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.

This is the reason I proposed moving away from 'functional' classes and change to how rare the units are in the army.

If you shoe horn units in to what they do.
This can put armies with poor 'Troops' choices ,at a severe disadvantage from the start.

if the units are classed down to how common they are in the army , then the current restrictions do not apply.And armies can take the units they need to be effective

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The biggest issue you run into is that some armies have really good Troops and some armies have Troops that are a waste of space and you cripple some armies that don't need to be crippled while doing nothing to stop some of the more abusive strategies available.

Fair point.

A percentage based system is merely one of several changes that could help to balance out a game system that is progressively sliding beyond redemption.

 koooaei wrote:
You haven't even put any effort in it yet.

Not saying that percentage limitation system is gona be a brilliant magic fix to the mess 40k currently is. But i don't believe you when you say that it's impossible to play without something like double flyrants and heavy slot spam. Especially when the enemy won't spam his own op units too.

This solution will fix SPAM. It won't buff a crudely-written codex, sorry. Nothing will except for waithing faithfully for a new releaze or homebrewing.

It fixes spam for some armies, it does feth all to fix armies.

In any case, 40k and FB are already similar enough mechanics wise (I'm fine with similarities lore-wise though), and I dislike proposals to make them even more alike than they already are. One should be a Space Fantasy/Gothic Sci-Fi Company level game, the other should be a Renaissance Fantasy Battalion level game.

I prefer to fix 40k by keeping it 40k, rather than make it fantasy with guns, different names for a few things, and round instead of square bases.

Me and my personal circle of playmates went and redid all the armies and introduced new ones, created a new ruleset that is still identifiable as 40k, and am myself willing to put in the work to salvage 40k.

The solution is not to make the rich richer and the poor pooerer, it's to make the rich a little less rich (I'm pretty fine with over the top rules so long as everyone else is similarly over the top, but until I'm shown otherwise, Daemon Factory looks like serious horse-hockey) and the poor rich too.

 Kain wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
You haven't even put any effort in it yet.

Not saying that percentage limitation system is gona be a brilliant magic fix to the mess 40k currently is. But i don't believe you when you say that it's impossible to play without something like double flyrants and heavy slot spam. Especially when the enemy won't spam his own op units too.

This solution will fix SPAM. It won't buff a crudely-written codex, sorry. Nothing will except for waithing faithfully for a new releaze or homebrewing.

It fixes spam for some armies, it does feth all to fix armies.

In any case, 40k and FB are already similar enough mechanics wise (I'm fine with similarities lore-wise though), and I dislike proposals to make them even more alike than they already are. One should be a Space Fantasy/Gothic Sci-Fi Company level game, the other should be a Renaissance Fantasy Battalion level game.

I prefer to fix 40k by keeping it 40k, rather than make it fantasy with guns, different names for a few things, and round instead of square bases.

I have no idea how's that even relevant to the topic. It's like: "We shouldn't use point-system cause FB has it and i don't want WH40K to be like WHFB".

i put 50% elietes because sometimes elites are a lot more expensive then most slots. Like plague marines or Incubi for instance, people can maybe still have about a solid 3 squads depending on the points limit, but this really makes them for elite since, I don't think most lists will actaully use the full 50% for their elites simply because they cant fit anymore with the spare points. 100 left over points can afford a bare minimum of Bloodcrushers for example. But the bigger the game, the more freedom. Smaller games have more critical thinking with lists. 1250pts will only have 312.5pts in every slot, where as elites will be 625pts.in 1500pts it will be 375pts for other slots and 750pts for elites BUT remember that you NEED AT LEAST 25% in troops. so the bigger the game, the more troops you must have in your games (Especially since you need them to capture objectives). 2000pts games will NEED 500pts worth, and have up to 1000pts for elites, other things will be 500pts. Thing is after you tally the ponts for troops, an HQ and maybe a few others it just prevents you from squeezing in that third Land Raider or 3 Helldrakes. at 2000pts you can ONLY have 2 helldrakes...


I think it can keep it themeatic AND competitive at the same time in some cases.

It simply isn't a fair system.

Let us imagine that all of the effective Tyrranid choices are in the Heavy Support section, and are priced as such. Space Marines, however, have effective choices in all of their FOC slots.

So, in theory, the most efficient and well picked Space Marine force will be at 100% effectiveness (barring luck and player skill, which we' shall assume to be equal between both players).

The Tyrranids, however, will only have one slot (heavy support) which is effective. All other choices are sub par. Ergo, a Tyrranid list can never be at 100% effectiveness.

And that's the problem. It doesn't address balance, just forces it into a different niche. My Tau don't care about %limits. Broadsides are crazy cheap for what they bring. A Buffmander is easily under-par in terms of points. I take FSE, and my Crisis Suits are troops. This means it's Riptide central in Heavy support. Markerlights in FA are cheap as chips. See, my Tau give absolutely zero feths about these restrictions. The only chance 'nids really have against my Tau, which is either gribbly spam or MC/FMC spam, has been removed. So I laugh as my 100% effective list simply leafblows the Tyrranids into the dirt. I don't even need to spam to do this; the 'nid list will be so poor and disparate that it just won't be able to compete without incredible shenanigans.

Props for trying the idea, but it simply doesn't work. The problem isn't solely with spam, it's that some codexes have (almost) no bad choices. So limiting those filled with them (which are forced to spam) simply widens the divide even more.

 koooaei wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
You haven't even put any effort in it yet.

Not saying that percentage limitation system is gona be a brilliant magic fix to the mess 40k currently is. But i don't believe you when you say that it's impossible to play without something like double flyrants and heavy slot spam. Especially when the enemy won't spam his own op units too.

This solution will fix SPAM. It won't buff a crudely-written codex, sorry. Nothing will except for waithing faithfully for a new releaze or homebrewing.

It fixes spam for some armies, it does feth all to fix armies.

In any case, 40k and FB are already similar enough mechanics wise (I'm fine with similarities lore-wise though), and I dislike proposals to make them even more alike than they already are. One should be a Space Fantasy/Gothic Sci-Fi Company level game, the other should be a Renaissance Fantasy Battalion level game.

I prefer to fix 40k by keeping it 40k, rather than make it fantasy with guns, different names for a few things, and round instead of square bases.

I have no idea how's that even relevant to the topic. It's like: "We shouldn't use point-system cause FB has it and i don't want WH40K to be like WHFB".

Adopting mechanics from a game balanced under different assumptions is silly.

FB's rules were made to force you to buy massive number of troop models because the MSU to dodge the troop tax weren't bringing in enough money. There's no other reason for it.

This rule would also essentially force you to buy massive numbers of expensive models and lock you out of most codexes' most interesting features until you're well into the high points, thus driving up the entry cost and locking out newbies.

WHFB games are 2.5-3.5k on average because you can't actually field much of anything interesting until you're at points levels almost unheard of out of apocalypse in 40k. Low point FB is quite simply boring as hell and is very much in favor of armies who have low cost and points efficient rare, special, and lord/hero units or very powerful core units (in other words, not my Tomb kings that's for sure). Armies who rely on high priced units in other slots are essentially screwed if they're playing at under 2k points.

You'd see the same in 40k. Armies whose troops only exist to score and tarpit get screwed while armies with powerful troops or easily affordable punchy units in other slots don't care in the slightest. Armies with powerful elites will also reap the rewards while armies with crappy or underwhelming elites are essentially told to get fethed. Armies who rely on their FA and HS to win are essentially gak out of luck.

And did I mention everyone now needs to field gak tons of troops?

For a Tyranid list, you'd need to blow your load on more than a hundred gaunts to play at 2k points.

More than a hundred gaunts. That you have to buy, paint, and assemble.

Or you could buy Genestealers, which are gak.

Or Warriors, which are also gak.

Or Tervigons, which are overpriced.

Or rippers, which would still require you to field dozens of ripper bases.

And now you've essentially blown a quarter your points on units that aren't very good.

Why do you need to play at this level?

Because you still want your carnifexes, crones, or flyrants if you want to actually win because your book is a pile of gak.

Oh but you still need your zoanthropes and venomthropes if you want to compete so you can afford even less of what you actually need to win.

An Eldar list on the other hand can still squeeze in plenty of wave serpents, a Wraithknight, Wraithguards/Blades, and what not. And they'd completely crush the Tyranids.

Chaos Daemons get awesome troops with flickering fire and daemonology nonsense, more stupidity with cheap heralds and flamers, daemon princes they can still afford to squeeze in, and "way too god damn cheap" Seekers. Khorne? Khorne has to blow a five hundred points on fething bloodletters. Bloodletters are godawful. Every point you spend on Khorne troops is a point invested towards losing.

Chaos Space marines are forced to waste five hundred points on gakky troops if they want anything good. Their elites? Meh. Everything you actually want is in the HQ, HS, and FA slots. Which you are now much more constricted in getting because you have already wasted a quarter of your points on units lacking in killing ability

tl;dr, you're a very silly goose for thinking this is a good idea because it nearly cripples the already bad armies while only inconveniencing all the good armies, while also meaning if you want to field anything cool and have it do anything but get focused on and die, you better get on expanding your army or blowing your points load on options that do nothing to make your troops more survivable.

Maybe if you redesigned every army in the game sure.

As 40k is now?

No.

 Kain wrote:

I'm not forcing you into it. Go ahead - spam the mosst effective stuff you have. But you should expect that you're gona face lots of other opponents who outspam you with their best stuff. If that's the way to go for you - i'm perfectly fine with it.

But as for me, i like to play with various stuff in my lists vs various opponent's stuff in his. There are way too many good and fun units outside the cheeze department that don't see the table. Now the question is how to encourage the use of different units there? Percentage based system ain't perfect, sure. Probably a hard limitation of making all units unique will work but that's gona work in low-pt games only and what are gona SOB do?..

Please, what are your suggestions? As for now, i just see that: "Nothing is gona help 40k no matter what you do! Go desperate!".