PDA

View Full Version : Percentages Vs Force Slots



Grocklock
06-01-2012, 15:14
Having looked though the roumour thread for the new 6th edition, one of the new rules romoured to be included is percentages. over Force orginisation.

As soon as this comes up people start jumping in saying:
that its alot of book keeping.
it favours armies wiht good troops choices.
then one poster says that gw cannot write balanced troops so it wont work.

My point is that Fantasy has done very well off of it for years with no problems. it switched to FOS for one edition and then back.

SO why is it so much of an issue for 40k. Or is the example above the voice of a few speaking for the meany.

Ravenous
06-01-2012, 15:22
The issue is that 40k is the entry level game, and from what Ive seen from the kids (including the 30 year ones) having worked for GW asking them to do percentages might be asking a little much.

Basically the way I see it is that they are trying to make 40k have more fantasy rules so the transition is easier, as a business descision goes, thats stupid as nails, when you take your number 1 selling product and change it to look like game that is behind your competitors, how intelligent is that? They might as well hand the keys over to Privateer.

Carnage
06-01-2012, 15:28
It all depends on how they do the percentages really. If they limit Elite/FA/HS/HQ to 25% and require 25%+ troops, this will bust some armies severely. If they allow up to 50% Elite/FA/HS, then it will break the game in the other direction.

Example; Tyranid's anti-tank sucks, as it's all crammed in the Elite slot. If they move to a 50% elites instead of 3 units I GUARENTEE you will see 12+ HG and a squad of zoans in every semi-competitive Nid list.

Example 2; Dakka preds. A 2000 point space marine list could put 11 HB/AC preds on the board, or 10 Thunderfire cannons, or 7 AC/LC preds.

Example 3; Space Wolfs, 1000 points of long fangs is 35 missile launcher guys.

These are all over the top examples, but we all know that we would see them in tourny gaming. There needs to be some manner of limiter on units to prevent them from being spammed like mad, other wise you will see lists that are just insanity.

Project2501
06-01-2012, 15:29
My issue with a % based army is two fold;

First, what exactly is the advantage of using a % based system? If people want to take minimum troops selections then they have every right to and are already at a disadvantage in objectives games for example.

Why not just change how everything non-troops selection can contest objectives?

Second, what is a fair or proper percentage for each selection?

Geep
06-01-2012, 15:31
It works in Fantasy because of the structure of a fantasy army- Core, Special and Rare. Each percentage area covers a range of troops in most armies, from cavalry to artillery, and the percentage limits simply prevent you from taking nothing but the best.

40k works on a different system- Elites, Troops, Fast Attack and Heavy Support.
Where will all the fast things be? Fast attack. Artillery? Heavy Support. And so on. In my opinion this will not work as a percentage system unless the current 'slot' system is completely re-imagined. Percentages really don't work unless each percentage category covers a range of tactical options, but with some clear twist between each percentage category.

Book keeping etc. in a percentage game is fairly easy- issues there won't matter much. There is a slight annoyance in that you can quickly 'slot in' or 'slot out' a squad or two to change the points level in the current 40k system, which would be much more difficult in a percentage system, but I think this is a minor concern (to me at least)

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 15:31
I've never had a hard time figuring out 25% limits. It's not high level math.

Saying that asking 40k players to use percentages is akin to just closing down 40k and letting Privateer own the market is also pretty laughable.

Percentages make the game more troop oriented as opposed to elite oriented because it prevents taking two min sized troop choices and then loading down on the HQ and elites and heavies.

Our campaign starting up in a couple weeks also uses a 25% min troop requirement. We have a lot of people with varying mathematical abilities, but none have had an issue figuring out what 25% of X is and then sticking to that.

There are also a host of applications both desktop and mobile that people can build army lists on that can help them if they are really that bad with math that they struggle figuring out what a fourth of something is.

As I am a player that enjoys more troops and less super heroes, the move to percentages is one that I am happy with. It's not a drastic change by any means and literally does nothing to my army compositions because my armies are usually 40% or more troops (necrons, chaos, IG), but it will stop the two 5-man tac squads from showing up.

The slot system is not perfect. Neither is the percentage system. There is no totally "fair and balanced" way for composition.

Lord Khabal
06-01-2012, 15:41
Maybe its a hybrid system with both slots AND percentages...

DEADMARSH
06-01-2012, 15:44
I really don't think there's that many people out there who understand the vagaries of wound allocation but can't grasp percentages.

I'm not trying to sound like a hater, but it's not like 40k is some perfect ruleset that needs some tweaking to get everyone to buy a new rule book. Messing with something as old and ingrained as FOCs by moving to this percentages idea when there are other issues that need addressing seems totally pointless to me.

I also don't really see the point of the change- i.e. what current issue does GW changing 40k to percentages fix exactly? Undercosted/ over effective units are still going to be undercosted and over effective in a percentage system. Maybe their effect can be lessened in a percentage + FOC system, but it seems like it'd be more effective to fix why those offending units are undercosted and over effective than to switch everything up on its head.

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 15:45
I doubt it is a hybrid system. It would be pointless to use both slots and percentages. One of the biggest complaints that people seem to voice is the min/max issues and how to better handle that.


I really don't think there's that many people out there who understand the vagaries of wound allocation but can't grasp percentages.

I'm not trying to sound like a hater, but it's not like 40k is some perfect ruleset that needs some tweaking to get everyone to buy a new rule book. Messing with something as old and ingrained as FOCs by moving to this percentages idea when there are other issues that need addressing seems totally pointless to me.

I also don't really see the point of the change- i.e. what current issue does GW changing 40k to percentages fix exactly? Undercosted/ over effective units are still going to be undercosted and over effective in a percentage system. Maybe their effect can be lessened in a percentage + FOC system, but it seems like it'd be more effective to fix why those offending units are undercosted and over effective than to switch everything up on its head.

The biggest and most visible change is that it will force players who take min number of troops to have to spend 25% of their points on troop choices and they will have more troops present on the table.

Project2501
06-01-2012, 15:52
Change how everything non troops selection can contest objectives and problem solved IMO. It makes no sense that your scoring unit is suddenly null and void because some non scoring 'empty' vehicle or whetever decided to rush up at the last second to an objective.


The biggest and most visible change is that it will force players who take min number of troops to have to spend 25% of their points on troop choices and they will have more troops present on the table.

IcedCrow, why do players have to be forced to take more than MSU troops to begin with?

This smacks of 'I don't like it/It isn't how I do things so no one else should do things that way either'.

DEADMARSH
06-01-2012, 16:03
The biggest and most visible change is that it will force players who take min number of troops to have to spend 25% of their points on troop choices and they will have more troops present on the table.

I get that, but wasn't that what Troops = Scoring Units was supposed to fix in 5th ed?

I don't mean to sound like a smartass or whatever so I hope I'm not coming across that way- what current issue would forcing people to take more troops fix? I play Guard, so I know that the whole Mech Vets thing wouldn't get touched because Mech Vets are Troops. From what I've read, the Draigo GK build makes Paladins Troops choices, don't really know about the more powerful/ tournament popular builds, would forcing more Troops address some balance issue I'm not seeing?

In other words, it seems like a lot of the more... viable, shall we say, builds out there are viable because the army has strong (or stronger than average) Troops choices to start with. What would making folks take even more of those choices fix?

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 16:04
IcedCrow, why do players have to be forced to take more than MSU troops to begin with?

This smacks of 'I don't like it/It isn't how I do things so no one else should do things that way either'.

Why do they have to be forced? Because the game designers decided to go that route?

40k has always been slots so if you're saying that I am projecting "I don't like it so no one else should either", you are full of BS. I am saying I don't like min/maxing, so this change does not negatively impact me and I like it because it conforms more to my playstyle, whereas it negatively impacts you because it challenges your playstyle.

Unfortunately in gaming that's how it rolls. I have had to conform to things I've not liked forever, that's part of the give and take of gaming. It looks like this time around I'll get to enjoy a ruleset that is more my flavor for a while.

That doesn't mean that I think everyone else is wrong for thinking the other way. That's pretty black and white.


I get that, but wasn't that what Troops = Scoring Units was supposed to fix in 5th ed?

I don't mean to sound like a smartass or whatever so I hope I'm not coming across that way- what current issue would forcing people to take more troops fix? I play Guard, so I know that the whole Mech Vets thing wouldn't get touched because Mech Vets are Troops. From what I've read, the Draigo GK build makes Paladins Troops choices, don't really know about the more powerful/ tournament popular builds, would forcing more Troops address some balance issue I'm not seeing?

In other words, it seems like a lot of the more... viable, shall we say, builds out there are viable because the army has strong (or stronger than average) Troops choices to start with. What would making folks take even more of those choices fix?

It's not really a balance issue to me more as it is an aesthetics thing. Tiny little squads representing an army are not fun for some people who want to play with actual armies.

Another issue, which is no one's fault, is that many people are opposed to missions other than line up and fight and score, objectives be damned.

Some armies are not affected at all. Some armies like the Draigo army laugh because they already have a lot of "troops" due to him making the elites troops. Deathwing is another example of an elite army as the terminators are troops.

Other people will be miffed. Really anytime a ruleset changes there are going to be people miffed though.

Project2501
06-01-2012, 16:42
Why do they have to be forced? Because the game designers decided to go that route?

40k has always been slots so if you're saying that I am projecting "I don't like it so no one else should either", you are full of BS. I am saying I don't like min/maxing, so this change does not negatively impact me and I like it because it conforms more to my playstyle, whereas it negatively impacts you because it challenges your playstyle.

Unfortunately in gaming that's how it rolls. I have had to conform to things I've not liked forever, that's part of the give and take of gaming. It looks like this time around I'll get to enjoy a ruleset that is more my flavor for a while.

That doesn't mean that I think everyone else is wrong for thinking the other way. That's pretty black and white.

The only thing black and white about anything you've said here is that the FOC and game designers are the ones that have allowed MSU to begin with.

Saying that you play with more than MSU troops and then saying that switching to a percetage based system (or I'm sure any system) that further supports your preferred playstyle while not addressing or even pointing out problems with MSU troops is soapboxing.

Please provide the exact problem(s) with MSU troops and come up with a solution rather than just soapboxing how 'this is how I do things and it just feels right'.

At this point you've simply regurgatated internet hyperbole and what you're personal preferences are.

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 16:44
Please tell me what the problems of percentages are. Or are you just regurgitating your own hyperbole and personal preferences and feeling the need to attack me because I happen to enjoy moving to a percentage system which seems to enrage you.

When you are discussing a "game", any "problems" are all opinion based. So I can list what "problems" it fixes, and you will dismiss them all as opinion-based, and in the end your "problems" with a percentage based system are also opinion-based which can also be dismissed.

Fun dance right? Get used to the percentages. Or houserule them out. Or play Warmachine. I care not. I also think you need to research what "hyperbole" is, because I've done no exaggerations, I've simply listed that I like games with more troops in them as opposed to min sized troop squads and maxed out elites.

angelofrage
06-01-2012, 16:47
Out of the two codices I play, one would be affected and the other wouldn't by these changes.

When I use the BA codex, I normally have a full assault squad with JP, 2x SG (using Dante) and a couple of minimum assault squads + razorbacks.

When I use the SM codex, I take two minimum tactical squads with razorbacks and that's it.

Just looks like i'll need more standard bolter marines and more razorbacks...

Project2501
06-01-2012, 16:59
Please tell me what the problems of percentages are. Or are you just regurgitating your own hyperbole and personal preferences and feeling the need to attack me because I happen to enjoy moving to a percentage system which seems to enrage you.

When you are discussing a "game", any "problems" are all opinion based. So I can list what "problems" it fixes, and you will dismiss them all as opinion-based, and in the end your "problems" with a percentage based system are also opinion-based which can also be dismissed.

Fun dance right? Get used to the percentages. Or houserule them out. Or play Warmachine. I care not. I also think you need to research what "hyperbole" is, because I've done no exaggerations, I've simply listed that I like games with more troops in them as opposed to min sized troop squads and maxed out elites.

First, you've yet again completely ignored the question, and a point of the thread. I'll repeat for you, what exactly is the problem with MSU? I've explained twice now a solution to fix troops in general. You've not provided one solution.

Second, codex entries themselves, created by GW themselves are the reason why a percentage based system does not seem like it will fix anything. It could very well hurt armys that have troops selections that have no way to deal with things like high armor values for example.

Third, nothing's set in stone for a percentage based system, there's nothing to get used to for me. For you however, there's apearently much to get used to, such as MSU is completely legitimate as it's been created by GW themselves and poses no problems in and of itself. There's nothing opinion based about that.

althathir
06-01-2012, 17:01
I've never had a hard time figuring out 25% limits. It's not high level math.

Saying that asking 40k players to use percentages is akin to just closing down 40k and letting Privateer own the market is also pretty laughable.

Percentages make the game more troop oriented as opposed to elite oriented because it prevents taking two min sized troop choices and then loading down on the HQ and elites and heavies.

Our campaign starting up in a couple weeks also uses a 25% min troop requirement. We have a lot of people with varying mathematical abilities, but none have had an issue figuring out what 25% of X is and then sticking to that.

There are also a host of applications both desktop and mobile that people can build army lists on that can help them if they are really that bad with math that they struggle figuring out what a fourth of something is.

As I am a player that enjoys more troops and less super heroes, the move to percentages is one that I am happy with. It's not a drastic change by any means and literally does nothing to my army compositions because my armies are usually 40% or more troops (necrons, chaos, IG), but it will stop the two 5-man tac squads from showing up.

The slot system is not perfect. Neither is the percentage system. There is no totally "fair and balanced" way for composition.

Objectively though the 2 5-man troop armies tend to really suck besides gk with grandmasters, and SM with pedro (iirc makes sternguard scoring) who can get around it a bit (if your army can't kill 2 5 man tactical squads there is no way you would win to begin with) the units the smaller squads allow you to fit in basically have to ensure you have a good shot at tabling an opponent to win in an objective mission. In lower point games this can be an issue but under a 1000 the game isn't very balanced to begin with. Regardless it just forces you to do something you should be doing in the first place. In fantasy it was more of an issue because the game isn't objective based so there really wasn't a reason to go with core unless that army book focused on them, leading to armies that were really good with just two min core choices.

My main problem with percentages is that it does nothing to curb MSU lists, when these rumours first broke i can remember reading about a gk army lead by corteaz with like 20+ razorbacks. Transports really mess up the percentage system but some armies rely on them more than others (eldar fractions for example if I had a limited number of them I wouldn't stand a chance againist IG) so there isn't an easy fix.

I'd be all for a rule that requires 25% of your force has to be troops similiar to you campaign, but I'd rather have it fit in with the existing FoC which as you stated isn't hard.


I really don't think there's that many people out there who understand the vagaries of wound allocation but can't grasp percentages.

I'm not trying to sound like a hater, but it's not like 40k is some perfect ruleset that needs some tweaking to get everyone to buy a new rule book. Messing with something as old and ingrained as FOCs by moving to this percentages idea when there are other issues that need addressing seems totally pointless to me.

I also don't really see the point of the change- i.e. what current issue does GW changing 40k to percentages fix exactly? Undercosted/ over effective units are still going to be undercosted and over effective in a percentage system. Maybe their effect can be lessened in a percentage + FOC system, but it seems like it'd be more effective to fix why those offending units are undercosted and over effective than to switch everything up on its head.

If its like fantasy the biggest benefit I could see is that fantasy limits how many specials and rares you can spam. The thing is though that there is nothing stopping them from doing that with a FoC so I think your post really sums up why people are frustrated with it as a rumoured change.

Ravenous
06-01-2012, 17:03
I've never had a hard time figuring out 25% limits. It's not high level math.

And entry level gamers are kids you are generally terrible at math. Wound allocation isnt rocket science either but 90% of people STILL cant figure it out.


Saying that asking 40k players to use percentages is akin to just closing down 40k and letting Privateer own the market is also pretty laughable.

I didnt say percentages will shut down 40k, what I said was any changes to make 40k like fantasy is stupid. 40k is the top seller followed by warmachine, then warhammer. Making your top selling product more like your worse selling product makes little sense.

DEADMARSH
06-01-2012, 17:04
It's not really a balance issue to me more as it is an aesthetics thing. Tiny little squads representing an army are not fun for some people who want to play with actual armies.

Another issue, which is no one's fault, is that many people are opposed to missions other than line up and fight and score, objectives be damned.

Some armies are not affected at all. Some armies like the Draigo army laugh because they already have a lot of "troops" due to him making the elites troops. Deathwing is another example of an elite army as the terminators are troops.

Other people will be miffed. Really anytime a ruleset changes there are going to be people miffed though.

Dig it. I gotcha.

Ravenous
06-01-2012, 17:07
I also don't really see the point of the change- i.e. what current issue does GW changing 40k to percentages fix exactly? Undercosted/ over effective units are still going to be undercosted and over effective in a percentage system. Maybe their effect can be lessened in a percentage + FOC system, but it seems like it'd be more effective to fix why those offending units are undercosted and over effective than to switch everything up on its head.

It forces you to buy new models to stay current.

GW has never been about fixing their games, just change the rules overtime to increase sales. Which is why Im always surprised when everyone is expecting a hard nerf to vehicles, a full half of the armies use the rhino chassis.

Leftenant Gashrog
06-01-2012, 17:08
Example; Tyranid's anti-tank sucks, as it's all crammed in the Elite slot. If they move to a 50% elites instead of 3 units I GUARENTEE you will see 12+ HG and a squad of zoans in every semi-competitive Nid list.

Example 2; Dakka preds. A 2000 point space marine list could put 11 HB/AC preds on the board, or 10 Thunderfire cannons, or 7 AC/LC preds.

There needs to be some manner of limiter on units to prevent them from being spammed like mad, other wise you will see lists that are just insanity.


Fantasy includes a limit on duplicate units in addition to the percentage restrictions, I see no reason why 40k wouldn't get it as well.


40k works on a different system- Elites, Troops, Fast Attack and Heavy Support.
Where will all the fast things be? Fast attack. Artillery? Heavy Support. And so on. In my opinion this will not work as a percentage system unless the current 'slot' system is completely re-imagined. Percentages really don't work unless each percentage category covers a range of tactical options, but with some clear twist between each percentage category.


I can't for the life of me see why changing Fast Attack etc from 0-3 to 0-X% would be even remotely unworkable ~ which is how I imagine they would do it.

I see no problem with percentages at all, unless they do what they did with 2nd edition where a space marine squad sergeant was bought from the Squads allowance but if you upgraded him to a veteran the price was paid from the Characters allowance, which was confusing enough without them explaining where sergeants wargear points fitted..

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 17:16
First, you've yet again completely ignored the question, and a point of the thread. I'll repeat for you, what exactly is the problem with MSU? I've explained twice now a solution to fix troops in general. You've not provided one solution.

Second, codex entries themselves, created by GW themselves are the reason why a percentage based system does not seem like it will fix anything. It could very well hurt armys that have troops selections that have no way to deal with things like high armor values for example.

Third, nothing's set in stone for a percentage based system, there's nothing to get used to for me. For you however, there's apearently much to get used to, such as MSU is completely legitimate as it's been created by GW themselves and poses no problems in and of itself. There's nothing opinion based about that.

I didn't ignore it, I said it's pointless to talk about it. Hooray for MSU. It looks like it may be going away. Whether it does or not does not affect me. Our campaigns still use percentages.

I don't play public games or tournaments. I've been playing 40k since the beginning of 3rd ed. I'm quite "used to" force slots and min/maxing.

If you are saying that if GW creates it then there are no problems with it, well... lol.

I can't think of any army that will be "screwed lawl" by percentages. I can see where people would have to invest some money in getting more troop choices but that's not being "screwed", that's just having to adapt to the game, which has done the same thing since the 90s to today. I've heard this myth that "my army has to min/max to be competitive" but it's usually not really true, it's just that the person likes min/maxing (which is fine, it's just that it doesn't "screw you" from having to not min/max)

Huoshini
06-01-2012, 17:22
I wouldn't really mind the percentages.

Our lgs usually plays 1500 point games. So if there was a max 25% on Heavies, fast, elite and HQ, then that would mean 375 point max on any of those slots. Thats makes people take more troops (I think is a good thing) and less spam units. Some armies would benefit from this more than others but that is just inhearent to the codex design. This could alos get more people to start playing larger point games and in some cases, buying mroe models which is what GW is after. I would assume since I could only have 375 points worth of heavies in my 1500 point list then I would have to spread out my choices between fast and elites as well. Again, causing me to buy diffrent models that I was not using previously.

But thats just one man's opinion :)

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 17:24
And entry level gamers are kids you are generally terrible at math. Wound allocation isnt rocket science either but 90% of people STILL cant figure it out.



I didnt say percentages will shut down 40k, what I said was any changes to make 40k like fantasy is stupid. 40k is the top seller followed by warmachine, then warhammer. Making your top selling product more like your worse selling product makes little sense.

I don't have numbers to work this out... fantasy I don't think is their worse selling product though. I don't see how moving to percentages is going to drive people away due to their inability to understand math. I learned how to calculate 25% when I was 10. I'm assuming that a 10-12 year old can come up with this points value or at least ask someone who can help them out.

What I see are people who enjoy a certain playstyle (only taking min number of troops and loading out on elites and HQ and heavies) becoming enraged and leaving. But that has nothing to do with math and everything to do with their playstyle no longer being viable if this change is indeed accurate.


It forces you to buy new models to stay current.

GW has never been about fixing their games, just change the rules overtime to increase sales. Which is why Im always surprised when everyone is expecting a hard nerf to vehicles, a full half of the armies use the rhino chassis.

Yes. This is it exactly. They alter the game every 4-5 years to make you buy new models. That's their business plan, whether we like it or not.

althathir
06-01-2012, 17:27
First, you've yet again completely ignored the question, and a point of the thread. I'll repeat for you, what exactly is the problem with MSU? I've explained twice now a solution to fix troops in general. You've not provided one solution.

Second, codex entries themselves, created by GW themselves are the reason why a percentage based system does not seem like it will fix anything. It could very well hurt armys that have troops selections that have no way to deal with things like high armor values for example.

Third, nothing's set in stone for a percentage based system, there's nothing to get used to for me. For you however, there's apearently much to get used to, such as MSU is completely legitimate as it's been created by GW themselves and poses no problems in and of itself. There's nothing opinion based about that.

I'm not entirely sure you and IcedCrow are talking about the same thing at all. IcedCrows examples aren't really MSU, its taking the least amount of troops possible then loading up on elites, heavies, etc. which in objectives missions shouldn't work (he complains about people ignoring them later on though I have to guess those same kids would ignore the 25% as well).

Most armies that use MSU tend to take 6 of those 5 man squads with transports which should hit the 25% in most cases. For example I think IcedCrow would have an issue with a space wolf army with 2 5-man grey hunter squads hiding in a corner, and not an army with 30 grey hunters split into 6 - 5 man squads in razors who are the focus of the army. I could be wrong but that is how I have interpreted his posts.


Fantasy includes a limit on duplicate units in addition to the percentage restrictions, I see no reason why 40k wouldn't get it as well.



I can't for the life of me see why changing Fast Attack etc from 0-3 to 0-X% would be even remotely unworkable ~ which is how I imagine they would do it.

I see no problem with percentages at all, unless they do what they did with 2nd edition where a space marine squad sergeant was bought from the Squads allowance but if you upgraded him to a veteran the price was paid from the Characters allowance, which was confusing enough without them explaining where sergeants wargear points fitted..

I think the main reason people don't like percentages is because for a lot of us we don't see what they fix. In fantasy it was more clear cut lots of armies had no reason to spend more than they had to on core. In 40k troops are for the most part the only units that can score so there is a reason a to take more than just two slots worth.

peterjameslewis711
06-01-2012, 17:33
Its funny how people are worried/moaning about the % issue in 40k, i myself try to have 1 troop unit per 500-750 points in an army depending on which one im using (usually i use 1 troop per 500 for my eldar and 1 per 750 for my grey knights) and i have decent enough success.
Saying that i can see people being able to spam certain units like i maybe able to field my 65 fire dragons in less than an apocaylpse army.

StratManKudzu
06-01-2012, 17:40
Saying that i can see people being able to spam certain units like i maybe able to field my 65 fire dragons in less than an apocaylpse army.

I'd love to field more than 3 5-man Grenadier in Centaur units in a normal game.

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 17:43
Most armies that use MSU tend to take 6 of those 5 man squads with transports which should hit the 25% in most cases. For example I think IcedCrow would have an issue with a space wolf army with 2 5-man grey hunter squads hiding in a corner, and not an army with 30 grey hunters split into 6 - 5 man squads in razors who are the focus of the army. I could be wrong but that is how I have interpreted his posts.


Correct. That is my own personal bias against the slot system. You can get away with the above, and that is less fun for me, so I prefer a system that would remove that. I have a secondary minor bias against spam but that's for another time.

althathir
06-01-2012, 18:04
Its funny how people are worried/moaning about the % issue in 40k, i myself try to have 1 troop unit per 500-750 points in an army depending on which one im using (usually i use 1 troop per 500 for my eldar and 1 per 750 for my grey knights) and i have decent enough success.
Saying that i can see people being able to spam certain units like i maybe able to field my 65 fire dragons in less than an apocaylpse army.

Right so what does a change to percentage system accomplish? In fantasy some of the best armies were composed with the absolute least amount of core possible, thats an issue. In 40k with troops scoring and objectives factoring into 2 of the 3 base missions you should have more troop choices or you will struggle.

The main issue I see without an FoC, is armies with effective transports (razors, chimeras, raiders) not bothering with the rest of the army and loading up on 10-12 of them in the troop slot. Moving tranports into a different group could work, but armies like eldar with wave serpents would have issues because they don't have a cheap transport option and rely on low toughness high cost models (which without transports tend to accomplish little).

for sixth edition I would rather have them rework cover, and wound allocations then make a change that doesn't seem needed, and imo would create new problems.


Correct. That is my own personal bias against the slot system. You can get away with the above, and that is less fun for me, so I prefer a system that would remove that. I have a secondary minor bias against spam but that's for another time.

Yeah spam kinda sucks, and thats why I don't like the percentage system, take that space wolf example without slots, I think you would see space wolf armies that paid for the most effective options (assuming similiar restrictions to fantasy so only 2 long fang squads for example, a couple rune priests), and then just run as many of those 5 man squads in razors as they can fit.

A better solution would be making 25 percent of your army be troops using the existing FoC, and limiting FA, Elites, HS too at most 2 of each unit. More troops in general, less spamming in other slots.

DEADMARSH
06-01-2012, 18:18
It forces you to buy new models to stay current.

GW has never been about fixing their games, just change the rules overtime to increase sales. Which is why Im always surprised when everyone is expecting a hard nerf to vehicles, a full half of the armies use the rhino chassis.

Ha! Joke's on them! I always go Troops heavy anyway!

:)

Project2501
06-01-2012, 18:24
Perhaps my definition of MSU is different from oter people's; I define MSU as the bare minimun troops selection possible (2 5 man tac marine squads for example). For multiples of this such as massed ba/gk razors with minimum sized squads in them I define that as spam.

Aside from a no multiples rules of some sort (which does not need a percentage based system to be initiated to begin with), I have yet to see how a percentage system would fix anything related to MSU or spam.

Even a no multiples rule still screws over armies that want to consist of nothing but foot troops (no vehicles whatsoever a la infantry guard for example) as could a hard cap percentage as well.

althathir
06-01-2012, 18:38
Perhaps my definition of MSU is different from oter people's; I define MSU as the bare minimun troops selection possible (2 5 man tac marine squads for example). For multiples of this such as massed ba/gk razors with minimum sized squads in them I define that as spam.

Aside from a no multiples rules of some sort (which does not need a percentage based system to be initiated to begin with), I have yet to see how a percentage system would fix anything related to MSU or spam.

Even a no multiples rule still screws over armies that want to consist of nothing but foot troops (no vehicles whatsoever) as would a hard cap percentage as well.

The defination of MSU I learned was really just multiple small units, it started before troops had the emphasis that they do now, and its army wide (so an army that has two min troop choices but full squads in other areas wouldn't really count because your not loading up on small units just making room for toys). In relation to 40k its mainly used to describe the massed ba/gk style list and thats what people who want to fix msu want to change.

Project2501
06-01-2012, 19:01
That still doesn't explain how a percentage based system will fix any troops related problems.

Fix troops being contested on an objective by a non troops unit and fix troops selections in codexeses that cannot tactically deal with every scenario they may be in (tau and tyranid come to mind).

The reoccuring theme is fix troops... A percentage based system doesn't do that on it's own and if troops were to be fixed, there'd still be no need for a percentage based system.


Edit: Let's look at GW's newest move in that direction, making non troops units count as troops (through HQ choices for example), is there an uproar or a problem with that that anyone has? There's more points/FOC selections spent on 'troops' and it's already being proliferated.

Huoshini
06-01-2012, 19:11
Since the topic is swaying a bit, how would one go about shifting the focus to troops/non-mech if not percentages?

Only allow troop selections to capture/contest and everything else is SOL?

Only non-vehicle units can contest/capture(not just troop selections)?

Troops must be on the table to capture/contest(not in vehicles)

My ideal FOC system would incorporate everything, honestly.

Minimum 1HQ and 2 troops
25% minimum troops
25% max on HQ, heavy,fast and elites
Non-vehicle units NOT IN VEHICLES can contest/capture

This way, GW shifts thier sales (as always intended) and mech gets hurt a bit by not being able to contest and the tourney scene will probably change dramaticlly giving "all-comers" lists a better chance.

GenerationTerrorist
06-01-2012, 19:18
A return to the percentages system in 8th Edition Fantasy has, in my humble opinion, breathed new life into a game that was being utterly destroyed by stupid Daemon, Dark Elf or Vampire Count armies in 7th Edition.

Sadly, 5th Edition 40K seems to be heading the same way as the nightmare that was the above "Big 3" era in 7th Edition Fantasy....Near-Continual Power-Creep of Codexes.

Those with no experience of Warhammer Fantasy will never truely understand how awful a game it had become until the new Edition levelled things out a heck of a lot.

As a balance, though, I would say that the Percentages system only helped out because the rules became so much more efficient/balanced to require that we needed larger units in order to win (or prevent) protracted combats.

The main bonus being that we never see broken DoC lists of 10 Horrors, 10 Horrors, 10 Horrors, Fateweaver, Skulltaker, Masque, 4 Bloodcrushers, 3 Fiends, 5 Flesh Hounds, 6 Flamers, 6 Flamers....Thank heck.

DEADMARSH
06-01-2012, 19:28
Since the topic is swaying a bit, how would one go about shifting the focus to troops/non-mech if not percentages?

Only allow troop selections to capture/contest and everything else is SOL?

Only non-vehicle units can contest/capture(not just troop selections)?

Troops must be on the table to capture/contest(not in vehicles)

My ideal FOC system would incorporate everything, honestly.

Minimum 1HQ and 2 troops
25% minimum troops
25% max on HQ, heavy,fast and elites
Non-vehicle units NOT IN VEHICLES can contest/capture

This way, GW shifts thier sales (as always intended) and mech gets hurt a bit by not being able to contest

I guess it depends on what they think is the problems with troops/ mech/ whatever.

If they just want to sell more troops, I'd say modify the FOC so that the lines run a little differently than they currently do. This is just off the top of my head, but what if just fielding the compulsory choices only got you one unit max in all the other categories, then fielding another Troops choice allowed you another and so on?

In other words...
2 unit of Troops = 1 unit max of FA, E, and/ or HS (that is, you still have to roll 1 HQ, 2 Troops, but then you could add 1 FA, 1 E, and/ or 1 HS unit)

3 units of Troops = 2 units max of FA, E, and/ or HS

... and so on.

Don't know if it'd really change anything, but again, I'm not 100% convinced this is actually a problem that's addressable via FOC/ % or if we're talking about the same problem that GW is.

I think the real solution to both perceived problems (MSU and selling more Troops models) is to make Troops viable without being overpowered across the board, but I'm sure that's what they've tried to do to start with, so that's kind of like saying if you want to be a better cook, learn to cook better.

tehlegend
06-01-2012, 19:37
First off, there is one army that might suffer greatly from the troop percentage rule which is Tau. Personally, I can and do make it work, but every other Tau player out there will say that a system that forces you to take 500 points of troops as a minimum requirement with the current codex is hamstringing them since it means that inevitably, that's roughly 200 points less of crisis suit or railgun that the rest of the army can work with.

Adding in the fact that the best gun you could hope to get in a troop slot is S5 30" rapid fire, and no unit in the troop slot can claim a toughness value greater than 3, its not the most optimal of slots to invest in.

Having said that, Since the Tau are rumored to be getting a new codex in the near future anyways, It might be a moot point.

MSU (or multiple small unit) would actually be exacerbated in a percentage based system, as there is no longer a slot limit. Once again, the core example being Tau. If there were a 25% limit on the amount of points you could spend on a heavy/HQ/etc. you could see as many as 6-9 optimized crisis suit hq's joined to 6 independent broadsides, or 9-12 single crisis suit elites and still remain legal in a 2000 point list. Not only would this maintain an identical level of power for the tau army, it would wreck all other armies not running MSU since it ensures no more than 1 suit will die to any squad you shoot with, lowering the opponents shooting efficiency. The only thing a percentage based system does is limit the overall number of points going into a certain category, not the number of squads itself, and if an army can get very low points cost squads, it'll exacerbate MSU more than not. The way the slot system works, you will never see more than 3 of anything (6 if its troops)... and while I wouldn't hesitate to do it if i could, I don't think anyone i know would want to see me field 6 independent broadsides for less than 500 points and cover every part of the board with my potential line of fire.

The Tau are not the only army that can do this. Space marines devastator squads anyone? god forbid you ever see space wolves pull it off in this system... deep striking independent zoeys, etc. They would have greatly increased power while lists like grey knights in general, rback spam, etc would remain the same, and most orks in general, maybe eldar, and IG could possibly suffer (though since the IG might be suffering, and the benefits more than balance out with the costs for Tau, I think i can get behind this idea =p).

The problem of the spamming isn't FOC or Percentages, nor is it ever going to be as simple as that. It's that GW doesn't playtest enough and take into account the points cost for what you get. prime examples being almost everything in the grey knights and IG codex and the dark eldar's pain token system. I think everyone and their mother knows that ig have been a ridiculously powerful force ever since their release and the new codices have a power creep element, but everything could be corrected by even a rudimentary study of cost to benefits.

Charistoph
06-01-2012, 20:05
And entry level gamers are kids you are generally terrible at math.

And they usually have cell phones with calculators that can perform the "complex" maths involved.

Of course, half of math is knowing what order to enter the numbers and symbols go in to get the right answer, so you may have a point with the Generation LOL.

-----

One interesting avenue might be a hybrid as someone suggested. Troops are 25+%. HQ, Elite, FA, and HS are 2 Slots. For every 1-2 Troop units deployed, you may add a slot to Elites, FA, and HS. This last may need to depend on the army, or even Troop unit.

Ddraiglais
06-01-2012, 20:05
I don't know how this would make everything more troops based. From what I remember most of what would be considered elites today were in the min troops % in 2nd. I think a lot of the FA choices were in the troops part too. IIRC, the percentages also changed from army to army. There was a min/max percentage for HQ and troops. Then there was a maximum support and allies percentage.

That kinda has me thinking. Apocalypse allows allies if you can justify it. If we are getting back to a percentage system, could we see allies again?

Vipoid
06-01-2012, 20:11
We could do an experiment.

If anyone has a gaming group who will cooperate, why not try building and using armies based on a % system, and then post the results here (and if it made a significant difference on your and/or your opponent's list).

Gondrak
06-01-2012, 20:29
It works in Fantasy because of the structure of a fantasy army- Core, Special and Rare. Each percentage area covers a range of troops in most armies, from cavalry to artillery, and the percentage limits simply prevent you from taking nothing but the best.

40k works on a different system- Elites, Troops, Fast Attack and Heavy Support.
Where will all the fast things be? Fast attack. Artillery? Heavy Support. And so on. In my opinion this will not work as a percentage system unless the current 'slot' system is completely re-imagined. Percentages really don't work unless each percentage category covers a range of tactical options, but with some clear twist between each percentage category.

Quoted for truth.
I cannot explain it any better than this!

althathir
06-01-2012, 20:30
That still doesn't explain how a percentage based system will fix any troops related problems.

Fix troops being contested on an objective by a non troops unit and fix troops selections in codexeses that cannot tactically deal with every scenario they may be in (tau and tyranid come to mind).

The reoccuring theme is fix troops... A percentage based system doesn't do that on it's own and if troops were to be fixed, there'd still be no need for a percentage based system.


Edit: Let's look at GW's newest move in that direction, making non troops units count as troops (through HQ choices for example), is there an uproar or a problem with that that anyone has? There's more points/FOC selections spent on 'troops' and it's already being proliferated.

I don't support a percentage system, I gave IceCrow an alternative that I think would work better than going to a straight percentage system if you want to increase the amount of troops and slow down spamming.

So to be clear, I don't think the current system is leading to the problems that it did in fantasy and shouldn't be changed. Wound allocation, Cover, No retreat, transport imbalance, assault rules, some spam control, and mission structure are what should be worked on in 6th not opening a new can of worms with a percentage system.


A return to the percentages system in 8th Edition Fantasy has, in my humble opinion, breathed new life into a game that was being utterly destroyed by stupid Daemon, Dark Elf or Vampire Count armies in 7th Edition.

Sadly, 5th Edition 40K seems to be heading the same way as the nightmare that was the above "Big 3" era in 7th Edition Fantasy....Near-Continual Power-Creep of Codexes.

Those with no experience of Warhammer Fantasy will never truely understand how awful a game it had become until the new Edition levelled things out a heck of a lot.

As a balance, though, I would say that the Percentages system only helped out because the rules became so much more efficient/balanced to require that we needed larger units in order to win (or prevent) protracted combats.

The main bonus being that we never see broken DoC lists of 10 Horrors, 10 Horrors, 10 Horrors, Fateweaver, Skulltaker, Masque, 4 Bloodcrushers, 3 Fiends, 5 Flesh Hounds, 6 Flamers, 6 Flamers....Thank heck.

There are a lot of differences between 40k and fantasy though. What hurt fantasy was for a lot of armies there was no reason to take more core than you had too, and in a lot of ways that is still the case.

Troops in 40k for the most part are the only way to score, so while you can take just a couple of small squads, it makes it much harder to win in objective missions which make up 2 out of 3 styles of missions.

40k right now is more balanced than its ever been since I started in 3rd. the current 5th edition books are fairly close to eachother, and imo the most powerful (IG) is one of the older 5th edition books. Nids the weakest fifth book, could get very strong if transports are nerfed, and MCs are made better.

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 20:46
re on what does percentage system "fix". It doesn't "fix" anything. It makes it so that troop choices are more represented. That's all it does. If you like your armies with as little troops as possible, this will enrage you. But that's the nature of the GW beast. Switching compositions with editions every 4-5 years.

It's just that this change is something I agree with so it doesn't bother me.

Percentage and Slot system don't do anything about spam. Spam can only be dealt with at a higher level ("thou shalt not duplicate units or thou shalt only take X of these")

From what I've heard from several sources, the percentage system is what is in place for 6th. TBH I don't care either way. I won't have a coronary if its a slot system still. I will be happier if its a percentage system but its not going to affect my own personal composition at all. I will be happier in that I won't have to look at two 5-man units of tac marines in an "army" any longer. Time will tell.


There are a lot of differences between 40k and fantasy though. What hurt fantasy was for a lot of armies there was no reason to take more core than you had too, and in a lot of ways that is still the case.

Troops in 40k for the most part are the only way to score, so while you can take just a couple of small squads, it makes it much harder to win in objective missions which make up 2 out of 3 styles of missions.

40k right now is more balanced than its ever been since I started in 3rd. the current 5th edition books are fairly close to eachother, and imo the most powerful (IG) is one of the older 5th edition books. Nids the weakest fifth book, could get very strong if transports are nerfed, and MCs are made better.

Most systems are like this. No one wants to take core / troops because those are usually the weakest element of the army. Why take that when you can take the uber bad ass elites and as many of them as possible?

40k helped with the scoring unit concept. The problem, at least here, is... is that many people here say "eff missions" and get rid of the scoring unit concept. That's a local meta thing though.

As to balance... the latter books have been very nice and balanced. There are some abominations that need hammered before I would concede that 5th edition as a whole is happy and balanced.

I'm looking forward to 6th.

Theocracity
06-01-2012, 21:07
Most systems are like this. No one wants to take core / troops because those are usually the weakest element of the army. Why take that when you can take the uber bad ass elites and as many of them as possible?

40k helped with the scoring unit concept. The problem, at least here, is... is that many people here say "eff missions" and get rid of the scoring unit concept. That's a local meta thing though.

You mean like Grey Hunters? Or meltavets? There are plenty of examples of fiendishly effective troops. The only armies I can think of that minimize them are Tau, and some of the newer Necron builds.

It's not GW's fault if people ignore the change they put in place to make minimum troops a bad decision. That's like saying "seatbelts won't prevent car crash fatalities, because I never wear mine anyway."

I wouldn't be floored if they put in percentages, but I really think it would cause more problems than you're saying it would solve. If I played Space Wolves or IG competitively and wasn't limited by the FoC Troop max of 6, I'd easily make my army entirely out of MSU transport units. You can put in anti-spamming rules...like, say, max 2 HQ, 6 troops, 3 everything else. But that's just the FoC again, so why bother changing in the first place?

Carnage
06-01-2012, 21:16
We could do an experiment.

If anyone has a gaming group who will cooperate, why not try building and using armies based on a % system, and then post the results here (and if it made a significant difference on your and/or your opponent's list).

You don't need a local gaming group, you just need people to write lists.

Make up the limits (min 25% troops, max 50% anything else) and ask for some lists from the board members. See what happens.

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 21:21
The campaign I am in is using a % system.

Rated_lexxx
06-01-2012, 21:41
I would hate to see the change because all the codex are using FOC so there would be a major overhaul to already published codexs.

Why change from FOC to % if it doesn't really solve more problems then it cause.

From what I read the problems you solve(and frankly I don't see it fixing the "problem" of people not using troops) % would solve doesn't out weigh the new problems it would bring

At the end of the day if the new system has just as many problems as the old system why change.

Theocracity
06-01-2012, 21:47
Choosing minimum troops is legally allowed, but a bad tactical decision - unless you have decided to play without objectives, thereby ignoring the fix GW put in place to increase troops.

Spamming will always happen because it's a competetive tactical decision no matter how armies are built. Percentage systems could be abused to make this worse for armies with good troops, and would hobble armies who rely on their other slots to beat the spam.

Rated_lexxx
06-01-2012, 22:01
Maybe it's just me, but why do people seem so high on people using more troops?

Anyway my local players do use the missions in the book so we need more troops

Ace Rimmer
06-01-2012, 22:03
I don't see a real issue for me, I don't think I've got any armies that field with less than 25% troops anyway. I can see why some people wouldn't be happy about it, but every edition change brings about cry's of anguish from people being forced to change how they play.

But I don't expect there to be a switch from FOC to % this time.

huitzilopochtli
06-01-2012, 22:18
It works in Fantasy because of the structure of a fantasy army- Core, Special and Rare. Each percentage area covers a range of troops in most armies, from cavalry to artillery, and the percentage limits simply prevent you from taking nothing but the best.

40k works on a different system- Elites, Troops, Fast Attack and Heavy Support.
Where will all the fast things be? Fast attack. Artillery? Heavy Support. And so on. In my opinion this will not work as a percentage system unless the current 'slot' system is completely re-imagined. Percentages really don't work unless each percentage category covers a range of tactical options, but with some clear twist between each percentage category.

+1 to this.

If the problem GW wants to correct is minimum troop use in games, why not keep the force organization as it is with the addition of a 25% minimum spend on troops? Promotes troop use without the above problem. That said I'm happy enough with the current system and don't really want it to change.

t-tauri
07-01-2012, 00:11
A number of posts merged. Please use the edit button rather than making multiple posts.

A number of argumentative and trolling posts removed. Please post inside the posting guidelines.

althathir
07-01-2012, 01:55
...
Most systems are like this. No one wants to take core / troops because those are usually the weakest element of the army. Why take that when you can take the uber bad ass elites and as many of them as possible?

40k helped with the scoring unit concept. The problem, at least here, is... is that many people here say "eff missions" and get rid of the scoring unit concept. That's a local meta thing though.

As to balance... the latter books have been very nice and balanced. There are some abominations that need hammered before I would concede that 5th edition as a whole is happy and balanced.

I'm looking forward to 6th.

The thing is those kids who say eff missions are probably gonna say eff percentages. They've just made the game into what they want to be.

I didn't mean to imply that 5th's balance is perfect, some armies are more limited in selection, and I also tend not to count the marine dex (really feels like a 4th edition codex). Just that this is the best balance the games had, if you took the eldar 3rd edition dex with the craftworld supplement IMO it would be the best army in fifth. The power level gap between it, the chaos 3.5 book and everything else was shocking (though I don't think the 3.5 book would do as well).


Maybe it's just me, but why do people seem so high on people using more troops?

Anyway my local players do use the missions in the book so we need more troops

I think it bothers narrative players when they see armies that don't make sense to them. For example I get the impression that IcedCrow cares more about the narrative and everyone having fun in campaigns (different thread about GK), so an army that looks like a cookie cutter list bothers him because it doesn't fit what he expects the army to look like, and also because he isn't sure if the players in a campaign will have fun againist it.

MajorWesJanson
07-01-2012, 02:15
+1 to this.

If the problem GW wants to correct is minimum troop use in games, why not keep the force organization as it is with the addition of a 25% minimum spend on troops? Promotes troop use without the above problem. That said I'm happy enough with the current system and don't really want it to change.

Or just bump the requirements to 3-6 troops? For larger games, why not a scalable FOC to match Fantasy 8th's scalable system? Say at 1000 points or less, you can take 1 HQ, 0-2 Elites, 2-4 Troops, 0-2 FA, 0-2 HS. Then for every 1000 more points (1001-2000, 2001-3000 ect) you add 0-1 HQ, 0-1 Elites, 1-3 troops, 0-1 FA, and 0-1 HS slots to the base.

As for shifting to percentages from FOC, there is no real reason to do so, and plenty of reasons not to- Fantasy has 4 categories of units, 40K has 5, no nice even quarters and haves don't work all that well.
All existing 40K books are designed around FOCs, from the main rulebook to the codices, to the expansion mission books and Forge World IAs.
Fantasy's solution to prevent unit spam is to put limits on how many of each unit you can take, effectively a mini- FOC inside the percentage system already.
Going to percentages from FOC would complicate units whose rules include changing the FOC.
Percentages would also kill a number of themed and fringe lists, like Armored Company, Nidzilla, Air Cavalry, Space Wolf Heroes, Wrath of Kan, and possibly things like Deathwing and Ravenwing.

IcedCrow
07-01-2012, 03:59
It's about playstyle and what you expect or want out of the game.

To me I want a game about armies, not a table of a dozen super heroes. I realize 40k has been about squad level super heroes for some time and that's ok with me, but if they are going to push a system that encourages more troops, I am happy about that overall.

This is why I do not play Warmachine. I want to play with and against armies, and basic troops are a part of that.

You are spot on about people who say eff scenarios saying eff percentages. People will do what people will do and that's ok too. I know most of the games I play in are hardly ever RAW and have a house rule or three thrown in.

I am not a game designer for GW, so all I can say is that if they do go the percentage route, that I will be happy (er) than if they stick with slots. I will ultimately not care either way and won't rage either way.

The big reason why they would do this is sales. It will cause players to have to obtain more troops if they didn't already own 25% points in troops or vehicles for troops, and if you have played WH or 40k for any short period of time, you realize that this is the #1 driver for what GW does as a company.

gLOBS
07-01-2012, 04:00
Armored Company - Nope
Nidzilla - Nope
Air Cav - Nope
Deathwing - Nope
Ravenwing - Nope
Wrath of Kahn - Nope

Troops should be the mainstay of ANY force.

So many people it seems want to play and elite of an elite of an elite army.

Torga_DW
07-01-2012, 05:02
I just thought i'd throw my 2 cents in. It seems to me, some of the back and forth in this thread stems from the fact that some people think releasing a new edition will result in a better game. This is not the objective of a new edition, and never will be in the forseeable future.

I remember the transition from 1st to 2nd, THAT was an attempt to fix and make better. But GW had different owners then, who were interested in the game first. The current focus at GW is the shareholders, profit first.

Whatever changes happen in 6th, they will happen to maximize profits to GW, not to produce a better game. It makes me feel jaded and old, but at the same time helps alleviate the let down associated with failed hopes and expectations.

For the record, 2nd edition had percentages, and i didn't see a problem with them. The problem that i see is that in a lot of armies, troops are subpar choices, which was fixed in 5th by making it only troops can score. I'm not even going to get started on that one. The issue to me is to make troops worth taking, so that you want at least %25 of them in comparison to your total army.

With a bit of experience in the 3rd+ system, i've come to not like the FOC. Not saying i hate it, but i definitely prefer percentages. Now they could probably fix the problems with it, but they could do a lot of things different that they don't. Oh well. Just my 2 cents.

Beppo1234
07-01-2012, 05:50
FOC > % for me. The percentage system works fine, but what it ends up limiting is fun and fluffy forces. It hamstrings the variation that the FOC system allows for.

ForgottenLore
07-01-2012, 06:09
A number of people have asked what the advantages a switch to %s has, and no one seems to have really mentioned it. Percentages are scalable. The FOC has always been problematic when you wanted to play outside the "standard" size games. A percentage system greatly reduces that problem, but a modification to the FOC system would do so as well. All the rest that you people have been talking about, I don't know what difference you think it will make: FOC or % based. The flaws are in other areas of the game.


Out of the two codices I play, one would be affected and the other wouldn't by these changes.Now, how can you possibly know this without knowing what the changes ARE? Everyone is speculating on what impact a change to % would have without knowing any details of how it would actually work.

Me personally, I prefer a FOC because it is more flavorful. It does a better job of evoking the organization of a modern military than Fantasy's % system. I would also like to see more categories added to the FOC, and possibly have different armies have the option to use different charts instead of one "standard" chart.

Kakapo42
07-01-2012, 09:15
Well I'm against a percentage system simply because the FOC is part of what makes 40k 40k to me. A lot of other systems nowdays use percentage systems, so a FOC slot system makes 40k a little bit more unique IMO.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each really, and either work for a table top game.

Perhaps a solution could be to have faction-specific Force organisation charts. Much like how different factions have different fleet lists in Battlefleet Gothic, perhaps different armies could use different force organisation charts. Faction X for example might have a lot of troops and heavy support slots, but few fast attack slots, while faction Y might have many fast attack and elites slots but less troops slots. At the same time different factions might have different scoring units. Additionally, there could be the option for swapping force organisation slots around, at some sort of cost naturally...

Promethius
07-01-2012, 11:05
In bfg to take a battleship or grand cruiser you have to take so many 'ships of the line' i.e. cruisers. (3 cruisers to a battleship iirc) Why not just have a system where so many troop slots unlocks a corresponding number of hq, fa and hs slots? That way to take 3 hs for example you might be forced to take x number of troops. For example 2 troops = 1 hq 1 hs 1fa 3 troops = 2hq 2 hs 2fa and so on.

BrainFireBob
07-01-2012, 11:30
Please tell me what the problems of percentages are. Or are you just regurgitating your own hyperbole and personal preferences and feeling the need to attack me because I happen to enjoy moving to a percentage system which seems to enrage you.

It unfairly impinges on some armies more than others.

For instance, Tau. Tau does not have decent Fast Attack. Tau is strong in Elites and Heavy Support. If Tau players are disallowed from focusing on those categories, it more severely curtails their potential performance than a Marine player, who has solid options in all existing categories.

If you redefine the categories, then you need an appendix in the rulebook redefining what is what, due to the Codex-Rulebook-Codex release schedule with backward compatibility. It'd be a damned mess, and we'd another standard gripe:

2nd Ed (general)
Armor Save Modifiers
Cover modifiers
Chaos Codex depowering
Percentages

I don't want another whinefest, thanks, and don't think it can be easily done without reconsidering the roles of certain units entirely.

huitzilopochtli
07-01-2012, 14:01
Perhaps a solution could be to have faction-specific Force organisation charts. Much like how different factions have different fleet lists in Battlefleet Gothic, perhaps different armies could use different force organisation charts. Faction X for example might have a lot of troops and heavy support slots, but few fast attack slots, while faction Y might have many fast attack and elites slots but less troops slots.

Faction specific FOCs already exist, in a fashion. Blood angels are supposed to be all about assault marines, so assault marines are troops. GKs are the best of the best, so they have the option to make terminators troops. Beyond that, is a faction specific FOC really necessary? I wouldn't mind having a few extra elite slots for my eldar, but even at 2000pt games I don't max out my elites. I'm not sure extra slots would be a benefit, unless you're planning to spam your best option (such as fire dragons).


At the same time different factions might have different scoring units.

Different scoring units would also contribute to the problem of fewer troops on the field. The fact that troops are scoring makes them more necessary and valuable. Allowing other units to score would reduce dependence on troops, which it seems is the main problem people have with the FOC system. (Along with empty tanks which on which I've already destroyed the weapons and killed everything inside contesting objectives.)


Additionally, there could be the option for swapping force organisation slots around, at some sort of cost naturally...

The idea of swapping FOC slots around at some cost is interesting. Could you expand a bit on this?

MajorWesJanson makes good points, too. But is there really a problem with the current system? If you don't like playing people who spam their best option with just their cheapest troops, don't play them. Tournaments could always set up their own force organisation rules to prevent this if they desired.

logan054
07-01-2012, 14:16
And entry level gamers are kids you are generally terrible at math.

You know, most kids can use a calculator ;)


It forces you to buy new models to stay current.

GW has never been about fixing their games, just change the rules overtime to increase sales. Which is why Im always surprised when everyone is expecting a hard nerf to vehicles, a full half of the armies use the rhino chassis.

As indeed the next change is about sales I have no doubt that GW will make changes to tanks so that people buy more infantry

luchog
09-01-2012, 17:13
IThe biggest and most visible change is that it will force players who take min number of troops to have to spend 25% of their points on troop choices and they will have more troops present on the table.
The problem with that is that it would heavily favour Horde armies and those with good troop choices, like Orks, IG and DE; and penalize those that depend heavily on Elite specialists, like CE and Tau. I can't see it having much effect on Resiliant armies like SMurfs or Necrons, since most builds already fit the percentage type system fairly well (and SM being their flagship line, they probably don't care much what happens to the others).

Vipoid
09-01-2012, 17:25
The biggest and most visible change is that it will force players who take min number of troops to have to spend 25% of their points on troop choices and they will have more troops present on the table.

To be honest, I'd like to have some games like this.

But then, I'd also like to face the occasional vehicle-less infantry army, rather than every unit and their dog having transports and (just to shake things up) being backed up by support vehicles and tanks.


I think the problem will lie with races that have weak troop choices (Tau and Eldar come to mind), since they're currently forced to rely on other units to pick up the slack. Forcing them to make at least a quater of their army bad troop units seems more than a little harsh.

Basically, I think that many (if not all) codices would need to be overhauled, if a percentage system was to work. Every race would need decent troops, which are well-balanced against the troops of other races. Troop units that can't pull their weight would have to be improved, and troops that have been overpowered/undercosted (like some of the recent Space Marines +1 armies) would have to have their costs increased, or forfeit some of their abilities.

Balerion
09-01-2012, 18:50
It all depends on how they do the percentages really. If they limit Elite/FA/HS/HQ to 25% and require 25%+ troops, this will bust some armies severely. If they allow up to 50% Elite/FA/HS, then it will break the game in the other direction.

Example; Tyranid's anti-tank sucks, as it's all crammed in the Elite slot. If they move to a 50% elites instead of 3 units I GUARENTEE you will see 12+ HG and a squad of zoans in every semi-competitive Nid list.

Example 2; Dakka preds. A 2000 point space marine list could put 11 HB/AC preds on the board, or 10 Thunderfire cannons, or 7 AC/LC preds.

Example 3; Space Wolfs, 1000 points of long fangs is 35 missile launcher guys.

These are all over the top examples, but we all know that we would see them in tourny gaming. There needs to be some manner of limiter on units to prevent them from being spammed like mad, other wise you will see lists that are just insanity.


MSU (or multiple small unit) would actually be exacerbated in a percentage based system, as there is no longer a slot limit. Once again, the core example being Tau. If there were a 25% limit on the amount of points you could spend on a heavy/HQ/etc. you could see as many as 6-9 optimized crisis suit hq's joined to 6 independent broadsides, or 9-12 single crisis suit elites and still remain legal in a 2000 point list. Not only would this maintain an identical level of power for the tau army, it would wreck all other armies not running MSU since it ensures no more than 1 suit will die to any squad you shoot with, lowering the opponents shooting efficiency. The only thing a percentage based system does is limit the overall number of points going into a certain category, not the number of squads itself, and if an army can get very low points cost squads, it'll exacerbate MSU more than not. The way the slot system works, you will never see more than 3 of anything (6 if its troops)... and while I wouldn't hesitate to do it if i could, I don't think anyone i know would want to see me field 6 independent broadsides for less than 500 points and cover every part of the board with my potential line of fire.
Surprised it took four pages for someone to correct you guys, but apparently neither of you is fully aware of how the percentage system actually works in WFB (if we're assuming that this hypothetical 40K percentage system would be similar to it).

It is, in fact, a combination of the percentage and slots systems.

Yes, the composition of your army is chiefly limited by percentages, but there is also a hard limit imposed on the number of duplicate choices you are allowed to field. You may only field 3 duplicates of any Special unit, or 2 of any Rare unit (with an increase to 6 and 4 in armies of 3000+ points).

Therefore, stuff like the 11x Predator list would be impossible. The only worry would be posed by a codex that could benefit from fielding more MSU Troops choices than they currently can, since Core choices do not face duplication limits (but this would obviously only apply to an army that would want to field 7+ Troops selections, since they can already achieve 6 under the current rules).

IcedCrow
09-01-2012, 19:49
The problem with that is that it would heavily favour Horde armies and those with good troop choices, like Orks, IG and DE; and penalize those that depend heavily on Elite specialists, like CE and Tau. I can't see it having much effect on Resiliant armies like SMurfs or Necrons, since most builds already fit the percentage type system fairly well (and SM being their flagship line, they probably don't care much what happens to the others).

Any system you devise will favor one type over the other; there is no perfect system.

Also as the books are being re-written they will take this into account. The balance of their books as of late has been quite exceptional IMO.

Grimbad
09-01-2012, 20:24
Why do people think percentages are at all difficult to keep track of? You just break your starting points into allowances and from there on you don't have to deal with them anymore. There isn't any keeping track of them involved.

Also, most counter-arguments are assuming that such a huge change in the selection system wouldn't have a corresponding change in the army lists, which would be the obvious thing to do, and is exactly what GW did last time with 40k.

luchog
09-01-2012, 20:52
Also, most counter-arguments are assuming that such a huge change in the selection system wouldn't have a corresponding change in the army lists, which would be the obvious thing to do, and is exactly what GW did last time with 40k.
IIRC 2nd Ed had a hybrid percentage system similar to WFB; which was changed to the current FoC system in 3rd Ed.

althathir
09-01-2012, 21:46
To be honest, I'd like to have some games like this.

But then, I'd also like to face the occasional vehicle-less infantry army, rather than every unit and their dog having transports and (just to shake things up) being backed up by support vehicles and tanks.


I think the problem will lie with races that have weak troop choices (Tau and Eldar come to mind), since they're currently forced to rely on other units to pick up the slack. Forcing them to make at least a quater of their army bad troop units seems more than a little harsh.

Basically, I think that many (if not all) codices would need to be overhauled, if a percentage system was to work. Every race would need decent troops, which are well-balanced against the troops of other races. Troop units that can't pull their weight would have to be improved, and troops that have been overpowered/undercosted (like some of the recent Space Marines +1 armies) would have to have their costs increased, or forfeit some of their abilities.

My eldar will keep meching up even if transports are nerfed cause t3 high point models just really suck on foot (and I don't really like wraithguard). But I would like it to be less of clear cut option as well (and us craftworlders getting a webway portal would change things a bit).

That said when eldar and tau get updated I think their troops will be better, and depending on how transports fit into a percentage system eldar come out of fine (I run 3*8 dire avengers in serpents most games and thats a decent amount of points).

Regardless the level of troops across the board has gone up in 5th really starting with imp guard, so its fair to assume these troops will be updated.


Why do people think percentages are at all difficult to keep track of? You just break your starting points into allowances and from there on you don't have to deal with them anymore. There isn't any keeping track of them involved.

Also, most counter-arguments are assuming that such a huge change in the selection system wouldn't have a corresponding change in the army lists, which would be the obvious thing to do, and is exactly what GW did last time with 40k.

Its more that fifth is actually a fairly solid system, and imo instead of making change for change sake they should fix the flaws. Put MCs back inline with vehicles, give infantry some advantages, make some weapon types better, and people will buy new models.

Changing to a percentage system in fantasy makes sense because core doesn't really have a defined role, so armies just used as few as they could. In 40k its really hard to beat good opponents with min troops because they will get rid of them so you can't hold an objective so unless you table them at best you can draw in 2 out of 3 base missions. In my mind its a lot better solution then forcing someone to take x amount of a unit.

Avatar_exADV
10-01-2012, 01:41
One other consideration is that Fantasy has several reasons to take fewer, larger units rather than more numerous, smaller units. The fact that destroying a unit causes units within 6" to take a panic test, and that being fled through can cause chain panic, is an enormously strong reason not to spam the board with units of five skaven. 40K does not feature units taking morale checks when something happens to another unit (unless you're an Ethereal, and this is considered an enormous, crippling defect in 40K!) Thus, porting the one rule straight over from Fantasy to 40K would have very different effects.

That said, there isn't a strong reason why you couldn't combine percentages and FOC slots. 25% min troops won't affect list-building too terribly from 5th edition, where troops were already important for holding objectives. But 25% max from one of the other FOC slots? That can make it hard, especially if you consider the case of dedicated transports counting as part of their parent unit cost...

Minsc
10-01-2012, 01:44
I prefer percentages except for one major thing:

+25% core works in WFB.
+25% troops would make several armies "unplayable" in 40k.

Personally I'd say it's fine the way it is right now, especially considering that you can't really crosscompare WFB's specials/rares with 40k's FA/HS/Elites.

Vaktathi
10-01-2012, 04:38
I'm really not sure why people are so gung ho about a percentage system. It would have practically no effect on most 5E armies, especially most of the tournament power lists, given that they usually aren't spending *huge* amounts of points in HS or HQ units and the like, and you'd just make it so that MSU spam would be 10x the issue anyone thinks it is now.

Running the %'s isn't a huge issue, the math is easy, but who wants to deal with 12 independent deep striking obliterators in a 2000pt game or such sillyness?

alextroy
10-01-2012, 05:08
Anyone actually familiar with the WFB army restrictions should not have a hard time imagining a hybrid Force Slot/Percentage army building restrictions for W40K. Here's a quick, off the cuff example that would certainly alter the style of armies being fielded:

All calculations round up.

HQ: Min 1/Max 1 per 1000 Points.

Troops: Min 1 FOS per 500 Points/ max 2 Higher (1000 points = 2-4). Minimum value of 25% of army with Dedicated Transports not counting in this percentage.

Elite/Fast Attack/Heavy Support: Min 0/Maxim of 1 per 500 Points. Maximum of 50% Points in any specific area.

spaint2k
10-01-2012, 05:12
The biggest and most visible change is that it will force players who take min number of troops to have to spend 25% of their points on troop choices and they will have more troops present on the table.

Running the numbers on my Space Marines, I don't think I can actually get all the models down on the board if 25% of my force by points has to be composed of troops, since I only have 25 tactical marines and 10 of them are supposed to be usable as Sternguard - a unit that'll never see the light of day in my army if they've got to be used as troops instead.

I think it'll just make it harder to play from a modelling and painting perspective. Sometimes it's nice to fill up a chunk of points with something big from the Elite/Heavy slots but this system would mean a lot of people will have to go back and add basic troops to a force - or it means that the toys that would have gone to other squads (e.g. a rhino for my Sternguard) now have to be allocated to a troop squad just to hit that 25% mark.



All calculations round up.

HQ: Min 1/Max 1 per 1000 Points.

Troops: Min 1 FOS per 500 Points/ max 2 Higher (1000 points = 2-4). Minimum value of 25% of army with Dedicated Transports not counting in this percentage.


For obvious reasons, I really hope that GW doesn't settle on that kind of system.

Charistoph
10-01-2012, 05:13
Running the %'s isn't a huge issue, the math is easy, but who wants to deal with 12 independent deep striking obliterators in a 2000pt game or such sillyness?

This is, of course, assuming that the FOC is purely based on the percentage like it was in 2nd Edition, and not the hybrid form that Fantasy 8th Edition has employed. It is possible that Obliterators could be deployed in as many numbers as you suggest, but it is also probable that there would be limited to 2 or 3 selections of any unit selection in Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support. So one would still be limited to just 9 Obliterators in 3 squads. But since there is room for 3 more Obliterators, that means one could field a Defiler or Vindicator in further support.

Where it gets scary is if Troops are not limited, how many squads of Purifiers could then be taken with a certain HQ? Currently, it is, what? 9? Now imagine if there was no limit...

Now would you be scared?

chromedog
10-01-2012, 05:21
IIRC 2nd Ed had a hybrid percentage system similar to WFB; which was changed to the current FoC system in 3rd Ed.

Yep.

Varied by codex, though.

Generally along the lines of up to 50% characters (including ICs - your army general had to be one of these).
AT LEAST 25% troops from the "Squads" sections.
Up to 15% Support.

Additionally, most armies could take ALLIES - usually no more than 15%.

This was also why 2nd ed was called "Herohammer".
When you could spend up to half your points total on characters which were often 2-3x what the cost nowadays (Eldar avatar was 300pts, for example, but immune to more weapons).

orkmiester
10-01-2012, 10:02
One other consideration is that Fantasy has several reasons to take fewer, larger units rather than more numerous, smaller units. The fact that destroying a unit causes units within 6" to take a panic test, and that being fled through can cause chain panic, is an enormously strong reason not to spam the board with units of five skaven. 40K does not feature units taking morale checks when something happens to another unit (unless you're an Ethereal, and this is considered an enormous, crippling defect in 40K!) Thus, porting the one rule straight over from Fantasy to 40K would have very different effects.


that maybe so, still it makes the game inherently silly as there are no unit size limits unlike 40k...

so we end up with the situation where in some games you get 'phalanx Vs phalanx' as i like to call it- not to mention the other 'gripes' with the system but that is another story.

the 40k system works, no doubt about that, but the hybrid system would make no difference whatsoever as probably limits would be placed in heavy support etc etc so on that count why bother?:eyebrows:

to be frank in my opinon we would need to see 6th ed before making any proper judgements, currently the force selection works well enough considering codex problems:shifty:

:angel:

Vipoid
10-01-2012, 10:12
I fear that a percentage system would end up much like 5th edition's attempt to get people to take more troops.

5th edition made it that only troops could score, in a lazy attempt to get people to take more of them. However, it didn't take into account the underlying reasons why many races take minimum troops in the first place - they don't have good troops.

Essentially, I think that players should have at least 25% of their army as troops because they want to - not because they *have* to.

jt.glass
10-01-2012, 10:16
I've never had a hard time figuring out 25% limits. It's not high level math.No one said it is, but is still harder maths than counting the number of slots you have used. And you have to redo it aster every single tweak, so it make finetuning your army significantly harder. Not hard, perhaps, but harder. It is just an unessasary PITA.

Also, it amplifies the problem of GW's points-balance already being poor (especially amongst Troops).


jt.

hazmiter
10-01-2012, 10:32
It seems that this thread is a firestorm.

Ok, fantasy has heroes, core, special and rare. Percentages works. Up to 25% in each.
40k has hq, elites, troops, fast, heavy. Now compare the number of choices, and then tell others how you would percent it. 15% in heavy support is unreasonable.

Whitehorn
10-01-2012, 10:37
I've never liked the restrictions of FOC, but it does tend to lead to the same argument - a game is an agreed set of rules between players, do what you want.

Using a restricted FOC outside of a mission is bad. I think every mission should imply the types of army you would be fielding. FOC should be exclusively placed and emphasised in missions, dropped from a codex entirely.

jt.glass
10-01-2012, 10:48
40k has always been slotsYou really should check your facts, it damages your credibility when you get stuff liek this wrong... :angel:


Perhaps my definition of MSU is different from oter people'sThe trouble is, MSU has evolved two related but different meanings, probably due to people seeing it an guessing incorrectly from the context. It means both "multiple small units" and "minimum scoring units".


So many people it seems want to play and elite of an elite of an elite army....and those people should be punished for the wrongbadfun, because you say so? :confused:


Ok, fantasy has heroes, core, special and rare. Percentages works. Up to 25% in each.IDNHMBIFOM, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong too.


40k has hq, elites, troops, fast, heavy. Now compare the number of choices, and then tell others how you would percent it. 15% in heavy support is unreasonable.It would, so why would you assume GW will make it 15%? Noone else in the thread seems to be.


jt.

Whitehorn
10-01-2012, 11:02
It seems that this thread is a firestorm.

Ok, fantasy has heroes, core, special and rare. Percentages works. Up to 25% in each.
Your percentages are wrong. They've changed the formula over the years too. They then go and break them with High Elves and, in the past, Bretonnians.


40k has hq, elites, troops, fast, heavy. Now compare the number of choices, and then tell others how you would percent it. 15% in heavy support is unreasonable.

It puts unnecessary restrictions on the game. Sure, a 'balanced' pair of fighting skirmish forces may happen to have similar compositions, but it then doesn't allow for variant armies. Why should Space Marines be allowed an all-bike army, breaking their FOC, when other armies aren't afforded similar options?

Tymell
10-01-2012, 11:02
I say the same thing I did for Fantasy: percentages does the same thing, but better. So yeah, I'm all in favour.

The idea of slots is to limit how much of certain things people take. However, one "slot" can be worth a lot more than another, so it's not an ideal system. Percentages works better because it directly ties into the points system by which everything's actual value is determined.

I think it's -more- of an advantage in Fantasy, but I would still welcome it in 40K.

chromedog
10-01-2012, 11:04
Precisely.
Just because it was that way in 2nd ed (as opposed to 3.3 which is essentially what 5th ed is) doesn't mean that 6th will have it that way.
I could see them bringing back percentages, but points levels for a lot of stuff would have to change across the board - otherwise you wouldn't be able to field useful units at lower points ranges.

hazmiter
10-01-2012, 11:13
Something that is overlooked, is that FOC are tournament, and a guideline for 'balanced' play. I'm quite sure that in a friendly match both you and your opponent can agree to modify it to an agreeable extent.
Just 2c worth, thought of that just then as I was considering FOC.

Whitehorn
10-01-2012, 12:16
The problem I find is that not every game is amongst 'friends', but rather 'players'. It's either just polite or the common procedure to fall back to the 'standard' to avoid issue. As much as we can say 'do what you want', there's a lot of people that only want to play by the book.

hazmiter
10-01-2012, 12:23
That is true, I myself find playing by the book to be better than an unrestricted force chart.
Personally I do take 40 to 60 % troops, but as Ba, my troops are assault squads, and are equivelent to vanilla marines fast choices.
I tend to not take a fast slot, 20 to 30 % elites, same in hq and command squad, then the remainder in heavy, which is a pred dest, and whirlwind.

ashc
10-01-2012, 12:40
I would expect force organisation chart to stay to be honest.

3 0f 6
10-01-2012, 12:43
I would expect the force organisation charts to remain. As we have probably all found players who cannot make a 1500 point list add upto 1500 points (or under) having people calculate percentages would make for more arguments- surely.

Abaraxas
10-01-2012, 12:43
Im a fan of percentages.
.
As an example of %s in action (and because theyre at hand) here are two of my 2nd ed armies which show perhaps one extreme to the other as far as the points spent on characters: (up to 50% may be characters,min 25% squads)

2500 pts of Squats (black codex) : breaks down into 612 pts of characters, 1145 pts of squads and 376 pts of support- a warlord, hero, psyker lord, std bearer, engineer guildmaster, 10 five man squads and ten champions to lead them, 3 heavy trikes, a thudd gun, rapier and their crews.

Also using the "black codex", I have their opponents- 2500 pts of Orks (Bad Moons/Flash Gitz/Blood Axes) who are really decked out (as you would expect from Bad Moons and Flash Gitz) lots of characters (996) with 1214 on mobz and 290 on support.

The Orks have a warboss,std bearer, warphead and 4 minderz, 2 mekboyz, painboy,a kaptin and 10 flash gitz, a nob and 20 bad moons bristling with special weapons, 2 bigbosses, 2 nobz and 2 ten strong blood axe mobz plus 2 dreads a runtherd with 40 grots.

Both lists are stuffed to the brim with fluffiness, you have a freedom which allows you to collect and use the models you want as opposed to the limited structure of slots IMO.

I also have a WFB army: Night Goblins.
Havent played 8th yet, but now I can use some of those awesome boss miniatures that didnt get a go in 7th, as well as the usuals.

I dunno if this post is relevant or makes any sense, but hey-Im drunk :o

Commotionpotion
10-01-2012, 13:00
I can see the FOC staying rather than a reversion to percentages for 40K. Like it or not, 40K has become an entry-level game, with all of the bonuses (popularity, leading to vast support) and pitfalls (having to cater to the lowest common denominator in both rules and player intelligence) that entails.

I played 40K with percentages. I've never been too hot at maths, so it was a struggle, but if nothing else it meant that I learnt how to use percentages!

The main advantage of percentages is that having an army-building method using them better reflects the value of individual choices in the army. Ergo, you could spend all of your 'character' allocation on a single uber-hero, or a mess of 'smaller' characters. You get a better appreciation of risk and reward.

This means that you can have more diversity between what qualifies as a 'choice' in each category. For instance, some 'Troops' might be much more powerful, and more expensive, than others. So if you load up on these units, your opponent may well outnumber you.

I don't actually mind the FOC concept, though. I just think its a bit arbitrary. It's quite blatantly based on a Space Marine Battle Company with a bit of space for some more interesting toys. The trouble is, it forces everything into that straitjacket, even things wildly unsuitable for it (look how much they had to break it to get the Imperial Guard to fit it, for example.

So, the FOC is, IMO, probably going to stay. What I'd like to see is a basic formula, which then expands as the points increase (rather than simply slapping a second FOC on the side at certain points values, which is simply carte blanche for power builds) - so at X points you get X number of extra slots in each category to use.

Also, it would be good for things like War Machines, Flyers etc to be streamlined in, rather than being bolted on. An 'exploding' FOC would help to facilitate this (such as having a super-heavy tank take up several HS slots which would still limit their use to larger games, for example).

IcedCrow
10-01-2012, 13:24
"You better check your facts, it damages your credibility when you get stuff wrong"

Ok. Let me rephrase, it's been slots since the mid to late 90s. Most of the people on this board haven't played 2nd edition 40k. I started with 3rd. So it's been slots for 3 editions now. Better? =)

As to you guys praying that slots stay, the rumour mill is pointing otherwise. Lately the rumour mill has been very accurate in a lot of things.

Summer is right around the corner :D

chromedog
10-01-2012, 13:54
One edition with two revisions, technically.

Unlike RT and 2nd ed which were two different games with similar rules.
3-5th editions are essentially the same - only the vehicle and close combat rules changed over time.

FarseerBeilTan
10-01-2012, 20:56
I agree some people are just terrible at maths, (Im not fansastic either but I have a Higher in Maths) some people may not be able to work out percentages however if it was experessed in a diffrent way like in LOTR "1/3 of your forces can include bows" this may be easier for people.

Rated_lexxx
10-01-2012, 21:36
to me this whole argument comes down to people want other people to play more troops because it makes "sense" to them. Fluff wise you should have more troops.

What about the people who like the current set up. who like not being forced to use a lot of troops

This whole discussion about FoC vs. % doesn't seem to be about balance of game rules. Its wanting to make people play more troops

althathir
10-01-2012, 23:28
@Rated_Lexxx - yeah I agree, what bothers me is there is already a good reason for people to run troops in 40k due to the mission objectives. The best armies in 40k right now IG, GK, SW, BA all spam troops, in fantasy this wasn't the case so it made sense to go a percentage system.

Its not that I care one way or another if percentages system replaces the FoC, its that I don't see the reason for it, and see things like wound allocation that should be fixed. So the percentage system becomes one more random variable in my mind cause it can mess things up, and without seeing a clear benefit to having it, it seems like a dumb ideal.

Phaeron Setek
10-01-2012, 23:49
The whole debate seems a little moot to me (necron player). If I'm taking 2 units of 10 Immortals, I'm already at 340 points. If troops were a minimum 25%, I would only need another 130 points (10 warriors?) in a 2000 point game.

If percentages were used, I would see it more like 8th Ed fantasy:
25% max HQ
25% min Troops
40% max Elites
40% max Fast Attack
40% max Heavy Support
With an elites, fast attack, heavy support maximum 1 duplicate unit per 1000 points.

That would allow for players to keep their spamming, whilst allowing for slightly more balanced play.

hazmiter
10-01-2012, 23:57
Is like to field more sanguinary priests,, but force chart says 9 max. And maxing on those is bad for your army elites wise, also more chaplains, 5 ain't enough!!!

althathir
11-01-2012, 00:39
The whole debate seems a little moot to me (necron player). If I'm taking 2 units of 10 Immortals, I'm already at 340 points. If troops were a minimum 25%, I would only need another 130 points (10 warriors?) in a 2000 point game.

If percentages were used, I would see it more like 8th Ed fantasy:
25% max HQ
25% min Troops
40% max Elites
40% max Fast Attack
40% max Heavy Support
With an elites, fast attack, heavy support maximum 1 duplicate unit per 1000 points.

That would allow for players to keep their spamming, whilst allowing for slightly more balanced play.

It won't effect each army the same though, and how transports are handled is key. Like I said before the main reason I think people don't like the ideal of the percentage system is they don't see what it fixes, and I can see new problems. For example a GK army lead by Coteaz can run cheap troop choices, in razors so you could see 10 plus of them out of troops which wouldn't be fun to play againist.

GrimZAG
11-01-2012, 00:42
The issue in fantasy was having 800pt Lords who would win the game for you. This hasn't really been a problem in 40k as far as I've seen. I don't see the need for Percentage force designation when the FOC seems to be working fine.

narrativium
11-01-2012, 00:55
The two games are organised differently. Fantasy's still based around 'balanced' or scenario-driven armies, with each force being representative of its race and percentages/slots being used to limit how many of the rarer things you can have, to encourage players to take more of the iconic troops which represent that faction.

40K's more mission based. Scenarios are used more frequently, there's a greater sense of objective, and of selecting units for a given purpose - so you want a system which tells armies to pick more purpose-based specialist units for a specific mission. Rarity doesn't come into it so much because the troops and vehicles are all custom-tailored to the nature of the faction (e.g. a Ravenwing army is still a definitive Space Marine army), and the background supports the notion that the rarity of an item matches its power (e.g. Land Raiders are rare, they're also very good and therefore expensive in points which prevents you taking too many). (Transports also offer a synergy in 40K which Fantasy lacks.)

lanrak
11-01-2012, 10:06
Hi folks.
I belive the problem 40k has is NOT what composition system it uses.
FoC or % of total.

But the fact the type of unit is defined by function NOT how rare the unit is in that particular army.

Using Andy Chambers idea for Ork Klans from 3rd ed.

We could use the following slot classification.

HQ .
(As now)

Common.
The units that are most often seen in this army type.
(Assault marines in a BA army , Terminators in a DW army, etc.)

Specialised.
The units that are most often used to support the common units on the battle field.

Restricted.
The units that are SO counter strtegic build -theme of the army , they are in great demand, so are only available in very limited numbers.

This way its is much easier to create ballanced themed armies.(As slots chioce determines rareity not buggering about with PV.)
And make the chapters-Klans -craft world - regiment -pantheon etc for each army much easier to produce.
(You just swap what the unit is classified as for the differnt builds.rather than mess about with costings.)

And rather than use %.
For every >1000pts you must take 1 HQ
For every HQ you must take 2 common units.
For every 2 common units you can take up to 1 specialised units.
For every 2 specialised units you can take upto 1 restricted unit.

And remember before you say '...but this forces people to take more troops chioces!'

Common units are not necisarily limited to current troops choices.

Just a thought.

hazmiter
11-01-2012, 10:14
Interesting take.

IcedCrow
11-01-2012, 13:39
I'd also like to point out that the necron codex is supposed to be written with "an eye to 5th" and it still uses the FoC organization so I don't see HQ, Troop, Elite, Heavy, Fast going away as category names.

I can however see making it so you have to take X% or restricted to X% of choices.

Charistoph
11-01-2012, 14:15
I'd also like to point out that the necron codex is supposed to be written with "an eye to 5th" and it still uses the FoC organization so I don't see HQ, Troop, Elite, Heavy, Fast going away as category names.

I can however see making it so you have to take X% or restricted to X% of choices.

That's because it still has to work in this edition. Beastmen and Skaven were both written with Fantasy 8th Edition in mind, but their army build section was still written for 6th/7th, nor did they have unit types. If it goes by lanrak's method, then every army will have an FAQ defining which unit goes where, or it will be defined in the BRB.

IcedCrow
11-01-2012, 14:20
Well today was a good day... though I'm a bit disappointed. Was able to get a look at the new rules (yay good day) but there was nothing about percentages in the org chart. It was just the standard org chart. (boooo)

The missions are more like cityfight and battle missions and there are strategems. But I did not see anything else. It did state you must take 1 HQ and 2 troops. That was it.

There are however a lot of very interesting changes. Rapid fire has me and my necrons drooling. As do jump infantry.

We may be playtesting these rules in our campaign now that we have our hands on them heh heh heh.

ForgottenLore
11-01-2012, 18:20
We could use the following slot classification.

HQ
Common
Specialised
Restricted
So,

Characters
Core
Special
Rare

?


I don't really disagree with you, but you did basically just import fantasy's classifications into 40k.

Ereshkigal
11-01-2012, 18:36
I really hope they'll do something like 500 pts on 1500 battles and 700 pts on 2000 battles of troops minimum and hq, elites, fast and heavies chosen from the usual FOC.

But the thing i will hate the most would be if i've to change the army i just bought only because of the % thing... i don't have money anymore -.-'

Egaeus
11-01-2012, 18:47
I don't really disagree with you, but you did basically just import fantasy's classifications into 40k.

It seems to me that may have been lanrak's point.

I guess what still bothers me is the people who say "more Troops is better" but seem to overlook that not all Troops are created equal. On top of this add that a number of armies have the option to take units that fall in other slots in other armies (i.e. Terminators which are normally Elites or Bikes which are normally Fast Attack) "as Troops" and the FOC has much more to do with the actual organization of an army than it really has anything to do with any kind of game balance.

That's not to say to that I think a percentage system would be any better at creating a balanced game. But lanrak's idea allows for quite a bit of flexibility since what constitues "Common" units will depend on the nature of the army being played.

One other issue that I highly doubt will ever be addressed is that there is no variance in points for units switching slots. So to some extent the slots do have to be the limiting factor for how many selections of a particular unit an army can take. For example, if the Doom of Malantai allowed Zoanthropes to be Troops in a Tyranid army would that be any more or less broken than an army that has Terminators as Troops?

ashc
11-01-2012, 19:26
Well today was a good day... though I'm a bit disappointed. Was able to get a look at the new rules (yay good day) but there was nothing about percentages in the org chart. It was just the standard org chart. (boooo)

The missions are more like cityfight and battle missions and there are strategems. But I did not see anything else. It did state you must take 1 HQ and 2 troops. That was it.

There are however a lot of very interesting changes. Rapid fire has me and my necrons drooling. As do jump infantry.

We may be playtesting these rules in our campaign now that we have our hands on them heh heh heh.

:eek: IcedCrow wants to be a gent and pm. ;)

IcedCrow
11-01-2012, 20:58
:eek: IcedCrow wants to be a gent and pm. ;)

;) watch for my campaign battle reports, you'll see the new stuff there as we are going to be playing with it. I cannot divulge anything specific at this time unfortunately.

hazmiter
12-01-2012, 00:50
Iced crow makes a good point, as releasing the snippets he has may get gw hot on his butt.

Tymell
12-01-2012, 12:00
We could use the following slot classification.

HQ .
(As now)

Common.
The units that are most often seen in this army type.
(Assault marines in a BA army , Terminators in a DW army, etc.)

Specialised.
The units that are most often used to support the common units on the battle field.

Restricted.
The units that are SO counter strtegic build -theme of the army , they are in great demand, so are only available in very limited numbers.

I really like this idea myself, I think it could shake things up in a fun way.

sprugly
12-01-2012, 15:54
Though I have no problem with percentages I think that as the game stands they are unnecessary, and an points adapted foc would work better.

For example.
Up to 750 points
1-2 troops
Up to 1 elite, fa, hs.

751 - 1250 points.
Up to 1 Hq.
2-4 troops
Up to 2 elite, da, hs.

1251 - 2000
1-2 Hq
2-6 troops
Up to 3 elite, fa, hs

2000-3000 points
1-3 Hq
3-8 troops
Up to 4 elite, fa, hs.

Above that is apocalypse so no foc.

Sprugly

Rated_lexxx
12-01-2012, 18:12
I like the simplicity of the FoC. Not that % is that much harder, but like big words math scares me :P

But really if the % system doesn't solve any problems the FoC is simpler way

IcedCrow
12-01-2012, 20:52
Again the only real issue with FOC vs % is that you'd have to take more troops overall.

artekfrost
12-01-2012, 21:05
Again the only real issue with FOC vs % is that you'd have to take more troops overall.

depending on the army maybe, a deathwing army would only need 1 troop choice at 1000 points assuming a 25% minimum

Rated_lexxx
12-01-2012, 21:43
Again the only real issue with FOC vs % is that you'd have to take more troops overall.

But this isn't a balance issue, it's about people wanting other people to have to take more troops. What if i don't want more troops

If it's not a balance or fixing a rule then there is no reason to change it

Minsc
13-01-2012, 00:18
Again the only real issue with FOC vs % is that you'd have to take more troops overall.

Which would nerf some armies back to the stone age.
"I don't want to spend more points on my already sucky troops, thank-you-very-much!
Sincerely, all Eldar players of the world".
(And I'm sure there are more armies that would prefer if they didn't have to spend at least X% of their pts on troops.)

hazmiter
13-01-2012, 00:40
I guess this arguement is a round the mill thing.
Some want uber armies, fair enough, some want to spam troops, fair enough.

Everyone has a good opinion, and a view on the topic.
Thus all I can contribute is stick to your play style, the game is meant to be fun, if you have fun with a mech ig, or psifle dreads, then that's your play choice.

What happens in the next ed, happens.
If you want no restrictions, play apoc.
If you like restrictions, play FOC.

And to all I thank you for the interesting discussions, I find this to be enlightening.

Balerion
13-01-2012, 01:16
But this isn't a balance issue, it's about people wanting other people to have to take more troops. What if i don't want more troops

If it's not a balance or fixing a rule then there is no reason to change it
"Taking more troops" is, in general, a balance thing. The more mundane/basic an armylist is the more balanced it will be against other army lists that are using majority mundane/basic things.

Charistoph
13-01-2012, 02:39
"Taking more troops" is, in general, a balance thing. The more mundane/basic an armylist is the more balanced it will be against other army lists that are using majority mundane/basic things.

Um, you do realize that the 2 armies that really don't like taking a lot of Troop slots are because their Troops are limited and very mundane and boring. Let's take Eldar and Tau and compare them against something of a similar generations, let's say Black Templar and Chaos Marines. In order to be effective Tau and Eldar rely heavily on their Elites and Heavy Support (with HQs also providing some good backup, great with Eldar's Farseers). With more points devoted to Fire Warrriors, Kroot, Dire Avengers, or Guardians, that's fewer Hammerheads, Crisis Suits, Fire Dragons, and Falcons, etc, that are fielded on the board.

Now, let's compare those Troops to the "Mundane" Troops of the Chaos Marines. Chaos Marine squads: Not badly priced at base, many upgrade options, can be deployed in a mini-horde if need be, and are rather flexible. Berzkers: Great close combat unit that can actually be more effective than most Elites in Assault. Plague Marines: Very effective Defensive unit with good resilience to small arms and negate one of a charger's greatest advantages. Noise Marines: Expensive models, true, but each one can carry the equivalent of other army's Special Weapons, high Initiative and Fearless also help make this a nasty unit once you're close in. Rubric Marines: Quite expensive units, but they come with a pocket Psyker and receive fire as if they were always in heavy cover due to their own Invul Save, and if that wasn't nasty enough, their guns ignore all but the strongest armor.

Black Templar have only one Troop unit, a distinction, only shared with the Dark Angels. They can be decent shooters or good in Assault. They are still quite flexible and tough, and if that wasn't bad enough, they can even take more wounds in an even cheaper route than other Marines. And then there are the Vows... Yeah, they don't hurt them much either, now do they?

And that's not even counting all the wonderful things that we can do in 5th Edition now, all thanks to some very nasty units being able to float into the Troops slots from their original places.

Geep
13-01-2012, 02:58
The percentage system, with the current split up of HQ/Elites/Troops/FA/HS would cause very restricted armies for most.

For example, in Fantasy with the percentage system I can choose from a range of 'Troops' (Core), including taking nothing but Core cavalry to make a fast, hard-hitting, small army (at least this option exists for most races). I can then further this theme in my limited Special and Rare choices (Elites/FA/HS), or supplement the theme with an small, elite, niche-filling unit.
Alternatively to this I could focus my army around hordes of weak 'Troops', heaps of shooting 'Troops' and maybe even monstrous 'Troops'. As each category covers a range of unit types I'm not restricted in making the army I want to play from the race I want to play.

In 40k, percentages would mean I'm stuck spending a significant points amount with no possible 'fast' theme to many armies, or no hordes, or no combat specialists. Yes I can spend the other points limits to theme the army, but that doesn't help that I'm stuck with a very limited range of core troops which I may not want. I may be able to find a race I really want to play, but not have the flexibility to field the army I want.
The current FoC still has this problem to an extent, but it's not so bad as I can still sink the vast majority of points into the theme of my choosing.
Obviously some armies suffer from the above limitations far more than others, but as an example- look at vanilla Space Marines or Necrons. Only 2 troops with limited customisation (and not all armies can just use the rules of another power-armour dex to create a theme).

theJ
13-01-2012, 08:05
Why force large troops sections?

Aesthetics.

Gameplaywise, it may be fine to play with two 5-man squads and a bunch of tanks, monsters and/or super-elites.... but it will never feel like an army, and since 40k is focused on aesthetics, that is unacceptable. The game requires a certain minimum of troops to get the right "look", troops=scoring works... more or less, but it ain't as effective as percentages.

Another point that has yet to be brought up, but which is one of the main reasons why I like the change is the viability of lowcost choices in different gamesizes, example: I'd love to bring a group of Sentinels in my guard army, however, that would take up one of my fast attack slots, which I have to place on Vendettas to stay competitive. Compared to the High Elves that I have over in fantasy... The 85point Tiranoc Chariot does not take up a "slot" in my special section, thus it won't stop me from taking my beloved Swordmasters. It takes up a couple points, which may theoretically prevent me from taking... ~6 Swordmasters, but it won't stop me from taking the unit itself.
In 40k, I'd imagine the same theory would apply - I could take a Talos without preventing me from taking those vital Ravagers, I could load up on Sentinels and still fit in a couple flyers, I could take Wartrakkz and still make use of Bikerz and Deffkoptas.

Obviously there'd have to be a limit on duplicate choices. There won't be 12 predators or 40 Longfangs, because you'd still only be allowed to take three, or possibly even two duplicate choices (with the exception of troops, ofc)

hazmiter
13-01-2012, 08:34
So thej by your no duplicates, I could theoretically run 3 pred annihaltors, 3 baal preds w inferno, 3 baal w twin auto, 3 pred destructors, 3 of each razorback armed differently, 3 of each landraider variant etc......
They are all different.

IcedCrow
13-01-2012, 12:55
Taking more troops *is* a balance issue. And you are running off of the assumption that the army books are never going to be updated, which we know is not true. Eldar and Tau are both set to be given a new book. Necrons had immortals dropped into their troop slots.

Then there's the aesthetics reason. Actual armies look cooler to many people as opposed to 12 jacked up super heroes.

Then there's the business reason. If they impose a 25% minimum on troops, you have to go out and buy more models. Please see warhammer fantasy: 8th edition from 7th edition.

The only supposition against it is: "i like my elite no-troops army".

Again having seen the rule leak, there was no mention of a percentage system in that, so I'm going to have to lean towards it's not happening anyway so it's woulda coulda shoulda.

We use 25% min troops in our games. It makes the armies bigger and is kind of nice. But that's just my own personal slant.

If it happens I will cheer. If it doesn't happen, it's business as usual and I won't get heartburn from it.

theJ
13-01-2012, 13:21
3 pred annihaltors
sure

3 baal preds w inferno
sure

3 baal w twin auto
nope, sorry, you've already taken three baal predators(assuming "3" is the magic number)

3 pred destructors
nope, sorry, you've already taken three predators

3 of each razorback armed differently
Presumably, dedicated transports would not be restricted, so yes, you could (dedicated transports have their own limitation - needing a squad to take it with)

3 of each landraider variant
if you could some find the points to fit that into your heavy support section, sure...

etc......
doesn't tell me much.

Vipoid
13-01-2012, 13:41
Taking more troops *is* a balance issue. And you are running off of the assumption that the army books are never going to be updated, which we know is not true. Eldar and Tau are both set to be given a new book. Necrons had immortals dropped into their troop slots.

That is true. However, you can't assume that, just because a book gets an update, it will automatically have good troops.

Many races in 5th edition have troops that are just flat-out better than other 5th edition races.

Furthermore, some races have troops that can fufil considerably more roles than others. Necron Warriors aren't particularly bad, but all they have is a mediocre shooting weapon. That's it. They can't be specialised to take out vehicles, heavy infantry, hordes. They can just shoot their 1 weapon, and pray nothing gets into CC with them.

All I'm saying is that some races can easily use 25% troops, because their troops are flexible and can be tailored to perform a variety of roles. Other races don't have that luxury, and an updated codex on the horizon is no gaurentee they'll get such flexibility.



Then there's the aesthetics reason. Actual armies look cooler to many people as opposed to 12 jacked up super heroes.

Agreed.

But then, IMO, a horde of infantry models looks cooler than a line of 7 vehicles, which all resemble bricks with caterpillar tracks.



The only supposition against it is: "i like my elite no-troops army".

Or, "My troops are already a racial handicap; please don't force me to use more of them than I have to."



We use 25% min troops in our games. It makes the armies bigger and is kind of nice. But that's just my own personal slant.

I might suggest something along these lines to my group, and see what they say.

DEADMARSH
13-01-2012, 13:53
Maybe there should be a minimum amount of infantry models instead of percentages of Troops, then?

If it's purely an aesthetics thing, what if there were some table in the book that said if you're playing a X thousand point game, you must field at least y number of infantry models? Kind of like how they suggest using 25% of a table's worth of terrain, they could throw out a similar guideline for how many feet you had to have on the ground.

Those armies with decent troops aren't penalized, those that rely on Elites and other specials aren't either. We get lots of infantry on the board which looks nice and sells models.

Everybody wins*.

As far as that goes, you could throw out a max number too and get rid of the builds that simply have too many bodies to kill at a particular points level.*

Same could be done for vehicles as well, helping to eliminate the "parking lot" meta.



*Except Deathwing, etc. which could simply be made exempt from the rule. I don't think anybody hates to play against something as cool as an actual Deathwing (Ravenwing, etc.) army.

althathir
13-01-2012, 14:11
Taking more troops *is* a balance issue. And you are running off of the assumption that the army books are never going to be updated, which we know is not true. Eldar and Tau are both set to be given a new book. Necrons had immortals dropped into their troop slots.

Then there's the aesthetics reason. Actual armies look cooler to many people as opposed to 12 jacked up super heroes.

Then there's the business reason. If they impose a 25% minimum on troops, you have to go out and buy more models. Please see warhammer fantasy: 8th edition from 7th edition.

The only supposition against it is: "i like my elite no-troops army".

Again having seen the rule leak, there was no mention of a percentage system in that, so I'm going to have to lean towards it's not happening anyway so it's woulda coulda shoulda.

We use 25% min troops in our games. It makes the armies bigger and is kind of nice. But that's just my own personal slant.

If it happens I will cheer. If it doesn't happen, it's business as usual and I won't get heartburn from it.

I don't particularly and want it and its not because "I like my elite no-troops army" my eldar would actually fit in well depending on the percentage for hq (seer council would be a tough fit), same for my wolves with really no problems.

My main argument againist it is why? Yes it forces people to use more troops, but the mission structure already does that. The people that run min troops struggle againist good opponents because they can't hold objectives. So why add a new rule that could be abused (I could see GK running more tanks than imp guard with a percentage system.) and would be difficult to balance because some armies are more dependent on transports because t3 4+ doesn't go that far on foot.

Poncho160
13-01-2012, 14:22
I've tried building a Imperial Gurad list at 2000 points using the following guidelines:

HQ - Up to 25%
Elites - Up to 25 %
Troops - Minimum of 25%
Fast attack - Up to 25%
Heavy Support - Up to 25%

No more than 3 of the same unit.

And unless I want to make a pure infantry list, with minimal support from the fast attack and heavy support section, I cant make a list I would be happy to take to the table.

The Imperial Guard Army I am currently working on uses 700 odd points from troops section and 1000+ points from the Heavy Support section, the rest comes from HQ and fast attack. I would have to cut the heavy support by more than half using the above guidlines.

Im not saying that the above guidlines are what will be used (if this rumour is even true) but if it is, I think we will see a lot of very different armies than what we are used to seeing now.

Has anyone else tried making a list using the % system?

MagicHat
13-01-2012, 14:43
Taking more troops *is* a balance issue. And you are running off of the assumption that the army books are never going to be updated, which we know is not true. Eldar and Tau are both set to be given a new book. Necrons had immortals dropped into their troop slots.

All the current good codicies have good versaitile troops and thus incentive to field many of them. IME, IG, BA, SW and GK will mostly have 25% troops or more and enforcing 25% will most likely don't change anything for the players of good codicies.
Weaker codicies then those don't have as much incentive to take more troops then they currently do, because their troops are not as good or versaitile, and thus enforcing 25% will make their armies weaker.
So yes, it is a balance issue, that would change for the worse.
If the updated books have good troops, people will take them wheter they are enforced to or not if it brings something to their list. If their troops end up bad, they are not forced to take a bad choice.


Then there's the aesthetics reason. Actual armies look cooler to many people as opposed to 12 jacked up super heroes.
S to the U to the B to the JECTIVE! Subjective!
No, seriously. Restricting someone elses aesthetic preference to enforce your own is EVIL!



Then there's the business reason. If they impose a 25% minimum on troops, you have to go out and buy more models. Please see warhammer fantasy: 8th edition from 7th edition.
Right. I dare say that most marine players (that is to say, the majority of the players) can field 25 % troops as is.


The only supposition against it is: "i like my elite no-troops army".

Balance won't benefit from; in fact, it will probably suffer from it and it imposes restrictions on peoples aesthetic and thematic possibilities.

IcedCrow
13-01-2012, 14:52
That is true. However, you can't assume that, just because a book gets an update, it will automatically have good troops.

Many races in 5th edition have troops that are just flat-out better than other 5th edition races.

Furthermore, some races have troops that can fufil considerably more roles than others. Necron Warriors aren't particularly bad, but all they have is a mediocre shooting weapon. That's it. They can't be specialised to take out vehicles, heavy infantry, hordes. They can just shoot their 1 weapon, and pray nothing gets into CC with them.

All I'm saying is that some races can easily use 25% troops, because their troops are flexible and can be tailored to perform a variety of roles. Other races don't have that luxury, and an updated codex on the horizon is no gaurentee they'll get such flexibility.



Agreed.

But then, IMO, a horde of infantry models looks cooler than a line of 7 vehicles, which all resemble bricks with caterpillar tracks.



Or, "My troops are already a racial handicap; please don't force me to use more of them than I have to."



I might suggest something along these lines to my group, and see what they say.

Also I will add, that a 25% troop minimum by itself is not really that big a deal on composition. It's not that drastic of a thing.

Vaktathi
13-01-2012, 14:54
I've tried building a Imperial Gurad list at 2000 points using the following guidelines:

HQ - Up to 25%
Elites - Up to 25 %
Troops - Minimum of 25%
Fast attack - Up to 25%
Heavy Support - Up to 25%

No more than 3 of the same unit.


I find with many armies, especially Imperial Guard, that competitive lists often fall into the above %'s anyway.

My current IG Tournament list doesn't even hit 20% in any area outside of troops and it's got 17 independent AV12 vehicles with all FA/HS/HQ slots filled and 78 heavy/special weapons and 9 scoring units. My CSM's with 24 2+sv wounds likewise doesn't breach 23% in any one FoC slot that isn't Troops. The last several SW Razorspam and GK lists I faced likewise were similarly limited in terms of points spent in each non-troops FoC slot.

That's why I'm not really seeing a need for a % based system :p

IcedCrow
13-01-2012, 14:57
All the current good codicies have good versaitile troops and thus incentive to field many of them. IME, IG, BA, SW and GK will mostly have 25% troops or more and enforcing 25% will most likely don't change anything for the players of good codicies.
Weaker codicies then those don't have as much incentive to take more troops then they currently do, because their troops are not as good or versaitile, and thus enforcing 25% will make their armies weaker.
So yes, it is a balance issue, that would change for the worse.
If the updated books have good troops, people will take them wheter they are enforced to or not if it brings something to their list. If their troops end up bad, they are not forced to take a bad choice.


There are already bad books on the market now. There are already weak armies and there are already super armies with the current system. So the balance issue to me is moot because either way will have bad balance as it stands today.



S to the U to the B to the JECTIVE! Subjective!
No, seriously. Restricting someone elses aesthetic preference to enforce your own is EVIL!


I said "to many people" for a reason :D Super elite armies are also a preference. One that many people don't like. Having rulesets that encourage or enforce the preference to field super elite armies is just as bad... it's just that that is the current ruleset.



Right. I dare say that most marine players (that is to say, the majority of the players) can field 25 % troops as is.




Balance won't benefit from; in fact, it will probably suffer from it and it imposes restrictions on peoples aesthetic and thematic possibilities.

I don't see balance suffering for it. That is pretty extreme, considering balance today is poor as it is, so using balance as a counter argument is shaky at best.

I also don't see it imposing a thematic possibilities other than the theme of "i don't want to field troops because they are weaker than my elites"

Also 25% troop restriction is a minor thing to me that is being taken to extremes here and in other places.

The big thing is: using balance as a counter argument is weak to me because balance is already poor right now.

MagicHat
13-01-2012, 15:22
There are already bad books on the market now. There are already weak armies and there are already super armies with the current system. So the balance issue to me is moot because either way will have bad balance as it stands today.

Taking more troops *is* a balance issue.
This is what I replied to. Also, other people are saying that enforcing troops is making it more balanced, so sorry if it feels like I am coming off to strong against you.
But just because balance is not perfect today is a bad argument for making it worse.


I said "to many people" for a reason :D Super elite armies are also a preference. One that many people don't like. Having rulesets that encourage or enforce the preference to field super elite armies is just as bad... it's just that that is the current ruleset.

The current ruleset favours mechanised MSU, not necessarily super elite armies.
However, it allows a greater freedom for army choices to fit the players preferences then a percentage system does.


I don't see balance suffering for it. That is pretty extreme, considering balance today is poor as it is, so using balance as a counter argument is shaky at best.
It would leave bad codicies worse, while the strong codicies would be pretty much unchanged, essentialy. And that would make balance worse.


I also don't see it imposing a thematic possibilities other than the theme of "i don't want to field troops because they are weaker than my elites"
Admittedly, Imperial guard Airborne and Armoured Battlegroups are the only ones that I can think of. Both would be impossible, unless the percantage would be 50% or something.

Vipoid
13-01-2012, 15:32
Also I will add, that a 25% troop minimum by itself is not really that big a deal on composition. It's not that drastic of a thing.

That's a fair point actually.


To be honest, with the armies I play, I'd be more annoyed about the 25% max cap on HQ and elites.

Griefbringer
13-01-2012, 15:36
I've tried building a Imperial Gurad list at 2000 points using the following guidelines:

HQ - Up to 25%
Elites - Up to 25 %
Troops - Minimum of 25%
Fast attack - Up to 25%
Heavy Support - Up to 25%

No more than 3 of the same unit.


What would happen if you would up the maximum for elites, fast attack and heavy support to 33%, while leaving HQ at most to 25%?

Considering that with the current slot system, HQ is more restricted than elite/heavy/fast (2 vs. 3 slots maximum), I would expect it to be more restricted in a percentage based system.

megatrons2nd
13-01-2012, 17:13
What would happen if you would up the maximum for elites, fast attack and heavy support to 33%, while leaving HQ at most to 25%?

Considering that with the current slot system, HQ is more restricted than elite/heavy/fast (2 vs. 3 slots maximum), I would expect it to be more restricted in a percentage based system.

Try:
HQ Min 5% max 25%
Elite max 35%
Troops min 20%
Fast Attack max 35%
Heavy Support max 35%

Every Army I play easily fits in these parameters. Even my elite heavy list. I play Tau Empire, Dark Eldar, and Eldar. I have 3 lists for each, made with different objectives/play styles in mind. The Eldar Elite Heavy list missed the 25% on troops but makes the 20%. Now to see if I can break these percentages.

Vipoid
13-01-2012, 17:31
Try:
HQ Min 5% max 25%
Elite max 35%
Troops min 20%
Fast Attack max 35%
Heavy Support max 35%

Every Army I play easily fits in these parameters. Even my elite heavy list. I play Tau Empire, Dark Eldar, and Eldar. I have 3 lists for each, made with different objectives/play styles in mind. The Eldar Elite Heavy list missed the 25% on troops but makes the 20%. Now to see if I can break these percentages.

I think that 35% max for elites, FA and HS would be considerably better than a 25% limit.

25% max HQ would be very restricting to my current necron lists.

Out of interest, why 20% minimum troops, rather than 25%?

IcedCrow
13-01-2012, 17:41
That's a fair point actually.


To be honest, with the armies I play, I'd be more annoyed about the 25% max cap on HQ and elites.

I can see that. That's why we only use 25% min troops. Everything else is open game still.

Vipoid
13-01-2012, 17:43
I can see that. That's why we only use 25% min troops. Everything else is open game still.

Ah, yes, that sounds considerably better.

megatrons2nd
13-01-2012, 18:34
I think that 35% max for elites, FA and HS would be considerably better than a 25% limit.

25% max HQ would be very restricting to my current necron lists.

Out of interest, why 20% minimum troops, rather than 25%?

Due to current costs on some units in the three armies I play, one build ends up with 20.3% of my points spent in troops. There are 3 troops units of which none has a transport and only 1 is a minimum sized unit, although none are maxed, they are 8 man squads with little to no upgrades. It is an Eldar list that is heavy in the Heavy support, and Elites areas to increase the lethality of my anti armor. Oddly enough, two of my Tau lists(one is 23%), and all the Dark Eldar lists hit the 25% but don't go over by much. The Eldar have the low end(20.3%)and highest end(47%) for troops with the remaining in line with the others.

Long story short, the three armies I play, with my three lists each, fit into the variances that I designated. I was assuming that a similar variance would apply to most other armies, and limit the sub par unit being forced. It also lets those who like to take the minimum still do so.

I do not know the Necrons well enough to figure the HQ options. Why is 25% difficult with them?

artekfrost
13-01-2012, 18:47
Due to current costs on some units in the three armies I play, one build ends up with 20.3% of my points spent in troops. There are 3 troops units of which none has a transport and only 1 is a minimum sized unit, although none are maxed, they are 8 man squads with little to no upgrades. It is an Eldar list that is heavy in the Heavy support, and Elites areas to increase the lethality of my anti armor. Oddly enough, two of my Tau lists(one is 23%), and all the Dark Eldar lists hit the 25% but don't go over by much. The Eldar have the low end(20.3%)and highest end(47%) for troops with the remaining in line with the others.

Long story short, the three armies I play, with my three lists each, fit into the variances that I designated. I was assuming that a similar variance would apply to most other armies, and limit the sub par unit being forced. It also lets those who like to take the minimum still do so.

I do not know the Necrons well enough to figure the HQ options. Why is 25% difficult with them?

25% HQ for necrons is difficult becuase all our sergeants come from the HQ section and can easily hit close to or over a 100 points depending on what the sergeant is attached to and what he is meant to do.

Vipoid
13-01-2012, 19:06
I do not know the Necrons well enough to figure the HQ options. Why is 25% difficult with them?

Well, aside from us not having any cheap HQs, we also have royal courts. Basically if we want a sargeant or special-weapon in any of our units, we have to buy one via the royal court. Furthermore, if we actually want 2 mediocre special weapons in a squad, we have to buy another Necron Overlord (also HQ).

Poncho160
13-01-2012, 19:46
I stuck with 25% instead of say 33% or 35% as it is a figure you can easily work out in your head. Im not saying no-one could figure out the above percents but 25% and 50% are easier figures to work out.

Been through my Space Marine and Tyranid lists and they already fit into the above paremeters.

If this rumour turns out to be correct, I can't wait to be able to spend 25% of my army on the elites section of the tyranid army list. It would solve a lot of the promblems Tyranids have.

KronusDaSneaky
13-01-2012, 20:22
I hope they don't shift to WFB like percentage system for the reasons already outline and worse still because the cheese will simply get cheesier. I am concerned that the top armies will only get stronger as the biggest shift percentages might bring is more troops. The top armies are top usually because they have among other things the best troop choices be it IG's Vets, SW's Grey Hunters or GK's Henchmen build. All of these troops options are not only very cost effective but more importantly give access to a large amount of point efficient gun platform transports which further boost the strength of the dex. Allowing them to be taken in limitless numbers would create a situation much like 7th edition WFB, where a few armies completely dominate.

Be under no misconceived view transports will be nerfed, they wont, they may even get better as point for dollars they are some of the most profitable lines GW has and GW likes money.

I have a number of armies but GK have been my main for 7 years and remain my tourney list. My WAAC Tourney build is the quintessential Coteaz dulux rapage edition involving 5-6 Auto cannon dreads, 6+ psyback (a razorback with psybolt ammo for the uninitiated) with henchies, storm chickens, Death cult etc. In a Coteaz list I can field a psyback for 62pts as a troop slot. In WAAC list for a non comp tourney under a system without slots in core I would not so much hit my 25% requirement as run rough should over it to back as many psybacks as I can get. At 2k I can see my list easily having 20 of these units. Tell me is that what you want to see? I certainly don't

Poncho160
13-01-2012, 22:09
I hope they don't shift to WFB like percentage system for the reasons already outline and worse still because the cheese will simply get cheesier. I am concerned that the top armies will only get stronger as the biggest shift percentages might bring is more troops. The top armies are top usually because they have among other things the best troop choices be it IG's Vets, SW's Grey Hunters or GK's Henchmen build. All of these troops options are not only very cost effective but more importantly give access to a large amount of point efficient gun platform transports which further boost the strength of the dex. Allowing them to be taken in limitless numbers would create a situation much like 7th edition WFB, where a few armies completely dominate.

Be under no misconceived view transports will be nerfed, they wont, they may even get better as point for dollars they are some of the most profitable lines GW has and GW likes money.

I have a number of armies but GK have been my main for 7 years and remain my tourney list. My WAAC Tourney build is the quintessential Coteaz dulux rapage edition involving 5-6 Auto cannon dreads, 6+ psyback (a razorback with psybolt ammo for the uninitiated) with henchies, storm chickens, Death cult etc. In a Coteaz list I can field a psyback for 62pts as a troop slot. In WAAC list for a non comp tourney under a system without slots in core I would not so much hit my 25% requirement as run rough should over it to back as many psybacks as I can get. At 2k I can see my list easily having 20 of these units. Tell me is that what you want to see? I certainly don't

If the Warhammer system is implemented and there is a limit on the amount of individual units you can take (say 3 max), lists like the one you have mentioned above would not be allowed. You could have 3 henchmen units max.

So we wouldnt see the unlimited henchmen / Grey Hunter / Blood Angels assault squad Razorback spam that we fear we might see.

Im in favour of the percentage system as long as it was implemented properly. (Mainly because it would go a long way to fixing my nids! haha)

Charistoph
13-01-2012, 22:24
If the Warhammer system is implemented and there is a limit on the amount of individual units you can take (say 3 max), lists like the one you have mentioned above would not be allowed. You could have 3 henchmen units max.

So we wouldnt see the unlimited henchmen / Grey Hunter / Blood Angels assault squad Razorback spam that we fear we might see.

Im in favour of the percentage system as long as it was implemented properly. (Mainly because it would go a long way to fixing my nids! haha)

Those limits are not on Core units, but only on Special and Rare. You can take as many of any Core unit you wish.

So anything that could be Troops would be limited only by points in selection.

hazmiter
13-01-2012, 22:56
That would screw tyranid players over, good by 6 lots of hormogaunts, good by 3 carni broods
And a Ba player would be hard hit by not having 6 assault squads.
Basic troops shouldn't have number restrictions, because they are the basis for an army.
Hq, I could see having 3 to 6 of at 25 percent, it would make me happy.

Poncho160
13-01-2012, 23:39
Opps forgot about that! haha

hazmiter
13-01-2012, 23:52
No worries poncho.
Just keep in mind that spamming is bad, but most spams come from the staple of the army when it concerns guard, tyranids, crons etc.
Eg, mini max list I've seen at shop. Hormogaunts, toxin sacs, 6 lots of 30. Plus 6 venomthropes, 2 primes, and 3 zoans.

megatrons2nd
14-01-2012, 03:15
25% HQ for necrons is difficult becuase all our sergeants come from the HQ section and can easily hit close to or over a 100 points depending on what the sergeant is attached to and what he is meant to do.

Didn't the court or whatever it's called have a rule that made it not count for the HQ slot? That might exempt it from the percentage system.

hazmiter
14-01-2012, 03:46
That's open to debate, as space marines have company command squads.

Charistoph
14-01-2012, 04:44
That would be a situation specifically addressed in any FAQ.

Considering Fantasy precedent, though, any HQ retinue would likely come from HQ points, such as with the Monster mounts and with the Fay Enchantress' Grail Guardians.

Elite, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support Dedicated Transports would also likely fall under their respective slots for their point restrictions. Makes taking Terminator Land Raiders far more interesting now, doesn't it?

KronusDaSneaky
14-01-2012, 09:29
Those limits are not on Core units, but only on Special and Rare. You can take as many of any Core unit you wish.

So anything that could be Troops would be limited only by points in selection.

Indeed and in a 25%+ system I predict we will be seeing some 30+ psybolt enhanced vehicles be they cheap psybacks or evil psyrifleman at 2k in a GK henchie list. A lot of kill points I accept but then when you can table with great ease thats not really a major concern.

Possible 2K Lists

Coteaz
10 x 3 henchmen (1 x Melta per unit) in 10 x Razorbacks with Psybolt Ammo
3 x 5 Death Cult Assassins in 3 x Razorbacks with Psybolt Ammo
3 x Dread with 2 TLL Autocannons and Psybolt Ammo
2 x Purifier with 2 psycannon in 2 x Razorbacks with Psybolt Ammo

Thats 45 TL BS4 STR6 Shots, 8-16 BS 4 STR 7 Rending Shots, 12 TL BS4 STR 8 Shots a turn in addition to having premier cc units for counter assault and 10 BS3 Meltas in case they are needed.

or

Coteaz
26 x 3 henchmen (1 x Melta per unit) in 26 x Razorbacks with Psybolt Ammo

78 TL BS4 STR6 Shots and possible BS3 26 Melta per turn

or

Coteaz
15 x 7 psykers in 15 x Chimera

15 BS3 STR 10 AP1 Large Blasts, 60 BS STR 6 Shots and 15 Heavy Flamers

I am deeply concerned about how many dexes, even those buffed by the change to percentages from FOC will deal with these lists. All I can say is ..... Psybacks Ho

mdeceiver79
14-01-2012, 18:13
It would be interesting to see a system where you could purchase slots. As a member mentioned on the 1st page some lists rely on a single slot for a certain role so would be crippled by restriction on force slots.

I like in the ig codex where similar vehicles are listed under the same slot. It would be nice to see a similar thing in other codexs. A space marine sternguard platoon for example would be 1-3 squads of stern guard in a single elite entry. This would case issues for unit spam from dreadnoughts and the likes prehaps.

theJ
14-01-2012, 19:38
@KronusDaSneaky:
how did you manage to stick 10 squads into 20 transports? I'm fairly sure that's illegal...

theunwantedbeing
14-01-2012, 19:45
Fantasy solved the percentage abuse by not allowing more than X amount of anything other than core and characters.
40 would need a similar thing or you'de see lots of minimum size units with the max number of special/heavy weapons.

eg. for dark eldar
3 trueborn with heavy weapons x however many of those such units will fit into the percentage slot (which will be noticably more than the number of slots of them you can currently take).

So provided 40k follows the fantasy method of restricting abuse in that fashion having a percentage slot is actually more useful. Also it means armies get to be more varied as they aren't limited to just 2 HQ slots, as well as being able to take a more varied set of the other slot types as a result of not being limited to them by number.

KronusDaSneaky
14-01-2012, 19:51
@KronusDaSneaky:
how did you manage to stick 10 squads into 20 transports? I'm fairly sure that's illegal...

Typo. Meant to be 10, edited accordingly

althathir
15-01-2012, 00:03
Indeed and in a 25%+ system I predict we will be seeing some 30+ psybolt enhanced vehicles be they cheap psybacks or evil psyrifleman at 2k in a GK henchie list. A lot of kill points I accept but then when you can table with great ease thats not really a major concern.

Possible 2K Lists

Coteaz
10 x 3 henchmen (1 x Melta per unit) in 10 x Razorbacks with Psybolt Ammo
3 x 5 Death Cult Assassins in 3 x Razorbacks with Psybolt Ammo
3 x Dread with 2 TLL Autocannons and Psybolt Ammo
2 x Purifier with 2 psycannon in 2 x Razorbacks with Psybolt Ammo

Thats 45 TL BS4 STR6 Shots, 8-16 BS 4 STR 7 Rending Shots, 12 TL BS4 STR 8 Shots a turn in addition to having premier cc units for counter assault and 10 BS3 Meltas in case they are needed.

or

Coteaz
26 x 3 henchmen (1 x Melta per unit) in 26 x Razorbacks with Psybolt Ammo

78 TL BS4 STR6 Shots and possible BS3 26 Melta per turn

or

Coteaz
15 x 7 psykers in 15 x Chimera

15 BS3 STR 10 AP1 Large Blasts, 60 BS STR 6 Shots and 15 Heavy Flamers

I am deeply concerned about how many dexes, even those buffed by the change to percentages from FOC will deal with these lists. All I can say is ..... Psybacks Ho

..... and this is why a percentage system could be scary, I don't know how I would handle any of these lists with my craftworld eldar or space wolves.

igwarlord
15-01-2012, 07:35
every time i see the percentages question I laugh since is not the FoC in every codex and still the rule is
Codex>BrB

even if they go % in 6th my codex says I must use 2 troops and 1 hq then whatever I want to a max of 2/3/6/3/3

igwarlord
15-01-2012, 07:40
Oh and I like having astorath with 12 death company all in laz/plaz backs with a left over 80 points for fists or whatever.

MY NEW 2k list

gonna go start it

sulla
15-01-2012, 07:50
every time i see the percentages question I laugh since is not the FoC in every codex and still the rule is
Codex>BrB

even if they go % in 6th my codex says I must use 2 troops and 1 hq then whatever I want to a max of 2/3/6/3/3Easily solved in 8th edition fantasy by the rulsbook explainig that although you usually use the armybook over the BRB, in this case, you abide by the BRB.


Fantasy solved the percentage abuse by not allowing more than X amount of anything other than core and characters.
40 would need a similar thing or you'de see lots of minimum size units with the max number of special/heavy weapons.

eg. for dark eldar
3 trueborn with heavy weapons x however many of those such units will fit into the percentage slot (which will be noticably more than the number of slots of them you can currently take).

So provided 40k follows the fantasy method of restricting abuse in that fashion having a percentage slot is actually more useful. Also it means armies get to be more varied as they aren't limited to just 2 HQ slots, as well as being able to take a more varied set of the other slot types as a result of not being limited to them by number. The problems of 8th edition fantasy won't be solved until GW release every armybook in 8th edition format. Until then, their unwillingness to FAQ obviously OP's stuff like s5 templates or limit core great weapons means the game will remain unbalanced until they eliminate those options or price them appropriately.

Charistoph
15-01-2012, 07:53
Easily solved in 8th edition fantasy by the rulsbook explainig that although you usually use the armybook over the BRB, in this case, you abide by the BRB.

That and the FAQ/Errata's stripping the army formation pages out of the book, for all intents and purposes. Without that, some could argue otherwise.

hazmiter
15-01-2012, 07:59
Oh and I like having astorath with 12 death company all in laz/plaz backs with a left over 80 points for fists or whatever.

MY NEW 2k list

gonna go start it

Yahoo!!!!!!! Crazy annihilation list!!!!!!!
How many dc you going to use?

Egaeus
15-01-2012, 12:32
The problems of 8th edition fantasy won't be solved until GW release every armybook in 8th edition format. Until then, their unwillingness to FAQ obviously OP's stuff like s5 templates or limit core great weapons means the game will remain unbalanced until they eliminate those options or price them appropriately.

It seems to me you could replace references to "8th Ed Fantasy" with "5th Ed 40K" and many of the issues are going to remain the same...that is, it seems to me that much of the problem is more fundamentally a pricing issue with units than it really is any problems with a force org chart or a percentage system.

Some people say their Troops aren't very good. I believe the biggest offenders mentioned are Eldar and Tau but neither of these armies have a properly current book. And the trend from GW does seem to be lowering costs on units so there probably is a good chance that their units are overpriced in the current paradigm.

I think another (probably related) issue is that Troops likely should be priced competetively with other units in the army, possibly even a bit on the cheap side to "encourage" their use. Part of the fundamental problem is that people don't want to spend points on units that aren't going to be effective so tend to gravitate towards Elites and Heavy Support since those are the things that are perceived as giving the most "bang for the buck". Of course it would also be nice if units did have a functional purpose beyond simply "needing to have Troops in an army".

I've been up far too long and I may be starting to ramble so I will end it here for now.