Originally Posted by Stephen_Newman
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by The Son of Horus
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.
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.