No Vehicles

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

Let us be honest with each other.

The game wasn't designed for vehicles in the numbers that SM and IG armies can put on tabletop because they are so cheap, and effective at letting the troops shoot from inside.

**The Acolyte**

Mahtamori wrote:

So, to sum it up, earth-star, your implications are far off. There's only one implication I wish to hint at with my post:
I think dedicated transports in newer codexes are too cheap.

(Also, 3rd and 4th editions had a slightly more dangerous glancing table, if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on it)

Agreed. Transports are far too cheap as they offer much better protection to the sqad inside than their points show. Admitadly they cant mount great weapons on them, but that isn't their primary purpose.

**Exergy**

Melissia wrote:So basically you think that transports should be entirely removed from the game?

not at all. Do you bother to read anything other than the topic of my thread?

I love vehicles, I use them all the time. I just find it rather repetative so I was thinking of an optional friendly rule that you could use in 1% of your friendly games to maybe make the game more interesting.

I play DE mostly, which you say are hurt a lot by lack of vehciles. I would be happy to play a friendly game against SM or Ork(which you think are strong without transports) with these rules. Not saying I want to play them every day but for a change I dont see why not.

**Melissia**

Exergy wrote:not at all. Do you bother to read anything other than the topic of my thread?

I don't care what you said. There being no use for transports is exactly the result of the rule you posted.

It would not make it more interesting, it'd just make it kinda stupid because if you DARE get into a transport I will wipe out your squad lickity split. So you never will.

**The Acolyte**

Exergy wrote:
Melissia wrote:So basically you think that transports should be entirely removed from the game?

not at all. Do you bother to read anything other than the topic of my thread?

I love vehicles, I use them all the time. I just find it rather repetative so I was thinking of an optional friendly rule that you could use in 1% of your friendly games to maybe make the game more interesting.

I play DE mostly, which you say are hurt a lot by lack of vehciles. I would be happy to play a friendly game against SM or Ork(which you think are strong without transports) with these rules. Not saying I want to play them every day but for a change I dont see why not.

Maybe make games more fun if they are less than 1000 pts but after that vehicles make the game what it is. Without vehicles mass infantry just isnt the same

**Melissia**

Oh and here is what I was responding to when I suggested the poster wanted transports removed:

Ascalam wrote:For Necrons the 33 pt thing and no vehicles at all are the same thing.

I'm fine with there being vehicles everywhere, but i do think that if you are inside a vehicle that explodes you should be autokilled, not hit with a no ap laspistol/slugga shot

**The Acolyte**

Melissia wrote:Oh and here is what I was responding to when I suggested the poster wanted transports removed:
Ascalam wrote:For Necrons the 33 pt thing and no vehicles at all are the same thing.

I'm fine with there being vehicles everywhere, but i do think that if you are inside a vehicle that explodes you should be autokilled, not hit with a no ap laspistol/slugga shot

I've thought that before to. Sometime me and a friend play. You take an armour save for every model and if you fail you are instand deathed unless eternal warrior. Representing being prtected by explosion by armour.

Maybe could take an initiative test and if you fail you take a wound representing getting out fast enough.

**Xarian**

If you're limited to 500 points, I think a "one vehicle per game" rule would be fine, but you may want to make an exception for vehicle squadrons of light vehicles (like war buggies or vypers)

**Melissia**

And have hte same exact limitations on monstrous creatures as you do on vehicles.

Otherwise I'd suggest you just want to stomp people with your little MCs instead of playing a fair game

**Ascalam**

Melissia wrote:Oh and here is what I was responding to when I suggested the poster wanted transports removed:
Ascalam wrote:For Necrons the 33 pt thing and no vehicles at all are the same thing.

I'm fine with there being vehicles everywhere, but i do think that if you are inside a vehicle that explodes you should be autokilled, not hit with a no ap laspistol/slugga shot

Thankyou for clarifying that

I wasn't sure who you were going off on

I am fine with transports being in the game. (see quote) but i do think that if you are caught in an enclosed metal box that is then set on fire and/or blown up the consequences should be more severe.

'So basically you think that transports should be entirely removed from the game? '

No. I feel that the transported crew should be, should their metal box suffer a catastrophic detonation, not come walking out if it banging the flames out on their shirts.

**Melissia**

Which would effectively remove transports from the game.

**Ascalam**

Not really. It would encourage you to use footsloggers a bit more, or at least not to camp EVERYTHING inside vehicles.

The element of risk in using the vehicles would help balance out the low points cost.

For my orks it wouldn't make much difference, given that they have t-shirt save

**Grenat**

If it's a proposed rule, I suppose you want to use it for some kind of friendly game.
If so, why bothering about a very strict and restrictive rule ?

You can agree with your opponent to try something different with only one vehicule by army or so. Or even small games of full-infantry skirmish like.
Imho, a little common sense and good spirit are often a better choice than new rules.

**The Acolyte**

Grenat wrote:If it's a proposed rule, I suppose you want to use it for some kind of friendly game.
If so, why bothering about a very strict and restrictive rule ?

You can agree with your opponent to try something different with only one vehicule by army or so. Or even small games of full-infantry skirmish like.
Imho, a little common sense and good spirit are often a better choice than new rules.

Good spirit answers everything, best respose the the question all day

**earth-star**

Mahtamori wrote:Whoa, there, those implications are figments of your own imagination.
Skimmers are robust - some of them are, some aren't. There's a world of difference between a geared up Wave Serpent and a Vyper. The Vyper is on the other side of the scale, so weak it's doubtful it's worth taking.
Rhinos are as strong as Land Raiders - objectively, not anywhere close. The implication is not there. A Land Raider is more fine than a Rhino in my eyes since it's a high point investment leaving it open to melta weapons. It's the low cost dedicated transports that I feel are out of whack.
My Tyranids - I play Mechdar exclusively. My transports, when compared to newer armies, cost a premium, but are still very good. There is no open-topped or assault ramp options, though, which means that melee squads in them are a waste of effort.
MC won't be limited - Where'd this come from?

So, to sum it up, earth-star, your implications are far off. There's only one implication I wish to hint at with my post:
I think dedicated transports in newer codexes are too cheap.

(Also, 3rd and 4th editions had a slightly more dangerous glancing table, if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on it)

Ok, first off, you forgot the golden rule of 40k, IT IS WHAT IT IS! If you don't like a rule, deal with it or stop playing

>your implications are far off.
It's called being snarky.

>low cost of DT is whack.
Well, look at your weapons list, there's at least one anti-tank weapon in every army.

>a land raider is more fine than a rhino.
Depends on who shoots who first with what weapons, and the result of the roll

>DT in newer codexes are too cheap
They can also be taken down easily, you should know this, playing mechdar,

**Your Friend Doctor Robert**

My Space Marine Army is heavily reliant on vehicles; Rhinos and Razorbacks to get around, Predators and Vindicators when something really needs killing, Land Raiders to take on the really monstrous things and the occasional Land Raider Wall.

Besides, if you take vehicles out, you'd have to make the game way longer, since the first few turns would just be spent running.

**earth-star**

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:My Space Marine Army is heavily reliant on vehicles; Rhinos and Razorbacks to get around, Predators and Vindicators when something really needs killing, Land Raiders to take on the really monstrous things and the occasional Land Raider Wall.

Besides, if you take vehicles out, you'd have to make the game way longer, since the first few turns would just be spent running.

Same for my blood angels. To be honest, if vehicles were limited, that'd take a lot of fun out of the game

**The Acolyte**

As an example if vehhicles were removed my guard mass would become very hard to kill. Most armies wouldn't be able to take templetes to kill enough guardsmen per turn. Also I have 6 lascannon teams. 6 missile launchers. 6 heavy bolters. So even without vehicles my army has alot of big guns.

Vehicles are a requirement for most armies. You would really struggle to kill my 120 guardsmen with just infantry.

**Ascalam**

Tell that to the 180+ orks or several hundred nids

**Norade**

Kilkrazy wrote:Let us be honest with each other.

The game wasn't designed for vehicles in the numbers that SM and IG armies can put on tabletop because they are so cheap, and effective at letting the troops shoot from inside.

Care to back that statement up with some actual facts?

**Mahtamori**

earth-star wrote:
Mahtamori wrote:Whoa, there, those implications are figments of your own imagination.
Skimmers are robust - some of them are, some aren't. There's a world of difference between a geared up Wave Serpent and a Vyper. The Vyper is on the other side of the scale, so weak it's doubtful it's worth taking.
Rhinos are as strong as Land Raiders - objectively, not anywhere close. The implication is not there. A Land Raider is more fine than a Rhino in my eyes since it's a high point investment leaving it open to melta weapons. It's the low cost dedicated transports that I feel are out of whack.
My Tyranids - I play Mechdar exclusively. My transports, when compared to newer armies, cost a premium, but are still very good. There is no open-topped or assault ramp options, though, which means that melee squads in them are a waste of effort.
MC won't be limited - Where'd this come from?

So, to sum it up, earth-star, your implications are far off. There's only one implication I wish to hint at with my post:
I think dedicated transports in newer codexes are too cheap.

(Also, 3rd and 4th editions had a slightly more dangerous glancing table, if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on it)

Ok, first off, you forgot the golden rule of 40k, IT IS WHAT IT IS! If you don't like a rule, deal with it or stop playing

>your implications are far off.
It's called being snarky.

>low cost of DT is whack.
Well, look at your weapons list, there's at least one anti-tank weapon in every army.

>a land raider is more fine than a rhino.
Depends on who shoots who first with what weapons, and the result of the roll

>DT in newer codexes are too cheap
They can also be taken down easily, you should know this, playing mechdar,

This is really not a discussion for this thread.
1. If you're being snarky, then you should think twice before posting.
2. I'm looking at my list. They cost more on BS3 than the closest equivalent weapon for Marines on their BS4. And the Marine weapon performs better on AV13 and below at longer range. And it's not even considered a worthwhile weapon for them.
3. A Land Raider is significantly more investment on a smaller space, preventing more HS slots. A DT doesn't take up a slot, and can thus be spammed with the squads.
4. Eldar isn't a new codex, the transports have a performance issue for their points, but they are the best option for competitive list for Eldar.

**Melissia**

Ascalam wrote:Not really. It would encourage you to use footsloggers a bit more

No it wouldn't. It would encourage you to always footslog because if you don't you lose your entire squad from an errant autocannon round which apparently is capable of doing ten SD AP1 wounds to anyone in transports.

If you DARED to use trasnports against me with these rules I would win every single game.

**Ascalam**

I think you are over-reacting a tad. Fond of spammed transports?

I would point out that my two main armies are Necrons and Green tide orks. Necrons don't HAVE any transports.

Also the instadeath would only apply if you actually blew the transport up. Any other result would be the same as usual. If you could guarantee an explodes result with every shot i would take your assertion that you would autowin seriously, but you can't.

If you want to disagree with my point of view, that's fine by me. Your POV is no more 'fact' than mine

I personally would relish the realism of using transports for their intended purpose (moving troops swiftly to another part of the battlefield and then deploying them) with the possibility of them going boom and losing a unit if the enemy brought some big guns to bear. I find the current fad of camping every unit in a transport and them camping that transport on an objective to be deeply irritating. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but being nicely untouchable inside a metal box until such time as it suddenly vanishes in a roiling fireball, from which the majority of the unit tends to walk unscathed doesn't quite ring true for me.

That element of risk in using the transport makes the game a bit more tactical. I've tried using it as a houserule, and it made for a more exciting game for my local crowd. Not something we'd necessarily do every time, but very cinematic. It makes you think about the relative worth of disgorging your cargo behind a wall to take cover or trying to reach the next strategically important place, knowing that you could all die during the time your transport travels exposed. It also makes you a lot more cagey about where you position your transports (which reduces tactics like putting a vindicator behind a rhino wall with a firing space, and filling those rhinos with long fangs...).

**Melissia**

Ascalam wrote:I think you are over-reacting a tad.

I think I understand the balance of the game.

The element of risk doesn't make it more tactical, it makes them worthless. Why should I put terminators in a land raider? They'll just get blown up with no saves allowed, and Sod's Law says that it'll be by the first lascannon/railgun/melta that hits before they have a chance to get into their ideal striking range and disembark. Why should I bother putting any of my models on the board on turn one? They'll just get blown up before my sisters have a chance to disembark or use smoke. Why should I bother using mechanized guard? I have better things to spend my points and time on than a unit that's just gonna get wiped out from a side shot by a plasmagun.

**Lord Magnus**

I think that Mellisia's "overreacting" is really the truth, if eldar or SoB got blown up by using transports, they wouldn't really have any more viable options in competitive play

**DAaddict**

If you remember the old days. Vehicles were death traps except for skimmers that were almost impossible to kill (esp a glance-only hit on a holofield protected falcon). You got pinned and knocked out of the fight for 1/3 of the time.

To the plus side, the glance chart is gone with its chance for a kill as is the general ineffectiveness of all but melta weapons.

The biggest change IMO is the relative safety of a vehicle - due to the new charts - combined with the discounted cost of vehicles. To my mind any vehicle that add survivability to a unit and costs less than 100% of the cost of the squad is a steal. Thus given the money, I will take 5 squads in rhinos before I would take 6 squads in none.

If you want to experiment, double the cost of any transport with perhaps the exception of a land raider. Now at least you are approaching a point where a transport is not worth it.

**Mahtamori**

Well, DAaddict, blanket changing isn't good, either. Some armies don't pay a whole lot for theirs, while others do. I don't have the codices concerned, but I'm fairly certain that BA Rhinos are a fair bit less expensive than BT Rhinos (at the same time as being better, to boot).
Why do I use an example I'm not certain of? Those two armies would marvellously illustrate the point since we'd be dealing with essentially the same vehicle.

**Ascalam**

Melissia wrote:
Ascalam wrote:I think you are over-reacting a tad.
I think I understand the balance of the game.

The element of risk doesn't make it more tactical, it makes them worthless. Why should I put terminators in a land raider? They'll just get blown up with no saves allowed, and Sod's Law says that it'll be by the first lascannon/railgun/melta that hits before they have a chance to get into their ideal striking range and disembark. Why should I bother putting any of my models on the board on turn one? They'll just get blown up before my sisters have a chance to disembark or use smoke. Why should I bother using mechanized guard? I have better things to spend my points and time on than a unit that's just gonna get wiped out from a side shot by a plasmagun.

Ever been trapped in a burning vehicle, Mel? I have.

The odds of someone surviving a fuel explosion are practically zero, no matter what you might happen to be wearing.

Vehicles shouldn't be a get out of death free card. I also understand the balance of the game quite well. It gets very very unbalanced when, for example, everyone is camped inside vehicles that you need major league artillery to break open (LR i'm looking at you especially) , possibly shooting the hell out of you in complete safety (as they 'don't exist) until they leave or are forcibly ejected from the vehicle. Even when they are forcibly ejected they are hit with about the force of a thrown teddy bear

Why should you use transports? Because you want them to get from point A to point B faster, in some measure of safety (as the vehicle will probably bounce anything but dedicated AT weapons, and in the case of a LR even them, unless someone gets lucky with a S 9 or better weapon. Even if it does take damage it will likely not explode from it, and the squad inside will still be perfectly safe until someone deals it a nice solid hit to the fuel tanks.

Should you accept that someone might target and blow up your pretty box on wheels? Yes. Them's the risks of riding in it.

I'm not advocating that GW should change it's rule. I'm saying that it makes for a far tenser and more interesting game if you don't assume that your unit is safe and sound in a rolling, impenetrable bunker, and even if it does get blown to smithereens they will be just fine.

An example- Fire a ground to air missile at an aircraft carrying troops to the front lines, like the Valk or SR. Do you think anyone is getting out of that one alive if the vehicle explodes going Mach 1, or spirals down out of the sky in a fiery explosion?

**Melissia**

Ascalam wrote:The odds of someone surviving a fuel explosion are practically zero

Unless that vehicle is specifically designed to withstand such a thing with crew intact. Modern civilian cars are not. Military vehicles are.

Ascalam wrote:Vehicles shouldn't be a get out of death free card.

They aren't.

Ascalam wrote:(LR i'm looking at you especially)

Doesn't need major league artillery to break open.

Ascalam wrote:possibly shooting the hell out of you in complete safety

Until you open up their transports for them, in which case half the time they'll take extra wounds and be available to assault afterwards if you did it in the shooting phase.

Ascalam wrote:Even when they are forcibly ejected they are hit with about the force of a thrown teddy bear

A thrown teddy bear isn't able to disembody limbs.

Ascalam wrote:Why should you use transports? Because you want them to get from point A to point B faster

You can do that without using transports in most armies.

Ascalam wrote: in some measure of safety

There is no measure of safety in transports using your rules.

Ascalam wrote:Even if it does take damage it will likely not explode from it

Sod's law says otherwise.

**Ascalam**

Melissia wrote:
Ascalam wrote:The odds of someone surviving a fuel explosion are practically zero
Unless that vehicle is specifically designed to withstand such a thing with crew intact. Modern civilian cars are not. Military vehicles are.

**Military vehicles can still explode. A fuel explosion was just one of the possibilities that came to mind. Several hundred pounds of HE to the crew compartment would do the same job.**

Ascalam wrote:Vehicles shouldn't be a get out of death free card.
They aren't.

**If you're wearing armour they pretty much are, doubly so if you are T 4- 10 marines in a rhino, half are wounded by the explosion, 2 in six fail the armour save on average (rough an nasty math) = 1, possibly 2 deaths from their enclosed metal box becoming a fireball. Terminators are damn near immune. **

Ascalam wrote:(LR i'm looking at you especially)
Doesn't need major league artillery to break open.

**S 9 or don't bother. S8 can eventually glance it down, but it takes a while. if you don't consider S9 to be powerful what is? **

Ascalam wrote:possibly shooting the hell out of you in complete safety
Until you open up their transports for them, in which case half the time they'll take extra wounds and be available to assault afterwards if you did it in the shooting phase.

**Which isn't all that easy- you need some decent Strength guns to open anything better than AV10 (unless you are a lucky roller with S 5). If there are T3 folks in there with 4+ armour you might wipe half the unit. If they are marines (for example) you might kill one or two (see above). They will be available to assault, but you'd have to have been knocking on the hull to be in assault range anyway **

Ascalam wrote:Even when they are forcibly ejected they are hit with about the force of a thrown teddy bear
A thrown teddy bear isn't able to disembody limbs.

**Depends on the teddy. **

Ascalam wrote:Why should you use transports? Because you want them to get from point A to point B faster
You can do that without using transports in most armies.

**Faster than walking? How are you moving your troops from point A to point B (the unit we were going to put in a transport, here) without transports faster tyhan by walking, in most armies?**

Ascalam wrote: in some measure of safety
There is no measure of safety in transports using your rules.

**So 1-5 on the damage table don't exist for you? I want a copy of your book when i'm shooting up vehicles. **

Ascalam wrote:Even if it does take damage it will likely not explode from it
Sod's law says otherwise.

**Sod's law is as sod's law does. If i'm lucky i'll get to blow up one or two vehicles in a game. Most get wrecked or immobilized. Against Eldar (holofields

) not even that. There is an element of chance in playing the game, and sometimes the dice gods don't smile. **