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.

Cityfight was a reinvention of 40k 4th edition, I wonder what the current game would look like if you took away tanks, dreads, transports and all units with an armour value!

Imagine a 4x4 table scattered with terrain. 500 - 750 points and only infantry models! Would that be good? Is that a game anyone on dakka would like to play? I'd be interested to see the response...

I love my tanks :(

I'd still play it, but it wouldn't be as fun.

Yes of course... there were editions of the game before tanks became widespread. They were very fun and the dynamic of the game was much different. You didn't need over-the-top mega characters to have truly "heroic" things happen on the battlefield, which is a loss that has diminished the game.

That being said... I don't hate tanks, but I do remember the all-infantry days fondly when terminators and dreads were really the gods of the battlefield.

Horst wrote:I love my tanks :(

I'd still play it, but it wouldn't be as fun.

I agree, since I was enticed into playing 40k with a picture of a Land Raider

You could play, but certain armies would become insanely overpowered. Namely Nids and Orks. Tau and IG would plummet to rock bottom. Space Marines would HAVE to take TH/SS termies in massive quantities to just stay alive. Gk purifier lists would be good. Dark Eldar would be ok. Eldar would be in trouble.

40K would probably work well without the tanks ...
But who doesn't like to crash huge tanks right into the enemy's ranks or just blow up everything with huge weapons that can only be carried by tanks?

I would love all infantry games. I run IG, and I detest having to run tanks. They're effective and deadly, but I just have so much more fun fielding hordes of sweaty man mobs.

Gitsplitta wrote:....I do remember the all-infantry days fondly when terminators and dreads were really the gods of the battlefield.

its the days when terminators were gods that I also remember...legendary. It's just a bit sad that the game has become so much about squads hiding in transports just to survive a few turns. I'm gonna try out a few all-infantry games and see how it goes. Crimson Fists vs Orks, the classic match up!

Right, cause the Tau and IG really need a game that take away their strengths.

I've tried a mass infantry blob against space marines, saint happening.

The rules were different then sfshilo... everyone was on foot so the rules were balanced accordingly. If you took all tanks out of 5th then of course things would be really screwed up... but if the rules were written for an all-infantry game, things would be more balanced.

Tanks removed or greatly reduced would make alot of sense, if such a term can be applied to 40k. It's rediculous these days how the game crams 10 tanks onto a table representing a playing area the size of a football pitch.

The game would have to be modified on all corners, and still it wouldn't be that much of an improvement. What the game really needs is an overwatch or reaction mechanic so that troops can't just run from cover to cover without getting shot at. It's probably the most glaring tactical omission in the 40k rulebook.

s.j.mccartney wrote:Cityfight was a reinvention of 40k 4th edition, I wonder what the current game would look like if you took away tanks, dreads, transports and all units with an armour value!

Imagine a 4x4 table scattered with terrain. 500 - 750 points and only infantry models! Would that be good? Is that a game anyone on dakka would like to play? I'd be interested to see the response...

You could play this way now if you and your opponent wished to.

No need to alter the game itself. The more options the better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eilif wrote:Tanks removed or greatly reduced would make alot of sense, if such a term can be applied to 40k. It's rediculous these days how the game crams 10 tanks onto a table representing a playing area the size of a football pitch.

The game would have to be modified on all corners, and still it wouldn't be that much of an improvement. What the game really needs is an overwatch or reaction mechanic so that troops can't just run from cover to cover without getting shot at. It's probably the most glaring tactical omission in the 40k rulebook.

Overwatch in previous edition led to static games in which both sides hunkered down and waited for the other guy to move.

It was boring...

Gitsplitta wrote:Yes of course... there were editions of the game before tanks became widespread. They were very fun and the dynamic of the game was much different. You didn't need over-the-top mega characters to have truly "heroic" things happen on the battlefield, which is a loss that has diminished the game.

Snuh?

The editions where tanks were not prevalent were also the editions when single characters won battles entirely by themselves.

DarknessEternal wrote:

The editions where tanks were not prevalent were also the editions when single characters won battles entirely by themselves.

We still have that: see Grey Knights

CT GAMER wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

The editions where tanks were not prevalent were also the editions when single characters won battles entirely by themselves.

We still have that: see Grey Knights

I don't know how you play, but Draigo isn't going to win any games by himself. and neither is a GKGM or Librarian. Muck it up, yes, but Ghaz ad Eldrad do the same for less points.

Tanks make this game "different". Biggest turn off for most miniature games, where are the vehicles?

On top of that no armored vehicles means no anti tank, so consequentially no big guns. Whats a wargame without your rocket teams and demo men?
Lastly tanks have been a reality of war since world war 1, why would we stop using them? Ships were used to move troops around in ancient times and automobiles were used in world war 2; it seems counter intuitive to get rid of them.

Cities of Death or Kill Teams are a fun alternative thing, but tanks make 40k a really good wargame.

Gitsplitta wrote:The rules were different then sfshilo... everyone was on foot so the rules were balanced accordingly. If you took all tanks out of 5th then of course things would be really screwed up... but if the rules were written for an all-infantry game, things would be more balanced.

EXACTLY. Agreed 100%. The current rules have to be balanced to include vehicles, cutting them out cold turkey would be ugly.

I'm a bit confused by those saying space marines would suffer. There are quite a few infantry space marine armies that could hold their own. (Blood Angels and Space Wolves) And the flexability of the SM codex seems to me to allow a player to field an infantry SM army. (Speaking of which, anyone out there do that?)

All infantry IG is pretty decent without their tanks as far as I know. If such a gamemode existed, I would probably play it and have fun, but it should be made for small games (like kill teams, just a bit bigger and with biger units), or guys like me who hate playing horde armies would stop having fun. I love my tanks, and I would never play a game with over 750 points per player without tanks. My goal is pretty much to have one of each vehicle in Codex: Imperial Guard, and I am almost halfway there.

CT GAMER wrote:
Overwatch in previous edition led to static games in which both sides hunkered down and waited for the other guy to move.
It was boring...

That was 3 editions ago and not only was it not handled very well, there were many other things that slowed down that game. There are many games with an improved overwatch mechanic these days. In fact, it's almost standard fare for most wargames, and it's one of the most glaring omissions in the 40k rulebook when compared to other games.

What I'm saying is that Overwatch/Reaction mechanics should in no way be judged by early 90's 2nd edition 40k. It's come a long way since then.

Do Dreadnoughts count as tanks? What about Hive Tyrants?

If tanks were taken out, I'd have to swap Lascannons for Heavy Bolters with my Long Fangs Packs and trade Meltaguns for Flamers with my Grey Hunters. Thunderwolf Cavalry would be ridiculously powerful.

Since the OP said to take out anything with an armour value, would Termies still be as effective without Land Raiders and Drop Pods? Would an Eldar Footdar list increase in power due to Wraithlords being Monstrous Creatures? How much suckier would Dark Eldar be without their flying pirate ships and jetbikes?

I play with no tanks quite often. more taks means less bezerkers, which is not good. Infantry only games are fun and I don't understand the mentalitlty of 'you have to have vehicles'

Having said that i like tanks, and do play with tanks a lot too. i like variety.

Me and my regular opponenet also ignore special characters altogether, they turn what could normally be a good game into herohammer. which is just boring for both sides.

Necroshea wrote:I would love all infantry games. I run IG, and I detest having to run tanks. They're effective and deadly, but I just have so much more fun fielding hordes of sweaty man mobs.

Sorry long day at work and i had to double check what you typed there, thought you put "hordes of sweaty man moobs"

Also going with the no tanks as it sounds like a nice twist from the current meta

Eilif wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
Overwatch in previous edition led to static games in which both sides hunkered down and waited for the other guy to move.
It was boring...

That was 3 editions ago and not only was it not handled very well, there were many other things that slowed down that game. There are many games with an improved overwatch mechanic these days. In fact, it's almost standard fare for most wargames, and it's one of the most glaring omissions in the 40k rulebook when compared to other games.

What I'm saying is that Overwatch/Reaction mechanics should in no way be judged by early 90's 2nd edition 40k. It's come a long way since then.

Right because the game has changed so much since then...

How would you see an overwatch mechanic working in 40k that would be different then the old one AND not cause the same issues of slowing game and encouraging hunkering down?

I think it would work. It would also make the game a hell of a lot more interesting.

Mind you, I play 'nids, so it's easy for me to say this. But i still think people would love the game.

Increase in BS against a unit for every turn they don't move. But if you set up a unit with the Overwatch USR, they can focus on a single piece of terrain per turn, if they haven't moved, and fire immediately at any unit coming out of it, using -1 BS.

That's one of the Fantasy rules (BS modifiers) that ought to make it into 40K, I think.

I've grown up playing UFO:Enemy Unknown and Incubation, so I like perspective of combat at the squad level. However, I don't think that WH40k could handle this without additional rules.

Interesting...double the range on all weapons to make it interesting, though.