Based on a lot of the rumors it seems like Infantry will be a lot stronger in 6th edition? Do you see a return of infantry hordes in 6th?

Short answer: no
Long answer: I play Tau

Space Marines don't need numbers. 'Nuff said.

But this would be good for Imperial Guard and other armies that make heavy use of numbers.

I hope we see infantry-hammer. My Daemons and Black Templar will be happy...

i also want infantry hammer too, my DW tac termies may actually get some usage

If it does make infantry spam the meta, and they make flyers better then Razorwing Jetfighters will become really quite useful.

GW would make money from making armies hordes of infantry so it's entirely possible. But I personally(based on whats been rumoured) think 6th will be about flyers and big centrepiece models.

Considering the infantry horde Valhallan army that I've been working on, this would be very good news for me

I'd love to see infantry models, I was just wondering if you thought it was possible

I wouldn't mind having my IG get buffed. They can't really compete on the "centerpiece" theme.

I wouldn't want 6th to become infantryhammer. I mean, most of us have put quite a lot of time, thought, money and effort on our mechanized armies, and still like the looks and feel of them.

I won't be dumping my wagons and trukks to get 200+ boyz on the table. Footslogging hordes are boring to paint, and messy and complicated to run. Hate me, but I like my mech list, I LOVE my vehicles, and I'd want to be able to keep using them under the new rules. I'd want to call my orks done and move to preferably non-greener pastures.

What I want from 6th is to balance the meta so that infantry-heavy lists can compete in equal terms with armored or mechanized lists. Wishful thinking, maybe. But come on, GW. It can't be that hard.

Personally I just don't like the boxy look of Imperial vehicles or the look of Eldar vehicles at all. I also don't like green so Orks are right out. The only vehicles I like are Tau, and nobody wants to play Tau

TheAngrySquig wrote:...and nobody wants to play Tau.

You just had to say that, did you? Friend, this is gonna turn to one hell of a gak storm.

Tadashi wrote:

TheAngrySquig wrote:...and nobody wants to play Tau.

You just had to say that, did you?

I'm sorry! I just don't like communist semi-aquatic smurfs!

TheAngrySquig wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

TheAngrySquig wrote:...and nobody wants to play Tau.

You just had to say that, did you?

I'm sorry! I just don't like communist semi-aquatic smurfs!

I don't like anime fan space communists either, but advertising it is just asking for trouble.

The shitstorm approaches

I doubt this will happen; Transport vehicles are some of the most expensive models, in terms of cash cost, comparative to their points value. ($37.75 for a 35 point Rhino? heh), so I think GW would want to encourage people to buy them. Of course, I suppose they could always significantly reduce the points cost of infantry and push the game in that direction.

Ok, let's just forget it happened.

Just for the record, though, I must say that MANY people want and do play Tau. After Marines of various shapes and flavors and Orks they're the third most played army in my area, so go figure.

Well, one thing I concede you: A dozen metal bawkses piled up in a corner of the table isn't exactly a pleasing sight to behold. That said, waiting for an unskilled horde player to finish his moves can be excruciating. Also, while mech spam has ended up getting repetitive, hordehammer would get boring just as quickly.

The ideal would be, again, a game in which small bodycount elite infantry armies, hordes and mech would be able to coexist without one dominating the others.

Agent_Tremolo wrote:

The ideal would be, again, a game in which small bodycount elite infantry armies, hordes and mech would be able to coexist without one dominating the others.

You know as well as I do that it's not gonna happen.

I don't much care. It won't change the look of my armies.

My signature says it all. Infantry leads the way.

Glad I have more Guardsman models than I should care to.

As an Ork player I will be happy with this. Time to crack those two full units of Gretchin, and three full units of Boyz out and get some paint on them for my 1500 list...

I'm figuring it'll swing towards something a little more balanced between footsloggers and mech, but that's my hope. If it means armies on foot are as viable or close enough to armies in tanks, I'm down with that.

beezley1981 wrote:I don't much care. It won't change the look of my armies.

^ This, I run mixed Guard with enough models to do anything except for blob (which I am working on). I have storm troopers, carapace vets, light infantry vets, artillery (no manticores, I hate missile artillery, always have, always will), tanks, planning on getting some Valkyries and converting up my own drop troop regiment uniform (perhaps something combining DKoK, Elysians, and Cadians in some way). TBH I expect 6th to be all about fliers, which will give me reason to get some Hydras. Does GW make Hydra models, if not does forge world, because I hate converting vehicles.

Buttons wrote: Does GW make Hydra models, if not does forge world, because I hate converting vehicles.

Forgeworld does, but they're pricey:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Imperial_Guard_Tanks/HYDRA-FLAK-TANK-COMPLETE-KIT_.html

I imagine with the influx of aircraft there will be a plastic Hydra at some point in the future though.

If the Psyker rumors are true and they end up just as unbalanced as Fantasy 8th ed then there will be a drawback to playing large infantry units.

But, with the other rumours about what can and cannot score/contest objectives then ifantry will have to be a larer presence than it currently is.


BTW, Angry Squid & Tadashi, I play Tau. My physical discription is that of the rare North American Silverback and my poo flinging skills are mighty indeed.

Also, Note that Tau are not semi-aquatic, They come from a plain/dessert planet and have hooves for feet. Now if you said they were religious sheepeople that blindly follow their imperialist leaders, I would have no arguement.

I really don't mind ether way. Whatever makes GW the most money for the future. If they have money, they don't need Matt Ward.

Hikaru-119 wrote:My signature says it all. Infantry leads the way.

Glad I have more Guardsman models than I should care to.

Umm yea, my sig is going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there...

DeathReaper wrote:

Hikaru-119 wrote:My signature says it all. Infantry leads the way.

Glad I have more Guardsman models than I should care to.

Umm yea, my sig is going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there...

Truly there is but one way to appease both parties...
We must all build walking tank men and fight to the death!

As for the new edition. I'm not that fussed, I like seeing things kept rinsed in the game be it my troops or the enemies.

I never liked the vehicle meta. For me 40K has always been about the cool looking infantry models, and given that I choose to play what I think looks cool / is cool over what is viable I have basically got pure infantry armies. So this would be in favour for me. However, I don't play much, and not competitively at all so this really does not affect me. I just personally would like to see more infantry lists as a personal choice.

RatBot wrote:I doubt this will happen; Transport vehicles are some of the most expensive models, in terms of cash cost, comparative to their points value. ($37.75 for a 35 point Rhino? heh), so I think GW would want to encourage people to buy them. Of course, I suppose they could always significantly reduce the points cost of infantry and push the game in that direction.

This. There are a few good reasons why GW wants to encourage transports.
* It means more models sold. Why just get $35 for a squad, when you can scrape another $40 from the players for the transport
* Tanks on the board look cool.
* Tanks make the movement (ie turns) faster. Instead of moving 20 boys, you can move one battlewagon. This makes overall game times less

While I expect some foot builds will be viable (like some are today) the majority of builds will be armored.

I hope so. I so fething hope so. I mean, I don't want to see the pendulum go the complete other way on vehicles and make them worthless, but a seeing a the mix of semi mechanised armies, where a Marine force might have a squad or two in Rhinos and also some foot sloggers, would be awesome.

Looking at two parking lots slowly creep around the table is not fun.

I think it will depend on what they do with the Vehicle Rules. I have seen very little with those ruels.

-Loki- wrote:I hope so. I so fething hope so. I mean, I don't want to see the pendulum go the complete other way on vehicles and make them worthless, but a seeing a the mix of semi mechanised armies, where a Marine force might have a squad or two in Rhinos and also some foot sloggers, would be awesome.

Looking at two parking lots slowly creep around the table is not fun.

I agree with this. I don't think it's impossible to balance a game between infantry and vehicles. In fact, I know it isn't.

I'm hoping for a swing back toward footslogging armies. Most of mine were built during 3rd Ed.

Think I'm the only Tau player with over 50 Firewarriors...

Boggy79 wrote:I'm hoping for a swing back toward footslogging armies. Most of mine were built during 3rd Ed.

Think I'm the only Tau player with over 50 Firewarriors...

I know how you feel, I got 12,000 points of wolves and less than a 1,000 are vehicels.

I'd like a balance of the two but then again I do have a mech army, a horde army and a hybrid.

What exactly are the rumours that make horde infantry stronger? I don't think I've heard any, could be wrong though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

labmouse42 wrote:

RatBot wrote:I doubt this will happen; Transport vehicles are some of the most expensive models, in terms of cash cost, comparative to their points value. ($37.75 for a 35 point Rhino? heh), so I think GW would want to encourage people to buy them. Of course, I suppose they could always significantly reduce the points cost of infantry and push the game in that direction.

This. There are a few good reasons why GW wants to encourage transports.
* It means more models sold. Why just get $35 for a squad, when you can scrape another $40 from the players for the transport

GW don't write their rules around selling as many models as possible. Considering the stongest/most popular army atm is a few Grey Knight Termie squads...
Also the existance of monoliths, Land Raiders, Leman Russes.
Please try to be more sensible with your posts.

Maybe I will be able to break out the 'nids again. One can hope...

All i want is for the the range of builds to be legitimate, from Green Tide (and Nidzilla) to Foot DW to Mech guard to Jetbike eldar.


To the tau player: so do your soldiers before battle recite the tau battle prayer

BAAAA RAM YEW
To the greater good be true,
Ta'u be true
BAAA RAM YEW

captain collius wrote:All i want is for the the range of builds to be legitimate, from Green Tide (and Nidzilla) to Foot DW to Mech guard to Jetbike eldar.


To the tau player: so do your soldiers before battle recite the tau battle prayer

BAAAA RAM YEW
To the greater good be true,
Ta'u be true
BAAA RAM YEW

I wouldn't mind seeing the rules favour infantry again. I'm a Wolves player and like the look of the models, but I don't like Rhinos. They're boxy, boring to look at and boring to paint. I'd love to drop them for a footslogging list and have dual Dreadnoughts for fire support. Unfortunately due to the current meta, SW Dreads simply aren't worth the points with all of the heavy weapons and melta flying everywhere.

I wouldn't mind. That said, it WOULD make them a crap ton of cash, seeing as a lot of people bought in to the mech meta, and lack sufficient troops for a good infantry based list. But once again, it will be all about the new purchases.
The only way they can get me to purchase more, is to make the meta Elites and ICs.
I have all the foot slogging and mech allowed in the FoC up to 2k, for Orks.

Vehicles are not getting that much of a nerf to say infantry horde is the way to go. Most transports are so cheap they are probably still worth taking. I do however think the reign of razorspam will come to an end.

In other words, vehicle transport are still worth their price for a few turns of improved movement but sit-and-shoot light AV is done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS:

RP, Rhino GH and LF spam wolves will not have to change their army lists at all hahahahahaha


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:What exactly are the rumours that make horde infantry stronger? I don't think I've heard any, could be wrong though.

Hull points. Each vehicle is allotted a number of hull points that get reduced with each glancing/penetrating hit along with the corresponding effect stated on the damage chart. Therefore glancing a vehicle to death happens much more quickly.

MLs FTW.

That said, my Lootas just got even MORE interesting.

Tadashi wrote:

TheAngrySquig wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

TheAngrySquig wrote:...and nobody wants to play Tau.

You just had to say that, did you?

I'm sorry! I just don't like communist semi-aquatic smurfs!

I don't like anime fan space communists either, but advertising it is just asking for trouble.

Personally I'm not a fan of Fake-Utilitarian, brainwashed, mind controlled Aldous Huxley copycats either, but definitely, advertising it is always going to be a potential problem.


That said, I imagine the meta in 6th will continue to push the sales of vehicles, but also buff out the flyers to make them an advantageous addition to your force.

TheAngrySquig wrote:Based on a lot of the rumors it seems like Infantry will be a lot stronger in 6th edition? Do you see a return of infantry hordes in 6th?

I don't think perhaps that infantry will really be all that much stronger, rather, tanks will just suck if the latest rumors are true (particularly with respect to assaults).

If the lastest rumors are true, I'd expect a return to a very 4E meta, where the armies with fast vehicles tend to field a lot of very hard to kill vehicles, and the other armies avoid them almost entirely except for back field fire support units.

purplefood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Hikaru-119 wrote:My signature says it all. Infantry leads the way.

Glad I have more Guardsman models than I should care to.

Umm yea, my sig is going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there...

Truly there is but one way to appease both parties...
We must all build walking tank men and fight to the death!

Well then the Tau are already ahead of us, dang space weeaboos

6th ed won't be made, on purpose, to be an infantry edition. 6th ed will be made to be as balanced of a rules edition as possible, with a special emphasis on fixing things that were actually broken about the previous one with a few new things added in to spice things up.

If 6th ed becomes a ZOMG-INFANTRIES!!!1! edition, it's because a lot of 40k players are rabid lemmings, and not because of drastic changes in the rules themselves.

Personally, I like core units (meched or otherwise), and liked that 5th ed steered the game back towards troops choices. I could see them doing this a little more in the future, which I'd like to see.

Might i just say that if we get Infantry-hammer is the way its going to go, i will have no shame in using Doom =) as on one will need stupid amounts of S8 weapon as mech won't be spamed as much . Also i think lash of submission (and powers in the same vein) will become powerful again as if wound allocation is how rumored it will be incredible as you be able to kill speicalist models or IC which could be easily abused.

I really hope infantry gets stronger in 6th. My favorite units (Eldar) don't work in transport vehicles, and I HATE painting vehicles, so my mech force hasn't ever gotten completed.

And wjat is the big deal, anyway? I'm sick and tired of my infantry getting wiped off the board and making it impossible to take objectives, etc. It would provide some of this imagined balance to the game, so a couple of pie plates don't effectively end a game in turn 2.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:And wjat is the big deal, anyway? I'm sick and tired of my infantry getting wiped off the board and making it impossible to take objectives, etc. It would provide some of this imagined balance to the game, so a couple of pie plates don't effectively end a game in turn 2.

If you are losing the game turn 2 to a couple of pie-plates, there's something else at work there methinks.

My Daemons would absolutely love to see an end to mechammer shinanigans simply so I can use a list outside of 'how many bolts of change can I spam again?'

My poor 'failletters' are just longing to come out and play, but alas, what's the point in having pure assault units who have no transport option of their own and will spend the entire game running around uselessly getting shot by metal bawkes?!
Also, my Fiends would love a little vacation involving snipping apart juicy infantry instead of cold, hard metal all the time.

Mechhammer is getting so boring that playing a game now feels like a complete chore. I can't actually recall the last time I played a game that didn't have at least 6+ transports on the table.

All you have to do is have a chat about it with your opponent and agree to play a few less mech'd up games.

My point was that it is rather tedious to put out infantry in an overly tanker-friendly system. It would benefit several armies if there were some more risks involved with so heavily "meched-out" lists. Everyone is crying for balance, maybe making vehicles a bit more fragile may be the answer.

It's not overly tank-friendly, though. The tedium from playing ain infantry army comes from the fact that a competitive infantry army usually requires 60-200 minis (depending on what kind of army you're running) that need to be unpacked, deployed, moved, have all those dice rolled for, and repacked, and all the time modelling and painting them.

One of the few real advantages mech armies have in 5th ed is the fact that they're so much faster to build and play.

But for those people who run hordes, it is rather tedious to play against a swarm of invincible vehicles. Bring back the old vehicle damage charts that made it riskier to put stuff n transports.

Even if it did, I'd still stick with the same armies I use now. Heck, I played an infantry army all the way through 5th; I'm building my next army right now, which I guess could be called mech! this'll be funny if it becomes infantryhammer

Ailaros wrote:It's not overly tank-friendly, though. The tedium from playing ain infantry army comes from the fact that a competitive infantry army usually requires 60-200 minis (depending on what kind of army you're running) that need to be unpacked, deployed, moved, have all those dice rolled for, and repacked, and all the time modelling and painting them.

One of the few real advantages mech armies have in 5th ed is the fact that they're so much faster to build and play.

This. Footslogging armies are more than viable already, they just take forever to play, which means they're worse in the time-limited tournament scene. This, in turn, makes people believe that it's the core concept of the army that makes hordes non-viable, rather than the specific circumstances (limited time to finish). For a bit of anecdotal evidence, I placed 12th in a tournament of 40 people with my Black Templars list with my only two vehicles being a Drop Pod and a Razorback. Had I not had my Chaplain fail 3 4++ saves against a Deffkopta I'd have been top 10. Interestingly enough the Ork player played a Green Tide and ended up in the top 3. I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of foot-lists doing well out there (Reecius's foot-Eldar comes to mind), but they're drowned out because mech is just as good but easier to purchase, paint and transport and much faster to play.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But for those people who run hordes, it is rather tedious to play against a swarm of invincible vehicles. Bring back the old vehicle damage charts that made it riskier to put stuff n transports.

One will notice that nobody but fast Skimmer armies, that effectively ignored said damage table with one even more forgiving than the current one, ever ran transports under the old rules. There was a reason for that.

This also then putzes gun tanks like predators, fire prisms, and leman russ tanks, which aren't part of the issue.

I'd love to see infantry assume a larger portion of the "power pie", just because it was thus when I started many years ago and we've been inundated with vehicles for years. But... come what may, I'll roll with it.

Considering I'm starting Death Guard in 6th, I really hope infantry is better.

That could be interesting to see, im still making my army so i can change the build yet.

Being a Tyranid player, this would make me happy.

Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

That's kind of the problem.

Some armies don't have the tools to 'deal with it' effectively, which they should have from a game balance perspective.

TedNugent wrote:Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

With the rumoured nerf to coversaves i have a hard time seeing how pure infantry armies would become better.

I got a ton of half built Grey Hunters lying around, so bring on Infantryhammer!

My list right now only has three rhinos and two dreads. I don't run a single razorback.

I wouldn't mind a more inf based game if I had more options for troops... Suck and suck slightly less arn't great options.

Well the cover save point is interesting maybe we see a more cheap models, as by the rumours are going I think everything is just becoming easier to kill, so you won't want to buy that landraider anymore as it's too many pts/ kp/vp/investment for it to just die to a couple of glances, so clearly this is the hordehammer edition .

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

That's kind of how it used to be...

As long as it's not like Fantasy's steadfast.

You charge your Greater Deamon/Trygon/Whatever Character into an IG Platoon of 20 or whatever (not too familiar with IG), kill 6, suffer no damage whatsever in return and then the IG get to test on their normal Ld because there's more of them.

oldone wrote:Well the cover save point is interesting maybe we see a more cheap models, as by the rumours are going I think everything is just becoming easier to kill, so you won't want to buy that landraider anymore as it's too many pts/ kp/vp/investment for it to just die to a couple of glances, so clearly this is the hordehammer edition .

Considering their default cover is now 5+ I think we can call it Killhammer instead

The Shadow wrote:As long as it's not like Fantasy's steadfast.

You charge your Greater Deamon/Trygon/Whatever Character into an IG Platoon of 20 or whatever (not too familiar with IG), kill 6, suffer no damage whatsever in return and then the IG get to test on their normal Ld because there's more of them.

That can happen now. Stubborn Sgt (or Commissar?).

To be fair stubborn works all the time, wheras steadfast is only if you outnumber them, so it's actually worse. Although if blob guard aren't outnumbering their enemies in CC, something is going horribly wrong.

Testify wrote:To be fair stubborn works all the time, wheras steadfast is only if you outnumber them, so it's actually worse. Although if blob guard aren't outnumbering their enemies in CC, something is going horribly wrong.

Most things that can outnumber tend to have a chance to be stubborn or fearless (nids, daemons, guard). I do like the leadership method better.

I just wish leadership was a singular test and not split up.

n0t_u wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

That's kind of how it used to be...

That's kind of my point.

rigeld2 wrote:

n0t_u wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

That's kind of how it used to be...

That's kind of my point.

And that's why nobody used to use them except for the skimmerspam armies that were very difficult to shoot down and you couldn't inflict an "explodes" result against.

Not sure this is factual given the rumors:

-5+ cover means it's more dangerous to be outside and weapons like plasma, Whirlwinds, havoc launchers and other strong stuff can wipe out walking infantry.

-FNP nerf also means being outside a vehicle means death by crossfire.

-The change in the fire-assault order means you can no longer pop a vehicle and then assault the passengers. Therefore, you suffer an extra round of shooting on the way to CC. Transports become invaluable to guard your shooty units on the way to the objective.

Sephyr wrote:Not sure this is factual given the rumors:

-5+ cover means it's more dangerous to be outside and weapons like plasma, Whirlwinds, havoc launchers and other strong stuff can wipe out walking infantry.

-FNP nerf also means being outside a vehicle means death by crossfire.

-The change in the fire-assault order means you can no longer pop a vehicle and then assault the passengers. Therefore, you suffer an extra round of shooting on the way to CC. Transports become invaluable to guard your shooty units on the way to the objective.

i'm hoping what i've read about "reactions" are true, because otherwise the assault phase would be even more outclassed by the shooting phase, even with the rumored contested shooting. if the "reactions" are included in the rules, where for instance upon obliterating a transport you get a charge reaction to assault the passengers, then chainfists become a lot more desirable.

otherwise i think assault units are just going to be less valuable than shooters, for the simple fact that you can blow up a transport and kill its passengers in the same shooting phase, whereas the same is not true for the assault phase.

pratell wrote:
otherwise i think assault units are just going to be less valuable than shooters, for the simple fact that you can blow up a transport and kill its passengers in the same shooting phase, whereas the same is not true for the assault phase.

That's a poor comparison.
The potential damage output of a specialised meleé unit is far greater than that of a specialised shooting unit. A unit of Death Company with a Reclesiarch will cause far, far more damage in a single assault phase than many shooting units could manage in an entire game.

Testify wrote:

pratell wrote:
otherwise i think assault units are just going to be less valuable than shooters, for the simple fact that you can blow up a transport and kill its passengers in the same shooting phase, whereas the same is not true for the assault phase.

That's a poor comparison.
The potential damage output of a specialised meleé unit is far greater than that of a specialised shooting unit. A unit of Death Company with a Reclesiarch will cause far, far more damage in a single assault phase than many shooting units could manage in an entire game.

Yep, reliably killing a unit through shooting is really hard without disproportionate amounts of firepower.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But for those people who run hordes, it is rather tedious to play against a swarm of invincible vehicles. Bring back the old vehicle damage charts that made it riskier to put stuff n transports.

Horrible idea. This was the reason they were called "metal boxes of death." NO ONE used them because they were death traps. If the rumors are true, I believe it will be a nice balance. Same damage chart but "hull points" limit how many times a tank can stand being pinged by glancing or ineffective pens.

As someone who has nearly 100 Black Templar tactical marines, 20 scouts, and a buncha other stuff...I would love to see the rise of InfantryHammer

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But for those people who run hordes, it is rather tedious to play against a swarm of invincible vehicles.

Swarms of vehicles are tedious, but swarms of infantry aren't? Seems little more than a personal whim to me. I can say for certainty that I've had opponents roll their eyes at me when they see the 100 guardsmen I'm unpacking.

As for vehicles being invincible, you're not building a good enough foot list. That or not playing it right. That or you're really unlucky.

Testify wrote:To be fair stubborn works all the time, wheras steadfast is only if you outnumber them, so it's actually worse. Although if blob guard aren't outnumbering their enemies in CC, something is going horribly wrong.

Right, with the tiny caveat that you can't mind war or vindicare snipe or gifts out a single model and have the whole squad lose their ability.

Still, I agree that it probably wouldn't matter much for guard (other than that I might drop the commissars).

Ailaros wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But for those people who run hordes, it is rather tedious to play against a swarm of invincible vehicles.

Swarms of vehicles are tedious, but swarms of infantry aren't? Seems little more than a personal whim to me. I can say for certainty that I've had opponents roll their eyes at me when they see the 100 guardsmen I'm unpacking.

As for vehicles being invincible, you're not building a good enough foot list. That or not playing it right. That or you're really unlucky.

Testify wrote:To be fair stubborn works all the time, wheras steadfast is only if you outnumber them, so it's actually worse. Although if blob guard aren't outnumbering their enemies in CC, something is going horribly wrong.

Right, with the tiny caveat that you can't mind war or vindicare snipe or gifts out a single model and have the whole squad lose their ability.

Still, I agree that it probably wouldn't matter much for guard (other than that I might drop the commissars).

I'd be all for having some sort of steadfast rule applied to platoons. I'd still bring commissars for stubborn, LD bonus, and the extra PW, but having a way to keep your guardsmen around even after someone picks off your commissar would be nice. My store has so many SW players I hardly even bother unpacking them anymore, because I know they're getting picked of the first turn they're in LOS of a priest...

As for foot hordes being tedious, my store has mixed reactions. They love seeing a guard army that doesnt have 30 chimeras, but hate watching me unpack my army. What kills me is that even though their initial deployment is quick, whenever i blow up a transport it takes them 5 minutes to dig out 10 guys, and dont expect me to get annoyed in return. It's gotten better now that I can eyeball my spread better and am much faster at moving, but it's still tedious at times. And that's from my point of view, I'd imagine my opponents get sick of it much soner.

I've found that guard armies in general, regardless of what build, generally take a long time to unpack, deploy, and re-pack, anyone who has any real experience with the army should realize and understand this. If they don't, they're daft. Hell, my mechanized guard routinely has twice the infantry most of my SM opponents have, and that's with nearly 20 tanks on the field. That all takes time to set up and re-pack.


It *really* sucks at tournaments where they have no space to put dead/reserved/embarked models off the board

The Shadow wrote:As long as it's not like Fantasy's steadfast.

You charge your Greater Deamon/Trygon/Whatever Character into an IG Platoon of 20 or whatever (not too familiar with IG), kill 6, suffer no damage whatsever in return and then the IG get to test on their normal Ld because there's more of them.

The Imperial Guard already have a rule for this. It's called "stubborn" in 40k. It's also why I've always spent those extra 35-45 extra points to slap a lady commissar in my blob. Keeps the men fighting at leadership 9 despite taking 30 wounds in combat...

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

Ok. Explodes result is 1 of 6 on the damage table. Generally if your tank catches fire and you can't escape the latch, you're now trapped in a pressure cooker.

But you should know that otherwise tankers have escaped disabled, wrecked, or otherwise burning tanks alive.

Tanks don't usually "explode," unless you hit the ammunition storage or the gasoline. More often then not the projectile pierces the body of the armor, producing a small explosion in the interior from the HE charge and then bouncing around in the interior of the tank, killing crewmen and variously dealing damage.

Might be worth noting that just because of the advent of Power Armor, I don't see why everyone would forgo the use of tanks, particularly when missile launchers are only capable of glancing them and you have to hit a tank upwards of six times on its frontal armor with a Lascannon.

PS, I'm talking about tanks. Typically troop transports are not actually involved in front line combat, they're used for transport and usually lightly armored and have a tendency to explode in flames when a tank so much as looks at them. They're used to get to the combat zone, not to advance to the front lines as an assault vessel.

Bradley's would tend to disagree. They're front line AFVs.
The new Striker is as well.
And I'm aware that tankers have escaped wrecked vehicles. That's why I said explodes.

And your original quote said AFVs. Not tanks. Need me to re-quote it?

rigeld2 wrote:Bradley's would tend to disagree. They're front line AFVs.
The new Striker is as well.
And I'm aware that tankers have escaped wrecked vehicles. That's why I said explodes.

And your original quote said AFVs. Not tanks. Need me to re-quote it?

One could argue that AFV's fall into the category of tanks.
Though obviously it would be a separate category to MBT's etc

purplefood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Bradley's would tend to disagree. They're front line AFVs.
The new Striker is as well.
And I'm aware that tankers have escaped wrecked vehicles. That's why I said explodes.

And your original quote said AFVs. Not tanks. Need me to re-quote it?

One could argue that AFV's fall into the category of tanks.
Though obviously it would be a separate category to MBT's etc

If that was his idea, why even bring up the difference between a transport and a tank?
There aren't any front line non-AFV transports - dueces get left with supply.

Hate me for it but i do enjoy a good game of panzerhammer.

Then again ive only got 2 vehicles for my IG with a possible third under construction.

rigeld2 wrote:Bradley's would tend to disagree. They're front line AFVs.
The new Striker is as well.

hrm, I'd still consider a Stryker more of an APC than a front line IFV, the Bradely is proof against up to 30mm cannon fire, with armor protection roughly equivalent or superior to early WW2 medium tanks and some fearsome armament, making a pretty good case for being a tank in and of itself (generally requiring anti-tank weaponry to destroy it, heavy anti-infantry and light AA guns and the like won't do), the Stryker on the other hand can be penetrated from any angle by anything heavier than a 14.5mm round (and even than can penetrate in flanks) and basically just carries a heavy machinegun and sometimes a grenade launcher.