# Vehicle-free Gaming



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

So I was wondering, what with all the prevalence of mech in 5th ed, how would it affect each faction if vehicles removed. I.e. say I ran a tournament where no vehicles could be used (excluding bikes/jetbikes) at all?

I know some armies (DE, Guard) would suffer more than others (Daemons, Nids), but would it be viable without completely nerfing any particular army? Obviously manouverability then becomes a bit of an issue, so board sizes may have to be reduced to say 4'x4'.

Thoughts?


----------



## Farseer Darvaleth (Nov 15, 2009)

Perhaps to make it fair across armies like IG and 'nids, you could say no tanks or monstrous creatures. But that would be a serious nerf for everybody. :laugh:


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

Meh, I think Guard could cope OK without vehicles. They still have artillery and blobs. It just makes Guard players think more than "Position boxes, aim boxes, fire boxes".


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

you could possibly impose composition penalties for having AV of 12 or more, or limit people to having under AV12 maybe. 

to even it out you could say MC could have no more that 6W or 4A

khrone


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

While there are army builds that get around the use of vehicles for every army, it takes away a lot of the game. An army like DE would be nerfed as they don't have armor and rely pretty much on maneuverability and speed. IG get nerfed as well as that's where they draw pretty much all their heavy hitters from. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean there aren't ways around not using vehicles. Though, I have to wonder where the line is drawn. Do you allow walkers too? Why stop at jetbikes/bikes? Are skimmers allowed then? It's an interesting concept, just have to be careful of where you draw the line. I think if you ran a tournament like this, I would put my money on a nids army winning.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

It might work at lower pts levels, showing small skirmishes, or perhaps with specific scenarios (afterall in some cases imperial forces are forbidden from using destructive weapons in holy areas)

I would happily do say 1000pts on a heavy terrain 4x4 table, maybe limited to just sentinels for my guard


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

IMO it would definitively include anything in the vehicles section of the BRB (tanks, skimmers, fast, walkers), but not MCs or bikes/jetbikes.

And I think it would be interesting as afaik no one's tried anything on this scale, but I think my money would be on either Grey Knights or Blood Angels.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

People think IG are weak? Think about that for a second. They get more and cheaper heavy weapons than anyone else on their foot units, get more specials (Company Command Squads/Vets), and get Orders.

You assault the front unit(s), consolidate, get first/second ranked by about 100 guardsmen, die, and assault with another unit, and the same thing happens again. They have more men than you, and more guns. You hit the "juicy center" and find out that it's 50 stubborn Ld10 guys with 6 power weapons that can't be picked out.

Guard would annihilate anyone else, just with volume of fire.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I agree that IG would lose little or nothing - but Marines also would do fairly well.

Really, it only hurts Xenos and Chaos - Chaos need their Rhinos to keep their expensive Troops alive and move them to Objectives, and Eldar/Dark Eldar are T3 with paper armour, and without the numbers of the Guard. Necrons also have poor Troops choices and likely would struggle.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

My TWC would drool at this


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

scscofield said:


> My TWC would drool at this


They would indeed - as would Wolf Scouts eating enemies that couldn't get far enough from the board edges in time...


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I think however that the demons would get a huge boost.(Excluding gk of course) they would loose none of their manouverability and their major weakness, a shortage of effective AT would become a non issue. As for ig it depende where you draw the line. It would get a bit harder for them if you took out all the mobile artillery as well. If they could use the FW artillery pieces that could be interesting.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Shaantitus, by mobile artillery do you mean the Heavy Weapons Teams? They aren't vehicles, that'd be like banning Jetbikes, or Jump Packs, or Cavalry...


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

My Loganwing would love this too, although it is designed to kill / suppress 6 transports per turn.


----------



## CattleBruiser (Sep 3, 2011)

da green tide would love you. but eldar would be forced to basically just run seer councils and idk about dark eldar, but i think they'll become pretty monobuild (if they even have a no vehicle build).


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Nah, Grey Knights and TWC eat Green Tides for breakfast, Orks would be woeful. Units popping to Fearless wounds everywhere...:laugh:

Eldar are already somewhat mono-build, but because Seers don't Score, they'll be trying to contest more than anything - and Psychic Hoods shut Fortune down too much for that to be worth it.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Something tells me this kind of game might require restraint by the players, so that it avoids getting silly with very daft op builds...of course I know gamers these days have no idea what restraint means


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

Rather than limit vehicles or MCs by AV or number of wounds, you could limit the number of vehicles. You could allow one-two vehicles or MCs per player. If you're feeling generous, you could say slots, so Guard could take Leman Russ Squads and Tyranids could take Carnifex Broods. Though that could be the issue you have anyway. And there is a DE list that relies on minimal vehicles. It's the Webway Portal list. True, you still want Ravagers but they aren't needed, especially without other vehicles being present. You may have to run more than one WWP to be effective, but without vehicles you'll have the points. And if one vehicle is allowed, you put the Archon or Haemonculis in a Venom and rush it forward.


----------



## Scythes (Dec 30, 2011)

I think nids would do well as they wouldn't be affected really by a no vehicle rule. Spore pods still usable, fast attack units still usable, etc. Also, I ran a 2k marines army with no armour. I packed in 84 infantry models, and only cuz I had 2 full devastator squads and a 10 man sternguard squad. Swap those out and I could've fit more in, though my troops would've been full. It pretty much cuts out anyones reliance on anti-tank, they get one big shot that will kill one marine, but with a horde of power armour it's tough to kill.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

But a horde if power armour is fluffy, the 6-7th companies sometimes work alone


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

Most of my armies use either limited or no vehicles, My sons green tide orcs generally do well with only a few buggies and copters and without the need to worry about armour only guard would pose any real worries as it would be like recreating the Somme.
My guard only have 2 tanks and I could easily drop them for more heavy weapons and be as effective the only worry there would be deepstriking armies as it reduces the effectiveness of massed shooting.
My marines and chaos marines have no vehicles bar a few rhinos so I'm sure they could adapt
The only 1 of my armies that would change drastically would be Eldar but I think with dark reapers and msu guardians and the heavy weapon platforms they should be able to cope as they're still faster than most.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I think CSM could work OK, because you're forgetting your opponent doesn't have vehicles either. That makes Daemon Princes, Terminators, Daemons a whole lot more dangerous. And you don't have limited mobility compared to some armies like Guard or Grey Knights.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Obliterators would have a field day with Heavy Flamers and Plasma Cannons, and maybe get to use a weapon OTHER than the Lascannon/TL Meltagun/Multi-Melta.

And Thousand Sons would finally be worth taking as even a middling choice.

Midnight


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

That's a good point actually. Melta would completely decline in use as there's no vehicles, so plasma and templates would come back into it.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Hence my suggestion earlier, more cover, closer to historical wargaming levels of cover


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> But a horde if power armour is fluffy, the 6-7th companies sometimes work alone


I have NEVER read fluff of Marines deploying en masse on foot since the Heresy. They have Transports because they are a fast strike force, they don't dander about.



Spanner said:


> I think CSM could work OK, because you're forgetting your opponent doesn't have vehicles either. That makes Daemon Princes, Terminators, Daemons a whole lot more dangerous. And you don't have limited mobility compared to some armies like Guard or Grey Knights.


You have fewer/more expensive Heavy weapons in Troops, so you have to advance up the field for them to do anything themselves.

They'd not be worst off, but they'd have to build radically differently. Ironically, the Death Guard would be pretty awful as an all-foot force.

Melta wouldn't really decline, since you'd still need it for Paladins, and you'd need it more if Nid Warriors started being used.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Not hard to believe they leave the transports in the rear, for whatever reason it might be, maybe the terrain is too tight and closed in, making transports death traps


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

No, it isn't. Excepting that they have Drop Pods for those circumstances.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Teleports, Grav-chutes, Tellyportas, Webway Portals, etc. can all carry vehicles. Hell, the Blood Angels drop Land Raiders out of Thunderhawks! Not that they'd really need to; Land Raiders can go through next to any terrain anyway (aquatic ambush springs to mind).

They fight wars in 40k without vehicles though. Read _The Guns of Tanith_.

Midnight


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

TheKingElessar said:


> No, it isn't. Excepting that they have Drop Pods for those circumstances.


Drop pods in built up areas?...sounds fact to me, very easy to get seperated from your main force, only takes 1 building to knock you a mike off course and your screwed (considering how talk 40k buildings are compared to the table versions)


----------



## Scythes (Dec 30, 2011)

It's possible the Marines are in a long protracted campaign and possibly have limited vehciles remaining, or are very understrength and have limited vehicles. Possibly they are fighting in mountains or caves where vehicles can't go or something along those lines. You can always come up with some reason why almost an entire company would take the field with no armour.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

That might be too much imagination for most scythes


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Drop pods in built up areas?...sounds fact to me, very easy to get seperated from your main force, only takes 1 building to knock you a mike off course and your screwed (considering how talk 40k buildings are compared to the table versions)


Leaving buildings standing in a warzone? Not using the mandatory Imperial Preliminary Bombardment that has been part of basic strategy since ever?


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

TheKingElessar said:


> Leaving buildings standing in a warzone? Not using the mandatory Imperial Preliminary Bombardment that has been part of basic strategy since ever?


Sometimes you must leave those buildings standing, like in cadian blood, they were given orders against destructive weapons in certain areas, so had to leave a load of chimeras out of the way.

So bombardment and pods are not always the answer sorry


----------



## Scythes (Dec 30, 2011)

Yeah, the Imperium doesn't really care how much damage they do to a civilization. While I can see the point about dro pods hitting buildings and getting knocked over and stuff, it never stopped them before, why now?


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Scythes said:


> Yeah, the Imperium doesn't really care how much damage they do to a civilization. While I can see the point about dro pods hitting buildings and getting knocked over and stuff, it never stopped them before, why now?


Except it has *points above and at cadian blood*


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Oh noes, Guard were given orders? Marines give a shit.

Drop Pods would flatten most buildings anyway.

There's a great example from 3rd, where an Inquisitor called for assistance dealing with a planet not paying it's tithes to the Administratum. I forget which Chapter answered the call, but rather than follow the Inquisitor's suggestion of scalpel-striking the Governor and assorted cronies, they engaged in a campaign that saw the destruction of 90% of the world's PDF, before leveling the capital and killing the entirety of the Government. It was predicted it would take a century or so for the planet to recover. So, yeah, Marines totally care about collateral damage.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I think you guys a potentially reading into this too much 

In this scenario, just imagine that the force's entire vehicle fleet has been lost/destroyed/sabotaged/whatever, and now they have to fight without vehicles?


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

TheKingElessar said:


> Oh noes, Guard were given orders? Marines give a shit.


They might, since the order came from higher up than guard command, and marines still have to follow orders (some exceptions) but generally not all marine chapters are a bunch of arrogant assholes like your making them sound.

Point is there are terrain types that exclude the use if vehicles, there are fluff reasons that exclude vehicles and there are other reasons pointed out to exclude vehicles.
So just take the hint and accept it, your not always able to use vehicles, end of.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> They might, since the order came from higher up than guard command, and marines still have to follow orders (some exceptions) but generally not all marine chapters are a bunch of arrogant assholes like your making them sound.
> 
> Point is there are terrain types that exclude the use if vehicles, there are fluff reasons that exclude vehicles and there are other reasons pointed out to exclude vehicles.
> So just take the hint and accept it, your not always able to use vehicles, end of.


What's higher than an Inquisitor? You think the High Lords of Terra give a fuck about one little world? No world outside the Segmentum Solar would matter enough to them to even notice.

"Not all Marine Chapters are a bunch of arrogant assholes" - proof please? I doubt you'll find any. Your opinion =/= fact.

Of course there are terrain types that exclude the use OF vehicles, and you're not always going to have them available - that's why we have Cityfight - and Dozer Blades. If you're setting up a board that is actually a city, then fine, but a conventional board has no reasoning, it'd simply be a Decree from the TO/accord between the players not to use vehicles - don't make it out to be more than it is. If you want to play without vehicles, do what you want, but don't pretend you're doing it for made-up 'fluff' reasons.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

*facepalm* nevermind elessar


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

> They might, since the order came from higher up than guard command, and marines still have to follow orders (some exceptions) but generally not all marine chapters are a bunch of arrogant assholes like your making them sound.


who can give marines an order and expect them to follow it? really? 

commanders and the =][= can suggest things to them and request that they do stuff, but no-one but the chaptermaster etc. can order marines; and thats only from the same chapter


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Just add more dangerous and impassible terrain to your game boards.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

khrone forever said:


> who can give marines an order and expect them to follow it? really?
> 
> commanders and the =][= can suggest things to them and request that they do stuff, but no-one but the chaptermaster etc. can order marines; and thats only from the same chapter


Does it really matter any more who gave the order?, nobody gives a fuck anyway since the whole idea if you leaving your precious transports out if a game boggles your tiny fragile minds to a point where any words simply pass through your brains like a curry through your ass

Somebody could probably sit here and list a hundred reasons why a rhino or a drop pod can't fit up a tyrants ass and you people would still sit here going "but, if, but, if, but, if, but oooh straws *clutch clutch clutch* yay"
Believe it or not as well originally it wasn't just you poor marine players we were talking about limiting, but as per usual if the world isn't revolving around your power armoured cock plates something must be seriously wrong


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

TheKingElessar said:


> I have NEVER read fluff of Marines deploying en masse on foot since the Heresy. They have Transports because they are a fast strike force, they don't dander about.


In Fall of Damnos the 2nd company (plus a few dreads) all drop pod in, but then have to stay on foot with no transports. Yes they do drop in, but the subsequent battles aren't near them.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

If you actually READ the posts in the thread, you'll see that opinions expressed here don't match your bullshit assumptions.

It isn't our fault if you try to claim fluff justifications for your 'thoughts' and then they are shown to be based on nothing but supposition, and indeed make little or no sense.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

TheKingElessar said:


> If you actually READ the posts in the thread, you'll see that opinions expressed here don't match your bullshit assumptions.
> 
> It isn't our fault if you try to claim fluff justifications for your 'thoughts' and then they are shown to be based on nothing but supposition, and indeed make little or no sense.


Yes its very wrong of me to assume any army in 40k ever fights in caves, or on spaceships or in tight enviroments without the full armoured might if the entire army rolling around, and such battles are never once covered by any codex fluff it any publication from GW or there branch companies.............oh wait.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Again, actually read my posts correctly. Try with the words that appear on the screen, then not adding extra words you think you see.


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Does it really matter any more who gave the order?, nobody gives a fuck anyway since the whole idea if you leaving your precious transports out if a game boggles your tiny fragile minds to a point where any words simply pass through your brains like a curry through your ass no i read the words you say, but they dont really make much sense. the idea of leaving tank behind in games is reasonable but it will restrict some armys more than others. Anyway there's no reason to start insulting people because you have differing opinions
> 
> Somebody could probably sit here and list a hundred reasons why a rhino or a drop pod can't fit up a tyrants ass and you people would still sit here going "but, if, but, if, but, if, but oooh straws *clutch clutch clutch* yay"
> Believe it or not as well originally it wasn't just you poor marine players we were talking about limiting, but as per usual if the world isn't revolving around your power armoured cock plates something must be seriously wrong


why would you bother listing reasons a drop pod cant fit up a tyrants ass? its a waste of time. anyway, most of the people who are most affected by having no transports are the people who actually have them and are used regularly , eg. guard, marines/CSM and eldar/DE. so don't we have a right to not like it.......




VanquisherMBT said:


> Yes its very wrong of me to assume any army in 40k ever fights in caves, or on spaceships or in tight enviroments without the full armoured might if the entire army rolling around, and such battles are never once covered by any codex fluff it any publication from GW or there branch companies.............oh wait.


caves: bombard them. spaceships:blow them up from another spaceship. tight environments: drop pods. why not use the "full armoured might" when you have it at your disposal? would you cut off your arm to make a challenge for yourself in a fight: hell no!


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

khrone forever said:


> caves: bombard them. spaceships:blow them up from another spaceship. tight environments: drop pods. why not use the "full armoured might" when you have it at your disposal? would you cut off your arm to make a challenge for yourself in a fight: hell no!


Flip side -

Caves: There are important prisoners inside?
Spaceships: Its a stolen spaceship that is too important to destroy?
Tight environments: no counter


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

With the exception of the Dark Angels, Imperials aren't much of one for prisoners. :laugh:

Of course there are reasons why this CAN be the case - that's why we have scenarios. If your table matches what you're trying to convey, then fair enough, but if it doesn't then it's rather pointless.


----------



## Snarfy (Mar 20, 2012)

forgive me if im wrong but doesn't the 13th company of space wolves fight without vehicles besides dreadnaughts because they have non left?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

The 13th Company cannot be represented by any existing Codex.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

TheKingElessar said:


> The 13th Company cannot be represented by any existing Codex.


Space wolf codex?, you only need a different shade of grey and no vehicles, not that hard


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

Erm. Except the fact that they're Wulfen, so basically insane, no use of tactics really, no ranged weapons, just rush the enemy. Describe a codex that can give you that...


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

spanner94ezekiel said:


> Erm. Except the fact that they're Wulfen, so basically insane, no use of tactics really, no ranged weapons, just rush the enemy. Describe a codex that can give you that...


Well considering the codex with the 13th company didn't give you that either, what difference does it make?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Their Librarians use Gate. Gate of Infinity is in the Space Marine Codex. The Space Marine Codex doesn't permit models with CCWs and Bolt Pistols as main-line troops. Ergo - it doesn't fit, and Gate isn't available to Wolves.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Then play without gate.....its only 1 power


----------



## empirespy (Aug 2, 2011)

spanner94ezekiel said:


> Erm. Except the fact that they're Wulfen, so basically insane, no use of tactics really, no ranged weapons, just rush the enemy. Describe a codex that can give you that...


Have you read the space wolf omnibus? They are wulfen, but their minds are still intact.

As to the original question, it's very feasible to play without vehicles, my current CSM army has no vehicles yet, and I have no vehicles in my Eldar army. It's quite fun to play, as it adds variation to the game, and gets you thinking in a different way. There are many reasons why a force of anything would go without vehicles, even on a standard board. As we play a relatively small section of the game, possibly the vehicles are fighting just a bit off the board, or they are coming in from reserve, as they were delayed, and don't arrive in time. 

-Empirespy


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> I have NEVER read fluff of Marines deploying en masse on foot since the Heresy. They have Transports because they are a fast strike force, they don't dander about.


Any situation where they are called upon to man the walls of a fortification (The Battle for Macragge)? Any situation where they are called upon to fight in trench warfare (Iron Cage)?

Both situations are easily represented on a table, and are canon examples of Marines fighting without armour support of any kind.

I agree that it's not _common_, but it has happened.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I just wanted to pop in here to say...

PLASTIC TOY SOLDIERS.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

No shit, I keep boggling at how hostile this thread became.


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

its not hostile, just................we're.............passionate


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

I just wanted to say I've played for over 20 years now. I hate tanks, hate putting them together and hate painting them, so my armies have always had the bare minimum. I rarely (until about 6 months ago) used transports, and only tried them because I fancied a change. They aren't a regular thing in my armies. 

It was a choice on my part, and I adapted tactics to cope. I have an immense amount of fun playing, and it often confuses opponents not to be facing a line of tin cans. 

You don't *need* tanks to win. Playing without them is a fun challenge. 

Why are people getting so upset about suggestion that you can play without tanks...?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Then play without gate.....its only 1 power


It's the very cornerstone of their fluff - the Rune Priests take the Wulfen to where they are needed, and they do this via Gate. Without it, they're just a bunch of power-armoured dogs chasing cars around on a single world in the EoT...or, NOT chasing cars, I guess, in this thread.


Sethis said:


> Any situation where they are called upon to man the walls of a fortification (The Battle for Macragge)? Any situation where they are called upon to fight in trench warfare (Iron Cage)?
> 
> Both situations are easily represented on a table, and are canon examples of Marines fighting without armour support of any kind.
> 
> I agree that it's not _common_, but it has happened.


And, as I said, where they have a table that represents these iconic moments of Space marine 'history' then fantastic, sign me up for scenarios, cool. But if you don't have a trench board, or massive tunnel complex where we hold off against Nids as long as we can, then it really doesn't happen. Am I saying it NEVER happened? No, that'd be silly. The 40k-verse is a HUGE place, and anything imaginable has happened there at some stage of the last 10k years, no question. But the kind of people who _typically_ prefer to play without vehicles are the type of people who'd tell me that my army is unfluffy because all my Land Speeders have the same armament, or some other bullshit.

So, if fluff is going to be held up as sacrosanct for their purposes, then I can sure as hell use that claim too.

@Tabby - That's not a good argument. Rogue Trader was about as far removed from the current edition of the game as Man o' War is from Talisman. Mechanised forces were less powerful or important to have (as a general rule) in EVERY other Edition as in this.

Playing without them requires significant other mobility, and little or no loss of firepower while doing so. Not every army can do this equally, and while the armies aren't exactly all on par at present, the differences are far greater with vehicles excluded.

I don't know if anyone is getting upset, but I do know that removing vehicles from the game damages some armies more than others, and most of the ones hurt are ones already at a disadvantage.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

SilverTabby said:


> Why are people getting so upset about suggestion that you can play without tanks...?


Because we all have different experiences and playstyles, be they wanting to play competitively or casually, with a fluffy themed list or a hard-edged competitive list, and we all have chosen different Codecii to build those lists from. Also comes down to whether you're a treadhead so into vehicles or you're into foot infantry-heavy lists, or something in between..or all 3 like me.

I'm a treadhead and have dozens of vehicles, but I've switched to an IG hybrid list and find I'm still winning more often than not, but I can field a leafblower list or vehicle - only list if I want.

My SM list has no vehicles, well only Drop Pods, and my pure Death Wing list only has land Raiders and Dreads.

So I (and my group) don't give a stuff what we face across the Board...it's all fun because that fun comes from the attitude of the opponent, not the lists.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

Arcane said:


> I just wanted to pop in here to say...
> 
> PLASTIC TOY SOLDIERS.


:goodpost:


scscofield said:


> No shit, I keep boggling at how hostile this thread became.


:goodpost:


SilverTabby said:


> I just wanted to say I've played for over 20 years now. I hate tanks, hate putting them together and hate painting them, so my armies have always had the bare minimum. I rarely (until about 6 months ago) used transports, and only tried them because I fancied a change. They aren't a regular thing in my armies.
> 
> It was a choice on my part, and I adapted tactics to cope. I have an immense amount of fun playing, and it often confuses opponents not to be facing a line of tin cans.
> 
> ...


:goodpost:


We could just give some of these guys guns and lock them in a warehouse somewhere. Fluff and tabletop don't have to mesh 100%. I've seen armies played that violate fluff with every action. Yes, you probably should have a reason that Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar and some others don't have vehicles, but it doesn't have to be brilliant. We already have Cityfight, Boarding Action and Zone of Mortalis that severely limit vehicle use. A board that's nothing but dense forest can also make vehicles inneffective for a lot of armies. I'd enjoy the challenge of my armies without vehicles, though DE would require the Webway Portal to do any good. And I don't remember who said it, but WWP cannot be used for vehicles.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

HOBO said:


> Because we all have different experiences and playstyles, be they wanting to play competitively or casually, with a fluffy themed list or a hard-edged competitive list, and we all have chosen different Codecii to build those lists from. Also comes down to whether you're a treadhead so into vehicles or you're into foot infantry-heavy lists, or something in between..or all 3 like me.
> 
> I'm a treadhead and have dozens of vehicles, but I've switched to an IG hybrid list and find I'm still winning more often than not, but I can field a leafblower list or vehicle - only list if I want.
> 
> ...


:goodpost:


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I love tanks and cannons and big guns and armor and and and... yeah. If there were only one army that had tanks and they were very underpowered and gimped I would still play them. If there were no tanks in 40k, I probably would be playing Flames of War. 

That said there's nothing wrong if someone prefers to play infantry lists. Heck, I would be happy to play a couple non-vehicle games if my friend would have fun and we could both enjoy it for a temporary change of pace.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

try ig armoured company from forge world. good luck playing objectives but having a possible 40+ tanks is damn fun.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Vaz said:


> try ig armoured company from forge world. good luck playing objectives but having a possible 40+ tanks is damn fun.


Amen to that:biggrin:, although *within my Group* we would count the Tanks that fill the Troop FOC as scoring.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

As to the original question I agree that it might be fun to try a match without any vehicles. It adds a new challenge to the game.

As an aside it IS possible to represent the Space Wolf 13th company with the Space Marine codex. If you take Tyberos the Red Wake from Imperial Armour 10 (with your opponents permission of course) then your basic tac marines can swap the bolter for a close combat weapon for that magical BP/CCW combo. In addition your marines now have _Furious Charge_ and even can suffer from _Rage_ when they win combat against infantry units. That sounds rather fluffy for a Wulfen list in my eyes.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Stephen_Newman said:


> As an aside it IS possible to represent the Space Wolf 13th company with the Space Marine codex. If you take Tyberos the Red Wake from Imperial Armour 10 (with your opponents permission of course) then your basic tac marines can swap the bolter for a close combat weapon for that magical BP/CCW combo. In addition your marines now have _Furious Charge_ and even can suffer from _Rage_ when they win combat against infantry units. That sounds rather fluffy for a Wulfen list in my eyes.


My son's first SM army was 13th Company, so I'll let him read this post, and I have IA10 as well, so it might inspire him to build the 13th again.

+Rep for that, thanks man:biggrin:


----------



## Scythes (Dec 30, 2011)

If there has ever been even a single battle in the history of 40k then it can happen again. And in the past 10,000+ years, I imagine there has been at least one battle where no vehicles were present. If every army HAD to use vehciles, they would be listed as 1+ in every codex. But they're not, you're not forced to use vehicles, therefore you can use none. it just means...I know this will blow some peoples minds....you have to use tactics and not some net list you printed off cuz it looks uber. There are no absolute models that have be used in any list, just some that are more efficient and effective than others.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> Shaantitus, by mobile artillery do you mean the Heavy Weapons Teams? They aren't vehicles, that'd be like banning Jetbikes, or Jump Packs, or Cavalry...


I know i am replying late. By mobile artillery i mean the medusa, basilisk, manticore, hydra etc. Self propelled artillery weapons. The heavy weapon teams are infantry. As for the stationary artillery i mean the heavy mortar, thudd gun, earthshaker emplacement, medusa carriage etc.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

I actually like the gritty feel of a close-quarters game with no or few vehicles. A game where you've got squads advancing through ruins that cover the entire table, really playing up the vertical element of the terrain, etc... it's a hell of a lot of fun. But both players need to come to the table wanting to play that game. The bog-standard 1500/1850/2000 point list assumes you've got access to transports, heavy armor, etc (or its equivalent), and the game is balanced with that in mind. 

I actually think vehicles were better in 4th edition than they are now, but for whatever reason, both community and games designers have emphasized mechanized armies much more over the course of 5th than they did during 3rd or 4th. The Codecies are written with the idea that you're probably bringing a transport for most of, if not all, your infantry units, and you're bringing tanks to support them. It's not realistic (in terms of gameplay, at least) to expect your opponents not to bring armor to the table unless you've had a prior arrangement to play a scenario with minimal vehicles.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> @Tabby - That's not a good argument. Rogue Trader was about as far removed from the current edition of the game as Man o' War is from Talisman. Mechanised forces were less powerful or important to have (as a general rule) in EVERY other Edition as in this.
> 
> Playing without them requires significant other mobility, and little or no loss of firepower while doing so. Not every army can do this equally, and while the armies aren't exactly all on par at present, the differences are far greater with vehicles excluded.
> 
> I don't know if anyone is getting upset, but I do know that removing vehicles from the game damages some armies more than others, and most of the ones hurt are ones already at a disadvantage.


It's a perfectly valid arguement, (and I didn't play RT), as what I've done is played every edition since 2nd Ed and not *needed* tanks in any. Including this edition. My arguement is you can play just fine without them, ilm not saying they should be removed as was the very first post in this thread:


spanner94ezekiel said:


> So I was wondering, what with all the prevalence of mech in 5th ed, how would it affect each faction if vehicles removed. I.e. say I ran a tournament where no vehicles could be used (excluding bikes/jetbikes) at all?
> 
> I know some armies (DE, Guard) would suffer more than others (Daemons, Nids), but would it be viable without completely nerfing any particular army? Obviously manouverability then becomes a bit of an issue, so board sizes may have to be reduced to say 4'x4'.
> 
> Thoughts?


 He was suggesting could the game be played without tanks, and was wondering what the effect on each army would be. He wasn't saying "YOU MUSTN'T PLAY WITH TANKS!" In my time I've played Sisters, Space Wolves, Eldar, Chaos, nids, Guard, and I've borrowed DE, and I can safely say that in any edition *including this one* I've been happy to play with minimal tanks, and been able to win and have fun.

So, in responce to the original question: yes, I think the game can be played without tanks. Some factions will find it harder than others, but it's not an insurmountable challenge. Should tanks be removed? No. Could games be played happily without them? Yes.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Apologies...:gamer1:


Stephen_Newman said:


> As an aside it IS possible to represent the Space Wolf 13th company with the Space Marine codex. If you take Tyberos the Red Wake from Imperial Armour 10 (with your opponents permission of course) then your basic tac marines can swap the bolter for a close combat weapon for that magical BP/CCW combo. In addition your marines now have _Furious Charge_ and even can suffer from _Rage_ when they win combat against infantry units. That sounds rather fluffy for a Wulfen list in my eyes.


Good point, fair enough - although you would still be unable to play with the standard Codex, that is the best way to represent Wulfen I can think of, it's just unfortunate it requires opponent's permission, and your Grey Slayers would lose the Bolter.


Scythes said:


> It just means...I know this will blow some peoples minds....you have to use tactics and not some net list you printed off cuz it looks uber. There are no absolute models that have be used in any list, just some that are more efficient and effective than others.


While I'm sure such players exist, I've never met one. Anyone playing against players of similar skill level will require tactics irrespective of army list, the 'you have to use tactics, duh!' argument is used too frequently by people who are trying to force people to play their way for me to accept it as a valid argument, even if you're not directing it at me...Saying it implies a lack of ability on the part of your detractors, and of moral superiority in your own standard of play that, without any evidence, is just so much hot air.

Plus, the last sentence is foolish. Apart from the Emperor's Champion, there are MANY lists that don't function without certain elements - Loganwing without Logan, Nipplewing lists without Dante, Sternguard lists without Pedro, Deathwing without Belial etc etc.


shaantitus said:


> I know i am replying late. By mobile artillery i mean the medusa, basilisk, manticore, hydra etc. Self propelled artillery weapons. The heavy weapon teams are infantry. As for the stationary artillery i mean the heavy mortar, thudd gun, earthshaker emplacement, medusa carriage etc.


Ah, fair enough. Well, as vehicles, I was assuming they'd all already have been banned. I still think IG would be sufficiently strong without them, even though it's obviously not ideal.


The Son of Horus said:


> I actually like the gritty feel of a close-quarters game with no or few vehicles. A game where you've got squads advancing through ruins that cover the entire table, really playing up the vertical element of the terrain, etc... it's a hell of a lot of fun. But both players need to come to the table wanting to play that game. The bog-standard 1500/1850/2000 point list assumes you've got access to transports, heavy armor, etc (or its equivalent), and the game is balanced with that in mind.


 Absolutely, it's a totally different challenge to the standard game. Sadly, it makes T4 even more important.



> I actually think vehicles were better in 4th edition than they are now, but for whatever reason, both community and games designers have emphasized mechanized armies much more over the course of 5th than they did during 3rd or 4th. The Codecies are written with the idea that you're probably bringing a transport for most of, if not all, your infantry units, and you're bringing tanks to support them. It's not realistic (in terms of gameplay, at least) to expect your opponents not to bring armor to the table unless you've had a prior arrangement to play a scenario with minimal vehicles.


:goodpost:


SilverTabby said:


> It's a perfectly valid arguement, (and I didn't play RT), as what I've done is played every edition since 2nd Ed and not *needed* tanks in any.


Tanks may well have been slightly better off in 4e, but definitely not Transports - and I'd say part of the reason Tanks were better was because people didn't use Melta weapons even a fraction as much. Having a Transport explode and auto-kill the unit inside was a ridiculous move by GW, as it is a clear disincentive to buy an entire type of model, and can't have helped vehicle sales one bit.

Experiences of what you did or didn't play in previous Editions is irrelevant however, to how good or not vehicles are in 5e, and how good they'll be in 6 months time when people start figuring out what's different about 6th.

I played every edition after RT myself, and what was a good army in 2e (Virus Bombs and Vortex Grenades wahey!) has no bearing whatsoever on any subsequent Edition - and the Rhino Rush of 3rd, or the Ulthwe/Iron Warriors list of 3.5, or Nidzilla/Assault Cannon Spam/Falcons and Harlies of 4e - none have any relevance to 5th edition. Overall, vehicles have never been as much of a force multiplier to your army as in this edition - they've never had it so good. It also makes the game feel like it's actually the future, instead of guys running around in the standard semi-desert lugging Lascannons just in case the other player has a Dreadnought or two.


> I can safely say that in any edition *including this one* I've been happy to play with minimal tanks, and been able to win and have fun.


Absolutely, it's possible to play anything you want and have fun. 

As long as we all remember fun is subjective - my fun from most of my time in the game was despite not knowing what units were any good, and I enjoy the game more in 5e than ever. For me, vehicles are a major factor in that.

/:gamer1:


----------



## nevynxxx (Dec 27, 2011)

The Son of Horus said:


> I actually like the gritty feel of a close-quarters game with no or few vehicles. A game where you've got squads advancing through ruins that cover the entire table, really playing up the vertical element of the terrain, etc... it's a hell of a lot of fun.


And a damned shame they binned necromunda!


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

It would bugger up some armies, IG would be ok if you ran them as blobs but its not how I'd want to play - I'm a treadhead, I like my tanks, even though it wasn't very competitive I took a IA Tank Company to a FW friendly tournament and had a blast, and even though I consider myself a competitively minded player, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

nevynxxx said:


> And a damned shame they binned necromunda!


You can still download the rules from GW can't you?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/c...9a&categoryId=6700007a&section=&aId=21500022a 
See, not completely binned

Plus they still have the models, or you could use anything, I would use the street wars stuff from foundry


----------



## Scythes (Dec 30, 2011)

TheKingElessar said:


> Plus, the last sentence is foolish. Apart from the Emperor's Champion, there are MANY lists that don't function without certain elements - Loganwing without Logan, Nipplewing lists without Dante, Sternguard lists without Pedro, Deathwing without Belial etc etc.


Can you take terminators without Logan or Belial? Can you take Sternguard without Pedro? I don't even know what the Dante one is. The only model I'll give you there is the Emperors Champion, he's required. Other than that no one model or unit is required to play a game from any particular codex. 

For DA to use terminators as troops, yes, you need Belial, to use terminators DA need....terminators. To make Sternguard scoring you need Pedro, to take Sternguard you need....sternguard. To say any model, besides the emps champ, is absolutely required to play a game from any codex is to rely too much on list building and not enough on tactics.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Now I can't tell if you're simply moving the goalposts, or you actually believe that crap.

You said:


> There are no absolute models that have be used in any list,


I gave you numerous examples of where that isn't true.

You didn't say "There are no absolute models that have to be used in any *CODEX*." In which case I would only have had the three examples to prove you wrong, though I would also have pointed to the previous Necron Codex, where they only had one Troops option, and only one HQ option that didn't require opponent's permission to play.

Three examples? Why yes, Tau are compelled to take a squad of Fire warriors, and also to take a Commander.

I refrained from mentioning those extra two before because I didn't want to make you look ignorant. Ho hum. When you say something blatantly untrue like


> Other than [The Emperor's Champion] no one model or unit is required to play a game from any particular codex. ...To say any model, besides the emps champ, is absolutely required to play a game from any codex is to rely too much on list building and not enough on tactics.


 then the cat is already out of the bag.

Tactics don't determine your list, and the best player in the world with the worst list possible will still lose to a good player with a good list, irrespective of tactics employed.

Tactics are determined by what you face, and the terrain you face it on. *Strategy *determines what you want to use, list determines how you get in the game, and luck determines how well you do with the things you have - these things are, more or less, equally important. Acting like your army list isn't an important component of the game makes me want to laugh and cry in equal measure.

Nipplewing, for future reference, is a list where Sanguinary Guard are selected as Scoring units, for which Dante is required.


----------



## Scythes (Dec 30, 2011)

I think you're missing the point, just becuase there *is* some super model, doesn't mean you *have* to use it in a list to win. I could take pyrovores and rippers in a list, along with other things of course, and win with it, though it would be very difficult. 

I could be wrong about Tau, but looking at the codex Kroot are troops. Granted I glanced around a bit and didn't notice anything requiring fire warriors be used, it could be there, I may have missed that part. Necrons were one of the most out of date codices there is and it's been updated, so that point is moot.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

When other people however are using that model, and are of equal or better skill at the game, you tend to need to maximise your chances to win. Of course, you could "play for the sake of playing and just to have fun", and all that mush, but I'm a competitive minded soul, and unfortunately one of of those fuckers who'll look at bringing any potential chance to win to bear. I'm not WAAC in the sense that I'll cheat, but I'll definitely go by the wording of the rules (Lumbering Behemoth, anyone? Magic Armour Slaughtermasters?) to use any chance I have to win.

As a general rule of course - there'll be occasions when I adopt a new attitude, such as getting someone involved in the game, or whatever, but I like to play my best.

I don't go cooking with shit ingredients and then cook some food which tastes horrible, and say "who cares what it tastes like, at least I had fun making it".

As to the firewarriors, they have 1+ Requirement in their title.

I hope they bring Angkor Prok (removing Fire Warrior minimum requirement), Stalker kindred (think Gnarloc Cavalry, but smaller), Vulture Kindred, and the like back with the next codex, even if they don't do the models.

People can't expect to take shit, and then expect them to do well. It's like baking cake with subpar ingredients. You'll find that maybe once in a while, they'll turn out well, but on occasion, that shit flour you buy will make your cake stodgy and starch. Now some might enjoy their cake like that, but I like mine to taste light and floaty, and I'll use the best ingredients available.

Anyway, back on topic, NOOOO VEHICLES.


----------



## misfratz (Feb 9, 2012)

Vaz said:


> When other people however are using that model, and are of equal or better skill at the game, you tend to need to maximise your chances to win....It's like baking cake with subpar ingredients. You'll find that maybe once in a while, they'll turn out well, but on occasion, that shit flour you buy will make your cake stodgy and starch....


I happen to have a lot more experience of baking than with 40k, and I have to say that I disagree entirely.

In fact, what I've tended to find is that recipes tend to be far more exact with the quantities and qualities of the ingredients then is necessary. with some recipes it is as much as how you handle the ingredients - folding rather than mixing, for example - that makes the difference as it is the supposed quality of the eggs.

I feel that people exaggerate the relatively minor differences in points efficiency of various choices, over and above luck, tactics and other factors.

Of course, when everyone who is determined to win is making the same choices then it is easy to point to tournament results as proof that these lists are the strongest, but this is an example of circular reasoning.

As to vehicles - I like the idea from earlier in the thread of tying the lack of vehicles in to a particular mission, narrative scenario and what have you.

For what it's worth, when I started playing 40k people generally had far fewer tanks, mostly because models weren't available, and armies were generally smaller. We still played on 6' or 8' by 4' boards.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

How did this turn into a debate about models being required for running net lists? I never saw anyone say "vehicles should be banned" either. The question was, can you play 40K without vehicles? Yes. Nevermind personal proclivities to using or not using them. Nevermind if the list is competitive or shit ingredients. Those who began providing examples of not using vehicles were showing that it could be done. For some reason this possibility offends people. But turning the thread into a irrelevant debate solves nothing. Both sides can have their cake and eat it. If you like running vehicles, do so. If you don't, then don't. If you want to organize a tournament, running scenarios without vehicles, give it a shot. Judging from posts here, some people would like the change of pace. But can we not judge each other based on our play styles? If I brought my Dark Eldar army in their transports and found myself facing a non-mech Guard, I certainly wouldn't call the player stupid. It was his choice of what to bring as it was mine and if he beats me I won't feel foolish for saying he was stupid. Maybe it's all the small games I play(decided by gaming group, not me) but running no vehicles just adds a new dynamic to the game. Of course, there is nothing quite like tanks blasting each other apart and mowing down infantry either. But surely we can post our opinions without insulting or infuriating others. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we have to start attacking each other.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Scythes said:


> I think you're missing the point, just becuase there *is* some super model, doesn't mean you *have* to use it in a list to win. I could take pyrovores and rippers in a list, along with other things of course, and win with it, though it would be very difficult.
> 
> I could be wrong about Tau, but looking at the codex Kroot are troops. Granted I glanced around a bit and didn't notice anything requiring fire warriors be used, it could be there, I may have missed that part. Necrons were one of the most out of date codices there is and it's been updated, so that point is moot.


No Scythes, YOU are missing the point. I said nothing of winning.

If you want to play a themed army of Death/Raven/Nipple/Draigo/Purifier/Logan/Wolf/Henchman/Wrack/Wing-wing, then you MUST select certain HQs.

In order to play those LISTS, you MUST have the 'unlock' component.

There are no two ways about it.

[Those HQs are, of course, Belial, Sammael, Dante, Draigo, Crowe, Logan, Canis, Coteaz, Haemonculi, the Baron.]


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

You can play raven and deathwing without belial or sammael, heck you don't even need the DA codex for them, the only thing that makes ravenwing ravenwing is painting them black, for deathwing its painting them bone

Can't comment on the others as nobody here does them


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> You can play raven and deathwing without belial or sammael, heck you don't even need the DA codex for them, the only thing that makes ravenwing ravenwing is painting them black, for deathwing its painting them bone
> 
> Can't comment on the others as nobody here does them


I'm sorry, what? Do you even know what the words you type mean?


----------



## Scythes (Dec 30, 2011)

Deathwing termies have all kinds of options not available to vanilla termies. You could have a squad with 1 LC/LC, 1 TH/SS, 1 PF/SB, 1 PW/SB, 1 assault cannon. You could even go 5 TH/SS and give one of them a cyclone missile launcher. There's so much custimization in DW, they're pretty cool. And RW, vanilla marines don't get a scout move for their bikes or the ability to put land speeders in their bike squads. You can come close to DW and RW with vanilla marines and SW, but not quite.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Customization is true, but in the end what really makes deathwing?, the fluff and the bone armour, no matter what codex you use, paint them that way and everybody knows who they are

Heck you could use the chaos codex with basic marine models, you paint the bikes black and the termis bone and guess who they are 



TheKingElessar said:


> I'm sorry, what? Do you even know what the words you type mean?


Yes, but thank you for asking, your concern is touching


----------



## nevynxxx (Dec 27, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> You can still download the rules from GW can't you?
> http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/c...9a&categoryId=6700007a&section=&aId=21500022a
> See, not completely binned


True, but no new models, and less of a *scene* to play it in doesn't help.

I was more trying to make a point that the game the person I quoted was looking for already exists....


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> I'm sorry, what? Do you even know what the words you type mean?


I happen to agree with the chap you are talking about. You don't *need* special rules to make a Ravenwing army or Deathwing army, you can just use the vanilla codex, or any other marine codex. Using the DA codex just optimises the number of bikes you can take, and the formations you can build. You don't *need* to use the DA codex, or Sammael / Belial / whoever. You *can* just take bikes and paint them black, or terminators and paint them bone.

You don't need special rules to make *any* army. What you *do* with any of the rules makes the army special.

That's an entirely seperate debate though.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Customization is true, but in the end what really makes deathwing?, the fluff and the bone armour, no matter what codex you use, paint them that way and everybody knows who they are
> 
> Heck you could use the chaos codex with basic marine models, you paint the bikes black and the termis bone and guess who they are
> 
> ...


What really makes the wombles? The fur and uncle bulgaria, no matter what codex you use, model them that way and everybody knows who they are.

If you want to, you can use your Baneblade as a Rhino Transport, according to that manner of thinking. Or your Assault Cannon terminators as a single guardsman, his asscan representing a lasgun, his powerfist as a ccw.

I can take that comment as far as I want.

Using rules as what the rules are however, without going into "counts as", to run a Deathwing Army, of all Dark Angel Deathwing Terminators, you need Belial.

Archon Dan, I'm sorry but to relegate the answer of "can I play without vehicles" returning the answer of a) yes, simply don't take them, is to destroy the entire purpose of the debate and should have been asked in rules discussion.

Don't be THAT demick.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Somebody had to try to be a smartass and take my point too far didn't they, well fine, if your going to be that childish about it and start saying a baneblade is your rhino and comparing that to a terminator being a terminator your free to do so, its still utterly stupid and hopefully anyone with half a brain will see that.

A terminator from any rulebook, painted in bone (or black pre heresy) with the correct markings is a deathwing terminator, a baneblade sitting in for a rhino does not make a rhino, it makes you an idiot

In fact go out, buy a box of terminators, build 2 of them, paint them both bone and stick red winged swords on there arms, and tell me what both are
Then buy a baneblade, and a rhino, paint them both green, stick white wing swords on them, and see if they both look like rhinos


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Somebody had to try to be a smartass and take my point too far didn't they, well fine, if your going to be that childish about it and start saying a baneblade is your rhino and comparing that to a terminator being a terminator your free to do so, its still utterly stupid and hopefully anyone with half a brain will see that.
> 
> A terminator from any rulebook, painted in bone (or black pre heresy) with the correct markings is a deathwing terminator, a baneblade sitting in for a rhino does not make a rhino, it makes you an idiot
> 
> ...


A Terminator who is not chosen from the Deathwing unit selection is not one of the Deathwing, no matter how you dress it up. Things have names for a reason.

A Deathwing Marine who is not in Terminator armour, similarly, is not a Deathwing Marine, he's a Space Marine in the colours of the Deathwing, or he's an illegal model with incorrect wargear and, presumably, the wrong base size.

@Tabby - No, that's not the case. Only in a Deathwing army can the Terminators Score, this is not a valid option from the 'nilla Codex. You use the 'wrong' book and you merely have models that look like Deathwing. Similarly, if you use Death Company models as Assault Marines, they are no longer Death Company.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

Vaz said:


> What really makes the wombles? The fur and uncle bulgaria, no matter what codex you use, model them that way and everybody knows who they are.
> 
> If you want to, you can use your Baneblade as a Rhino Transport, according to that manner of thinking. Or your Assault Cannon terminators as a single guardsman, his asscan representing a lasgun, his powerfist as a ccw.
> 
> ...


Only trying to difuse all the hostility. There is a way to debate without being rude. Furthermore, this thread has moved well beyound the intended debate subject. The OP asked for thoughts on not using vehicles and I think a good amount have been provided from both sides. Let the thread die and settle any personal matters in PMs.


----------



## Blacksword72 (Apr 23, 2012)

Well, I think you would see alot of changes to alot of different lists out there, Alot of lists now that you are seeing, has alot of Tank busting weaponary, I don't think it would overly effect how armies perform per se, It would just force players to think a bit more carefully on how they select respective lists..(and how they would set up and deploy deepstrike ect) I would keep the Standard 6x4 table size though, because that could affect deep striking units, and stuff like that and also remember that footmodel count will go WAY UP for some armies. A 40k game without vehicles? Could be very interesting!!!


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

TheKingElessar said:


> A Terminator who is not chosen from the Deathwing unit selection is not one of the Deathwing, no matter how you dress it up. Things have names for a reason.
> 
> A Deathwing Marine who is not in Terminator armour, similarly, is not a Deathwing Marine, he's a Space Marine in the colours of the Deathwing, or he's an illegal model with incorrect wargear and, presumably, the wrong base size.


1: wow your good at missing points, fluff makes deathwing, not codex, no matter the codex the fluff is the same, its why I can build an entire dark angel army without touching the dark angel codex at all, by just painting them green, using the correct markings, and using the same fluff...TA DAAAAA

2: your example is almost as bad as a baneblade rhino, especially since I never said making a basic marine a deathwing terminator, but I suppose making shit up to look like you know what your saying is one way of doing it


----------



## MidnightKid333 (Feb 2, 2011)

No vehicles or monstrous creatures? those models are what makes 40k so enticing. Without them, 40k would in no way be as popular as it is today.

also, tyranids would become incredibly predictable... "is he bringing a tyranid prime or a parasite of mortrex as his HQ?" See what I mean?


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

MidnightKid333 said:


> No vehicles or monstrous creatures? those models are what makes 40k so enticing. Without them, 40k would in no way be as popular as it is today.


It's only one off games, I strongly suspect 2 people playing with no vehicles or creatures is not going to alter the time line of histor to such an extent that 40k's popularity would be forever changed


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> 1: wow your good at missing points, fluff makes deathwing, not codex, no matter the codex the fluff is the same, its why I can build an entire dark angel army without touching the dark angel codex at all, by just painting them green, using the correct markings, and using the same fluff...TA DAAAAA


Not so. If you paint Tactical Marines silver, it doesn't make them Grey Knights. If you paint a Storm Raven with camouflage it doesn't make it a Vendetta. If you paint a Guardian orange, it doesn't make it a Fire Dragon.


> 2: your example is almost as bad as a baneblade rhino, especially since I never said making a basic marine a deathwing terminator, but I suppose making shit up to look like you know what your saying is one way of doing it


Well, it seems to work for you. :victory:


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

No, because grey knights are armed with a sword and storm bolter
A deathwing terminator is armed with a power fist and storm bolter, a basic terminator is armed with a power fist and storm bolter......duuuhhickhook

Same with pigeons and vendetta, different physical appearance and weapons
Same with guardians, different physical appearance and weapons
Common sense, so rare its a Fucking superpower...one you don't have


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

If you build a Deathwing Terminator using the pieces on the Dark Angel sprues, then it has a different physical appearance.

If you actually read the entries, you'll note that Deathwing Terminators have MANY more weapon options than 'vanilla' ones.

It is NOT common sense to call a trowel a spade.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> Well, it seems to work for you. :victory:


:victory: indeed. Bam!

I ran a DA army from the Space Marines Codex, because regular DA aren't as good. You could also run Ravenwing from the Space Marines Codex, because you also get Bikes as Troops, but if you want Deathwing, there's no way of representing that in other Codices. You want Deathwing, you play the DA Codex with Belial. Equally, you want Nipplewing? Find me another Codex that has Artificer-Armoured Assault Marines with MC Power Weapons and Melta Pistols. Wolfwing? Another Codex that has Cavalry with large numbers of high-strength, rending attacks, and the ability to mix wounds, with fast harrasment units operating in bubbles of strong Leadership? I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the picture.



VanquisherMBT said:


> A deathwing terminator is armed with a power fist and storm bolter, a basic terminator is armed with a power fist and storm bolter......duuuhhickhook


And is allowed to take a Storm Shield and a Thunder Hammer, or a set of Lightning Claws, and are Fearless, as well as being slightly more expensive, Troops when taken with Belial, and do not have the option to go to ten men. *They are different units.*

Midnight


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

TheKingElessar said:


> If you build a Deathwing Terminator using the pieces on the Dark Angel sprues, then it has a different physical appearance.
> 
> If you actually read the entries, you'll note that Deathwing Terminators have MANY more weapon options than 'vanilla' ones.
> 
> It is NOT common sense to call a trowel a spade.


Except you don't need the parts on the sprue to build a deathwing terminator, the main thing is the colour and chapter markings, which you can paint on basic terminators
Or are you actually suggesting to have deathwing terminators you MUST use the parts provided

That was an example believe it or not, I know shocking isn't it, but if you insist
What is the physical difference between a deathwing terminator with hammer and shield over a basic one?, is the hammer bigger?, a different shape?, does the shield have a bigger size and so you must use that one?, is it the same problem with the claws?, the DA ones must obviously be entirely different

No true, but your saying its not common sense to call a terminator painted bone, with deathwing markings and chapter markings, along side green marines with dark angel markings a deathwing terminator

As I said midnight the bolter and fist was quite obviously an example, don't act dumb to look smart, also basic terminator squads can be 5 men


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

*facepalm* wow, your stupidity astounds me


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

That's like saying that Special Weapons Squads are just smaller squads of Guardsmen - it's the options in the squad that make them different.

Midnight


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

khrone forever said:


> *facepalm* wow, your stupidity astounds me


Oh I'm stupid?, oh I was confused you see, I was under the impression a terminator was a terminator, and his colour scheme was what marks them out to there chosen chapter

Obviously I was wrong, painting my terminator hone does not make him deathwing, so by that principal a person painting his marines as salamanders/relictors/imperial fists/etc is actually playing ultramarines...its the sane principal

But silly me, baneblades are rhinos
Storm pigeons are vendettas
Tactical marines are grey knights
But deathwing are not deathwing unless they are deathwing
How stupid of me to think different


MidnightSun said:


> That's like saying that Special Weapons Squads are just smaller squads of Guardsmen - it's the options in the squad that make them different.
> 
> Midnight


Correct, and the options for deathwing terminators are available to normal terminators, yes they cannot mix them as much, but deathwing could not mix in the past, so what were they back?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

you are correct painting your terminators deathwing does not make them deathwing, they become deathwing when you pay points and choose the entry from the dark angel codex from the deathwing entry, upto that point they are just plastic men painted bone colour.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

No the fluff makes them deathwing, my choice of codex makes no difference, I can play dark angels with the basic codex as much as I can play blood angels or space wolves with the basic codex

Thats the thing with this game, it allows you to do that and still play as those armies because no rules say you can't do that, if I play dark angels with the marine codex they are dark angels because that is my choice, you can't come along and demand I use the codex that matches my army colours to make them that army.

It is no different from how you have some chaos players use the marine codex, or how traitor guard use the guard codex, your all forgetting a player has the individual choice to use any codex he likes for his army, but can still enjoy the advantage of having his choices fluff


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> MidnightSun said:
> 
> 
> > That's like saying that Special Weapons Squads are just smaller squads of Guardsmen - it's the options in the squad that make them different.
> ...


How do I get fearless 5 man terminator squads in any other codex?

The point TKE, B&K and others are trying to make is that a "deathwing terminator" is a specific model with specific rules and a specific paint scheme (or two in the case), while you can use the correct model with the correct paint scheme, if you are not also using the correct rules then it is not infact a "deathwing terminator" it is merely a "terminator in deathwing colours" as far as the game is concerned



VanquisherMBT said:


> It is no different from how you have some chaos players use the marine codex, or how traitor guard use the guard codex, your all forgetting a player has the individual choice to use any codex he likes for his army, but can still enjoy the advantage of having his choices fluff


This is counts as. On your army list if you did this it would not read 10 Khorne Berzerkers for example, it would (should) read 10 Death Company, as that is what you have selected from the codex you are using. what you call them/model them as is up to yourself, but in game terms they are death company NOT khorne berzerkers.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

As far as the game is concerned it doesn't care what you do, remember the most important rule from the main rulebook?
"the rules aren't important"
So my deathwing terminators not having fearless is not important, they are deathwing, and the rules support this because the rules aren't important

The rules also say
"40k is an involving game, with different armies, weapons and possibilities"
This is just one of those different armies and possibilities

It also states that both players should have a good time, do you think a player would have a good time you telling them his army is not what it is, and that it MUST be like something they dont want?


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Well to be facetious, if the rules are not important, how important is the most important RULE?

so what is the difference between an ultramarine and a space wolf?



VanquisherMBT said:


> It also states that both players should have a good time, do you think a player would have a good time you telling them his army is not what it is, and that it MUST be like something they dont want?


Do I care what you choose for your army? No not really, but if you tell me these are Deathwing Terminators then I am going to assume that they are in fact the unit refered to in the rules as Deathwing Terminators and not another unit from another book called something different.

Its like this, everyone says you can eat what you want. So if I can cook a burger at home and say that its a big mac then it is right? even though a big mac is something completely different?


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Oh I'm stupid?, oh I was confused you see, I was under the impression a terminator was a terminator, and his colour scheme was what marks them out to there chosen chapter
> 
> Obviously I was wrong, painting my terminator hone does not make him deathwing, so by that principal a person painting his marines as salamanders/relictors/imperial fists/etc is actually playing ultramarines...its the sane principal


If Salamanders, Relictors and Imperial Fists had different Codices, I'd agree. As it stands, it's the rules that differ the units. Black Templar Terminators run around with Str5 I5 LCs re-rolling hits and wounds. Wolf Guard Terminators trudge round with Cyclone Missile Launchers, spitting out Krak Missiles at your vehicles and shooting your infantry with their Storm Bolters. Dark Angel Terminators have a bunch of Fearless, 2+ save, scoring guys with a versatile mixture of weapons that teleport in first turn. Terminators are far more different than just their colour schemes.



VanquisherMBT said:


> Correct, and the options for deathwing terminators are available to normal terminators, yes they cannot mix them as much, but deathwing could not mix in the past, so what were they back?


You know, except the Thunder Hammers, Storm Shields, and Lightning Claws that aren't available to Loyalist Terminators, as well as being Troops and being Fearless.

Midnight


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

VanquisherMBT said:


> No the fluff makes them deathwing, my choice of codex makes no difference, I can play dark angels with the basic codex as much as I can play blood angels or space wolves with the basic codex
> nope, fluff is irrelevant it is merely a tool to fill out pages,and technically if you use the wrong codex you are playing a vanilla marines painted in a colour of your choice
> 
> Thats the thing with this game, it allows you to do that and still play as those armies because no rules say you can't do that, if I play dark angels with the marine codex they are dark angels because that is my choice, you can't come along and demand I use the codex that matches my army colours to make them that army.
> ...


techincally you can paint your models skyblue pink leopard print and call them the flange wizards of cougar town but if you choose your army from the Space marine codex they are just ultramarines in pretty colours with some imaginative words to justify there existence. But here in a forum a deathwing army is choosen from the DA codex and a blood angel army come from its own codex and anything that is an army being used from the wrong codex is a proxy or counts as, its that way so we know what people are talking about, house rules, club jargon and your own personal spin wont work here. At least thats the point im trying to get across.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

@pug: considering before the game I would if told you I was using the basic codex how could you be confused?

The difference between a wolf and ultramarine is in the fluff, read it, that'll tell you

@midnight: being troops or not I don't consider much of an issue honestly, most people seem to aim for wipe out anyway, and a contested objective is still an objective your opponent doesn't have, plus it depends on what you as players decide what the objectives are, or the point in the game

And if loyalist terminators can't take hammers, shields and claws, them my codex must have a massive misprint

And people keep bitching that fearless is a bad thing, plus basic terminators have a high enough LD


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> @pug: considering before the game I would if told you I was using the basic codex how could you be confused?


That right there is the point we're trying to make. You don't tell me these are "Deathwing terminators" from the "Dark Angel Codex"you tell me these are "Terminators in a deathwing paint scheme" using the rules for Terminators from "Codex Space Marines". They are two different things. and its a very important distinction.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

No I would say
"by the way my dark angels are using the marine codex"
I would then refer to things as ravenwing or deathwing because fluffwise, they are those things, so that's what they are, you can't change that


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

But gamewise, they are not.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

pantat said:


> But gamewise, they are not.


exactly, they are marines on bikes and terminators.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Thats my point, you are using "counts as" - you can call them what you want, but it does not change what the models represent, in a CA list they would be Deathwing, in a C:SM list they are terminators. just because you call them Deathwing does not mean that they are (in game terms) which is what people are talking about. 

For you to run a deathwing army (in game terms) you need the DA codex, to run a "counts as" deathwing army you can use whatever you want, but unless you specify your using counts as, when you tell someone "I am using a deathwing army" they will assume you are using codex Dark Angels. The reason for this is that these units are pre existing units with special rules, if you want to use another unit with another name to avoid confusion you should say that

if instead of saying 


VanquisherMBT said:


> You can play raven and deathwing without belial or sammael, heck you don't even need the DA codex for them


You had said "you can run a perfectly acceptable ravenwing counts as with C:SM" then noone would have argued with you. but thats not what you said and so people get the wrong impression. The remainder of that quote about the colour scheme being the only difference however is wrong, as I've mentioned they are different units with different special rules.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

So?, fluffwise they are, colour wise they are, to me they are because its my army *shrugs*, not complicated really, it certainly would not cause any issues down here.

It's no different to the fact I have the 60th rifles in my zuluwar British army, they are painted as the 60th, and are refered to as the 60th, but have no rules to make them any different to my redcoats, but they are the 60th, not redcoats in green


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

but the rules for them are not different, they are different coloured troops of the same type.

SM termis in DE colours and deathwing temis *ARE NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING!* please get that into your head,

for the love of whatever is out there...............please


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Fluff is part of the Hobby, not part of the Game. We're talking about the Game - you know, the bit that happens on the table?

If I paint my Terminators as Death Company, they don't get Furious Charge and Feel No Pain.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> So?, fluffwise they are, colour wise they are,


 rules wise they are not. simples.



VanquisherMBT said:


> It's no different to the fact I have the 60th rifles in my zuluwar British army, they are painted as the 60th, and are refered to as the 60th, but have no rules to make them any different to my redcoats, but they are the 60th, not redcoats in green


And if there were different rules for the 60th as opposed to the 3rd? but you weren't using them? instead you wanted to use the rules for the 3rd, would they still be the rifles? in my opinion no. if you wanted to them to count as the 3rd or the 3rd to count as the rifles, no problem, but it doesn't auto magically make them one and the same.


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

Unfortunately 40k consists of rules and codices which actual detail what your model represents in gaming terms. The colour of your model is partly irrelevant as it is the options and rules of each unit that make the game work.

Hell otherwise it would just be like we were all in primary school again where I bring some toy soldiers and just make shooty noises and tell you that they are all invincible and that your toy soldiers can all die when mine look at them.

The fluff in 40k is called 'fluff' as it 'fills out the game' and makes it more 'realistic'. The fluff does not automatically create the rules and entries for each army. Otherwsie bolters would probably be AP3 and Marines would have a 1+ save and about 3 wounds each.

Call your army what you want, but I wouldn't acknowledge them as Deathwing under a Marine codex as they are, plain and simply, not deathwing. 

We paint our miniatures to make the games look and feel more realistic and lets face it, it would be crap playing everyone with unpainted miniatures. However, a completely unpainted terminator taken by someone using the Dark Angels Codex and paying the points and getting the rules for a Deathwing Terminator is much more of a Deathwing Terminator than your painted one is.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Ruleswise I don't give a fuck and neither does GW, as per the rulebook, so why should I call them anything different to what they are?, deathwing and ravenwing, and don't say "because the rules blah blah" as I will just keep cropping GW's important rule up

And yes the 60th rifles CAN have different rules, and very usually do and should, but if you don't call them by the 60th it sounds shit, and you can't give them any orders that well, because they have no idea in game who your talking to


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Ruleswise I don't give a fuck and neither does GW, as per the rulebook, so why should I call them anything different to what they are?, deathwing and ravenwing, and don't say "because the rules blah blah" as I will just keep cropping GW's important rule up
> 
> And yes the 60th rifles CAN have different rules, and very usually do and should, but if you don't call them by the 60th it sounds shit, and you can't give them any orders that well, because they have no idea in game who your talking to


If GW doesn't care about rules why bother making a rulebook? Surely it would be easier to stick a post it in the AOBR set that says 'here's some toy soliders - go have some fun'


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Ruleswise I don't give a fuck and neither does GW, as per the rulebook, so why should I call them anything different to what they are?


*Because they're not fucking Deathwing, they're Terminators pretending to be Deathwing.* Deathwing are a legitimate and real unit in the DA Codex, claiming that Terminators from Codex: SM are Deathwing is just *plain wrong*.

Midnight


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Well if the rules don't matter then I might get back into playing, I'd win every time because I make the best _pew pew!_ noises in the world!


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Ruleswise I don't give a fuck and neither does GW, as per the rulebook, so why should I call them anything different to what they are?


Because they are not. GW's most important rule is that everybody should have fun, and if you feel the need to change the rules, and your opponent feels the same, fine. So you can take a unit from a different codex and have it in your space marine army if your and your opponent want to. But it does not mean terminators chosen from a different codex are the same as the ones chosen from another.

The most important rule is not "You have to do whatever the fuck I want to and if you don't agree with me your ruining my fun and breaking the rules" 

Basically you can call an apple an orange all day, but its not gonna turn in to one no matter how much you rage about it or however many people you get to call it one.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Man, my Terminators are gonna have Fearless and replace their Power Fists for Storm Shields and Score! Badass! Imma win!

Midnight


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> *Because they're not fucking Deathwing, they're Terminators pretending to be Deathwing.* Deathwing are a legitimate and real unit in the DA Codex, claiming that Terminators from Codex: SM are Deathwing is just *plain wrong*.
> 
> Midnight


I never once said I would claim they are deathwing from codex dark angels, I said i would rightly claim they are deathwing from the dark angels 


normtheunsavoury said:


> Well if the rules don't matter then I might get back into playing, I'd win every time because I make the best _pew pew!_ noises in the world!


Well that rule has been around for a very long time, even GW isn't that stupid to take all imagination from the players, the players themselves do a good enough job making mountains out if molehills and sucking all imaginative play away


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Pew pew-ting-waaahhhh, Ah damnit! Storm shields! 

(the ting-waaahhh was a ricochet:wink


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> Man, my Terminators are gonna have Fearless and replace their Power Fists for Storm Shields and Score! Badass! Imma win!


Nuh Uh! My terminators are monstrous creatures with T8 with 3+ saves. Thats more badass!


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

ItsPug said:


> Nuh Uh! My terminators are monstrous creatures with T8 with 3+ saves. Thats more badass!


Giving them a worse save than they already have? :laugh:


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> Man, my Terminators are gonna have Fearless and replace their Power Fists for Storm Shields and Score! Badass! Imma win!
> 
> Midnight


You already can, you just take a terminator assault squad, you know the ones you claimed earlier don't have access to hammers, shields or claws


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> I never once said I would claim they are deathwing from codex dark angels, I said i would rightly claim they are deathwing from the dark angels


:suicide:

And you'd be wrong. You can count them as Deathwing, the same way you can count an apple as an orange, but you can't "rightly claim" they are the same thing.




pantat said:


> ItsPug said:
> 
> 
> > Nuh Uh! My terminators are monstrous creatures with T8 with 3+ saves. Thats more badass!
> ...


So? my guys are like Chuck Norris, we don't need armour we're that tough we can deflect bullets and bombs with our nipples. Badass! lol


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

ItsPug said:


> Because they are not. GW's most important rule is that everybody should have fun, ...
> The most important rule is not "You have to do whatever the fuck I want to and if you don't agree with me your ruining my fun and breaking the rules"
> 
> Basically you can call an apple an orange all day, but its not gonna turn in to one no matter how much you rage about it or however many people you get to call it one.


QF-motherfucking-T.

My Terminators all carry Necron Heat Rays, shoot Death Rays out their anus with Power of the Machine Spirit, are Jump Infantry with Grey Knight Teleporters, are Stubborn, Scoring, Scouts, Stealth, Infiltrate, have Shadow Fields, have FnP and T6, re-roll failed saves, have Nemesis Force Halberds, and can spawn Termagaunts like a Tervigon, or Scarab Bases like a Canoptek Tomb Spyder.

They also have Preferred Enemy (Stupidity.)


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> You already can, you just take a terminator assault squad, you know the ones you claimed earlier don't have access to hammers, shields or claws


But can you have a squad where ONE has a PF and Storm Bolter, ONE has Lighning Claws, ONE has a TH/SS, ONE has a Power Sword and Storm Bolter and ONE has a Cyclone Missile Launcher as well.

IN THE SAME SQUAD!


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> You already can, you just take a terminator assault squad, you know the ones you claimed earlier don't have access to hammers, shields or claws


Except then they can't have a Banner, an Apothecary, or a Heavy Flamer/Cyclone Missile Launcher/Assault Cannon. Or Storm Bolters, or Power Fists. 

So...not the same options at all.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Again, so?

And why do people think being utterly moronic and bringing in examples like terminators with heat rays, jump packs and a list of other retarded crap as a counter point to somebody wanting to call his cream terminators deathwing is intelligent?

Is that how you all just do it?, you bombard people with moronic bullshit until everyone rallies behind you to support you, because they think calling cream terminators deathwing actually is equal in retardedness to your examples?


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Again, so?
> 
> And why do people think being utterly moronic and bringing in examples like terminators with heat rays, jump packs and a list of other retarded crap as a counter point to somebody wanting to call his cream terminators deathwing is intelligent?
> 
> Is that how you all just do it?, you bombard people with moronic bullshit until everyone rallies behind you to support you, because they think calling cream terminators deathwing actually is equal in retardedness to your examples?


Yes. Yes it is


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

plus you cant run Sammael, Master of the Ravenwing in the Space Marine codex no jetbikes


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> somebody wanting to call his cream terminators deathwing is... equal in retardedness to your examples?


Calling them deathwing - no
Insisting they are - yes


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Again, so?
> 
> And why do people think being utterly moronic and bringing in examples like terminators with heat rays, jump packs and a list of other retarded crap as a counter point to somebody wanting to call his cream terminators deathwing is intelligent?
> 
> Is that how you all just do it?, you bombard people with moronic bullshit until everyone rallies behind you to support you, because they think calling cream terminators deathwing actually is equal in retardedness to your examples?


Actually, I think you'll find the 'rallying' as you term it, happened BEFORE the ludicrous examples. They started when we knew we had a sympathetic audience, instead of simply a path...nah, too easy.


----------



## Blacksword72 (Apr 23, 2012)

*I'll ask the gaming club I'm in to try it*



spanner94ezekiel said:


> So I was wondering, what with all the prevalence of mech in 5th ed, how would it affect each faction if vehicles removed. I.e. say I ran a tournament where no vehicles could be used (excluding bikes/jetbikes) at all?
> 
> I know some armies (DE, Guard) would suffer more than others (Daemons, Nids), but would it be viable without completely nerfing any particular army? Obviously manouverability then becomes a bit of an issue, so board sizes may have to be reduced to say 4'x4'.
> 
> Thoughts?


The gaming club I'm in is going to give it a try this weekend...I will let everyone know how it goes..Were going with No Vehicles and no Monsterous Creatures. We will do 1500 points and Bikes/Jetbikes/Dreadnaughts/Walkers will be allowed. And it will be on a standard 6x4. We will select missions out of the Battle Missions book, using the Ultimate Challange method of Selection. 


Oh yeah....AND NO DEATHWING ALLOWED (Just kidding.......):laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

ignore this crazyness photos of new necrons have landed


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> ignore this crazyness photos of new necrons have landed


 omg no way


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

pantat said:


> omg no way


yes way head to rumours


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

bitsandkits said:


> plus you cant run Sammael, Master of the Ravenwing in the Space Marine codex no jetbikes


I'd stick him on a bike like in 3rd edition, don't like the jetbike or speeder, simply captain on bike, relics blade, and that's the basics done, add what you wish and give him the name sammael


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

:cray:

But he's *not* Sammael.... he's fucking NOT Sammael... In fluff, when does Sammael ride a bike? He has his own fucking *jetbike!*

Midnight


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> I'd stick him on a bike like in 3rd edition, don't like the jetbike or speeder, simply captain on bike, relics blade, and that's the basics done, add what you wish and give him the name sammael


But then he's a bike captain called sammael, he's not the master of the ravenwing. just like I'm not marneus calgar, and even if I changed my name to match I wouldn't be the master of the ultramarines. also Sammael didn't exist prior to the latest DA codex IIRC it was just a random master like a captain in C:SM


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> plus you cant run Sammael, Master of the Ravenwing in the Space Marine codex no jetbikes


Ah, but doesn't he have the option of being on a regular bike (last time I read my DA codex was years ago, but I believe you can pay for him to not be on his jetbike...)? So use the White Scar character, change his name and hey presto, Ravenwing army from the vanilla codex. 

I do believe the codeces have this little section, where it says you can take characters, use their stats and call them whatever you like. So it's perfectly valid to use Calgar as a Deathwing grandmaster, or Belial as a first company blood angel commander to give you fearless terminators, etc etc. The books say you can, and it's not "counts as", it's legal and encouraged. All you have to do is inform your opponent. No permissions needed, no explanations, just "this is what this army is. It's from this codex". They're all marines.

Now, if I were to use the Grey Knights codex to run my nids, that would be "counts as"...


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Tabby, you'd still need to explain your models weren't Fearless etc.

Also, I think Sammael can only ride his jetbike or his AV14 Speeder. In fact, I'm certain of it.

Informing your opponent = explaining.

By VanquisherMBT's logic, painting Marks of Slaanesh on my shit gives me +1Initiative. My Orks would love that.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

SilverTabby said:


> Ah, but doesn't he have the option of being on a regular bike? So use the White Scar character, change his name and hey presto, Ravenwing army from the vanilla codex.


Nope, why would you take a bike when you have your own personal flying bike? With regard to your other point, with BA you'd have to explain Red Thirst, and Calgar would actually end up making your Deathwing Army _worse_l you still have to take Troops. Lysander would be a better fit because he has the right weapon configuration, but still no Terminators as Troops.



> The first point I'd like to make is that it is perfectly acceptable for you to paint the models in your army _any_ colour you like. All we ask is that if you're going to use specific units which we've given a paint scheme for, say a squad of Ultramarines or Saim Hann Wild Riders, that you use the paint scheme we suggest.


Jervis Johnson, Head Tool, The J Files

I'd say that using the Kor'Sarro Khan rules for your own bike captain is ok, but using him for another special character (that has rules in the current game, obviously) smacks of WAAAAC (Win At All And Any Cost) play. Yes I did make that up.

Midnight


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Cus the flying bike looks Meh


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Cus the flying bike looks Meh


Well, naturally that's subjective - but converting your own version that you like better is not something anyone would have a problem with (that I've ever met) and indeed most would applaud your creativity.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

So you play by fluff with your cream Terminators until the models don't suit you, and then you break the fluff? Hypocrisy. *Sammael does not ride a bike.*

Midnight


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Why doesn't he?, it does not say in his fluff "sammael never rides a bike, because he don't wanna so nyeh"

Marine codex + captain + bike = master of the ravenwing, Hell you don't even need to call him sammael, he is not the only one to ever exist


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

He rides to war on his Jetbike, or in his Land Speeder. Find me the bit where it says otherwise.

And no, it isn't the Master of the Ravenwing because there's already a unit for that. It's like taking a Grey Knights list with Ultramarines - Calgar is Draigo, because they're both Terminators, Purifiers are the Honour Guard units, GKSS are your basic Ultramarines because they have Power Armour, Frags and Kraks. I could go on, but you get the point. It doesn't slide.

Midnight


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Why doesn't he?, it does not say in his fluff "sammael never rides a bike, because he don't wanna so nyeh"
> 
> Marine codex + captain + bike = master of the ravenwing, Hell you don't even need to call him sammael, he is not the only one to ever exist


no it says it in his codex entry, as was pointed out fluff= not important in game

Marine codex + captain + bike= Marine codex + captain + bike


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Nope, equals MY master of the ravenwing leading MY ravenwing


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> MY master of the ravenwing leading MY ravenwing


Nope, equals Space Marine Captain on bike (painted black), leading other bikes (also painted black). k:


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

ItsPug said:


> Nope, equals Space Marine Captain on bike (painted black), leading other bikes (also painted black). k:


Yep, all with ravenwing bits, markings and called ravenwing


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Yep, all with ravenwing bits, markings and called ravenwing


So...using bits from the Ravenwing sprue makes him so?


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

Best to leave this I think. Its going round in circles. Its like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It just won't go in! He just doesn't get it!


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

TheKingElessar said:


> So...using bits from the Ravenwing sprue makes him so?


Yep, why not, visually he would look like a member of the ravenwing, black armour, swords with wings, feather things on bike, ravenwing, don't care if people wanna call him captain on bike, he would be MY ravenwing master leading MY version of the ravenwing in MY games


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Yep, why not, visually he would look like a member of the ravenwing, black armour, swords with wings, feather things on bike, ravenwing, don't care if people wanna call him captain on bike, he would be MY ravenwing master leading MY version of the ravenwing in MY games


Yes but this isn't purely a visual game!


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Yep, all with ravenwing bits, markings and called ravenwing


Have you paid the points for Ravenwing units? Used the options available to Ravenwing units? Picked the rest of your army from the same codex as the Ravenwing? No? Then not Ravenwing.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

pantat said:


> Yes but this isn't purely a visual game!


Don't care, for me it is, the visuals are as important as the rules, and my visuals break no rules, and I ain't making up rules, or trying to deceive them, or doing this all as an evil scheme, its just me as a casual gamers, choosing an army I like, a codex I like and enjoying the hobby the best I can, if that ruins the hobby for others or they feel the need to bitch about how evil and terrible it is and how it destroys the game and causes the earth to crack, then fuck em


ItsPug said:


> Have you paid the points for Ravenwing units? Used the options available to Ravenwing units? Picked the rest of your army from the same codex as the Ravenwing? No? Then not Ravenwing.


They look like ravenwing, act like ravenwing, play like ravenwing, and I call them ravenwing and enjoy them being ravrnwing, then there ravenwing


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Don't care, for me it is, the visuals are as important as the rules, and my visuals break no rules, and I ain't making up rules, or trying to deceive them, or doing this all as an evil scheme, its just me as a casual gamers, choosing an army I like, a codex I like and enjoying the hobby the best I can, if that ruins the hobby for others or they feel the need to bitch about how evil and terrible it is and how it destroys the game and causes the earth to crack, then fuck em


well go play some lego or something where you can make it to be whatever you want. You want to player proper ravenwing then clearly you should be using the proper rules for them. Otherwise its not ravenwing, its just some space marines with the same colour scheme - which does NOT make them the same.


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> They look like ravenwing, act like ravenwing, play like ravenwing, and I call them ravenwing and enjoy them being ravrnwing, then there ravenwing


Except they don't play like ravenwing because they don't have the ravenwing rules


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> They look like ravenwing,


 Yep no problem



VanquisherMBT said:


> act like ravenwing


 no they don't



VanquisherMBT said:


> play like ravenwing


 nope



VanquisherMBT said:


> and I call them ravenwing and enjoy them being ravenwing, then there ravenwing


 Call them whatever you want, they aren't the unit called "Ravenwing" anymore then they are the unit called "Chaos Spawn"

And for someone who thinks the most important rule is the be all and end all of what the game is about (ie fun for both players) to come out with 



VanquisherMBT said:


> if that ruins the hobby for others...fuck em


says it all really. 

Play however you want, pick whatever units you like and call them whatever you like, but you can't really come onto a forum and tell everyone that your unit is another unit entirely and expect people to agree with you. Nobody here will. because we play 40k, using the rules in the rulebook and the units in the codecii. I'm not entirely sure what you're playing.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Proper ravenwing is whatever I make it to be, using any codex I like within reason, so long as its fluffy and looks right, don't give a shit about much else, and thank fuck I play with people with a similar attitude to A GAME OF FUCKING TOYS

And there blokes on bikes, that's enough for me to play like ravenwing, don't care about little extra rules

I think saying fuck em in that case is well deserved, if me calling my LITTLE TOY SPACE MEN ravenwing seriously wrecks the game for people, they should man up, or go cry in the corner, they would get no sympathy down here, and probably be the butt if many jokes


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Proper ravenwing is whatever I make it to be, using any codex I like within reason, so long as its fluffy and looks right, don't give a shit about much else, and thank fuck I play with people with a similar attitude to A GAME OF FUCKING TOYS
> 
> And there blokes on bikes, that's enough for me to play like ravenwing, don't care about little extra rules


Now that says it all really. "I'm going to use the system and rules from a game, but only the ones I want that will fit what I want it to fit. I'll call it what I want and it shall be so. "

Proper Ravenwing exists in the Dark Angels codex under the erm... 'Ravenwing' bit


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> I think saying fuck em in that case is well deserved, if me calling my LITTLE TOY SPACE MEN ravenwing seriously wrecks the game for people, they should man up, or go cry in the corner, they would get no sympathy down here, and probably be the butt if many jokes


Yeah you're right, I can't play the game anymore because you've broken it for me and can somebody PLEASE get me some more tissues?

If you want to continue being ignorant to the fact that 'your ravenwing' is not the proper ravenwing then that means i'm going to paint my Citroen car red, stick a Ferrari badge on it and I'll start telling people that I own a Ferrari. If you at any point acknowledge the fact that we are not disputing that you might call them ravenwing but they are not the 'proper' ravenwing and just 'counts as ravenwing' then that is all we are trying to say.

Yes they are just toys but lets face it we're not all 10 so the rules and stipulations about units are what separates them from star wars lego.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Oh my fucking word, would you PLEASE learn the difference between "if" and "of" !!!!!

Anyway, you're taking a more powerful Codex to play these hypothetical Ravenwing, you power gamer.


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

So really he's a captain pretending to be the master of the ravenwing of a false ravenwing. I feel Tzeentch has a hand with your fluffy army, Sir.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

My phone automatically corrects of to if, as I said before, don't ask me why, but going back and correcting it all takes ages as it does not recognise the word, it also don't help that pressing the o can still type I in

And I don't care when anyone says now, your spoilt brats, children is all, like I said I am so glad I never have to play in such a close minded community that gets so twitchy over something as pathetic and silly, thank god for decent gaming groups with mature people who just want to play a good looking game of you soldiers


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

You call us close minded yet you refuse to see our point. We're trying to explain to you why it's not ravenwing. Call it a successor chapter that adheres to the astartes rules. But it'll never be Ravenwing.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Proper ravenwing is whatever I make it to be, using any codex I like within reason, so long as its fluffy and looks right, don't give a shit about much else, and thank fuck I play with people with a similar attitude to A GAME OF FUCKING TOYS
> 
> And there blokes on bikes, that's enough for me to play like ravenwing, don't care about little extra rules
> 
> I think saying fuck em in that case is well deserved, if me calling my LITTLE TOY SPACE MEN ravenwing seriously wrecks the game for people, they should man up, or go cry in the corner, they would get no sympathy down here, and probably be the butt if many jokes


Man up? Who the fuck was crying? You said you were all about the fluff, the Ravenwing is the second company of the Dark Angels chapter of Space Marines. Not anybody who's got a fucking bike. We've pointed this out to you repeatedly, told you that you can call them whatever the fuck you like but cannot say that they are *the* Ravenwing if your not using the rules for the Ravenwing. 

And I'm sorry for loosing my patience here but YOU have the problem with this. It doesn't wreck my game, I've got a bike army I did on converted jetbikes and call them pre-heresy Ravenwing. When I use them I play them as a C:SM bike army. I use counts as and don't claim to be using the *actual* Ravenwing.



VanquisherMBT said:


> the only thing that makes ravenwing ravenwing is painting them black


No actually, there is the fluff (which you say you like so much) how they play on the table, the special rules that they have etc. The Ravenwing are not just black bikes. They play completely differently to a C:SM bike force, have you even tried them?

Now as I've already said...


ItsPug said:


> Play however you want, pick whatever units you like and call them whatever you like


You can run whatever little homebrew stories you want, there's even a section on this forum for that kind of thing, but this is General 40K where we deal with the 40K universe as GW writes it. and for anybody who disagrees with the way GW deal with their own IP? well to quote your eloquence...



VanquisherMBT said:


> fuck em


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

It is MY ravenwing, brought with MY money, painted with MY paint, so I can call it whatever I want


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> My phone automatically corrects if to of, as I said before, don't ask me why, but going back and correcting it all takes ages as it does not recognise the word, it also don't help that pressing the o can still type I in
> 
> And I don't care when anyone says now, your spoilt brats, children is all, like I said I am so glad I never have to play in such a close minded community that gets so twitchy over something as pathetic and silly, thank god for decent gaming groups with mature people who just want to play a good looking game of you soldiers


Think its you who's got a closed mind fella, a massive pair of blinkers in fact. Good for you that you have equally minded people to play with. I'd rather play a game with good looking soldiers with proper rules... but hey that's just me and about 99% of the rest of the community I guess?

Anyway... I'm off to go get some red paint for my car...


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> My phone automatically corrects of to if, as I said before, don't ask me why, but going back and correcting it all takes ages as it does not recognise the word, it also don't help that pressing the o can still type I in
> 
> And I don't care when anyone says now, your spoilt brats, children is all, like I said I am so glad I never have to play in such a close minded community that gets so twitchy over something as pathetic and silly, thank god for decent gaming groups with mature people who just want to play a good looking game of you soldiers


Well, if mature = ignoring rules, then somebody better get me a diaper, cos I want to be as far from that shit as I can!

Strange, never thought I'd get called a child by someone who plays toy soldiers...especially when I've played them for 18 years myself, longer than half this forum have been alive...


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> It is MY ravenwing


Bless ya, who's being spoilt now? 

"My Precious!"


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

VanquisherMBT said:


> My phone automatically corrects if to of, as I said before, don't ask me why, but going back and correcting it all takes ages as it does not recognise the word, it also don't help that pressing the o can still type I in
> 
> And I don't care when anyone says now, your spoilt brats, children is all, like I said I am so glad I never have to play in such a close minded community that gets so twitchy over something as pathetic and silly, thank god for decent gaming groups with mature people who just want to play a good looking game of you soldiers


well technically your also close minded as your not willing to listen to well thought out reason why your wrong about your Ravenwing, you made a throw away statement about how you can just field deathwing and ravenwing without any problems using the marine codex in a forum where people are likely to challenge that statement. you also keep throwing up as long as its fluff and looks right thats enough? well whats more fluffy than the actual codex with the actual correct army entries in it? surely if you were interested in looks and fluff then the DA codex is a dream come true?

im not sure anyone has asked but why dont you use the DA codex to field DA units? and a genuine answer would be nice, not just a "because i feel like it" 
I cant see any logic to not using the DA codex while its current if fluff and looks are all that matter.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Don't care anymore, my money to do what I want with, I don't need some strangers off a forum telling me how I can and can't use my toys, if there ravebwing, then there ravenwing, tough shit

And I can't use a master of the ravenwing on bike with the DA codex, that's the only reason


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

VanquisherMBT said:


> It is MY ravenwing, brought with MY money, painted with MY paint, so I can call it whatever I want


And noone is saying you can't, but trying to get us to agree that all you have to do is paint a bike black and use whatever rules you like makes it a ravenwing army is stupid.

A ravenwing army is one that is picked from CA using the ravenwing units. An army picked from C:SM using bike units is called by 99.9% of the people out there a bike army.

Its kinda like me saying I bought a Ford but its a car so I'll call it a Ferarri and if you don't agree with me your all close minded, spoilt little brats.


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Don't care anymore, my money to do what I want with, I don't need some strangers off a forum telling me how I can and can't use my toys, if there ravebwing, then there ravenwing, tough shit
> 
> And I can't use a master of the ravenwing on bike with the DA codex, that's the only reason


Quick! Someone catch that dummy before it hits the floor! Ohhh no too late


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Don't care, I want my bike mounted master like I had in 3rd


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

VanquisherMBT said:


> Don't care, I want my bike mounted master like I had in 3rd


Well what you really need is a time machine then


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

pantat said:


> Well what you really need is a time machine then


Nope, codex space marines does a find job, you see taking a captain on a bike makes bikes troops, paint em black, out markings on and there yah go, ravenwing


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

And round we go again! 

Locked


----------

