Rules package for friendly 40K events

Direct link on the blog here.

Updated: 3/12/15
Now looking for ways to break Imperial Guard! (or AM)

Can everyone access this?  Click here.

Hey guys,

I want to reach out to you on a community project.  Are you familiar with how ETC is done for Warhammer Fantasy? It's a very intuitive rules packet that aims to promote game balance while still allowing players to take powerful options in their book.

I've been developing something similar for 40K (geared for 1v1, championship format), in the attempt to get better quality games in instead of playing the rock-paper-scissors style of play in tournaments. I am already in touch with several community leaders with large connections to the competitive blogosphere and I would like to turn this rules package into something that's designed for the competitive gamer. I have already reached out to Reece from Frontline Gaming, Kirby from 3++, Larry on BoLS, and several contacts managing Adepticon and east coast majors that I have been involved in in the past.

You might not know my gaming history, but I've been playing GW games for 14 years. I have a ton of competitive tourney experience, including competing in majors on the east coast, and now work in the computer game industry. I'm a competitive RTS player, ex-pro CS player, former balance designer (for said RTS games), and enjoy doing multiplayer balance-related projects on the side.

Just some food for thought before you begin on this journey with me. The design goals for this document is as follows:
-You can still take the good stuff, but in moderation.
-We're out to limit powerful armies and combos, but not outright ban them.
-The idea here is to promote equality among all armies in the game.

You might think this is impossible to do because 40K has a billion supplements, data sheets, formations and whatnot, but this is a fallacy.  Warhammer 40K might be more expansive than WHFB, but it is not more complex.  Its rules are much simpler, the units are more streamlined, the combos are more defined, and most importantly, is less random.  I think we should give it a shot, I know I need all the help I can get because there's just so much out there!

Anyways, this project is supposed to be something fun, as well as challenging and I would like to get your input. Let me know what you think, and please, break it as much as you can. This is just a preliminary draft to showcase what the rules package is designed to do.  Maybe at the end of this all, this won't be a competitive rules package and will be instead, a fairplay one.

I entirely admire your intentions, and will give this a good read when I get a chance; the gulf between the hardcore competitive player and the casual fluff lover has reached such proportions that it is rare to see a discussion on a forum about model, list or codex viability that doesn't descend into a flame war between people with irreconcilable differences in their playstyle and meta.

Anything that helps bridge this gap is A Good Thing.

My gaming club has just started a Badab War campaign that will take a year to run, with 20+ players; it has started with each player having just a small army of 30K Marines, and everyone I know who is in it is LOVING it.
(My irregular work commitments prevent me from joining campaigns, unfortunately)

If I may......

This is more or less what I was aiming for with the rules pack for Pompey Pillage - a way to make games interesting and not down to numbers, allowing interesting things to be taken but in moderation.
I'm just going to leave a link to the rules pack here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/258235875/Pillage-Pack-2015 in case its something you find useful.
Its based on a few ideas I've taken from other event packs, with a few tweaks to work in 7th and make the event more interesting.

Seems reasonable to me. I like the fact that its a simple point system and not a comp score. The points are their as a limit, use them or don't use them it doesn't affect your score (I'm not a fan of comp).

The point system seems to focus on limiting allied combos rather than nerfing armies. For example WWP being 1 point doesn't really affect a pure Dark Eldar army, but it does affect a serpent spam list with wraithknight trying to take firedragons with a WWP.

I also like that the system effectively bans adamantine lance (3 super heavies is 6 points).

It seems to allow choice but force people to pick and choose their cheese. A lot of thought has gone into this.

The only thing I don't understand is psychic lores being declared. Armies like grey knights depend on being able to tailor their powers to their opponents in my experience. Or am I misunderstanding this point?

Squidmaster wrote:

If I may......

This is more or less what I was aiming for with the rules pack for Pompey Pillage - a way to make games interesting and not down to numbers, allowing interesting things to be taken but in moderation.
I'm just going to leave a link to the rules pack here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/258235875/Pillage-Pack-2015 in case its something you find useful.
Its based on a few ideas I've taken from other event packs, with a few tweaks to work in 7th and make the event more interesting.

So I can't field my fluffy coven army at 1800 points? Because I can't take more than 1 HQ, 2 ELITES and 2 HEAVY SUPPORTS. Yet I can still run 6 serpents and two wraith knights with some fire dragons: 2 squads of fire dragons with dedicated transport wave serpents (2 ELITES), 4 squads of dire avenger with dedicated transport wave serpents (4 TROOPS), and 2 Wraith Knights (2 HEAVIES). Unless I'm missing something? 

This is a perfect example of a rule pack that in it's attempt to balance stronger lists, punishes weaker list that didn't need to be punished. This is why I don't believe in force org restrictions they punish the strong with the weak, and as a result the strong still stay on top. I much prefer a point system like HERO's which targets specific units, rather than painting all armies with the same brush and falling short.

Mushkilla wrote:

So I can't field my fluffy coven army at 1800 points? Because I can't take more than 1 HQ, 2 ELITES and 2 HEAVY SUPPORTS. Yet I can still run 6 serpents and two wraith knights with some fire dragons: 2 squads of fire dragons with dedicated transport wave serpents (2 ELITES), 4 squads of dire avenger with dedicated transport wave serpents (4 TROOPS), and 2 Wraith Knights (2 HEAVIES). Unless I'm missing something? 

Ugh.
No, I think I managed to make it unclear, and I'm having this trouble with others too.

The 0-? limits are referring to IDENTICAL units only. You can have as many as your detachments allow, just a limited number of identical units (so only one Haemonculus per army for example, but you can still take other HQ units, all at 0-1).

Squidmaster wrote:

Mushkilla wrote:

So I can't field my fluffy coven army at 1800 points? Because I can't take more than 1 HQ, 2 ELITES and 2 HEAVY SUPPORTS. Yet I can still run 6 serpents and two wraith knights with some fire dragons: 2 squads of fire dragons with dedicated transport wave serpents (2 ELITES), 4 squads of dire avenger with dedicated transport wave serpents (4 TROOPS), and 2 Wraith Knights (2 HEAVIES). Unless I'm missing something? 

Ugh.
No, I think I managed to make it unclear, and I'm having this trouble with others too.

The 0-? limits are referring to IDENTICAL units only. You can have as many as your detachments allow, just a limited number of identical units (so only one Haemonculus per army for example, but you can still take other HQ units, all at 0-1).

That makes more sense but it still means I can't use the covenite Detachment (as it requires me to take 2 HQs as a minimum requirement). It means that three units of 2 talos (6 talos total) isn't allowed but 2 units of corpsthief (10 Talos total) is. So it's limitations are pointless where it really matters.

I don't see any coven detachments winning GTs any time soon. Yet this rule set prohibits them whilst still letting eldar run horrendously strong lists.

It's arbitrary restriction that punishes the bad as much as it punishes the good if not more so. Again just my opinion.

I have read "Check out these rules I have made" threads, or tried games with people trying to improve 40K, and at times have wondered why some seek to make 40K even more complex.
What HERO has done here is brilliant. Using his broad all-gaming experience, including an obvious passion for x-wing due to the brevity of the document, he has simplified 40K list construction in 2 pages that could improve 40K tournaments world wide. From my part of the webway in lil NZ, ta! This document is about to be shared with our locals TOs!