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.

Does all the deep strike and movement stratagems etc. everyone is getting devalue transports?

transports are more for protection than actual movement in this edition. Deep strike is superior to a transport if you want to get close to the enemy quickly.

Perhaps the Imperium will start deploying Rhinos without tracks to save some money.

 Cmdr_Sune wrote:
Perhaps the Imperium will start deploying Rhinos without tracks to save some money.

They forgot how to make those.



Grav-Rhinos were used by the Custodes (and a few others) in the past. There don't seem to be any left.

"Does anyone remember where we parked our last grav-rhino, anyone?"

Some transports are also relatively self sufficient damage dealers. Asscan razorbacks and immoflamers are plenty useful even empty.

There are tons of units which cannot Deep Strike, even with stratagems so transports are still necessary to protect from alpha-striking silliness.

Grenadier Centaurs would beg to differ. Got a blob, fine I will just ram it.

 Elbows wrote:
There are tons of units which cannot Deep Strike, even with stratagems so transports are still necessary to protect from alpha-striking silliness.

Well, that is kind of the point. Transports are used as bunkers in order to limit drops and protect against alpha-strikes. It is much rarer that transports are used for actually transporting stuff.

That's more of the fact that this game makes it super easy for even infantry units to cover distance really quickly. Transports wouldn't really be rushing into combat anyway

Even when someone uses an actual transport it's almost always for one turn only - advance and then disgorge the next turn. This could be changed if we didn't play on small 6'x'4' boards though.

I’m fond of manuever intense games myself, so I wish that deepstrike was a lot rarer than it is now (not necessarily harder to pull off, but just that a lot fewer units had access to it/was more expensive).

Likewise, I’d like to see more games have turn 1 and turn 2 be about jockeying for position - and position to really matter more.

Unfortunately, it seems players want the game to start with a bang - if you aren’t killing half the enemy army in the first turn, the game is boring. And then disheartened the game is over by the third turn.

Transports are...expensive in this edition, by and large. Most do not seem to provide value equal to thay cost. I certainly dont see many roles for Devilfish or Chimeras. Deep Strike and Movement stratagems are definitely better options. Many transport reliant units are sitting on the sidelines this edition.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Transports are...expensive in this edition, by and large. Most do not seem to provide value equal to thay cost. I certainly dont see many roles for Devilfish or Chimeras. Deep Strike and Movement stratagems are definitely better options. Many transport reliant units are sitting on the sidelines this edition.

Thats because Devilfish and Chimeras suck. Rhinos are usefull and good. Razorbacks and Tauroxes Primes are good (Ok, more a shooting platform but they still do their job as transports very well, I always put Company Veterans in my razorbacks), etc...

 Elbows wrote:
That's more of the fact that this game makes it super easy for even infantry units to cover distance really quickly. Transports wouldn't really be rushing into combat anyway

Even when someone uses an actual transport it's almost always for one turn only - advance and then disgorge the next turn. This could be changed if we didn't play on small 6'x'4' boards though.

I don't think so. A bigger board means more long range shooting, more indirect fire, and more aircraft. Shuttling troops across the board in rhinos is not made more viable when the rhino has to survive one or two additional turns of fire.

 Stormonu wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems players want the game to start with a bang - if you aren’t killing half the enemy army in the first turn, the game is boring. And then disheartened the game is over by the third turn.

And players want games to go faster. Since indiviudal turn didn't really speed up in new edition how the speed up was done was done by making sure you don't play as much turns as before and post 1st turn models left are fewer.

As it is models are just glorified wound counters most of the time. Marking where they are is of lesser concern.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pismakron wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That's more of the fact that this game makes it super easy for even infantry units to cover distance really quickly. Transports wouldn't really be rushing into combat anyway

Even when someone uses an actual transport it's almost always for one turn only - advance and then disgorge the next turn. This could be changed if we didn't play on small 6'x'4' boards though.

I don't think so. A bigger board means more long range shooting, more indirect fire, and more aircraft. Shuttling troops across the board in rhinos is not made more viable when the rhino has to survive one or two additional turns of fire.

That assumes board is type billiard board. And that terrain rules suck(like they do in 8th). Fix those(and limit indirect fire. Especially anti-tank ones. Historically indirect artirelly hasn't been super good tank busting) and issue dissapears.

GW made 8th ed so that things are hard to protect. But that's GW's mistake.

tneva82 wrote:

That assumes board is type billiard board. And that terrain rules suck(like they do in 8th). Fix those(and limit indirect fire. Especially anti-tank ones. Historically indirect artirelly hasn't been super good tank busting) and issue dissapears.

In reality artillery is excellent at tank-busting though: https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

They seem to be less about transport and more about numbers of drops, and more generally, first-turn insurance...

As long as they fulfill a role.

I see Zerkers in rhinos sometimes. Wave Serpents are another one I see pop up also.

Open-topped transports are still quite good: venoms, raiders, strarweavers, repressors etc.
It's mostly because they protect the shooting unit, but their mobility is still required.

 Cmdr_Sune wrote:
"Does anyone remember where we parked our last grav-rhino, anyone?"

That reminds me of quite possibly the best line ever in a GW novel:

‘If those are Rhinos,’ Warfist said, ‘why are they flying?’

(from Watchers in Death)

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

That assumes board is type billiard board. And that terrain rules suck(like they do in 8th). Fix those(and limit indirect fire. Especially anti-tank ones. Historically indirect artirelly hasn't been super good tank busting) and issue dissapears.

In reality artillery is excellent at tank-busting though: https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

Effective yes, but I don't know about excellent. The best they could say about number of rounds needed to damage something was that if they fired 50 rounds at a stationary tank battalion, they would probably damage more than one tank. Their test against a dug in mechanized infantry unit used 2600 155mm rounds. And that was for 50% destruction.

From an Eldar perspective, there's Webway Strike, Matchless Agility, Phantasm, Quicken, Falcon's Swiftness, Faolchu's Wing, infiltrating Rangers (and Illic Nightspear), outflanking War Walkers, deepstriking Scorpions (and Karandras), Hawks (and Baharroth) and Spiders, Battle Focus, Banshees and Harlequins with high movement that can also advance and charge, Windriders, Vypers, Crimson Hunters and Hemlocks everywhere. I don't feel that transports are necessary in normal sized games anymore.

craftworld_uk wrote:
From an Eldar perspective, there's Webway Strike, Matchless Agility, Phantasm, Quicken, Falcon's Swiftness, Faolchu's Wing, infiltrating Rangers (and Illic Nightspear), outflanking War Walkers, deepstriking Scorpions (and Karandras), Hawks (and Baharroth) and Spiders, Battle Focus, Banshees and Harlequins with high movement that can also advance and charge, Windriders, Vypers, Crimson Hunters and Hemlocks everywhere. I don't feel that transports are necessary in normal sized games anymore.

I agree, it's only transports that outperform other vehicles in price/performance that are mostly used (in an competetive environment). Examples of these are Waveserpents, Razorbacks and Stormravens.

I do think that transports such as Rhinos and drop pods still have their uses, but perhaps not in a competetive min max list.
Someone at LVO will probably prove me wrong and win with an all Drop pod and Rhino army

 Flinty wrote:

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

That assumes board is type billiard board. And that terrain rules suck(like they do in 8th). Fix those(and limit indirect fire. Especially anti-tank ones. Historically indirect artirelly hasn't been super good tank busting) and issue dissapears.

In reality artillery is excellent at tank-busting though: https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

Effective yes, but I don't know about excellent. The best they could say about number of rounds needed to damage something was that if they fired 50 rounds at a stationary tank battalion, they would probably damage more than one tank. Their test against a dug in mechanized infantry unit used 2600 155mm rounds. And that was for 50% destruction.

And with single manticore firing 4 rounds during battle...

Yes sustained artirelly can damage stuff. 40k battles are very short time though. Artirelly doesn't fire 50 rounds. And they aren't targetting battallions or even companies but reinforced squadrons at best

Personally i prefer to use the deep strike stratagems due to the transport rules.
For me its bs that if i want to disermbark my unit i have to get out after the transport before it moves.
Ultimately gw done goofed

In older editions it used to be you could exit your transport before the transport moved and then move both the transport and unit or you could move the transport and have the unit exit but not move. I can't recall how you could charge out of a landraider but that's where assault launchers came into the game.

I still think they are valuable, but as other's have stated only as gun platforms or protection for a turn or 2. I've had a few games where the mounted units made a full speed charge across the table to capture an objective, but mostly it's been hop out early and start shooting. At 2k points I've been running:

IG
2 Chimeras with veterans
1 Taurox with veterans

Dark Angels
1 Rhino with Azrael and some bodyguards
2 Assault Cannon Razorbacks with tactical squads

Sister's of Battle
1 Rhino with Canoness and some bodyguards
1 Immolator with BSS
2 Immolators with Dominions
All the Immolators are the flame version.

Grey Knights
1 Assault Cannon Razorback with Strikes
2 Lascannon Razorbacks with Strikes
1 Stormraven with nobody on board

I am not using tons of deep striking units in my lists. I'm bringing 2 Scion squads and a Tempestor for the IG. With the Grey Knights it's a squad of Paladin's, Voldus, and a GMDK.

Overall with the point increases I'm seeing about 2-3 less vehicles in my lists than in previous editions.

I've been using multimelta and flamer immolators, and they've been transporting my units.


Transports are definitely solid. The "problem" is that units are either not interested in going towards the enemy or already are equipped with the means to get there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

That assumes board is type billiard board. And that terrain rules suck(like they do in 8th). Fix those(and limit indirect fire. Especially anti-tank ones. Historically indirect artirelly hasn't been super good tank busting) and issue dissapears.

In reality artillery is excellent at tank-busting though: https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

Effective yes, but I don't know about excellent. The best they could say about number of rounds needed to damage something was that if they fired 50 rounds at a stationary tank battalion, they would probably damage more than one tank. Their test against a dug in mechanized infantry unit used 2600 155mm rounds. And that was for 50% destruction.

Artillery is highly effective against armor. As that document said, a single artillery round is pretty much all it takes, even with a near miss, to mission-kill a tank. However, because artillery is firing NLoS from 20 miles away, it takes quite a few shells to get your one hit.

Part of the change is that transports got a lot more expensive. Drop pods are no longer a cheap upgrade to give something DS but a serious investment that is outclassed by other options. It’s cheaper to buy a Weirdboy to teleport a mob of orks in than to buy trukks and taxi them across the board.