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.

So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

Can someone explain why this is? The whole point of a mechanized company is to be flexible - embarked upon the transports when necessary (say, when conducting a mobile defense or in the offense in open ground) and dismounted when necessary (basically everything infantry is useful for).

What is the logic of this rules change? Have empty transports been a problem?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

Can someone explain why this is? The whole point of a mechanized company is to be flexible - embarked upon the transports when necessary (say, when conducting a mobile defense or in the offense in open ground) and dismounted when necessary (basically everything infantry is useful for).

What is the logic of this rules change? Have empty transports been a problem?

Because apparently gunboats and multiple deployment drops are a problem, and in true GW fashion they fixed it with the elegance and finesse of a epileptic rhino in shop full of fine china.

It seems now that in the grim darkness of the far future, every transport vehicle driver, be they Human, Eldar, Tau, Ork or Necron, now has abandonment issues and will detonate their transport in a fit of panic if they don't have a buddy holding their hand when the battle starts.

I didn't know that was a problem.

Next question: do the army construction rules (6CP starting +2 CP per turn, free SHA detachments, and this weird DT thing) apply to Crusade?

If not, whose Army Construction rules do you use when playing a Matched Play army against a Crusade army?

If only there was a way of having it so that a DEDICATED transport was bought for a specific unit, and not just any old ransoms.
Hmmm...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only there was a way of having it so that a DEDICATED transport was bought for a specific unit, and not just any old ransoms.
Hmmm...

You know it makes sense somehow.

It's a bit orthogonal to the point though -even in earlier editions, a unit that bought a DT wasn't FORCED to employ it if game conditions were not conducive.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only there was a way of having it so that a DEDICATED transport was bought for a specific unit, and not just any old ransoms.
Hmmm...

Yeah, the "dedicated" in dedicated transport used to have meaning. Now it's just a holdover from earlier editions.
It should really just be called "transport" these days.
It should probably belong to a slot type of its own instead of that silly convention of "you can have one for each unit of infantry. Including characters. You know, the guys that come in a unit size of 1."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I didn't know that was a problem.

Next question: do the army construction rules (6CP starting +2 CP per turn, free SHA detachments, and this weird DT thing) apply to Crusade?

If not, whose Army Construction rules do you use when playing a Matched Play army against a Crusade army?

The basic Matched stuff is what I used to do. Refund the core (not that I took more than one detachment anyway), whatever the starting CP is then +1 or whatever for each turn. Remember that the Tournament packs are not how you have to play Matched, we never used them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I didn't know that was a problem.

Next question: do the army construction rules (6CP starting +2 CP per turn, free SHA detachments, and this weird DT thing) apply to Crusade?

Nope.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If not, whose Army Construction rules do you use when playing a Matched Play army against a Crusade army?

I'd say it depends upon the mission being played. Afterall, it's the mission pack that tells you to muster a Matched Play/Crusade/etc type force.
Your matched play forces will automatically fit in Crusade. Nothings stopping you from following Ro3, flyer limitations, etc.... Just don't assume the Crusade player feels bound by them.
Some Crusade forces might have problems if forced to deploy under Matched Play restrictions though.

Since that sledgehammer of a rule arrived I've had people tell me with a straight face that:

1. There is no other reason to bring transports than to move troops up the table to objectives, so if you're not doing that you don't need transports.

2. That having empty transports is "abusing the rules".

3. IFVs do not support infantry lines, they only transport troops, and its proper tanks that support infantry.

4. That fixing the rules for specific problematic transports would be like playing "whack a mole" and that, as a result, it is just far easier to apply this rule to all transports.

Apparently this massive epidemic of killer abusive empty transports got by all of us!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Next question: do the army construction rules (6CP starting +2 CP per turn, free SHA detachments, and this weird DT thing) apply to Crusade?

If not, whose Army Construction rules do you use when playing a Matched Play army against a Crusade army?

To the first question, no- like many of the other problematic "For Balance" rules (Aircraft limit, no mixing subfactions, Ro3] these are matched play only.

The second question is harder, and will require conversation. Generally, I'd say it goes with the mission you are using, but you could flip for it or hybridize depending on your opponent.

This is another flaw with Crusade that you have identified in the past with which I actually agree- it doesn't integrate as smoothly into other modes of play as GW claims it does. Another area for improvement.

wait, thats a thing? What were the problematic datasheet?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Since that sledgehammer of a rule arrived I've had people tell me with a straight face that:

1. There is no other reason to bring transports than to move troops up the table to objectives, so if you're not doing that you don't need transports.

2. That having empty transports is "abusing the rules".

3. IFVs do not support infantry lines, they only transport troops, and its proper tanks that support infantry.

4. That fixing the rules for specific problematic transports would be like playing "whack a mole" and that, as a result, it is just far easier to apply this rule to all transports.

Apparently this massive epidemic of killer abusive empty transports got by all of us!

I hope you laughed in their faces.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3. IFVs do not support infantry lines, they only transport troops, and its proper tanks that support infantry.

*Laughs in Bradley*

ccs wrote:
I hope you laughed in their faces.

Some of them post here, and to do so would break Rule #1, so sadly no.

I know lots of folks have been taking empty Land Speeder storms (without scouts in their army), as they are cheap and fast, but I've not really seen anyone else taking transports without troops to go in them.

I'd be fine with each transport needing to belong to a unit in the army which can ride in it, but being destroyed if not actively transporting a unit pre-game is a bit much.

PenitentJake wrote:

The second question is harder, and will require conversation. Generally, I'd say it goes with the mission you are using, but you could flip for it or hybridize depending on your opponent.

This is another flaw with Crusade that you have identified in the past with which I actually agree- it doesn't integrate as smoothly into other modes of play as GW claims it does. Another area for improvement.

Other than occasionally the Ro3 it did mesh fairly smoothly. Until they started mucking around with Matched play that is...

I just hope modern IFV crews are aware that if they drop their troops off more than a hundred yards from the enemy, their vehicle will break down.

It's in the Matched Play rules, you see.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just hope modern IFV crews are aware that if they drop their troops off more than a hundred yards from the enemy, their vehicle will break down.

Umm, Unit, don't you know that 40k is an abstraction and not a simulation! (/nonsensical argument)

 jaredb wrote:
I know lots of folks have been taking empty Land Speeder storms (without scouts in their army), as they are cheap and fast, but I've not really seen anyone else taking transports without troops to go in them.

I am trying to think of any other examples and struggling. Why would you take a Wave Serpent over a Falcon if you don't need the extra transport capacity? I guess there might be some armies that run out of slots before they run out of points and that is going to increase now that we get fewer CPs to buy detachments with.

I sometimes used to take TLAC Razorbacks in 8th and not bother putting anyone inside as they were cheap and provided a lot of dakka but Redemptors are better value for the same job in 9th and can hit hard in melee is necessary.

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3. IFVs do not support infantry lines, they only transport troops, and its proper tanks that support infantry.

*Laughs in Bradley*

i am so tempted to just start posting pics of IFV's... or pointing out that it IS often considered in mobile warfare doctrine as the main weapon of mechanized infantry (what with normally it having large calibre autoguns (cough f.e. chimera) and antitank launcher capabilities (cough f.e. chimera and seeker missiles..))..

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

Can someone explain why this is? The whole point of a mechanized company is to be flexible - embarked upon the transports when necessary (say, when conducting a mobile defense or in the offense in open ground) and dismounted when necessary (basically everything infantry is useful for).

What is the logic of this rules change? Have empty transports been a problem?

It's the exact type of "narrative" change you've been advocating for for a while now; transports being forced to be used as transports and all. I kind of assumed you wrote the rule considering it fits your 'real wargame' shtick perfectly.

But hey, someone at GW is listening to you! That's great right? Next they'll add back that whole 'small shrubs kill tanks' rule you're so fond of.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3. IFVs do not support infantry lines, they only transport troops, and its proper tanks that support infantry.

*Laughs in Bradley*

i am so tempted to just start posting pics of IFV's... or pointing out that it IS often considered in mobile warfare doctrine as the main weapon of mechanized infantry (what with normally it having large calibre autoguns (cough f.e. chimera) and antitank launcher capabilities (cough f.e. chimera and seeker missiles..))..

Yeah, the IFV stands for "Infantry FIGHTING Vehicle".
It doesn't stand for "taxi." IFVs fight too.

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

Can someone explain why this is? The whole point of a mechanized company is to be flexible - embarked upon the transports when necessary (say, when conducting a mobile defense or in the offense in open ground) and dismounted when necessary (basically everything infantry is useful for).

What is the logic of this rules change? Have empty transports been a problem?

It's the exact type of "narrative" change you've been advocating for for a while now; transports being forced to be used as transports and all. I kind of assumed you wrote the rule considering it fits your 'real wargame' shtick perfectly.

But hey, someone at GW is listening to you! That's great right? Next they'll add back that whole 'small shrubs kill tanks' rule you're so fond of.

What?

This is nonsense. Forcing troops to begin the game embarked on their transport is not a rule made for narrative reasons.

Furthermore, I certainly don't support it (obviously). Because it isn't narratively supportable.

Neither is 'small shrubs kill tanks', despite your attempted straw man of my position. I would protest strongly against a gaming group calling a small shrub difficult terrain for a tank. I do think that tanks should have a chance to bog down in terrain that is actually difficult for them to traverse though.

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

Can someone explain why this is? The whole point of a mechanized company is to be flexible - embarked upon the transports when necessary (say, when conducting a mobile defense or in the offense in open ground) and dismounted when necessary (basically everything infantry is useful for).

What is the logic of this rules change? Have empty transports been a problem?

It's the exact type of "narrative" change you've been advocating for for a while now; transports being forced to be used as transports and all. I kind of assumed you wrote the rule considering it fits your 'real wargame' shtick perfectly.

But hey, someone at GW is listening to you! That's great right? Next they'll add back that whole 'small shrubs kill tanks' rule you're so fond of.

Explain how a vehicle spontaneously exploding if it has no passengers when the battle starts, which is also assuming that the soldiers are always in their transport instead of outside of it when the fighting starts, either because they're taken by surprise or getting in position to engage the enemy, is "narrative".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

Can someone explain why this is? The whole point of a mechanized company is to be flexible - embarked upon the transports when necessary (say, when conducting a mobile defense or in the offense in open ground) and dismounted when necessary (basically everything infantry is useful for).

What is the logic of this rules change? Have empty transports been a problem?

It's the exact type of "narrative" change you've been advocating for for a while now; transports being forced to be used as transports and all. I kind of assumed you wrote the rule considering it fits your 'real wargame' shtick perfectly.

But hey, someone at GW is listening to you! That's great right? Next they'll add back that whole 'small shrubs kill tanks' rule you're so fond of.

What?

This is nonsense. Forcing troops to begin the game embarked on their transport is not a rule made for narrative reasons.

Furthermore, I certainly don't support it (obviously). Because it isn't narratively supportable.

Neither is 'small shrubs kill tanks', despite your attempted straw man of my position. I would protest strongly against a gaming group calling a small shrub difficult terrain for a tank. I do think that tanks should have a chance to bog down in terrain that is actually difficult for them to traverse though.

Yeah, isn't it marshland, forests or mud that can stop tanks? I don't think a tank is going to care about a shrubbery. Maybe if we're talking about the bocage from ww2, and those were about 5 meters tall.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Explain how a vehicle spontaneously exploding if it has no passengers when the battle starts, which is also assuming that the soldiers are always in their transport instead of outside of it when the fighting starts, either because they're taken by surprise or getting in position to engage the enemy, is "narrative".

He won't be able to. He just came in here to have a go at Unit.

 Karhedron wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I know lots of folks have been taking empty Land Speeder storms (without scouts in their army), as they are cheap and fast, but I've not really seen anyone else taking transports without troops to go in them.

I am trying to think of any other examples and struggling. Why would you take a Wave Serpent over a Falcon if you don't need the extra transport capacity? I guess there might be some armies that run out of slots before they run out of points and that is going to increase now that we get fewer CPs to buy detachments with.

I sometimes used to take TLAC Razorbacks in 8th and not bother putting anyone inside as they were cheap and provided a lot of dakka but Redemptors are better value for the same job in 9th and can hit hard in melee is necessary.

wave serpents are better than falcons, thats why

It is because GW is a student of the war in Ukraine and BTGs deploying short staffed with only enough men in a squad to crew the BMP with no dismounts have been somewhat ineffective. So same situation must apply here

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

wave serpents are better than falcons, thats why

In 8th, sure. In 9th edition, not so much. Wave Serpents may be tougher but Falcons carry more guns and can Deep Strike in like Drop Pods. I only bring Wave Serpents for my Wraithguard these days. If I want a gunboat, I would sooner take a Falcon.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
It is because GW is a student of the war in Ukraine and BTGs deploying short staffed with only enough men in a squad to crew the BMP with no dismounts have been somewhat ineffective. So same situation must apply here

Doesn't the DT rule at launch force you to have infantry for the tank? Even if it is just one character...

...which this rule doesn't fix. Now that character just has to start embarked.

 Karhedron wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I know lots of folks have been taking empty Land Speeder storms (without scouts in their army), as they are cheap and fast, but I've not really seen anyone else taking transports without troops to go in them.

I am trying to think of any other examples and struggling. Why would you take a Wave Serpent over a Falcon if you don't need the extra transport capacity? I guess there might be some armies that run out of slots before they run out of points and that is going to increase now that we get fewer CPs to buy detachments with.

For the argument of Wave Serpent over Falcons, the Wave Serpent is equal to troop choices whereas the Falcon is limited to the Heavy Slots(which tends to be less. F.ex. last GT I ran 4 Wave Serpent Gunboats whereas I only would have 3 Heavy Slots in a battalion. For the record I was also running 2x10 people Howling Banshees in 2 serpents so they get an extra 3" deployment range from the transport.