Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This isn't exactly a proposed rule but more of an idea of something to do for fun. If you want to play a large army against a smaller one (example: 2000pts vs 4000pts) use a much bigger/longer table so the armies start 48" apart and have the smaller armies' gun ranges doubled. Would anyone play that?

No. Because it is an unreasonably big table and an unreasonably imbalanced game in favor of the larger army.

Well, this assumes the small army is ranged. If you got 2500 Empire vs. 500 WoC, you could increase the range of WoC shooting by 90000000% and it won't matter. Because they have basically no shooting.

I think the better thing to do is recognize what those small armies are really trying to do:

-Hold up the enemy. If every turn you survive, you get bonus victory points. Or a bonus multiplier. So if you survived 6 turns you would get like 3x the points (depending on the gap between the two armies).
-Weaken the enemy. Kind of the same as above. For every victory point you score, it's worth a weighted amount.
-Defend a defensible position. Give the weak side some proxy cannons and catapults that can't be moved. As well as a lot of beneficial terrain and/or buildings.

I like Dust Rustfield's ideas above, especially in a campaign context. You could have a Rorke's Drift or Alamo kind of thing going, where the longer you survive amplifies victory points or, for a campaign, gives the defender some sort of advantage in the next battle if his troops hold out long enough. You could do all kinds of fun stuff with this.

Exactly like the Alamo. Or 300. Or basically any small vs. large engagement. Those were usually not situations where they expected to win.

Generals have to sacrifice smaller units in battle all the time to achieve larger objectives. Think of bombing runs in WWII, which had horrendous casualties on the Allied side but had the longer term objective of reducing the enemy's capacity to make war.

Make a cool scenario/story. They fit in great with campaigns.

I played something like it where i played orks vs grey knights/ space marines we decided that the grey knights / marines would be in a fortress and the orks had to crack the base.

What we did is the marines and knights had 1500 points where the orks had 3000 points on the field but would get reinforcements of 1000 points at the end of the turn.

Last rule is orks had 10 turns to tear down the fortress.

It worked really well and we had fun the whole idea was that the marines were doing a final stand.

My friends and I did something similar with this '300' scenario:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/545025.page#5928174

The Castle Seige-style game is set up like this; the defenders have less points, because they're a lot harder to shift.

There was an old mini-game in a White Dwarf. The Dwarf player got something like 8 Dwarf Models that were individual units (all characters or unit champions), all Unbreakable.
Every turn, the other player was allowed to place a certain number of points of goblins.
The Dwarfs were all on top of a big pyramid-thing. The game's winner was determined by how long it took the Dwarfs to all die.

My friends and I are setting up a pretty big game with 4 players. The two Forces of Order get 2000pts, and the two Forces of Chaos get 3000pts. The Forces of Order get to share Victory Points, but the Chaos players do not.
Just need to come up with some special rules to encourage Player A to go after Player C, and player D to go after Player B. Or we'll have the "focus all your fire on one player and knock them out as quickly as possible" issue. Tactically sound, but not fun at all.

I play chaos dwarf when my enemy lets me so... double the range with 2 mortars 2 flame and units of blunderbusts which let you reroll fail to hits....mmmm yummy dreams lol. Hope it is vs a slow army not calvery heavy lol.

Exactly.
"Small army" does not mean "shooty-army".

You could play a game of 500pts worth of Chaos Warriors versus 1,500pts of Empire, where the Warriors try to punch through the Empire's line and reclaim a relic of Chaos or something.

I was trying to remember the details of that old White White Dwarf article, but then I found a new one. One player sets up the table and defends the center of the board from the other player, who can deploy on all sides and outnumbers them horribly.
The defender can ignore the % limits for their army, and gets a special marker that makes their units Stubborn or Unbreakable or something.
The attacker gets to re-deploy slain Core units at the edge of the table indefinitely.
The winner is determined by how long it takes the defenders to get wiped out.

This sounds super effing fun to me, but I'm not sure if I could handle an "army" of Unbreakble Dwarf Lords or the like.

My group has done that White Dwarf article scenario and it's a lot of fun. The game has no turn limit and you just survive as long as you can. Some people got into the 8+ turn range, but mostly you'd be dead by turn 4-6. I believe it was set at a 1:3 ratio for points so 500:1500 or 1000:3000