Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I used to automatically assume it was good, but when I thought about it a sudden insight came to me. If you hide the unit behind the transport, if you go second and your vehicle explodes than you don't lose all your guys... Does anyone see what I mean? Is it actually a good tactic?

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I used to automatically assume it was good, but when I thought about it a sudden insight came to me. If you hide the unit behind the transport, if you go second and your vehicle explodes than you don't lose all your guys... Does anyone see what I mean? Is it actually a good tactic?

In the previous edition, you were limited on how far you could move after passengers embarked so people avoided doing that. Now this is no longer the case so it's a much more viable tactic.

However, the problem is that, unless you can completely hide your squad out of LoS, they can now be targeted by enemy weapons. Even if they are out of LoS, barrage weapons can still hit them and a S9 AP3 large blast on your squad is far worse than a single hit on your transport. Plus, given the new damage tables for vehicles, the chance of them getting the 'Explodes!" result is far less likely (impossible unless the weapon is AP2 or AP1, or you are open topped).

You're probably safer just deploying inside the vehicle.

DoW

Maybe, unles the opponent has barrage weapons in addition to having long range AT.

What the posters above said.

Also, vehicles are more likely to become wrecks than explode - in that case you can even chose to deploy into cover from there.

Am i missing something or you're no longer restricted to move 6' after having embarked?

 koooaei wrote:
Am i missing something or you're no longer restricted to move 6' after having embarked?

The only restrictions are:
* If the vehicle moved before the unit embarked, it cant move any further at all that turn (including pivoting, Flat Out, Running or charging).
* The vehicle cannot Ram or Tank Shock in a turn a Unit embarks in it.

 koooaei wrote:
Am i missing something or you're no longer restricted to move 6' after having embarked?

You aren't missing anything. I utilize this quite often now, after a combat has ended, I move my boyz back into a wagon, move it 18" to anywhere and then charge out again with boarding plank bonus. Makes battlewagons super effective in malestrom games.

 koooaei wrote:
Am i missing something or you're no longer restricted to move 6' after having embarked?

Correct, that rule was removed in 7th.

It was one of the main reasons (for me) that the Dedicated Transport rule was so annoying. Now it just makes you a little more vulnerable first turn if you want to pop someone else in that Rhino or Chimera.

DoW

 Jidmah wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Am i missing something or you're no longer restricted to move 6' after having embarked?

You aren't missing anything. I utilize this quite often now, after a combat has ended, I move my boyz back into a wagon, move it 18" to anywhere and then charge out again with boarding plank bonus. Makes battlewagons super effective in malestrom games.

Can you now get into a vehicle and out again in the same turn? Also, can't you only move 6 inches and disembark?

I assume from the wording of your post that you won an assault, and then in the following movement phase, got into the vehicle and drove off, and then in the following turn moved 6 and did the assault and all.

It does let you criss cross the board, but you also have to spend three turns doing it, in this fashion (one turn, win the assault, next turn get in the vehicle, next turn, move 6 and disembark for another assault). Of course 2 protected assaults a game is much better than 1. Just making sure I am following here.

Yeah, I guess I was unclear on that. You assault something turn 2, beat it, go back into the wagon turn 3 and get your next charge turn 4. It's possible, but unlikely, to pull it off once more during turn 5 and 6, if your game goes that long.

Especially against mobile armies like eldar or white scars, or against armies that scatter all over the board, like GK or pod-marines, having the second charge from the wagon has won me quite a few games. It's also nice for catching some of those units which jump around the board just out of charge range white shooting your stuff.

Stay in your transport on Turn 1, it'll offer you far more protection. I rarely lose any models in an explosion anyway, especially considering how rare those are these days. Plus it's certainly less casualties than I would have suffered if they had been in the open.

 Jidmah wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Am i missing something or you're no longer restricted to move 6' after having embarked?

You aren't missing anything. I utilize this quite often now, after a combat has ended, I move my boyz back into a wagon, move it 18" to anywhere and then charge out again with boarding plank bonus. Makes battlewagons super effective in malestrom games.

Makes a Landraider even more a pain in the arse.

 Jidmah wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Am i missing something or you're no longer restricted to move 6' after having embarked?

You aren't missing anything. I utilize this quite often now, after a combat has ended, I move my boyz back into a wagon, move it 18" to anywhere and then charge out again with boarding plank bonus. Makes battlewagons super effective in malestrom games.

Whoa, no sir, you cannot do either of those things, even if the vehicle is Open Topped.

Embarking and Disembarking wrote:Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase. They cannot voluntarily embark and disembark in the same turn.

Disembarking wrote:A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6".

I hope you haven't been pulling that one on your opponents for very long!

DoW

And I hope you don't stop reading all threads half way through

 Jidmah wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Am i missing something or you're no longer restricted to move 6' after having embarked?

You aren't missing anything. I utilize this quite often now, after a combat has ended, I move my boyz back into a wagon, move it 18" to anywhere and then charge out again with boarding plank bonus. Makes battlewagons super effective in malestrom games.

Wow, that's some neat tactix! I have overlooked this possibility so far. Will be totally useful for my 'ard boyz in a truck. Thanks for sharing!

 Jidmah wrote:
What the posters above said.

Also, vehicles are more likely to become wrecks than explode - in that case you can even chose to deploy into cover from there.

Wrong.

The passengers must immediately disembark in the usual manner, save that they must end their move wholly within 3" of the vehicle, rather than 6". If, even by performing an emergency disembarkation, some models are unable to disembark, then any models that cannot disembark are removed as casualties. This does not prevent the rest of the unit from disembarking. The unit must then take a Pinning test. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

Not only do you take a pinning test, but the vehicle is not a wreck until after you have disembarked.

How does that make any part of what I wrote wrong?

You said: " in that case you can even chose to deploy into cover from there."
No you cannot.

Why not?

You can easily deploy behind your soon-to-be-wrecked vehicle and use it as cover. 3" means that an entire units of boyz could hide behind the long side of a battlewagon. You can also jump into any ruin or forest that's within 3".
You could also just deploy out the front to get close to your enemy.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why not?

You can easily deploy behind your soon-to-be-wrecked vehicle and use it as cover. 3" means that an entire units of boyz could hide behind the long side of a battlewagon. You can also jump into any ruin or forest that's within 3".
You could also just deploy out the front to get close to your enemy.

The way you said the quoted part by morgoth, it looked like you could deploy ON the cover - the soon-to-be-wreck vehicle, while it isn't a wreck yet

Ah I see. Good thing he explained his case so thoroughly.

Why would you do that anyways? Unless I'm missing something standing on top of a wreck doesn't provide any cover at all.

 Jidmah wrote:
And I hope you don't stop reading all threads half way through

You posted a tactic that was completely in violation of the rules. A few posts later you 'clarified' but, let's be fair, it's a bit rude to not only post inaccurate information in the first place, but also leave it up for others to read after several people commented on it (you did see the other person who responded favorably and may believe that your posted tactic is completely legal, right?). It was also so blatantly incorrect that I have a hard time believing you could possibly have posted it without being mistaken as to the rules... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, it's usually considered good form to edit a blatantly misleading post so as to avoid spreading bad information. It's also good form to read through the entire thread before posting. We're both at fault for laziness here.

DoW


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have to admit I'm amazed that you have almost 7000 posts under your belt and didn't take the time to properly share your tactic (so as not to confuse). Usually people with so many posts are the people to depend on for clear and helpful information.

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And I hope you don't stop reading all threads half way through

You posted a tactic that was completely in violation of the rules.

I did not. I posted a legit tactic that you thought was in violation of the rules. Big difference here.

A few posts later you 'clarified'

I did not 'clarify', I clarified it. After reading both Fenris Frost and my post there should absolutely no doubt of how the tactic works.

but, let's be fair, it's a bit rude to not only post inaccurate information in the first place, but also leave it up for others to read after several people commented on it (you did see the other person who responded favorably and may believe that your posted tactic is completely legal, right?).

It's also rude to accuse people of cheating despite:
1) At least one person perfectly understanding what was meant
2) A poster pointing out that the post was unclear
3) A more throrough clarification being given
4) You already posting in-between

It was also so blatantly incorrect that I have a hard time believing you could possibly have posted it without being mistaken as to the rules... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The only thing blatantly incorrect was your assumption of me doing all that in a single turn, which would have been impossible for multiple reasons: the assault phase being after movement, not being able to disembark after embarking and not being able to disembark after moving flat-out. Instead of questioning your assumption, you decided to call me a cheater.

Anyway, it's usually considered good form to edit a blatantly misleading post so as to avoid spreading bad information.

Considering that my post was not actually wrong, but merely unclear, there is no reason to edit it. In addition, editing posts after people have responded to them is considered bad form all by itself and for that reason forbidden by many commenting and forum softwares.

Also, considering that at least one other poster understood what I meant, you're the one to blame for not reading the entire thread, which would have contained not one but two clarification within the next four posts.

I have to admit I'm amazed that you have almost 7000 posts under your belt and didn't take the time to properly share your tactic (so as not to confuse). Usually people with so many posts are the people to depend on for clear and helpful information.

I'm even more amazed that you concluded that someone with 7000 posts, with almost half of those in YMDC, must be, without doubt, cheating his opponent by ignoring almost half the relevant rules, rather than figuring out what he could have meant. I'm also amazed that someone with 1500 posts doesn't read threads till the end, but rather attacks people about things he reads halfway through, that are clarified twice only a couple of posts later.

Good logic Jidmah.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I used to automatically assume it was good, but when I thought about it a sudden insight came to me. If you hide the unit behind the transport, if you go second and your vehicle explodes than you don't lose all your guys... Does anyone see what I mean? Is it actually a good tactic?

Vehicle explosions rarely does decent damage, let alone significant damage.

Now your unit just getting shot at now that its out in the open is another story.

In a transport you're safe-ish from blasts and templates.
A suicide DS squad is usually after the passengers. Popping a transport is just step 1 of that process. They're after artillery too, but that's a different issue.

Then again, spreading your squishies around the backfield helps prevent drop pods landing in the middle of your stuff.
If that same DS squad does get in, though, they can use all of their weapons in their first turn, instead of just the melta-type ones.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I used to automatically assume it was good, but when I thought about it a sudden insight came to me. If you hide the unit behind the transport, if you go second and your vehicle explodes than you don't lose all your guys... Does anyone see what I mean? Is it actually a good tactic?

Vehicle explosions rarely does decent damage, let alone significant damage.

Now your unit just getting shot at now that its out in the open is another story.

Loosing half the squad with an explosion is quite significant. And than you pass 2 ld checks at ld7. Not to flee and not to get pinned. Starting out of vehicle is quite advantageous in certain situations. Besides, on the 1-st turn there are not many anti-infantry weapons in range.

I think another 'something' hasn't been covered here. And I apologise if I'm pointing out the obvious. But it entirely depends on the unit, the transport, the mission, and what you are facing. I gather that most people have just concluded that we are talking about a basic troops unit such as a squad of ork boyz and a basic transport with open-topped or fire points. But that doesn't answer the question in its entirety. Is it a good idea to put your lascannon devestators in a razorback (if not UM)? No. Even if the opponent has a drake. Is it a good idea to leave you guardians outside their serpent? Not usually. Is it a good idea to leave your TFC outside its drop pod (bought for odd number purposes)? Yes. Is it a good idea to leave your SM scouts outside their storm in a malestrom mission when you can capture 2 objectives with 100pts easily if you do? Probably.
The question is immensely broad and has hundreds of different answers dependent on the situation.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
Is starting the game in a vehicle a bad idea?

I don't even understand how this works. Do you have some sort of drive-thru gaming store you play at? Or are you suggesting you start playing 40k while on a moped or motorcycle which you drove into the store???


Edited to add - Oh crap! That's my one thousandth post!?? What a waste!

^haha not a waste at all!