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.

Hey guys,

So, the current Meta is mechanised. Lots of Mech IG, Mech Blood Angels, MSU Razorback spam lists around. I want to know, exactly what is it that puts Mechanised lists ahead of infantry lists?

I would also like to know what rules would have to change / be introduced in make Infantry preferable?

Thanks

Mobility, survivability, and firepower. That tactical squad of yours is going to move 6 inches a turn, or up to 12 on a good roll. For a paltry 35 points more, it can now move a foot every turn guaranteed, and it's in a vehicle that is often small enough to get cover. Inside this vehicle they're also immune to small arms fire, and any sort of ordnance weapon that would normally paste them will at worst blow up their cheap transport. Now if you're doing something like a Razorback spam list, now you've got those same benefits but with a big gun on top that can do some serious damage.

The vehicle damage table just needs to be reworked. Infantry on foot shouldn't exactly be preferable, but it should be equally viable. I think that vehicles exploding should cause more damage to the crew inside. This topic has come up in previous threads, and the idea for a more punishing rule has ranged from every squad member taking a S6 AP2 hit to more reasonable things, like merely upping the strength of the explosion by a point or two.

You could re-introduce some of 4th's restrictions on transports. In 4th, if your vehicle suffered a Penetrating hit (of any kind) the occupants were forced to immediately disembark (and I think took a pinning test). If the vehicle was blown up with them inside, they were automatically Entangled (which was identical to Pinning, except Fearless units were not immune).

Transports were much-less used in 4th, because of rules like the above, and because they cost more points (Rhino with standard equipment was 58, as opposed to 35 now).

In 3rd transports were absolutely amazing- they cost more, but they were functionally all Assault Vehicles.

GW went overboard toning them down going from 3rd to 4th, then overboard again going from 4th to 5th in making them better and cheaper.

How did you get rhino's for 58 pts? My dark angel codex was the first codex released for 4th and it has rhinos at 35 pts.

IndigoJack wrote:How did you get rhino's for 58 pts? My dark angel codex was the first codex released for 4th and it has rhinos at 35 pts.

4th edition was released in 2004. Dark Angels was released in 2007 near the end of 4th edition and is structured like a 5th edition codex. In the 4th edition Space Marine codex published in 2005 rhinos had a base cost of 50 points and users typically bought extra armor and smoke launchers for 8 more points.

Honestly, I like transports as they are, and a lot of frequently suggested nerfs might provide some small semblance of balance for MEQ's, but would utterly ruin T3 4+/5+ armies (try holding an objective outside a transport for up to 3 turns with a unit of Fire Warriors as opposed to a Tactical Squad) or would make mechanization completely worthless (e.g. re-introducing 4E vehicle/transport rules, remember why *nobody* used rhino's or chimeras back then as actual *transports*?) or would make gun tanks totally pointless as well (and gun tanks by and large aren't the problem).


There's a few issues with infantry and the way the game works really. In most other games, infantry have a lot more options than just move/shoot assault. They can dig in/reinforce their positions, spot for heavy weapons, actively hide, engage in electronic warfare, create or remove obstaces such as wire/mines/etc. In Flames of War for instance, try killing off a unit of Veteran infantry that decided to dig in inside a woods with anything other than an assault force to literally overrun their position, it'll take you the entire game to kill off 7 stands ("models"). 40k has few-to-none of these things.

The much greater importance that 40k places on assaults and close combat than other games is also an issue. In most other games CC is a last resort or something to clear entrenched infantry from a position, you don't run up and whack tanks with an axe or fight a melee brawl in an open field. The protection that transports give from assaults is important. If footslogging infantry could do something like "stand to repel" and gain Counterattack in exchange for not moving or shooting or something, that would help quite a bit.



I've always like the idea of exploding tanks being more dangerous, but something like pass an Init test for each model inside and within the explosion radius or take a wound no saves would be preferable to something with a straight Strength value (otherwise you get a situation like 4E where Perils ID'd farseers but did 1 wound to Librarians). Explosions right now really do nothing scary to anyone except GEQ armies and quite often even then they aren't too bad, and for the most part might as well not even happen to the guys crawling on the tank whacking at it.

Yup. DA was the first codex with cheaper Rhinos. Before that Rhinos were 50pts base for every codex that got them, 5pts for Extra Armor, 3pts for Smoke Launchers, 1pt for a Searchlight. 58pts was humorously referred to as "factory standard" or "MSRP".

ah right, I stand corrected.

would make gun tanks totally pointless as well (and gun tanks by and large aren't the problem).

Actually they had some better rules, such as the fact that S6 and under were counted as defensive weapons and could be fired on the move with the primary.

In most other games CC is a last resort or something to clear entrenched infantry from a position, you don't run up and whack tanks with an axe or fight a melee brawl in an open field.

In most games one of the units isn't going to be a Daemon from the evil gods that can pick up a tank and crush it in between his two hands. I would love to use blood thirsters again rather than heralds of tzeentch!

Vaktathi wrote:
There's a few issues with infantry and the way the game works really. In most other games, infantry have a lot more options than just move/shoot assault. They can dig in/reinforce their positions, spot for heavy weapons, actively hide, engage in electronic warfare, create or remove obstaces such as wire/mines/etc. In Flames of War for instance, try killing off a unit of Veteran infantry that decided to dig in inside a woods with anything other than an assault force to literally overrun their position, it'll take you the entire game to kill off 7 stands ("models"). 40k has few-to-none of these things.

Yeah, 40k would be a lot better if you could dig in
In all seriousness though what could you add to infantry that wouldn't make the game way complicated and slow? Removal of terrain is too complex, as a lot of people just don't play with things like barbed wire or small military-style obstacles. The game itself is a lot more operatic than WW2 games.
One thing I'd love to see in general is a huge increase in small arms range. The idea of a futuristic weapon having a range of 20 feet is just silly, outside of specialist weapons (thinking meltagun). But certainly bolters/lasguns should be at least 48" in range. It seems at the the moment that "standard" weapons are hardly ever used at all. I could quite easily win a game as guard without shooting a single las weapon. That seems weird.

Joey wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
There's a few issues with infantry and the way the game works really. In most other games, infantry have a lot more options than just move/shoot assault. They can dig in/reinforce their positions, spot for heavy weapons, actively hide, engage in electronic warfare, create or remove obstaces such as wire/mines/etc. In Flames of War for instance, try killing off a unit of Veteran infantry that decided to dig in inside a woods with anything other than an assault force to literally overrun their position, it'll take you the entire game to kill off 7 stands ("models"). 40k has few-to-none of these things.

Yeah, 40k would be a lot better if you could dig in
In all seriousness though what could you add to infantry that wouldn't make the game way complicated and slow? Removal of terrain is too complex, as a lot of people just don't play with things like barbed wire or small military-style obstacles. The game itself is a lot more operatic than WW2 games.
One thing I'd love to see in general is a huge increase in small arms range. The idea of a futuristic weapon having a range of 20 feet is just silly, outside of specialist weapons (thinking meltagun). But certainly bolters/lasguns should be at least 48" in range. It seems at the the moment that "standard" weapons are hardly ever used at all. I could quite easily win a game as guard without shooting a single las weapon. That seems weird.

You do relize that its 5 feet for every inch righ? They stole that thing from the first incarnation of D&D

well the things that need bringing back from 4th i think are

Penetrating hit=forced disembarkation,with all the perils that forces (think valkeries/vendettas)
Str6 defensive weapons.. ok not this one, but str5 is think is what it should be
thats all from 4th

now what should be introduced
i agree with the sugestion of I test or take 1 wound, no AS, but cover is allowed (if applicable)
the sugestion that a certain amount of glance and pens auto kill certain tanks (land raiders need immunity from this lol, would make them worth the 250pts)

Well you could do a form of sudo structure points:

Where vehicle X has 10 hull points, and for every shaken and stunned said vehicle loses a hull point, and when a vehicle loses all of it's hull points, it becomes wrecked

Joey wrote:

Yeah, 40k would be a lot better if you could dig in

It was just an example of a mechanic that in other games of roughly similar size that makes footslogging infantry very effective that 40k doesn't have. Not seeing why it was such a terrible idea...

Formosa wrote:well the things that need bringing back from 4th i think are

Penetrating hit=forced disembarkation,with all the perils that forces (think valkeries/vendettas)

Nobody would play mech again under these rules, nobody played them under 4th except the skimmer armies that couldn't be penetrated. Hell, at my last tournament, I'd have de-meched my opponents in two of three games on the first turn without destroying the transports with this rule back in effect.

Just making pinning more likely to go off (or automatic) after an explosion could help make mech a bit less prevalent - making the crater dangerous terrain might make folks a bit more nervous as well.

Hollowman wrote:Just making pinning more likely to go off (or automatic) after an explosion could help make mech a bit less prevalent - making the crater dangerous terrain might make folks a bit more nervous as well.

I'd definitely like to see automatic pinning after an explosion. Seems silly to have your tank completely destroyed, and you just hop on out and hot-foot it to the enemy.

Ribon Fox wrote:You do relize that its 5 feet for every inch righ? They stole that thing from the first incarnation of D&D

A) More recent incarnations of D&D do 5'/inch. Older editions did 10'/inch (dungeon) or 10 yards/inch (outdoor).
B) 40k doesnt have a ground or time scale.

Joey wrote:

Hollowman wrote:Just making pinning more likely to go off (or automatic) after an explosion could help make mech a bit less prevalent - making the crater dangerous terrain might make folks a bit more nervous as well.

I'd definitely like to see automatic pinning after an explosion. Seems silly to have your tank completely destroyed, and you just hop on out and hot-foot it to the enemy.

You likely wouldn't just sit there dumbfounded next to a destroyed vehicle however, you get away from it as fast as you can because the enemy may still be shooting at it/around it and there may still be more unexploded stuff inside.

Actually, that may be something cool, make wrecked vehicles have a chance to explode after being wrecked (since they're likely still burning), in addition to making vehicle explosions more threatening.

Just make it 1d3 automatic casualties, and the unit is pinned. Not, "Takes a pinning test." just pinned automaticly. Doesn't matter if they are fearless or not. Auto-pin. No saves or toughness rolls on explosion, just a simple remove 1d3 models.

I like th Inia test one, simply becuase i imagine super fast
Deldar and Eldar jumping out or flipping of shrapnel or whaterver and guard going .... oh gawd.. it even works for the inia 2 orks as if that tank goes boom and few guys die... hur hur hur, and necrons get back up anyway... everything else has a fair chance

Formosa wrote:well the things that need bringing back from 4th i think are

Penetrating hit=forced disembarkation,with all the perils that forces (think valkeries/vendettas)

I have a better counter. Vehicle explosion results just kill the unit inside. Have you ever seen what happens to a vehicles crew when it actually explodes? They disappear. Wrecks force them out of the vehicle as they normally do, except they have to take a pinning check. If they pass they have to retest. Their ride is smoking right next to them after all.

I read all of these things about bringing back the auto-disembark from a penetrating hit and hugely increasing the damage of explosions/vehicle wrecks and I can't help but feel all these people play SM armies. Half of these suggestions would be absolutely god-awful for squishier armies.

Sure, auto-disembark doesn't sound that bad when you have MEQ stats. Try being a 5+/6+ save Dark Eldar riding in an open-topped AV10 vehicle and see how fun that rule sounds.

Honestly, I think it makes more sense to buff the utility of infantry rather than trying to nerf vehicles. None of this cross-edition gak where the effectiveness of entire army archetypes and metagames are nerfed based on the mood of the rules writers at the time.

I do agree with auto-pinning on an explode result and the like, because that just makes sense as opposed to turning every vehicle into a cardboard box lightly surrounding a fragile nuclear warhead.

auto pinning makes sense. i also think that guya inside a vehicle when it goes boom ahouls take more of a hit. open topped vehicles not so much. (because there is room to jump clear. not so in a closed tank) i would also like to see infantry get a bit better. things like:

- able to "dig in'" - they get +1 cover save but can not move. takes 1 turn movment to dig in, or get out of that posistion, and no starting the game dug in.

- ability to "stand and shoot" or react to charges like in whfb. give the guys getting charged more options then just standing there waiting for a curb stomping.

however they should also face some restrictions. CC vrs vehicles should be riskier. i think if a CC wrecks a vehicle, it auto explodes with a str = to the str of the hit that wrecked it. also things like melta bombs and grenades should be riskier as well.
as for the effects a vehicle suffers when it explodes, have you ever been near a detonating vehicle? it generally spells all kinds of badness for anyone even remotly close. vehicle explosion results should be larger AOEs and hit harder. i like the init check to "duck" otherwise its shrapnel or debris to the face.

finally i think vehicle speed should affect its damage. faster vehicles are harder to hit, let alone score a decent hit on. but if they are hit, it generally causes a massive problem (knock a wheel off your car going 10kph... likley just grind to stop. do it at 60-70-kph and its barrel roll time.)

Im honestly on the fence about it. When my orks already have a hard time being mechanized (trukks die to bolter fire, and you only get so many cover saves from a KFF), The rules are already pretty harsh in my department. Honestly though i dont want everyone else having ramshackle (basically suggested above). kinda makes orks, orks.

What i feel needed the change was the cost overall. 35pts for a trukk that dies when breathed on is fine, but the cost of a BA razorback by using assult troops sans jetpack is just rediculously cheap. I often feel that my trukk should cost 10 pts base in comparison to that. 35 pts for a drop pod that guarantees a successful deepstrike I also question. The thing already allows the deepstrike of units that normally cant, so why are we guaranteeing the land that they make (unless its off the board. ) why not make that cost extra.

Really I think the rules in general are fine (but i do agree with pinning tests suggested, but pinning as a rule needs to be fixed in general) its that overall costs make you a fool not to choose armor vs footslogging troops in comparison. I say make it to where it costs the same to buy one unit or 2-3 trukks and players can decide quantity vs quality at that point.

Really you could implement 2-3 rules tops and make the game very effective for both foot slogging troops and heavy tank use, it would still be simple and would have pro's and cons for both sides but not op in anyway

Vehicle explodes: models take a leadership test upon fail they stay with the tank and roll to save wounds, on pass run D6" directly backwards from the tank.

vehicle wrecked: Unit takes a leadership test to disembark, on a pass move D3" backwards, they can shoot/assault (maybe D6? i dunno). on a failed leadership they stay in the transport till they can disembark on their next turn, however they can move/shoot/assault as normal that turn.

infantry: May take a leadership test (or maybe another test like initiative?) to "go to ground" (like necromunda rules). Unit that has "gone to ground" has cover save 4+ and +1BS (i'm not sure about the BS but i think it would be good as you are stabaling your gun and whatnot).

as an additional option in the codex you may buy defensive mines for 3pts to a troops squad? and may deploy said mines after going to ground. (i'm thinking a defensive maneuver so tanks just don't roll over the top of you and pancake your brains out) if a tank chooses to roll over anyway, it has to roll for a s5 hit? i dunno, i'm sure you can think of something.

So there are 3 rules that i think will make both sides play alot more evenly when chooesing between mech and footslog, neither is bad or op...and the mines are perhaps a special weapon or just don't use them at all.

what do you think? viable and fair for both sides or op somewhere? maybe tweak it for more equality?

Zambro wrote:I want to know, exactly what is it that puts Mechanised lists ahead of infantry lists?

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?

Zambro wrote:I would also like to know what rules would have to change / be introduced in make Infantry preferable?

The rules are mostly fine as is. The only way foot lists become popular is if they start winning tournaments, and that will only happen when major tournaments change the way that they're run.

Or there would have to be a massed awakening to the fact that lists tailored to a certain environment aren't necessarily the most competitive for all environments, but that requires more nuance than most people can be bothered to consider.

I think that rather than having to choose between foot vs mechanized, it should be something in between. So units get transports because it provide X advantage, however, it also provides an Y disadvantage, which is why another unit is taken on foot to counter this disadvantage. Anyway, I'm waiting till 6th ed and the Chaos Legions codex, and if this ain't fixed, I'm going BA jump infantry (problem solved )

After a vehicle explodes or wrecks the occupants should scatter 1d6 inches

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.

I don't know, I'd have to side with Ailaros n this one. Have you ever tried taking a 150 guardsmen to a 2 hour tournament round? It is not fun at all. The setup alone can be a big deal, and all that movement hurts how much you can do as well. The problem is you have to move those models so many times a turn. You've gotta move, run, possibly assault and maybe even consolidate if you win, and it takes time to move all those models.

Yes, there are guys that can do it no problem (theres a great article on this very forum that was very helpful when I started) but for your average player, they rarely have the patience or experience to do this fast enough for a tourney.

And thats not counting the fact that your opponent most likely be a mech'd marine player who can deliberately stall and "run the clock out" so to speak.