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.

My local gaming group has taken to avoiding playing rather than face legal, but abusive lists that have been math-hammered
to a fine edge. Many potential players have been driven off by the regular tourney-style players(of which I am). Such gaming is fine as long as both players are prepared for it, but it is not much fun to play against with an older codex or underpowered units. I own six armies and have been on both the giving and receiving end. Perhaps, with some self-imposed limits, we can get back to playing fun games, instead of kicking each others teeth in all the time. Here are some ideas on those limits:

1. one troop choice per 500 points
2. two troop choices with 10 or more models
3. anything that is not a troop choice is 0-1. i.e. 3 FA choices is acceptable, but not 3 Heldrakes(for example).
4. Special Characters are allowable by mutual consent; usually only if they have a comparable character.
5. No squadrons or force organization switches

Personally I don't care for any of these. One troop favors armies with good troops, two troop choices with 10+ can limit certain armies, limiting troops can kill a list. One vindicator is worthless. Along with that, restricting anything not troop not only cripples cheap combos but also fun and competitive lists or even fluff armies. Special character restrictions is a nope. Have fun making deathwing, raven wing, etc without a named hq. worst yet, have fun making any space marine list not ultramarine. WhiteScarrs? Salamanders? Imperial Fist? Good luck and have fun with a list you might or might not get to play.

I note that the typical Mechdar list, which is considered to be pretty good, is allowed here with only slight modifications. A Farseer, 2 squads of 10 Guardians in Serpents, more squads of either Guardians or Dire Avengers in Serpents, some Jetbikes, maybe some Wraithguard and a Spiritseer, and maybe one unit of Fire Dragons are perfectly fine. Typical lists would have to cut back a little on Warp Spiders. Does "no squadrons" mean that you can have at most one War Walker in a list? If not, HS is also pretty solid with a unit of WWs, a Prism or Wraithknight, and some Shadow Weavers. This sort of list would crush almost any possible list from other codices under these rules.

You've also made allies very tempting, since it gets around the lack of viable options created by making everything a 0-1 choice. I don't know if you think that's a good thing or not.

I feel like this is mostly unnecessary for friendly games. They're friendly - you don't need strict rules about composition which will only create some new metagame to math-hammer out. Compare the two lists before the game (or have some bystanders do the comparing) and add a unit or two to one list or remove a unit or two from the other to get an even match.

If it is 'friendly play' why do you need a strict ruleset to enforce it?

These ideas are just bad. Yes, I know you have good intentions, but this needlessly cripples armies and makes it LESS fun for those who have to work with smaller lists.

Rules for friendly play.
Create a cool senario to play.Decide on a cool force for each side.

Play have fun.
Then swap sides and have more fun.(And see who did the best over all in the senario, if you think this sort of thing is its important.)

GW PV and force organisation lists are poorly balanced and not properly play tested.Anyone with an average IQ and some spare time can math-hammer an optimal list.

(It is not hard , and proves how low GW plc focus on game play is.)

After using our 40k minis in games of STARGRUNT II, with narrative focus, we really do not see the point of buying GW books anymore...

First of all, I don't see anything in these rules that encourages friendly play. It does create a new metagame to optimize for by changing what is legal, but it does absolutely nothing to enforce a friendly attitude towards the game, or add fun. All it does is change which units you're pushing around the table.

 Madness! wrote:
1. one troop choice per 500 points

Pointless rule. The fact that 5/6 missions use objectives is enough to get people to bring troops, if you're bringing two minimum-size tactical squads at 2000 points you're only hurting yourself.

2. two troop choices with 10 or more models

IOW, Deathwing is banned.

3. anything that is not a troop choice is 0-1. i.e. 3 FA choices is acceptable, but not 3 Heldrakes(for example).

So my Tau are limited to a single squad of crisis suits? How does that make any sense?

4. Special Characters are allowable by mutual consent; usually only if they have a comparable character.

Pointless rule. Most special characters are fairly weak and you're only hurting yourself if you take them.

5. No squadrons or force organization switches

Just no. Banning Deathwing/bike armies/etc is ridiculous, and squadrons are already balanced by the limits imposed by the squadron rules.

Honestly the only thing needed for a friend pick up game is a through clean up of hot button rules debates so that the game goes quickly.

win or lose the thing that spoils most games is a long winded debate about one rule that takes an hour.

I can understand why you want to make these rules (as too I am also a casual gamer and I also understand that it is not fun fighting Netlists or lists designed to curb stomp and table you every game). but these rules do appear a bit too strict imo, I agree with only one and the group I play with are already using this rule which is no SC, as we all feel that you can pull too much broken jazz with them, (and for those reading this thinking "but what about my deathwing/ravenwing/etc" we also decided that if your chapter master/captain has terminator armour or is riding a bike, then you can unlock the same bonuses as you would for the SC, yeah, yeah "its Illegal" but then again the aim of the game is to have fun and we don't want to penalise the player for which army he/she takes).

here are suggestions for you that our group have used that you may want to use as well for a bit of help

-Create special scenarios: just recently I played a 250pt Kill-Team game on board a Space Hulk and we used the Space Hulk tiles for the board, it was tons of fun and we all had a great time.

-Campaigns: we tried this once, and while it did kind of stop mid way that's only because some people couldn't make it during the specific days needed to come down. but I guarantee if you add a hero growth chart, decide what planet or sector you want to fight on, then make some rules for the terrain on the board, then the game would be a blast to play on and it could require your opponent as well as yourself to use more skill and strategy as if you stay in one area, there could be carnivorous vegetation trying to eat you, or maybe that specific area has just raised a spike in radiation. The possibility's are endless

Include Personal Objectives: back in 5th ed. our TO used to give us a deck face down and we would have to pick a card at random, and read it, then reveal it when we achieved the specific objective. This was a personal objective which if we achieved gave us more points to help us win the specific game we played, it also gave us a sense that it was any man or woman's game, right until the very end which was always nice.

Make an IA story: When I say this I don't mean make an IA I mean create a story in which there are a number of battles that are the pivotal moments in this story and create zany rules for each mission, maybe even homebrew units as long as your group agrees to it of course?

If your still into limiting people to what they use I would suggest how Throne of skulls deal with lists (and look at their score system), as I know they deal negative modifiers to people who exploit their codex's and produce Netlists for their tournament.

You see there are more way of playing 40k than people think, often people usually think of 40k as Math hammer which I find a little dull, so Instead of limiting players, why not give them more opportunity to play around the 41st millennium and get stuck into the narrative of the setting

Hope this helps

The problem with 1 and 2 is, not all Troops are created equal. The main issue you are missing is that rules do not make games fun/friendly. It's the people you play. If you are playing with your friends then it does not matter what the rules are, the game should be fun.

Yeah I don't agree with these restrictions at all, if you want to play a game with a relaxed atmosphere amongst friends that's fine, but you don't need restrictions for 'friendly play', its the player that makes the game, not the list.

Ask yourself this, would you rather play against a total TFG, with the worst list in the history of lists, or an absolute gentleman with a fully optimised 'netlist'?