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 remember doing battlewagon rushes back in the day, transports are just kinda meh now.

The elephant in the room is that in a game where your basic troops can fire clear across the board, run onto the objective in two turns at most, and need to be fighting on turn 1 or turn 2 at the latest, you don't really need transportation; at most you need a mobile pillbox to safeguard a vulnerable unit against enemy shooting until they can disembark and do their thing.

The rules have to treat a transport as sacrificial protection that allows its occupants to waltz out unharmed when it blows up, or otherwise light vehicles like Rhinos struggle to find a purpose. A transport IRL is a deathtrap when anti-armor is in play, but you can't make transports play like that in 40K or there is zero reason to take them.

Having to get out before a transport moves really hurts them as a means of moving up the board. And vehicles are simply not survivable enough to rush forward and sit there for a turn.

You need to be able to get out after the transport moves forward.

 Ordana wrote:
Having to get out before a transport moves really hurts them as a means of moving up the board. And vehicles are simply not survivable enough to rush forward and sit there for a turn.

You need to be able to get out after the transport moves forward.

Agreed.

Tau Devilfish are considered very good transports, largely because they have a strategem to disembark after moving. This means they can actually fulfill their role as mobility for the infantry in a manner that's actually useful to the 40k design space.

On the other hand, delivering 3 squads of plasma shotguns, with buffs, right in the enemy's face turn 1 has it's own problems for the play of the game. But you can't win everything

Making the game AA would make transports a lot more interesting.

And so would reducing all gun ranges by half

Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I'd enjoy it. i want positioning and maneuvring to actually matter in the game

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I'd enjoy it. i want positioning and maneuvring to actually matter in the game

It would be extremly punishing to some armies. For example marines, and very good for armies with fast moving open topped transports and vehicles. Most of the time they don't have to care about ranges anyway, because if they have to they will open fire at point blank range.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I'd enjoy it. i want positioning and maneuvring to actually matter in the game

It would be extremly punishing to some armies. For example marines, and very good for armies with fast moving open topped transports and vehicles. Most of the time they don't have to care about ranges anyway, because if they have to they will open fire at point blank range.

i'm not saying it wouldn't, but thats a good way to make these fast units have a better identity by making them squishy.

All of this is assuming the game switched to AA tho

I would like a reduction in range and mobility.

In Star Wars Legion standard gun ranges is 18", the longest range weapons in the game are 30" (except the occasional orbital bombardment which is technically an infinite range shooting attack).

It does this despite standard movement range being roughly the same 6".

It does it because actions available to people are far more limited.
In 40k you can move and shoot without penalty, often even advance and shoot!. Then you can charge without penalty and fight for free.
If we translate that to SWL, that's 5 actions; move, move again (advance), shoot, move again (charge), fight.
In Starwars Legion you only get 2 actions, and charging doesn't even let you fight for free (although most actual melee units get a special rule to do so).
That means you quite often want to stand still and aim if you want to shoot. Or that if you try and double move into melee you won't be able to attack immediately.

40k would really benefit from this change IMO. It makes the table feel a lot larger, staying out of enemy weapon range is a very practical consideration.
It also does it because a long movement stat will only be 9-10", and that's rare. As opposed to many things getting 12 or 14" in 40k.

If 40k toned down the ranges and distances the board wouldn't feel so tiny - SWL's is only 6x3'

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

Then reduce also movement and charge range along the way.

Yeah, guns that can shoot from one deployment to another should be rare, not the norm

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I'd enjoy it. i want positioning and maneuvring to actually matter in the game

It would be extremly punishing to some armies. For example marines, and very good for armies with fast moving open topped transports and vehicles. Most of the time they don't have to care about ranges anyway, because if they have to they will open fire at point blank range.

i'm not saying it wouldn't, but thats a good way to make these fast units have a better identity by making them squishy.

All of this is assuming the game switched to AA tho

GW had ample opportunity to introduce AA into 40K and they chose not to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I would like a reduction in range and mobility.

In Star Wars Legion standard gun ranges is 18", the longest range weapons in the game are 30" (except the occasional orbital bombardment which is technically an infinite range shooting attack).

It does this despite standard movement range being roughly the same 6".

It does it because actions available to people are far more limited.
In 40k you can move and shoot without penalty, often even advance and shoot!. Then you can charge without penalty and fight for free.
If we translate that to SWL, that's 5 actions; move, move again (advance), shoot, move again (charge), fight.
In Starwars Legion you only get 2 actions, and charging doesn't even let you fight for free (although most actual melee units get a special rule to do so).
That means you quite often want to stand still and aim if you want to shoot. Or that if you try and double move into melee you won't be able to attack immediately.

40k would really benefit from this change IMO. It makes the table feel a lot larger, staying out of enemy weapon range is a very practical consideration.
It also does it because a long movement stat will only be 9-10", and that's rare. As opposed to many things getting 12 or 14" in 40k.

If 40k toned down the ranges and distances the board wouldn't feel so tiny - SWL's is only 6x3'

Agreed.

 Strg Alt wrote:


GW had ample opportunity to introduce AA into 40K and they chose not to do it.

yeah and i'm critiquing it.

I didn't read ten pages of back and forth, but:
I'm reasonably happy with the core rules. I have a handful of small quibbles, but not a lot that need major restructuring. I really like the majority of the changes from 8th to 9th, so most of my complaints with the *core rules* stem from old issues - No universal special rules, I miss armor facings, etc.

So, I don't really have things I want to see from '10th edition', I just want to see better core design from GW when it comes to their codices and general releases. Some general things:

Accessibility. Right now, building a list is a pain in the if you try and actually manage it with the books on hand. Everything is incredibly clunky, to the point where I'd say that the game is almost unplayable without apps like Battlescribe. Having to cross-reference several books and possibly an FAQ or two for points updates, gear options, what's legal to take, etc., is bad codex design.

Armor facings, sort of. We don't necessarily need full armor facings like in older editions, but a special rule that grants +1 Toughness to a vehicle unless the attacking model can draw a straight line from its base to the rear of the target vehicle without passing through any other part of the vehicle (or if it's being attacked in melee) would be really cool to have. It'd help with vehicles being too fragile at the moment, make flanking more important, and generally be easier to manage than older editions of armor facings were, where you could easily get into arguments about which quadrant a firing model *technically* was standing in. This rule wouldn't have to be applied to all vehicles - Land Raiders and Monoliths and other tanks which are equally armored on all fronts wouldn't need to change, and it's the same for vehicles like Trukks which are just as fragile from the front as the back. It could be a special rule, like Feel No Pain, that gets applied to certain vehicles.

Better balance, but y'know. Duh.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

Then reduce also movement and charge range along the way.

Or you can just play on a bigger table. Same results.

 alextroy wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

Then reduce also movement and charge range along the way.

Or you can just play on a bigger table. Same results.

really? THATS your argument? Playing on a table bigger than 6x4.... the absolute logistics of that....

 alextroy wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

Then reduce also movement and charge range along the way.

Or you can just play on a bigger table. Same results.

I would actually say do both. Even in 8th on 6x4 range wasn't a huge issue and first turn charges were a thing.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

Then reduce also movement and charge range along the way.

Or you can just play on a bigger table. Same results.

I would actually say do both. Even in 8th on 6x4 range wasn't a huge issue and first turn charges were a thing.

For the super intellectual players, making the space bigger seems very important. You get effectively 25% more space by reducing movement by 20%. It would take an extra two turns to reach the opponents board edge from your own DZ. And reducing the ability to just “deploy” instead of move on from the edge would reduce those early game charges.

The problem is that even though it’s not even very fluffy in the purest sense, there are all-cc armies and close range rokkit/shoota boys, so people get disturbed by this kind of change, and GW certainly isn’t going to do a better fix for world eaters, daemons, black templars, or orks. Like IMO orks are a shooting army and should properly be a much more balanced mid/long range army than they are popularly thought of, but as they’ve been on TT for the past 20 years you’ve borked them when making the board bigger.

It’s really a much bigger table if you use metric tape measures and change all the ranges to 12cm move, 48cm bolt guns, all the numbers doubled. That’s like 4.8” moves and 19” range bolters. The problem is that for popular consumption, it sucks due to peoples existing collections being oriented toward everything charging straight line into the opponents dz by turn 2-3

 alextroy wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

Then reduce also movement and charge range along the way.

Or you can just play on a bigger table. Same results.

Most people don't have the kind of room in their home to have an 6x4 table, let alone an 8x4. Lowering ranges and movement across the board would be my preference.

A lot of people in the world don't have a table to play on at all, and they play what ever there is at the local store or club, if they are lucky to have one. And stores and clubs tend to have more tables suited for events, which thanks to GW are of the wierd size we have right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



i'm not saying it wouldn't, but thats a good way to make these fast units have a better identity by making them squishy.

All of this is assuming the game switched to AA tho

that would require some drastic rewriting of codex. Because the DE , harlis and eldar vehicles in general, are only squishy in the lore. But who knows maybe the impulsor is going to be open topped, as it should be, and primaris get access to squad weapons or hellblasters get a points down grade. And then we start seeing fleets of them loaded to the brim with plasma weapons.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I'd enjoy it. i want positioning and maneuvring to actually matter in the game

Positioning and maneuvering should be the most important things in a war game. I’d also like to reduce range. I think range only helps a minuscule amount with positioning and maneuvering though, it’s not as important as actual positioning rules.

If you see a boxing match the fighters are always circling and facing each other. They never end up punching the side or back of their opponent. There’s just one dimension: too far, close enough, and too close. With any range, 40k still mostly has that one dimension. Short range and cc units try to get close, long range units try to stat at stand off distance.

To actually get positioning, you need the crossfire rules that Genestealer cults have and that people always site Epic as having even though they’ve never played it. You also need rules that give a reward for being bubblewrapped, the way that WHFB units used to be able to march fast if they weren’t near an enemy, and you’d fast units just to March block the enemy backfield and not even enter combat. Those are entire dimensions that 40k doesn’t have even if your basic move is 4” and basic shooting is 16.”

A lot of people report that side and rear vehicle shots were really rare when vehicles had facings, and so that’s the reason you’d need more room on the board / shorter range values. The ranges are an enabler for the positioning rules though, I don’t think they do much by themselves.

it sucks due to peoples existing collections being oriented toward everything charging straight line into the opponents dz by turn 2-3

Part of the problem as I see it is that this war themed-"game" rewards that type of tactic.

To me that should exist but absolutely should be something difficult to pull off in a world with the ranged weaponry that exists on that battlefield.

I'm also going to throw in my obligatory +1 to alternate activation of some kind, because the straight IGO-UGo where you go into my face while I stand there doing nothing but removing models is not a fun war themed "game" experience.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Transports are important in a scenario where units move on the board from the table edge during deployment, and when they effect reserves. Thats not at all normal in ninth edition.

Nor would they be especially helpful in 9th given current terrain sets we've been seeing. On here we recently took a look at the Hammerfall bunker map/math from Goonhammer and tried to guestimate it for transport moving. If even moderately large Vehicles don't fly, they don't move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Yeah, guns that can shoot from one deployment to another should be rare, not the norm

From edge to edge should be rare, but from deployment zone to deployment zone should be the norm. I always looked at the deployment zone as the No Man's Land in WWI trench warfare, we just have WWII shelled out buildings instead of trenches. So that 24" or so between deployment zones is the usual distance the armies can creep up on each other before the infantry weapons start coming into play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
Transports are important in a scenario where units move on the board from the table edge during deployment, and when they effect reserves. Thats not at all normal in ninth edition.

Nor would they be especially helpful in 9th given current terrain sets we've been seeing. On here we recently took a look at the Hammerfall bunker map/math from Goonhammer and tried to guestimate it for transport moving. If even moderately large Vehicles don't fly, they don't move.

As an addendum - This got me playing with Battlescribe trying to make a semi-decent mechanized infantry list. It just doesn't work with Primaris Marines. There are a host of issues - capacity caps and combined points costs just don't mesh well especially in Primaris.

About the only chapter that does mesh well in Primaris is Black Templar with Repulsors like they did with Land Raider Crusaders.

Splitting Squads/characters into two Impulsors has potential but realistically will run into issues similar to Guard - they start eating real estate fast.

Aeldari/Drukhari between FLY the keyword, and flying stem bases probably have it easiest being able to fudge moving/standing over/under etc in addition to better points per value.

Ghost Arks may be one of the most restrictive for usefulness. Can only carry Warriors or characters, but the min size for Warriors precludes any characters to begin with.

Tyranids don't really have one - just a Drop Pod type.

In addition most transports/units suffer from the same drawbacks:
Losing a valuable turn while embarked for the shooting units unless the transport is opentopped, or otherwise special like the Chimera.
Losing a valuable turn for the assault units after disembarking before being able to charge on the ones that even allow disembarking after moving.
High Points cost for a model that only counts as 1 non-Obsec model that frequently doesn't have the high offensive capacity of "real" vehicles you spend similar points on.

ObSec has long needed some fixing beyond transport value.
In the same time period a Transport can stop for loading, and drive away a Transport that already had people loaded can stop and let people off - so Embark OR Disembark on the same turn Before OR after Moving should be possible. Charge after Disembark should be allowed.
More transports need firing ports when/if they aren't Open Topped or built in bespoke like Chimera.
Transport Capacity needs a revamp for squad sizes/character support.

but that 24" no mans land is actually atleast 30, if not closer to 36.

Once upon a time you could shoot 24" if you stayed still, not enough to reach your opponents DZ, or you could move and shoot 12". Again, not enough. So turn 1 most of your army, even completely in the open was actually safe from light fire. The amount of weapons that could reach into your opponents DZ turn 1 were limited.

Now you can move and shoot to full effect so even a 24" weapon can reach 6" into the opponents DZ. Plus more weapons reach beyond that 24". Even basic weapons. And heavy weapons that reach the entire table are also much much more common in an army.

I would love to see a return of USRs, we still use deep strike and FNP to describe what bespoken rules say.
Further the WS, BS and T values should be expended in usage, why stop and have no WS 1+ or T 8+?
With the changes to a lot of army specific rules remove the +/- cap.
Add or change (e.g. defensible) a terrain rule to remove 1AP from all attacks melee and ranged.
Further change the restriction of how forests interact with Models, besides Titans they should help everyone. E.g. tie it to the titanic key word and change the Titanic keyword to Knight or similar to distinguish between Knight size and true titans

Edit: Oh and I would split the matched play rules.
Tournament: Only the most recent Codex and Boxes are allowed.
Legacy: All models are allowed and online Rules updated for each new iteration that is released, e.g. Version of Codex or BRB. Maybe similar to the vehicle construction rules but still you would have a heaven for all the conversions and the regular games

They took much from MTG, different game modes should be on the table as well

 argonak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

Then reduce also movement and charge range along the way.

Or you can just play on a bigger table. Same results.

Most people don't have the kind of room in their home to have an 6x4 table, let alone an 8x4. Lowering ranges and movement across the board would be my preference.

Hmm... Building an entire new table or changing the stats of the minis. I wonder which approach is easier to pull off.

Breton wrote:


In addition most transports/units suffer from the same drawbacks:
Losing a valuable turn while embarked for the shooting units unless the transport is opentopped, or otherwise special like the Chimera.
Losing a valuable turn for the assault units after disembarking before being able to charge on the ones that even allow disembarking after moving.
High Points cost for a model that only counts as 1 non-Obsec model that frequently doesn't have the high offensive capacity of "real" vehicles you spend similar points on.

And that's not considering that the changes with things like Line of Sight and such, they don't even make an effective meat shield anymore. If even a toe of it's cargo is sticking out the group is now at risk. Before if you squeezed everyone behind the transport, it could cop one, maybe two turns if you're lucky of shooting before the squad becomes at risk.

I started 40k in 7th with KDK, and have picked up a few other armies over 8th and 9th too. There are aspects of all armies and editions that I've enjoyed but at the moment the bloat is unreal. For me, the things I'd change are:

1. Go back to a steeper strength v toughness wounding chart. Make the jump from S6 to S7 feel like it actually matters.

2. Bring back the other version of weapon skill, or alternatively have rolls to see who wins the fight ala MESBG. I've recently started playing that and really enjoy how the combat system works. My elves are squishy and will die if they lose combat, but it's their skill with a blade that keeps them alive.

3. Alternating activations/priority rolls is another thing I would like to see (in theory) in 40k. It might be great, it might be terrible, but I'd be interested to see how it worked.

4. Get rid of strats, they are stupid. Equipment should be something you pay points for rather than some arbitrary incorporeal resource once per phase or turn. I also don't enjoy things becoming tougher or killier for a phase "just because". The only way I'd want them kept in the game is if they were tied to HQs or other characters as a means of increasing their influence on the battlefield.

5. Chill out with the codex/edition churn, for the love of god.

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.

Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.

It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.