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.

so where is the original rumors post?

I'd rather see it related to the type of weapon.

Sit still - shoot 'em all!
Move some - shoot 1 heavy, all assualt and rapid fire (rapid fire as if not moving) OR 1 ordnance
Move alot - shoot 1 weapon that isn't ordnance

If only assault weapons could fire on the move, then putting heavy flamer sponsons on a tank would be worthwhile.

I would be okay with idea that the AP5(or 4) or less weapons can fire on the move since they are clearly anti-infantry.

But, I also think that some vehicles should get the "multiple gunners" (or at least more vehicles with Machine Spirits) that would let them shoot more than 1 heavy on the move.

That's why I think each vehicle should have separate lists for main weapons and secondary weapons under their main list of wargear. No mucking around with a one-size-fits-all formula of the sort that GW constantly trips up on (traits, veteran skills, doctrines, etc).

Agreed, Nurglitch. It only makes sense that different vehicles would have different move-and-fire capabilities. It's really too bad.

Vaktathi wrote:Sure, S6 probably isn't defensive, but S5 is certainly anti-infantry.

Given how few tanks actually *have* S4 weapons, it seems kinda pointless. Look at it from an Imperial Guard perspective.

the Exterminator has been, well, exterminated.

Chimera's lose half their mobile firepower, and given that they were never taken as transports but as mobile heavy weapons this hurts alot, especially given their hideously over-inflated cost.

S6 is clearly attack-oriented, so it can't be included. S5 is Whirlwinds and Heavy Bolters, which are pretty mean on a Leman Russ. And breaks Predators.

Imperials, SM and CSM have plenty of PMSBs to go around, while Eldar have their twin Shuricats. When I look at my IG, S4 is for Heavy Stubbers, Storm Bolters, and Chimera Lasguns. Besides, the IG are well overdue for a rework, so one should expect much cheaper Chimera Transports that might actually be useful for Transporting stuff...

The Exterminator has been dead for quite some time, so no great change here. :(

The Chimera being taken as a static pillbox instead of a Transport says a lot about how badly it was costed and designed. The S4 Defensive rule means those Lasguns finally have some usage when paired with a PMSB, as opposed to being totally ignored. Rules-wise, this is perhaps the most obsolete mismatched model.

FYI, I have more than a baker's dozen in IG tanks, so don't think that I'm being selfishly anti-IG here. This change definitely affects my IG army, but I see the necessity.

Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think mobile anti-infantry tanks were a "crutch".

Being able to move and shoot with basically no penalty is a crutch. Tanks of similar types should behave in similar ways. Predators should behave similarly regardless of armament. So I like this change.

Vaktathi wrote:Also, a Predator Annihilator *can* move and fire everything under the current rules if given HB sponsons, that's how I've always run my Chaos predators.

If it's not triple Plas, it isn't an Annihilator. Mixed builds are an abomination and heresy against the Machine God!

skyth wrote:It's not a 'crutch'. The problem is that it's not fun to be forced to be stationary pillboxes to fire everything.

I'm a tread-head. I take tanks that can move around, guns blazing. Make it move around OR have guns blazing, and the fun level drops considerably for me.

How is being able to have guns blazing regardless of whether you move NOT a crutch? What tactical decision are you making?

You're simply moving and shooting without having to think or decide whether position or firepower is more important. That is lazy play and weak game design.

Being a treadhead requires more than relying on a lack of balance between infantry and tanks moving and shooting. Redefining Defensive weapons to S4 brings this back in line. SM, CSM, SoB, and IG infantry all can move an fire their S4 and S3 guns, or be static and fire everything. Now their tanks are much more similar.

Phoenix wrote:Ap 5 would allow pleanty of useful weapons to still fall into defensive but not any of the heavy hitters.

My only complaint would be the exclusion of the heavy bolter (which I think needs to remain defensive to keep the baal and the chimera viable tank options).

AP5 would be OK, precisely because it results the same sort of restriction that S4 does.

As for the Baal and Chimera being viable, that will be addressed in their next Codices. Not in the Rulebook. Their lack of viability ties to their Codices being written prior to 4th Edition.

I repeat again, move OR fire is not fun.

As for the Baal and Chimera being viable, that will be addressed in their next Codices. Not in the Rulebook

How about for all the vehicles? Give them proper pricing and let them go around guns-a-blazing like tanks should.

So, my beloved Land Speeders will once again be consigned to the shelf. The str-4 defensive weapon ruling will make them useless, having to stand (float?) still in order to fire ANYTHING. What you get then will be a AV-10 sitting duck, followed in very short order by a crumpled heap of metal. The joys.

Uh, your Land Speeders will be able to move 12" and fire one main weapon and any secondary weapons. It can move 6" and fire all of its main weapons.

The implications of this are simple: If you're going to take a vehicle with two or more main weapons that you want to be mobile the whole game, then make sure those weapons complement each other so that where-ever you move to you have the right tool for the job.

I agree with Nurglitch, oddly enough, that they should just list what weapons are defensive and which are offensive in the Codex entry. That would make things so simple, and would even allow them to tweak vehicle costs and balance.
A landraider being able to fire its lascannons if it moves due to being giant and steady or whatever would suddenly make it much more valuable, perhaps even commensurate to it's points. Maybe flamers could generally be shootable no matter how far the vehicle moves, as Immolators currently do.

Alternately, I would be happy if vehicles could just split fire. I would be happiest if both move and shoot and splitting fire were options, but either would be an improvement.

Yeah the S4 rule is extra stupid when you consider Leman russ with Heavy flamer sponsons.

skyth wrote:I repeat again, move OR fire is not fun.

As for the Baal and Chimera being viable, that will be addressed in their next Codices. Not in the Rulebook

How about for all the vehicles? Give them proper pricing and let them go around guns-a-blazing like tanks should.

And I repeat again: fire that doesn't depend on movement is a non-thinking, non-tactical, non-strategic crutch.

As for all the vehicles, notionally, the Eldar, CSM, Orks, and SM vehicles are all (or will be) properly priced with 5th Edition S4 Defensive weapons in mind. That just leaves the odd-Ball and ancient Chimera to be fixed for the armies that matter.

So I don't see what your complaint is.

Unless it's a protest against (gasp!) having to make some actual tactical decisions in game.

Seriously, how hard is it to figure out whether you should fire all-out, move-and-fire a little bit, or move all-out? :S

Dakkaladd wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Now that's an idea I hadn't though about. I must say that I like it. Ap 5 would allow pleanty of useful weapons to still fall into defensive but not any of the heavy hitters. My only complaint would be the exclusion of the heavy bolter (which I think needs to remain defensive to keep the baal and the chimera viable tank options).

One thing I'd like to point out is that the Baal has overcharged engines, making it a fast vehicle 33% of the time. In this capacity (assuming 5th playtest rules remain) it would be able to move 6" and fire everything that turn. The chimera is a troop transport first, support vehicle second. I don't think it's unreasonable to limit a tank's effectiveness on the move.

The problem with the Baal is that it becomes unreliable at best. 33% is a lot less than 50% and anything short of 50% isn't something I'm going to count on. So there isn't much if any point in buying the sponsoons that you are rarely, if ever, going to use.

As for the chimera, it costs 80 points with no upgrades. 80 points! 10 points less than a wave serpent! I wouldn't complain if it was a dirt cheep transport, but with it costing that much, it had better either be able to add some fire power to my army while still doing its primary job or it had better be tough enough to reliably get my units where they need to be...and fast. However, sadly, it does neither. Razor backs also end up falling into the catagory of "bought it just to get the extra static heavy weapon platform" catagory, but I guess that isn't much of a change.

Actually razorbacks can still move and shoot-their weaponry is one twin linked weapon.

As everyone has noted, the Chimera is completely outdated and grossly overpriced in the current and future environment.

When the price drops to around 50 pts base in the next Codex, it'll be fair.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As everyone has noted, the Chimera is completely outdated and grossly overpriced in the current and future environment.

If the price drops to around 50 pts base in the next Codex, it'll be fair.

Corrected your typo

I just think about how much more fun 40K has been with vehicles that can actually move and shoot. 3rd Ed, when you couldn't move and fire ordinance was one of the least interesting times to be an IG player. I loved the change that 4th edition let you have with moving and shooting vehicles, both regular and fast. It made mechanized guard fun to play, even if they weren't the scariest army out there you could actually execute armored moves across the board. I had no problem with Tau, Eldar, and Marine skimmers moving 12" and shooting, I just had a problem with how impossible to kill they were. If 5th makes skimmers and ground vehicles more balanced that will be fantastic, but a mechanized Eldar army should be able to move more than six inches and still fire most of its guns. Mech Eldar and Mech Tau both rely on the ability to concentrate their fire on the move to stay out of harm's way. Mech Eldar in particular doesn't have impressive amounts of firepower and really needs those shuricannons to make an impact. Now that their vehicles will be more fragile, they really need to retain their firepower abilities. If they can't get an obscured save without losing most of their firepower they are essentially not living up to the fluff behind them. Same story with Land Speeders. They have a pilot who can shoot the assault cannon, and a gunner who can fire a heavy bolter. They are made to do strafing runs, just like Falcons and Dark Eldar Skimmers.

The main reason that I suggested that the Str 4 rule is worth overturning is because vehicles need to be shooting first and foremost. Therefore, vehicles will be way more static as a result since the middle ground of a gradual advance has been nerfed badly. Combine that with vehicles no longer being scoring units, they won't have much of an incentive to go anywhere. I like that Predators and similar vehicles can lay down heavy bolter fire on the move. It gives vehicles an incentive to make tactical moves as opposed to a bunker wedged in a forest.

Except, 5th Edition wants most vehicles to be Transports rather than Bunkers. Most Transports are AV11 or 12. S4 Defensive directly reduces the amount of S5 and S6 shooting that would be directed at these AV11 / AV12 vehicles. This makes Transports more survivable because they will suffer somewhat reduced volumes of mid-power fire.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think S4 is fine.

S6 has a couple problems, namely that the Pred Destructor and Annihilator suddenly have different functional use for their Sponsons. Pred Destructor can always move & fire, but Annihilator can't?

Assault Cannon and Starcannon are Defensive?

S4 is a clear, restrictive rule that fits well with the return push of Troops to the fore.

If you want to move, move. Just don't expect to always be able to fire when doing so. Make a tactical decision whether movement is important, or shooting is important. Don't demand a crutch that removes tactical thought and weakens tactical play.

In the case of some units, yes. Troops with heavy weapons, for instance, are defined by their inability to move and put out decent firepower. But there is nothing to be gained by making every unit obey the same limitation you make every unit the same and you make the game tactically dull. Instead, you have some units that are defined by their ability to move and maintain full firepower. You call these things tanks and you open up a whole range

Seriously, a predator advancing up the field punching out heavy bolter and autocannon fire, while a tactical squad stayed at the tank’s rear, ready to fan out onto an objective. What’s not cool about that?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think S4 is fine.

S6 has a couple problems, namely that the Pred Destructor and Annihilator suddenly have different functional use for their Sponsons. Pred Destructor can always move & fire, but Annihilator can't?

Assault Cannon and Starcannon are Defensive?

S4 is a clear, restrictive rule that fits well with the return push of Troops to the fore.

If you want to move, move. Just don't expect to always be able to fire when doing so. Make a tactical decision whether movement is important, or shooting is important. Don't demand a crutch that removes tactical thought and weakens tactical play.

Looking at individual units and considering their tactical options in isolation serves no-one.

You don’t weaken play by giving different units different tactical roles. By putting a significant distinction between infantry, who are forced to choose between moving and firing, and tanks that can maintain firepower while moving, you have to distinct units with distinct tactical roles.

That can only improve the strategic depth, increase the number of options and strategies available and improve the game overall.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skyth wrote:I repeat again, move OR fire is not fun.

As for the Baal and Chimera being viable, that will be addressed in their next Codices. Not in the Rulebook

How about for all the vehicles? Give them proper pricing and let them go around guns-a-blazing like tanks should.

And I repeat again: fire that doesn't depend on movement is a non-thinking, non-tactical, non-strategic crutch.

As for all the vehicles, notionally, the Eldar, CSM, Orks, and SM vehicles are all (or will be) properly priced with 5th Edition S4 Defensive weapons in mind. That just leaves the odd-Ball and ancient Chimera to be fixed for the armies that matter.

So I don't see what your complaint is.

Unless it's a protest against (gasp!) having to make some actual tactical decisions in game.

Making the game more static, especially with vehicles makes the game less fun for me, and a lot of other people. Why not make every weapon in the game move or fire? (Including the ability to fight in hth? If you moved (ie charged) you can't attack that turn.) That would make people have to make 'tactical' decisions in game. Would be a hell of a boring game too.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And I repeat again: fire that doesn't depend on movement is a non-thinking, non-tactical, non-strategic crutch.

How so? If that is the case, Why bother taking Predators at all in a Space Marine list, Havocs can pack in more firepower and last longer, and will move about as often. Tanks are there for *mobile* firepower or for a specialized weapon like a Battlecannon. Without a specialized weapon, infantry heavy weapons units are generally better.


Personally I think maneuvering tanks add a lot more strategic depth to the game as well as realism as opposed to pillboxes.

As for all the vehicles, notionally, the Eldar, CSM, Orks, and SM vehicles are all (or will be) properly priced with 5th Edition S4 Defensive weapons in mind.

You mean by *INCREASING* the cost upgrades like Sponson weapons in the latest SM and CSM codex's?

sebster wrote:Troops with heavy weapons, for instance, are defined by their inability to move and put out decent firepower. But there is nothing to be gained by making every unit obey the same limitation you make every unit the same and you make the game tactically dull. Instead, you have some units that are defined by their ability to move and maintain full firepower. You call these things tanks and you open up a whole range

Seriously, a predator advancing up the field punching out heavy bolter and autocannon fire, while a tactical squad stayed at the tank’s rear, ready to fan out onto an objective. What’s not cool about that?

Except that every unit is forced to choose between static shooting, move-and-shoot, or pure movement. The only exception is for units armed exclusively with Assault weapons, and even then, they still have to trade shooting against Fleet / Run. Otherwise, you give up Heavy fire / long range Rapid-Fire / double-tap Pistols. These are smart trades that proxy for managing a virtual "time" resource for each unit. They force decisions to be made.

Now granted that there are other units that have special rules such that they aren't affected by these trades, but they are few and far between. The only example that comes to mind for me is Slow and Purposeful, which limits the unit mobility compared to other units - in this case, the tradeoff is made when the unit is first selected.

So following the S&P rule, I suppose if Tanks were limited to carrying one weapon and moving 6", I guess I'd be OK with them moving their full 6" and firing their full armament of a single weapon without any restriction.

However, Tanks in 40k have the ability to carry multiple weapons *and* move faster than most infantry. So why they should be categorically better is beyond me. All that does is to deemphasize Infantry and Troops, which is against GW's current objectives.

As for your Predator example, it doesn't excite me at all, because it's tactically boring. You're not making any tactical decision, simply exploiting the fact that the rules don't model a tradeoff or resource.

sebster wrote:Looking at individual units and considering their tactical options in isolation serves no-one.

You don’t weaken play by giving different units different tactical roles. By putting a significant distinction between infantry, who are forced to choose between moving and firing, and tanks that can maintain firepower while moving, you have to distinct units with distinct tactical roles.

That can only improve the strategic depth, increase the number of options and strategies available and improve the game overall.

WTF are you talking about? Tanks have always had to make decisions in 40k. Only in 4th Edition was there any semblance of what you're talking about, and that's because they up-powered the entire game. This reduced strategy compared to what it could have been.

skyth wrote:Making the game more static, especially with vehicles makes the game less fun for me, and a lot of other people. Why not make every weapon in the game move or fire? (Including the ability to fight in hth? If you moved (ie charged) you can't attack that turn.) That would make people have to make 'tactical' decisions in game. Would be a hell of a boring game too.

Except, that's not what the game is doing. And the idea that the game will be more static is probably grossly mistaken. From what I see, 5th will be based primarily on objectives and movement. Choosing to select an army to play a static game would be the player's fault, not the rules fault. Nothing forces the player to make a bad decision.

Vaktathi wrote:If that is the case, Why bother taking Predators at all in a Space Marine list,

You mean by *INCREASING* the cost upgrades like Sponson weapons in the latest SM and CSM codex's?

Predators still have greater mobilty than Infantry. If they need to cover 24" of ground, they give up 2 turns of shooting, not 4. If SM can Run, then the potential mobility is the same, but on average, the SM will have to give up 3 turns of shooting.

If the Sponsons were mis-costed, they were mis-costed.

Again, boring. Increased tactical decision making is not necessarily a good thing.

By your rational, the game would be best if everything had to choose between moving and attacking (including fighting in hand to hand) and each side could only move one unit per turn.

And there are multiple units that can still move and fire everything-

Crisis suits, Bikes, Terminators

Seems to me a logical solution to this problem would be to lower the BS score the more you move.

skyth wrote:Again, boring. Increased tactical decision making is not necessarily a good thing.

By your rational, the game would be best if everything had to choose between moving and attacking (including fighting in hand to hand) and each side could only move one unit per turn.

And there are multiple units that can still move and fire everything-

Crisis suits, Bikes, Terminators

Given that this is a tactical game, it's hard to take any argument against tactical decisionmaking seriously. To me, this simply reveals your ignorance and inability to understand good game design fundamentals.

Actually, that would be a fair approach. Basically, it would make 40k extremely granular, like Chess. But it would preserve decision-making and conservation of resources. The problem of course, is scale. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Even without 5th Edition adding Run as an option, Bikes are a terrible example for you to have proposed:
- turbo-boost move 24", no fire, no assault, no difficult terrain.
- move 12" (difficult terrain test), fire, assault
clearly, Bikes are fast, but there is a fundamental decision that must be made whether to move-or-shoot (turboboost) or move-and-shoot.

As above, Terminators have an inherent movement restriction because they give up Sweeping Advance. Plus, the weapons they can move and fire are tightly constrained to close combat weapons, Assault weapons (Storm Bolter, Heavy Flamer, and occasional Combi-weapon) and Cyclone ML.

I don't play Tau, so it is possible that they might be the "golden" unit that can do everything. Bravo for the Tau. Being the singular exception proves the rule in general.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skyth wrote:Again, boring. Increased tactical decision making is not necessarily a good thing.

By your rational, the game would be best if everything had to choose between moving and attacking (including fighting in hand to hand) and each side could only move one unit per turn.

And there are multiple units that can still move and fire everything-

Crisis suits, Bikes, Terminators

Given that this is a tactical game, it's hard to take any argument against tactical decisionmaking seriously. To me, this simply reveals your ignorance and inability to understand good game design fundamentals.

Actually, that would be a fair approach. Basically, it would make 40k extremely granular, like Chess. But it would preserve decision-making and conservation of resources. The problem of course, is scale. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Even without 5th Edition adding Run as an option, Bikes are a terrible example for you to have proposed:
- turbo-boost move 24", no fire, no assault, no difficult terrain.
- move 12" (difficult terrain test), fire, assault
clearly, Bikes are fast, but there is a fundamental decision that must be made whether to move-or-shoot (turboboost) or move-and-shoot.

As above, Terminators have an inherent movement restriction because they give up Sweeping Advance. Plus, the weapons they can move and fire are tightly constrained to close combat weapons, Assault weapons (Storm Bolter, Heavy Flamer, and occasional Combi-weapon) and Cyclone ML.

I don't play Tau, so it is possible that they might be the "golden" unit that can do everything. Bravo for the Tau. Being the singular exception proves the rule in general.

You also forgot Terminators can get Assault Cannons (*very* important) and 36" range Reaper Autocannons for Chaos terminators. The loss of Sweeping Advance isn't too big of a deal against Terminators, as there usually isn't much to Sweep left.


Tanks have the added drawback that they cannot in fact hurt anything in CC, nor even hurt anything by ramming it unless its stupid enough to Death or Glory and fail. With the exception of Skimmers, they are also usually hideously vulnerable in close combat, especially to MC's. Against Marine, Tyranid and Chaos armies, I usually lose most of my IG's tanks to power fists and other close combat means, not shooting attacks. *all* of their power comes from shooting. Making them static pillboxes removes much of the reason to take them, especially as anti-infantry weapons, and makes them even more vulnerable in CC.


I also fail to see the difference in your Example with Bikes and Vehicles currently.

Bikes can move 24" and gain an invul save, or shoot and assault. Tanks can stay still and shot everything, move and shoot one main and all defensive weapons, or move their full alotment and fire nothing. This seems identical to me.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Given that this is a tactical game, it's hard to take any argument against tactical decisionmaking seriously. To me, this simply reveals your ignorance and inability to understand good game design fundamentals.

Actually, that would be a fair approach. Basically, it would make 40k extremely granular, like Chess. But it would preserve decision-making and conservation of resources. The problem of course, is scale. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Boy do you sure like the personal attacks.

Quite frankly, anything that makes the game more fluid and encourages moving the pieces around the board makes the game more fun.

The biggest change to game play that I can see arising from 4th edition to 5th edition will be the emphasis on troops as the only scoring units. I see this as a boost because it will end the day of land speeders and falcons popping out and making last turn objective grabs. Infantry are getting faster, which is good also, combined with random game length it will mean that winning games will mean taking and holding objectives.

The problem that I see arising from this is that so many vehicles are geared to have strength 5 or 6 weapons (chimeras, devilfish, battlewagons, land raiders, predators, hammerheads, hellhounds, falcons, etc) that should be able to move in support of the infantry as opposed to just hanging back and laying down covering fire. It is what tanks were designed to do, and if tanks can't fire their supporting weapons on the move, they won't. They aren't scoring, so why risk moving them out of cover where they are hull down? Tanks need an incentive to move, not more reasons to stay put. If a Falcon or Hammerhead can't get a skimmer moving fast save and still shoot most of its weapons, they will just end up floating around in cover. Infantry will be getting a big boost from the new rules, I feel like if they keep tanks mobile then we will actually see more tactical decision making. The simplest way to do that is to let them keep their Str 5 +6 guns. Otherwise they will just end up floating around in the back field.

Samwise158: Land Raiders, at least the Loyalist ones, have the Power of the Machine Spirit.

Likewise these vehicles will be able to fire supporting weapons as they advance, just not as many. A Chimera, for example, will only be able to fire either its Multi-Laser or its Heavy Bolter when it moves, along with its Heavy Stubber or Storm Bolter, instead of both. A Predator Annihilator will be able to move and fire as effectively as before, and like I said this will promote should promote complementary weapons loads rather than synergistic weapon loads. Taking Heavy Bolter sponsons with Twin-Linked Lascannons will make a vehicle more flexible rather than being a waste of points.

Vehicles using Ordnance weapons will be business as usual.

If tanks aren't scoring and don't have the same anti-infantry power on the move, they still have reason to leave cover - to find lines of sight to the enemy, block lines of sight to troops and their transports, to hunt enemy armour, to re-locate to a more advantageous (or less threatened) position, and to ferry troops to objectives.

If you look at the current 5th edition compatible books and the points costs of their tanks, you'll notice that tanks are a no-brainer bargain for hunting infantry over infantry. The 5th edition changes will make this choice less lopsided, and it's nice to see GW planning ahead.

skyth wrote:Boy do you sure like the personal attacks.

Quite frankly, anything that makes the game more fluid and encourages moving the pieces around the board makes the game more fun.

I don't think I've made any personal attacks on you. But if you feel that way, I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Quite frankly, the move to Objectives and inexpensive Transport is going to make the game more fluid and force players to move pieces around the board. Being able to move and fire isn't going to do that.

Samwise158 wrote:The problem that I see arising from this is that so many vehicles are geared to have strength 5 or 6 weapons

Tanks need an incentive to move, not more reasons to stay put. If a Falcon or Hammerhead can't get a skimmer moving fast save and still shoot most of its weapons, they will just end up floating around in cover.

Those S5 / S6 weapons are Troops killers, which is why GW specifically reduced their effectiveness.

Tanks will need to move to move Troops about.

Given that Falcons and Hammerheads are non-scoring, they're "dead" as soon as they hit the board. So the only question is what they do over the course of the game.

Most likely, this means non-Transport Hammerheads won't be seen nearly as often as before. Falcons might still hang around as dual-role Transports, though.