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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Doesn't the DT rule at launch force you to have infantry for the tank? Even if it is just one character...

...which this rule doesn't fix. Now that character just has to start embarked.

It's traditional for Mechanised Infantry Battalions to be unable to receive commands from their COs at the start of combat, as they all have to stay in their transports right until the moment the enemy is sighted, at which point they can rush to fill the positions they presumably set up earlier before returning to their transport (which are only ever used for transportation, and nothing else! Ever!).

This is because in the 41st Millennium, every tank is a radio-signal-destroying Faraday cage + explosive with a pressure plate that must be kept down until the battle starts!

It makes perfect sense. Abstraction. Not a simulation. So there!

The Falcon is a heavy choice now? That's silly. Wasn't it a dedicated transport option?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The Falcon is a heavy choice now? That's silly. Wasn't it a dedicated transport option?

Falcon has been heavy since at least 8th
Wave serpent has been a transport since.. .forever?

Nah it's been a heavy since 3rd.

It's just now they're also Drop Pods because umm... because... uhh... well just because!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The Falcon is a heavy choice now? That's silly. Wasn't it a dedicated transport option?

Falcon has been heavy since at least 8th
Wave serpent has been a transport since.. .forever?

8th ed is relatively recent though. Wasn't the Wave Serpent introduced in 5th ed too? I don't remember seeing Wave Serpents in 4th ed. I did see Falcons though.
Why is a Falcon a heavy choice anyway? Doesn't only have like, a scatter laser and maybe a bright lance?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The Falcon is a heavy choice now? That's silly. Wasn't it a dedicated transport option?

Falcon has been heavy since at least 8th
Wave serpent has been a transport since.. .forever?

8th ed is relatively recent though. Wasn't the Wave Serpent introduced in 5th ed too? I don't remember seeing Wave Serpents in 4th ed. I did see Falcons though.
Why is a Falcon a heavy choice anyway? Doesn't only have like, a scatter laser and maybe a bright lance?

Falcon get a bigger brightlance + any heavy weapon + shuricannon/twin shuricatapult

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I didn't know that was a problem.

Next question: do the army construction rules (6CP starting +2 CP per turn, free SHA detachments, and this weird DT thing) apply to Crusade?

If not, whose Army Construction rules do you use when playing a Matched Play army against a Crusade army?

People that take Land Raiders as dedicated transports for their termintors sometimes put the termintors in deep strike.

Karol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I didn't know that was a problem.

Next question: do the army construction rules (6CP starting +2 CP per turn, free SHA detachments, and this weird DT thing) apply to Crusade?

If not, whose Army Construction rules do you use when playing a Matched Play army against a Crusade army?

People that take Land Raiders as dedicated transports for their termintors sometimes put the termintors in deep strike.

Ok now that does sound kind of cheesy. Again though, that should not require a blanket instant kill rule to fix.

Karol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I didn't know that was a problem.

Next question: do the army construction rules (6CP starting +2 CP per turn, free SHA detachments, and this weird DT thing) apply to Crusade?

If not, whose Army Construction rules do you use when playing a Matched Play army against a Crusade army?

People that take Land Raiders as dedicated transports for their termintors sometimes put the termintors in deep strike.

Land raiders arent dedicated transport, theyre Heavy support.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Falcon get a bigger brightlance + any heavy weapon + shuricannon/twin shuricatapult

Fair enough, but isn't that kind of what a Razorback gets? Aren't Razorbacks DTs?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Ok now that does sound kind of cheesy. Again though, that should not require a blanket instant kill rule to fix.

Someone bringing a land raider is already gimping themselves, no need to add 200pts in it to make it an even bigger % of your list.

And land raiders won't be affected by the new rule anyway, theyre Heavy supports, not Dedicated Transports

The Falcon, at least in 40k scale, first came about in 2nd Ed, before there even were "Heavy Support" slots. Ditto for the Fire Prism.

I suppose you could argue that the Wave Serpent in 40k scale also showed up in 2nd Ed, but that was a niche Armorcast kit. The proper GW Wave Serpent kit arrived a number of years later during 3rd... I think? Maybe 4th. It's been a while.

Karol wrote:
People that take Land Raiders as dedicated transports for their termintors sometimes put the termintors in deep strike.

Oh no! Such abuse! Quick better make the Land Raiders explode them. That'll show those unscrupulous players who have the temerity to use their transports as anything other than a transport!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Falcon get a bigger brightlance + any heavy weapon + shuricannon/twin shuricatapult

Fair enough, but isn't that kind of what a Razorback gets? Aren't Razorbacks DTs?

yeah razorbacks are DTs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Oh no! Such abuse! Quick better make the Land Raiders explode them. That'll show those unscrupulous players who have the temerity to use their transports as anything other than a transport!

again, no land raider will blow up if empty with the new rules

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah it's been a heavy since 3rd.

It's just now they're also Drop Pods because umm... because... uhh... well just because!

It gives them a niche job. Falcons have been playing second fiddle to WSs since the serpents got a kit.

And I’d rather see the ability baked into their profile/dataslate instead of back as the cloudstrike strategem. I think they’ve been pulling the DS trick since the first apoc book, might be wrong there.

Maybe it is because no new transport kits have been released lately outside of Heresy, so GW doesn't need to sell many?

Ah yes, a rule to fix Eldar (who arguably aren't broken - I haven't heard of Wave Serpents being egregiously bad the way some units are) has instead blown a leg off of mechanized lists everywhere...

I rate this 10 GWs out of 10.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum:

I can't wait for the Armageddon Steel Legion doctrine:

"The renowned Armageddon mechanized regiments are such experts in mobile warfare that they can start the game dismounted and the transport doesn't break down!"

Such experts, wow, ooh, no one can rival their skill.

Well Guard wound everything they hit on 6's automatically and their hand-fired tube mortars and hand-winched artillery cannons are more accurate than Tau guided seeking missile launchers, so why shouldn't their transports also be immune from (literally) crippling abandonment issues like all other transports apparently now have?

Are we sure folk haven’t mix-read this rule?

Because it’s really daft. And whilst far from having my finger on the game’s modern pulse, I’ve not really read complaints about people exploiting DTs?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are we sure folk haven’t mix-read this rule?

Because it’s really daft. And whilst far from having my finger on the game’s modern pulse, I’ve not really read complaints about people exploiting DTs?

It's clear as day.

A dedicated transport that starts the game without troops embarked is automatically destroyed.

Don't get me started on the fact that there are units which exist in the dedicated transport slots that don't even have a transport capacity.

Yey for units automatically self-destroying for simply existing. Are we still in the best edition ever?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Don't get me started on the fact that there are units which exist in the dedicated transport slots that don't even have a transport capacity.

wait, really?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Don't get me started on the fact that there are units which exist in the dedicated transport slots that don't even have a transport capacity.

wait, really?

Check out the Hades Breaching Drill sometime, it'll be a hoot to play with these new rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Don't get me started on the fact that there are units which exist in the dedicated transport slots that don't even have a transport capacity.

wait, really?

Check out the Hades Breaching Drill sometime, it'll be a hoot to play with these new rules.

You call it broken , i call it the ingame point Handicap mechanic

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Don't get me started on the fact that there are units which exist in the dedicated transport slots that don't even have a transport capacity.

wait, really?

Check out the Hades Breaching Drill sometime, it'll be a hoot to play with these new rules.

Well as long as its under the table it should be fine

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Check out the Hades Breaching Drill sometime, it'll be a hoot to play with these new rules.

oh, FW stuff with a weird deployment rule already on the datasheet. I think crying about it right now is a bit early, i expect GW will FAQ "Subterranean Assault" to not blow it up

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Don't get me started on the fact that there are units which exist in the dedicated transport slots that don't even have a transport capacity.

wait, really?

Check out the Hades Breaching Drill sometime, it'll be a hoot to play with these new rules.

So….deploy, then…

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Check out the Hades Breaching Drill sometime, it'll be a hoot to play with these new rules.

oh, FW stuff with a weird deployment rule already on the datasheet. I think crying about it right now is a bit early, i expect GW will FAQ "Subterranean Assault" to not blow it up

Right but the DT rule in the first place is in a FAQ core rules update.

Are we at the point of FAQing the FAQ? Are we still in the best edition ever?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Check out the Hades Breaching Drill sometime, it'll be a hoot to play with these new rules.

oh, FW stuff with a weird deployment rule already on the datasheet. I think crying about it right now is a bit early, i expect GW will FAQ "Subterranean Assault" to not blow it up

Right but the DT rule in the first place is in a FAQ core rules update.

Are we at the point of FAQing the FAQ? Are we still in the best edition ever?

where is the DT rules change exactly? I thought it was with the new GT pack?

40k just feels real surreal this week.

There's just layers upon layers of weird things that I never knew were concerns and even they don't seem to know what their rules are for chaos.

I feel like I wandered into a conference call where people are seriously planning the colonization of the Hollow Earth and debating the Werewolf Defense Act, and I'm just having a normal day, wondering what I'm doing for dinner.

Now now.

Have you seen any Werewolves recently?

See. It’s working perfectly.

In that situation you should be worried about what the Werewolves (over there) want for dinner.