Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 13:13:53
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Slashing Veteran Sword Bretheren
|
I dont get it.
What is the point of putting Rhinos, Razorbacks etc. as Fast Attack choices? Especially when this is overridden by them being available to infantry in the Troops, HS section etc. as dedicated transports?
I assume this now officially *allows* you to just buy one without attachment to any squad as opposed to previously when you couldnt just buy something from the dedicated transport section without buying it through a squad?
If so, what use do Rhinos, Razorbacks etc. have when bought as FA choices except simply occupying a valuable slot? Sure, they'd allow anyone to begin the game inside them, but dont all the guys who need transports, already have options to get these?
I assume this ties nicely into the "allies can now use your transports" mechanic in 7th, so if you buy a Rhino as FA choice, it is usually to let a bunch of Ratlings ride into battle etc.?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 13:14:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 13:17:10
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
It just adds a little flexibility for the units that can't buy a transport, and while it's situational, I think it's better to have it and rarely use it than to have no option at all.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 13:44:10
Subject: Re:Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Minneapolis, MN
|
Because they want to buff Eldar even more when the new DE codex comes out. Assault transports for everyone
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 13:44:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 13:56:32
Subject: Re:Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Grey Knight Purgator firing around corners
|
DanielBeaver wrote:Because they want to buff Eldar even more when the new DE codex comes out. Assault transports for everyone 
Ummm...not the only ones getting buffed. Drop Pods for everyone thanks to SW update (perhaps most relevant to GK since they don't have any though)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 14:09:08
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
Certain heavy transports (LRs, Battlewagons...) were available as Heavy Support and dedicated transport choices before. It makes sense to have a similar option for light transports too.
|
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 15:03:53
Subject: Re:Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Minneapolis, MN
|
w0lfgang7 wrote:Ummm...not the only ones getting buffed. Drop Pods for everyone thanks to SW update (perhaps most relevant to GK since they don't have any though)
I'm being silly, but I guess my point is that every army with Battle Brothers is getting a significant buff with these changes.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 15:23:56
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Slashing Veteran Sword Bretheren
|
Just when you thought 7th edition was here to fix 6th's shenanigans.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 15:48:21
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar
|
Sir Arun wrote:Just when you thought 7th edition was here to fix 6th's shenanigans.
It’s not like every edition fixes some old shenanigans and replaces them with new ones…
Oh wait! That’s exactly what happens!
There are some nice perks for being able to buy them a la carte. You can just pick up empty pods to boost your count, or grab a spare razorback so both half of a marine squad can be in a transport. But the exploits that get opened up overwhelm the cool, fluffy, stuff you can do IMHO.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 23:02:09
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader
|
Who doesn't like the idea of Tigurius and grav cents in a pod? Oh yea, my opponents. Personally I'm happy with the change. It allows units that didn't have transports before to take one, it allows more creative lists and it makes allies better.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/29 23:19:23
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought
|
Agent_Tremolo wrote:Certain heavy transports ( LRs, Battlewagons...) were available as Heavy Support and dedicated transport choices before. It makes sense to have a similar option for light transports too.
Winner. The transition away from only Troops being able to secure objectives probably also contributed to there no longer being a need for a Dedicated Transport section.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/30 10:09:14
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian
|
How's it shenanigans? It makes total complete sense.
If the SAS picked up some american Navy Seals, the Seals wouldn't suddenly burst into flames because they boarded an SAS transport...
People in 6th also complained that you couldn't use allies transports for your squads if taking said allies. Now they are fixing that, people are complaining.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/30 10:22:55
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
'Cause consistency is for pussies.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/30 11:36:52
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
Because it lets people ally them in or bring them Unbound.
It lets the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force exist.
It lets people play Guard as ODSTs by taking SW Drop Pods and Tempestus Scions.
And so on and so forth.
|

"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/30 12:17:28
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
Furyou Miko wrote:Because it lets people ally them in or bring them Unbound.
It lets the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force exist.
It lets people play Guard as ODSTs by taking SW Drop Pods and Tempestus Scions.
And so on and so forth.
Unless your chaos, who is as usual screwed by updates to the Imperium Battle Brothers.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/30 13:26:01
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:Because it lets people ally them in or bring them Unbound.
It lets the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force exist.
It lets people play Guard as ODSTs by taking SW Drop Pods and Tempestus Scions.
And so on and so forth.
Unless your chaos, who is as usual screwed by updates to the Imperium Battle Brothers.
Put your pink horrors in a rhino and shoot out the top! Or your plaguebearers for speed! Your daemonettes in a land raider!
Or not, because the transport being exploded would probably kill more than just getting shot at!
|
warboss wrote:Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/30 13:27:54
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
I have been thinking about the trend and Howling Banshees in a Dark Eldar Raider.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 04:27:51
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
St. George, UT
|
Furyou Miko wrote:Because it lets people ally them in or bring them Unbound.
It lets the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force exist.
It lets people play Guard as ODSTs by taking SW Drop Pods and Tempestus Scions.
And so on and so forth.
And it breaks the game. For every one fluffy use of allies and its shinnanigans there are ten power breaks and abusive elements. Also there are some units that were specificslly designed and pointed as such because of their transport limitations.
|
See pics of my Orks, Tau, Emperor's Children, Necrons, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar here:

|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 04:39:01
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Nasty Nob
|
Jayden63 wrote:
And it breaks the game. For every one fluffy use of allies and its shinnanigans there are ten power breaks and abusive elements. Also there are some units that were specificslly designed and pointed as such because of their transport limitations.
Given GW's quality control, I highly doubt that any unit that was specifically designed with transport limitations is pointed correctly (as they are a subset of 'all GW units', which tend to be pointed incorrectly).
I honestly think that GW has thrown up their hands and given up on preventing power breaks or abusive elements. They want cool, fluffy armies, and it's just too much work to figure out ways to enable that without permitting all the shenanigans. Poor little dears.
In defense of these units moving to Fast Attack, though, there is a consistency to having every unit assigned a unit category (oh, wait, they didn't do it for all of them  ).
Also in defense of this, being able to take a Rhino/Razorback as a Fast Attack choice has consequences in a Battle Forged Army, in terms of limiting your selections for your detachment. And in terms of an Unbound Army, it's probably one of the least abusive things you can do.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 05:36:57
Subject: Re:Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
What's this? Share for those that live under a rock. Cite sources for verification.
|
"There is a cancer eating at the Imperium. With each decade it advances deeper, leaving drained, dead worlds in its wake. This horror, this abomination, has thought and purpose that functions on an unimaginable, galactic scale and all we can do is try to stop the swarms of bioengineered monsters it unleashes upon us by instinct. We have given the horror a name to salve our fears; we call it the Tyranid race, but if is aware of us at all it must know us only as Prey."
Hive Fleet Grootslang 15000+
Servants of the Void 2000+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 05:53:05
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Its entirely for the purposes of the 'unbound' mechanic.
All barriers to prevent models (especially high profit ones like vehicles :-p ) are being removed.
All models can be legally taken in all armies. Why should dedicated transports be exempt.
|
DFTT |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 06:58:28
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
Crazyterran wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:Because it lets people ally them in or bring them Unbound.
It lets the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force exist.
It lets people play Guard as ODSTs by taking SW Drop Pods and Tempestus Scions.
And so on and so forth.
Unless your chaos, who is as usual screwed by updates to the Imperium Battle Brothers.
Put your pink horrors in a rhino and shoot out the top! Or your plaguebearers for speed! Your daemonettes in a land raider!
Or not, because the transport being exploded would probably kill more than just getting shot at!
Still rather annoyed that CSM can't even join Daemon units, it's like they decided to cause issues between the battle brothers even though there's no horrific combinations between the two.
Also plaguebearers in rhino's would work...If they let you assault out of them, as it is it's feh, half of the CSM army still is screwed over by that horrific rule change.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 07:16:00
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
I think the reason they got rid of the dedicated transport section is because they don't want any obstacle (such as not having a unit that can go in a transport) stopping people buying a product.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 11:40:39
Subject: Re:Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian
|
They got rid of the DT in the Ork, SW and GK dexes. So the only armies that can benefit from it until other dexes come out are IoM armies as only battle brothers can board the transports.
It goes like this: either go unbound or take SW or GK allies. Take a drop pod from the fast attack section (no longer DT) put another squad inside (say grav cents/ scions/ demolitions teams etc.) Now they can use that trnasport.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 12:10:47
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator
|
Dedicated transports for everyone:
Drop Pod (SW) for Purifiers.
Combat squadded Marine unit each of which in a transport (dedicated and FA).
|
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a " " I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 12:12:52
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
Our group is already discussing the current trend and we are thinking of allowing any Dedicated Transport to be taken as a FA Choice.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 12:31:42
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Road-Raging Blood Angel Biker
|
I think its great trend it allows more open transports seemingly working together. I mean 2 armies working on the same battle field do not go hay you cannot ride in my rhino they go jump in lets go. The battle bros in 7th is the largest game change to 40k in years and now you can have Lom rolling together ect just like they actually would. They would not go o your a different chapter there for we only work together x way i mean i think the leader ship stuff needs a change as well that if your warlord in your primary is in charge the other factions do not get the bonus of the faction they are in but get some kind of bonus for the big hq's. like an army with the blood angels running Dante ( or any chapter master this is just an example) and allies with imperial guard get some type of fearless or will not run away if moral breaks. Same with other like demons with a CSM ally get some type of bonus based on the demon they are working with. Like CSM getting a bonus to winning an assault if allied with a Korne demon primary detachments.
|
Some Must Be Told. Others Must Be Shown.
Blood Angels- 15000
Dark Angels-7800
Sisters of Battle- 5000
Space Wolves- 5000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 12:43:50
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian
|
Anpu42 wrote:Our group is already discussing the current trend and we are thinking of allowing any Dedicated Transport to be taken as a FA Choice.
Thing is that means LRs can be taken as FA ( BA & BT) and wave serpents wouldn't need the DA 'tax'.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 12:49:27
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
Poly Ranger wrote: Anpu42 wrote:Our group is already discussing the current trend and we are thinking of allowing any Dedicated Transport to be taken as a FA Choice.
Thing is that means LRs can be taken as FA ( BA & BT) and wave serpents wouldn't need the DA 'tax'.
That is why we are still talking about it.
With Blood Angels we are probably going to make Lander Raiders a Heavy Choice. As far as the Wave Serpent we are not sure yet either, but we have no Eldar player so...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 13:17:32
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Road-Raging Blood Angel Biker
|
No it does not. Land raiders are a heavy look at the codex. I love people that speculate or gripe with out ever looking at new codex or anything. Land Raider are clearly maked at the top of there page as a heavy Support. So yes if you had an extra heavy slot you can field a Land raider. This is an Slightly new addition to 40k and will all be fixed when the armies get new codex's. we can speculate all we want but i would say a wave will probably be a heavy transport as well. If you go back to the Space marine codex it self it even has land raider listed as a heavy. Centurions cannot ride in a drop pod the only transport they have allowed in a LAND RAIDER period regardless of the allies involved.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/31 13:18:08
Some Must Be Told. Others Must Be Shown.
Blood Angels- 15000
Dark Angels-7800
Sisters of Battle- 5000
Space Wolves- 5000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/08/31 13:25:24
Subject: Why did GW get rid of the dedicated transport section?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Fireraven wrote:No it does not. Land raiders are a heavy look at the codex. I love people that speculate or gripe with out ever looking at new codex or anything. Land Raider are clearly maked at the top of there page as a heavy Support. So yes if you had an extra heavy slot you can field a Land raider. This is an Slightly new addition to 40k and will all be fixed when the armies get new codex's. we can speculate all we want but i would say a wave will probably be a heavy transport as well. If you go back to the Space marine codex it self it even has land raider listed as a heavy.
In the SM Codex, yes, however, BA can only take Land Raiders as a DT. They do not have access to them as a non- DT.
Centurions cannot ride in a drop pod the only transport they have allowed in a LAND RAIDER period regardless of the allies involved.
The only transport they can purchase as dedicated is a Land Raider. Nothing restricts them from embarking in other transports, except for the transport itself, such as Rhinos or Razorbacks. If you really wanted to you could have a few of them pile into an AM Chimera.
|
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia |
|
 |
 |
|