Simple House Rules to Improve Play Experience

[AaronWilson]

10 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

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?

I mean it's a social forum in which people discuss things? I wasn't overly negative about your comp, I was just putting my thoughts about house rules on a social media forum on a discussion topic house rules. No need for the attitude buddy

[NinthMusketeer]

2 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

+++ 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...

In my defense; that was the way he was treating me, so I assumed it was the way he wanted to be treated.

[RuneBrush]

2 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

In my defense; that was the way he was treating me, so I assumed it was the way he wanted to be treated.

+++ MOD +++ It was a general comment aimed at everyone 😉

[NinthMusketeer]

6 hours ago, The Red King said:

That said I'm surprised you didn't touch the most contentious point of 3.0, coherency.

I completely agree with you that it is an issue and I would change it if I could. The reason I have not addressed it is because my focus is to only work within the existing rules. Note how all of the house rules I posted can and do happen in the game already (the majority of matches don't have a 1-2 double, for example). Dealing with coherency would mean allowing things that are not possible within the existing rules.

[Sarouan]

8 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I completely agree with you that it is an issue and I would change it if I could. The reason I have not addressed it is because my focus is to only work within the existing rules. Note how all of the house rules I posted can and do happen in the game already (the majority of matches don't have a 1-2 double, for example). Dealing with coherency would mean allowing things that are not possible within the existing rules.

Simply moving the max from 5 to 6 models for not having to be in coherency with 2 models of the same unit don't actually touch too much on the existing rules, and help a lot for lots of the units that have to be taken by packs of 3. Especially "monstruous infantry / cavalry". Besides, it keeps the spirit of the rule, since I don't believe units of 6 models do actually stretch that much to cover a huge space on the battlefield in comparison to units of 5 of the same size.

Sure, doesn't fix everything, but that's already good enough I believe.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Sarouan

[Scurvydog]

Well this sure seems like the dream houserules for any KO/Lumineth/Tzeentch/DoK player that is for sure.

Perhaps this works ok for club games, more casual lists where some units can be oppressive with the Amulet, however in competitive play that amulet is all that enables a 500 point mawkrusha to possibly survive 1 shooting phase from the above armies.

Ranged damage and especially unpreventable mortal wounds at range has become one of the largest problems. The amulet was already a little bandaid to this much larger problem with the game. The most powerful unique monster heroes have built in MW prevention for a reason. Just see what happens to those without, like Kragnos that simply falls over with his 700 points against some snake ladies with bows or 360 noscope aelves with boardwide threat range.

I can understand some dislike the early double turn, but in my experience this is mostly again club level games, where people like to push cool toy soldiers closer to each other. The new command point rules can make this decision actually matter now, and if the players actually plan and play for this mechanic, it can create some really interesting scenarios and forces some tactical decision making and complexity that is lost without it.

I do think some house rules can be cool though, but more in line with an event theme perhaps than just "patching" the game, especially if the intention of the event is clear (competitive or narrative event?). 

For example I will be joining a narrative event soon with MANY house rules, it also has a scratch built meta game with a live world map, with players moving and attacking on the map, which can even create 1vX situations. Lists will be around 1500 pts only, no named/unique heroes allowed. No artifacts allowed. Most armies are 0-1 behemoths, although sub factions with monster focus (Avengorii, thunder lizards etc) got 0-2. Saves can never be better than 3+ (modifier can still negate rend as usual). 

That is a whole bunch, but it fits the event, as games need to be more speedy, so less points, less tankyness potential etc. I would absolutely hate these rules in a competitive environment though, imagine any professional sport where the rules got changed in a major way from one league or championship to another, like the number of players on the field, the shape or weight of the balls or the size of the field. Teams train and plan for the core ruleset, same with competitive warhammer players.

A group of friends can agree anything they want, but imagine how much it sucks to be excited by some rules for your army, but your 5 mates decides that rule is too cool, so you can't use it. Once you open the houserule box like this, you can instantly also create fear in your players because somebody in charge of the event/club, might not like your toys.

GSG and BoC can get a 10% discount though on the house, that is more fun than limiting anyone else. Slaanesh won't get anything, they would hate being denied the agony.

 

[woolf]

14 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

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.

I would agree with this one, good call imo. I was also thinking that maybe a good house rule would be that Heroic Recovery cannot heal you to above 5w, e.g. a 10w hero can only use it if they are below 5 and if they are e.g. at 4 it can only take them up to 5

[Chikout]

I struggle to understand the issue with house rules. Official rules are just as biased and full of unintended consequences. There are a lot of destruction players in the studio. I sometimes wonder of the bad rules come from the Dev team trying not to be biased and overcompensating. 

 

If people want to experiment with rules and then share how things went on here, I'd be very interested to read it. 

I'm very curious to see how things go at Facehammer. 

[Scurvydog]

14 minutes ago, woolf said:

I would agree with this one, good call imo. I was also thinking that maybe a good house rule would be that Heroic Recovery cannot heal you to above 5w, e.g. a 10w hero can only use it if they are below 5 and if they are e.g. at 4 it can only take them up to 5

Do you want 2 gunlines shooting at each other? This is how  

Nerfing all these options that keep the hero monsters in the game more than 1 turn against the shooting meta, that would require removing unleash hell as well.

The most oppressive things right now are mortal wound spam at range, extreme mobility and Gotrek. None of these suggestions does anything in the competitive meta, it just makes hero monster less great, which I can see can look like a problem at "bring your dudes" club games. All this does is remove tools GW put into the game to help the hero and monster models that just got insta sniped.

[NinthMusketeer]

@Scurvydog they are indeed for casual play. Is there anything specific that suggested otherwise? I would like to know so I can edit it.

[NinthMusketeer]

1 minute ago, Scurvydog said:

Do you want 2 gunlines shooting at each other? This is how  

Nerfing all these options that keep the hero monsters in the game more than 1 turn against the shooting meta, that would require removing unleash hell as well.

The most oppressive things right now are mortal wound spam at range, extreme mobility and Gotrek. None of these suggestions does anything in the competitive meta, it just makes hero monster less great, which I can see can look like a problem at "bring your dudes" club games. All this does is remove tools GW put into the game to help the hero and monster models that just got insta sniped.

Can you provide some specific examples of lists that are, as you said, sniping a Maw Crusha turn 1? And can you elaborate on why you feel these lists are commonplace at the casual level?

[Sarouan]

3 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Can you provide some specific examples of lists that are, as you said, sniping a Maw Crusha turn 1? And can you elaborate on why you feel these lists are commonplace at the casual level?

I think it's sniped turn 2, with your house rule forbidding double turn for 1-2 and thus having the Maw Crusha unable to avoid full gunline shooting in addition to unleash hell if he plays second on turn 1.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Sarouan

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

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.

I'll take your word for it on that one! It doesn't surprise me at all though - Path to Glory is often played at relatively small army sizes, right? I can't see something like Frostlord being fair at 1000 points in Matched play, or in Path to Glory. There's just nothing you can field at those levels that can hope to threaten them. That's certainly where I'd want to look at finding ways to reduce their power (or just ban them entirely), but I don't currently play those sorts of games so I can't really comment.

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

-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.

I agree with this conclusion, but I prefer the opposite path in navigating it. The role of hero monsters has certainly changed - and, in my opinion, for the better. I think a legendary hero riding a dragon, or a mega-gargant, should be damn near impossible for ordinary people to take down. But that doesn't mean that those ordinary people shouldn't be able to win the battle against that hero by, for instance, sacrificing their lives to distract or delay them while their allies achieve a vital objective. That's a great narrative, and IMO more interesting than "Oh yeah, Gammy Hans and his lads punked out Archaon the Everchosen... again."

So the challenge shifts from "How do we make hero monsters play like they did before?" to "Hero monsters are different now, how else does the game need to change to accommodate that?"

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

-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.

Yeah, the points for hero monsters (and/or regular monsters) will need some adjusting along the way, for sure.

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

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

I'll have a proper think about it and get back to you.

[NinthMusketeer]

1 minute ago, Sarouan said:

I think it's sniped turn 2, with your house rule forbidding double turn for 1-2 and thus having the Maw Crusha unable to avoid full gunline shooting if he plays second on turn 1.

Some examples and reasoning as to why such extremely high-shooting armies are common at casual play levels would be appreciated regardless. I'll be honest; at this point in the thread I think the very concept of house rules is attracting the most toxic members of the community who are just here to take a dump on the discussion rather than provide anything constructive. There is critique, then there is coming into a thread about house rules, posting to say you don't like house rules, then getting aggressive when someone asks you why. There is raising concerns about unintended consequences, then there is immediately and exclusively applying these to tournament play as a straw man. There is expressing an opinion, then there is loading posts with passive-aggressive language and claiming 'what no I didn't mean it!' when called out.

This forum gets more like Dakka every day.

[Sarouan]

@NinthMusketeer What are you talking about ? I wasn't criticizing, just giving my thought about the situation he was talking about.

What do you think of my idea to raise the number of 5 to 6 models max to be in coherency with just one model of the same unit, otherwise ?

[NinthMusketeer]

5 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I'll take your word for it on that one! It doesn't surprise me at all though - Path to Glory is often played at relatively small army sizes, right? I can't see something like Frostlord being fair at 1000 points in Matched play, or in Path to Glory. There's just nothing you can field at those levels that can hope to threaten them. That's certainly where I'd want to look at finding ways to reduce their power (or just ban them entirely), but I don't currently play those sorts of games so I can't really comment.

I agree with this conclusion, but I prefer the opposite path in navigating it. The role of hero monsters has certainly changed - and, in my opinion, for the better. I think a legendary hero riding a dragon, or a mega-gargant, should be damn near impossible for ordinary people to take down. But that doesn't mean that those ordinary people shouldn't be able to win the battle against that hero by, for instance, sacrificing their lives to distract or delay them while their allies achieve a vital objective. That's a great narrative, and IMO more interesting than "Oh yeah, Gammy Hans and his lads punked out Archaon the Everchosen... again."

So the challenge shifts from "How do we make hero monsters play like they did before?" to "Hero monsters are different now, how else does the game need to change to accommodate that?"

Yeah, the points for hero monsters (and/or regular monsters) will need some adjusting along the way, for sure.

I'll have a proper think about it and get back to you.

These PtG games were at 1500-2000 points, I shudder to think about what things would look like at 1k...

I do think point adjustments would be the correct way to handle the hero-monster overlap, and see the related house rule as a temporary measure to hold things over in the meantime.

I will look forward to it

[Scurvydog]

3 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Can you provide some specific examples of lists that are, as you said, sniping a Maw Crusha turn 1? And can you elaborate on why you feel these lists are commonplace at the casual level?

They are not common place at a casual level, which is why I state I can see why someone playing in that category can have trouble with some heroic monsters. Playing at competitive events though I can say the non unique monsters is for sure not the meta breakers and reducing the options available to monsters and heroes does nothing to the strongest lists out there.

There is a reason DoK snakes are super popular right now, their average output with an all out attack:

Now this is with 8" move and 24" range, so a massive threat range. They can also thanks to Morathi shoot in the hero phase and also shoot when charged with unleash hell, which of course is a bit lower damage due to -1 to hit, but does nothing to the MW output. Most lists got 2 units of these as well in the competitive meta, ensuring your big 500 point monster or 700 point kragnos is dead turn 1.

Another popular choice for competitive lumineth lists are Sentinels:

So we can see all damage here is basically mortal wounds, and a spell portal can all but guarantee a lambent light cast to reroll those hit rolls, resulting in 36" threat range to basically guarantee an instant kill of a Maw Krusha for 500 pts or Zombie dragon or similar heroic monster. If they somehow survive that volley they still need to close the distance and then also potentially survive an unleash hell if any sacrifical units are not available to eat that. 

Finally we have a popular choice, in my last tournament 3/5 in the top 5 had Gotrek, and for good reason:

Again I am not saying Amulet of Destiny is not good, it is exactly that because this right here, that are the types of lists and output you need to deal with to play at competitive events. The MW output is also extreme so saves hardly matter. Mid tier play talks about save stacking, while the top tables do not care at all about anyones armor saves, wards is almost all that matters.

[NinthMusketeer]

1 minute ago, Sarouan said:

@NinthMusketeer What are you talking about ? I wasn't criticizing, just giving my thought about the situation he was talking about.

What do you think of my idea to raise the number of 5 to 6 models max to be in coherency with just one model of the same unit, otherwise ?

I didn't mean to express that you were the source, I am sorry if it came across that way. I do think the change of 5 models to 6 would be perfect, because it is really the 6-man units that are suffering.

[Scurvydog]

54 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

 I do think the change of 5 models to 6 would be perfect, because it is really the 6-man units that are suffering.

This right here would be a good house rule I think most could get behind, the big base troops are really not in the best spot right now, especially those with 1" reach like Crypt Horrors, Bullgors, Ogor gluttons, Stalkers etc. "Monstrous infantry" is stuck in a weird place right now, especially the 4 wound kind, they do not count for more models before they are at 5+ wounds, they also suffer a LOT from the coherency rules, so it is usually better to go for the rank and file infantry or monsters now.

Cavalry also falls into this category somewhat, it is just awkward to play with in many cases and wastes a lot of time doing weird squeezes with the miniatures. This coherency rule seems more geared to the 40k engagement system rather than the reach system of AoS.

Another reason I like this is because it gives something, it provides options without breaking anything and encourages exploring some new lists by positive reinforcement, rather than preventing or blocking what people might already have and enjoy.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Scurvydog

[Nordrim]

I only support house rules when GW releases unclear rules and only until official clarification comes out. 

Anything to nerf or change any clear rules is totally out of the question for me.

 

[woolf]

1 hour ago, Scurvydog said:

Do you want 2 gunlines shooting at each other? This is how  

Nerfing all these options that keep the hero monsters in the game more than 1 turn against the shooting meta, that would require removing unleash hell as well.

The most oppressive things right now are mortal wound spam at range, extreme mobility and Gotrek. None of these suggestions does anything in the competitive meta, it just makes hero monster less great, which I can see can look like a problem at "bring your dudes" club games. All this does is remove tools GW put into the game to help the hero and monster models that just got insta sniped.

Haha yeah shooting is another topic as well. Personally my issue is mainly with "unkillable" monsters that in a casual setting cant be dealt with... Gotrek imo should have a rework to not allow him to heal maybe but then again not sure he is worth the points etc so thats probably a bigger issue than what can be addressed by "simple house rules" as was the topic here. Striking the balance between big monsters being worth it (i.e. not insta sniped as you say) but also not too dominating is tricky

[woolf]

2 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

A group of friends can agree anything they want, but imagine how much it sucks to be excited by some rules for your army, but your 5 mates decides that rule is too cool, so you can't use it. Once you open the houserule box like this, you can instantly also create fear in your players because somebody in charge of the event/club, might not like your toys.

 

100% agree with this comment, imo you should swap armies and play a game or 2 before agreeing on any house rule, that way you can hopefully find common ground in what should perhaps be addressed. In our group we have used points handicap more than house ruling as well so that we can have an interesting game also between e.g. NH vs LRL, without denying the LRL player the rules in their book

[NinthMusketeer]

11 hours ago, AaronWilson said:

I mean it's a social forum in which people discuss things? I wasn't overly negative about your comp, I was just putting my thoughts about house rules on a social media forum on a discussion topic house rules. No need for the attitude buddy

So I'm going to come back to this here as an example leading to a larger point. Originally, AaronWilson made a post simply stating that he does not like house rules and does not use them. I questioned as to why he was posting in a thread explicitly about house rules and got this response.

What he posted is not discussion. It was a statement, and one that added nothing to the thread. Going to a rumor thread and posting "I don't listen to rumors" is not discussion. Going to a narrative thread and posting "I don't play narrative" is not discussion. It is trolling. I still did not express any 'attitude' but he is coming back here painting my response as emotional rather than a rational question.

And I see this repeating. People are coming in to post that they don't like house rules, people are painting my house rules as being personally-driven based on no evidence whatsoever. I put a lot of time and testing behind these. I never implement house rules based on what I personally dislike; I collect feedback and see what is bothering people across my community. To come in and unilaterally dismiss me as someone just trying to nerf the things that cause me problems on the table is an insult. It is a baseless assumption with no backing and not even any reasoning. All of the rules I posted are broad, game-wide, and cannot be rationally stated to pick out a certain army or armies in particular. To skip evidence, to skip reasoning, and go straight to 'this is subjective your opinion is bad' is an insult, doubly so for all of the effort that is actually behind this.

Going back to the quoted example, yes, there apparently IS a need for attitude 'buddy' because multiple people are coming into a thread dedicated solely to improving the play experience of others with no purpose other than smearing it. No, that does not mean I do not want to hear critique. It means posting 'I don't like house rules' or 'these house rules for casual play are inappropriate for competitive play' is not critique.

This is been the most souring, disgusting experience I've had on the forum. I can only hope the mods see it as something that needs to be prevented from repeating.

[Overread]

*Locked pending moderator discussion*

[Overread]

Apologies on the delay. 

Please be aware that TGA has no rule nor policy against users creating their own house rules, nor with sharing them or discussing them with the community at large. Whilst we respect that not every person (or gaming club) makes use of house rules; or that you might not agree with them; we expect users to at least show general respect toward the discussion of house rules and those discussing them. 

In the future if users have any specific issues with another user or topic, please use the report feature or pm one of the staff instead of arguing within the thread. 

Note this thread will remain locked as its veered off course somewhat, however discussion on house rules, including those proposed within this thread, are free to resume in another thread. 

 

Users taking part in this thread tagged purely for the notification so that you see this post. 

@NinthMusketeer @jamie.white @Landohammer @Noserenda @AdamR @GrogTheGrognard @Ragest @Joseph Mackay @The Red King @Kadeton @Neverchosen @AaronWilson @vlad3theimpaler @Backbreaker @Skreech Verminking @Sarouan @Scurvydog @woolf @Chikout @Nordrim