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.

I like percentage caps also, at least for some applications. They won't "balance" 40K, if that's someone's goal. But it's a simple overarching framework that can prevent certain extremes and rein in allies to some degree. Even better, it's adjustable depending on the TOs' needs.

In many ways, this is a very old discussion that goes back 15 years. In 2nd edition, percentages are what guided army construction -- there was no FOC. Third edition introduced the FOC, which was an improvement in some ways and a problem in others. For instance, players immediately recognized that they could do things like take 3 Wraithlords in a 750 game. And so TOs started looking at percentages again as a way to control "slots abuse." They disappeared again when the game became more balanced overall and composition became unpopular.

The criticism of percentages has always been that different armies get their strength from different areas of the FOC. And that's 100% legit. However, I think that if you're careful about how you set the percentage caps, they won't become straightjackets. Obviously, there are other problems (such as 2+ rerolls just being unfun) that they won't address.