So I used to play a lot of 40k back in the day. Like all of 4th Ed back in the day, not as far as many on here, but I was pretty heavily into the game. I've played a few things of 5th Ed, and I've followed the 40k codex's while I dabbled in WHFB, Warmachine, & Hordes; but recently some friends have got me playing more 40k (that and 8th Ed WHFB).

After a few matches I've come to the conclusion that it really is VehicleHammer 40k. Troops generally don't want to leave their transports, and a whole lot comes down to the fact that Vehicles are pretty awesome, and much depends on who can get the right rolls first on the damage chart to pop enough of the other guys vehicles to force his squishy stuff out, which can then be killed.

I've been playing my Mechanized Marines for the most part, and have found that in the games I've won and lost with them, it really comes down to who can kill the other guys vehicles faster.

After the games with the Marines, I've tinkered with making a Demon army, and after speaking to some old friends who've stuck with 40k while I played other games, the consensus was "non-vehicle armies are at a huge disadvantage", you will struggle with Demons. Another guy I know recently said he's considering just shelving his Nids now that Dark Eldar came out and are a hard counter to competitive 'Nids.

One of my games with the Marines was against a friends new Dark Eldar playtest list (he memorized the 'Dex after a day or two, so we had some time playing things out with his old models), and after we started hammering out what would be the most effective list for him - it came down to just as many basic Warrior/Lance Squads in Raiders, with some Wytch Squads in Raiders, and then Lances from Heavy Support, and giving everything the 5+ Inv Save for his vehicles. All the new "Toys" were just that, and the most effective thing was in his basic guys, with some Elite shooty guys to back them up - since he ran out of troop and HS slots.

I guess my question is whether or not what I'm seeing in my games or from speaking to others is true. Should I even bother converting my Demon army in WHFB to be dual purpose since they can't hide in the safety of transports? Is there more to the game than just killing vehicles, and then dealing with the small squads that were sitting in them?

I personally dislike 5th edition. Even for all its faults, I had more fun playing 4th edition than I have in any game in 5th.

It looks to me like 5th ed has some built in crutches that most effective armies exploit. So as you have pointed out, even vastly different armies still sorta look the same on the table.

Vehicles didn't become better, they just became useful.

4th edition basically had you starting OUTSIDE your Dedicated Transports in case you got Shaken and had to now Bail out and risk being pinned.

How is that not utterly ridiculous?

Gwar! wrote:Vehicles didn't become better, they just became useful.

4th edition basically had you starting OUTSIDE your Dedicated Transports in case you got Shaken and had to now Bail out and risk being pinned.

How is that not utterly ridiculous?

Don't get me wrong, 4th Ed had it's problems out the wazoo - Skimmers and Monstrous Creatures were what ruled then. And yes, Mechanized Marines was my "fun army to play against" which basically translates to "Stuff to play against fluff bunnies". At least then the stuff could MOVE and shoot, now most tanks are pretty slow so they can still shoot their one gun.

Still, there isn't a whole lot of point to armies that don't have vehicles to hide in. At least not compared to what I can see ATM.

I think the problem is mostly just narrow minded people. GW relaxed the FO chart and changed some rules so you can have more tanks, so the knee jerk reaction is for everyone to immediately run out and buy loads of tanks. If you give people the option of bringing a gun to a knife fight, the're going to take it.

My issue is it doesn't have to be that way. GW puts tons of alternate options and fluff into their games to use. Min/max players will of course strip a codex into 2 or 3 "good" units and spam them like crazy, but theres not a lot of enjoyment in that except for the win. I'm pretty sure that most of the people that fit that profile just print their list soup-to-nuts from a website and couldn't even tell you why a unit is good or bad. Why try to think of "list building" as a part of the game when someone tells you the way to win is to put as much AV on a list as possible and move them forward for 6 turns?

This game is generally far more enjoyable if you never visit the "Army list" or "Tactics" parts of forums. Some of the bloodiest, white knuckle, last-turn-takes-all fights Ive ever had come from competing lists that would probably be laughed out the door in a lot of places. But hey, for some folks every battle is 'Ardboyz.

Also, nice to see a Voodoo Boyz post again. I had one of your quotes as my Sig for like 2 years :p

There's a lot of sense in that.

The other thing people tend to ignore in these "rant" threads is terrain.

A table with a good amount of terrain on it is a lot less kind to vehicles, because they find it harder going without it being very much use as cover compared to infantry units.

Terrain is always absent from theoryhammer threads. When people say about hoe Carnifexes die easily because it's hard to hide them or get them cover saves, I just keep thinking 'man, do these people just put down some barricades and craters?'.

We run multiple Bastions, large hills and other buildings. Hiding a Carnifex is pretty easy.

Kilkrazy wrote:A table with a good amount of terrain on it is a lot less kind to vehicles, because they find it harder going without it being very much use as cover compared to infantry units.

Yeah but have you seen the types of tables people play on KK?

A brief look over the BatReps forum at any time of the week will show you that most people play on virtually bare tables with great tracts of flat green nothingness, punctuated by the odd half-assed ruin or perhaps a low-lying hill. And they're the tables that have a comparative wealth of terrain. The tournament tables are worse.

If there's a part of the so-called 'meta-game' that people have forgotten, it's how to make interesting terrain-filled tables.

Terrain makes a huge difference. Where I play there is proper LoS blocking terrain, there is also difficult and dangerous terrain (for infantry and vehicles).

There is plenty of mech of all races,yet my daemons are easily 75% plus against mech

don't believe the net always

Reaver83 wrote:There is plenty of mech of all races,yet my daemons are easily 75% plus against mech

I agree with you about terrain, but let's not get carried away. Your 75% win record against Mech is anecdotal and proves only one thing - that you personally have a 75% win record against Mech. Doesn't mean much more than that I'm afraid.

I mean this is probably one of the better ones I've seen here in recent days, whereas this, this and this just make me cringe.

I even brought this up in a previous thread, using the picture below as an example of a table that looks great, yet is inadequate for a real game.

@Kilkrazy - I don't want to ignore things and be negative. I'm hoping more than anything to be proven wrong and find something to make the games more fun.

The sad thing that I've found is that 99% of the time, units want to stay in their transports - preferably transports that have guns on them, so they're useful. Transports can move and fire, or more quickly to get somewhere, and drop off a throw-away squad to unload firepower.

I do admit that the table we were playing on could have used more terrain (the table looked a lot like the pic HBMC posted), just with most of it being "area terrain" with a few pieces that would block LOS, but most of it was giving 4+ Cover saves to troops or tanks being shot through it.

If it was just more terrain that either Blocked LOS to vehicles (easier to deliver/hide troops) or just suited to give them more places to hide and provide a 4+ Cover save - wouldn't that just make the vehicles even MORE durable?

I guess what you're saying is that more terrain so vehicles can't drive anywhere? Looking at the table you linked as a "good" table, I'm not seeing much that makes vehicles to be at a distinct disadvantage. There's plenty of room to drive around in there and get where you're going or need to be.

Yeah but it covers most of the table and doesn't leave great areas of blank space. The terrain pieces are small (or small by my standards), but they're everywhere. Additionally, I said "one of the better ones I've seen here in recent days" which =/= a good table with good terrain.

To put it another way, I'd rather play on the table that puts small bits of tall terrain everywhere rather than a few pieces clumped together.

I'm talking about chunks of terrain that easily hide infantry and don't hide vehicles because vehicles need 50% coverage.

Area terrain is usually good this and can also be declared "Dengerous" for vehicles.

Basically if you want a lot of infantry and fewer vehicles, you need a table with a lot of terrain on it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah but it covers most of the table and doesn't leave great areas of blank space. The terrain pieces are small (or small by my standards), but they're everywhere. Additionally, I said "one of the better ones I've seen here in recent days" which =/= a good table with good terrain.

To put it another way, I'd rather play on the table that puts small bits of tall terrain everywhere rather than a few pieces clumped together.

I don't mean to infer that what was posted was perfect, I get what you mean. I also can agree, leaving big open spaces all over is probably a bad thing for 40k.

This said, unless it was very hard to drive your tank nearly anywhere on said board - then there's still tons of advantages towards being mech. Even without the 4+ Cover Save afforded to vehicles, armies have to gear up with plenty of Anti-Tank to get the squishy troops out of their transports. Without enough anti-tank, the guy who is all Mech'd up has a massive advantage in that only a small portion of his opponents guns can harm him, while just about anything the other guy can shoot will harm anything in the infantry guys list. Against assault armies, Mech is even better. First they have to assault your transport (hitting on 6's if you move over 6"), and even if they blow it up, you still can get out, sit there, and then shoot/charge the following turn.

In all honesty, what is the disadvantage of going mech? If you can bring enough (or the right) guns/assault elements to take care of a lot of bodies; then what's the advantage to bringing guys w/o the Tanks?

Agreed - what really hurts vehicles is terrain, so the upside is they are finally fairly hard to crack - midway between 3rd and 4th. In 4th standard deployment was NUTS....

I really must be missing something here:

How does terrain hurt vehicles?

slows them down. Forces difficult terrain checks. can cluster them up for barrages. Can stop them dead if you crack open the lead vehicle.

Terrain also blocks line of sight for your vehicles, keeping them alive longer.

Terrain is a boon and a bane for vehicles.

Yup. Terrain Terrain Terrain... You must have to have it, but not just any kind of terrain... LOS blocking terrain.

LOS blocking terrain is all find and dandy but that same lack of LOS stops you from shooting at the vehicle as well and giving a vehicle a 4+ cover just makes them even MORE durable so it's not some kind of silver bullet allowing non-mech forces to compete. It's a bandaid solution over the bleeding stump that is the vast over-performance of mechanization with vastly underwhelming risk and almost completely negligible cost of doing so.

It's all bonuses, no negatives and low cost.

So for the OP, yes you're right. It is VehicleHammer 40,000 and any army that can't get in on the fun is at a sizable disadvantage before even putting a model on the table.

Demons have problems in 5th ed because their a 4th ed codex not because the game is "vehicle hammer". Every non-5th codex has issues and some will be more competitive than others but thats just because they got lucky with the edition change over rules wise.

All of the 5th edition codex's are balanced with each other and it just isn't reasonable to pick up a codex that was made for a previous edition and expect to have all the tools you need to be effective in the next. For as much as people cry about nids being nerfed they can take on mech heavy armies just fine when build properly and have no vehicles just like demons. The only difference is they were built with 5th ed in mind.

Demons can be very powerful against most armies but their are certain things like heavy vehicles that give them fits this is just due to the edition change. The "tools in their tool box" will be expanded when they get and update. Just be glad the didn't get nerfed as bad as necrons. When they get updated they will be just fine just like the tyranids.

I enjoyed 3rd edition alot more myself. Even if it did have its issues. Foot armies and the like are viable just not optimal if your going for win at all costs. Whatever you do field make sure you have some good weapons to take down AV12+. Also I agree with other posters saying more terrain should be used in games. Randomize it with scatter dice and normal dice if needed. It creates landmarks to fight over and helps set the narrative for the battle more than army As forces meet army Bs on what happens to be a field flat and clear like a football pitch..

If a vehicle with troops sits behind 4+ cover, it makes the vehicle that much more survivable while it shoots your units to pieces. LOS blocking terrain prevents vehicle heavy armies from just sitting there and shooting like mad across the board. It also stops Long Fangs from doing the same thing. LOS blocking terrain makes vehicles and Long Fangs move around to the sides of the LOS blocking terrain to get shots. Now the Bloodthirster, which is hiding behind the LOS blocking terrain, can jump over the terrain and engage the vehicle in assault. Or more favorably the Tzeentch Herald on chariot can move around and shoot the vehicle which moved out of 4+ cover to get a better shot, and then the Thirster can engage the troops who fall out.

Vehicles are superior when they can park on the board edge and gain as much 4+ cover as possible. LOS blocking terrain makes the vehicles move forward to get their shots and that helps non-vehicle based armies.

Im a guard player, and I'm going to peacefully leave this thread.

People don't play with nearly enough Terrain.

I understand if one can't afford it, but at tournaments(particularly on a national scale) there's really no excuse for the laughably bare tables you see.

SumYungGui wrote:LOS blocking terrain is all find and dandy but that same lack of LOS stops you from shooting at the vehicle as well and giving a vehicle a 4+ cover just makes them even MORE durable so it's not some kind of silver bullet allowing non-mech forces to compete. It's a bandaid solution over the bleeding stump that is the vast over-performance of mechanization with vastly underwhelming risk and almost completely negligible cost of doing so.

It's all bonuses, no negatives and low cost.

So for the OP, yes you're right. It is VehicleHammer 40,000 and any army that can't get in on the fun is at a sizable disadvantage before even putting a model on the table.

Depends what you are trying to get the tank with. If you're trying to shoot the tank, sure, it's a negative. If that terrain is blocking LOS to some melee MCs like Carnifexes, then it's pretty nice to not have any missiles smacking into it on its way across the table.

Monster Rain wrote:People don't play with nearly enough Terrain.

I understand if one can't afford it, but at tournaments(particularly on a national scale) there's really no excuse for the laughably bare tables you see.

Agreed 200%

The GW i usualy play at has three urbun tables and the games i've had on those tables where my tank can rarely fire up to it's maximum range are by far the most fun i've had.

I'm getting flashbacks to the end of 4th edition. The complaining has started again...

Also, vehicles rarely fit well in Space Hulk style terrain.

Reaver83 wrote:There is plenty of mech of all races

I only play Tyranids. I disagree.

Vehicles went from "hit it first" to "HIT IT FIRST!"
We have none and got worse at dealing with everyone else's.
I still enjoy playing. . .but, really? I hope I misread that.

More to the point, yes things have changed.
You will, and I mean will need to buy/make/convert ways to deal with other people's transports. And lots of other vehicles.
But you should really be fine playing with only one--like Necrons, its a good one (the vehicle, not the army).

From what I gather, different units are useful in each game, and for different reasons.
Both have a couple units that really work, but really it's the differences in game rather than unit.
But I am still learning Fantasy.

Daemon armies take some practice but can really work if you are so inclined.

I hate painting vehicles, so I never buy vehicles, and let me tell you, I'm always at a huge disadvantage because of that. I'm not placing any blame on anything, since when it comes down to it, it's me simply not wanting to play with vehicles who's at fault. Still, it really sucks knowing that I'm going to be at a disadvantage until I give in and buy some armour, almost regardless of the army I may choose.

I just strongly disagree with the idea that proper terrain is some kind of panacea for all the problems associated with vehicles in 5th edition. It goes much beyond that. We can trade examples back and forth all day long like 'oh you can just assault the vehicle through that cover' until we're blue in the face and nothing would be accomplished.

At the end of the day vehicles are extremely effective, horrendously cheap and so close to completely lacking any sort of drawback that they have become the gold standard. It's a mech or nothing metagame, and everyone loses because of it.

Fafnir wrote:I hate painting vehicles, so I never buy vehicles, and let me tell you, I'm always at a huge disadvantage because of that. I'm not placing any blame on anything, since when it comes down to it, it's me simply not wanting to play with vehicles who's at fault. Still, it really sucks knowing that I'm going to be at a disadvantage until I give in and buy some armour, almost regardless of the army I may choose.

If you want to run a good army that doesn't use vehicles play nids. BA can run all jump packs, SW can run thunder wolf cavalry and SM can run all bikers and all can be competitive without any vehicles. You can wait a year or two and demons and necrons will eventually get updated and work just fine. There are plenty of options for people who don't want to run vehicles but most of the time when I hear people complaining they won't run mech all I see is someone who won't update their army and pretending like they have no options.

SumYungGui wrote:It's a mech or nothing metagame, and everyone loses because of it.

Terrain helps a fair amount, but it penalizes non-mech armies at least as much.

Vehicles take are affected 1/6 instead of 5/6 and cover is up for grabs as to which it helps.
Vehicles are helped less often, but more for value. As I read it.

cromwest wrote:Demons have problems in 5th ed because their a 4th ed codex not because the game is "vehicle hammer".

Errrm... Dæmons is a 5th ed codex. It was, in fact, the first 5th ed codex.

cromwest wrote:

Fafnir wrote:I hate painting vehicles, so I never buy vehicles, and let me tell you, I'm always at a huge disadvantage because of that. I'm not placing any blame on anything, since when it comes down to it, it's me simply not wanting to play with vehicles who's at fault. Still, it really sucks knowing that I'm going to be at a disadvantage until I give in and buy some armour, almost regardless of the army I may choose.

If you want to run a good army that doesn't use vehicles play nids. BA can run all jump packs, SW can run thunder wolf cavalry and SM can run all bikers and all can be competitive without any vehicles. You can wait a year or two and demons and necrons will eventually get updated and work just fine. There are plenty of options for people who don't want to run vehicles but most of the time when I hear people complaining they won't run mech all I see is someone who won't update their army and pretending like they have no options.

Well, the problem is that Nids, Daemons, and Necrons just don't interest me (...being the inquisitional nut that I am). I'm slowly building up a BA jump-pack army, see my ages old topic on my DIY truescale chapter, The Gallowsmen. But it takes a lot of time and money to make a single Marine, so it's a very slow process to actually build them up.

I'm not complaining, I know I have options, I just don't like most of them. I just don't like knowing that I'm extremely limited as far as army choice, let alone army composition if I don't want to run an army that's vehicle based.

I mean, this really isn't so much about the whole vehicle basis that 5th edition is built around, but really the fact that everything's just so terribly balanced.

SumYungGui wrote:I just strongly disagree with the idea that proper terrain is some kind of panacea for all the problems associated with vehicles in 5th edition. It goes much beyond that.

I agree, and given that terrain size and placement is one of the more 'analogue' aspects of 40K, there's no hard and fast way of defining what it should be. Nevertheless, i would say that it is a major contributing factor based upon the BatReps that show up here, and especially the tournament reports. You could say that the lax terrain placing and volume (especially volume) has contributed directly to a number of the 'NetDeck' lists we see for the tournament scene.

... and is yet another reason why I steer clear of such areas...

SumYungGui wrote:At the end of the day vehicles are extremely effective, horrendously cheap and so close to completely lacking any sort of drawback that they have become the gold standard. It's a mech or nothing metagame, and everyone loses because of it.

What do you consider too cheap? What would you consider the 'right' price? And where does the Rhino - the least threatening vehicle in all of 40K - fit into this?





Also...

Nurglitch wrote:I'm getting flashbacks to the end of 4th edition. The complaining has started again...

I'm getting flashbacks to your last post. The trolling has started again...

Do you actually have anything constructive to add to the conversation Nurgy besides complaining about people complaining?

Nurglitch wrote:Also, vehicles rarely fit well in Space Hulk style terrain.

Ah. I see. I guess that's a "no" then.

The Rhino only costs 35p, it's a Tank, it comes with a weapon and options to add more.

The Chimera costs 55p, it's a Tank and comes with two weapons, plus the ability for five passengers to shoot out of it.

When people complain there are too many vehicles around I think they are really complaining there are too many SM and IG vehicles around.

They surely can't be complaining about too many Tau vehicles, because Tau vehicles cost about twice as much as SM and IG.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:At the end of the day vehicles are extremely effective, horrendously cheap and so close to completely lacking any sort of drawback that they have become the gold standard. It's a mech or nothing metagame, and everyone loses because of it.

What do you consider too cheap? What would you consider the 'right' price? And where does the Rhino - the least threatening vehicle in all of 40K - fit into this?

The right price is whatever would cause you to have to actually think about whether it's worth the investment, where it's no longer something you automatically buy for every squad just because you can, but rather, something you buy for a squad to fullfill a specific purpose.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Rhino only costs 35p, it's a Tank, it comes with a weapon and options to add more.

The Chimera costs 55p, it's a Tank and comes with two weapons, plus the ability for five passengers to shoot out of it.

When people complain there are too many vehicles around I think they are really complaining there are too many SM and IG vehicles around.

They surely can't be complaining about too many Tau vehicles, because Tau vehicles cost about twice as much as SM and IG.

I play guard sometimes and yes I know what you mean and agree. They are a force who should be focused slightly more on armour. But 55 is dirt cheap for a tank with those capabilities.

I agree with this for the most part, more terrain does help against vehicles, especially if it means they're not blowing apart my Tyranids from across the table.

Problem is I also play Daemons and what you quickly learn there is that having a lot of terrain is almost as detrimental as too little. It makes it a lot easier for your arriving units to mishap face first into a wall, and if you wipe out half your own army before it even arrives, well good luck!

On a side note I've never really understood the whole 'Daemons are useless against vehicles' bit, I mean just take a bunch of Screamers? 4+ inv save, jetbike meltabombs, that'll do nicely. Plus since you can take 6 for just under 100 points, it means when you go after a vehicle, even if you need sixes to hit, you're statistically going to get one, and I don't think anyone can argue that a meltabomb isn't going to ruin that particular vehicles day.

As stated before the right cost is the one that makes you think 'does this unit actually need a vehicle or are the points better spent somewhere else to do something else besides meching up?'. Right now there are too many transports and tanks that are too cheap and too powerful. They become Pavlovian purchases. Zero thought goes into them, it just happens. Couple this with 5th editions rules on vehicles and you have the problem we're in now where the races without dirt cheap, brainless automatic purchase vehicles have to purchase vehicles just to keep up. This is a net loss for the hobby as far as 'fun' goes.

Woe unto those races that don't have vehicles because their lists are going to be built from the ground up around the major obstacle they're going to face, vehicles. See also; 6 Hive Guard 3 Zoanthrope Tyranid lists (i.e. every half-way serious list out there except gimmick or fluff lists) This results in, again, a net 'fun' loss for the hobby.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Rhino only costs 35p, it's a Tank, it comes with a weapon and options to add more.

The Chimera costs 55p, it's a Tank and comes with two weapons, plus the ability for five passengers to shoot out of it.

When people complain there are too many vehicles around I think they are really complaining there are too many SM and IG vehicles around.

They surely can't be complaining about too many Tau vehicles, because Tau vehicles cost about twice as much as SM and IG.

Not so much that. At least that's not what kinda soured me after a few games.

What soured me is that the "best option" is to stay in your transports. Dark Eldar are looking to be that way, or at least will very likely end up Raider Heavy. Eldar are generally Mechanized for nothing more than the fact that AV12 + Waveserpent Field or HoloFields is a lot better than the T3 and whatever save your guys are normally wearing.

Again, it's not much new. In 4th Ed it was really about MC's and Skimmers being stupid awesome; now it's generally all tanks - and the tanks that are the hardest to kill or are the most point efficient are taken the most. And since there are very few tanks that can't easily be killed by a lowly 10 point Melta gun - you see a lot less of the expensive-big stuff and more of the lower-point medium armor stuff.

At the end of the day, I've decided to avoid the Demons in 40k, mainly because even though I have a WHFB army, it's still going to cost (especially in time) me way too much to convert it for use in 40k - where as I'd rather spend that kind of time investment working on an army I prefer for 40k in the first place....ORKS!

You know, no-one forces you to take Transports.

If you don't want to use them, don't.

Competition is pretty good at forcing the use of tanks and transports.

Kilkrazy wrote:They surely can't be complaining about too many Tau vehicles, because Tau vehicles cost about twice as much as SM and IG.

The Tau Codex is also from early 4th, so it's a bad comparison KK. Given recent moves to decrease the cost of transports, we're likely to see the price of Devilfish shrink to meet the same level.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:They surely can't be complaining about too many Tau vehicles, because Tau vehicles cost about twice as much as SM and IG.

The Tau Codex is also from early 4th, so it's a bad comparison KK. Given recent moves to decrease the cost of transports, we're likely to see the price of Devilfish shrink to meet the same level.

I can only hope that is also true of Wave Serpents when they update the next Eldar codex, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Nothing wrong with Wave Serpents.

For a Non-Open Topped AV12 Fast Skimmer that is Av14 when you fire Railguns at it and immune to melta, it is fairly priced.

SumYungGui wrote:Competition is pretty good at forcing the use of tanks and transports.

I have a 2000 pt bike marine force along with several variations of 1000-2000 pt mech marines force. I don't really feel that I'm playing at a disadvantage with my bike force instead of my mech force. There are viable non-mech builds but you can't just take any random configuration of mechless models that you happen to own call it a day and expect to win.

And demons were the last 4th ed codex built with 5th in mind. As you can see from tyranids (a real 5th ed codex) I think GW got better at putting in anti tank to the more non-conventional armies. The only problem with tyranids is you can't play them like you did in 4th and expect to win so many think they suck.

cromwest wrote:And demons were the last 4th ed codex built with 5th in mind.

No, they wern't.

The Dæmons codex has terminology and rules that do not make sense in 4th ed. It was released less than a month before the 5th ed rulebook went on sale, the rulebook itself having been finalized months before.

As above. Assault and Defensive grenades being the prime example.

Hell ORks have a rule that did nto work in 4th and does now - Ghaz extra attacks when charging (denied by S&P in 4th, not in 5th) indicating that Orks were built at the same time as they were defining 5th.

SYG - more hysterical hyperbole as usual. Well done.

Vehicles finally fit into the right place - cheap enough not to risk a chunk of points, but still with a reasonable (1/3rd) chance of one shotting when penetrating. No longer the death traps of 4th ed (complete idiocy there) nor immune death dealers of 3rd (although i want charign out of moving rhinos back....) but a happy medium.

Here's an idea for you foot slogger guys - play a table covered completely in trees. Or jungle. Or rough rocks. It makes intrensic sense that a mechanized or armor supported army has a benefit against one that isn't, unless that infantry army fights from a well prepared defensive position. That's the point of tanks in the modern age.

M.

The issue isn't that mechanized forces have advantages, I mean, there should definetly be a good reason to take tanks in the first place.

The issue is that mechanized forces tend to have no disadvantages. Tanks cost almost nothing, and give you a lot for that. It's just a no brainer to take them. That's the problem. The moment anything becomes logically automatic in a codex, it tends to be a little too powerful or undercosted for its own good.

Fafnir I give you a cookie. Only have oatmeal raisin though, hope that's OK.

SOME races (you know who you are) get tanks/transports dirt friggin cheap in points so there's no 'opportunity' cost, to borrow a phrase, to taking said mech. There are also woefully negligible downsides to stuffing every dude in a vehicle that you can. It only serves to make you faster, stronger, tougher and all around better. All reward, pathetic risk and tremendously low cost. It's a no-brainer to do it, a Pavlovian purchase. That is A Bad Thing (tm).

Once this trend hit the tabletop in high enough numbers for everyone to feel it, things changed. Armies without dirt cheap tanks/transports have to either take them anyway to compete or base their entire list around this deficiency. Armies without transports at all are playing second fiddle fighting uphill in the snow both ways, waving their canes at the kids on the lawn. It's become so intense that anything outside of fluffy armies are very literally built around two major subsets 'anti-vehicle, and everything else'. There's plenty of independent confirmation of this. Go ahead and look at any of the blogs out there, they will almost universally build a list by starting with 'what do I need to deal with vehicles, and what can I do with everything that's left over?'

They're not "logically" or otherwise automatic. They're favourable if you play on a flat denuded plain, and that's about it. As Infantryman points out, this is entirely reasonable. Their weaknesses pop out on a board with the minimum amount of terrain suggested by the rules.

Nurglitch wrote:They're not "logically" or otherwise automatic. They're favourable if you play on a flat denuded plain, and that's about it. As Infantryman points out, this is entirely reasonable. Their weaknesses pop out on a board with the minimum amount of terrain suggested by the rules.

I still contend that a table with "good" terrain setup, as prescribed by the rulebook, that Vehicle/Mech based armies have intrinsic advantage over ones that are not. Terrain doesn't "magically" solve the problem of tanks being hard to kill, especially at range - compared to say infantry units. There are some exceptions* to this statement, but for the majority of the time, it's true.

On the table I was playing on, we could fill roughly 25% of the board with the terrain. Many of it didn't completely block LOS, but almost all of it provided cover saves.

I contend that unless nearly the whole board is setup in such a way that a tank can't maneuver towards an objective without taking many dangerous terrain checks - then the whole "terrain" thing isn't a solution to the inherent advantages of "Mech".

Also, one thing to keep in mind is that for objective based missions - players place the objectives - and dice decides who gets to place the "odd" one if applicable. Objectives are almost always placed in a fashion that makes it easy to defend, or will be placed in areas that vehicles can get to, or can get to with protection, while infantry can not. At least that's how I play it when trying to decide where objective markers will go.

*And to qualify my exceptions - I feel Bike armies and horde lists can deal with Mech on roughly even footing. Specifically horde lists whose units have the ability to deal damage to just about anything Tank or Troop - so basically Orks & IG (Sorry Nid players).

I should probably ennumerate the weaknesses of vehicles:

1. One shot wonders
Vehicles can be destroyed by a single penetrating hit.

2. Shaken and Stunned
Vehicles can be 'pinned' much more easily than troops. If it has fire points, this inability to shoot applies to the embarked unit. Oh, and Stunned immobilizes the vehicle, making it prey for close combat.

3. Glancing to Death
Vehicles can be glanced to death, just not in one shot, and their resistance is equal to the number of weapons plus their mobility. Of course, if they aren't being glanced to death, then they are being stunned, shaken, or destroyed.

4. Close Combat
Immobilized or Stunned vehicles are hit automatically on their rear armour. Rear armour is usually AV10... Immobilized Walkers are hit by grenades on WSvWS rather than 6.

5. Multi-Charges
The thing about a parking lot full of vehicles is that they're all close together for maximum violence.

6. Buildings
Vehicles cannot hide in buildings, and the elevation that a squad of Heavy Weapons gains from a building often denies a cover save to vehicles trying to lurk behind other vehicles.

And I shall explain why these things are taken out of context or are misleading.

Nurglitch wrote:
1. One shot wonders
Vehicles can be destroyed by a single penetrating hit.

Correct, except there's only a 1/3rd chance of that happening once you do get a penetrating hit. This increases if you are hitting an Open Topped Vehicle or shooting with an AP1 gun (50/50 chance), and increases to 2/3 of a chance if you're shooting at an open topped vehicle with an AP1 gun.

Of course you have to get to roll on that table in order to get that chance. So first you have to hit with a gun that is capable of doing said Penetrating Hit (limited). Then you have to roll to penetrate, and then your opponent may get to negate that by making a Cover Save if they're in Cover or bring their own save (Tau, Orks, Imperial Smoke Launchers, etc).

This gets to happen on ALL vehicles, even the cheap ones that only have AV11 or AV12; and the only thing that increases as AV decreases is the number of weapons that can get penetrating hits. These guns are inherently limited to nearly every army.

Nurglitch wrote:
2. Shaken and Stunned
Vehicles can be 'pinned' much more easily than troops. If it has fire points, this inability to shoot applies to the embarked unit. Oh, and Stunned immobilizes the vehicle, making it prey for close combat.

Except nearly every army has the ability to Ignore Stunned results and downgrade them to "Shaken" anyway. This is an upgrade nearly always taken on vehicles that a player expect to move in order to perform optimally.

Nurglitch wrote:
3. Glancing to Death
Vehicles can be glanced to death, just not in one shot, and their resistance is equal to the number of weapons plus their mobility. Of course, if they aren't being glanced to death, then they are being stunned, shaken, or destroyed.

While true, it takes multiple shots, potentially over multiple turns - to eliminate one vehicle. It doesn't matter that you blew a Weapon off and managed to get a Shaken result after firing all your AT guns at the Battlewagon full of Orks when the Battlewagon delivers said Orks into your army the following turn.

Nurglitch wrote:4. Close Combat
Immobilized or Stunned vehicles are hit automatically on their rear armour. Rear armour is usually AV10... Immobilized Walkers are hit by grenades on WSvWS rather than 6.

And vehicles are always hit on 6's if they move over 6". And nearly all vehicles can move 12" at a minimum, so if an assault force is closing they can just move away and at worst just miss a round of firing. And the most effective vehicles (Fast Tanks ones) don't even do that.

Nurglitch wrote:5. Multi-Charges
The thing about a parking lot full of vehicles is that they're all close together for maximum violence.

Same can be said for taking a huge amount of troops. Point?

Nurglitch wrote:6. Buildings
Vehicles cannot hide in buildings, and the elevation that a squad of Heavy Weapons gains from a building often denies a cover save to vehicles trying to lurk behind other vehicles.

But Vehicles can hide behind buildings, and therefore not be shot for a turn, and then the following turn they can pop up and either deliver assault troops into your shooty troops - or pop out and shoot what they need to. Yes, Heavy Weapon squads can use elevation to deny cover saves to vehicles using terrain or other vehicles to get their own cover - but when most AT guns still require a lot of shots or rolls to get a Penetrating Hit in the first place - it doesn't mean that much.

As it stands now, from what I can tell, the best way to get rid of heavier vehicles is to shoot them with Melta Guns. Lighter vehicles should be shot with the longer range guns.

Thank Mork you're back in the game, it'll give you a way to learn about it.

Not every army has cheap vehicles, and since the only two 5th edition Armies that aren't Imperial are Dark Eldar(Next month) and Nids, The Humans get all the cheap transports.

I hate painting vehicles, but if I ran Mech Tau, I'd get over it and paint them...Eventually. But when each transport costs More than a broadside(unless you want the devilfish to run around naked and add 3 KP to the army for every troop in a Devilfish), not worth it. That and I have no real way of trasporting an extra 2-3 devilfish (need a bigger tacklebox)

A good terrain setup should give both players as much problems as possible. I've played in some horrendous games that had very little cover, where I had no option but to advance across a flat expanse. This was simply because of the damn roll for terrain rule. Terrain needs to be used so that armies can advance and not be under fire each turn. Terrain should be used so that shooty armies cannot 'dig in' and win from a distance. Well placed scenery should have the ability to force both players into moving each turn and not remain static. Battlefields need to be densely packed for 40k, perhaps 'open plan' battlefields should be restricted to Warhammer?
Away to lie down in a dark room now..

God forbid all two shooty armies....shoot.

It seesm to me that peole are over looking a simple fact here. terrain is a key point of battle. The amount of terain should be agreeded upon by both players, a set number of peices placed by each player in alternating fashion to represent the generals elading eacha rmy taking the time to plan their strategies. We dont fight engagements like we useded to wghere each army lines up on oppisite sieds of an agreeded meeting place and charge onne and other.

the current american war in iraq and afganistan is a perfect example of how a 40k engagement might go minus the "hey we lost declare the planet exterminautus and lets go have lunch." We fight agasint hidden enemies in terrain that is difficult if not somtimes impossible to move through. we have had times of enemy snipers entrenched in buildings while we have heavy artillery pummeling through the place and leveling the building but to no effect.

terrain is often veiwed as Scenery as opposed to a tool of war. When i play i do my best to set my terrain to as much my benefit and the benefit of my troops and to the detriment of my enemy as much as i can, but leavng it open enough to be versitile that when the plan goes to crap, as it always does, that i can manuever and compensate. terrain placement is an artform pure and simple. you jsut have to know how to utilize it, spread out some in it, if you know your fighting IG and they are bringing hella batttle cannons and pie plates pick a side spread out and move as fast as you can to sledghammer their weak flank. Deploying in a battle line where you and the tannks are looking each other dead in the eye, guess what, you lost. Force deployment in terrian is just as crucial as the placement of terrain itself.

But i would have to agree, tournamewnts are in a sad state of affairs witht he ammount of terrain they place, because it becomes less about the skill of the general and more about how big of a hammer he/she is carrying and how fast he/she can swing it. Lets see a mobilized army fight on the jungles of catachan where their skimmers crqash into a tree or tanks break a tread every 6" of movement. or lets see that Mobilized unit wander through the streets of a ruined city with road blocks of las cannon and melta fire around every turn.

Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
George S. Patton

Titankiller17:

I ain't over-looking terrain, but well said. Speaking of battle reports, I think it's mercer that usually has the bare minimum of terrain and he has a whack of buildings in his battle reports and it shows.

I wasn't pointing fingers, but alot of people dont use much terrain. the local gw store here has nicley painted and modeled tabled but as far as terrrain like buildings and hills ect it is very sparce. and in my local store when you go more than a coule of peices per player with terrain they tend to get a little antsy.

As above - terrain is the key here.
Bristol has a wonderful gaming centre (Vanguard) who can more than 25% fill 50+ tables. To a theme on every table. LOS blocking buildings or various shapes and sizes, forests, jungles etc abound. Works brilliantly. Fire lane control hampers armies (wow, like 4th ed again, but not quite so complete) that rely on long range shooting, giving more chance to close and kill.

'Proper' terrain is not a cure all. Vehicles are inherently stronger, tougher, faster and just generally all around better than a dude on foot and with the codexes coming out these days many of them actually cost LESS than an individual model contained within them. All bonuses, pathetic drawbacks and pitifully low cost.

Terrain does not give some sort of magical super bonus to non-vehicles that it doesn't give to vehicles. A cover save is a cover save and a vehicle with a cover save benefits the same 50% on a 4+ cover that a dude on foot does only the vehicle then gets it's 'armor save' afterwards anyway because you have to roll to penetrate. Further, the amount of anti-vehicle shots is necessarily limited in a given army because they must be high strength. These types of shots are much more tightly controlled than your average bolter shot.

Terrain is not a panacea.

How would you (as in the collective you) fix this perceived problem? Let us brain storm.

M.

The weaknesses vehicles have are fine and fitting. It's just the cost that needs to be increased.

The costs are fine. The Chimera, for example, may have AV12 to the front, but it has long sides with AV10. Anti-infantry weapons are going to put a hurt on it. Ditto for the Rhino: Autocannons turn them into mince. Squadrons only make vehicles vulnerable to glancing hits, and Land Raiders are expensive.

If you want to deal with massed Razorbacks or Chimeras, do what anyone dealing with multiple small units needs to do: spread your firepower instead of concentrating it.

I think that's why such lists are popular, because they combine the solution to multiple vehicle units with multiple small unit defense. The fact that an army entire without vehicles (or large monsters) is nearly immune to a heavy investment in anti-tank guns seems unspeakable.

I think the whole "vehicles are awesome" attitude is both the result of many people not playing with enough terrain, line of sight blocking and otherwise, and the natural evolution of the meta-game. Considering that most players seem to think in terms of material or army lists rather than tactics or on-table action, it's no wonder that internet list builders favour vehicles.

People seem to assume, for example, that you're going to be hitting the front armour with shooting, that vehicles are always going to be moving 7"+, that Dreadnoughts won't be immobilized, and that they're always going to have a cover save. Not an exhaustive list of common internet assumptions, but one that definitely makes vehicles seem like the better choice.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:They surely can't be complaining about too many Tau vehicles, because Tau vehicles cost about twice as much as SM and IG.

The Tau Codex is also from early 4th, so it's a bad comparison KK. Given recent moves to decrease the cost of transports, we're likely to see the price of Devilfish shrink to meet the same level.

It's a good comparison because it provides a logical explanation for the OP's complaint, which is that compared to 4th edition there are too many vehicles in 5th.

The costs of 4th edition vehicles compared to 5th are directly relevant.

Nurglitch wrote:The costs are fine.

They're obviously not if it's always optimal to always take them for every single list.

Make them sub-optimal by changing the terrain to make vehicles much less useful -- a dense jungle or city board would do.

Play a game in which you can only spend a set proportion of your points on vehicles.

But both of those solutions are just signs of bad game design.

You shouldn't have to use map design or arbitrary restrictions because GW can't balance anything worth crap.

Think of it like this:

Andrew Rollings and Dave Morris, Core Design wrote:What a level design should not be used for is to cover deficiencies in the gameplay...good gameplay consists of choices that are non-trivial. Choices should never just be a question of recognizing that X is always better than Y, and so therefore you should always do X. A level that says, "You can't build bridges; find another way" begs the question, "Why are bridges in the game at all, then?"

Simply put, such restrictions you suggest would serve as a cheap cover to a much bigger problem. If we're going to purposely limit vehicle usage, why are we even putting vehicles on the table at all?

Once more, for the peanut gallery; Terrain is not the solution to vehicles. Seriously I've typed this out in excruciating detail three times now.

If vehicles aren't always a "better option", then why are tournaments currently dominated by Mech from what I can tell?

Is it because Tournament tables aren't essentially covered from head to toe with Jungles that prevent vehicles from moving about?

Do terrain per the rulebook, and vehicles are still able to maneuver around to where they need to go.

And where do they need to go? Towards Objectives!

Objectives that players get an opportunity to place.
Objectives that will always be placed in an optimal position for the player who is placing it.

Fafnir wrote:But both of those solutions are just signs of bad game design.

You shouldn't have to use map design or arbitrary restrictions because GW can't balance anything worth crap.

Think of it like this:

Andrew Rollings and Dave Morris, Core Design wrote:What a level design should not be used for is to cover deficiencies in the gameplay...good gameplay consists of choices that are non-trivial. Choices should never just be a question of recognizing that X is always better than Y, and so therefore you should always do X. A level that says, "You can't build bridges; find another way" begs the question, "Why are bridges in the game at all, then?"

Simply put, such restrictions you suggest would serve as a cheap cover to a much bigger problem. If we're going to purposely limit vehicle usage, why are we even putting vehicles on the table at all?

We put vehicles on the table because people want to play with them.

They are limited by the Force Chart and points costs, which are arbitrary restrictions. It is largely IG and SM, who have access to cheap and/or lots of vehicles, that are part of the problem. That is a codex design issue.

IRL, vehicles are good, and they are affected by terrain. They are good in the game, and they are affected by terrain too.

If you're saying 40K is badly designed, I agree that it has a lot of flaws, and there are better designed games out there. However this is a forum to discuss 40K. It isn't really helpful to blame GW and expect them to fix it because that won't happen.

Players can and ought to make adjustments to the game in order to maximise their enjoyment. Wargamers have always done this.

While the scenario set up section says to put 25% on the table, people aren't required to adhere to that.

A nice river would stop a lot of vehicles dead, and give the advantage to skimmers and the Chimaera. Other ideas are a densely built-up city, or a featureless flat plain which is an ice floe thick enough for infantry to move on but too think for vehicles.

SumYungGui wrote:Once more, for the peanut gallery; Terrain is not the solution to vehicles. Seriously I've typed this out in excruciating detail three times now.

Once again, terrain is not the ultimate solution, but it is a means to an end. its effective board control is what it boils down too. My las cannons tear through armor just as well now as they did in 3rd, now they jsut get another chance to ignore it. But i alos get a save agaisnt their attacks the same way they do agasint mine, iif that vindi shoots my guys in cover and i am spread proberly i cna limit its kill power and then potentialy out right negate its hit. Vehicles became more popular becasue Los and terrain became mroe useful. they dint change vehicles that much from when i played in 3rd. Land Raiders are still 250 points, still have the same weaponry, now they jsut get a larger transport capacity. people are just to over taken witht he fact that for whatever reason tnaks dont fit their play style so they dont feild them and they get stuck plaing agasint razorspam ect.

The fact is you have to adapt and overcome. its like in MTG, when a particular metagame rules the field, go rouge and find what beats the meta game. once you steam roll them you foce them to adapt and the next "hey thast unfair" isssue comes along. This game is about strategy, if they bring Av 72 tanks to a fight, then you find a way around it (like lance weapons), and push on.

But i have to say that i like alot of the new changes. necorns took a big ht on gauss weaponry, but i am happy that unit of 12 warriors cant first turn destroy my land raider and kill the entire unit inside anymore on a lucky roll. I'm not saying all the changes were for the better but it comes down to this. you can't please everyone and when you can't, your gonna piss someone off. So rather then trying to change the game itself try to change YOUR game to better use the rules to your advantage. its all you can do other than siply not play until the next ed comes out and see if things went better for you this time around.

Fafnir:

Except it's not always optimal to maximize vehicles in every list.

A well built IG gunline army can utterly destroy a mechanized army... without using a single vehicle if you prefer, though vehicles as support can really give variety to the list.

Pretty much. One of the things that makes an all mechanized list preferred, if not preferable, is that the paper to its rock is all infantry so that all the anti-vehicle its toting is really inefficient, and it's trading shots with an army that can concentrate on anti-tank weapons because anti-infantry is covered by basic weapons.

For example:

Space Marine Tactics Squad (5) with Razorback (Las-Plas, Extra Armour, Storm Bolter) = Space Marine Tactical Squad (10) with Plasma Gun, Lascannon

You get two units, one with a Lascannon and a Plasma Gun. The Mechanized group gets 12 Bolter shots, 1 Lascannon shot, and 2 Plasma shots re-rolled. The Infantry group gets 16 Bolter shots, 1 Lascannon shot, and 2 Plasma shots. The Lascannon can pot a Marine, or it can pot a Razorback. The Razorback can be wrecked by four damage results, whereas a combat squad needs at least five unsaved wounds. The Razorback can be Shaken, but the Infantry cannot be pinned.

Fafnir wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:At the end of the day vehicles are extremely effective, horrendously cheap and so close to completely lacking any sort of drawback that they have become the gold standard. It's a mech or nothing metagame, and everyone loses because of it.

What do you consider too cheap? What would you consider the 'right' price? And where does the Rhino - the least threatening vehicle in all of 40K - fit into this?

The right price is whatever would cause you to have to actually think about whether it's worth the investment, where it's no longer something you automatically buy for every squad just because you can, but rather, something you buy for a squad to fullfill a specific purpose.

I agree with fafnir.

As a gamer fond of infantry, I haven't played 5th in quite some time now. Vehicles are totally undercosted.

Not only are they far tougher yet cheaper then before. Not only is it generally safer to hide you units in transports. Mobility is such a huge factor with objectives and what not. Not having vehicles is a huge disadvantage IMO.


Finally

The fact is most tables are scantily terrained. And will remain that way.

Well, if you're going to be defeatist instead of using it as an excuse to engage in some terrain building, then it's probably a good thing you're not playing the game.

If you want mobility, get some Jump Infantry, or Bikes, or simply get some infantry that you're willing to run with instead of shooting. Use the innate Deep Strike ability of so many units (it's like there's an actual use for Storm Troopers...).

If you think vehicles are protective and mobile, take all the long range anti-tank you can lay your hands on. Where a tank and an Infantry squad duel with Lascannons the advantage goes to the Infantry.

Titankiller17 wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:Once more, for the peanut gallery; Terrain is not the solution to vehicles. Seriously I've typed this out in excruciating detail three times now.

Once again, terrain is not the ultimate solution, but it is a means to an end. its effective board control is what it boils down too. My las cannons tear through armor just as well now as they did in 3rd, now they jsut get another chance to ignore it. But i alos get a save agaisnt their attacks the same way they do agasint mine, iif that vindi shoots my guys in cover and i am spread proberly i cna limit its kill power and then potentialy out right negate its hit. Vehicles became more popular becasue Los and terrain became mroe useful. they dint change vehicles that much from when i played in 3rd. Land Raiders are still 250 points, still have the same weaponry, now they jsut get a larger transport capacity. people are just to over taken witht he fact that for whatever reason tnaks dont fit their play style so they dont feild them and they get stuck plaing agasint razorspam ect.

Your lascannon may tear through armor just the same as it did in 3rd Ed, except now in 5th Ed the rolls on the damage chart are far, far more forgiving to the tank. Glancing hits are even more forgiving than they were previously.

That and your opponent has the opportunity to use Cover (or bring their own) in order to cut the number of successful penetrating hits you get per turn in half.

Vehicles became much harder to kill with the 5th Ed rules change; while at the same time, the ability to negate Penetrating or Glancing hits via Cover (and via Wargear).

Of course this goes out the window once you can guarantee the ability to get a lot of Meltaguns close enough to said tanks, which is easier said than done for many armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
If you think vehicles are protective and mobile, take all the long range anti-tank you can lay your hands on. Where a tank and an Infantry squad duel with Lascannons the advantage goes to the Infantry.

Except in missions where you have to capture objectives, and therefore can't move and fire "all the long-range anti-tank you can get your hands on".

Where as vehicles can either advance towards objectives (and Troops can score on objectives if they're inside said vehicles), or sit back and shoot you if the matchup/terrain/mission favor that approach.

I will say again, that there are some exceptions to the "all mech is better" approach - and a nearly all infantry army can be the Rock to the mech Scissors. Except only really Orks, IG, and potentially Sisters can do it (the girls want some tank support). For all the other lists, Mech is the way to go generally.

Again, if vehicles weren't super-awesome in 5th, why are tournaments (and more importantly, tournament winning armies) chock full of "Mechanized <insert army here>"?

Especially in missions where you have to capture Objectives. If someone burned all those points on vehicles and anti-tank weapons when you invest in infantry and anti-tank weapons, then you're going to shut down their transport options and have more bodies to take the objective when you both make a run for it (or simply use your anti-tank weapons to proportionately greater effect on the numerically lesser force).

I've explained that tournaments are full of mechanized armies because the terrain is usually missing, and the natural evolution of the meta-game.

To understand the natural evolution of the meta-game, you have to understand both evolutionary game theory, and the role of noise. Evolutionary game theory is simple, as it simply describes how a selection process (for strategies in multiple iterations of games) can focus players on a subset of optimal strategies. Noise is basically all the bluster, analysis, and so on that goes on on the internet, sometimes obscuring the truth of what actually goes on thanks to the vocal minority principal, sometimes actually influencing the truth as players begin to replace their gaming experiences with theoretical perspectives.

Mechanized has seemed like an optimal configuration because it has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages of semi-mechanized lists, and as lists became more mechanized in response to the refrain of "Mech up!", the game reached an equilibrium point with mechanized lists composed of multiple small units being considered to dominate because they both maximized the principle of mechanization being good, and were the armies that tournament winners used.

To add to this, the opposite direct, that of massed Infantry, has mainly been done with Tyranids, Daemons, and Orks which are weaker in the longer ranged anti-tank capabilities that Infantry armies need (Yes, Lascannons are expensive for a reason). There are many impediments to such radical change of strategic direction, such as the lack of terrain, popular emphasis on mechanization, and the general conservatism of gamers (think how long it took to get to this stage where mechanization is the received wisdom rather than simply something I advocated back near the end of 4th edition...).

But as Melissia points out, the new Imperial Guard can do infantry as well as mechanized. And I think people are figuring out how Tyranids work, and thus how anti-mech infantry can work.

So what you're saying is that in tournaments, or when you're playing "competitively" it's better to be Mech "because of the terrain".

I'd posit that it's that way for "normal games" when you use the recommended amount of terrain in the rulebook as well. No table/terrain setup has so much terrain that vehicles won't be able to maneuver, and as a Mechanized player you should be placing Objectives in open areas that are easy to reach with Vehicles.

If that's the case, then what's the point of posting in the thread? To say "well if you theoretically play on a jungle board then infantry become better!"

Yes, IG can make an infantry gunline that will give many all Mech Lists fits. IG can also make a Gunline that moves, shoots, and has lots of vehicles in addition to bodies that give almost any list fits; it's called "The Leafblower".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
To add to this, the opposite direct, that of massed Infantry, has mainly been done with Tyranids, Daemons, and Orks which are weaker in the longer ranged anti-tank capabilities that Infantry armies need (Yes, Lascannons are expensive for a reason). There are many impediments to such radical change of strategic direction, such as the lack of terrain, popular emphasis on mechanization, and the general conservatism of gamers (think how long it took to get to this stage where mechanization is the received wisdom rather than simply something I advocated back near the end of 4th edition...).

I don't know how I missed that on my first reading.

You simply can't be serious.

4th Ed 40k you didn't go Mech unless you were Tau or Eldar - because you had Skimmers and they were godly survivable. Nothing else really went "mech" that was competitive until 5th Edition came out and the rules changed to:

1.) Make it impossible for non-AP1 Glancing hits to Destroy a Vehicle in a single shot.
2.) Make it harder for non-AP1 Penetrating hits to Destroy a Vehicle in a single shot.
3.) Give the ability to take "Saves" against Penetrating or Glancing hits to vehicles through terrain or Wargear - diluting the power of firing multiple shots at a single tank.

Voodoo Boyz

So did you somehow completely miss all that I wrote about the evolution of the metagame, or did you just ignore it?

It's quite disheartening to try and patiently explain these things to you if you're not going to bother to engage with what I'm writing. It would be nice if you gave me the same consideration I'm giving you.

Also, I'm quite serious: I advocated mechanization at the end of 4th edition. Feel free to look it up on here or Warseer.

I've been saying for months (though quietly and intermittently) that Tyranids got an early reputation as a weak codex because there isn't an obvious power build that jumps out and grabs you by the throat, like some other codexes have.

People now are talking about Zoanthropes as one of the best AT units in the game.

BTW it was Eldar vehicles that were godly survivable in 4th edition, because of the Holo-Field.

Tau were good, because of SMF and the Disruption Pod, but they were never nearly as good as Eldar, they just got tarred with the same brush for being alien skimmers.

Nurglitch wrote:Voodoo Boyz

So did you somehow completely miss all that I wrote about the evolution of the metagame, or did you just ignore it?

It's quite disheartening to try and patiently explain these things to you if you're not going to bother to engage with what I'm writing. It would be nice if you gave me the same consideration I'm giving you.

Also, I'm quite serious: I advocated mechanization at the end of 4th edition. Feel free to look it up on here or Warseer.

I frankly don't agree with most of what you're saying about the "evolution of the metagame". You're explanation of the "Dominance of Mech" is based on the idea that a vocal minority advocated it, which lead to more people using it at tournaments, hence it won more tournaments, hence it becomes more dominant.

This is simply not true. Players looked at the rules, saw what looked good on paper, tested it, and then re-enforced it with "spam" to optimize its effectiveness.

This happens fairly quickly with people who play a lot. What is "most powerful" in a new Codex is identified fairly quickly and is then maximized. The only lag is in buying/painting/assembling models and then getting to a tournament. Mech wasn't "always good" except in specific cases in 4th (for two armies!), it took rule changes to the core game, and then some changes in codex's to make it "optimal".

If there was an army in 40k right now that could easily counter Mech Spam, without having distinct problems in popular missions/matchups, then it would be popular and people would know about it. It really wouldn't be that hard to figure out; and there are enough people posting and playing that it would be disseminated fairly quickly.

Hell, even you have admitted that "Mech is popular in tournaments because the terrain favors it". Guess what, that is competitive 40k. When you post on a Tactics forum, 99% of the time, people are playing with terrain like that, in that kind of "meta-environment". If that's what's "best" there, then that's what's best in the vast majority of 40k scenarios that people play when they're trying to be "competitive".

Finally, in terms of you advocating mech in 4th, and it taking "the internet majority to slowly agree with your always true wisdom"; that's crazy. As I said, only two lists in 4th did Mech and did well: Tau & Eldar. It wasn't because vehicles were great, it was because their skimmers were very hard to kill. Marines or IG in Razorbacks/Chimeras wasn't some super-secret awesomely good army in 4th Edition that people didn't realize existed. It wasn't effective under those rules and those codex's.

Mech became popular when the rules and codex's changed to make it effective. That didn't happen till after 4th Ed died.

I don't know, I like the fact tanks are useful. A battlefield with only infantry just doesn't speak to me of futuristic space battles as massive tanks like Vindicator and Land Raider or sleek hovercrafts like Fire Prisms and Wave Serpents shooting at each other from across the field.

What I don't like is how the most successful builds for mech armies seem to be multiple cheap vehicles with just bare minimum troops parked on an objective. For Eldar it's the same, Wave Serpents are really hard to crack and putting 5 Dire Avengers inside makes them scoring. In kill points it's not such an issue, but 2/3 mission types deals with objectives.

Wouldn't the easiest solution be to simply remove the ability to make transports scoring with troops inside? Vehicles as such can only ever contest, why are transports exempt to that rule?

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I frankly don't agree with most of what you're saying about the "evolution of the metagame". You're explanation of the "Dominance of Mech" is based on the idea that a vocal minority advocated it, which lead to more people using it at tournaments, hence it won more tournaments, hence it becomes more dominant.

Of course this isn't true, because it isn't what I said. Your paraphrase is incorrect, and thus you are arguing against a straw man. I guess there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Nurglitch wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I frankly don't agree with most of what you're saying about the "evolution of the metagame". You're explanation of the "Dominance of Mech" is based on the idea that a vocal minority advocated it, which lead to more people using it at tournaments, hence it won more tournaments, hence it becomes more dominant.

Of course this isn't true, because it isn't what I said. Your paraphrase is incorrect, and thus you are arguing against a straw man. I guess there's no point in continuing this conversation.

This is what you said:

Mechanized has seemed like an optimal configuration because it has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages of semi-mechanized lists, and as lists became more mechanized in response to the refrain of "Mech up!", the game reached an equilibrium point with mechanized lists composed of multiple small units being considered to dominate because they both maximized the principle of mechanization being good, and were the armies that tournament winners used.

Sounds a lot like what I paired it down to.

The previous paragraph was "noise" about defining the metagame; not applicable. The following paragraph was basically stating that the horde armies (Orks, Nids, Demons) lacked long-ranged anti-tank, and weren't a good counter to lots of vehicles. It then went on to insinuate that Mech was always good, and you advocated it at the end of 4th Edition; it only took the entirety of the tournament players and the internet community to realize this because they're "slow to change".

I'm countering this by saying: "Mech is dominant because the rules changed to make it better. The players have responded by taking more of what's good rules wise and less of what's not."

The entire point of the thread is that "Mech seems too dominant. So dominant that for my Marine army, it's way better to just stay in my transports and not get out. Most competitive armies I read about online or see at tournies has tons and tons of vehicles." So far you have tried to argue otherwise. Or present other scenarios that aren't representative of the competitive game-environment (ie. Tournaments) where it may not be the best choice.

The entire point of the thread is that "Mech seems too dominant. So dominant that for my Marine army, it's way better to just stay in my transports and not get out. Most competitive armies I read about online or see at tournies has tons and tons of vehicles." So far you have tried to argue otherwise. Or present other scenarios that aren't representative of the competitive game-environment (ie. Tournaments) where it may not be the best choice.

Titankiller17 wrote:

So you completley missed the point about everything that i have posted. you need to find a new tactic to beat it. if you think that mariens can't beat mech then you need to go have a serious sit down and read your codex some more. all youa re trying to do is beat your head agisnt a brick wall and say to yourself "man these brick walls should be softer i can't break it and my forhead hurts", you need to adapt and change. i ahev had no problme with ym mariens in 5th ed agasint mech. NOT A SINGLE ONE. i know how to play my army. What i am saying is that this thread is based ona select few who think thhat "omg, tansk are so hard to kill now why should we even play if we dont have a gazillion tanks." you have plenty of options at your disposal, but se dude gets luky and makes an amazing number of saves and you cry that the sky is falling.

Incorrecto!

Lets quote what I said again:

The entire point of the thread is that "Mech seems too dominant. So dominant that for my Marine army, it's way better to just stay in my transports and not get out. Most competitive armies I read about online or see at tournies has tons and tons of vehicles." So far you have tried to argue otherwise. Or present other scenarios that aren't representative of the competitive game-environment (ie. Tournaments) where it may not be the best choice.

Did I say my Marines can't beat mech? No, I didn't. I said "it's better for my marines to not get out of their transport" and "Most competitive armies I read about online or see at tournies has tons and tons of vehicles." Not a word about "I can't beat it". I've been testing a Mech Marine army, it's won, it's lost. That's not the point I've been making.

My weaponry is still jsut as effective as it was, the damage table for penetrating hits has not changed WHATSOEVER, from what it was in 3rd, 1-2 can't shoot 3 wepaosn gone 4 immobile, 5-6 toast. yes they changed the glancing hit table, good i'm glad. i'm tired of losing land raiders to missle spam turn one. you need to focus your fire power more yoour jsut mad that your las cannon wont alwasy blow that transport and everyone inside to hell the first shot every game. Adapt, change, overcome. its what marines do.

Incorrecto! x2

The damage table for penetrating hits changed. 4th Ed Penetrating Hit Damage Table:

1 - Crew Stunned
2 - Armament Destroyed & Crew Stunned
3 - Immobilized & Crew Stunned
4 - Vehicle Destroyed
5 - Vehicle Destroyed
6 - Vehicle Explodes

In 5th Ed, once you get a Penetrating hit your chances of destroying a Vehicle went from 1/2 to 1/3. Oh and in 5th Ed you can make it so your vehicles get a 4+ Cover Save from taking any ranged Penetrating or Glancing Hits.

So to re-cap: Vehicles did get harder to kill in 5th. Skimmers got much easier to kill, and AP1 weapons got better at killing Tanks.

Furthermore - I did adapt, change, and overcome when it came to running my Marines for 5th Ed: I went Mech!

SO what is the point of this thread? I'M MAD BCUZ I WANT MAH SUPA SOLDIERS TO PUNCH FAIC!?

Gwar had it right on the first page.

5th ed + new codecies made transport armies viable, instead of stupid. People like treads, and, with the option to play them viably, they became popular. It was a pretty short jump from popularity to people believing in transports as if if were a religious faith.

The fact is that transport armies are not somehow inherently stronger than non-transport armies just because the army doesn't have transports. Spout religious jargon about codex creep, lack of terrain, and the "inevitable meta" all you want, but if you look at the cold, hard numbers, it's just not there.

5th ed and new transports give you the option to do mech at a fair price. That the people in your store ONLY play mech armies and are TERRIFIED of dismounting, and seem to treat the passengers of transports like they're not even there is a product of the PLAYERS, not the rules.

There are several ways to beat mech armies with non-mech armies. Break the mould and play one of them and horribly destroy your opponents, and you'll see how little mech madness is founded upon.

Ailaros wrote:
The fact is that transport armies are not somehow inherently stronger than non-transport armies just because the army doesn't have transports.

0_o

Well we're going to have to just agree to disagree on that. A lot.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Your lascannon may tear through armor just the same as it did in 3rd Ed, except now in 5th Ed the rolls on the damage chart are far, far more forgiving to the tank. Glancing hits are even more forgiving than they were previously.

That and your opponent has the opportunity to use Cover (or bring their own) in order to cut the number of successful penetrating hits you get per turn in half.

Vehicles became much harder to kill with the 5th Ed rules change; while at the same time, the ability to negate Penetrating or Glancing hits via Cover (and via Wargear).

Of course this goes out the window once you can guarantee the ability to get a lot of Meltaguns close enough to said tanks, which is easier said than done for many armies.

Honestly, GW should have done one or the other. Either kept the older hull down rules (so an obscured vehicle only took glancing hits) and changed the damage tables, or allowed vehicles to get cover saves and left the damage tables as they were. Vehicles needed a boost, but not this much.

SumYungGui wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
The fact is that transport armies are not somehow inherently stronger than non-transport armies just because the army doesn't have transports.

0_o

Well we're going to have to just agree to disagree on that. A lot.

I agree what? if there was no inherent strength to taking transport armies over not taking them then who would be complaining?


I look forward to 6th or 7th or 8th edition when the pendulum swings the other way.

Shaman wrote:if there was no inherent strength to taking transport armies over not taking them then who would be complaining?

Trade the words "inherent" with "apparent" and I will agree with you. Because what people take depends on what they perceive is good/strong, not what actually is.

Once more for the peanut: if you are reliant on vehicles to get you to the destination, terrain has a higher risk for vehicles than troops. Vehicles can get immobilised on a 1/6th chance, troops cant. OR, you know, use buildings that tanks cant get through, and have to get around, but troops can go inside (and often gain distance doing so) . Or actually have ruins that arent akin to the 4th ed default of "area terrain" and have impassable walls. Again, vehicles have to go around, not through.

Of course, this lacks the hysteria of "vehicles are broken!!!!" that you are a fan of.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

The damage table for penetrating hits changed. 4th Ed Penetrating Hit Damage Table:

1 - Crew Stunned
2 - Armament Destroyed & Crew Stunned
3 - Immobilized & Crew Stunned
4 - Vehicle Destroyed
5 - Vehicle Destroyed
6 - Vehicle Explodes

In 5th Ed, once you get a Penetrating hit your chances of destroying a Vehicle went from 1/2 to 1/3. Oh and in 5th Ed you can make it so your vehicles get a 4+ Cover Save from taking any ranged Penetrating or Glancing Hits.

So to re-cap: Vehicles did get harder to kill in 5th. Skimmers got much easier to kill, and AP1 weapons got better at killing Tanks.

Furthermore - I did adapt, change, and overcome when it came to running my Marines for 5th Ed: I went Mech!

The firslty i appologize, i skipped 4th and didn't relaize it had changed.

However, if your not haivng a problem winning or with it then why comlain? So vehicles got harder to kill ar you the bleeding heart of the nids and DoC players now becasue you have tnaks they have a tough time killng, casue last time i checked nnids got Tyranifexes with St 10 weaponry. eats land raiders for breakfast. If nids players dont find them effective enough for the points then oh well thats your loss. Gw gave them ways to deal with transport mech armies, if they dont want to spend the oints to have acounter to deal with it its their problem then. And Shamans got a good point wait till later on when the wind blows to hard your vehicle explodes.

I missed 4th, too, and was surprised about how good vehicles were now.

But, instead of whining, I went and bought some vehicles. You've basically got to re-arm every new codex and game edition anyways, that's nothing new.

well, honestly, I like fifth much more than fourth, I don't like vehicles I enjoy having an infantry heavy army, and because I am in no way a competetive player, I just have had more fun playing fifth, simple as that...granted I only had been playing for about a year before fifth came out, but still I don't care about winning or losing, I just care that loads of things die (is it unsurprising I have a khorn chaos marine army?) and this seems to happen more readily in fifth edition

Titankiller17 wrote:
last time i checked nnids got Tyranifexes with St 10 weaponry. eats land raiders for breakfast.

BS 3, 50% chance to hit. Str 10, 33% chance to penetrate. 5 or 6 to destroy, 33% chance. 4.95% chance per shot is not 'eating for breakfast' at 265 points plus synapse baby sitter cost.

Tyranofex may not eat landraiders for breakfast but he will eat transports for breakfast forcing landraiders to charge into your hoard with MC's sprinkled in unsupported. Tyranids can do anti tank fine but they can't sit on the board and trade shots with a mech army and expect to win.

Edit meant can't sorry.

Do you mean "can" or "can't".

Regarding terrain, this table would be heaven to play on.



Limited fire lanes due to the closed in trench nature of the table, though the ability to climb and get better LOS.

Trenches are fun. A couple of years I tried to build a trench system and ended up with a pile of foam and popsicle stick dykes that I had primed. I'm not feeling inclined to finish them because the sheer lack of design and forethought put into them, but using them to break up of table, form a series of tunnels, or constructing actual trenches is fun. Thow in some block-houses, and you have a nice fortified battlefield to play on.

SumYungGui wrote:

Titankiller17 wrote:
last time i checked nnids got Tyranifexes with St 10 weaponry. eats land raiders for breakfast.

BS 3, 50% chance to hit. Str 10, 33% chance to penetrate. 5 or 6 to destroy, 33% chance. 4.95% chance per shot is not 'eating for breakfast' at 265 points plus synapse baby sitter cost.

Indeed, because 5-6 are the only worthwhile things to do to a vehicle. And who cares about glances? It's not like you could stun, immobilize or blow a weapon off of it.

Wait...

Monster Rain wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:

Titankiller17 wrote:
last time i checked nnids got Tyranifexes with St 10 weaponry. eats land raiders for breakfast.

BS 3, 50% chance to hit. Str 10, 33% chance to penetrate. 5 or 6 to destroy, 33% chance. 4.95% chance per shot is not 'eating for breakfast' at 265 points plus synapse baby sitter cost.

Indeed, because 5-6 are the only worthwhile things to do to a vehicle. And who cares about glances? It's not like you could stun, immobilize or blow a weapon off of it.

Wait...

If a Land Raider is loaded with TH/SS terminators and is heading for your Shooty TMC's, then the only thing that a Glancing hit could do that the 'Nid player cares about is Immobilize the thing. I know I don't leave home without Extra Armor on a Land Raider I plan on using to deliver bodies into assault or an objective.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:

Titankiller17 wrote:
last time i checked nnids got Tyranifexes with St 10 weaponry. eats land raiders for breakfast.

BS 3, 50% chance to hit. Str 10, 33% chance to penetrate. 5 or 6 to destroy, 33% chance. 4.95% chance per shot is not 'eating for breakfast' at 265 points plus synapse baby sitter cost.

Indeed, because 5-6 are the only worthwhile things to do to a vehicle. And who cares about glances? It's not like you could stun, immobilize or blow a weapon off of it.

Wait...

If a Land Raider is loaded with TH/SS terminators and is heading for your Shooty TMC's, then the only thing that a Glancing hit could do that the 'Nid player cares about is Immobilize the thing. I know I don't leave home without Extra Armor on a Land Raider I plan on using to deliver bodies into assault or an objective.

I don't either, but not everyone is as smart as us, my man.

Also, immobilize is good! And don't act like knocking a Flamestorm Cannon or Assault Cannon isn't a bonus either.

Neither of them being 'eat for breakfast' level, especially at 265 points plus synapse baby sitter cost.

Like I said the first time.

Oh, I didn't realize we were parsing words and arguing semantics.

How about "could be considered effective" then?

Monster Rain wrote:Oh, I didn't realize we were parsing words and arguing semantics.

You didn't realize you were on Dakka!?!

Disclaimer: I have no idea what the quote is pertaining to, I didn't read most of the thread(I thought this one was long-dead); nor do I care to. I was moving my cursor down to another topic and this caught my eye. I felt the need to comment on this 1 phrase alone.

Voodoo boys: You're not wrong in your assertion that mechanization leads to the generally strongest builds. Transports are cheap, relatively durable for their cost, and give a lot of benefits to the squad inside (durability, movement, and footprint for objective grabbing).

I'm not certain the problem is inherent in the basic rules, although they may have swung the pendulum a bit too far towards vehicles being great (in 3rd transports were broken, in 4th pointless). The problem really is only in a small handful of builds and a few unit types, things like Wolf razorback spam and the like. Even for space wolves, their best unit are long fangs, a non-mechanized unit.

I guess I concede your point, but don't see a problem with it. It's sci-fi combat, shouldn't vehicles be really good?

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Oh, I didn't realize we were parsing words and arguing semantics.

You didn't realize you were on Dakka!?!

I know, I know.

My expectations that statements could be made without immediately reverting to talking about how we are talking about what we are talking were apparently too high.

Polonius wrote:Voodoo boys: You're not wrong in your assertion that mechanization leads to the generally strongest builds. Transports are cheap, relatively durable for their cost, and give a lot of benefits to the squad inside (durability, movement, and footprint for objective grabbing).

I'm not certain the problem is inherent in the basic rules, although they may have swung the pendulum a bit too far towards vehicles being great (in 3rd transports were broken, in 4th pointless). The problem really is only in a small handful of builds and a few unit types, things like Wolf razorback spam and the like. Even for space wolves, their best unit are long fangs, a non-mechanized unit.

I guess I concede your point, but don't see a problem with it. It's sci-fi combat, shouldn't vehicles be really good?

Making vehicles a cool part of the game is all kosher, it is sci-fi not Warhammer Fantasy. The problem comes in circumventing more basic parts of game design and balance. Risk vs. reward is a good one. As you say there's plenty of rewards for vehicles, what are the risks? Cost/benefit is another. How much of an army needs to be devoted to meching up, and what does it reduce elsewhere? Now compare that to, say, tooling up an army to have a bunch of special characters for cool rules, or to have lots of heavy weapons, or to be as hard to kill as possible. Any sort of theme you like. What are the costs for those?

Here's a simple risk for vehicles that hasn't really changed: Vehicles can still be killed in a single shot, while it's MUCH harder to wipe out infantry in a single shot.

A single 'Shot' or shot, as in, yes a whole unit needs to shoot at the same thing, but if any mathhammer entusiasts would take up the challenge...

Say, a Long fans squad shooting at a battle wagon+KFF , comparied to say 12 boys with nob + boss pole. Or some others... If they don't have ATSKNF then maybe if one considers "Falling back" we may indeed be able to refute your assertion Melissa!

Any time an AP1 glances, or any shot penetrates, there's a chance for a single shot to destroy each vehicle. I've destroyed a Land Raider on turn one with an exorcist missile after rolling to only get a single shot out of its d6 shots per turn (S8 AP1, so 1/36 chance of that happening).

Even if the Exorcist got all six shots, and all six shots hit and wounded, that would still only kill six of ten Marines, leaving the sergeant, special and heavy weapon, and an ablative wound. Even an S8 AP3 large blast wouldn't wipe out a twenty or even just a ten strong Battle Sister Squad that's properly spread out, certainly not a thirty strong Ork mob. Would it hurt the squad? Indubitably. But would it destroy it in a single shot? No.

Monster Rain wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:

Titankiller17 wrote:
last time i checked nnids got Tyranifexes with St 10 weaponry. eats land raiders for breakfast.

BS 3, 50% chance to hit. Str 10, 33% chance to penetrate. 5 or 6 to destroy, 33% chance. 4.95% chance per shot is not 'eating for breakfast' at 265 points plus synapse baby sitter cost.

Indeed, because 5-6 are the only worthwhile things to do to a vehicle. And who cares about glances? It's not like you could stun, immobilize or blow a weapon off of it.

Wait...

Zoanthropes are good against Land Raiders, if they can get within 18 inches range.

I thought Kill Points were one of the balancing mechanisms for vehicles, particularly transports. It's fine to mech up, but mech armies usually put more KPs on the table and can lose a game where they do more damage to their opponent, but that damage is concentrated in fewer KP-giving units.

Yes, and the chances of rallying? What I' saying is I'm not too sure the chances of say forcing a MSU sized unit or even two units shooting at 20 boys, (6+ and have to get past the fearless, hence my comment about ATSKNF/like) at the end of the day, it's never a 'great chance' to blow up a vehicle with a single shot - 2/3, str 8 against 4= 4+ no AP1 obviously, so a 1/3 gives an eleven percent chance to 'kill' an AV12 vehicle.

As I said I'm actually interested in the chances of shooting at a unit forcing a morale check and forcing a fall-back, and considering them destroyed.

More so again, one's footies, rarely move further than 24" over two turns - with an assault move at the end and a 6 included. Where it would be unusual for something that is a delivery truck to move less than 12+6+2+6+6=32"
Which is a damn side further, but odds on, will all the transports and like in the world make it to their foes more often than all the foot sloggers of the world - I'm going to say indubitably - which means, really, that vehicle are more survivable in comparision not in a bubble

It's not a "great" chance, and yet, it's still a chance. The chance of not breaking for a Boyz squad that isn't reduced below 10 is 100%. The chance for a Marine squad to rally after taking that many casualties and not flee off the board is pretty damn high, too.

Melissia wrote:It's not a "great" chance, and yet, it's still a chance. The chance of not breaking for a Boyz squad that isn't reduced below 10 is 100%. The chance for a Marine squad to rally after taking that many casualties and not flee off the board is pretty damn high, too.

@ the itallics, uh, pretty damn high hey, are you ignoring ATSKNF? And the auto regroup that provides?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, if one compares the number of turns of 'essential shooting' to 'remove a unit' and if one units could fufill their most effecitive role - before odds on going 'bye' - if indeed an 11% chance on each of two turns won't be worse than the actual chances of a squad going "By Bye Buy" over the same amount o time it will take them to get where they want to be.

Otherwise, what you're saying is we should all be foot-slogging, no?

Unless I'm mixing rules from previous editions, I'm fairly certain you can still make Marines flee off the board with repeated tank shock ^.^

You cannot flee off the board through tank shock.

However you CAN make marines fail their auto-regroup by not letting them take it. Simply walking them off the board with a tank does it, or anything being within 6" when they come to rally.

Kilkrazy wrote:Zoanthropes are good against Land Raiders, if they can get within 18 inches range.

Assuming there is no psychic defense, they can viable. For a bit more than half the cost of a LR Tyranids can sometimes take out one LR and give up 2 KP--with Zoanthropes in a pod. Without the pod they will almost never make it within range.

With any kind of psychic defense they are a joke, and psychic defenses are about as rare as Landraiders, from my experience.

In my experience playing various strategy games, I've always found that the best unit to spam will always depend on the type of map you are playing. The best type of map is one that promotes variety by allowing more units and strategies to be viable.

If you play on dense multi level Necromanda terrain, with lots of narrow streets, and walk ways; Tanks would be awful. They couldn't move anywhere, they couldn't go fast, they couldn't get LoS to things creeping up on them (or anything much else). They would just be sitting ducks for Jump infantry and infiltrating nasties like Genestealers.

If you were to play on a board made of Space Hulk type corridors, vehicles would be even worse (if they could even deploy). Jump infantry might not be that good either.

If you play on an empty table... Well obviously tanks are going to have a field day, it's the exact role tanks were invented for.

I do find that most games of 40k I've seen and played away from home, do not have enough terrain in my opinion, but I have no idea why.

Maybe it's because people try to get their battlefields looking like the ones in GW photos. Which are built for display rather than for a fun balanced game. Maybe it's because people just don't have enough terrain, or they don't have enough of the right kind of terrain, or just lack the imagination to build an anything other than ruins and bunkers map...

I could certainly understand how not having enough terrain could be an issue at tournaments, with so many players and games needing it at once. At such an event it might be easy to end up with battlefields only sparingly covered. Is it any surprise then that tanks seem to have so much success in those environments?

I think alot of the terrain issues come from not wanting to be screwed or screw the opponent by terrain placement.

Thick terrain on a table is harder to gauge whether you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
But when you have say 3 pieces per half of table, its easier to tell.

I like to have a ton out, but at the same time, if I have a Land Raider or my opponent does, it will influence the layout we create.
Also, if I have Horde orks, and he has Mech guard, we have opposing views on what is good terrain.

It is true that most of the time most tables are very empty of terrain, especially if you play at a GW shop.

I don't have it front of me at the moment, but if iirc the rulebook is pretty clear about the amount of terrain recommended as the % of the total board space. As well as how that should be divided between LoS-blocking & Non Los-Blocking.

kirsanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Zoanthropes are good against Land Raiders, if they can get within 18 inches range.

Assuming there is no psychic defense, they can viable. For a bit more than half the cost of a LR Tyranids can sometimes take out one LR and give up 2 KP--with Zoanthropes in a pod. Without the pod they will almost never make it within range.

With any kind of psychic defense they are a joke, and psychic defenses are about as rare as Landraiders, from my experience.

It depends on the defence.

Shadow in the Warp will disrupt a lot of psychers.

I was refering to hoods, eldar silliness, runic weapons, et al.

Psychic defense--things that stop the (bs3) to-hit roll from occuring; nothing SitW has any bearing on.

(Also mystics, for a bit, but that is an afterthought)

Kilkrazy wrote:
It depends on the defence.

Shadow in the Warp will disrupt a lot of psychers.

Unless those psykers happen to be in what? A vehicle. Where they are 100% immune to shadow in the warp.

SumYungGui wrote:Unless those psykers happen to be in what? A vehicle. Where they are 100% immune to shadow in the warp.

its mystifying how quickly these arguments spiral completely out of control, and when the opposing side is about to lose their grip, they pull off an amazing feat of mental gymnastics and wdge things in that have very little bearing in the inital situation into a new foot hold. saw a very nice nugle list earlier in the army lists forum. contianed 3 rhinos at most. rest is infantry and that army scares me more than any mech list could. It is a very rock solid sledge hammer list.

Mellisa had it right in her last post. a chance is still a chance. probability is on your side whe shooting a vehicle, you only have to down it once, its not a necron it wont get back up and maul you. and comapring shooting amriens to shooting orks is like comapring apples and oranges. orcs get alot more infantry than amrines do breaking one squad of orks is nsjothing in comparison to breaking one squad of marines.

Voodoo: so what land raiders are to powerful becasue they carry shiled weilding termis, that couldnt be due to the fact that shiled got more powerful bu providing a 3+ invul all the time instead of a 4+ in cc only could it? plus in the states vehicles got WAy more expensive money wise. i remebr my 3rd land raiders being $50 now they are $62, the price on alot of stuff went up dramaticly, defilers are the same cost as land raiders monitarily wise. if i am gonna pay that much for something i would most defiently prefer it not be utterly vunerable every turn.

Killrazy: yes zotes are another good couunter.

So i end with this i'm tired of writing these long winded posts, and acctualy putting my thoughts down and being hammered back with mathmatics, another reason that mech became popular is that a few peole tried it out did okay with it then everyone jumpe don the band wagon and now thats mostly all you see. but the simple point is play what you want and have fun. when yous top having fun stop playing take a break and come back alter and try it again. if its still not anymore fun it probaly won't be for a very long time. every game goes tyhrough periods like this. developers have to keep it intresting for new players. So what vehicles are strong now, whats the big deal is the lsit unbeatable? no then whast the problem, dont think you should ever be challenged and should be handed every victory becasue you think yoour army is the best? just have fun and relax. thats all i have left to say on this topic. Peace out.

BS4 for zoeys....

Oops.

Good call. Thank you, nosferatu1001.

Oddly, I am pretty sure I added that with my afterthought as well.

I do not think that changes much, however.

I like them a lot, but they are simply not reliable for what they are needed against.

ChrisCP wrote:A single 'Shot' or shot, as in, yes a whole unit needs to shoot at the same thing, but if any mathhammer entusiasts would take up the challenge...

Say, a Long fans squad shooting at a battle wagon+KFF , comparied to say 12 boys with nob + boss pole. Or some others... If they don't have ATSKNF then maybe if one considers "Falling back" we may indeed be able to refute your assertion Melissa!

never Fear Math is here!

I am not going to do long fangs vs either because Long Fangs are skewingly OP(they can fire at both simultaneously) in this sense.

but i will do a Single guard unit with only a lascannon.

9 guardsmen(2 from the 10 man squad become a lasgun Crew):

1 lascannon Shot at the BW front AV:50% hits, 16.666% of those penetrate(8.333 total to Pen so far), 50% of those are ignored via KFF(4.166% to penetrate), of the damaging penetrates 33.333% destroy the BW(1.388% chance to destroy).

1 lascannon and 1 lasgun shots vs unit: 50% hit, 33.333% of the lasgun, 83.333% of the Lascannon wound(16.666% and 41.666% respectively), 16.666% of lasguns are saved, 0% of lascannons(2.777% of Lasguns kill, 41.666% of Lascannons kill).

Apply those numbers to the number of shots and we get 41.666% of 1 Dead Ork with the Lascannon Shot no matter the Range. 22.222% of one ork killed at >12"-24", and 47.222% of a dead ork @ < or = 12".

Conclusion:1 Ork Dies to 2 lascannon shots(roughly, still a 16.667% chance to survive the incoming shot), and 1 ork dies to every 36 las shots.

Whereas the battle wagon is destroyed by roughly 72 lascannon Shots

The Ork Boyz should take 3 lascannon PI squads Firing all weapons for 6-7 turns to destroy (not in Rapid Fire Range)

The BW should take 6 Lascannons 6 turns to get destroyed (can be done wit 2 HW Squads)

5 long Fang missiles would take about half as long to kill both units(the Boyz may take less time depending on Model spacing)

long time lurker, had to come out of hiding for this.

Have to ask, in relation to this tread.

1. Transports too good for the points? or all the bonuses that come with them? or the inf inside?

ie: I think IG vets counting as troops with 4 special weapons (counting as troops ) that can fire all specials in a chimeria too much.

2. Battle tanks too good? For me I have no problems as you pay a signifcant amount of more points vs a rhino/whatever.

3. A 4+ cover save too good for a tank?

skrulnik wrote:I think alot of the terrain issues come from not wanting to be screwed or screw the opponent by terrain placement.

Thick terrain on a table is harder to gauge whether you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
But when you have say 3 pieces per half of table, its easier to tell.

I like to have a ton out, but at the same time, if I have a Land Raider or my opponent does, it will influence the layout we create.
Also, if I have Horde orks, and he has Mech guard, we have opposing views on what is good terrain.

It is true that most of the time most tables are very empty of terrain, especially if you play at a GW shop.

Well then, take turns placing terrain. My friend and I used to do this. We'd set up the table for the day, each taking turns to place 1 peice of terrain each. Then, over the day, we'd keep the table the same, and take turns playing from different sides of the board. That way, if either of us actually managed to screw the other over on terrain placement, we'd cop that problem in the next game.