ColdSadHungry wrote:How does the FOC stuff work in Fantasy that's so different from 40k? I don't know Fantasy at all.

Its percentages. 0-50% Lords, 25%+ Core, 0-50% Special and 0-25% Rare. This could translate as 0-50% HQ, 0-25% Elite, 25%+ Troop, 0-50% Fast Attack, 0-25% Heavy Support.

Aye, I'm not against the idea of lores to be honest, I remember them fondly from Dark Millenium.

*ponders* Where not the inquistion powers insane if I remember rightly.


edit - also percentages wouldn't phase me either, as long as it works out alright, still would be strange to see the back of FoC, its been with us for so long.

Kanluwen wrote:I would absolutely love for a "Lore Attributes" system.

A lore attribute system would work for each of the races, but that would just overly complicate things as when im playing fantasy i often forget lore attributes so i fear that in 40k they would also be forgotten

Nicorex wrote:First.. I dislike random powers. Personaly I feel its a pain buying a 100 point(or more) model in the hopes that it will get the 1 or 2 really usefull spells and not one of the other 4-8 that are a waste. Cheeses my cracker.... About the rest.. Im not sure if these rumors are really plausiable. GW has been moving away from complexity towards simplicity. Throwing in one more thing to keep track of(stunned/shaken hits) goes aginst the "make it simpler" trend they have been following. FOC charts getting dumped for %'s... I also dont see that because its easy to go I have 2 troops and a HQ. Making the kidz do extra math to make their armys, I cant see it.
If its all about selling models, then the rules have to be quick and easy. The more complex the less the easy distracted target audiance will stick around spending cash on plastic men, when they can get their fix from CoD 10 or Vice city or "Packman 3 The Bloody Revenge of Blinky!".. you get my drift..

My counter to the numerous concerns about random powers is this: In 8th ed they did a good job of revamping magic for all lores. You take that 100pt mage because he's a force multiplier. The 100pt Librarian is FAR AND AWAY a more powerful model than a mage in fantasy. Hell, the only psyker that comes close to the level of weakness of your average lvl2 mage in Fantasy is the Imperial Psyker from the squads, and those guys at least come in units for protection. You will take that Librarian because he's a Marine with a Forceweapon who ALSO has access to 2 kick ass psyker powers, randomly determined (one of which can be swapped out by his signature power) And you'll do it because you STILL have that advantage of even getting a psyker against nearly every Xeno army in the game and at least one imperial one.

BDJV wrote:

Nicorex wrote: FOC charts getting dumped for %'s... I also dont see that because its easy to go I have 2 troops and a HQ. Making the kidz do extra math to make their armys, I cant see it.

Making children use their brains is a good thing.

I totaly agree. On the other hand GW isnt about getting kids to use thier brains, its about getting them to get Mom and Dads to open their wallets. Even us older players (that I think are really the people keeping GW in business). They want us to spend spend spend, We wont do that if it takes longer to build an army than play the game. We also wont spend if games go back to taking 4+ hours to play. Most of us dont have that kind of time. I wont quit because of %'s or complex rules but there are people that will. Thats a fact. The more difficult you make it before someone can put models on the table and actually play the game, the less likely you will keep or gain new players. GW may have some bad business practices and do things we dont like but we keep playing and buying. GW wants us to keep buying and they want to sell to new people. When every website out there starts pissing and moaning about army building and complexity of it(weather true or not), you will get people quiting or not buying in the first place.

Have you tried "Dust Tacticts"? I have not yet. If you have how complex are their rules or list building? How about any more recent Table Top game? Or are all of them moving towards faster army building/ game rules.

UltraPrime wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:How does the FOC stuff work in Fantasy that's so different from 40k? I don't know Fantasy at all.

Its percentages. 0-25% Lords, 0-25% Heroes, 25%+ Core, 0-50% Special and 0-25% Rare. This could translate as 0-50% HQ, 0-25% Elite, 25%+ Troop, 0-50% Fast Attack, 0-25% Heavy Support.

Fixed for you. Also, no more than 3 of the same special choices, no more than 2 of the same Rares, to prevent spamming.

Nagashek wrote:

UltraPrime wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:How does the FOC stuff work in Fantasy that's so different from 40k? I don't know Fantasy at all.

Its percentages. 0-25% Lords, 0-25% Heroes, 25%+ Core, 0-50% Special and 0-25% Rare. This could translate as 0-50% HQ, 0-25% Elite, 25%+ Troop, 0-50% Fast Attack, 0-25% Heavy Support.

Fixed for you. Also, no more than 3 of the same special choices, no more than 2 of the same Rares, to prevent spamming.

I think that has the potential to be better than the current FOC myself.

Nagashek wrote:

Nicorex wrote:First.. I dislike random powers. Personaly I feel its a pain buying a 100 point(or more) model in the hopes that it will get the 1 or 2 really usefull spells and not one of the other 4-8 that are a waste. Cheeses my cracker.... About the rest.. Im not sure if these rumors are really plausiable. GW has been moving away from complexity towards simplicity. Throwing in one more thing to keep track of(stunned/shaken hits) goes aginst the "make it simpler" trend they have been following. FOC charts getting dumped for %'s... I also dont see that because its easy to go I have 2 troops and a HQ. Making the kidz do extra math to make their armys, I cant see it.
If its all about selling models, then the rules have to be quick and easy. The more complex the less the easy distracted target audiance will stick around spending cash on plastic men, when they can get their fix from CoD 10 or Vice city or "Packman 3 The Bloody Revenge of Blinky!".. you get my drift..

My counter to the numerous concerns about random powers is this: In 8th ed they did a good job of revamping magic for all lores. You take that 100pt mage because he's a force multiplier. The 100pt Librarian is FAR AND AWAY a more powerful model than a mage in fantasy. Hell, the only psyker that comes close to the level of weakness of your average lvl2 mage in Fantasy is the Imperial Psyker from the squads, and those guys at least come in units for protection. You will take that Librarian because he's a Marine with a Forceweapon who ALSO has access to 2 kick ass psyker powers, randomly determined (one of which can be swapped out by his signature power) And you'll do it because you STILL have that advantage of even getting a psyker against nearly every Xeno army in the game and at least one imperial one.

No not really, I take a Libby for 2 power the others are just if I have 5-10pts left over. If I could make sure I get them, there better places to spend my pts.

These changes are not surprising. These are all things that they've done in the past.

Since when is BolS considered anything but a repost blog in terms of rumormongering?

I'll believe it when I see it, or when Harry or Hastings tell me to believe it.

Nagashek wrote: You will take that Librarian because he's a Marine with a Forceweapon who ALSO has access to 2 kick ass psyker powers, randomly determined (one of which can be swapped out by his signature power) And you'll do it because you STILL have that advantage of even getting a psyker against nearly every Xeno army in the game and at least one imperial one.

I play Chaos. So Im paying 110 points for a single spell and no hood. Yes got a a FW.. and an invuln save. I can never cast more than one spell making my FW or Spell useless half the time and my choices of spells suck. Admitidly this is due to age or codex and hopefully the new Dex will give me some cool new toys but I can only go by what I have right now.. and right now... I have carp.

I'd say the reason this stuff wasn't posted yet is because it's bogus.

In one of the earlier editions wargear & I think powers were all on cards & picked at random from a deck.
Only problem was that my mate realised that the star pattern on the back of each card was unique & he could pick basically what he wanted.
Hope they don't bring this back!!
I also hope psychic powers don't become as powerful as magic in WHFB - I want to blow things up with super powered artillery with just back-up from my chaos-infected heretics!

BoLS also mentioned Codices becoming hardcover, an old rumour actually.

I think 40k using a % system like fantasy would change the game a lot.

Seriously.. for a lot of armies having to field 1000 points of troops for a 2000 point list would be a real game changer. It would mean a lot of new list possibilites and standards, especially for people who usually take minimum points of troops and then take 3 very bloated heavy and elite choices.


Honestly though, I hope these rumors prove true. I left 40k because I felt (in my own opinion.. I don't plan to debate this here..) that fantasy was the superior system in terms of list building and turn by turn play. The thing about fantasy is that other than movement and shooting, both players are included each phase, whether dispelling or swinging back or charge reactionsor even how deployment swaps unit by unit. It's closer to what I consider the ideal system, which would be a unit activation system like that of malifaux with the inclusion of the Fantasy phases.

The only thing I'm not EXACTLY sold on is the idea of pysker lores. It might be enough to get me interested in Eldar again though.

And I like the thought of weakening vehicles. Transporthammer 40k: Cover Save Edition annoyed the heck outta me.

We had percentages in 2nd edition.

It would be interesting to see if dedicated transports would qualify for the minimum % or maximum percentage.

We also had Ally rules in 2nd. I don't see them coming back.
If they do go to a percent system I hope they move transport vehicles like Rhinos and Chimeras into the fast section and do away with the dedicated transport rule. At least then everyone would know how many units they are deploying.

I don't like math.

It would be nice if the game had some sort of equivalent of a "motorpool", where only a certain percentage of any given armies points could be used for vehicles. Those heavy bolters have a mountain of dust right now.

I'll believe it when I see it. Wouldn't be surprised at hard cover codices at all.

But random psychic powers and more fantasy-like stuff = no money for GW.

None of your money maybe, but certainly an army worth of mine.

I realize now this is wishlisting, but I'd love to see all transports go into fast attack %'s.

Thunderfrog wrote:I think 40k using a % system like fantasy would change the game a lot.

Seriously.. for a lot of armies having to field 1000 points of troops for a 2000 point list would be a real game changer. It would mean a lot of new list possibilites and standards, especially for people who usually take minimum points of troops and then take 3 very bloated heavy and elite choices.
...

I see this as a fulfillment of what GW started in 5th ed. GW tried to get people to take more troop choices by promoting their use by only allowing them to score. Instead many armies take the minimum number and hide them until the end of the game... this creates a situation where what should be the most common and used units are in fact the least.

I think it brings more strategy back into the game when players have to use a number of units that aren't the most ideal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thunderfrog wrote:None of your money maybe, but certainly an army worth of mine.

I realize now this is wishlisting, but I'd love to see all transports go into fast attack %'s.

I've always thought that "dedicated transports" should have had their own FOC category or as you say take up a fast attack... or in the least some other means of restricting how many are being used. If the idea of percentages proves true, I can see them counting towards the % of the unit purchasing them, though that does little to alleviate their excessive use.

Thunderfrog wrote:None of your money maybe, but certainly an army worth of mine.

I realize now this is wishlisting, but I'd love to see all transports go into fast attack %'s.

transports have to remain a major part of the game unless a lot of basics are changed, and that would mean real fast attack would be even less common in most armies. Too many armies just plain aren't capable of being effective foot sloggers anymore, or if they are its only with a couple of units, the game needs a total rewrite from the ground up to really fix it. Also, some of us love tanks just because they are. rather then nerf transports, how about wishing for good alternatives?

I am actually thinking GW is going to swing back from the dumbing down of the game. the core audience is a little older and they know dumbed down rules with few options don't make people happy, and they don't sell models. The more effective diversity in the list the more models gets sold as people expand beyond a single core.

random major psyker powers would be bad, but i could see a major powers list you buy from and a random minor powers list, with number and abilities based on level.

Dont really think scrapping the FoC for % based system would be a good idea, some armies would suffer hugely from it, imagine having to spend 25% on your points on troops as tau or eldar :s while armies like guard where your troops choices are great would be laughing all the way to the objectives, thats perhaps more of a codex problem overall though....

Bobug wrote:Dont really think scrapping the FoC for % based system would be a good idea, some armies would suffer hugely from it, imagine having to spend 25% on your points on troops as tau or eldar :s while armies like guard where your troops choices are great would be laughing all the way to the objectives, thats perhaps more of a codex problem overall though....

It'll be nice to see an IG army composition that isn't 70% heavy support choices.

If I can play 6th edition without having to spend more time looking in my rulebook than actually playing, I'm behind whatever decisions GW makes (within reason, of course, because Lord help them if they screw around with my SM list).

a % based system wouldnt affect me at all and im kinda looking forward to it if it is true.

Based upon my current list my statics break down to (Imperial guard) :

HQ 8%
Elite 16%
Troops: 50%
FA: 8%
Heavy: 16%


Compared to Tau:

HQ: 7 %
Elite: 31%
Troops: 44%
FA: 0 %
Heavy: 18%

Again not breaking the % system of fantasy AND having some form of balance in two seperate but equal point (2000) list. If this is the way 6th is gonna be i say bring on the changes

I love how every tiny bit of rumor is met with a planet sized choir of whining, crying, doomsaying, conspiracy theorizing and sphincter tightening. It's hilarious that everyone thinks every tiny change is going to ruin their game, because it messes with their carefully cheesed up, unbeatable list.

If you guys think it's so terrible, just keep playing 5th. Make your own tournaments. Buy the models that fit the game you want to play. At the very LEAST, stop your frakking whining until the new edition comes out so you know what to whine about! Half this thread is just people saying how unlikely this rumor is. What's the f'ing point?

SgtSixkilla wrote:I love how every tiny bit of rumor is met with a planet sized choir of whining, crying, doomsaying, conspiracy theorizing and sphincter tightening. It's hilarious that everyone thinks every tiny change is going to ruin their game, because it messes with their carefully cheesed up, unbeatable list.

Amazing that the one rumor that really would have turned 40K upside down was also the rumor that almost everybody was most enthusiastic about. But everybody will see what they want to see.

I kinda like what I'm seeing, but still, there are two other things I want to see :

1-BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

2-Vehicule transport use being nerfed down.

We had percentages in 2nd edition.

At last someone else old enough to remember this stuff.

I look forward to 6th coming but i dont want to see a re-hash of the 2nd edition rules. Which! i must say have been gradually dripfed back into the codexes over the last 2 editions.

% FOC no probs for me, as long as hq doesnt go back to 50%. As for random psychics am not convinced.

I hope they bring back 2nd edition armor penetration rules since Im the only person I know who still has it memorized!

Strength + Wounds Caused + D6! Hence why lascannons were 3d6 + 9 armor pen

Actually come to think of it I hope they dont bring it back

Kirasu wrote:I hope they bring back 2nd edition armor penetration rules since Im the only person I know who still has it memorized!

Strength + Wounds Caused + D6! Hence why lascannons were 3d6 + 9 armor pen

Actually come to think of it I hope they dont bring it back

I do hope we get weapons with actual penetration rules though. Everything being ccw or power weapon is so annoying.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I hope they bring back 2nd edition armor penetration rules since Im the only person I know who still has it memorized!

Strength + Wounds Caused + D6! Hence why lascannons were 3d6 + 9 armor pen

Actually come to think of it I hope they dont bring it back

I do hope we get weapons with actual penetration rules though. Everything being ccw or power weapon is so annoying.

The AP system in 40k is a terrible mess as is. My preference would be to see the system fantasy uses. A shotgun should not be as good at penetrating marine armor as a heavy bolter.

Therion wrote:

I will also add that vehicles use "hull points" in 6th. If a vehicle has 3 hull points it will die after 3 shaken results, but it can still explode after 1 shot as normal.

...everything's going as scripted.

People use transports and tanks in their armies and probably don't need any new vehicle models anymore since they already have everything? NERF tanks to the max so we can sell everyone Descent of Angels armies and other full infantry forces!

Considering that the current vehicle damage chart is so janky to begin with that a rhino can go pretty much an entire game without getting destroyed that this revamp will be most welcome. This also makes monoliths and landraiders slightly weaker which is not a bad thing either. If you look at the current Eldar codex though this would DESTROY them beyond beliefe, so if this true then I do forsee their new codex rather soon as other rumors suggest.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I hope they bring back 2nd edition armor penetration rules since Im the only person I know who still has it memorized!

Strength + Wounds Caused + D6! Hence why lascannons were 3d6 + 9 armor pen

Actually come to think of it I hope they dont bring it back

I do hope we get weapons with actual penetration rules though. Everything being ccw or power weapon is so annoying.

Or mayb we<ll get something along the lines of WHFB (the STR of an attack reducing the value of an armor save).
Thought this would be impossible after thinking about it, since it would make the whole AP thing useless. Yeah, AP CC is more credible. I do hope to see many of these >

Considering that the purpose of the 40k rules is to sell miniatures, I'm guessing that we'll see a set that increases the model count for a "normal" sized game slightly. And one that rewards quantity a bit more than quantity.

And for those who started playing in the vehicle-heavy meta, GW needs them to keep buying, so they'll nerf vehicles and make something else the new top choice.

Jervis told us that over two thirds of GW's customers don't play their games (he called them "craft hobbyists"). So the game rules only need to be mostly functional as a game and then fulfill their primary function of being an idea in people's heads to help them value the models more so they'll buy them.

frozenwastes wrote:

AlexHolker wrote:
Granted, but random powers are not what made them a huge company. Random powers don't even make sense: if the Librarian that leads your army has an aptitude for teleportation (read: knows the Gate of Infinity power), he's unlikely to forget it and learn some completely unrelated power. You might as well start forcing people to roll to see whether they're allowed to bring any Devastator Squads or whether there aren't any available to your strike force.

I agree. One of the things I miss about 40k was the time I spent writing the stories of my chapter and my dark eldar kabal. In Warmachine you only have special named characters and there is no customization. Instead of creating a character from scratch and writing fluff for them, you basically have fanfic of someone else's character.

So to take away what the librarian can do in his fiction and make it unreliable means that element is slightly eroded for those who like a strong link between the stories they tell on the table top and those they write down or type.

I remember playing nids in 2E and having a lot more control over what psychic powers I could do than my non-nid playing counterparts.

There are lots of things GW should bring back from 2E, but I agree that random powers are probably not one of them.

If anyone has ever seen my army posts they will notice 1 major thing. I am here for the story. If GW takes away the FoC then so be it. As long as I can continue to make the rules on how my models look and why (Certain shoulderpads for certain characters etc) then I am happy. This is also the reason I stay away from games that have limited fluff. I like having my mind interacting rather them just replying.

Lysenis wrote:

Therion wrote:

I will also add that vehicles use "hull points" in 6th. If a vehicle has 3 hull points it will die after 3 shaken results, but it can still explode after 1 shot as normal.

...everything's going as scripted.

People use transports and tanks in their armies and probably don't need any new vehicle models anymore since they already have everything? NERF tanks to the max so we can sell everyone Descent of Angels armies and other full infantry forces!

Considering that the current vehicle damage chart is so janky to begin with that a rhino can go pretty much an entire game without getting destroyed that this revamp will be most welcome. This also makes monoliths and landraiders slightly weaker which is not a bad thing either. If you look at the current Eldar codex though this would DESTROY them beyond beliefe, so if this true then I do forsee their new codex rather soon as other rumors suggest.

It won't be as bad as what fifth did to Necrons or Tau. Both those armies became effectively useless, necrons especially so.

UltraPrime wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:How does the FOC stuff work in Fantasy that's so different from 40k? I don't know Fantasy at all.

Its percentages. 0-50% Lords, 25%+ Core, 0-50% Special and 0-25% Rare. This could translate as 0-50% HQ, 0-25% Elite, 25%+ Troop, 0-50% Fast Attack, 0-25% Heavy Support.

That would be weird. . .Thats saying in a 2,000 point game i can run upwards of 4 special characters. . . .only 500 points of elites and heavy, 1,000 points of troops / fast attack. . . .broken. here is why.

Blood angles codex 2,000 points:
Reclusiarch with Jump Pack
Reclusiarch with Jump Pack
Librarian with Jump Pack
Librarian with Jump Pack

Elites:
2x Sanguinary Guard w/ Jump Pack & Power Weapon


Troops:
10-man Assault squad w/ 2x meltagun Serg w/ Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield
10-man Assault squad w/ 2x meltagun Serg w/ Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield

Fast Attack:
Baal Pred w/ Flamestorm Cannon
Baal Pred w/ Flamestorm Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon & Heavy Bolter Sponsons


Heavy Support:
Pred w/ Lascannon sponsons

I wanna say my math is almost exact.

After double checking my math it is 2,000 exact. Since the rumors make vehicle spam unlikely with transports lets do it with 5 outflanking scouting vehicles shall we?

This is why the switch in the FoC to be like fantasy will be brokenish and just plain wrong.

Lysenis wrote:

UltraPrime wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:How does the FOC stuff work in Fantasy that's so different from 40k? I don't know Fantasy at all.

Its percentages. 0-50% Lords, 25%+ Core, 0-50% Special and 0-25% Rare. This could translate as 0-50% HQ, 0-25% Elite, 25%+ Troop, 0-50% Fast Attack, 0-25% Heavy Support.

That would be weird. . .Thats saying in a 2,000 point game i can run upwards of 4 special characters. . . .only 500 points of elites and heavy, 1,000 points of troops / fast attack. . . .broken. here is why.

Blood angles codex 2,000 points:
Reclusiarch with Jump Pack
Reclusiarch with Jump Pack
Librarian with Jump Pack
Librarian with Jump Pack

Elites:
2x Sanguinary Guard w/ Jump Pack & Power Weapon


Troops:
10-man Assault squad w/ 2x meltagun Serg w/ Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield
10-man Assault squad w/ 2x meltagun Serg w/ Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield

Fast Attack:
Baal Pred w/ Flamestorm Cannon
Baal Pred w/ Flamestorm Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon & Heavy Bolter Sponsons


Heavy Support:
Pred w/ Lascannon sponsons

I wanna say my math is almost exact.

After double checking my math it is 2,000 exact. Since the rumors make vehicle spam unlikely with transports lets do it with 5 outflanking scouting vehicles shall we?

This is why the switch in the FoC to be like fantasy will be brokenish and just plain wrong.

That army doesn't particularly frighten me to be honest. I'd be much more concerned with the grey knight acolyte spam army that can have 25 Chimeras at 2000 points or the blood angels army with 16 death company dreads.

There is no way this is true, if they changed the forced org chart so that it was percentage based, it would be insane. Lets say heavy can be up to 25% of your army. Do you know how many long fang squads you could take lol?

ShumaGorath wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I hope they bring back 2nd edition armor penetration rules since Im the only person I know who still has it memorized!

Strength + Wounds Caused + D6! Hence why lascannons were 3d6 + 9 armor pen

Actually come to think of it I hope they dont bring it back

I do hope we get weapons with actual penetration rules though. Everything being ccw or power weapon is so annoying.

The AP system in 40k is a terrible mess as is. My preference would be to see the system fantasy uses. A shotgun should not be as good at penetrating marine armor as a heavy bolter.

Same here!

I'm 100% OK with bringing back armor save modifiers and also returning Terminator Armor to its rightful position at the top!

haroon wrote:There is no way this is true, if they changed the forced org chart so that it was percentage based, it would be insane. Lets say heavy can be up to 25% of your army. Do you know how many long fang squads you could take lol?

it'd require something to prevent spam, to be sure. The percentages are a better system though, it's just unreasonably undercosted units like long fangs and an unlimited cap on troops that would break it. The current force org system is pretty broken as it is. Almost every codex does several things to invalidate it.

haroon wrote:There is no way this is true, if they changed the forced org chart so that it was percentage based, it would be insane. Lets say heavy can be up to 25% of your army. Do you know how many long fang squads you could take lol?

Even WHFB has that taken care of. You can currently only include 2 of the same Rare units, but your rare units must be under 25% of your total army cost.

So if your Heavy Slots are 25% of your force, then they can implement the same restriction. That means that you're only restricted to 2 Long Fang Squads... (or however they decide to format that).

And don't forget about the special gear for characters and units ! Like for SW in a way, characters cannot have the same special gear and units cannot take the same special option. I'd like to see what this would give.

frozenwastes wrote:Considering that the purpose of the 40k rules is to sell miniatures, I'm guessing that we'll see a set that increases the model count for a "normal" sized game slightly. And one that rewards quantity a bit more than quantity.

We've already been going down that route since late 4th with the decrease in price for units across the board. Dark Angels brought it with 35 point Rhinos and Marines who cost 15 points but came with bolt pistols and grenades. I don't know what benefits they could give to huge squads that they don't already have now, aside from a return to outnumbering being a factor in close combat. Even still, that would favor horde armies as opposed to elite armies. You have to wonder, while GW favors armies that require more models, I don't think they would do something that blatantly favors them over Marines who are their posterboys.

Brother SRM wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:Considering that the purpose of the 40k rules is to sell miniatures, I'm guessing that we'll see a set that increases the model count for a "normal" sized game slightly. And one that rewards quantity a bit more than quantity.

We've already been going down that route since late 4th with the decrease in price for units across the board. Dark Angels brought it with 35 point Rhinos and Marines who cost 15 points but came with bolt pistols and grenades. I don't know what benefits they could give to huge squads that they don't already have now, aside from a return to outnumbering being a factor in close combat. Even still, that would favor horde armies as opposed to elite armies. You have to wonder, while GW favors armies that require more models, I don't think they would do something that blatantly favors them over Marines who are their posterboys.

I don't think they're really that concerned. It's not like a change of that nature would impact sales in isolate. It would only really do much harm were it somehow overpowering of horde armies. As it is, anything that depowers gray knights a bit would sell every army that isn't gray knights better.

Well, nerfing vehicles would sell more models that are on foot. So that's a start.

6th edition era codecies could drop marines down to 14 points.

Now that I think about it though, the game has already reached a point where the normal size game is big enough that the majority of GW's customers quit before they play it at that size (if they ever play it at all). Perhaps the 40k rules are now the optimal size for marketing purposes.

The other way they could increase the game sizes is to speed things up. Make running/fleet/assault all one single movement of the model so the game isn't slown down by measuring multiple times for the same model. They could streamline as many subsystems and possible to make the game play faster.

How would this increase the model count? Well then the section about points values could say that 2000 or 2500 points is a "normal game that will take a couple of hours" rather than 1500 or 1700.

If they can add 10%-25% to the model count by speeding the game up, then those who aspire to play the game in its full size will need that many more models.

I don't think GW believes that eternally upping the average game size is sustainable, and it's unlikely that they're going to attempt to force the issue with every new base edition. Fifth edition didn't up the size of armies, fifth edition codexes upped the size of armies by reducing the cost of units and encouraging certain forms of spam. The rulebook itself only gives a very vague suggestion of what point value to play the game at. The codexes have been giving us ~225 point infantry blocks for a long time now. It's been a conscious decision of the community to up average play size.

The largest army still realistically viable is horde orks and that's been a staple since fourth. Mech spam is a significantly larger investment monetarily than the balanced force that GW is likely to attempt to force with the new edition. GW will hopefuly recognize that it'll sell more models by stemming the loss of it's playerbase by introducing a good core rule set, not by idiotic gimmicks that aren't even being observed in the current edition.

Wow I've played and loved this game for 6 years now and in one edition they will turn it into Fantasy? I know there are fantasy lovers out there, but I'm not one of that camp.

They pull this garbage and you fellas might be looking at some great ebay deals from me. If I wanted Fantasy I'd play it.

Mr.Church13 wrote:Wow I've played and loved this game for 6 years now and in one edition they will turn it into Fantasy? I know there are fantasy lovers out there, but I'm not one of that camp.

They pull this garbage and you fellas might be looking at some great ebay deals from me. If I wanted Fantasy I'd play it.

And the prize for the most overblown and non sensical reaction goes to..... Mr.Church!

Borrowing some better army composition rules from fantasy doesn't suddenly turn 40k into an entirely different game.

Mr.Church13 wrote:Wow I've played and loved this game for 6 years now and in one edition they will turn it into Fantasy? I know there are fantasy lovers out there, but I'm not one of that camp.

They pull this garbage and you fellas might be looking at some great ebay deals from me. If I wanted Fantasy I'd play it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not fantasy-it's just taking a few successful bits from fantasy, if these rumors hold true. A %-based FOC is leaps and bounds better than what we have now. It'll allow some armies, like Daemons and Nids to have a better profile on the table-two arguably weak 5th edition codexes gaining strength in the coming edition. Hell, if this and the vehicle rules pan out, don't EVER update my Daemons-they'll be perfect as is. That said...

Yeah, it would still be 40k. I think like many people that FB is more balanced, ad I approve this idea of maybe borrowing some rules from them, or at least use them as a staple.

Kroothawk wrote:We had percentages in 2nd edition.

This. 1000% times this. All of these rumors have been done before. It's not like some new-fangled rules-mongering. They have tried these things in the past.

I absolutely love percentages. Why? It forces people to come up with creative lists. It also allows people more freedom to make fluffy lists that are still competitive. Finally, it puts a damper (in my opinion) on netlisting. I mean, people can post their "killer" list, but it doesn't mean that a more creative person cannot simply come up with a better version at any time. The FoC chart we have is fairly static. If you build a list around it, it is easy to copy, but percentages brought out lists that were off-the-wall, but worked. People who like to netlist would look at a similar list and think "WTF?"

It allows you to mold your army to your liking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:

I'm 100% OK with bringing back armor save modifiers and also returning Terminator Armor to its rightful position at the top!

Ah yes. 3+ on 2D6 with a chart of modifiers. 6-hour games!

Ah yes. 3+ on 2D6 with a chart of modifiers. 6-hour games!

The fantasy system of armor modification doesn't even require a chart. It requires you to be able to count above four. If that's making your games six+ hours than I don't know if I want to live on this planet any more.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:Wow I've played and loved this game for 6 years now and in one edition they will turn it into Fantasy? I know there are fantasy lovers out there, but I'm not one of that camp.

They pull this garbage and you fellas might be looking at some great ebay deals from me. If I wanted Fantasy I'd play it.

And the prize for the most overblown and non sensical reaction goes to..... Mr.Church!

Borrowing some better army composition rules from fantasy doesn't suddenly turn 40k into an entirely different game.

But that's just it... copy the magic to psychic, bring over the composition rules, change the saves system to fantasy's, and the game becomes fantasy with no square bases and a few tanks. I'm an accountant all freaking day. I really don't want to calculate a list, recalculate it, and then redo the whole thing if I change one guy to a Nob with power klaw.

2nd ed 40k only took 6 hours if you tried to play gigantic games. The game was meant for 20-40 miniatures a side with a few vehicles. If you tried to play a game with a huge model count with tons of characters with special equipment and special rules, that was when things slowed down.

My 2nd ed 1500 points space marine army was like 30 models and a couple tanks and an allied inquisitor. My nids had maybe 50 models including a Carnifex, a Hive Tyrant, 6 warriors and a smattering of genestealers, hormagaunts, termigants and gargoyles.

Games never took more than 2 hours.

Now I play Warmachine as it gives me the same sized game with the same level of detail in around the same time. Privateer smartly figured out that they should make their game be the same size as GW did back when GW grew into an international company.

GW needs to go back to their roots and make a game that is playable as a full game experience with the same number of models as back in 2nd ed. Not some shallow "40k in 40 minutes" thing where you can't take a bunch of stuff because it'll break things, but a real game with depth.

I don't think they'll do this. I think they'll keep pushing the 40-50+ model armies (and up over 120 in some cases) because they don't make the game to be played, but to use it as an idea to put in people's heads to help them decide to buy models.

Why should GW put any significant amount of resources into redesigning the game? From their perspective, they should do the bare minimum needed to justify selling you the game over again as a new edition.

I have played to WHFB, and most of the time, I am able to make my list without having to calculte them each unit at the time. Why ? Because it's really easy. Take a 1000 pts game. You have 250 pts max for an HQ, 250 pts minim for troops, and etc. The game works with multiples of 5 and 10, it's not big deal. And most of the time, I have difficulty to reach these minimums for the troop choices. So it's simple : If w40k take this model of % for armies, their will be more troops on the table, less elite, support and fast attack, and it's gonna be fair in my opinion.

Mr.Church13 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:Wow I've played and loved this game for 6 years now and in one edition they will turn it into Fantasy? I know there are fantasy lovers out there, but I'm not one of that camp.

They pull this garbage and you fellas might be looking at some great ebay deals from me. If I wanted Fantasy I'd play it.

And the prize for the most overblown and non sensical reaction goes to..... Mr.Church!

Borrowing some better army composition rules from fantasy doesn't suddenly turn 40k into an entirely different game.

But that's just it... copy the magic to psychic, bring over the composition rules, change the saves system to fantasy's, and the game becomes fantasy with no square bases and a few tanks. I'm an accountant all freaking day. I really don't want to calculate a list, recalculate it, and then redo the whole thing if I change one guy to a Nob with power klaw.

You know what 25% of 2000 is? 500. Did that power klaw put you above 500 for your fast attack? No? Then you're safe. Where was the recalculating there? Oh, right, there wasn't any. The fantasy save system is "Your save is one worse for every point of strength above four". How is that hard? How is that turning the game into fantasy? Fantasy is fantasy because you have giant blocks of dudes on little trays with limited movement arcs stabbing eachother with spears.

It's hyperbole and nothing more to whine "But I don't wan't to play fantasy" when discussing a force org change to percentages.

Lysenis wrote:

UltraPrime wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:How does the FOC stuff work in Fantasy that's so different from 40k? I don't know Fantasy at all.

Its percentages. 0-50% Lords, 25%+ Core, 0-50% Special and 0-25% Rare. This could translate as 0-50% HQ, 0-25% Elite, 25%+ Troop, 0-50% Fast Attack, 0-25% Heavy Support.

That would be weird. . .Thats saying in a 2,000 point game i can run upwards of 4 special characters. . . .only 500 points of elites and heavy, 1,000 points of troops / fast attack. . . .broken. here is why.

Blood angles codex 2,000 points:
Reclusiarch with Jump Pack
Reclusiarch with Jump Pack
Librarian with Jump Pack
Librarian with Jump Pack

Elites:
2x Sanguinary Guard w/ Jump Pack & Power Weapon


Troops:
10-man Assault squad w/ 2x meltagun Serg w/ Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield
10-man Assault squad w/ 2x meltagun Serg w/ Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield

Fast Attack:
Baal Pred w/ Flamestorm Cannon
Baal Pred w/ Flamestorm Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon
Baal Pred w/ T-L Assault Cannon & Heavy Bolter Sponsons


Heavy Support:
Pred w/ Lascannon sponsons

I wanna say my math is almost exact.

After double checking my math it is 2,000 exact. Since the rumors make vehicle spam unlikely with transports lets do it with 5 outflanking scouting vehicles shall we?

This is why the switch in the FoC to be like fantasy will be brokenish and just plain wrong.

The first fallacy with this type of doomsaying is that the whole argument is based on what is broken in THIS edition, but you are actually talking about another edition entirely. It is very very possible that Baal predators will absolutely suck in the new ruleset. The same goes for any other type of broken/op army you can come up with under the current rules.

The second fallacy here is the assumption that everyone else will still be building 5th edition armies. But that will not be the case. For every crazy army of 6 Baal Predators, there will be another crazy army with 1000 pts of vanguard vets with melta bombs, or 1000 pts of Nob Bikers, or just something else that's every bit as ridiculously overpowered. I can't even think of all the possibilities, and for me, that's a big part of the fun of this game - coming up with new and crazier things to do. A new edition is the best time for that too.

I don't buy these. Randomization for psychic rules = less psychers will be fielded because people have become used to stability, so throwing instability into the mix will put a lot of people off.

Vehicle hull points? No, that slows the game down, and the recent editions have been about speeding it up.

FOC going away? I don't think so. You'll nullify all your current codexs.

I'm really starting to feel the bloat of models too. I've been playing Dark Eldar, and was playing an IG foot list. I made a bad decision in turn one which knocked out half my sailboats. I was crippled and at that point could only play for a tie because I could no longer actually hurt the IG player (spearhead deployment. Open season on me and all my long range was in my transports).

So the dragged on turn after turn of just unrelenting shooting and very short turns for me. So many dice. The turns were taking an obnoxious amount of time. The Brits have got it right. This 2000 point stuff is too much.


Although aside from complaining about army size, a % base FOC would help alleviate a LOT of issues for some armies. Some armies fill their FOC's around 1750, and are forced to take sub-optimal choices to get to 2000. Again, I've been playing DE, and if you venom spam, you're out of troop slots fast, and you desperately wish you could take more. If you look at IG though, and he gets insanely more powerful the higher the points go, because he can just squadron his tanks, etc. Everything over 1750 isn't just icing, its more meat.

If we went percentages that would also help armies who have 'cheaper' heavy support options. Like DE ravagers are only 105 points. Having 355 points of your army maxed into heavy support at 2000 points is just dumb. It would also allow some less seen units an opportunity to see the table. A lot of times you have 'decent' or 'situational' choices in your FOC slot, but you can't use it because one of those choices so insanely outshine it (or you NEED at least _____ of something to work). If you're not limited to only three of "x", now you can take your normal amount of "x" and throw some extra points towards that fun unit.

Moopy wrote: I don't buy these. Randomization for psychic rules = less psychers will be fielded because people have become used to stability, so throwing instability into the mix will put a lot of people off.

Vehicle hull points? No, that slows the game down, and the recent editions have been about speeding it up.

FOC going away? I don't think so. You'll nullify all your current codexs.

Not if you change the rules about movement. Let's say this :

Movement rules for vehicules :They are steady, durable transports that can take hits. However, they can only move 6.
However, if your guys are on foot, they can (like in WHFB) move double speed during their movement phase. However, the suffer a penalty for shooting, or cannnot even shoot, and aren't protected.

I feel this would be more realistic a bit. I mean, hell, how are those tanks supposed to be so fast ? Do you ever see a tank speeding up in a battle zone in real life combat situation? Most of the time, they can't even pick up the speed of a car without spending all their fuel. No, transports vehicules should be to protect soldiers, not to speed things up. If transports must be fast, they must be fragile and small. Armored transport vehicules should be slow or medium paced, be hard to damaged with infantry weaponry, and be outrunned by most units on foot, especially Tyranids in my opinion.
As for the FOC being cancelled, it wouldn't cancel the codex. Most codex in WHFB are still in 7th edition, having their old FoC printed in it. Yet, they still use the FoC of the 8th edition (%), and there's no problem there. I feel it would be formidable, it would make some list less useful, other more, and balance the whole game.
Example : Sanguinary priest of the BA would be something more precious around the table. Each unit could still have 3 SP, yet, they can never go over the % of point the game permit them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ah yes. 3+ on 2D6 with a chart of modifiers. 6-hour games!

The fantasy system of armor modification doesn't even require a chart. It requires you to be able to count above four. If that's making your games six+ hours than I don't know if I want to live on this planet any more.

I wasn't making a comparison to current WHFB rules. I was remembering the days of 2nd Ed. No need to jump down anyone's throat because you misunderstood their post.

I don't buy these. Randomization for psychic rules = less psychers will be fielded because people have become used to stability, so throwing instability into the mix will put a lot of people off.

People only take psykers now because they are absolutely a steal compared to captains. I mean really, people only take SC's because of either FoC or being broken. Captains are never taken, psyker abilities are always taken in most cases unless there's something that the others take that the psykers doesn't have. (Such as IG's orders)

Since when do you see a wolf lord getting in over a space wolf psyker? A space marine captain? (when not being taken as a biker), a chaos sorcerer? A Lord of Change that isn't Fateweaver? A farseer over a Autarch? Orks are the only ones with a specific example, and even than it's usually KFF meks over a warboss.

I'm looking forward to seeing changes like these, but it seems unrealistic to hope for a return to a more intricate game design when the codices are still spread over three different editions, and a sadly vocal majority insists on simplicity and convenience.

Khornate25 wrote:

Moopy wrote: I don't buy these. Randomization for psychic rules = less psychers will be fielded because people have become used to stability, so throwing instability into the mix will put a lot of people off.

Vehicle hull points? No, that slows the game down, and the recent editions have been about speeding it up.

FOC going away? I don't think so. You'll nullify all your current codexs.

Not if you change the rules about movement. Let's say this :

Movement rules for vehicules :They are steady, durable transports that can take hits. However, they can only move 6.
However, if your guys are on foot, they can (like in WHFB) move double speed during their movement phase. However, the suffer a penalty for shooting, or cannnot even shoot, and aren't protected.

I feel this would be more realistic a bit. I mean, hell, how are those tanks supposed to be so fast ? Do you ever see a tank speeding up in a battle zone in real life combat situation? Most of the time, they can't even pick up the speed of a car without spending all their fuel. No, transports vehicules should be to protect soldiers, not to speed things up. If transports must be fast, they must be fragile and small. Armored transport vehicules should be slow or medium paced, be hard to damaged with infantry weaponry, and be outrunned by most units on foot, especially Tyranids in my opinion.
As for the FOC being cancelled, it wouldn't cancel the codex. Most codex in WHFB are still in 7th edition, having their old FoC printed in it. Yet, they still use the FoC of the 8th edition (%), and there's no problem there. I feel it would be formidable, it would make some list less useful, other more, and balance the whole game.
Example : Sanguinary priest of the BA would be something more precious around the table. Each unit could still have 3 SP, yet, they can never go over the % of point the game permit them.

@ realism : Well but it´s not an 2012 combat simulation, it´s 40k with machine spirits.

random magic: anyway, the whole thing will be funny when thinking of all those 40k novels that do the cross over marketing strategy: the librarian was concentrating hard while being attacked by 3 genestealers .. and .. tadaaa ....he managed to randomly bring forth a repair-that-vehicle-in zero -seconds spell. that´s great. it´s like going to the supermarket to buy a sixpack and coming home with that fancy sofa mom allways wanted to have.

I'm hoping they also bring back Overwatch, and the old 2nd edition hth combat rules.

ZebioLizard2 wrote: Captains are never taken,

Then a good designer would make captains more interesting and not make good unit crappy. Complete randomization of powers = a unit not worth it's cost.

And to everyone else that keeps bring up "it would be more realistic", you really needs to stop that. This is a game where you're always going to fail 1/6 of the time, full of massive world eating space bugs, and hand grenades that don't hurt anyone.

Ever since the designers started making 40k a faster game (3rd ed+), sales took off. I find it hard to believe that they'll reverse.

Khornate25 wrote:
I feel this would be more realistic a bit. I mean, hell, how are those tanks supposed to be so fast ? Do you ever see a tank speeding up in a battle zone in real life combat situation? Most of the time, they can't even pick up the speed of a car without spending all their fuel.

Shows what you know, mate. The top speed of an M113 is 42 miles per hour. Even an Abrams can cruise along at 35mph. And don't give me that "Ooh, it's a game full of giant space bugs and magic, so why should it even attempt to be realistic?" malarkey, either. They're tanks. If realism weren't a factor, why aren't space marines floating around on flying carpets and anti-gravity belts?

The word of the day is verisimilitude. Learn it well.

Moopy wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote: Captains are never taken,

Then a good designer would make captains more interesting and not make good unit crappy. Complete randomization of powers = a unit not worth it's cost.

And to everyone else that keeps bring up "it would be more realistic", you really needs to stop that. This is a game where you're always going to fail 1/6 of the time, full of massive world eating space bugs, and hand grenades that don't hurt anyone.

Ever since the designers started making 40k a faster game (3rd ed+), sales took off. I find it hard to believe that they'll reverse.

'Good Designer' + GW = Cognitive Dissonance

Actually I can see this version becoming more complex. If they simplify it much more they will be getting down to Warpath levels (and who wants expensive Warpath? Cheap Warpath is not exactly brilliant... and that's from someone who much prefers Kings of War to WFB).

I think GW have woken up to the fact that given the parlous state of the global economy, little Johnny is having a much harder time persuading Mum and Dad to shell out for toy soldiers. They need to remarket directly at the people with any kind of disposable income and that pushes them more towards the 'vet' market. Unfortunately for GW they've spent the best part of the last decade annoying exactly that group of players. It will be interesting to see what 6th will bring...

py. Complete randomization of powers = a unit not worth it's cost.

Fantasy calls, it's worked quite well there

Maybe what we need is just an overhaul of the psyker system to go with the randomization, to make it where each spell is just as useful as another and has a use. Believe me I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of new psyker abilities.

Besides even if they are complete crap, they still bring forth a force weapon and hood, or various other things.

They would still be better than the normal HQ's at that point.

I find it interesting that none of the Ork players have spoken up yet, even though we currently have random psychic powers.

Which raises the question, when did you last see an army with a weird boy?

If you can't rely on a unit to do what you need it to on a particular turn then you can't use it tactically, which automatically relegates it to the sidelines. See also Shokk attack guns and zzap guns...

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Khornate25 wrote:
I feel this would be more realistic a bit. I mean, hell, how are those tanks supposed to be so fast ? Do you ever see a tank speeding up in a battle zone in real life combat situation? Most of the time, they can't even pick up the speed of a car without spending all their fuel.

Shows what you know, mate. The top speed of an M113 is 42 miles per hour. Even an Abrams can cruise along at 35mph. And don't give me that "Ooh, it's a game full of giant space bugs and magic, so why should it even attempt to be realistic?" malarkey, either. They're tanks. If realism weren't a factor, why aren't space marines floating around on flying carpets and anti-gravity belts?

The word of the day is verisimilitude. Learn it well.

I know they can go up to this kind of speed bro, but it ain't efficient when you look at the amount of fuel/energy you have to use to move these huge armored vehicule.

Somehow, I doubt battlefield commanders are all that interested in their fuel bills. Doubly so in a setting where the economy is entirely centralized and warfare is prioritised as the most vital and important activity in the entire Imperium of Man.

Moopy wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote: Captains are never taken,

Then a good designer would make captains more interesting and not make good unit crappy. Complete randomization of powers = a unit not worth it's cost.

Exactly. There's other ways to make Captains,Autarchs etc. worth taking.
Making a good unit bad isn't it.

And to everyone else that keeps bring up "it would be more realistic", you really needs to stop that. This is a game where you're always going to fail 1/6 of the time, full of massive world eating space bugs, and hand grenades that don't hurt anyone.

There's different extents to realism; its grey, rather than black and white. That's why some aspects can be realistic whilst keeping the fantasy/fictional element.

I think any % is going to be too forgiving (50% would be way too high for HQ and 25% isnt a high enough min on troops) for it to have much impact on most games. I do feel it potentially punishes armies with high pts values especially at smaller game sizes in ways the FOC doesn't. In the end the only real benefit IMO is it allows the core rules to scale better at larger pts values than the FOC.......

Switching to percentages would let players pick up that fourth Predator/Falcon/Hammerhead or whatever, and GW does love to sell more models, yes?

It would also allow us to use some of the cheaper units that are fine for their cost, but seen as a waste of a FOC slot. Ork Big Gunz, for example, are pretty neat, but who's going to burn a Heavy Support slot on a 60 point unit? But if you could take it in addition to your 3 Killa Kan mobz... yeah. I'm all for it.

Personally I have no issue with a change to a percentage based system. I'm assuming that such a change would also include the same kind of system they added alongside the percentage system they have in Fantasy, which limits you to three/two duplicate Special/Rare choices (which just leaves Troop spamming as the only issue which requires attention). The current FOC has been around for a long time and could definitely do with some attention. A percentage based system would open up a range of different builds but for me the most important thing is that it scales and could breath some life into interest in games at the top and bottom of the spectrum. At the moment the FOC is actually limiting for many armies at sub 1000pt levels (since an HQ and two Troops takes up most of your army) and starts to run out of room above 2000-2500pts.

I can also believe an overhaul to the psychic system, but it would have to build around the existing mechanics in the various books to avoid completely breaking the game. Any kind of randomised lore type system would have to be in addition to or sit alongside existing powers, more like how the minor psychic powers worked in the past (so you can buy your major powers from your own codex and then get a couple of other random powers as well).

lord_blackfang wrote:Switching to percentages would let players pick up that fourth Predator/Falcon/Hammerhead or whatever, and GW does love to sell more models, yes?

It would also allow us to use some of the cheaper units that are fine for their cost, but seen as a waste of a FOC slot. Ork Big Gunz, for example, are pretty neat, but who's going to burn a Heavy Support slot on a 60 point unit? But if you could take it in addition to your 3 Killa Kan mobz... yeah. I'm all for it.

That is a very very good point. There are many many people that say "I would take that, but that slot has so many better choices". If they do it right, from my understanding, it will reduce the viability of spam lists whilst letting non spam lists take more of the things they want.

On the one hand I can't see them going for random powers. The WHFB magic fluff is very diffrent to the way psycic powers are supposed to work. However, It would take allot away from the GKs. It would make allot of their powers allot less powerfull and the book allot more balanced. Just thinking about books that are "written for 6th".

Having said all of this I don't beleave any of it is true.

Too much stuff is already balance around a restricted number of units via the foc, this sort of design is obvious looking at the newest codex releases.
If a percentage restriction is introduced in 6th ed then it should be along side the current foc.

I'd like to see them toning down psychic powers, especially to bring GK down to a slightly more balanced level (not that it would help MUCH, considering how extremely overpowered they are). But most of all I'd like to see more balance overall, so you didn't end up with codices where there's only two or three viable list options, and every other variation you try will get hammered into the ground by some cheesemonger list that your opponent found on the Internet.

[rant]

[/rant]

Get that damn FOC out of here. Percentages with limits (something like: max 2 of each non-troop/max 4 of each troop?) will open the field for a much wider variety of units. Take the sentinel. One of my favorite units, but unfortunately, hideously outclassed by the vendetta. I still manage to squeeze one in at lower pts, but the larger pts, the more that slot is worth and even for all the tactical utility the humble sentinel can bring, he is pushed away by a vendetta or a hellhound variant. Same with any notion of using roughriders, armoured sentinels, valkyries etc. Hard limit on number of the same unit + percentages = win for this game.

Psy-lores, meh, fine, just don't make them as powerful as in fantasy where every army must have a level 4 and where certain spells can win the game alone.

I also want premeasuring from fantasy. Having "guessing distance" as a major skill requirement stinks of poor game design.

6th ed is looking promising if it is based on the leaked ruleset + these rumors. Please GW, don't mess it up

lord_blackfang wrote:Switching to percentages would let players pick up that fourth Predator/Falcon/Hammerhead or whatever, and GW does love to sell more models, yes?

It would also allow us to use some of the cheaper units that are fine for their cost, but seen as a waste of a FOC slot. Ork Big Gunz, for example, are pretty neat, but who's going to burn a Heavy Support slot on a 60 point unit? But if you could take it in addition to your 3 Killa Kan mobz... yeah. I'm all for it.

But it works the other way as well say HS was 0-25% a Necron player wouldn't be able to field 3 Doomscythes at 1850pts or 2k pts because it would excede the alloted % for that category at that pts value game. This puts a second backhanded cost on top of being a higher pts cost to begin with for armies with expensive units.

SgtSixkilla wrote:AFAIK the Emperor never personally rescinded the edict of Nikea, so in my book, all librarians are heretics anyway.

He didn't need to - there are just a couple of people at GW who don't know that "sorcery" =/= "psionics".

I don't want psionics to be weaker, I want anti-psionics to be stronger. For example, if I was writing the next Chaos codex a botched Psyker test would give the Chaos player a free summoning attempt, right on your position. Maybe Tzeentch would counter psykers with their own sorcerers, but a pack of Flesh Hounds popping into existence to chew your face off would be a more characterful way for Khorne to deal with them. Sisters of Battle would have anti-witch weapons and their Faith, Tyranids would have the Shadow in the Warp as a global debuff, and so on.

It always seemed to me that psykers were supposed to be a bit random. Nothing else has to take a test in order to use an ability. I'd like to see the chance of failure increased (because so many psykers have LD 10), with enemy psychic hoods acting to increase those odds.

But as a Tau player, none of this psyker stuff really matters to me...

Illumini wrote:Get that damn FOC out of here. Percentages with limits (something like: max 2 of each non-troop/max 4 of each troop?) will open the field for a much wider variety of units.

It would bring a bit of variety but it would also make it so that every vehicle squadron only consists of one tank because that's the most effective way to field them and the slots aren't a problem anymore. Assuming heavy support is 25%, for a 2000 points list, with the no more than double the same choice restriction, you could take:

Hydra
Hydra
Griffon
Medusa
Medusa

For five 'heavy support choices'. Similarly, for fast attack you could take two single Vendettas and two single Hellhounds for four 'fast attack choices'. Now if there's some mechanic like someone rumoured that you can get more heavy or elites or fast if you sacrfice one of the other, then things spin totally out of control for armies like IG who will bump it up to about ten 'heavy support choices'.

Troops choices also better have a restriction, for example no more than four of the same, or armies like GK with their el cheapo henchmen can make all sorts of pretty impossible to defeat in victory conditions lists.

I also want premeasuring from fantasy. Having "guessing distance" as a major skill requirement stinks of poor game design.

You won't find many hardcore gamers from 40K or Fantasy who agree with this. WFB is a much less tactical game this edition than what it was before and 40K shouldn't follow the same route.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I hope they bring back 2nd edition armor penetration rules since Im the only person I know who still has it memorized!

Strength + Wounds Caused + D6! Hence why lascannons were 3d6 + 9 armor pen

Actually come to think of it I hope they dont bring it back

I do hope we get weapons with actual penetration rules though. Everything being ccw or power weapon is so annoying.

The AP system in 40k is a terrible mess as is. My preference would be to see the system fantasy uses. A shotgun should not be as good at penetrating marine armor as a heavy bolter.

Well, the only other way to do it (other than a radical shake up of the rules, which won't happen) would be to separate the 'cover' and 'armour' mechanic, indeed as it used to be in 2nd edition.

So, being in cover makes you harder to hit, then if you are hit your armour makes you more survivable. The main criticism of this would make the game slower to play, although you could argue that with the mass of 'FNP' rolls and special rules in the game it is already an incredibly inelegant design and could do with tidying up.

I kind of agree though with Frozen Wastes - any rules changes we see will be towards facilitating faster game play, and larger armies. If you listen to the Rick Priestly interview from about a year ago, he said that rules changes now have to go through correspondence with the sales department - it's evident in everything from the rules themselves, and even to the background writing (the Storm Raven being involved in every single past engagement of the BA in the last codex for instance).

With that in mind, we could well see some kind of bonus that makes larger infantry groups (perhaps 'spearhead for troops'?) more viable, similar to the changes that happened with 8th edition WFB.

That's certainly how it goes with magic in 8th.

For all your your careful kitting and tooling of your 300 point wizard, one failed cast not only results in a wound, but could possibly render him ineffective by loss of wizard levels, drop a str 10 plate on his own head, or suck him down a hole with no saves allowed.

The Psyker changes don't affect me, as I nominally play Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Necrons.

Regarding the hull points thing, I do not expect that glancing hits will cause loss of hull points (or at the very least, glancing hits that don't achieve at least a damaged result). Even as a player that uses a lot of vehicles, I'm fine with this change, as long as they do something to reduce the ridiculous durability of monstrous creatures as well.

That said, after WHFB 8th edition, I know that Games Workshop is capable of doing anything in design, no matter how stupid or destructive that it might be. Don't rule out rumors simply because they sound far-fetched.

Therion wrote:

Illumini wrote:Get that damn FOC out of here. Percentages with limits (something like: max 2 of each non-troop/max 4 of each troop?) will open the field for a much wider variety of units.

It would bring a bit of variety but it would also make it so that every vehicle squadron only consists of one tank because that's the most effective way to field them and the slots aren't a problem anymore. Assuming heavy support is 25%, for a 2000 points list, with the no more than double the same choice restriction, you could take:

Hydra
Hydra
Griffon
Medusa
Medusa

For five 'heavy support choices'. Similarly, for fast attack you could take two single Vendettas and two single Hellhounds for four 'fast attack choices'. Now if there's some mechanic like someone rumoured that you can get more heavy or elites or fast if you sacrfice one of the other, then things spin totally out of control for armies like IG who will bump it up to about ten 'heavy support choices'.

Troops choices also better have a restriction, for example no more than four of the same, or armies like GK with their el cheapo henchmen can make all sorts of pretty impossible to defeat in victory conditions lists.

Vehicle squadrons would retain their role if you have restrictions too. If you want more than two hydras, you need to take them in squadrons, same with any other unit. As long as you combine unit limit with percentage, you will get more variety as more units become playable. As I said, I believe a limit of 2 on all slots but troops and 4 in troops would work very well.

Also, in the leaked 6th ruleset, vehicle squadrons were made much better, giving an actual incentive to group vehicles in a squadron.

Illumini wrote:I also want premeasuring from fantasy. Having "guessing distance" as a major skill requirement stinks of poor game design.

Therion wrote:
You won't find many hardcore gamers from 40K or Fantasy who agree with this. WFB is a much less tactical game this edition than what it was before and 40K shouldn't follow the same route.

I am aware that some people believe this. However, premeasuring is not the problem. Look at FoW, they have incorporated premeasuring in a great way, without the need for random charges and other stuff. You can't view the ability to judge distances as something tactical? No premeasuring means that a carpenter is a better commander than an actual army officer, just because he knows how far 6,12,18 and 24" is.
Make the game better, and you don't need to rely on hidden distances to make the game tactical.

The removal of the FOC would only incourage spamming of the best units. However, when comparing to the fantasy system remember there ARE limits as well its not just a percentile limit but a duplication limit as well

Long as they limit spamming and encourage diversity im all for changes

SkaerKrow wrote:The Psyker changes don't affect me, as I nominally play Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Necrons.

Regarding the hull points thing, I do not expect that glancing hits will cause loss of hull points (or at the very least, glancing hits that don't achieve at least a damaged result). Even as a player that uses a lot of vehicles, I'm fine with this change, as long as they do something to reduce the ridiculous durability of monstrous creatures as well.

That said, after WHFB 8th edition, I know that Games Workshop is capable of doing anything in design, no matter how stupid or destructive that it might be. Don't rule out rumors simply because they sound far-fetched.

This. You are better off plaining for your OMG THE GAME IS RUINED FOREVER than going stright into denial. Personally, I never had a problem with WHFB rules and I think they will make the game both more interesting and give it a better flow. Structure points, well I think rhinos will finally be worth 30pts....grumble, and maybe venoms to.

Kirasu wrote:

Long as they limit spamming and encourage diversity im all for changes

Hear hear.

I actually quite like the rumours I'm hearing so far. I can see the design merits of each of them and they all target a different pet peeve I had with 5E. Sure there are some negatives with some of the design choices but I doubt they will be the end of the world as some people make them out to be. The positives could be worth the negatives IMO.

Like previous editions, the success of this edition will boil down to codex design IMO and not the new BRB rules. If GW continue to make marketing based rules design in their codices (via undercosting and power creep) like 5E, this next edition will suffer from comparative problems to 5E.

You can't view the ability to judge distances as something tactical? No premeasuring means that a carpenter is a better commander than an actual army officer, just because he knows how far 6,12,18 and 24" is. Make the game better, and you don't need to rely on hidden distances to make the game tactical.

This is nonsense because actually and not just cosmetically making the game more tactical and therefore 'better' would mean a revamp to the entire system starting from the stats of units. The game would become more tactical when it was intended for adults with an understanding of military strategy instead of 12 year olds who want a fast paced and fun tabletop game with superheroes that they can spend two hours after school with. So once we accept and understand that what you're saying will never become true if we still want to keep on playing we have to make due with what we have, and estimating charge distances and guessing the ranges for artillery shots was one of the few real skills the player had to possess. Many people had a problem with this because they never had that skill and were getting owned.

Cannot WAIT for %'s to come back. And maybe some other restrictions, like Fantasy has maximum numbers of Special/Rare repeats?

Would be SO nice. Any chance of Armor Save Modifiers coming back too, pleasepleaseplease???? 3+on2D6 FTW.

I'm mixed on percentages, for some of the reasons people have mentioned. I remember 2nd edition well and think the general idea is fine. The devil will be in the details beyond the inital percentage breakdown. Although at least percentages would scale to game size, something players have been asking for since basically the moment that 3rd edition hit the stands.

Now, I think a percentage system would be easy enough to implement with the current armies and codicies. Unlike some of the stuff about psychic powers. The leakbook made a lot of changes to codicies, but nothing along the lines of "ignore the entire psychic section of your codex and refer to the rulebook." Again details are key here...if we're talking about some basic Imperial/Chaos "lores" in the rulebook and leaving the xenos stuff alone, maybe that would be okay. If we're talking about focused units like Warlocks or Zoanthropes rolling on a table...well, it's hard to see how that would make for a better game.

It wouldn't be hard to imagine psychics becoming a bigger part of the game, though. Seems like recent codicies have all included some anti-psyker or psychic defense elements.

Regarding game size, it's interesting to note that the leakbook specifically referenced 2000 pts as the "average game you can finish in an evening" or whatever that old line is. I think we'll see some push from GW toward 2000 pts, along with faster gameplay (which the leakbook definitely accomplishes) that facilitates larger games.

I don't want % FOCs. the FOC is fine as is.

Armor save modifiers would be nice. AP- and AP6 are no modifier, AP5 is -1, AP 4 is -2 AP3 is -3, AP2 is -4 and AP1 is -5. Add a Heavy infantry category for units on 40mm bases, and have heavy infantry and MCs roll on 2 dice.

Cover should be changed from a save to a To Hit modifier. Say craters, fences, and other units are a -1 to hit, buildings, forests, and skimmers/fliers moving fast are a -2 to hit, and bunkers are a -3 to hit. 6s always hit.

As for psychic changes, I don't want random schools of powers, but the rest is fine. Categorizing powers into types with set rules- Buff, Hex, Blast/template/line attack, missile attack. Adding psychic mastery levels to powers. Powers having a fixed number to beat, instead of a Ld test. Even the generation of power/dispel dice works fine.

Well, 5th edition is the only edition of 40k I've played...I'm not too sure if the psychic powers stuff would effect my Armies, I play Chaos Space Marines and Tau. I have a sorcerer I converted from the Ksons Aspiring Sorcerer but I haven't really used him, cause I like my Lords (Possessed Lord with Lightning Claws, BL Lord with Power Weapon) and Kharn and Big A and my single Khornate Daemon Prince just fine.

I think there's some background where some client race of the tau have psychic powers-or maybe some of the humans are psychic but I still don't see them having any psychic powers.

I don't know what to make of the percentages stuff...it sort of makes me a little nervous, cause like I said I've only ever played 5th edition, and I like the structure of the FOC...but I guess it could potentially mean I could have more than just 15 crisis suits (3x3 in elites, 2x3 HQ/Bodyguard teams) And I'll finally have a place for my Stealth Suits outside of Killteams

ShumaGorath wrote:

You know what 25% of 2000 is? 500. Did that power klaw put you above 500 for your fast attack? No? Then you're safe. Where was the recalculating there? Oh, right, there wasn't any. The fantasy save system is "Your save is one worse for every point of strength above four". How is that hard? How is that turning the game into fantasy? Fantasy is fantasy because you have giant blocks of dudes on little trays with limited movement arcs stabbing eachother with spears.

It's hyperbole and nothing more to whine "But I don't wan't to play fantasy" when discussing a force org change to percentages.

Huh...so, a plasma gun shot could be saved by a space marine on a 6+? Might see if I can get a game in with someone to try that out, it sounds interesting though I do take perverse pleasure at denying Space Marines their famous Saving throw, it does kind of feel like it's doing Space Marines a disservice. Just to be clear, is that only in shooting, or also close combat? Because if its in CC too, then my Crisis Suits would be even heavier hitters than they are (not that I like them being in close combat-but it happens) and might have a better (slightly) chance in CC.

Also, just to be clear, under that rule setting, a bolter would just be a normal (in the case of Space Marines, 3+) save right?

Pacific wrote:
Well, the only other way to do it (other than a radical shake up of the rules, which won't happen)....

The rules desperately need a grass roots shake up, they never were particularly well developed and as the editions have gone on they are becoming more and more 'clunky'. What would really re-invigorate 40K would be to strip the whole game back to its bones and work up again. As it is the minor alterations that are made each addition simply make the system stagnate.

I don't expect GW to do this of course, they have shown precious little signs of creativity or innovation for years now, but it is what 40K desperately needs.

As for these rumours the %age system was almost certain to make a re-appearance and the psychic system is unlikely to become very random unless they FAQ all the codices, although to be honest would be a very good idea anyway.

MajorWesJanson wrote:. As for psychic changes, I don't want random schools of powers, but the rest is fine. Categorizing powers into types with set rules- Buff, Hex, Blast/template/line attack, missile attack.

The leakbook actually does this to some degree -- psychic shooting attack, modify, channel, shockwave. All psykers can also do a psychic counter, which is a nullify on a 5+ within 24". Overall, I like the approach to psychics in the leakbook and hope we get something closer to that.

If it existed as it was suppose to and left unmodified the FOC works... but the FOC has been butchered... almost every army has a different variation of a unit that counts as a different FOC, or two FOC, or no FOC, or multiple units as a single FOC... those types of variations invalidate its purpose. With the amount of variation that occurs, I always wondered if GW could have more simply accomplished the same level of variation by giving each Codex a different FOC. In that way they could have avoided the whimsy of IG squadroned tanks, dreadnoughts thats count as two things, or the issues of armies where everything worth taking is competing for the same FOC category.

I like percentages... just this year when I started playing WHFB, my first reaction was "Wow, I wish they did this for 40k"...Percentages combined with the limits on spamming units I feel have made the the games I've played more balanced, while allowing the type of flexibility GW intends. The majority of the time you don't even need to worry about the percentages, they only tend to come into effect and act as a hard limit when someone is trying to do something that'd be iffy.

40k doesn't need to use a percentage system, even in the WHFB books they list the limits based as a matter of points. 2000pt army you can't spend more than 500pts on ______. Leaving out percentages but simply applying point limits effecively do the same thing, but going by point limits allows more flexibility. For example saying 750pt limit on Heavy Support is easier than saying 37.5% though they're the same thing.

GW's tried to push players towards using more troop choices, but GW hasn't been succesful using the carrot, so now it'll use the stick.

I can see it now, Grey Knights with % based FOC... Draigo, 1x 10-man paladin squad fully decked out, 2 venerable dreadnoughts and an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor clocking in at 1500 points. Yep, that kind of stuff will be tons of fun to play against, I'm sure.

Elios Harg wrote:I can see it now, Grey Knights with % based FOC... Draigo, 1x 10-man paladin squad fully decked out, 2 venerable dreadnoughts and an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor clocking in at 1500 points. Yep, that kind of stuff will be tons of fun to play against, I'm sure.

You can do that now, without % based FOC. What's the big deal with it altering to % based?

Therion wrote:

You can't view the ability to judge distances as something tactical? No premeasuring means that a carpenter is a better commander than an actual army officer, just because he knows how far 6,12,18 and 24" is. Make the game better, and you don't need to rely on hidden distances to make the game tactical.

This is nonsense because actually and not just cosmetically making the game more tactical and therefore 'better' would mean a revamp to the entire system starting from the stats of units. The game would become more tactical when it was intended for adults with an understanding of military strategy instead of 12 year olds who want a fast paced and fun tabletop game with superheroes that they can spend two hours after school with. So once we accept and understand that what you're saying will never become true if we still want to keep on playing we have to make due with what we have, and estimating charge distances and guessing the ranges for artillery shots was one of the few real skills the player had to possess. Many people had a problem with this because they never had that skill and were getting owned.

Nonsense? Guessing distances is not a fun way to add challenge to the game, it simply creates opportunities to cheat (intentionally or not). If someone's "skill" at WFB was totally vested in their ability to judge distances, then I can't say I feel sorry for them if they are "getting owned" with the new rules. I think good players of 40k now will also be good players of 40k with premeasuring.

Don't mistake me for someone who has a problem with no premeasuring because I "get owned" either. I judge distances just fine and do very well competitively. However, having played different game systems WITH premeasuring, I must say I miss it in 40k. It just streamlines the game in some way, allowing for "cleaner" gaming. I don't think you have to rewrite the entire system to get it into 40k in a good way either.

Elios Harg wrote:I can see it now, Grey Knights with % based FOC... Draigo, 1x 10-man paladin squad fully decked out, 2 venerable dreadnoughts and an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor clocking in at 1500 points. Yep, that kind of stuff will be tons of fun to play against, I'm sure.

I played against that two weeks ago in fifth edition.

Nonsense? Guessing distances is not a fun way to add challenge to the game, it simply creates opportunities to cheat (intentionally or not). If someone's "skill" at WFB was totally vested in their ability to judge distances, then I can't say I feel sorry for them if they are "getting owned" with the new rules. I think good players of 40k now will also be good players of 40k with premeasuring.

More nonsense. Whether it's fun or not is nothing but your opinion. I'm pretty sure noone's skill at WFB isn't totally vested in any single aspect of the game like you're trying to imply, and it never has been. Estimating distances was one part of being a general. Now it isn't.

Don't mistake me for someone who has a problem with no premeasuring because I "get owned" either.

Not that I'm in any way shape or form interested in if indeed you even play 40K competitively you might as well be lying your ass off and be one of the hundreds of sad gamers who want to change everything they can't handle be it core rules or enemy units.

Please remember that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks ~ Manchu

More nonsense. Whether it's fun or not is nothing but your opinion. I'm pretty sure noone's skill at WFB isn't totally vested in any single aspect of the game like you're trying to imply, and it never has been. Estimating distances was one part of being a general. Now it isn't.

I was sad when they took it out of 40k, though it was highly manipulable and easy to exploit. Under-guessing an indirect shot purposely to hit close combats wasn't uncommon, nor was causing yourself casualties to avoid being assaulted.

Therion wrote:

Nonsense? Guessing distances is not a fun way to add challenge to the game, it simply creates opportunities to cheat (intentionally or not). If someone's "skill" at WFB was totally vested in their ability to judge distances, then I can't say I feel sorry for them if they are "getting owned" with the new rules. I think good players of 40k now will also be good players of 40k with premeasuring.

More nonsense. Whether it's fun or not is nothing but your opinion. I'm pretty sure noone's skill at WFB isn't totally vested in any single aspect of the game like you're trying to imply, and it never has been. Estimating distances was one part of being a general. Now it isn't.

Yes, just like it being nonsense is your opinion. I won't bother responding to the rest of your inflammatory post.

I think guessing distances is a skill that is fairly easy to abuse considering that GW would like everybody to buy a Realm of Battle board, which comes pre-marked in 12 inch sections.

Kanluwen wrote:

Elios Harg wrote:I can see it now, Grey Knights with % based FOC... Draigo, 1x 10-man paladin squad fully decked out, 2 venerable dreadnoughts and an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor clocking in at 1500 points. Yep, that kind of stuff will be tons of fun to play against, I'm sure.

You can do that now, without % based FOC. What's the big deal with it altering to % based?

At least right now people have to make decisions about which cheap secondary troops choice they have to take in addition to the paladins. Heck, you could field 10 paladins and Draigo all the way down to about 1000 points games. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite enjoy playing my Paladins list, I just don't see how going to % based FOC is going to be an improvement in any way over what we have right now and it seems like change for the sake of change. In some ways, it will in fact be worse than what we have currently, especially if you get into mechanics like limiting Elite, Fast and Heavy to 2 of the same unit. Yeah, that's super awesome for all of those folks that have 3 Predators or 3 Vindicators and can no longer use them.

Elios Harg wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Elios Harg wrote:I can see it now, Grey Knights with % based FOC... Draigo, 1x 10-man paladin squad fully decked out, 2 venerable dreadnoughts and an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor clocking in at 1500 points. Yep, that kind of stuff will be tons of fun to play against, I'm sure.

You can do that now, without % based FOC. What's the big deal with it altering to % based?

At least right now people have to make decisions about which cheap secondary troops choice they have to take in addition to the paladins. Heck, you could field 10 paladins and Draigo all the way down to about 1000 points games. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite enjoy playing my Paladins list, I just don't see how going to % based FOC is going to be an improvement in any way over what we have right now and it seems like change for the sake of change. In some ways, it will in fact be worse than what we have currently, especially if you get into mechanics like limiting Elite, Fast and Heavy to 2 of the same unit. Yeah, that's super awesome for all of those folks that have 3 Predators or 3 Vindicators and can no longer use them.

Or (in fifth) you could just take one extra paladin and deck chair it by itself on an objective (which is better than the list you're proposing in most missions).

Trevak Dal wrote:Also, just to be clear, under that rule setting, a bolter would just be a normal (in the case of Space Marines, 3+) save right?

Techincally, it would be at -1. Anything above Str3 (I think someone said Str4 here by mistake) is going to reduce your armor. So a Plasma at Str7 is a -4, no save for Power Armor.

Which - from your post - will make you smile.

Hopefully if they go to percentages, they get rid of the FoC changes, that way we keep paladins/purifiers to elites.

KarlPedder wrote:I think any % is going to be too forgiving (50% would be way too high for HQ and 25% isnt a high enough min on troops) for it to have much impact on most games. I do feel it potentially punishes armies with high pts values especially at smaller game sizes in ways the FOC doesn't. In the end the only real benefit IMO is it allows the core rules to scale better at larger pts values than the FOC.......

If I remember correctly, it used to be:

Minimum 25% troops
0-50% Elites
0-50% Fast Attack
0-50% Heavy Support

Don't remember what it was for HQ.

Question about vheclie hull points. Is that 3 shaken results in one Phase of shotting, or 3 shaken results in one Round of shooting?

It's a slight difference, but a HUGE one in what it means. Because if it's only destroyed if a single squad gets 3 shaken results in one round of shooting, that could be a cool change to the game.

If shaken stacks over the course of a single shooting phase that would be disappointing, since it would potentially be a HUGE nerf to alot of vheclies. especially the Lower AV ones.

@Puma

0-50% for HQ's as well

@Thread

While I seriously doubt the psychic stuff I'd be absolutely down with the % change. The more I think about it the more I like it but I'm that looney that wants to take Sternguard in a BA army and lots of cheap fast attack for my IG or more elites for my daemons or BW's and Kans for my orks. I think % would be fine and it wouldn't be that much of a shift. Just ignore the chart in the book and put a limit on how many of a unit entry you can take (I'd say 0-3 since that's the current standard and less would piss people off).

Armor save modifiers would be sweet! As a guard player, I'd love to get saves on at least SOME shots. 6+ from bolters? I'd take that!

As for the Force (or forceD as some here calls it) Organization, I don't like the look of the %s system. Sure, I haven't tried it, so it might be good, but I'd much more like a revamp of the existing system to make it a bit different from fantasy.

Scottywan82 wrote:

Trevak Dal wrote:Also, just to be clear, under that rule setting, a bolter would just be a normal (in the case of Space Marines, 3+) save right?

Techincally, it would be at -1. Anything above Str3 (I think someone said Str4 here by mistake) is going to reduce your armor. So a Plasma at Str7 is a -4, no save for Power Armor.

Which - from your post - will make you smile.

That was me, and str3 works as well. Hopefully they up it to four if it ever gets adopted in 40k though. 3 is the standard infantry strength for most of fantasy, but four is the standard infantry and weapon strength in 40k, with strength five weapons being commonplace as well.

Personally. I have no problem witha psychic system similar to fantasy nor percentages.

I think a psychic system essentially identical to fantasy would work. except for a few things.

How many lores and how would armies get access? For example would Nid's only get nids stuff and how would that value or devalue Zoanthropes based upon the cost of the spell. Would blast be the signature spell with lance being the boosted version? Would the swarm lord be loremaster essentially?

Would an army have to have a psyker to get a +X to dispel, if so poor tau/daemons

This being said a % based system would allievate worries about armies having to always fit a psyker in for defense. However some armies would be able to have multiple casters in slots other than HQ. Nids/bloodangles being two examples. I think the system can be ported over however it would require serious revisions of current books.

As an avid 2nd edition player, I can tell you we've loved the switch back

(There are some things that needed house rules to balance out 50% characters is way too high for example, certain wargear are crazily broken etc.)

But the game just plays so much better in our opinion with the BS modifiers cover system and armor save modifier systems.

We love the close combat system where your weapon skill plays a role in whether you or your opponent are the one who inflicts damage.

Ie. Both players roll their models attacks and pick the highest roll you then add your weapon skill and the model with the higher total inflicts a number of hits equal to the difference.

I think it would really help the current ruleset if they adapted some of the better elements from 2nd into the game again.

Hulksmash wrote:@Puma

0-50% for HQ's as well

@Thread

While I seriously doubt the psychic stuff I'd be absolutely down with the % change. The more I think about it the more I like it but I'm that looney that wants to take Sternguard in a BA army and lots of cheap fast attack for my IG or more elites for my daemons or BW's and Kans for my orks. I think % would be fine and it wouldn't be that much of a shift. Just ignore the chart in the book and put a limit on how many of a unit entry you can take (I'd say 0-3 since that's the current standard and less would piss people off).

What I love about it is when you go to a tournament, you could see just about any army across from you. As it stands now, people know that they might see Razorwolves or Purifier Spam or Draigowing, or Fatecrusher, Leafblower, etc., etc.

With percentages, you have to prepare to see anything. I think it makes it more interesting.

Chaos can use Deathwing from WoW in their upcoming codex!

puma713 wrote:

KarlPedder wrote:I think any % is going to be too forgiving (50% would be way too high for HQ and 25% isnt a high enough min on troops) for it to have much impact on most games. I do feel it potentially punishes armies with high pts values especially at smaller game sizes in ways the FOC doesn't. In the end the only real benefit IMO is it allows the core rules to scale better at larger pts values than the FOC.......

If I remember correctly, it used to be:

Minimum 25% troops
0-50% Elites
0-50% Fast Attack
0-50% Heavy Support

Don't remember what it was for HQ.

NO.

HQ/Troops/Elite/Fast Attack/Heavy Support did not exist.

It was

0-50% Characters, which included Veteran Sergeant upgrades for squads.
25%+ Squads - ALL of them, including Terminators or whatever else. Yep, whole armies of Ultramarine terminators if that's what you wanted.
0-50% Support, which included all vehicles and dreadnoughts, attack bikes, and landspeeders.

Scottywan82 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

KarlPedder wrote:I think any % is going to be too forgiving (50% would be way too high for HQ and 25% isnt a high enough min on troops) for it to have much impact on most games. I do feel it potentially punishes armies with high pts values especially at smaller game sizes in ways the FOC doesn't. In the end the only real benefit IMO is it allows the core rules to scale better at larger pts values than the FOC.......

If I remember correctly, it used to be:

Minimum 25% troops
0-50% Elites
0-50% Fast Attack
0-50% Heavy Support

Don't remember what it was for HQ.

NO.

HQ/Troops/Elite/Fast Attack/Heavy Support did not exist.

It was

0-50% Characters, which included Veteran Sergeant upgrades for squads.
25%+ Squads - ALL of them, including Terminators or whatever else. Yep, whole armies of Ultramarine terminators if that's what you wanted.
0-50% Support, which included all vehicles and dreadnoughts, attack bikes, and landspeeders.

This, though most armies were 25% support.

If they go back to it, it would be best if they added % for Elite/Fast/ as the blanket "Squads" was open to abuse, by WAAC players.

Scottywan82 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

KarlPedder wrote:I think any % is going to be too forgiving (50% would be way too high for HQ and 25% isnt a high enough min on troops) for it to have much impact on most games. I do feel it potentially punishes armies with high pts values especially at smaller game sizes in ways the FOC doesn't. In the end the only real benefit IMO is it allows the core rules to scale better at larger pts values than the FOC.......

If I remember correctly, it used to be:

Minimum 25% troops
0-50% Elites
0-50% Fast Attack
0-50% Heavy Support

Don't remember what it was for HQ.

NO.

...okay...

I said "if I remember correctly." I was not preaching gospel.

puma713 wrote:
...okay...

I said "if I remember correctly." I was not preaching gospel.

And I was being facetiously old and curmudgeonly. Relax, sparky, it was a joke.

Would an army have to have a psyker to get a +X to dispel, if so poor tau/daemons

Are you serious? Daemons have three major HQ's that can (Great unclean one, keeper of secrets, and lord of change)

Because if they didn't count these three as psykers, there'd be no justice.

I would also not mind a return to the percentage based system of yesteryear. Though I hope that they would change the percentages from what they used for fantasy. For example, in fantasy you can have up to 50% of your points be in the "special" category. In 40k terms this would count as Elites I guess.

I think a better setup would be:

HQ: 25%
Troops: 40%
FA/HS/Elites: 25% each

In a standard 2k game this would come out to be:

HQ: 500
Troops: 800
FA/HS/Elites: 500 max for each category.

FO changes would be amazing.....would be cool if a glance was -1 instead of -2....because really, I could wreck your car with a RPG even if I hit the side of your tire instead of your engine. Both of those things would help even out the playing field vs. some of the elite armies and the shenanigans they are able to field.

Don't touch individual HQ/Elites pyschic abilities. One of the reasons more people play 40K then Fantasy is because it's more competitive and less random. you can build broken army lists with specific roles and a strategy in mind. 40k appeals to the Modern warfare/wow generation because of this..it's a competitve game. Fantasy is more for older gamer who digs pretty things (models are waaay more creative in fantasy) and doesn't care if they lose, because so many things are random.

Making 40k more like fantasy, would be akin to making the NBA more like the WNBA because is more competitive and even, but a ton less interesting...

Samurai_Eduh wrote:I would also not mind a return to the percentage based system of yesteryear. Though I hope that they would change the percentages from what they used for fantasy. For example, in fantasy you can have up to 50% of your points be in the "special" category. In 40k terms this would count as Elites I guess.

I think a better setup would be:

HQ: 25%
Troops: 40%
FA/HS/Elites: 25% each

In a standard 2k game this would come out to be:

HQ: 500
Troops: 800
FA/HS/Elites: 500 max for each category.

HQ would need to be significantly higher than that or Royal Courts, Honor guards, command squads, etc would be screwed.

unmercifulconker wrote:The only thing that bothers me is that for some reason it just seems like a major part of 40k is going to revolve around the powers. If it is just a 'turn' or a small portion of the game then I welcome the psychic power overhaul. I just hope every turn, situation etc doesn't revolve around psychic powers.

Wonder how underpowered the black templars are gonna be since they have nothing like this.

Good post. Anyone else with other ideas on percentage setups?
We are also assuming some kind of unit count limits to keep the spamming down.

FA/HS/Elites could probably be dropped to 20% each and perhaps HQ to 20% also:

HQ: 20%
Troops: 40%
FA/HS/Elites: 20% each

In a standard 2k game this would come out to be:

HQ: 400
Troops: 800
FA/HS/Elites: 400 max for each category.


t

Samurai_Eduh wrote:I would also not mind a return to the percentage based system of yesteryear. Though I hope that they would change the percentages from what they used for fantasy. For example, in fantasy you can have up to 50% of your points be in the "special" category. In 40k terms this would count as Elites I guess.

I think a better setup would be:

HQ: 25%
Troops: 40%
FA/HS/Elites: 25% each

In a standard 2k game this would come out to be:

HQ: 500
Troops: 800
FA/HS/Elites: 500 max for each category.

IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

akkados wrote:

unmercifulconker wrote:The only thing that bothers me is that for some reason it just seems like a major part of 40k is going to revolve around the powers. If it is just a 'turn' or a small portion of the game then I welcome the psychic power overhaul. I just hope every turn, situation etc doesn't revolve around psychic powers.

Wonder how underpowered the black templars are gonna be since they have nothing like this.

Except that means if their new codex they'll be able to be like the dwarves in fantasy, being one of the anti-psyker types like Sisters of Battle.

oni wrote:IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

The FOC is failing right now.

oni wrote:IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

And the FOC isn't perfect either. Honestly, your statement is about as general as saying "movement values have failed before, they'll fail again" since it's such a general concept that can be applied to any wargame. It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of 2nd ed's percentage rules you know.

Why are they trying to make it more like fantasy? I hate the fantasy system... psykers work fine, There's nothing that really needs to be improved, IMO.

After thinking about it, maybe the psyker system could stay the same, but include more risks, rather than having a system of lore. For example, maybe making perils off the warp more dangerous (like 3d6), like that psykers would be less an automatic choice. For the FoC in %, I think it would be cool.
II

Eldarain wrote:As an avid 2nd edition player, I can tell you we've loved the switch back

(There are some things that needed house rules to balance out 50% characters is way too high for example, certain wargear are crazily broken etc.)

But the game just plays so much better in our opinion with the BS modifiers cover system and armor save modifier systems.

We love the close combat system where your weapon skill plays a role in whether you or your opponent are the one who inflicts damage.

Ie. Both players roll their models attacks and pick the highest roll you then add your weapon skill and the model with the higher total inflicts a number of hits equal to the difference.

I think it would really help the current ruleset if they adapted some of the better elements from 2nd into the game again.

The best thing they could do would be to take 2nd ed, actually fix everything that's wrong with it, compile all the wargear and whatnot into one big book and make a true 3rd edition to 40k that wasn't a total rewrite to half points values and sell more models.

I probably sound like a total grog, but I'm not convinced the last 15 years of 40k was really Warhammer 40,000 when you compare it to the first 10 years of the game's life.

Pacific wrote:[.

I kind of agree though with Frozen Wastes - any rules changes we see will be towards facilitating faster game play, and larger armies. If you listen to the Rick Priestly interview from about a year ago, he said that rules changes now have to go through correspondence with the sales department - it's evident in everything from the rules themselves, and even to the background writing (the Storm Raven being involved in every single past engagement of the BA in the last codex for instance).

Well hypothetically the only way to do that would be to boost the advantages of hoard armies, boost the advantage of shooting and make it much easier to destroy tanks.

So, massive adv in close combat resolution for outnumbering by degrees. Even to the point of outnumber by three to one become stubborn. You should not have units of fifteen guard routed n chased down by a single IC.

Moral checks from shooting now take minuses from the number of casualties killed in shooting. Lose six men, take a leadership check at -6. This will allow shooting to be similarly decisive to CC you won't have to split fire wiping out the paltry survivors.

Have a damage table that distinguishes tanks from light vehicles/APC these blow up on a 4+ and can be destroyed by glancing hits.

Or, for the amount the weapon goes over the armour you add that number onto the damage table. If I hit a chimera (12) with a railgun and get 16 on the damage table I get to blow up that tank instantly. Put a maximum ap roll to prevent land raiders or monoliths being seriously affected and it'll make games MUCH quicker. Killing infantry is pretty quick, killing tanks isn't even funny.

I don't want to get too much into wishlisting, however I could see it being like:

25% Legends (Special characters, Chapter Master)
25% Heroes (Space Marine captains, Chaplains, Librarians)
25%+ Troops (Space Marines)
Up to 25% (Fast attack, Elites, Heavy Support, with no option being able to be chosen more than 3 times)

Kind Regards,
Vladsimpaler

Well psykers really don't work that well because right now we kind of just look at them as just big guns. Especially with things that allow many armies to bypass a lot of the things that make the psyker abilities feel unique.

I'm find with a different spell system if it makes them stand out a little more. I just don't want to see things randomized because that's never fun.

ShumaGorath wrote:

oni wrote:IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

The FOC is failing right now.

How so? What feature of the FOC chart is failing right now that can be remedied by percentages?
Just because something is broken right now doesn't mean it's a good idea to switch to something else broken.

Absolutionis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

oni wrote:IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

The FOC is failing right now.

How so? What feature of the FOC chart is failing right now that can be remedied by percentages?
Just because something is broken right now doesn't mean it's a good idea to switch to something else broken.

When one of the games top armies consists of two 2 wound 2+ save FNP 3+ cover save terminator squads with str7 I6 force weapons as their troops than something has gone wrong with force organization. The single most elite unit in the game is a troop. Why? What is that? Did they forget what troop meant? None of the top armies are particularly varied or interesting, they all just manipulate a FOC chart that no longer does anything. Percentages at least do what the FOC was always supposed to, while percentages with hard limits like what fantasy has would fix many of the more obnoxious forms of spam. Raw percentages just opens the door to problems, but they don't use raw percentages in their other flagship game.

So now my Necrons can actually glance tanks to death, and there's a huge nerf to anyone who plays with Psykers in their army.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

oni wrote:IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

The FOC is failing right now.

How so? What feature of the FOC chart is failing right now that can be remedied by percentages?
Just because something is broken right now doesn't mean it's a good idea to switch to something else broken.

When one of the games top armies consists of two 2 wound 2+ save FNP 3+ cover save terminator squads with str7 I6 force weapons as their troops than something has gone wrong with force organization. The single most elite unit in the game is a troop. Why? What is that? Did they forget what troop meant? None of the top armies are particularly varied or interesting, they all just manipulate a FOC chart that no longer does anything. Percentages at least do what the FOC was always supposed to, while percentages with hard limits like what fantasy has would fix many of the more obnoxious forms of spam. Raw percentages just opens the door to problems, but they don't use raw percentages in their other flagship game.

Fantasy's percentage forces you to AT LEAST spend 25% on core units (troops-equivalent). Troops are supposed to be the common, spammable unit. The problem with the Grey Knights is that their Paladins are troops, not the FoC itself. Under a percentage system, you could take the same amount of Paladins.

This is even more absurd considering that you're blaming the FoC for failing and you want to go to percentages... when the 'problem' you're stating will still exist under either system.

Please, please tell me this isn't true.

Reecius wrote:Please, please tell me this isn't true.

It's not true. Feeling better?

PS: I don't actually know if it is or isn't. And no one really knows until the product is actually out.

Yes, don't make any assumptions until we actually hear more, and be skeptical about any rumors. I personally am taking this with a bucket a salt, since any rumors that's "We're taking the rules from X and putting it in Y" is always shaky.

Percentages makes my fluffy harlequin themed army cry sad space-clown tears. I guess I could play 3 units of harlies at 3500 points, though.

In fact, unless FoC manipulation remains a big part of the game, percentages will probably hurt most fluffy armies more than it would help. It will help make balanced armies overall, but fluffy lists are usually unbalanced, designed to match a particular niche element of the Warhammer universe. Also, an army with 50% of the points in GK razorbacks with min. Henchmen sounds terrifying, even if vehicles are weaker.

Regarding cover and armor saves being separate - you'd need to recost a lot of units for that work. Units that don't currently take cover saves gain a second layer of protection, and units that currently rely on cover find that in competition with harder units they have lost a lot of killing power for no gain at best - probably a net loss, since a to-hit modifier probably won't be as strong as a 4+ cover save. Orks in cover shooting at Tacticals in cover suddenly becomes a far, far worse proposition for the Orks.

Have people forgotten what it was like in the old days with %'s? I remember old Dwarf armies that used their 50% Command allowance to bring a single Anvil of Doom that was literally half their army. And in 40K you could bring multiple insane characters.

Now we haven't got the same level of power to have 'Herohammer' as we once did, but in this era of over-abundant special characters, I don't think increasing how many we can take is a good thing.

Also, an army with 50% of the points in GK razorbacks with min. Henchmen sounds terrifying, even if vehicles are weaker.

What if, hypothetically, the FoC changes that the SC's bring don't happen anymore with the percentages based system?

Now we haven't got the same level of power to have 'Herohammer' as we once did, but in this era of over-abundant special characters, I don't think increasing how many we can take is a good thing.

Most of them aren't even that good to begin with. Sure you want to take Ahriman and Abbadon with Kharn and Typhus? I'll just take some actual troops to fight them off.

The percentage based thing would require that we no longer have FoC changes however. Get rid of that and it'd be good.

I really doubt the psychic powers one. All the races that use powers use them for vastly differing things. Some armies rely on them just from a plain gaming perspective, i'm looking at Nids and Grey Knights here.

But other armies also.
Psychic powers are so race specific atm that I couldn't see how this would work without invalidating what is there. Unless they gave psykers that choose their powers currently the ability to swap for a random one. Or put random tables in the Codexes like fantasy but I can't imagine it would be good especially with how slow it would be to update the codexs. You would need a lot of wargear to support a change like that too.

I'm calling BS.

From Bols

6th Edition
-Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.
-There will be "lore equivalents"
-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)
-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)
-The FOC may be history

So does this mean that there will be different levels of psykers?

TechMarine1 wrote:
From Bols

6th Edition
-Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.
-There will be "lore equivalents"
-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)
-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)
-The FOC may be history

So does this mean that there will be different levels of psykers?

It means that you copypasted the first post of this thread

I can see the percentage one being true though. Mostly to try to stop the killer paladin and lesser extent nob biker point sink units that is too common in competitive play.

The only way they are otherwise going to get rid of such units will be to bring a points system similar to VPs back in. Which I could actually see them doing too. It does open up the problem of MSU again but GW may try other tactics to get around MSU.

Psychic powers are so race specific atm that I couldn't see how this would work without invalidating what is there.

In the fantasy one, there's 8 lores of magic that are general, and then there's the more specific ones given to the codexs that have it.

Some of them can't even take the lores of magic (orks use the Big WAAAGH! and the little WAAAGH!) for example.

Though I'd love to see far more psyker powers that are general in function though myself. I still don't believe this rumor at all.

Absolutionis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

oni wrote:IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

The FOC is failing right now.

How so? What feature of the FOC chart is failing right now that can be remedied by percentages?
Just because something is broken right now doesn't mean it's a good idea to switch to something else broken.

When one of the games top armies consists of two 2 wound 2+ save FNP 3+ cover save terminator squads with str7 I6 force weapons as their troops than something has gone wrong with force organization. The single most elite unit in the game is a troop. Why? What is that? Did they forget what troop meant? None of the top armies are particularly varied or interesting, they all just manipulate a FOC chart that no longer does anything. Percentages at least do what the FOC was always supposed to, while percentages with hard limits like what fantasy has would fix many of the more obnoxious forms of spam. Raw percentages just opens the door to problems, but they don't use raw percentages in their other flagship game.

Fantasy's percentage forces you to AT LEAST spend 25% on core units (troops-equivalent). Troops are supposed to be the common, spammable unit. The problem with the Grey Knights is that their Paladins are troops, not the FoC itself. Under a percentage system, you could take the same amount of Paladins.

This is even more absurd considering that you're blaming the FoC for failing and you want to go to percentages... when the 'problem' you're stating will still exist under either system.

It's a representation of the problem inherent to force org, in all likelihood percentages wouldn't fix force org. It's clear that the games designers don't think the force org chart is worth keeping, if they did they wouldn't make every codex ignore it.

The current force org doesn't do anything when the most powerful armies in the game get to effectively ignore it with their most powerful and capable units. All it does is effectively hold every other codex back while being a false separation between units that is unrepresentative of anything except worthless spread sheeting. An 80 point whirlwind will never see the table because its 80 points and takes up a slot. Were I to have 500 points rather than three choices I would consider taking them. There are dozens of units plagued by the issue of "taking up a slot". There are also several armies that get to blatantly ignore the force org (orks, GKs, IG, BA) and who are benefited strongly by that fact.

I don't know how percentages would be implemented in accordance with books that move units around the FOC chart, but if the new system reduces spam by limiting duplicate choices than it would go an exceptionally long way towards fixing monobuilds in this game. You could do the same thing with the FOC by reintroducing maximum unit allowances, but since that'd require a rerelease of every codex it seems unlikely and it's a poor fix since it doesn't help with the issue of "Well i'd take it but it's cheap and takes up and entire slot!"

TechMarine1 wrote:So does this mean that there will be different levels of psykers?

Grey Knights and their Psyker Mastery Levels say hi.

ShumaGorath wrote:

oni wrote:IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

The FOC is failing right now.

In what manner do you think the FOC is failing? Again, IMO I feel it works quite well. It's restrictive for those units it should be restrictive of and less so for those units more essential to having a more balanced game.

Brother SRM wrote:

oni wrote:IMO... Percentages have failed before... They'll fail again.

And the FOC isn't perfect either. Honestly, your statement is about as general as saying "movement values have failed before, they'll fail again" since it's such a general concept that can be applied to any wargame. It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of 2nd ed's percentage rules you know.

General... Yes, because I have no information beyond a speculative rumor. However, it seems I still managed to get my point across. Perhaps you would have liked me to elaborate more on my thought process regarding the alleged change? If this is the case just read my reply to ShumaGorath above followed by my comments below.

Furthermore, the amount of points available for a particular selection scales with the percentage system (obviously). I can see how that sounds appropriate and very appealing for game play, but I view it as a potential factor for further unbalance between codex's. If you limit a selection to a hard number rather than its points value it's a non issue; as percentages scale up issues tend to only gets worse. At the moment the example I'm thinking of... Instead of facing two lash daemon prince's you're facing 3 or even four. Instead of 4 Rune Priests, now you're facing 6 or 7.

Back in 2nd edition it was this percentage system that allowed Hero Hammer to be realized.

Samurai_Eduh wrote:I would also not mind a return to the percentage based system of yesteryear. Though I hope that they would change the percentages from what they used for fantasy. For example, in fantasy you can have up to 50% of your points be in the "special" category. In 40k terms this would count as Elites I guess.

I think a better setup would be:

HQ: 25%
Troops: 40%
FA/HS/Elites: 25% each

In a standard 2k game this would come out to be:

HQ: 500
Troops: 800
FA/HS/Elites: 500 max for each category.

This may be fine for Space Marine armies, but this would kill Tau.

9 Broadsides (Heavy, typical loadout) come in at roughly 850 points.

9 Crisis suits (Elite, PR/MP) come in at roughly 550, and that's with zero upgrades.


I would love to see the FOC eliminated, but I'm not sure that points-based percentages are really the most effective method for 40k. Not with current codexes, anyway.

Hey listen, I think Tau need a new codex as much as the next guy, but you think maybe the 9 broadsides thing might be exactly what they SHOULD be aiming to stop (assuming they should be stopping anything)?

In what manner do you think the FOC is failing? Again, IMO I feel it works quite well. It's restrictive for those units it should be restrictive of and less so for those units more essential to having a more balanced game.

-The blood angels can take 12 dreadnaughts in an army.
-The imperial guard can take nine Leman Russes and nine hellhounds in the same army
-The Orks can have two scoring full squads of nobz on bikes led by warbosses with no other army
-The GKs are capable of taking six psyfledreads backing up two units of troop palladins with no other army
-There are three marine armies capable of making entire armies composed of nothing but terminator armor
-Several marine armies can take five land raiders at 1850
etc, etc, etc

It's meant to force army builds with varied unit choices that are representative of a realistic army. It is failing at that totally and completely and the games design intentions have been to nullify it as much as possible for years, first with the removal of max allotments, then with the removal of the force org itself in many situations.

Maybe.

If percentages were going to be the system for force orgs, I'd prefer to see codex-specific percentages.

I don't think the proposed changes are totally bad overall for the meta of the game, In fact I think seriosu changes are needed. However, there could be some devasting impacts on some armies with this as well. The more I reflect on this and some of the other rumors as a dedicated eldar player, the more scared I become i made a bad choice to come back. Rejoining the game after a hiatus at the end of 3rd I had been picking up a couple of units here and there to fill in gaps created by missing two editions; but I am going to cold stop that now, including putting off the major forgeworld order I am desperatly wanting to make.

I know I may be overly pessimistic on this, but the only version of eldar I have ever refused absolutly to play is guardian meat shield; and I am a skimmer head, always have and always will be. This set of rumors terrifies me that guardian meatshield footdar is the future of eldar, at minium until a new dex, especially were transports to become a seperate option. I won't say I think that will happen, but were it come to pass my 40K days would be over, and it worries me enough that I am going to save my money until things firm up a little.

I am sure that if the percentages rumor is true there will be a limit to how many times you can take a specific unit just like WFB. So I would imagine that you would be able to take a total of 3 Dreads from the elite selection, but you would also be able to take any other elite unit that you had points to spend to reach your maximum percentage.

ShumaGorath wrote:

In what manner do you think the FOC is failing?

-The blood angels can take 12 dreadnaughts in an army.
-The imperial guard can take nine Leman Russes and nine hellhounds in the same army
-The Orks can have two scoring full squads of nobz on bikes led by warbosses with no other army
-The GKs are capable of taking six psyfledreads backing up two units of troop palladins with no other army
-There are three marine armies capable of making entire armies composed of nothing but terminator armor
-Several marine armies can take five land raiders at 1850
etc, etc, etc

It's meant to force army builds with varied unit choices that are representative of a realistic army. It is failing at that totally and completely and the games design intentions have been to nullify it as much as possible for years, first with the removal of max allotments, then with the removal of the force org itself in many situations.

Actually the FOC is not failing at that. The specific exemptions from the FOC is what is causing it to fail. If you put dreads in troops for blood angles it leads to the same problem FOC or %.

The "problem" is the exemptions to the FOC, not the FOC itself.

wolf13 wrote:I don't think the proposed changes are totally bad overall for the meta of the game, In fact I think seriosu changes are needed. However, there could be some devasting impacts on some armies with this as well. The more I reflect on this and some of the other rumors as a dedicated eldar player, the more scared I become i made a bad choice to come back. Rejoining the game after a hiatus at the end of 3rd I had been picking up a couple of units here and there to fill in gaps created by missing two editions; but I am going to cold stop that now, including putting off the major forgeworld order I am desperatly wanting to make.

I know I may be overly pessimistic on this, but the only version of eldar I have ever refused absolutly to play is guardian meat shield; and I am a skimmer head, always have and always will be. This set of rumors terrifies me that guardian meatshield footdar is the future of eldar, at minium until a new dex, especially were transports to become a seperate option. I won't say I think that will happen, but were it come to pass my 40K days would be over, and it worries me enough that I am going to save my money until things firm up a little.

If it is Eldar your worried about, I have some good words for you. There was a time when Eldar was great a top tier army and above that. GW have long neglected Eldar but I can see the tides turning towards Eldar. Eldar are one of the armies that rely on their psykers and a shake up to this part of the game and the Eldar codex could put them back in serious contention. Eldar ruled in 3rd with MSU and foot sloggers were the way to go, there is a possibility those things could make a return with all this talk of changes to missions, FOC and percentages.

Still I wouldn't bet anything, I too am holding off till I see the new rules and commend you on your cautious approach.

Dracos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

In what manner do you think the FOC is failing?

-The blood angels can take 12 dreadnaughts in an army.
-The imperial guard can take nine Leman Russes and nine hellhounds in the same army
-The Orks can have two scoring full squads of nobz on bikes led by warbosses with no other army
-The GKs are capable of taking six psyfledreads backing up two units of troop palladins with no other army
-There are three marine armies capable of making entire armies composed of nothing but terminator armor
-Several marine armies can take five land raiders at 1850
etc, etc, etc

It's meant to force army builds with varied unit choices that are representative of a realistic army. It is failing at that totally and completely and the games design intentions have been to nullify it as much as possible for years, first with the removal of max allotments, then with the removal of the force org itself in many situations.

Actually the FOC is not failing at that. The specific exemptions from the FOC is what is causing it to fail. If you put dreads in troops for blood angles it leads to the same problem FOC or %.

The "problem" is the exemptions to the FOC, not the FOC itself.

Actually they are inseparable at a very basic level, the problem with one is the problem with the other.

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually they are inseparable at a very basic level, the problem with one is the problem with the other.

In what way are they inseparable? Are you saying that it is impossible to have a FOC with no exemptions? How does a % fix the problems you perceive with FOC?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bobug wrote:Dont really think scrapping the FoC for % based system would be a good idea, some armies would suffer hugely from it, imagine having to spend 25% on your points on troops as tau or eldar :s while armies like guard where your troops choices are great would be laughing all the way to the objectives, thats perhaps more of a codex problem overall though....

It'll be nice to see an IG army composition that isn't 70% heavy support choices.

What? Are you playing guys with three squadrons of three lemun russ's all the time? How are they spending 70% of their points in heavy support? I usually see people fielding two manticores and then a lemun russ or a squadron of hydras. That makes up about 25% of a 2k point list. With far more points already put into the troops section with either large meched platoons or six squads of meched vets. Six squads of melta vets in chimeras is over 900 points, so almost 50% of a 2k list.

The biggest problem (stop me if you've heard this one before) is game balance, not force org issues. Spamming the same unit and calling it an army is more effective than having a varied army, because you pick the undercosted or overpowered unit to spam. In a better-balanced game (hello, Infinity) you can pick the units you like, call it an army, and expect to do fine with it, because there are far fewer undercosted/overpowered issues.

ShumaGorath wrote:

In what manner do you think the FOC is failing? Again, IMO I feel it works quite well. It's restrictive for those units it should be restrictive of and less so for those units more essential to having a more balanced game.

-The blood angels can take 12 dreadnaughts in an army.
-The imperial guard can take nine Leman Russes and nine hellhounds in the same army
-The Orks can have two scoring full squads of nobz on bikes led by warbosses with no other army
-The GKs are capable of taking six psyfledreads backing up two units of troop palladins with no other army
-There are three marine armies capable of making entire armies composed of nothing but terminator armor
-Several marine armies can take five land raiders at 1850
etc, etc, etc

It's meant to force army builds with varied unit choices that are representative of a realistic army. It is failing at that totally and completely and the games design intentions have been to nullify it as much as possible for years, first with the removal of max allotments, then with the removal of the force org itself in many situations.

So what you're saying is that most armies can use the FOC to make some exotic build. I like that those options are available. Nothing would be more boring to me than to think that every codex would produce something that resembles your idea of what a realistic army is. Remember also that while 40k isn't considered a skirmish game, it is far from a game that would depict an large engagement between two armies. As it stands it can be used to show a battle between two company sized forces or two small elite forces, or anything in between. I like the idea of taking 22 paladins and a dreadknight and going up against 100+ orks with kanz and lootas thrown in. The game is so exciting to me because of all of the strange army possibilities out there.

I think that the FOC and army selection in general works just fine right now, and hope that it is one aspect that does not change. If it does, I'll likely adapt to it, and wonder about what aspect of 6th edition everybody will be railing against until 7th comes out.

So what you're saying is that most armies can use the FOC to make some exotic build. I like that those options are available. Nothing would be more boring to me than to think that every codex would produce something that resembles your idea of what a realistic army is. Remember also that while 40k isn't considered a skirmish game, it is far from a game that would depict an large engagement between two armies. As it stands it can be used to show a battle between two company sized forces or two small elite forces, or anything in between.

And right now it's showing a showdown between bare minimum numbers of men with maximized numbers of metal boxes and bronzed supergods holding miniguns or missile launchers from a time when Brom painted everything and no one cared about fun or balance.

I like the idea of taking 22 paladins and a dreadknight and going up against 100+ orks with kanz and lootas thrown in.

And no one likes playing your 22 palladins, especially not that ork player who might as well not even deploy. My idea of 40k is being able to put an army on the table and not knowing for absolute certain whether I will win or lose the game based on how many av14 vehicles or utterly idiotic death star units they have on the table. My ideal for 40k is one where there is a game between bouts of rock paper scissors army creation.

The game is so exciting to me because of all of the strange army possibilities out there.

It's exciting to me because in theory it's a game, not a competition to see who can make the most fundamentally broken army within the rough constraints of the rules followed by rock paper scissors for four hours.

I think that the FOC and army selection in general works just fine right now

And for numerous reasons I think you're wrong, and they go beyond my preference for a game composed of balanced armies and decision making. The FOC chart fundamentally benefits some armies more than others and unduly punishes units for being low point values by making then uneconomical choices.

And for numerous reasons I think you're wrong, and they go beyond my preference for a game composed of balanced armies and decision making. The FOC chart fundamentally benefits some armies more than others and unduly punishes units for being low point values by making then uneconomical choices.

This x 9000.

Think the new psycher system will allow for dispelling, with psychic hoods and the like being additional or replacing attempts? Probably only if they make powers really all that, but that would be quite the twist.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I like the idea of taking 22 paladins and a dreadknight and going up against 100+ orks with kanz and lootas thrown in.

And no one likes playing your 22 palladins, especially not that ork player who might as well not even deploy. My idea of 40k is being able to put an army on the table and not knowing for absolute certain whether I will win or lose the game based on how many av14 vehicles or utterly idiotic death star units they have on the table. My ideal for 40k is one where there is a game between bouts of rock paper scissors army creation.

I agree with most of your points, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. 22 Paladins vs a horde of Orks is pretty much the definition of a rock vs scissors matchup, its precisely what we don't want to be showing up. Unbalanced armies aren't good for the game, since they an almost auto win vs some matchups and auto loss vs others. Even in an ideal world I don't think you will ever be able to remove them from the game completely, the key is to encourage people to build balanced lists in every way possible (including FOC changes).

Gods of Chaos I whope we get something in May. I'm getting pretty tired of waiting. Jumped in the game almost one year over now, and been waiting to see CSM get a new codex since then (their fluff is what got me in)

ShumaGorath wrote:-There are three marine armies capable of making entire armies composed of nothing but terminator armor

They're supposed to. The problem here isn't that three Marine armies can field all-Terminator armies, it's that the others can't.

It's meant to force army builds with varied unit choices that are representative of a realistic army.

All-Terminator armies are a well established part of the fluff, across multiple chapters. A FOC rule that does not permit this is a bad rule.

They're supposed to. The problem here isn't that three Marine armies can field all-Terminator armies, it's that the others can't.

No, the problem is that it's an extreme army build that makes anti infantry firepower worthless while negating the defensive countermeasure of armor or toughness due to ubiquitous power fists or force weapons. It's a problem because it's bad game design to allow something like that.

All-Terminator armies are a well established part of the fluff, across multiple chapters. A FOC rule that does not permit this is a bad rule.

Then they should make a game wherein an army like that isn't a majorly distorting force in the meta. Those armies either win because they can't lose or lose because they can't win. They are entirely matchup dependant like with almost all extreme builds. That is a fundamentally imbalanced approach to game design and creates unfun games.

Goresaw wrote:I'm really starting to feel the bloat of models too. I've been playing Dark Eldar, and was playing an IG foot list. I made a bad decision in turn one which knocked out half my sailboats. I was crippled and at that point could only play for a tie because I could no longer actually hurt the IG player (spearhead deployment. Open season on me and all my long range was in my transports).

So the dragged on turn after turn of just unrelenting shooting and very short turns for me. So many dice. The turns were taking an obnoxious amount of time. The Brits have got it right. This 2000 point stuff is too much.


Although aside from complaining about army size, a % base FOC would help alleviate a LOT of issues for some armies. Some armies fill their FOC's around 1750, and are forced to take sub-optimal choices to get to 2000. Again, I've been playing DE, and if you venom spam, you're out of troop slots fast, and you desperately wish you could take more. If you look at IG though, and he gets insanely more powerful the higher the points go, because he can just squadron his tanks, etc. Everything over 1750 isn't just icing, its more meat.

If we went percentages that would also help armies who have 'cheaper' heavy support options. Like DE ravagers are only 105 points. Having 355 points of your army maxed into heavy support at 2000 points is just dumb. It would also allow some less seen units an opportunity to see the table. A lot of times you have 'decent' or 'situational' choices in your FOC slot, but you can't use it because one of those choices so insanely outshine it (or you NEED at least _____ of something to work). If you're not limited to only three of "x", now you can take your normal amount of "x" and throw some extra points towards that fun unit.

Im sorry but squadding my tanks does not make them any more powerful in a sense most LR varients would be redundant squaded some may not like vanilla russ but even then still get wrecked with the squad rule, especially against any Lance weapon that makes it a chimmy with lotsa firepower....
up to 2000pts
I avoid squadding my tanks at all costs(unless artillery), id rather fill another slot once my HS is full
And because your HS is cheap dosnt mean its dumb just means your army dosnt heavily focus on HS choices to get the job done, unlike IG where it makes sense for them to have "lumbering behemoths"...

Anywho the 6th rumors are both good and bad... But personally dont see all these things wrong with the current edition rules.. :s maybe some things need to be tweaked here or there but i dont think we need a new overhaul of the whole game and how it works... and realistically ill shoot before ill assault anyway or both at once.
Also this is 40k not Fantasy so why should we be geared so much with CC? i understand some armies focus on it but majority do not...

Also being able to only shoot 1 gun from fire point in a chim/transports if it moves seems really dumb, if your gonna change that you midas well change the whole model while your at it and remove the lasguns on the back...

I also see alot of people mentioning that tanks being easier to kill would be better..... I never thought it was that hard... again if your eldar/DE against av14 bring a lance... your IG or SM bring a melta...

FOC-% dont know about that, i like the FOC maybe just add an extra slot for everything
and please dont take away dedicated transports.

I dont like the fact it seems there pushing people away from mechs or just making it so your guaranteed to lose it because if thats the case why am i spending 200 pts on a russ? IG are but puney humans we need big tanks and heavy artillery to Help win the wars.

Some of the rules mentioned are neat like with snipers, or split fire for mechs, dont think they need to change everything and have so many rules within rules, myabe just take some of those good ideas and sprinkle them on top of 5th edition. ( vehicle dmg chart is fine! )

All-Terminator armies are a well established part of the fluff, across multiple chapters. A FOC rule that does not permit this is a bad rule.

I'm sorry but no, there's only two, Gray Knights, and Dark Angels.

Dark angels have the only facilities able to reproduce their terminator armor only for them, to the point they can willfully put an entire chapter within it, rather than small squads at a time.

I think it is important to remember that 40k is GW's main cash cow and that they know this and game design is driven by sales.

Remember 4th ed and what transports were like back then? So, 5th ed GW changes the vehicle rules to make it more important to run troops in a transport. So they sell you the squad and the transport.

My guess is GW saw the MSU sales and liked that. I'd wager that GW likes 2 squads of 5 marines in a razorback more than 1 squad of 10 in a rhino.

That and clearly they want to sell us flyers.

I don't believe any leaks that don't have flying rules in them.

I think 6th will have:
1) More units and everybody in a transport
2) Flyers
3) Older historic units are not very useful (look at what happened to the Necrons and Grey Knights)

Their design is based around selling models. Not having tight rules or changing the basic system.

evancich wrote:I think it is important to remember that 40k is GW's main cash cow and that they know this and game design is driven by sales.

Remember 4th ed and what transports were like back then? So, 5th ed GW changes the vehicle rules to make it more important to run troops in a transport. So they sell you the squad and the transport.

My guess is GW saw the MSU sales and liked that. I'd wager that GW likes 2 squads of 5 marines in a razorback more than 1 squad of 10 in a rhino.

That and clearly they want to sell us flyers.

I don't believe any leaks that don't have flying rules in them.

I think 6th will have:
1) More units and everybody in a transport
2) Flyers
3) Older historic units are not very useful (look at what happened to the Necrons and Grey Knights)

Their design is based around selling models. Not having tight rules or changing the basic system.

Sadly %100 this.

Thank you... Transports just make sense this is the future why wouldnt my cardboard armor and flashlight weilding guardsmen not want to be in a chimy?

Diezel wrote:Thank you... Transports just make sense this is the future why wouldnt my cardboard armor and flashlight weilding guardsmen not want to be in a chimy?

It's 38 thousand years in the future. Why are they hitting eachother with swords? Why does ground combat still exist? Why aren't the just deleting eachother from the informational superstructure of reality or something else suitable to the future date?

GW: Ok, how do we increase model count in 6th?

GW troll: Well, if we have flyers that the ground pounders don't get a cover save from, then we will sell everybody flyers...They will kill other models quick.

GW: Brillant! But, but won't removing half their army make folks mad?

GW Troll: Take the 'leet marine army and drop the point costs to get everybody ready for the crazy cheap point cost "normal" marine 'dex. So everybody takes twice the models they take now and they won't mind the damage planes do to their army

GW: I love you. Done! Print 6th ed

ShumaGorath wrote:

Diezel wrote:Thank you... Transports just make sense this is the future why wouldnt my cardboard armor and flashlight weilding guardsmen not want to be in a chimy?

It's 38 thousand years in the future. Why are they hitting eachother with swords? Why does ground combat still exist? Why aren't the just deleting eachother from the informational superstructure of reality or something else suitable to the future date?

Because in the grim darkness of the 40k universe, there is only WAR (with chainswords, bolters, power weapons, plasma guns, melta guns, krak grenades...if the weapons 'aint broke, don't fix them)!

And, Orks, Tryranids, Demons, Necrons, Chaos and pretty much everyone else doesn't fight that way...

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

All-Terminator armies are a well established part of the fluff, across multiple chapters. A FOC rule that does not permit this is a bad rule.

I'm sorry but no, there's only two, Gray Knights, and Dark Angels.

Dark angels have the only facilities able to reproduce their terminator armor only for them, to the point they can willfully put an entire chapter within it, rather than small squads at a time.

The Ultramarines and the Blood Angels are another two chapters that have fielded all-Terminator forces in the fluff. Hell, there's an entire game about Blood Angels doing it.

The Force Organization Chart needs to stay unless some sort of other restriction is implemented or the basic rules switch to otherwise punish MSU, with WHFB style panic checks, mandatory KP in all scenarios, or something to that effect. Otherwise, everyone will be spamming out 3 man Long Fang squads, solo Attack Bikes/Landspeeders/Hive Guard/Zoans, etc. MSU armies are strong enough already...

**puts up shield** i kept telling GW, they should bring back the two systems as one.
My reason....well Warhammer is a Feral world.

***falls to ground as Brick flies over head**

Heck, i still have the Warhammer Siege, By good Ol' Rick Priestly, from 1988. has both, fantasy/40k rules. Ha ha ha! i NEVER throw away my Warhammer books.

**puts hand to head** (brick found its mark)

I even got,.. well to many to count.

looking forward to see if the wispers are true.

GW doesn't care about things being over powered. They've said time and aging that 40k is a "beer and pretzels" game.

They care about selling you models. Newsflash, they don't even care if you ever play a game.

GW has already changed 40k to sell you transports. They are going to change the game to sell you planes. If they thought MSU would result in higher model sales, they'd do that.

These aren't complicated folks. They a trying to make theirs while they have command of the ship.

AlexHolker wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

All-Terminator armies are a well established part of the fluff, across multiple chapters. A FOC rule that does not permit this is a bad rule.

I'm sorry but no, there's only two, Gray Knights, and Dark Angels.

Dark angels have the only facilities able to reproduce their terminator armor only for them, to the point they can willfully put an entire chapter within it, rather than small squads at a time.

The Ultramarines and the Blood Angels are another two chapters that have fielded all-Terminator forces in the fluff. Hell, there's an entire game about Blood Angels doing it.

Space hulk is about a SQUAD going into a hulk and clearing it of genestealers. Really now.

Yes, they have fielded all terminator forces before, but when you count up they only have at max 50-150, Dark Angels has over 1000.