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.

So every once and a while I get tired of the mech meta and want to remember the days when you didnt have to start everything in iron boxes. Maybe you just dont want to carry around all those extra cases for your 10+ vehicles.(my figs take 1 case my vehicles take 2 cases)
obviously this would be for tailored lists of a sort. I understand that competitiveness will change, this is not about making totally competitive rules.
so in a friendly game what would you propose?

No transports, other vehicles are ok
No transports, 1 vehicle, and as many walkers as you like
No transports, 1 vehicle and 1 walker
No Vehicles except for walkers
NO Vehicles.
You cannot restrict vehicles at all, all armies NEED them.

Why do you think that would be the fairest rule for all armies and which armies do you think would suffer the most under those specific rules.
Also under which rules might you be interested in playing?

Obviously nids have no vehicles, so they are the same however you run it. Necrons only have 1 type of vehicle, and anyone taking 3 monolyths in a small game is a tad beardy already.

No vehicles would be the best way to stop vehicles. Though many armies hinge on them, so nerfing them would be the more sensable thing.

But what about the guard. They can't do jack gak without their tanks

The problem with restricting vehicles is that is completely changes the game.

Say I'm a Dark Eldar player. How am I supposed to get from point A to point B, while murdering everything that gets in my way as cruelly and violently as possible, without my Raiders, Venoms, and Ravagers?

As for the Imperial Guard, you might as well shelf them. Without their vehicles, they're simply T 3 humans wearing cardboard. Removing vehicles from the game is simply going to put a prevalence on MEQ armies, since everyone's going to want to try and get the best save possible.

Here's an idea - instead of removing Vehicles, change them! Make it easier for, say, a meltagun or a lascannon to blow up a tank, as opposed to a missile launcher.

Personally, I'm a fan of the "33" armor rule, wherein you add the Front Side (adding it only once) and Rear armor values together. If the combined armor value is 33 or less, then you can take the vehicle. If not, then you cant. This restricts the game to transports and light walkers only. Coupled with rules about no ordnance allowed, no 2+ saves, and a 500 point restriction, this makes for a great game for newer players or people gearing up with a new army.

Otherwise, though, I think the game has become so vehicle-centric, and some armies (Guard) are reliant on their metal boxes for any sort of protection. Without it, they'd get chewed to crap.

Jordan wrote:Personally, I'm a fan of the "33" armor rule, wherein you add the Front Side (adding it only once) and Rear armor values together. If the combined armor value is 33 or less, then you can take the vehicle. If not, then you cant. This restricts the game to transports and light walkers only. Coupled with rules about no ordnance allowed, no 2+ saves, and a 500 point restriction, this makes for a great game for newer players or people gearing up with a new army.

Otherwise, though, I think the game has become so vehicle-centric, and some armies (Guard) are reliant on their metal boxes for any sort of protection. Without it, they'd get chewed to crap.

Unless, of course, you're a Dark Eldar player. Ravagers, Voidravens, Razorwings - they'd tear everyone to shreds.

So what about monstrous creatures? Artillery that isn't a vehicle? Imperial Guard, whom relies on vehicles? And this owuld basically give a large advantage to fast assaulty armies.

Obviously, it's not a perfect system. The rule set is limited to 500 points, the biggest limiting factor. I think there was also a rule about a 2 wound maximum.

Here's the rule set:

http://pitoftheoni.blogspot.com/2008/09/combat-patrol-in-5th-edition.html

Check it out, decide for yourselves if it's worth a try. I've used to to great effect at my local club for new players and the occasional break from bigger games.

Sabet wrote:But what about the guard. They can't do jack gak without their tanks

what do you mean guard cant do jack without their tanks? Footy guard can be nasty. at 1000 points you could be talking 150 guardsmen with a lot of heavy weapons.

Also one of the options I posted was just no transports. Other vehicles, like LRBTs would be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jordan wrote:Personally, I'm a fan of the "33" armor rule, wherein you add the Front Side (adding it only once) and Rear armor values together. If the combined armor value is 33 or less, then you can take the vehicle. If not, then you cant. This restricts the game to transports and light walkers only. Coupled with rules about no ordnance allowed, no 2+ saves, and a 500 point restriction, this makes for a great game for newer players or people gearing up with a new army.

I think your 33 rule gives too much of an advantage to armies that have light transports. SM, DE, Guard, and Orks are fine. Tau and eldar get screwed.

Tau Devilfish are 12 11 10, aren't they? They'd be fine under the 33 armor rule. And of course Eldar get the shaft, but they're into that kind of thing. At least they were.

Everything I mentioned was for low-points games and there a bunch of other restrictions. Personally, if we're gonna go no vehicles, I'm also thinking no Monsterous Creatures as well. Get rid of the power houses in every army and make it an infantry-only slap fight. Thoughts?

Exergy wrote:

Sabet wrote:But what about the guard. They can't do jack gak without their tanks

what do you mean guard cant do jack without their tanks? Footy guard can be nasty. at 1000 points you could be talking 150 guardsmen with a lot of heavy weapons.

Whiiiiiiiiich are basically just fodder for blast templates and assaults.

Melissia wrote:

Exergy wrote:

Sabet wrote:But what about the guard. They can't do jack gak without their tanks

what do you mean guard cant do jack without their tanks? Footy guard can be nasty. at 1000 points you could be talking 150 guardsmen with a lot of heavy weapons.

Whiiiiiiiiich are basically just fodder for blast templates and assaults.

Melissa's right on this one, I'm afraid.

150 Guardsmen < 20 Berzerkers, played right.

They're also just fodder for longfang missile spam too, and flamer spam, and yada yada ya.

Exergy wrote:So every once and a while I get tired of the mech meta and want to remember the days when you didnt have to start everything in iron boxes. Maybe you just dont want to carry around all those extra cases for your 10+ vehicles.(my figs take 1 case my vehicles take 2 cases)

How about each player is only allowed to bring one case of models to the game?

So why should tyranids be allowed monstrous creatures, but Guard isn't allowed a sentinel?

Add all the armour you plan to field together.

if the total is Less than 60. Go for it.

If its more. Drop Something.

I'd agree with the nerfing vehicles rule. Some armies manage fine without them (mostly marines) while the 33 rule would make other armies unplayable (Eldar would be left with only Wraithwalling). How about simply changing glancing hits to do -1 instead of -2? That is, short of making all vehicles from a 5th edition 25% more expensive, of course.

Oaka wrote:

Exergy wrote:So every once and a while I get tired of the mech meta and want to remember the days when you didnt have to start everything in iron boxes. Maybe you just dont want to carry around all those extra cases for your 10+ vehicles.(my figs take 1 case my vehicles take 2 cases)

How about each player is only allowed to bring one case of models to the game?

Then you get players who take every opportunity they can to compensate for other stuff and have oversized cases. (Or in the case of one of my friends, happen to live at the place where the wargaming takes place).

Changing glancing to -1 would make tau able to destroy a rhino from the front with their basic weapon, amongst other things... I'm rather iffy about that idea.

Hell you'd see autocannons destroying predators too, and Exorcists could destroy EVERYThING with a greatly improved chance...

To be honest, why were transports the ones you decided to not have regardless of anything? I think that if you wanted to balance vehicles, you should limit it to only transports. I only use them to increase the movement of my infantry anyway. And I mean light transports. Like your basic chimera, rhino, trukk, etc. I'd be fine with that. All in all though. I find that vehicles are a necessary evil.

I voted for: You cannot restrict vehicles at all, all armies NEED them.

quit your crying and just play the game the ways the rules are for now.

THE FIRST COMMENT IS RUDE. THE SECOND SEEMS A BIT SILLY, GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE PROPOSED RULES FORUM.

Please keep your comments polite, and kindly bear in mind what forum you're in.

Melissia, honestly vehicles are running a bit rampant. If something becomes so necessary it becomes mandatory, it's time to review whether or not this is a design intention or not. Personally, I feel 5th edition has lowered the price on transports a little too much and made them a little too robust.

martin74 wrote:quit your crying and just play the game the ways the rules are for now.

With that attitude, you probably should stay away from the "Proposed Rules" forum. It's for your own good.

Mahtamori wrote:Melissia, honestly vehicles are running a bit rampant.

No they aren't.

Vehicles are only necessary for some armies. Which is why removing them is a bad idea, because it'd benefit those armies which do not rely on them more. For an army whose playstyle is tied to vehicles-- such as Guard, Sisters, and Dark Eldar-- this would be a disastrously bad rule. For Orks, Tyranids, Space Marines, etc, whom have excellent non-vehicle options, it'd be a great thing.

Vehicles are fine the way they are it makes the game fair. Everything has at least one unit that can take out a tank from range and CC.

Put it this way. They're counter balanced.
Rhino 55. Terminator with Chain Fist 47P

More often than not the thing that is killing the tank is cheaper and the Tank doesn't make its points back. So its fair.

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

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

The game is designed for vehicles and thats why anti tank weapons was invented. Its just not the same without vehicles so I don't think they shoudl be limited in games. Im games that are below 1000pts I think vehicles such as Land Raiders shouldn't be allowed. If you hate playing again cehicles just take more anti tank weapons. Then play against my guard mas and kill a whole guardsman with your melta shot .

It balances out each army The nids have alot of mc with a lot of wounds just imagine an IG army with no leman russes

Mahtamori wrote:Melissia, honestly vehicles are running a bit rampant. If something becomes so necessary it becomes mandatory, it's time to review whether or not this is a design intention or not. Personally, I feel 5th edition has lowered the price on transports a little too much and made them a little too robust.

martin74 wrote:quit your crying and just play the game the ways the rules are for now.

With that attitude, you probably should stay away from the "Proposed Rules" forum. It's for your own good.

>vehicles running rampant
>vehicles too robust
>implying skimmers are robust
>implying rhinos are as strong as land raiders
>implying that limiting the vehicles will make your tyranids stronger
>implying MC won't be limited

Golden rule of 40k: IT IS WHAT IT IS

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)