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.

EDIT LOG:
Added rules for Command Point Re-rolls

40k has always had a problem where it doesn't scale well to different game sizes. For one, things like Warlord Traits get consistently diminishing returns as games get larger and your Warlord becomes less able to provide map coverage. For another, things like Psychic Focus make the game frustrating for monofaction lists who only have access to a few psychic powers. Then there's other things, which I'll bring up below.
GW has actually provided a FEW restrictions in 8th edition, finally. They have suggested board sizes and limit the number of detachments you can bring based off of points, but... I don't think this goes far enough.

Feel free to add your own suggestions for faction-specific things, as well as any other stuff I forgot. Part of the changes for this set of house rules would be to include faction-specific Strategems and other abilities that scale with army size.
Anyhow, without further ado:

All games are broken up into one of three categories - Skirmish, Battle, and War.

Skirmish games are played at up to 1,000 points, or 50 Power Level.
The game should be played on a 4'x4' board.
Two detachments may be taken in a Skirmish game.
No Lords of War may be brought in a Skirmish game, unless every unit is a Lord of War. (To allow for Imperial Knights.)
You start with two Command Points, in addition to any that you get from your detachments.
Your Warlord may take any Tier 1 Warlord Trait.
With the exception of Smite, each Psychic Power may only be attempted once per turn.
Each player may use the 'Command Re-Roll' Strategem once per phase, and no more than twice per turn.

Battle games are played at between 1,001 and 2,000 points, or 100 Power Level.
The game should be played on a 6'x4' board.
Three detachments may be taken in a Skirmish game.
You start with three Command Points, in addition to any that you get from your detachments.
Your Warlord may take any Tier 1 or Tier 2 Warlord Trait. If they take a Tier 1 trait, you get one additional Command Point.
With the exception of Smite, each Psychic Power may only be attempted two times per psychic turn. However, each power can only be cast successfully once - If the first attempt is succesful, a second attempt cannot be made.
Each player may use the 'Command Re-Roll' Strategem once per phase.

War games are played at any value above 2,000 points.
The game should be played on a 8'x4' board.
Four detachments may be taken in a Skirmish game.
You start with four Command Points, in addition to any that you get from your detachments.
Your Warlord may take any Tier 1, 2, or 3 Warlord Trait. If they take a Tier 1 trait, you get two additional Command Points. If you take a Tier 2 trait, you get one additional Command Point.
With the exception of Smite, each Psychic Power may only be attempted three times per psychic turn. However, each power can only be cast successfully once - If the first/second attempt is succesful, a second/third attempt cannot be made.
Each player may use the 'Command Re-Roll' Strategem twice per phase.


Warlord Traits: (Right now I'm just updating the three Core Rulebook traits. Presumably, most book traits could be modified as well.)
Tier 1:
Fighter: If the Warlord Charges in the Charge phase, add 1 to their Attacks characteristic until the end of the phase.
Leader: Friendly units within 6" of this Warlord can add 1 to their Leadership characteristic.
Survivor: Roll a dice each time this Warlord uses a wound. On a 6, the Warlord shrugs off the damage and does not lose the wound.

Tier 2:
Great Fighter: If the Warlord Charges in the Charge phase, add 1 to their Attacks characteristic until the end of the phase. Additionally, they may re-roll failed charge rolls.
Inspiring Leader: Friendly units within 6" of this Warlord automatically pass Leadership tests.
Tenacious Survivor: Roll a dice each time this Warlord uses a wound. On a 6, the Warlord shrugs off the damage and does not lose the wound. Additionally, the Warlord adds 1 to their Wounds characteristic.

Tier 3:
Legendary Fighter: If the Warlord Charges in the Charge phase, add 2 to their Attacks characteristic until the end of the phase. Additionally, they may re-roll failed charge rolls.
Heroic Leader: Friendly units within 6" of this Warlord automatically pass Leadership tests. Additionally, increase the range of all of this Warlord's Aura abilities by 3".
Immovable Survivor: Roll a dice each time this Warlord uses a wound. On a 5 or 6, the Warlord shrugs off the damage and does not lose the wound. Additionally, the Warlord adds 1 to their Wounds characteristic.





Other notes: (Army-specific stuff.)
"Chapter Master" type units cannot be taken in Skirmish games, as well as other army equivalents. (This includes the 'Chapter Master' strategem.) Ghazkull Thraka, Abbaddon, the Avatar of Khaine, the Swarmlord, any 'Army leader' type characters.

I'll add more stuff later, probably!

I think most players would agree with the core of what you're saying: that there need to be more controls on force organization.

I started playing in 3rd, and in my opinion the 1-2 / 2-6 / 0-3 composition rules did a lot to balance the game.

At the very least I think detachment types should be unique.

znelson wrote:
I think most players would agree with the core of what you're saying: that there need to be more controls on force organization.

I started playing in 3rd, and in my opinion the 1-2 / 2-6 / 0-3 composition rules did a lot to balance the game.

At the very least I think detachment types should be unique.

That's not really what I'm saying. Other than limiting stuff that would only show up on massive boards (Lords of War and Chapter Master type guys,) this doesn't add any restrictions to what force organization people are allowed to do. In fact, all it really does at the moment is give player more options in larger games so that they aren't stuck with balance that's not properly scaled to a given point level.

I played in 5th, so only had one edition of 'Pure' Combined Arms, followed by one edition of Allies/Double FOC/Inquisition, and then the mess of forces in 7th. And honestly...
I dunno. The 1-2 / 2-6 / 0-3 is THEORETICALLY balancing, but in practice it seemed like it heavily favored armies with overpowered Troops choices (early 5th edition Grey Hunters came to mind - They were a point cheaper than the Space Marines of the time, could take double Special Weapons easily, and got an extra attack and Counter Attack at a time when Chapter Tactics didn't exist) or else armies with just super-duper cheap Troops choices that could fill up other slots instead.

(Early 6th wasn't any better - I remember the dominant armies being Chaos Space Marines, with thirty Cultists and four Helldrakes.)

I actually quite like the Command Points system, at least in theory. There's a good idea there - You CAN take nothing but Elites choices or Heavy Support or whatever, but if you do, you're going to be really low on Command Points and not able to do a lot of fancy things with your choices, but if you take a decent number of Troops and leadership units, you get lots of freedom to be flexible with your army.
(Unfortunately, most armies lack enough incentive to do that at the moment - Sisters of Battle can get as many Command Points as they want, but they're kind of useless when those rerolls are being given to Battle Sisters, and when you could simply take a bunch of Dominions instead.)

Which reminds me of a small change I'm going to make to the above post regarding those rerolls.

I have been waiting on gw tending to this issue of scalability and fine grainedness of rules for a very long time and like what you are doing here.
Bravo!

znelson wrote:
I think most players would agree with the core of what you're saying: that there need to be more controls on force organization.

I started playing in 3rd, and in my opinion the 1-2 / 2-6 / 0-3 composition rules did a lot to balance the game.

At the very least I think detachment types should be unique.

I disagree on detachment types sure their are problems with spamming 6 ELT 6 FA 6 HV or supreme command detatchments

But only 3 Fortifications is quite limiting if you want to go bunkered up and a double brigade guard or double batalion space marine list seems fine.

Your also saying you may take 1 IK or 3-6 but no 2 or 7. As someone who owns 2 knights I object.

Waaaghpower wrote:
No Lords of War may be brought in a Skirmish game, unless every unit is a Lord of War. (To allow for Imperial Knights)

Stop doing this. I don't know why people keep making special snowflake exceptions for knights, but it's terrible game design. If knights are fine enough balance-wise that a whole army of them is ok then there is no justification for banning comparable LoW units. And if LoW in small games are such a problem that a ban is necessary then why should people be allowed to bring a whole army of LoW and ruin their opponent's experience?

If you wan to get better scaling and balance in 40k,You need to scrap the arbitary definitions of units, by function.

The alternative of HQ, Common , Support , and Specialist , is much better.As this just denotes how common or rare a unit is in that specific force.

Option 1. 'Ratio' method.(Based on A.Cs Orky Klan method from WD.)

For every HQ you must take 2 to 'X' Common units.
For every 2 Common units you, may take a Support unit.
For every 2 Support units you may take a Special unit.

(X is the maximum number of common unit allowed.)

Option 2 'Company Card' method.(Based on Epic S.M.)

HQ and 'Y' Common units.
You may add an extra 3 Common units.
You may add up to 4 Support units.
If Support unit are taken you may add up to 2 Special units.
('Y' is the minimum number of common units a formation most have.)

Here is the important part, The Type of HQ you pick determines how the units are classed.
EG a HQ unit mounted on a bike could make Bike units Common , and foot sloggers support units.

I may need to explain that better?

 Peregrine wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
No Lords of War may be brought in a Skirmish game, unless every unit is a Lord of War. (To allow for Imperial Knights)

Stop doing this. I don't know why people keep making special snowflake exceptions for knights, but it's terrible game design. If knights are fine enough balance-wise that a whole army of them is ok then there is no justification for banning comparable LoW units. And if LoW in small games are such a problem that a ban is necessary then why should people be allowed to bring a whole army of LoW and ruin their opponent's experience?

It's not just a special snowflake exception for Knights, it's an exception for any Pure-LOW army.
I'm writing this as though it were a real, actual supplement to the 40k rules. I am not going to make a ruleset that bars entire armies from being used just because I don't like them. Pure Knights is not a balanced army, but it's also not an overpowered army. (Unlike, say, bringing Guilliman to a 1k game.)

Waaaghpower wrote:


Other notes: (Army-specific stuff.)
"Chapter Master" type units cannot be taken in Skirmish games, as well as other army equivalents. (This includes the 'Chapter Master' strategem.) Ghazkull Thraka, Abbaddon, the Avatar of Khaine, the Swarmlord, any 'Army leader' type characters.

Hmm. I'm not sure about this part. I assume the reasoning is that such characters would be "too good" at lower points? I feel pretty confident that I can kill off a chapter master with a 1k army, especially given that about a 5th or 4th of my opponent's army is going to be tied up in that one model. I haven't faced off against Ghazkull or Abaddon, but I can say from experience that the swarmlord is pretty easy to tackle with a 1k army if you take a bubble wrap unit.

The Avatar is surprisingly squishy once you start shooting him, and he'll be large chunk of your army by himself in a 1k game. If you take deepstriking/fast units that engage ahead of him as a distraction, he isn't going to be utilizing his aura much. If you take lots of footsloggers to screen for him as your army moves up together, then you're probably taking a lot units people don't normally advise (like banshees, avengers, or just footslogging guardians). If you take vehicles or mounted units to back him up, you have a very small army as a serpent and the avatar make up nearly half of a 1,000 point army on their own.

Mechanically, I'm not sure these guys are actually especially optimized choices. Fluff-wise, I see nothing wrong with the camera zooming in on Abaddon and his chosen pals engaging the enemy on a small-but-vital portion of the battlefield.

Am I missing something?

Waaaghpower wrote:
It's not just a special snowflake exception for Knights, it's an exception for any Pure-LOW army.
I'm writing this as though it were a real, actual supplement to the 40k rules. I am not going to make a ruleset that bars entire armies from being used just because I don't like them. Pure Knights is not a balanced army, but it's also not an overpowered army. (Unlike, say, bringing Guilliman to a 1k game.)

It absolutely is a special snowflake exception. If an army of nothing but LoW is not overpowered then why is my Malcador banned? If you aren't willing to make a complete ban on LoW then give up on that rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
It's not just a special snowflake exception for Knights, it's an exception for any Pure-LOW army.
I'm writing this as though it were a real, actual supplement to the 40k rules. I am not going to make a ruleset that bars entire armies from being used just because I don't like them. Pure Knights is not a balanced army, but it's also not an overpowered army. (Unlike, say, bringing Guilliman to a 1k game.)

It absolutely is a special snowflake exception. If an army of nothing but LoW is not overpowered then why is my Malcador banned? If you aren't willing to make a complete ban on LoW then give up on that rule.

I'm confused by your statement. Your Malcador isn't banned unless you try to bring non-Super Heavy units as well.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm confused by your statement. Your Malcador isn't banned unless you try to bring non-Super Heavy units as well.

It's effectively banned, because I can't bring the rest of the army with it. And if an army consisting of a Malcador and some non-LoW is unacceptable then how could an army of nothing but Malcadors possibly be better for the game? It's a rule that makes no sense at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm confused by your statement. Your Malcador isn't banned unless you try to bring non-Super Heavy units as well.

It's effectively banned, because I can't bring the rest of the army with it. And if an army consisting of a Malcador and some non-LoW is unacceptable then how could an army of nothing but Malcadors possibly be better for the game? It's a rule that makes no sense at all.

Because you can't bring buff units or otherwise amplify its power beyond the stock loadout, it denies you tactical flexibility. It's supposed to be a penalty, and it absolutely is. You don't get to bring a powerful super-heavy, and then also bring a hundred Conscripts and screen that super-heavy so that nobody can ever actually hurt it unless they have a very specific counter list.

Correction: turns out the Malcador is now a heavy support unit, not a LoW. We'll replace it with the Macharius, for which all the same arguments are true.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Because you can't bring buff units or otherwise amplify its power beyond the stock loadout, it denies you tactical flexibility.

But I can bring units that buff or otherwise amplify the power of units that cost a similar level of points. For example, I can bring some marine devastator squads with lascannons, group them up next to an AoE buff, and shoot with way more firepower than the Macharius. Why does this penalty to buff units only apply in one arbitrary category?

And really, a big part of the problem with LoW in smaller games is that the games can become very binary in outcome. You either have the ability to bring down a whole army of LoW and do so without any problems, or you don't and you get wiped off the table. You should be encouraging people to bring tactically flexible lists with a LoW and supporting non-LoW units, not forcing them to bring one-dimensional spam lists if they want to use a favorite unit.

You don't get to bring a powerful super-heavy, and then also bring a hundred Conscripts and screen that super-heavy so that nobody can ever actually hurt it unless they have a very specific counter list.

But it's ok to bring a pair of LRBTs and put them behind the conscript screen? Remember, we're talking about a unit that is literally a pair of LRBTs bolted together, but with weaker hull/sponson gun options. And I'd hardly call "bring ranged anti-tank instead of just melta" a very specific counter list. It's not exactly difficult to bring down a Macharius behind a conscript wall.