BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 13 of 38 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 375
  1. #121

    Default

    Percent based lists worked quite ok in 2nd edition and I have to say I never liked the FOC and GW also seems to hate it.
    You have so many choices which are "You know this is an HQ choice, but somehow it isnt... you may purchase a number of them but they dont really count..." as well as Formations (lets ignore the FOC) and allies that do not really count as allies but expand your FOC.
    This is a gigantic mess. If I had to guess they probably just reintroduce the 2nd edition army comp.

    0-50% HQ (could be less but who knows)
    25%+ Troops
    0-25% Elite
    0-25% Fast
    0-25% Heavy
    0-25% Allies (usually was tied to a restriction e.g.: If you chose allies you couldnt choose heavy support)

    It was a little bit easier in 2nd as you had individual lists and no "Elite" or "Fast". There where just Squads (everything), Characters (HQ, including squadleaders) and Support (Tanks and Walkers)
    So a typical Chaos army "FOC" was:
    0-50% Characters (including every character + equipment)
    25% + Squads (including everything from Terminators to Bikes)
    0-25% Support (everything from Rhino to Landraider - including Allies!)
    0-25% Daemons (everything from Bloodthirster to Nurgling)

  2. #122

    Default

    Indeed.

    Currently in Warhammer it breaks down as follows.

    Up to 25% Lords, up to 25% Heroes, at least 25% Core, up to 50% Special (but no more than three of a kind, six in a grand army) and up to 25% Rare (no more than two of a kind, four in a grand army).

    And I've got to say, I've seen increased variety off the back of that. And with gamers unable to min-max on their core, players have become more adept, and the games all the better for not being able to rely on min-maxed yawn-fests. Currently I'm happy saying Warhammer is more finely balanced than it ever has been, based off the updated Army Books (those with older ones are lagging behind, but each new book has fixed that)
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  3. #123
    Chaplain
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SE London, UK
    Posts
    390

    Default

    This probably isn't that exciting to anybody else but the poster with the Commissar has a newly designed Aquilla on it. I hope this doesn't replace the current one, although I could understand why they might want a rebranding.

    Anyway, enough of that.

    I for one am in favour of some sort of change to the FOC, not sure if percentages would actually work but I do remember it working pretty well in 2nd Edition.

    And seeing as how GW at the moment seem to want to pay homage to the heady days of 2nd Edition I can see them doing the rulebook in 3 parts as that's how second was laid out.

  4. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daboarder View Post
    Doesnt really work with 40k though.

    say you play chaos, but want a terminator themed list?

    well the cost difference in terminators compared to cultists means that you are unable to have a significant portion of your force be terminators in a standard 1850 game.

    Percentages put huge constraints of themed lists that do not have core troops that fit the theme


    EDIT:
    one marine specific example.

    under likely percentage rules (from the recent BoLS article) a space marine terminator squad is not allowed to purchase a dedicated land raider in games of less than 1850 (and not even that with certain load outs)

    stupid idea

    edit2: All percentages are llikely to do is drive the game even further to hyper-efficient builds, in poarticular ones that rely either on a single hammer unit that draws its percentage allotment from multiple areas (HQ, ELITE, ALLIES) OR towards spamming effective troops choices and not considering anything else beyond a few force multipliers


    edit3: so essentially percentages in 40k would

    limit possible themed builds
    hinter entire units structures thus driving the size of the game to higher points to include them
    not likely combat the 2 perceived problems of spam or deathstars
    Depends if dedicated transports come out of the Elites allowance or not. We don't know, and so far % lists are just a rumour.

    Granted it's a rumour I'd like to believe true, but a rumour all the same.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  5. #125
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Undertaking private security operations somewhere in the Human Sphere
    Posts
    5,884

    Default

    if they do, then they dont work in that situation

    if they dont?

    then good luck fielding any form of mechanised army with more than basic troops as those transports are going to eat up a huge chunk of your points while not counting to minimum troops.

    and yes they are rumour, ones I believe are not true as I do not think 40k as a game works with % with the lists as they currently are.
    Morbid Angels:http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?7100-Morbid-angel-WIP
    I probably come across as a bit of an ***, don't worry I just cannot abide stupid.

  6. #126

    Default

    Also worth noting the percentages for Warhammer are surprisingly generous.

    50% Special (which could probably allow FA and Elite in 40k) gets you some decent sized units. But more importantly, allows for a greater variety of smaller units.

    Consider Nids, and their still slightly over populated Elite section. Some stuff misses out on selection not because it's necessarily bad in itself, but because there are just stronger options out there. Loosen up the '3 and you're done' rule, and the variety opens up nicely.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  7. #127

    Default

    Consider Nids, and their still slightly over populated Elite section. Some stuff misses out on selection not because it's necessarily bad in itself, but because there are just stronger options out there. Loosen up the '3 and you're done' rule, and the variety opens up nicely.
    This is one of the very reasons I dislike the FOC. You are getting punished if you have many rather cheap choices in a section cause after 3 picks its over. No matter if you spent 150 points or 600 and that is hard to balance in itself. This is where you can actually reconsider units. Obliterators are very good in their slot because they are not only reliable but also "slot efficient". Now take into consideration that you could field 2 Vindicators for each Obliterator Squad - or 8 autocannons, or 2 all-lascannon Predators...
    In some cases it will open up more choices, in others it will limit choices. Not very different to now but the overall distribution (allies, Formations, "not really allies") is easier to handle.

  8. #128

    Default

    Indeedy.

    Anything which can help simplify is welcome in my book, especially as it generally means more variety in lists encountered.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  9. #129
    Librarian
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Percentages would give tyranids a massive boost, if we had the 50% hq, 50%, elite, 25% minimum core, 50% fast and 50% heavy you have a crazy amount of flexibility.

  10. #130

    Default

    Yup.

    And Venomthropes up the wazoo, and very smoggy battlefield!
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

Page 13 of 38 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •