I'd really like to see Drop Pods being capable of deploying in the first turn either as an innate ability, or one that you could pay a CP (per pod) for. (Similar to Jormungandr being able to pay a point per unit to deploy units in tunnels)
A: It's an iconic Space Marine unit which has fallen (waaay) out of use. (cool model is sitting on shelves)
B: It'd be a unique ability that traditional power-armored marines could take advantage of. (internal codex balance)
C: It would provide a unique ability to Space Marines as a faction for the purposes of Imperial Soup armies. (external codex balance)
Lore-wise, Space Marines are often the shock-assault vanguard force than heralds conflict. Being able to Drop Pod in during the first turn would allow that to be a reality for competitive games in combined-force armies.
deep striking a unit is not worth point even turn 1. THere are too many ways to get it done for a CP or a relic or whatever. Paying points to deep strike is overcosted no mater what.
Although to be honest, I don't find myself missing turn 1 deep strike all that much. How badly do you want to charge guardsmen?
Rarely do I see more than 30-odd guardsmen.
I don't want it to be game-winning or anything, just a little extra something to potentially help me seize battle initiative, first strike, position or make the opponent be a bit more defensive if they go first.
I'm enslaved to babysitters who don't get fancy charges if the unit gets a fancy charge.
I've moved to a place where 75% of the lists are horde of some type. Hell, there's two clones of the LVO winning list. Although I guess those will need reworked.
To me, the potential cargo of a drop pod, just like the cargo of a rhino or a stormraven, is garbage, so I'm not in a rush to get garbage on the other side of the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I very, very badly want to charge Guardsmen with my Marines. Tactics be damned, I'm going to shoot them then charge them.
And then you are gonna die the next turn. Getting that close to IG is basically suicide.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I almost don't even care about points, I just want to be able to DS turn one.
Well I agree that if anything should be able to do it for 74 points or less. The drop pod should be the first unit in the game to get it cause that has been it's roll since forever.
Bharring wrote: Only if they're unsupported / I do it wrong.
Support doesn't matter on your opponents shooting phase. There is no right or wrong. There is the IG picking up 40 one wound marines a turn.
If the survivors in the other 2 IS squads can remove 40 Marines in a turn (0 losses and FRFSRF or RF range and *godly* dice?), then it's a good thing I charged that one squad - otherwise I'm losing 60 Marines!
Insert skitarri then. Or Ork boyz. Point is, with bolter discipline, I don't want to get so close so quickly anymore. Even with BA. Getting close is too hazardous for meqs. Paying points to get close seems nuts.
If marines could put in veteran intercessors, that might be more worthwhile.
First turn charges need to be limited. If turn one charges become the counter to shooting armies then the game will depend on who gets the first turn. I know as a BA player it is not fun to struggle to get into combat. I also know as a IG player it is not fun to spend most of the game locked in combat.
Spending some CP to deepstrike T1 might be suitable. 1CP to deepstrike 1 drop pod T1; 3CP to deepstrike all drop pods T1? I am rusty on the rules though - I don't play often anymore - but if it enables your entire army to deepstrike T1 onto someones lap it will be too good.
Lance845 wrote: There is no way SM should get to special snow flake deepstrike on turn 1 when nobody else can.
Just orks, Necrons, TS, and almost everyone else has a double move which is even better. If anyone can do it = it should be marines. Considering they actually employ these tactics as doctrine.
Lance845 wrote: There is no way SM should get to special snow flake deepstrike on turn 1 when nobody else can.
Just orks, Necrons, TS, and almost everyone else has a double move which is even better. If anyone can do it = it should be marines. Considering they actually employ these tactics as doctrine.
Fluff does not equal crunch. I don't care what the SM stories say. Nobody else fluff gets fully and acurately represented on the table, SM won't get it either. Double move is not deepstrike. I would love for my Jormungadr units to come up out of their tunnels on turn one since I both pay for delivery units and CP to put units in the tunnels but guess what? I can't. Just like everyone else.
Martel732 wrote:
Lance845 wrote: There is no way SM should get to special snow flake deepstrike on turn 1 when nobody else can.
Why not? What would it even accomplish? Everything that fits in the pods is trash.
I don't actually care what anyones opinion on how viable or not any of it is in the current meta. If nobody can deepstrike then NOBODY can deepstrike.
Honestly, just allow the cargo in a drop pod to ignore the 9" provision for reinforcements on disembark (or change it so that each model must be wholly within 3 inches of the drop pod) but cant move after disembarkation
Maybe even make it a 1 CP strategem so it can't be abused.
I've always felt that one of the marines biggest issues were delivery systems.
Things that this would buff:
Flamers
Meltas
ASM/Vanguard
CC Terminators
CC Dreadnoughts
Essentially any short-range weapon or assault unit can become a lot more viable and it allows for marines to have some decisive movement. It also doesn't over do it because drop pods have massive footprints even with closed doors. Meaning that screening is still an effective counter.
Lance845 wrote: There is no way SM should get to special snow flake deepstrike on turn 1 when nobody else can.
Just orks, Necrons, TS, and almost everyone else has a double move which is even better. If anyone can do it = it should be marines. Considering they actually employ these tactics as doctrine.
Fluff does not equal crunch. I don't care what the SM stories say. Nobody else fluff gets fully and acurately represented on the table, SM won't get it either. Double move is not deepstrike. I would love for my Jormungadr units to come up out of their tunnels on turn one since I both pay for delivery units and CP to put units in the tunnels but guess what? I can't. Just like everyone else.
Martel732 wrote:
Lance845 wrote: There is no way SM should get to special snow flake deepstrike on turn 1 when nobody else can.
Why not? What would it even accomplish? Everything that fits in the pods is trash.
I don't actually care what anyones opinion on how viable or not any of it is in the current meta. If nobody can deepstrike then NOBODY can deepstrike.
Your argument is just SM hate. Practically every army has some form of of auto in your face turn 1. Space marines don't. Drop pods have done this previous editions but not this one. It makes no sense and has no balance issue because almost everyone else CAN do it.
It's not just SM hate. Just because the proposed rules forum is filled 50% with SM players asking for SM units to have special exceptions to do things and behave in ways that nobody else in the game does does not mean that I hate SM.
I think there are very valid complaints about SM. I think there are very valid fixes to SM. I think breaking whole game wide conventions is not the way to do it. TAC marines are a little expensive. The Drop pod is a LITTLE expensive. The things that SM units should be able to ride in and can't is bs but thats mostly because clearly when 9th rolls out regular marines are gunna get Squatted and GW is just slowly bringing you to boil on that.
SM do need an offensive boost (NOT a defensive one).
SM don't need to be able to mimic every trick from every other book. Just because MOST armies have A combination of units and/or psychic powers that COULD allow for a turn 1 charge doesn't mean SM can't be one of the armies that is in the list of combinations that doesn't.
You know who could deep strike turn 1 in previous editions? Everyone. What you could or could not do in previous editions doesn't matter. This isn't previous editions.
Stop asking to do wild gak nobody else is allowed to do. Start asking for practical fixes to the actual problems.
^Practical problem: Pods aren't used.
Practical problem: Many people feel that Space Marines aren't bringing value to soup.
Solution: Give Pods the turn 1 strike ability they've had (I think consistently) since they were introduced into 40k during 4th edition. Iirc, their unique place was that half of the pods didn't have to roll for reserves for entry. Not to mention they were able to Deep Strike safely by avoiding enemy units, another unique ability.
I'd argue that over a decade of "special deep strike" precedence makes this suggestion not "wild gak". It is also an offensive, rather than defensive solution.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Practical problem: Pods aren't used.
Practical problem: Many people feel that Space Marines aren't bringing value to soup.
Solution: Give Pods the turn 1 strike ability they've had (I think consistently) since they were introduced into 40k during 4th edition. Iirc, their unique place was that half of the pods didn't have to roll for reserves for entry. Not to mention they were able to Deep Strike safely by avoiding enemy units, another unique ability.
I'd argue that over a decade of "special deep strike" precedence makes this suggestion not "wild gak". It is also an offensive, rather than defensive solution.
WHY are pods not used? The things that can ride in pods has been drastically reduced. The things that CAN ride in pods can't be accompanied by characters any more since characters don't join units any more. SM don't need to bring value to soup. They need to bring value to themselves.
Solution, make their capacity a number of models instead of a number of units. Then you can pack buffing characters into the pod with the units they want to buff.
Tyranid pods suffer a similar problem. You can't pack in nid warriors with a prime unless you want to buy an entire extra pod just for the prime. Whens the last time you saw a tyrannoctye on the table? This is a game wide issue. Not just a SM issue.
I would argue that if you want to make it so pods are usable then you should address their capacity and who can ride in them so that players want to fill them with things worth drop podding.
IIRC there is nothing stopping a character from being put in a pod alongside another unit as long as there is room. Even if you couldn't you could just give the characters a jumppack and they would be able to deepstrike within buff range AND have 12" move afterwards
So no, not being able to bring a buff character is not the issue with pods.
Dreadnoughts have to have a special forgeworld pod which is 2 points cheaper IIRC because it can't buy the stormbolter.
So again its not what the drop pods can't bring, because with the exception of dreadnoughts requiring Lucius pattern pods. Anything that you would want to accompany standard P.A marines can be there. Excluding Primaris, but thats an entire other can of worms.
Drop pods don't work because they cost as much as a rhino to put powered armor marines in positions where they can reliably leverage the shooting half of their options when they need to be reliably able to leverage shooting and assault options.
And even worse, if your playing against an assault army and have a drop pod on the field, forget shooting at whatever unit touches that drop pod as they pillow fist it at the end of their turn, kill it on yours, and move forward completely unmolested .
Here is another perspective. VVets cost 15 points now with CA, with jump packs they cost 17 points. That means that the ability to both move 12", Fly, AND be able to deepstrike is worth 20 points across a squad of ten. The drop pod cost around 70 IIRC.
Or another perspective, many armies can do what the drop pod can do better, for a command point. That's it.
So lets sum up why pods currently aren't used
1) They don't add sufficient value to the units embarked
2) They are a liability on the field for both killpoints and being taken hostage
3) They have poor internal balance, most units that both fit into a drop pod and want to be in assault have better ways of getting there.
4) They have poor external balance, compared to other abilities that place units into reserves (such as Webway portal/Tellyporta/ and even Lying in wait) they are overcosted and easier to screen against due to its footprint.
I don't see a way to rectify those issues without some special rule, because if you make drop pods cheap then all of a sudden you have the same issue with skyhammer were much of the board is simply cut off limits for a turn while you chew threw drop pods (especially with the new ruling on drop pod doors)
Insectum7 wrote: ^Practical problem: Pods aren't used.
Practical problem: Many people feel that Space Marines aren't bringing value to soup.
Solution: Give Pods the turn 1 strike ability they've had (I think consistently) since they were introduced into 40k during 4th edition. Iirc, their unique place was that half of the pods didn't have to roll for reserves for entry. Not to mention they were able to Deep Strike safely by avoiding enemy units, another unique ability.
I'd argue that over a decade of "special deep strike" precedence makes this suggestion not "wild gak". It is also an offensive, rather than defensive solution.
WHY are pods not used? The things that can ride in pods has been drastically reduced. The things that CAN ride in pods can't be accompanied by characters any more since characters don't join units any more. SM don't need to bring value to soup. They need to bring value to themselves.
Solution, make their capacity a number of models instead of a number of units. Then you can pack buffing characters into the pod with the units they want to buff.
Tyranid pods suffer a similar problem. You can't pack in nid warriors with a prime unless you want to buy an entire extra pod just for the prime. Whens the last time you saw a tyrannoctye on the table? This is a game wide issue. Not just a SM issue.
I would argue that if you want to make it so pods are usable then you should address their capacity and who can ride in them so that players want to fill them with things worth drop podding.
As pointed out above, Pods can already pack a few Characters in with the squad, or multiple squads, etc. They function like most other transports on that way. Tyranids are the odd ones in this case. At least Jorm alows you to bring in multiple bonus units through one tunnel.
Pretty sure thats just the index version. COULD be wrong but fairly certain codex drop pod is 1 unit of up to 10 models.
Not all characters can take jump packs. For instance, Black Templars would probably love to get their characters in a pod with their dudes. (I mean BT have their own other issues but this is certainly one of them).
Let me give you another tyranid example.
A TCyte costs roughly 115. It can carry a single unit of up to 20 models or a single MONSTER. (so not even a full unit of gaunts/gants. Not 2 units of 9 warriors and a prime. Just 1 unit.).
Shrikes cost 6 points more than warriors (roughly 26ish points equipped). They get fly and 12" movement but no deepstrike and the prime no longer buffs them.
IF you go Jormungandr then you can pay for Ravenors to deepstrike warriors and a prime, but you will need to spend probably 3 CP to make it worth it (2 units of warriors and a prime) and to fit them all within 3 inches you are looking at at least 2 units of 4 ravenors. (guarantee you they are more expensive then either your drop pod or the jump unit marines, though being able to bring deathspitters (for even more cost) is nice. (the 4+ BS is however middling).
I 100% agree that the SM dex has absolute gak internal balance. It's a result of bloat of units with overlapping abilities/niches. I also agree that they shouldn't be much cheaper. I disagree that they are incapable of adding sufficient value to units. I think there are several units that would love to be in a pod if other issues were rectified. I don't think they need to be able to drop on turn 1. I DO think they need to be able to shoot even if they are in melee. I think the door ruling is dumb. But so are most of their rulings.
The whole SM line needs a major clean up. Lots and lots of units need to be cut or condensed at this point so there isn't so much overlap and each thing can have a distinct place. trying to find 30 ways to make 30 things unique by giving them special snow flake bonuses isn't a good direction to go in.
At this point, as much as so many people will probably hate it, it's probably best for the whole SM line when 9th comes to squat everything that isn't primaris/supports primaris. They have a clean design space to give each unit a real place in the army with none of the old baggage. Pull the heads off your old characters, stick them on primaris bodies and add bits to make them stand out. It sucks, but like I said, it's probably for the best.
"Drop Pod Assault:
Up to two Drop Pods may deploy during your first Movement Phase, but may only carry Tactical Squads, Intercessors, and/or Characters. All other restrictions apply."
Combined with this, which really should happen:
"Primaris Intercessors may use any <Chapter> Transports that permit Tactical Squads".
Insectum7 wrote: ^Practical problem: Pods aren't used.
Practical problem: Many people feel that Space Marines aren't bringing value to soup.
Solution: Give Pods the turn 1 strike ability they've had (I think consistently) since they were introduced into 40k during 4th edition. Iirc, their unique place was that half of the pods didn't have to roll for reserves for entry. Not to mention they were able to Deep Strike safely by avoiding enemy units, another unique ability.
I'd argue that over a decade of "special deep strike" precedence makes this suggestion not "wild gak". It is also an offensive, rather than defensive solution.
WHY are pods not used? The things that can ride in pods has been drastically reduced. The things that CAN ride in pods can't be accompanied by characters any more since characters don't join units any more. SM don't need to bring value to soup. They need to bring value to themselves.
Solution, make their capacity a number of models instead of a number of units. Then you can pack buffing characters into the pod with the units they want to buff.
Tyranid pods suffer a similar problem. You can't pack in nid warriors with a prime unless you want to buy an entire extra pod just for the prime. Whens the last time you saw a tyrannoctye on the table? This is a game wide issue. Not just a SM issue.
I would argue that if you want to make it so pods are usable then you should address their capacity and who can ride in them so that players want to fill them with things worth drop podding.
Nids have a tyrgon (turn 2 only ofc) but can carry 30 models compared to 10. Plus trygons don't suck - they have 7 d6 damage attacks...yeah - 7. Can drop 30 gaunts with devs and take 180 shots...yeah - 180. My entire 2000 point marine list doesn't even have that many shots.
There are arguements to be made that with 1/3 of total capacity and totally sucking otherwise. The drop pod needs something to distinguish itself. The scariest thing you can put in there is 10 sterngaurd with combi plasmas (which is just a sucide unit) that will likely kill 2-3 of it's own self to kill 1 target withing 12 inches - not very impressive.
Allowing Drop Pods to be the 1 exception to the Tactical Reserves limit would, I think, make them worth taking.
Will it be a winning strategy the wins tournaments? Not even close But it gives them something unique that players can leverage to make many sub-par units (including the Pods themselves) actually interesting
You also can't put models in with jump packs, or bikes, or primaris units. Basically - the units it can carry suck.
I'm pretty happy with being able to deliver basic marines, but it's true that we can no longer deliver things like Terminators, Centurions and Dreadnoughts. I would have hoped I could still drop Boxnaughts, at least. It's unclear to me why they removed those options, although the model does look really cool with all the brace-bars for power armor in there. Jump packs get too Deep Strike anyways, so it's not that big of a deal. It used to be that you'd take a Pod in order to get reliable Deep Strike, but now there's no mishaps so it's not a big deal.
The major benefit of the Pod currently is that you can't Auspex Scan or Forewarn against the models disembarking the Pod, which is pretty nifty.
You also can't put models in with jump packs, or bikes, or primaris units. Basically - the units it can carry suck.
I'm pretty happy with being able to deliver basic marines, but it's true that we can no longer deliver things like Terminators, Centurions and Dreadnoughts. I would have hoped I could still drop Boxnaughts, at least. It's unclear to me why they removed those options, although the model does look really cool with all the brace-bars for power armor in there. Jump packs get too Deep Strike anyways, so it's not that big of a deal. It used to be that you'd take a Pod in order to get reliable Deep Strike, but now there's no mishaps so it's not a big deal.
The major benefit of the Pod currently is that you can't Auspex Scan or Forewarn against the models disembarking the Pod, which is pretty nifty.
Honestly I don't think that is fair or intended. Just GW not understanding how their game works and giving answers in FAQ on the fly.
If it got access to turn 1 DS - no being able to put a unit with a Jump pack in their is a big deal. Cause that unit isn't going far after that first drop. It kind of mandates you use shooting.
You also can't put models in with jump packs, or bikes, or primaris units. Basically - the units it can carry suck.
I'm pretty happy with being able to deliver basic marines, but it's true that we can no longer deliver things like Terminators, Centurions and Dreadnoughts. I would have hoped I could still drop Boxnaughts, at least. It's unclear to me why they removed those options, although the model does look really cool with all the brace-bars for power armor in there. Jump packs get too Deep Strike anyways, so it's not that big of a deal. It used to be that you'd take a Pod in order to get reliable Deep Strike, but now there's no mishaps so it's not a big deal.
The major benefit of the Pod currently is that you can't Auspex Scan or Forewarn against the models disembarking the Pod, which is pretty nifty.
Honestly I don't think that is fair or intended. Just GW not understanding how their game works and giving answers in FAQ on the fly.
If it got access to turn 1 DS - no being able to put a unit with a Jump pack in their is a big deal. Cause that unit isn't going far after that first drop. It kind of mandates you use shooting.
Why does it mandate shooting? The charge distance for both is the same.
As for the FAQ, hardly anyone uses Drop Pods anyways so a little bonus to help them achieve an alpha-strike as intended by the fluff is a welcome thing.
1-2 Drop Pods being turn 1, and not synergizing with the SMCC threats, pushes Drop Pods towards being about positioning/leverage. Which is exactly what they should be.
A Tac Squad in the right place keeps a vehicle from going there, or holds a point, or demands a response from the enemy.
Perhaps not enough, but Tac Marines not measuring up is a whole other discussion.
You also can't put models in with jump packs, or bikes, or primaris units. Basically - the units it can carry suck.
I'm pretty happy with being able to deliver basic marines, but it's true that we can no longer deliver things like Terminators, Centurions and Dreadnoughts. I would have hoped I could still drop Boxnaughts, at least. It's unclear to me why they removed those options, although the model does look really cool with all the brace-bars for power armor in there. Jump packs get too Deep Strike anyways, so it's not that big of a deal. It used to be that you'd take a Pod in order to get reliable Deep Strike, but now there's no mishaps so it's not a big deal.
The major benefit of the Pod currently is that you can't Auspex Scan or Forewarn against the models disembarking the Pod, which is pretty nifty.
Honestly I don't think that is fair or intended. Just GW not understanding how their game works and giving answers in FAQ on the fly.
If it got access to turn 1 DS - no being able to put a unit with a Jump pack in their is a big deal. Cause that unit isn't going far after that first drop. It kind of mandates you use shooting.
Why does it mandate shooting? The charge distance for both is the same.
As for the FAQ, hardly anyone uses Drop Pods anyways so a little bonus to help them achieve an alpha-strike as intended by the fluff is a welcome thing.
Because a 9 inch charge isn't happening most the time. Shoot units are more reliable and can act after the first turn. A unit of vanguards without JP for example I can just move away from and ignore all game. To be a viable melle unit - you can't move 6" with no double move or advance and charge ability. Marines have...none of that. WOW. Amazing how marines have no good abilities and struggle competitively.
The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
Honestly the game needs random reserves rule again. Deepstrike grants immunity from damage from opponent until the turn after they arrive, which means they ALWAYS have a chance to have a full round which frankly, no unit in the game has. A strong ability like that NEEDS to come with heavy cost.
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
That is what this game is though. You'd have to fundamentally change every faction to get what you want. That's fine with me but it's never going to happen. Drop pods however is an easy fix to give marines some in your face potential.
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
That is what this game is though. You'd have to fundamentally change every faction to get what you want. That's fine with me but it's never going to happen. Drop pods however is an easy fix to give marines some in your face potential.
The only way turn 1 deepstrike can be made fair is if it occurred at the end of morale phase.
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
That is what this game is though. You'd have to fundamentally change every faction to get what you want. That's fine with me but it's never going to happen. Drop pods however is an easy fix to give marines some in your face potential.
The only way turn 1 deepstrike can be made fair is if it occurred at the end of morale phase.
So you consider
Orks/Necrons/TS (all have turn 1 DS ability) Choas (warptime) Eldar (Quicken) DE (24" advance and charge with jetbikes) Nids (swarm command). All of that is unfair and should be removed to level the playing field?
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
That is what this game is though. You'd have to fundamentally change every faction to get what you want. That's fine with me but it's never going to happen. Drop pods however is an easy fix to give marines some in your face potential.
The only way turn 1 deepstrike can be made fair is if it occurred at the end of morale phase.
So you consider
Orks/Necrons/TS (all have turn 1 DS ability) Choas (warptime) Eldar (Quicken) DE (24" advance and charge with jetbikes) Nids (swarm command). All of that is unfair and should be removed to level the playing field?
Being able to charge across the battlefield in 1 turn is very, very distinct from starting out 9" away from opponent. As for those turn 1 DS, which are you referring to?
And yes, I stand by that if you can appear 9" away from your opponent, there should be a chance to be retaliated upon other than a measly stratagem.
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
That is what this game is though. You'd have to fundamentally change every faction to get what you want. That's fine with me but it's never going to happen. Drop pods however is an easy fix to give marines some in your face potential.
The only way turn 1 deepstrike can be made fair is if it occurred at the end of morale phase.
So you consider
Orks/Necrons/TS (all have turn 1 DS ability) Choas (warptime) Eldar (Quicken) DE (24" advance and charge with jetbikes) Nids (swarm command). All of that is unfair and should be removed to level the playing field?
Being able to charge across the battlefield in 1 turn is very, very distinct from starting out 9" away from opponent. As for those turn 1 DS, which are you referring to?
And yes, I stand by that if you can appear 9" away from your opponent, there should be a chance to be retaliated upon other than a measly stratagem.
I agree that that is uncool and doesn't make for good game play.
There are only 2 ways to fix that though. Take it away from everyone. Or give it to everyone. It's not fair (balanced) for some armies to be able to control the game with turn 1 mobility and others not be able to.
Bharring wrote: Or accept that different armies have different strengths and weaknesses and balance accordingly.
Or should we bump all Guard and Eldar up to T4 because Marines get T4 on *their* basic troops?
Sorry no. There is no reason to accept these things because they aren't strengths and weaknesses. It's literally restricting abilities for no reason at all.
Bharring wrote: So because the Imperial Knight codex is basically immune to Morale, Guard and Orkz should be, too?
Because Marines have an Lt that grants a reroll-Wounds aura, Eldar and Guard should get it too?
Do we need to add Psykers to the DE book, despite the fluff, just because Librarians exist?
Just about every army has an ignore morale ability. Not to mention the basic stratagem that allows you to ignore morale. This is a really bad example for your arugement.
The DE don't have psykers true. What do psykers do those? They generate mortal wounds and buff and Debuff units which the DE army has access to all 3 of these abilities. They also have the ability to kill psykers with special abilities.
Eldar and Gaurd both have access to reroll wounds mechanics. Eldar have doom (one of the best spells in the whole game) and gaurd have a relic that does it. They also have a lot of abilities that increase their hitting too...hitting and wounding are all part of the same mechanic called (doing damage) IG do damage just fine. Second to none actaully.
When it comes to mobility on turn 1. Marines are seriously lacking. Compared to other armies. In all honesty it is one of the main reasons the struggle so much. turn 1 drop pods (esp if they were allowed to carry units they should be able too like intercessors and hellblasters) the army would function a lot better. In fact - marines are seriously lacking the abilities to deep strike the units they need to because the drop pods cost is so prohibiative.
You also can't put models in with jump packs, or bikes, or primaris units. Basically - the units it can carry suck.
I'm pretty happy with being able to deliver basic marines, but it's true that we can no longer deliver things like Terminators, Centurions and Dreadnoughts. I would have hoped I could still drop Boxnaughts, at least. It's unclear to me why they removed those options, although the model does look really cool with all the brace-bars for power armor in there. Jump packs get too Deep Strike anyways, so it's not that big of a deal. It used to be that you'd take a Pod in order to get reliable Deep Strike, but now there's no mishaps so it's not a big deal.
The major benefit of the Pod currently is that you can't Auspex Scan or Forewarn against the models disembarking the Pod, which is pretty nifty.
Honestly I don't think that is fair or intended. Just GW not understanding how their game works and giving answers in FAQ on the fly.
If it got access to turn 1 DS - no being able to put a unit with a Jump pack in their is a big deal. Cause that unit isn't going far after that first drop. It kind of mandates you use shooting.
Why does it mandate shooting? The charge distance for both is the same.
As for the FAQ, hardly anyone uses Drop Pods anyways so a little bonus to help them achieve an alpha-strike as intended by the fluff is a welcome thing.
Because a 9 inch charge isn't happening most the time. Shoot units are more reliable and can act after the first turn. A unit of vanguards without JP for example I can just move away from and ignore all game. To be a viable melle unit - you can't move 6" with no double move or advance and charge ability. Marines have...none of that. WOW. Amazing how marines have no good abilities and struggle competitively.
The scenario you are describing is that you want to put 5 (becasue Jump Packs would likely take up two spaces) 1W power armored guys into a Pod to land near the enemy and expect them to last a turn before charging down your opponent? I mean, if they're threatening at all and worth putting in a 65 point pod AND spending more points on Jump Packs that would also allow a deep strike. . . you've sunk a lot of points into a squad you're not expecting to do any damage the turn they come down, and that the opponent can counter with relative ease. I think that's enough of an edge case that I'd give it a *shrug*.
I'm not against allowing Jump Pack guys in a Pod, mind you, the scenario you chose is just. . . odd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
Honestly the game needs random reserves rule again. Deepstrike grants immunity from damage from opponent until the turn after they arrive, which means they ALWAYS have a chance to have a full round which frankly, no unit in the game has. A strong ability like that NEEDS to come with heavy cost.
I feel you. Drop Pods in the past have certainly at times been "rude". I think that, given the inherent limitations currently in place (limited to just basic power-armored guys), and the potential of further limiting it's use by way of being a Stratagem (so either only 1 or 2 Pods could be deployed in this way), I think there's a case to be made for a first turn strike.
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
That is what this game is though. You'd have to fundamentally change every faction to get what you want. That's fine with me but it's never going to happen. Drop pods however is an easy fix to give marines some in your face potential.
The only way turn 1 deepstrike can be made fair is if it occurred at the end of morale phase.
I (sort of) hate to bring this up here because it's not really what the thread is about, and yet it relates directly to this line of thinking.
This is only really and issue because of IGOUGO. Drop podding and deepstriking mass units on turn 1 is only as big of an issue as it is because you are immune to your opponents entire army and get to act as part of your entire army getting right up in their grill.
If the game functioned on Alternating Unit Activations (with the understanding that activating a unit that is transporting also activates the unit inside if they want to disembark and act or shoot out of gun ports or whatever), then turn 1 deepstrikes would be a very interesting tactical choice. First, you can hold them in reserve until the very end and have them be your last activations. Or you can drop them when the opponent moves a particular unit and makes an opening for a choice target. Or it can be your first activation to throw some gak in their face as an immediate distraction. Regardless, the opponent gets to respond which is what really makes it incredibly fair and 100% okay for all deepstrikes to occur when ever the feth you want them to.
IGOUGO is once again the root cause of pretty much all the problems with the game.
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
That is what this game is though. You'd have to fundamentally change every faction to get what you want. That's fine with me but it's never going to happen. Drop pods however is an easy fix to give marines some in your face potential.
The only way turn 1 deepstrike can be made fair is if it occurred at the end of morale phase.
I (sort of) hate to bring this up here because it's not really what the thread is about, and yet it relates directly to this line of thinking.
This is only really and issue because of IGOUGO. Drop podding and deepstriking mass units on turn 1 is only as big of an issue as it is because you are immune to your opponents entire army and get to act as part of your entire army getting right up in their grill.
If the game functioned on Alternating Unit Activations (with the understanding that activating a unit that is transporting also activates the unit inside if they want to disembark and act or shoot out of gun ports or whatever), then turn 1 deepstrikes would be a very interesting tactical choice. First, you can hold them in reserve until the very end and have them be your last activations. Or you can drop them when the opponent moves a particular unit and makes an opening for a choice target. Or it can be your first activation to throw some gak in their face as an immediate distraction. Regardless, the opponent gets to respond which is what really makes it incredibly fair and 100% okay for all deepstrikes to occur when ever the feth you want them to.
IGOUGO is once again the root cause of pretty much all the problems with the game.
Deepstrike, as 8th edition aludes to, is a form of reinforcement. Reinforcement is counter attack and relief. How deep strike is being used throughout the history of 40k is more akin to an ambush.
skchsan wrote: The game doesn't need "OH I'M IN YOUR FACE IN TURN ONE" mechanisms. It needs more solidified terrain rules and specific required/recommended amount per game.
That is what this game is though. You'd have to fundamentally change every faction to get what you want. That's fine with me but it's never going to happen. Drop pods however is an easy fix to give marines some in your face potential.
The only way turn 1 deepstrike can be made fair is if it occurred at the end of morale phase.
I (sort of) hate to bring this up here because it's not really what the thread is about, and yet it relates directly to this line of thinking.
This is only really and issue because of IGOUGO. Drop podding and deepstriking mass units on turn 1 is only as big of an issue as it is because you are immune to your opponents entire army and get to act as part of your entire army getting right up in their grill.
If the game functioned on Alternating Unit Activations (with the understanding that activating a unit that is transporting also activates the unit inside if they want to disembark and act or shoot out of gun ports or whatever), then turn 1 deepstrikes would be a very interesting tactical choice. First, you can hold them in reserve until the very end and have them be your last activations. Or you can drop them when the opponent moves a particular unit and makes an opening for a choice target. Or it can be your first activation to throw some gak in their face as an immediate distraction. Regardless, the opponent gets to respond which is what really makes it incredibly fair and 100% okay for all deepstrikes to occur when ever the feth you want them to.
IGOUGO is once again the root cause of pretty much all the problems with the game.
Deepstrike, as 8th edition aludes to, is a form of reinforcement. Reinforcement is counter attack and relief. How deep strike is being used throughout the history of 40k is more akin to an ambush.
And in AA it can be both a reinforcement and/or a Ambush as the controlling player decides when and how to best use it. Just saying. All the first turn bs goes away real fast when IGOUGO is off the table.
^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.
Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.
Insectum7 wrote: ^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.
Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.
I want good terrain rules too. But I also don't want it to be required to build 2-3 giant walls of terrain in order for the game to work. The game should allow for a mix of different mixes of terrain for a variety of different circumstances and still have the game be playable. IGOUGO is the problem. Patching it with walls of LOS blocking terrain is just that. A patch. The crack still exists.
Insectum7 wrote: ^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.
Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.
I want good terrain rules too. But I also don't want it to be required to build 2-3 giant walls of terrain in order for the game to work. The game should allow for a mix of different mixes of terrain for a variety of different circumstances and still have the game be playable. IGOUGO is the problem. Patching it with walls of LOS blocking terrain is just that. A patch. The crack still exists.
Better terrain rules and corresponding pieces/setup would not require you to build walls of terrain, 4th edition had some excellent terrain rules that provided for good maneuvering on well-varied boards. Forests could be safely passed through by infantry but blocked LOS beyond them, for example. In addition, playing with "Omega" level rules gave the freedom to hold forces in reserve to retain a longer "opening game".
Regardless, the first-turn-strike suggestion of the thread is intended for the context of the current game. I think we can safely assume 40K will continue as IGOUGO for a while.
Eldar and Gaurd both have access to reroll wounds mechanics. Eldar have doom (one of the best spells in the whole game) and gaurd have a relic that does it. They also have a lot of abilities that increase their hitting too...hitting and wounding are all part of the same mechanic called (doing damage) IG do damage just fine. Second to none actaully.
DE used to have Doom the way Marines have 4ppm chaff. Now they have Doom the way Marines have WWP.
When it comes to mobility on turn 1. Marines are seriously lacking. Compared to other armies. In all honesty it is one of the main reasons the struggle so much. turn 1 drop pods (esp if they were allowed to carry units they should be able too like intercessors and hellblasters) the army would function a lot better. In fact - marines are seriously lacking the abilities to deep strike the units they need to because the drop pods cost is so prohibiative.
Marine mobility T1 is a bit worse than a couple Eldar variants and a little behind Chaos, but how do they compare to:
-Guard
-Necrons
-T'au
-GK -Corsairs
-IK
? They're not that bad off.
Now, I do like the idea of a pod or two full of Tacs or similar coming down T1, to help evoke the Marine philosophy (and, as I've stated before, I would like it if CWE specifically lost WWP), but Marines aren't - and shouldn't be - a faction that has all the strengths of all the other factions.
Mobility isn't the issue, as much as the cargo is trash. If marines could clear screens without IG help, turn 2 pods would be just fine. Well, that and something worthwhile to put in the pods.
Insectum7 wrote: ^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.
Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.
I want good terrain rules too. But I also don't want it to be required to build 2-3 giant walls of terrain in order for the game to work. The game should allow for a mix of different mixes of terrain for a variety of different circumstances and still have the game be playable. IGOUGO is the problem. Patching it with walls of LOS blocking terrain is just that. A patch. The crack still exists.
The game doesn't work if you're playing a napoleonic stand off. You NEED terraine to play the game properly. What's lacking is a fleshed out rule set that accomodates them.
Martel732 wrote: The game should work with and without terrain. Empty battlefields are a thing.
The fact that you are referencing battles that ACTUALLY happened as a reason that fictional battles can't work is amazing.
What actually happened historically has 0 bearing on what the game should be.
They didn't have giant mahines of war in the particulat battle referenced. If you limited the game so just infantries and heavy weapons on infantries and few horseback, yeah it would work. Sadly, that's not what this game is.
Giant machines that would probably be neutralized with air power or by the navy.
Heavy infantry and armor in particular should not need terrain to survive. If they do, they are not a valid concept with the available technology. In 40K WWI in the future or not?
Terrain is random and can't be counted on since GW trashed those rules after 5th.
Again, your using terrain to cover up the problem.
Fix the problem.
Hell, fix both problems, terrain and the turn structure.
Why bother with TLOS as a core rule if you had vision across the entire battlefield? The fact of the matter is that the game requires you to obscure your units as primary means of defense.
Again, your using terrain to cover up the problem.
Fix the problem.
Hell, fix both problems, terrain and the turn structure.
Why bother with TLOS as a core rule if you had vision across the entire battlefield? The fact of the matter is that the game requires you to obscure your units as primary means of defense.
Again, your using terrain to cover up the problem.
Fix the problem.
Hell, fix both problems, terrain and the turn structure.
Why bother with TLOS as a core rule if you had vision across the entire battlefield? The fact of the matter is that the game requires you to obscure your units as primary means of defense.
Requires is a pretty strong word.
It's a pretty straight forward binary condition - you attack if you see it, you can't if you don't.
Exactly. So it's entirely possible to have system that accurately represents hard targets and doesn't rely on terrain. It's even possible in this system.
But talking about terrain as a fix just lets GW off the hook, imo.
Martel732 wrote: Exactly. So it's entirely possible to have system that accurately represents hard targets and doesn't rely on terrain. It's even possible in this system.
But talking about terrain as a fix just lets GW off the hook, imo.
I'd agree with that if 40k was a card game with dice.
Insectum7 wrote: ^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.
Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.
In general I think each side needs 2 LOS blockers in the deployment zone. However - if there is so much terrain that you can hide more than half of your army you have too much terrain. Too much terrain is a lot worse than too little. With automatic hide your whole army terrain - you can design armies that can't lose.
Insectum7 wrote: ^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.
Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.
In general I think each side needs 2 LOS blockers in the deployment zone. However - if there is so much terrain that you can hide more than half of your army you have too much terrain. Too much terrain is a lot worse than too little. With automatic hide your whole army terrain - you can design armies that can't lose.
There should be rules on "terrain deployment" and allowed terrain type/number depending on the mission.
For example, Eternal War plays with 3 Large obscuring terrain (~8"x8") and 5 medium LOS blocking terrain (~2"x4"). Players roll off to see who goes first in placing a terrain. Terrain must be deployed in full before players' armies can be deployed.
No terrain feature can be placed within 9" from the center of the battlefield. No part of 'large terrain' can be within 12" of another terrain. No part of 'medium terrain' can be within 9" of another terrain.
Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.
Lance845 wrote: Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.
And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table
Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.
The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.
I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.
I'm for battle round 1 deepstriking of drop pods. They enter on t1 or t2, then disembark in the following round. The cargo shoots and more easily charges BR2, the opponent can try to kill the pod before it acts but who cares, it's a distraction that blocks movement and los. Hardly different than an advancing rhino.
Edit: after checking the profile I see the "drop pod assault" rule that makes this complicated. Remove it. That'll give an extra layer of unique in that the embarked unit can stay protected into t4. Tactics!
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: I'm for battle round 1 deepstriking of drop pods. They enter on t1 or t2, then disembark in the following round. The cargo shoots and more easily charges BR2, the opponent can try to kill the pod before it acts but who cares, it's a distraction that blocks movement and los. Hardly different than an advancing rhino.
If they disembarked the turn after they arrive I think it can work.
Lance845 wrote: Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.
And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table
Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.
The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.
I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.
It is a repair if the core game system is the problem.
Look i get that you like igougo for whatever reason. But hanging onto it for no good reason is just dumb. It makes way too many problems.
Lance845 wrote: Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.
And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table
Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.
The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.
I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.
It is a repair if the core game system is the problem.
Look i get that you like igougo for whatever reason. But hanging onto it for no good reason is just dumb. It makes way too many problems.
AA is not a true non-IGOUGO. IGOUGO will always exist in a board game where you take turns performing actions.
I'm of the opinion that stuff that aren't allowed to charge T1 should be allowed to deepstrike T1. Stuff like Mawlocs that just pop out, do their thing and then die. Drop pods could be the same and in turn deny T1 charges from the units that are inside of them. So you can bring down that psyker to blast a unit or a squad of plasma devs, but that's really not much worse than what is already happening with units that can fly 60" and shoot the crap out of everyone.
Lance845 wrote: Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.
And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table
Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.
The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.
I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.
It is a repair if the core game system is the problem.
Look i get that you like igougo for whatever reason. But hanging onto it for no good reason is just dumb. It makes way too many problems.
AA is not a true non-IGOUGO. IGOUGO will always exist in a board game where you take turns performing actions.
thats a misrepresentation of what igougo means.
Segmenting it into individual activations makes for a huge granularity in decision making and consequence.
You might as well argue that chess is igougo so why not have white move every piece and then have black move all of theirs.
Lance845 wrote: Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.
And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table
Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.
The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.
I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.
It is a repair if the core game system is the problem.
Look i get that you like igougo for whatever reason. But hanging onto it for no good reason is just dumb. It makes way too many problems.
AA is not a true non-IGOUGO. IGOUGO will always exist in a board game where you take turns performing actions.
thats a misrepresentation of what igougo means.
Segmenting it into individual activations makes for a huge granularity in decision making and consequence.
You might as well argue that chess is igougo so why not have white move every piece and then have black move all of theirs.
This is kind of spiraling out of topic, but as concurrently being discussed on the other post, the crux of the issue of IGOUGO in 40k is the escalation of lethality in the game.
In the past editions, alpha strikes were strong but no where near the level that it is now where you can literally cripple an army to 1/3 of its starting strength or more in the first turn of the first round.
If there were measures implemented (i.e. making LOS more scarce via concrete terrain rule) it could help the mess that is 1st turn of 40k.
Good deflection from getting called out on your bad argument.
Sure. Lets be on topic.
Drop pods have problems.
First turn deepstriking is a no go because its a problem in a game that uses igougo turn structure (by the actual definition of igougo not the one you tried to pass off). Fixing that could give the drop pod a new lease on life if some of its other issues were also addressed.
Terrain rules suck and everyone agrees. They are not however a fix for core game issues.
Past editions were less lethal. So we either start cutting specific models and wargear from play or you deal with the reality of the lethality of 40k.
Alpha strikes are a problem. And they are caused by igougo.
I don't want it to be game-winning or anything, just a little extra something to potentially help me seize battle initiative, first strike, position or make the opponent be a bit more defensive if they go first.
sounds like you want an advantage others dont get = wanting to be gamewinning to me.
Im surpised people didint loose their colective gak that vehicles lost bolter rules. It made storm bolters auto take for everything which is just boring when anythings so good its autotake and kind of makes it obvious its a bit too much.
SM are not that bad. Despite what everyone sems to say. I get that everyone wants their army to be auto win and bad ass and SM players seem to feel more entitled than others and GW pandering to the imperium fanboy crowd does not help... Yeah I Went there.
My eldar very often struggle being outnumbered Vs SM. Hellblasts with chapter ancient cpt/liuetanant is just plain Fudgin nasty... Intercessors as troops are insanely good. I always question peoples tactics when I come up against them and dont see them being put into cover.. Ohh you dont want that 2+ save and then moan about surviavibility??? Why are imperium players complaining aboput spsykers where you can just take a couple of assasins. A warlock has 2 wounds. 2!!! thats as much as an intercessors and hes a friggin HQ...
FYI I play eldar and dont flyer spam or soup(not that souping makes any sense to space elfs anymore).
SM are fine as they are and will only get more units and stuff because GW... So just wait 6months and you'll get some new OP shiny while the rest of us are pushing 15+ year old model scultps around..
Lance845 wrote: Good deflection from getting called out on your bad argument.
Sure. Lets be on topic.
Drop pods have problems.
First turn deepstriking is a no go because its a problem in a game that uses igougo turn structure (by the actual definition of igougo not the one you tried to pass off). Fixing that could give the drop pod a new lease on life if some of its other issues were also addressed.
Terrain rules suck and everyone agrees. They are not however a fix for core game issues.
Past editions were less lethal. So we either start cutting specific models and wargear from play or you deal with the reality of the lethality of 40k.
Alpha strikes are a problem. And they are caused by igougo.
AA is not the panacea to the game nor was my last comment a "deflection to a call out on my bad argument." Your chess analogy is false equivalence because chess is actually indeed a IGOUGO game with more restrictions on how many actions you can take per turn. There is no restriction on moving the same piece on your next turn. I can choose to move my knight however many times without being required to cycle through my other pieces before I can move my knight again.
We all know where your fanaticism for AA takes a post (as exemplified by 2 other posts you're ranting about how AA is the cureall for game) and it was merely to steer away from making this post another one of your "MAKE 40KAA AND ALL IS SOLVED" post.
Alpha strike is indeed the issue, and it is primarily caused by the escalated lethality (particularly during shooting phase) that pervades the game. This is further exacerbated by deep strikes.
Your argument of "terrain isn;t going to solve a problem of IGOUGO, only AA will" has no basis on discounting the effect of terrain in the game and shrugging it off as "that's a different issue". If things don;t have line of sight, it cannot shoot against the target. This effectively cuts the lethality/power creep in the game, just like how the scariest melee unit doesn't mean a thing if it can't get within melee range.
"Your argument of "terrain isn;t going to solve a problem of IGOUGO, only AA will" has no basis on discounting the effect of terrain in the game and shrugging it off as "that's a different issue". If things don;t have line of sight, it cannot shoot against the target. This effectively cuts the lethality/power creep in the game, just like how the scariest melee unit doesn't mean a thing if it can't get within melee range."
Unless you are facing IG artillery battery. Then terrain completely backfires on you.
Martel732 wrote: "Your argument of "terrain isn;t going to solve a problem of IGOUGO, only AA will" has no basis on discounting the effect of terrain in the game and shrugging it off as "that's a different issue". If things don;t have line of sight, it cannot shoot against the target. This effectively cuts the lethality/power creep in the game, just like how the scariest melee unit doesn't mean a thing if it can't get within melee range."
Unless you are facing IG artillery battery. Then terrain completely backfires on you.
Right, which is a build specifically built around the effects of terrain which I think is a fair game. It also gives meaning to weapons that ignore TLOS.
Are those IGLOS-ignoring weapons costed fairly? Now THAT'S a whole different issue.
Past editions were less lethal. So we either start cutting specific models and wargear from play or you deal with the reality of the lethality of 40k.
Alpha strikes are a problem. And they are caused by igougo.
If the lethality of alpha strikes is a problem, and previous editions were less lethal, then igougo is not the problem, because previous editions were igougo.
I don't want it to be game-winning or anything, just a little extra something to potentially help me seize battle initiative, first strike, position or make the opponent be a bit more defensive if they go first.
sounds like you want an advantage others dont get = wanting to be gamewinning to me.
Lots of armies get advantages that other armies get. That seems pretty obvious.
Never said they were. I think they're pretty solid, overall. However, the Drop Pod seems to be very unpopular right now, and I'm just looking for a way to address that because it's a cool model and an iconic unit.
SM are fine as they are and will only get more units and stuff because GW... So just wait 6months and you'll get some new OP shiny while the rest of us are pushing 15+ year old model scultps around..
I don't want a new model, I want the model that I have to be a bit more useful.
Martel732 wrote: "Your argument of "terrain isn;t going to solve a problem of IGOUGO, only AA will" has no basis on discounting the effect of terrain in the game and shrugging it off as "that's a different issue". If things don;t have line of sight, it cannot shoot against the target. This effectively cuts the lethality/power creep in the game, just like how the scariest melee unit doesn't mean a thing if it can't get within melee range."
Unless you are facing IG artillery battery. Then terrain completely backfires on you.
Right, which is a build specifically built around the effects of terrain which I think is a fair game. It also gives meaning to weapons that ignore TLOS.
Are those IGLOS-ignoring weapons costed fairly? Now THAT'S a whole different issue.
@both
In my mind the right unit vs. indirect artillery should be Aircraft. A weird space exists right now where Basilisks and the like are firing indirect artillery at planes, which kinda stinks. Now that Aircraft has become a keyword, it'd be nice to see some units be bad at firing at them. Like I'd give things like Basilisks an additional -1 to hit Aircraft, for example. Maybe LR BattleCannons too. Likewise, Flamers shouldn't be an anti-air weapon.
Anyways, that's off topic, but just giving my thoughts.
My argument is that terrain is a FEATURE of any given game just like match or mission type. It should be able to vary wildly and the game should still function.
The argument that terrain fixes it relies on building what amounts to mono set up tables optimized to minimize the impact of the games own rules on itself.
Without terrain the game should work. With terrain the game should work. In swamps with little los blocking terrain, in a hilly grass land, in the streets of a ruined city, the game should work.
If you NEED specific types and amounts of terrain or the whole game falls apart, then i am asking what is it about the games basic structure that causes that?
Lance845 wrote: My argument is that terrain is a FEATURE of any given game just like match or mission type. It should be able to vary wildly and the game should still function.
The argument that terrain fixes it relies on building what amounts to mono set up tables optimized to minimize the impact of the games own rules on itself.
Without terrain the game should work. With terrain the game should work. In swamps with little los blocking terrain, in a hilly grass land, in the streets of a ruined city, the game should work.
If you NEED specific types and amounts of terrain or the whole game falls apart, then i am asking what is it about the games basic structure that causes that?
Imagine playing monopoly without the board. Or, say, Catan without board.
In fact, the above games both have a card game version that does not require the board to play, but at the end of the day, they're a different games themed after it's original board game form.
Terrain-less 40k is bland, doesn't need to take TLOS into consideration, and all you need is measurement from 1 model to another. It's essentially the vacuum space that we all like to theory craft in - what would happen if pitted together unit A and unit B without any intervening factors?
Terrain is very much part of the game that is largely ignored for the most part.
To tie this back to the original topic, alpha strikes via deepstrike needs it's offensive capabilities curtailed. Currently, deep strike is too surgical and too deadly. They arrive (well, used to) exactly when you need them and exactly where you want them with the only form of retaliation is a stratagem that lets you shoot them with -1 to hit or your army has access to cheap board coverage to block it from happening. It's not a fair trade off because 1. the potential damage output of deep striking units aren't properly balanced out with risks 2. not all armies have access to cheap board coverage.
How would terrain help with that? Well, 1. at least you're partially covered from the deployed army that you're not being pummeled by the entirety of your opponent's army 2. terrain can serve as board coverage.
Were not talking about playing without a board. Were talking about a game feature that is meant to be varried, variable, and run a spectrum of effects on the game.
And your argument is we need to make specific amounts and kinds of that MANDATORY to gloss over issues that arise from the games core mechanics.
I didnt say dont have terrain. I didnt say dont have a board. I said we shouldnt need specific terrain to be the crutch that holds the game up.
Lots of armies get advantages that other armies get. That seems pretty obvious.
Ok... ok... ok.. Just so Its crystal clear. Not all armies should be the same nor have acess to the same options/gear. E.G. Tau are not good at CC khorne are not good at shooty.
What you are asking for is a core rule circumventing snowlfake gimmick that only applies only to your faction.
Ynnari had that for ages with double shooting activation and how much grief did that cause? It was stupid and should have been nerfed a long time ago. Dont thinkt here were any people (even among ynari players) that didin't see their rules as a bit too much...
1. Can you play with your drop pod in a game of 40k? Yes.
2. Is your drop pod competative? Maybe yes maybe not, leaning towards not.
Every book has maaaaaany data sheets that are not competitive. SM has more crappy units than some books have total entries.
Now if you were advocating very limited turn 1 DS availability across all codexes.....
Lots of armies get advantages that other armies get. That seems pretty obvious.
Ok... ok... ok.. Just so Its crystal clear. Not all armies should be the same nor have acess to the same options/gear. E.G. Tau are not good at CC khorne are not good at shooty.
What you are asking for is a core rule circumventing snowlfake gimmick that only applies only to your faction.
Ynnari had that for ages with double shooting activation and how much grief did that cause? It was stupid and should have been nerfed a long time ago. Dont thinkt here were any people (even among ynari players) that didin't see their rules as a bit too much...
1. Can you play with your drop pod in a game of 40k? Yes.
2. Is your drop pod competative? Maybe yes maybe not, leaning towards not.
Every book has maaaaaany data sheets that are not competitive. SM has more crappy units than some books have total entries.
Now if you were advocating very limited turn 1 DS availability across all codexes.....
Your argument appears to be based entirely on principle, but isn't really specifically addressing the proposed rule. LOTS of armies get abilities that other armies don't get. Tyranids, for example, can Deep Strike buildings on to the board before the first turn, and these buildings can spawn new units. In fact Tyranids can create and replace units in a number of ways. Doing this doesn't break the game, is not unfair, and is fairly unique to their army. So arguing based on principle itself doesnt appear to be valid, in my view.
You say you play Eldar. You have a unit that ignores hit modifiers. I don't think anyone else has that ability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: My argument is that terrain is a FEATURE of any given game just like match or mission type. It should be able to vary wildly and the game should still function.
The argument that terrain fixes it relies on building what amounts to mono set up tables optimized to minimize the impact of the games own rules on itself.
Without terrain the game should work. With terrain the game should work. In swamps with little los blocking terrain, in a hilly grass land, in the streets of a ruined city, the game should work.
If you NEED specific types and amounts of terrain or the whole game falls apart, then i am asking what is it about the games basic structure that causes that?
Lots of high power, ranged weapons, but still an expectation that maneuverability will serve a purpose. Non IGOUGO doesnt inherently give importance of maneuverability, but terrain does. Alternating activations on a flat table will just emphasize immobile cannons.
When did I mention maneuverability in that? When did I say a flat table in that? Where are ANY of you getting the assumption that I have ever suggested we play a game on a flat plane with no terrain features? I never said that what I want was no terrain. Or that the terrain rules we have are good. I said that terrain isn't the way to fix what IGOUGO causes.
@insectum. Admittedly I have never seen anyone play with nids building. Its the first I have ever come across this. Is that some FW stuff?? Is it a narrative gimmick?? I cant see anything on GW/FW websites that matches what you are describing.
Forgive me but I have to assume its some trash tier fringe models thats OOP in an index somewhere and never gets used and there's maybe like 10 in the world.
Maybe its just my own inexperience due to nobody having one ta my local club but I have never seen one on a battle report.
And regarding reapers... The entire ork codex says hello. Also Sm can ignore cover if they go certain chapter for example. What's that got to do with deep striking turn one??
Yes armies have strengths and weaknesses in different fields. But you are asking for HUGE board control advantage for an already strong army.
So yeah.. Anywy. We will just have to agree to disagree..
Argive wrote: @insectum. Admittedly I have never seen anyone play with nids building. Its the first I have ever come across this. Is that some FW stuff?? Is it a narrative gimmick?? I cant see anything on GW/FW websites that matches what you are describing.
Forgive me but I have to assume its some trash tier fringe models thats OOP in an index somewhere and never gets used and there's maybe like 10 in the world.
It's the sporocyst. (made from the tyrannocyte kit (basically it's top half)). It sits there and produces spore mines. It has some gun options, but it's BS 5+ so even though it could have 5 deathspitters firing 15 shots (and paying out the ass for them), chances are not a single point of damage will happen. They can extend a synapse range of any synapse creature that gets close to them, but synapse range is already pretty great and there are better ways to make spore mines for a lot cheaper (biovores).
Probably an unpopular suggestion, but what if drop pods had the option to infiltrate in addition to deepstriking? So you take 4 pods. You have the option to EITHER deepstrike each of them per normal OR deploy the pod and its transported unit more than 12" away from the enemy deployment zone and enemy units.
The idea being that the drop pods just landed around the drop site, and both of the non-drop-podding armies are showing up to support/destroy them. You know. Instead of both armies patiently waiting until the pods crash into the ground turn 1 to get started.
My thinking is that this would allow you to have a start-of-game mid-board presence with units that normally struggle to get into position. Picture bolter discipline tacticals and multi-melta devastators taking up position in range of their preferred targets and on top of objectives. Against enemies that might be too threatening to stand out in the open, you could land behind ruins and wait until the chance to go jump on an objective.
So depending on your opponent, drop pods are either a way to hide your units and ambush from rapid fire range (deepstrike) or a way to aggressively plant yourself on objectives at the start of the game without risking your rhino dying before it can get you into position.
Other random thoughts:
* Kind of like the idea of pods being cheaper but only having between 1 and 3 wounds. Like, it's a big hunk of metal, but you really only have to kill the turret to keep it from "securing" any positions.
* I don't like any suggestion along the lines of, "Drop pods should let me basically auto-pass a charge roll when I come in from reserves." Surely a metal box falling from space should not be a more reliable means of getting into melee than space elf ninjas literally just sneaking up and stabbing you or dudes with jet packs just flying at you.
* Is the issue really that drop pods are *that* bad, or is it just that they don't transport anything worth deepstriking? I remember paying points last edition for webway portals that were basically drop pods but without the guns and the ability to score an objective attached. So putting a points cost on deepstriking several units at once doesn't seem all that wild to me.
It doesn't give SM permission to do things that everyone else is prevented from doing. It doesn't enhance the issues of first turn advantage. A choice to infiltrate or deepstrike provides a interesting tactical choice you can make in deployment as deployment is happening. And the opponent can potentially end up going first and answer the infiltrate with some counter play.
It gives the pod and the marines inside some interesting options.
Black Templar would love the option to pack 30-40 dudes into 3-4 cans and get them into the mid field at start of game. It's a solid suggestion.
Argive wrote: @insectum. Admittedly I have never seen anyone play with nids building. Its the first I have ever come across this. Is that some FW stuff?? Is it a narrative gimmick?? I cant see anything on GW/FW websites that matches what you are describing.
Forgive me but I have to assume its some trash tier fringe models thats OOP in an index somewhere and never gets used and there's maybe like 10 in the world.
It's the sporocyst. (made from the tyrannocyte kit (basically it's top half)). It sits there and produces spore mines. It has some gun options, but it's BS 5+ so even though it could have 5 deathspitters firing 15 shots (and paying out the ass for them), chances are not a single point of damage will happen. They can extend a synapse range of any synapse creature that gets close to them, but synapse range is already pretty great and there are better ways to make spore mines for a lot cheaper (biovores).
Ahh I missed that.. So they are not actually transports for gaunts/genestealers and actual units?
Argive wrote: @insectum. Admittedly I have never seen anyone play with nids building. Its the first I have ever come across this. Is that some FW stuff?? Is it a narrative gimmick?? I cant see anything on GW/FW websites that matches what you are describing.
Forgive me but I have to assume its some trash tier fringe models thats OOP in an index somewhere and never gets used and there's maybe like 10 in the world.
It's the sporocyst. (made from the tyrannocyte kit (basically it's top half)). It sits there and produces spore mines. It has some gun options, but it's BS 5+ so even though it could have 5 deathspitters firing 15 shots (and paying out the ass for them), chances are not a single point of damage will happen. They can extend a synapse range of any synapse creature that gets close to them, but synapse range is already pretty great and there are better ways to make spore mines for a lot cheaper (biovores).
Ahh I missed that.. So they are not actually transports for gaunts/genestealers and actual units?
The Tyrannocyte is a drop pod that can carry 1 unit of up to 20 models or 1 monster. Costs about 115 points. Is also a MONSTER. Can move and fight and has guns but a gak BS.
The sporocyst is a building you infiltrate onto the battlefield and produces spore mines. Same guns. Same gak BS. Can also fight if someone decides to charge it for some reason.
The one kit can build one or the other (or both honestly. Again, the sporocyst is basically just the top of the tcyte).
No. It can infiltrate. So it is deployed out in the battlefield.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More correctly its original rule made it so it was deployed in reserves and HAD to deepstrike on the first turn (no holding onto it for later turns).
Since the no first turn deepstrike its been errated to infiltrate since it would otherwise be incapable of doing its own rule.
The problem with infiltrate is that we had it in the past. The ravenguard strategem did the same thing for cheaper, but they got rid of it and for good reason too
It made the game WAY too binary. If the marine player got the first turn, smash captains, aggressors, and vanguard were instantly in optimal position for a bunch of first turn charges or close range fire. If the opponent went first a lot of valuable assets suddenly were hanging in the wind and got murdered.
So, I really don't think an infiltrating option for the drop pod is a good idea. I mean, if the SM player gets first turn then you pretty much guarantee smash captains in the enemy while other units only have to make 6-7 inch charge. I thought that was something you didn't want happening.
In other words good in theory, bad in practice as proven by the change to RG style infiltration stratagems.
Lance845 wrote: No. It can infiltrate. So it is deployed out in the battlefield.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More correctly its original rule made it so it was deployed in reserves and HAD to deepstrike on the first turn (no holding onto it for later turns).
Since the no first turn deepstrike its been errated to infiltrate since it would otherwise be incapable of doing its own rule.
Ohh I see yeah that makes sense I have no problem with that. If it drop pod is being set up as per infiltrate rule and can be shot at turn one then that would be fine by me.
Sad Eldar rangers werent given the infiltrate rule.. Their rule wording says befor ebatlle begins etc. so it seems they inteted them to infiltrate but it somehow got nerfed along with everything else :(
I'm kind of undecided on turn one Drop-Pod arrivals, personally I loved it in 7th but I also enjoyed watching my Tau and IG opponents cry when my Wolves were managing to cross the entire battlefield and start chewing on them turn one, so it's hard to tell if that's because I think it's right or if I'm just vindictive.
So a mod suggestion for Drop-Pods that might bring them back into the game even if they don't arrive turn one.
Make an ability that centres around the fact that Drop-Pods don't move.
Unlike Vehicles that do move Drop-Pods instantly become a fortification-ish piece on arrival, they can be embarked and disembarked, charged and shot like a normal vehicle but when they're reduced to zero they become a terrain piece with no access unless they explode, then they're removed as normal.
Drop pod Assault 1-3 CP During deployment you may activate Drop pod Assault to place 1-2 drop pods down anywhere on the field farther than 12" from your opponents deployment zone and 9" from any enemy models. You place these pods down after everything else has deployed, but before infiltrators. If you do so, the embarked units may not disembark till the end of your first movement phase unless your opponent destroys it. If your opponent has first turn the pod counts as though it had used the Smoke Launchers ability (and is thus -1 to hit in the shooting phase).
Gives marines a Sporocyst type objective squatter that has to come down after scout deploys but before infiltrators, protects their squad as long as possible, and isn't too cheap. 1 CP for one pod, 3 for 2.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm kind of undecided on turn one Drop-Pod arrivals, personally I loved it in 7th but I also enjoyed watching my Tau and IG opponents cry when my Wolves were managing to cross the entire battlefield and start chewing on them turn one, so it's hard to tell if that's because I think it's right or if I'm just vindictive.
Yes, they were nasty.
They were also cheaper (often free!), could carry more units (Dreadnoughts and Centurions), and land closer to the enemy (basically right on top of them, to take advantage of template weapons). They were definitely "rude" in 7th. I'm open to the possibility that it would be "rude" in 8th, but there's a number of pretty nasty abilities out there like Genestealer shock-assaults, -3s to hit, etc. So from my point of view it depends on which way we're swinging in terms of balancing. If the momentum is that GW is trying to slow some of that stuff down, that's great, and maybe 1st turn strike is too much even with limited numbers and a CP cost. But if it's going the other way, then I'd advocate harder for turn 1 Pods.
Wyldhunt wrote: Probably an unpopular suggestion, but what if drop pods had the option to infiltrate in addition to deepstriking? So you take 4 pods. You have the option to EITHER deepstrike each of them per normal OR deploy the pod and its transported unit more than 12" away from the enemy deployment zone and enemy units.
The idea being that the drop pods just landed around the drop site, and both of the non-drop-podding armies are showing up to support/destroy them. You know. Instead of both armies patiently waiting until the pods crash into the ground turn 1 to get started.
My thinking is that this would allow you to have a start-of-game mid-board presence with units that normally struggle to get into position. Picture bolter discipline tacticals and multi-melta devastators taking up position in range of their preferred targets and on top of objectives. Against enemies that might be too threatening to stand out in the open, you could land behind ruins and wait until the chance to go jump on an objective.
So depending on your opponent, drop pods are either a way to hide your units and ambush from rapid fire range (deepstrike) or a way to aggressively plant yourself on objectives at the start of the game without risking your rhino dying before it can get you into position.
That's something that I would be ok with, but I don't think it would be good enough for competitive use. A common complaint I see goes something like "there's nothing Space Marines can do that (other Imperial Unit) can't do better." I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment, mind you, but Pods being able to Drop turn 1 would provide for a distinctly "Marine" niche that's completely in line with their character.
Infiltrating Pods would be a nice addition, but in a competitive sense I think they'd still be competing with Scouts for board control possibilities, and Scouts would be a lot cheaper. To summarize, I like the idea but I don't think that would get people to start putting Pods in their armies again. I could be wrong.
Other random thoughts:
* Kind of like the idea of pods being cheaper but only having between 1 and 3 wounds. Like, it's a big hunk of metal, but you really only have to kill the turret to keep it from "securing" any positions.
I'm neutral on this one. Cheaper would be great. The fact that they score objectives is somewhat questionable (although things like Ripper Swarms also control objectives). It's a fairly beefy model so 1-3 wounds seems light. An issue with the pod currently is that enemies can charge it in order to hide from shooting.
* I don't like any suggestion along the lines of, "Drop pods should let me basically auto-pass a charge roll when I come in from reserves." Surely a metal box falling from space should not be a more reliable means of getting into melee than space elf ninjas literally just sneaking up and stabbing you or dudes with jet packs just flying at you.
Agreed. I don't think helping units charge is a good place to improve pods.
* Is the issue really that drop pods are *that* bad, or is it just that they don't transport anything worth deepstriking? I remember paying points last edition for webway portals that were basically drop pods but without the guns and the ability to score an objective attached. So putting a points cost on deepstriking several units at once doesn't seem all that wild to me.
I think most of the people claiming that "pods can't carry anything of value" are generally people that think basic marines suck. I'm not in that crowd, I like my marines for the most part.
. . .
Lance845 wrote: When did I say a flat table in that? Where are ANY of you getting the assumption that I have ever suggested we play a game on a flat plane with no terrain features?
My counter is that if you want a game with high-powered ranged weapons, and for maneuvering to count for anything, you need terrain. Alternating activations don't fix that. 40K needs terrain more than alternating activations. Terrain is not a "crutch" for igougo. Not to mention better terrain rules is a much easier change to the game than AA.
And regarding reapers... The entire ork codex says hello. Also Sm can ignore cover if they go certain chapter for example. What's that got to do with deep striking turn one??
Because Orks always hit on 6s? That proves my point. Orks inherently have an ability that other armies don't have.
SMs ignoring cover isn't ignoring a to-hit modifier, it's ignoring a save modifier. It's also something that some armies have that other armies don't.
Genestealer have some nasty deep striking options, iirc. Mawlocs can deep strike well inside the usual 9" restriction.
Some armies have a move-twice. Some armies have a shoot-twice. Some armies spawn(or respawn) units, etc. Many armies have abilities that many other armies do not.
The idea that armies can't have abilities that other armies don't is bonkers.
Drop pod Assault 1-3 CP During deployment you may activate Drop pod Assault to place 1-2 drop pods down anywhere on the field farther than 12" from your opponents deployment zone and 9" from any enemy models. You place these pods down after everything else has deployed, but before infiltrators. If you do so, the embarked units may not disembark till the end of your first movement phase unless your opponent destroys it. If your opponent has first turn the pod counts as though it had used the Smoke Launchers ability (and is thus -1 to hit in the shooting phase).
Gives marines a Sporocyst type objective squatter that has to come down after scout deploys but before infiltrators, protects their squad as long as possible, and isn't too cheap. 1 CP for one pod, 3 for 2.
I think that is a fair enough way to do it. I would play with opponents using this rule.
Indeed, I agree that the best solution would be to change the current ability for Drop Pods to allow they to deploy in Reserves (deep strike) or on the table outside 12" for enemy units (infiltrate).
Something to consider here, however, is that this option may give melee units a bit of a unique advantage because the 3" disembark isn't "wholly" within 3". So a unit with say, 32mm bases could disembark, have the edge of their bases within 3" of their Pod, yet be within 8" of an enemy (Pod dropped 12" - 3" for disembark + Base width) This would also make Flamer units worthwhile though, so there's another reason to do it
Lance845 wrote: Black Templar would love the option to pack 30-40 dudes into 3-4 cans and get them into the mid field at start of game. It's a solid suggestion.
Still doesn't solve the problem of the units themselves being really bad at melee, but it's a start.
Argive wrote: No problem with infiltrate type rule. High risk high reward. If you put all your eggs in one basked and get siezed on thats on you.
There will be the fun times when your opponent just surrounds the pod with a unit of speed freak gretchin, guard infantry, tau strike team, scouts or rangers charges it then just sits in melee with it.
Can't escape due to the 1' of opponents rule, can't fight back because the Drop Pod has no attacks, can't shoot within an inch.
120 points+ stumped by 50 points, an unfortunate decision and a really unfortunate seize.
