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.

When I was last at Games Workshop, some friends and I were wanting to play a 2 versus 2, Warhammer 40,000 game.
The problem was that with a 3000ish point limit for the table, we all wanted to field more than troops and an HQ, at 750 points a person.
The solution was to have one "war master" per SIDE(the war master is agreed upon by everyone on its side) and each person would field an allied detachment.
The war master was worth 3 victory points, 1 for the killpoint, and 2 for being the war master.

We played as all players on one side are treated as "battle brothers".

I have 2 questions:

The first is what would you change about our game, meaning how would you change the proposed rules above to be more fair?
The other question is what are some cool ways that you "modify" 40k, and what was your reaction?

A better solution would be to do away with the 3k points table limit

I agree, but the store owner has the limit for time purposes.

What you did seems pretty good. Apocalypse has the same format for picking the 'primary commander' of the force. I don't see much wrong with how you played it.

In the future you could try mixing it up though. Use a single FOC for each side and then determine who will take what slot. I've seen things like this done and it can make for some interesting games.