8th consolidates the rules for vehicles, replacing Tank Shock and Ramming with the ability to charge enemy units and attack on 6s. This has several side effects:
Vehicle vs Assaulters: In 7th, a vehicle that somehow survived melee could either disengage freely without penalty. At worst they could still fire. In 8th, unless you Fly or have special rules, you can't shoot if the enemy is in melee, and you can't shoot if you withdraw. A single Shield Drone poking a Land Raider can stop it from shooting for a turn.
Vehicle vs chaff: Tank Shock is gone. A single Hormagaunt can stop a Land Raider in its tracks, while 4 of them can surround it and lock it in place! Lest you think this is a preposterous scenario, you consider their speed and 6" pile-in and 6" consolidation let them outright surround it (and remember, there was no consolidation vs vehicles in 3rd-7th). Don't forget the defender chooses all casualties so you might not even get where you want to go anyway if you try to shoot or melee the zerglings in your way.
Vehicle vs Vehicle: in 7th, ramming automatically inflicted a hit on both models. In 8th, one vehicle can hit another while the other misses. Sure you could argue that one vehicle didn't get a "hit on a good spot" but isn't that what to-wound/to-penetrate rolls are for?
Abstraction or rule consolidation are one thing (replacing Fleet/Crusader/Fast/etc with a move profile) but this is rather enbarassing.
The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
It wasn't a consolidation, it was an abandonment. To fix the dreadnought/MC issue they doubled down on the path that caused issues in the first place. With all the bespoke unit rules that I haven't read through though their could be a fair amount of the rule that allows a unit to disengage and fire, which would make more sense. For the record, bespoke unit rules Are not a simplification.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pretty soon they will be selling sealed collectible blisters for rare characters in there attempt to be MTG.
Especially the encircling thing will have a big impact. Driving a rhino full of troopers to the charge range of hormagaunts or other similar units is a very bad idea. It will stay there until someone comes to help, or the owner of the encircling unit wants to withdraw and shoot the tank. A big unit of 30 hormagaunts can in optimum scenario shut down most of the opponent army in single turn
The flying vehicles on the otherside will be very good. You can charge them at the end of your turn to safety (for example in to combat with enemy tank) as they can easily drive away from combat on their turn without too much impact. This will at least take a piece of opponents army from shooting or doing anything else constructive on next turn.
In several hundred games of 40k played and several hundred more watched I have never, ever seen anyone bother to tank shock anything. Ever. And I've only seen 1 ramming. It just didn't happen and complaining about it is frankly ridiculous. Honestly the only embarrassing thing is just how desperate you are to get people to let you summon infinite daemons forever still.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The tank shock is not the issue, it's the tanks that get stuck to close combat that is, which is super easy as if you get to combat, you'll have at least 6" of extra movement to encircle the vehicle before it gets to do anything.
On the other hand, it's not that bad as it means that the tanks need to be supported by infantry to be able to operate. It jsut might be that on the table top the supporting will be in form of bubblewrap around the tank
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
Vehicles have historically been weak to melee ever since 6th introduced hullpoints and made them easy to-hit regardless of their movement speed: Half the difficulty of killing vehicles in melee in 5th was landing 6s to hit them in the first place!
It's not like vehicles were magically indestructible engines by any stretch of the imagination, but at the least they could push aside chaff!
Incidentally, I've used both Ramming and Tank Shock 7th and know if it didn't exist that I would take full advantage of the fact. I have enough Cultists to make a mess of things and stop you from reaching objectives or even coming in from reserves, be they Outflanking or Ghost Stormed around. Remember this pic? Without Tank Shock you can do the same vs vehicles too.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
Everything is within the bounds of reality in 40k. You too can enjoy forging the narrative of how a single Grot managed to stop a Mastodon in its tracks to the confusion of the Legion Centurion in charge.
I'm suddenly very happy that all my vehicles are fliers.
I had actually thought of doing the opposite - using trasports after disembark to charge and pin down enemy units. But certainly, the encircle thing is funny at least.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
MagicJuggler wrote: Everything is within the bounds of reality in 40k. You too can enjoy forging the narrative of how a single Grot managed to stop a Mastodon in its tracks to the confusion of the Legion Centurion in charge.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Ah, okay. Though I think if you manage to let something as wide and long as a Baneblade get completely surrounded, you were doing something very wrong.
If you do end up in that situation, though, you can always stage a heroic counter-charge to save the army's pride and joy.
ERJAK wrote: In several hundred games of 40k played and several hundred more watched I have never, ever seen anyone bother to tank shock anything. Ever. And I've only seen 1 ramming. It just didn't happen and complaining about it is frankly ridiculous. Honestly the only embarrassing thing is just how desperate you are to get people to let you summon infinite daemons forever still.
Shooting was so far ahead most Vehicles did more damage by shooting, even free Razorbacks with Heavy Bolters. It wasn't a strategy you built around, it was one you used when your opponent forgot it could happen.
Space Wolves Ironwolves got tank shock that worked, extra range, free dozer blade and a leadership drop on targets that don't have fearless or ATSKNF.
Use Drop Pods, terrain or a unit's own numbers to cut off any escape and slam home the Rhinos, you could make an infantry unit disappear because it had nowhere to go, even if they passed leadership you could sometimes make them escape behind the Rhino into charge range of the Thunderwolf Cavalry.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Ah, okay. Though I think if you manage to let something as wide and long as a Baneblade get completely surrounded, you were doing something very wrong.
If you do end up in that situation, though, you can always stage a heroic counter-charge to save the army's pride and joy.
It's very possible though, as the Hormagaunt example demonstrates (Shorter deployment, move 9, charge 2d6, pile in 6 then consolidate 6) shows. Add a Genestealer Cult Magus to the mix so that it can cast Mass Hypnosis, preventing the Baneblade from being able to Overwatch or even hit in melee. Slaaneshi Daemons also get Fiends, which prevent any attempt to withdraw whatsoever. Enjoy locking tanks with throwaway units a fraction of the cost.
And once again, the ability for the Baneblade to shoot after withdrawing is a special rule explicit to the Baneblade. If it were, say, a Land Raider, then that Land Raider would not even get the chance to shoot after withdrawal.
Meanwhile, Eldar and Tau go "we fly. What is this this 'chaff' you Monkeigh and Gue'la speak of? Your tanks belong in a zoo."
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Ah, okay. Though I think if you manage to let something as wide and long as a Baneblade get completely surrounded, you were doing something very wrong.
If you do end up in that situation, though, you can always stage a heroic counter-charge to save the army's pride and joy.
Well it doesn't need to be completely surrounded. There just needs to be one model on each side of the tank. They also don't need to be from same unit...
All games are an abstract representation of some scenario, real or imaginary. As such, the mechanics of the game are occasionally going to create odd interactions that aren't "realistic". We accept those interactions to be able to play a game within a reasonable time frame.
With the size of the armies used in an average 40K games, we need a fair bit of abstraction so a 1500pt game doesn't take all day. So, we will see some odd interactions crop up. So yes, a single Grot being able to make a Land Raider stop moving is "unrealistic", but I can live with it if in return vehicles have a level of durability appropriate to their cost, which seems to be the case with 8th.
If you want a realistic game, go play Advanced Squad Leader. It's got rules for every possible scenario. However, be aware it's got a set of rules the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you'll spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time looking up things on graphs.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Ah, okay. Though I think if you manage to let something as wide and long as a Baneblade get completely surrounded, you were doing something very wrong.
If you do end up in that situation, though, you can always stage a heroic counter-charge to save the army's pride and joy.
It's very possible though, as the Hormagaunt example demonstrates (Shorter deployment, move 9, charge 2d6, pile in 6 then consolidate 6) shows. Add a Genestealer Cult Magus to the mix so that it can cast Mass Hypnosis, preventing the Baneblade from being able to Overwatch or even hit in melee. Slaaneshi Daemons also get Fiends, which prevent any attempt to withdraw whatsoever. Enjoy locking tanks with throwaway units a fraction of the cost.
And once again, the ability for the Baneblade to shoot after withdrawing is a special rule explicit to the Baneblade. If it were, say, a Land Raider, then that Land Raider would not even get the chance to shoot after withdrawal.
Meanwhile, Eldar and Tau go "we fly. What is this this 'chaff' you Monkeigh and Gue'la speak of? Your tanks belong in a zoo."
Honestly? That all sounds fine to me. Tyranids getting to actually be an overwhelming horde sounds cool, as does the idea of heretic mutants or Slaaneshi demons being able to subvert even the Imperium's mighty weapons.
And, just as flavorfully, it can all be mitigated with a bit of vigilance on the Imperium's part - by making sure to keep a squad of conscripts guarding at least one of the Baneblade's flanks so it can't be surrounded without extra effort.
As for flying vehicles - I do think that the Fly keyword gives them a bit much of a pass on avoiding combat, but we'll see how that pans out. They tend to have less flexibility in terms of protecting their vehicles with chaff anyhow.
Honestly I think the army this impacts most would be my Orks - our vehicles are more reliant on getting into assault range in the first place.
ERJAK wrote: In several hundred games of 40k played and several hundred more watched I have never, ever seen anyone bother to tank shock anything. Ever. And I've only seen 1 ramming. It just didn't happen and complaining about it is frankly ridiculous. Honestly the only embarrassing thing is just how desperate you are to get people to let you summon infinite daemons forever still.
Really? I spent most of 5th running my deffrollas into stuff over and over
Good god, you guys are so dramatic. What's the point of loitering around a forum making dozens of "muh immersions!" posts when you know it isn't going to change anything, and that you're either going to play 8th or you aren't? I mean criticism is one thing, but you couple of naysayers have already covered it quite a few posts ago.
Anywho, vehicles are either; a) an infantry delivery system, or b) a mobile weapons/support platform. In the former case, their job is done once they've dropped off their cargo and at that point you might as well just use them to soak up some overwatch; something which wasn't possible before. In the latter case, you now have to do something unthinkable: consider the positioning of your vehicles and keep them away from any type of garbage you don't want to get tangled up with! Why are you driving them through enemy infantry anyway?!
Luciferian wrote: Good god, you guys are so dramatic. What's the point of loitering around a forum making dozens of "muh immersions!" posts when you know it isn't going to change anything, and that you're either going to play 8th or you aren't? I mean criticism is one thing, but you couple of naysayers have already covered it quite a few posts ago.
Frankly agreed. All these sorts of threads sould really just be one thread titled "Stuff I don't like about 8th" instead of another thread clogging up the forum everytime a "new worst thing about 8th" is 'discovered'.
Luciferian wrote: Good god, you guys are so dramatic. What's the point of loitering around a forum making dozens of "muh immersions!" posts when you know it isn't going to change anything, and that you're either going to play 8th or you aren't? I mean criticism is one thing, but you couple of naysayers have already covered it quite a few posts ago.
Anywho, vehicles are either; a) an infantry delivery system, or b) a mobile weapons/support platform. In the former case, their job is done once they've dropped off their cargo and at that point you might as well just use them to soak up some overwatch; something which wasn't possible before. In the latter case, you now have to do something unthinkable: consider the positioning of your vehicles and keep them away from any type of garbage you don't want to get tangled up with! Why are you driving them through enemy infantry anyway?!
Or c) a linebreaker. You know, blitzkrieg and all that. Hard to do when your tank gets surrounded and neutralized by a bunch of grots.
And a is arguably not even that great in the first place, since destroyed transports now cause a Mortal Wound to 1 in every 6 passengers no matter what (models getting out of glanced vehicles are no longer a thing), you can't do move and disembark anymore, and transport prices were jacked up to the point you might as well buy more infantry in the first place.
Incidentally, trying to get a transport in range to unleash assault troops or as a linebreaker looks to be a surefire way to get surrounded, and for the game to turn into "bumpercar-hammer".
Or c) a linebreaker. You know, blitzkrieg and all that. Hard to do when your tank gets surrounded and neutralized by a bunch of grots.
Sure but I fail to see how their functionality in that sense is anything but marginally affected. If you're charging your Rhinos into enemy lines, and you're smart about it, they should still be quite disruptive and break up the enemy to be cleaned up by your assault units. If you're not supporting that type of tactic with assault units anyway, then what's the complaint? Simply that enemy infantry doesn't have to move out of the way?
Luciferian wrote: Good god, you guys are so dramatic. What's the point of loitering around a forum making dozens of "muh immersions!" posts when you know it isn't going to change anything, and that you're either going to play 8th or you aren't? I mean criticism is one thing, but you couple of naysayers have already covered it quite a few posts ago.
Anywho, vehicles are either; a) an infantry delivery system, or b) a mobile weapons/support platform. In the former case, their job is done once they've dropped off their cargo and at that point you might as well just use them to soak up some overwatch; something which wasn't possible before. In the latter case, you now have to do something unthinkable: consider the positioning of your vehicles and keep them away from any type of garbage you don't want to get tangled up with! Why are you driving them through enemy infantry anyway?!
Actually, pushing enemy units out of objectives in the last few turns was relatively common
jamopower wrote: Especially the encircling thing will have a big impact. Driving a rhino full of troopers to the charge range of hormagaunts or other similar units is a very bad idea. It will stay there until someone comes to help, or the owner of the encircling unit wants to withdraw and shoot the tank. A big unit of 30 hormagaunts can in optimum scenario shut down most of the opponent army in single turn
The flying vehicles on the otherside will be very good. You can charge them at the end of your turn to safety (for example in to combat with enemy tank) as they can easily drive away from combat on their turn without too much impact. This will at least take a piece of opponents army from shooting or doing anything else constructive on next turn.
Flying your aircraft into tanks for safety, lol. That's so absurd that I'm just going to pretend it's not a thing and never do it. I could understand exploiting that in a tournament, but in a friendly game you're just a dingus if you do that.
I just have a bad feeling that the easily done "silencing" of tanks with disposable fast stuff will eventually make them not worth having in the army, except for the flying ones, that seem to be very useful for many things.
jamopower wrote: I just have a bad feeling that the easily done "silencing" of tanks with disposable fast stuff will eventually make them not worth having in the army, except for the flying ones, that seem to be very useful for many things.
Or you could, you know, keep your expensive ranged weapon tanks away from blobs of enemy infantry, or support them with your own infantry.
One additional trick with flying vehicles (a land speeder could be ideal for this) is to charge them along with your close combat squad to enemy so that there are more enemies closer to the speeder than your hitters, thus requiring them to pile in towards it and use their attacks on the high toughness, high wound, high save vehicle instead of your close combat specialists and as it flies, you can take it away if you need to do something else with it. It can also suck in the overwatch on it's way. Good combo could be raider/venom and wyches/incubi.
jamopower wrote: I just have a bad feeling that the easily done "silencing" of tanks with disposable fast stuff will eventually make them not worth having in the army, except for the flying ones, that seem to be very useful for many things.
Or you could, you know, keep your expensive ranged weapon tanks away from blobs of enemy infantry, or support them with your own infantry.
Yes you can do that, but you essentially will need to bubble wrap them quite well and lose the mobility with that. Especially transports and stuff like land raiders will suffer from this. For stuff like predators it shouldn't be an issue. Add to this units like lictors that can stay hidden and then jump from anywhere if there's an unprotected vehicle somewhere (which sounds awesome, I have to say).
jamopower wrote: I just have a bad feeling that the easily done "silencing" of tanks with disposable fast stuff will eventually make them not worth having in the army, except for the flying ones, that seem to be very useful for many things.
Or you could, you know, keep your expensive ranged weapon tanks away from blobs of enemy infantry, or support them with your own infantry.
At that point though, why are you fielding tanks instead of just running pure infantry lists? If tanks have to stay "in place" to be worth anything, you might as well be running infantry so you're saturating one defense-type (especially since most anti-infantry weapons are comparably short-ranged). Don't forget that Guard also get orders for their infantry to ignore being locked in melee, as though they were Tau or something.
For about the same cost as a Russ, you can get a maxed out detachment of 6x3 Mortar Teams and a company commander. Guess which one will live longer and do more damage for its points cost.
MagicJuggler wrote: And a is arguably not even that great in the first place, since destroyed transports now cause a Mortal Wound to 1 in every 6 passengers no matter what (models getting out of glanced vehicles are no longer a thing), you can't do move and disembark anymore, and transport prices were jacked up to the point you might as well buy more infantry in the first place.
Incidentally, trying to get a transport in range to unleash assault troops or as a linebreaker looks to be a surefire way to get surrounded, and for the game to turn into "bumpercar-hammer".
Flip side to things: tanks are generally more durable now than before and you won't risk your passengers until you lose all your wounds. No exploding on a lucky shot.
Also, tanks are faster than before in general, making them more useful than they used to be and making them trump many infantry units in terms of mobility on the table.
And while disembark after moving is gone, you get your full movement after a disembark now, effectively giving you an extra 3" to your movement after getting out, and you can still advance and charge after hopping out too. You also get to post the models up within 3" of anywhere on the hull so you don't have to run your tanks backwards just to get them into combat.
Multi-charging using tanks to tank overwatch (no pun intended) is a valid method to protect assault units who want to get stuck in, and some can even do Mortal Wounds on the charge (LRCs for example) before any actual combat occurs.
Basically for every negative point there is an alternative point to consider. For every drawback that vehicles have, they gained a lot in return.
Oh, and since grenades and melta bombs can't be used in melee, no more getting stuck with grenades.
If you find yourself in the situation where your tank is thus immobilized, I'm gna go on a limb and say you've been outmaneuvered. Also it takes more then 4 grots. Unit coherency is still a thing you know as is charge distance and consolidate. So you need multiple units (2-4) or obscene luck.
MagicJuggler wrote: And a is arguably not even that great in the first place, since destroyed transports now cause a Mortal Wound to 1 in every 6 passengers no matter what (models getting out of glanced vehicles are no longer a thing), you can't do move and disembark anymore, and transport prices were jacked up to the point you might as well buy more infantry in the first place.
Incidentally, trying to get a transport in range to unleash assault troops or as a linebreaker looks to be a surefire way to get surrounded, and for the game to turn into "bumpercar-hammer".
Flip side to things: tanks are generally more durable now than before and you won't risk your passengers until you lose all your wounds. No exploding on a lucky shot.
Also, tanks are faster than before in general, making them more useful than they used to be and making them trump many infantry units in terms of mobility on the table.
And while disembark after moving is gone, you get your full movement after a disembark now, effectively giving you an extra 3" to your movement after getting out, and you can still advance and charge after hopping out too. You also get to post the models up within 3" of anywhere on the hull so you don't have to run your tanks backwards just to get them into combat.
Multi-charging using tanks to tank overwatch (no pun intended) is a valid method to protect assault units who want to get stuck in, and some can even do Mortal Wounds on the charge (LRCs for example) before any actual combat occurs.
Basically for every negative point there is an alternative point to consider. For every drawback that vehicles have, they gained a lot in return.
Oh, and since grenades and melta bombs can't be used in melee, no more getting stuck with grenades.
Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
At that point though, why are you fielding tanks instead of just running pure infantry lists? If tanks have to stay "in place" to be worth anything, you might as well be running infantry so you're saturating one defense-type (especially since most anti-infantry weapons are comparably short-ranged). Don't forget that Guard also get orders for their infantry to ignore being locked in melee, as though they were Tau or something.
For about the same cost as a Russ, you can get a maxed out detachment of 6x3 Mortar Teams and a company commander. Guess which one will live longer and do more damage for its points cost.
What kind of games are you guys playing that you're moving your long-range tanks all over the board, tank shocking infantry off of objectives as opposed to simply getting them in range from as far away as possible and using their firepower?
Earth127 wrote: If you find yourself in the situation where your tank is thus immobilized, I'm gna go on a limb and say you've been outmaneuvered. Also it takes more then 4 grots. Unit coherency is still a thing you know as is charge distance and consolidate. So you need multiple units (2-4) or obscene luck.
Depends on the vehicle. A rhino should be able to be surrounded if you just get within 1" of it. Remember that you don't need to move to base contact and you don't have to move towards the enemy the closest route, you can first move the 3" pile-in bit closer to the enemy surrounding it a bit and then use the other 3" melee move to consolidate bit closer to the enemy (still not in base contact to do the same next turn). With 6" move you should be able to get some models on each side of the tank, thus surrounding it. And as you don't have to keep the coherency while you lose models, you can leave the important models to stand there if it's more important to stop the vehicle than to be able to move with you unit. Now change this to hormagaunts, which are cheap, fast, pile-in and consolidate double amount and are fearless when the end of the conga line is at synapse range, and you'll have a quite big buffer zone around the tyranid army where no tank wants to go. Sounds bit stupid, but that's how it goes.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
It's considered. You can't move through your own units; placing the Marines in front would block the Rhino from moving up front to that degree. Try harder.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
It's considered. You can't move through your own units; placing the Marines in front would block the Rhino from moving up front to that degree. Try harder.
So place them along the side. There are more sides to a tank than the front and back...
Earth127 wrote: If you find yourself in the situation where your tank is thus immobilized, I'm gna go on a limb and say you've been outmaneuvered. Also it takes more then 4 grots. Unit coherency is still a thing you know as is charge distance and consolidate. So you need multiple units (2-4) or obscene luck.
I don't actually think it's that hard. Boards are often such that a vehicle can only move in two or three directions -- impassable terrain or a board edge can block the others, so very often one unit will be able to trap a vehicle. It's also often going to be possible to get two units involved. For example -- and this is weird -- a typical flyer can move 60", so could move from almost anywhere to 1" directly behind the vehicle. Then it's charged with a trash unit from the front, which only has to pile in or consolidate 1" along its sides to stop it from being able to get 1" away from everything without moving through enemy units. This actually strikes me as basically the best play to try to make against a superheavy tank. I don't think it's necessarily bad for the game -- it's strategically interesting in its own way -- but it definitely seems weird.
On the other hand, tanks can sidestep now, so they don't have to worry about having to pivot to move in a different direction.
Most vehicles probably don't really need to be worried about getting trapped, though. That's only something an attacker is going to prioritize for things that can shoot after falling back. Most of the time the attacker is going to be happy just to have prevented them from shooting on their next turn. They can just be charged again next turn anyway.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
It's considered. You can't move through your own units; placing the Marines in front would block the Rhino from moving up front to that degree. Try harder.
So place them along the side. There are more sides to a tank than the front and back...
Which brings up the aforementioned scenario. The circle is complete.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
It's considered. You can't move through your own units; placing the Marines in front would block the Rhino from moving up front to that degree. Try harder.
So place them along the side. There are more sides to a tank than the front and back...
Which brings up the aforementioned scenario. The circle is complete.
You disembark within 3" and then move 6". Tank move at a diagonal from the unit it,s move,ent as to not clog charge lanes against target unit. Ideally both units are within 3" after movement, but failing that, you get close enough to increase your chances and utilize your Command Re-roll to further increase your chances.
I am going to convert up a giant mammoth of a squiggoth to use as a battle wagon then claim it has an extreme phobia of tiny mice to explain why it suddenly freezes up when a grot get within whiffing distance of it.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I am going to convert up a giant mammoth of a squiggoth to use as a battle wagon then claim it has an extreme phobia of tiny mice to explain why it suddenly freezes up when a grot get within whiffing distance of it.
Well I'd hope you'd have proxy Deffrolla rules so you can step on that daft runt.
Besides, if that Squiggoth was a monstrous creature they'd also get locked in combat by a single grot.
ERJAK wrote: In several hundred games of 40k played and several hundred more watched I have never, ever seen anyone bother to tank shock anything. Ever. And I've only seen 1 ramming. It just didn't happen and complaining about it is frankly ridiculous. Honestly the only embarrassing thing is just how desperate you are to get people to let you summon infinite daemons forever still.
Haha nailed it. I am all about this post.
I recently played a game where I shot a Lascannon down the barrel of a vindicator and got a "weapon destroyed!" result.
Even in this case, where the vindicators sole purpose would have been tank shocking and ramming, my opponent looked carefully at the rules, and decided it would create more value by perching on an objective and providing cover for ranged units.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
It's considered. You can't move through your own units; placing the Marines in front would block the Rhino from moving up front to that degree. Try harder.
So place them along the side. There are more sides to a tank than the front and back...
Which brings up the aforementioned scenario. The circle is complete.
It really doesn't though. Place Marines 3" from front right corner, move 6". Move Rhino 12" Both get a reasonable charge. Could one fail, sure they could do that no matter what if you are far enough away. But lets take your orks, can you guarantee they cannot assault you and get a good charge (max charge range 23", if you stay 24" away you aren't charging next turn.) but this would be true in 7e as well. If you set up Say 16" away, maybe you can charge, or you set up 24" away and if orks come toward you you charge, if they don't you get out and shoot cause marines do that.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Actually they do. In addition to being able to shoot/charge after withdrawing from combat, they can shoot even if there are enemy models within 1", though not all of their weapons can shoot at those units within 1"
MagicJuggler wrote: And a is arguably not even that great in the first place, since destroyed transports now cause a Mortal Wound to 1 in every 6 passengers no matter what (models getting out of glanced vehicles are no longer a thing), you can't do move and disembark anymore, and transport prices were jacked up to the point you might as well buy more infantry in the first place.
Incidentally, trying to get a transport in range to unleash assault troops or as a linebreaker looks to be a surefire way to get surrounded, and for the game to turn into "bumpercar-hammer".
Flip side to things: tanks are generally more durable now than before and you won't risk your passengers until you lose all your wounds. No exploding on a lucky shot.
Also, tanks are faster than before in general, making them more useful than they used to be and making them trump many infantry units in terms of mobility on the table.
And while disembark after moving is gone, you get your full movement after a disembark now, effectively giving you an extra 3" to your movement after getting out, and you can still advance and charge after hopping out too. You also get to post the models up within 3" of anywhere on the hull so you don't have to run your tanks backwards just to get them into combat.
Multi-charging using tanks to tank overwatch (no pun intended) is a valid method to protect assault units who want to get stuck in, and some can even do Mortal Wounds on the charge (LRCs for example) before any actual combat occurs.
Basically for every negative point there is an alternative point to consider. For every drawback that vehicles have, they gained a lot in return.
Oh, and since grenades and melta bombs can't be used in melee, no more getting stuck with grenades.
Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
You forgot to move the marine squad before charging. Don't blame the game for your carelenessness and poor positioning.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Actually they do. In addition to being able to shoot/charge after withdrawing from combat, they can shoot even if there are enemy models within 1", though not all of their weapons can shoot at those units within 1"
Huh, missed that bit of Steel Behemoth. Enjoy doing the same with a Land Raider Redeemer...oh wait.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
Can't exalt this post enough. If you didn't move your asm/csm/harlequins/whatever closer after you disembarked, you are doing it wrong.
And the whole argument about hormagaunts is ridiculous. There is literally one unit in the game that can make such a consolidation move, and therefore vehicles are broken? Come on! And frankly, horms really needed the help, so it's a neat trick if it works, but not something I bet is likely to be a major issue. I could be wrong, but we'll see soon I guess. And if it is really making it hard for you to forge the narrative, just imagine how hard he t must be to maneuver inside a tank when you have dozens of hormagaunts climbing all over the hull, choking the vision slits with their talons and choking the treads with their corpses.
It's almost as if your units don't exist in a vacuum and they can be used to support one another while your opponent will be doing the same in an effort to undermine your plans.
A lot of these hypothetical situations seem to indicate a situation that would only really come up if the opponent outplayed you or you played poorly. At the end of the day, none of us have enough experience actually playing 8th to come to an informed conclusion.
MagicJuggler wrote: 8th consolidates the rules for vehicles, replacing Tank Shock and Ramming with the ability to charge enemy units and attack on 6s. This has several side effects:
Vehicle vs Assaulters: In 7th, a vehicle that somehow survived melee could either disengage freely without penalty. At worst they could still fire. In 8th, unless you Fly or have special rules, you can't shoot if the enemy is in melee, and you can't shoot if you withdraw. A single Shield Drone poking a Land Raider can stop it from shooting for a turn.
Vehicle vs chaff: Tank Shock is gone. A single Hormagaunt can stop a Land Raider in its tracks, while 4 of them can surround it and lock it in place! Lest you think this is a preposterous scenario, you consider their speed and 6" pile-in and 6" consolidation let them outright surround it (and remember, there was no consolidation vs vehicles in 3rd-7th). Don't forget the defender chooses all casualties so you might not even get where you want to go anyway if you try to shoot or melee the zerglings in your way.
Vehicle vs Vehicle: in 7th, ramming automatically inflicted a hit on both models. In 8th, one vehicle can hit another while the other misses. Sure you could argue that one vehicle didn't get a "hit on a good spot" but isn't that what to-wound/to-penetrate rolls are for?
Abstraction or rule consolidation are one thing (replacing Fleet/Crusader/Fast/etc with a move profile) but this is rather enbarassing.
Right, because a vehicle literally surrounded by enemy combatants will never be restricted in any whatsoever.
Not to mention that games that try to take how everyone feels about how realistic every conceivable situation in that game can totally be playable and will in no way have too many rules that don't actually improve the experience of playing the game at all.
Huh, missed that bit of Steel Behemoth. Enjoy doing the same with a Land Raider Redeemer...oh wait.
Enjoy getting overwatched by those flamestorm cannons and counter-charged by the Assault terminators it was carrying.
There are answers for most vehicle types to mitigate the worst case scenarios. They are either shooty and rely on support, fly and don't care, tough enough to sit and tank some melee, or fighty / transport units that are fighty. I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal.
Point for consideration: monstrous creatures like a carnifex have always had a similar problem of being prevented from shooting/moving by a single grot. Why is that more acceptable than a tank suffering the same way?
TBH, I'd be fine with a rule that that gave vehicles and MC of sufficient size the ability to just push their way out of combat with weak units, but I would think it strange if only vehicles and not MCs could do this.
SuspiciousSucculent wrote: Point for consideration: monstrous creatures like a carnifex have always had a similar problem of being prevented from shooting/moving by a single grot. Why is that more acceptable than a tank suffering the same way?
TBH, I'd be fine with a rule that that gave vehicles and MC of sufficient size the ability to just push their way out of combat with weak units, but I would think it strange if only vehicles and not MCs could do this.
We have a winner here. Warmahordes does the same thing by allowing slams, throws and tramples.
We have been using fly based off of what they told us Fly does but not actually seeing the "Fly" Keyword rule anywhere in the rules leak so far.
I think there must be some little column or page that describes what additional rules some keywords do and maybe Vehicle is one of those.
I agree that there are a lot of little oddities in the rules, especially when it comes to vehicles but it IS possible that the "Vehicle" keyword grants exceptions the way that Fly does.
That being said, Venomthropes and Zoanthropes have the Fly keyword. Can you imagine them assaulting a Dakkajet?
SuspiciousSucculent wrote: Point for consideration: monstrous creatures like a carnifex have always had a similar problem of being prevented from shooting/moving by a single grot. Why is that more acceptable than a tank suffering the same way?
TBH, I'd be fine with a rule that that gave vehicles and MC of sufficient size the ability to just push their way out of combat with weak units, but I would think it strange if only vehicles and not MCs could do this.
MCs also have non-poo melee attacks. They can be tarpitted, sure, but they can't be stunlocked out quite so easily by something a tenth their price.
What we really need is a lighter version of the Baneblade's Steel Behemoth rule that lets vehicles fire "defensive weapons" as pistols while locked in combat. Give them some way to do something about it other than making three attacks with their glorious 6+ WS.
Lance845 wrote: We have been using fly based off of what they told us Fly does but not actually seeing the "Fly" Keyword rule anywhere in the rules leak so far.
I think there must be some little column or page that describes what additional rules some keywords do and maybe Vehicle is one of those.
I agree that there are a lot of little oddities in the rules, especially when it comes to vehicles but it IS possible that the "Vehicle" keyword grants exceptions the way that Fly does.
That being said, Venomthropes and Zoanthropes have the Fly keyword. Can you imagine them assaulting a Dakkajet?
The rules for Falling Back in the main rulebook and the rules for Airborne on flyer units specify what Fly does.
Lance845 wrote: We have been using fly based off of what they told us Fly does but not actually seeing the "Fly" Keyword rule anywhere in the rules leak so far.
I think there must be some little column or page that describes what additional rules some keywords do and maybe Vehicle is one of those.
I agree that there are a lot of little oddities in the rules, especially when it comes to vehicles but it IS possible that the "Vehicle" keyword grants exceptions the way that Fly does.
That being said, Venomthropes and Zoanthropes have the Fly keyword. Can you imagine them assaulting a Dakkajet?
There isn't a consolidated keyword section because most keywords don't have inherent properties attached to them, they're there for other rules to check for. We know what Fly does because the "Falling Back" rule under the Movement phase in the leaks contains the sentence "A unit that falls back also cannot shoot later that turn, unless it has the Fly rule.", which suggests to me that if vehicles had that kind of inherent protection that's where it'd be.
But yeah. There are definitely a lot of funny mental images that come out of the Fly rule meaning "hovering thing" as well as "thing that goes fast at high altitude". My personal favourite is the Monolith jumping up to swat airplanes.
I had to dig up some models to check if it really is so Easy. So here is a demonstration what you can do if you get within 1" of a rhino with your charge. In the third photo there is a wych on each side of the rhino, thus it can't move.
I don't think this is a very hard move to do. Especially if you just want to make sure that 350 point Land raider doesn't shoot on next turn, the initial situation is enough
I don't mind it Otherwise, it's something that has always been done. Now it's just more effective and easier to do. Which I fear might mean that taking a Land raider might not be such a good idea as it first felt after seeing the stats.
jamopower wrote: I had to dig up some models to check if it really is so Easy. So here is a demonstration what you can do if you get within 1" of a rhino with your charge. In the third photo there is a wych on each side of the rhino, thus it can't move.
I don't think this is a very hard move to do. Especially if you just want to make sure that 350 point Land raider doesn't shoot on next turn, the initial situation is enough
I don't mind it Otherwise, it's something that has always been done. Now it's just more effective and easier to do. Which I fear might mean that taking a Land raider might not be such a good idea as it first felt after seeing the stats.
In your example though the passengers could still disembark and help to get it out of combat, which in reality will be what happens in most of these cases if players are smart, they will have nearby units to bail out the vehicle in this case.
Yes I know, but blocking that wouldn't be too hard either. This was just an example where the wyches "just made it". With just a model 1" from each of the front corners you can encircle it totally.
MagicJuggler wrote: 8th consolidates the rules for vehicles, replacing Tank Shock and Ramming with the ability to charge enemy units and attack on 6s. This has several side effects:
Vehicle vs Assaulters: In 7th, a vehicle that somehow survived melee could either disengage freely without penalty. At worst they could still fire. In 8th, unless you Fly or have special rules, you can't shoot if the enemy is in melee, and you can't shoot if you withdraw. A single Shield Drone poking a Land Raider can stop it from shooting for a turn.
Vehicle vs chaff: Tank Shock is gone. A single Hormagaunt can stop a Land Raider in its tracks, while 4 of them can surround it and lock it in place! Lest you think this is a preposterous scenario, you consider their speed and 6" pile-in and 6" consolidation let them outright surround it (and remember, there was no consolidation vs vehicles in 3rd-7th). Don't forget the defender chooses all casualties so you might not even get where you want to go anyway if you try to shoot or melee the zerglings in your way.
Vehicle vs Vehicle: in 7th, ramming automatically inflicted a hit on both models. In 8th, one vehicle can hit another while the other misses. Sure you could argue that one vehicle didn't get a "hit on a good spot" but isn't that what to-wound/to-penetrate rolls are for?
Abstraction or rule consolidation are one thing (replacing Fleet/Crusader/Fast/etc with a move profile) but this is rather enbarassing.
Right, because a vehicle literally surrounded by enemy combatants will never be restricted in any whatsoever.
Not to mention that games that try to take how everyone feels about how realistic every conceivable situation in that game can totally be playable and will in no way have too many rules that don't actually improve the experience of playing the game at all.
Are you saying that a Battlewagon with a Deffrolla should be halted entirely because some brave guardsmen surrounded it?
MagicJuggler wrote: 8th consolidates the rules for vehicles, replacing Tank Shock and Ramming with the ability to charge enemy units and attack on 6s. This has several side effects:
Vehicle vs Assaulters: In 7th, a vehicle that somehow survived melee could either disengage freely without penalty. At worst they could still fire. In 8th, unless you Fly or have special rules, you can't shoot if the enemy is in melee, and you can't shoot if you withdraw. A single Shield Drone poking a Land Raider can stop it from shooting for a turn.
Vehicle vs chaff: Tank Shock is gone. A single Hormagaunt can stop a Land Raider in its tracks, while 4 of them can surround it and lock it in place! Lest you think this is a preposterous scenario, you consider their speed and 6" pile-in and 6" consolidation let them outright surround it (and remember, there was no consolidation vs vehicles in 3rd-7th). Don't forget the defender chooses all casualties so you might not even get where you want to go anyway if you try to shoot or melee the zerglings in your way.
Vehicle vs Vehicle: in 7th, ramming automatically inflicted a hit on both models. In 8th, one vehicle can hit another while the other misses. Sure you could argue that one vehicle didn't get a "hit on a good spot" but isn't that what to-wound/to-penetrate rolls are for?
Abstraction or rule consolidation are one thing (replacing Fleet/Crusader/Fast/etc with a move profile) but this is rather enbarassing.
Right, because a vehicle literally surrounded by enemy combatants will never be restricted in any whatsoever.
Not to mention that games that try to take how everyone feels about how realistic every conceivable situation in that game can totally be playable and will in no way have too many rules that don't actually improve the experience of playing the game at all.
Are you saying that a Battlewagon with a Deffrolla should be halted entirely because some brave guardsmen surrounded it?
I'm imagining the Battlewagon's engine choking out on the dead bodies that got caught inside while it was crushing through the poor terrified guardsmen and its now stuck doing donuts while the guardsmen are trying to dogpile on it.
And what happens if that Deffrolla missed? Say a Genestealer Cult Magus cast Hypnosis on it or so. Is the driver magically hitting the brakes each time it would hit a Cultists instead?
What happens when two Rhinos collide head-on and only one Rhino hits?
And the whole argument about hormagaunts is ridiculous. There is literally one unit in the game that can make such a consolidation move, and therefore vehicles are broken? Come on! And frankly, horms really needed the help, so it's a neat trick if it works, but not something I bet is likely to be a major issue. I could be wrong, but we'll see soon I guess. And if it is really making it hard for you to forge the narrative, just imagine how hard he t must be to maneuver inside a tank when you have dozens of hormagaunts climbing all over the hull, choking the vision slits with their talons and choking the treads with their corpses.
If they ever 'fix' this hormagaunts should get a special rule that lets them carry on clogging up tank treads with their bodies. Commissars should also grant this ability to guardsmen squads.
MagicJuggler wrote: And what happens if that Deffrolla missed? Say a Genestealer Cult Magus cast Hypnosis on it or so. Is the driver magically hitting the brakes each time it would hit a Cultists instead?
What happens when two Rhinos collide head-on and only one Rhino hits?
He unconsciously takes his foot off the gas as he turns slower, allowing them more time to dodge?
I might be wring, but was it so that all ranges are measured from bases, except for vehicles where they are measured from hulls. As Falcons and some other skimmers have the rule that their base is ignored, going full RAW would therefore mean that if they are flying over 1" + the base height from the ground, which I think can be possible with the flying stands, they can't be assaulted by infantry as you can't get you base within 1" of the hull... Hopefully I remember incorrectly, because I'm sure someone will eventually try this somewhere.
MagicJuggler wrote: And what happens if that Deffrolla missed? Say a Genestealer Cult Magus cast Hypnosis on it or so. Is the driver magically hitting the brakes each time it would hit a Cultists instead?
Maybe it missed? Have you ever tried to run someone over when they're aware of your intentions? It's not as easy as you'd like, especially when they've got a mind full of things you don't want getting out...
MagicJuggler wrote: And what happens if that Deffrolla missed? Say a Genestealer Cult Magus cast Hypnosis on it or so. Is the driver magically hitting the brakes each time it would hit a Cultists instead?
Maybe it missed? Have you ever tried to run someone over when they're aware of your intentions? It's not as easy as you'd like, especially when they've got a mind full of things you don't want getting out...
I really hope you're not speaking from first-hand experience.
MagicJuggler wrote: And what happens if that Deffrolla missed? Say a Genestealer Cult Magus cast Hypnosis on it or so. Is the driver magically hitting the brakes each time it would hit a Cultists instead?
What happens when two Rhinos collide head-on and only one Rhino hits?
The one that "hit" got a front corner smack in the middle of the one that "missed"'s front plate and staved it in, taking limited damage in return? (If you go over to your kitchen and smack a couple of eggs together I suspect you will have a very hard time finding a situation in which both are exactly as damaged as the other one, at least until you start smacking them together hard enough to utterly destroy both.)
(The to-hit/to-wound distinction is an abstraction designed to let us play the game with d6s and without complicated physics simulations, in the real world they're one 'roll'. "Did it hit in the right place to do damage?", not "Did it hit (full stop), then did it do damage?")
Also, if we're being pedantic about literalism and realism, how was Tank Shock any better when one guy out of the unit has a chance to heroically face down the tank and stop it dead in its tracks with an epically timed melee attack?
Luciferian wrote: Also, if we're being pedantic about literalism and realism, how was Tank Shock any better when one guy out of the unit has a chance to heroically face down the tank and stop it dead in its tracks with an epically timed melee attack?
...I mean, if you want to talk the realism of Death Or Glory, I've seen it attempted in the game many times and only seen it succeed once, so it is kind of realistic. If you try that you get run over and go squish.
Are you saying that a Battlewagon with a Deffrolla should be halted entirely because some brave guardsmen surrounded it?
I'm imagining the Battlewagon's engine choking out on the dead bodies that got caught inside while it was crushing through the poor terrified guardsmen and its now stuck doing donuts while the guardsmen are trying to dogpile on it.
"Oi put dis thing in reverse one of dem oomans is still movin. If we don't squish dem the first time we can alwayz go back for annuver go!" I mean I can easily see ork drivers getting just as distracted as any other unit when engaged in close combat. Would a squad of guardsmen physically be able to stop a charging mob of mega armoured nobs if they were really intent on tearing up the Leman Russ behind them? But they're orks so of course they're going to kill the people in front of them. A trained space marine driver in a rhino should probably be able to keep moving forward though.
Luciferian wrote: Also, if we're being pedantic about literalism and realism, how was Tank Shock any better when one guy out of the unit has a chance to heroically face down the tank and stop it dead in its tracks with an epically timed melee attack?
I think you just answered your own question there. Death or Glory was both an actual gameplay decision ("do I risk losing a hidden special") and narrative-forging: One lowly trooper rising to the occasion and risking life and limb to save his comrades against an armored behemoth moving with the force of a Mack truck, versus said behemoth coming to a halt Looney-Toons style against a Guardsman because it failed to hit said Guardsman despite visibly hitting said Guardsman.
Baneblades can fire in combat. Specifically, it can target the units assaulting it with only its sponson mounted guns, but the primary armament can still fire at things further away than 1"
Also, surrounding tanks in melee, stopping them in place, and tearing them into pieces is a thing in this edition anyway.
Leman Russes have 72" of range. They don't and shouldn't be at risk of being encircled and locked in assault. Really, the same goes for Baneblades too. There's lots of guardsmen to keep the enemy away, even then.
Each turn only represents a few seconds anyway, so it's not like the vehicles are literally coming to a complete halt and waiting around for grots to beat on them with wrenches. They're coming in to run a couple of guys down; maybe they do or maybe their targets dive out of the way. Then when the rabble outside starts to bang on the windows with chainswords and choppas they turn or reverse to get some breathing room and come back in for another pass. Which is pretty much exactly what you would do in real life if you were trying to single-handedly run down a mob of people. Especially if you want to be doubly sure that none of them get away to speak to anyone...
Luciferian wrote: Also, if we're being pedantic about literalism and realism, how was Tank Shock any better when one guy out of the unit has a chance to heroically face down the tank and stop it dead in its tracks with an epically timed melee attack?
I think you just answered your own question there. Death or Glory was both an actual gameplay decision ("do I risk losing a hidden special") and narrative-forging: One lowly trooper rising to the occasion and risking life and limb to save his comrades against an armored behemoth moving with the force of a Mack truck, versus said behemoth coming to a halt Looney-Toons style against a Guardsman because it failed to hit said Guardsman despite visibly hitting said Guardsman.
But that one lonely trooper couldn't attempt such a thing against a charging MC :/
I agree that there is a lot of silly stuff going on, but the arbitrary distinction between several tons of angry metal bearing down on you and several tons of angry muscle bearing down on you was also silly. The current rules need some fixing, but I do think that trying to unify MC and vehicle rules is a generally good thing. Not terribly well executed in this case, sure, but generally a good thing.
Thread has far too many "realism" vs gameplay comparisons. You just can't use one to inform the other. Gameplay has restrictions and a limited set of rules to make it function without bogging things down. Even 1st and 2nd editions, with their far more fiddly sets of rules and expansions, could not cover every conceivable situation. The rules will not and cannot be perfect representations of war in the year 40,000+.
Speaking only in terms of gameplay, I maintain that if you find your vehicle in a position where a small handful of grots have completely immobilized it (or a comparable situation), you either played poorly or were outmaneuvered.
Martel732 wrote: 7th ed: my tank shocking Rhino monster trucks an anchored Stormsurge to death. Sure, 7th totally has the realism high ground.
5th had the same issue vs Mycetic Spores. I'm not saying Tank Shock was perfect by a long shot, but removing model displacement altogether and making firing after disengaging a bespoke rule has messy implications mentioned in the OP. Sure, you could charge a Deff Dread in to kill the chaff tying up your tank, but then you expose your bigger units to counter-attack in a system where the charger gets the first strike.
Personally I like the idea of merging Tank Shock, Ramming and Hammer of Wrath into the same core rule, and adding a "displacement" (akin to how Bulldoze in WMH works) equal to the difference in Strength values between the Hammer of Wrath versus the nail. I've mentioned the Stormsurge issue beforehand in Proposed Rules, suggesting that it should be harder for a Rhino to displace an Ogryn than it should a Guardsman, or how it's silly that a Warbuggy can delay a Land Raider moving for a turn (something I used to do mercilessly in 5th btw; any turn I could force a Land Raider to move at Combat Speed was a win in my book as it meant Klaws could actually hit!).
I have never used Land Raiders in a serious game for many reasons. The number one reason: single melta shots, has now been removed. I'll worry about movement shenanigans in exchange for not getting one-shotted.
I understand the concerns, but also realize that MANY people misplayed tank shock badly. I don't miss it, really.
PlaguedOne wrote: Thread has far too many "realism" vs gameplay comparisons. You just can't use one to inform the other. Gameplay has restrictions and a limited set of rules to make it function without bogging things down. Even 1st and 2nd editions, with their far more fiddly sets of rules and expansions, could not cover every conceivable situation. The rules will not and cannot be perfect representations of war in the year 40,000+.
Speaking only in terms of gameplay, I maintain that if you find your vehicle in a position where a small handful of grots have completely immobilized it (or a comparable situation), you either played poorly or were outmaneuvered.
I think it's mainly problem gameplay wise. The tanks are very expensive, especially the transports and very especially land raiders, because they give a good cover for the transported troops inside, that most likely will want to get close to the enemy. Still, they are quite easy to play out for a turn by any model in the game (though of course there is overwatch and the melee attacks), especially if they get close to the enemy. This can lead to those expensive tanks being left on the shelf. Time will tell of course, I just have my doubts.
Martel732 wrote: I have never used Land Raiders in a serious game for many reasons. The number one reason: single melta shots, has now been removed. I'll worry about movement shenanigans in exchange for not getting one-shotted.
I understand the concerns, but also realize that MANY people misplayed tank shock badly. I don't miss it, really.
Land Raiders turn into Bricks of Death thanks to the number of shots they can throw out a turn. Especially the LRC which can throw out 24 shots (not counting if you buy a Storm Bolter or Multi-Melta for it) a turn.
Plus they're large enough it's hard for a single unit to fully wrap them in a single turn (save for Berserkers or similar units that can fight twice).
PlaguedOne wrote: Thread has far too many "realism" vs gameplay comparisons. You just can't use one to inform the other. Gameplay has restrictions and a limited set of rules to make it function without bogging things down. Even 1st and 2nd editions, with their far more fiddly sets of rules and expansions, could not cover every conceivable situation. The rules will not and cannot be perfect representations of war in the year 40,000+.
Speaking only in terms of gameplay, I maintain that if you find your vehicle in a position where a small handful of grots have completely immobilized it (or a comparable situation), you either played poorly or were outmaneuvered.
I think it's mainly problem gameplay wise. The tanks are very expensive, especially the transports and very especially land raiders, because they give a good cover for the transported troops inside, that most likely will want to get close to the enemy. Still, they are quite easy to play out for a turn by any model in the game (though of course there is overwatch and the melee attacks), especially if they get close to the enemy. This can lead to those expensive tanks being left on the shelf. Time will tell of course, I just have my doubts.
From my game of 8th against someone with tanks versus running an all foot Marine list: tanks art still going to be a thing. The All Mech army though is largely dead though, partially from cost, partially because it exposes your tanks to too many threats, and partially because character abilities don't work from inside the tank.
So 'World of Tanks' style armies are not as likely to be a thing, but that's fine by me.
The only thing I'm getting from this thread is that people have based their understanding of tanks and armored warfare on previous editions of the 40k rules.
Can we start putting all the good things other people said in spoilers? Glad you made a friend and all bit it really clogs up the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
orkychaos wrote: The only thing I'm getting from this thread is that people have based their understanding of tanks and armored warfare on previous editions of the 40k rules.
Lots of new players/posters gotta learn the rules. Good for GW, bad for us for a while. Patience is a virtue and all that.
jamopower wrote: I just have a bad feeling that the easily done "silencing" of tanks with disposable fast stuff will eventually make them not worth having in the army, except for the flying ones, that seem to be very useful for many things.
Or you could, you know, keep your expensive ranged weapon tanks away from blobs of enemy infantry, or support them with your own infantry.
HOW DARE YOU INTERJECT TACTICS INTO A RULES DISCUSSION!
It's just as possible to block the enemy chaff with your own/destroy them before they tie your tanks down, as it is possible to reach those tanks and tie them down.
No amount of vacuum planets-lined-up theorycrafting changes this fact, so might aswell stop trying.
I'm not saying that it's something that can't be played around. It just feels like a pretty big weakness for the vehicles which need to operate closer to the enemy lines (so transports and shorter range stuff). Also something to keep in mind when building armies, fast moving chaff and deepstrikers like lictors seem to be very valuable.
It's also good to remember that bubblewrapping is not as Easy as before due to very different pile-in and Consolidate moves. I have played enough Age of Sigmar to have been surprised by clrver use of those moves many times. Essentially you need to have more than 3" between the bubblewrap and the protected unit and even then it might not be enough if there is enough casualties.
Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.
Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.
Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.
If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.
If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?
Not a complete fix by any means, but if you dump your marines at 14-15" you can move your troops and transport up (to rapid fire range for the troops, and easy charge distance for the transport), shoot up the units a bunch, and then charge whatever's left with the transport. Doesn't help units that want to get into melee, but for those that excel at short range firefights, this tactic isn't bad.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
They did move, you're the one that failed.
Martel732 wrote: I have never used Land Raiders in a serious game for many reasons. The number one reason: single melta shots, has now been removed. I'll worry about movement shenanigans in exchange for not getting one-shotted.
I understand the concerns, but also realize that MANY people misplayed tank shock badly. I don't miss it, really.
Poly Ranger wrote:Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.
Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.
Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.
If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.
If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?
So why in your scenarior the entire list is only in those Rhinos? No HS or FA options to balance things out and work on thinning hordes, or breaking enemy armour and thus acting as fire magnets?
Also fast units like Assault Marines or Thunderwolf Cav can screen tanks from the front to protect them.
Last two things before I move on:
1. Just because a tank is surrounded doesn't mean it can't anything. If you haven't gotten into melee with the tank it can still shoot, and if it's in melee it can still fight.
2. 3" disembark from the hull doesn't prevent verticle movement so if the vehicle is close enough to ruins the unit can always pile out on a floor right above it.
tl;dr: don,t put all your stuff in tanks without support unless you like loosing, screening units still work, and verticle disembarks are still a thing.
MagicJuggler wrote: Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.
Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.
But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.
They did move, you're the one that failed.
Not really. Picture showed them disembarking, and then the tank charging, no movement, also disembarking from the rear is useless for units at want to charge. Disembark from the front, move forward (turning a 6" move effectively into a 9" one), then move the tank forward at a diagonal to charge the target's flank.
But sure, I "failed" because I picture actual tactics for doing a supported charge instead of making memes about how I don't understand concepts and instead assume that any good idea is always going to fail.
Poly Ranger wrote: Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.
Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.
Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.
If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.
If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?
"Player A has six Rhinos bursting at the seems with assault units. All his points are in these Rhinos, man, these Rhinos are his army, man."
"Player B, his opponent, has some weirdly balanced all comers list where he's got like a bubble wrap of small units of chaff in front of his bigger units."
"So Player A thinks, 'No problem, man, I'll just smash through the chaff with my tanks, man'. So he pushes all his metal boxes forward directly into the enemy deployment zone turn one, right? And, get this, man, Player B just straight up surrounds every Rhino with small units since they're so close to the Rhinos now, charges, and BAM, the Rhinos can't get out! Game over, Player B wins."
"Explain how Player A not using any advanced tactics at all like screening units, ranged weapons, unit synergy, or unit baiting lost to someone like Player B who's potentially using all of the above?"
I think this thread is actively making people dumber. If you need help with tactics, go to the tactics forum and get some advice. 8th is not 7th and going on and on and on about 7th tactics that no longer work (actually the above would never have worked in 7th anyways those Rhinos would have all exploded in seconds in 7th and the assault units would have been shot to death, anyone believing otherwise is a fool) is counterproductive.
I play World Eaters. In my first game of 8th I rushed my Rhino full of Kharn and Berzerkers forward and guess what happened? He charged that Rhino with his Rhino. Kharn couldn't get out of his flippin transport till Turn Three. Now, I take a unit of Flesh Hounds and let them lead the Rhino into battle. I've got a unit of Cultists behind them to stop deep strikers from getting behind me. I stick a Herald of Khorne on a Jugger with the Hounds, and a Deamon Prince of Khorne there too. The Hounds now do enough damage they cannot be ignored, and when the enemy tries to deal with them the whole thing explodes outwards, Berzerkers, Herald, Prince, Kharn. Hell I'm thinking of sticking another Chaos Lord in the Rhino with them. Might even take a Bloodthirster to be a bullet magnet while this bundle of DOOM moves up the field at max speed.
You can either choose to figure out new tactics within the new system, or you can choose to lose. The choice is yours.
Isn't the only real problem here that you can lock a unit in the transporter? Even that, I feel like if you know about it, you can avoid it most of the time, but it's still silly and not really a healthy game mechanic.
The fact that a vehicle can get stuck, I can't see a problem with. It's strategy, and strategy is a good thing.
I feel like a fix to the real problem would be to allow anyone sitting in a transport that is in close combat to join it.
Give anyone embarked a rule called something appropriately heroic like Join The Fray, so they can, at the start of close combat, if the vehicle is in close combat, disembark and will be placed anywhere within 1 inch of the unit your vehicle is in combat with (placed by the enemy, if you will) and they count as having been charged, giving the advantage of the charge over to the enemy. Maybe the unit even takes a mortal wound as they disembark into combat. What do I know.
I'm just saying, I hope these are the kind of things GW will be trying to fix in the coming years of 8th.
Addendum: "Join The Fray Can't be used if the vehicle made a charge move this round." Just in case someone thinks of some really fast transport that could use this way too well to drop people into combat. I'm just brainstorming here, so forgive me for not thinking about that on the first go.
Purifier wrote: Isn't the only real problem here that you can lock a unit in the transporter? Even that, I feel like if you know about it, you can avoid it most of the time, but it's still silly and not really a healthy game mechanic.
The fact that a vehicle can get stuck, I can't see a problem with. It's strategy, and strategy is a good thing.
I feel like a fix to the real problem would be to allow anyone sitting in a transport that is in close combat to join it.
Give anyone embarked a rule called something appropriately heroic like Join The Fray, so they can, at the start of close combat, if the vehicle is in close combat, disembark and will be placed anywhere within 1 inch of the unit your vehicle is in combat with (placed by the enemy, if you will) and they count as having been charged, giving the advantage of the charge over to the enemy. Maybe the unit even takes a mortal wound as they disembark into combat. What do I know.
I'm just saying, I hope these are the kind of things GW will be trying to fix in the coming years of 8th.
These are perfect ideas. Plus, if my transport has a door that is not blocked, I should be able to disembark even if the transport is in assault.
Call the rule "Witness This" and you're halfway to turning 8th into Fury Rhino...which truth be told would be an awesome way to 40k.
Other issues as mentioned are more mechanical in their implementation. The most irksome being vehicles failing to hit each other at point blank range. (I get they're not landing "good hits" and all but shouldn't this be what the wound roll is for?) Or as one sparky comment I came across went "What happens when two vehicles lock each other in melee? Do they spin around in place? Are Baneblades now Beyblades?" Something about that mental image just really ruined the thought of taking 8th seriously (that and the hard reset of every army, to the point of 100% illegality).
MagicJuggler wrote: Call the rule "Witness This" and you're halfway to turning 8th into Fury Rhino...which truth be told would be an awesome way to 40k.
Other issues as mentioned are more mechanical in their implementation. The most irksome being vehicles failing to hit each other at point blank range. (I get they're not landing "good hits" and all but shouldn't this be what the wound roll is for?) Or as one sparky comment I came across went "What happens when two vehicles lock each other in melee? Do they spin around in place? Are Baneblades now Beyblades?" Something about that mental image just really ruined the thought of taking 8th seriously (that and the hard reset of every army, to the point of 100% illegality).
I'd rather see it on the to hit role, because if they had a terrible to wound roll (meaning low str) it would mean that if a landraider hit a gretchin it might fail to wound him. Which makes just as little sense as vehicle missing another vehicle.
It just seems you are very bad at abstract concepts, and want specific rules for a lot of things. If you had a rule that vehicles could not be locked in combat, then you need exceptions for walkers, or keywords for various vehicle types, or specific rules on each vehicle stating whether it could be locked. Maybe 2 vehicles locked in a slap fight got armor plates jammed together and are stuck together and are trying to rip free (doing damage when they try).
Not really. Picture showed them disembarking, and then the tank charging, no movement, also disembarking from the rear is useless for units at want to charge. Disembark from the front, move forward (turning a 6" move effectively into a 9" one), then move the tank forward at a diagonal to charge the target's flank.
But sure, I "failed" because I picture actual tactics for doing a supported charge instead of making memes about how I don't understand concepts and instead assume that any good idea is always going to fail.
Then you double down on it. I'm honestly impressed.
Picture showed a concept, that you failed to understand. As well as a basic understanding relations that you failed to realize.
Basic Relation - If they both moved, then they would still relatively be the same distance from the enemy. This is completely ignoring the fact that Rhinos are faster than the majority of infantry.
Concept - Finally, it doesn't matter the actual distance between the 2 because it's getting an idea across. The core of the idea the image displayed is that Transport might succeed the charge and the actual melee infantry would fail it.
So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.
Talamare wrote: So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.
I agree that this is the discussion. The meme isn't invalidated by anything said so far. The meme was however absolutely crazy. What are you suggesting as an alternative? That they drive their vehicle into the enemy and then disembark? Why would they do that? Are you under the impression that's how modern day APCs work? That they just run it all the way into an enemy and then disembark?
I mean clearly 40k in no way represents modern day tactics, but since you seem to be painting the picture that ramming your transport into something and then trying to disembark it while those things are ripping anyone coming out of the doors apart is the natural way to do it, you must have gotten that from somewhere, and I can't for the life of me figure out where that is.
Disembarking first so that you are then battle ready when you hit the enemy seems a lot more reasonable to me.
So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.
And the answer to that is painfully obvious: it's for gameplay and balance purposes. Because it would be too strong if vehicles could spill their units directly on top of the enemy with guaranteed charges. Same reason you can't deep strike any closer than over 9" away. Now, you can either accept that this is a game, and that as such, certain concessions must be made for the sake of gameplay, or you can argue from absurdity by selectively interpreting gameplay mechanics as what is literally happening in the battle they represent. I continue to note that no one is concerned that each army takes turns standing still while the other one fires.
Talamare wrote: So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.
I mean clearly 40k in no way represents modern day tactics, but since you seem to be painting the picture that ramming your transport into something and then trying to disembark it while those things are ripping anyone coming out of the doors apart is the natural way to do it, you must have gotten that from somewhere, and I can't for the life of me figure out where that is.
How about Gorkamorka, general rules for Open-Topped and Assault Vehicles in previous editions, artwork and miniatures that show half-naked Space Elves hanging on the sides of vehicles that are jumping in from low orbit, formations such as the Deliverance Broodsurge, etc? Not to mention pop culture examples (Hello Mad Max, or Serenity) where said tanks are akin to mobile pirate ships with boarding actions, etc.
This isn't about "realistic scifi armored warfare." Games like that exist already (Ex: Dirtside). This is about making tanks *feel* like tanks, or at least the semi-cinematic depiction of said tanks in a way that would "make sense". It may not be realistic to attempt to move tanks into urban terrain where they could be funneled into ambushes, their tracks torn off by IEDs, etc. but it's also not realistic nor is it cinematic for said tank to skid to a halt because it failed to hit something that would give the tank a Red Paint Job. (Side note: it would be hilarious if Deffrolla Wagons could start moving faster the more troops they run over, due to acquiring a red paint job in-game).
MagicJuggler wrote: And what happens if that Deffrolla missed? Say a Genestealer Cult Magus cast Hypnosis on it or so. Is the driver magically hitting the brakes each time it would hit a Cultists instead?
Impossible. Nothing short of Gork and Mork can stop an Ork from "Goin' fasta"
Yes, that would be both hilarious and a flavourful rule. But you showed a tin can transport with tiny doors for big men and tried to make out like it was ridiculous in the extreme that they had to disembark it before assaulting. It's not.
If what you were trying to say was "I want Mad Max" then you did the worst imaginable job at it. Your meme was all about bashing 8th, so are we to assume that you thought 7th was fantastic for charging in your rhino and then charging your marines out of it?
Talamare wrote: So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.
I agree that this is the discussion. The meme isn't invalidated by anything said so far. The meme was however absolutely crazy. What are you suggesting as an alternative? That they drive their vehicle into the enemy and then disembark? Why would they do that? Are you under the impression that's how modern day APCs work? That they just run it all the way into an enemy and then disembark?
I mean clearly 40k in no way represents modern day tactics, but since you seem to be painting the picture that ramming your transport into something and then trying to disembark it while those things are ripping anyone coming out of the doors apart is the natural way to do it, you must have gotten that from somewhere, and I can't for the life of me figure out where that is.
Disembarking first so that you are then battle ready when you hit the enemy seems a lot more reasonable to me.
I agree that Rhinos are too small and are intended for the strict purpose of ferrying troops who should disembark before arriving at the enemy.
The APC probably wouldn't then try to run the enemies over, but let's just ignore that for now.
Tho there are vehicles in the settings that were specifically designed to be able to be rushed out of. Something akin to the higgins from WW2 era.
Modern Combat doesn't really involve Swordplay, so none of our vehicles would incorporate a need to be able to exit a vehicle and rush into melee combat.
However, The Future Combat of 40k Swordplay is an integral aspect of warfare and they have designed certain vehicles to incorporate that.
Tho they also realized that not every vehicle needs that functionality.
Because mechanized infantry doesn't generally like to disembark directly under fire or into the enemy?
40k has given you a huge unrealistic view of armor and transport. Getting out of a vehicle an into combat order and ready to fight actually isn't easy and safe while being attacked.
Think about it this way. Imagine having to go through a small door, about a foot or two off ground level while enemies are right there ready to attack you right away?
Getting out of your transport before getting to the enemy SHOULD be the norm, possibly with few exceptions like land raiders. The only weird party is the transport them charging in to absorb overwatch.
Luciferian wrote: And the answer to that is painfully obvious: it's for gameplay and balance purposes. Because it would be too strong if vehicles could spill their units directly on top of the enemy with guaranteed charges. Same reason you can't deep strike any closer than over 9" away. Now, you can either accept that this is a game, and that as such, certain concessions must be made for the sake of gameplay, or you can argue from absurdity by selectively interpreting gameplay mechanics as what is literally happening in the battle they represent.
It's less the argument of a Game vs Not a Game, vs the argument that the Game CURRENTLY has better rules for this aspect of it.
Now don't get me wrong, 8e was needed. However certain aspects of 7e function better than certain aspects of 8e.
Finally, There are always different ways to achieve balance. So the 'gameplay and balance' reason isn't one with significant weight.
Really? I am not really seeing any rhinos on the table, because anything that isn't an assault vehicle is either a death trap or used only to shoot out of. These better rules currently that you speak of are the rules that people have been tired of for a long time.
Not really. Picture showed them disembarking, and then the tank charging, no movement, also disembarking from the rear is useless for units at want to charge. Disembark from the front, move forward (turning a 6" move effectively into a 9" one), then move the tank forward at a diagonal to charge the target's flank.
But sure, I "failed" because I picture actual tactics for doing a supported charge instead of making memes about how I don't understand concepts and instead assume that any good idea is always going to fail.
Then you double down on it. I'm honestly impressed.
Picture showed a concept, that you failed to understand. As well as a basic understanding relations that you failed to realize.
It showed a simplified meme in 2d space that you're trying to treat like it was a treaty on the Art of War. It skipped a bunch of stuff simply for the sake of a laugh.
Talamare wrote: [Basic Relation - If they both moved, then they would still relatively be the same distance from the enemy. This is completely ignoring the fact that Rhinos are faster than the majority of infantry.
Concept - Finally, it doesn't matter the actual distance between the 2 because it's getting an idea across. The core of the idea the image displayed is that Transport might succeed the charge and the actual melee infantry would fail it.
So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.
Because with an effective 9" move out of a transport I apparently can decided to push towards an enemy unit well enough to properly engage, nor set up the transport towards the side so that it's not in the way of the charging unit. Or you know, increase my odds by using a command reroll.
A 8" charge is the average in this game and we now suceed a 3" charge automatically unless we charge into certain kinds of terrain (-2" for charging through woods for example). Yes the proposed scenario CAN happen, just like you could fail a charge after screening with a unit in 7th. The point remains that the tactic is a valid alternative to needing to screen as the transport is generally tough enough to take Overwatch and make the charge in one piece.
So basically the meme ignores solid tactics to propose a worse case scenario for gaks and giggles. Just like they usually do.
Luciferian wrote: And the answer to that is painfully obvious: it's for gameplay and balance purposes. Because it would be too strong if vehicles could spill their units directly on top of the enemy with guaranteed charges. Same reason you can't deep strike any closer than over 9" away. Now, you can either accept that this is a game, and that as such, certain concessions must be made for the sake of gameplay, or you can argue from absurdity by selectively interpreting gameplay mechanics as what is literally happening in the battle they represent.
It's less the argument of a Game vs Not a Game, vs the argument that the Game CURRENTLY has better rules for this aspect of it.
Now don't get me wrong, 8e was needed. However certain aspects of 7e function better than certain aspects of 8e.
Finally, There are always different ways to achieve balance. So the 'gameplay and balance' reason isn't one with significant weight.
It does? It has better rules for units being able to assault from transports?
7e = Move up and disembark, stand around to be shot for a full turn then charge.
8e = Move up, wait for a turn, disembark, move then charge.
8e is objectively better for most transports, the only transports that are better in 7e are those that already allow assaulting.
As for tankshock/ram - it is no better there are a lot of broken mechanics that make no sense and have needed FAQ interactions. Ramming has long been nearly useless. These rules aren't the best but they are better than what we had.
Let's not forget that in all these scenarios, in 7th, because Rhinos are paper thin, you could charge them, surround them, destroy the rhino with ease, and then the entire unit inside would be lost as they couldn't legally disembark.
Breng77 wrote: ...8e is objectively better for most transports, the only transports that are better in 7e are those that already allow assaulting...
Mild quibble: cost and fire points. Rhinos aren't really better in 8th, they may be tougher but they're twice the price and can't serve as a firing bunker for units with guns. Similar problem with Chimeras (especially the 6e/Inquisition ones that retained five fire points in place of two and the lasgun array).
I may have missed it, but has anyone considered making a house rule that changes disembarking to work exactly like deepstrike?
"Disembarking: A unit may disembark from a transport at the end of the movement phase. The disembarking unit must be placed in unit cohesion and must be within 3 inches of the transport vehicle. Additionally the unit must be placed more than 9" away from an enemy model. "
No you can drive up to the enemy and deploy instead of waiting for them to come to you, but you still have that risking 9" charge.
Breng77 wrote: ...8e is objectively better for most transports, the only transports that are better in 7e are those that already allow assaulting...
Mild quibble: cost and fire points. Rhinos aren't really better in 8th, they may be tougher but they're twice the price and can't serve as a firing bunker for units with guns. Similar problem with Chimeras (especially the 6e/Inquisition ones that retained five fire points in place of two and the lasgun array).
True for use for shooting most transports (non-opentopped) got significantly worse. I was talking more about for assault purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: I may have missed it, but has anyone considered making a house rule that changes disembarking to work exactly like deepstrike?
"Disembarking: A unit may disembark from a transport at the end of the movement phase. The disembarking unit must be placed in unit cohesion and must be within 3 inches of the transport vehicle. Additionally the unit must be placed more than 9" away from an enemy model. "
No you can drive up to the enemy and deploy instead of waiting for them to come to you, but you still have that risking 9" charge.
This would be a buff to shooting units relative to assault units over the current situations. A 9" charge is still difficult, but plenty of units could jump out and light up their target with shooting. Right now most units in transports need to forgo a round of shooting to use the increased transport movement.
Lance845 wrote: I may have missed it, but has anyone considered making a house rule that changes disembarking to work exactly like deepstrike?
"Disembarking: A unit may disembark from a transport at the end of the movement phase. The disembarking unit must be placed in unit cohesion and must be within 3 inches of the transport vehicle. Additionally the unit must be placed more than 9" away from an enemy model."
No you can drive up to the enemy and deploy instead of waiting for them to come to you, but you still have that risking 9" charge.
This would be a buff to shooting units relative to assault units over the current situations. A 9" charge is still difficult, but plenty of units could jump out and light up their target with shooting. Right now most units in transports need to forgo a round of shooting to use the increased transport movement.
What? Nothing about disembarking prevents you from shooting. However the assault rules create situations that allow a unit to be stuck in their transport or for the transport to be effectively tarpitted. when it gets surrounded. With the current disembark rules a transport need to move closer, but far enough away that the enemy will not reliably move forward on their turn and charge the vehicle, but also hope that the enemy doesn't decide to just back up. Then on your next turn, if the enemy has used their turn to keep your vehicle in a favorable position, you can get out, move, shoot, and charge.
Is that really better than 1) Disembarking at the end of movement (so the disembarking unit cannot move or advance), allowing them to shoot (but counting as having moved just like now) and then charging, now with the same 9" distance deep strike allows, a significantly more controllable and favorable situation for melee units in transports than the crap shoot that is moving up but also keeping your distance and then waiting and hoping the enemy doesn't throw it all away.
Lance845 wrote: I may have missed it, but has anyone considered making a house rule that changes disembarking to work exactly like deepstrike?
"Disembarking: A unit may disembark from a transport at the end of the movement phase. The disembarking unit must be placed in unit cohesion and must be within 3 inches of the transport vehicle. Additionally the unit must be placed more than 9" away from an enemy model."
No you can drive up to the enemy and deploy instead of waiting for them to come to you, but you still have that risking 9" charge.
This would be a buff to shooting units relative to assault units over the current situations. A 9" charge is still difficult, but plenty of units could jump out and light up their target with shooting. Right now most units in transports need to forgo a round of shooting to use the increased transport movement.
What? Nothing about disembarking prevents you from shooting. However the assault rules create situations that allow a unit to be stuck in their transport or for the transport to be effectively tarpitted. when it gets surrounded. With the current disembark rules a transport need to move closer, but far enough away that the enemy will not reliably move forward on their turn and charge the vehicle, but also hope that the enemy doesn't decide to just back up. Then on your next turn, if the enemy has used their turn to keep your vehicle in a favorable position, you can get out, move, shoot, and charge.
Is that really better than 1) Disembarking at the end of movement (so the disembarking unit cannot move or advance), allowing them to shoot (but counting as having moved just like now) and then charging, now with the same 9" distance deep strike allows, a significantly more controllable and favorable situation for melee units in transports than the crap shoot that is moving up but also keeping your distance and then waiting and hoping the enemy doesn't throw it all away.
Unless your vehicle is opentopped you cannot shoot while embarked and cannot disembark after a vehicle has moved, so if you move up in your transport you cannot currently shoot that turn, unlike 7e where you could move up with a rhino and either use the fire point, or jump out and shoot, now you forgo a turn of shooting to use that movement (unless you are opentopped). SO if the rules changed to disembark after move, but 9" away, most shooting units can fire to full effect, whereas assault units for the most part have a very risky charge (27% chance of success to roll a 9 or more without a command point) so that would be a buff to shooting over the current rules. Where everyone shooting or assaulting cannot attack the turn they moved, unless they are in an open topped vehicle. Essentially your change creates a situation where shooting units have no risk of moving into range, to shoot (at least until after shooting to full effect) but assault units for the most part don't make the assault, suffer overwatch, then get shot again, on the opponents turn and potentially charged.
I look at it this way.
If an enemy unit is not an assault unit, not a horde, and not super fast I am better off now than trying to make a bunch of 9" charges. I can create situations where the opponent has no good retreat option.
Also if the opponent is an assault unit (what I would be afraid of charging my transport, I can expect them to move toward me, if they run away that is a win. I'm not super worried if my opponent wants his good shooting units locked in combat with my rhino.
Automatically Appended Next Post: IN the end I don't think transport rush assault will on its own be an effective tactic. It would not be with either rule set, but with your change, transport rush shooting would be.
Also if transports can assault in your system, I can drop shooting units out the back, shoot, then assault you with the transport to deny you shooting, which I can do now, but not as quickly, and not before you can respond.
Poly Ranger wrote: Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.
Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.
Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.
If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.
If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?
I need a drink. I don't see how you can legitimize this as a serious argument when clearly one of the players has had a lobotomy.
Poly Ranger wrote: Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.
Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.
Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.
If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.
If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?
I need a drink. I don't see how you can legitimize this as a serious argument when clearly one of the players has had a lobotomy.
It's possible - I couldn't see someone doing six Rhinos outside of Apocalypse which no longer exists or a truly stupid opponent, thankfully rare, but most Marine armies can punk a vehicle with Jump Packs or Terminators, one Rhino is going to be at least a hundred points - which goes up depending on the unit inside. Drop a few units of Assault Marines around the vehicle and charge, embarked models have to disembark within 3' of the vehicle and can't be more than 1' from enemy models, meaning unless they want to be auto-slain they can't get out until the Rhino either fights its way free or dies and hopefully you can find room to keep a few models alive.
Mind you, it's an opportunist's tactic. I wouldn't bother unless the vehicle in question was carrying more than two hundred points.
A transport carrying assault troops needs to stop 3"+6"+2D6" from the enemy, which is, in fact, at a safe distance.
A rhino is 4.5" long. If I roll up with a rhino full of nasty, and park it 14" away from the enemy front line, the enemy has to make a 12.5" charge to cause my troops inside to die with their rhino. If the enemy stays in place, I have to roll a 4 on 2D6 to charge them. If the enemy comes to get me, they have to make a 7" charge to reach my tank, but they won't be able to get behind it, and my troops can get out the back of it and charge them right there. At 14", the enemy could withdraw out of range, so I could play with probability and roll up a little closer to see to it that they don't get away.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: A transport carrying assault troops needs to stop 3"+6"+2D6" from the enemy, which is, in fact, at a safe distance.
A rhino is 4.5" long. If I roll up with a rhino full of nasty, and park it 14" away from the enemy front line, the enemy has to make a 12.5" charge to cause my troops inside to die with their rhino. If the enemy stays in place, I have to roll a 4 on 2D6 to charge them. If the enemy comes to get me, they have to make a 7" charge to reach my tank, but they won't be able to get behind it, and my troops can get out the back of it and charge them right there. At 14", the enemy could withdraw out of range, so I could play with probability and roll up a little closer to see to it that they don't get away.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: A transport carrying assault troops needs to stop 3"+6"+2D6" from the enemy, which is, in fact, at a safe distance.
A rhino is 4.5" long. If I roll up with a rhino full of nasty, and park it 14" away from the enemy front line, the enemy has to make a 12.5" charge to cause my troops inside to die with their rhino. If the enemy stays in place, I have to roll a 4 on 2D6 to charge them. If the enemy comes to get me, they have to make a 7" charge to reach my tank, but they won't be able to get behind it, and my troops can get out the back of it and charge them right there. At 14", the enemy could withdraw out of range, so I could play with probability and roll up a little closer to see to it that they don't get away.
Marines can buy Jump Packs and Terminator Armour which enable them to sit in reserves and at the end of their movement phase on any of their turns choose to enter from reserves and put those models down just over nine inches away from an enemy unit meaning they can surround the model in question before they charge, no transport required.
It's easy enough to thwart by using an escort system, keep a few models within eighteen inches of your vehicles and they can't surround it, there's a reason I called it an opportunistic tactic, I wouldn't plan on it but I'll happily take advantage of it.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: A transport carrying assault troops needs to stop 3"+6"+2D6" from the enemy, which is, in fact, at a safe distance.
A rhino is 4.5" long. If I roll up with a rhino full of nasty, and park it 14" away from the enemy front line, the enemy has to make a 12.5" charge to cause my troops inside to die with their rhino. If the enemy stays in place, I have to roll a 4 on 2D6 to charge them. If the enemy comes to get me, they have to make a 7" charge to reach my tank, but they won't be able to get behind it, and my troops can get out the back of it and charge them right there. At 14", the enemy could withdraw out of range, so I could play with probability and roll up a little closer to see to it that they don't get away.
Marines can buy Jump Packs and Terminator Armour which enable them to sit in reserves and at the end of their movement phase on any of their turns choose to enter from reserves and put those models down just over nine inches away from an enemy unit meaning they can surround the model in question before they charge, no transport required.
It's easy enough to thwart by using an escort system, keep a few models within eighteen inches of your vehicles and they can't surround it, there's a reason I called it an opportunistic tactic, I wouldn't plan on it but I'll happily take advantage of it.
Of course, but consider the fact that they have to roll a 9 on 2d6 to actually make it to your tank.
In addition, each 3"x4.5" rhino projects a region approximately 390 square inches in area in which no deep strike can occur, a slightly more than 10% of the board. At it's widest, this region is 23.5" wide, and 22" at it's narrowest. If the tank has a partner, then both are essentially safe from deepstrikers surrounding them, since deestrikers would require a 11 on 2d6 dice to completely surround the transport
That's not to say there's nothing that can surround your transports. Hand of the Emperor, Onslaught, and hostiles with a faster movement speed than the troops inside the transport certainly have a chance to catch you. But I wouldn't be worried about them too much. Those are individual scenarios that may arise, and if they planned their list to use this as a tailored hard counter to rhino/razorback rushing, you still have the option to disembark early and use your empty transports to screen their contents as you walk.
Poly Ranger wrote: Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.
Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.
Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.
If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.
If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?
I need a drink. I don't see how you can legitimize this as a serious argument when clearly one of the players has had a lobotomy.
That was just one scenario, no need to resort to insults.
What about a transport attempting to send a unit down the flank? it moves within 12" of a unit of Guardsmen/Grots/Cultists. Next turn the guard can charge and surround the unit. 50pt unit neutralises 300point unit by doing nothing but standing there.
You can't move transports near the opponents deployment zone if you have a small model count army without fast moving chaff units to block charges otherwise they just get locked in. So now you are paying not only the increased transport costs but also for a (fast moving) screening unit (or more) for each transport. Take BA for example, now every TAC squad in a rhino has to be escorted by an assault squad. Assault squads are not cheap compared to units which can just neutralise the transport and its occupants by just standing there, let alone the cost of the TAC squad and rhino as well.
Effectively every cheap unit has a 12"-13" bubble in which you can't move a transport into without a high risk of having it (and the unit its transporting) completely neutralised. Even larger threat bubble if the unit has a higher than 6" base move.
So no I'm not being dumb. I'm seeing the bigger picture.
ERJAK wrote: In several hundred games of 40k played and several hundred more watched I have never, ever seen anyone bother to tank shock anything. Ever. And I've only seen 1 ramming. It just didn't happen and complaining about it is frankly ridiculous. Honestly the only embarrassing thing is just how desperate you are to get people to let you summon infinite daemons forever still.
Then you never saw a single 6th edition played with Orks' most gruesome lists... "The Battle Wagon Rush" with deff rollas d6 S10 Auto hits.
Poly Ranger wrote: [
That was just one scenario, no need to resort to insults.
What about a transport attempting to send a unit down the flank? it moves within 12" of a unit of Guardsmen/Grots/Cultists. Next turn the guard can charge and surround the unit. 50pt unit neutralises 300point unit by doing nothing but standing there.
You can't move transports near the opponents deployment zone if you have a small model count army without fast moving chaff units to block charges otherwise they just get locked in. So now you are paying not only the increased transport costs but also for a (fast moving) screening unit (or more) for each transport. Take BA for example, now every TAC squad in a rhino has to be escorted by an assault squad. Assault squads are not cheap compared to units which can just neutralise the transport and its occupants by just standing there, let alone the cost of the TAC squad and rhino as well.
Effectively every cheap unit has a 12"-13" bubble in which you can't move a transport into without a high risk of having it (and the unit its transporting) completely neutralised. Even larger threat bubble if the unit has a higher than 6" base move.
So no I'm not being dumb. I'm seeing the bigger picture.
Okay, Rhino moves to within 12". Next turn, the troops inside will disembark 3", move 6", then make a 2" charge into melee with the enemy if the enemy doesn't move.
The Guardsmen seize the opportunity to try to counter-charge the Rhino.
They move forward 6". Then they charge. To make it into CQC with the Rhino they need a 5". A Rhino is 4.5" long; to get a model around the back of the Rhino they need a 11 on 2D6. If they roll more than a 4 but less than an 11, they make it to the Rhino, but on your turn the troops inside disembark out the back [which isn't blocked] then wipe out the Guardsmen in melee or in shooting. I think your Rhino is safe. I wouldn't call that a "high chance".
Fast moving units are a threat, but those units are also expensive.
If already in combat, a unit with the "Vehicle" or a "Mighty Force" type keyword should be able to move through "Infantry" a number of inches equal to or maybe half their Wounds (since Wounds sort of represent how big/tough/pushy a unit is), but not exceeding its M stat.
Infantry that end up underneath it after it's move could simply be moved to it's sides.
This would allow a big & healthy Baneblade/Land Raider/Tervigon to push through infantry undeterred as they should, but lighter or heavily damaged vehicles get bogged down more easily.
Poly Ranger wrote: [
That was just one scenario, no need to resort to insults.
What about a transport attempting to send a unit down the flank? it moves within 12" of a unit of Guardsmen/Grots/Cultists. Next turn the guard can charge and surround the unit. 50pt unit neutralises 300point unit by doing nothing but standing there.
You can't move transports near the opponents deployment zone if you have a small model count army without fast moving chaff units to block charges otherwise they just get locked in. So now you are paying not only the increased transport costs but also for a (fast moving) screening unit (or more) for each transport. Take BA for example, now every TAC squad in a rhino has to be escorted by an assault squad. Assault squads are not cheap compared to units which can just neutralise the transport and its occupants by just standing there, let alone the cost of the TAC squad and rhino as well.
Effectively every cheap unit has a 12"-13" bubble in which you can't move a transport into without a high risk of having it (and the unit its transporting) completely neutralised. Even larger threat bubble if the unit has a higher than 6" base move.
So no I'm not being dumb. I'm seeing the bigger picture.
Okay, Rhino moves to within 12". Next turn, the troops inside will disembark 3", move 6", then make a 2" charge into melee with the enemy if the enemy doesn't move.
The Guardsmen seize the opportunity to try to counter-charge the Rhino.
They move forward 6". Then they charge. To make it into CQC with the Rhino they need a 5". A Rhino is 4.5" long; to get a model around the back of the Rhino they need a 11 on 2D6. If they roll more than a 4 but less than an 11, they make it to the Rhino, but on your turn the troops inside disembark out the back [which isn't blocked] then wipe out the Guardsmen in melee or in shooting. I think your Rhino is safe. I wouldn't call that a "high chance".
Fast moving units are a threat, but those units are also expensive.
Don't you get both a 3" pile in before attacking and then a 3" consolidate move afterwards?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: A transport carrying assault troops needs to stop 3"+6"+2D6" from the enemy, which is, in fact, at a safe distance.
A rhino is 4.5" long. If I roll up with a rhino full of nasty, and park it 14" away from the enemy front line, the enemy has to make a 12.5" charge to cause my troops inside to die with their rhino. If the enemy stays in place, I have to roll a 4 on 2D6 to charge them. If the enemy comes to get me, they have to make a 7" charge to reach my tank, but they won't be able to get behind it, and my troops can get out the back of it and charge them right there. At 14", the enemy could withdraw out of range, so I could play with probability and roll up a little closer to see to it that they don't get away.
Marines can buy Jump Packs and Terminator Armour which enable them to sit in reserves and at the end of their movement phase on any of their turns choose to enter from reserves and put those models down just over nine inches away from an enemy unit meaning they can surround the model in question before they charge, no transport required.
It's easy enough to thwart by using an escort system, keep a few models within eighteen inches of your vehicles and they can't surround it, there's a reason I called it an opportunistic tactic, I wouldn't plan on it but I'll happily take advantage of it.
Of course, but consider the fact that they have to roll a 9 on 2d6 to actually make it to your tank.
In addition, each 3"x4.5" rhino projects a region approximately 390 square inches in area in which no deep strike can occur, a slightly more than 10% of the board. At it's widest, this region is 23.5" wide, and 22" at it's narrowest. If the tank has a partner, then both are essentially safe from deepstrikers surrounding them, since deestrikers would require a 11 on 2d6 dice to completely surround the transport
That's not to say there's nothing that can surround your transports. Hand of the Emperor, Onslaught, and hostiles with a faster movement speed than the troops inside the transport certainly have a chance to catch you. But I wouldn't be worried about them too much. Those are individual scenarios that may arise, and if they planned their list to use this as a tailored hard counter to rhino/razorback rushing, you still have the option to disembark early and use your empty transports to screen their contents as you walk.
The best plan is to aknowledge possibilities. If you outright dismiss any and never consider it again that's probably the one that'll get you - and taking a big risk to get a big reward is part of the game we play.
Poly Ranger wrote: [
That was just one scenario, no need to resort to insults.
What about a transport attempting to send a unit down the flank? it moves within 12" of a unit of Guardsmen/Grots/Cultists. Next turn the guard can charge and surround the unit. 50pt unit neutralises 300point unit by doing nothing but standing there.
You can't move transports near the opponents deployment zone if you have a small model count army without fast moving chaff units to block charges otherwise they just get locked in. So now you are paying not only the increased transport costs but also for a (fast moving) screening unit (or more) for each transport. Take BA for example, now every TAC squad in a rhino has to be escorted by an assault squad. Assault squads are not cheap compared to units which can just neutralise the transport and its occupants by just standing there, let alone the cost of the TAC squad and rhino as well.
Effectively every cheap unit has a 12"-13" bubble in which you can't move a transport into without a high risk of having it (and the unit its transporting) completely neutralised. Even larger threat bubble if the unit has a higher than 6" base move.
So no I'm not being dumb. I'm seeing the bigger picture.
Okay, Rhino moves to within 12". Next turn, the troops inside will disembark 3", move 6", then make a 2" charge into melee with the enemy if the enemy doesn't move.
The Guardsmen seize the opportunity to try to counter-charge the Rhino.
They move forward 6". Then they charge. To make it into CQC with the Rhino they need a 5". A Rhino is 4.5" long; to get a model around the back of the Rhino they need a 11 on 2D6. If they roll more than a 4 but less than an 11, they make it to the Rhino, but on your turn the troops inside disembark out the back [which isn't blocked] then wipe out the Guardsmen in melee or in shooting. I think your Rhino is safe. I wouldn't call that a "high chance".
Fast moving units are a threat, but those units are also expensive.
Don't you get both a 3" pile in before attacking and then a 3" consolidate move afterwards?
Yes, so you get a 6" +2D6 then a further 6" by the end of the turn if you make the charge. In other words, if you make that 6" charge you will then get to surround the rhino. A 6" charge is a 26/36 chance. So a high probability of that occurring. (Edit: and since they only need to make 5" with the new rules in this scenario that is 30/36 chance of making it.
If already in combat, a unit with the "Vehicle" or a "Mighty Force" type keyword should be able to move through "Infantry" a number of inches equal to or maybe half their Wounds (since Wounds sort of represent how big/tough/pushy a unit is), but not exceeding its M stat.
Infantry that end up underneath it after it's move could simply be moved to it's sides.
This would allow a big & healthy Baneblade/Land Raider/Tervigon to push through infantry undeterred as they should, but lighter or heavily damaged vehicles get bogged down more easily.
Just thinking out loud
This is perfect and stops rhinos and such getting trapped in melee.
Dakka Wolf wrote:
The best plan is to aknowledge possibilities. If you outright dismiss any and never consider it again that's probably the one that'll get you - and taking a big risk to get a big reward is part of the game we play.
But there's not much point in fretting about the unlikely. Then you'll just get bogged down.
SuspiciousSucculent wrote:
Don't you get both a 3" pile in before attacking and then a 3" consolidate move afterwards?
Yes, but you have to end the move closer to the nearest enemy model. But the tank also gets to pile in and consolidate, and any one of its attackers in B2B with it can be the "nearest enemy model", so it can easily slide back to put the middle of it's nose in contact with the assailiant closest to the back of the tank.
Dakka Wolf wrote:
The best plan is to aknowledge possibilities. If you outright dismiss any and never consider it again that's probably the one that'll get you - and taking a big risk to get a big reward is part of the game we play.
But there's not much point in fretting about the unlikely. Then you'll just get bogged down.
The reason Tank Shocking works for me in the current edition is because people didn't bother fretting about the unlikely and don't see the trap being laid.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Yes, but you have to end the move closer to the nearest enemy model. But the tank also gets to pile in and consolidate, and any one of its attackers in B2B with it can be the "nearest enemy model", so it can easily slide back to put the middle of it's nose in contact with the assailiant closest to the back of the tank.
Unless you can use pile in and consolidate moves to pass through enemy models, that won't help if you get surrounded. And if they use their pile in and consolidates to get from an inch away from the front of your tank to B2B contact with your rear, that's still legal.
Assuming I'm reading all the rules right, it almost seems guaranteed that they can surround the rhino as long as they have enough models and make the initial charge. Or aren't conga-lined out in a weird way that keeps most of their models pretty far out.
Luciferian wrote: Anywho, vehicles are either; a) an infantry delivery system, or b) a mobile weapons/support platform. Why are you driving them through enemy infantry anyway?!
I can't answer for everyone, but I've used CAD Troop Rhinos (objective secured) to, you know, secure objectives by tank shocking enemies off them. Not every enemy and not every game, but that poor empty transport has often secured a win or draw.
Dakka Wolf wrote:
The best plan is to aknowledge possibilities. If you outright dismiss any and never consider it again that's probably the one that'll get you - and taking a big risk to get a big reward is part of the game we play.
But there's not much point in fretting about the unlikely. Then you'll just get bogged down.
The reason Tank Shocking works for me in the current edition is because people didn't bother fretting about the unlikely and don't see the trap being laid.
I've tank shocked four things, I think, ever. Two of them were running over a Catacomb barge with a Shadowsword, one was driving a weapon-destroyed Leman Russ Vanquisher over some Necron Warriors because it had nothing better to try, and the last one was driving an Immolator over a Stormsurge. Of that, I think only the Stormsurge had anything happen to it, and only because of the Storm Anchors rule.
If you have a list dependent upon tank shocks, and it works because it's so strange nobody prepared for it, good for you. But I don't ever go "I'm going to add this to my army in case I get tank shocked". Even getting tank-shocked by battlewagons is uncommon enough for me not to worry.
SuspiciousSucculent wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Yes, but you have to end the move closer to the nearest enemy model. But the tank also gets to pile in and consolidate, and any one of its attackers in B2B with it can be the "nearest enemy model", so it can easily slide back to put the middle of it's nose in contact with the assailiant closest to the back of the tank.
Unless you can use pile in and consolidate moves to pass through enemy models, that won't help if you get surrounded. And if they use their pile in and consolidates to get from an inch away from the front of your tank to B2B contact with your rear, that's still legal.
Assuming I'm reading all the rules right, it almost seems guaranteed that they can surround the rhino as long as they have enough models and make the initial charge. Or aren't conga-lined out in a weird way that keeps most of their models pretty far out.
I guess so. Your transport crew still has 3" advantage on the enemy troops, so position yourself at 16" instead of 12". You charge on a 6 now, they charge on a 9.
I guess so. Your transport crew still has 3" advantage on the enemy troops, so position yourself at 16" instead of 12". You charge on a 6 now, they charge on a 9.
That actually sounds like a pretty good plan. Might steal this.
I guess so. Your transport crew still has 3" advantage on the enemy troops, so position yourself at 16" instead of 12". You charge on a 6 now, they charge on a 9.
That actually sounds like a pretty good plan. Might steal this.
Whilst this will work in some circumstances, it relies on the opponent staying static. It also has the downside of if the opponent makes their charge they have still incapacitated your transport and unit/s inside with no recompense whilst if you make the charge, the opponent still gets overwatch and ability to fight back.
There have been posts about using screening units, which will obviously help, but aside from the point that I mentioned earlier about elite armies being highly outnumbered and having to invest a huge amount to be able to actually use each individual transport, there is another point this suggestion (about screening units) overlooks. That being that if the opponent wipes out the screening unit, they can effectively invalidate not just the screening unit itself but the transport and it's passengers as well. You only need to wipe out that 200point jp unit and then charge the transport with a cheap chaff unit and you will have also effectively have negated another 300+ points, for merely destroying one unit. So now to ensure that doesn't happen, you play it safe and take 2 screening units, now we are looking at spending 1/3 to 1/2 of your points (including the rhino + passengers) on ensuring a single rhino and its crew is protected enough so that it doesn't get 'locked in'. (Talking about elite, lower model count armies like marines here.)
Btw I'm glad people have realised this could be a big issue and started to discuss this and try and come up with answers, rather than the earlier condescending 'Learn to play' and Lobotomy comments earlier in the thread.
That is in general a problem of elite armies, Every unit has to do multiple tasks to make it worthwile. You can't ,for example, use 2 grey knight strike squads as just screening units but you can try and position them so they also do that. I still think if you get a sizable chunk of your army disabled like this you simply got massively outmanoeuvred by your opponent.
And to people saying it should be impossible: The reason I currently no longer play CSM is that it feels like fighting the rules more so than my actual opponent.
Rules that enable tactics are by and large more fun than rules that disable tactics. Sometimes ( okay a lot of the time ) you need those for balance but if my tactic is swarm your vehicles with a horde and you have a rule that straight up makes my tactic invalid well that's no fun. Whereas if you have tactic (clever positioning, speed manoeuvres, a wall of overlapping firepower) that's a lot more fun.
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Claiming 8th is broken because 4 gretchin and surround and immobilize a baneblade is a lot like claiming 5th is broken because your opponent might roll a 6 for every VDT roll and one-shot all your vehicles, or that melee in 7th is broken because you play a pure fire warrior army and move+run straight at the enemy every game.
If you don't factor in how unlikely an event is, or how stupid a player would have to be to allow it to happen, you can break pretty much ANY game system with zero effort. Chess is broken imba because if I move my Queen to the space directly in front of a line of pawns it dies EVERY TIME.
They may not want to fix it in their same way some folks want it fixed. From a fluff point of view mix hammer fits well with many army's. Now Orks can loot anything! Choas can subvert anything! If point costs are truly individualy balanced by unit it doesn't matter what units you bash together. People wanted freedom, people wanted balance, here it is. If everyone adopts the same perfect keyword list at least everyone's army will look different.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wow, wrong thread. Wtf
Crablezworth wrote: The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.
Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?
You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.
The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.
I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.
They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.
Claiming 8th is broken because 4 gretchin and surround and immobilize a baneblade is a lot like claiming 5th is broken because your opponent might roll a 6 for every VDT roll and one-shot all your vehicles, or that melee in 7th is broken because you play a pure fire warrior army and move+run straight at the enemy every game.
If you don't factor in how unlikely an event is, or how stupid a player would have to be to allow it to happen, you can break pretty much ANY game system with zero effort. Chess is broken imba because if I move my Queen to the space directly in front of a line of pawns it dies EVERY TIME.
False analogies. The initial discussion wasn't about statistical improbability, and the second point compares a unit that was at best a tax/objective camper with an entire class of units, some whose very purpose was driving into the very center of the board in order to deliver said troops; even with the changes to Twin Link, I seriously doubt people will content themselves using Land Raiders to camp cover for example. You can't use chess as an analogy in this situation as I doubt there is a fairy-piece variant that mixes both range and normal captures in the same game.
It also does bring up weirdness: For example, how come the Baneblade is the only tank that can fire its flamers point-blank at units engaging it, while other tanks that might actually be specialized for the role (you know, like Hellhounds or Baal Predators) can't? You know, the types of tanks that are "supposed" to specialize in shock tactics.
If retreating was "a free round of melee attacks against the retreating unit" and retreating units could fire at a -1 BS penalty (on top of any normal "Heavy weapons" penalty), it would still be simple, would benefit both melee units (stuff like Hormagaunts/Boyz/etc don't get as much mileage from a free round of shooting), and would give some in-game flexibility to tanks, by letting them "kite" other squads. Or maybe tank shock does extra Battleshock when it does inflict casualties ("Sarge got run over!") or something rather than treating every unit as an impassible wall.
It's so much more believable that a entire unit of 30 gaunts miraculously dodge out of the way of a baneblade going full speed without taking a single casualty than grots climbing onto the hull and covering up the view slits/distracting the driver/gunner/tank commander. Treads never get choked up with bodies, mud, or foliage either.
Tanks should have infantry support and infantry should have tanks. If you only have one or the other you're probably gonna have a bad time.
I thought tank shock was ridiculous. Why try to run over squishys when it allows them to surround your tank and shoot you in the rear and it has basically zero effect on them. Choose one guy to make a heroic stand? Did anyone actually ever do that?
Tank Shock had very specific rules for displacing models. "Closest legal distance possible." This could be gamed for several purposes.
In one game versus an opponent running a Renegade Knight and Hounds of Abaddon, I summoned a unit of Daemonettes. They landed super close to the Knight, and ran to completely surround it. The AT on said Knight was out of LOS so I was able to run the rest of the Rhinos in a convoy to Tank-shock his units into inverted U formations, that screwed up his ability to Overwatch or Pile in when the supporting Bikers went to work. In another, I used Ramming to damage a Tantalus that had Invisibility cast on it by a nearby Seer Council.
As for Death or Glory, it's amazing what turbo-boosting Screamers would do versus a Gladius in scenario play. Don't forget that movement comes before shooting, so even if he kills said Screamers by focusing them down (still takes quite a few Lascannons thanks to Jink & re-rolling 1s), you're still maintaining positional advantage. Reaver-spam armies could hem carparks in to a lesser extent doing this.
That charging a transport stops it from moving and forces it to retreat from combat for a turn? Or is it that the 8th edition rules don't function how people think they should if the game were a battle simulation?
If you feel the fact that charging a vehicle, forcing it to retreat from combat, creates an imbalance and weakens vehicles, relative to where they were in 7th, please make your case. I can't imagine someone seriously claiming that vehicles are less useful in 8th. It seems like after reading this thread the entire argument is predicated upon driving your rhino, or what have you, across the table to get in charge range. Consider, for a brief moment, that this wasn't possible in 7th edition unless you had a spam of free transports. Try taking your land raider and driving it across the table to be in enemy charge range. It would die before this even happened. Your argument against this change should take into account the massive buffs that have been handed out to vehicles as well. You can't look at one specific vehicle rule change in a vacuum.
If your argument is "that's not how it works in real life," then there's really no argument to be had. Everyone can take a different interpretation of what era battles this is designed to loosely mimic, but regardless, it's hard to imagine any significant battle happening without the support of strong artillery, placed miles away from the actual fighting, which would render pretty much any scenario we could realistically model in 40k, completely moot. If we can teleport people wearing armor down to the surface within 9" (roughly 1.5 seconds of time spent sprinting, so pretty close) away from the enemy, why don't we just teleport down some bombs, and be done with it? 9" away from their commander a bomb explodes. GG. Stuff gets real silly real fast.
Marmatag wrote: What is the specific complaint at this point?
That charging a transport stops it from moving and forces it to retreat from combat for a turn? Or is it that the 8th edition rules don't function how people think they should if the game were a battle simulation?
If you feel the fact that charging a vehicle, forcing it to retreat from combat, creates an imbalance and weakens vehicles, relative to where they were in 7th, please make your case. I can't imagine someone seriously claiming that vehicles are less useful in 8th. It seems like after reading this thread the entire argument is predicated upon driving your rhino, or what have you, across the table to get in charge range. Consider, for a brief moment, that this wasn't possible in 7th edition unless you had a spam of free transports. Try taking your land raider and driving it across the table to be in enemy charge range. It would die before this even happened. Your argument against this change should take into account the massive buffs that have been handed out to vehicles as well. You can't look at one specific vehicle rule change in a vacuum.
If your argument is "that's not how it works in real life," then there's really no argument to be had. Everyone can take a different interpretation of what era battles this is designed to loosely mimic, but regardless, it's hard to imagine any significant battle happening without the support of strong artillery, placed miles away from the actual fighting, which would render pretty much any scenario we could realistically model in 40k, completely moot. If we can teleport people wearing armor down to the surface within 9" (roughly 1.5 seconds of time spent sprinting, so pretty close) away from the enemy, why don't we just teleport down some bombs, and be done with it? 9" away from their commander a bomb explodes. GG. Stuff gets real silly real fast.
The complaint is that if you have enough models to ensure unit coherency, charging a vehicle will always result in it being surrounded due to the 6" worth of extra move once you've reached assault. Then the vehicle cannot retreat from combat at all and neither can any passengers disembark. Even if the vehicle could retreat from combat when surrounded with an FAQ ruling - the passengers still cannot disembark if it is a transport as that needs to happen at the start of the movement phase. It means that vehicles cannot approach within 14" of any reasonable sized unit - every unit has a threat bubble of being able to automatically invalidate any vehicle by locking them in combat with no recourse.
Marmatag wrote: What is the specific complaint at this point?
That charging a transport stops it from moving and forces it to retreat from combat for a turn? Or is it that the 8th edition rules don't function how people think they should if the game were a battle simulation?
If you feel the fact that charging a vehicle, forcing it to retreat from combat, creates an imbalance and weakens vehicles, relative to where they were in 7th, please make your case. I can't imagine someone seriously claiming that vehicles are less useful in 8th. It seems like after reading this thread the entire argument is predicated upon driving your rhino, or what have you, across the table to get in charge range. Consider, for a brief moment, that this wasn't possible in 7th edition unless you had a spam of free transports. Try taking your land raider and driving it across the table to be in enemy charge range. It would die before this even happened. Your argument against this change should take into account the massive buffs that have been handed out to vehicles as well. You can't look at one specific vehicle rule change in a vacuum.
If your argument is "that's not how it works in real life," then there's really no argument to be had. Everyone can take a different interpretation of what era battles this is designed to loosely mimic, but regardless, it's hard to imagine any significant battle happening without the support of strong artillery, placed miles away from the actual fighting, which would render pretty much any scenario we could realistically model in 40k, completely moot. If we can teleport people wearing armor down to the surface within 9" (roughly 1.5 seconds of time spent sprinting, so pretty close) away from the enemy, why don't we just teleport down some bombs, and be done with it? 9" away from their commander a bomb explodes. GG. Stuff gets real silly real fast.
The complaint is that if you have enough models to ensure unit coherency, charging a vehicle will always result in it being surrounded due to the 6" worth of extra move once you've reached assault. Then the vehicle cannot retreat from combat at all and neither can any passengers disembark. Even if the vehicle could retreat from combat when surrounded with an FAQ ruling - the passengers still cannot disembark if it is a transport as that needs to happen at the start of the movement phase. It means that vehicles cannot approach within 14" of any reasonable sized unit - every unit has a threat bubble of being able to automatically invalidate any vehicle by locking them in combat with no recourse.
So stay 16" away. Plenty safe. You have 3" charge advantage from being in the tank, so play with numbers so you can make a fairly easy charge and they have to make a fairly hard one.
Also, support your tanks. nearby, un-charged tanks can unload their troops to free stuck ones.
I don't know about you, but I'm not super excited about charging and surrounding a BA tank, as there are probably plenty of BA lurking around that would love to counter charge.
Marmatag wrote: What is the specific complaint at this point?
That charging a transport stops it from moving and forces it to retreat from combat for a turn? Or is it that the 8th edition rules don't function how people think they should if the game were a battle simulation?
If you feel the fact that charging a vehicle, forcing it to retreat from combat, creates an imbalance and weakens vehicles, relative to where they were in 7th, please make your case. I can't imagine someone seriously claiming that vehicles are less useful in 8th. It seems like after reading this thread the entire argument is predicated upon driving your rhino, or what have you, across the table to get in charge range. Consider, for a brief moment, that this wasn't possible in 7th edition unless you had a spam of free transports. Try taking your land raider and driving it across the table to be in enemy charge range. It would die before this even happened. Your argument against this change should take into account the massive buffs that have been handed out to vehicles as well. You can't look at one specific vehicle rule change in a vacuum.
If your argument is "that's not how it works in real life," then there's really no argument to be had. Everyone can take a different interpretation of what era battles this is designed to loosely mimic, but regardless, it's hard to imagine any significant battle happening without the support of strong artillery, placed miles away from the actual fighting, which would render pretty much any scenario we could realistically model in 40k, completely moot. If we can teleport people wearing armor down to the surface within 9" (roughly 1.5 seconds of time spent sprinting, so pretty close) away from the enemy, why don't we just teleport down some bombs, and be done with it? 9" away from their commander a bomb explodes. GG. Stuff gets real silly real fast.
The complaint is that if you have enough models to ensure unit coherency, charging a vehicle will always result in it being surrounded due to the 6" worth of extra move once you've reached assault. Then the vehicle cannot retreat from combat at all and neither can any passengers disembark. Even if the vehicle could retreat from combat when surrounded with an FAQ ruling - the passengers still cannot disembark if it is a transport as that needs to happen at the start of the movement phase. It means that vehicles cannot approach within 14" of any reasonable sized unit - every unit has a threat bubble of being able to automatically invalidate any vehicle by locking them in combat with no recourse.
So stay 16" away. Plenty safe. You have 3" charge advantage from being in the tank, so play with numbers so you can make a fairly easy charge and they have to make a fairly hard one.
Also, support your tanks. nearby, un-charged tanks can unload their troops to free stuck ones.
I have already addressed these points previously.
The only one I haven't - some tanks can't stay 16" away, such as the Flamestorm Baal, whilst others lose a huge amount of efficiency.
I guess so. Your transport crew still has 3" advantage on the enemy troops, so position yourself at 16" instead of 12". You charge on a 6 now, they charge on a 9.
That actually sounds like a pretty good plan. Might steal this.
Whilst this will work in some circumstances, it relies on the opponent staying static. It also has the downside of if the opponent makes their charge they have still incapacitated your transport and unit/s inside with no recompense whilst if you make the charge, the opponent still gets overwatch and ability to fight back.
There have been posts about using screening units, which will obviously help, but aside from the point that I mentioned earlier about elite armies being highly outnumbered and having to invest a huge amount to be able to actually use each individual transport, there is another point this suggestion (about screening units) overlooks. That being that if the opponent wipes out the screening unit, they can effectively invalidate not just the screening unit itself but the transport and it's passengers as well. You only need to wipe out that 200point jp unit and then charge the transport with a cheap chaff unit and you will have also effectively have negated another 300+ points, for merely destroying one unit. So now to ensure that doesn't happen, you play it safe and take 2 screening units, now we are looking at spending 1/3 to 1/2 of your points (including the rhino + passengers) on ensuring a single rhino and its crew is protected enough so that it doesn't get 'locked in'. (Talking about elite, lower model count armies like marines here.)
Btw I'm glad people have realised this could be a big issue and started to discuss this and try and come up with answers, rather than the earlier condescending 'Learn to play' and Lobotomy comments earlier in the thread.
I have already addressed these points previously.
The only one I haven't - some tanks can't stay 16" away, such as the Flamestorm Baal, whilst others lose a huge amount of efficiency.
And? The question here is transport tanks carrying assault units. Transport tanks carrying shooting units dropped their cargo off before they became threatened by enemy counter-chargers.
That flamerstorm tank got to fire it's flamer into the unit that's charging it twice before it got charged. Once when it moved into range, and again in overwatch when it gets charged. It the Flamestorm Cannon is anything like my Immolation Flamers, and it and the Predator's Heavy Flamer sponsons failed to delete the enemy, then I'm fairly certain the tank is now tying up more than it's own value in combat, and is the one winning here.
In fact, I think the Flamestorm tank is achieving maximum efficiency being charged by GEQ looking to tie it up!
Note to self: Flamestorm Baal Predators are probably going to be really, really scary.
Whilst this will work in some circumstances, it relies on the opponent staying static. It also has the downside of if the opponent makes their charge they have still incapacitated your transport and unit/s inside with no recompense whilst if you make the charge, the opponent still gets overwatch and ability to fight back.
There have been posts about using screening units, which will obviously help, but aside from the point that I mentioned earlier about elite armies being highly outnumbered and having to invest a huge amount to be able to actually use each individual transport, there is another point this suggestion (about screening units) overlooks. That being that if the opponent wipes out the screening unit, they can effectively invalidate not just the screening unit itself but the transport and it's passengers as well. You only need to wipe out that 200point jp unit and then charge the transport with a cheap chaff unit and you will have also effectively have negated another 300+ points, for merely destroying one unit. So now to ensure that doesn't happen, you play it safe and take 2 screening units, now we are looking at spending 1/3 to 1/2 of your points (including the rhino + passengers) on ensuring a single rhino and its crew is protected enough so that it doesn't get 'locked in'. (Talking about elite, lower model count armies like marines here.)
Btw I'm glad people have realised this could be a big issue and started to discuss this and try and come up with answers, rather than the earlier condescending 'Learn to play' and Lobotomy comments earlier in the thread.
Of course. If the opponent retreats, though, that's usually good for you.
The opponent doesn't get overwatch. The Rhino charges first, blocking it. Then your shock troops charge, safe from overwatch.
The overwatch was a small point in the grand scheme of things but would have been one additional irritant, charging with the rhino is a good way of getting around that.
The overwatch was a small point in the grand scheme of things but would have been one additional irritant, charging with the rhino is a good way of getting around that.
The other wider points still stand though.
I think that the tanks at risk of having problems with being in melee are also the tanks that you don't want to charge.
Tanks like the Leman Russ have the range to remain well out of threat from assault.
You don't want to charge Hellhounds and Flamestorm Predators. They don't care if they're close, because they roll up, burn, and then burn again when the enemy tries to charge them, and are cheaper than anything they won't outright incinerate.
Transports for shooting units aren't worried. Immolators for Dominions, Chimerae for Veterans, etc. will have unloaded their troops well before they're in danger of being charged. They don't have to worry about getting within enemy charge range until after they've unloaded, and after that they might find new life as an anti-charge barricade for the unit they unloaded.
That just really leaves assault transports as the only tanks worried about being surrounded. And there, they still have a 3" advantage over potential counterchargers, which is pretty fair, all things considered. A fair risk and a fair reward, I think. And of course, you can always bring the armed transport version with heavy flamers, which are at least a fairly decent deterrent to assault.
And even then, if I'm rolling up with Immolators and Razorbacks, and they they still get stuck, I can always free them with Celestine or Bran or a squad of Seraphim [or charge them with my Shadowsword, because that works for some reason].
I'm not really concerned about getting my tanks locked in battle. The units that can actually reach the tanks and hurt the tanks, like Seraphim, are also as or more expensive than they are and will falter without support.
As an Iron Hands player, I am kinda concerned about my army and my ability to use my beloved vindicator. Vehicles seem tougher this edition, but that won't matter when singular models can lock down my tanks and other short range stuff. Points costs are an issue too now. Forget Razorbacks and rhinos ect. I kinda feel like I am being forced into things that really aren't Iron Hands. Worse yet, I have not been able to find any of the Iron Hands specific rules. My entire army may be invalid at this point. I kinda get the feeling my whole army will only get half a page to a page in the new SM book. Sorry if I went off topic a bit. I kinda agree with MagicJuggler on his solution. It should not be so easy to shut down a vehicle simply by charging it with a single model. These rules really are not very good for vehicles with short engagement distances where they are forced into charge range.
NorseSig wrote: As an Iron Hands player, I am kinda concerned about my army and my ability to use my beloved vindicator. Vehicles seem tougher this edition, but that won't matter when singular models can lock down my tanks and other short range stuff. Points costs are an issue too now. Forget Razorbacks and rhinos ect. I kinda feel like I am being forced into things that really aren't Iron Hands. Worse yet, I have not been able to find any of the Iron Hands specific rules. My entire army may be invalid at this point. I kinda get the feeling my whole army will only get half a page to a page in the new SM book. Sorry if I went off topic a bit. I kinda agree with MagicJuggler on his solution. It should not be so easy to shut down a vehicle simply by charging it with a single model. These rules really are not very good for vehicles with short engagement distances where they are forced into charge range.
Forgive me, but opening my "codex", which I have to share with such "factions" as the Imperial Navy and their 2 units and the Astra Telepathica and their 3, I didn't even see a single one of our Orders referenced by name. In the precisely one page of background and one page of art my entire faction was allocated, they didn't even mention George Vandire or Alicia Dominica.
The Vindicator will be fine. It has 24" of gun range, so if your Space Marines can stay out of close combat so can the Vindicator.
Okay, I lied, the Vindicator won't be fine if the Leman Russ Demolisher is anything to go by, but that has nothing to do with getting caught in melee combat. The Demolisher Cannon just isn't worth the points.
I don't think a vehicle should be permitted to fire at units in close combat with them, but I also think tanks should be allowed to move over hostile infantry in melee with them. A tank can't bring most of its guns to bear on troops close to it, and while it's not likely to succeed in running someone over, I don't think the driver of a Leman Russ would worry about crushing an Ork underneath the tank as he backs up. The Ork would just get out of the way.
I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.
Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).
Martel732 wrote: I don't know about you, but I'm not super excited about charging and surrounding a BA tank, as there are probably plenty of BA lurking around that would love to counter charge.
Well, that is how it would work in an actual game. But in this specific thread, the BA player's only recourse is to lament GW's horrible rules. And feel shame for playing 8th at all.
andysonic1 wrote: I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.
Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).
"Blood for the Blood God!"
"Um, Wulfbad, there's nothing here that bleeds...just this Land Raider."
andysonic1 wrote: I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.
Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).
What if those were gretchin? Ork boyz? Conscripts?
Jump troops? Scouts?
Shutting down a heavy vehicle with foot troops regardless is not a good thing.
Right?
andysonic1 wrote: I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.
Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).
What if those were gretchin? Ork boyz? Conscripts?
Jump troops? Scouts?
Shutting down a heavy vehicle with foot troops regardless is not a good thing.
Right?
If only there was some way to visualize the problem
I have a related ingame story. I was playing a friend's Tyranids and his winged Hive Tyrant charged my Razorback. He failed to wound but my Razorback hit twice and wounded once. He made his save but it was so embarrassing for the tyrant that when I fell back to do something else he flew off in a different direction never to mention that "battle" again.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: All games are an abstract representation of some scenario, real or imaginary. As such, the mechanics of the game are occasionally going to create odd interactions that aren't "realistic". We accept those interactions to be able to play a game within a reasonable time frame.
With the size of the armies used in an average 40K games, we need a fair bit of abstraction so a 1500pt game doesn't take all day. So, we will see some odd interactions crop up. So yes, a single Grot being able to make a Land Raider stop moving is "unrealistic", but I can live with it if in return vehicles have a level of durability appropriate to their cost, which seems to be the case with 8th.
If you want a realistic game, go play Advanced Squad Leader. It's got rules for every possible scenario. However, be aware it's got a set of rules the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you'll spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time looking up things on graphs.
That rationalization could be used for anything. This is easily fixed, and it currently leads to laughable levels of reality suspension.
andysonic1 wrote: I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.
Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).
What if those were gretchin? Ork boyz? Conscripts?
Jump troops? Scouts?
Shutting down a heavy vehicle with foot troops regardless is not a good thing.
Right?
If only there was some way to visualize the problem
Spoiler:
Uh huh.
Korne berserkers are nonviolent citizen protesters for civil rights and are anti- corruption to the core.
They stop tanks with pure virtue.
That or they are so darn playful.
And silent...absolutely silent.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: All games are an abstract representation of some scenario, real or imaginary. As such, the mechanics of the game are occasionally going to create odd interactions that aren't "realistic". We accept those interactions to be able to play a game within a reasonable time frame.
With the size of the armies used in an average 40K games, we need a fair bit of abstraction so a 1500pt game doesn't take all day. So, we will see some odd interactions crop up. So yes, a single Grot being able to make a Land Raider stop moving is "unrealistic", but I can live with it if in return vehicles have a level of durability appropriate to their cost, which seems to be the case with 8th.
If you want a realistic game, go play Advanced Squad Leader. It's got rules for every possible scenario. However, be aware it's got a set of rules the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you'll spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time looking up things on graphs.
That rationalization could be used for anything. This is easily fixed, and it currently leads to laughable levels of reality suspension.
The game always had laughable levels of reality suspension. The question is why should vehicles get exemption to rules that effect everyone else?
I understand that for infantry, things like model arcs would slow things down even further, but for things like Flyrants, Riptides, or Scatbikes, 360* shooting is weird and positioning shouldn't slow the game down considerably. They aren't swarmy models after all.
Apple fox wrote: Gretchin Climbing all over the tank, Droping things down exhaust pipes. Pulling off bits and peaces, and blocking the weapons with a wrench
It actually Kinda cool
"sir, a single grot is blocking the path of our 70 tonne war machine"
"better give him the right of way, reverse"
"sir, a second gretchin is behind us, blocking our path"
"we could crush either effortlessly with simple physics but, lets just stop the engine and open all hatches instead"
"Sir, why don't we just move sideways with our tracks?"
"Good idea, Jenkins! Engage a Tokyo Drift!"
"Sir, the Gretchin are now standing on opposite corners of the tank, each exactly 1 inch away on the diagonal, so square root of 2 over 2 inches away from our cardinals, and the ABS engages if we approach within an inch of either."
"...when did Orks learn trigonometry 101? Rotate at a diagonal and move!"
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: All games are an abstract representation of some scenario, real or imaginary. As such, the mechanics of the game are occasionally going to create odd interactions that aren't "realistic". We accept those interactions to be able to play a game within a reasonable time frame.
With the size of the armies used in an average 40K games, we need a fair bit of abstraction so a 1500pt game doesn't take all day. So, we will see some odd interactions crop up. So yes, a single Grot being able to make a Land Raider stop moving is "unrealistic", but I can live with it if in return vehicles have a level of durability appropriate to their cost, which seems to be the case with 8th.
If you want a realistic game, go play Advanced Squad Leader. It's got rules for every possible scenario. However, be aware it's got a set of rules the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you'll spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time looking up things on graphs.
That rationalization could be used for anything. This is easily fixed, and it currently leads to laughable levels of reality suspension.
The game always had laughable levels of reality suspension. The question is why should vehicles get exemption to rules that effect everyone else?
Suspension of real world reality is one thing. Suspension of internal consistency reality is another.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: All games are an abstract representation of some scenario, real or imaginary. As such, the mechanics of the game are occasionally going to create odd interactions that aren't "realistic". We accept those interactions to be able to play a game within a reasonable time frame.
With the size of the armies used in an average 40K games, we need a fair bit of abstraction so a 1500pt game doesn't take all day. So, we will see some odd interactions crop up. So yes, a single Grot being able to make a Land Raider stop moving is "unrealistic", but I can live with it if in return vehicles have a level of durability appropriate to their cost, which seems to be the case with 8th.
If you want a realistic game, go play Advanced Squad Leader. It's got rules for every possible scenario. However, be aware it's got a set of rules the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you'll spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time looking up things on graphs.
That rationalization could be used for anything. This is easily fixed, and it currently leads to laughable levels of reality suspension.
The game always had laughable levels of reality suspension. The question is why should vehicles get exemption to rules that effect everyone else?
Suspension of real world reality is one thing. Suspension of internal consistency reality is another.
We went way passed that with most space marines, and like every big stomp robot :O
A lot of things in this game would probably be well capable from extracting itself from CC, Daemons, jetbikes and even things like terminators could probably have rules about how they move in and out of combat without as much issues. But it does need to come with rules that function without issue.
Take the above Grots, if they are climbing on the tank as they probably would Should they not also get rules to latch on. But i do support large tanks getting something to push themselves out of combat, but not to much in the way of damage.
Apple fox wrote: Gretchin Climbing all over the tank, Droping things down exhaust pipes. Pulling off bits and peaces, and blocking the weapons with a wrench
It actually Kinda cool
"sir, a single grot is blocking the path of our 70 tonne war machine"
"better give him the right of way, reverse"
"sir, a second gretchin is behind us, blocking our path"
"we could crush either effortlessly with simple physics but, lets just stop the engine and open all hatches instead"
"it's only fair"
I give you 8th ed tank physics
"Sir, there is a small crater ahead, about 3 inches deep"
"Everyone, prepare for impact, we all know there's a one in six chance we're never getting out of that devilish thing!"
andysonic1 wrote: I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.
Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).
What if those were gretchin? Ork boyz? Conscripts?
Jump troops? Scouts?
Shutting down a heavy vehicle with foot troops regardless is not a good thing.
Right?
A good thing?
He moved his land raider up to mid field where it didn't belong and I took advantage of the situation and used the game's rules to lock the tank down. Is this a "good" thing? That is completely subjective. I would say, as a melee army, this is a very good thing since it allows me to use my opponent's stupidity against him. If I ran a mechanized army I would understand that I need to play way smarter to deal with this scenario, maybe have a babysit melee unit or ensure I stay away from the melee or have a chaff bubble. It doesn't matter what might do this to me, it might happen and I need to understand it might happen and I need to at least have some plan against it should it look like it is going to happen.
There is no other argument here. These are the rules. You can chose to make them fit more into how you want them to fit and hope your friends all feel the same and will play it that way, or you can play the game as written. Is it a "good" thing? In the context of the rules, I would say it is. It punishes the tank for doing something it shouldn't have with no support. It punishes bad play and keeps tanks from being too good against infantry, and tanks are already really good this edition. Oh, I could also surround the tank with four helbrutes, or 10 flesh hounds, or 4 other tanks. Our reality has nothing to do with Warhammer 40k and never will. The rules are the rules.
You can always comment on 40k's facebook page about it and they might look into changing it when they update the rules.
Ran into this comment on /r/warhammer40k about vehicle melee:
kanible wrote:Second 8th ed game I tried my opponent put my vanquisher into a stalemate by locking it in combat with his Valkyrie. Couldn't fall back because it was already at the edge of the board.
Essentially I was swinging my turret left to right and he was flapping his cargo door up and down like some slowed battlebots episode
And before you go "Valkyries cannot charge", remember they can also hover.
Hmmm I played a game of 8th that used a lot of tanks finally and it felt strange when a few did get into combat. It makes sense on the turn it charges, but after that it's just not clear what the rules are meant to represent narratively. Going to play some more and see, but it feels like it works the way it does just to make vehicles work like,everything else. I guess it's a perfect example of gameplay > fluff?
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: All games are an abstract representation of some scenario, real or imaginary. As such, the mechanics of the game are occasionally going to create odd interactions that aren't "realistic". We accept those interactions to be able to play a game within a reasonable time frame.
With the size of the armies used in an average 40K games, we need a fair bit of abstraction so a 1500pt game doesn't take all day. So, we will see some odd interactions crop up. So yes, a single Grot being able to make a Land Raider stop moving is "unrealistic", but I can live with it if in return vehicles have a level of durability appropriate to their cost, which seems to be the case with 8th.
If you want a realistic game, go play Advanced Squad Leader. It's got rules for every possible scenario. However, be aware it's got a set of rules the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you'll spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time looking up things on graphs.
That rationalization could be used for anything. This is easily fixed, and it currently leads to laughable levels of reality suspension.
The game always had laughable levels of reality suspension. The question is why should vehicles get exemption to rules that effect everyone else?
Suspension of real world reality is one thing. Suspension of internal consistency reality is another.
andysonic1 wrote: I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.
Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).
What if those were gretchin? Ork boyz? Conscripts?
Jump troops? Scouts?
Shutting down a heavy vehicle with foot troops regardless is not a good thing.
Right?
A good thing?
He moved his land raider up to mid field where it didn't belong and I took advantage of the situation and used the game's rules to lock the tank down. Is this a "good" thing? That is completely subjective. I would say, as a melee army, this is a very good thing since it allows me to use my opponent's stupidity against him. If I ran a mechanized army I would understand that I need to play way smarter to deal with this scenario, maybe have a babysit melee unit or ensure I stay away from the melee or have a chaff bubble. It doesn't matter what might do this to me, it might happen and I need to understand it might happen and I need to at least have some plan against it should it look like it is going to happen.
There is no other argument here. These are the rules. You can chose to make them fit more into how you want them to fit and hope your friends all feel the same and will play it that way, or you can play the game as written. Is it a "good" thing? In the context of the rules, I would say it is. It punishes the tank for doing something it shouldn't have with no support. It punishes bad play and keeps tanks from being too good against infantry, and tanks are already really good this edition. Oh, I could also surround the tank with four helbrutes, or 10 flesh hounds, or 4 other tanks. Our reality has nothing to do with Warhammer 40k and never will. The rules are the rules.
You can always comment on 40k's facebook page about it and they might look into changing it when they update the rules.
Seems midfield is exactly where a troop carrying mobile battle bunker " belongs" actually!
So, for you it is a good thing that rules can be exploited to make your chosen armies win more easily on the field?
If our reality has nothing to do with 40k then why do all races represent something so easily identified with some aspect of our reality?
Boltguns? Battle cannons? Movement statistics?
You can't be serious...
No argument.
