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.

 Tyran wrote:
Everyone has around the same amount of CP as their opponent, so for every CP spent on a combo a CP can be spent on defense.

It is up to the players if they want to spend their CP offensively or defensively.

Not really, it just means the player going first gets to dictate the CP expenditure of the game. If I use full CP combo on your most important unit, you MUST transhuman et all in response. If I don't, I get my entire movement phase to deny you any decent crackbacks and we can do the same dance next turn.

 Laughing Man wrote:
... more using Land Speeder Storms as a cheap objective holder/grabber in armies with no scouts...

Then it begs the question of why you wouldn't just fix that unit if that really was a big problem (and given we've never heard of it until this thread, I doubt it really was that widespread or that big a deal) rather than take another massive sledgehammer to an entire unit type.

I mean, that could be fixed with "This unit can be taken as a Dedicated Transport if your army includes any Scouts". There. Done. Solved. No need to screw over every transport in the game with inelegant and conceptually stupid rules.

Quick question- Wasn't/Isn't there a strat that says the defender can opt for something in the attacker's first turn? I can't remember if it was +1 save or -1 to be hit or something else. Whatever it was/is isn't in my deck of strats.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience.

What counts as an "honest wargaming experience"?

I ask because a number of armies seem fully intended to use warlord traits and relics on all their characters, while others seem built with a 'take them or leave them' mindset.

Let me give you some examples:

- A Dark Eldar Archon is a melee character whose best profile is 5 attacks at WS2+ S3 AP-2 D1d3. He inflicts all of 1.35 wounds to a bog-standard Marine squad. His only other ability is a reroll 1s aura that has no synergy with most Kabal units (as it doesn't work in transports), and outright doesn't work on the rest of the codex.

- A Dark Eldar Succubus is also a melee character, whose best profile is 7 attacks at WS2+ S5 AP-3 D1, which actually kills a whole marine (2.75 wounds to be precise)! She also has a reroll aura that, for all intents and purposes, affects a single unit in the codex (there are two other units it could effect... except that she has no way to keep up with them).

Bear in mind that these are with the best melee weapons available to both. Moreover, neither of them have any additional wargear they can purchase beyond pistols. Nothing to boost their combat or defensive output, nor any support options or any suchlike.

I hope you'd agree that these do not seem like units that are supposed to function without warlord traits or relics.

As a contrast, a Necron Overlord is a support character with some melee ability. With his base weapons (either S7 AP-4 D2 or S10, AP-4 D3 with -1 to hit), he can inflict up to 3.7 wounds to a Marine unit (nothing outstanding, but still significantly better than both of the dedicated-melee DE characters above). What's more, he has an aura that gives a small boost to the speed of nearby Necron units, as well as MWBD - a very potent buff for any Core Necron unit. He can also purchase a Resurrection Orb to give him an additional, once-per-battle support ability.

You can still give him artefacts if you want to improve his damage, support abilities or such (or, heaven forbid, to add some flavour/character), but he doesn't actually *need* them to be functional. He's already a perfectly fine support character with semi-decent melee ability.

In contrast, the DE characters above *need* warlord traits and relics just to achieve their core functions.


Obviously I'm just using the armies I'm familiar with here, but given other comments it's clear that many armies suffer from the problem of characters that are heavily reliant on warlord traits and relics, whilst other armies' characters can take them or leave them.

If GW really wanted to go down this route, then *all* generic characters need to be functional without warlord traits and relics.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Quick question- Wasn't/Isn't there a strat that says the defender can opt for something in the attacker's first turn? I can't remember if it was +1 save or -1 to be hit or something else. Whatever it was/is isn't in my deck of strats.

That was in 8th. It is unlikely to return.




Automatically Appended Next Post:


Succubus - advance and charge turn 2 / +1 to hit turn 3 ( not always relevant ), combat drugs ( +1A ), blade artists

7 * .833 * .5 * .833 = 2.42
7 * .833 * .167 = 0.97

3.4 marines dead for 70 points. The blast pistol kills a marine about ~70% of the time. And then she can consolidate away 6" if you upgrade.

So in one turn she kills 80+ points of marines for 70.

Now let's look at a Captain for 85 with a MCBG.

If he doesn't move -- 2 *.833 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 0.8 marines
And if he fights -- 4 * .833 * .5 * .333 = 0.6 marines

All he does is give CORE reroll 1s. He'll occasionally get extra AP. With a Relic blade he kills 1.8 marines, which is the same as a Power Fist.

Succubus and Archons aren't any more "deficient" than other characters. You're just not used to using them without loading them up. So, if you want the reason they stripped relics and traits - you have your answer - it lowers the power of the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
... more using Land Speeder Storms as a cheap objective holder/grabber in armies with no scouts...

Then it begs the question of why you wouldn't just fix that unit if that really was a big problem (and given we've never heard of it until this thread, I doubt it really was that widespread or that big a deal) rather than take another massive sledgehammer to an entire unit type.

I mean, that could be fixed with "This unit can be taken as a Dedicated Transport if your army includes any Scouts". There. Done. Solved. No need to screw over every transport in the game with inelegant and conceptually stupid rules.

The fact that a Multi-Melta attack bike can do the same is something else to think about

 Tyran wrote:
Everyone has around the same amount of CP as their opponent, so for every CP spent on a combo a CP can be spent on defense.

It is up to the players if they want to spend their CP offensively or defensively.

But imagine only starting with 2CP. In your first turn you're hit with the big wombo combo and you use a 2CP defensive stratagem. That is you now done, you can no longer use other strats to defend yourself or any rerolls, rewarding the attacking player by putting in a corner defensively. When your own turn comes around you now have to decide whether you do your own offensive strats, or save the CP for defensive strats, because you literally cannot afford to do both. So again the alpha strike combo is ideal because if you cripple your opponent turn 1, you don't need the defensive strats and can focus on outright offense. So you go all in on offense.

Imagine only having 1 CP or 0, and not being able to use that defensive strat turn 1. Even more so the attacker is rewarded.

Also, some factions are heavily reliant on needing a second detachment and/or WL traits and relics to function effectively. My Ork list starts with 1CP after I've neutered what traits and relics I start with, because I need to run a Patrol and Outrider detachments. If I go against a faction that only needs to run a battalion and isn't reliant on any WLT/relics, then they can start with up to 6CP. A 1:6 ratio on starting CP isn't close to starting on about the same amount.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

But imagine only starting with 2CP. In your first turn you're hit with the big wombo combo and you use a 2CP defensive stratagem. That is you now done, you can no longer use other strats to defend yourself or any rerolls, rewarding the attacking player by putting in a corner defensively. When your own turn comes around you now have to decide whether you do your own offensive strats, or save the CP for defensive strats, because you literally cannot afford to do both. So again the alpha strike combo is ideal because if you cripple your opponent turn 1, you don't need the defensive strats and can focus on outright offense. So you go all in on offense.

A big wombo made with 2CP is not exactly a big wombo IMHO.

 Tyran wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

But imagine only starting with 2CP. In your first turn you're hit with the big wombo combo and you use a 2CP defensive stratagem. That is you now done, you can no longer use other strats to defend yourself or any rerolls, rewarding the attacking player by putting in a corner defensively. When your own turn comes around you now have to decide whether you do your own offensive strats, or save the CP for defensive strats, because you literally cannot afford to do both. So again the alpha strike combo is ideal because if you cripple your opponent turn 1, you don't need the defensive strats and can focus on outright offense. So you go all in on offense.

A big wombo made with 2CP is not exactly a big wombo IMHO.

The cost of an alpha strike combo isn't really what I'm arguing. Whether it costs you 1CP or 4CP is irrelevant.

I'm arguing that the alpha strike player is encouraged to continue using their own alpha strike, because it takes away the choice of the defender in using their own offensive strats the following turn if they want to survive turn one.

The alpha strike player is controlling the flow of the game more than ever because the person on the recieving end now has to choose between defending themselves and hitting back effectively.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

But imagine only starting with 2CP. In your first turn you're hit with the big wombo combo and you use a 2CP defensive stratagem. That is you now done, you can no longer use other strats to defend yourself or any rerolls, rewarding the attacking player by putting in a corner defensively. When your own turn comes around you now have to decide whether you do your own offensive strats, or save the CP for defensive strats, because you literally cannot afford to do both. So again the alpha strike combo is ideal because if you cripple your opponent turn 1, you don't need the defensive strats and can focus on outright offense. So you go all in on offense.

A big wombo made with 2CP is not exactly a big wombo IMHO.

The cost of an alpha strike combo isn't really what I'm arguing. Whether it costs you 1CP or 4CP is irrelevant.

I'm arguing that the alpha strike player is encouraged to continue using their own alpha strike, because it takes away the choice of the defender in using their own offensive strats the following turn if they want to survive turn one.

The alpha strike player is controlling the flow of the game more than ever because the person on the recieving end now has to choose between defending themselves and hitting back effectively.

It's why I think people who have been saying that this change will make the latter turns matter more aren't really looking at the actual changes.

Big 6CP alphastrikes comboing on a unit to buff it to the moon are mostly a myth as it is. You usually see 1CP on your Dire Avengers, 1 CP on your Shining Spears, 1-2 CP on your whatever Eldar thing, and 1 CP on a damage or charge reroll and that's your 4.5CP spent in the first turn (which is the average according to goonhammer) leaving you with 4.5 CP to use defensively or save for the next turn (using Goonhammer's average of 8 starting CP per army).

You opponent probably used their closest transhuman equivalent, something similar to smokescreen, and a CP on a save reroll (most factions have 1-2 genral use defensive strats) if they didn't, (or even if they did) the probably had a second relic or second warlord trait that went to their defenses and still had to use their Transhuman equivalent and the save reroll. Then you figure you're going to try and use a heal if you have one, So you use 3-4 CP defensively. We'll say 3.5
So now your opponent has used 4.5 of their start of game CP and has 4.5 left for defense. You've used 3.5 of your CP and during your first turn go up to 5.5 which you can use offensively. They had the advantage of first movers but now you have more CP (again, on average) and enough to use pretty much any combination of stratagem effects you want.

Now, assume both lists had to still shell out 2 CP for their output WT and Relics, that means first turn Army A can still use 4.5 CP on offense, which means army B needs to use their 3.5 CP on defense.

The problem now is that Army B only has 2.5CP to react back and Army A still has 1.5 CP to defend with, if necessary.

To put it plainer, the army going first can use their normal suite of offensive stratagems, still have 1-2 CP leftover for defense. The army that goes second has to use their normal suite of defensive stratagems, but only has enough CP themselves for 2, maybe even 1 offensive stratagem in return. In that situation, army B will generally fail to do as much damage as Army A did, both because of the CP disparity and because Army B lost units before they could contribute to the game and Army A didn't. This leads to first turn alphastrike being EVEN MORE decisive than it was previously.

TLDR: The CP change has the potential to make alphastrike even stronger and make turns 4 and 5 even more irrelevant.

All numbers include start of turn CP gains.

ERJAK wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What whole picture? The best armies aren't reliant on their warlord traits and relics, and only need the initial CP to fund their first turn anyway.

I mean...the average nids list when up 150-200pts. We've mostly been assuming that the CP changes would be the single most important balance factor because GW's point changes have been so worthless historically.

If they're actually willing to make big swings all of a sudden, everything's up in the air.

Not the average nid lists, just the most competitive and OP ones. Average nid lists have tons of infantries, not tons of warriors or multiwounds models, and those 1W dudes didn't go up. Just like other monsters that used to be popular in older editions but not really competitive now, and a lot of casual players still play them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


Now, assume both lists had to still shell out 2 CP for their output WT and Relics, that means first turn Army A can still use 4.5 CP on offense, which means army B needs to use their 3.5 CP on defense.

The problem now is that Army B only has 2.5CP to react back and Army A still has 1.5 CP to defend with, if necessary.

To put it plainer, the army going first can use their normal suite of offensive stratagems, still have 1-2 CP leftover for defense. The army that goes second has to use their normal suite of defensive stratagems, but only has enough CP themselves for 2, maybe even 1 offensive stratagem in return. In that situation, army B will generally fail to do as much damage as Army A did, both because of the CP disparity and because Army B lost units before they could contribute to the game and Army A didn't. This leads to first turn alphastrike being EVEN MORE decisive than it was previously.

TLDR: The CP change has the potential to make alphastrike even stronger and make turns 4 and 5 even more irrelevant.

All numbers include start of turn CP gains.

With the upcoming rule both players can now start with the same number of CP, since players gain a CP also in the opponent turn. But you can't burn loads of CPs turn 1 to delete tons of the opponent's stuff and gain a massive advantage now. So it's actually much more balanced and less decisive now. How many CPs do or can you usually invest in a turn for defensive strats? Seriously, more than a couple?

I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing. These days its more that you tend to burn multiple stratagems, across multiple units and phases, rather than using 2-3 on one unit to boost its damage by 200%+.

But I feel something's gone wrong with the numbers.

Case in point. Lets assume two players, both with their army in a single Battalion, using 1 WLT, 1 Relic.

So Both players start with 4 CP. Both players go up to 5.
Lets say player 1 uses all 5 CP in Battle Round 1.
Lets say Player 2 uses 3 CP to defend.

Its now battle round 2. Player 1 has 1 CP available to defend. Player 2 has 3 CP to attack. This may mean player 2's "Alpha" is less (due to lacking a stratagem or 2) - but equally, player 1 now lacks the CP to do multiple defensive stratagems.

More importantly though, it means player 1 can't do something like use 3 CP in battle round 1, 2 CP in battle round 2, then break out 5+ CP for the turn 2 decapitation strike - which I feel is a more typical (although clearly it may vary with army/scenario etc). They'd have to be 3 CP down somewhere.

 Blackie wrote:
I mean...the average nids list when up 150-200pts.

The list I made a fortnight ago wasn't a "competitive" or "OP" list. It contained no Maleceptor. No Reaper of Oblitathingy. No Bonesword/Deathspitter Warriors. It had a Scythed Hierodule and a Mawloc, FFS.

Still went up 125 points.

Thanks tournament players!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

 vipoid wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience.

What counts as an "honest wargaming experience"?

I ask because a number of armies seem fully intended to use warlord traits and relics on all their characters, while others seem built with a 'take them or leave them' mindset.

Let me give you some examples:

- A Dark Eldar Archon is a melee character whose best profile is 5 attacks at WS2+ S3 AP-2 D1d3. He inflicts all of 1.35 wounds to a bog-standard Marine squad. His only other ability is a reroll 1s aura that has no synergy with most Kabal units (as it doesn't work in transports), and outright doesn't work on the rest of the codex.

- A Dark Eldar Succubus is also a melee character, whose best profile is 7 attacks at WS2+ S5 AP-3 D1, which actually kills a whole marine (2.75 wounds to be precise)! She also has a reroll aura that, for all intents and purposes, affects a single unit in the codex (there are two other units it could effect... except that she has no way to keep up with them).

Bear in mind that these are with the best melee weapons available to both. Moreover, neither of them have any additional wargear they can purchase beyond pistols. Nothing to boost their combat or defensive output, nor any support options or any suchlike.

I hope you'd agree that these do not seem like units that are supposed to function without warlord traits or relics.

As a contrast, a Necron Overlord is a support character with some melee ability. With his base weapons (either S7 AP-4 D2 or S10, AP-4 D3 with -1 to hit), he can inflict up to 3.7 wounds to a Marine unit (nothing outstanding, but still significantly better than both of the dedicated-melee DE characters above). What's more, he has an aura that gives a small boost to the speed of nearby Necron units, as well as MWBD - a very potent buff for any Core Necron unit. He can also purchase a Resurrection Orb to give him an additional, once-per-battle support ability.

You can still give him artefacts if you want to improve his damage, support abilities or such (or, heaven forbid, to add some flavour/character), but he doesn't actually *need* them to be functional. He's already a perfectly fine support character with semi-decent melee ability.

In contrast, the DE characters above *need* warlord traits and relics just to achieve their core functions.


Obviously I'm just using the armies I'm familiar with here, but given other comments it's clear that many armies suffer from the problem of characters that are heavily reliant on warlord traits and relics, whilst other armies' characters can take them or leave them.

If GW really wanted to go down this route, then *all* generic characters need to be functional without warlord traits and relics.

Succubus - advance and charge turn 2 / +1 to hit turn 3 ( not always relevant ), combat drugs ( +1A ), blade artists

7 * .833 * .5 * .833 = 2.42
7 * .833 * .167 = 0.97

3.4 marines dead for 70 points. The blast pistol kills a marine about ~70% of the time. And then she can consolidate away 6" if you upgrade.

Your math is off because you're ignoring AoC. The actual numbers are:
7 * .833 * .5 * .66 = 1.94
7 * .833 * .167* .833 = 0.81
1.94 + 0.81 = 2.75

I don't count the Blast Pistol because:
1) If you advance to get into charge range then you can't fire it at all.
2) If you don't advance but are more than 6" from your target then you also don't get to fire it at all.
3) If killing a model will make your charge more risky then you might not want to fire it.

If you actually get to shoot it, great. But it's absolutely not something you can rely on.

Tyel wrote:
I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing

So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?

What examples are there?

hardcore1six wrote:
So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?

What examples are there?

I actually have to go back to 8th edition to find a combo I routinely used for my Blood Angels. That was Descent of Angels (3D6" charge out of Deep Strike) on my Captain 2CPs, Red Rampage (+D3 Attacks) 1CP and Honour the Chapter (Fight twice) 3CPs. So that would be 6CPs out of the door for 12-16 Thunder Hammer attacks that my opponent couldn't do very much about.

I don't have anything similar in my repertoire anymore.

hardcore1six wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing

So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?

What examples are there?

Here's a recent example for Tyranids that could be used for Flyrants:

Shard lure (1CP) for a charge bonus
Trampling Charge (1CP) for MW on the charge
Adrenal Surge (1CP) to get +D3 attacks
Voracious Appetite (1CP) to reroll wounds
If the target dies, then Overrun (1CP) to perform a normal move after combat

Under Nephilim rules you'd need to spend 1-2CP for a WLT/relic on that unit to make the combo worthwhile too.

Obviously you may not use all of them at the same time depending on the target, but spending 4+ CP on one unit is fairly plausible if it will delete a valuable enemy unit.

Tyel wrote:
I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing. These days its more that you tend to burn multiple stratagems, across multiple units and phases, rather than using 2-3 on one unit to boost its damage by 200%+.

But I feel something's gone wrong with the numbers.

Case in point. Lets assume two players, both with their army in a single Battalion, using 1 WLT, 1 Relic.

So Both players start with 4 CP. Both players go up to 5.
Lets say player 1 uses all 5 CP in Battle Round 1.
Lets say Player 2 uses 3 CP to defend.

Its now battle round 2. Player 1 has 1 CP available to defend. Player 2 has 3 CP to attack. This may mean player 2's "Alpha" is less (due to lacking a stratagem or 2) - but equally, player 1 now lacks the CP to do multiple defensive stratagems.

More importantly though, it means player 1 can't do something like use 3 CP in battle round 1, 2 CP in battle round 2, then break out 5+ CP for the turn 2 decapitation strike - which I feel is a more typical (although clearly it may vary with army/scenario etc). They'd have to be 3 CP down somewhere.

Big combos are mostly gone, but not entirely. It's more like constant CP spend to work a target down. The true alpha strike is gone. It's pretty rare that people like to go first these days. If you do go first you play cagey so they can't walk up on you. Then it's a cat and mouse game with CP to see who can get effective outcomes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Your math is off because you're ignoring AoC. The actual numbers are:
7 * .833 * .5 * .66 = 1.94
7 * .833 * .167* .833 = 0.81
1.94 + 0.81 = 2.75

I don't count the Blast Pistol because:
1) If you advance to get into charge range then you can't fire it at all.
2) If you don't advance but are more than 6" from your target then you also don't get to fire it at all.
3) If killing a model will make your charge more risky then you might not want to fire it.

If you actually get to shoot it, great. But it's absolutely not something you can rely on.

Gotcha. Though that reduces the relative math on the other stuff. Overall, characters are going to have to be more carefully considered for purpose.

hardcore1six wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing

So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?

What examples are there?

I will admit, I definitely used the wrong terms. I would be better off describing it as someone else did earlier as more of a mass CP dump over a number of units across a single turn, rather than one unit having multiple strats stacked up.

 xttz wrote:

hardcore1six wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing

So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?

What examples are there?

Here's a recent example for Tyranids that could be used for Flyrants:

Shard lure (1CP) for a charge bonus
Trampling Charge (1CP) for MW on the charge
Adrenal Surge (1CP) to get +D3 attacks
Voracious Appetite (1CP) to reroll wounds
If the target dies, then Overrun (1CP) to perform a normal move after combat

Under Nephilim rules you'd need to spend 1-2CP for a WLT/relic on that unit to make the combo worthwhile too.

Obviously you may not use all of them at the same time depending on the target, but spending 4+ CP on one unit is fairly plausible if it will delete a valuable enemy unit.

Which is why I said 'mostly' a myth. The amount of stuff that has to go right for you and wrong for your opponent for that combo to be worth it, makes it highly unlikely.

You'd need a unit in charge range of the Tyrant that can survive the normal tyrant, but won't survive the buff tyrant. You need no other threating units within engagement/HI range, you'd need suitable terrain to have a decent position to retreat to. You need the unit the Tyrant targets to be expensive enough to risk losing the tyrant on the crackback.

Unless your opponent left Vahl or Abaddon out in the open against a Reaper Tyrant, a combo like this is almost always going to be relatively inefficient.

So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Lol, people should do something because some random dude(tte) writes something on the internet? I like the change because I find the concept of taking a transport for a unit and then not putting the unit it dumb. That does not mean that I find the issues this creates with apparently Ghost Arks and other transports fine. Those are dumb as well. A case of damned if you do and damned if you don't because of poor rules design of GW.

Us3Less wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Lol, people should do something because some random dude(tte) writes something on the internet? I like the change because I find the concept of taking a transport for a unit and then not putting the unit it dumb. That does not mean that I find the issues this creates with apparently Ghost Arks and other transports fine. Those are dumb as well. A case of damned if you do and damned if you don't because of poor rules design of GW.

You take a transport for many reasons:

1) You want to play (roleplay?) a mechanized company/army like Armageddon Steel Legion - having infantry without their IFVs would be utterly unfluffy, even if you've deployed them in protected positions for a defensive op.
2) You want the flexibility of being able to maneuver and engage like a tank, whilst being able to dig into cover and scale ruins like infantry. (this is an IRL and ingame reason)
3) You want the additional firepower of the vehicle added to the platoon (e.g. BMPs being used as ATGM platforms in support of infantry without their own long range ATGMs). (This is also an IRL and ingame reason).

Can you imagine if actual military officers thought that way? It's what the Russians are going through now, lol. "You're saying the entire squad was wiped out by an NLAW ambush from the next door building that blew up their BTR? Why didn't they clear the house first?"
"Because they had the BTR - what's the point in having the transport if you aren't going to ride in it, sir?"

I don't know if there's a facepalm hard enough to describe the sheer absurdity of a unit that exists precisely because of its flexible employment options relative to other unit types subsequently being forced to be inflexible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Sure there is:

The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Sure there is:

The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.

That's one way of seeing it. You know what's another way of seeing it? The troops are already out, either because they were waiting for the enemy or ran into an enemy patrol when they themselves were out of their vehicles. Mechanized infantry don't sit in their vehicles all of the time, only in transit. You know, something that was already represented prior to this rule.

Also, how do the armies know to engage each other like that? Is there a time schedule?
I can see it now, some administratum agent going "Let's see, Space Wolves have a battle with Tau at 9:00 on Tuesday, Blood Angels have a battle at 20:00 on Wednesday. Oh what's that? The Orks want to attack a planet? I'm sorry, we don't have an opening, please ask them to call back next week"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Sure there is:

The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.

Every battle in the 41st millennium is a meeting engagement. Every single one. No wonder the generals suffer so many casualties - none have ever considered fortifying their position!

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.

'Lord Dante, the Tyranid swarm is upon us! We must defend the fortress monastery at once!'

'Aye brother. Quick, everyone into your Rhinos! Defend the walls from inside our metahl bauxes!'

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Us3Less wrote:I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:I'm all for it, there have been too many nuisance transports across multiple editions that weren't used to transport.

It also stops them being used to block out deep strike and charges etc.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I'm all for it, there have been too many nuisance transports across multiple editions that weren't used to transport.

It also stops them being used to block out deep strike and charges etc.

Hell, you can still use them for that. You just have to have their passengers hop out turn one and they can go do whatever they want.

Which is fine, but stops it being used as a deployment tactic, and then if your opponent is the essentially redeploying the first turn rather than going forward, then it's all good.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Sure there is:

The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.

Every battle in the 41st millennium is a meeting engagement. Every single one. No wonder the generals suffer so many casualties - none have ever considered fortifying their position!

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:

Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.

Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.

Spoiler:

This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.

 DominayTrix wrote:
This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.

Yeah, but I'd like to see the narrative reasons for this one. It really is rather indefensible narratively, which makes it very difficult to understand why this decision would be made from a narrative, rather than casual or competitive, perspective.