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.

This is mostly a question as to common cortesy, at what point would a person have enough light tanks that you wouldn't play against them?

I would always play against a legal army.

Even 6x Wave Serpents +1 Fire Prism at 1500?

I believe that is the point of the force organization chart, to keep everything "fairly" balanced. As long as it's legal, I'd play you.

You can never have enough! Then again I do play guard...

There isn't a limit.

I guess, you can turn it around and ask, how many MC is too many? Would you like to go up against 15 MC?

I agree with what others say. As long as it's legal, I would play it. If anything to learn and see how it actually works since I never faced anything like that.

 sub-zero wrote:
I believe that is the point of the force organization chart, to keep everything "fairly" balanced. As long as it's legal, I'd play you.

You see, I play legion and you can take 3 decked out landraiders as a single heavy support choice. This is completely legal.

Gk with guard allies

3 land raiders
5 razorbacks
2 chimeras
2 russes

All in a legal 2k army list, always wanted to try a mech spam army

But yea, as long as its a legal list, I dont think playing lots of tanks is much of a problem.

ThePrimordial wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I believe that is the point of the force organization chart, to keep everything "fairly" balanced. As long as it's legal, I'd play you.

You see, I play legion and you can take 3 decked out landraiders as a single heavy support choice. This is completely legal.

Legion? Is that forgeworld rules?

 sub-zero wrote:

ThePrimordial wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I believe that is the point of the force organization chart, to keep everything "fairly" balanced. As long as it's legal, I'd play you.

You see, I play legion and you can take 3 decked out landraiders as a single heavy support choice. This is completely legal.

Legion? Is that forgeworld rules?

Every single gaming store I've been to in Texas has never given me any trouble about running a Legion army. I never play tournaments though.

What is this thing you call "too many tanks?"

 tuiman wrote:
Gk with guard allies

3 land raiders
5 razorbacks
2 chimeras
2 russes

All in a legal 2k army list, always wanted to try a mech spam army

But yea, as long as its a legal list, I dont think playing lots of tanks is much of a problem.

How many people would play against that? And if they did, how many would make an honest effort to restrain themselves from leaping across the table and strangling you? There are so many issues with that fluffwise.
I don't mean to be insulting but if you do that in friendly games you're the exact thing I try to avoid being. At least when I just want to have fun that is.I'm guilty of making lists with 120 marines at 1800 points, 20 of these
are 2 wound terminators.

Maybe it's the Russian in me, but the words "too many" and "tanks" can only go together in the same sentence as long as the sentence is about how you had too many tanks for the enemy to handle and thus brought swift annihilation to them

ThePrimordial wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I believe that is the point of the force organization chart, to keep everything "fairly" balanced. As long as it's legal, I'd play you.

You see, I play legion and you can take 3 decked out landraiders as a single heavy support choice. This is completely legal.

Yeah, but isn't that really expensive? Thus leaving other spots less flexible? I actually don't know the legion rules so I could be wrong...

I want to try a more Mech-Marine force (with minimal 1st company, so probably no LRs)... Probably not 'competitive', but there's just something fun about doing an all-mounted-up/mobile armor list...

Too many tanks is when you can't breathe because all the oxygen in the room has been replaced with tanks. Less than that? Bring it.

 washout77 wrote:
Maybe it's the Russian in me, but the words "too many" and "tanks" can only go together in the same sentence as long as the sentence is about how you had too many tanks for the enemy to handle and thus brought swift annihilation to them

ThePrimordial wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I believe that is the point of the force organization chart, to keep everything "fairly" balanced. As long as it's legal, I'd play you.

You see, I play legion and you can take 3 decked out landraiders as a single heavy support choice. This is completely legal.

Yeah, but isn't that really expensive? Thus leaving other spots less flexible? I actually don't know the legion rules so I could be wrong...

It's obviously very expensive but these might be able to cover transports (if you take Horus, which if you aren't why aren't you?) if you have a veteran/terminator army. And it's still "only" 1/3 of your points at 1800, which is a kinda small game where I play.
It's probably worth mentioning, due to some of the responses I'm getting that I literally only play friendly games and have never been in a tournament in my 5 years playing.

You can play a Billion tanks of you really want to, but you gotta stop and remember that you have so little in the way of scoring units. In 6th, you're playing with objectives in 5/6 missions, so its super relevant

ThePrimordial wrote:

 washout77 wrote:
Maybe it's the Russian in me, but the words "too many" and "tanks" can only go together in the same sentence as long as the sentence is about how you had too many tanks for the enemy to handle and thus brought swift annihilation to them

ThePrimordial wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:
I believe that is the point of the force organization chart, to keep everything "fairly" balanced. As long as it's legal, I'd play you.

You see, I play legion and you can take 3 decked out landraiders as a single heavy support choice. This is completely legal.

Yeah, but isn't that really expensive? Thus leaving other spots less flexible? I actually don't know the legion rules so I could be wrong...

It's obviously very expensive but these might be able to cover transports (if you take Horus, which if you aren't why aren't you?) if you have a veteran/terminator army. And it's still "only" 1/3 of your points at 1800, which is a kinda small game where I play.
It's probably worth mentioning, due to some of the responses I'm getting that I literally only play friendly games and have never been in a tournament in my 5 years playing.

Okay, I get that. Honestly, if you wanted to play 9 LR's in your list I'd play it. It would be a tactical challenge to take down 9 pieces of AV14 with what I got. High enough point game, of course...

ThePrimordial wrote:

 tuiman wrote:
Gk with guard allies

3 land raiders
5 razorbacks
2 chimeras
2 russes

All in a legal 2k army list, always wanted to try a mech spam army

But yea, as long as its a legal list, I dont think playing lots of tanks is much of a problem.

How many people would play against that? And if they did, how many would make an honest effort to restrain themselves from leaping across the table and strangling you? There are so many issues with that fluffwise.
I don't mean to be insulting but if you do that in friendly games you're the exact thing I try to avoid being. At least when I just want to have fun that is.I'm guilty of making lists with 120 marines at 1800 points, 20 of these
are 2 wound terminators.

I never said I would bring a list like that to friendly game...

There are never too many tanks. NEEEVER! Baenblades! BEEENBLADES! Baaaaaneblades! We shall destroy our foes with our treads... Drive over them.... DRIVE OVER THEM MWAHAHAHAHA! *coughs nerviously* He hem. As long as it is in force org, it's completely fine. Unless it is armoured assault from forgeworld. Then you won't know when you'll get an accepted game and when not! (I'd play it)

In all seriousness to answer your question though.... there is no true answer. For the most part, people will accept a game against you as long as you follow the Force Org. Yet even then there are some people that will play without that for more themed games. Along with that, what is perceived as cheese varies from person to person. If I were to roll up with a khornate nurgle combo (chaos daemons) and I'm fighting IG artillery with tons of barrage and ignores cover, well I will qui tthere because you likely tailored it against me and b. I pretty much will have no chance of victory. If I were playing with old daemons, I'd probably not even look at a GK player that tailored their list to 36% of the time table me turn one.

Simply put, it varies from person to person. Some people will see x3 drakes and walk away from the game, some will play but on the inside and rage, some will laugh as they destroy your vehicles, and some will not care in the slightest. Some will be curious if you have fluff for your army.... etc. There really is no precise answer. What is acceptable to one might not be to another. My tip is to build the army. as long as it is legal, you'll probably play against most players without worry.

I always assume my opponents will have 3 flyers, 3 MCs, 3 AV14 vehicles, 6 av 12 Vehicles, and about 100 dudes on the table and therefore try to build my lists to deal with all of that.

As we all know, It's almost impossible for most armies to fight all of that( or even HAVE all of that), but it keeps me busy thinking at work about what I can do to balance my lists.

However, if someone were to drop all of that into a 2k army, or fill every FOC possible with vehicles at 2k, I would be the first person in line to take them on, just to see if my theories are sound.

I enjoy playing 40k and win or lose, I always have fun.

I'm of the (admittedly old school) of playing Friendly games. In a friendly game, if I'm wanting to play an army that's Very tank heavy, VERY heavy-armour heavy, I'm going to tell my opponent what kind of army I'm wanting to field before we begin to set up, so he can make an army that has a chance to deal with it.

Because where is the fun in winning because the other player is fielding an army he can't possibly cope with? The PLAYER isn't my opponent, his ARMY is my opponent. Where's the enjoyment in an unwinnable matchup, whether I'm the one predestined to win or not?

So the answer is that any army list is alright, as long as the opponent knows ahead of time what they're going up against. Intentionally setting up a hopelessly one sided battle is unsportsmanlike behavior in friendly play.

(and, I would argue, in tournament play as well, but that's a different matter).

Tanks are scary and everything, but they're not the be all and end all. They have their strengths and weaknesses. When I run a mech-heavy list, for example, I find myself feeling as though I'm at the mercy of the terrain far more than when I run more varied lists. Similarly, I've managed to make games uncomfortable for mech-heavy opponents through the effective placement of terrain and sound deployment.

Personally, I'd play against a legal list, no matter how many tanks happened to be on it. Then, of course, I'd use every (legal and sporting) means at my disposal to give my opponent hell.

Umm... Nope. Still not too many tanks.

I'd play that.

ElSmacko wrote:
I'm of the (admittedly old school) of playing Friendly games. In a friendly game, if I'm wanting to play an army that's Very tank heavy, VERY heavy-armour heavy, I'm going to tell my opponent what kind of army I'm wanting to field before we begin to set up, so he can make an army that has a chance to deal with it.

Because where is the fun in winning because the other player is fielding an army he can't possibly cope with? The PLAYER isn't my opponent, his ARMY is my opponent. Where's the enjoyment in an unwinnable matchup, whether I'm the one predestined to win or not?

So the answer is that any army list is alright, as long as the opponent knows ahead of time what they're going up against. Intentionally setting up a hopelessly one sided battle is unsportsmanlike behavior in friendly play.

(and, I would argue, in tournament play as well, but that's a different matter).

Then you for opponents to think "What if he does bring that?" The whole point of meta is, ofcourse, to force your opponents to consider those possibilities.

There is no such thing as too many tanks.

That is all.



Actually, the last list I ran in 5E was basically 17 independent tanks in a 2k list, that was sometimes suspected to be somewhat rude, but it had 85 infantry still

I run an Armoured Company pretty exclusively, but I only run 10 Russes at 2k points when I feel like making someone bleed. I'm pretty good at keeping it "civil" with the tank numbers.

If you're fighting Necrons however, don't bother with the tanks. Guardsmen have better survivability against haywire gauss shots, everything glancing on 6s, lightning and other Wardian crap.

I find a good level is about 5-6 tanks; it's heavy on AV14, but it's not much beyond what you'd expect to see in a regular Guard army, backed up by infantry in chimeras or on foot with an allied detachment.

Asking if you can have too many tanks is like asking if you can have enuff dakka.

"Too many tanks".
The very concept is heresey