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.

wyomingfox wrote:That's what I usually see...second most common is buildings with windows (that allows someone to see a... hand). Third would be low lying hills. Again, if you can see a single hand, then you can hurt the entire unit.

So make some new terrain

If you're playing at a store and using that store's terrain, talk to the owner. Explain that their terrain sucks (in a nice way, obviously) and why, and ask them to run a terrain building day... They supply some stuff, and any local players who want to get some input into what they're playing on can come along an put together some new terrain. Everyone wins.

The disembarked unit can still wipe out the assaulting unit during its own (next) shooting and assualt turn if the vehicle is destroyed.

They wouldn't be able to shoot, as they're locked in combat with the enemy that assaulted their vehicle. That's the entire point of forcing them to disembark.

5th edition forces you to consider your assaults far more carefully than previous editions did. This is just a continuation of that... The vehicle may look like a tasty, easy target, but you have to consider whether your assaulting unit also has the grunt to take on the unit inside. And that's (IMO) exactly as it should be. If their transport is being attacked by something nasty, they're not just going to sit in there waiting to see if the roof comes off... they're going to jump out and try to protect their ride home...
If the vehicle is not destroyed then they can do likewise or get back in the transport and drive off.

insaniak wrote:They wouldn't be able to shoot, as they're locked in combat with the enemy that assaulted their vehicle. That's the entire point of forcing them to disembark.

5th edition forces you to consider your assaults far more carefully than previous editions did. This is just a continuation of that... The vehicle may look like a tasty, easy target, but you have to consider whether your assaulting unit also has the grunt to take on the unit inside. And that's (IMO) exactly as it should be. If their transport is being attacked by something nasty, they're not just going to sit in there waiting to see if the roof comes off... they're going to jump out and try to protect their ride home...

Ahhh...I get it. I incorrectly thought you meant they could disembark away from the combat. But if they had to join the combat...then yeah, I think your idea would provide the balance I am looking for.

I've only started playing in 5th edition, so I can't really make any comparisons to previous editions. The only thing off the top of my head that I'd like to see gone is auto-hits on back armour in close combat. I find this to be totally ridiculous, and it makes melta bombs totally unnecessary against anything that isn't a Monolith or a Land Raider.

I'm also AMAZED as to all the responses stating that assaulting units should be made better against transports. Assaulting armies are ALREADY way more efficient at killing than shooting armies. The fact that you can LOCK your adversary in combat, forcing them to fight you on your own terms, seems to be far more effective than shooting armies where you maybe get a turn or 2 of shooting. If anything, assaulting should be nerfed, not beefed up.

insaniak wrote:I would like to see a return to Deep Strikers being placed in coherency rather than in condensed blob... the current system just makes them far too fragile, particularly without being able to assault the turn they arrive. (He says, after just having had an entire Ork Stormboyz mob destroyed in one round of shooting as they all fit nicely under the business end of a flamer template...)

This is something I don't like about deep striking. It seems like you need to deploy them in a completely useless part of the board otherwise risk getting them shot to peices. While it's powerful being able to assault the turn you arrive, it's also extremely risky deep striking into an area where you can assault that turn. Deep striking within 6" of an enemy unit is extremely ballsy and a lot of the time will end with them scattering out of assault range and getting shot to peices or scattering onto the enemy and being destroyed.

creeping-deth87 wrote:I've only started playing in 5th edition, so I can't really make any comparisons to previous editions. The only thing off the top of my head that I'd like to see gone is auto-hits on back armour in close combat. I find this to be totally ridiculous, and it makes melta bombs totally unnecessary against anything that isn't a Monolith or a Land Raider.

I'm also AMAZED as to all the responses stating that assaulting units should be made better against transports. Assaulting armies are ALREADY way more efficient at killing than shooting armies. The fact that you can LOCK your adversary in combat, forcing them to fight you on your own terms, seems to be far more effective than shooting armies where you maybe get a turn or 2 of shooting. If anything, assaulting should be nerfed, not beefed up.

None of the top armies use only assaulting.. Shooting is still more important and you use assault to mop up. Also, you dont auto hit the back armor since most people should move their vehicles

Guard, SW, BA and DE all rely on a fire base to destroy transports (or everything in the case of IG).. If anything it would be nice to see a return to an all assault list that is capable of killing things

Try playing Tau.

Kilkrazy wrote:Try playing Tau.

I agree 150%.

I want less tanks.