rules.

I don't particularly agree that monster heroes are "the problem", for instance. They're individually dangerous and nearly impossible to kill, yes - but that's not a problem in itself unless killing them is essential to victory. The fact that many of the missions funnel both armies into a big melee over two or three objectives in the center of the table, where extremely resilient monster heroes can easily dominate the game, is what makes it untenable for armies which can't compete in that arena. Missions which forced the armies to spread out and cover the whole table would have a huge impact on the meta - those monster heroes can't be everywhere, and most of them require support from other units to reach their full potential.

[Neverchosen]

I love house rules and often use them for balance or fluff purposes. One house rule that I always use is that terrain effects are not randomized but determined by the actual terrain. A holy statue is inspiring, a pit of lava is deadly. This gets really fun when something like a massive skull is inspiring to Death Armies and Sinister to Order.

 

We also often fine tune balance based on player skill level and familiarity. So for example certain subfactions or battalions may not be used against certain opponents or armies but are fair game against others. After enough close games we will fine tune our lists more and more. I think the new batallions will be a nice way to create such internal balances.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Neverchosen

[jamie.white]

9 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I am happy to receive critique. I am not happy to receive baseless insults.

Can you explain how the math is shakey?

How on earth did you take my comment as a baseless insult . Your experience is peerless son, you should be very proud.

[AaronWilson]

Why house ruling does often serve well for a small, close knit local community I am really not a fan of house ruling. If it works for you and your group there is no harm in it. 

The problem I have is that house ruling is that it always comes with some bias, and often the "pack" writers will put some of that bias into the pack. It's not normally a "let's make the game better" it's a "we think these things are annoying" which ends to everyone wanting what they deem to be annoying to be somehow house ruled to please them. 

I've always been of the view to just play the game how it's meant to be played, if I don't enjoy it as it should be played I'll find a game I do enjoy.

[AdamR]

8 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

It brings up some questions; who are the haves and the have notes in this? What are the hero-artifact combos being used, and why do they throw the balance out of whack? A given artifact in the context of a certain army (or even specifically keyword within it) is very different from making that artifact available to everyone. I don't feel like runesmiters on magmadroths are really crushing the meta.

As for your second point; your answer is FAR more restrictive than mine. It severely limits army customizability, and it's a stance that you have expressed very defensively. Why do you feel you need the 1-2 double so badly?

Why not? Aren’t monsters with 5+ wards unilaterally a problem?😜

As for “expressing defensively”… that’s just my writing style - I could post aggressively if you prefer, but then I’d probably look like a right idiot🤣🤣🤣

I don’t NEED a double turn at all. But I like the mechanic. A lot. So it’s my preference to keep it. 

[vlad3theimpaler]

11 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I am happy to receive critique. I am not happy to receive baseless insults.

Can you explain how the math is shakey?

I don't see any insults in the posts preceding this, baseless or otherwise.  I'm a bit confused.

[Backbreaker]

We recently decided to house rule a few things in our group.

No more double turn, the second player only get an additional CP for the first round. Since then, our games finally reach turn 5 and are not decided at the end of the second round. Last night, we played a Daughter of Khaine versus Ironjawz, it was soooo tense!!! Ending with a score of 24-23 😀

 

Changing costs and rules for armies like Gloomspite Gitz. It's depressing to see such a cool army almost unplayable. Gitz player are struggling so much. We didn't try it yet but I think we will give a 20% discount for the whole army and allow buff interaction between the Gitz sub factions (spider, squigg, troll). For example, being able to boost a troll unit with a sneaky snuffler, etc ...

[Skreech Verminking]

There are some pretty interesting house rules you have there mate.

I could see some of my buddies, who could consider those rules as pretty amusing, especially the no double turn in round 1-2 house rule.

keeps some of the people from trying a beta strike.

 

[NinthMusketeer]

  

6 hours ago, Kadeton said:

At the moment, I actually think that house rules which change the scoring aspects of the game (missions, objective layout, battle tactics, grand strategies) would have a much greater impact on how fun and interesting (and balanced!) games of AoS are than changes to the Core Rules.

I don't particularly agree that monster heroes are "the problem", for instance. They're individually dangerous and nearly impossible to kill, yes - but that's not a problem in itself unless killing them is essential to victory. The fact that many of the missions funnel both armies into a big melee over two or three objectives in the center of the table, where extremely resilient monster heroes can easily dominate the game, is what makes it untenable for armies which can't compete in that arena. Missions which forced the armies to spread out and cover the whole table would have a huge impact on the meta - those monster heroes can't be everywhere, and most of them require support from other units to reach their full potential.

I certainly see your point, and I do agree that it is a factor. However there are several observations which have led me to think the problem lies more on hero-monsters;

-In Path to Glory, which has a completely different scenario structure, they are still the dominant force on the battlefield.

-While some details have been altered the scenarios we have are very much the same ones we've had for years. They really haven't changed much from 2nd to 3rd, but the role of hero-monsters very much has.

-When regular monsters try to behave like hero-monsters do, they die. Even with equivalent point values. Monsters still need backup to avoid getting surrounded and picked off. For hero-monsters I do not feel that is true, at least to the extent it should be.

That said I do feel what you said is a factor, I'd certainly like to hear any more thoughts you have on it.

 

 

1 hour ago, AaronWilson said:

Why house ruling does often serve well for a small, close knit local community I am really not a fan of house ruling. If it works for you and your group there is no harm in it. 

The problem I have is that house ruling is that it always comes with some bias, and often the "pack" writers will put some of that bias into the pack. It's not normally a "let's make the game better" it's a "we think these things are annoying" which ends to everyone wanting what they deem to be annoying to be somehow house ruled to please them. 

I've always been of the view to just play the game how it's meant to be played, if I don't enjoy it as it should be played I'll find a game I do enjoy.

Which is an entirely respectable opinion, but if you don't like house rules in the first place why did you click on a thread explicitly about them?

Edited August 27, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[NinthMusketeer]

1 hour ago, jamie.white said:

How on earth did you take my comment as a baseless insult . Your experience is peerless son, you should be very proud.

I thought your post came from a much more considered position than it evidently did. It is my mistake; I need to remember kids play the game too.

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Just going to ask for people to read their comments before posting - some of them have (likely unintentionally) come across as quite passive aggressive.  Also it's perfectly acceptable not to agree with somebody, but please phrase your disagreement in a way that isn't confrontational...