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.

yeah a % based system wornt work very well... not when people are used to the game sizes they are.

it works in fantasy but models are costed very differently. aand people tend to play bigger games (points wise)

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
My issue with the % system is it does nothing about Deathstars, just look at WHF.

It also disproportionately affects different armies. Say a minimum 40% troops, or 800 points for a 2K list. A Grey Knight Draigo+Paladinstar would fit that easily, and be 11 models. Orks would need 8 trukk boy squads, or 4 full mobs of 30 boys to meet the requirement.

To say nothing of how many gaunts Nid players would need...

But then, if this means that people must make troops the back bone of their armies instead of just meatshields/ a points tax / FoC bare minimum requirement (looking at you SM Tacticals) then I'm all for it.

Implying Eldar and Farsight Enclave won't just giggle as they hop around in their skimmers of death or Tau opt for having troop battlesuits or kroot spam.

It would be nice to see the average game size go from 1500-2000 to 2000-2500, more variety and suddenly taking less than optimal choice won't ruin your chances at winning

I've seen other forums use a system called "hell-banning" for problem users. Basically they can continue to post, but so long as the ban remains in place no one except themselves and mods can see those posts.

Can we start using hell-bans on people who insist on posting rumours when they have no reliable record for doing so? The amount of people trying to attach faeces to the walls with constant bombardment is getting irritating.

Unless they speed up the game play somehow, I don't fancy games bigger than 1500pts being standard (we can get that done in a club night allowing for set up and tidy away - 2500 would be a challenge)

Herzlos wrote:
Unless they speed up the game play somehow, I don't fancy games bigger than 1500pts being standard (we can get that done in a club night allowing for set up and tidy away - 2500 would be a challenge)

Basically this. The biggest difference between fantasy and 40k is that 40k's hordes and units are all individual. In Fantasy, despite being capable of fielding vastly more models, they are all in the boxy formations so it's vastly easier to move about. 40k however continuously gets bogged down. Have you ever played against a green tide, footguard, or other equivalent armies? They can make it a tie simply by taking forever to finish a turn!

 Perfect Organism wrote:
I'm pretty sure that GW books (and other companies' books in a similar format) always have a multiple of 16 for their page count. That just seems to be how their printers work.

I wonder if it's possible that they will split the rules away from the background and hobby material? I've heard that in the past the GW management were very reluctant to publish pure rules books because (a) rules need a lot more work to produce than background and (b) they didn't like the idea of catering to 'people who only care about the rules'. On the other hand, they have to grasp that making the established player base pay for the same old material as they got in the last book after only two years is cheeky even by their standards.

Splitting the BRB into 3 (rules, fluff, hobby) available separately or in a bundle would be EPIC. So they'll never do it.
Why? Everyone would buy the rules, some folk would buy the fluff (it's the same fluff as in the previous 4 BRB's, so available almost free) and almost no-one would buy the hobby book (because if you're aware enough of the hobby to drop £50 on a book, you don't need anything in it).

Keeping it together means they get to sell it as a 500+ page book to make it sound like better value for money even though 400 of those pages are essentially filler.

 StarTrotter wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Unless they speed up the game play somehow, I don't fancy games bigger than 1500pts being standard (we can get that done in a club night allowing for set up and tidy away - 2500 would be a challenge)

Basically this. The biggest difference between fantasy and 40k is that 40k's hordes and units are all individual. In Fantasy, despite being capable of fielding vastly more models, they are all in the boxy formations so it's vastly easier to move about. 40k however continuously gets bogged down. Have you ever played against a green tide, footguard, or other equivalent armies? They can make it a tie simply by taking forever to finish a turn!

those are called obnoxious players, you can play all the horde armies fast.. there is no need to be SLOOOOOWWWWWWWW about it... what makes those armies faster, runs in the movement phase... not being a douche and intentionally taking forever.. if i played someone who was up to that shenanigans they wouldnt get a second game.

Herzlos wrote:

 Perfect Organism wrote:
I'm pretty sure that GW books (and other companies' books in a similar format) always have a multiple of 16 for their page count. That just seems to be how their printers work.

I wonder if it's possible that they will split the rules away from the background and hobby material? I've heard that in the past the GW management were very reluctant to publish pure rules books because (a) rules need a lot more work to produce than background and (b) they didn't like the idea of catering to 'people who only care about the rules'. On the other hand, they have to grasp that making the established player base pay for the same old material as they got in the last book after only two years is cheeky even by their standards.

Splitting the BRB into 3 (rules, fluff, hobby) available separately or in a bundle would be EPIC. So they'll never do it.
Why? Everyone would buy the rules, some folk would buy the fluff (it's the same fluff as in the previous 4 BRB's, so available almost free) and almost no-one would buy the hobby book (because if you're aware enough of the hobby to drop £50 on a book, you don't need anything in it).

Keeping it together means they get to sell it as a 500+ page book to make it sound like better value for money even though 400 of those pages are essentially filler.

Um, they already sell a book of just the rules for 6th, so there is no reason to think they won't do it for whatever is coming now.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40-000-Collectors-Edition-Mini-Rulebook

On a vaguely related note, it seems all of the digital rule books have now gone from the website. I can't check if they are still available for sale on iBooks or now.

Da Butcha wrote:
Man, I'm praying that this percentages system rumor is false.

Well, it was rumoured for every edition from 4th onwards and it was always wrong so far.

 Steve steveson wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Perfect Organism wrote:
I'm pretty sure that GW books (and other companies' books in a similar format) always have a multiple of 16 for their page count. That just seems to be how their printers work.

I wonder if it's possible that they will split the rules away from the background and hobby material? I've heard that in the past the GW management were very reluctant to publish pure rules books because (a) rules need a lot more work to produce than background and (b) they didn't like the idea of catering to 'people who only care about the rules'. On the other hand, they have to grasp that making the established player base pay for the same old material as they got in the last book after only two years is cheeky even by their standards.

Splitting the BRB into 3 (rules, fluff, hobby) available separately or in a bundle would be EPIC. So they'll never do it.
Why? Everyone would buy the rules, some folk would buy the fluff (it's the same fluff as in the previous 4 BRB's, so available almost free) and almost no-one would buy the hobby book (because if you're aware enough of the hobby to drop £50 on a book, you don't need anything in it).

Keeping it together means they get to sell it as a 500+ page book to make it sound like better value for money even though 400 of those pages are essentially filler.

Um, they already sell a book of just the rules for 6th, so there is no reason to think they won't do it for whatever is coming now.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40-000-Collectors-Edition-Mini-Rulebook

On a vaguely related note, it seems all of the digital rule books have now gone from the website. I can't check if they are still available for sale on iBooks or now.

They do, but it only came out about 18 months after the edition change rendering it essentially useless. If there's something like that available shortly after launch then I'll get it (thought I'd rather it wasn't a collectors edition).

If indeed these rumours are true about a percentage based system - it will invalidate my three forces.

I run a 2.5K - 5K Sternguard Drop Podding army that is small and full of elites. It also matches the theme and the fluff as they are Deathwatch and are supposed to be the best of the best with special ammunition and toys. Suddenly, this would be illegal and it also tears the fluff and new one and so makes a Deathwatch army unviable. Around 80% of the list comprises of Elites and HQs. This would require me to spend a hell of a lot of money to make viable under a % based system, with the majority of my current models never seeing use.

I run a 2.5K - 3K Thousand Sons army that uses Thousand Sons as the core units. 50% of the points are sunk into Thousand Sons cult marines. Again, this becomes unviable and tears the fluff a new one as now the Thousand Sons army will instead be 'Chaos Space Marines with a couple of Rubricae'. This would require me to spend a lot of money to make valid under a % based system.

I run a 1K Dark Eldar list that has a lot of Trueborn - if large . This list Is easier than the others to modify, but again it invalidates the current set-up and would require me to spend even more money to make playable under a % system.

The list I was part way through building with Orks would now be unviable as it's too Heavy support Heavy and the Plague Marines was mostly HQ and Elite with some cultists.



I will not be buying more models from Games Workshop in order to make my armies 'legal' under a % system. I will not be using the 7th Edition rules either. I will continue with 6th Edition / previous edition rules and GW will have lost a customer due to GW stuffing up everything their customers have built using the GW rule system. Will GW care? No. Do I care, yes - hence my decision. I'm thankfully in a club where other plays will likely not bother with 7th edition should these rumours come true.

And that's the point really - if clubs are willing to boycott 7th Ed (IF the rumours of a % system are true) then I hope enough people do it and the book sinks. There are some parts of the game that really shouldn't be fiddled with. Using Fantasy as a model to base 40K is daft as everything is costed differently. If they release a % system, then they would have to re-release the SM, CSM, Nid, Eldar and Tau codices to make them function under Fantasy % rules.


I'll hold off my final decision until I see the rule set obviously, but with the reasonable accuracy with some of the recent rumours coming out I'm actually disappointed should this be the new direction

Don't forget to pop over to GW Fulchester to place your pre-order for v8. Stay ahead of the game people, you know it makes sense

Krazy you are now internet famous

HAHAHA

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/05/40k-7th-edition-early-rumblings-price.html

Wouldn't percentages A) force buying more models and B) encourage even larger games to field LoW choices, thus having more of A?

Seems right up GWs alley.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wouldn't percentages A) force buying more models and B) encourage even larger games to field LoW choices, thus having more of A?

Seems right up GWs alley.

True, but GW has been pushing for more troops since 5th edition hit and made only troops scoring units. I remember much wailing and gnashing of teeth about that then; "my terminators/battlesuits/etc." can't score objectives anymore!! Plus pushing Lords of War to larger games helps out people who don't want to face super heavies in a 1500 pt. game. It also helps helps keep Helturkey and other powerful unit spam down, as it would mean you could only fit in two rather than three units in a 2000 pt. game for most of those. Honestly, I'll have to wait and see how it's all implemented but I think I like the idea of a percentage based system.

 Pox Apostle wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wouldn't percentages A) force buying more models and B) encourage even larger games to field LoW choices, thus having more of A?

Seems right up GWs alley.

True, but GW has been pushing for more troops since 5th edition hit and made only troops scoring units. I remember much wailing and gnashing of teeth about that then; "my terminators/battlesuits/etc." can't score objectives anymore!! Plus pushing Lords of War to larger games helps out people who don't want to face super heavies in a 1500 pt. game. It also helps helps keep Helturkey and other powerful unit spam down, as it would mean you could only fit in two rather than three units in a 2000 pt. game for most of those. Honestly, I'll have to wait and see how it's all implemented but I think I like the idea of a percentage based system.

Absolutely agree. It solves the problem of massive amounts of forced redundancy in armies. 'Grats, you brought a Knights army! 90% of the guns in a balanced list can do nothing to you. BALANCE LOL etc. etc.

Everyone always cries about the massive unbalance in 40k, especially compared to fantasy. And even in fantasy, you still get deathstars- with no forced percentages, the problem is a pandemic in 40k, with entire armies existing around a single unit hogging 90% of the points. Force everyone to have their points spread out and you can balance the game much more easily.

The game could be balanced within the Force Chart using better points values and by reducing the effect of Allies, Formations, etc.

If GW cannot -- or do not want to -- manage that by points, why should they be expected to manage it by percentages? Just for a start, percentages depend on points values.

tag8833 wrote:

The Primary Army Formations section, though could be legit without contradicting anything in the logs. I hope it isn't the case, because blowing up Deamon Flying Circus while still allowing Tyranids to run 7-9 FMCs via skyblight at 1850 seems wrong.

I don't think that would be possible. I don't have my codex with me right now, but 230 of flyrant + 180 gargs + the 3 FMC should go over the allowed 925 in formations. Even if it doesn't if you put that and your 800 points of troops, that means no more points for other flyrants or any FMC. So at best they can fit 4 flyers.

all i want is for GW to unfu** the tyranids and bring back the canifex glory days

IF there is a percentage-based army composition system coming, then get ready for a whole swathe of armies with a "ELITE percentage can be up to 40%" or some other variation.

I can't see GW killing off the SM Drop-pod army. There's crazy and then there's madness.

 Accolade wrote:
IF there is a percentage-based army composition system coming, then get ready for a whole swathe of armies with a "ELITE percentage can be up to 40%" or some other variation.

I can't see GW killing off the SM Drop-pod army. There's crazy and then there's madness.

Uh, you do understand this is GW?

Taurox anyone?

I'm going to guess the SM will be getting a new shiny transport that costs about the same as a rhino/drop pod but they will raise the cost of said rhino/drop pod so the new shiny looks like a bargain.

All the while with a big smile on their face while flipping you off behind their back.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The game could be balanced within the Force Chart using better points values and by reducing the effect of Allies, Formations, etc.

If GW cannot -- or do not want to -- manage that by points, why should they be expected to manage it by percentages? Just for a start, percentages depend on points values.

It would be the easiest way, if they wanted to throw a bone to all the players who have apparently stopped/cut back their spending. GW's does like the path of least resistance these days.

The only significant problem list/unit that I can think of right now that wouldn't be mitigated at least partially by percentages is Waveserpent spam, which would need something else to fix it, or they may just wish to leave an "easy mode" army in the mix for those who have no desire to think while playing a game.

 Accolade wrote:
IF there is a percentage-based army composition system coming, then get ready for a whole swathe of armies with a "ELITE percentage can be up to 40%" or some other variation.

I can't see GW killing off the SM Drop-pod army. There's crazy and then there's madness.

I could see them creating formations that alter a percentage based chart. And that might work out alright, especially if different formations called for a reduction in another sections' percentage. IE: giving Nids access to more heavy support if elites get less than the standard amount.

From the BoLS comments section:

BigRed wrote:As with all of rumors, the overall trends are more important than the details. I would be surprised if the exact percentages were exactly matching in the final rulebook. More important is simply the overall switchover to a WFB style percentage system, which would be a big deal for the game.

To quote the internet: "lol, wut."

Who posts rumors and then posts that the major details of the rumor are probably wrong, but then basically say that those same details "don't matter"?

Also I love how they posted earlier in the day that no big changes were coming then posted the percent thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm chalking up that entire rumor to massive click bait at this point.

Yeah but it's Taco Bell. They tend to post everything that comes their way.

"We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"

"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"




Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?

In other words; percentages confirmed.

 Thud wrote:
"We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"

"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"


Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?

In other words; percentages confirmed.

You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but it's Taco Bell. They tend to post everything that comes their way.

Comparing the two is an insult to Taco Bell. At least Taco Bell actually serves a purpose (namely selling drunks and stoners cheap knock-off Mexican food at 2am).

 quickfuze wrote:

 Thud wrote:
"We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"

"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"


Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?

In other words; percentages confirmed.

You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)

I think allies need to be revisited, but a % cap and revising the chart and the interaction rules will go a long way to fixing it, no need to scrap it entirely.