Switch Theme:

Split Embark - embarking within multiple TRANSPORTS  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Pondering this rule just because I like the image of a squad of 18 Wyches split across 3 Venoms that swoop over the battlefield in formation, or a squad of 10 Intercessors deploying from 2 Impulsors using the Assault Vehicle rule to lay down fire. Not sure if it devalues transport capacity too much, but the extra vulnerability of the transport "state" should help with that, not to mention the sheer inflexibility of manoeuvring these models so you can disembark from them properly.

Split Embark
When a unit embarks within a friendly TRANSPORT model, it can perform a split embark.
  • Instead of the entire unit embarking within a single TRANSPORT, each model in that unit can embark into any friendly TRANSPORT model that is within 3" of it.
  • Every TRANSPORT model the unit split embarks within must be within 2" horizontally and 5" vertically of another TRANSPORT model the unit is embarking within.
  • The models in a unit that performs a split embark must be divided as equally as possible between each TRANSPORT model that unit has embarked within.

  • A unit that performed a split embark follows all the normal rules for being embarked and for disembarking. When a unit that is split embarked within multiple TRANSPORT models disembarks, it does so from each TRANSPORT model it is embarked within simultaneously; set up each model from that unit within 3" of the TRANSPORT model it was embarked within and not within Engagement Range of any enemy models. Note that a disembarking unit must be set up in unit coherency, as normal; if this is not possible, remove models as though making a unit coherency check.

    If a TRANSPORT model is destroyed, only set up the models that were embarked within that specific TRANSPORT model. After rolling to see if any of these models are destroyed, the remainder of the split embarked unit can immediately disembark, as described above. If it does not, the disembarked models are destroyed.

    You can set up a unit split embarked within multiple TRANSPORT models, following the rules above. Each TRANSPORT model the unit is split embarked within must be set up simultaneously, within 2" horizontally and 5" vertically of another TRANSPORT model that the unit is embarked within. You cannot place a TRANSPORT in Strategic Reserves (or set it up anywhere other than the battlefield) if a unit is split embarked within it, unless every other TRANSPORT model the unit is split embarked within is also set up in the same way.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 17:54:17


     
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





    Hmmm. That's a pretty clean way to do it, but I still don't like it. Feels like there will inevitably be some sort of weird interaction that emerges from this. Plus, transport limitations are kind of a balancing factor for some weapon options, no? Wanting to take a dark lance in a warrior squad is one of the arguments for taking a raider.

    And narratively, it feels weird for a "squad" to be encouraged to have two transports hit the brakes so that they don't suddenly lose the five guys that were riding in a third (now destroyed) transport. If you're deploying into separate transports, you should probably just be multiple squads. If one venom has to juke left to avoid enemy fire and gets separated from the other venoms as a result, the guys inside shouldn't suddenly be less able to disembark than before.

    So this one is probably a pass for me, Revild. If you want 18 wyches in 3 venoms flying in formation, you can just... do that. With 3 wych squads. And enjoy the extra hekatrices.
    (That is a great example of why the new limitations on taking wych weapons stink though, and that's a simpler problem to solve.)



    ATTENTION
    . Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
     
       
    Made in gb
    Dakka Veteran




    Wyldhunt wrote:
    Hmmm. That's a pretty clean way to do it, but I still don't like it. Feels like there will inevitably be some sort of weird interaction that emerges from this. Plus, transport limitations are kind of a balancing factor for some weapon options, no? Wanting to take a dark lance in a warrior squad is one of the arguments for taking a raider.
    Yeah, that point about weapon options is definitely fair. Although in practice, that's 130 points (and I... guess you'd need another unit of footsloggers, since they're Dedicated Transports?) for two T5 W6 Venoms, and if either die your unit is back to walking on foot. Compared to 85 for one T6 W10 Raider. It's not like you're getting that extra capacity for free.

    Wyldhunt wrote:
    And narratively, it feels weird for a "squad" to be encouraged to have two transports hit the brakes so that they don't suddenly lose the five guys that were riding in a third (now destroyed) transport. If you're deploying into separate transports, you should probably just be multiple squads. If one venom has to juke left to avoid enemy fire and gets separated from the other venoms as a result, the guys inside shouldn't suddenly be less able to disembark than before.
    Well, that's the idea behind being able to remove the models that were in the destroyed transport, rather than being forced to disembark; the other guys are just... left behind, or scattered, or lost in the crash. It's a necessary abstraction, if you're doing it like this; otherwise you'd basically need mid-game Combat Squads/Consolidate Squads on everyone. Which I don't have a problem with, in theory, but it'd get complicated fast.

    Wyldhunt wrote:
    (That is a great example of why the new limitations on taking wych weapons stink though, and that's a simpler problem to solve.)

  • For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Wych's splinter pistol and Hekatarii blade can be replaced with one of the following: 1 hydra gauntlets; 1 razorflails; 1 shardnet and impaler.
  • For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Wych's splinter pistol and Hekatarii blade can be replaced with one of the following: 1 hydra gauntlets; 1 razorflails; 1 shardnet and impaler.

  • There, done.
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





    RevlidRas wrote:

    Wyldhunt wrote:
    And narratively, it feels weird for a "squad" to be encouraged to have two transports hit the brakes so that they don't suddenly lose the five guys that were riding in a third (now destroyed) transport. If you're deploying into separate transports, you should probably just be multiple squads. If one venom has to juke left to avoid enemy fire and gets separated from the other venoms as a result, the guys inside shouldn't suddenly be less able to disembark than before.
    Well, that's the idea behind being able to remove the models that were in the destroyed transport, rather than being forced to disembark; the other guys are just... left behind, or scattered, or lost in the crash. It's a necessary abstraction, if you're doing it like this; otherwise you'd basically need mid-game Combat Squads/Consolidate Squads on everyone. Which I don't have a problem with, in theory, but it'd get complicated fast.

    Exactly. Ditching guys from a split embarked squad that would just continue to fight in a normal squad feels like a weird consequence that is tricky to justify in-universe. So rather than adding the complexity of the split embarkation rules, I'd rather just leave things as they are. If I want to put 20 guys into two raiders, I can fluff it as them all being part of the same blade/circle, but mechanically they're just separate units. (The only weirdness comes with some weapons not being available to two 5 man squads that are available to a single 10 man squad, but that's a relatively minor bit of fluff-crunch dissonance compared to losing 6 dudes out of a venom that would have kept fighting if they were their own unit.)


    Wyldhunt wrote:
    (That is a great example of why the new limitations on taking wych weapons stink though, and that's a simpler problem to solve.)

  • For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Wych's splinter pistol and Hekatarii blade can be replaced with one of the following: 1 hydra gauntlets; 1 razorflails; 1 shardnet and impaler.
  • For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Wych's splinter pistol and Hekatarii blade can be replaced with one of the following: 1 hydra gauntlets; 1 razorflails; 1 shardnet and impaler.

  • There, done.

    Absolutley. Very curious as to why they changed it to something more arbitrarily limiting in the latest codex. Trying to cut down on razorflail or shardnet spam maybe?

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/05 06:08:52



    ATTENTION
    . Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
     
       
    Made in gb
    Dakka Veteran




    Wyldhunt wrote:

    Absolutley. Very curious as to why they changed it to something more arbitrarily limiting in the latest codex. Trying to cut down on razorflail or shardnet spam maybe?
    Exact same reason as the insanely arbitrary Plague Marine weapon options in 9e: it's what comes in a single box.
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
    Go to: