PDA

View Full Version : If you had to have % system in 40k...



Gooner
30-11-2011, 20:32
If you had to have a percent system in 40k what percent would everything be?

I have played fantasy for most of my life and the percent of 8th edition makes pretty good sense. 40k seems different as HQ is cheaper and heavy support seems to be more expensive.

People seem to be able to fill out troops easily IE. 6 fire warriors, or 5 marines etc.

Would it make sense to have a similar percent system as fantasy?

25% max HQ
25% min Troops
30% max Fast Attack
30% max Elite
40% max Heavy Support

Ps. I used search to find if this has been discussed but too many threads popped up to sift through and none seemed to talk about this.

Cry of the Wind
30-11-2011, 21:29
Might be a fun thing to try out but I think it would limit theme forces a bit too much. Some armies need more than 30% in FA or Elite to have the same feel to them unless they are lucky and have an HQ that unlocks something into troops. Fantasy doesn't have the same scope for variant armies as 40k in my experince.

Drakcore Bloodtear
30-11-2011, 21:35
The problem is that WFB's FoC is based on unit rarity, while 40K FoC is based on units battlefield role.

So while the percentage on Rares is lower in WFB and fair, having the percentage on Fast Attack in 40K seems like an unnecessary restriction.

Benzan
30-11-2011, 21:37
Well there was a % based system back in 2nd ed. The % were:

Characters: 50%
Squads: 25%+
Support 15% (not 100% if this was the same for all but it is in the SoB 2nd ed book)
Allies: 25%

I liked it, you could do a lot of fun with it. Things that are FA, Elites and even some HS today were squads back then.
I think it could work but perhaps tone down characters a bit, on the other hand things like vet sgt. and such were characters.

chromedog
30-11-2011, 21:43
^What he said.

If you had to have a percentage system in 40k, it would be 2nd edition.

AlphariusOmegon20
30-11-2011, 21:46
If you had to have a percent system in 40k what percent would everything be?

I have played fantasy for most of my life and the percent of 8th edition makes pretty good sense. 40k seems different as HQ is cheaper and heavy support seems to be more expensive.

People seem to be able to fill out troops easily IE. 6 fire warriors, or 5 marines etc.

Would it make sense to have a similar percent system as fantasy?

25% max HQ
25% min Troops
30% max Fast Attack
30% max Elite
40% max Heavy Support

Ps. I used search to find if this has been discussed but too many threads popped up to sift through and none seemed to talk about this.

Based on what I figure they'll do if this does come true in 6th ed., it should look something like this:

HQ: 25% Max
Troops: 25% Min
Fast Attack: 25% Max
Elite: 25% Max
Heavy Support: 25% Max


Well there was a % based system back in 2nd ed. The % were:

Characters: 50%
Squads: 25%+
Support 15% (not 100% if this was the same for all but it is in the SoB 2nd ed book)
Allies: 25%

I liked it, you could do a lot of fun with it. Things that are FA, Elites and even some HS today were squads back then.
I think it could work but perhaps tone down characters a bit, on the other hand things like vet sgt. and such were characters.

God no, I played 2nd Ed., and I have no desire to go back to "Herohammer". 50% was way too high back then.

BTW, Support was 50% ( At least that's what it says in C:SW and I believe all the other books were that way also. I'd have to go look at the rest of them, but I did look at C:SW before posting this.)

Benzan
30-11-2011, 21:50
BTW, Support was 50% ( At least that's what it says in C:SW and I believe all the other books were that way also. I'd have to go look at the rest of them, but I did look at C:SW before posting this.)

Well the ladies only had the immolator in Support back then so maby that one was special. My Angels of Death codex is in the same room as my sleeping 2yrs old so I can't check that one. =)

PS: I did like 2nd ed. ;)

agurus1
30-11-2011, 22:01
I think it would make more sense to have is based off of what type of unit it was like that 2nd edition list, ie: Characters, Squads, maybe MC and Vehicles have their own percentages?

Ace Rimmer
30-11-2011, 22:05
I'm pretty sure support was 50% for Eldar and Chaos, I do have both books around here somewhere, but I'm damned if I know where.....

Minsc
30-11-2011, 22:33
Fast Attack: 25% Max
Elite: 25% Max
Heavy Support: 25% Max

Unlikely. (max 500 pts elites/FA/HS in a 2000 pts game? Many armies can get ~1000 pts of elites into their eliteslots with ease already.)
Besides, WFB have 50% for special and 25% for rare, so if anything, I'd expect us to get at least ~35%-40% for elites/FA/HS.

My own take on possible percentages for 6th Ed:

1-25% HQ
25%+ Troops
0-50% Elites
0-50% FA (0-40%?)
0-50% HS (0-40%?)

Since GW wants to sell as much model's as possible, this scenario isn't too unlikely. I also welcome variety.

Gaargod
30-11-2011, 22:41
The problem is that WFB's FoC is based on unit rarity, while 40K FoC is based on units battlefield role.

So while the percentage on Rares is lower in WFB and fair, having the percentage on Fast Attack in 40K seems like an unnecessary restriction.



Well, yes and no.

The WFB FoC is indeed based on rarity, but that's not everything. Everything 'common' is usually infantry (or whatever it should be according to the army theme). Almost everything that has a specialist role is special or rare.

RandomThoughts
01-12-2011, 11:21
I'd get rid of the FOC altogether. Just use the sytem from fantasy (common, elite, rare), from 2nd edition (hq, troops, support, allies) or from Warmachine (field allowances for every unit tell you how many of them can be in an army per HQ; and the number of HQs allowed depend on the total size of the game).

Rick Blaine
01-12-2011, 11:32
Simple.

HQ X%
Elites X%
Fast X%
Heavy X%

Where X = your percentage of Troops.
Basically, for every 1 point you spend on Troops, you may spend 1 point in every other category.

Hellebore
01-12-2011, 11:40
God no, I played 2nd Ed., and I have no desire to go back to "Herohammer". 50% was way too high back then.


:rolleyes: Because killing a max of 6 models in 2nd ed (as that's all you could get into btb) is far more herohammery than having a single character destroy an entire unit in melee in 5th ed right?

Ignoring of course that even in 2nd ed a marine captain surrounded by 6 grots would be attacked by the sixth one with +5 attacks and +5 WS (so a WS7 6 attack grot - the one before it would be WS6 5A...). Then of course if you had an actual sergeant or something in the squad on your turn you have him strike last and you end up with one dead character.

The 2nd=herohammer meme that won't die is a massive fallacy. The current games make character FAR more herohammer than they ever were in 2nd ed.

Hellebore

the_picto
01-12-2011, 11:51
How about for every 2 troops choices you field you get 1 each from HQ, elites, fast attack and heavy support. Minimum 2 troops and 1 HQ. So in order to get 3 trygons, you'd need 6 units of troops for example.

Sai-Lauren
01-12-2011, 11:59
The problem is that WFB's FoC is based on unit rarity, while 40K FoC is based on units battlefield role.

So while the percentage on Rares is lower in WFB and fair, having the percentage on Fast Attack in 40K seems like an unnecessary restriction.
Agreed - I think 40k adopting Core/Special/Rare would be a better system than arbritary percentages, which could mechanically favour some armies over others.

Either that or something like a "minimum x per 1000 points or part there of, maximum y per 1000 points or part thereof, cannot be used at under z points".

Goat of Yuggoth
01-12-2011, 12:19
I don't think this would ever work, every single Ork players wet dream is to take that one single warboss with cheap equipment and invest the rest of the 2000 points to boyz.

I can just imagine how tournaments would dwindle in size after this, battling against an unending horde of whatever is cheap isn't that fun..

WHFB has the percentage system for a good reason: the core section will always lose out when a similar sized Special unit comes against them (a few exceptions, yes, don't cling into details).

With 40k, it isn't that simple. Troops are the real salt of the game, they take objectives and hold them tight enough for a turn. They swamp bigger things. They are multitaskers (most of the time). 40k's current system works, because every category of the five is so different, and thus vulnerable to each other.

Cheers,
Goat

Tayrod
01-12-2011, 12:22
Just a quick note, if you're basing it on fantasy, the HQ should be 50 %, not 25%, remember that in fantasy you can have 25% Heroes AND 25% lords.

ihavetoomuchminis
01-12-2011, 12:32
Oh no. 50% points allowance in HQ woud give room for some nasty nasty nasty combos (Mephiston Dante and The Sanguinor in the same game, no thanks).

I would keep FOC as it is, but making it escalable at >2000 points games (+1 HQ, +1FA, +2 Troops and +1 HS slot every 1000 points above 2000) and forcing players to spend at least 25% on troops.

doubleT
01-12-2011, 12:44
Min 50% Troops – pointswise! We're fielding armies, after all. And armies consist of troops and not just elite warriors.

And I'm practicing what I'm preaching:
In my 1500 pts list I'm fielding 995 pts of troops (with 3 slots). 81 troopers vs. 28 models in HQ and Elite.


I would keep FOC as it is, but making it escalable at >2000 points games (+1 HQ, +1FA, +2 Troops and +1 HS slot every 1000 points above 2000)

I like that.

jack da greenskin
01-12-2011, 12:50
Depending on missions, I think 25% troops
40% FA
40% elite
40% HS
40% characters works better.

doubleT
01-12-2011, 12:57
Have you ever seen an army that consisted of 40 % HQ and 25 % troops? That's laughable.

LonelyPath
01-12-2011, 13:30
BTW, Support was 50% ( At least that's what it says in C:SW and I believe all the other books were that way also. I'd have to go look at the rest of them, but I did look at C:SW before posting this.)

It was 50% in CSM and Angels of Death as well, just checked.

IronNerd
01-12-2011, 13:32
Just curious what exactly the intention is? If the idea is to make the game more balanced, well, it won't. As was previously mentioned, Orks would love to field an ENTIRE army of boys if you let them. Besides that, there are some big gaps in troop quality throughout the game. As a CSM player, I already spend the majority of my points (more than 50% every game) in troops, because they're the best stuff in the book. I don't think Grey Knights would complain much either...

LonelyPath
01-12-2011, 13:32
It was 50% in CSM and Angels of Death as well, just checked.

If it was percentile I think I'd have:

HQ - 25% max
Troops - 25% min
Elite - 25% max
Fast - 25% max
Heavy - 50% max

RandomThoughts
01-12-2011, 13:39
:rolleyes: Because killing a max of 6 models in 2nd ed (as that's all you could get into btb) is far more herohammery than having a single character destroy an entire unit in melee in 5th ed right?

Ignoring of course that even in 2nd ed a marine captain surrounded by 6 grots would be attacked by the sixth one with +5 attacks and +5 WS (so a WS7 6 attack grot - the one before it would be WS6 5A...). Then of course if you had an actual sergeant or something in the squad on your turn you have him strike last and you end up with one dead character.

The 2nd=herohammer meme that won't die is a massive fallacy. The current games make character FAR more herohammer than they ever were in 2nd ed.

Hellebore

Thank you!


I don't think this would ever work, every single Ork players wet dream is to take that one single warboss with cheap equipment and invest the rest of the 2000 points to boyz.

I can just imagine how tournaments would dwindle in size after this, battling against an unending horde of whatever is cheap isn't that fun..

Players (and especially tournament players) have always spammed the most powerful / points-effective units in 40K. I'd much rather have them spam troops (which the fluff says are abundant) than units describes as extremely rare in the fluff, which is what happens now.


WHFB has the percentage system for a good reason: the core section will always lose out when a similar sized Special unit comes against them (a few exceptions, yes, don't cling into details).

With 40k, it isn't that simple. Troops are the real salt of the game, they take objectives and hold them tight enough for a turn. They swamp bigger things. They are multitaskers (most of the time).

Not if you play Eldar. The only reason I play troops at all is because they are mandatory (both for the FOG and for holding objectives). I'd love to field troops, by the way, I own a lot of Guardians and Dire Avengers and even a Wraithguard unit I'd like to field more often, but they are so horrible underpowered, I'd put myself at an even greater disadvantage than I already am as a foot'dar player if I used more troops than I absolutely have to...


Min 50% Troops pointswise! We're fielding armies, after all. And armies consist of troops and not just elite warriors.

If they balance troops across codices, so that 300 points of Eldar Guardians can stand up to 300 points of Ork boys, I could live with it. Currently, I'd have to shelf my Eldar entirely until the next codex at least...

Also, I hate repetition and love variety. I seldom use the same army list for more than two games in a row, I enjoy using different units from game to game, and the higher the mandatory troop percentage goes, the less variety I will be able to field... :(


Have you ever seen an army that consisted of 40 % HQ and 25 % troops? That's laughable.

Let's see: at 1000 points, I occasionally run a Seer Council (HQ, should be elite in my opinion, but they aren't), that's 330-385 points right there. I haven't used the combination yet, but add an Avatar, an Autarch or a second Farseer (or even a second Seer-Council, I thought about it in the past, but don't have the models (yet) to run it), and we're way beyond 40%. Now, let's consider troops. I usually run 2-3 units of 3 Jetbikes each, with or without Shurican Cannons. That's between 132 and 228 points, or 13-23%.

Any questions?

RandomThoughts
01-12-2011, 13:41
If it was percentile I think I'd have:

HQ - 25% max
Troops - 25% min
Elite - 25% max
Fast - 25% max
Heavy - 50% max

Why not:
HQ - 25% max
Troops - 25% min
Elite - 25% max
Fast - 25% max
Heavy - 25% max

Voss
01-12-2011, 13:45
If it was percentile I think I'd have:

HQ - 25% max
Troops - 25% min
Elite - 25% max
Fast - 25% max
Heavy - 50% max

That doesn't make much sense. Why are (for example) devastator armies more acceptable than assault marine armies?

If the system has to be used at all, the elite, fast and heavy leaning armies should be equally viable.


Personally I don't think that turning the FOC into a percentage system works. Everything would have to be re-classified. I certainly wouldn't want to see a couple tactical squads and 8 vindicators being called an army at 2000 points. Especially not if they're facing 50 firewarriors and 6 hammerheads.

Sai-Lauren
01-12-2011, 13:45
I would keep FOC as it is, but making it escalable at >2000 points games (+1 HQ, +1FA, +2 Troops and +1 HS slot every 1000 points above 2000) and forcing players to spend at least 25% on troops.
Maybe +1-2 Troops, and +0-1 for everything else per thousand.

Although some armies might be able to change that general formula - say Guard and Orks get +2-3 Troops per 1,000 and Eldar get +0-1 Elites per 750 (but still only 0-1 HQ, FA and HS per 1,000, or possibly even +0-1 HQ per 1500 as a counterbalance) to represent them bringing in more and more Aspect Warriors for either a bigger conflict or the pivotal battle.

No one should be able to get more than 1 Heavy Support choice per additional thousand though - especially not Guard :).

And I'd stick the additions in at an absolute minimum of 3,000 points rather than 2,000 - I did a 4,000 point Marine drop pod list a while back, and I still had a couple of slots over (1 Troop and 1 HS in case you're wondering, although three full squads of Terminators helped :)).

Start it at 2,000, and it's getting too easy to access additional good stuff whilst minimising the more mediocre stuff.

You could even say that after a certain points value, armies have to take a certain number of specific units - say Eldar have to take at least 4 units of Wraithguard at 10,000 points, and at least 1 additional unit per 2,000 points beyond that, or Guard have to take at least 6 Conscript units numbering 30 or more at that points level.

StratManKudzu
01-12-2011, 14:19
You could even say that after a certain points value, armies have to take a certain number of specific units - say Eldar have to take at least 4 units of Wraithguard at 10,000 points, and at least 1 additional unit per 2,000 points beyond that, or Guard have to take at least 6 Conscript units numbering 30 or more at that points level.

That seems unnecessarily complicated. Plus, who plays a 10,000 pt game using standard rules and FOC and not Apocalypse style list building and rules?

AlphariusOmegon20
01-12-2011, 15:24
Well the ladies only had the immolator in Support back then so maby that one was special. My Angels of Death codex is in the same room as my sleeping 2yrs old so I can't check that one. =)

PS: I did like 2nd ed. ;)

I can sympathize, I have a 2 yr old also. ;)

Voss
01-12-2011, 15:29
You could even say that after a certain points value, armies have to take a certain number of specific units - say Eldar have to take at least 4 units of Wraithguard at 10,000 points, and at least 1 additional unit per 2,000 points beyond that, or Guard have to take at least 6 Conscript units numbering 30 or more at that points level.

Dictating what units a player must take is not acceptable. It shouldn't even come up, especially for relatively rare units like wraithguard.

I can sort of accept armies with only a single troops choice (especially when they are extremely customizable like crusader squads), but I don't ever want to see a return to 3rd edition fantasy or RT era army lists that dictated certain units at minimum levels for every army.

AlphariusOmegon20
01-12-2011, 15:33
Unlikely. (max 500 pts elites/FA/HS in a 2000 pts game? Many armies can get ~1000 pts of elites into their eliteslots with ease already.)
Besides, WFB have 50% for special and 25% for rare, so if anything, I'd expect us to get at least ~35%-40% for elites/FA/HS.

My own take on possible percentages for 6th Ed:

1-25% HQ
25%+ Troops
0-50% Elites
0-50% FA (0-40%?)
0-50% HS (0-40%?)

Since GW wants to sell as much model's as possible, this scenario isn't too unlikely. I also welcome variety.

You're forgetting that WFB has 5 types of units, just like 40K does.

Lords = HQ
Heroes = Elites
Core = Troops
Special = Fast Attack
Rare = Heavy Support

Hence why the figures I cited make sense. They match up numerically with the WFB ones.

IcedCrow
01-12-2011, 16:34
We use min 25% on troops and that's it. Stops the two 5-man tac squads from showing up while everything else is maxed bit.

Ravenous
01-12-2011, 16:37
Considering a majority of people have a hard time understanding wound allocation and assault rules I think that precentages and modifiers will send them running to call of duty

Voss
01-12-2011, 17:15
You're forgetting that WFB has 5 types of units, just like 40K does.

Lords = HQ
Heroes = Elites
Core = Troops
Special = Fast Attack
Rare = Heavy Support

Hence why the figures I cited make sense. They match up numerically with the WFB ones.

Except for core and troops, I don't think the categories are really analoguous. 40K has a much lower emphasis on characters, for example (a general cap of two rather than being able to squeeze in 5 or 6, or even a dozen for some armies), and FA and HS are really equivalent categories, and don't match up well with rare and special.

Ravenous
01-12-2011, 17:18
And some armies practically require all 3 heavies to do well.

Gaargod
01-12-2011, 17:46
I quite like the maximum number of pts in HQ/elite/FA/heavy each is equal to the number of points you've spent in troops.

Means you have to do some quite complicated list building at times, but its also incredibly simple and easy to use. Also really encourages more balanced armies across the FoC - instead of pouring points into troops in order to unlock more heavy, you can take more other stuff.
Even stops stupid stuff like 3 greater daemons in 2k, because then you're going to have nothing else than troops in your list.

Failing that, 25% for characters with 40% for elites, heavy and FA makes sense, if a lot less cool.


Oh, and arguments that having unlimited troops is stupid makes very little sense. Troops are specifically the one thing that 'should' be allowed to be spammed. Also means you avoid situations like tyranids being really limited in the number of swarms they can actually take without having to use the workaround like Guard to conflate troops.
Use victory points (or a much modified kill points) and you'd even avoid problems with that.

Vipoid
01-12-2011, 17:57
I think discussing what %s each unit type would have is something of a moot point. 40k is currently based on a FoC, and changing to a percentage-based system instead would almost certainly require a complete overhaul of all codices. Currently, each unit selection is balanced (in theory anyway...), based on which slot it occupies. If it was changed so that cost was the only limiting factor, then various units would likely have to have their costs altered to reflect this.


How about for every 2 troops choices you field you get 1 each from HQ, elites, fast attack and heavy support. Minimum 2 troops and 1 HQ. So in order to get 3 trygons, you'd need 6 units of troops for example.

Hmm, I actually quite like this idea. However, I play necrons and 'nids, both of which have decent troop options. I imagine Eldar, Tau SM players would be less than pleased with the idea.

Still, could be good if troops get balanced at some point.

igwarlord
01-12-2011, 18:12
HEy this sounds great
it will totally kill all fluff players out there
i mean there goes my artillery guard and my sisters
All BA will be the same since you can't do anything BUT stock up on assault marines

all that needs to be done is make the min 1 troop squad for every thousand points you go up to OR
2 troop = 1 to 1000 pts
3 troop = 1001 to 2000 pts
4 troop = 2001 to 3000 pts

Avian
01-12-2011, 18:21
I think discussing what %s each unit type would have is something of a moot point. 40k is currently based on a FoC, and changing to a percentage-based system instead would almost certainly require a complete overhaul of all codices. Currently, each unit selection is balanced (in theory anyway...), based on which slot it occupies. If it was changed so that cost was the only limiting factor, then various units would likely have to have their costs altered to reflect this.
People said that about FB last spring, but it actually worked out fine with no overhaul whatsoever.

Malorian
01-12-2011, 18:26
I think a % system in 40k would be just the breath of fresh air it needs.

I'm sure there will be loopholes that we aren't seeing now, but overall it would make for a much better system in my opinion.

Minsc
01-12-2011, 18:35
Lords = HQ
Heroes = Elites
Core = Troops
Special = Fast Attack
Rare = Heavy Support


Except that this isn't quite true. You can't really compare the different categories in 40k and wfb with each other, apart from Troops = Core.

HQ = Lords + Heroes
Troops = Core
Elites/FA/HS = Special + Rare.

So if you want to do a direct comparison, it would end up with;

HQ: 0-50%
Troops: 25%+
Elites/HS/FA: 0-75%

Actually, I can live with that. ;)

althathir
01-12-2011, 21:13
People said that about FB last spring, but it actually worked out fine with no overhaul whatsoever.

I'm not sure about that. I haven't played the new system much (my wood elves got stolen and I never got back into it after that) but fantasy's structure made for a smooth transition.

1) 7th already allowed for a decent amount of heroes and lords to be involved and they fit fairly well into the percentages assigned for each.

2) less seperating factors you don't have to worry about how transports would work (I could see eldar being a nightmare depending on how they try to shoehorn them in.)

3) more variety, in fb you basically have characters, infantry, monsters, warmachines, and skirmishers (i would include units like eagles in this group). This leads to the pricing in fb being a bit tighter than what it is in 40k. where some vehicles are tanks some aren't, etc.

Necrofencer
01-12-2011, 21:31
I'm going to stop by here and remind people of one thing : in the WFB percentage system, you can't take quadruple of same specials and triples of same rare before 3000points games. So if GW ports it to 40K, you still won't see 14 Land Raider.

On a side note, 25% HQ maximum would screw the newcrons pretty hard, what with all the army's sergents being HQ and not exactly cheap?

Avian
01-12-2011, 22:15
3) more variety, in fb you basically have characters, infantry, monsters, warmachines, and skirmishers (i would include units like eagles in this group). This leads to the pricing in fb being a bit tighter than what it is in 40k. where some vehicles are tanks some aren't, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate, please?

Kal Taron
01-12-2011, 22:16
IMO a system like Epic would be best for 40K. Where you have (relatively) balanced entries with the points and rules and then choose a specific list to combine them into an army.

RandomThoughts
01-12-2011, 23:12
I think a % system in 40k would be just the breath of fresh air it needs.

I'm sure there will be loopholes that we aren't seeing now, but overall it would make for a much better system in my opinion.

If GW continuously updated rules instead of the "big overhault to fix everything (except the things we didn't see coming when we wrote it)" every four years, it wouldn't be much of an issue...


I think discussing what %s each unit type would have is something of a moot point. 40k is currently based on a FoC, and changing to a percentage-based system instead would almost certainly require a complete overhaul of all codices. Currently, each unit selection is balanced (in theory anyway...), based on which slot it occupies. If it was changed so that cost was the only limiting factor, then various units would likely have to have their costs altered to reflect this.

agreed


Hmm, I actually quite like this idea. However, I play necrons and 'nids, both of which have decent troop options. I imagine Eldar, Tau SM players would be less than pleased with the idea.

Still, could be good if troops get balanced at some point.

and agreed.

Now, as an Eldar player, I'd probably end up playing 4 Jetbike squads of three men each for ~300 points, which gives me enough slots to make it comfortably into the 1.5K region (seer council for 400, 2x Scorpions for 200 each, probably a squad of Spiders between 100 and 200, and just enough points to buy two heavies). Pretty restrictive list, though, not really much space for individualization...

druchii
01-12-2011, 23:35
I'm not sure there needs to be any change in the system as it is.

Nevermind going to a system where 25% troops would completely obliterate any competitive lists from the Chaos Demons of Tau books.

Seems like people are forgetting that 2/3rds of the missions require troops to score, while this "change" wouldn't do anything to reduce the MSU/Mech spam most people consider to be the "lame" thing about this edition.

d

althathir
01-12-2011, 23:38
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate, please?

Vehicle pricing in 40k has a quite range because of the different types of vehicles with combinations of tank, skimmer, tankskimmer, opentopped, walker. Then after that there are all the weapon options so it leads to more grey areas. The 3 slots seems to work better for this because some units seem to get a discount just cause.

Where as fantasy tends to have less traits on their monsters and monsterous cav so the pricing feels much more consistent throughout the range.

AlphariusOmegon20
02-12-2011, 06:09
Except for core and troops, I don't think the categories are really analoguous. 40K has a much lower emphasis on characters, for example (a general cap of two rather than being able to squeeze in 5 or 6, or even a dozen for some armies), and FA and HS are really equivalent categories, and don't match up well with rare and special.

Voss, I didn't say the categories themselves matched, I said the amount of the categories matched.

There's 5 categories in both, so my numbers would work.

Also, if you're playing a 2K game, you'll still only be able to squeeze in 2 or 3 HQ's max.

You certainly have to take in account that nobody pays HS points for a LR if they can help it. You take it as a Dedicated Transport for termies. You'd still be able to do that with a 25% cap.

The numbers can work.


I'm not sure there needs to be any change in the system as it is.

Nevermind going to a system where 25% troops would completely obliterate any competitive lists from the Chaos Demons of Tau books.

Seems like people are forgetting that 2/3rds of the missions require troops to score, while this "change" wouldn't do anything to reduce the MSU/Mech spam most people consider to be the "lame" thing about this edition.

d

Incorrect. WFB actually INCREASED the size of units, not decrease them, when they went to this system.

AlphariusOmegon20
02-12-2011, 06:11
I think discussing what %s each unit type would have is something of a moot point. 40k is currently based on a FoC, and changing to a percentage-based system instead would almost certainly require a complete overhaul of all codices.

Not so.


WFB did it without having to overhaul a single book, by placing it in the core rules.

Edit: crap, Avian beat me to it.

Reflex
02-12-2011, 07:04
I think this is actually a good idea. If GW is willing to put the effort into it I think they can make it work well. It should bring a larger amount of troops to the battlefield, rather then just absolute min.

druchii
02-12-2011, 09:50
Incorrect. WFB actually INCREASED the size of units, not decrease them, when they went to this system.

How cute, you think I'm talking about WHFB in a 40k thread.

What works (which isn't actually ANYTHING) in WHFB doesn't work in 40k, why would anyone even think this?

I didn't even reference WHFB in my post, please read my posts before quoting me please.

d

Vipoid
02-12-2011, 10:06
People said that about FB last spring, but it actually worked out fine with no overhaul whatsoever.


Not so.


WFB did it without having to overhaul a single book, by placing it in the core rules.

Edit: crap, Avian beat me to it.


I don't play fantasy, and have no idea what the old system was, or what it changed to, so this really isn't much help as a comparison.

Major_Manny
02-12-2011, 10:20
I think:

HQ - max 25%
FA - max 50%
Troops - Min 25%
elites - max 50%
Heavy - Max 50%

but thats really just so that people can still make the lists they can now, so surely it would be easier to stick with the current system no?

Some people have stated HQ - max 50%, but that would just become a game of herohammer....and thats just not cricket :-/

orkmiester
02-12-2011, 11:44
it 'might' be a good idea- in theory that is

fantasy we must remember is a completey different game to 40k an so it quite rightly has a different army selection system. Which works for most of the armies even if it does mean that warriors of chaos 'in theory' only have to take one large unit of warriors to make the 25% minimum limit:rolleyes:

in all honesty the system works fine currently and changing it wouldn't really change very much only the fact that you have gone and screwed up a system that has been in place since 3rd, and the game has kept it since then... so why bother:confused: it is the problems between the 'balance' from codex to codex that need sorting really.

just my humble opinion:angel:

RandomThoughts
02-12-2011, 12:31
I think this is actually a good idea. If GW is willing to put the effort into it I think they can make it work well. It should bring a larger amount of troops to the battlefield, rather then just absolute min.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Forcing players to play their troops is a crutch, and it puts armies with weaker troops at a clear disadvantage. If the goal is to bring more troops to the table, just make them good enough that players actually WANT to field them. :eek:

Look at Orks and Imps, Green Tide and infantry blobs work quite well (or so I hear), and as a result they get played.

For me as an Eldar player, there isn't a single troop choice that isn't a liability. Don't get me wrong, I love the models and I own quite a lot of them that never get off their shelf, but the only time I'll ever consider taking more than I absolutely have to is when I know in advance I'm going to play a significantly weaker player and I need to tone down my army to make the game fun for both of us.

Vipoid
02-12-2011, 12:49
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Forcing players to play their troops is a crutch, and it puts armies with weaker troops at a clear disadvantage. If the goal is to bring more troops to the table, just make them good enough that players actually WANT to field them. :eek:

Look at Orks and Imps, Green Tide and infantry blobs work quite well (or so I hear), and as a result they get played.

For me as an Eldar player, there isn't a single troop choice that isn't a liability. Don't get me wrong, I love the models and I own quite a lot of them that never get off their shelf, but the only time I'll ever consider taking more than I absolutely have to is when I know in advance I'm going to play a significantly weaker player and I need to tone down my army to make the game fun for both of us.

I'd agree with this.

I think there should be some sort of minimum troop requirement (although several armies can essentially ignore this). However, I think GW has missed the reason why several armies field only the minimum troops possible.

If they want armies to be more troop-heavy, then this would require all armies to have troops that are actually worth a damn, and toning down vehicles would probably help too.

I really dislike the change that only troops can capture objectives (unless you're GK of course). It seems completely the wrong way to address the issue, as it encourages the shoehorning of troops into army lists, without acknowledging the core reason why they weren't included in the first place.

LonelyPath
02-12-2011, 13:03
@ RandomThoughts % Voss:

I just feel up to 50% for HS seems more viable in keeping with 40k, they had it before and it worked fine. Just because it was there it didn't mean people used it, but it was useful for armies like IG that rely on their tanks.

However, I do prefer the FOC format of today, I just gave what I'd prefer IF they were to go back to a percentile army structure, which I doubt they'll do.

RandomThoughts
02-12-2011, 13:15
@ RandomThoughts % Voss:

I just feel up to 50% for HS seems more viable in keeping with 40k, they had it before and it worked fine. Just because it was there it didn't mean people used it, but it was useful for armies like IG that rely on their tanks.

Accepted. I just don't see why we need different limits for Elite, Fast Assault and Heavy Support. If you're allowing 50% of an army to be made up of Devestators, why not allow 50% of an army to be made up of Assault Marines?


However, I do prefer the FOC format of today, I just gave what I'd prefer IF they were to go back to a percentile army structure, which I doubt they'll do.

I don't, but I'd agree to disagree on that for now, if you're okay with it. ;)

Bunnahabhain
02-12-2011, 13:49
Accepted. I just don't see why we need different limits for Elite, Fast Assault and Heavy Support. If you're allowing 50% of an army to be made up of Devestators, why not allow 50% of an army to be made up of Assault Marines?



Because Blood angels, Space wolves or ANGRY MARINES!! have to have their own codex, which has to be special with loads of assault marines, (or a cheaper but better version of them....), whereas the Iron hands, Imperial fists, and other marines with a 'siege*' bias don't yet have their own codex so don't have the differences for the sake of differences special devastators with Split fire, relentless, counter attack and a discount...

EDIT; Although with Logan grimnar, you could manage that with the wolves already.


* Because using a small, rapid strike force to hold a perimeter, and to try and take a heavily fortified position with little more than man portable weapons makes so much more sense than using the force with lots of men and heavy artillery to do the same.

Voss
02-12-2011, 13:58
@ RandomThoughts % Voss:

I just feel up to 50% for HS seems more viable in keeping with 40k, they had it before and it worked fine. Just because it was there it didn't mean people used it, but it was useful for armies like IG that rely on their tanks.


There are several differences, however- there are a lot more vehicles running around today then there were at that time, and they are significantly more powerful. Also, devastators and equivalent squads didn't count toward that amount. They were units just like everything else. The old support section was just vehicles, artillery and support weapons.

Avian
02-12-2011, 14:10
Vehicle pricing in 40k has a quite range because of the different types of vehicles with combinations of tank, skimmer, tankskimmer, opentopped, walker. Then after that there are all the weapon options so it leads to more grey areas. The 3 slots seems to work better for this because some units seem to get a discount just cause.

Where as fantasy tends to have less traits on their monsters and monsterous cav so the pricing feels much more consistent throughout the range.
Ah, now I think I see what you mean. If you are referring to units being over- / underpriced, then this happens quite often in FB as well, even when it should have been very clear to the writer that the price they set wasn't right. I don't think that is linked to the game or the army selection system.


Though one of the major good points about a percentage based system, is that it forces the designers to put more effort into making units balanced for the cost, because that is suddenly the limiting factor.




I think:

HQ - max 25%
FA - max 50%
Troops - Min 25%
elites - max 50%
Heavy - Max 50%
I think people should write some lists using this system and try it out. :)



but thats really just so that people can still make the lists they can now, so surely it would be easier to stick with the current system no?
Another main thing about percentages is that it scales more smoothly than slots. Ask any Necron player how fun it was to have to take 2 Troops choices and an HQ at, say, 800 pts using the old book.

gLOBS
02-12-2011, 15:01
I think it should go back to the 3 types of HQ, Troops and Support.

Move some Elite and Fast Attack units into troops and roll the rest into Support.

Things like regular Assault Marines, Gargoyles most of the Eldar Aspects could be put into Troops Section. Vehicles and heavy infantry should be in the support section.