Do you think 40k will benefit from Percentage FOC limits?

[Proiteus]

Given the recent rumor put on the site about the rumored upcoming 40k 6.5/7th edition having Percentage Force Organization Chart limits similar to the one in Warhammer Fantasy, which you can see here! (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-7th-edition-early-rumblings-rules.html)

How do you feel this will effect 40k, do you think it will benefit the game and encourage more balanced list or do you think it will restrict players too much?

[Psychosplodge]

The FoC replaced percentage limits from 2nd edition.
Really you have one or the other. Both is just silly.

[daboarder]

Reposting:


Doesnt really work with 40k though.

say you play chaos, but want a terminator themed list?

well the cost difference in terminators compared to cultists means that you are unable to have a significant portion of your force be terminators in a standard 1850 game.

Percentages put huge constraints of themed lists that do not have core troops that fit the theme


EDIT:
one marine specific example.

under likely percentage rules (from the recent BoLS article) a space marine terminator squad is not allowed to purchase a dedicated land raider in games of less than 1850 (and not even that with certain load outs)

stupid idea

edit2: All percentages are llikely to do is drive the game even further to hyper-efficient builds, in poarticular ones that rely either on a single hammer unit that draws its percentage allotment from multiple areas (HQ, ELITE, ALLIES) OR towards spamming effective troops choices and not considering anything else beyond a few force multipliers


edit3: so essentially percentages in 40k would

limit possible themed builds
hinter entire units structures thus driving the size of the game to higher points to include them
not likely combat the 2 perceived problems of spam or deathstars




But as a member of the hive, I can imagine that they'd be pretty pissed being told they cant field 2 hive tyrants.....actually 2 anything

see the only other Tyranid HQ unit that would fit in the list with a hive tyrant and fit under the proposed caps would be say deathleaper or a tyranid prime.....

Look you can believe what you want, and these are only rumours, but for the reasons I pointed out in my original post I dont think that percentages would do for the game what you would want....and variety is not something they are likely to introduce


But you also get silly stuff like unlimited numbers of 3 man melta gun squads with coteaz, or single-man hammer paladins with draigo all able to fire off their holocaust psychic blast power individually using the brotherhood of psykers rule. Like many things, it could work if the game was re-designed from scratch but the shackles of the current codex range bite hard.

On the flip side, I don't want to have to take 25% (or worse 40%!) of boring to paint and play daemon troops to field a valid daemon army.

this too

Yes percentages were in 2nd en. But the change from 2nd to 3rd involved the complete reconstruction of army list organization away from the fantasy style it used to be. Under the current style without an unreasonable number of rules exceptions % wouldn't work

[Harley]

Yes but there would need to be some kind of exemption for dedicated transports.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm all for it myself.

Sure, some combinations won't be seen in smaller games. Perhaps there's a reason for that?

Dedicated transports would be a bit of an issue for those wanting a fully transported army, but that all depends on the percentage allowance for each section.

And I for one welcome more characters into the game, if HQ went the Warhammer route of 25% of your points. We'd see more support type characters used, which would in turn really change up how armies play. Take CSM. If we saw 25% character allowance, you could field a Cultist horde, all lead into battle by Dark Apostles.

No, I don't care whether it's 'viable' or 'sub-optimal', on account those definitions are so subjective it's not funny....but it would be thematically cool!

[Harley]

All these problems are solved by simple saying <25% (but may be exceeded by a single unit and it's dedicated transport). Bam, done.

That way Guard can still have a squadron of Russ's, Terminators can still have a transport and spam of multiple units is prevented.

[Lord Asterion]

Anything that changes up the game and discourages big, expensive units in smaller games where they have more effect is great with me, I won a 1000 point tournament this weekend mostly because I was using TH/SS Terminators, they utterly dominated and I felt bad for using them once I realised.

A battle of less than 1850 probably SHOULDN'T have a Land Raider and Terminators, they wouldn't dedicate those resources to a smaller fight, after all! The percentage system in Fantasy is great, it means you don't get the Big Bad Leader of your Race taking part in little skirmishes, they're reserved for the bigger battles.

[Proiteus]

After having some time to think about it, I'm worried about it's execution being a Grey Knight player most of my units are very expensive so I'll be only really be able to afford 1 fast attack and heavy support using my Interceptors and a tooled up Dreadknight worst I'll have to ditch my 2 rifle dreads as I'll be over the rumored 25% 375pt limit.

[Lord Asterion]

After having some time to think about it, I'm worried about it's execution being a Grey Knight player most of my units are very expensive so I'll be only really be able to afford 1 fast attack and heavy support using my Interceptors and a tooled up Dreadknight worst I'll have to ditch my 2 rifle dreads as I'll be over the rumored 25% 375pt limit.

Thats not a bad thing, that encourages you to use a more sensible and troop heavy, and fluffy, deployment. Do you really think not using a Dreadknight and 2 Dreads with Cheese-rifles is a bad thing?

- - - Updated - - -


The FoC replaced percentage limits from 2nd edition.
Really you have one or the other. Both is just silly.

I think the idea is that you have the Percentages and that invalidates the FOC.

[Psychosplodge]

So back to second edition then.
Think then it was upto 50% any group but minimum 25% on troops, though may be wrong, slept since then...

[Lord Asterion]

So back to second edition then.
Think then it was upto 50% any group but minimum 25% on troops, though may be wrong, slept since then...

Minimum 25% Troops, Max 50% Characters, 50% Support (which was FA and Troops in one basically) and the max 25% Allies I think

[Lexington]

There's things to like (Mystery's Dark Apostle example is similar to one I've been thinking of), but I'm less than impressed with the idea overall, especially given the wacky percentages in the rumors posted here. It sounds hugely restrictive without actually fixing much of anything.

[DarkLink]

It actually does fix a lot, very few of the current cheese lists would be legal at 2000 or fewer points, but it certainly doesn't fix all of 40k's problems.

[Anggul]

It would be bad. 40k is a very different game to Fantasy. Percentages work well in Fantasy, where units of all kinds can be found in all categories, but at different levels of power per model and fancy special rules. In 40k it isn't 'special' and 'rare', it's specific designations i.e 'Fast' and 'Heavy'. Percentages in 40k would mean you can't have an entirely fast army or a big lumbering grinder army, both of which have many examples in the fluff. Imagine Astra Militarum only being able to take a couple of heavy tanks, or Saim-Hann with only a couple of Crimson Hunters/Vypers. It just doesn't work in 40k. The existence of vehicles, flyers and other unit types means you need more specialised units and roles compared to Fantasy where everything has the same type of statline. Sure there are war machines for big things, but you can still have little guys hurt the big things, in 40k you can't. They would have to adopt the fantasy system of 'core, special, rare' rather than 'troops, elite, fast attack, heavy support', and that just wouldn't work out as well. I see nothing wrong with the FoC system as it is, it's the units themselves which are unbalanced.

[Wolfshade]

Let us not forget, if % don't work for you and your group, don't use them.

I think it would be interesting to see what happens especially at the smaller scale (sub 2000pts) I regularly game at the 1,000 pt level and so often you see minimum troop choices and a bit elite+HQ death star that are just too powerful to be delt with with a more "balanced" army.

Though without any firm handle of what %s are and how they would be introduced and not playing a game it might be a bit difficult to judge. Certainly, it will shake things up and cause a rethink of certain builds

[Crydon Games]

Around the time 6th edition was released, there was much talk that efforts were being made to return to some semblance of 2nd ed. This is just one more move that direction. In my opinion, percentages should have never been dropped. FOC and percentages together should go a long way to solving some problems with the current game.

[daboarder]

There's things to like (Mystery's Dark Apostle example is similar to one I've been thinking of), but I'm less than impressed with the idea overall, especially given the wacky percentages in the rumors posted here. It sounds hugely restrictive without actually fixing much of anything.

the counterpoint to mysteries dark apostles is .that Tyranids cant run a pair of tyrants, too many points. If you want anything BUT a single HQ you need to run primes and deathleaper, and thats with minimal options

[Mr Mystery]

Depending on the allowed percentages.

And indeed if any of this is in fact true :)

[Lord Asterion]

the counterpoint to mysteries dark apostles is .that Tyranids cant run a pair of tyrants, too many points. If you want anything BUT a single HQ you need to run primes and deathleaper, and thats with minimal options

Why is that a bad thing? Shouldn't a Tryanid swarm be led by a single Tyrant?

[daboarder]

Why is that a bad thing? Shouldn't a Tryanid swarm be led by a single Tyrant?
:rolleyes:

I just knew a non-nid player was going to share this "wisdom" about our fluff
did you know, that its un-fluffy for a warband to have multiple dark apostles.....WOW!!!


edit: there is nothing, ever, ever written in the tyranid book that suggest a single tyrant only ever leads the swarm
nids go with what works, and if their synapse keeps getting gimped they are going to run more tyrants.

[Lord Asterion]

:rolleyes:

I just knew a non-nid player was going to share this "wisdom" about our fluff
did you know, that its un-fluffy for a warband to have multiple dark apostles.....WOW!!!


edit: there is nothing, ever, ever written in the tyranid book that suggest a single tyrant only ever leads the swarm
nids go with what works, and if their synapse keeps getting gimped they are going to run more tyrants.

A force the size typical of a standard 40K game would only have one Tyrant, keep whining and desperately trying to justify it if you want.

And before you try and guess what armies I have, I've been in the hobby longer than the Tyranids, I picked up my first Hunter Slayers before you knew what they are.

[Charistoph]

Percentages may work, it depends on how the final numbers are set. It can work easier for Fantasy because their army composition due to rarity, so it's obvious that army's will have percentages taken up by the rarity of the units.

40K's army composition is set up by their job. And sometimes you need more Heavy Support than Fast Attack or more Fast Attack than Elites, etc.

One thing to remember, the army composition is determined by the missions/scenarios you run, not by your codex, and only partially by the rulebook. These percentage changes wouldn't necessarily cross over in to PlanetStrike or Dataslate Alters of War missions, for example.

Edit: Personally, I think they should separate the HQ choice in to Warlords and HQ, and run it that way. That leaves any problems as to who can be the Warlord out of the question. But that's just me.

[Crydon Games]

the counterpoint to mysteries dark apostles is .that Tyranids cant run a pair of tyrants, too many points. If you want anything BUT a single HQ you need to run primes and deathleaper, and thats with minimal options

And this is bad how? A tyrant is just that...a tyrant...shouldn't be run in pairs in anything less than Apoc anyway. Same for most of the independent character types in most of the books. Seems to me that your argument is proof that percentages will be a big step in the right direction.

[Lord Asterion]

And this is bad how? A tyrant is just that...a tyrant...shouldn't be run in pairs in anything less than Apoc anyway. Same for most of the independent character types in most of the books. Seems to me that your argument is proof that percentages will be a big step in the right direction.

No no, daboarder is the only person allowed to talk about how Tyranids work and he says they should have more than one Tyrant for some reason.

[Gleipnir]

He's hardly the only one that thinks limiting Tyranids to a single Tyrant is a crappy decision and unsupported by fluff, especially in light of the changes to IB. That said if we do get a percentage based system which I still think is just someone's wishlisting, in light of how many books, and dataslates would need errata's to accomplish it, its not likely to be the piddly percentages being thrown about here.

[Charon]

He's hardly the only one that thinks limiting Tyranids to a single Tyrant is a crappy decision and unsupported by fluff...

Sorry to interrupt here... but 2 Flyrants commanding a vast swarm of 20 Termagaunts is a good decision and totally supported by fluff?

[Aegwymourn]

Sorry to interrupt here... but 2 Flyrants commanding a vast swarm of 20 Termagaunts is a good decision and totally supported by fluff?

Because obviously every game played should be the only portion we examine right? What if those 2 Tyrants are running a sneak attack on a super heavy defense cannon. A ridiculously important strategic move that would support the hive mind dedicating two Tyrants to ensure success. Of course they are going to bring some lesser buddies as meat shields or to test for weak points.

Justifying a person's army list is easy.

Now that isn't to say that having percentage based lists is bad. It very well might make the game more "balanced". However I would be skeptical to see how much it would actually fix since, like composition, people will simply find the easiest way around it.

[Blood Shadow]

Well percentages would nerf any of my Deathwatch builds, Kantor builds would be gone with a 20% limit on elites! BA would be totally nerfed with so much cool stuff competing in the Elites section....I'm just not sure I'd play with this rule.

With the Formation limit one could never take a Tempestus formation unless they were primary at over 800 points for the Air Cav formation... The Talons+Raven formation is never going to make it in either...

What annoys me is the thought that the entire game needs nerfing, just because a few units need nerfing....

[Crydon Games]

I just don't see percentages as a nerf to the system...think it's a mild corrective measure to slow the runaway train that is the various "deathstars" and other abuses of allies. I really like the idea.

[daboarder]

I just don't see percentages as a nerf to the system...think it's a mild corrective measure to slow the runaway train that is the various "deathstars" and other abuses of allies. I really like the idea.

under the proposed % its unlikely that seerstar would be effected at all.

Warlocks would be unlikely to count towards a % cap (slotless like dedicated transports), leaving plenty of points for a farseer and baron allies. So thinking such a system would "fix" deathstars is probably wishful
A force the size typical of a standard 40K game would only have one Tyrant, keep whining and desperately trying to justify it if you want.

And before you try and guess what armies I have, I've been in the hobby longer than the Tyranids, I picked up my first Hunter Slayers before you knew what they are.


I dont really care mate, the point is that you're merrily skipping along with an attitude that is basically telling people that you dont care if they dont get options because they arent your options and dont conform to the way YOU play....charming

EDIT: OH, and you want a chaos list running multiple Dark apostles.....you can already write a list with 3 of them under the current system. which is aall you would be able to afford under theproposed % anyway.


Sorry to interrupt here... but 2 Flyrants commanding a vast swarm of 20 Termagaunts is a good decision and totally supported by fluff?


If th Hive mind determined that was the required force for a specific mission, yeah it would be fluffy actually. kinda llike tyranid blitzkrieg when you add on the HS options and other FMCs

[Gleipnir]

Not even going to call it a proposed % system anymore just gonna call it what it was, someones proposed wishlist for how to fix balance in 40K taking advantage of a hyperventilating game community looking for clues to any kind of change.

GW wasn't going to invalidate a years worth of Dataslates and Codexes to change to a % system with less than half the dexes left to be updated, The riptide spam, the inquisitors in every list and battle brothers is GW nod to allowing a ruleset that permits these types of armies for narrative play. Why would they throw away the free form narrative elements they just doubled down on with Mini-Dexes and Dataslates to please a crowd screaming for imbalance and % system with sideboards? For tournaments? Do they have a history of putting the tournament/balance gamer first?

[deinol]

The funny thing about sideboards is, any tournament that wanted them could add them.

I think it would be fun to have a stronghold assault event where everyone brought two lists, one attack force and one defense force.

[daboarder]

The funny thing about sideboards is, any tournament that wanted them could add them.

I think it would be fun to have a stronghold assault event where everyone brought two lists, one attack force and one defense force.

Its a fantastic idea, one that has been proposed for a long time (remember that missions used to have different FOCs for battles, raids, patrols...etc) The issue becomes transport for most people

[Proiteus]

GW wasn't going to invalidate a years worth of Dataslates and Codexes to change to a % system with less than half the dexes left to be updated, The riptide spam, the inquisitors in every list and battle brothers is GW nod to allowing a ruleset that permits these types of armies for narrative play. Why would they throw away the free form narrative elements they just doubled down on with Mini-Dexes and Dataslates to please a crowd screaming for imbalance and % system with sideboards? For tournaments? Do they have a history of putting the tournament/balance gamer first?

To be honest I'm starting to think your right there, GW would likely shot themselves in the foot with such a system, true it would stop broken lists but also themed lists as well (example: Deathwatch Sternguard).

[Mr Mystery]

Important things to consider.....

GW's current approach to army list writing - Let the players restrict themselves.

Look at the recent books. No more 0-1 choices on a specific unit, wider choice introduced.

To me, it's a sensible approach, as it allows people who want to game entirely narratively to do so, whilst those who want a more highly honed competitive environment just need to agree their own restrictions.

[Auticus]

Let the players restrict themselves is what I prefer. I don't need someone telling me how to play I like a sandbox where we can play how we want and find the appropriate group to play with.

If tournaments want to do the balancing act, that's awesome and I support them 100%. Get it done. As an event organizer I have to put a lot of time into my events as well. That's how you run good events that people enjoy.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

And at the risk of sounding an arse, even when GW put in unit specific restrictions, Tournaments still put their own restrictions in as well. Nowt wrong with it, but definitely let the players agree how they want to play.

GW, keep doing what you're doing and put the choice out there. If we wants it, we'll plays it! :)

[Mad Cat]

in a GK list Coteaz can bring along a 12 point troop choice (3 warrior henchmen with LP+CCW) so asuming 25%-75% troops in a 1850 point list that makes 115 scoring units. Now I don't care how powerful Tau are but without split fire they can probably only (over)kill 7 units a turn so thats 49 in a 7 turn game.

[John Bower]

I voted 'Not sure' for the following reasons;

1/ if it's done right.. Definitely, it should stop the star spamming that goes on and pull armies into fluff mode.
2/ If it's done the usual slapdash GW way, no, it will still be open to much abuse.

[Solufein]

If it works similar to the way fantasy does, i don't see a massive problem.

[Charistoph]

If it works similar to the way fantasy does, i don't see a massive problem.

I do, but that's because Fantasy builds their armies along different requirements. Fantasy is already based on the scarcity of the unit in question being in the army (core, special, rare), while 40K is aligned to what a unit's job is (Elite, Fast, Heavy, etc). In some armies, having a lot of Heavy Support is common (Astra Mil/IG), while in others Elites are more common (Eldar, Necron).

Even under many of the examples, it still seems that people are voting for:


2/ If it's done the usual slapdash GW way, no, it will still be open to much abuse.
without really thinking things through properly or even testing them.

Personally, I'm more fond of an FOC that allows you to build what you want, but affects your missions more, but that's just me.

[Dave Mcturk]

i rarely run elites in my eldar army - since banshees and quins are virtually unplayable in 6th, scorpions are ok but still very vulnerable, wraith can all be 'troops' for a 70pt tax, and are more reliable than the now overpointed dragons, Avengers are as good a 'stock' unit as any, and warp spiderz [FAST ATTACK] and war walkers [HEAVY SUPPORT] are probably the most under-costed units across all the codexes [apart from the {cough} wave serpents]... messing around with FOC or percentages will not result in much change in most peoples eldar armies - unless they go ALLY heavy or jetlocks.

for my orcz i really rely on maxing out heavy support and elite slots - even though at least one nob unit will become 'troops', messing around with FOC and percentages would almost certainly force orc armies to mob up or to play with allies.

i would far sooner see some 'tinkering' with obvious rules flaws, and an adjustment to FOC depending on force sizes; even modern generals will group up units and specialist troops for 'battle-group' style tasks, the populist notion of taking a 'bit of everything - all the time' went out when the french got kicked at the start of WW2

[Proiteus]

Well given the latest announcement it looks like GW had no intention of introducing any kind of restrictions to help balance the game. Personally I would have preferred the percentage system over the anything goes approach.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6ghMuevPdBs/Tc6U_EE8bVI/AAAAAAAAAZU/otw2swU7Zco/s1600/FacePalmMarine.jpg