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

Are you talking a copy of the WHFB org chart?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
It needlessly complicates a system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imperial Guard can already do that.

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

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

Never seen anyone try something like that though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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

Imperial Guard can already do that.

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

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

Never seen anyone try something like that though.

Mostly because they combine squads at that point,

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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

Imperial Guard can already do that.

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

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

Never seen anyone try something like that though.

Mostly because they combine squads at that point,

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

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

 Purifier wrote:

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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

Imperial Guard can already do that.

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

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

Never seen anyone try something like that though.

Mostly because they combine squads at that point,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crap, we already had 5th Edition.

Give us MORE time in the spotlight!

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

Crap, we already had 5th Edition.

Give us MORE time in the spotlight!

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

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

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

Crap, we already had 5th Edition.

Give us MORE time in the spotlight!

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

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

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

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me watching you guys argue

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

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

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