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.

I'd say that's true. Marines are probably one of the few armies that HAVE to mech up to be competitive. And since Marines are one of the most common armies, then you get mech dispoportionally represented.

ChiliPowderKeg wrote:

-Loki- wrote:I want to see your cool models, not just the bland Rhinos they're sitting in.

THIS. FORTYTHOUSAND TIMES THIS!

I look at artwork and see characterful soldiers throwing epic scale fights hand to hand or shooting.

But then I look at the game, and see boring parking lots with nary an emotion or sign of character.

wut?

Forty thousand and 1 times.

Of course, I never stopped playing infantry based armies. The only army I have that uses transports are my orkz, and even then, it's just 2 old trukks (that are so small people mistaken them for warbuggies) that a friend gave me when he decided he didn't want to play orkz anymore.

One of the reasons I'm running my DIY chapter marines as DoA Blood Angels is that I really don't want to have to put them in transports. I spend way too long converting each and every one to just have them sit in a transport to not be seen for more than half the game.

Jubear wrote:I was talking to a mate the other day about the good ol days of 2nd edition when infantry armies still worked and we both came to the conclusion that it would be great fun to be able to field infantry armies again without the auto loose.

So does anyone miss infantry armies or is everybody enjoying being able to move an entire army around in transports?

No, I really don't miss the days of a couple of squads standing on each side of the table, only able to move 4" with games lasting 4-5 turns. Moving 20" the whole game, assuming you never stop to fire a heavy weapon? No thanks.

I play tau and at most I have 2 devilfish, plus a pair of hammer head. my opponents transports don't last long enough.

Oh I dont know...I look at previous versions as very different games. In reality they are anyways.

Do I miss it? No

Are there times when I wish there where less vehicles, yes. Especially what is happening with the flying game these days. Having to plan something that can swing into my face turn one and completely hose my most prized vehicle/squad is...daunting. Just seems we have seen the vehicle creep. Rightfully next will be the flyers with more and more prevelance.

I was never a fan of straight KP missions anyways so as long as this comes in toe with more objective based games than I will be happy I guess.

Also helps that I am building a drop pod army so I still get the benefits of vehicles and get to put shiny models on the table.

It's actually something I've found curious about mech armies, do they never play KP games?

Mech armies usually give out between 50% and 100% more KP then their foot equivalents. I'd expect players to be leery of mech armies given how hard it is to win 1/3 of your games, but this never seems to be true.

ChrisWWII wrote: Marines are probably one of the few armies that HAVE to mech up to be competitive.

Well that's certainly hyberbole.

Non mechanized Marines are both ubiquitous and competitive.

I'm waiting to see what way GW will swing next edition. We're dur relativly soon, I should think.

Ailaros wrote:It's actually something I've found curious about mech armies, do they never play KP games?

Mech armies usually give out between 50% and 100% more KP then their foot equivalents. I'd expect players to be leery of mech armies given how hard it is to win 1/3 of your games, but this never seems to be true.

In all honesty, it's because KP games really are not the "balancer" some people dream them to be, and many people quite honestly just don't think about the mission correctly when playing KP games.

Also, some armies really don't have a huge difference in KP's between mech and non mech (Tau, Eldar, many IG builds), however some of these armies also have a tendency to suck hard if not mechanized.

I'm sure it was to sell more transports.

Maybe if it was 2/3 kp missions it would be the opposite problem.

Miss 'em? I play against a few quite frequently! Foot guard (with some mech defense) is a great challenge to take down.

Heh, not that much to say on this one considering my model collecting methods are so random and whimsical I have yet to assemble a 40k army that wouldn't crash around it's ears the second it hits the table. Got a decent sized Fantasy force, but at my club this guy fields a IG army, the Elysian Drop Troopers, (he's a Forge World nut, got a Vostroyan and a Krieg army too) and he fields, I kid you not, between 5 and 7 Valkyries and Vendettas (all with troops inside) as his army. And 4 sentinels. That's it. Fun to watch, probably not fun to watch your army vanish in front of those Heavy20 weapons.

The "heavy 20" guns are amongst the most overpriced, both on the LR Punisher and on the Vulture, and if one is just taking sentinels, valkyries and vendettas then one isn't taking any of 20 shot guns at all.

To help with balance, they should really make KPs count for half of the games, rather than 1/3rd.

I can honestly say i've never used a rhino with my marines (of any flavour), its always foot with pred/dread/whirl support for me and i do reasonably well, not fantastically but I have too many memories of lost units from exploding transports to change my ways now!

There is one army at my store that runs full mech and that's a mechdar list that rarely is played. After that the closest thing is the guard player with his one Melta-vet valk flying around.

I rarely use transports, but thats because I play Death Wing and well, Land Raiders and expensive.

Vaktathi wrote:The "heavy 20" guns are amongst the most overpriced, both on the LR Punisher and on the Vulture, and if one is just taking sentinels, valkyries and vendettas then one isn't taking any of 20 shot guns at all.

Might have been a Vulture then. They all look the same to me, and they all begin with a 'V'....

Most of my club are quite mechy as I can recall actually. There's a World Eaters player with a ton of rhinos and a Land Raider, (which is understandable) the ork players have a lot of trukks/battlewagons, and there's a Blood Angels player with lotsa rhinos in there too...

The only ones who have no vehicles are the Tyranid players and the guy who did a pre-heresy Death Guard army, which consisted of several tac squads one dreadnought and a 10-man termie squad. He tended to lose. There might have been a Vindi in the too, but can't remember. Haven't seen any of those armies since 8th Ed fantasy came out.

Vaktathi wrote:The "heavy 20" guns are amongst the most overpriced, both on the LR Punisher and on the Vulture, and if one is just taking sentinels, valkyries and vendettas then one isn't taking any of 20 shot guns at all.

Yep, even on a Vulture where they're twin-linked, you're only getting 15 hits for a whopping 3.3 marines dead. With three vultures (costing more than a pair of land raiders) thats 10 dead marines in a round of shooting.

Decent but not brilliant.

Looks awesome though!

Against Marines they're not so hot. Against orks, nids and anyone else who isn't encased in power armour thay can be pretty brutal.

Fafnir wrote:To help with balance, they should really make KPs count for half of the games, rather than 1/3rd.

Ugh, please no. The less of that mechanic we have the better. It's not a good balance mechanism, and wasn't ever intended as one, trying to force it to be one just doesn't work.

Fafnir wrote:To help with balance, they should really make KPs count for half of the games, rather than 1/3rd.

Killpoints are so bland though. It's nice having more options for a battle than "Go here, kill X" and to give my army a reason not to just stand and shoot in my deployment zone all game. Now kill points as a tie breaker, that's fine by me.

Some kind of mix between objectives and kill points would be nice. For each objective you hold, you get an extra kill point or something like that?

I dislike the KP missions. They get old quickly, and don't require any real skill beyond targeting priority, IMHO.

Not to mention prioritize weeny units over real threats

ChrisWWII wrote:Some kind of mix between objectives and kill points would be nice. For each objective you hold, you get an extra kill point or something like that?

That's defeating the purpose of objectives.

This really isn't the thread to mention game design, but objectives were the single greatest innovation to 5th edition. It changes basically everything about how the game is played.

DarknessEternal wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Some kind of mix between objectives and kill points would be nice. For each objective you hold, you get an extra kill point or something like that?

That's defeating the purpose of objectives.

This really isn't the thread to mention game design, but objectives were the single greatest innovation to 5th edition. It changes basically everything about how the game is played.

+1

I play footslogging armies with all my stuff. In fact, there is really only one person, a guard player, that mechs up around here. Kinda sad really, my railguns feel like they can't spread the love.

DarknessEternal wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Some kind of mix between objectives and kill points would be nice. For each objective you hold, you get an extra kill point or something like that?

That's defeating the purpose of objectives.

This really isn't the thread to mention game design, but objectives were the single greatest innovation to 5th edition. It changes basically everything about how the game is played.

I never said anything about not liking objectives. I love objectives, however I do feel that kill points should be made a bigger factor. Not to mention, it'd make sense from a real world point of view. However, as was said this is not the thread for game design discussion, so I'm dropping this here.

Th3ee Legged Dog wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Some kind of mix between objectives and kill points would be nice. For each objective you hold, you get an extra kill point or something like that?

That's defeating the purpose of objectives.

This really isn't the thread to mention game design, but objectives were the single greatest innovation to 5th edition. It changes basically everything about how the game is played.

+1

I agree, ChriswwII. Anyways, lets just keepo playing the game and enjoy our hobby. Amen.