PDA

View Full Version : Limiting the number of vehicles allowed.



Rydmend
21-02-2010, 06:05
I played a game with vehicle limitations today and despite my expectations it was pretty fun.

We basically played "you may take 0-2 vehicles and 0-1 transports, no AV 14"
we kept the games small at 1000 points.

It added some variety to the games and it really forced you to focus on using your vehicles to their greatest ability. The single rhino or wave serpent became an all important objective that could really change the game, so it had to be protected and use carefully. I had to keep remeinding myself that I didn't have 4 more rhinos out there on the board, usually tincan transports are about the most expendable things on the field. In one match a SW player used a rhino drop off his hunters right on an objective then it doubled back and began picking up new units and bringing them to the front as to not leave the original grey hunters out on their own. It set a really frantic pace and made the game seem more dramatic.

Another pretty epic moment was when a already wounded squad of death gaurd slogged across a field taking heavy fire from an IG squad in trench cover. The Plague marines slowly died off except for the icon bearer, who got close to their lines and summoned a large group of daemons that shredded the IG in thier trenches

You also saw people taking less melta weapons since stopping vehicles wasn't the primary threat. Flamers also became less favored without transports to help close the gap. I actually saw tac squads with heavy bolters and plasma weapons, I didn't even know they still existed.

I don't think we will be playing like this too often but I definatley enjoyed the change up, it was a lot of fun and I suggest you give it a try.

GrimZAG
21-02-2010, 06:15
Is this from some special mission or are these just some house rules you guys made up?

bigcheese76
21-02-2010, 07:49
My gaming group would love to employ rules similar to this, as they are constantly on at me saying I take far too many tanks. Is eleven in 1500 points too many? Really?

MajorWesJanson
21-02-2010, 07:56
Problem is some armies are dependent on their vehicles, while others can get along without any. Only limiting vehicles and not comparable units like Monstrous Creatures.

Results I can think of due to playing with "you may take 0-2 vehicles and 0-1 transports, no AV 14"

Chaos Daemons:
Perfect for Daemons, as they only have 1 Vehicle, and without transports, opposing units are far easier to assault and kill.

Chaos Space Marines
Loss of transports hurts a bit, but overall, there are enough builds to get by just fine without them. Oblits and Lash Princes are not touched at all

Daemonhunters
Limiting vehicles severely reduces their speed and survivability, especially as Land Raiders are gone, taking out a key element for Grey Knights

Dark Eldar
Without transports and speed, they are dead.

Eldar
Some lists are hurt, but things like Jetbike squads (and seer council) are not affected. Mobility is hurt though, making it easier to rock paper scissor them.

Imperial Guard
Badly hurt by this style. Most of the damage the Guard can do is done by their vehicles. Units tend to evaporate outside of transports as well, especially important units like command squads. Not as badly hurt as Dark Eldar, but almost.

Orks
Removes some builds, but Green Tide is fine. Lesser used units can also fill in gaps as well, like Stormboyz. Probably better off as fewer enemy vehicles means more easy to assault units

Necrons
This would remove the only Cron vehicle in the game. Besides that, Crons are crons. Maybe a bit better off, as less vehicles means enemy takes longer to close in and can be shot on the way.

Space Marines
Can be done, but loss of some mobility. Kills a lot of builds.

Tau
Besides Farsight, Without transports, Tau are basically reduced to gunline. May be doable if other armies are also handicapped, but it cuts back most of Taus already few builds. Taking Railheads as the vehicle choices does basically erase any other armies vehicles in this format however, so they do have that advantage.

Tyranids
See Daemons

Witchhunters
See Space Marines. Sisters without mobility have problems, as they are a short ranged shooting army. Exorcists are nearly as good as Railheads in this scenario at least.

bigcheese76
21-02-2010, 09:06
I should have mentioned in my earlier post, I play Guard, so this vehicle limitation will hurt my armies performance quite a bit.

e2055261
21-02-2010, 11:49
Hmm. I like my tanks. Don't think I'd actually have enough gaurdsmen to replace the hole left by my tanks...

KingNova3000
21-02-2010, 12:47
Its a good idea in theory, but as MajorWes mentions it handicaps too many armies. I think sisters would be the worst off and dark eldar. They're 3rd armies and need vehicles to do well.

Corrode
21-02-2010, 12:50
I think for a scenario it could be entertaining, if maybe made slightly more appropriate (limiting things like MCs as well). I'd love to try it as part of a campaign. That said, as a general rule, never ever.

Archangel_Ruined
21-02-2010, 13:10
I think the best campaigns are the ones that limit your forces, having an endless supply of tanks in a campaign is a bit rubbish. We played one a few years back where basic troops could be 'recycled' endlessly but if you lost a vehicle, elite choice, hq etc. you had to roll to see if it was available again. It stopped you throwing units away for victory in a game, because losing the option to take a landraider mattered over several games. I like when campaign armies have to be taken from a 'parent' roster and dead stuff stays dead, it seems more realistic to me.

WinglessVT2
21-02-2010, 14:36
This would make my marines largely unplayable.

Tae
21-02-2010, 14:41
I don't mind the idea of limiting vehicles in smaller games - especially Kill Team or Combat Patrol, but can't really see myself agreeing to limitations in a full 1,500 point game as it doesn't equal out for all armies. Personally I play Daemons so limited vehicles would see me winning a lot more games, but it's not particuarly fair on my opponents.

However 200/500 point KT or CP games are ideal to have limited/no vehicles in as they are all about troops

primarch16
21-02-2010, 15:12
I think chaos daemons would become the top tier army...

WinglessVT2
21-02-2010, 15:42
Gray knights, demons, and tyranids would dominate everyone if there were no vehicles.

Rydmend
21-02-2010, 16:01
We would have provided rules to copensate for MC's if one of us was using tyranids or daemons, we were mainly using SM, CSM, IG, Tau, Eldar and Orks on that day.

For those of you who think thier army would be unplayble I think you're under estimating how this effects your opponent as well. Everyone had a pretty even playing field and I didn't notice any army feeling "unplayable" without vehicles. The IG players (who heavily depend on vehicles in standard games) actually faired really well from the games I saw. They were able to drop lots of shots down range and had the numbers to suffer considerable loses and still come out on top. Our Tau player did pretty well, his battle suit/stealth suit/firewarrior spam with kroot speedbumps was very effective.

WinglessVT2
21-02-2010, 16:05
Tau treat their vehicles as a bonus feature.
They're mobile on foot, and when there are no vehicles around for the missilepods to shoot at, your infantry gets to eat all their fire.

TheWarSmith
21-02-2010, 17:49
Crons and Nids wouldn't get hurt at all.

Well, maybe Crons couldn't take THREE monloliths anymore, but who does that anyway.

Agreed that Dark Eldar would be the most crippled. 1)because they're so reliant one their transports, 2)They're easy to rip to shreds, and 3)They don't have any "vehicle upgrades" that do a good enough job to prevent destructions(no extra armour, smoke launchers, etc.).

Guard would be hurt a lot too, but if you happened to have the models for lots of heavy weapons support, you could be ok. But saying no AV14, you just removed the one tank option they solidly have. I guess they'd have to take basilisk or medusa??

Wing Commander
21-02-2010, 18:30
Well, my Guard Airborne would have been well and truly mullered...
"Right lads, lets get out and walk..."

carl
21-02-2010, 20:20
I agree i think people here are opverestimating how this hurst some armies, since gunlines and defensie firebases are simply far less vulnrable all of a sudden, as such they gain a huge boost in effectivness, effectivlly offsetting all the downsides.

I agree DE would be hardest hit in some respects, but only because they lack any tough non transported units.

Culven
21-02-2010, 20:31
I should have mentioned in my earlier post, I play Guard, so this vehicle limitation will hurt my armies{sic} performance quite a bit.
:D "Hahahaha . . . Son, Tanks don't win you battles, Infantry do!"

I play Catachans. They do quite well without any Vehicles, especially when the enemy is expecting Leman Russ Squads and they dump their points into anti-tank weapons.

I have never seen a need to limit the number of Vehicles allowed in a game. The closest to that that I've done is limiting the Armour Value of the Vehicles allowed, and that was for 500 and 750 point tournaments. At the last 1000 point tournament, there was a player with a Land Raider. 1/4 of his points, and my meltagun-toting Special Weapons Squad killed it quite easily. At lower point games, good players will realize the danger of spending too many points on a Vehicle. Inexperienced players will think it is the biggest advantage they could have, until it dies in every game.

Wing Commander
21-02-2010, 20:37
Seems kinda unfair limiting 1 choice group, especially when some armies rely on those to work effectively.

totgeboren
21-02-2010, 21:59
Nothing wrong with playing odd scenarios. The games don't always need to be fair, as long as both sides are up for testing something new out.

Just the other week i faced nids with a IG army with only one vehicle (a leman), and we rolled randomly for what mission we had. The nid player got a mission were he was supposed to defend some objectives, and I was supposed to take them.

None of our armies were suited for our respective missions, but we played it anyway.

I can tell you, foot slogging guards trying to assault nids is not pretty! But it was really fun anyway. :)

e2055261
21-02-2010, 23:10
I think the general way this thread is going is that it would be fun to do in campaigns and scenarios but wouldn't work in tounaments. In that case I would tend to agree. Just means I'd have 200 guardsmen instead of one hundred. The extra 100 can come along now cos they can keep up...

Vaktathi
21-02-2010, 23:14
As has been noted, this greatly harms some armies and gives huge advantages to other armies. This is not in any way a balancing mechanic.

Also, if vehicles are being limited, why aren't Monstrous Creatures?

TheWarSmith
21-02-2010, 23:23
Tau would be in HEAVEN. Gunlines and suits galore!!

Vepr
22-02-2010, 01:19
I don't like the idea of limiting someones choices from their codex. That being said it might be interesting to see what marine and IG players would do if they had to drop their no thought required vehicle spam. I never played nidzilla but it is always entertaining to hear from IG and marine players that they are glad that easy mode MC armies are gone for nids as they drop 10 plus vehicles on the table and do basically the same thing with vehicles that nids used to do with MC's. Lots of skill.

Vaktathi
22-02-2010, 01:29
I don't like the idea of limiting someones choices from their codex. That being said it might be interesting to see what marine and IG players would do if they had to drop their no thought required vehicle spam. Infantry IG with 150+ dudes and 5 dozen heavy weapons with Straken and blob platoons. That's what you'd see. Have fun with that.


I never played nidzilla but it is always entertaining to hear from IG and marine players that they are glad that easy mode MC armies are gone for nids as they drop 10 plus vehicles on the table and do basically the same thing with vehicles that nids used to do with MC's. Lots of skill.Totally different issue, and not entirely accurate either. The vast majority of those vehicles are transports, not heavy battle tanks. Hyperbole is fun.

Vepr
22-02-2010, 01:48
Infantry IG with 150+ dudes and 5 dozen heavy weapons with Straken and blob platoons. That's what you'd see. Have fun with that.

Totally different issue, and not entirely accurate either. The vast majority of those vehicles are transports, not heavy battle tanks. Hyperbole is fun.

Actually mass tyranid swarm vs mass IG swarm might be fun for a change, handfuls of dice being tossed on both sides. :)

It is all about pushing forward and swamping the enemy with more than he can deal with whether it is multi-wound tough MC's or a dozen vehicles and all the accompanying fire that pours out of them. In my opinion it does not take much thought. Also they might be transports for marines but not for IG when they are sporting weapons like heavy bolters or multi-lasers and the squads can camp in them and still fire a majority of their weapons.

Culven
22-02-2010, 01:50
Infantry IG with 150+ dudes and 5 dozen heavy weapons with Straken and blob platoons. That's what you'd see. Have fun with that.
Sooo . . . Catachan armies. I already play like this. ;)

I think that some players put too much emphasis on using Vehicles. It can be interesting limiting Vehicles just so that players have to learn to adapt to the situation. Push-button Tank Line armies tend to get boring after a while.

dingareth
22-02-2010, 02:28
And I'm sure infantry hordes would get just as boring after a while if there was a limit on tanks. So what to do then? Limit the number of infantry..?

Amateur game design at its worst here. Nothing could be more arbitrary. This is just a knee jerk reaction to one or two players finally getting with 5th edition and meching up isn't it?

You enjoy your 4th edition armies, I'll go have fun with my tanks with people who know how to play somewhere else.

R Man
22-02-2010, 02:54
Perhaps a better way would be to create no-go zones for Vehicles, that have no effect on Infantry i.e: Road Blocks. This way at least transports are restricted from rushing without limiting numbers. Of course, shooting tanks and skimmers aren't affected that much, but there may be other ways to limit them without restricting or obsoleting them.

Rydmend
22-02-2010, 03:07
And I'm sure infantry hordes would get just as boring after a while if there was a limit on tanks. So what to do then? Limit the number of infantry..?

Amateur game design at its worst here. Nothing could be more arbitrary. This is just a knee jerk reaction to one or two players finally getting with 5th edition and meching up isn't it?

You enjoy your 4th edition armies, I'll go have fun with my tanks with people who know how to play somewhere else.

It is pretty obvious that you didn't bother reading the post. No one was ever proposing a change to the core rules, this was a comment made about a fun house rule game we tried out.

Culven
22-02-2010, 03:15
And I'm sure infantry hordes would get just as boring after a while if there was a limit on tanks. So what to do then? Limit the number of infantry..?
Most likely, then we can go play Apocalypse with only our Tanks. Sure, nobody could hold objectives, but when does anyone play Apocalypse to capture objectives? :p

Amateur game design at its worst here. Nothing could be more arbitrary. This is just a knee jerk reaction to one or two players finally getting with 5th edition and meching up isn't it?
You enjoy your 4th edition armies, I'll go have fun with my tanks with people who know how to play somewhere else.
At 1000 points and less, I can see the desire to limit Vehicles, but as I mentioned earlier, they tend to limit themselves or they just become point-heavy terrain. Still, I wouldn't feel the need to belittle those who want to try lower point games with Vehicle limitations. I still play Combat Patrol style games, and I think that it works better when one side hasn't sunk half their points into a Land Raider.

dingareth
22-02-2010, 03:50
It is pretty obvious that you didn't bother reading the post. No one was ever proposing a change to the core rules, this was a comment made about a fun house rule game we tried out.

...So changing the rules (the Force Org chart) isn't changing the rules anymore? I fail to see how creating a limit where there isn't one isn't a change. Also, setting a limit would be a rule, thus a change in the rules. Also, by posting in a public setting, you're calling for support and criticism. I think that your idea of fun imposes on mine, and so I'm calling attention to some of the failings of your house rule. I'm glad it worked for you, but I can't see many other people adopting it- as you suggested doing.


At 1000 points and less, I can see the desire to limit Vehicles, but as I mentioned earlier, they tend to limit themselves or they just become point-heavy terrain. Still, I wouldn't feel the need to belittle those who want to try lower point games with Vehicle limitations. I still play Combat Patrol style games, and I think that it works better when one side hasn't sunk half their points into a Land Raider.

Combat patrol doesn't allow for any more than AV 33, which I find a much more sensible rule than some random limit. So you're quite right when you say it works better when someone hasn't brought a Land Raider, as that would be cheating. Surely we all can agree that the game works better without cheating, right?

Culven
22-02-2010, 04:01
Also, by posting in a public setting, you're calling for support and criticism.
Critisism is fine, provided that it is constructive and presented in a civil manner. Your comments were unnecessarily gruf when you called the OP's idea "amateur game design at its worst". You are entitled to your opinion, and I like to hear different opinions, but not when they are presented in a rude manner. The OP is also entitled to his opinion, and you should respect it, even if you disagree.

Combat patrol doesn't allow for any more than AV 33, . . .. So you're quite right when you say it works better when someone hasn't brought a Land Raider, as that would be cheating. Surely we all can agree that the game works better without cheating, right?
I wasn't implying that anyone is cheating. I was pointing out that in a small point game, limits such as those in Combat Patrol tend to make for a better game than one would have if they were playing a 500 point game where anything goes.

Rydmend
22-02-2010, 04:09
...So changing the rules (the Force Org chart) isn't changing the rules anymore? I fail to see how creating a limit where there isn't one isn't a change. Also, setting a limit would be a rule, thus a change in the rules. Also, by posting in a public setting, you're calling for support and criticism. I think that your idea of fun imposes on mine, and so I'm calling attention to some of the failings of your house rule. I'm glad it worked for you, but I can't see many other people adopting it- as you suggested doing.


The suggestion of *adoption* of this as a standard rule was never mentioned, I merely said that players should give it a shot. I'm not asking for change of how the core rulebook works for everyday gaming but merely a scenario that some may want to try. I run two armies full of vehicles on a standard basis and we simply came up with a scenario that didn't allow for it and I found it to be enjoyable.

You are more than welcome to state "This is a bad idea, I will never try it, and here is why." but to barge into a post you clearly didn't read and proclaim "You enjoy your 4th edition armies, I'll go have fun with my tanks with people who know how to play somewhere else" isn't good criticism, it is being an ass.

Wobbey
22-02-2010, 04:56
Infantry IG with 150+ dudes and 5 dozen heavy weapons with Straken and blob platoons. That's what you'd see. Have fun with that.

The gentlemen in my gaming group always expect they will see a lot of Leman Russ tanks on the field and arm themselves appropriately for this, since I own quite a few. However I find it more enjoyable to frustrate them with just this kind of response. :D

I think IG run just fine without vehicles, and it's very satisfying to have the small guard squads destroying enemy armor left and right.

senorcardgage
22-02-2010, 06:37
My gaming group would love to employ rules similar to this, as they are constantly on at me saying I take far too many tanks. Is eleven in 1500 points too many? Really?

I think it really depends on what kind of tank you're talking about. I've had people complain because I had 2 predators and three rhinoes in 1k, saying that i had too many tanks. Clearly, if you have a bunch of rhinoes, chimeras or similar then its not too big of a deal if you field a good number of them. If, on the other had, you took three leman russes and 2 vendettas in 1k points, that's a totally different ballgame.