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.

So given the release of the New Tau formation and escalation etc. I got to thinking if 40k might work better with a fantasy like percentile FOC

Something like

HQ <= 25% of total points but must be included
Elites <= 25%
Fast Attack <= 25%
Heavy Support <= 25%
Troops >= 25%
Dedicated Transports <= 25%
Fortifications <= 10%

So if we look at some of the broken things out there in the game at 2k points 25% is 500 points

Seer Council = 230 points on Farseers minimum, + 50 points per warlock so at 2k points you would cap out at 2 Seers and about 5 warlocks. So a smaller seer council at worst...and lower the points and it caps it even more. That does not include the Baron...which means max seer council at 2 Seers + Baron + 2-3 Warlocks....

Screamer star = Fateweaver + Heralds = cannot even get 2 heralds into the screamer star with max levels and rewards (you can get 1 level 2 and one Grimoir Level 1), so that means you can run a decked out screamer star only without fateweaver.

Ovesa Star- Well that is out as Ovesa + Farsight + buff commander >500 points

The dedicated transport thing is in there because of things like Cronair or Serpent spam.... you could field at most 4 serpents in a 2k list.

Allies would be included in this overall percent, so you can take selections from allied books but they count against your percentage (you could still cap with 1 of each Choice except 2 troops)






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also would help with super heavies (cap them at 25%) means you cannot use them very well at less than 2k.

It means the death of all deathstars is the issue.

 iGuy91 wrote:
It means the death of all deathstars is the issue.

Is this a bad thing? You can still put together strong combinations, just not re-rollable 2++ combinations.

So thinking about this a bit more, there may need to be some rules in place to prevent crazy MSu spam

For instance at 2k points taking 10 individual Hive Guard as your elites choics.

Or Taking Cotaez and 158 units of 3 acolytes (not saying it would be good, but how would your kill all of those units?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also does not mean death to all deathstars.

Nob bikers can run free as a troops choice
As can Paladins
IG Blob with characters(if you consider it a deathstar)
Death Company are troops
TH/SS termies would not be effected really.
I can run 20 Fleshounds with 4 Khorne Heralds easily enough....
Swarmlord deathstar still fits in I believe
DE Beast Pack with Buffing characters also still fits in....

I can run 9 Screamers with with 4 heralds (2 level 3 and 2 level 2) with grimoir and portaglyph, I just cannot have fateweaver backing them up.

I can also get Seer Council with 4-5 Warlocks, but no hit and run...still 2+ re-rollable (maybe) but not as reliable or as big. i.e. easier to deal with.


It means death to huge 2+ re-rollable Deathstars, and MCs attached to other MCs Attached to ICs.

Essentially it really hurts units that require large non-troop units that are expensive and those that need tons of HQ choices.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
like I said the larger problem would be preventing spaming cheap units than deathstars

7 - 3 man long fang pacs or individual Broadside units, or Lots of individual centurions.

or 5 Thunderfire cannons.

Those to me right now are the tougher issues.

A bit to linear, and causes as many problems as it fixes. Some armies simply have bad options in fast attack/elite while relying on their Heavy Support to do the lifting. For example IG have bad elites and their fast attack basically caps out as 'Vendetta'. Those points usually go into heavy support, but in a 2000pt game that's only 500pts. Whats that? 2 Leman russes? Why do dedicated transports have a bar of their own? This means in a 1500pt battle my dark elder can only have 5ish raiders/Venoms between my ENTIRE army? Why don't allies have their own system, how would an allies system work, it couldn't just be 25%. I don't thin a percentile system that loose would be effective at providing balance, it's as easy to abuse as the current one. How about instead of changing the game for all of the non-broken armies, we work on bringing the broken ones back into line with the rest of us rather then simply banning them.

Because Gw just continues to break it in new ways. Why do you need more than 5 raiders / venoms at 1500 points?

Dedicated transports was put in to prevent spending 100% on say wave serpents...

Allies should not have their own system because then much like now they are simply a way to add more good choices...

As for ig yeah they use heavy support but they have plenty of cheap options (you could run 4 mantacores.). They need 500 points of troops, then can take 3 vendettas, and 4 mantacores.

The question would need to be are the abuses of this system better or worse than

Serpent spam
Unlimited broadside spam
Oves star
Seer council
Screamer star....


I guess my point is you have not provided a completely broken list in this system to make such a claim(the few I can think of are based around spamming cheap units, which I already said needs a fix.)

Gw keeps providing new broken combos so is finding a way to prempt many of them (and control for them in lower point games) better than addressing each on case by case where people won't agree on the fixes.

Ah, I love how reading Dakka since my return to 40k has consisted of so many people suggesting 'Fresh New' ideas that are largely revamps of how the game worked in 2nd Ed.

2nd Ed was too simple, at:
<= 50% HQ
> 25% Troops (pretty much every infantry type was here)
<= 25% Support (included Allies and all sorts of things)

3rd Ed brought in slots, to reduce the ability to field an army of Chaos Chosen 3 man squads all with special weapons that could Infiltrate. Now you'd only get three squads, and min.maxing their equipment would probably be less useful.

I think it would be nice to see a new slew of missions that had different requirements, more HQ, less Fast Attack, etc. Actually using the FO structure more to add variety. You could even run a tournament with a different set of FO requirements, so long as everyone knew beforehand.

Hey I didn't claim new and original. Just that I thought it might work better.

I still think we need a cap on units though because you are right there are some combos of spamming cheap units that could get a bit crazy.

Perhaps no more than 5 units in any one slot other than troops and no more than 8 troops or something.

The percentile system worked fine in second and third edition because there were far fewer unit types back then. But even then it had it's downsides, especially where vairety was concerned. Just about every army from each codex featured a nearly identical "core" block of units at any given points value, with some small variations here and there (a Terminator squad instead of a landraider for example).

But even then, although it worked, it wasn't great. We only accepted it because we didn't know any better, because better options (such as the FOC) hadn't been suggested yet. You think you see a lot of indentical army lists now? Well, it was even worse back then -and this is before the internet "net list" phenomenon. Partly due to the smaller unit type count. Mostly due to the percentile system and the way it worked.

It pretty much locked every player into fielding the same type of list. Tailoring your army choices to any great degree was difficult or not impossible. Every local meta was essentially identical regardless of geography. Back then it didn't bother us because we hadn't experienced anything better. If we were to implement it now, you'd hate it. Even the most nostalgic older gamer (such as myself -I still prefer 40K Rogue Trader to any edition since) doesn't want to go back to the bad old days of the percentile straight-jacket.

Or at least, no-one in my gaming circle of 25+ year 40K vets wants too.

Seriously, if you're bored with the likes of Necron-Air, Screamer Spam, or Flying Circus' lists now imagine the same thing happening with every codex! All you would need to know is what codex your opponent is using and you'd know almost exactly what he's bringing. Sure, that's often the case now, even with 40 or so different units per codex, but imagine it being much, much, worse and you'll begin to understand how it was back then.

[Edit: Not in the sense of spamming the same unit multiple times, but in the sense that the exact same list is used by player after player after player ad nauseum).

In some ways 2nd and 3rd ed brought in improvements to Rogue Trader, but in many, many ways (including the percentage system and the god awful vehicle combat rules) they took a big giant leap back as well.

Please don't take this as a slap-down down though, original poster. I commend you for looking at ways of doing things differently. Even if your idea isn't new or innovative, it pays to re-assess ways of doing things every now and then.

Even old ideas that didn't work particularly well "back then" can suddenly work very well when applied in the modern era.

I just vehemently believe that this isn't one of them

Why does this work for Fantasy but not 40k then?

@ lead Legion...

I can somewhat see what you're saying but maybe I would need to see it to believe it. There are "optimal" lists now and not everyone runs the same list I'm not certain percentile changes this much. I wonder if a different breakdown, or a combination of FOC and Percentile would work better.

I guess my point is this...if we assume that everyone will run the same optimized percentile list given all the choices available...why does the same thing not happen with FOC? There are still optimal ways to use your points.

I also wonder do we see the same list from every book in fantasy that uses the percentile system.

Now I have not played 6th ed with percentile I just see many of the same broken lists many of which would get curbed in a percential system because they rely on dropping tons of points into a single FOC slot. Furthermore there is not much change when points change. We see the same core with more or less toys.

I just wonder if Percentile + less choices is what caused the problem and not the percentil system.

My point is also this....with the FOC, Allies, Formations, Super Heavies, Inquisition....GW has already broken the FOC. There is little to no limits on what you can field...and it makes for a bad game.

Maybe a combined FOC (no more than 5 of any slot other than troops, no more than 10 troops), percentile (as above), with a bit of flex percent (say you can add 10% to any one non- HQ category of your choice.). Would be a better way.

Limits spam some (not totally), limits some broken combos, gives a bit of flex in where you spend your points.

Hi guys.

It does work in Warhammer, but then Warhammer is an entirely different game, despite sharing many mechanics. Although Warhammer is often used to test bed new rules for 40K (and vice versa) what works well in one does not necessarily work well in another. Warhammer needed random charge ranges because, at the end of the day, Warhammer is a game about mass melee. Two armies hovering around 8.5" away from each other in order to prevent the other player from charging them was no fun for anyone. Random charges drastically changed Warhammer for the better. It's been to the benefit of the vast majority of Warhammer payers, even if more conservative players weren't willing to admit it at first.

On the other-hand, the introduction of the same Mechanic into 40K has also changed the game drastically, but not necessarily for the better, as it has swung the game more towards shooting than assault. That makes sense from the point of view of 40K as a science fiction genre game, but it has nerfed a lot of armies and builds. Therefore, while I personally think it was a good change, many people would disagree vehemently. It certainly wasn't as good for 40K as it was for Warhammer.

I can think of other examples, but few that are as drastic or as obvious: the Battle Magic/Wargear boxes in 4th ed Warhammer, 2nd ed 40K are an obvious one. Given time, I could think of others.

40K moved away from the percentile system because it did not work for 40K. It's still used in Warhammer because it works for Warhammer. One is a game of skirmish, squad based warfare. The other is a game of regiments fighting in close order formation. Why this means they require different systems for army building may not be immediately obvious, but practical experience over a number of years has shown this to be the case. Even so, a fair number of Warhammer players want to move over to 40K style FOC charts. A change I'm not in favour of.

I agree that the ability to add additional detachments to a primary detachment has also been a drastic change that has led to uber-spam lists. The codex supplements haven't helped in that regard (I'm thinking of four Riptide and four Helldrake lists here) but a percentile system isn't the answer.

I agree that a lower unit count was a significant reason for why the 40K percentile system didn't work. However, since we've brought Warhammer into the discussion as a point of comparison, I feel the need to point out that Warhammer also had a relatively smaller unit count back then than it does today. Even so, Warhammer army composition never experienced the same problems as 40K did. At the risk of using a circular argument, the evidence that Warhammer never had any difficulties with the percentile system is the simple fact that it still uses a variant of that system to this day. The evidence that it did not work in 40K is the fact that we no longer use it in 40K.

But in the interests of presenting a balanced argument I need to mention that models were also more expensive in terms of points back then they are today. That mean't fewer units in each army. A 1500pt 40k Space Marine army today would have been worth about 2500 points back in 2nd or 3rd edition (that's a conservative estimate by the way. I'm tempted to actually sit down with my old books and work out the exact points value of my 6th ed Space Marine list would be in 2ed, but frankly I can't be bothered).

So yes, a smaller variety of units and the greater points value of models were definitely factors when it came to army list composition in the bad old days of 2nd and 3rd ed.

That being said, I don't think they had as big an influence as you might think. The 1st/2nd ed Eldar Army Options consisted of the following units (off the top of my head):

Guardians, Harlequins, Jet Bikes, Dire Avengers, Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, Fire Dragons, Swooping Hawks, Dark Reapers, Warlocks, Farseers, Avatar, Exarchs, Wraith Guards, (as characters rather than sergeants) War Walkers, Eldar Dreadnoughts (now Wraith Lords) and Falcon Grav Tanks.

When you think about it, there haven't been all that many infantry units added since then. Vehicles choices have expanded considerably mind you, but that pattern (a few extra infantry units, many more vehicles) is true of all the current 40K armies that existed back in 2nd edition.

So really, although there were fewer choices, there was still plenty of choices to be made. Yet with the percentile system in force, you saw the same units again and again (and in the same numbers) from list to list and player to player. Not because these units were better, but because the percentile system forced payers to field the same units in every list. Or, to put it another way, it prevented players from being able to field certain combinations of units in a much more restrictive manner that then the FOC does now.

The percentile system meant that you couldn't actually field certain units in the same army because they were too expensive. Just one decent sized unit could eat up the entire percentile bracket allocated to a given category. So, people consistently took the most generic, general purpose units.

Even in Eldar lists, which were supposedly to be the army of "specialist" choices, where every unit had it's given role that it excelled at but was pretty useless at everything else. Not sure of you'll be facing Imperial Guard or Space Marines? Maybe you should take Banshees AND Scorpions. Except, you couldn't. Because by the time you've bought enough Scorpions to make an effective block for killing guard you don't have enough percentiles left to buy Banshees. Bringing along Dark Reapers for long range fire? Damn. Now you don't have the percentiles to bring along enough Fire Dragons to get close enough to use those melta guns.

My 2nd ed Eldar List didn't change for over two years. Two years! I'm not saying that was due solely to the percentile system. The meta didn't evolve anywhere near as quickly back then, but in two years I never changed my list. I didn't swap out a single unit, no matter who (and what army) I was playing against. Not because I thought I had a really good list, but because I thought I had the best possible list that the straight-jacket of the percentile system would allow me to build. I still lost more games than I won because I couldn't tailor my army of "specialists" to take on certain armies effectively.

The same was true of my other armies as well. But it was in the Eldar list that I felt the constraints most. I vividly remember playing a weekend friendly tournament at a wargames club I was a member of in this period. Of the four Space Marine players, every one of us fielded an almost identical army. Beyond weapons upgrades, the only variation was in whether we brought robots, a dreadnought, or terminators. That's how bad it was.

The only army that didn't really have this problem were Orks, whose basic troops were so cheap that they could easily afford to field a number of units in each percentile bracket. Orks were very, very popular back then. For obvious reasons.

It was an awful, awful way of working things for 40K. At the time, we thought it was okay because nobody had thought of anything better. But things have been so much better since the FOC chart was introduced that I honestly don't know of a single veteran from those days that would be willing to go back to the percentage system.

If any of you are out there, I'd love to hear from you.

 iGuy91 wrote:
It means the death of all deathstars is the issue.

Oh, God. How can 40K survive without deathstars.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and a way to prevent spamming of choices already exists in WHFB.

Implement a system where at any given points range, there is a limit on multiple choices from the same option in a given slot.

For example, in WHFB at 2500 points, you can only have two of the same Rare choice. Over 2500, you can have three of the same Rare choice.

You could implement a similar thing across all of the different slots in WH40K, though it would take more work, because not every army book has a similar number of options in each FOC slot.

That seems like a good way to go about the anti spam.

@Lead Legion.

I can kind of see your point from a casual perspective. If you play competitively these days though you are not tailoring to fight different armies.

Sure I could not field my current Daemon list in the Percentile system (at 2k point I field 700ish points of fast attack). SO I would need to make a choice of how to drop 200 points to fit into the percentile system

My point is though how is this any different from fielding the same percentage of points in Rare choices in fantasy?

As for variety...players CAN field a variety of units now...but they don't.

All I see from Eldar these days

Wave Serpents (with Guardians or DA)
Seer Council
Jetbikes
Wraithknights
Swooping Hawks
Spiders.

Allies

really not much else

What we see now essentially is spam the good units.
Either take cheap troops and spam other slots
or
If you have good troops spam those.

I'm not arguing that percentile is perfect...but the FOC is currently broken and leads in many cases to games not being very fun...

Essentially if I have to face the same armies all the time I'd rather they not be Screamer Star, Seer Council, Serpent Spam, Riptide spam, Broadside spam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SO if we go with the Fantasy Anti Spam and say that you can never take more than 3 duplicates of any unit, then we prevent some spam.

If we give say a 10 percent swing percentage to the 3 non-troop slots and go with

HQ <= 25%
Troops >= 25%
Elites <=25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavy <= 25%
an additional 10% may be distributed amongst Fast, Heavy, and Elites.
Dedicated Transports <=25%

At 2000 points or less no more than 3 of any one Elite, Fast, Heavy unit may be chosen. 1 Additional Duplicate may be added for every 500 points in excess of 2000 points (2001-2500 4, 2501 -3000 5 etc.).

Breng77 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SO if we go with the Fantasy Anti Spam and say that you can never take more than 3 duplicates of any unit, then we prevent some spam.

If we give say a 10 percent swing percentage to the 3 non-troop slots and go with

HQ <= 25%
Troops >= 25%
Elites <=25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavy <= 25%
an additional 10% may be distributed amongst Fast, Heavy, and Elites.
Dedicated Transports <=25%

At 2000 points or less no more than 3 of any one Elite, Fast, Heavy unit may be chosen. 1 Additional Duplicate may be added for every 500 points in excess of 2000 points (2001-2500 4, 2501 -3000 5 etc.).

I actually really like the look of that, and I think it would be interesting to see what versions of the current lists people would make with that FOC.

I have considered using FoC plus old school percentile system many times myself recently.

I don't agree with 2 things though:

1) the Dedicated Transport restriction, they should be charged out of the allowance the parent unit is from. If specific units/builds are causing "fun" & games then they should be dealt with separately IMO, rather than potentially being a back-door ban on Mech lists.

2) the 10% swing. I'd rather just say <=35% or <=30% per slot and not add another step/another calculation (functionally there's no difference, you still only have points = 75% of total less compulsory HQ to play with in total across those areas).

So some Daemon lists at least

2k Points
HQ: Fateweaver
Troop :12 Horrors
Troop: 11 Horrors
Troop: 11 Horrors
Troop: 11 Horrors
Troop: 11 Horrors
Fast: 15 Khorne Dogs
Fast : 15 Khorn Dogs
Heavy: Daemon Prince (Tzeentch, Level 3, Exalted Reward, Greater Reward, Flight, Armor)
Heavy: Daemon Prince (Tzeentch, Level 3, 2x Greater Reward, Flight, Armor)



"Screamer Star"

HQ: Herald of TZ (Exalted Reward, Level 3, Disk)
HQ: Herald of TZ (Exalted Locus, Level 3, Disk)
HQ: Herald of TZ (Level 2, Disk)
HQ: Herald of TZ (Level 2, Disk)

Fast 8 Screamers
Fast 15 Flesh Hounds
Fast 17 Seekers

Heavy Support 2 Nurgle Soul Grinders with Plegm

Troops as above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:
I have considered using FoC plus old school percentile system many times myself recently.

I don't agree with 2 things though:

1) the Dedicated Transport restriction, they should be charged out of the allowance the parent unit is from. If specific units/builds are causing "fun" & games then they should be dealt with separately IMO, rather than potentially being a back-door ban on Mech lists.

2) the 10% swing. I'd rather just say <=35% or <=30% per slot and not add another step/another calculation (functionally there's no difference, you still only have points = 75% of total less compulsory HQ to play with in total across those areas).

1.)The issue with the transport thing. If you don't limited armies with Troops with Great Dedicated transports get a big boost...Wave Serpents, Night Scythes, as essentially then point are the limiter not anything else. With out the restriciton Necrons can Bring 11 Night Scythes at 2k points. Rather than set up a base system where you address things case by case a system that blocks that is better as a base.

As for back door ban on mech? I can still take 9 chimeras in an IG list at 2k + non dedicated transport tanks.... or 14 Rhinos in a Marine list....hardly any kind of ban. It just limits things like 5 Night scythes at 2k, or 4 Wave Serpents at 2k ( you can still take falcons in heavy support if you wish). The biggest block is on multiple dedicated land raiders which cap at 2 at 2k and 1 below 2k (for most armies).

2.) There is a large functional difference in that 25% + 10% swing means only one category ever maxes at 35%. So I can only ever take 60% of my army from 2 slots. If it is 35% accross the board, then I can take 70%. At 2k that is the difference of 200 points ...which is not a small amount. Essentially the +10% provides some wiggle room (you can amp up one slot, or not worry that you are a couple points over in each slot) rather than capping hard at a value. Essentially going to 35% adds 200 points of space to each slot (at 2k) rather than a 200 point chunk of flexible spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A list to answer Ban on Mech

HQ: CCS w/ 4 Melta

Troops: Vets W/ 3 Plasma
Troops: Vets W/ 3 Plasma
Troops: Vets W/ 3 Plasma
Troops: Vets W/ 3 Melta
Troops: Vets W/ 3 Melta
Troops: Vets W/ 3 Melta

Dedicated Transports
7 Chimera

Fast = 2 Vendetta

Heavy = 2 Mantacore

11 Vehicles not really banning Mech

Breng77 wrote:
Rather than set up a base system where you address things case by case a system that blocks that is better as a base.

The biggest block is on multiple dedicated land raiders which cap at 2 at 2k and 1 below 2k (for most armies).

*snipped for relevance*

It was the LR situation that I was thinking of, rather than Rhinos or Chimera. I don't agree that a system that bans something that is fluffy and not OP for at least two armies (LR mech for BT and BA) is a good system. A change to the rules for NS and WS is the appropriate solution IMO.

Breng77 wrote:
2.) There is a large functional difference in that 25% + 10% swing means only one category ever maxes at 35%. So I can only ever take 60% of my army from 2 slots. If it is 35% accross the board, then I can take 70%. At 2k that is the difference of 200 points ...which is not a small amount. Essentially the +10% provides some wiggle room (you can amp up one slot, or not worry that you are a couple points over in each slot) rather than capping hard at a value. Essentially going to 35% adds 200 points of space to each slot (at 2k) rather than a 200 point chunk of flexible spending.

I'll use 2k and 35% for this.........

At 3 lots of 25% you are capped at 1500pts of goodies minus the cost of whatever mandatory HQ you choose. At 3 lots of 30% or 35% you are still capped at 1500pts of goodies minus the cost of whatever mandatory HQ you choose. The overall amount of goodies you can bring to the table is unchanged.

On top of that, in order to spend 70%/1400pts on maxing two slots they've pretty much had to get their Troops bang on 500pts, sacrifice Allies (due to being unable to afford the HQ tax), sacrifice Fortifications, sacrifice not-Allies (eg Inquisition, same reason as allies), sacrifice the other other slot, sacrifice a 2nd HQ choice, sacrifice more Troops.

There's a lot of options a player would have to give up to max 35% on two slots as they've only got 100pts to access the mandatory HQ and anything they want from the above list.

So the LR change really only hurts BA who don't ally (as you can bring a heavy support LR (or 2 if BA are allies) BT can still take HS land raiders instead of dedicated transports... So if you want to run 4 land raiders in a list you still can easily do so at 2 k, I feel that specifically targeting units makes they system unmanageable going forward...oh x transport is now broken...so we'll target that is a bad game design decision.

Another consideration is if dedicated transports are not separate BA cannot run 2 terminator squads in land raiders if they choose to do so because it would be over points.

The latter point is that you can still do this. Essentially by allowing 700 points in each section you have no meaningful restrictions and no flexibility...oh you spent 2 points over oh well. My idea was that generally I wanted slots capped at 25% the flex was so that (with all slots added together you have 150% allowed though not possible) there might be some variety in where people decided to spend not to make anything possible.

I agree a F.O.C that works on proportional representation is better than the current functional restrictions.

HOWEVER, I think using a F.O.C based on 'theme rarity' is better for ease of use and it is far less restricting.

If we define units as HQ, COMMON, SUPPORT and RESTRICTED.
(Similar to WHFBs, Heroes, Core , Special and Rare classification.)

We could use a simple F.O.C.

For every HQ you MUST take 2 to 8 Common Units.
For every 2 Common Units you MAY take a Support Unit.
For every 2 Support Units you MAY take a Restricted Unit.

This gives proportional representation of units within the force, without messing about with %.

Just a thought.

Two things about that Idea

1.) I don't disagree that were units classified like that it would work better...but they are not...so we would need need to re-write the entire game.

2.) I don't like that FOC because it really benefits armies with cheap selections vs more expensive armies.

I.e. If we assume for the sake of argument that Troops make up common (not neccessarily the case but for this example).

A Blood Angel Player is spending a minimum of 180 points just for Common units (and 100 points for HQ), where as a GK playe rwith Cotaez can spend 12 points per common unit, so can max out on the 8 common units for half the price of just 2 in the other army, and then can take Support units (lets say dreads are support). SO he takes 4 Psyfleman dreads for his 4 support units, then he can take 2 restricted units.(say Dreadknights). All for 1276 points. For this same points, the BA player can not even take his 8 common units and HQ....

Furthermore part of the attraction (at least for me) is that it is restricting. Yours just restricts a different way, by making players buy units they may not really want to unlock other units.

I agree that this method would not work with the current unit definitions.

However, IF the units are transposed into the new definitions in a thoughtfully synergistic way, and are assigned more accurate point values.
It would be a much better system than 40k currently uses.

The new system allows far more themes to be used.probably 6 to 10 themes per race!

I think a more simple option would be to make a minimum amount of point be spent on troops.

I highly dislike the dedicated transport restriction as some armies are adversely effected by it more so than others.

I think a minimum of 1/3rd of an primary detachments points should be spent on troops.

Allied detachments should have to spend 1/6th.

at 1500 points that would be 500 primary and 250 in allied troop selections.

In as 1/3 = 2/6 and 1/6+2/6 =3/6 that means in effect if you choose to ally you have to spend roughly half your points in troops.

This would make the game more about troop elements and tactics, with some flying heroes of death instead of every game is flying heroes of death.

It also would stop silly things like "I allied with a a tau commander, a riptide, and 3 broadsides, and they brought 10 kroot.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that this method would not work with the current unit definitions.

However, IF the units are transposed into the new definitions in a thoughtfully synergistic way, and are assigned more accurate point values.
It would be a much better system than 40k currently uses.

The new system allows far more themes to be used.probably 6 to 10 themes per race!

As I said though you at that point are looking at re-writing the entire game not just the FOC. You are redefining categories of units, and re-pointing the entire system....even then I'm not a fan of take x of y unit to unlock z as armies with cheaper choices at lower levels still benefit. So unless every unit costs about the same with just a different minimum number of models....it does not function well. It also encourages MSU because having more units is better than less units.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I think a more simple option would be to make a minimum amount of point be spent on troops.

I highly dislike the dedicated transport restriction as some armies are adversely effected by it more so than others.

I think a minimum of 1/3rd of an primary detachments points should be spent on troops.

Allied detachments should have to spend 1/6th.

at 1500 points that would be 500 primary and 250 in allied troop selections.

In as 1/3 = 2/6 and 1/6+2/6 =3/6 that means in effect if you choose to ally you have to spend roughly half your points in troops.

This would make the game more about troop elements and tactics, with some flying heroes of death instead of every game is flying heroes of death.

It also would stop silly things like "I allied with a a tau commander, a riptide, and 3 broadsides, and they brought 10 kroot.

I already pointed out why the Dedicated transport thing exists...if you don't put it in there armies like 11 Nightscythes are completely legal at 2k points, or I think also 11 Wave serpents...it is bad for the game to have unlimited access to Dedicated transports. As pointed out the only thing it really hurts much is Dedicated land raiders and most armies can still field 4 using dedicated and Heavy points. Are there other armies where you feel like the Dedicated transport thing hurts them too much

As for the at least 1/3rd troops that really benefits armies with good and expensive troops who were already spending That many points...it also hugely benefits armies with FOC swaps (Paladins becoming troops, Space Marine Bike armies, Tervigons etc) because they can field more killing potential in their troops by abusing those types of rules to circumvent much of the restriciton. Just using Daemons as an Example... At 2k points in your system I need to run 74 troop models most of which are not effective at killing things where as a Space Wolf Player taking essentially 4 Grey hunter squads is not really a big deal and will shoot me off the table.

Especially if you remove the dedicated transport restriction...now I as a Necron Player spend all my points on troops, have a killer army and I play against the Daemon Guy with tons of Lesser Daemons on foot that can hardly hurt my flyers.....

The game being more about troop elements only really helps if all troops are relatively equal in terms of their effect on the game. Otherwise doing that and making dedicated transports part of it makes it so that Serpent spam and Scythe spam dominate the game ....

As for stoping I allied Tau Commander, Riptide, and 3 Broadsides, in my system that by and large eats up a lot of your available points in those slots...not that it cannot be don't but you have less points to spend on other killy things.

Really if you want to crack down on "flying Heros of death" you simply need to remove the 10% flex from my system. If no slot can make up more than 25% of your army other than troops....non-troop deathstars really do not function.

Simpliest wouldn't be a Point-bracket/tier?

LIke 1500 or under, normal FoC.

For each full 500pts, you had +1 Troops, +1 HS, +1 AR.

For each full 500pts Above 2000pts, you may Add +1 HQ , +1 Elite.

or something like that...

Are you including Allies in the "normal FOC"? Your system is fine for scaling up but does nothing to balance out some of the more broken combos in the game. It does a little if allies are included in the regular FOC at lower levels to some builds but not to all of them.