What's with the whole self-destructing transport thing?

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.

**Arschbombe**

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I suppose this in the internet and you are free to doubt that I am an armour officer in real life. The decision to dismount in real life is made on an estimate of the situation. In a hasty attack the infantry commander will give the order to debus over the radio or give the conditions to debus as part of the radio orders. If you are assaulting a platoon position, for instance, the infantry might dismount their LAVs short of the objective but almost assuredly within rifle range in that case -this could be quite close to the enemy trenches/positions. This is the most common in my experience. Its a combined arms fight with the panzers up front, perhaps with a troop of tanks in intimate support to the infantry with other tanks in a fire base and still others having breached the obstacle belt. The infantry might dismount right on top of the position - this is awkward at the moment of dismount but it could be course of action based on how the enemy is laid out/equipped. They might even go through/past the position mounted and then dismount. This last one would be quite rare. Perhaps the enemy have a weak obstacle plan and by dismounting past the objective the infantry can assault the fighting positions from an angle the enemy is not prepared for, but it is an option.

As I said a few pages ago there are certainly tactical situations where the infantry would start the engagement dismounted. A defence, for instance, or a deliberate attack with infantry assaulting on a converging axis that is impassible to vehicles. This would involve a dismounted approach and the disposition of their vehicles would again depend on the situation. In those cases the Zulu Vehicles (infantry carriers without infantry) may well be cut away for other tasks. I would call a defence or deliberate attack a narrative play game, though, where you are free to use such rules as you see fit to bring your story to life. Match play scenarios, on the other hand, certainly look like meeting engagements to me.

In a meeting engagement both sides are usually advancing, and I am trying to imagine a mechanized combat team advancing with the infantry dismounted (I've been a mechanized combat team commander). Platoons might dismount episodically to clear chokepoints/defiles, but as a rule they will be in the LAVs at least a couple of bounds behind the panzers. So all this to say I am comfortable with Dedicated Transports having to begin the game with infantry embarked. Contact is made (Turn 1) and the commander can then dispose of his forces as he sees fit to include dismounted all or some of the infantry and sending the Zulu vehicles off to do things like fire support, flank security etc.

I am not saying that the infantry unit should stay within a certain distance of its Dedicated Transport. I was simply offering that as another route at the rules writers could have gone, and pointing out that Flames of War has its armed halftracks that stay on the board after dismount need to stay in command distance of their platoon that they were transporting.

This is fine and dandy and all. It may be reflective of actual "Canadian Reality" ^TM ( debus- so cute), but down here in Merica, in the US Army the motto is "Death before Dismount." Those boys will literally do everything except taking a dump mounted.

**Voss**

Well, I'm just going to say that's a huge change in training discipline.

Last century, officers didn't want their troops turned into canned chutney, and the troops didn't want to be in them.

A dud RPG round passing through a transport without exploding is only reason my father lived long enough to have kids.

**catbarf**

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
In a meeting engagement both sides are usually advancing, and I am trying to imagine a mechanized combat team advancing with the infantry dismounted (I've been a mechanized combat team commander). Platoons might dismount episodically to clear chokepoints/defiles, but as a rule they will be in the LAVs at least a couple of bounds behind the panzers. So all this to say I am comfortable with Dedicated Transports having to begin the game with infantry embarked. Contact is made (Turn 1) and the commander can then dispose of his forces as he sees fit to include dismounted all or some of the infantry and sending the Zulu vehicles off to do things like fire support, flank security etc.

I think we all recognize that close-range dismount is a legitimate thing. The problem is a rule that forces you to start buttoned-up, because 40K starting you on the board in close contact means there are cases where your infantry should have dismounted a long ways back. Urban environments are a pretty straightforward example; I've been present for COIN operations in which Stryker teams dismounted before contact, and Russian ground forces have been rightfully criticized in the past few months for trying to operate mechanized and armor forces in urban areas without infantry support. Soviet doctrine emphasized infantry staying mounted for rapid assaults in deep battle, but when assaulting a prepared position would dismount before contact.

More importantly, turn 1 of 40K shouldn't realistically represent contact and the decision point to dismount- having zero indication of enemy presence until suddenly the entirety of both forces are staring each other down 200yds away is not particularly typical of modern combat. You might be starting in the LAVs behind the panzers, but if your infantry are still in there when suddenly the IFVs are getting hit by man-portable short-range anti-tank weapons, that's not a meeting engagement, that's an ambush.

A better representation of a meeting engagement in 40K would be that your armor is up front and deployed on the table, and the LAVs start coming in after initial contact- with the choice of infantry having either dismounted or staying mounted before they even reach the table.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
DTs are free force organization slots. That is why I referred to them as free chicken.

Given the value of force organization slots in 9th it's less free chicken and more free hotel counter mints or complimentary toothpicks. Is anyone actually spamming DTs as fire support platforms because they're full up on slots?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Well, I'm just going to say that's a huge change in training discipline.

Last century, officers didn't want their troops turned into canned chutney, and the troops didn't want to be in them.

A dud RPG round passing through a transport without exploding is only reason my father lived long enough to have kids.

There's a pretty big doctrinal difference between armored personnel carriers (APCs) and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). Basically Cold War planners recognized that on a modern battlefield, infantry were going to need to be operationally mobile, and dismounting from thin-skinned transports (wheeled trucks or tracked APCs) long before contact would limit their mobility. So the IFV was developed as a vehicle with enough armor to stand up to small arms, and a decent enough weapon to provide direct fire support, that could operate offensively, with infantry dismounting for close assault or defensive operations.

Different countries have different implementations of both APC and IFV doctrine, and it ranges the gamut from transports that never see the battlefield to quasi-tanks where infantry fire from specialized ports and are never realistically expected to dismount.

**Insectum7**

And perhaps more importantly, why would armed forces, including alien races, in a fantastical future dystopia be constrained by 21st century canadian doctrine?

**waefre_1**

Canadian
Caadian
Cadian

Spoiler:

**TangoTwoBravo**

Insectum7 wrote:
And perhaps more importantly, why would armed forces, including alien races, in a fantastical future dystopia be constrained by 21st century canadian doctrine?

They are not and I am not asking them to be. For what its worth, though, Canadian mechanized doctrine/TTPs at sub-unit and unit level are not all that different from US and UK. I have been on three exchanges with the US military and took the US Army course for company commanders. There are some differences but there is more in common. I brought up modern doctrine in response to some here complaining about the new rule and making reference to realism and modern IFVs/etc. I am saying that as a professional military officer my verisimilitude is intact with this rule. To me its not that the DT blew up - it was retasked by higher since it wasn't being employed.

There is no ground scale in 40K - a common feature of miniatures games. In Matched Play, though, you usually start 24" apart, give or take. If folks think that it us unrealistic for mechanized infantry to be mounted at that distance on the game table, how do they handle the presence of Brigade, Division and even higher artillery resources being pretty much that far from the enemy as well? The player also has amazing situational awareness of both the enemy and his own forces. Nobody gets lost. Comms work perfectly and people move exactly where the OC wants them.

I also think some here are not reading my posts? Mech infantry absolutely dismount - I have said that and pointed out three methods in an attack following an advance to contact (to me what a typical 40K Matched Play scenario most closely resembles. Mech infantry can also leave their vehicles behind and operate completely dismounted. I have been on fighting patrols in the mountains north of Kandahar on foot with the vehicles left at a patrol base/platoon house.

As an aside, who thinks you should stop and dismount in an ambush? Its the last thing you should do unless you are immobilized - you try to fight through and get off the X. If folks are saying that you prevent ambushes by being dismounted then sure, but there are imperatives such as time at play. Anyhoo.

In terms of game and list building, would folks prefer that DTs were Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support? If not, why not?

I brought up FOW to show a system that is even more punishing in terms the results of the decision to dismount. Even with the change in Nephilim, you are free to use your DTs as you see fit after the game starts.

**Insectum7**

Ok, a few things:

1:"They are not and I am not asking them to be" Right off the bat this means the rules do not have to be commensurate to your experience.

2: But at the same time you mention being deployed without your transports IRL . . so if you can be deployed within your transport in IRL, and you can be deployed without your transport IRL, why would the middle case of being an engagement deployed outside a transport which is instead set aside some hundreds of meters away in a supporting role be so outlandish?

3: "As an aside, who thinks you should stop and dismount in an ambush? Its the last thing you should do unless you are immobilized - you try to fight through and get off the X" - Why not let the commander (the player) decide that? Especially, again, since we're talking about totally a different doctrinal context (chainswords and all).

4: And finally, ". . .if DTs were Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support? If not, why not?" - What is the problem you're trying to solve? The DT method as-is provides a way for armies to differentiate themselves by having an alternate method for introducing certain support vehicles into the army. This is a valuable method for defining factional differences, as factions intended to be mobile can stack up on these vehicles, and factions which are not intended to be as mobile can just be stuck using the 'ol FOC restrictions.

The new "transports destroyed" rule looks to be part of what is now the all-too-common "GW attempts to fix game with absolute head-in-sand absurdity" trend of adjustments these days.

**Unit1126PLL**

The "realism" issue comes partly from the ruling that they are destroyed.

Being destroyed has consequences - namely, depriving you of those points you spent on the BMP. It isn't that higher has retasked them and allocated you additional support.

They literally blew up.

If sideboards were a thing, I could buy swapping them out for proper tanks or something in the situation where they are dismounted - but just losing them?

I have about 50% of my points tied up in Chimeras in my mechanized infantry company. They are organized like a Soviet BMP company. The transports are going to the rear with all but the most short ranged anti-tank firepower, the deputy platoon commander, and integrated platoon members (the drivers are members of the same squads as the dismounts, they are not attached from higher).

If higher is taking away 50% of my combat power and not giving me anything else, simply for deciding my men wanted to be dismounted for the battle I can see coming...

...yeah. it is a dumb rule.

**JohnnyHell**

It’s a silly rules response to silly player behaviour.

Stop trying to force fit it into reality. It’s fine to dislike this without military history essays.

“Haha it destroyed” is an abstraction to say “stop spamming this stuff please”. Does it make sense? No. Is it a good change? Eh. There were other ways. But by gods, stop torturing the Canadian and spouting pseudo-tactical stuff from your computer chair!

And spare me any SpongeBob type. I literally agree with it being a stupid change, so any aBsTrAcTiOn! stuff will only make you look foolish!

**Stormonu**

Sounds like the main issue is with # of deployment drops when doing them separately.

Seems like the best resolution would be to instead require that the DT and its "troop" be deployed at the same time, either transported or on the board (or in cases of DS troops, announced to be in holding awaiting deployment). Something for GW to consider...

Optional: "troop" must be deployed within 6" of DT, replicating having just been dropped off.

**EviscerationPlague**

JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s a silly rules response to silly player behaviour.

Yes, using a transport to do other things too is silly behavior.

**Karol**

I used two rhinos to be moving cover for my units. I have zero models that can actualy get inside a rhino. I am going to have to drop them, and hope that my opponents won't mind me deploying a dreadnought with a single Auto canon and no melee arm.

**H.B.M.C.**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yes, using a transport to do other things too is silly behavior.

Abusive behaviour, actually, according to several people here.

**ccs**

Karol wrote:
I used two rhinos to be moving cover for my units. I have zero models that can actualy get inside a rhino. I am going to have to drop them, and hope that my opponents won't mind me deploying a dreadnought with a single Auto canon and no melee arm.

Well, if your playing with someone who doesn't mind your Legends Autocann Dread? Why don't you just run it with both AC arms? I know you've said you have them & like them.
Or convert the missing arm to be the GK glaive(?)?

You could also simply ask them if they'd mind just ignoring this destructing transport rule. Afterall, were your 2 rhinos a problem last week before this change landed?

**Karol**

Oh they mind legends very much. If it is not legal at events or you aren't 30+ and a friend of the store owner, your are WYSIWYG. The vets can bring unassembled models and play, while I was chastised for having black bases.
I think I may just drop the 12$ on resin dread melee hand. Will have to buy 5, which is more then enough for my 2 dreads.

I will miss my rhinos/razorbacks mini tanks though. But rules change stuff gets nerfed or removed, I am used to that already.

**Rihgu**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
They literally blew up.

I don't think so, since being destroyed in Warhammer 40k has never literally meant being destroyed. Even being destroyed and rolling a 6 to see if you explode, then exploding, doesn't mean you literally are destroyed. If I pass my Out of Action test, for example, the vehicle hasn't taken any damage at all, so it couldn't have "literally blown up".

Destroyed is short hand for removing from the table. It can happen when a unit flees, it can happen when a model is knocked out, or loses a leg. It could be a vehicle is immobilized and the crew abandons it. There is no "literal" definition, mechanically.

That you are self-fluffing this rule as representing the vehicles exploding for not having units inside of them means your realism issue is of your own design. For me? The vehicles have dropped off their infantry and left the battlefield. If it ever happens that I decide being down the points for my transport are worth the benefits of deploying outside of it. Then there is no realism issue, unless I also decide that my army's combat doctrine would never allow for that - but I'm the one who broke my own self-made doctrine!

We can make up fluff to make this exactly as fluffy or nonsensical as we want all day, but at the end of the day all we've done is made stuff up. If the story you're telling is causing you issues, just tell a different story.

None of this is to justify the rule in any way, I don't care about it at all. I just think it's weird that people are making up nonsensical stories fluffing why it's a bad rule story wise because it doesn't fit into their story at all. It'd be like if I wrote a story about US Soldiers in 2022 being armed with AK-47s and driving around in Panzer IVs and then moaning that US Military doctrine doesn't portray my vision of the story I want to tell. I have to work around the rules that exist, or disregard the rules.

edit: I'd like to make my main point and main grip with modern 40k (8e on) is that there is no narrative inherent to the rules and you have to do all of the heavy lifting to add any. This does have the benefit that you just don't add a narrative that doesn't make sense, but still, you have to do all of the work.

**Unit1126PLL**

I mean destroyed has lots of in-game consequences. They count as destroyed for VPs/secondaries. They deduct from your points like a unit that was destroyed was.

GW didn't write "you may not deploy an empty transport". It said "when you deploy an empty transport, it is destroyed"

**Voss**

JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s a silly rules response to silly player behaviour.

'Silly player behavior' that most of us didn't even know was happening. So more 'game designer paranoia' than actual behavior.

That they did it with probably the weirdest and gamiest solution they could come up with in 30 seconds just adds a whole other level to how bizarre this is.

Actually, 'solution' is entirely the wrong word. They conjured a problem out of nothing.

No idea how many points 'some people' were dumping into empty transports, but... go them? Its not a terribly great choice, but.... whatever.

**JNAProductions**

Voss wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s a silly rules response to silly player behaviour.

'Silly player behavior' that most of us didn't even know was happening. So more 'game designer paranoia' than actual behavior.

That they did it with probably the weirdest and gamiest solution they could come up with in 30 seconds just adds a whole other level to how bizarre this is.

Yeah. My solution to this "problem" would be pretty simple:

1) Dedicated Transports can only be taken for a unit that has the right keywords to ride in it.
2) When you deploy a Dedicated Transport, you must also deploy the unit it was bought with at the same time.

There's probably some issues with that, but not as much as what GW actually did.

**Dysartes**

Those two probably cover it, JNA - I might consider a "deploy the transport within X inches of the unit, if the unit isn't deployed inside it" element, but that's not set in stone.

**Insectum7**

Can someone explain to me the problem with having more deployment drops? I find that kinda funny considering having fewer drops was the advantage play in 8th.

Dysartes wrote:
Those two probably cover it, JNA - I might consider a "deploy the transport within X inches of the unit, if the unit isn't deployed inside it" element, but that's not set in stone.

I'd hate a distance requirement, personally.

**JNAProductions**

Insectum7 wrote:
Can someone explain to me the problem with having more deployment drops? I find that kinda funny considering having fewer drops was the advantage play in 8th.

Dysartes wrote:
Those two probably cover it, JNA - I might consider a "deploy the transport within X inches of the unit, if the unit isn't deployed inside it" element, but that's not set in stone.

I'd hate a distance requirement, personally.

To the first-I don't really know.

To the second, agreed-Land Speeder Storms can't forward deploy, but Scouts can, for instance.

**Karol**

Land raiders can't deep strike the way termintors do.

**CadianSgtBob**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean destroyed has lots of in-game consequences. They count as destroyed for VPs/secondaries. They deduct from your points like a unit that was destroyed was.

GW didn't write "you may not deploy an empty transport". It said "when you deploy an empty transport, it is destroyed"

And GW didn't write "all units must arrive from reserve by turn 3". It said "if a unit doesn't arrive by turn 3 it is destroyed". The wording of the rule is entirely in line with how GW has handled similar situations in the past.

**TangoTwoBravo**

Insectum7 wrote:
Ok, a few things:

1:"They are not and I am not asking them to be" Right off the bat this means the rules do not have to be commensurate to your experience.

2: But at the same time you mention being deployed without your transports IRL . . so if you can be deployed within your transport in IRL, and you can be deployed without your transport IRL, why would the middle case of being an engagement deployed outside a transport which is instead set aside some hundreds of meters away in a supporting role be so outlandish?

3: "As an aside, who thinks you should stop and dismount in an ambush? Its the last thing you should do unless you are immobilized - you try to fight through and get off the X" - Why not let the commander (the player) decide that? Especially, again, since we're talking about totally a different doctrinal context (chainswords and all).

4: And finally, ". . .if DTs were Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support? If not, why not?" - What is the problem you're trying to solve? The DT method as-is provides a way for armies to differentiate themselves by having an alternate method for introducing certain support vehicles into the army. This is a valuable method for defining factional differences, as factions intended to be mobile can stack up on these vehicles, and factions which are not intended to be as mobile can just be stuck using the 'ol FOC restrictions.

The new "transports destroyed" rule looks to be part of what is now the all-too-common "GW attempts to fix game with absolute head-in-sand absurdity" trend of adjustments these days.

I never said that that the rules have to stack up with my experience, nor did I write the rule nor did I ask GW to do so. I have also never said that infantry cannot or do not dismount.

What I have offered is that GW has made this rule to put a restriction on the use of DTs that are vehicles, are free FOC slots and are free from the Rule of 3. So they are saying if you want DTs you have to at least start the game with the infantry being transported. I am OK with that, although I realizet that perhaps some are hit harder than others.

When at least poster was saying how unrealistic this was I offered that in a real-life mechanized combat team it is normal to have the infantry mounted as contact is made in a meeting engagement. So for me I have no jarring verisimilitude problem. Other narrative play missions? Go for it with empty DTs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
The "realism" issue comes partly from the ruling that they are destroyed.

Being destroyed has consequences - namely, depriving you of those points you spent on the BMP. It isn't that higher has retasked them and allocated you additional support.

They literally blew up.

If sideboards were a thing, I could buy swapping them out for proper tanks or something in the situation where they are dismounted - but just losing them?

I have about 50% of my points tied up in Chimeras in my mechanized infantry company. They are organized like a Soviet BMP company. The transports are going to the rear with all but the most short ranged anti-tank firepower, the deputy platoon commander, and integrated platoon members (the drivers are members of the same squads as the dismounts, they are not attached from higher).

If higher is taking away 50% of my combat power and not giving me anything else, simply for deciding my men wanted to be dismounted for the battle I can see coming...

...yeah. it is a dumb rule.

Are you taking a list with 50% of your points spent on Chimeras to tournaments? Park that.

I was playing this morning. The deployment zones were about 10" deep. A Chimera is about 5" long. So if you are placing your Chimeras at the very back of the deployment zone you have lost about 2" of infantry deployment on your first turn when you disembark (within 3" of the vehicle) compared to starting them disembarked with frontage. Still, you perfect Situational Awareness in this game of the enemy in front of you (with the exceptions, I suppose, of deep strikes and GSC folks.

I do grant you, though, that you have lost some flexibility in a GT Nephilim game compared to before. Is your list collateral damage? Maybe. Perhaps the devs will grant AM an exemption when their codex comes out. Given the Chimera has firing ports, though, perhaps they are OK with AM mech infantry fighting mounted?

**Dysartes**

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
What I have offered is that GW has made this rule to put a restriction on the use of DTs that are vehicles, are free FOC slots and are free from the Rule of 3. So they are saying if you want DTs you have to at least start the game with the infantry being transported. I am OK with that, although I realizet that perhaps some are hit harder than others.

I can only think of one DT which isn't a vehicle, off-hand (the Tyranid drop-pod-spore-thing), and this isn't an edition where most vehicles are known for being difficult to remove*. DTs being outside of the FOC has been a thing since the start of third edition.

This seems very much like trying to fix something which wasn't broken, a process generally seen as "not a good thing to do" - I'd argue that was true of the TGo234 as well, when it arrived, though that was more of a hack job than anything else.

* - Whether the spread of AoC to more vehicles with the latest dataslate changes this, I don't know yet.

**Dudeface**

Insectum7 wrote:
Can someone explain to me the problem with having more deployment drops? I find that kinda funny considering having fewer drops was the advantage play in 8th.

Alternating deployment means your empty transports, which are usually pretty cheap, can be dropped early on since they're more or less disposable and might force your opponent with fewer disposable units to play something key for you to counter deploy against.

It's more using the transports to bait out your opponents key units.

**Insectum7**

Dudeface wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Can someone explain to me the problem with having more deployment drops? I find that kinda funny considering having fewer drops was the advantage play in 8th.

Alternating deployment means your empty transports, which are usually pretty cheap, can be dropped early on since they're more or less disposable and might force your opponent with fewer disposable units to play something key for you to counter deploy against.

It's more using the transports to bait out your opponents key units.

Hmm, ok. Interestingly that would seem to lend itself even less to the "make transports FA or HS" units. Like a Wave Serpent or Razorback aren't exactly cheap, so dropping them early as part of a ploy seems no different than dropping a combat squad of five dudes, or just an IG Infantry squad. Heck even a Rhino is 80 points, which is the same as a Scout Squad with a Heavy Bolter. There are even cheaper units to act as a ploy. An Attack Bike with Multimelta is 60.

It just seems like there are better ways to get more drops than transports.

**Dudeface**

Insectum7 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Can someone explain to me the problem with having more deployment drops? I find that kinda funny considering having fewer drops was the advantage play in 8th.

Alternating deployment means your empty transports, which are usually pretty cheap, can be dropped early on since they're more or less disposable and might force your opponent with fewer disposable units to play something key for you to counter deploy against.

It's more using the transports to bait out your opponents key units.
Hmm, ok. Interestingly that would seem to lend itself even less to the "make transports FA or HS" units. Like a Wave Serpent or Razorback aren't exactly cheap, so dropping them early as part of a ploy seems no different than dropping a combat squad of five dudes, or just an IG Infantry squad. Heck even a Rhino is 80 points, which is the same as a Scout Squad with a Heavy Bolter. There are even cheaper units to act as a ploy. An Attack Bike with Multimelta is 60.

It just seems like there are better ways to get more drops than transports.

Probably but it depends if you aimed to use the transports as well, if you can safely deploy the contents near it you basically increase your drops then hop back in top of turn 1 and you've lost nothing for the benefit.

As everyone is saying it's a very club fisted solution to an obscure problem that is, as per usual, garnering far nore teeth gnashing than is really required.

**Amishprn86**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yes, using a transport to do other things too is silly behavior.
Abusive behaviour, actually, according to several people here.

Its also really funny bc for a bit DE transports doubled as a FA unit, so you could take them as FA or DT lol.