Switch Theme:

40k 7th Edition release 24th may - All info in 1st post, psychic power cards added (5/21)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 azreal13 wrote:
 quickfuze wrote:
 Thud wrote:
"We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"

"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"


Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?

In other words; percentages confirmed.


You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)


I think allies need to be revisited, but a % cap and revising the chart and the interaction rules will go a long way to fixing it, no need to scrap it entirely.


You both are looking at this as if Allies isnt working.

As far as GW is concerned it is. Escalation, allies, everything is geared towards putting every model you own on the table. It is not an accident. It is by design. And that is precisely why percentage based systems, at least one that wont let someone take a knight in a 1500 point game, is absolutely guaranteed to be rubbish.

Gw don't want you to take one knight in a 1500 point game. They want you to take two. They will not be restricting the use of models in any way shape or form, it goes against the last 2 years of design philosophy, if anything, they will relax the rules.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

So I was thinking about the fact GW pulled the digital codex and the rumors of a free update and I had a thought: it might be related to a price increase on the new digital codex. It makes sense honestly that if they're giving out free updates to the existing customers but are raising prices that they don't want everyone jumping in to get the cheaper codex and lose potential sales on the updated codex.

It's just a theory based on the idea that GW is giving us a free update for owners of the older books of course, so it can still be wrong, but if the free update is true then I think that's what is going to happen.
   
Made in nl
Aspirant Tech-Adept






Well great if the % thin is true my entire Space Marine army won't be playable... Thanks GW. And sideboards...?
I guess I'll stick to 6th for a while.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 13:43:48


Poor ignorant guardsmen, it be but one of many of the great miracles of the Emperor! The Emperor is magic, like Harry Potter, but more magic! A most real and true SPACE WIZARD! And for the last time... I'm not a space plumber.

1K Vostroyan Firstborn
2K Flylords
600 Pts Orks
3K Ad-Mech 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

From Natfka:

via a must remain anonymous source on Faeit 212
FoC removed, percentages added.

Players have a "sideboard" of up to X number of selections (2-5, bracketed on points, so 1k or less games you have 2 sideboards, at 3k+ you have 5).

Sideboards can't be more than 25% of the total, or can be none at all.

They are referred to as "Secondary Detachments."

They are used for anything from allies to just additional things from your own codex.

If they are allies, then they require an HQ and a troop, and are still bound by the 25% of total.

Both players are expected to have sideboards.

Sideboarding is now a part of the game, done before deployment but in order of turn priority. So the person going first, picks their sideboard first after learning what race their opponent is playing, and seeing 75% of their army (and the available sideboards).

The person going second then picks their sideboard, after their opponent has selected, but before either side deploys.
----------------------------
Other tweeks include assaulting as a form of sweeping advance/consolidation.

The option to flee, in response to being charged (after overwatching) but there is the potential to be swept and the unit charging can (if they have the movement and sweep you) just hit a different unit provided it's in the same rough direction as the unit they swept.

The main thing I wanted to touch on is sideboards, % based army building, battle brothers being removed and units being able to lock themselves into combat to combat, but simultaneously enemy generals having another tool to avoid combat to counter act this.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





Oregon, USA

i'd actually be ok with the percentage thing, probably.

But then i like to see troops on the table as more than just a tax to let a player max out HS/Elites/FA depending on codex.

It would depend on how the rules were written, but this being GW...

Sideboards i like not at all

The Viletide: Daemons of Nurgle/Deathguard: 7400 pts
Disclples of the Dragon - Ad Mech - about 2000 pts
GSC - about 2000 Pts
Rhulic Mercs - um...many...
Circle Oroboros - 300 Pts or so
Menoth - 300+ pts
 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

NoggintheNog wrote:
 azreal13 wrote:
 quickfuze wrote:
 Thud wrote:
"We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"

"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"


Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?

In other words; percentages confirmed.


You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)


I think allies need to be revisited, but a % cap and revising the chart and the interaction rules will go a long way to fixing it, no need to scrap it entirely.


You both are looking at this as if Allies isnt working.

As far as GW is concerned it is. Escalation, allies, everything is geared towards putting every model you own on the table. It is not an accident. It is by design. And that is precisely why percentage based systems, at least one that wont let someone take a knight in a 1500 point game, is absolutely guaranteed to be rubbish.

Gw don't want you to take one knight in a 1500 point game. They want you to take two. They will not be restricting the use of models in any way shape or form, it goes against the last 2 years of design philosophy, if anything, they will relax the rules.


Perhaps, I don't have the benefit of the view from the top of their ivory tower, but speaking from a personal viewpoint, I haven't, and don't intend to, use allies because I don't play in a hardcore competitive environment, and nobody, even the biggest WAAC player in the group, has really used them outside of a little experimentation when 6th first landed.

If the taint of allies being a bit of a douche, WAAC move, rather than something to do to make a fluffy varied list and allow a bit of divergence in my mini collection could be removed, I'd be more inclined to buy some more models.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot





London

Dont people realise that % will not only lead to GW's best models selling less. i.e 2 basic riptides with an IA is more than 20% of an 1850 list and even more at 1750. Why would they put that cap on the sales of some of their most popular and expensive minitures?

Secondly if people cant spam elites and heavy etc they will just spam troops. If troops are 40%+ imagain the amout of nightscyths with 5 man necron warrior units you will be able to field while anti air units such as riptides with EWO, VT and HBC, quad guns, punisher squadrons etc will be limited to 1 or 2 per amy. %'s are stupid.

Dropping battle brothers on the other hand makes some sense.

Our FLGS
https://www.facebook.com/Warboar
https://twitter.com/warboarstore
 
   
Made in us
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar





Upstate, New York

The whole sideboard concept is exceeding my RDA on salt. While very GW from a selling miniature POV, it is also very game-y and goes against the grain for forging a narrative.

   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Nevelon wrote:
The whole sideboard concept is exceeding my RDA on salt. While very GW from a selling miniature POV, it is also very game-y and goes against the grain for forging a narrative.

Having a 25% chunk of your army you could swap out as you wish makes pick up games easier though. And it fits into the concept that an army wouldn't go fight someone without brining the tools to actually deal with them (anti-tank for fighting enemy armor or flamers for fighting Orks) so I could see a "Forge the Narrative" spin available there too.
   
Made in nl
Confessor Of Sins






Sideboards are geared towards tournaments, given GWs stance on tournaments lately I don't see them adding tournament rules into the rulebook.

Cratfworld Alaitoc (Gallery)
Order of the Red Mantle (Gallery)
Grand (little) Army of Chaos, now painting! (Blog
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

NoggintheNog wrote:

You both are looking at this as if Allies isnt working.

As far as GW is concerned it is. Escalation, allies, everything is geared towards putting every model you own on the table. It is not an accident. It is by design. And that is precisely why percentage based systems, at least one that wont let someone take a knight in a 1500 point game, is absolutely guaranteed to be rubbish.

Gw don't want you to take one knight in a 1500 point game. They want you to take two. They will not be restricting the use of models in any way shape or form, it goes against the last 2 years of design philosophy, if anything, they will relax the rules.

I think this assessment is probably spot on. The mantra definitely seems to be: "MORE!"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 14:00:21


 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Southeastern PA, USA

 azreal13 wrote:
 quickfuze wrote:
 Thud wrote:
"We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"

"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"


Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?

In other words; percentages confirmed.


You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)


I think allies need to be revisited, but a % cap and revising the chart and the interaction rules will go a long way to fixing it, no need to scrap it entirely.


I think percentage caps alone would be a majorly positive change for the game. It wouldn't create "balance", but it'd rein in a lot of the extreme builds you see. Players and armies would adjust...which of course means more sales for GW. It would however probably mean fewer large kits sold, as others have said. So I'm not sure how plausible that approach is.

Now, I thought the sideboards rumor was highly plausible in terms of intent. That'd drive sales like a MFer. Think of all those 1850/2000 pt builds that'd need another several hundred points worth of stuff. Of course, I think sideboards add extra complexity that'd turn GW off. So ultimately I think the execution makes the idea implausible.

I'm not a GW hater, but I also think it helps to follow the money with regard to their decision-making. That leaves me mixed as to whether percentage caps and other allies restrictions are plausible changes.

My AT Gallery
My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight





Raleigh, NC

Well what GW really wants is you to spend more money. That might be at the expense of the more popular big models, but again the main thing is getting more income.

Having a 40% minimum on troops might just do that, especially with horde-style armies.

For instance, with 1500pts. of IG if I filled my 40% Troops core with platoons, I need about 5 IFS, 2 PCS, and a couple of vehicles (let's say Chimeras).

So I buy (at GW retail):
- Two armored fist squads (to save money): $120
- A weapon weapon box (somehow I just need one): $40
- 4 boxes of Cadian shock troops: $120

That's in the realm of 600 points (if I'm pimping the squads out) for $280. From there I can go get big units, but I think in some cases the these can be more efficient in points cost per dollar.

And of course this example differs for other armies, but I see 40% Troop minimum benefiting GW the same way it does in fantasy: forcing you to buy more models to make a legal force.

Personally, I would like to see more Troops- the armies of Gundam-Tau and FMCs don't interest me as much; it looks less like a battle and more like a small skirmish army from another game manhandling army men from another.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 14:02:05


 
   
Made in ie
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From Natfka:

...
Both players are expected to have sideboards.

Sideboarding is now a part of the game, done before deployment but in order of turn priority. So the person going first, picks their sideboard first after learning what race their opponent is playing, and seeing 75% of their army (and the available sideboards).
...


That's an interesting mechanic, and a pretty decent way to get people to overbuy by at least 25% (unless you only have 1 sideboard).

There are already a few systems where your list isn't set until deployment (Malifaux lets you hire your crew once you know your opponents master and the missions) but it's on a completely different scale - my Malifaux crew has ~7 models in it, so my regular crew + a huge variety of alternatives is probably still less than 15 minis and will fit in a half-tray skirmish case. Sideboards in 40K are potentially another couple of squads or a squad + vehicle (normal games in my local meta are 1500pt, so that's 375/sideboard), or more than my entire Malifaux case, on top of my core selection.

So I'm not sure how well it'll be received; I suspect in my local scene most people will just bring a single sideboard and essentially ignore it.
   
Made in ca
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Edmonton, Alberta

Percentages is the one thing I adore about current WHFB, and was sad that 6th didn't have it. I would love to see it in 7th.

As for the side board thing. I was a huge tournament player in 5th, but 6th and allies realy killed my mojo for tournies. The accerated release scedual didn't help things, because new content was comeing out so fast just didn't have the money to keep ontop of such a rapidly changeing meta.

Haveing Side board detachments would get me interested in playing in tournments agien in all honesty. Because then I am able to better focus my collection into a balenced core army, and a handfull of specalized detachments to choose from. I won't feel like I'm failing around anymore when writeing my army lists to coupe with whatever crazy new addition GW has brought into the game.


Personally, Side boards to me sounds like it will be to good to be true.


As for people complaining that a % system, I find that is actully encourages more varitiy in unit choice then the old slot system. Right now at 2000 points, at 2000 points right now I could spam 3 helldrakes. Then ally with a CSM for a 4th.

What a boreing army.

with the % system, at 2000 points 2 heldrakes would be the max i could take.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 14:16:37


 
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule





Louisiana

Adding in a "sideboard" function helps players bring lists that are better prepared for their opponent's lists. A TAC list is a thing of 5th edition - with flyers, escalation, deathstars, tanks, MC's, hordes.... there's almost no way a single list can have tools to handle every possible threat. A sideboard feature would be nice so i could plant some hive guard and zoanthropes in one, in case i see lots of transports, and biovores & exocrines in the other, in case i need more blast weapons.

For those who don't like the idea of sideboarding -- Just build a list with 1 sideboard of the stuff you'd take anyway. Or if the rules don't allow it, just take 2 identical sideboards and use your existing 2000 point list.

It's all speculation, I don't know if %'s are the way to go but it would certainly alter lists you see played on the table.


Also, I think the FOC chart that used to be in codices hasn't been in any 6th edition codex. Maybe Imperial Knights & Inquisition, but they had to add an FOC Slot to function.

Been out of the game for awhile, trying to find time to get back into it. 
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





 ClockworkZion wrote:
From Natfka:

via a must remain anonymous source on Faeit 212
FoC removed, percentages added.

Players have a "sideboard" of up to X number of selections (2-5, bracketed on points, so 1k or less games you have 2 sideboards, at 3k+ you have 5).

Sideboards can't be more than 25% of the total, or can be none at all.

They are referred to as "Secondary Detachments."

They are used for anything from allies to just additional things from your own codex.

If they are allies, then they require an HQ and a troop, and are still bound by the 25% of total.

Both players are expected to have sideboards.

Sideboarding is now a part of the game, done before deployment but in order of turn priority. So the person going first, picks their sideboard first after learning what race their opponent is playing, and seeing 75% of their army (and the available sideboards).

The person going second then picks their sideboard, after their opponent has selected, but before either side deploys.
----------------------------
Other tweeks include assaulting as a form of sweeping advance/consolidation.

The option to flee, in response to being charged (after overwatching) but there is the potential to be swept and the unit charging can (if they have the movement and sweep you) just hit a different unit provided it's in the same rough direction as the unit they swept.

The main thing I wanted to touch on is sideboards, % based army building, battle brothers being removed and units being able to lock themselves into combat to combat, but simultaneously enemy generals having another tool to avoid combat to counter act this.


I don't buy any of that. Sideboards and the FOC going... Na. I do not buy it at all. It sounds like wishlisting and we know Nafka will post anything that comes his way. I do not buy any of that at all, and it goes against many of the other things we have heard.

 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan






 Messy0 wrote:
Dont people realise that % will not only lead to GW's best models selling less. i.e 2 basic riptides with an IA is more than 20% of an 1850 list and even more at 1750. Why would they put that cap on the sales of some of their most popular and expensive minitures?


Percentage FOCs can make a lot of sense depending on the exact figures, and could really help boost sales for armies with crowded low-cost slots (like Tyranid Elites, with lots of £15 models worth 40-50pts each).

It really comes down to what the limits for each slot are. A big cause for imbalance in 2E was the up to 50% HQ slot, resulting in tooled up 'herohammer' characters, so HQ would likely be more balanced with a 25% limit. On the other hand, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support would all likely work best at 0-50%. I could certainly see 50% being realistic for the HS slot, traditionally full of expensive units.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Steve steveson wrote:

I don't buy any of that. Sideboards and the FOC going... Na. I do not buy it at all. It sounds like wishlisting and we know Nafka will post anything that comes his way. I do not buy any of that at all, and it goes against many of the other things we have heard.


Percentages doesn't go against what we've heard and Sideboards were a thing that popped up in that massive rumor dump we saw early/mid-April.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 14:21:40


 
   
Made in gb
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot





London

 xttz wrote:
 Messy0 wrote:
Dont people realise that % will not only lead to GW's best models selling less. i.e 2 basic riptides with an IA is more than 20% of an 1850 list and even more at 1750. Why would they put that cap on the sales of some of their most popular and expensive minitures?


Percentage FOCs can make a lot of sense depending on the exact figures, and could really help boost sales for armies with crowded low-cost slots (like Tyranid Elites, with lots of £15 models worth 40-50pts each).

It really comes down to what the limits for each slot are. A big cause for imbalance in 2E was the up to 50% HQ slot, resulting in tooled up 'herohammer' characters, so HQ would likely be more balanced with a 25% limit. On the other hand, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support would all likely work best at 0-50%. I could certainly see 50% being realistic for the HS slot, traditionally full of expensive units.


I totally agree. I dont mind percentages if they get it right . They really need to get the balance for each slot right. 30% elite or 40% heavy i could like with or simply make it minimum 40% or 50% troop and let you split the rest how you want. That will still stop people taking 2 minimum fire warrior squads and spending the rest on riptides and skyrays. or 2 min jetbike units and the rest on wraithknights and seer councils.

Our FLGS
https://www.facebook.com/Warboar
https://twitter.com/warboarstore
 
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Don't buy that sideboard thing. It's way too complicated and GW has repeatedly shown that they want the game to be easier to pick up, not harder.

   
Made in gb
Stitch Counter





The North

%s doesn't totally remove these daft OP power gamer builds.

2200 points allows for 3 Tau riptides with upgrades
1500 points allows for 2 Tau riptides with upgrades

Lower points will mean less OP units yes, but they will still have a huge impact on the game.


The concentration of OP units will still be the same per match level. I believe it's more a problem of poor Stat/Ability writing rather than poor main rules where this is concerned


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 14:33:18


Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts

Saga: (Vikings, Normans, Anglo Danes, Irish, Scots, Late Romans, Huns and Anglo Saxons), Lion Rampant, Ronin: (Bushi x2, Sohei), Frostgrave: (Enchanter, Thaumaturge, Illusionist)
 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Sigvatr wrote:
Don't buy that sideboard thing. It's way too complicated and GW has repeatedly shown that they want the game to be easier to pick up, not harder.

I think it just sounds more complicated than it actually is. Definitely isn't that much more complicated than the concept of percentages.

I'm not putting money on any of the rumors at this point, but when it comes to GW I also don't rule things out for being "unlikely" as GW has surprised us with stuff we didn't expect in the past.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Wichita, KS

Spoletta wrote:
tag8833 wrote:

The Primary Army Formations section, though could be legit without contradicting anything in the logs. I hope it isn't the case, because blowing up Deamon Flying Circus while still allowing Tyranids to run 7-9 FMCs via skyblight at 1850 seems wrong.


I don't think that would be possible. I don't have my codex with me right now, but 230 of flyrant + 180 gargs + the 3 FMC should go over the allowed 925 in formations. Even if it doesn't if you put that and your 800 points of troops, that means no more points for other flyrants or any FMC. So at best they can fit 4 flyers.

You are right. 5 Flyers at 1850.

 Wulfmar wrote:
%s doesn't totally remove these daft OP power gamer builds.
2200 points allows for 3 Tau riptides with upgrades
1500 points allows for 2 Tau riptides with upgrades

Check your math. Base Riptide is 180 points.

20% of 1500 is 300 points. 300 < 2 x 180. 2 un-upgraded riptides fit in 1850.
20% of 2200 is 440 points. 440 < 3 x 180. 3 un-upgraded riptides fit in 2700


   
Made in us
Hunter with Harpoon Laucher




Castle Clarkenstein

 Thud wrote:
"We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"

"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"




Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?

In other words; percentages confirmed.



Agreed. GW does NOTHING these days that makes sense business wise. Know what they have told me as a retailer? "Look at the poster in WD that says May 24th on the back". That's it. Won't even fething admit that 6th edition is on the way. The week before I asked about it, told nothing on the horizon, and re-ordered starter sets. Starter sets that the next week they took out of their stores and advise me not to sell. (Won't be eating them, one of their multiple personalities is generous and will probably credit me on them.)

I've been begging for information. Something confirmed that will let me plan a launch event for the new edition. Demo games, food, all night ironman painting, etc. The things i used to do when I'd order 100-200 of a new edition. Can't do that kind of stuff with a weeks notice. Hell, if I even put up the rumors from Dakka on my website with a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' to get pre-orders in, I"d be violating their current terms of sale.

So I don't know about 6th edition, no such beast. No planning for non existant product launch. And they wonder why # of units sold per product is going down.............

....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World.
 
   
Made in gb
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot





London

tag8833 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
tag8833 wrote:

The Primary Army Formations section, though could be legit without contradicting anything in the logs. I hope it isn't the case, because blowing up Deamon Flying Circus while still allowing Tyranids to run 7-9 FMCs via skyblight at 1850 seems wrong.


I don't think that would be possible. I don't have my codex with me right now, but 230 of flyrant + 180 gargs + the 3 FMC should go over the allowed 925 in formations. Even if it doesn't if you put that and your 800 points of troops, that means no more points for other flyrants or any FMC. So at best they can fit 4 flyers.

You are right. 5 Flyers at 1850.

 Wulfmar wrote:
%s doesn't totally remove these daft OP power gamer builds.
2200 points allows for 3 Tau riptides with upgrades
1500 points allows for 2 Tau riptides with upgrades

Check your math. Base Riptide is 180 points.

20% of 1500 is 300 points. 300 < 2 x 180. 2 un-upgraded riptides fit in 1850.
20% of 2200 is 440 points. 440 < 3 x 180. 3 un-upgraded riptides fit in 2700



tag is right.

185 is 10% of 1850
Max 2 riptides with IA at 1850 max. No other upgrades. While at the same time people will be able to spam asmany Jetbikes, Noise marines, Nightscyths, Crisis suits (enclave), wave serpents! and other OP troop choices as they want.

Given the huge imbalance between troop choices in differnt armies this will just create a different flavor of spam one i think noone will like the taste of.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 15:02:21


Our FLGS
https://www.facebook.com/Warboar
https://twitter.com/warboarstore
 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 azreal13 wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
The game could be balanced within the Force Chart using better points values and by reducing the effect of Allies, Formations, etc.

If GW cannot -- or do not want to -- manage that by points, why should they be expected to manage it by percentages? Just for a start, percentages depend on points values.


It would be the easiest way, if they wanted to throw a bone to all the players who have apparently stopped/cut back their spending. GW's does like the path of least resistance these days.

The only significant problem list/unit that I can think of right now that wouldn't be mitigated at least partially by percentages is Waveserpent spam, which would need something else to fix it, or they may just wish to leave an "easy mode" army in the mix for those who have no desire to think while playing a game.


I think a "starter army" list for each codex would be a good idea for new players and GW shops alike.

In fact, rather than percentages, I advocate GW writing relatively specific and limited lists in each codex, which prevent players from changing more than X% (say 10-20%) of the unit selections. For instance, the IG could have a generic starter army list, an armoured corps list, a veteran legion list, and so on.

There are various things about percentages, though, that make me think it won't be the universal panacea a lot of people hope for.

The game got damaged by incorrect points values in the first place, and percentages will use those same values, which is a basic problem.

The game has become broken (arguably, because not all would agree on this) by allies, formations and superheavy units. If you add a new fix rather than directly addressing the thing that caused the problem, there is a chance of unexpected side effects.

In 40K terms, this means there would be unexpected winners and losers from percentages. In 4th and 5th edition, for example, Tau players used to complain bitterly about percentage based lists because Fire Warriors were so crappy that what was supposed to make the game fairer just made it worse. In the current meta, there will be winners such as Knight Titan armies and Tyranids, who can put MCs in their Troops slots.

I don't know how well percentages work in WHFB. We need some experienced players to come and tell us. Even then, the structure of WHFB is rather different to 40K, so the same thing may not work for both games.

On the plus side, percentages allow GW to change all of the codexes at once without reprinting them because you just need a rule in the main rulebook.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Norwalk, Connecticut

Honestly, if percentages come in and they remove the casualties from the front, over watch OR random charge, I'll come back. Seriously. Those two changes and I'll be back. Preferably the removal from front.

Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.

Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.


Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.  
   
Made in ca
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Edmonton, Alberta

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Honestly, if percentages come in and they remove the casualties from the front, over watch OR random charge, I'll come back. Seriously. Those two changes and I'll be back. Preferably the removal from front.


Removal from the front is why my Orks have been gathering dust the last two years. I hate that rule with a passion.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 15:05:28


 
   
Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar




USA

 Lockark wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Leth wrote:
I highly doubt percentages, that would be too restrictive on what you can take and do. They have been going out of their way to prevent limitations on what you can take.

It has been all about giving you the options and I like it more that way.
I'm completely new, and i don't know gak. Im only working on the old cadian battle force i got off ebay right now.
I want to make my army only use valkyries/vendettas, veterans, heavy weapons teams, and sentinals. Would that means that i now am almost required to get tanks even if they go against my fluff and what i want to do with my army?


No. The percentage system means you have a min and max ammount of points and can spend in each unit.

So no more then 25% of your army can be heavy support units. So at 2000 points you can't buy more then 500 points of heavy support for example.

If it's true troops will be a mandatory 40% of your points, that means at 2000 points ATLEAST 800 points of your army must be invested in troops for example.

If that's true I'm going to have to seriously re-think my choice of armies. I've played Daemons for the last three years and I've almost never taken more than the minimum required troops. I dislike horde-ish armies, and being forced to take 800 points of Daemon troops (which aren't that good) would have me thinking of switching armies or even just not playing for a while.

Check out my list building app for 40K and Fantasy:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576793.page 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: