Do you think 40k will benefit from Percentage FOC limits?

[Lord Asterion]

I just knew a non-nid player was going to share this "wisdom" about our fluff
did you know, that its un-fluffy for a warband to have multiple dark apostles.....WOW!!!


edit: there is nothing, ever, ever written in the tyranid book that suggest a single tyrant only ever leads the swarm
nids go with what works, and if their synapse keeps getting gimped they are going to run more tyrants.

A force the size typical of a standard 40K game would only have one Tyrant, keep whining and desperately trying to justify it if you want.

And before you try and guess what armies I have, I've been in the hobby longer than the Tyranids, I picked up my first Hunter Slayers before you knew what they are.

[Charistoph]

Percentages may work, it depends on how the final numbers are set. It can work easier for Fantasy because their army composition due to rarity, so it's obvious that army's will have percentages taken up by the rarity of the units.

40K's army composition is set up by their job. And sometimes you need more Heavy Support than Fast Attack or more Fast Attack than Elites, etc.

One thing to remember, the army composition is determined by the missions/scenarios you run, not by your codex, and only partially by the rulebook. These percentage changes wouldn't necessarily cross over in to PlanetStrike or Dataslate Alters of War missions, for example.

Edit: Personally, I think they should separate the HQ choice in to Warlords and HQ, and run it that way. That leaves any problems as to who can be the Warlord out of the question. But that's just me.

[Crydon Games]

the counterpoint to mysteries dark apostles is .that Tyranids cant run a pair of tyrants, too many points. If you want anything BUT a single HQ you need to run primes and deathleaper, and thats with minimal options

And this is bad how? A tyrant is just that...a tyrant...shouldn't be run in pairs in anything less than Apoc anyway. Same for most of the independent character types in most of the books. Seems to me that your argument is proof that percentages will be a big step in the right direction.

[Lord Asterion]

And this is bad how? A tyrant is just that...a tyrant...shouldn't be run in pairs in anything less than Apoc anyway. Same for most of the independent character types in most of the books. Seems to me that your argument is proof that percentages will be a big step in the right direction.

No no, daboarder is the only person allowed to talk about how Tyranids work and he says they should have more than one Tyrant for some reason.

[Gleipnir]

He's hardly the only one that thinks limiting Tyranids to a single Tyrant is a crappy decision and unsupported by fluff, especially in light of the changes to IB. That said if we do get a percentage based system which I still think is just someone's wishlisting, in light of how many books, and dataslates would need errata's to accomplish it, its not likely to be the piddly percentages being thrown about here.

[Charon]

He's hardly the only one that thinks limiting Tyranids to a single Tyrant is a crappy decision and unsupported by fluff...

Sorry to interrupt here... but 2 Flyrants commanding a vast swarm of 20 Termagaunts is a good decision and totally supported by fluff?

[Aegwymourn]

Sorry to interrupt here... but 2 Flyrants commanding a vast swarm of 20 Termagaunts is a good decision and totally supported by fluff?

Because obviously every game played should be the only portion we examine right? What if those 2 Tyrants are running a sneak attack on a super heavy defense cannon. A ridiculously important strategic move that would support the hive mind dedicating two Tyrants to ensure success. Of course they are going to bring some lesser buddies as meat shields or to test for weak points.

Justifying a person's army list is easy.

Now that isn't to say that having percentage based lists is bad. It very well might make the game more "balanced". However I would be skeptical to see how much it would actually fix since, like composition, people will simply find the easiest way around it.

[Blood Shadow]

Well percentages would nerf any of my Deathwatch builds, Kantor builds would be gone with a 20% limit on elites! BA would be totally nerfed with so much cool stuff competing in the Elites section....I'm just not sure I'd play with this rule.

With the Formation limit one could never take a Tempestus formation unless they were primary at over 800 points for the Air Cav formation... The Talons+Raven formation is never going to make it in either...

What annoys me is the thought that the entire game needs nerfing, just because a few units need nerfing....

[Crydon Games]

I just don't see percentages as a nerf to the system...think it's a mild corrective measure to slow the runaway train that is the various "deathstars" and other abuses of allies. I really like the idea.

[daboarder]

I just don't see percentages as a nerf to the system...think it's a mild corrective measure to slow the runaway train that is the various "deathstars" and other abuses of allies. I really like the idea.

under the proposed % its unlikely that seerstar would be effected at all.

Warlocks would be unlikely to count towards a % cap (slotless like dedicated transports), leaving plenty of points for a farseer and baron allies. So thinking such a system would "fix" deathstars is probably wishful

A force the size typical of a standard 40K game would only have one Tyrant, keep whining and desperately trying to justify it if you want.

And before you try and guess what armies I have, I've been in the hobby longer than the Tyranids, I picked up my first Hunter Slayers before you knew what they are.

I dont really care mate, the point is that you're merrily skipping along with an attitude that is basically telling people that you dont care if they dont get options because they arent your options and dont conform to the way YOU play....charming

EDIT: OH, and you want a chaos list running multiple Dark apostles.....you can already write a list with 3 of them under the current system. which is aall you would be able to afford under theproposed % anyway.

Sorry to interrupt here... but 2 Flyrants commanding a vast swarm of 20 Termagaunts is a good decision and totally supported by fluff?

If th Hive mind determined that was the required force for a specific mission, yeah it would be fluffy actually. kinda llike tyranid blitzkrieg when you add on the HS options and other FMCs