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:

 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.

Pretty sure we've already established that it was for competitive reasons because people were abusing transports.

Someone had asked for a narrative explanation and I just tapped out the first thing to came to mind. Not my fault y'all are giving yourselves atomic wedgies crying about it.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

Pretty sure we've already established that it was for competitive reasons because people were abusing transports.

Someone had asked for a narrative explanation and I just tapped out the first thing to came to mind. Not my fault y'all are giving yourselves atomic wedgies crying about it.

No one was abusing transports or, if they were, it was incredibly fringe cases that had no meaningful impact on actually competitive gameplay.

That change was made because someone at GW saw someone on a stream or whatever deploy an empty rhino one time so he could use it capture objectives in a situation where he didn't want to rush another unit forward and said: NOT IN MY 40K!!!

It was a thing you could do that didn't fit someone in charge's narrative headcanon and that's why the rule changed. Like 90% of all the jankest rules patches in the game, it was for purely narrative reasons of dubious substance.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

Pretty sure we've already established that it was for competitive reasons because people were abusing transports.

Someone had asked for a narrative explanation and I just tapped out the first thing to came to mind. Not my fault y'all are giving yourselves atomic wedgies crying about it.

Except it doesn't fix "abusing" transports, because you can still spam venoms, which apparently were the problem that needed such a change.
Also, explain how starting the game with an empty transport is such a problem that it required a rule that forces the player to start with them occupied.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Pretty sure we've already established that it was for competitive reasons because people were abusing transports.

Yes, this apparent pandemic of transport "abuse" that was sweeping the globe that no one ever noticed because they were too busy fighting off FtoM armies like Harlis or Tyranids.


My God... imagine thinking that troops not starting a game in a transport is "abuse".

Removed.

First you were defending the change, and now you're "just here using all [our] tears to add salt to [your] popcorn".

Sure thing. I believe you.

It wouldn't surprise me if the change were due to the people in GWHQ getting roll stomped by somebody with a transport list in a test game or two.

It was rumored at the time that the changes to a less lethal Bloodbowl edition happened after somebody taught Jervis and Co how people played in the wild.

M.

So any actual rumors for the inevitable Marine point drops? Gotta know if I can run more Assault Intercessors with my Templars.

 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.

Except them being　inside transports at spitting distances isn't logical and isn't how transports are used in reality.

It's opposite of narrative...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

Honestly, the rules change has zero impact on our narrative games because we played it that way to begin with.

There isn't really a reason for infantry to not start inside their transports unless enjoying taking artillery fire to the face is part of your narrative.
The only game reason to start outside your transport is to increase your footprint to screen deep strikers, which really isn't a narrative reason at all.

Sometimes you guys just try too hard to be angry about every single thing GW does.

So I will admit this change does hurt my Ultramarines list a bit, but only because I was running 3 land speeder storms but only 2 scout squads. I found lss to be very effective for its points for the speed they gave and ability to just fly up a quarter and get me engage on all fronts. Now I need another scout squad, taking up another elite slot which means I have 7 elite options, so would need another Detachment.... but that is wasted thanks to cp cost so.... its just easier to take only 2 speeders and drop the 3rd.

But I don't see how the lss was the issue. Most people forget it exists.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

Honestly, the rules change has zero impact on our narrative games because we played it that way to begin with.

There isn't really a reason for infantry to not start inside their transports unless enjoying taking artillery fire to the face is part of your narrative.
The only game reason to start outside your transport is to increase your footprint to screen deep strikers, which really isn't a narrative reason at all.

Sometimes you guys just try too hard to be angry about every single thing GW does.

To add to this, is it also realistic to current military tactics to run across the battlefield waving shovels at people whilst 6 limbed crustaceans burrow from underneath you?

If you're upset over this narrative breaking change because infantry can't set up in good defensive cover that makes them easier to kill than being in their transports, then why aren't you outraged at tanks mysteriously firing twice as fast because they move slower?

Why would the biomass fixated psychic hivemind of an alien race oblige to comply their deployment along 21st century human military techniques? They wouldn't waste the resources to make empty Tyrannocytes.

Because in a world of fantasy, it is the smaller more grounded things that stick out as wrong.

Like infantry needing to be in their transports at the start of every battle lest they explode.

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.

Repeating something that is unproven is not proof.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because in a world of fantasy, it is the smaller more grounded things that stick out as wrong.

Like infantry needing to be in their transports at the start of every battle lest they explode.

Would you prefer infantry not in a transport all die instead like the Armored Spearhead rite of war from HH?

 Dysartes wrote:

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.

Repeating something that is unproven is not proof.

Especially as it's matched play mode rule. By definition isn't narrative rule change.

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

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.

Repeating something that is unproven is not proof.

Especially as it's matched play mode rule. By definition isn't narrative rule change.

Twice so when the rules are in the mission pack for tournament play.

ERJAK wrote:
That change was made because someone at GW saw someone on a stream or whatever deploy an empty rhino one time so he could use it capture objectives in a situation where he didn't want to rush another unit forward and said: NOT IN MY 40K!!!

It was a thing you could do that didn't fit someone in charge's narrative headcanon and that's why the rule changed. Like 90% of all the jankest rules patches in the game, it was for purely narrative reasons of dubious substance.

I'm not really clear whether this is a competitive or narrative view - but while its a scenario I can believe happened - its not obviously explaining why you'd need to have a unit inside the rhino at deployment. Because clearly the embarked unit can continue to just jump out of the Rhino turn 1 (or later in the game) - leaving the Rhino to either hold a back line objective, or motor forward towards one on the mid board. (I can eventually see GW having a "narrative" issue with empty transports parking on objectives - but that's been a thing for years a this point.)

I suspect this is more rooted in the occasional whinges (when certain specific units seem too good for their points) that Transports should be limited by the rule of 3. And since GW won't want to go that far, they can say you can't run empty ones.

They should have just made actual slots for transports then. Taking a transport for each character seems silly anyway.

People talk about how empty transports are abusive, but not about taking a transport for a single, cheap character just to have the transport. That to me seems a lot more "abusive" than starting the game with units outside of a transport.

As for empty transports on objectives, they could just not allow transports to hold or contest objectives.

Azuza001 wrote:
So I will admit this change does hurt my Ultramarines list a bit, but only because I was running 3 land speeder storms but only 2 scout squads. I found lss to be very effective for its points for the speed they gave and ability to just fly up a quarter and get me engage on all fronts. Now I need another scout squad, taking up another elite slot which means I have 7 elite options, so would need another Detachment.... but that is wasted thanks to cp cost so.... its just easier to take only 2 speeders and drop the 3rd.

But I don't see how the lss was the issue. Most people forget it exists.

I mean, this seems to me like an instance of the rule doing exactly what I presume its intent to be: stop people taking transports that serve no transport purpose, just to cheese the rules to their advantage.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They should have just made actual slots for transports then. Taking a transport for each character seems silly anyway.

People talk about how empty transports are abusive, but not about taking a transport for a single, cheap character just to have the transport. That to me seems a lot more "abusive" than starting the game with units outside of a transport.

I think that's a rule change they could bring in - but narratively, command vehicles make total sense. An Archon flying around in his Venom, allowing him to survey the carnage, communicate with his forces, get the best loot etc is perfectly in tune with a narrative. Same as with a Company Commander reviewing things from a Chimera etc.

 Nazrak wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
So I will admit this change does hurt my Ultramarines list a bit, but only because I was running 3 land speeder storms but only 2 scout squads. I found lss to be very effective for its points for the speed they gave and ability to just fly up a quarter and get me engage on all fronts. Now I need another scout squad, taking up another elite slot which means I have 7 elite options, so would need another Detachment.... but that is wasted thanks to cp cost so.... its just easier to take only 2 speeders and drop the 3rd.

But I don't see how the lss was the issue. Most people forget it exists.

I mean, this seems to me like an instance of the rule doing exactly what I presume its intent to be: stop people taking transports that serve no transport purpose, just to cheese the rules to their advantage.

Except most transports can just have a single character in it, meaning that you can just get away by placing a character in the transport with no changes to the list. Venoms can just have a single character, for example, and they can take most troops choices which you're going to need anyway for a legal list.
LSS are the exception as they can only have scouts.
So basically, marines did something that GW doesn't like, so GW implemented a rule that affects everything instead of a rule that affects the issue directly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They should have just made actual slots for transports then. Taking a transport for each character seems silly anyway.

People talk about how empty transports are abusive, but not about taking a transport for a single, cheap character just to have the transport. That to me seems a lot more "abusive" than starting the game with units outside of a transport.

I think that's a rule change they could bring in - but narratively, command vehicles make total sense. An Archon flying around in his Venom, allowing him to survey the carnage, communicate with his forces, get the best loot etc is perfectly in tune with a narrative. Same as with a Company Commander reviewing things from a Chimera etc.

I guess, but shouldn't that only be for the warlord/general then, rather than any character? How many "command" vehicles do you need?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
So I will admit this change does hurt my Ultramarines list a bit, but only because I was running 3 land speeder storms but only 2 scout squads. I found lss to be very effective for its points for the speed they gave and ability to just fly up a quarter and get me engage on all fronts. Now I need another scout squad, taking up another elite slot which means I have 7 elite options, so would need another Detachment.... but that is wasted thanks to cp cost so.... its just easier to take only 2 speeders and drop the 3rd.

But I don't see how the lss was the issue. Most people forget it exists.

I mean, this seems to me like an instance of the rule doing exactly what I presume its intent to be: stop people taking transports that serve no transport purpose, just to cheese the rules to their advantage.

Except most transports can just have a single character in it, meaning that you can just get away by placing a character in the transport with no changes to the list. Venoms can just have a single character, for example, and they can take most troops choices which you're going to need anyway for a legal list.
LSS are the exception as they can only have scouts.
So basically, marines did something that GW doesn't like, so GW implemented a rule that affects everything instead of a rule that affects the issue directly.

Tbh "use transports as transports" hardly seems like the end of the world to me, regardless of who's riding around in them. Honestly, I think the players who spend their time combing the minutiae of the rules for any possible loophole to give them an advantage so they can beat someone at the toy spacemen game are much more detrimental to the overall state of 40K than the creators' occasionally excessively broad-brush approach to writing the rules.

But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary car, you aren't going to point B. You're still at point A.

So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it adds more busy work to the game, limits deployment options and kills the hades drill.

It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary care, you aren't going to point B.

So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it just adds more busy work to the game.

It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.

How about changing dedicated transport back to being purchased for a specific unit with the caveat that they must be deployed inside that unit? Removes the 1 character in a transport jank, stops the empty transport objective cheesing, stops the deployment fiddling and means that transports actually transport something for at least a tiny fraction of the game.

And no it not being "narratively accurate to contemporary human warfare" isn't a problem for a tournament play science fiction setting, as you're not obliged to use the tournament missions for narrative play.

Dudeface wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary care, you aren't going to point B.

So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it just adds more busy work to the game.

It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.

How about changing dedicated transport back to being purchased for a specific unit with the caveat that they must be deployed inside that unit? Removes the 1 character in a transport jank, stops the empty transport objective cheesing, stops the deployment fiddling and means that transports actually transport something for at least a tiny fraction of the game.

And no it not being "narratively accurate to contemporary human warfare" isn't a problem for a tournament play science fiction setting, as you're not obliged to use the tournament missions for narrative play.

It still won't be "transporting" anything though, unless you mandate a rule that states that the transport must move before disembarking the passengers.
Which is kind of arbitrary?
It also means that ghost arks effectively become useless as they'd need to buy an additional warrior squad, and they aren't exactly cheap to begin with. Were ghost arks a problem in tournaments?
How would such a rule stop empty transport objective cheesing? The passengers aren't always going to be in the vehicle, you know.

Here's how I would do it, based on feedback from threads -
- The transport must be assigned to a non-character infantry unit that it can transport. (This catches the LSS and character problem)

- The assigned unit must either start in the transport or be deployed within 6" of the transport. The former requirement is waived if the transport is in reserve, but the assigned unit must still be deployed in proximity to the transport when it arrives. (This catches the hades drill problem, and grants players the freedom to deploy how they want. Logically, if the transport arrives then the unit would either have to walk from the table edge with it or ride in it. If it deep strikes in the middle of the field then the unit has to be in the transport, unless you somehow want to land it right on the edge of the table.)

- The transport is deployed at the same time as the assigned unit. (This catches the multiple drop problem)

- The transport must remain within 12" of the unit at all times. If it is not within 12" at the start of its movement phase, then it must attempt to move within range, much like with the unit coherency rules. (This is to reflect the "dedicated" aspect of the transport. I'm not sure mechanized infantry would want to get too far from their ride either. 12" is because 6" seemed really restrictive, especially for assault units.)

- Transports may not hold or contest objectives.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary car, you aren't going to point B. You're still at point A.

So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it adds more busy work to the game, limits deployment options and kills the hades drill.

It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.

As I previously said, I don't really care that much one way or the other, but I certainly don't have any major problem with something that nudges transports towards being used for their intended purpose. But carry on getting as mad (about something that's already been printed and won't be changed no matter how mad about it you get on the internet) as you like I guess.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary care, you aren't going to point B.

So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it just adds more busy work to the game.

It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.

How about changing dedicated transport back to being purchased for a specific unit with the caveat that they must be deployed inside that unit? Removes the 1 character in a transport jank, stops the empty transport objective cheesing, stops the deployment fiddling and means that transports actually transport something for at least a tiny fraction of the game.

And no it not being "narratively accurate to contemporary human warfare" isn't a problem for a tournament play science fiction setting, as you're not obliged to use the tournament missions for narrative play.

It still won't be "transporting" anything though, unless you mandate a rule that states that the transport must move before disembarking the passengers.
Which is kind of arbitrary?
It also means that ghost arks effectively become useless as they'd need to buy an additional warrior squad, and they aren't exactly cheap to begin with. Were ghost arks a problem in tournaments?
How would such a rule stop empty transport objective cheesing? The passengers aren't always going to be in the vehicle, you know.

Ghost arks need to stop being a dedicated transport or have a rewrite tbh, having to deploy with the unit doesn't reduce the objective manipulation I guess, you're correct. It would alleviate some of the issues with deployment shenanigans though.

Maybe transports should have further limitations or alternatively a bonus for being occupied as well.

Dudeface wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary care, you aren't going to point B.

So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it just adds more busy work to the game.

It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.

How about changing dedicated transport back to being purchased for a specific unit with the caveat that they must be deployed inside that unit? Removes the 1 character in a transport jank, stops the empty transport objective cheesing, stops the deployment fiddling and means that transports actually transport something for at least a tiny fraction of the game.

And no it not being "narratively accurate to contemporary human warfare" isn't a problem for a tournament play science fiction setting, as you're not obliged to use the tournament missions for narrative play.

It still won't be "transporting" anything though, unless you mandate a rule that states that the transport must move before disembarking the passengers.
Which is kind of arbitrary?
It also means that ghost arks effectively become useless as they'd need to buy an additional warrior squad, and they aren't exactly cheap to begin with. Were ghost arks a problem in tournaments?
How would such a rule stop empty transport objective cheesing? The passengers aren't always going to be in the vehicle, you know.

Ghost arks need to stop being a dedicated transport or have a rewrite tbh, having to deploy with the unit doesn't reduce the objective manipulation I guess, you're correct. It would alleviate some of the issues with deployment shenanigans though.

Maybe transports should have further limitations or alternatively a bonus for being occupied as well.

Probably. I never liked the GA as a transport, tbh. Never seemed right to me. Especially when per the model, there's actually no way it can have passengers
It should probably be a fast attack choice? Or just an upgrade for a warrior squad that doesn't actually follow the FOC.

 Nazrak wrote:
But carry on getting as mad (about something that's already been printed and won't be changed no matter how mad about it you get on the internet) as you like I guess.

The Autarch says hi, btw.