Fantasy is using this percentage based system, and I've been wondering
Is that the main reason for that games balance?
And what would this system do to 40K? The same?
God I hope so
Lets talk
What would a percentage based force organization do to the game of 40k?
Break it?
Make it better?
Or would things be the same?

50% in wave serpents . then 25% in ally and HQs is more or less the seer star.

Initially break it as people scramble to work out how to make their lists legal and then eventually everything g settles down and new ways to abuse the system crop up.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Initially break it as people scramble to work out how to make their lists legal and then eventually everything g settles down and new ways to abuse the system crop up.

I can see that happening

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Fantasy is using this percentage based system, and I've been wondering
Is that the main reason for that games balance?
And what would this system do to 40K? The same?
God I hope so
Lets talk
What would a percentage based force organization do to the game of 40k?
Break it?
Make it better?
Or would things be the same?

The reason why WHFB is much much more balanced is because the worst model in the game can be useful by tying up the best enemy hammer for the full length of the game.
The very best example is Skavenslaves. They are the lowest of the low. Imperial Guard Conscripts were champions compared to Skavenslaves... and yet Skavenslaves is the main reason why Skaven have been doing great since 8th came out.
So how can the worst model in the game be the best unit in an arguably powerful army?

Because there is a use for everything in WHFB. Not the case in 40k. Conscripts can be butchered to a man by a single character and he can do it in time to go out and be more than useful in the game. Not to mention that moving him away from the block is laughably easy. You won't get stuck there in the first place.
In WHFB you can't just jump pack him away to his intended target.

It also largely depends on how the perentage based FOC is implemented.

To low a percentage in any category makes certain units unplayable, too high makes ceratin units too good.

As it is 40k is not set up to use this system without a lot of categories.

For instance say you make it minimum 25% troops. WIth no cap that means armies with great troops (or dedicated transports) can spam them a ton.

Say you then cap Heavies to 25% max. There are some units that won't fit this in certain point levels at all. etc.

 Purifier wrote:

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Fantasy is using this percentage based system, and I've been wondering
Is that the main reason for that games balance?
And what would this system do to 40K? The same?
God I hope so
Lets talk
What would a percentage based force organization do to the game of 40k?
Break it?
Make it better?
Or would things be the same?

The reason why WHFB is much much more balanced is because the worst model in the game can be useful by tying up the best enemy hammer for the full length of the game.
The very best example is Skavenslaves. They are the lowest of the low. Imperial Guard Conscripts were champions compared to Skavenslaves... and yet Skavenslaves is the main reason why Skaven have been doing great since 8th came out.
So how can the worst model in the game be the best unit in an arguably powerful army?

Because there is a use for everything in WHFB. Not the case in 40k. Conscripts can be butchered to a man by a single character and he can do it in time to go out and be more than useful in the game. Not to mention that moving him away from the block is laughably easy. You won't get stuck there in the first place.
In WHFB you can't just jump pack him away to his intended target.

I guess when I think about it, that is true. I dabble in fantasy with my vamp counts. And while looking through the army book, I couldn't find a unit that wouldn't be useful in some manner
Wherein my Space Pups have units that are useless in every sense of the word

This would not be a bad idea.

Three Helldrakes, three Maulerfiends, allied with Necrons: two Night Scythes.

The percentage based system is better IMO, as armies with cheap elites/FA/HS can take more of them to show how they are more numerous without having to do silliness like "take 2 per slot" or "take squadron of X" or "does not count toward FOC". Also the fact it forces you to take more Troops than simply 2 cheap units.

But, it will still be unbalanced. Fantasy is more balanced largely because it's less rock-paper-scissors in the army list building stage. It's not a case of "my opponent may take 5 X, so I need to take 5 Y to counter it". 40k, if you take an equal amount of rocks, papers and scissors, that's what we call a TAC list, but because of all the facets of the rock-paper-scissors game, it easily creates imbalance (high armour save models, low armour save models, flyers, superheavies, D weapons, certain fortifications, many low AV vehicles vs a small number of high AV vehicles). That's compounded by the fact GW have no idea how to assign abilities and points values in a balanced manner.

Maybe it would not improve balance, but at least the armies will look like armies. Not “Are those guys playing the same game ? This one look like he is playing some skirmish game with much bigger scale models !”

 wuestenfux wrote:
This would not be a bad idea.

Three Helldrakes, three Maulerfiends, allied with Necrons: two Night Scythes.

You can already do that though. Drakes are FA, Maulers are HS and Night Scythes are DT for Crons.

Good codexes get better and bad codexes get worse. Also, that weird guy who wants to run 30 Scout Bikes or 9 Vypers no longer can.

Yay! Progress! Fun!

Thud wrote:
Good codexes get better and bad codexes get worse. Also, that weird guy who wants to run 30 Scout Bikes or 9 Vypers no longer can. Yay! Progress! Fun!

Depends on how they divide things up. I mean WFB uses percentages and puts a cap on numbers of units you can take in certain slots (Special and Rare for them, so FA and HS if it happened to 40k). So if it goes that route (basically doubling down and making you focus more on the core of your army instead of everything else) then it could get more balanced....if they also limit DT points as well.

Or nerfed Wave Serpents.

Thud wrote:
Good codexes get better and bad codexes get worse. Also, that weird guy who wants to run 30 Scout Bikes or 9 Vypers no longer can.

Yay! Progress! Fun!

The FOC already stops you doing things you might want to do. I'd like to take 3 Predators and 3 Whirlwinds to make an armoured SM army, oh wait, I can't.

Besides, we already have things like characters that shift models from FA/Elites/HS to troops, a percentage based system wouldn't change that.

Also I'm not really sure how it makes good codices better and bad ones worse, it might mix some things up, but I can't see it as a blanket statement like that.

I'd really like to play around a bit with the rumored system. I think that the percentages leave a lot of room for armies to be more interesting and those armies it hurts (Tyranid) are often the ones it helps as well.

It'd clear up ally issues by and large, especially if ally rules get simplified, stomp on things like triple Riptide, and give us some fresh air.

The downside, of course, is Troops Spam, or more precisely Dedicated Transprt Spam. You'd have to address the issue of Night Scythes and Wave Serpents. After that, the rest largely shakes itself out.

Wonder what the new typical battle size would be? 1500 is always nice, but what becomes the new 1850? 1600, for nice even 400 point chunks?That'd be my guess, but I don't know.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The FOC already stops you doing things you might want to do. I'd like to take 3 Predators and 3 Whirlwinds to make an armoured SM army, oh wait, I can't.

Yes, you can. Second detachment at 2k points.

But even if you couldn't, you're still forced to take a lot more of stuff you might not want. Back when WD used to be good, they had some articles on something they called "Nemesis Armies" which were basically silly spam armies. One of them was the Ultramarines 1st Company. Calgar, 30 Terminators and ten Scouts ('cause you have to). That's my kind of army. I can accept ten dudes, but if I have to spend about 500 points on troops that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also I'm not really sure how it makes good codices better and bad ones worse, it might mix some things up, but I can't see it as a blanket statement like that.

I play Eldar. If I'm forced to spend more points on troops... Oh no, guess I'll have to break out my Wave Serpents again, and drop my Vypers. Sucks to be me.

I also play Blood Angels. Assault Marines and Death Company! Yaaaaaay! Fear my unbeatable army of doooooom!

A percentage based books favour armies with strong units in every force org slot and punishes armies without. I think it would only serve to widen the gap between the top tier and the rest of 40k.

I don't possibly see how it would balance out 40k, most of the truly abusive lists don't really break what most would likely place the limits at unless you made them much more limited than what Fantasies current limits are.

What happens with special characters that allow elites to be taken as Troops? Do the elites now count towards the Troops % or are they still the Elite %? This will get messy.

 Purifier wrote:

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Fantasy is using this percentage based system, and I've been wondering
Is that the main reason for that games balance?
And what would this system do to 40K? The same?
God I hope so
Lets talk
What would a percentage based force organization do to the game of 40k?
Break it?
Make it better?
Or would things be the same?

The reason why WHFB is much much more balanced is because the worst model in the game can be useful by tying up the best enemy hammer for the full length of the game.
The very best example is Skavenslaves. They are the lowest of the low. Imperial Guard Conscripts were champions compared to Skavenslaves... and yet Skavenslaves is the main reason why Skaven have been doing great since 8th came out.
So how can the worst model in the game be the best unit in an arguably powerful army?

Because there is a use for everything in WHFB. Not the case in 40k. Conscripts can be butchered to a man by a single character and he can do it in time to go out and be more than useful in the game. Not to mention that moving him away from the block is laughably easy. You won't get stuck there in the first place.
In WHFB you can't just jump pack him away to his intended target.

What your forgetting about is what makes shaven slaves so effective is how many you can have in a single squad. If 40k allowed for such squad sizes(40+) at 2pts a pop even chapter master beak stick and the krumpas would get tied down the whole game.

And skaven slaves arent a good example because 40k has no equivalent.

Rustican wrote:
What happens with special characters that allow elites to be taken as Troops? Do the elites now count towards the Troops % or are they still the Elite %? This will get messy.

Elites could get their own slot. HQs that make things count as Troops (or other FOC moves) would still work the same, the points would just have different minimums/maximums.

Thud wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The FOC already stops you doing things you might want to do. I'd like to take 3 Predators and 3 Whirlwinds to make an armoured SM army, oh wait, I can't.

Yes, you can. Second detachment at 2k points.

Well you can take 9 Vypers in an army of about 2200pts if you have 25% fast attack, same with the 30 scout bikers... not sure how this is any different.

But even if you couldn't, you're still forced to take a lot more of stuff you might not want. Back when WD used to be good, they had some articles on something they called "Nemesis Armies" which were basically silly spam armies. One of them was the Ultramarines 1st Company. Calgar, 30 Terminators and ten Scouts ('cause you have to). That's my kind of army. I can accept ten dudes, but if I have to spend about 500 points on troops that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

But that's the point of special characters that mix up the FOC. We already have that... using percentages wouldn't change it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also I'm not really sure how it makes good codices better and bad ones worse, it might mix some things up, but I can't see it as a blanket statement like that.

I play Eldar. If I'm forced to spend more points on troops... Oh no, guess I'll have to break out my Wave Serpents again, and drop my Vypers. Sucks to be me.

You take more than 25% Vypers already? That's a lot of Vypers, lol. Also you can already take a ton of Wave Serpents. Changing to a % based system doesn't really change that. If you use the Fantasy system, you can have 75% of your army things that aren't Troops, all it changes is you can't take multiple very expensive selections in a single slot and you can't take very expensive selections at all in a small game (for example, you can't take Arachnarok in less than 1200pts, you wouldn't be able to take a Land Raider in less than 1000pts and even at that level, you wouldn't be able to other HS).

I also play Blood Angels. Assault Marines and Death Company! Yaaaaaay! Fear my unbeatable army of doooooom!

I'll wait for Martel to come along and tell you how that sucks But really, if you were maxing out on troops in the current rules, you were probably spending close to 75% on awesome spammy troops anyway and your army wouldn't really change.

Makumba wrote:
50% in wave serpents . then 25% in ally and HQs is more or less the seer star.

This. No fixes are possible until models are costed appropriately.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't possibly see how it would balance out 40k, most of the truly abusive lists don't really break what most would likely place the limits at unless you made them much more limited than what Fantasies current limits are.

I personally don't think it would help balance all that much, I mostly just think it's a better system. I can take 6 Zoanthropes and 3 Venomthropes grouped in to 3 units... I can take 2 Zoanthropes and 1 Venomthrope all as single models... but I can't take 2 Zoanthropes and 2 Venomthropes as 4 individual models because why?

You can take 3 super rare Land Raiders for 750pts even in a 1000pt army. But I can't take 5 Predators for 720pts in a 1500pt army?

There will still be exceptions, like IG would have their own % system that allows them to take more tanks, a certain SM character will let you build a 1st Company that shifts Terminators to Troops and so on.

I actually think dropping the troops/elites/FA/HS in favour of core/special/rare would be better as well, then special could be a higher % than rare and you could have fast units in all slots and heavy choices in all slots. Predator would most likely be "special", Land Raider would more likely be "rare".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Well you can take 9 Vypers in an army of about 2200pts if you have 25% fast attack, same with the 30 scout bikers... not sure how this is any different.

Do you play many 2200 point games? Yeah, me neither.

As it is, I can make cooky armies that can do okay if I practice with them, that are something my opponents certainly don't see every day, and are nowhere near OP. With a percentage based system, I can't do that anymore. Why not? Because Seer Councils are OP. Super! Great game design!

But that's the point of special characters that mix up the FOC. We already have that... using percentages wouldn't change it.

Yes, it would. It would remove options that currently exist, while not providing new options.

You take more than 25% Vypers already? That's a lot of Vypers, lol. Also you can already take a ton of Wave Serpents. Changing to a % based system doesn't really change that. If you use the Fantasy system, you can have 75% of your army things that aren't Troops, all it changes is you can't take multiple very expensive selections in a single slot and you can't take very expensive selections at all in a small game (for example, you can't take Arachnarok in less than 1200pts).

Yes, I do. Because I love Vypers. And I know I can already take lots of Serpents. That's one of the much-maligned OP armies. The change to a percentage based system does nothing to change that, but it does screw over my fun armies.

And have you given any thought to how the percentage meta will look? Tau gunlines and WS spam. Great. Now you have something new to complain about and I still can't use my weird armies.

I'll wait for Martel to come along and tell you how that sucks But really, if you were maxing out on troops in the current rules, you were probably spending close to 75% on awesome spammy troops anyway and your army wouldn't really change.

It does suck. That was my point. Of course I don't max out BA troops currently. If I wanted to auto-lose, I'd just bring a pure LotD army. Armies with crappy troops already suck and now get a kick in the nuts. And so do deathstars. So that leaves armies with good troops crush everyone else.

Who said that Dedicated Transports would count towards the 25%? This would also help tone down Necron Flying Circus which really has never gone away.

Thud wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Well you can take 9 Vypers in an army of about 2200pts if you have 25% fast attack, same with the 30 scout bikers... not sure how this is any different.

Do you play many 2200 point games? Yeah, me neither.

Again, how is this different to me wanting 3 predators and 3 whirlwinds? I can take them in games above 2000pts... but I don't play games above 2000pts. It's the exact same thing, you are limited in how many things you can take, you just shift the limit from "selections" to "percentage".

Depending on their equipment you could actually take 10 Vypers in 2000pts if you had 25% FA.

But that's the point of special characters that mix up the FOC. We already have that... using percentages wouldn't change it.

Yes, it would. It would remove options that currently exist, while not providing new options.

Yes, it does provide new options. Now you can take more smaller units. If you happen to have a lot of cheap fast attack choices, not you can have more of them than before... if you only had a few really expensive fast attack options, now you can take less.

And you can still take your Terminator wing by choosing the character that shifts Terminators from elites to Troops.

You take more than 25% Vypers already? That's a lot of Vypers, lol. Also you can already take a ton of Wave Serpents. Changing to a % based system doesn't really change that. If you use the Fantasy system, you can have 75% of your army things that aren't Troops, all it changes is you can't take multiple very expensive selections in a single slot and you can't take very expensive selections at all in a small game (for example, you can't take Arachnarok in less than 1200pts).

Yes, I do. Because I love Vypers. And I know I can already take lots of Serpents. That's one of the much-maligned OP armies. The change to a percentage based system does nothing to change that, but it does screw over my fun armies.

And have you given any thought to how the percentage meta will look? Tau gunlines and WS spam. Great. Now you have something new to complain about and I still can't use my weird armies.

Well what about if we actually went to the full Fantasy system (which I think is the better way of doing it anyway), your Vypers become "special", so you can now take 50% Vypers if you really want. Now you can take 15-20 Vypers in 2000pts, yay for you! A % based system doesn't close off options unless those options are expensive options that shouldn't be seen frequently anyway.

Breng77 wrote:


Say you then cap Heavies to 25% max. There are some units that won't fit this in certain point levels at all. etc.

This has got me thinking. Introducing a limitation like that would sort of reintroduce the old 0-1 restriction for certain units. Example, for a riptide there would be a certain range of points where you could legally fit one into your list, and as points of the game increased you could add more to your list, and you would certainly expect to see more riptides in a large battle. Percentages like this have the potential to be very balancing and scalable. Much better then an arbitrary 0-1, and much better then no limitations at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rustican wrote:
What happens with special characters that allow elites to be taken as Troops? Do the elites now count towards the Troops % or are they still the Elite %? This will get messy.

As I understand, those rules turn the Elite into a Troops, so it would come from the Troops section.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
A percentage based books favour armies with strong units in every force org slot and punishes armies without. I think it would only serve to widen the gap between the top tier and the rest of 40k.

I'd think that a system like this would be a huge blow to some top tier
Death-stars would most likely be dead, enough of that trickery


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't possibly see how it would balance out 40k, most of the truly abusive lists don't really break what most would likely place the limits at unless you made them much more limited than what Fantasies current limits are.

I personally don't think it would help balance all that much, I mostly just think it's a better system. I can take 6 Zoanthropes and 3 Venomthropes grouped in to 3 units... I can take 2 Zoanthropes and 1 Venomthrope all as single models... but I can't take 2 Zoanthropes and 2 Venomthropes as 4 individual models because why?

You can take 3 super rare Land Raiders for 750pts even in a 1000pt army. But I can't take 5 Predators for 720pts in a 1500pt army?

There will still be exceptions, like IG would have their own % system that allows them to take more tanks, a certain SM character will let you build a 1st Company that shifts Terminators to Troops and so on.

I actually think dropping the troops/elites/FA/HS in favour of core/special/rare would be better as well, then special could be a higher % than rare and you could have fast units in all slots and heavy choices in all slots. Predator would most likely be "special", Land Raider would more likely be "rare".

And that's right! 40k would have to have more categories of units, hadn't thought of that.

And SOB's elits section would need help. As it is, there's nothing worth taking there. If I have to spend 25% on Repentia I might as well call it a game before I roll the first dice.
I say it would be easier just to nerf Riptides, seercouncils and Waves serpants.

Are you talking a copy of the WHFB org chart?

 MWHistorian wrote:
And SOB's elits section would need help. As it is, there's nothing worth taking there. If I have to spend 25% on Repentia I might as well call it a game before I roll the first dice.
I say it would be easier just to nerf Riptides, seercouncils and Waves serpants.

25% would be a cap on non-troops option not a requirement.

It needlessly complicates a system that just needs simple changes to allies rules and the rerollable stuff.

It super benefits armies like Tau, Eldar, Necrons, and harms everyone else who doesnt have a OMG that is insane troop transport.

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
And that's right! 40k would have to have more categories of units, hadn't thought of that.

I think if you went to a % based system, you'd have to get rid of FA/HS/Elites as well, because some armies rely on their FA, others rely on HS, others on Elites all to varying amounts.

By splitting in to a core/special/rare system you let armies that rely on fast things or heavy things keep them as those things can be put in to "special".

FWIW, 40k used to have a % system in 2nd edition, but it wasn't very good IMO (up to 50% characters, 25+% troops, up to 50% support).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
It needlessly complicates a system.

Actually I'd say percentages are less complicated than the FOC silliness we have now. The Fantasy system is pretty simple and works fine.

Whoa whoa, hold the train. More math? Come on guys, I don't want to have to break out the calculator just to play a game...

This whole spammin' units thing is kind of overblown. Last night I was "spamming" Lascannons and vehicles. I had so many options for anti-tank my opponent had no chance, except for the fact that he brought only 1 Razorback. He had no worries shooting and slicing up my Predator, popping my Speeders and scoring hits on my Dread. I on the other hand was kind of wishing I had brought more sloggers... my 3 nearly identical Tac squads all got chewed to pieces just the same as any other time. So really my "spam" army didn't fare any better or worse than if I'd built my list differently. Which, is kind of hard to do really, if you think about it. Always gotta have 2 troops at least, and there's not a whole hell of a lot of variance there, at least for SM anyways, CSM it's even worse.

Actually there is a prime example of crap units doing well, CSM Cultists! Those guys are probably the best option for CSM players in most cases. Mind you some will argue that Chaos Marines can be okay given the right options and such, so there you go again. Sure most of the CSM lists will be green and have turkey, BUT how many mono Khorne armies do you see out there, just because they're "awesome"? Plenty, that's how many.

Besides doesn't the FOC have it's own limitations, like only 6 troop slots and 2 HQ? I don't really know what the other FOCs look like in other books, but does anyone really think that matters? What with the rumoured 7th edition re-write coming up, we'll probably have to be writing out Battlegroup Arrangement Tables or some such nonsense and we'll need powerpoint to write lists.

So, no. I don't think a % based FOC would solve anything, only add more needless complexity. What would solve a few problems though is a tad bit more sportsmanship and inventiveness. Sure GW is screwing things up, but that doesn't mean the games we play on our own tables have to get screwed up.

We all talk like this is some do or die thing, but really it's just a game. Let those crazy big tournament types get hot under the collar about multiplication and canned lunch meat. Just enjoy blowing things up with your imagination goddamn it.

darkcloak wrote:
Whoa whoa, hold the train. More math? Come on guys, I don't want to have to break out the calculator just to play a game...

If rumors are true, you won't "have" to as there will be a chart in the book that breaks down the %'s for you in 250pt increments.

darkcloak wrote:
Whoa whoa, hold the train. More math? Come on guys, I don't want to have to break out the calculator just to play a game...

You say that like calculators are some fancy expensive technology that not many people have or are experienced with using. Also, there could just be a chart of the maximum points for certain category at different point levels right in the rule book. It could even be reprinted in the codices where the FoC is currently.

I don't think percentile based FOC will help the game, and for a simple reason: MSU. In a 1750 list for Orks, I could theoretically take. 10 grot units of 11 (grots +runtherd) and 8 units of 10 ork boyz for my required 50% and then for HS have 5 battlewagons with pleny of points left over for some KFF meks. That might sounds ridiculous (because it is) but most tradition armies simply would not have enough units to hit every single other unit, and a army like that can effectively camp on objectives. it might do horrible on kill points, but that's now only 1/6 of the missions.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I don't think percentile based FOC will help the game, and for a simple reason: MSU. In a 1750 list for Orks, I could theoretically take. 10 grot units of 11 (grots +runtherd) and 8 units of 10 ork boyz for my required 50% and then for HS have 5 battlewagons with pleny of points left over for some KFF meks. That might sounds ridiculous (because it is) but most tradition armies simply would not have enough units to hit every single other unit, and a army like that can effectively camp on objectives. it might do horrible on kill points, but that's now only 1/6 of the missions.

True, that could be an issue, but I expect if a % change was made we'd (hopefully) see some things to help prevent that as well (like the % being stacked on top of FOC restrictions for instance)

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I don't think percentile based FOC will help the game, and for a simple reason: MSU. In a 1750 list for Orks, I could theoretically take. 10 grot units of 11 (grots +runtherd) and 8 units of 10 ork boyz for my required 50% and then for HS have 5 battlewagons with pleny of points left over for some KFF meks. That might sounds ridiculous (because it is) but most tradition armies simply would not have enough units to hit every single other unit, and a army like that can effectively camp on objectives. it might do horrible on kill points, but that's now only 1/6 of the missions.

Imperial Guard can already do that.

For 388pts, you can have 9 troop units for a single troops FOC slot. It's totally conceivable to have 25-30 separate units in a 2000pt army and still have room for 4-6 Leman Russes (or ~6 Valkyries, or ~6 Hellhounds and so on). You could forego the HS/FA and instead take 10-15 chimeras to ferry around some of the troop units, chimeras aren't awesome, but that many of them will still overwhelm most opponents.

If you just wanted to go hardcore minimalist troops, IG can legally take about 50 separate troop units in a 2000pt army.

Never seen anyone try something like that though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I don't think percentile based FOC will help the game, and for a simple reason: MSU. In a 1750 list for Orks, I could theoretically take. 10 grot units of 11 (grots +runtherd) and 8 units of 10 ork boyz for my required 50% and then for HS have 5 battlewagons with pleny of points left over for some KFF meks. That might sounds ridiculous (because it is) but most tradition armies simply would not have enough units to hit every single other unit, and a army like that can effectively camp on objectives. it might do horrible on kill points, but that's now only 1/6 of the missions.

Imperial Guard can already do that.

For 388pts, you can have 9 troop units for a single troops FOC slot. It's totally conceivable to have 25-30 separate units in a 2000pt army and still have room for 4-6 Leman Russes (or ~6 Valkyries, or ~6 Hellhounds and so on).

If you just wanted to go hardcore minimalist troops, IG can legally take about 50 separate troop units in a 2000pt army.

Never seen anyone try something like that though.

Mostly because they combine squads at that point,

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Fantasy is using this percentage based system, and I've been wondering
Is that the main reason for that games balance?
And what would this system do to 40K? The same?
God I hope so
Lets talk
What would a percentage based force organization do to the game of 40k?
Break it?
Make it better?
Or would things be the same?

The reason why WHFB is much much more balanced is because the worst model in the game can be useful by tying up the best enemy hammer for the full length of the game.
The very best example is Skavenslaves. They are the lowest of the low. Imperial Guard Conscripts were champions compared to Skavenslaves... and yet Skavenslaves is the main reason why Skaven have been doing great since 8th came out.
So how can the worst model in the game be the best unit in an arguably powerful army?

Because there is a use for everything in WHFB. Not the case in 40k. Conscripts can be butchered to a man by a single character and he can do it in time to go out and be more than useful in the game. Not to mention that moving him away from the block is laughably easy. You won't get stuck there in the first place.
In WHFB you can't just jump pack him away to his intended target.

What your forgetting about is what makes shaven slaves so effective is how many you can have in a single squad. If 40k allowed for such squad sizes(40+) at 2pts a pop even chapter master beak stick and the krumpas would get tied down the whole game.

And skaven slaves arent a good example because 40k has no equivalent.

If I gave you the option to field Conscripts for 2 points a pop, no shooting weapons and no maximum unit size, they'd still be useless. Most armies would pieplate them just for the laughs, and at 25% dead would go put the kettle on while you moved them back the distance they needed to flee. Useless models on paper are useless in 40k. Useless units on paper in fantasy don't have to be.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I don't think percentile based FOC will help the game, and for a simple reason: MSU. In a 1750 list for Orks, I could theoretically take. 10 grot units of 11 (grots +runtherd) and 8 units of 10 ork boyz for my required 50% and then for HS have 5 battlewagons with pleny of points left over for some KFF meks. That might sounds ridiculous (because it is) but most tradition armies simply would not have enough units to hit every single other unit, and a army like that can effectively camp on objectives. it might do horrible on kill points, but that's now only 1/6 of the missions.

Imperial Guard can already do that.

For 388pts, you can have 9 troop units for a single troops FOC slot. It's totally conceivable to have 25-30 separate units in a 2000pt army and still have room for 4-6 Leman Russes (or ~6 Valkyries, or ~6 Hellhounds and so on).

If you just wanted to go hardcore minimalist troops, IG can legally take about 50 separate troop units in a 2000pt army.

Never seen anyone try something like that though.

Mostly because they combine squads at that point,

Yeah, but it's interesting to note that people would rather blob them together than take a ton of small units to try and overwhelm the enemy, is that because MSU isn't actually all that effective? Personally I don't have enough IG infantry models to attempt such a tactic, lol.

MSU with really squishy units just means losing units quickly, but largely the combined squads are to take greatest advantage of orders.

 Purifier wrote:

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Fantasy is using this percentage based system, and I've been wondering
Is that the main reason for that games balance?
And what would this system do to 40K? The same?
God I hope so
Lets talk
What would a percentage based force organization do to the game of 40k?
Break it?
Make it better?
Or would things be the same?

The reason why WHFB is much much more balanced is because the worst model in the game can be useful by tying up the best enemy hammer for the full length of the game.
The very best example is Skavenslaves. They are the lowest of the low. Imperial Guard Conscripts were champions compared to Skavenslaves... and yet Skavenslaves is the main reason why Skaven have been doing great since 8th came out.
So how can the worst model in the game be the best unit in an arguably powerful army?

Because there is a use for everything in WHFB. Not the case in 40k. Conscripts can be butchered to a man by a single character and he can do it in time to go out and be more than useful in the game. Not to mention that moving him away from the block is laughably easy. You won't get stuck there in the first place.
In WHFB you can't just jump pack him away to his intended target.

What your forgetting about is what makes shaven slaves so effective is how many you can have in a single squad. If 40k allowed for such squad sizes(40+) at 2pts a pop even chapter master beak stick and the krumpas would get tied down the whole game.

And skaven slaves arent a good example because 40k has no equivalent.

If I gave you the option to field Conscripts for 2 points a pop, no shooting weapons and no maximum unit size, they'd still be useless. Most armies would pieplate them just for the laughs, and at 25% dead would go put the kettle on while you moved them back the distance they needed to flee. Useless models on paper are useless in 40k. Useless units on paper in fantasy don't have to be.

Conscripts are already only 3pts and can be taken in units of up to 50. Throw a commissar in there and they'll become quite a tarpit (though I'm sure every sniper/precision shot/barrage weapon would be focused on that commissar, lol).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I don't think percentile based FOC will help the game, and for a simple reason: MSU. In a 1750 list for Orks, I could theoretically take. 10 grot units of 11 (grots +runtherd) and 8 units of 10 ork boyz for my required 50% and then for HS have 5 battlewagons with pleny of points left over for some KFF meks. That might sounds ridiculous (because it is) but most tradition armies simply would not have enough units to hit every single other unit, and a army like that can effectively camp on objectives. it might do horrible on kill points, but that's now only 1/6 of the missions.

Imperial Guard can already do that.

For 388pts, you can have 9 troop units for a single troops FOC slot. It's totally conceivable to have 25-30 separate units in a 2000pt army and still have room for 4-6 Leman Russes (or ~6 Valkyries, or ~6 Hellhounds and so on).

If you just wanted to go hardcore minimalist troops, IG can legally take about 50 separate troop units in a 2000pt army.

Never seen anyone try something like that though.

Mostly because they combine squads at that point,

Yeah, but it's interesting to note that people would rather blob them together than take a ton of small units to try and overwhelm the enemy, is that because MSU isn't actually all that effective? Personally I don't have enough IG infantry models to attempt such a tactic, lol.

I think atleast some people (I would) decides not to do it because it would be a logistic nightmare. Keeping track of what's what and where one unit ends and another starts... as much as that would be perfect to represent the realism of war, I think it would just suck the fun out of the game. It's too much work to be worth winning for.

 Purifier wrote:
I think atleast some people (I would) decides not to do it because it would be a logistic nightmare. Keeping track of what's what and where one unit ends and another starts... as much as that would be perfect to represent the realism of war, I think it would just suck the fun out of the game. It's too much work to be worth winning for.

Yeah, 40k isn't well suited to such games. I avoid bringing too many cheap models even though I have IG and Tyranids because I hate moving the bastards, if they were also all in 50 separate units it would be even worse, lol.

I will never even attempt the "50 conscripts with commissar uber tarpit" because there's no way I could be bothered unpacking, moving, removing casualties and repacking that many models in a unit that's worth less than 200pts, lol.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, but it's interesting to note that people would rather blob them together than take a ton of small units to try and overwhelm the enemy, is that because MSU isn't actually all that effective? Personally I don't have enough IG infantry models to attempt such a tactic, lol.

The main reason no one does the individual units for guard is because guardsmen are squishy and not very useful on their own, unlike orks who are threatening to most things in range of them

Hey hey, I don't want to hear any more nerfing of Wave Serpents. We took the brunt of the $75 dedicated transport back in 3rd Edition before it was cool in 6th Edition...give us our time in the spotlight!

Crap, we already had 5th Edition.

Give us MORE time in the spotlight!

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Hey hey, I don't want to hear any more nerfing of Wave Serpents. We took the brunt of the $75 dedicated transport back in 3rd Edition before it was cool in 6th Edition...give us our time in the spotlight!

Crap, we already had 5th Edition.

Give us MORE time in the spotlight!

If by nerf, you mean ban, I'd be all for it at this point.

Again I say don't make Dedicated Transports count towards the 25% minimum for troops. Also to the idea of MSU rulling the meta, simply remove the "Purge the Alien" mission all together and make ALL missions include Kill Points on a lesser scale... say 1 KP/3 Units.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Hey hey, I don't want to hear any more nerfing of Wave Serpents. We took the brunt of the $75 dedicated transport back in 3rd Edition before it was cool in 6th Edition...give us our time in the spotlight!

Crap, we already had 5th Edition.

Give us MORE time in the spotlight!

1 Shot Shields with a 24" range is the change I want to see.

x13rads wrote:
Again I say don't make Dedicated Transports count towards the 25% minimum for troops. Also to the idea of MSU rulling the meta, simply remove the "Purge the Alien" mission all together and make ALL missions include Kill Points on a lesser scale... say 1 KP/3 Units.

I think purge the alien still has a place on the mission chart. And even if it didnt, people would still play it

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:

x13rads wrote:
Again I say don't make Dedicated Transports count towards the 25% minimum for troops. Also to the idea of MSU rulling the meta, simply remove the "Purge the Alien" mission all together and make ALL missions include Kill Points on a lesser scale... say 1 KP/3 Units.

I think purge the alien still has a place on the mission chart. And even if it didnt, people would still play it

I agree people would still play it, but does it really need to be on there. Especially if it was rolled into other missions to some degree.

Another option would be to rewrite every codex to present a selection of armies following themes such as “assault horde”, “elite mounted infantry”, “battlesuit wing” and so on. These would be a bit like formations. Each “formation” would be a standard selection of units you have to take, with a range of choices to top them up and create some variation.

darkcloak wrote:
Whoa whoa, hold the train. More math? Come on guys, I don't want to have to break out the calculator just to play a game...

It's not particularly difficult math to figure out some percentage brackets. You'd need the calculator more for totalling up your army than figuring out the brackets, and that's only if you need a calculator to do that.

You also have to think how checking someone's list will become a nightmare. You run in to those dim gamers who think all black armored space marines are Templars. They can't do math.....

On the flip side, GW can then sell calculators with a 150% markup and you can make list- making part of Forging. A. Narrative.

Me watching you guys argue

I think a recommended percentage would be a good idea. Forcing it I can see issues like not being able to field what you want and have to make sacrifices to make the cut .

 R3YNO wrote:
I think a recommended percentage would be a good idea. Forcing it I can see issues like not being able to field what you want and have to make sacrifices to make the cut .

I'd argue that in some ways forcing it might be exactly what the game needs to get things under control.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, it's been a few years since 4th edition and I've misplaced my old rule book.

I seem to recall that we used both the Force Org chart and a percentage based system at the same time. It seemed to work. It was a double modifier that prevented spam and prevented overpowered/overpriced units.
And I recall winning and losing based on total points values removed, making those really expensive units a risky endeavor.
I also remember victory points that gave differing values to unit type kills, meaning you got more victory points (kill points) for an HQ than you got for Troops.

And as for a calculator. How hard is it to figure out 25% of 1000, 1500, or 2000 points? Heck 1850 is pretty darn easy, since every 185 is 10%. Especially since, I bet, everyone writing in this thread could tell me the estimated percentage of rolling double ones without even thinking about it.

I posted the same thing a couple of months ago ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/573998.page ), and it basically came to the same conclusion as here.
I really like the idea of using percentages, as I'm tired of seeing people take the absolute minimum troops and going towards spam. The point of troops is that they are the most common soldiers on the field. They should actually be there and do the roles they have. I'm fine with special HQ's still moving certain units to troops, as they provide more "narrative/fluffy" armies.
The problems with the % system are twofold. 1) It will take a bit of reworking the categories to make it fit. 2) The internal imbalance in the game. Things like wave serpents and flying croissants will still be inordinately better than flayed ones or striking scorpions.
I've played a couple of games with home rules that change the FoC to %. I played my nids with tons of little guys and small groups of venomthropes and zoanthropes spread out within the swarm backed up by MCs. It was nice to not have to worry about the FoC and be able to take more of the things I liked. It worked out pretty well within our group, but this might have also been that we weren't WAAC gamers and didn't try to abuse the system. I think at tourneys the % system could keep the meta as unbalanced as it is already due to a few spamable units.

TLDR: I like this idea and wish GW would move towards a similar % system like WHF. However, the inherent problems in the game already wouldn't all be solved by this change.

I think the % based system really helps armies like Tyranids the same way as I prefer the % based system for my Orcs and Goblins in Fantasy. It gives such armies a lot more flexibility. Suddenly certain options aren't fighting for a slot quite as hard and so you can afford to take more varied army lists.

The FOC slots system we have now really punishes armies that have a lot of reasonably cheap options in Elites/FA/HS and armies that have big expensive elites/HS/FA don't really care if they can only take 3 of something or only 2 HQ's.

Are you kidding? The only competitive Nid list is basically 75% Fast Attack.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Are you kidding? The only competitive Nid list is basically 75% Fast Attack.

It's also a FOC breaking dataslate... so I'm not really sure how it fits in to this discussion. The most you can spend on FA in a reasonable sized Tyranid army that doesn't use FOC breaking dataslates is about 25% anyway. I feel like Skyblight would be something that moves Gargoyles in to the troops slot.

I will admit the Skyblight swarm often slips my mind because even though I am a Tyranid player, frak buying $250 more models so I can play the latest flavour of the month FOC breaking spam army that quite possibly won't be allowed in a tournament or competitive games anyway.

It is not likely that GW will design or promote an army list system that does not involve the promotion of buying more models.

(Forgive my Whining and moaning™ cynicism.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is not likely that GW will design or promote an army list system that does not involve the promotion of buying more models.

Or one which stops people using all the models they've already bought.

"...the rules tended to emphasise the power of characters and individual vehicles against a backdrop of massed troops dying in droves and achieving very little." - Andy Chambers writing about 2e in the introduction to 3e, WD 226.

They're right back where they were then, with the competitive meta dominated by character heavy deathstars and (superheavy and flying) vehicles/walkers. Only now they've painted themselves into a corner. If they try to pull things back then what happens to all those pricy superheavies, flyers, fortifications and allies? If they just continue the march toward Epic 28mm then anyone who is holding on to the idea that 7e will 'fix' 6e will feel cheated.

In any case 2e - with its character and vehicle heavy lists - had a percentage based army list system, so that in itself won't solve anything. Unless they also do something about all the extras that have been piled on in 6e - flyers, fortifications, allies, superheavies, formations etc - all it will do is bulk up the size of the mandatory troop choices. Slightly.

40k is mostly screwed now, they should have placed more proper limitations on allies, fortifications, flyers and superheavies from the get go. Now we're stuck with them.

Even the change from 2nd to 3rd didn't really stop people playing with their existing models.

Can't be any worse. 2nd had percentages and worked out fairly well (of course there were no Troops/Elites/Fast sections, everything was either characters, squads or typically vehicles).

Couple of things one... All this skaven slave stuff is silly because no one is saying what they actually do. They are more or less ld10 rerollable at 2 points a model, can be taken in any size.(seen 60-100 man units) they can hold off they strongest units in the game for several turns. Also in fantasy shooting tends not to be as significant as 40k so when you are trying to getto the strong units of the skaven army slaves hold you up a few turns and then set up charges with thir powerful units on the targets they want.

Next I think changing the foc to % does nothing to beast star or the seer council. It might mess with ovesa star a bit but really just makes it weaker than the eldar lists.

I also think it will hurt the community, as people just spent all this money and time on formations and they will be more or less worthless models.

Finally this new restriction hurts the little balance there is in the games as
1) the most powerful armies are unaffected
2) certain codex become worthless (daemons of all types will now have a very hard time competing with so much of their power in hq..unless its like 50% hq ) and thus leaves the internal balance of the game in an even worse state.

So in conclusion if you want every "competitive game" to be eldar vs eldar then I guess this is the right move.
At least ATM I see sm, chaos, eldar, tau, tyranids, and wolves at tourneys...I'd hate it to change for the worst.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is not likely that GW will design or promote an army list system that does not involve the promotion of buying more models.

(Forgive my Whining and moaning™ cynicism.)

Your FineWhining™ and FineMoaning™?

Actually a % based system would end up in people spending more money on troop box sets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ashcroft wrote:
In any case 2e - with its character and vehicle heavy lists - had a percentage based army list system, so that in itself won't solve anything. Unless they also do something about all the extras that have been piled on in 6e - flyers, fortifications, allies, superheavies, formations etc - all it will do is bulk up the size of the mandatory troop choices. Slightly.

I don't see Superheavies, flyers or fortifications being the real problem. Very few of our problem combos come from such things (actually the only real flyer I know of that is consistantly complained about at this point is the Heldrake and that can be fixed by making the Baleflamer a 15-20 points upgrade over the Autocannon, and only letting it shoot in it's front 180 instead of a 360. Vector Strikes need to be changed through the core rules to allow cover saves too, but that's a seperate issue). Though I will always agree that D-Weapons need to be changed. They're just too good at killing EVERYTHING (which I know is kind of the point but it's a game which abstraction of the setting, tone it down GW).

Percentages can do a fair amount at reigning stuff in. Want that Reverent Titan? Well play a 3,600 point game so you can fit it in under that 25% cap. Sure they don't fix every combo, but they will cut down the nonsense quite a bit.

 MWHistorian wrote:
And SOB's elits section would need help. As it is, there's nothing worth taking there. If I have to spend 25% on Repentia I might as well call it a game before I roll the first dice.
I say it would be easier just to nerf Riptides, seercouncils and Waves serpants.

I say it would be easier to switch to a percentage-based system to avoid non-sense like “You can take either 3 wraithknights/land raiders/riptide or 3 wraithlords/predators/sniper drone team”, and to then fix various codexes now that this issue has been solved. You are basically saying “I want to put all my points into FA and HS because my troops and elite sucks”. I want my troops and elite not to suck, and I also want to be able to be able to field multiple small retributor/dominion squads because it is fun !

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
And SOB's elits section would need help. As it is, there's nothing worth taking there. If I have to spend 25% on Repentia I might as well call it a game before I roll the first dice.
I say it would be easier just to nerf Riptides, seercouncils and Waves serpants.

I say it would be easier to switch to a percentage-based system to avoid non-sense like “You can take either 3 wraithknights/land raiders/riptide or 3 wraithlords/predators/sniper drone team”, and to then fix various codexes now that this issue has been solved. You are basically saying “I want to put all my points into FA and HS because my troops and elite sucks”. I want my troops and elite not to suck, and I also want to be able to be able to field multiple small retributor/dominion squads because it is fun !

I want both. I want large amounts of options that don't feel like automatic takes paired with a system that helps prevent abuse, even if it takes longer to make a list.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is not likely that GW will design or promote an army list system that does not involve the promotion of buying more models.

(Forgive my Whining and moaning™ cynicism.)

Your FineWhining™ and FineMoaning™?

Actually a % based system would end up in people spending more money on troop box sets.

This is true, but most of the troop sets are actually, in the wider context of the market, not ludicrously overpriced. Sure, the likes of Perry and DFG still offer better comparable value, but the pricing of the boxed troops sets is something I don't have a major issue with.

We know GW make roughly ~70-75% GP on the kits they sell, but that won't be uniform, and I suspect the mark up on a Stormraven, Heldrake or Land Raider, being a small amount extra plastic for a much larger price, will be higher than a Space Marine Tac Squad or Lesser Daemon box, hence the change to a percentage system may still net GW less cash, or result in a price rise on a vital purchase item, raising the barrier to entry still higher.

That said, I heartily endorse the idea, I think it would go a long way to countering/neutering some of the "problem children" of the current landscape of the game, and if the book authors can just learn a little restraint when writing new units, I think the game would look a lot healthier in a very short span of time if it happened.

 azreal13 wrote:
We know GW make roughly ~70-75% GP on the kits they sell

Only when dealing with Cost of Sales is that true. When you factor in Operating Costs that shrinks to 12%.

That's why I specified GP.

That's short for gross profit.

If I was factoring in operational costs, I would have been mentioning net profit.

I would love a percentage based system to happen, but I don't think it will.

 azreal13 wrote:
That's why I specified GP.

That's short for gross profit.

If I was factoring in operational costs, I would have been mentioning net profit.

Oh I understand, but some people might end up confused that with how much money they actually keep at the end of the day (something I've seen happen in the past) which is why I elaborated further before we had like 10 posts about how GW is ripping people off.

Off topic much

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Off topic much

Not really, no, you just have to follow the line of thought.

Changes to the game are largely motivated by manipulating players into spending more. Therefore the likelihood of it happening is directly linked to the prospect of it generating more cash for GW.

A couple of posts clarifying what products make GW the most money and therefore are most likely to have their purchase encouraged isn't really all that OT.

I think it'd work out overall. Sure, people will still find powerful lists, but the average player will find more enjoyable and competitive games with this style of build than current 'allowed' lists.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Off topic much

Not really, no, you just have to follow the line of thought.

Changes to the game are largely motivated by manipulating players into spending more. Therefore the likelihood of it happening is directly linked to the prospect of it generating more cash for GW.

A couple of posts clarifying what products make GW the most money and therefore are most likely to have their purchase encouraged isn't really all that OT.

That's fine but we're talking about wether the percentage system would balance the game further,we aren't talking about the potential profit Gw would make

But if GW wouldn't do it, the whole conversation is irrelevant.

I appreciate that you're the OP, but this is a discussion thread, and discussions do tend to meander a bit. If you're really concerned, use the yellow triangle to alert a Mod and let them decide.

Can't be any worse. 2nd had percentages and worked out fairly well (of course there were no Troops/Elites/Fast sections, everything was either characters, squads or typically vehicles).

I completely disagree. Yeah, second ed did have the percentages system, but NO. It did not work "fairly well". Abuse of that system is one of the primary reasons the system got broken up into FOC slots when they did the 3rd ed rules. It actually made it easier to take all elite style "unrealistic" armies, etc. Anyone who remembers playing the Eldar and their buckets of hovering sustained fire dice, or Abadon and his terminator body guard backed up by terminators with some terminators and a sorceror terminator (this was of course back when terminators were darn near the "be all end all" that the fluff makes them out to be) will know what I'm talking about.

I'm of the opinion that as long as it's a game there are going to be ways to "game" the system. The issue is a lot less about what system we use to pick armies (FOC, percentages, etc) and more to do with the actual armies themselves. A different system isn't going to "fix" anything if the way codex writing doesn't change. It will just make it "broken" in different ways.

If you take into account, 1 HQ & 2 troops will be compulsory, and only troops score still....

I'd just make it that no more than 25% can be spent on HQ, no more than 25% on elites, no more than 30% can be spent on fast attack and 30% on Heavy support. I know that adds up to 110% but there is no cap on troops, and you still need 2 and 1 HQ anyway, this means that certain spam lists are still restricted but works in the force organisation chart still, you can only have 3 heavy support max still per force org chart, and only 30% of your points can be spent on those 3.

I'd then make it that dedicated transports for troop choices goes against the fast attack allowance also, to stop obscene transport spamming, dedicated transports in other categories would then be in that category. Unfortunately it will make mech lists quite redundant, but if the rule writers can't be trusted to not make obscene and broken transports for certain armies then this is how it must be. Examples of this would be, sternguard drop pod would go against elites, assault squad without jump packs would go against FA, but troop choice rhino or drop pods would still go against FA.

I completely disagree. Yeah, second ed did have the percentages system, but NO. It did not work "fairly well". Abuse of that system is one of the primary reasons the system got broken up into FOC slots when they did the 3rd ed rules. It actually made it easier to take all elite style "unrealistic" armies, etc. Anyone who remembers playing the Eldar and their buckets of hovering sustained fire dice, or Abadon and his terminator body guard backed up by terminators with some terminators and a sorceror terminator (this was of course back when terminators were darn near the "be all end all" that the fluff makes them out to be) will know what I'm talking about.

The only problem with the percentage system in 2nd edition was that the "Character" section was too high of a percentage. Instead of up to 50% of the army's total value, it should have been 25%. Would have immediately fixed all the situations where the game was devolving into centering around powerful characters. At the same time, "Squads" should have been raised to 50% so that armies centered around their troops, rather than vehicles and characters.

The Terminator problem could have been solved by putting them in the "Support" section, which would have been automatically beholden to the 25% restriction. Although terminators were not that bad without powerful characters, as tons of weapons gave huge negatives to armor save rolls, which was bad even for the way Terminator armor worked.

The only problem with the percentage system in 2nd edition was that the "Character" section was too high of a percentage.

I agree that was definitly one of the bigger issues (that's why so many people refer to 2nd ed as the age of "Hero Hammer"), but it wasn't the ONLY issue. Even with your suggestions (which aren't too bad) I still think all you would do is shift the meta until it settled into a different version of "unbalanced". I still maintain that until they get codex writing down to the point where books are fairly well balanced against one another, then no system of army selection is really going to fix anything. It may change some things, but yeah, it's still not going to fix anything. You're essentially trying to fix a broken process at the wrong point in the pipeline.

I think this is a good idea. It didnt work in 2nd because there was no FOC like there is now. If you combine the FOC requirements with a % limit on units then you won't have crazy things like the Triptide at 1850 points.

Back in 2nd edition Riptides would have been in the "Support" section and could only add up to 25% of your full army cost. So that would automatically cut into Triptides alone. Things were generally twice the points values of the current edition, too. So a 2,000pt army contained nowhere near as many units.

yes so adding in a % limit cuts into that. Its exactly like I said. 2nd didnt work because you could field a whole army of terminators because they weren't in support. The % base fixes triptides and the FOC fixes terminators etc.

True. Mostly it's funny as an implementation of it would be yet another thing that GW supposedly left in history, but dredges up again in a quest to change something with each edition as a smokescreen for not polishing other things that already exist. It would be labelled as an "innovation to the Force Org system".

I'm curious to see what kinds of lists people would assemble.

Let's assume that you need 25% min of troops and max 25% of the rest. Let'sfurther assume that the FOC is tossed out beyond this.

Finally, let's say 1500 points. That means at least 375 pts in Troops, no more than 375 in any other category.

What does *your* list look like under those conditions?

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm curious to see what kinds of lists people would assemble.

Let's assume that you need 25% min of troops and max 25% of the rest. Let'sfurther assume that the FOC is tossed out beyond this.

Finally, let's say 1500 points. That means at least 375 pts in Troops, no more than 375 in any other category.

What does *your* list look like under those conditions?

Largely the same actually. 3 Exorcists is exactly 375 (with no upgrades) and I usually take at least 3 squads of Sisters so not much would need to change in my army.

What about linking the other slots to Troops? One HS for a Troop for example? One HQ per two Troops.

Dedicated Transport counts as that Troop's 'support' unit.

Some units get extra rules. Eldar Jetbikes - "May only be supported by Fast Attack", Chaos Cultist - "May not provide a Support unit" etc.

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm curious to see what kinds of lists people would assemble.

Let's assume that you need 25% min of troops and max 25% of the rest. Let'sfurther assume that the FOC is tossed out beyond this.

Finally, let's say 1500 points. That means at least 375 pts in Troops, no more than 375 in any other category.

What does *your* list look like under those conditions?

Guard would be impossible to build , more then 25% are in HQ/Heavy support . Fast attack would be ok , if only 2 vendettas were taken .

Makumba wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm curious to see what kinds of lists people would assemble.

Let's assume that you need 25% min of troops and max 25% of the rest. Let'sfurther assume that the FOC is tossed out beyond this.

Finally, let's say 1500 points. That means at least 375 pts in Troops, no more than 375 in any other category.

What does *your* list look like under those conditions?

Guard would be impossible to build , more then 25% are in HQ/Heavy support . Fast attack would be ok , if only 2 vendettas were taken .

In the old codex my HQ was rarely above 200 points at 1500. 375 is plenty. It would prevent taking 6 leman russ in your HQ, which is exactly the point. The HS section could be a problem though.

pask+LR +coteaz and your already almost passed the HQ limit and you still need a senior officer or yarik for the no cover order.
And if someone takes knight main , the same happens. Senchel +coteaz+senior officer bring you over 25%.

Makumba wrote:
pask+LR +coteaz and your already almost passed the HQ limit and you still need a senior officer or yarik for the no cover order

Then do not bring both Pask + Coteaz. Oh, but wait, not including two completely unrelated special character in your army list would be very unfluffy ! Every IG army ever needs to be lead by that specific Inquisitor !
I think Coteaz not being always included by default is a feature rather than a bug of this system.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Makumba wrote:
pask+LR +coteaz and your already almost passed the HQ limit and you still need a senior officer or yarik for the no cover order

Then do not bring both Pask + Coteaz. Oh, but wait, not including two completely unrelated special character in your army list would be very unfluffy ! Every IG army ever needs to be lead by that specific Inquisitor !
I think Coteaz not being always included by default is a feature rather than a bug of this system.

Exactly my thoughts!

I'm sorry but "but....but...then I can't do that cheesy thing!" Is a defence that will get very short shrift from me.

Adapt or die, get over it.

GorillaWarfare wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm curious to see what kinds of lists people would assemble.

Let's assume that you need 25% min of troops and max 25% of the rest. Let'sfurther assume that the FOC is tossed out beyond this.

Finally, let's say 1500 points. That means at least 375 pts in Troops, no more than 375 in any other category.

What does *your* list look like under those conditions?

Guard would be impossible to build , more then 25% are in HQ/Heavy support . Fast attack would be ok , if only 2 vendettas were taken .

In the old codex my HQ was rarely above 200 points at 1500. 375 is plenty. It would prevent taking 6 leman russ in your HQ, which is exactly the point. The HS section could be a problem though.

I think IG will need exceptions or a different % split. Now that tanks are in HQ, 25% is probably a bit small. A 3 tank HQ squadron STARTS at 390pts (for bare Eradicators).

If instead of elites/HS/FA we went with a core/special/rare system, IG could have a lot of their tanks in "special" instead.

Alternatively just give them a different % split, that's often the way it's been in previous editions of WHFB.

I think a % based system would inevitably piss all of you off. But it would balance the game if done right.

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
I think a % based system would inevitably piss all of you off. But it would balance the game if done right.

I'd say a percentage system like WFB where it also limits you in certain slots with a limit on what you can take in there depending on the points level would do it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
I think a % based system would inevitably piss all of you off. But it would balance the game if done right.

I'd say a percentage system like WFB where it also limits you in certain slots with a limit on what you can take in there depending on the points level would do it.

Yup, just like that. It would allow flexibility and balance