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.

Is it still possible for Space Marines and Imperial Guard to do armored spearheads with everybody mounted in a vehicle and with tank support or are the changes to vehicles too harsh?

In short: It's still viable. Just less effective.

Many opponents don't expect to see it so much now, and I find they come under-prepared for av:12 spam.

So dreads and preds are still relatively useful? But is the rhino rush still okay?

Yes, you still need mobility in this game.

Especially with 5/6 of games having objectives.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, you still need mobility in this game.

Especially with 5/6 of games having objectives.

I'm trying to tell my friend the same exact thing, guess the only way to get it in his head will be to let him play some games where he has to get across the board foot sloggin it

Mech is still just as good, if not better, than foot armies, the difference between them was just narrowed. Transports were nerfed but are still good, and as a net change tanks came out about even (they are slightly easier to destroy, but they are much harder to stunlock, meaning that while they are alive they will be much more effective. Also, glances now have a zero chance of causing a weapon destroyed or immobilized result, which is a small plus).

As a note, predators are still good, and rhinos and razorbacks are weaker than they were but still quite good.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, you still need mobility in this game.

Especially with 5/6 of games having objectives.

My friends and I don't really do objectives

I've been experimenting between Drop Pod and Rhino lists, and I'm not sure which I like more currently. Drop Pods are nice in that you get into assault range earlier, but they're very dangerous for your troops if you get caught in the open. On the other hand, Rhinos are nice because you move 18" on turn 1, disembark and then use the Rhinos as moving shields covering all your troops. Takes 1 more turn on average to get into assault than a podding list, but they're certainly more conservative than those lists. Plus any surviving Rhinos can continue to harass the enemy by blocking LOS or tank shocking.

 TheAngrySquig wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, you still need mobility in this game.

Especially with 5/6 of games having objectives.

My friends and I don't really do objectives

You really should. The game isn't fair without them. Even in Purge the Alien, you still have to keep the secondary objectives in mind.

 DarkHound wrote:

 TheAngrySquig wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, you still need mobility in this game.

Especially with 5/6 of games having objectives.

My friends and I don't really do objectives

You really should. The game isn't fair without them. Even in Purge the Alien, you still have to keep the secondary objectives in mind.

How is it unfair? Unstrategic I could see but I don't get unfair

Units and armies designed with higher damage to cost ratios are generally balanced by having worse utility in objective missions. Look at Necron Flyer spam. It's got amazingly damage output and speed and durability. Against some armies, who use mostly melee, flyers are virtually indestructible. However, the list is exceptionally bad at securing objectives. If you go to fight a list like Long Wolf spam, or even the old Imperial Guard Leaf Blower, with the intention of matching them kill for kill, then you're going to lose. However, they are (generally) weaker at taking and holding objectives.

 DarkHound wrote:
Units and armies designed with higher damage to cost ratios are generally balanced by having worse utility in objective missions. Look at Necron Flyer spam. It's got amazingly damage output and speed and durability. Against some armies, who use mostly melee, flyers are virtually indestructible. However, the list is exceptionally bad at securing objectives. If you go to fight a list like Long Wolf spam, or even the old Imperial Guard Leaf Blower, with the intention of matching them kill for kill, then you're going to lose. However, they are (generally) weaker at taking and holding objectives.

I totally agree, this takes a awhile to understand, but I've been playing ages and am just starting to understand this now, especially in 6th edition. Those objective based misisons really balance the lists better against each other, otherwise you get spanked a lot easier by harder lists.

We aren't competetive against each other, we bring fun lists, so our personalities balance the game I guess. Although I do see your point, I think you can argue that any codex can bring high damage units

TheAngrySquig wrote:My friends and I don't really do objectives

That's ludicrous. It means the only thing that matters is what you kill, and the only way you kill stuff is by rolling dice, so the end result of the game is entirely determined by dice. You might as well play yahtzee or candyland.

TheAngrySquig wrote:Is it still possible for Space Marines and Imperial Guard to do armored spearheads with everybody mounted in a vehicle and with tank support or are the changes to vehicles too harsh?

6th ed mech lists got relatively worse compared to 5th ed mech lists, but they got relatively better compared to 6th ed foot lists. The parking lot is still going to be the easiest way to win games.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheAngrySquig wrote:My friends and I don't really do objectives

That's ludicrous. It means the only thing that matters is what you kill, and the only way you kill stuff is by rolling dice, so the end result of the game is entirely determined by dice. You might as well play yahtzee or candyland.

Candyland doesn't have fire

 TheAngrySquig wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

TheAngrySquig wrote:My friends and I don't really do objectives

That's ludicrous. It means the only thing that matters is what you kill, and the only way you kill stuff is by rolling dice, so the end result of the game is entirely determined by dice. You might as well play yahtzee or candyland.

Candyland doesn't have fire

True, but you have similer odds of winning and will only run you around $20.

40k is a huge investment of your time and money, plus whatever blood, sweat, and tears you've put into assembling and painting your army. I'd think you want to get more out of the game then leave it all up to chance.

 TheAngrySquig wrote:


My friends and I don't really do objectives

Ugh. But Kill Points and the like are so boooooooooooooorrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnng.

I'll take fun, dynamic, objective based games over 'durr hurr kill everyone' any day of the week.

Nungunz wrote:I'll take fun, dynamic, objective based games over 'durr hurr kill everyone' any day of the week.

Heh, did you ever play 4th ed?

Nope, decided to get into the game as soon as 5th was released.

I've been running an extreme armored fists list with 10 chimeras. People think the meta is going heavy infantry, so they don't bring enough AT.

Tanks as a whole took a huge hit. and are hilariously easy to kill now, and transports took even more of a hit, and many mech lists, especially marine mech lists, I'm seeing routinely de-mech'd by the end of turn 2.

There's some thinking that because vehicles are easier to kill, people will take less AT, but I haven't seen it as the same guns that are good at killing tanks are good at killing MEQ's, terminators, MC's, bikes, flyers, etc.

Mobility is important yes, but there's a lot of mobility options in the game aside from footslogging infantry and mechanized infantry. There's deep striking/outflanking/jump infantry, bikes/etc, making mech unnecessary for many armies.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:People think the meta is going heavy infantry, so they don't bring enough AT.

Which is really silly because...

Vaktathi wrote:Tanks as a whole took a huge hit. and are hilariously easy to kill now, and transports took even more of a hit, and many mech lists, especially marine mech lists, I'm seeing routinely de-mech'd by the end of turn 2.

6th ed mech lists are weaker relative to 5th ed mech lists, but 6th ed mech lists are now much stronger than 6th ed foot lists. You think it's tough keeping your army on the table with a mech list, just try playing a foot horde in this edition.

Mech players get in a huff about the few ways they got nerfed, but it's nowhere near how badly foot lists got pounded. Play a couple of games with a foot horde and you'll be begging for your chimeras back. We had a few players at my FLGS, that, in a nerdrage over new vehicle rules tried (though the help of a lot of counts-asing) played foot lists in protest. They're all back to playing mech lists now.

Because what's important is what the strongest things are currently. How strong something is compared to things in the past is irrelevant.

 ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:
I've been running an extreme armored fists list with 10 chimeras. People think the meta is going heavy infantry, so they don't bring enough AT.

I find this at my local meta as well. Chimera spam does very well. I've found that dreads are not shot at as much, and even my rhinos are lasting longer.

I'm not running across 15 long fang MLs in every other list I play against today. More people are loading up on anti-infantry firepower in my local meta.

Ailaros wrote:
6th ed mech lists are weaker relative to 5th ed mech lists, but 6th ed mech lists are now much stronger than 6th ed foot lists. You think it's tough keeping your army on the table with a mech list, just try playing a foot horde in this edition.

Mech players get in a huff about the few ways they got nerfed, but it's nowhere near how badly foot lists got pounded. Play a couple of games with a foot horde and you'll be begging for your chimeras back. We had a few players at my FLGS, that, in a nerdrage over new vehicle rules tried (though the help of a lot of counts-asing) played foot lists in protest. They're all back to playing mech lists now.

Because what's important is what the strongest things are currently. How strong something is compared to things in the past is irrelevant.

I haven't really found this to be the case personally with IG armies, between the changes to assaults and heavy weapons movement/shooting, the only thing that really hurts is the reduction in cover from 4+ to 5+ and the ability to focus fire, and that hasn't been huge. Most everything IG infantry hated about assaults is gone or neutered (no assaults from reserves, no bonus attacks when multi-assaulting, can't multi-assault if you shot something, etc), while tanks have become ludicrously easy to kill in CC. On top of this infantry capability while mobile has increased, especially in regards to heavy weapons and rapid fire shooting. I just have a hard time seeing where shooting infantry got so pounded.

 TheAngrySquig wrote:


My friends and I don't really do objectives

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha. *Gasps for breath* Haha. Ha.

Oh man, come on now dude. Sure, technically it's not unfair, but it ruins the game as intended. Thats like...playing monopoly without money. It all becomes "Who rolls what on their dice" meaning whoever is "luckiest" wins. It has essentially taken all of the difficult, strategic stuff out, and turned the game into "My wall of plastic is going to run at your wall of plastic. Your wall of plastic is going to run at mine too. We'll both shoot and whoever dies less wins." You're missing out on half of the fun stuff! (Well, 5/6 of the fun stuff, to be exact). Ask anyone that DOES use objectives; the coolest fights are "This squad has to slug it out over this objective, that one has to hope they make their saves so they can hold that one, and I have to decide whether to divert this squad to objective A or B. Hmm...strategy stuff..." It's what being a general is all about. Otherwise, it's your list playing the game, not you.

Also, yeah, it does actually kindof break the game. Assuming you play with the proper FoC (Please say yes. Oh please. Don't tell me you ignore it and just run all Heavys. Please. That's like the kid that tried to play a 1000pt game against me with 4 SM captains.) you only have to worry about taking the bare minimum of the required stuff. Much of what balances a list is deciding how many troops you need for objective missions.

Say I'm a guard player, and I want to play a 1500 point game. I should have around 4-5 troop choices, costing me roughly 600-700 points. That leaves me with, call it 800 points to spend on pure, raw dakka. This will give me a balanced list with probably a couple tanks, maybe a vendetta, and some stormies. Now, lets change things a bit and pretend I'm playing in your world. No objectives? Sweet, I don't have to bother with troops. So gimme a CCS, two Vet squads, and six tanks. Oh, and two vendettas. Yeah...yeah babygirl...that's nice right there. That's the spot. Can you smell what the Captain is cooking?

But seriously. See what I mean? Codices, rules, and units are made with the thought in mind that they will be written into lists that are forced to balance themselves out by accounting for objectives. Hell, a big point of 6th edition is stressing the importance of them (objectives). Give it a few games, you'll see the difference.

-That, ladies and gentlemen, was a lecture. A lecture brought to you by The Cap'n

Edited by Manchu

Armourd assults work well enough in the current version of 40k, but as several other posters have pointed out it took a hit when 6th dropped. I prefer to run a mix of walking infateri and mounted men when I play with my CSM.

Also I have seen a lot less parking lots of late in my gaming area, nor do I see x amount of ML squads or tons of Lascannon HW teams. And as for objectives I somewhat agree but yet disagree

It is even more viable because glances no longer stop your armor , 5 chimeras with 5 vet squads supported by 2 leman Russ's no one expects that , havnt lost yet with it

 Kasrkin229 wrote:
It is even more viable because glances no longer stop your armor , 5 chimeras with 5 vet squads supported by 2 leman Russ's no one expects that , havnt lost yet with it

The trade-off is that your vehicles are generally dead in half the time or less it previously took, and practically auto-die once something makes base contact. So while yeah, a glance won't stop you from shooting, you're probably dead the next turn anyway.

Its easier to kill vehicles, but harder to neutralize them.

In 5th, one glance was all it took stop a LRBT from firing. If you could glance it every turn you could effectivly neuter it for the whole game.

Now you actually have to penetrate it to stop it from shooting, and even thats not a sure thing.

But 3 glances will kill the LRBT too.

I would like to formally apologize for my group having fun, really sincerely sorry there.

Thanks to all the helpful people out there