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.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, it's been a few years since 4th edition and I've misplaced my old rule book.

I seem to recall that we used both the Force Org chart and a percentage based system at the same time. It seemed to work. It was a double modifier that prevented spam and prevented overpowered/overpriced units.
And I recall winning and losing based on total points values removed, making those really expensive units a risky endeavor.
I also remember victory points that gave differing values to unit type kills, meaning you got more victory points (kill points) for an HQ than you got for Troops.

And as for a calculator. How hard is it to figure out 25% of 1000, 1500, or 2000 points? Heck 1850 is pretty darn easy, since every 185 is 10%. Especially since, I bet, everyone writing in this thread could tell me the estimated percentage of rolling double ones without even thinking about it.

I posted the same thing a couple of months ago ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/573998.page ), and it basically came to the same conclusion as here.
I really like the idea of using percentages, as I'm tired of seeing people take the absolute minimum troops and going towards spam. The point of troops is that they are the most common soldiers on the field. They should actually be there and do the roles they have. I'm fine with special HQ's still moving certain units to troops, as they provide more "narrative/fluffy" armies.
The problems with the % system are twofold. 1) It will take a bit of reworking the categories to make it fit. 2) The internal imbalance in the game. Things like wave serpents and flying croissants will still be inordinately better than flayed ones or striking scorpions.
I've played a couple of games with home rules that change the FoC to %. I played my nids with tons of little guys and small groups of venomthropes and zoanthropes spread out within the swarm backed up by MCs. It was nice to not have to worry about the FoC and be able to take more of the things I liked. It worked out pretty well within our group, but this might have also been that we weren't WAAC gamers and didn't try to abuse the system. I think at tourneys the % system could keep the meta as unbalanced as it is already due to a few spamable units.

TLDR: I like this idea and wish GW would move towards a similar % system like WHF. However, the inherent problems in the game already wouldn't all be solved by this change.

I think the % based system really helps armies like Tyranids the same way as I prefer the % based system for my Orcs and Goblins in Fantasy. It gives such armies a lot more flexibility. Suddenly certain options aren't fighting for a slot quite as hard and so you can afford to take more varied army lists.

The FOC slots system we have now really punishes armies that have a lot of reasonably cheap options in Elites/FA/HS and armies that have big expensive elites/HS/FA don't really care if they can only take 3 of something or only 2 HQ's.

Are you kidding? The only competitive Nid list is basically 75% Fast Attack.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Are you kidding? The only competitive Nid list is basically 75% Fast Attack.

It's also a FOC breaking dataslate... so I'm not really sure how it fits in to this discussion. The most you can spend on FA in a reasonable sized Tyranid army that doesn't use FOC breaking dataslates is about 25% anyway. I feel like Skyblight would be something that moves Gargoyles in to the troops slot.

I will admit the Skyblight swarm often slips my mind because even though I am a Tyranid player, frak buying $250 more models so I can play the latest flavour of the month FOC breaking spam army that quite possibly won't be allowed in a tournament or competitive games anyway.

It is not likely that GW will design or promote an army list system that does not involve the promotion of buying more models.

(Forgive my Whining and moaning™ cynicism.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is not likely that GW will design or promote an army list system that does not involve the promotion of buying more models.

Or one which stops people using all the models they've already bought.

"...the rules tended to emphasise the power of characters and individual vehicles against a backdrop of massed troops dying in droves and achieving very little." - Andy Chambers writing about 2e in the introduction to 3e, WD 226.

They're right back where they were then, with the competitive meta dominated by character heavy deathstars and (superheavy and flying) vehicles/walkers. Only now they've painted themselves into a corner. If they try to pull things back then what happens to all those pricy superheavies, flyers, fortifications and allies? If they just continue the march toward Epic 28mm then anyone who is holding on to the idea that 7e will 'fix' 6e will feel cheated.

In any case 2e - with its character and vehicle heavy lists - had a percentage based army list system, so that in itself won't solve anything. Unless they also do something about all the extras that have been piled on in 6e - flyers, fortifications, allies, superheavies, formations etc - all it will do is bulk up the size of the mandatory troop choices. Slightly.

40k is mostly screwed now, they should have placed more proper limitations on allies, fortifications, flyers and superheavies from the get go. Now we're stuck with them.

Even the change from 2nd to 3rd didn't really stop people playing with their existing models.

Can't be any worse. 2nd had percentages and worked out fairly well (of course there were no Troops/Elites/Fast sections, everything was either characters, squads or typically vehicles).

Couple of things one... All this skaven slave stuff is silly because no one is saying what they actually do. They are more or less ld10 rerollable at 2 points a model, can be taken in any size.(seen 60-100 man units) they can hold off they strongest units in the game for several turns. Also in fantasy shooting tends not to be as significant as 40k so when you are trying to getto the strong units of the skaven army slaves hold you up a few turns and then set up charges with thir powerful units on the targets they want.

Next I think changing the foc to % does nothing to beast star or the seer council. It might mess with ovesa star a bit but really just makes it weaker than the eldar lists.

I also think it will hurt the community, as people just spent all this money and time on formations and they will be more or less worthless models.

Finally this new restriction hurts the little balance there is in the games as
1) the most powerful armies are unaffected
2) certain codex become worthless (daemons of all types will now have a very hard time competing with so much of their power in hq..unless its like 50% hq ) and thus leaves the internal balance of the game in an even worse state.

So in conclusion if you want every "competitive game" to be eldar vs eldar then I guess this is the right move.
At least ATM I see sm, chaos, eldar, tau, tyranids, and wolves at tourneys...I'd hate it to change for the worst.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is not likely that GW will design or promote an army list system that does not involve the promotion of buying more models.

(Forgive my Whining and moaning™ cynicism.)

Your FineWhining™ and FineMoaning™?

Actually a % based system would end up in people spending more money on troop box sets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ashcroft wrote:
In any case 2e - with its character and vehicle heavy lists - had a percentage based army list system, so that in itself won't solve anything. Unless they also do something about all the extras that have been piled on in 6e - flyers, fortifications, allies, superheavies, formations etc - all it will do is bulk up the size of the mandatory troop choices. Slightly.

I don't see Superheavies, flyers or fortifications being the real problem. Very few of our problem combos come from such things (actually the only real flyer I know of that is consistantly complained about at this point is the Heldrake and that can be fixed by making the Baleflamer a 15-20 points upgrade over the Autocannon, and only letting it shoot in it's front 180 instead of a 360. Vector Strikes need to be changed through the core rules to allow cover saves too, but that's a seperate issue). Though I will always agree that D-Weapons need to be changed. They're just too good at killing EVERYTHING (which I know is kind of the point but it's a game which abstraction of the setting, tone it down GW).

Percentages can do a fair amount at reigning stuff in. Want that Reverent Titan? Well play a 3,600 point game so you can fit it in under that 25% cap. Sure they don't fix every combo, but they will cut down the nonsense quite a bit.

 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.

I say it would be easier to switch to a percentage-based system to avoid non-sense like “You can take either 3 wraithknights/land raiders/riptide or 3 wraithlords/predators/sniper drone team”, and to then fix various codexes now that this issue has been solved. You are basically saying “I want to put all my points into FA and HS because my troops and elite sucks”. I want my troops and elite not to suck, and I also want to be able to be able to field multiple small retributor/dominion squads because it is fun !

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

I say it would be easier to switch to a percentage-based system to avoid non-sense like “You can take either 3 wraithknights/land raiders/riptide or 3 wraithlords/predators/sniper drone team”, and to then fix various codexes now that this issue has been solved. You are basically saying “I want to put all my points into FA and HS because my troops and elite sucks”. I want my troops and elite not to suck, and I also want to be able to be able to field multiple small retributor/dominion squads because it is fun !

I want both. I want large amounts of options that don't feel like automatic takes paired with a system that helps prevent abuse, even if it takes longer to make a list.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is not likely that GW will design or promote an army list system that does not involve the promotion of buying more models.

(Forgive my Whining and moaning™ cynicism.)

Your FineWhining™ and FineMoaning™?

Actually a % based system would end up in people spending more money on troop box sets.

This is true, but most of the troop sets are actually, in the wider context of the market, not ludicrously overpriced. Sure, the likes of Perry and DFG still offer better comparable value, but the pricing of the boxed troops sets is something I don't have a major issue with.

We know GW make roughly ~70-75% GP on the kits they sell, but that won't be uniform, and I suspect the mark up on a Stormraven, Heldrake or Land Raider, being a small amount extra plastic for a much larger price, will be higher than a Space Marine Tac Squad or Lesser Daemon box, hence the change to a percentage system may still net GW less cash, or result in a price rise on a vital purchase item, raising the barrier to entry still higher.

That said, I heartily endorse the idea, I think it would go a long way to countering/neutering some of the "problem children" of the current landscape of the game, and if the book authors can just learn a little restraint when writing new units, I think the game would look a lot healthier in a very short span of time if it happened.

 azreal13 wrote:
We know GW make roughly ~70-75% GP on the kits they sell

Only when dealing with Cost of Sales is that true. When you factor in Operating Costs that shrinks to 12%.

That's why I specified GP.

That's short for gross profit.

If I was factoring in operational costs, I would have been mentioning net profit.

I would love a percentage based system to happen, but I don't think it will.

 azreal13 wrote:
That's why I specified GP.

That's short for gross profit.

If I was factoring in operational costs, I would have been mentioning net profit.

Oh I understand, but some people might end up confused that with how much money they actually keep at the end of the day (something I've seen happen in the past) which is why I elaborated further before we had like 10 posts about how GW is ripping people off.

Off topic much

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Off topic much

Not really, no, you just have to follow the line of thought.

Changes to the game are largely motivated by manipulating players into spending more. Therefore the likelihood of it happening is directly linked to the prospect of it generating more cash for GW.

A couple of posts clarifying what products make GW the most money and therefore are most likely to have their purchase encouraged isn't really all that OT.

I think it'd work out overall. Sure, people will still find powerful lists, but the average player will find more enjoyable and competitive games with this style of build than current 'allowed' lists.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Off topic much

Not really, no, you just have to follow the line of thought.

Changes to the game are largely motivated by manipulating players into spending more. Therefore the likelihood of it happening is directly linked to the prospect of it generating more cash for GW.

A couple of posts clarifying what products make GW the most money and therefore are most likely to have their purchase encouraged isn't really all that OT.

That's fine but we're talking about wether the percentage system would balance the game further,we aren't talking about the potential profit Gw would make

But if GW wouldn't do it, the whole conversation is irrelevant.

I appreciate that you're the OP, but this is a discussion thread, and discussions do tend to meander a bit. If you're really concerned, use the yellow triangle to alert a Mod and let them decide.

Can't be any worse. 2nd had percentages and worked out fairly well (of course there were no Troops/Elites/Fast sections, everything was either characters, squads or typically vehicles).

I completely disagree. Yeah, second ed did have the percentages system, but NO. It did not work "fairly well". Abuse of that system is one of the primary reasons the system got broken up into FOC slots when they did the 3rd ed rules. It actually made it easier to take all elite style "unrealistic" armies, etc. Anyone who remembers playing the Eldar and their buckets of hovering sustained fire dice, or Abadon and his terminator body guard backed up by terminators with some terminators and a sorceror terminator (this was of course back when terminators were darn near the "be all end all" that the fluff makes them out to be) will know what I'm talking about.

I'm of the opinion that as long as it's a game there are going to be ways to "game" the system. The issue is a lot less about what system we use to pick armies (FOC, percentages, etc) and more to do with the actual armies themselves. A different system isn't going to "fix" anything if the way codex writing doesn't change. It will just make it "broken" in different ways.

If you take into account, 1 HQ & 2 troops will be compulsory, and only troops score still....

I'd just make it that no more than 25% can be spent on HQ, no more than 25% on elites, no more than 30% can be spent on fast attack and 30% on Heavy support. I know that adds up to 110% but there is no cap on troops, and you still need 2 and 1 HQ anyway, this means that certain spam lists are still restricted but works in the force organisation chart still, you can only have 3 heavy support max still per force org chart, and only 30% of your points can be spent on those 3.

I'd then make it that dedicated transports for troop choices goes against the fast attack allowance also, to stop obscene transport spamming, dedicated transports in other categories would then be in that category. Unfortunately it will make mech lists quite redundant, but if the rule writers can't be trusted to not make obscene and broken transports for certain armies then this is how it must be. Examples of this would be, sternguard drop pod would go against elites, assault squad without jump packs would go against FA, but troop choice rhino or drop pods would still go against FA.

I completely disagree. Yeah, second ed did have the percentages system, but NO. It did not work "fairly well". Abuse of that system is one of the primary reasons the system got broken up into FOC slots when they did the 3rd ed rules. It actually made it easier to take all elite style "unrealistic" armies, etc. Anyone who remembers playing the Eldar and their buckets of hovering sustained fire dice, or Abadon and his terminator body guard backed up by terminators with some terminators and a sorceror terminator (this was of course back when terminators were darn near the "be all end all" that the fluff makes them out to be) will know what I'm talking about.

The only problem with the percentage system in 2nd edition was that the "Character" section was too high of a percentage. Instead of up to 50% of the army's total value, it should have been 25%. Would have immediately fixed all the situations where the game was devolving into centering around powerful characters. At the same time, "Squads" should have been raised to 50% so that armies centered around their troops, rather than vehicles and characters.

The Terminator problem could have been solved by putting them in the "Support" section, which would have been automatically beholden to the 25% restriction. Although terminators were not that bad without powerful characters, as tons of weapons gave huge negatives to armor save rolls, which was bad even for the way Terminator armor worked.

The only problem with the percentage system in 2nd edition was that the "Character" section was too high of a percentage.

I agree that was definitly one of the bigger issues (that's why so many people refer to 2nd ed as the age of "Hero Hammer"), but it wasn't the ONLY issue. Even with your suggestions (which aren't too bad) I still think all you would do is shift the meta until it settled into a different version of "unbalanced". I still maintain that until they get codex writing down to the point where books are fairly well balanced against one another, then no system of army selection is really going to fix anything. It may change some things, but yeah, it's still not going to fix anything. You're essentially trying to fix a broken process at the wrong point in the pipeline.

I think this is a good idea. It didnt work in 2nd because there was no FOC like there is now. If you combine the FOC requirements with a % limit on units then you won't have crazy things like the Triptide at 1850 points.

Back in 2nd edition Riptides would have been in the "Support" section and could only add up to 25% of your full army cost. So that would automatically cut into Triptides alone. Things were generally twice the points values of the current edition, too. So a 2,000pt army contained nowhere near as many units.

yes so adding in a % limit cuts into that. Its exactly like I said. 2nd didnt work because you could field a whole army of terminators because they weren't in support. The % base fixes triptides and the FOC fixes terminators etc.