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.

Transports were certainly nerfed, as discussed above, but it seems vehicles as a whole are certainly better off.

Cover saves everywhere (albeit 5+), harder to stunlock, et cetera.

Randomized weapon destroyed is a boon to vindicators for sure.

I think the heavy slot as a whole got better.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:::sigh::

So many incorrect conclusions drawn from incorrect or limited information. Play some games, the blob is not dead by a long shot and infantry heavy armies are going to be even nastier in 6th than they were in 5th (where they were plenty nasty).

Everyone take a deep breath, step back, and go play some actual games.

Pretty much this.

Biophysical wrote:I get the point about deduction, certain truths can be reasoned out as long as the rules are know. The thing is, the more complicated the truth, the less likely one is taking into account and correctly weighting all factors involved. This is why a lot of people, myself included, value in game experience when evaluating units and builds. We miss stuff in our theoryhammer, and while a few games can't prove us absolutely right or wrong, a few games can show if ideas are extremely off-base.

Certainly. I myself have gained minor corrections and increased nuance over time playing games.

To say, though, that the only way to know anything is to go out and play is as silly as it is wrong. Reading the rules and deducing their meaning is much better than playing a few games and hoping that your subjective experiences will give you objective truth.

... which is strange. It feels like every time I make a big thread like this, it eventually devolves to the point where I have to defend objectivity itself. Perhaps that's the point where I should just stop bothering. If you try and discuss things abstractly with someone who doesn't believe in obejctivity, the end result is always incommensurability. Why say something if it's not going to be heard?

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:I get the point about deduction, certain truths can be reasoned out as long as the rules are know. The thing is, the more complicated the truth, the less likely one is taking into account and correctly weighting all factors involved. This is why a lot of people, myself included, value in game experience when evaluating units and builds. We miss stuff in our theoryhammer, and while a few games can't prove us absolutely right or wrong, a few games can show if ideas are extremely off-base.

Certainly. I myself have gained minor corrections and increased nuance over time playing games.

To say, though, that the only way to know anything is to go out and play is as silly as it is wrong. Reading the rules and deducing their meaning is much better than playing a few games and hoping that your subjective experiences will give you objective truth.

... which is strange. It feels like every time I make a big thread like this, it eventually devolves to the point where I have to defend objectivity itself. Perhaps that's the point where I should just stop bothering. If you try and discuss things abstractly with someone who doesn't believe in obejctivity, the end result is always incommensurability. Why say something if it's not going to be heard?

I've always wondered why someone who doesn't like discussing "theory hammer" would bother posting on a thread like this at all.

Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.


Anyway, the parts of the thread that are on topic have been great. Thanks.

It's best to just ignore people who make posts like "well it's all luck what's the point in doing maths lol".
Having said that, I posted a MSU guard infantry list that seems to have been ignored. Ailaros is focussing on the loss of his blobs, but a)the guard can fit in as many special weapons as they could before, b)victory points now only matter 1/6th of the time and c)these MSU squads are much easier to get 4+ cover for thanks to aegis defence lines (pretty much a must take anyway if you want to avoid being flyered to death).

Assault blob may be dead (actually I never rated it in 5th either, but you seemed to have success), but foot guard definitely isn't. Frankly I never really liked the "hidden models" approach of a lot of foot guard...nor did I like the idea of a load of guys in uniform going toe to toe with orks/super human space marines in melee...and winning.

Jihallah wrote:I love ailaros threads.

As much as there is a sense of bruised egos because the Internet man didn't agree with you, he makes some really good points....I see many tears of rage/frustration at ailaros' arguments... Because he argues back If you disagree!

I see lots of talking but little thinking. So it's good to see it every now and then on the form of a ailaros thread with lots of pages full of big posts

I can't speak for anyone else, but as I said earlier I also enjoy Ailaros's threads and his far superior intellect and 40k knowledge. I personally do not have any - as you amusingly put - "tears of rage/frustration." or "bruised egos because the internet man didn't agree with you." and am somewhat confused to who you are referring too in these cases.
All I see are objections to Ailaros's theoryhammer and Mr. Intellectual approach (not that there is anything wrong with that, as I keep saying) in place of actual practical experience. I think people - whether it is justified or not - have issues with that approach and the constant linking to personal blogs as if they were holy gospel (especially when rules have been misunderstood). And thus it has little to do with the fact "he argues back if you disagree".

As people have quite reasonably attempted to point out, you inevitably miss things in theoryhammer no matter how smart you are. And you know if one cannot at least accept that I would say that's probably more a case of bruised ego than any other I have seen in this thread so far.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcress410 wrote:

I've always wondered why someone who doesn't like discussing "theory hammer" would bother posting on a thread like this at all.

Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.

No see because there is actually a middle-ground where you accept the limitations of both theoryhammer and the practical playingtesting of the game. It isn't helpful to have such a "black and white" viewpoint where it's either one or the other.

My experience has been limited to 3 games in 6th, but so far it has been in agreement with Ailaros's general point that vehicles are the better way to go than foot sloggers.

I play guard so pretty much any weapon wounds on a 3 or lower and most weapons go through our armor.

I used to be able to jam 50% of a blob in cover and everyone would get cover. Now, the biggest problem is not that the average cover got raised from a 4+ to a 5+ since ruins still give you a 4+. The biggest problem now is focused fire. Everyone who is not behind a wall or hidden can be blasted off the board with no save. If I hide behind the wall, then I can't shoot and my ability to move the unit has been compromised to some extent.

I could mitigate the problem by bringing defense lines, but if I'm cowering behind those, I am certainly not moving up the board and trying to get into assault like blobs used. If I did manage to tromp over across the board, made the charge after overwatch and kept my commissar alive, it's hard to keep them alive in assault. The enemy can challenge either my sergeants or the commissar and probably pulp them even before they swing. After that if I have to get my sergeants and commissar up to the front if I want to use their power weapons. That will result in those guys getting slaughtered in the next round of fighting if they manage to stick around after the invariable loss in combat. So if I played my cards right, I got one round of power weapon swings out of my power blob.

You can certainly blob up for shooting purposes. But, I prefer to offer my enemy a bunch of targets to shoot instead of a limited number of blobs.

Tanks got better though. You can glance them to death, but until they are dead, those glances aren't stopping them from being able to fire or move. My Space Marine opponent can bring a tactical squad for 150-160 (without upgrade), I can bring an AV 14 Russ that is hard to interrupt from dropping pie plates on said marines.

For me the biggest pro for taking transports is that outside of them, guardsmen have become even easier to kill. Not only do they die faster, but it's harder to keep upgrades alive and place them where you need them.
I do need to get out of the transport to score, but I will gladly do so after I shot your troops off the board. If I didn't, I can still get out and contest the objective.

The overall calculus for me boils down to what Ailaros has been saying. Vehicles became a little more fragile, but troops became super fragile.

I certainly wasn't denigrating theoryhammer, but a previous poster had brought up an understanding based on experience, which was dismissed by Ailaros for being inductive instead of deductive. I was trying to make the point that it's not safe to dismiss, because there are things that we collectively haven't figured out yet, and it's worth listening to someone who has had some experience with all the variables in play.

I've had about a half dozen games so far in 6th.

So far, I've found the following:

Focus fire/changed cover is a nerf to survivability of infantry. The less in built resiliency an infantry unit had, the more it felt the nerf.

Hull points/changed cover is a nerf to survivability of vehicles. The less in built resiliency a vehicle unit had, the more it felt the nerf.

Essentially terrain offers less protection to everything, and hull points decreases variance (and slightly the average) in firepower required to take out vehicles.

So far both Mech and infantry seem like viable options. I personally feel like its a bit more even now. I've been playing foot SM for the last few games and it seems pretty good.

I run two lists; one is Elysian Aircav, and the second is one constructed almost entirely from observing Ailaros' Ultrablob setup of PW, Melta, Lascannons. Here are my observations, with nine games played against SM, BA, Eldar, Tau, Mech-guard, and assorted alliances of the such.

My primary observation is that Elysian lists got grossly good. What was previously a brutally unforgiving list with essentially overpriced chimeras with a skimmer save and no access to the best AT in the edition has become innappropriately good. Vendettas are still excellent tank hunters, our sniper SWS are finally viable, and plasma (our best infantry weapon) got a handsome buff. The ability to flat out off the board after grav chuting squads onto an objective is incredible as well. Overall success with this list as long as I can put down any gun emplacements with a Venator alphastrike. Undefeated in the skies thus far.

On to the main topic, my foot list took extensive modification with the coming of 6th. What was previously a TAC (mech, transports, PA, even tanks) blob got its Melta swapped for flamers, and it's power weapons stripped altogether. My asskicking T3, 5+ deathstsr got demoted to sitting behind an Aegis taking orders from an immobile CCS. With LCs being less effective at silencing big guns (thanks to glance changes) I've taken to running two dettas and a pasquisher, and now leave linebreaking and forward objective grabbing to plasmavets.

Quarterbacking with a CCS and a defensive blob allows for the delicious advantage of effectively protecting both the Linebreaker and Kill the Warlord VP's. It also allows me to sit pretty with Lascannons rolling shots at transports as they come to me. BiD and FoMT do big things for transport hunting. Eldrad+Fire Dragons or Broadsides slap around my Mech elements, making turtling sometimes a necessity against especially shooty armies. With leman russes as our to top HS and Dettas as (arguably) our best FA; the scouring and big guns are both missions tilted a bit in our favour. Overall, I think blobs still have a place in our armies; just not as the centerpiece and not as the mass of choppy power weapon goodness they were before.

-captain

Dracos wrote:I've had about a half dozen games so far in 6th.

So far, I've found the following:

Focus fire/changed cover is a nerf to survivability of infantry. The less in built resiliency an infantry unit had, the more it felt the nerf.

Hull points/changed cover is a nerf to survivability of vehicles. The less in built resiliency a vehicle unit had, the more it felt the nerf.

Essentially terrain offers less protection to everything, and hull points decreases variance (and slightly the average) in firepower required to take out vehicles.

So far both Mech and infantry seem like viable options. I personally feel like its a bit more even now. I've been playing foot SM for the last few games and it seems pretty good.

Right, the only thing that the vehicle nerf did is more or less standardize how many shots it takes to knock out a vehicle. This also had the effect of widening the gap between av 12 and av 13 and av 14.

For infantry the new rules had a similar effect. The wide gap between meq and geq armor has only widened. If you're not packing your own good save, you're in trouble.

With my guard I will seek to avoid committing points to the wide gap between meq and geq armor and invest those in the wide gap between av 14 and av 12.

bogalubov wrote:This also had the effect of widening the gap between av 12 and av 13 and av 14.

For infantry the new rules had a similar effect. The wide gap between meq and geq armor has only widened. If you're not packing your own good save, you're in trouble.

With my guard I will seek to avoid committing points to the wide gap between meq and geq armor and invest those in the wide gap between av 14 and av 12.

Wow, this is a really smart way to put it. I had gotten the feeling that termies and russes were better (references to "elitehammer" on page 1), but this is a good way to think about it.

I suppose, to use this way of describing it, my point would be that the gap opened up between guardsmen or boyz, etc. and terminators became larger than the gap between AV11/12 and AV14.


Oh, and I remembered another thing on this topic. Mech lists were hurt in 5th edition by kill points, and did their best in environments that didn't seriously threaten mech players with kill points (like tournaments). In 6th ed, kill points went form 1 in 3 missions to 1 in 6. Some foot armies (like guard) could already do MSU spam if they wanted, but mech lists still do MSU spam better, in general.

Good conversation. I think I am done with that last summary. I guess I have been biased because all I have ever played is meq, via necrons, vanilla and now space wolves. I went from msu razor spam to missile spam foot slogging logan wing with pods.

Good to get some perspective. I guess I will be good until folks dust off their nob biker lists.

I don't think 5th ed style blobs or mechanized vets are the way to go in 6th. The blob is too vulnerable to losing it's commissar, and the all mech vet army is too light on troops. Let's look at what's still good in 6th ed.

Aegis defense line
Quad gun
Quad flamer PCS is an excellent unit inside a Chimera
MSU foot infantry squads 60 points each with an AC, and very durable behind a defense line.
Tri Flamer or Tri melta SWS inside a Chimera (they can gta one from an infantry squad)
Plasma vets behind an aegis or in a chimera
Melta vets inside a chimera
Mechanized CCS

I'm thinking about half my army will be mechanized with swarms of pis running around, and the rest will be diversified units inside Chimera. It's not 5th ed as the foot slogging infantry now plays an even more vital role.

Ok, I'm new here so my opinion may not count for much but I feel that at least for imperial guard foot lists as a whole have not become bad. That isn't to say I think power blobs are good, I don't. They have had their time and in all honesty I'm glad they're gone they seemed ridiculous to me.

I do feel the Imperial guard Gunline or Gunline/Hybrid List has improved greatly.

First there are the changes to rapid fire, Now you have greatly downplayed this but being able to move 6 inches and still shoot is a big deal, meaning in a 10 man Guard squad with FRFSRF i could put out 20 lasgun shots.

Next we have the changes to movement. I can now put a heavy weapon in my standard infantry squad and even if my guardsmen move it can shoot as long as I don't move it. This means if I'm careful in placement i can set up the heavy weapon in a spot with good cover from most angles and give the sub prime spots which are workable for a turn or two to my infantry that can move or shoot, and when the enemy changes to an angle which can negate my basic troops' cover i can move them while hopefully leaving my heavy weapon as is allowing cover and everyone to still shoot.

Third there are Aegis Defense Lines or Fortifications, and man are they good. These give my units back their 4+ from 5th edition, but that isn't the biggest thing for Aegis lines,it's the +2 to Go to groud rolls, and while i know this is an expensive trick It is possible to reliably allow 4 or more squads to have a 2+ cover save from go to ground and then use get back in the fight to fire the next round. If you think that is weaker than fifth edition there is no point in arguing with you, because a 5pt guardsman with a 2+ or TDA equivalent save (actually better since AP doesn't negate it). If you would prefer to not have to use Get back in the fight you can instead use the Imperial Bastion or GI Joe Playset... wait sorry Fortress of redemption, you can then get a dependable 3+ save. Now the counterpoint you can make is that this can help vehicles as well, which is true. For example a vehicle now only needs 25% coverage and if i were to say put a Leman Russ behind a Bastion or FoR with camo netting it would also get a 2+ save (Anyone else excited about this?!?!).

I'd like to clarify the difference between the tank buffs and how this does not actually help the current Mech spam list. Right now IG mech spam means mass vets in Chimeras or Rhino/Razorback spam, none of which can gain from the few benefits to vehicles. As a whole vehicles are weaker with hull points, yet even that is not the reason for mechs weakness. The problems are many The inability to assault out of transports is a major nerf, supposed I assault and kill your transport directly in front of my Gunline (which you claim is weak) problem is though you still cannot charge them because of changes to charging and transport rules. Next is the issue of holding objectives, not being able to hold in a transport means veteran squads in chimeras who generally use them as protection will die quickly if they are forced out and must stand on an objective for an unknown number of turns. Also it will now be tougher to get you transports to their destinations as they are now far easier to kill. Finally while not huge the new damage table is also a nerf to mech spam, as a transport being destroyed is a bigger issue as you are more likely to be damaged by the explosion.

Fourth Allies. There are some great combos that benefit Foot armies far more than mech. For example guard can get SW allies, if i were to put a Wolf Guard Battle Leader (NOT wolf guard) or Wolf Lord in an IG blob I would end up with both counter attack (how does 50 bonus guardsman attacks sound) and ATSKNF, and ATSKNF is the real kicker here, because Guardsmen will almost certainly lose combat, but this allows them to lose it them immediately regroup and shoot again, then wait for the next charge where they can Overwatch then fight back with counter attack again. Or if you'd prefer A hardier guard Blog you could grab Uriah Jacobus FNP and +1A, Yes please. There may be others that I'm not seeing but these are the two that stood out to me.

Fifth is new codexes. The popular armies are what determine power, for example it was the new marine codex's ability to cheaply spam rhinos and razorbacks which led to this mech meta. But guess what, the new hot army (Necrons) would just love to see a mech spam list, with new buffs to Scarabs against vehicle (3+ rather than 6+ to hit) stronger Warscythes and now stronger doom scythes Gauss and tesla i think you may find that some of your more common opponents will be able to slaughter nearly any amount of tanks you bring.

Next is you are only listing part of the picture of mech, Tau and Dark Eldar (Maybe Eldar as well I'm unsure) have both taken relative hits to their mech ability, as the things which made their vehicles "good" have now been given to everyone giving them a comparative disadvantage as a 4+ cover save is no longer a big deal when you can get a similar one for free. And because of this I cannot image seeing as many Devilfises when the they comparitively became far worse for cost whereas Fire Warriors became comparatively far stronger.

I know this message focuses on IG I apologize but I thought it showed the points i needed to make the best and I don't find myself well enough informed of other armies to use them as my backbone (I have heard Eldar footlists are hurting now).

If I had to predict i would expect IG airport lists could be strong for a bit, but one AA is viable i think gunline or hybrid lists will be the way of the future.

Any advice or thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated, as well on any correction on anything I got wrong or missed.

Jakobokaj

One last thing, I keep hearing about people worrying about losing Commisars and such, but here is the thing. First I cant come up with any units with long range allocation abilites that are commonly used apart from paladins. And even then you need a 6 to hit a 4+ to wound and either pass a cover save or Look Out sir save. In all honesty I'm not especially worried about snipers or characters being a major theat.

Counter-attack is not transfered to the whole unit, Jakobokaj...but yes, allies are very good for foot guard.

For some reason, Primaris Psyker can not take Divination powers. Therefore you need some Libby to do the job and help the guys with plasmas not to burn themselves - giving the blob ATSKNF rule and very good morale for orders. Jacobus is not really great because his bonus is primary for CC, in which the guard is not good now.

About vehicles. Does anyone try to take two Lemans and hide 25% of them behind that 75 point fortress? 3+ save and 14 AV and 3 hull point for glanc hits....mean. Camo for 2+ cover is not needed here I think.

Lothar wrote:Counter-attack is not transfered to the whole unit, Jakobokaj...but yes, allies are very good for foot guard.

For some reason, Primaris Psyker can not take Divination powers. Therefore you need some Libby to do the job and help the guys with plasmas not to burn themselves - giving the blob ATSKNF rule and very good morale for orders. Jacobus is not really great because his bonus is primary for CC, in which the guard is not good now.

About vehicles. Does anyone try to take two Lemans and hide 25% of them behind that 75 point fortress? 3+ save and 14 AV and 3 hull point for glanc hits....mean. Camo for 2+ cover is not needed here I think.

While Camo netting may not be necessary it is most certainly worth its points in my mind, a 3+ is good but a 2+ is twice as good meaning that rather than an average of 3 Penning hits to make one stick you now need to get 6. Imagine that, only 1 in every 6 hits that has already Penetrated/Glanced will stay on a leman russ, in my mind that's the toughest tank in the game as no one else can get camo netting. Take for example lascannons hoping to strip hull points for a kill on a BS4 Model, 2/3 hit 1/3 Glance/Pen and 1/6 Stick and you need three of those, for a total of ~81 lascannon hits needed to down a leman on front armor with camo netting, pretty much unkillable of course that just means they get into close melta range or assault it, but that at least keeps you safe for a few turns especially with new assault from transport and no outflank assault rules.

The thing is, there's very few things in the game putting 9 glancing hits on a Russ (needed to kill with 3+ cover). Your calculations show it requires 81 BS4 lascannon shots for 2+ cover. Cut that in half at it's still 40 shots. Still absurdly tough. The bigger thing is, though, that you can't move and still take advantage of Camo Netting. It only works when stationary. Therefore, you can't shift even a little for better shots. I know I'd rather spend the points elsewhere.

Well, LRBTs probably won't need to move for the first few turns anyway. And thats when cover is going to matter the most.

After that, the enemy is probably close enough to skirt the Aegis lines or is just going to assault you.

Yeah, what russes really need to watch is essentially the same as 5th- stuff that wants to get close *but* lucky glances don't stunlock it anymore and weapons destroyed no longer autonuke the main gun.

GEQ foot lists are really vulnerable to the new cover and rapidfire rules. A common bolter becomes devastating when it can reposition and still shoot you from 24 inches with no save (because the marines maneuvered to an angle where the guys shot don't get cover, for example). Remember, there is no more "majority" cover. So advancing without a metal box can be highly hazardous to your health! To reiterate, the chimeras still provide speed, small arms fire, and substantial firepower.

I agree that all vets in chims took a hit, but that has more to do with the increased fragility of the vets and the easier removal of weapons.

The comment about save/AV tiers becoming more distinct is an invaluable observation- GEQ types will die like flies. MEQs do better since they carry around a 3+ save, but now have to really watch out for AP3 shooting. This indicates, I think, the underlying problem with foot guard now and why foot MEQ don't suffer as much. To that end, rhino still offer cheap speed and some protection, but no significant firepower. Which is just fine for dumping tacs/ghs/etc. where you want them. RBs definitely came down a notch, but still offer significant firepower and an RB sporting TL-Lascannons can still stand off against other vehicles to a degree.

Ricter- Previously, the most common (albeit not most dangerous) weapon faced by AV13+ was the krak missile. Though you may discount it as serious, it was common thanks to LongFangs if nothing else. Their chance to kill AV 13+ is now about half of what it was. So a mediocre but common tool is now a terrible tool. That means that AV 13+ now enjoys a better relative position to one of the most common HS choices in the game and/or will encourage a change up to fewer missiles, which probably help lighter vehicles. By extension, armor lists benefit either way.

Additionally, if there is alot of swapping of melta to plasma )to deal with increased TEQ presence), this again benefits armor as S7 AP2 is worse against armor than S8 AP1 Melta. Especially for AV12. But it is a bigger threat to foot MEQ. So, relatively speaking, mech benefits and foot loses.

Just looking at the toys I like to field, longfangs certainly would like to see fewer transports as kraks work just as well on MEQs, and frags are fine against GEQ. They don't like the TEQs and AV13+ though and relied on the razors there. Problem is now plasmas overheat on vehicles and switching to TL lascannon means fewer options against TEQ. Preds and vindis look more attractive thanks to AV13 and weapon Destroyed being mitigated.

For guard, manticores are absolutely murderous now. S10 eats vehicles and infantry alike and multiple big templates with the new casualty rules is amazing. If people are demeching, these will have a field day. Actually, scratch that. It doesn't really matter either way.... Hydras look far less attractive as I will likely be fielding 2+ vendettas and S7 needing a 6 against ground targets is very meh. Russes definitely look better and griffons look like an awesome substitute. TEQs are dealt with as before- plasma vets and concentrated fire- force 6+ saves and a TEQ goes down.

The more I think about it, the more Grenadier Vets, probably in a Chimera, are looking more worth the points. It's one of the few Guard units that doesn't just have to be in cover to survive, and the only Troop choice (scoring unit) that can venture beyond the Aegis and withstand a modest amount of shots against it.

Is it just me or would Yarrik be amazing in a blob? Fearless is actually VERY good now, he's EW and will beat anyone in a duel bar combat-oritentated special charectors.

Testify wrote:Is it just me or would Yarrik be amazing in a blob? Fearless is actually VERY good now, he's EW and will beat anyone in a duel bar combat-oritentated special charectors.

And they shall know no Fear is actually better in lots of cases now - Join an allied Techmarine to the unit instead.

Havent played guard since early fifth but I think the lists on the extremes are not the best overall. A good hybrid approach sounds like it would be best. I have been playing my crons and vehicles just dont survive, none. Outside of rolling only 2's on the heavy destroyers a vehicle I want to die has not survived.

Bad example, but with 2-3 sets of troops with support or transport I could drop 2-3 vehicles a turn and that is on the low end. Now factor in heavy support and the number just goes up.

Now I believe that the meta is going to shift from melta to more mid strength multishot weapons. Now that will benefit the upper end of the AV values but will be really bad for the transports.

Every point spent on vehicles is now a point which cannot be used to control or contest an objective at game end (unless it happens to be a FA or HS vehicle, and then only 1 mission in 6).

I have thirteen painted (and two more basecoated) vehicles for my BA army, but the lists I've been working on this month, as I've gotten a half-dozen games in and kept thinking, have fewer and fewer vehicles in them. In 5th every living vehicle at the end of the game could be used to contest an enemy objective; especially since most of mine were Fast, this was key. In most games my opponent would be fortunate to be holding even one objective uncontested at the end. Now, most of the time no vehicles can do that.

Stormravens may still be worth it because they're flyers. It's still a lot of points for something which can only directly impact objectives 1/6 of the time.
My Landraiders are highly questionable; they're much more subject to being Glanced to death by missiles and gauss now, which before they largely laughed at.
Preds and Speeders may be worth it sometimes; hiding far from the enemy where they hopefully won't be assaulted, and hoping for those missions where they can score.
Dreads are probably now shelf-lurkers. Pity.
Rhinos and Razorbacks may go entirely as well.

With rapid fire improvements bolter armed MEQ are going to be spending a lot more time outside their transports. Since most armies are MEQ overall use of transports is going to drop. Players pay points for 7 tac/grey hunters/csm, and now that their bolters are more effective the main body of the squad is going to be hard at work rather than just ablative wounds for the heavy/special weapons/pfist.

The only reason for SM armies to keep taking Rhinos may be to give their squads a turn or two of flat out 18" movement up table, in Hammer & Anvil deployments, or against shooty armies castling back. Given that in the other two deployments, your opponent can place objectives 6" further from you, and knows they're on his side of the table, on average you're going to have to travel farther to get to them.

Which is rather important, actually. In 5th ed, transports were not substantially faster than foot lists, what with both of them being able to move 12" per turn. Now that vehicles can move up to 18", that makes them ACTUALLY faster than foot lists.

Yes, spending points on vehicles reduces your ability to contest, but it comes at the benefit of increasing your ability to reduce your opponent's ability to score or contest through added firepower or added security (which in turn adds firepower).

I would certainly entertain that the purpose of transports now, more than in 5th, is to transport. In the case of armies that have shootier transports and squishier troops (like guard and eldar), their primary purpose will still likely be shooting, at least so long as they survive (like before).

Not being able to contest is a nerf, certainly, but it's not like transports were guaranteed to survive all the way to the end of the game in 5th ed anyways. At the end of many games I saw, the transports were killed and the guys inside scored on foot anyways. I can't imagine that it will be much different now than it was before.

Really, the no-contest rule hurts proper vehicles more than it does transports, which are usually closely associated with scoring units anyways.

Not every transport holds a scoring unit, of course. Every transport or other vehicle in my armies has contested objectives. It was very important.

I'm honestly beginning to think that Ailaros intentionally selects the most contrarian opinions possible.