This seems like a fair compromise that avoids the dreaded Rhino Rush but give assault armies a fighting chance.
The only thing I'm not clear on is if assault vehicles are still a thing, and if you can charge out of an open-top vehicle post-move.
Based on their wording, the answer seems to be no--you deploy at the beginning of movement, which appears to answer those points, but maybe there is a special rule for former assault vehicles.
Interesting, though only being able to disembark at the start of the movement phase means that transports can't actually be used to facilitate a turn-1 charge (because you'd either be dropping your passengers off in the deployment zone, or waiting for the start of the next movement phase).
Of course, the transport itself could easily do the charging. I don't know if you can disembark in combat though, so you might be betting on either the opponent withdrawing so you can disembark, or the transport winning its first combat on its own.
Alternatively, you could use it as a tackler instead of a transport: empty it out, charge it in, its job is to just tie things up while the real assault units walk across the board.
Crazy Jay wrote: I'll put my landraider into the grimdark demolition derby
MAKE THIS SPECIALIST GAME STAT! And I don't mean Gorkamorka
I want to see it become the top meta until they fix it. Vehicles rushing across the table to get into combat with each other as fast as possible while the infantry basically just act as token objective holders watching on.
ross-128 wrote: Interesting, though only being able to disembark at the start of the movement phase means that transports can't actually be used to facilitate a turn-1 charge (because you'd either be dropping your passengers off in the deployment zone, or waiting for the start of the next movement phase).
Of course, the transport itself could easily do the charging. I don't know if you can disembark in combat though, so you might be betting on either the opponent withdrawing so you can disembark, or the transport winning its first combat on its own.
Alternatively, you could use it as a tackler instead of a transport: empty it out, charge it in, its job is to just tie things up while the real assault units walk across the board.
I'm seeing this as a viable, and likely oft-used tactic for this edition. Will work extremely well for the tougher vehicles too, providing you pick appropriate targets.
Was there anything on how far a vehicle could "run" yet? What did they call it...advance? With the starweaver I would expect it to be twice the movement. In 7th that could move 12 and then another 18 I imagine? So doubling the move would be about right no?
Better than before though, as the the rhino will likely move 24 in the first turn and then the unit gets out for another 6+ before charging 2d6, that's pretty brutal.
Assuming advancing is double move across the board.
Roknar wrote: Was there anything on how far a vehicle could "run" yet? What did they call it...advance? With the starweaver I would expect it to be twice the movement. In 7th that could move 12 and then another 18 I imagine? So doubling the move would be about right no?
Same as all other units I think - extra D6"
Running has been rolled into the Movement phase now, too. You can “Advance” when you move by rolling a dice and adding the result to your Movement to go a bit faster at the expense of shooting.This applies to all models – infantry, vehicles, bikes – everyone. By including this roll as part of your move, the game speeds up, as you no longer have to move models in both the Movement and Shooting phases.
Roknar wrote: Better than before though, as the the rhino will likely move 24 in the first turn and then the unit gets out for another 6+ before charging 2d6, that's pretty brutal.
Assuming advancing is double move across the board.
I'd expect Rhinos to be a bit slower then the Starweaver, maybe 12-14 inch moves and things as heavy as Land Raiders and Battle wagons being capped at 12 inches
I'm a little bummed that Tank Shock is now an Assault Charge followed by Combat Phase. I really enjoyed smashing Truks and Rhinos into units and subsequently routing them off the table. Plus Death or Glory was a very fluffy, punching a rolling fortress apart with a powerfist was a huge acomplishment. I guess ramming is the norm now, I will say that basic combat is more streamlined, but damn...
I have mixed feelings on this.
Pros:
-great movement and the vehicle itself can charge
-more balanced as everything is essentially an assault vehicle
Cons:
-having to "get into position" on turn 1 means it is too easy for the enemy to just move away.
As a side note, the Stareweaver being M:16" lends a lot of support to the speculation the Eldar jetbikes are going to be bonkers fast. I highly doubt any jetbike will be slower than that. Although not having the turbo boost anymore should mean their overall movement per turn is less, being able to move 16+ inches and still shoot is awesome.
Not sure what to think about that, as an ork player.
I don't think it's that simple. Starweavers were AV10 with only 2HPs. So either Ork Trukks are getting 8+ wounds each, or they may have T6. Or T6 with only a 5+ armour, who knows?
Something to also keep in mind is that T5 can only be wounded on 2+ by weapons that are S10 or higher, which we haven't seen any of yet.
Likewise, Str4 wounds T5 &T6 both on 5+. So being T6 isn't all that different.
Yup I reall like the idea of ork vehicles assaulting in cmbat its just that the AV to T conversion is something to get used to.
Is this correct ? Vs S4 Av10 =>T5 wounds on 5+ Av11 =>T6? wounds on 5+ Av12 =>T6? / T&? wounds on 5+ Av13 =>T7? T8? wounds on 5+ /6+ AV14 =>T8 wounds on 6+
Not sure if I just should only take AV10 vehicles or if it is worth it to take only heavy aV vehicles since there seems to be little difference between 4 < T < 8
Not sure what to think about that, as an ork player.
I did some quick and dirty math, might be wrong because I'm sleepy, but I think this is actually better for us. If AV 10 = T5 and we also get a 4+, here are the stats.
S4 used to wounded .1666 times
S4 now wounds .3333 times, with a 4+ it goes to .1666 times
S5 wounded .333 times
S5 now wounds .5 times, 4+ goes to .25 times
S6 wounded .5 times
S6 now wounds .333 times after save.
So the save really makes up for it, and we'll probably end up with more than 3 wounds. Someone double-check my math, though.
We also do not know what Jink will do, or even if it still exists.
There is a rumor out there that it adds +2 armour at the cost of you hitting on -1, but that would be bananas good.
Starweavers would be flying Terminators
My guess is (If jink is still around) that it just gives you an invul, like a 5++, So dark eldar vehicles are essentially jinking all the time, but at no penalty to their shooting.
The paragraph in the movement article covered running though, not moving flat out, which was was quite a bit more complex. I suppose it's quite likely though that they simply streamlined it to be the same, but in that case the starweaver would have received a quasi nerf to movement, fast skimmers in general since they could move 12+18 which is more than the weaver could reach now. Of course they are faster when moving normally now so there is that.
Only being able to move an extra d6 for a rhino would be a bit of a bummer. Then again, 24 seems awfully fast too. Maybe vehicles could advance half their movement extra? So 6 for rhino and 8 for the weaver?
Flat out was the equivalent of Running so I don;t see why they would be different - higher base move now, lower Advance.
Galef wrote: We also do not know what Jink will do, or even if it still exists.
There is a rumor out there that it adds +2 armour at the cost of you hitting on -1, but that would be bananas good.
Starweavers would be flying Terminators
-
40k Facebook has said there is no Jink - if a unit has something similar to that it will have it on the data sheet.
So dark eldar vehicles are essentially jinking all the time, but at no penalty to their shooting.
Look slike they have that anyway from the new Flicker Field - 5++ against shooting.
Remember, there are no universal special rules in the new edition. If a unit can do anything that resembled the jink move of old, it will be specifically written on it's datasheet.
"Jink" is gone because USRs are gone. But Keyword rules are totally a thing. Look at Rubric who got "relentless" and Nids who are still "fearless"
I suspect the ability for fast things to get a better save at the cost of worse shooting will be a thing in 8E.
It could be like 4E were if you turbo boost/flatout (advance) your armour save become invulnerable.
I like the +2 armour rumour, but hope it turns out to just be +1
Galef wrote: "Jink" is gone because USRs are gone. But Keyword rules are totally a thing. Look at Rubric who got "relentless" and Nids who are still "fearless"
I suspect the ability for fast things to get a better save at the cost of worse shooting will be a thing in 8E.
It could be like 4E were if you turbo boost/flatout (advance) your armour save become invulnerable.
I like the +2 armour rumour, but hope it turns out to just be +1
I am not sure - no mention of a flat out or boost now being anything other tan Advance.
If Jet bikes keep their 3+ save (for no reason) and are hit as normal they can probably keep their heavy weapons (with -1 to hit if moving) and troops status without being OP again.
Now that transports are a viable participant in close combat when their own attacks, I expect them to go up in cost as well. Maybe not Land Raiders, but I think we may have seen the end of 35 point Rhino's and Drop Pods. Or even "free" Transports.
For the Ork players: You did read how if the vehicle is opened topped, all the models get to shoot in close combat, right? So Trukk charges in and starts close combat, and all the Boy's in the back with pistols get to fight as well? Or how about all those Dark Eldar open topped skimmers? Oh yeah!
Overall I'm ok with most of these changes, though I'm not thrilled about going back to "On a bad roll everything dies" of some older editions, that can really end a game's fun factor quick and seems counter to the larger 8E paradigm of avoiding one poor/great roll obliterating something in one go.
I'm glad they brought charges out of transports back...with the proviso that units must disembark at the start of the movement phase to do so. That will enable stuff like Rhino's to be way more functional for things like Tac marines/CSM's/generalist units as a whole, without being stupidly broken.
Shennanigans with transports soaking overwatch fire however feels open to abuse, we'll see how that works out.
oldzoggy wrote: My guess is that jink is dead it was a horrible mechanic really.
Indeed, Jink was one of the biggest game design mistakes of 6E and 7E, and really drove a lot of gameplay imbalance.
Tamwulf wrote: Now that transports are a viable participant in close combat when their own attacks, I expect them to go up in cost as well. Maybe not Land Raiders, but I think we may have seen the end of 35 point Rhino's and Drop Pods. Or even "free" Transports.
For the Ork players: You did read how if the vehicle is opened topped, all the models get to shoot in close combat, right? So Trukk charges in and starts close combat, and all the Boy's in the back with pistols get to fight as well? Or how about all those Dark Eldar open topped skimmers? Oh yeah!
Orks got S4 AP- hits-on-a-5+ pistols held by units that want to use their 3 Attacks in combat, that rule isn't much good to us. Now our assault transports have turned into shooting platforms and tarpits, while I assume most of our units will need to be in big mobs anyway to mitigate Morale with Mob Rule so probably won't want to be in a Trukk anyway. Still waiting for something positive for Orks apart from no Initiative.
I kinda wish they had previewed the rhino, just so we could get a better idea as to the average speed of a transport. obviously eldar units are gonna be stupid fast.
BrianDavion wrote: I kinda wish they had previewed the rhino, just so we could get a better idea as to the average speed of a transport. obviously eldar units are gonna be stupid fast.
For some reason they've chosen really bad examples in at least half of their articles. Why not give some of the really interesting things? Trukks, Rhinos and Leman Russ in the different articles are all things that a lot of people care about.
BrianDavion wrote: I kinda wish they had previewed the rhino, just so we could get a better idea as to the average speed of a transport. obviously eldar units are gonna be stupid fast.
I think they're responding to some complaints in the comments that everything they show is marines, marines, marines by instead using a different faction as a demonstration.
Personally, I'm just glad my murderclowns got some love.
Tamwulf wrote: Now that transports are a viable participant in close combat when their own attacks, I expect them to go up in cost as well. Maybe not Land Raiders, but I think we may have seen the end of 35 point Rhino's and Drop Pods. Or even "free" Transports.
For the Ork players: You did read how if the vehicle is opened topped, all the models get to shoot in close combat, right? So Trukk charges in and starts close combat, and all the Boy's in the back with pistols get to fight as well? Or how about all those Dark Eldar open topped skimmers? Oh yeah!
pistols shoot in the shooting phase, so those orks would have ti wait for the next player turn to shoot at whatever the trukk charged.
Tamwulf wrote: Now that transports are a viable participant in close combat when their own attacks, I expect them to go up in cost as well. Maybe not Land Raiders, but I think we may have seen the end of 35 point Rhino's and Drop Pods. Or even "free" Transports.
For the Ork players: You did read how if the vehicle is opened topped, all the models get to shoot in close combat, right? So Trukk charges in and starts close combat, and all the Boy's in the back with pistols get to fight as well? Or how about all those Dark Eldar open topped skimmers? Oh yeah!
pistols shoot in the shooting phase, so those orks would have ti wait for the next player turn to shoot at whatever the trukk charged.
Some comments seems to hint pistols can be shoot at the melee phase (or while being locked in melee)
BrianDavion wrote: I kinda wish they had previewed the rhino, just so we could get a better idea as to the average speed of a transport. obviously eldar units are gonna be stupid fast.
I think they're responding to some complaints in the comments that everything they show is marines, marines, marines by instead using a different faction as a demonstration.
Personally, I'm just glad my murderclowns got some love.
Maybe, but the thing about showing Marines is it's a good basis for comparison as we can then draw assumptions from it. "Well the rhino is speed 10, so we can assume eldar vehicles are proably speed 12 or faster" etc.
sadly with the murderclown car, all we can tell is "eldar are damned fast"
Tamwulf wrote: Now that transports are a viable participant in close combat when their own attacks, I expect them to go up in cost as well. Maybe not Land Raiders, but I think we may have seen the end of 35 point Rhino's and Drop Pods. Or even "free" Transports.
For the Ork players: You did read how if the vehicle is opened topped, all the models get to shoot in close combat, right? So Trukk charges in and starts close combat, and all the Boy's in the back with pistols get to fight as well? Or how about all those Dark Eldar open topped skimmers? Oh yeah!
pistols shoot in the shooting phase, so those orks would have ti wait for the next player turn to shoot at whatever the trukk charged.
Some comments seems to hint pistols can be shoot at the melee phase (or while being locked in melee)
Im certain I saw that its not the case. Pistols can be fired into a combat if your engaged, but they do so on the shooting phase, and then only during your own turn.
oldzoggy wrote: My guess is that jink is dead it was a horrible mechanic really.
Indeed, Jink was one of the biggest game design mistakes of 6E and 7E, and really drove a lot of gameplay imbalance.
I doubt jink is completely dead for the ravenwing at least it's been around since 2nd. I suspect it's going to go back to a hit modifier like it was in the past. Normal jink -1 ravenwing jink -2.
Vaktathi wrote: Overall I'm ok with most of these changes, though I'm not thrilled about going back to "On a bad roll everything dies" of some older editions, that can really end a game's fun factor quick and seems counter to the larger 8E paradigm of avoiding one poor/great roll obliterating something in one go.
I'm glad they brought charges out of transports back...with the proviso that units must disembark at the start of the movement phase to do so. That will enable stuff like Rhino's to be way more functional for things like Tac marines/CSM's/generalist units as a whole, without being stupidly broken.
Shennanigans with transports soaking overwatch fire however feels open to abuse, we'll see how that works out.
oldzoggy wrote: My guess is that jink is dead it was a horrible mechanic really.
Indeed, Jink was one of the biggest game design mistakes of 6E and 7E, and really drove a lot of gameplay imbalance.
Eh maybe for 6th, but 7th Jink really wasn't that bad.
steerpike92 wrote: I wonder if this basically makes it necessary for almost all front line troops to include an anti-vehicle close combat weapon.
If a token arc maul/power fist can't pop a cheap transport in a turn tarpitting with transports will obnoxiously strong.
which likely has something to do with the ability to leave combat on demand now.
That's not a legitimate counter. If you aren't able to destroy the transport after falling back it can just engage you again and waste another turn.
i.e. you have to destroy all enemy transports to have any sort of firepower. Which is sort of an issue as the whole point of a transport is to be durable.
UrsoerTheSquid wrote: I'm picturing an Ork trukk rolling up and the boys tuck and rolling, while the trukk keeps plowing into the enemy as the boys try to catch up.
While that's a nice image, what is actually likely to happen is that the trukk rolls up, and then while it's sitting there waiting for the next movement phase the target unit moves back out of charge range and shoots up the trukk, killing it and one in 6 of the boyz inside, and leaving the rest of the mob standing in the open with nowhere to go...
It's looking like the primary role for transports in this edition is going to be ramming them into things rather than transporting units.
UrsoerTheSquid wrote: I'm picturing an Ork trukk rolling up and the boys tuck and rolling, while the trukk keeps plowing into the enemy as the boys try to catch up.
While that's a nice image, what is actually likely to happen is that the trukk rolls up, and then while it's sitting there waiting for the next movement phase the target unit moves back out of charge range and shoots up the trukk, killing it and one in 6 of the boyz inside, and leaving the rest of the mob standing in the open with nowhere to go...
It's looking like the primary role for transports in this edition is going to be ramming them into things rather than transporting units.
Na, Im gonna roll up with my trukks till I'm almost touching the enemy, and then shoot the crap out of them from the open top Next turn if it dies, my orks will be within walking and charging range, and I can call a waaaagh of some sort on top of it
UrsoerTheSquid wrote: I'm picturing an Ork trukk rolling up and the boys tuck and rolling, while the trukk keeps plowing into the enemy as the boys try to catch up.
While that's a nice image, what is actually likely to happen is that the trukk rolls up, and then while it's sitting there waiting for the next movement phase the target unit moves back out of charge range and shoots up the trukk, killing it and one in 6 of the boyz inside, and leaving the rest of the mob standing in the open with nowhere to go...
If the enemy is moving away from you then that is a -1 to hit penalty on any heavy weapons they may have. Secondly it means they are moving where you want them to go and not where they want to go. I am assuming that there will still be objectives of some sort in 8th edition in which case forcing units to choose between backing off those objectives or receiving an unfavourable charge is no bad thing.
And even if all you care about is whacking stuff in assault, sooner or later the enemy is going to run out of board to retreat to.
And even if all you care about is whacking stuff in assault, sooner or later the enemy is going to run out of board to retreat to.
Yup... and at that point it becomes in their best interests to attack the transport and assault first before the unit on board gets a chance to.
Seriously, we already sat on this seat in the merry-go-round back in 4th edition. The end result of forcing people to sit in their transport for a turn after it has moved into position is that people stop using transports... because all they're doing is serving your units up to your opponent on a plate.
Na, Im gonna roll up with my trukks till I'm almost touching the enemy, and then shoot the crap out of them from the open top
At which point your opponent shoots the geewillikers out of the trukk and assaults the boyz that are left in the resultant wreckage.
Yes, and I'm pretty sure thats what trukks have always been expected to do.... both in the fluff and in the game Excepting now they will actually make it to the goal post, and only 1/6 die instead of 4/9 and I get to choose which. This is gonna be great
I like this, transport moves up nice and close, enemy moves away in their turn, dudes get out, move up and charge next turn.
Just have to be careful of your transport getting charged.
See, this it what I am unsure of, tactically. In order to get close enough for the turn 2 charge, you have to get close enough to be charged
It's going to be way too easy for opponents to either assault your transport, or move safely away.
insaniak wrote: The end result of forcing people to sit in their transport for a turn after it has moved into position is that people stop using transports... because all they're doing is serving your units up to your opponent on a plate.
How is models sitting in a transport waiting to assault any different then them sitting in no mans land waiting to run close enough to charge? This all hinges on how fast the vehicles get your stuff where you want it, and the suggestion seems to be that the vehicles do it faster than anything but nids.
How is models sitting in a transport waiting to assault any different then them sitting in no mans land waiting to run close enough to charge?
No different. There's a reason people tended to play gunlines instead of assault armies in 4th edition...
So...charge the vehicle into the squad you plan on assaulting? Worse case it dies and you lose 1 or 2 guys and are set up for a perfect charge next turn, best case your opponent has to fall back and you get a freebie charge next turn. (assuming you're smart enough to charge in a way that won't get you 360 bubblewrapped by guardsmen or w/e).
This is another one of those things that we are just gonna have to wait to see how it synergizes with other rules before reliable assessment but I like it at first glance. Jink was terrible and I hope it gets folded into movement. No sense for that lascannon operator to ask the pilot "hey you are you jinkin or wut?"
If your transport dies in overwatch can thw guys inside charge? That would be interesting, 'Oh please, feel free to overwatch with your fire warriors on my 1 wound land raider with 12 zerkers in it.'
I like this, transport moves up nice and close, enemy moves away in their turn, dudes get out, move up and charge next turn.
Just have to be careful of your transport getting charged.
See, this it what I am unsure of, tactically. In order to get close enough for the turn 2 charge, you have to get close enough to be charged
It's going to be way too easy for opponents to either assault your transport, or move safely away.
-
Not so clear anymore. With units having different movement speeds there is still some uncertainty in terms of math-hammering it.
And then there are things like the swarmlords ability to move in the shooting and still assault. Not saying other armies would get the same but there could be similar option.
Or even how they handle advancing with vehicles. We still don't know for certain that they will move a mere d6.
I think it's a bit too early to make any big conclusions yet.
Though worst case scenario, a transport rolls up 12 and d6, so potentially leaving 6 inch to move for those magical 24 inch (assuming that's even still the case), which most infantry will be able to cover.
You could still charge up to their board edge from there with 12 inch deployment, 12 inch move putting you in the middle of the board, followed by a lucky 6 and 6 inch move.
That's in a straight line of course but it might not be as easy as simply walking away. And with the vehicles now being able to fight, you might not be too interested in fighting that transport. At least for some factions.
A rhino with destroyer blades might well be at least as good as a spawn or two.
This makes me stoked for my Harlequins! Those transports are super fast, and let me use them to pin down units and soak overwatch. It will likely be the case that the Starweaver does some decent damage or has a decent Rend with those 3 attacks (as the riders have Zephyrglaives). Really liking the new tactical uses of transports and vehicles in general.
Drasius wrote: Well, so long breachers, it's been nice having an actual use for a devilfish.
Not all is necessarily lost, in terms of Devilfish usefulness.
Devilfish could be used to charge and tie up enemy assault units AFTER shooting, which could cause very useful delays to the enemy's plans and allow piecemeal deconstruction of the enemy's forces.
Devilfish could retain Flechette Dischargers as an upgrade, which could give them a CQC punch unexpected from the Tau.
Devilfish could have the Fly keyword, which will (for Kanluwen, pretend I said "probably will ) allow them to disengage and still shoot up to 12 shots...
I have to say that the concept of Stunlocking transport spam has me a touch worried, but not overly so until I see the rest of the rules. Nothing cannot be saved by point costs, bespoke rules, and as-yet-unrevealed game mechanics.
It doesn't even have to be transports for spam. Any army with wide access to fast light (and cheap) vehicles is potentially a huge pain the butt. I'm thinking of stuff like Ork Buggies (yeah yeah, we don't know exact cost, we all know it'll be cheap). That kind of stuff won't slow down HtH squads much, but could be pretty effective at tying up portions of a gunline for a key turn. While, say, you get trukks full of boys in position to unass and charge the following turn. Stock Landspeeders and the like could also be aggravating in the same way.
Fighting other assault armies with a list like Orks, or DE, will feel very different because you know they're coming to you anyway, an can position accordingly.
With the limited info i have now i intend to ram with 3 devilfish, deploy 6 gun drones to screen the breachers and then deploy breachers to light up the enmy at close range.
insaniak wrote: I don't think they've said, but I would expect they're just removed, for simplicity.
The Knight can throw death monsters and vehicles, so I assume they will remain in the table.
To clarify, I believe a Knight with a particular weapon can cause an effect if they kill an enemy with that weapon.
That wouldn't require dead monsters/vehicles to actually remain as models, just that those types of models be differentiated from other models and killed by the Knight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: With the limited info i have now i intend to ram with 3 devilfish, deploy 6 gun drones to screen the breachers and then deploy breachers to light up the enmy at close range.
I am excited.
Sounds like a great plan, but one that you'll only be able to perform over the course of two turns (with an enemy turn occurring between you ramming your devilfish in the the enemy and deploying your gun drones and breachers) due to the Transport rules only allowing disembarking BEFORE the transport moves.
insaniak wrote: I don't think they've said, but I would expect they're just removed, for simplicity.
The Knight can throw death monsters and vehicles, so I assume they will remain in the table.
To clarify, I believe a Knight with a particular weapon can cause an effect if they kill an enemy with that weapon.
That wouldn't require dead monsters/vehicles to actually remain as models, just that those types of models be differentiated from other models and killed by the Knight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: With the limited info i have now i intend to ram with 3 devilfish, deploy 6 gun drones to screen the breachers and then deploy breachers to light up the enmy at close range.
I am excited.
Sounds like a great plan, but one that you'll only be able to perform over the course of two turns (with an enemy turn occurring between you ramming your devilfish in the the enemy and deploying your gun drones and breachers) due to the Transport rules only allowing disembarking BEFORE the transport moves.
According to what I read it seemed like the knight could throw things regardless of if they were dead or not.
Not sure what to think about that, as an ork player.
I did some quick and dirty math, might be wrong because I'm sleepy, but I think this is actually better for us. If AV 10 = T5 and we also get a 4+, here are the stats.
S4 used to wounded .1666 times
S4 now wounds .3333 times, with a 4+ it goes to .1666 times
S5 wounded .333 times
S5 now wounds .5 times, 4+ goes to .25 times
S6 wounded .5 times
S6 now wounds .333 times after save.
So the save really makes up for it, and we'll probably end up with more than 3 wounds. Someone double-check my math, though.
One thing to point out that isn't in there is that S3 now wounds the same as S4, which previously couldn't hurt av10. This could be potentially bad.
S6-9 now wound the same as S6, which would make up for the fact that S3 can hurt it now. However I still think it is probably a nerf over all, as most of these high strength weapons are doing multiple damage now for each hit.
Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.
insaniak wrote: I don't think they've said, but I would expect they're just removed, for simplicity.
The Knight can throw death monsters and vehicles, so I assume they will remain in the table.
To clarify, I believe a Knight with a particular weapon can cause an effect if they kill an enemy with that weapon.
That wouldn't require dead monsters/vehicles to actually remain as models, just that those types of models be differentiated from other models and killed by the Knight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: With the limited info i have now i intend to ram with 3 devilfish, deploy 6 gun drones to screen the breachers and then deploy breachers to light up the enmy at close range.
I am excited.
Sounds like a great plan, but one that you'll only be able to perform over the course of two turns (with an enemy turn occurring between you ramming your devilfish in the the enemy and deploying your gun drones and breachers) due to the Transport rules only allowing disembarking BEFORE the transport moves.
According to what I read it seemed like the knight could throw things regardless of if they were dead or not.
From the Knights Faction Focus:
The thunderstrike gauntlet also has the ability to chuck a destroyed Monster or Vehicle at another enemy unit within 9″ to do D3 mortal wounds on a 4+.
I like this, transport moves up nice and close, enemy moves away in their turn, dudes get out, move up and charge next turn.
Just have to be careful of your transport getting charged.
See, this it what I am unsure of, tactically. In order to get close enough for the turn 2 charge, you have to get close enough to be charged It's going to be way too easy for opponents to either assault your transport, or move safely away.
-
You can move and then assault the turn you disemark- on a 6'' move unit that's therefore a 13'' threat range with average rolls on the charge 2d6.
Exactly how fast do you think most units move? If I get within 3'' of you, and then on your turn you move away, on my next turn you're only 9'' inches away. I disembark my models, move them 6'' and my charge distance is only 3''.
Maybe Berzerkers and Possessed will actually be good now that they don't have to spend a turn with their asses hanging out after they disembark from a Rhino. Yes, you have to disembark at the beginning of your turn, but by time you move the Rhino up, and have it flat out (I'm assuming that mechanic will still be there, perhaps it'll be rolled in with Advancing?) you'll be pretty close and can charge next turn. Rhino Rush is back, baby!
ZergSmasher wrote: Maybe Berzerkers and Possessed will actually be good now that they don't have to spend a turn with their asses hanging out after they disembark from a Rhino. Yes, you have to disembark at the beginning of your turn, but by time you move the Rhino up, and have it flat out (I'm assuming that mechanic will still be there, perhaps it'll be rolled in with Advancing?) you'll be pretty close and can charge next turn. Rhino Rush is back, baby!
Vehicles advance D6 same as everything else, they confirmed it in one of the earliest teaser pages.
I just hope 8th wont turn orks on their heads, with close combat transports, while open-topped changes completely, for little actual gain to the army. Let's just say I hope orks has been playtested and balanced against the stronger builds out there.
Here's hoping that ork vehicles are 'assault vehicles', and so they can either charge out of a vehicle that's in combat, or charge out of a vehicle after it's moved.
Either of those would be nice and fluffy as well.
Hell, I'd even dust off the boyz if I could plow a battlewagon into a gunline and then have boyz come screaming out of every nook and cranny
ross-128 wrote: Interesting, though only being able to disembark at the start of the movement phase means that transports can't actually be used to facilitate a turn-1 charge (because you'd either be dropping your passengers off in the deployment zone, or waiting for the start of the next movement phase).
Or maybe it can though bit risky if standard distance between armies in scenarios are 12". You start in rhino. You deploy 3" from rhino. 3"+6"+2d6"=you can reach up to 22".
Any foot unit with 9" will be able to charge 1st turn on 24" gap between armies.
Albeit not very likely so in practice not used most likely. Well except for M9 kind of units if they can have transport and distance between armies is 18". That way you have 3"+9"+2d6"+1"=20" average reach.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tamwulf wrote: Now that transports are a viable participant in close combat when their own attacks, I expect them to go up in cost as well. Maybe not Land Raiders, but I think we may have seen the end of 35 point Rhino's and Drop Pods. Or even "free" Transports.
For the Ork players: You did read how if the vehicle is opened topped, all the models get to shoot in close combat, right? So Trukk charges in and starts close combat, and all the Boy's in the back with pistols get to fight as well? Or how about all those Dark Eldar open topped skimmers? Oh yeah!
"Fight" as in shoot with their 5+ to hit pistols. I think most orks will prefer to unload before and try to get into combat themselves. Staying in trukk risks enemy surrounding your fraqile truck and blowing when troops can't get outside.
Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.
Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.
You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.
Please stop insinuating otherwise. Sure, you could roll poorly and lose half or more of a unit with a lot of 1's coming up, but the odds of rolling 5 or more 1's is pretty small, don't you think?
If everything has identical rules, can transports ride transports? I'd love to charge those mehreenz with a bunch of trukks disembarking from trukks disembarking from trukks. Russian trukk-doll-style.
I like this, transport moves up nice and close, enemy moves away in their turn, dudes get out, move up and charge next turn.
Just have to be careful of your transport getting charged.
See, this it what I am unsure of, tactically. In order to get close enough for the turn 2 charge, you have to get close enough to be charged
It's going to be way too easy for opponents to either assault your transport, or move safely away.
-
You can move and then assault the turn you disemark- on a 6'' move unit that's therefore a 13'' threat range with average rolls on the charge 2d6.
Exactly how fast do you think most units move? If I get within 3'' of you, and then on your turn you move away, on my next turn you're only 9'' inches away. I disembark my models, move them 6'' and my charge distance is only 3''.
Don't forget that disembarking is now 'within 3"s from transport exit', so that is an extra three inches
koooaei wrote: If everything has identical rules, can transports ride transports? I'd love to charge those mehreenz with a bunch of trukks disembarking from trukks disembarking from trukks. Russian trukk-doll-style.
Yo dawg. I heard you like trukks. So I put some trukks in yo trukks so you can trukk while you trukk.
Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.
Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.
I'm not sure if this was what you were getting at but actually a lascannon can now blow up that star weaver with one lucky shot if it rolls 6 for damage. Which I think means it is statistically more fragile towards anti-tank weapons like that.
Basic troop passengers inside transports seem more durable to the exploding vehicle now.
Prices for transports should honestly stay the same.
Basic troop passengers inside transports seem more durable to the exploding vehicle now.
highly variable. Orks? Yeah, probably. Their sweater vest wasn't doing much to help them survive a blown up trukk anyway. Terminators? They are now waaaaay more susceptible to damage from a blown up vehicle than they used to be.
My Ork buggies can finally do more than roll around Immobilizing themselves! Could this be the edition where I don't kick myself for taking Trukkz instead of bikers? I hope so!
Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.
Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.
You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.
Please stop insinuating otherwise.
"It's been pretty well established based on how I subjectively read the article that you're wrong".
I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may not be correct, in which case, great! But the wording is ambiguous and that's how it came across to me reading it. I mentioned it a grand total of two times, and you're the first person to talk about it being otherwise in this thread. If other people elsewhere have come to some sort of other consensus, fine, but don't make it out like I'm going around intentionally misrepresenting something counter to some sort of widespread established understanding.
Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.
Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.
You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.
Please stop insinuating otherwise.
"It's been pretty well established based on how I subjectively read the article that you're wrong".
I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may not be correct, in which case, great! But the wording is ambiguous and that's how it came across to me reading it. I mentioned it a grand total of two times, and you're the first person to talk about it being otherwise in this thread. If other people elsewhere have come to some sort of other consensus, fine, but don't make it out like I'm going around intentionally misrepresenting something counter to some sort of widespread established understanding.
... you don't see how unreasonable a reading it would be if everything in the transport dies on a single roll of 1? That would be a dumber rule than anything in 7th.
"Land Raider blew up? Guess those 600 points of termies goes with it. Yahtzee! Let's pack up!"
Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.
Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.
You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.
Please stop insinuating otherwise.
"It's been pretty well established based on how I subjectively read the article that you're wrong".
I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may not be correct, in which case, great! But the wording is ambiguous and that's how it came across to me reading it. I mentioned it a grand total of two times, and you're the first person to talk about it being otherwise in this thread. If other people elsewhere have come to some sort of other consensus, fine, but don't make it out like I'm going around intentionally misrepresenting something counter to some sort of widespread established understanding.
... you don't see how unreasonable a reading it would be if everything in the transport dies on a single roll of 1? That would be a dumber rule than anything in 7th.
This *is* GW we're talking about, and "everyone dies on a bad roll" with transports has absolutely been possible in previous editions before.
I'm entirely willing to accept my reading may be wrong, but given GW's track record it wasnt an entirely unreasonable conclusion.
Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.
Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.
You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.
Please stop insinuating otherwise. Sure, you could roll poorly and lose half or more of a unit with a lot of 1's coming up, but the odds of rolling 5 or more 1's is pretty small, don't you think?
He's still not wrong even if it is per model. There is potential for an entire unit to be rolling 1's on the Wrecking of a Transport. The smaller the unit, the more likely it is. I've seen enough 1s at a time that killed off a 5 man Terminator unit.
Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.
Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.
You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.
Please stop insinuating otherwise. Sure, you could roll poorly and lose half or more of a unit with a lot of 1's coming up, but the odds of rolling 5 or more 1's is pretty small, don't you think?
He's still not wrong even if it is per model. There is potential for an entire unit to be rolling 1's on the Wrecking of a Transport. The smaller the unit, the more likely it is. I've seen enough 1s at a time that killed off a 5 man Terminator unit.
That's an extreme outlier though. Even getting 5 at once is highly unlikely, but sure. It can happen. Not even near the same thing as getting a single and losing it all.
Purifier wrote: That's an extreme outlier though. Even getting 5 at once is highly unlikely, but sure. It can happen. Not even near the same thing as getting a single and losing it all.
Potentiality includes outliers. Probability ignores outliers. A Grot unit could potentially shoot an Imperial Knight to death on its own, but it is probably not going to happen.
Rippy wrote: Don't forget that disembarking is now 'within 3"s from transport exit', so that is an extra three inches
I did not see that in the article. Where is that at? If true, then yeah this is great.
EDIT: rereading the article it only says that units can Disembark and move normally, but does not give a clear distance of how far they first disembark. It could be Base contact to the Transport only, then your move. Granted that is still your base size worth of movement forward, but that not quite as much as 3" from the door.
Purifier wrote: That's an extreme outlier though. Even getting 5 at once is highly unlikely, but sure. It can happen. Not even near the same thing as getting a single and losing it all.
Potentiality includes outliers. Probability ignores outliers. A Grot unit could potentially shoot an Imperial Knight to death on its own, but it is probably not going to happen.
Note the differences.
More like note the semantics. You're defending a post mentioning it as a probability. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that your scenario is unlikely as all hell at its best.
personally I am looking forward to seeing how all the transports end up.
as for jink I would not mind its inclusion, but think the implementation was just bad. I shoot at full BS trhen when the opponent shoots I choose to at that point jink. would have preferred jink or the equivilant to be be declared during the player's movement phase and then defense is up during the following player's shooting phase at a set penalty to ballistic skill rather than just snap shots. that way they could have fired blasts at full BS but then again that is now not a thing so we shall see. it did make sense for fast skimmers to be able to make themselves harder to hit the penalty just happened at the wrong point
as for jink I would not mind its inclusion, but think the implementation was just bad. I shoot at full BS trhen when the opponent shoots I choose to at that point jink. would have preferred jink or the equivilant to be be declared during the player's movement phase and then defense is up during the following player's shooting phase at a set penalty to ballistic skill rather than just snap shots. that way they could have fired blasts at full BS but then again that is now not a thing so we shall see. it did make sense for fast skimmers to be able to make themselves harder to hit the penalty just happened at the wrong point
I like the way it was handled in a previous edition (although I forget which). Your armour became Invulnerable if you turbo-boosted.
Something similar could work in 8E in that if a bike or skimmer makes an advance move (thereby forgoing any shooting that turn) they can gain +2 Armour save.
The extra armour represents the damage just grazing off because you are moving so fast. Weapons that have AP modifiers are better at causing damage even when the target is moving fast
A Melta shot isn't as likely to "bounce off" as a Bolter round, for example
Jink kinda fundamentally always hass issues. Even when it was called SMF or other such things, it's never been handled well in 40k. It inevitably ends up being a very powerful defensive bonus that's rarely properly accounted for, and often without having much of a necessary gameplay reason for inclusion. It's why Skimmers have paradoxically been dramatically more resilient than nonskimmer vehicles in 4 of the last 5 editions.
the thing about jink, SMF etc, has been GW trying to replicate the fact that some units are zipping fast about the battlefield in a game without a move stat. now with a move stat there is a lot less need for jink, because bikes, jetbikes etc will be able to move across the board so much faster they will be exposed to fire for shorter periods of time, in effect speed can be armor in 8th edition. jet bikes can zip from cover to cover etc.
Purifier wrote: That's an extreme outlier though. Even getting 5 at once is highly unlikely, but sure. It can happen. Not even near the same thing as getting a single and losing it all.
Potentiality includes outliers. Probability ignores outliers. A Grot unit could potentially shoot an Imperial Knight to death on its own, but it is probably not going to happen.
Note the differences.
More like note the semantics. You're defending a post mentioning it as a probability. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that your scenario is unlikely as all hell at its best.
Semantics are part of the written word. Every time you read you are operating under semantics. Look up the definition of the term.
And no, he did not say, "probably", he said, "potentially". I do think that the odds of an Boyz unit all dying when their Battlewagon gets wrecked is so unlikely that I would actually bet against it happening. But I have seen a player roll enough 1s that caused that 5 man Terminator unit to all fail their Armour Saves on 8 Wounds. Not likely to happen very often, but the capacity it still there.
Charistoph wrote: Semantics are part of the written word. Every time you read you are operating under semantics. Look up the definition of the term.
Couldn't sound more pretentious if you tried.
It's an outlier and mentioning that it's a nonsensical argument because it is an outlier is not wrong. The fact that it was stated as a potential outcome was done so in order to show that it was something that you might come up against in a game, which is stupidly unlikely and not worth considering.
Could you explain to me what the whole point of your original "note the differences" besserwisser-remark was? It in no way invalidated what I said, all you did was try to show off that you had read a dictionary?
Charistoph wrote: Semantics are part of the written word. Every time you read you are operating under semantics. Look up the definition of the term.
Couldn't sound more pretentious if you tried.
It's an outlier and mentioning that it's a nonsensical argument because it is an outlier is not wrong. The fact that it was stated as a potential outcome was done so in order to show that it was something that you might come up against in a game, which is stupidly unlikely and not worth considering.
Yelling at someone that is recognizing the possibility of something happening when you are only focusing on the probability of something happening is equally pretentious.
It's quite possible the person notes that they are very good at rolling 1s to save their units and they tend to operate in MSU, and plan on continuing that operation. For them, that is more likely than a player who favors larger units operating in higher capacity Transports. A Razorback-nut would have more to worry about here than a Battlewagon-nut, as an example. If the guy is a Razorback runner, and tends to roll 1s more than 5s and 6s, they have every right to be concerned about their Transports being metal death boxes for their units. There are people who operate on the outliers, so please be cognizant of that factor.
Purifier wrote: Could you explain to me what the whole point of your original "note the differences" besserwisser-remark was? It in no way invalidated what I said, all you did was try to show off that you had read a dictionary?
You want to know why I told you to note the differences between potentiality and probability? Because you seemed to have a problem recognizing that difference exists and then proceeded to try and lambast a person for recognizing the differences.
Charistoph wrote: Semantics are part of the written word. Every time you read you are operating under semantics. Look up the definition of the term.
Couldn't sound more pretentious if you tried.
It's an outlier and mentioning that it's a nonsensical argument because it is an outlier is not wrong. The fact that it was stated as a potential outcome was done so in order to show that it was something that you might come up against in a game, which is stupidly unlikely and not worth considering.
Yelling at someone that is recognizing the possibility of something happening when you are only focusing on the probability of something happening is equally pretentious.
It's quite possible the person notes that they are very good at rolling 1s to save their units and they tend to operate in MSU, and plan on continuing that operation. For them, that is more likely than a player who favors larger units operating in higher capacity Transports. A Razorback-nut would have more to worry about here than a Battlewagon-nut, as an example. If the guy is a Razorback runner, and tends to roll 1s more than 5s and 6s, they have every right to be concerned about their Transports being metal death boxes for their units. There are people who operate on the outliers, so please be cognizant of that factor.
Purifier wrote: Could you explain to me what the whole point of your original "note the differences" besserwisser-remark was? It in no way invalidated what I said, all you did was try to show off that you had read a dictionary?
You want to know why I told you to note the differences between potentiality and probability? Because you seemed to have a problem recognizing that difference exists and then proceeded to try and lambast a person for recognizing the differences.
Oh jesus christ, you're trying way too hard. Stop trying to sound smart, it only comes off as pretentious. On top of that, you're just rambling. You're making up differences where there are none. The semantics doesn't change the facts, and people don't "operate on the outliers" like they are some sort of high risk high reward gamblers. The scenario is so unlikely that it can be safely ignored, and you defending it with this kind of rambling is silly in the extreme. I'm done with this.
Purifier wrote: Oh jesus christ, you're trying way too hard. Stop trying to sound smart, it only comes off as pretentious. On top of that, you're just rambling. You're making up differences where there are none. The semantics doesn't change the facts, and people don't "operate on the outliers" like they are some sort of high risk high reward gamblers. The scenario is so unlikely that it can be safely ignored, and you defending it with this kind of rambling is silly in the extreme. I'm done with this.
Not so unlikely that I've seen it happen several times to small units over the years in regards to Armour Saves with the same failure rate as the survivability of a Transport Wreck noted here.
Again, I did say that the smaller the unit, the more likely it is. The probability is still extremely low enough that it is not a significant risk to the unit over-all. It is probably the same risk you have running a unit through Dangerous Terrain. I wouldn't think twice for a large unit at full strength, but I might reconsider it for that Crisis Suit squad which has been whittled down.
Is it panic-worthy? No, nor did I say it was. But then, neither was the comment worth the fit you seem to be throwing regarding this, either.
I know plenty of people, both in store and on forums, who won't consider taking a Gets Hot! Weapon because it has tended to fry their wearers more often than it fried their enemies. Those are the same odds, if not worse, of it happening that what is being discussed here (we don't know if Saves are allowed against the Transport Wreck).
Charistoph wrote: I know plenty of people, both in store and on forums, who won't consider taking a Gets Hot! Weapon because it has tended to fry their wearers more often than it fried their enemies. Those are the same odds, if not worse, of it happening that what is being discussed here (we don't know if Saves are allowed against the Transport Wreck).
No it's not. Your plasma-guy is often worth between 3 and 4 times as much as anyone else in the unit. Plasma weapons by their very nature risk the most valuable guy in the unit. If the rule allowed you to take another victim (next guy picks it up, whatever) those people would feel a lot less hesitant. Here you get to choose who dies.
And we can assume saves are not allowed as the article mentioned "they die" and that it makes it much more dangerous for expensive units.
I will always remember the day a Crimson Fists Terminator Captain deepstruck into my lines, and shot at a thinned unit of ork boyz I had. There were two or three lonely boyz left who charged him, and since he had a chain fist they struck first. Three wounds, and he rolls three ones.
Purifier wrote: No it's not. Your plasma-guy is often worth between 3 and 4 times as much as anyone else in the unit. Plasma weapons by their very nature risk the most valuable guy in the unit. If the rule allowed you to take another victim (next guy picks it up, whatever) those people would feel a lot less hesitant. Here you get to choose who dies.
Assumptions. If you roll all of them dead, you aren't picking and choosing, are you? There are also some units which carry an almost complete collection of Gets Hot! weapons.
Purifier wrote: And we can assume saves are not allowed as the article mentioned "they die" and that it makes it much more dangerous for expensive units.
Still an assumption. These articles say a lot of things which leave out details which become important because they fill in entire picture. Granted, a reasonable assumption, but still a guess a this time. It may be fail the Save and then die, no matter the Wounds. It could also be speaking of the average Transport rider, which tends to be 1W models as well. They weren't quoting the rules, but what are most likely seen.
Not so unlikely that I've seen it happen several times to small units over the years in regards to Armour Saves with the same failure rate as the survivability of a Transport Wreck noted here.
So, you've seen an entire small squad wiped out in a transport wreck or equivalent? I'm going to assume that a "small squad" is 3 models, all failing a 2+ save at once.
The probability that this event happens is 0.00463, or 0.463%.
I'll further assume "several times" means at least 3 times. To give you the benefit of the doubt, i'll say exactly 3.
How many times do you need to see exactly 3 wounds, result in 3 deaths, on 2+ saves? This is the same as the failure rate you mentioned above.
You would need to see this scenario roughly 180 times to fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean. In other words, where you start to see effectively a non-zero chance of this happening. To be precise, the chance of you seeing as described, on 180 attempts, is 0.0015, or about one-fifth of a percent.
Let's assume you see this scenario once per week, wherein exactly 3 wounds are applied to exactly 3 models with 2+ saves. That's 52 times per year. You'd need to play for over 3 years, seeing this once per week, to have a 0.0015 chance to see what you described actually happen.
Not so unlikely that I've seen it happen several times to small units over the years in regards to Armour Saves with the same failure rate as the survivability of a Transport Wreck noted here.
So, you've seen an entire small squad wiped out in a transport wreck or equivalent? I'm going to assume that a "small squad" is 3 models, all failing a 2+ save at once.
The probability that this event happens is 0.00463, or 0.463%.
Five, actually. You may or may have not noticed I mentioned 5-man Terminator Squads several times? And it was just Wounds from Shooting, not anything from a Transport Wreck.
Marmatag wrote: I'll further assume "several times" means at least 3 times. To give you the benefit of the doubt, i'll say exactly 3.
How many times do you need to see exactly 3 wounds, result in 3 deaths, on 2+ saves? This is the same as the failure rate you mentioned above.
You would need to see this scenario roughly 180 times to fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean. In other words, where you start to see effectively a non-zero chance of this happening. To be precise, the chance of you seeing as described, on 180 attempts, is 0.0015, or about one-fifth of a percent.
Let's assume you see this scenario once per week, wherein exactly 3 wounds are applied to exactly 3 models with 2+ saves. That's 52 times per year. You'd need to play for over 3 years, seeing this once per week, to have a 0.0015 chance to see what you described actually happen.
Sadly, I don't get down to the store to see that many games as often as I'd like, but I have seen that happen over the last 8 years about 3 times.
So, the potential is there, but the odds are sufficiently against it that it is worth the general risk.
Five, actually. You may or may have not noticed I mentioned 5-man Terminator Squads several times? And it was just Wounds from Shooting, not anything from a Transport Wreck.
Again, given that this is a one in 7700 chance, its perfectly acceptable that its a possbility. In fact, if it happens you'r reaction should probably be this
I have to tune in here. Dice games use dice for simulation, but also for unexpected events. My ork warbikers couldn't cross an obstacle without someone dieing badly. My opponents previous summer made a last effort tactic to have my nobzbikerz crash and burn by forcing 2 over dangerous terrain. Of course it paid off.
In AoS my chaos waralter is traumatized by deadly terrain. Both times it has tried crossing such it died. As one can't statistically be that unfortunate I merrily crossed same terrain with another important piece, and duly removed it to the casualty box. But hey, it was fair enough, the warshrine is held together by bluetac, and fell apart a few times on the battlefield. If it shouldn't do it while in deadly terrain then when?
Hey, when I showed my buddy 40k back in 2nd, the dice thought I should play fair and not trounce him, so my hellhound flamethrower rolled 4 x 1 when toasting his marines.
Sometimes dice do not abide by statistics (unless rolled in large sums).
davou wrote: Again, given that this is a one in 7700 chance, its perfectly acceptable that its a possbility. In fact, if it happens you'r reaction should probably be this
More a sympathetic, "Oh, man!" for the person who was losing the unit.
davou wrote: Again, given that this is a one in 7700 chance, its perfectly acceptable that its a possbility. In fact, if it happens you'r reaction should probably be this
More a sympathetic, "Oh, man!" for the person who was losing the unit.
More like both.
You can lose a Riptide to a single volley of Bolters afterall. That's why we look at the odds of said events happening.
Marmatag wrote: It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.
And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.
Just because one recognizes the possibility does not mean one do not recognize the probability. I would be concerned over a Terminator Captain in a Land Raider on its last few Wounds, especially if it is RFP without Saves. I would not be concerned over my Assault Crusader Squad in a Land Raider Crusader in similar straits.
Gloomfang wrote: Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?
Most of the concern is the, erm, unplanned-for-feels-bad-randomness. You buy a guy a plasma gun and you are accepting he's probably going to fry himself every once in awhile. The issue is that now we have to wrap our heads around the fact that putting something into a transport might mean it never comes out again....and that's okay, ordinance used to happen before as well.
The annoying issue is seeing Draigo/Calgar/Logan Grimnar/250+ point uber lord getting squished through 3+ wounds, 2+ save and an invulnerable while billy the boltgunner walks out unscathed. Feels bad man.
Marmatag wrote: It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.
And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.
And people also exaggerate their claims.
Over time, probability becomes reality. And, we're talking over time, not an isolated case.
Seeing this exact scenario - 5 wounds resulting in 5 failed 2+ saves - happen 3 times - is a statistical improbability.
If you saw someone take exactly 5 saves on 2+ save models, once per week, after 100 years, seeing this happen "several times" would still fall outside 3 standard deviations from the mean.
In reality you'd need to get a little bit closer to 400 years worth of games to see it 3 times with some measure of certainty.
Does it make people feel better if we say that on a roll of '1' the mighty character is pinned inside...the GIGANTIC armoured vehicle and simply misses out on the rest of the game - and is subsequently rescued afterwards?
They're not dead...they're hiding. In 2nd ed. most of the devastating results killed every single model inside or, frequently, killed each model on a 4+ regardless of what it was. Just a chance you took. No big deal.
Marmatag wrote: It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.
And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.
Just because one recognizes the possibility does not mean one do not recognize the probability. I would be concerned over a Terminator Captain in a Land Raider on its last few Wounds, especially if it is RFP without Saves. I would not be concerned over my Assault Crusader Squad in a Land Raider Crusader in similar straits.
Reality also obeys mathematical laws. There are no people that roll more 1's in the long run than I roll 4's 5's and 6's. It just SEEMS like it because our brains are very defective when it comes to memory recall.
Plasma on a marine is worth the risk. On a guardsmen? Probably not in 7th due to the cost of the weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Does it make people feel better if we say that on a roll of '1' the mighty character is pinned inside...the GIGANTIC armoured vehicle and simply misses out on the rest of the game - and is subsequently rescued afterwards?
They're not dead...they're hiding. In 2nd ed. most of the devastating results killed every single model inside or, frequently, killed each model on a 4+ regardless of what it was. Just a chance you took. No big deal.
THat's why no one used transports in 2nd where I played. It wasn't worth the risk.
Waaargh wrote: Then it sure sucks I failed all four 2+ to wound rolls on my buddies assault marines in his intro game back in 2nd. Stuff happens, sometimes.
Failing 4 2+ rolls is far more likely than failing 5. In fact, it's 6 times as likely.
In any case, there are a lot of factors that can affect a dice's outcome.
Are they chipped?
Have they been altered?
Are they made of low quality plastics, and exposed to extreme environmental conditions?
For example, I saw someone who had a dice where he drew a third dot in between the two dots on the "2" side of his dice. Rolling it with a bulk of dice you'd never know.
Depending on how someone rolls dice, you can file down some of the edges to make certain numbers more likely.
A good rule of thumb is to "roll with vigor" rather than letting them fall out of your hand. If you let them just "fall out," it's likely they will turn over only once. So with 1's faced up, you'll be more likely to get 6's as results, and vice versa.
Probabilities take into account a controlled environment where each outcome is equally likely. Environmental factors can't be considered. But if you're *seriously* seeing 4/4 1's or 5/5 1's with some regularity - i would suggest replacing your dice, with casino dice.
Marmatag wrote: It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.
And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.
And people also exaggerate their claims.
I wasn't exaggerating mine.
Marmatag wrote:Over time, probability becomes reality. And, we're talking over time, not an isolated case.
Seeing this exact scenario - 5 wounds resulting in 5 failed 2+ saves - happen 3 times - is a statistical improbability.
If you saw someone take exactly 5 saves on 2+ save models, once per week, after 100 years, seeing this happen "several times" would still fall outside 3 standard deviations from the mean.
In reality you'd need to get a little bit closer to 400 years worth of games to see it 3 times with some measure of certainty.
Probability is about certainty, not possibility. A 1 in a million chance is still a chance.
In 8th Edition, a lasgun CAN remove a Wound from any model; this is possibility. The better the Toughness and Save of a model, the probability and certainty of removing that Wound becomes smaller and smaller. It is possible, but not probable.
In 7th Edition, a lasgun CANNOT remove a Hull Point from even a Trukk because 9 < 10. It is neither possible nor probable.
Even then, reality doesn't always care for probability. Probability is too cold, and your math is too reliant on set, controlled factors. As you noted in your following post, there are more factors that involve themselves in the situation that just the probability of that specific situation. You also need to consider that for that person who is rolling his Saves, there are people rolling dice in craps, on board games across the world, as well as for other games. Those 770,000 rolls it might take to reach that goal could be accomplished within that week if we just take all the rolls of this world in consideration to the point that some poor schmuck ends up getting the outliers every week.
Just out of curiosity, how many dice rolls you yourself do in your average 40K game?
Martel732 wrote:Reality also obeys mathematical laws. There are no people that roll more 1's in the long run than I roll 4's 5's and 6's. It just SEEMS like it because our brains are very defective when it comes to memory recall.
Plasma on a marine is worth the risk. On a guardsmen? Probably not in 7th due to the cost of the weapon.
Right, I am talking about the difference between possibility and probability, and I'm getting people trying to argue that they are one and the same. The point was that they are not.
Even then, mathematics is just humanity's way of trying to define what we see in the world, and there are more factors to take in to account than just the equal chance of a die rolling up. Marmatag demonstrates some of them below, but there is also the simple fact that probability works better with larger numbers than with single persons, and there are a huge number of procedures that are operated on this factor every hour.
As you yourself point out here, and as I've stated several times now, risk is taking a chance against probability. A Trukk doing a drive-by against a Conscript Squad is not taking a risk from them in 7th, but it is a risk (no matter how small) in 8th.
Marmatag wrote:Failing 4 2+ rolls is far more likely than failing 5. In fact, it's 6 times as likely.
In any case, there are a lot of factors that can affect a dice's outcome.
Are they chipped?
Have they been altered?
Are they made of low quality plastics, and exposed to extreme environmental conditions?
For example, I saw someone who had a dice where he drew a third dot in between the two dots on the "2" side of his dice. Rolling it with a bulk of dice you'd never know.
Depending on how someone rolls dice, you can file down some of the edges to make certain numbers more likely.
A good rule of thumb is to "roll with vigor" rather than letting them fall out of your hand. If you let them just "fall out," it's likely they will turn over only once. So with 1's faced up, you'll be more likely to get 6's as results, and vice versa.
All very good points to remember when considering your probability curves which don't take those things in to account.
Marmatag wrote:Probabilities take into account a controlled environment where each outcome is equally likely. Environmental factors can't be considered. But if you're *seriously* seeing 4/4 1's or 5/5 1's with some regularity - i would suggest replacing your dice, with casino dice.
Very true, and you were trying to suggest that we only consider things in that controlled environment. And yes, I would agree that if I was getting those results, some dice would soon be smashed or burning as well.
Marmatag wrote: It's super unlikely. The probability of 1/7700 would take some years for you to see this once.
And reality likes to kick probability in the nads and run off whooping. There are some people who get stuck in the outlier of the bell curves and tend to roll more 1's then other people roll 4's, 5's, and 6's. They are recognizing how probability doesn't seem to be so neat and clean in their lives as in the math.
And people also exaggerate their claims.
I wasn't exaggerating mine.
Marmatag wrote:Over time, probability becomes reality. And, we're talking over time, not an isolated case.
Seeing this exact scenario - 5 wounds resulting in 5 failed 2+ saves - happen 3 times - is a statistical improbability.
If you saw someone take exactly 5 saves on 2+ save models, once per week, after 100 years, seeing this happen "several times" would still fall outside 3 standard deviations from the mean.
In reality you'd need to get a little bit closer to 400 years worth of games to see it 3 times with some measure of certainty.
Probability is about certainty, not possibility. A 1 in a million chance is still a chance.
In 8th Edition, a lasgun CAN remove a Wound from any model; this is possibility. The better the Toughness and Save of a model, the probability and certainty of removing that Wound becomes smaller and smaller. It is possible, but not probable.
In 7th Edition, a lasgun CANNOT remove a Hull Point from even a Trukk because 9 < 10. It is neither possible nor probable.
Even then, reality doesn't always care for probability. Probability is too cold, and your math is too reliant on set, controlled factors. As you noted in your following post, there are more factors that involve themselves in the situation that just the probability of that specific situation. You also need to consider that for that person who is rolling his Saves, there are people rolling dice in craps, on board games across the world, as well as for other games. Those 770,000 rolls it might take to reach that goal could be accomplished within that week if we just take all the rolls of this world in consideration to the point that some poor schmuck ends up getting the outliers every week.
Just out of curiosity, how many dice rolls you yourself do in your average 40K game?
What you are claiming to have seen falls outside of any meaningful confidence interval. Your argument about the dice being rolled all over the world is actually irrelevant. The fact that people are rolling dice in Nebraska has no bearing on the results of your dice rolls. It's not about "reaching a goal," the fact that each dice roll has the same probability is what creates the distribution.
And it's not about the number of dice rolls in a game. You created a very *specific* scenario, saying you saw that exact thing happen several times, in a few years. So it's how often *that scenario* comes up. What you're describing is too unlikely. Unless your dice are fixed or damaged. That was my point about the dice quality affecting outcomes.
Even then, mathematics is just humanity's way of trying to define what we see in the world, and there are more factors to take in to account than just the equal chance of a die rolling up.
I disagree here. Much of math is spent extrapolating what is seen in 2 & 3 dimensional space to N-dimensional space, in fact what we'll never seen in the world. In fact there are huge portions of mathematics that deal with things that should be impossible and yet product real, possible results. Over sufficient time/trials, probability will become reality. This kind of thinking is echoed across all kinds of math - the idea of a limit, or closeness, or equivalent.
Right, I am talking about the difference between possibility and probability, and I'm getting people trying to argue that they are one and the same. The point was that they are not.
No one is arguing this. You seem to be repeating this point, but it has literally 0 bearing on what we're discussing, and no one disagrees with the distinction between possibility and probability. I don't *care* if it's theoretically possible for me to get struck by lightning. It's not something i consider.
Marmatag wrote: What you are claiming to have seen falls outside of any meaningful confidence interval. Your argument about the dice being rolled all over the world is actually irrelevant. The fact that people are rolling dice in Nebraska has no bearing on the results of your dice rolls. It's not about "reaching a goal," the fact that each dice roll has the same probability is what creates the distribution.
All the dice being rolled around the world is as equally relevant as a single person rolling them at the same time.
Marmatag wrote: And it's not about the number of dice rolls in a game. You created a very *specific* scenario, saying you saw that exact thing happen several times, in a few years. So it's how often *that scenario* comes up. What you're describing is too unlikely. Unless your dice are fixed or damaged. That was my point about the dice quality affecting outcomes.
But then you insist we ignore those same quality affecting factors in this premise. I didn't see it happening with the same person, or even to myself. I saw it happen to three separate people over the last 8 years. I don't know how many dice they have thrown over the years. It can happen at any time because each of those dice have that chance to roll that single divot.
They weren't even all the same exact scenario, either. They weren't throwing 5 dice each. For one it was 8 dice, and 5 1s popped up. For another, it was 6 dice, and so on. That bit of datum throws off your calculations because they are not the same exact scenario.
To be fair, I have not seen a 5 man Terminator unit die from an exploding Land Raider. Furthermore, I think I've seen a Land Raider actually Explode once, maybe twice, in that same amount of time. Will the same odds of surviving that Land Raider Explosion be the same as surviving an 8th Edition Land Raider wreck? We don't know yet. Armour Saves have been allowed for it for some time now, so it may still be a factor.
Even then, mathematics is just humanity's way of trying to define what we see in the world, and there are more factors to take in to account than just the equal chance of a die rolling up.
I disagree here. Much of math is spent extrapolating what is seen in 2 & 3 dimensional space to N-dimensional space, in fact what we'll never seen in the world. In fact there are huge portions of mathematics that deal with things that should be impossible and yet product real, possible results. Over sufficient time/trials, probability will become reality. This kind of thinking is echoed across all kinds of math - the idea of a limit, or closeness, or equivalent.
As I said, it is humanity's attempt to define it. I didn't say how good it was. In actually reality, all it takes is once for a possibility to happen, and no matter how remote the probability, it can still happen on the first attempt.
Right, I am talking about the difference between possibility and probability, and I'm getting people trying to argue that they are one and the same. The point was that they are not.
No one is arguing this. You seem to be repeating this point, but it has literally 0 bearing on what we're discussing, and no one disagrees with the distinction between possibility and probability. I don't *care* if it's theoretically possible for me to get struck by lightning. It's not something i consider.
It all started with a comment about something potentially happening, and someone going off about how it probably won't happen. I simply stated that, he had a point that it COULD happen. I have even stated several times that in many cases, I would plan my actions on it not happening due to it being a low chance, but all that was being ignored over controlled environment math rants.
If all I'm saying is that there is a chance it may happen, and you keep throwing statistics at me, it is showing me that you think that probability and possibility are one and the same. Reality doesn't actually work in the controlled environment that you insist we calculate by. You named numerous factors which could contribute to it actually happening, but continue to ignore its influence.
Dice rolls, in their very nature, are wonderful statistical studies when compared to a card game. There are a finite number of a type of card available until you recycle the deck. Dice results are recycled every single time you pick them up. The factors which contribute to a dice roll are far more than the number of faces. As you stated there is the force of the roll, the environment the roll is being performed on, the stability of the dice, the direction the dice were facing when the roll began and when it contacted the surface, and so on. That's why we actually throw the dice instead of just going by the statistics. They can make us howl for joy or howl in frustration because that is reality.
Marmatag wrote: What you are claiming to have seen falls outside of any meaningful confidence interval. Your argument about the dice being rolled all over the world is actually irrelevant. The fact that people are rolling dice in Nebraska has no bearing on the results of your dice rolls. It's not about "reaching a goal," the fact that each dice roll has the same probability is what creates the distribution.
All the dice being rolled around the world is as equally relevant as a single person rolling them at the same time.
Yes, but all the dice being rolled in the world doesn't alter your specific chances to produce any specific result. If i flip a coin and get heads 3 times in a row, that doesn't alter (a) the probability that my 4th flip is heads, or (b) the probability that your next flip is heads. Now, if you look at each individual flip, each one has a 50/50 chance. BUT, if you look at the events *as a group,* that's where you get diminished chances. Dependent vs independent trials.
Marmatag wrote: And it's not about the number of dice rolls in a game. You created a very *specific* scenario, saying you saw that exact thing happen several times, in a few years. So it's how often *that scenario* comes up. What you're describing is too unlikely. Unless your dice are fixed or damaged. That was my point about the dice quality affecting outcomes.
But then you insist we ignore those same quality affecting factors in this premise. I didn't see it happening with the same person, or even to myself. I saw it happen to three separate people over the last 8 years. I don't know how many dice they have thrown over the years. It can happen at any time because each of those dice have that chance to roll that single divot.
They weren't even all the same exact scenario, either. They weren't throwing 5 dice each. For one it was 8 dice, and 5 1s popped up. For another, it was 6 dice, and so on. That bit of datum throws off your calculations because they are not the same exact scenario.
To be fair, I have not seen a 5 man Terminator unit die from an exploding Land Raider. Furthermore, I think I've seen a Land Raider actually Explode once, maybe twice, in that same amount of time. Will the same odds of surviving that Land Raider Explosion be the same as surviving an 8th Edition Land Raider wreck? We don't know yet. Armour Saves have been allowed for it for some time now, so it may still be a factor.
Thank you - this is what i was driving at. Rolling 8 dice and seeing 5 1's is far more likely than rolling *exactly* 5 dice and seeing *exactly* 5 1's come up. It is over thirty times more likely to see 5 1's in 8 dice than 5 1's in 5 dice. I personally rolled 4 ones in 8 dice rolls last weekend. My Brother Captain with a Daemon Hammer ate it before he got to swing. Boy was i upset.
Even then, mathematics is just humanity's way of trying to define what we see in the world, and there are more factors to take in to account than just the equal chance of a die rolling up.
I disagree here. Much of math is spent extrapolating what is seen in 2 & 3 dimensional space to N-dimensional space, in fact what we'll never seen in the world. In fact there are huge portions of mathematics that deal with things that should be impossible and yet product real, possible results. Over sufficient time/trials, probability will become reality. This kind of thinking is echoed across all kinds of math - the idea of a limit, or closeness, or equivalent.
As I said, it is humanity's attempt to define it. I didn't say how good it was. In actually reality, all it takes is once for a possibility to happen, and no matter how remote the probability, it can still happen on the first attempt.
Yes, this is true. What you've been touching on is the distinction between probability 0 and impossible. Something can have a probability of 0 but still be possible. For instance, if I hid a coffee cup in a 1'x1' block somewhere in the entire milky way galaxy and asked you to find it choosing once, randomly, it's possible, but the probability of you succeeding is 0.
Right, I am talking about the difference between possibility and probability, and I'm getting people trying to argue that they are one and the same. The point was that they are not.
No one is arguing this. You seem to be repeating this point, but it has literally 0 bearing on what we're discussing, and no one disagrees with the distinction between possibility and probability. I don't *care* if it's theoretically possible for me to get struck by lightning. It's not something i consider.
It all started with a comment about something potentially happening, and someone going off about how it probably won't happen. I simply stated that, he had a point that it COULD happen. I have even stated several times that in many cases, I would plan my actions on it not happening due to it being a low chance, but all that was being ignored over controlled environment math rants.
If all I'm saying is that there is a chance it may happen, and you keep throwing statistics at me, it is showing me that you think that probability and possibility are one and the same. Reality doesn't actually work in the controlled environment that you insist we calculate by. You named numerous factors which could contribute to it actually happening, but continue to ignore its influence.
Dice rolls, in their very nature, are wonderful statistical studies when compared to a card game. There are a finite number of a type of card available until you recycle the deck. Dice results are recycled every single time you pick them up. The factors which contribute to a dice roll are far more than the number of faces. As you stated there is the force of the roll, the environment the roll is being performed on, the stability of the dice, the direction the dice were facing when the roll began and when it contacted the surface, and so on. That's why we actually throw the dice instead of just going by the statistics. They can make us howl for joy or howl in frustration because that is reality.
Probability is how we quantify risk in this game. I could say a land raider is "at risk" to taking damage from a Grot. I could say a Grot is at risk to take damage from another Grot. What's missing from these two true statements is quantifying the risk. It is more precise to establish a numerical risk of these events and consider them in that regard.
Marmatag wrote: Yes, but all the dice being rolled in the world doesn't alter your specific chances to produce any specific result. If i flip a coin and get heads 3 times in a row, that doesn't alter (a) the probability that my 4th flip is heads, or (b) the probability that your next flip is heads. Now, if you look at each individual flip, each one has a 50/50 chance. BUT, if you look at the events *as a group,* that's where you get diminished chances. Dependent vs independent trials.
Yet you were saying it would require years and years for this result to occur. So, why should I look at one individual's grouping alone when there are other groupings happening at the same time?
Marmatag wrote: Thank you - this is what i was driving at. Rolling 8 dice and seeing 5 1's is far more likely than rolling *exactly* 5 dice and seeing *exactly* 5 1's come up. It is over thirty times more likely to see 5 1's in 8 dice than 5 1's in 5 dice. I personally rolled 4 ones in 8 dice rolls last weekend. My Brother Captain with a Daemon Hammer ate it before he got to swing. Boy was i upset.
Sounds more like you weren't paying attention or making assumptions.
Realistically speaking, the odds of 5 dice showing up as 1s is exactly the same no matter how many dice you throw. The only difference is that you are providing more events to the situation, i.e. rolling 10 dice means you are rolling those 5 dice twice in one event. The only time you reduce the odds of 5 dice showing up as 1s to null is if you are rolling 4 dice or less.
Marmatag wrote: Yes, this is true. What you've been touching on is the distinction between probability 0 and impossible. Something can have a probability of 0 but still be possible. For instance, if I hid a coffee cup in a 1'x1' block somewhere in the entire milky way galaxy and asked you to find it choosing once, randomly, it's possible, but the probability of you succeeding is 0.
No, Probability zero is impossible. You are conflating a 7.2 x10 to the -10 chance to being zero. Also known as rounding and taking the rounded number as your final determination. If you're going to be so technical as to go through all the math, you shouldn't be so technical as to ignore even low odds just to prove a point.
Marmatag wrote: Probability is how we quantify risk in this game. I could say a land raider is "at risk" to taking damage from a Grot. I could say a Grot is at risk to take damage from another Grot. What's missing from these two true statements is quantifying the risk. It is more precise to establish a numerical risk of these events and consider them in that regard.
Which is something I have stated and you seemed to have repeatedly ignored, even from that last post. And if you are looking for precision, do not call a 0.000000000072% chance as zero. It goes counter to precision to make such a blanket statement. The lower the risk/probability, the more confident one can be in making certain decisions. If the guy is worried about the potential of a 5-man unit dying to a Vehicle Wreck, you can tell him not to worry so much as it is unlikely to happen. It doesn't do anything to remove the possibility, but it can go far in removing the anxiety and indecision that a person may be suffering.
I think its gotten convoluted enough that the probability arguments merit their own thread. This one about transports has almost completely lost its..... Track
Marmatag wrote: Yes, but all the dice being rolled in the world doesn't alter your specific chances to produce any specific result. If i flip a coin and get heads 3 times in a row, that doesn't alter (a) the probability that my 4th flip is heads, or (b) the probability that your next flip is heads. Now, if you look at each individual flip, each one has a 50/50 chance. BUT, if you look at the events *as a group,* that's where you get diminished chances. Dependent vs independent trials.
Yet you were saying it would require years and years for this result to occur. So, why should I look at one individual's grouping alone when there are other groupings happening at the same time?
Because the number of trials has a bearing on the number of successes when you view the population as a whole, but each trial is independent. You can increase the likelihood of an event by increasing the trials, but that doesn't make your individual success chance increase.
Marmatag wrote: Thank you - this is what i was driving at. Rolling 8 dice and seeing 5 1's is far more likely than rolling *exactly* 5 dice and seeing *exactly* 5 1's come up. It is over thirty times more likely to see 5 1's in 8 dice than 5 1's in 5 dice. I personally rolled 4 ones in 8 dice rolls last weekend. My Brother Captain with a Daemon Hammer ate it before he got to swing. Boy was i upset.
Sounds more like you weren't paying attention or making assumptions.
Realistically speaking, the odds of 5 dice showing up as 1s is exactly the same no matter how many dice you throw. The only difference is that you are providing more events to the situation, i.e. rolling 10 dice means you are rolling those 5 dice twice in one event. The only time you reduce the odds of 5 dice showing up as 1s to null is if you are rolling 4 dice or less.
What you stated in bold is actually 100% false. This is where there is a disconnect, i think. I don't know how else to put it, you're not correct. I think we've beat this topic to death. If you'd like to see a detailed explanation of how this works PM me, i would be happy to share. How you word a probability problem dramatically changes its outcome.
Marmatag wrote: Yes, this is true. What you've been touching on is the distinction between probability 0 and impossible. Something can have a probability of 0 but still be possible. For instance, if I hid a coffee cup in a 1'x1' block somewhere in the entire milky way galaxy and asked you to find it choosing once, randomly, it's possible, but the probability of you succeeding is 0.
No, Probability zero is impossible. You are conflating a 7.2 x10 to the -10 chance to being zero. Also known as rounding and taking the rounded number as your final determination. If you're going to be so technical as to go through all the math, you shouldn't be so technical as to ignore even low odds just to prove a point.
Probability 0 is not impossible, they are two different things. Pick a number at random from an uncountably infinite set. What's the probability you chose right? is it 0, or impossible? Math is about details. You're not appreciating them. And again, i'm not saying anything of the trials we've spoken about are probability 0. It's just an argument you seem hell bent on making when no one is even arguing it, and you're making it poorly.
I'm dipping out. We've gone in circles on this one. My end conclusion is the same: Transports killing the units they carry is a risk i am comfortable taking, and I feel confident in this after quantifying the risk.
Gloomfang wrote: Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?
Most of the concern is the, erm, unplanned-for-feels-bad-randomness. You buy a guy a plasma gun and you are accepting he's probably going to fry himself every once in awhile. The issue is that now we have to wrap our heads around the fact that putting something into a transport might mean it never comes out again....and that's okay, ordinance used to happen before as well.
The annoying issue is seeing Draigo/Calgar/Logan Grimnar/250+ point uber lord getting squished through 3+ wounds, 2+ save and an invulnerable while billy the boltgunner walks out unscathed. Feels bad man.
What's interesting is that people take issue with the randomness of model death from a wrecked vehicle, but they aren't taking into consideration the flip-side, which is that the vehicle death itself is much more predictable and consistent then before.
Yeah it will suck if your 300 point wolf-lord spontaneously combusts inside his land raider, but on the other hand your land raider ISN'T going to spontaneously combust. Gone are the days when a lucky 6 on the damage chart pops your vehicle like confetti. You know exactly how many wounds your vehicle has, and it's easy to guesstimate how much damage your opponent's shooting can do to it each turn.
So when your 20 wound land raider gets reduced to its last five wounds, you can have your units inside just... get... out, of the land raider? Sure, you're fethed if the vehicle is brought to within an inch of death while still in your deployment zone, but them's the breaks.
Marmatag wrote: Because the number of trials has a bearing on the number of successes when you view the population as a whole, but each trial is independent. You can increase the likelihood of an event by increasing the trials, but that doesn't make your individual success chance increase.
We are still discussing the number of trials under observation overall, though.
Marmatag wrote: What you stated in bold is actually 100% false. This is where there is a disconnect, i think. I don't know how else to put it, you're not correct. I think we've beat this topic to death. If you'd like to see a detailed explanation of how this works PM me, i would be happy to share. How you word a probability problem dramatically changes its outcome.
Sure its false if you exclude what came after it. If you are rolling 10 dice, you are rolling 2 sets of 5 dice at the same time. It goes back to the situation in the above. By increasing the number of dice, you are increasing the number of trials that are occurring.
But I guess that is too painful a concept to set up in your controlled environment.
Marmatag wrote: Probability 0 is not impossible, they are two different things. Pick a number at random from an uncountably infinite set. What's the probability you chose right? is it 0, or impossible? Math is about details. You're not appreciating them. And again, i'm not saying anything of the trials we've spoken about are probability 0. It's just an argument you seem hell bent on making when no one is even arguing it, and you're making it poorly.
What is zero? In mathematical terms it is the balance point between positive and negative in which nothing exists. If I have an apple core in my hand, the phrase, "I do not have any apples" would only be accurate if one is assuming "I do not have any apples worth eating." You talked several times about precision, but insist on me accepting this lack of precision from yourself.
If you are speaking of "probability 0" in terms of a statistical concept, maybe you should do a better job of referencing it. Not everyone wants to take, needs to take, or has taken statistical courses in college.
If no one is even arguing about it, why are you are arguing about it? Someone was lambasting a person who recognized the possibility of something happening, and I merely was pointing that it was possible, even if it wasn't likely. You came in trying to convince me that a sufficiently low probability equals no possibility. If I have 5 dice, each one of them has a chance to be rolled as a 1. That's possibility. Probability tells me that I'm more likely to only have a single 1, if any. Historical analysis tells me that I am more likely to be rolling 3s and 4s more than 1s and 6s. It made it very frustrating playing Aggravation and Risk with my family when I was younger.
Marmatag wrote: My end conclusion is the same: Transports killing the units they carry is a risk i am comfortable taking, and I feel confident in this after quantifying the risk.
Gloomfang wrote: Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?
Most of the concern is the, erm, unplanned-for-feels-bad-randomness. You buy a guy a plasma gun and you are accepting he's probably going to fry himself every once in awhile. The issue is that now we have to wrap our heads around the fact that putting something into a transport might mean it never comes out again....and that's okay, ordinance used to happen before as well.
The annoying issue is seeing Draigo/Calgar/Logan Grimnar/250+ point uber lord getting squished through 3+ wounds, 2+ save and an invulnerable while billy the boltgunner walks out unscathed. Feels bad man.
I'm willing to bet that characters will have some kind of exemption from this rule.
Gloomfang wrote: Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?
Most of the concern is the, erm, unplanned-for-feels-bad-randomness. You buy a guy a plasma gun and you are accepting he's probably going to fry himself every once in awhile. The issue is that now we have to wrap our heads around the fact that putting something into a transport might mean it never comes out again....and that's okay, ordinance used to happen before as well.
The annoying issue is seeing Draigo/Calgar/Logan Grimnar/250+ point uber lord getting squished through 3+ wounds, 2+ save and an invulnerable while billy the boltgunner walks out unscathed. Feels bad man.
I'm willing to bet that characters will have some kind of exemption from this rule.
I could see something similer to eternal warrior being baked into the rules for characters
Gloomfang wrote: Was okay to risk the plasma Marines firing their weapon with gets hot but it's not acceptable to risk them because they transport might get blown up?
Most of the concern is the, erm, unplanned-for-feels-bad-randomness. You buy a guy a plasma gun and you are accepting he's probably going to fry himself every once in awhile. The issue is that now we have to wrap our heads around the fact that putting something into a transport might mean it never comes out again....and that's okay, ordinance used to happen before as well.
The annoying issue is seeing Draigo/Calgar/Logan Grimnar/250+ point uber lord getting squished through 3+ wounds, 2+ save and an invulnerable while billy the boltgunner walks out unscathed. Feels bad man.
I'm willing to bet that characters will have some kind of exemption from this rule.
I could see something similer to eternal warrior being baked into the rules for characters
Just don't put them on a transport by themselves. If you have a unit with them, it'll soak the deaths.
The new transport rules seem really counter-intuitive.
Let's say I've got a unit of Incubi. They're slow buggers, so I'll put them on a Raider to help them get into combat.
"Okay, turn 2, I'll Move my Raider forward and then disembark my Incubi."
"You can't - their transport moved this turn."
"What?"
"Units can't disembark if their transport moves."
"But that's it's whole function! It's a *transport*. It has literally one job - to move units around the battlefield."
"Them's the rules."
"So, if I want move my Incubi, I first have to get them out of their transport and then have them walk up the battlefield. At which point my now-empty transport can move, the driver giving them a friendly wave as he passes them."
"Yep. Don't worry though - you can also assault units directly with your transport."
"Ah, that's more like it. Okay, I'll assault your marine squad with my Incubi Raider."
"Okay. Now the units inside it get to shoot me."
"Wait, what? You mean they can't attack you with melee weapons?"
"Nope."
"And they can't get out to join the combat either?"
"Nope."
"So, the benefit of assaulting a unit with a vehicle is that I can fire the unit's *guns* at it."
"Yep."
"The same guns they could have fired anyway, had I not bothered charging?"
"Those are the ones."
"Well, I sure am glad that my melee unit can do bugger all when their transport is in melee, whilst my shooting units can blaze away both in melee and at a distance. I'm also super glad that I have these great transports to help get my Incubi to combat. Imagine if they had to walk up the battlefield or stand gormlessly around on top of a transport that's sitting right in the midst of their enemies."
It's a little awkward, but I think it just depends on how much distance you need to cover.
Because basically the situation is that transports are really fast, but you basically have to sacrifice a turn to disembark (ie turn 1: move, turn 2: disembark).
So, if the enemy is only about 12-14" away, it'd be faster to just walk forward 6-8" and then charge 6".
But if the enemy is 24" away or more, spending a turn to disembark from a transport might be worth it. Instead of spending three turns moving before you finally charge, you spend the first turn moving 12" with the transport, then on the second turn you disembark 3" forward, move 6", then charge. In that situation, the transport did indeed save you time.
If you're in a larger play area like a 9x5/8x4 board our an apocalypse game, transports are even more worth it if you're 48" away or more. Because you can spend a couple turns covering lots of ground in the transports, at the cost of having to sacrifice one turn to disembarking at the end.
Because basically the situation is that transports are really fast, but you basically have to sacrifice a turn to disembark (ie turn 1: move, turn 2: disembark).
And the enemy then have a turn to move away and shoot your transport.
ross-128 wrote: Because basically the situation is that transports are really fast, but you basically have to sacrifice a turn to disembark (ie turn 1: move, turn 2: disembark).
But in doing so, they've removed the entire point of open-top transports like the Raider and Trukk.
Also, surely transports being fast is the whole point of using them in the first place? If they weren't fast, you'd just walk the damn infantry.
Because basically the situation is that transports are really fast, but you basically have to sacrifice a turn to disembark (ie turn 1: move, turn 2: disembark).
And the enemy then have a turn to move away and shoot your transport.
ross-128 wrote: Because basically the situation is that transports are really fast, but you basically have to sacrifice a turn to disembark (ie turn 1: move, turn 2: disembark).
But in doing so, they've removed the entire point of open-top transports like the Raider and Trukk.
Also, surely transports being fast is the whole point of using them in the first place? If they weren't fast, you'd just walk the damn infantry.
Open topped is useful because you get to shoot out of the thing. And you're not really thinking about the flipside of if you could disembark after moving, which is that every unit in a transport would get a first turn charge every turn on anything within 30ish inches.
Secondly you are REALLY underestimating the value of controlling your opponent's turn. Forcing him to shoot at what you want him to shoot at and move where you want him to move is very powerful.
ERJAK wrote: Open topped is useful because you get to shoot out of the thing.
Oh wonderful. I'm pleased to hear that my Incubi will be able to shoot their nonexistant guns.
ERJAK wrote: And you're not really thinking about the flipside of if you could disembark after moving, which is that every unit in a transport would get a first turn charge every turn on anything within 30ish inches.
I didn't say that it should be for every transport - just the open-topped ones. Do you seriously see nothing wrong with it being just as hard to assault out of a Trukk as it is to assault out of a Rhino?
Also, they could have done something like 5th - where the unit can disembark a couple of inches from the vehicle but can't move any further themselves. Or they could say that units can disembark and move if the transport moves half it's maximum move.
ERJAK wrote: Secondly you are REALLY underestimating the value of controlling your opponent's turn. Forcing him to shoot at what you want him to shoot at and move where you want him to move is very powerful.
And you're REALLY overestimating the appeal of melee units that get completely screwed by the transport rules, compared to melee units that either don't need transports (because they have bikes or such) or else just using shooting units that get an actual benefit from open-top vehicles.
Because basically the situation is that transports are really fast, but you basically have to sacrifice a turn to disembark (ie turn 1: move, turn 2: disembark).
And the enemy then have a turn to move away and shoot your transport.
ross-128 wrote: Because basically the situation is that transports are really fast, but you basically have to sacrifice a turn to disembark (ie turn 1: move, turn 2: disembark).
But in doing so, they've removed the entire point of open-top transports like the Raider and Trukk.
Also, surely transports being fast is the whole point of using them in the first place? If they weren't fast, you'd just walk the damn infantry.
It's still saving you a turn or two in any situation where you're more than two moves away from your target. And if they do blow up the transport, well now they've disembarked those models for you (minus any 1s they rolled on their rapid unscheduled disembarkment). It seems to be a common theme on this forum that people mistake "situational" for "useless". Your units aren't locked in or out of their transports, just take a look at the deployment zones and enemy deployment before you decide whether to deploy embarked or on foot.
You could also attack in two waves: the first wave charges the transports in to suppress enemy fire and limit their retreat options to a Fall Back move, the second wave stops behind them and prepares to disembark next turn.
You're going to have to adapt your tactics and deployment stance to different situations on the board as they turn up, that's not a bad thing.
It's still saving you a turn or two in any situation where you're more than two moves away from your target.
It is. But it's also means that assault units built around having access to fast transports are completely screwed.
ross-128 wrote: And if they do blow up the transport, well now they've disembarked those models for you (minus any 1s they rolled on their rapid unscheduled disembarkment).
Er . . . what?
You seem to be implying that this is somehow a benefit, but they've done nothing for you that you couldn't have done yourself.
ross-128 wrote: It seems to be a common theme on this forum that people mistake "situational" for "useless".
It seems to be a common theme on this forum that people mistake 'outclassed in every way and fulfils no useful function' for 'situational'.
You could also attack in two waves: the first wave charges the transports in to suppress enemy fire and limit their retreat options to a Fall Back move, the second wave stops behind them and prepares to disembark next turn.
I could. Or I could just play a shooting army and have better weapons at better range that can actually use my transports.
What were you expecting to be able to do? Move the transport forward, advance the transport d6, disembark 3" forward, move the disembarked unit, and charge all in the same turn?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that would be? That would give an assault army nearly a 36" threat range on turn 1.
ross-128 wrote: What were you expecting to be able to do? Move the transport forward, advance the transport d6, disembark 3" forward, move the disembarked unit, and charge all in the same turn?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that would be? That would give an assault army nearly a 36" threat range on turn 1.
Some people are just too desperate for their Rhino Rush armies from 4th to come back because they think even 5th Transports rules were too limiting. Don't pay any heed to those people.
So, what's exactly wrong with raiders? It's a 2-d or 3-d turn charge anywayz with it's movement speed and increased durability + the movement speed increase of all the elves.
You get an extra 3 inches from disembarking, and eldar might have 7 inch movement base probably. They still have a decent threat range. You just have to think ahead in order to use your transports. Right now? everyone just speeds their transports ahead full speed into the enemy without a thought. There's no strategy to transports in 7th.
Even eldar, you move, flat out, and jink when they shoot at you. Its boring. Now you might actually have to think about ranges.
ross-128 wrote: What were you expecting to be able to do? Move the transport forward, advance the transport d6, disembark 3" forward, move the disembarked unit, and charge all in the same turn?
Finish burning that strawman and we'll talk.
koooaei wrote: So, what's exactly wrong with raiders? It's a 2-d or 3-d turn charge anywayz with it's movement speed and increased durability + the movement speed increase of all the elves.
The issue is that you don't actually get to use the Raider's movement (including its flight) in any capacity before disembarking. What's more, if you charge the vehicle itself into combat, you're still unable to use the melee weapons of the passengers.
Why would you not just use guns? The advantages of DE assault units are meagre enough without also making them unable to take advantage of their transports. Just compare them to Warriors or Trueborn - who can use the full movement of the Raider to get in position before opening fire, as well as being able to shoot into combat if the Raider charges or is charged.
I think you're really underestimating the degree to which DE melee units relied on their transports.
Don Savik wrote: You get an extra 3 inches from disembarking, and eldar might have 7 inch movement base probably.
So, a 2" loss from last edition then. More if they've lost Fleet.
No, they really don't. They're supposed to be using ultra-fast transports that are open-topped to allow for fast disembarking. And that amounts to . . . no advantages whatsoever over a unit that charges out of a Rhino.
Don Savik wrote: You just have to think ahead in order to use your transports.
And hope that your opponent is brain-dead.
Also, L2P fallacy yet again. I think we're done here.
ross-128 wrote: What were you expecting to be able to do? Move the transport forward, advance the transport d6, disembark 3" forward, move the disembarked unit, and charge all in the same turn?
Finish burning that strawman and we'll talk.
koooaei wrote: So, what's exactly wrong with raiders? It's a 2-d or 3-d turn charge anywayz with it's movement speed and increased durability + the movement speed increase of all the elves.
The issue is that you don't actually get to use the Raider's movement (including its flight) in any capacity before disembarking. What's more, if you charge the vehicle itself into combat, you're still unable to use the melee weapons of the passengers.
Why would you not just use guns? The advantages of DE assault units are meagre enough without also making them unable to take advantage of their transports. Just compare them to Warriors or Trueborn - who can use the full movement of the Raider to get in position before opening fire, as well as being able to shoot into combat if the Raider charges or is charged.
I think you're really underestimating the degree to which DE melee units relied on their transports.
Don Savik wrote: You get an extra 3 inches from disembarking, and eldar might have 7 inch movement base probably.
So, a 2" loss from last edition then. More if they've lost Fleet.
No, they really don't. They're supposed to be using ultra-fast transports that are open-topped to allow for fast disembarking. And that amounts to . . . no advantages whatsoever over a unit that charges out of a Rhino.
Don Savik wrote: You just have to think ahead in order to use your transports.
And hope that your opponent is brain-dead.
Also, L2P fallacy yet again. I think we're done here.
You've been done since before this conversation started friend. You decided that your opinion was not only the only correct interpretation you dismiss any counter argument as some made up logical fallacy (l2p fallacy really? Learn to play is the correct answer as often as it's not) sorry you don't get a guaranteed 30" charge every turn.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that you don't actually get to use the Raider's movement (including its flight) in any capacity before disembarking. What's more, if you charge the vehicle itself into combat, you're still unable to use the melee weapons of the passengers.
Not that turn, but you can still use it in previous turns.
Don Savik wrote: You get an extra 3 inches from disembarking, and eldar might have 7 inch movement base probably.
So, a 2" loss from last edition then. More if they've lost Fleet.
Hmm, 6" before Charging versus 3+7" before Charging. Where is the 2"? Or were you considering a Run and Charge which will probably be converted to an Advance and Charge ability for null difference?
vipoid wrote: No, they really don't. They're supposed to be using ultra-fast transports that are open-topped to allow for fast disembarking. And that amounts to . . . no advantages whatsoever over a unit that charges out of a Rhino.
So far as we know. We don't have the Raider's full datasheet yet, do we?
Have we actually recieved any info about assault vehicles?
If not it's possible that the assault vehicles have a rule that allows models to disembark then shoot and charge at the end of the movement phase or overrides it in another way altogether.
Now that anything can hurt anything parking your Rhinos in front of a couple of units of Guardsmen or Tau to wait a turn is begging for trouble, on the other hand one of Martel's sentiments about 7th edition MCs and GMCs vs Vehicles comes to mind - having a tiny chance to hurt something threatening usually encourages people to waste shots on it, while having no chance stops even the stupid from shooting at things.
If your opponent wastes an entire round of shooting on Rhinos they aren't shooting at the unprotected fast units that might be every bit as threatening, of course there's always the chance that the dice decide to kick you in the nuts but that's the game we play.
Target priority is going to be a properly big deal in this edition.
If your transport is loaded with a full unit (s) and it assaults. The enemy can overwatch. What if that overwatch kills the transport and most of the units inside survive.
1. In the midst of your enemy what are the specifics of deploying the survivors?
2. The survivors are now NOT in a transport so is there a technicality that would NOW permit them to assault?
Or is there some phase criteria that prohibits this?
3.What about your next turn if your transport survived. You wish to disembark. How does that work with the transport perhaps surrounded by enemy units. ???
Dakka Wolf wrote: Have we actually recieved any info about assault vehicles?
If not it's possible that the assault vehicles have a rule that allows models to disembark then shoot and charge at the end of the movement phase or overrides it in another way altogether.
Also a potentiality, some Assault Vehicles may have the internal ability to allow Disembarking AFTER the Vehicle Moves...
Too many tiny details are unknown until we have the datasheets in hand. In fact, I do believe that all those Open-Topped and otherwise Assault Vehicles won't have anything in the 14 page rulebook giving them any benefit. It will all be on the datasheet. And a Dark Elf Raider, Ork Trukk, and Land Raider Crusader may all handle the situation very differently.
vipoid wrote: The new transport rules seem really counter-intuitive.
Let's say I've got a unit of Incubi. They're slow buggers, so I'll put them on a Raider to help them get into combat.
"Okay, turn 2, I'll Move my Raider forward and then disembark my Incubi." "You can't - their transport moved this turn." "What?" "Units can't disembark if their transport moves." "But that's it's whole function! It's a *transport*. It has literally one job - to move units around the battlefield." "Them's the rules." "So, if I want move my Incubi, I first have to get them out of their transport and then have them walk up the battlefield. At which point my now-empty transport can move, the driver giving them a friendly wave as he passes them." "Yep. Don't worry though - you can also assault units directly with your transport." "Ah, that's more like it. Okay, I'll assault your marine squad with my Incubi Raider." "Okay. Now the units inside it get to shoot me." "Wait, what? You mean they can't attack you with melee weapons?" "Nope." "And they can't get out to join the combat either?" "Nope." "So, the benefit of assaulting a unit with a vehicle is that I can fire the unit's *guns* at it." "Yep." "The same guns they could have fired anyway, had I not bothered charging?" "Those are the ones." "Well, I sure am glad that my melee unit can do bugger all when their transport is in melee, whilst my shooting units can blaze away both in melee and at a distance. I'm also super glad that I have these great transports to help get my Incubi to combat. Imagine if they had to walk up the battlefield or stand gormlessly around on top of a transport that's sitting right in the midst of their enemies."
I'm trying to understand what exactly your complaint is here.
Turn 1, move your transport at max speed toward the unit you want to assault. Your incubi sit inside the transport for the duration of turn 1. Turn 2, your incubi disembark. Your transport charges the unit you want to assault to soak up overwatch, your incubi charge immediately after. Congratulations, it's turn 2 and your incubi are in combat.
If your transport is loaded with a full unit (s) and it assaults. The enemy can overwatch. What if that overwatch kills the transport and most of the units inside survive.
1. In the midst of your enemy what are the specifics of deploying the survivors?
2. The survivors are now NOT in a transport so is there a technicality that would NOW permit them to assault?
Or is there some phase criteria that prohibits this?
3.What about your next turn if your transport survived. You wish to disembark. How does that work with the transport perhaps surrounded by enemy units. ???
any clarifications known....please share
so no one has any thoughts what the rules state about a destroyed transport and its passengers. I hate game rules that models get removed for no reason just because there is no room to place them 'legally'
If your transport is loaded with a full unit (s) and it assaults. The enemy can overwatch. What if that overwatch kills the transport and most of the units inside survive.
1. In the midst of your enemy what are the specifics of deploying the survivors?
2. The survivors are now NOT in a transport so is there a technicality that would NOW permit them to assault?
Or is there some phase criteria that prohibits this?
3.What about your next turn if your transport survived. You wish to disembark. How does that work with the transport perhaps surrounded by enemy units. ???
any clarifications known....please share
The way I would read it, based on what we've seen, is that you disembark like normal, 3" from the hull, and can charge after. I can actually see this being a strategy people use for fragile vehicles that deepstrike.
Second, it straight up says in the 12 pages that you can't disembark if surrounded and that if the vehicle dies and you're still surrounded the unit dies.
) OK, maybe the Orks would...
Excepting now they will actually make it to the goal post, and only 1/6 die instead of 4/9 
) allow them to disengage and still shoot up to 12 shots...
