On balance, House rules, and The Good Ole Days...

I have started this discussion on my groups Facebook group wall, so I thought I'd throw it out here too. If you love the new developments with expansions and the like, please don't try and derail the discussion, as I have specified my intentions, and they preclude the new things.

(pasted):
So, do those of us who play regularly against each other at chez Xxxxx, Yyyyy, or the newly-found fields of Zzzzz, want to try and establish a gaming balance that deals with this year's releases, and in particular this month's?

I know my role in the group is often Chicken Licken, but I do feel that our meta has been affected by power creep, and that even if we do adopt Escalation, Dataslates etc for chosen games, I would like to have a baseline to fall back on for traditional games, like the good old days of earlier this year.
After Xmas, I have a month of no work, so am hoping to catch up on some 40K; I really want to play "proper" 40K, although I realise that that is a very subjective word, so I thought I'd try and get the ball rolling.

I want argument here: game balancing is very complex, and only industry-standard professional game designers should be left in charge of it. It's a shame that GW no longer employ any.

Intentions:
i) To get the game back to being about tactical play not Rock,Paper,Scissors
ii) To have a reasonable chance of both teams having scoring units left at the end of the game
iii) To establish an environment where one is not obliged to have to allow for an enemy unit when it flies in the face of ones fluff, normal list, or preferred playstyle.
iv) To see some of our favourite older models, who have now been relegated, back on the field.
v) To maintain the excellent developments that 6th has brought in, but temper others that have skewed the game towards either random list-luck, or cheesy power combos.

Suggestions(I don't expect all to be agreed with, so some are alternative options):
1) Escalation, C:Inq, Forgeworld, Dataslates, Cities of Death, Apoc, Planetstrike etc are opt-IN expansions, not opt-OUT.
2) Flyer rules are opt-in expansions, as is Swooping mode for FMCs. All Fliers become Fast Skimmers.
Contentious one this, as I know I'm in a minority, but air support gives huge battlefield advantage, and has blown lurking troops off the table. If Vendettas were back to 5th movement, they're not such an auto-destroy.
3) Torrent flamers can be fired as range 0 Ignores Cover, or range 12" and doesn't. This would make the Heldrake a great but fairer unit: I find the Maulerfiend perfectly balanced(although it should be better in combat!).
4) Overwatching guns can only inflict hits up to the number of the assaulting unit.
Infantry assaulting Lootas or multiple flamers is utterly suicidal: if 10 cultists run at you, even the best AP1 should still allow a few through. Admittedly a unit of flamers would be impossible to attack in real life, but this is a game, and no unit should be impossible to assault.
5) Modify super-psychers: perhaps the second power per turn is at -1Ld, the third at -3?
6) Units suffering from attacks that have been blessed can Deny The Witch against those buffs? If you get re-rolls from Prescience, I am definitely feeling that Psychic power, even if it wasn't targetted at me!

OK, and now some personal (ie army-specific) ones:
6) Combat-related saves should be allowed against Overwatch. (eg my Wyches' Dodge!)
7) er...something about Tau.

(paste ends)

What does the City think? (Will also be posting on TheTyranidHive)

One fun house thing that I still play sometimes (and is great for getting new people into 40k) is the old 40k in 40minutes rules.
This is where your army can be no more than 400 points, one or more troop, only one HQ, remaining points spent anywhere else from the codex, no special characters, no 2+ armour saves and no models with more than two wounds. I think tanks also can't have an armour value armour of more than 33.

As for what you're trying to achieve, however, I think a good place to start would be by looking at recent releases and seeing where some armies started to get far too strong due to special aditions that nobody else could bring down easily, such as Helldrakes or the Necron Bagel things. I would suggest having no fliers, or at least a house rule of where for X-number of points you could have skyfire on Dark Lances or other armies' AT stuff.

A few of your other points I don't really see the need for, but I don't get to play often enough to experience issues. With the recent uproar about Escalation, though, I'd say that no expansions, including supplements, would be allowed.

i would probably leave the psykers alone. the ones who have to roll for powers are crap enough as it is, especially if you don't have access to divination.
i'd vote for just core-book rules. ditch the expansions. heldrakes and croissants of doom are a bit wonky, so could use a points increase rather than a rule change, or a slot restriction (0-1 on heldrakes for example)

I think finding a consensus for such a broad range of discussion is a bit problematic. One thing that gamers can fall back on is GW has made it something of a mantra that we make the game what we want it to be. So feel free to do that. Why not suggest a game or two to your gaming group that is crafted to your wish list and enjoy.

GW has made a decision to broaden the scope of the game and leave it to the gamer to define what is a "standard" game of 40k.