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.

Brother SRM wrote:People copying tournament lists may be one reason why mech is so prevalent, but it's not the only reason.

Because people use mech lists in tournaments certainly isn't the only reason to use mech lists. If things were solely a matter of which style is more viable over all, though, there would only be a slight bias towards mech lists (because some old codices really can't do foot lists well). Why there is a sometimes rabid popularity for mech lists has little to do with mech lists being categorically better, and much more to do with the fact that they are categorically better in a particular set of circumstances, which people mistake for being better in general competitive play.

It's easy to see people placing well at nova and adepticon with mech lists and then make faulty conclusions about mech lists. Much easier than thinking things through more carefully.

Brother SRM wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
It's because of tournaments.

I often agree with you, and you may be half right here, but it isn't strictly the case. I know if my 10 Sternguard are on foot they'll never reach their target in one piece, or if they do it will be later in the game. People copying tournament lists may be one reason why mech is so prevalent, but it's not the only reason.

That is arguably because Sternguard Vets aren't very good in a footslogging list. If you'd build a footslogging marine list you'd either pod them or not include them. I run a BT list where the only vehicles are drop pods and I do just fine, but I usually don't have a lot of time left over in tournies, so there's certainly a problem for lists that are light on mech.

what confuses me more i think is seeing strong mech lists on tiny tables, they seem to be all about mobility and distance, closing the gap...but that is non existent on small tables...so why would you use such a list? is it the tournament influence? because there are enough easy ways to pop tanks and such and if you don't have to worry about surviving the walk... and well..lol at mech.

i do however think that mech lists are easy to play, are streamlined and the units themselves are powerful and resiliant making it a big attraction to people. but then thats the hole multiple factors thing cropping up.

still i am very surprised by this tournament influence

Ailaros wrote:It's because of tournaments. Tournaments heavily bias towards armies that require the least amount of time to set up and play that take best advantage of criminally sparse terrain, and don't penalize people with KP, as that mission type is practically always diluted against other missions.

Tournaments are competitive environments, so when people look to build competitive lists, they copy tournament lists. Of course, there are lots of other types of competitive lists that aren't tailored specifically to tournament environments, but why bother thinking for yourself when you can just copy someone else's thinking for you?

I think your 90% right here. If you look at most tournament winning lists they are mech based, but there are some foot lists that you do see. Blackmoor's draigowing and Reecius's draigowing come to mind. You can also run a decent SW foot GH spam list, BA DoA list or DA deathwing list.

What do those armies have in common? ~80 or less models. The ability to move and shoot. Shooting delivering the majority of punch. If a foot-based army does not match these criteria, it probably will not succeeed.

If your playing a 150 man guard army, or 180+ boy army, there is just not enough time to play the army in a timed game.

labmouse42 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:It's because of tournaments. Tournaments heavily bias towards armies that require the least amount of time to set up and play that take best advantage of criminally sparse terrain, and don't penalize people with KP, as that mission type is practically always diluted against other missions.

Tournaments are competitive environments, so when people look to build competitive lists, they copy tournament lists. Of course, there are lots of other types of competitive lists that aren't tailored specifically to tournament environments, but why bother thinking for yourself when you can just copy someone else's thinking for you?

I think your 90% right here. If you look at most tournament winning lists they are mech based, but there are some foot lists that you do see. Blackmoor's draigowing and Reecius's draigowing come to mind. You can also run a decent SW foot GH spam list, BA DoA list or DA deathwing list.

What do those armies have in common? ~80 or less models. The ability to move and shoot. Shooting delivering the majority of punch. If a foot-based army does not match these criteria, it probably will not succeeed.

If your playing a 150 man guard army, or 180+ boy army, there is just not enough time to play the army in a timed game.

This, precisely. The only reason I manage to finish games in time with my Templars is because I have loads of points invested in Terminators, lowering my model count substantially. Any more and there simply isn't enough time.

All this about horde foot being hard to move quickly is why I don't put too much stock in the power of spacing. Sure, spacing is a good way to save yourself from blasts and templates, but I find that lot of the time people don't get to space. When you are playing a horde of infantry, you have to make sure all your guys get set up quickly, and ensuring that all your guys are 2" away from one anouther is tough to keep track of. Not saying it isn't possible, but it's a good sight more tedious and difficult to space 150+ gaurdsmen or 180 orks then it is to space 5 marines or ten sterngaurd after they got shot out of their transport.

When I think of balancing foot versus mech, I usually think of the real life balance between foot and mech. Units on foot are, as you may have guessed, more fragile, slower, and can bring significantly less firepower to bear than armor. Armored units, however, generally are less tactically flexible, less maneuverable, and are more fragile than infantry in their own way.

Since armored units are larger, louder, and less fleet of foot, they can be easily picked out by dedicated AT weapons, unless properly husbanded and protected.

In terms of tactical flexibilty, there are a few factors. As stated, it's easier for infantry on food to utilize cover, and they can do so in multiple ways. For instance, a platoon of infantry can hole up in a ruined building to regroup/wait for an ambush/get their heads out of the fog of war and take stock/mend or evac casualties... You get the picture. A tank is going to have a hard time hiding ANYWHERE, period, and an even harder time getting to that hiding place unnoticed. Cover, for armor, is transient; in the IDF, armored warfare doctrine revolves around the use of small hills, which Israel/Palestine and the surround areas are FILLED with, as firing positions, which a tanker will use to fire from the top of, then roll back down to evade counterfire. But these situations aren't what you'd call stable cover; they are easily outflanked, and an enemy gunner can wait for a tank to crown if tries to fire from the same spot twice.

When you combine all these factors, it becomes kind of ironic; the MSU/Razorback spam has a modern-day equivalent in Armored Cavalry and, particularly, US Army Stryker Brigades. These units pair squad sized, 10-man units of infantry with a mother-vehicle armed with a support weapon (.50 cal machine gun, or automatic grenade launcher) and advanced communications and combat computer systems to create a single, cohesive unit that has the strategic speed and at least some of the staying and hitting power of Armored Cavalry units, but can disembark with the flexibility, maneuverability, and tactical capabilities of light infantry.

I don't think I have the game-knowledge to translate that into rules, but y'all are welcome to do with it what you may.

In 3rd edition transports weren't dedicated and took up force allocation slots.

Now a days most armies have criminally inexpensive transports which at worst will net you extra movement and protection from murderous shooting from a single squad. Provided you are Space Marines, for low save armies transports are actually a trade off. Guardians or Imperial Guard inside a transport that is exploded have no fun time at all, for Space Marines this is usually only a good way to disembark outside of your own turn so you can assault during your own turn. And 35 points is really nothing for a Rhino.

Not to mention that Fire Ports allow you to shoot recoil-less guns like missile launchers from inside a small metal box filled with your comrades which makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

There are two problems with going without mech. First off, no matter how weak a vehicle is, it always has a 'damage result save', so cheap transports are some of the most cost-effective survival bunkers in the game.

Also, most foot lists are horde lists and take a long time to play.

Not to mention that Fire Ports allow you to shoot recoil-less guns like missile launchers from inside a small metal box filled w

Technically they climb up into the firing port which is atop the vehicle, meaning the exhaust would be hitting against the top of the vehicle, rather than at the occupants (unless it was to big a hole)

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not to mention that Fire Ports allow you to shoot recoil-less guns like missile launchers from inside a small metal box filled w

Technically they climb up into the firing port which is atop the vehicle, meaning the exhaust would be hitting against the top of the vehicle, rather than at the occupants (unless it was to big a hole)

That would still be not at ALL a good idea...

Mahtamori wrote:Not to mention that Fire Ports allow you to shoot recoil-less guns like missile launchers from inside a small metal box filled with your comrades which makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Many rules "make absolutely no sense what so ever"

But The rules were not written to be "Real World" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle.

What would happen in the real world has nothing to do with the RAW.

TermiesInARaider wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not to mention that Fire Ports allow you to shoot recoil-less guns like missile launchers from inside a small metal box filled w

Technically they climb up into the firing port which is atop the vehicle, meaning the exhaust would be hitting against the top of the vehicle, rather than at the occupants (unless it was to big a hole)

That would still be not at ALL a good idea...

Seeing as the entire occupant's are equipped in power armor (Including the driver!) That can take a heavy flamer and still be able to not pierce it, I'm sure they don't find it as bad an idea as say, a chimera's firing ports.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

TermiesInARaider wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not to mention that Fire Ports allow you to shoot recoil-less guns like missile launchers from inside a small metal box filled w

Technically they climb up into the firing port which is atop the vehicle, meaning the exhaust would be hitting against the top of the vehicle, rather than at the occupants (unless it was to big a hole)

That would still be not at ALL a good idea...

Seeing as the entire occupant's are equipped in power armor (Including the driver!) That can take a heavy flamer and still be able to not pierce it, I'm sure they don't find it as bad an idea as say, a chimera's firing ports.

Granted, but I'm still a little skeptical. If not the occupants, then I could still easily imagine that'd feth up the internal instruments and equipment.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That is arguably because Sternguard Vets aren't very good in a footslogging list. If you'd build a footslogging marine list you'd either pod them or not include them. I run a BT list where the only vehicles are drop pods and I do just fine, but I usually don't have a lot of time left over in tournies, so there's certainly a problem for lists that are light on mech.

Are they footslogging largely or is it a mostly drop pod army? BT can footslog better than average Marines due to Righteous Zeal, but a drop pod Marine army can still work too. Kind of a strange middleground between mech and footslogging.

Also, I do want to point out in regards to tournaments, that Reecius took footdar to Adepticon and did fairly well with them, since everyone's expecting to fight meched up armies. Footdar also have some abilities and units that make that build work to their advantage, but they still were able to do well under a good general.

What about foot IG?

We have been talking alot about MEQ; with BT footslogging, DP marine lists and other types of MEQ. But the truth is, they all manage, whether they run it or drive.

GEQ, at T3 with 5+, on paper, wouldn't last too long. What would be needed in terms of a buff to make them better?

I do very much like the idea of 'digging in' to fortify a position and shoot with a benificial cover save. Would that overhaul the balance too much? Going to have to be some sort of limitation on it, right? Like takes a turn to dig in, and fight at I1 after getting charged, as they are preoccupied shooting etc?

Zambro wrote:What about foot IG?

We have been talking alot about MEQ; with BT footslogging, DP marine lists and other types of MEQ. But the truth is, they all manage, whether they run it or drive.

GEQ, at T3 with 5+, on paper, wouldn't last too long. What would be needed in terms of a buff to make them better?

I do very much like the idea of 'digging in' to fortify a position and shoot with a benificial cover save. Would that overhaul the balance too much? Going to have to be some sort of limitation on it, right? Like takes a turn to dig in, and fight at I1 after getting charged, as they are preoccupied shooting etc?

I'd say, something similar to those go-to-ground tactics, or the added flexibility that infantry have in other games, as mentioned above. Giving them a tougher statline seems just silly, but there's no reason not to give them abilities to make them tougher, or at least worth playing. More so than they are now, at any rate.

Mahtamori wrote:In 3rd edition transports weren't dedicated and took up force allocation slots.

Nope. It's worked just the same in 3rd-5th, ever since they introduced the Force Org chart. In 2nd edition and earlier they used percentages instead.

Many of the ideas proposed to only seem to do a bit to balance marines, then annihilate GEq. Auto pinning? Yeah, people hated this, but with the damage chart more deadly then, which made auto pinning pretty rough. Skimmers going fast and hull down vehicles, however, could only ever be glanced, so this lowered the likelyhood of them being penetrated and auto pinned. My DE list would suffer horribly if auto pinning or the 4e vehicle charts returned and I'd be forced to use no wyches at all, as they would then be worthless.

Up the strength of the explosion? Yeah, also mulches anything not in PA.

So what could be a bit more troublesome to Marines, but less so to GEq? How about something that scales with modelcount/cost?

On a 6, all passengers in the vehicle must take a Dangerous Terrain test. Simple, elegant, it's just as likely to kill a guardsman or a Dire Avenger as a Marine, but those models are far more available than a Marine, or god forbid a Termie.

The real downside to this is that the number of killed marines on average stays exactly the same, the number of Terminators goes up significantly, and the number of GEq deaths plummets, sadly only reinforcing Mech Guard and DE. I mean, great for me as a DE player, but I'm already doing all right. No need for me to get super cheesy.

I do remember that there were in fact 3 vehicle charts, with the one for Ordinance including the extra special gem: on a 6 the vehicle is destroyed and removed from the table and all passengers are lost, as the artillary shell punctured the hull before exploding. Perhaps we could add that step to the chart? The chart becomes 7 steps rather than 6, but the only way to get that result naturally would be on open topped vehicles or with AP1. Sadly, that nerfs the baJEEZUS out of DE and Orks, unless the open toped nature of the vehicle prevents the passngers from dying, and forces the unit to go to ground instead as they bail out of their vehicle.

The downside of THAT suggestion is the already flooded field of Melta weapons in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:In 3rd edition transports weren't dedicated and took up force allocation slots.

Nope. It's worked just the same in 3rd-5th, ever since they introduced the Force Org chart. In 2nd edition and earlier they used percentages instead.

Transports just happened to be MORE "dedicated" than they are now, allowing you to transport ONLY the unit you bought it for.

True.

I liked the suggestion earlier about instead of S3/S4 hits, a unit in an Exploded transport just loses d3 models automatically.

This would be brutal to terminators and other elite units, and to the last couple of guys from a squad hiding in a transport to preserve and kp/hold an objective.

It would hurt expensive squads like SM more than cheap guys like guard, but SM are more durable and can survive better outside transports anyway.

It would also discourage leaving a solo character in a transport just to hide and use radius effects (like BA Sang Priests and SM Librarians or SW Runepriests). It would also discourage putting uber non-IC characters (like Mephiston) in transports.

^Thanks, that was mine. Only problem I see is that now things like orks in battlewagons arn't really effected. Str 3 ap- kills about 5-6 orks while d3 just kills half that at best. On one hand, you could increase to a d6 for higher transport space vehicles, but the only transports i can think of with higher then 12 spaces are LR crusaders and battlewagons. Balances orks, but really hurts crusaders, so much people might quit taking them. Also, really is a way to specialized rule. I suppose there isn't too much you can do about that.

Zambro wrote:What about foot IG?

We have been talking alot about MEQ; with BT footslogging, DP marine lists and other types of MEQ. But the truth is, they all manage, whether they run it or drive.

GEQ, at T3 with 5+, on paper, wouldn't last too long. What would be needed in terms of a buff to make them better?

I do very much like the idea of 'digging in' to fortify a position and shoot with a benificial cover save. Would that overhaul the balance too much? Going to have to be some sort of limitation on it, right? Like takes a turn to dig in, and fight at I1 after getting charged, as they are preoccupied shooting etc?

Paging Ailaros back to the thread, Ailaros to the thread

All they need to stick around are numbers, cover, and Commissars. With enough men there will still be some left alive (generally those with the big guns), and with Commissars they generally won't run. I do like the idea of infantry being able to "dig in" as opposed to the Go to Ground ability. It works in Flames of War, which is more or less 15mm World Warhammer II, so I don't see why it couldn't work in 40k also.

Yeah, foot guard are fine. When you bring more guys than they brought bullets, and have 4+ or 2+ cover saves and are stubborn rerollable Ld in close combat, they're fine enough already.

The only thing I'd like is if heavy weapons teams went back to being two models again, so that they couldn't be instantly killed by S6 weapons.

So long as you've got the time and patience to create one, and have the time to deploy, move, and actually think about what you're doing (so, not a 2,000 point game in 2.5 hours), and actually has the proper amount of terrain, foot guard does just fine.

Mannahnin wrote:True.

I liked the suggestion earlier about instead of S3/S4 hits, a unit in an Exploded transport just loses d3 models automatically.

This would be brutal to terminators and other elite units, and to the last couple of guys from a squad hiding in a transport to preserve and kp/hold an objective.

It would hurt expensive squads like SM more than cheap guys like guard, but SM are more durable and can survive better outside transports anyway.

It would also discourage leaving a solo character in a transport just to hide and use radius effects (like BA Sang Priests and SM Librarians or SW Runepriests). It would also discourage putting uber non-IC characters (like Mephiston) in transports.

Yeah here are some pictures that lend to my argument of the crew being pretty much whacked when a vehicle explodes. Do you know why? See below. When a vehicle explodes everyone inside DIES. Don't give a damn about your space marines' armor. When that much shrapnel is flying they will be toast.

WARNING! Mature content. If you click the spoiler link then follow the links below and are offended it's your own damn fault. WARNING!

Hikaru-119 wrote:

I liked the suggestion earlier about instead of S3/S4 hits, a unit in an Exploded transport just loses d3 models automatically.

This would be brutal to terminators and other elite units, and to the last couple of guys from a squad hiding in a transport to preserve and kp/hold an objective.

It would hurt expensive squads like SM more than cheap guys like guard, but SM are more durable and can survive better outside transports anyway.

That idea isn't bad. I don't think we need to see those pictures though; I was expecting human hamburger in them and was about to report your post, but I think we all understand that when a vehicle gets wrecked the doors don't just fall off it.

Honestly, if they made it so that any unit that disembarked because their transport was wrecked or exploded automatically fail a pin check, it would assuage most of the good reasons some people don't like transports.

Hikaru-119 wrote:When a vehicle explodes everyone inside DIES. Don't give a damn about your space marines' armor. When that much shrapnel is flying they will be toast.

And then you realize that The rules were not written to be "Real World" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle.

What would happen in the real world has nothing to do with the RAW.

They write the rules the way they do with game balance in mind.

Hikaru-119 wrote:I liked the suggestion earlier about instead of S3/S4 hits, a unit in an Exploded transport just loses d3 models automatically.

Then you would have to reduce the points on units like Paladins, Terminators, veterans etc.

Hikaru-119 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:True.

I liked the suggestion earlier about instead of S3/S4 hits, a unit in an Exploded transport just loses d3 models automatically.

This would be brutal to terminators and other elite units, and to the last couple of guys from a squad hiding in a transport to preserve and kp/hold an objective.

It would hurt expensive squads like SM more than cheap guys like guard, but SM are more durable and can survive better outside transports anyway.

It would also discourage leaving a solo character in a transport just to hide and use radius effects (like BA Sang Priests and SM Librarians or SW Runepriests). It would also discourage putting uber non-IC characters (like Mephiston) in transports.

Yeah here are some pictures that lend to my argument of the crew being pretty much whacked when a vehicle explodes. Do you know why? See below. When a vehicle explodes everyone inside DIES. Don't give a damn about your space marines' armor. When that much shrapnel is flying they will be toast.

So your argument is founded in that it'd be more realistic that people inside just die, but at the same time ignores the fact that Power Armour (not to mention Terminator Armour) is designed to withstand shrapnel and fire and explosions.

Hell, that suggestion would actually BUFF transports for Orks and Imperial Guard, and I'm not sure that's what everyone wants.

Yeah here are some pictures that lend to my argument of the crew being pretty much whacked when a vehicle explodes. Do you know why? See below. When a vehicle explodes everyone inside DIES. Don't give a damn about your space marines' armor. When that much shrapnel is flying they will be toast.

Yes because power armor, which can resist most things, such as shrapnel from a frag missle, the heavy flamer (Which cooks at a higher rate than the standard promethium fuel setup of a standard fuel engine in 40k) Do you know what it takes to directly pierce a space marine armor?

A direct krak missle shot. This is using an Anti-Tank vehicle to get past space marine armor. Unless that missle penetrates and hits a marine, they are not going to DIE that easy!

Power armor is not tissue paper here. They will die at times, some things will get through, but an automatic death from shrapnel and leaking burning fuel? Yeah no. Not to mention this would buff Mech-Guard up to even higher levels.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Yeah here are some pictures that lend to my argument of the crew being pretty much whacked when a vehicle explodes. Do you know why? See below. When a vehicle explodes everyone inside DIES. Don't give a damn about your space marines' armor. When that much shrapnel is flying they will be toast.

Yes because power armor, which can resist most things, such as shrapnel from a frag missle, the heavy flamer (Which cooks at a higher rate than the standard promethium fuel setup of a standard fuel engine in 40k) Do you know what it takes to directly pierce a space marine armor?

A direct krak missle shot. This is using an Anti-Tank vehicle to get past space marine armor. Unless that missle penetrates and hits a marine, they are not going to DIE that easy!

Power armor is not tissue paper here. They will die at times, some things will get through, but an automatic death from shrapnel and leaking burning fuel? Yeah no. Not to mention this would buff Mech-Guard up to even higher levels.

No, power armour stops weaker projectiles two thirds of the time...yet the chance of them dying in an explosion is one in six. Go figure.
I like the idea of a dangerous terrain check. It a)nerfs marines without killing off guard and b)gives a decent chance of taking out a sargant/special weapon.