40k 6th Ed %age system?

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.

**Phototoxin**

I'm just wondering if anyone else thinks that 40k will go to a %age system a la fantasy.

It seems that often the limiting factor is the amount of FOC rather than points at larger games, whereas at smaller games points tend to be the limitation. Since games are getting bigger and bigger it might be the next step.

For example Tau are good at 1000pts ish as they can have minimal troops and then max out the HS Elites... but at 2000pts they suck majorly!

**ForgottenRealm**

Shouldn't this be in the discussion forum?

**htj**

I can see this happening, although I wouldn't bet on it. Personally, I think it might aid in reducing spam, leading to better balanced armies.

**Grey Templar**

a percentage system is possable, although since HQs can be quite cheap it will probably just be required to take 1 HQ choice regardles of points.

**English Assassin**

I'd be pleased to see the the troop-type percentage system return, it would certainly help balance games of different sizes. I'm not sure how easily it could be made to mesh with FoCs, however.

**GoDz BuZzSaW**

The % System is there in Fantasy because the game type is always based on victory points, in 40k as 2/3rds of the time it is based on objectives, there is no need for a % system as it encourages you to take troop choices anyway, I don't think the % system would stop transport armies such as blood angels as they wouldn't limit you on troop choices you can take and then have absolute spam of Las/Plas Razorback units!

**Akroma06**

I can see a percentage system but I don't think it will happen. DE will just have more venomspam. It wouldn't be good for the game IMO.

**Phototoxin**

Look at nids though... your troops are cheap and crappy you can easily max out on troops with them but they won't be the bulk of your army!

**GoDz BuZzSaW**

Phototoxin wrote:Look at nids though... your troops are cheap and crappy you can easily max out on troops with them but they won't be the bulk of your army!

With Nids though they need lots of monsters to do well, they have no mech, if they couldn't have their monsters then they'd be awful, in a 1500 point game you could fit in a Carnifex as heavy support, and that's about it.

**Config2**

Think about it, something that makes space marine mech better, and everybody else worse. Hmmmm.... sounds like GW to me

**Brother SRM**

Config2 wrote:Think about it, something that makes space marine mech better, and everybody else worse. Hmmmm.... sounds like GW to me

How does this make Marines better? It means we'd have to take more tactical Marines instead of Terminators, sternguard, etc.

**G00fySmiley**

wouldn't work in 40k. not with the current iteration anyway.

love my orks for example and will always have lots of boyz...

but in my marines it'd suck to have to take alot of points in tac squads /groan basically i take 2-3 tac squads for scoring and becuase the teleport homer helps my terminators decide where to come in at

**Lord Rogukiel**

I wouldn't like it at all. I think the system we have now is fine. I've always played with it and I hope it stays that way. Making themed armies would be much harder, though it would reduce spam which I suppose is really good too.

**DeffDred**

I think each codex should have its own force org. chart.

**Brother SRM**

DeffDred wrote:I think each codex should have its own force org. chart.

I might not go that far, but I would like it if some had variations, or a few chart options. It doesn't make sense to print it in every codex just to have it be the same exact thing.

**G00fySmiley**

I like the uniformity of the FoC personally... makes it harder for people to cheat... imagine if every army had a different FoC it'd make it even harder for new players to understandwhy they have to have 1 troop 1 hq 1 elite whiel another has to have 1 heavy suppot 1 hq and one fast attack.... 1 hq 2 troops really isn't too bad... and limiting to 3 per slot makes it so you can't spam (as much) without special characters that allow it (looking at you draigo/crowe)

**Luke_Prowler**

I honestly don't like the idea and I think think that 40k should try to avoid being like Fantasy. It's not going to stop spam, just make other types of spam more desirable.

**Jimsolo**

I personally like the FoC the way it is. A percentage system wouldn't really help iron anything out, it would just make things more complex than they already are.

**Grimtuff**

DeffDred wrote:I think each codex should have its own force org. chart.

They already do. It's just not a single one differs from the example one given in the rulebook.

**Pouncey**

I thought the idea GW gave was that for higher-points games where the FOC became a limiting factor, you could field multiple detachments, which were basically your army being able to use multiple FOCs. The limit they gave to it was that you had to agree on maximum number of detachments as well as maximum total points value.

Maybe that was 4th edition, but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere in a main rulebook for WH40k.

**Phototoxin**

Luke_Prowler wrote:I honestly don't like the idea and I think think that 40k should try to avoid being like Fantasy. It's not going to stop spam, just make other types of spam more desirable.

In 2nd ed you had %age... that said 10 tacs, a chaplain and 5 assault marines was about 500 pts!

**Iur_tae_mont**

How much are those three combined now?

**The Mad Tanker**

The game starts to break down around 2000pts, any thing higher is the territory of Apocalypse. Force org? What force org!

**Grey Templar**

The Mad Tanker wrote:The game starts to break down around 2000pts, any thing higher is the territory of Apocalypse. Force org? What force org!

you mean 3000 points.

2500-3000 is the limit of normal gameplay, not 2000.

**ph34r**

Grey Templar wrote:
The Mad Tanker wrote:The game starts to break down around 2000pts, any thing higher is the territory of Apocalypse. Force org? What force org!

you mean 3000 points.

2500-3000 is the limit of normal gameplay, not 2000.

Yeah, no. Above 2000 some armies can't even fill slots with even moderately competitive units. Above 2000 is the realm of Ard Boyz, which has a whole different type of "balance" than 1500, 1750, 1850, 2000.

The game breaks down after 2000. Not for every army at the same time, but it does break.

**Grey Templar**

Well, certain armies are worse at that points level then others, but that is mostly due to codex creep.

**Yipyioh**

DeffDred wrote:I think each codex should have its own force org. chart.

I do personally agree on this, it seems to me that it could make things a bit fluffier if used with some good power and cost adjustments. Of course this would be a major radical sweeping overhaul now that I think about it, but being the IG player at heart I would like to be able to have each artillery/tank be one unit and be able to take more units to compensate. As it stands if I want tanks and artillery I can only have 3 tanks and 3 artillery pieces with the Thunderbolt that I always bring, and my friends and I have gotten so tired of the rules with the tank and artillery packs that we've basically made them independent units except for moving. I'd like to be able to take 4 tanks but not have to sacrifice the possibility of 3 artillery pieces to the fact that the one tank counts as an entire unit. To me, having 8-10 Heavy Support unit but having each individual model be a unit seems ideal. Not sure how this would sit with the rest of you guys, but I've always preferred the idea of this whole thing. Points wouldn't always have to be altered in some cases.

**Lobokai**

We had the % system in 2nd edition. If you think we have cookie cutter armies now, put in a % system and it will just get worse. 2nd edition with its FoC and codex creep killed the game for me. I collected figs for fun, but only have started playing again in 5th edition

**AlmightyWalrus**

Iur_tae_mont wrote:How much are those three combined now?

As a Black Templars player, I can easily make 10 marines, 5 assault marines and a Chaplain cost more than 500 points. It's probably not very economical, and I'd have to throw lots of bling on the Chaplain, but it'd work!

**Lord Rogukiel**

Iur_tae_mont wrote:How much are those three combined now?

With C:SM that's 395 points no upgrades and free weapons on the tac squad.