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.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Where are you finding old FAQs and errata?

I believe some of them are still available on the internet. I would be surprised if no one ever posted them thinking to his nostalgic fellows.

I’ve postulated before that we could allow units to disembark in the charge phase if the transport has moved less than 9” total that turn. Since they’re doing it in the Charge Phase they can’t use any movement or psychic phase shenanigans, and putting a limit on how far the transport can have moved beforehand hard-caps the total movement of a unit in a transport to 9” + 3” + base size, which for anything with a base size under 50mm means a 10” charge first turn, which is seriously dicey even with rerolls.

It also balances the Assault-Shooting disparity somewhat since, as the disembarkation is after both the Psychic and Shooting phases, no unit I know of can use it to move in a transport, disembark and shoot in the same turn, but they can move, disembark and charge.

It also solves the current issue where your transport moves forward, you can’t disembark, so your opponent surrounds the transport and destroys it, auto-killing the unit inside, so your transports stay back out of range of your opponent and... why were you buying transports again?

Transports work so much better if you can move them and then get out.

I have yet to see a single transport actually get fully surrounded in 8th edition. I know it's mathematically possible, just never seen it.

Really? In a tournament a few weeks ago I did it twice and was on the receiving end once across three games. It’s very easy with Flying infantry/bikes. Remember you can surround in the movement phase and destroy it in the shooting phase.

Yeah I've definitely seen it a few times, especially using models with bigger bases. You also don't need to be fully enclosed, as disembarking models have to be able to pass between the enemy bases.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Where are you finding old FAQs and errata?

For 3rd edition all the FAQ’s and errata are published in the Chapter Approved books. I recommend picking up either a copy of the 2003 or 2004 one.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You miss 3rd Edition?

I think I've gotten over ex girlfriends quicker.

What I miss from the 3rd edition rhino rush era was every table looking like a car park on the Christmas day sales

phydaux wrote:I miss the days of being able to move my Rhino, open the rear door, decant a squad of Space Marines, and have them charge that same turn.

Heck, even being able to hop out of the Rhino and shoot Bolters & assault weapons was awesome. But no more.

And for a lot of armies this was a core gimmick. Chaos, Blood Angels.

I honestly feel like half of the game is missing.

Unit1126PLL wrote:You miss 3rd Edition?

I think I've gotten over ex girlfriends quicker.

Snark aside, you have a point. 3rd Edition is pretty much exactly what the OP needs. A quick trip through social media will find you a player base.

ValentineGames wrote:

Banville wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
I miss decent rules...

You miss 2nd Edition?

Pretty much.
2nd edition for true tactical gaming and 3.5 for just having a laugh and the fun open minded community of both
6th to 8th has had none of the 3

This gave me a chuckle. 2nd Ed. couldn't figure out if it wanted to be an RPG or a TTG, and it suffered for it.

Specifically mentioning 3.5, I'm guessing Chaos player. That's about the only player that divides 3rd in that spot.

Also, agree with the assessment of 6th through 8th.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Where are you finding old FAQs and errata?

As someone said, Chapter Approved books collected errata, and there's also the Wayback Machine, but I think that's predominantly 4th. Some of the books got reprinted with the errata added, such as Dark Eldar.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah I've definitely seen it a few times, especially using models with bigger bases. You also don't need to be fully enclosed, as disembarking models have to be able to pass between the enemy bases.

No they don't. You just place them within range, not place them next to the vehicle and then move them away. They can be placed on the other side of surrounding models if there is room.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah I've definitely seen it a few times, especially using models with bigger bases. You also don't need to be fully enclosed, as disembarking models have to be able to pass between the enemy bases.

No they don't. You just place them within range, not place them next to the vehicle and then move them away. They can be placed on the other side of surrounding models if there is room.

Huh, I guess that's true. Although since they can't be within 1" of an enemy model the opponents bases can have even bigger gaps between them.

Just allow open-topped vehicles to permit embarked units to disembark into combat and count as charging at the end of a charge phase in which the vehicle has completed a successful charge.

Limiting it to only open topped vehicles is a problem, though. It’s great for Orks and Dark Eldar, but it’s a giant feth you to pretty much everybody else that wants to put close combat units in transports. Fixing Dark Eldar and Orks transports probably doesn’t help even 10% of the player base.

kombatwombat wrote:
Limiting it to only open topped vehicles is a problem, though. It’s great for Orks and Dark Eldar, but it’s a giant feth you to pretty much everybody else that wants to put close combat units in transports. Fixing Dark Eldar and Orks transports probably doesn’t help even 10% of the player base.

Let assault ramps on Land Raiders do the same thing, but outside of exceptions that pay specifically for that purpose, units that can't be fired out of should not offer assault benefits either. Say what you will about the actual value of what you're getting for your points, but it's pretty clear that the intent for most transports in 8th edition is to provide more tactical protection and mobility, not an offensive platform. We do not need to go back to the days of Rhino rush.

The game is in sore need of a boost to slower close combat units, though. This is an area that they could genuinely be helped out without also boosting shooting, so I think we should take it.

Also, a 400pt Land Raider isn’t exactly a valid way to help out the non-Dark Eldar/Orks armies. Even those that can take it - which certainly isn’t all of them - it’s an overpriced death trap.

 Fafnir wrote:

Let assault ramps on Land Raiders do the same thing, but outside of exceptions that pay specifically for that purpose, units that can't be fired out of should not offer assault benefits either. Say what you will about the actual value of what you're getting for your points, but it's pretty clear that the intent for most transports in 8th edition is to provide more tactical protection and mobility, not an offensive platform. We do not need to go back to the days of Rhino rush.

I would not have an issue with Land Raider-style true assault vehicles allowing a transported unit to disembark within 3" after the vehicle has moved and still be able to charge BUT NOT make their move on top.

The current rules for rhinos etc are spot on.
Although I don't see why 2 models can't fire out of the hatch any more. Made a Rhino with plasma/combi-plasma an ok little mobile APC

Fire points being lost was easily one of the worst parts of 8th. It isn't like it would be complicated to add either and would certainly make them more attractive.

Eh, fire points and access points kind of pulled something out of the game. It wouldn't have been so bad if some of the transports didn't get shafted with no fire ports at all.