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.

Martel732 wrote:
"Your argument of "terrain isn;t going to solve a problem of IGOUGO, only AA will" has no basis on discounting the effect of terrain in the game and shrugging it off as "that's a different issue". If things don;t have line of sight, it cannot shoot against the target. This effectively cuts the lethality/power creep in the game, just like how the scariest melee unit doesn't mean a thing if it can't get within melee range."

Unless you are facing IG artillery battery. Then terrain completely backfires on you.

Right, which is a build specifically built around the effects of terrain which I think is a fair game. It also gives meaning to weapons that ignore TLOS.

Are those IG LOS-ignoring weapons costed fairly? Now THAT'S a whole different issue.

Given that they don't really pay a surplus for the ability, I don't think its that fair.

 Lance845 wrote:

Sure. Lets be on topic.

IGOUGO is not on-topic for "Should we allow Drop Pods some way to land in the first turn."

 Lance845 wrote:

Past editions were less lethal. So we either start cutting specific models and wargear from play or you deal with the reality of the lethality of 40k.

Alpha strikes are a problem. And they are caused by igougo.

If the lethality of alpha strikes is a problem, and previous editions were less lethal, then igougo is not the problem, because previous editions were igougo.

 Argive wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Flyrants ruined your fun.

I don't want it to be game-winning or anything, just a little extra something to potentially help me seize battle initiative, first strike, position or make the opponent be a bit more defensive if they go first.

sounds like you want an advantage others dont get = wanting to be gamewinning to me.

Lots of armies get advantages that other armies get. That seems pretty obvious.

 Argive wrote:
SM are not that bad.

Never said they were. I think they're pretty solid, overall. However, the Drop Pod seems to be very unpopular right now, and I'm just looking for a way to address that because it's a cool model and an iconic unit.

 Argive wrote:

SM are fine as they are and will only get more units and stuff because GW... So just wait 6months and you'll get some new OP shiny while the rest of us are pushing 15+ year old model scultps around..

I don't want a new model, I want the model that I have to be a bit more useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Your argument of "terrain isn;t going to solve a problem of IGOUGO, only AA will" has no basis on discounting the effect of terrain in the game and shrugging it off as "that's a different issue". If things don;t have line of sight, it cannot shoot against the target. This effectively cuts the lethality/power creep in the game, just like how the scariest melee unit doesn't mean a thing if it can't get within melee range."

Unless you are facing IG artillery battery. Then terrain completely backfires on you.

Right, which is a build specifically built around the effects of terrain which I think is a fair game. It also gives meaning to weapons that ignore TLOS.

Are those IG LOS-ignoring weapons costed fairly? Now THAT'S a whole different issue.

@both

In my mind the right unit vs. indirect artillery should be Aircraft. A weird space exists right now where Basilisks and the like are firing indirect artillery at planes, which kinda stinks. Now that Aircraft has become a keyword, it'd be nice to see some units be bad at firing at them. Like I'd give things like Basilisks an additional -1 to hit Aircraft, for example. Maybe LR BattleCannons too. Likewise, Flamers shouldn't be an anti-air weapon.

Anyways, that's off topic, but just giving my thoughts.

My argument is that terrain is a FEATURE of any given game just like match or mission type. It should be able to vary wildly and the game should still function.

The argument that terrain fixes it relies on building what amounts to mono set up tables optimized to minimize the impact of the games own rules on itself.

Without terrain the game should work. With terrain the game should work. In swamps with little los blocking terrain, in a hilly grass land, in the streets of a ruined city, the game should work.

If you NEED specific types and amounts of terrain or the whole game falls apart, then i am asking what is it about the games basic structure that causes that?

 Lance845 wrote:
My argument is that terrain is a FEATURE of any given game just like match or mission type. It should be able to vary wildly and the game should still function.

The argument that terrain fixes it relies on building what amounts to mono set up tables optimized to minimize the impact of the games own rules on itself.

Without terrain the game should work. With terrain the game should work. In swamps with little los blocking terrain, in a hilly grass land, in the streets of a ruined city, the game should work.

If you NEED specific types and amounts of terrain or the whole game falls apart, then i am asking what is it about the games basic structure that causes that?

Imagine playing monopoly without the board. Or, say, Catan without board.

In fact, the above games both have a card game version that does not require the board to play, but at the end of the day, they're a different games themed after it's original board game form.

Terrain-less 40k is bland, doesn't need to take TLOS into consideration, and all you need is measurement from 1 model to another. It's essentially the vacuum space that we all like to theory craft in - what would happen if pitted together unit A and unit B without any intervening factors?

Terrain is very much part of the game that is largely ignored for the most part.

To tie this back to the original topic, alpha strikes via deepstrike needs it's offensive capabilities curtailed. Currently, deep strike is too surgical and too deadly. They arrive (well, used to) exactly when you need them and exactly where you want them with the only form of retaliation is a stratagem that lets you shoot them with -1 to hit or your army has access to cheap board coverage to block it from happening. It's not a fair trade off because 1. the potential damage output of deep striking units aren't properly balanced out with risks 2. not all armies have access to cheap board coverage.

How would terrain help with that? Well, 1. at least you're partially covered from the deployed army that you're not being pummeled by the entirety of your opponent's army 2. terrain can serve as board coverage.

Were not talking about playing without a board. Were talking about a game feature that is meant to be varried, variable, and run a spectrum of effects on the game.

And your argument is we need to make specific amounts and kinds of that MANDATORY to gloss over issues that arise from the games core mechanics.

I didnt say dont have terrain. I didnt say dont have a board. I said we shouldnt need specific terrain to be the crutch that holds the game up.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Lots of armies get advantages that other armies get. That seems pretty obvious.

Ok... ok... ok.. Just so Its crystal clear. Not all armies should be the same nor have acess to the same options/gear. E.G. Tau are not good at CC khorne are not good at shooty.

What you are asking for is a core rule circumventing snowlfake gimmick that only applies only to your faction.
Ynnari had that for ages with double shooting activation and how much grief did that cause? It was stupid and should have been nerfed a long time ago. Dont thinkt here were any people (even among ynari players) that didin't see their rules as a bit too much...

1. Can you play with your drop pod in a game of 40k? Yes.

2. Is your drop pod competative? Maybe yes maybe not, leaning towards not.

Every book has maaaaaany data sheets that are not competitive. SM has more crappy units than some books have total entries.


Now if you were advocating very limited turn 1 DS availability across all codexes.....

 Argive wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Lots of armies get advantages that other armies get. That seems pretty obvious.

Ok... ok... ok.. Just so Its crystal clear. Not all armies should be the same nor have acess to the same options/gear. E.G. Tau are not good at CC khorne are not good at shooty.

What you are asking for is a core rule circumventing snowlfake gimmick that only applies only to your faction.
Ynnari had that for ages with double shooting activation and how much grief did that cause? It was stupid and should have been nerfed a long time ago. Dont thinkt here were any people (even among ynari players) that didin't see their rules as a bit too much...

1. Can you play with your drop pod in a game of 40k? Yes.

2. Is your drop pod competative? Maybe yes maybe not, leaning towards not.

Every book has maaaaaany data sheets that are not competitive. SM has more crappy units than some books have total entries.


Now if you were advocating very limited turn 1 DS availability across all codexes.....

Your argument appears to be based entirely on principle, but isn't really specifically addressing the proposed rule. LOTS of armies get abilities that other armies don't get. Tyranids, for example, can Deep Strike buildings on to the board before the first turn, and these buildings can spawn new units. In fact Tyranids can create and replace units in a number of ways. Doing this doesn't break the game, is not unfair, and is fairly unique to their army. So arguing based on principle itself doesnt appear to be valid, in my view.

You say you play Eldar. You have a unit that ignores hit modifiers. I don't think anyone else has that ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
My argument is that terrain is a FEATURE of any given game just like match or mission type. It should be able to vary wildly and the game should still function.

The argument that terrain fixes it relies on building what amounts to mono set up tables optimized to minimize the impact of the games own rules on itself.

Without terrain the game should work. With terrain the game should work. In swamps with little los blocking terrain, in a hilly grass land, in the streets of a ruined city, the game should work.

If you NEED specific types and amounts of terrain or the whole game falls apart, then i am asking what is it about the games basic structure that causes that?

Lots of high power, ranged weapons, but still an expectation that maneuverability will serve a purpose. Non IGOUGO doesnt inherently give importance of maneuverability, but terrain does. Alternating activations on a flat table will just emphasize immobile cannons.

When did I mention maneuverability in that? When did I say a flat table in that? Where are ANY of you getting the assumption that I have ever suggested we play a game on a flat plane with no terrain features? I never said that what I want was no terrain. Or that the terrain rules we have are good. I said that terrain isn't the way to fix what IGOUGO causes.

@insectum. Admittedly I have never seen anyone play with nids building. Its the first I have ever come across this. Is that some FW stuff?? Is it a narrative gimmick?? I cant see anything on GW/FW websites that matches what you are describing.

Forgive me but I have to assume its some trash tier fringe models thats OOP in an index somewhere and never gets used and there's maybe like 10 in the world.

Maybe its just my own inexperience due to nobody having one ta my local club but I have never seen one on a battle report.


And regarding reapers... The entire ork codex says hello. Also Sm can ignore cover if they go certain chapter for example. What's that got to do with deep striking turn one??

Yes armies have strengths and weaknesses in different fields. But you are asking for HUGE board control advantage for an already strong army.
So yeah.. Anywy. We will just have to agree to disagree..

 Argive wrote:
@insectum. Admittedly I have never seen anyone play with nids building. Its the first I have ever come across this. Is that some FW stuff?? Is it a narrative gimmick?? I cant see anything on GW/FW websites that matches what you are describing.

Forgive me but I have to assume its some trash tier fringe models thats OOP in an index somewhere and never gets used and there's maybe like 10 in the world.

It's the sporocyst. (made from the tyrannocyte kit (basically it's top half)). It sits there and produces spore mines. It has some gun options, but it's BS 5+ so even though it could have 5 deathspitters firing 15 shots (and paying out the ass for them), chances are not a single point of damage will happen. They can extend a synapse range of any synapse creature that gets close to them, but synapse range is already pretty great and there are better ways to make spore mines for a lot cheaper (biovores).

Probably an unpopular suggestion, but what if drop pods had the option to infiltrate in addition to deepstriking? So you take 4 pods. You have the option to EITHER deepstrike each of them per normal OR deploy the pod and its transported unit more than 12" away from the enemy deployment zone and enemy units.

The idea being that the drop pods just landed around the drop site, and both of the non-drop-podding armies are showing up to support/destroy them. You know. Instead of both armies patiently waiting until the pods crash into the ground turn 1 to get started.

My thinking is that this would allow you to have a start-of-game mid-board presence with units that normally struggle to get into position. Picture bolter discipline tacticals and multi-melta devastators taking up position in range of their preferred targets and on top of objectives. Against enemies that might be too threatening to stand out in the open, you could land behind ruins and wait until the chance to go jump on an objective.

So depending on your opponent, drop pods are either a way to hide your units and ambush from rapid fire range (deepstrike) or a way to aggressively plant yourself on objectives at the start of the game without risking your rhino dying before it can get you into position.

Other random thoughts:
* Kind of like the idea of pods being cheaper but only having between 1 and 3 wounds. Like, it's a big hunk of metal, but you really only have to kill the turret to keep it from "securing" any positions.

* I don't like any suggestion along the lines of, "Drop pods should let me basically auto-pass a charge roll when I come in from reserves." Surely a metal box falling from space should not be a more reliable means of getting into melee than space elf ninjas literally just sneaking up and stabbing you or dudes with jet packs just flying at you.

* Is the issue really that drop pods are *that* bad, or is it just that they don't transport anything worth deepstriking? I remember paying points last edition for webway portals that were basically drop pods but without the guns and the ability to score an objective attached. So putting a points cost on deepstriking several units at once doesn't seem all that wild to me.

I actually like the infiltrate idea.

Yeah, I think the infiltrate idea is a neat one.

Oh... I expected a bunch of vitriol and controversy. I'm actually quite flattered. Thank you!

It doesn't give SM permission to do things that everyone else is prevented from doing. It doesn't enhance the issues of first turn advantage. A choice to infiltrate or deepstrike provides a interesting tactical choice you can make in deployment as deployment is happening. And the opponent can potentially end up going first and answer the infiltrate with some counter play.

It gives the pod and the marines inside some interesting options.

Black Templar would love the option to pack 30-40 dudes into 3-4 cans and get them into the mid field at start of game. It's a solid suggestion.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Argive wrote:
@insectum. Admittedly I have never seen anyone play with nids building. Its the first I have ever come across this. Is that some FW stuff?? Is it a narrative gimmick?? I cant see anything on GW/FW websites that matches what you are describing.

Forgive me but I have to assume its some trash tier fringe models thats OOP in an index somewhere and never gets used and there's maybe like 10 in the world.

It's the sporocyst. (made from the tyrannocyte kit (basically it's top half)). It sits there and produces spore mines. It has some gun options, but it's BS 5+ so even though it could have 5 deathspitters firing 15 shots (and paying out the ass for them), chances are not a single point of damage will happen. They can extend a synapse range of any synapse creature that gets close to them, but synapse range is already pretty great and there are better ways to make spore mines for a lot cheaper (biovores).

Ahh I missed that.. So they are not actually transports for gaunts/genestealers and actual units?

 Argive wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Argive wrote:
@insectum. Admittedly I have never seen anyone play with nids building. Its the first I have ever come across this. Is that some FW stuff?? Is it a narrative gimmick?? I cant see anything on GW/FW websites that matches what you are describing.

Forgive me but I have to assume its some trash tier fringe models thats OOP in an index somewhere and never gets used and there's maybe like 10 in the world.

It's the sporocyst. (made from the tyrannocyte kit (basically it's top half)). It sits there and produces spore mines. It has some gun options, but it's BS 5+ so even though it could have 5 deathspitters firing 15 shots (and paying out the ass for them), chances are not a single point of damage will happen. They can extend a synapse range of any synapse creature that gets close to them, but synapse range is already pretty great and there are better ways to make spore mines for a lot cheaper (biovores).

Ahh I missed that.. So they are not actually transports for gaunts/genestealers and actual units?

The Tyrannocyte is a drop pod that can carry 1 unit of up to 20 models or 1 monster. Costs about 115 points. Is also a MONSTER. Can move and fight and has guns but a gak BS.



The sporocyst is a building you infiltrate onto the battlefield and produces spore mines. Same guns. Same gak BS. Can also fight if someone decides to charge it for some reason.



The one kit can build one or the other (or both honestly. Again, the sporocyst is basically just the top of the tcyte).

And it can Deep strike turn 1 ?

No. It can infiltrate. So it is deployed out in the battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More correctly its original rule made it so it was deployed in reserves and HAD to deepstrike on the first turn (no holding onto it for later turns).

Since the no first turn deepstrike its been errated to infiltrate since it would otherwise be incapable of doing its own rule.

The problem with infiltrate is that we had it in the past. The ravenguard strategem did the same thing for cheaper, but they got rid of it and for good reason too

It made the game WAY too binary. If the marine player got the first turn, smash captains, aggressors, and vanguard were instantly in optimal position for a bunch of first turn charges or close range fire. If the opponent went first a lot of valuable assets suddenly were hanging in the wind and got murdered.

So, I really don't think an infiltrating option for the drop pod is a good idea. I mean, if the SM player gets first turn then you pretty much guarantee smash captains in the enemy while other units only have to make 6-7 inch charge. I thought that was something you didn't want happening.

In other words good in theory, bad in practice as proven by the change to RG style infiltration stratagems.

 Lance845 wrote:
No. It can infiltrate. So it is deployed out in the battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More correctly its original rule made it so it was deployed in reserves and HAD to deepstrike on the first turn (no holding onto it for later turns).

Since the no first turn deepstrike its been errated to infiltrate since it would otherwise be incapable of doing its own rule.

Ohh I see yeah that makes sense I have no problem with that. If it drop pod is being set up as per infiltrate rule and can be shot at turn one then that would be fine by me.

Sad Eldar rangers werent given the infiltrate rule.. Their rule wording says befor ebatlle begins etc. so it seems they inteted them to infiltrate but it somehow got nerfed along with everything else :(

I'm kind of undecided on turn one Drop-Pod arrivals, personally I loved it in 7th but I also enjoyed watching my Tau and IG opponents cry when my Wolves were managing to cross the entire battlefield and start chewing on them turn one, so it's hard to tell if that's because I think it's right or if I'm just vindictive.
So a mod suggestion for Drop-Pods that might bring them back into the game even if they don't arrive turn one.
Make an ability that centres around the fact that Drop-Pods don't move.
Unlike Vehicles that do move Drop-Pods instantly become a fortification-ish piece on arrival, they can be embarked and disembarked, charged and shot like a normal vehicle but when they're reduced to zero they become a terrain piece with no access unless they explode, then they're removed as normal.

Bingo bango, I think we have a winner.

Drop pod Assault 1-3 CP
During deployment you may activate Drop pod Assault to place 1-2 drop pods down anywhere on the field farther than 12" from your opponents deployment zone and 9" from any enemy models. You place these pods down after everything else has deployed, but before infiltrators. If you do so, the embarked units may not disembark till the end of your first movement phase unless your opponent destroys it. If your opponent has first turn the pod counts as though it had used the Smoke Launchers ability (and is thus -1 to hit in the shooting phase).


Gives marines a Sporocyst type objective squatter that has to come down after scout deploys but before infiltrators, protects their squad as long as possible, and isn't too cheap. 1 CP for one pod, 3 for 2.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'm kind of undecided on turn one Drop-Pod arrivals, personally I loved it in 7th but I also enjoyed watching my Tau and IG opponents cry when my Wolves were managing to cross the entire battlefield and start chewing on them turn one, so it's hard to tell if that's because I think it's right or if I'm just vindictive.

Yes, they were nasty.

They were also cheaper (often free!), could carry more units (Dreadnoughts and Centurions), and land closer to the enemy (basically right on top of them, to take advantage of template weapons). They were definitely "rude" in 7th. I'm open to the possibility that it would be "rude" in 8th, but there's a number of pretty nasty abilities out there like Genestealer shock-assaults, -3s to hit, etc. So from my point of view it depends on which way we're swinging in terms of balancing. If the momentum is that GW is trying to slow some of that stuff down, that's great, and maybe 1st turn strike is too much even with limited numbers and a CP cost. But if it's going the other way, then I'd advocate harder for turn 1 Pods.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Probably an unpopular suggestion, but what if drop pods had the option to infiltrate in addition to deepstriking? So you take 4 pods. You have the option to EITHER deepstrike each of them per normal OR deploy the pod and its transported unit more than 12" away from the enemy deployment zone and enemy units.

The idea being that the drop pods just landed around the drop site, and both of the non-drop-podding armies are showing up to support/destroy them. You know. Instead of both armies patiently waiting until the pods crash into the ground turn 1 to get started.

My thinking is that this would allow you to have a start-of-game mid-board presence with units that normally struggle to get into position. Picture bolter discipline tacticals and multi-melta devastators taking up position in range of their preferred targets and on top of objectives. Against enemies that might be too threatening to stand out in the open, you could land behind ruins and wait until the chance to go jump on an objective.

So depending on your opponent, drop pods are either a way to hide your units and ambush from rapid fire range (deepstrike) or a way to aggressively plant yourself on objectives at the start of the game without risking your rhino dying before it can get you into position.

That's something that I would be ok with, but I don't think it would be good enough for competitive use. A common complaint I see goes something like "there's nothing Space Marines can do that (other Imperial Unit) can't do better." I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment, mind you, but Pods being able to Drop turn 1 would provide for a distinctly "Marine" niche that's completely in line with their character.

Infiltrating Pods would be a nice addition, but in a competitive sense I think they'd still be competing with Scouts for board control possibilities, and Scouts would be a lot cheaper. To summarize, I like the idea but I don't think that would get people to start putting Pods in their armies again. I could be wrong.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Other random thoughts:
* Kind of like the idea of pods being cheaper but only having between 1 and 3 wounds. Like, it's a big hunk of metal, but you really only have to kill the turret to keep it from "securing" any positions.

I'm neutral on this one. Cheaper would be great. The fact that they score objectives is somewhat questionable (although things like Ripper Swarms also control objectives). It's a fairly beefy model so 1-3 wounds seems light. An issue with the pod currently is that enemies can charge it in order to hide from shooting.

Wyldhunt wrote:

* I don't like any suggestion along the lines of, "Drop pods should let me basically auto-pass a charge roll when I come in from reserves." Surely a metal box falling from space should not be a more reliable means of getting into melee than space elf ninjas literally just sneaking up and stabbing you or dudes with jet packs just flying at you.

Agreed. I don't think helping units charge is a good place to improve pods.

Wyldhunt wrote:

* Is the issue really that drop pods are *that* bad, or is it just that they don't transport anything worth deepstriking? I remember paying points last edition for webway portals that were basically drop pods but without the guns and the ability to score an objective attached. So putting a points cost on deepstriking several units at once doesn't seem all that wild to me.

I think most of the people claiming that "pods can't carry anything of value" are generally people that think basic marines suck. I'm not in that crowd, I like my marines for the most part.


. . .

 Lance845 wrote:
When did I say a flat table in that? Where are ANY of you getting the assumption that I have ever suggested we play a game on a flat plane with no terrain features?

 Lance845 wrote:
I didnt say dont have terrain.

But you did say:

 Lance845 wrote:
Without terrain the game should work.

My counter is that if you want a game with high-powered ranged weapons, and for maneuvering to count for anything, you need terrain. Alternating activations don't fix that. 40K needs terrain more than alternating activations. Terrain is not a "crutch" for igougo. Not to mention better terrain rules is a much easier change to the game than AA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:

And regarding reapers... The entire ork codex says hello. Also Sm can ignore cover if they go certain chapter for example. What's that got to do with deep striking turn one??

Because Orks always hit on 6s? That proves my point. Orks inherently have an ability that other armies don't have.
SMs ignoring cover isn't ignoring a to-hit modifier, it's ignoring a save modifier. It's also something that some armies have that other armies don't.
Genestealer have some nasty deep striking options, iirc. Mawlocs can deep strike well inside the usual 9" restriction.
Some armies have a move-twice. Some armies have a shoot-twice. Some armies spawn(or respawn) units, etc. Many armies have abilities that many other armies do not.
The idea that armies can't have abilities that other armies don't is bonkers.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Bingo bango, I think we have a winner.

Drop pod Assault 1-3 CP
During deployment you may activate Drop pod Assault to place 1-2 drop pods down anywhere on the field farther than 12" from your opponents deployment zone and 9" from any enemy models. You place these pods down after everything else has deployed, but before infiltrators. If you do so, the embarked units may not disembark till the end of your first movement phase unless your opponent destroys it. If your opponent has first turn the pod counts as though it had used the Smoke Launchers ability (and is thus -1 to hit in the shooting phase).


Gives marines a Sporocyst type objective squatter that has to come down after scout deploys but before infiltrators, protects their squad as long as possible, and isn't too cheap. 1 CP for one pod, 3 for 2.

I think that is a fair enough way to do it. I would play with opponents using this rule.

Just letting the unit disembark 3" from the pod solves most of not all of my complaints

Indeed, I agree that the best solution would be to change the current ability for Drop Pods to allow they to deploy in Reserves (deep strike) or on the table outside 12" for enemy units (infiltrate).

Something to consider here, however, is that this option may give melee units a bit of a unique advantage because the 3" disembark isn't "wholly" within 3". So a unit with say, 32mm bases could disembark, have the edge of their bases within 3" of their Pod, yet be within 8" of an enemy (Pod dropped 12" - 3" for disembark + Base width)
This would also make Flamer units worthwhile though, so there's another reason to do it

-

No problem with infiltrate type rule. High risk high reward. If you put all your eggs in one basked and get siezed on thats on you.

 Lance845 wrote:
Black Templar would love the option to pack 30-40 dudes into 3-4 cans and get them into the mid field at start of game. It's a solid suggestion.

Still doesn't solve the problem of the units themselves being really bad at melee, but it's a start.