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.

Anon052 wrote:

Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.

A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase.

There is a big debate in a german forum. The overwhelming majority says it stops players from moving forward a transport like a chimera 6 inch then turn 180° and disembark. But I can't believe they (GW) mean that, it means you have to track each part of a vehicle individualy which is extremly unpractical and it means that the longer the vehicle is the less it can turn (like a raider). Making the movement of vehicles exremly complicated and timeconsuming. And it ignores the rulebook passage that pivoting on the spot dos not count as movement. How do you guys see that?

As written the majority is correct; I initially suspected it was a function of the vagueness of the pivoting wording before checking. On review it looks like they want to stop people from getting bonus movement by (for instance) driving a Land Raider around backwards and flipping before charging, but it's an odd thing to be trying to crack down on.

The more I dig into vehicle rules the more I think Warmachine had the right idea by just putting everything on circular bases. If you want a clean answer for non-circular models where the physical location on the model of access points and guns is relevant movement really needs to be defined as forward with defined pivots the way it is in Bolt Action (or the way it is for Flyers).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Exorcist needs LoS but ridiculous model only points the launchers straight up with no way of actually aiming them at the target. Thus, they can't shoot a target that isn't flying over the top of them, RAW.

If they were barrage or no LoS then problem solved.

This should be a codex specific errata - I wouldn't expect it in the core rules FAQ.

The problem with this argument is that the rules don't require you to be able to draw a straight line parallel to the barrel of the weapon from the weapon to the target to be able to fire. The Exorcist launcher is defined as a 'turret-mounted' weapon and hence has 360 degree line of sight at all times, regardless of where its barrels are pointing, as per the diagram on p. 74. That interpretation of the rules would make indirect-fire artillery scatter regardless of whether it could see or not, prohibit weapons without obvious barrels from firing at all, and force us into a moronic three-dimensionality 'top armour' argument as people scramble to prop their guns up somewhere they could be used.

If someone's actually enough of a d*** to try and call you on firing your Exorcist you have my permission (and indeed my recommendation) to depart the game posthaste and post a warning bulletin. Or call them on trying to use their Serpent Shields, apply their BS to scatter with Basilisks, or use their Broadside-mounted Seeker Missiles.

Yes they do. The rules say:
"When firing a vehicle’s weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight from each weapons’ mounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models. "
You might have 360 degrees of rotation but you only have +/- 22.5 degrees of elevation/depression.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Exorcist needs LoS but ridiculous model only points the launchers straight up with no way of actually aiming them at the target. Thus, they can't shoot a target that isn't flying over the top of them, RAW.

If they were barrage or no LoS then problem solved.

This should be a codex specific errata - I wouldn't expect it in the core rules FAQ.

The problem with this argument is that the rules don't require you to be able to draw a straight line parallel to the barrel of the weapon from the weapon to the target to be able to fire. The Exorcist launcher is defined as a 'turret-mounted' weapon and hence has 360 degree line of sight at all times, regardless of where its barrels are pointing, as per the diagram on p. 74. That interpretation of the rules would make indirect-fire artillery scatter regardless of whether it could see or not, prohibit weapons without obvious barrels from firing at all, and force us into a moronic three-dimensionality 'top armour' argument as people scramble to prop their guns up somewhere they could be used.

If someone's actually enough of a d*** to try and call you on firing your Exorcist you have my permission (and indeed my recommendation) to depart the game posthaste and post a warning bulletin. Or call them on trying to use their Serpent Shields, apply their BS to scatter with Basilisks, or use their Broadside-mounted Seeker Missiles.

Yes they do. The rules say:
"When firing a vehicle’s weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight from each weapons’ mounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models. "
You might have 360 degrees of rotation but you only have +/- 22.5 degrees of elevation/depression.

If you really want to get that rules-lawyery I will point out that "...to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models" is a distinct sentence from "...if line of sight exists". That reading would have us draw line of sight from any part of the vehicle's hull (the way we would from a non-vehicle model) and use the weapon only to determine if intervening models blocked the shots from specific weapons or provided cover from specific weapons, at which point all vehicle weapons would have 360-degree line of sight and ignore intervening terrain and models for purposes of cover for shots taken against models outside their physical arc of rotation so long as line of sight could be drawn from the hull.

The rules of 40k are heavily reliant on assumptions that the writers left unspoken for one reason or another. In this case the game moved from a clearly-defined 2-dimensional game in 4th edition to an fuzzy intermediate case between a 2d and a 3d game in 5th and beyond, the writers have been struggling to cope ever since and in this case they haven't clarified a lot of things they needed to.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As written the majority is correct; I initially suspected it was a function of the vagueness of the pivoting wording before checking. On review it looks like they want to stop people from getting bonus movement by (for instance) driving a Land Raider around backwards and flipping before charging, but it's an odd thing to be trying to crack down on.

Yeah. I mean, why would you ever drive a Land Raider around backwards to gain charge distance? Its armor is the same on all sides, and you pivot around the center point, so you wouldn't gain charge range since the access point on the front is closer to the center of the vehicle than the tread parts that are obviously part of the vehicle's hull, which would be used for determining its center point.

The more I dig into vehicle rules the more I think Warmachine had the right idea by just putting everything on circular bases. If you want a clean answer for non-circular models where the physical location on the model of access points and guns is relevant movement really needs to be defined as forward with defined pivots the way it is in Bolt Action (or the way it is for Flyers).

I have to agree.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As written the majority is correct; I initially suspected it was a function of the vagueness of the pivoting wording before checking. On review it looks like they want to stop people from getting bonus movement by (for instance) driving a Land Raider around backwards and flipping before charging, but it's an odd thing to be trying to crack down on.

Yeah. I mean, why would you ever drive a Land Raider around backwards to gain charge distance? Its armor is the same on all sides, and you pivot around the center point, so you would actually lose charge range since the access point on the front is closer to the center of the vehicle than the tread parts that are obviously part of the vehicle's hull, which would be used for determining its center point...

I measured one to check. If you drive it around sideways before flipping you gain about 1", if you drive it around backward you gain about 5". Driving backwards is an edge case because you'd be functionally deploying your unit about 5" further back to get the advantage.

That said I don't have sponsons glued onto this one yet so if you're the sort of person who would move a Land Raider sideways you may want to check if your group would make you measure from the sponsons, you might lose distance by doing this.

I Think the Ecorcist is a case of a common sense one! an agreement between players, but I agree, it could use some clarification in the future. Personally I think it should fire like a 360 turret, it says it launches the missiles, I assume they are homing/targeted!

For the vehicles, I like the clarificaiton, I passed that over without realizing. It is important, for the 180 degree pivot as you say. I think it's pretty simple, as it should be easy to identify what the problem corners will be on any move.. I drew up some pictures to try explain how I have interpreted it.. perhaps I am wrong...

Lets say Rhino wants to move to position 2. To do this, he will need to pivot once, move , then pivot again.

While you could measure from the front lower corner, this 6 inch distance is out in front of what the other corners can move. instead, it must pivot, move along the blue lines to reach the correct position, then pivot again. As long as the left upper corner is in 6 inches, the other corners will be as well, and the move will be legal. So for this move, that is the corner that should most easily be measured. But, it should not move along the line a full 6 inches or due to the pivots it will be getting extra movement.




For a land raider, and I got lazier on this drawing but the pivot - move - pivot would remain, yo cannot do the move then 180 skid disembark. Because as the green lines show, this places the rear tires to the front of the vehicle which is past movement distance.

Land Raiders being 7" long it isn't actually possible to do the 180-degree skid disembark under this FAQ. It's good pivoting in place instead of moving is defined as free because otherwise Land Raiders wouldn't actually be able to rotate 180 degrees in place since the ends would have to be 7" from where they started.

If you're having trouble with the measurements in game my best suggestion is to think about the bit that's moved the furthest (if you want to flip your vehicle around it's the back, for instance) and jsut measure for that, you don't need to measure every single point on the vehicle.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As written the majority is correct; I initially suspected it was a function of the vagueness of the pivoting wording before checking. On review it looks like they want to stop people from getting bonus movement by (for instance) driving a Land Raider around backwards and flipping before charging, but it's an odd thing to be trying to crack down on.

Yeah. I mean, why would you ever drive a Land Raider around backwards to gain charge distance? Its armor is the same on all sides, and you pivot around the center point, so you would actually lose charge range since the access point on the front is closer to the center of the vehicle than the tread parts that are obviously part of the vehicle's hull, which would be used for determining its center point...

I measured one to check. If you drive it around sideways before flipping you gain about 1", if you drive it around backward you gain about 5". Driving backwards is an edge case because you'd be functionally deploying your unit about 5" further back to get the advantage.

That said I don't have sponsons glued onto this one yet so if you're the sort of person who would move a Land Raider sideways you may want to check if your group would make you measure from the sponsons, you might lose distance by doing this.

I think you're doing something wrong somewhere with your measuring.

A Land Raider is roughly a rectangle. A rectangle's center point is in the middle. How do you make any part of a rectangle closer to anything by rotating it around its centerpoint 180 degrees?

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As written the majority is correct; I initially suspected it was a function of the vagueness of the pivoting wording before checking. On review it looks like they want to stop people from getting bonus movement by (for instance) driving a Land Raider around backwards and flipping before charging, but it's an odd thing to be trying to crack down on.

Yeah. I mean, why would you ever drive a Land Raider around backwards to gain charge distance? Its armor is the same on all sides, and you pivot around the center point, so you would actually lose charge range since the access point on the front is closer to the center of the vehicle than the tread parts that are obviously part of the vehicle's hull, which would be used for determining its center point...

I measured one to check. If you drive it around sideways before flipping you gain about 1", if you drive it around backward you gain about 5". Driving backwards is an edge case because you'd be functionally deploying your unit about 5" further back to get the advantage.

That said I don't have sponsons glued onto this one yet so if you're the sort of person who would move a Land Raider sideways you may want to check if your group would make you measure from the sponsons, you might lose distance by doing this.

I think you're doing something wrong somewhere with your measuring.

A Land Raider is roughly a rectangle. A rectangle's center point is in the middle. How do you make any part of a rectangle closer to anything by rotating it around its centerpoint 180 degrees?

Because the door is a specific bit of the rectangle that isn't on the center. A Land Raider is about 6 3/4" long and about 4" wide (not counting sponsons). The front door is about 3/4" behind the front treads, which puts it about 2.5" from the center point of the vehicle.

If I were to drive a Land Raider backwards 6" the door will have traveled 6", but if I flip it around its centerpoint the door suddenly goes from being 2.5" behind the center to 2.5" ahead of the center. The Land Raider has only gone 6", but the door has abruptly warped ahead an extra 5" for a total distance of 11".

You may point out (and as well you should) that this is a pretty silly edge case because pretty much every game state would argue for just driving your Land Raider forward in the first place, but it was a useful thing to know pre-FAQ for things like getting free distance out of the Relic objective if you were that kind of munchkin.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As written the majority is correct; I initially suspected it was a function of the vagueness of the pivoting wording before checking. On review it looks like they want to stop people from getting bonus movement by (for instance) driving a Land Raider around backwards and flipping before charging, but it's an odd thing to be trying to crack down on.

Yeah. I mean, why would you ever drive a Land Raider around backwards to gain charge distance? Its armor is the same on all sides, and you pivot around the center point, so you would actually lose charge range since the access point on the front is closer to the center of the vehicle than the tread parts that are obviously part of the vehicle's hull, which would be used for determining its center point...

I measured one to check. If you drive it around sideways before flipping you gain about 1", if you drive it around backward you gain about 5". Driving backwards is an edge case because you'd be functionally deploying your unit about 5" further back to get the advantage.

That said I don't have sponsons glued onto this one yet so if you're the sort of person who would move a Land Raider sideways you may want to check if your group would make you measure from the sponsons, you might lose distance by doing this.

I think you're doing something wrong somewhere with your measuring.

A Land Raider is roughly a rectangle. A rectangle's center point is in the middle. How do you make any part of a rectangle closer to anything by rotating it around its centerpoint 180 degrees?

Because the door is a specific bit of the rectangle that isn't on the center. A Land Raider is about 6 3/4" long and about 4" wide (not counting sponsons). The front door is about 3/4" behind the front treads, which puts it about 2.5" from the center point of the vehicle.

If I were to drive a Land Raider backwards 6" the door will have traveled 6", but if I flip it around its centerpoint the door suddenly goes from being 2.5" behind the center to 2.5" ahead of the center. The Land Raider has only gone 6", but the door has abruptly warped ahead an extra 5" for a total distance of 11".

You may point out (and as well you should) that this is a pretty silly edge case because pretty much every game state would argue for just driving your Land Raider forward in the first place, but it was a useful thing to know pre-FAQ for things like getting free distance out of the Relic objective if you were that kind of munchkin.

Okay... but you can't embark and disembark in the same turn, and you're allowed to pivot while moving anyways, and while the relic's in the vehicle its location is measured by the vehicle's hull, not an access point, and a Land Raider has three access points anyways.

 Pouncey wrote:
...Okay... but you can't embark and disembark in the same turn, and you're allowed to pivot while moving anyways, and while the relic's in the vehicle its location is measured by the vehicle's hull, not an access point, and a Land Raider has three access points anyways.

Unit with Relic 6" away from the Land Raider. Unit moves 6" to embark. Land Raider moves 6" back and pivots 180 degrees. Next turn. Land Raider moves 6", unit disembarks 6".

From just that it looks like the unit should be 24" from where they started, but since they embarked on one end of the Land Raider and got out on the other (effectively) they're actually 29" away.

In situations other than the Relic this doesn't really help much, and the Relic is a terrible mission anyway because the person with turn one and bikes gets to win automatically, so I'm not sure why GW saw the need to nerf this trick.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Okay... but you can't embark and disembark in the same turn, and you're allowed to pivot while moving anyways, and while the relic's in the vehicle its location is measured by the vehicle's hull, not an access point, and a Land Raider has three access points anyways.

Unit with Relic 6" away from the Land Raider. Unit moves 6" to embark. Land Raider moves 6" back and pivots 180 degrees. Next turn. Land Raider moves 6", unit disembarks 6".

From just that it looks like the unit should be 24" from where they started, but since they embarked on one end of the Land Raider and got out on the other (effectively) they're actually 29" away.

In situations other than the Relic this doesn't really help much, and the Relic is a terrible mission anyway because the person with turn one and bikes gets to win automatically, so I'm not sure why GW saw the need to nerf this trick.

That's not really a trick though. That's just normal things happening. The Land Raider in its first turn didn't need to drive backward, it could've just pivoted BEFORE moving and driven forward.

 EnTyme wrote:
And I don't think Tacticals should be able to kill a walker or MC in one turn.

MCs didn't need the buff.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Okay... but you can't embark and disembark in the same turn, and you're allowed to pivot while moving anyways, and while the relic's in the vehicle its location is measured by the vehicle's hull, not an access point, and a Land Raider has three access points anyways.

Unit with Relic 6" away from the Land Raider. Unit moves 6" to embark. Land Raider moves 6" back and pivots 180 degrees. Next turn. Land Raider moves 6", unit disembarks 6".

From just that it looks like the unit should be 24" from where they started, but since they embarked on one end of the Land Raider and got out on the other (effectively) they're actually 29" away.

In situations other than the Relic this doesn't really help much, and the Relic is a terrible mission anyway because the person with turn one and bikes gets to win automatically, so I'm not sure why GW saw the need to nerf this trick.

That's not really a trick though. That's just normal things happening. The Land Raider in its first turn didn't need to drive backward, it could've just pivoted BEFORE moving and driven forward.

Ok guys, Now what about the Tactic with the "Deliverance Broodsurge" Formation to get 33"-43" Charge Range? (12" Deployment, 12" Movement, 1" 'Pivot', 6" Disembark (Open Topped) and 12" Charge)
The Vehicle IS Open Topped so the Pivot would benefit it GREATLY due to the whole Disembark-From-Any-Point Rule

 commander dante wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Okay... but you can't embark and disembark in the same turn, and you're allowed to pivot while moving anyways, and while the relic's in the vehicle its location is measured by the vehicle's hull, not an access point, and a Land Raider has three access points anyways.

Unit with Relic 6" away from the Land Raider. Unit moves 6" to embark. Land Raider moves 6" back and pivots 180 degrees. Next turn. Land Raider moves 6", unit disembarks 6".

From just that it looks like the unit should be 24" from where they started, but since they embarked on one end of the Land Raider and got out on the other (effectively) they're actually 29" away.

In situations other than the Relic this doesn't really help much, and the Relic is a terrible mission anyway because the person with turn one and bikes gets to win automatically, so I'm not sure why GW saw the need to nerf this trick.

That's not really a trick though. That's just normal things happening. The Land Raider in its first turn didn't need to drive backward, it could've just pivoted BEFORE moving and driven forward.

Ok guys, Now what about the Tactic with the "Deliverance Broodsurge" Formation to get 33"-43" Charge Range? (12" Deployment, 12" Movement, 1" 'Pivot', 6" Disembark (Open Topped) and 12" Charge)
The Vehicle IS Open Topped so the Pivot would benefit it GREATLY due to the whole Disembark-From-Any-Point Rule

Um, I think there's a fundamental problem with your thinking.

You're treating transport vehicles as buffs to infantry movement speeds, instead of units in their own right.

Man, it's almost as if the Line of Sight rules in 40k are broken and render it difficult to fire with most vehicles' weapons and impossible to use most terrain pieces.

Almost.

Seriously, the stupid terrain rules and especially the stupid Line of Sight rules are the worst thing in the rulebook because they literally do not work and make the game unplayable if play by the strict wording of the rules, unless your terrain collection is crafted specifically to comply with the rules and not just some stuff that looks nice. Most players in most games either ignore the terrain rules or they say everything is a ruin (and then still misplay the rules in order make their terrain functional). The only time I ever see any enforce a literal interpretation of the terrain rules is when they can gain an advantage by doing so.

The LoS rules are another example of the scale issues that plague 40k. TLoS works with a small skirmish game or an RPG to some extent. With a larger company level game (or larger in some instances with 40k) and with things like Titans and the like, it gets pretty ridiculous and unnecessarily messy.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The LoS rules are another example of the scale issues that plague 40k...

Not really. The LoS rules are an example of why making grand sweeping overhauls by adjusting one sentence and not going through and fixing the rest of it is a terrible way of doing things. A lot of the core rules haven't changed since 3rd edition, and back in 3rd edition 40k was written as a two-dimensional game where the battlefield was strictly separated into layers rather than the semi-2d game we have now that can't make up its mind whether it's going to be TLOS or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

 commander dante wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Okay... but you can't embark and disembark in the same turn, and you're allowed to pivot while moving anyways, and while the relic's in the vehicle its location is measured by the vehicle's hull, not an access point, and a Land Raider has three access points anyways.

Unit with Relic 6" away from the Land Raider. Unit moves 6" to embark. Land Raider moves 6" back and pivots 180 degrees. Next turn. Land Raider moves 6", unit disembarks 6".

From just that it looks like the unit should be 24" from where they started, but since they embarked on one end of the Land Raider and got out on the other (effectively) they're actually 29" away.

In situations other than the Relic this doesn't really help much, and the Relic is a terrible mission anyway because the person with turn one and bikes gets to win automatically, so I'm not sure why GW saw the need to nerf this trick.

That's not really a trick though. That's just normal things happening. The Land Raider in its first turn didn't need to drive backward, it could've just pivoted BEFORE moving and driven forward.

Ok guys, Now what about the Tactic with the "Deliverance Broodsurge" Formation to get 33"-43" Charge Range? (12" Deployment, 12" Movement, 1" 'Pivot', 6" Disembark (Open Topped) and 12" Charge)
The Vehicle IS Open Topped so the Pivot would benefit it GREATLY due to the whole Disembark-From-Any-Point Rule

Um, I think there's a fundamental problem with your thinking.

You're treating transport vehicles as buffs to infantry movement speeds, instead of units in their own right.

Depending on how you need to use them they might be. Wave Serpents are definitely units in their own right, but Rhinos only exist to be speed buffs and ablative wounds for their passengers.

 EnTyme wrote:
And I don't think Tacticals should be able to kill a walker or MC in one turn.

What kind of walker or MC is a tac squad killing in one turn with krak grenades? Scout sentinels?

Because most vehicles that are walkers are going to have at least AV 11/12 on the front, and if higher are immune. And as for MC's, everything except the weakest of MC's is going to survive that as well between armor saves and wounds.


Now if you said 40 guardsmen with krak grenades swarming something, I'd be a bit more inclined to have sympathy, but in reality being able to mass throw grenades really REALLY didn't hurt anything. Honestly the scariest thing would be melta bombs (like the IG Veteran's demolition doctrine) That would be halfway decent.


I just don't see the problem with people being able to use more than one grenade. Most units that have access to grenades suck in CQC so they're not going to do very well with the grenades to begin with, especially against creatures or vehicles that are able to fight back.

Well, alrady doesnt matter since only one grenade per turn, no matter if shoting or at melee.

That makes less overpowered things like marines and such. The problem is that makes some armies near useless againsts superheavy or even land raider or other 14s (like orks, who only had tankbustas at melee for that, since no lasscanons or meltas)

well since me and my group mainly play 30k, we will be ignoring the grenade rule change, we think its a bit dim.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...and back in 3rd edition 40k was written as a two-dimensional game where the battlefield was strictly separated into layers ...

I think you're mis-remembering 3rd edition.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Depending on how you need to use them they might be. Wave Serpents are definitely units in their own right, but Rhinos only exist to be speed buffs and ablative wounds for their passengers.

Yes. That thing you're doing that makes you equate Rhinos to increasing movement speed of infantry. Stop thinking that.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Depending on how you need to use them they might be. Wave Serpents are definitely units in their own right, but Rhinos only exist to be speed buffs and ablative wounds for their passengers.

Yes. That thing you're doing that makes you equate Rhinos to increasing movement speed of infantry. Stop thinking that.

Make Rhinos do something else and I'll consider it.

Franarok wrote:
Well, alrady doesnt matter since only one grenade per turn, no matter if shoting or at melee.

That makes less overpowered things like marines and such. The problem is that makes some armies near useless againsts superheavy or even land raider or other 14s (like orks, who only had tankbustas at melee for that, since no lasscanons or meltas)

Yup, I WANT but don't expect a corresponding drop in price in the next codex, we won't get it but realistically they are trash now. A SM dev squad can take 4 Missile launchers and a Sgt for 130pts an Ork can take 10 Tank bustas for the same price. Difference? Well the SM has 48in range to the Ork 24. The SM has 3+ armor to the Ork 6+ ohh and BS4 to BS2.

So once those 10 Tankbustas deploy, they have to survive at least 1 round of shooting before they can even fire, unless you bought them a trukk, in which case it will get focus fired and destroyed.

But when they finally get in range, those 10 Tankbustas on average will hit 3 time, those 4 SMs will hit 3 times as well, except they are firing on turn 1 and can actually withstand some hits.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Depending on how you need to use them they might be. Wave Serpents are definitely units in their own right, but Rhinos only exist to be speed buffs and ablative wounds for their passengers.

Yes. That thing you're doing that makes you equate Rhinos to increasing movement speed of infantry. Stop thinking that.

Make Rhinos do something else and I'll consider it.

Then replace Rhinos with a... 35? 40? however many points a Rhino costs, with a movement speed upgrade for your squads, if they're the same thing. No more Rhino, only faster infantry.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Depending on how you need to use them they might be. Wave Serpents are definitely units in their own right, but Rhinos only exist to be speed buffs and ablative wounds for their passengers.

Yes. That thing you're doing that makes you equate Rhinos to increasing movement speed of infantry. Stop thinking that.

Make Rhinos do something else and I'll consider it.

Then replace Rhinos with a... 35? 40? however many points a Rhino costs, with a movement speed upgrade for your squads, if they're the same thing. No more Rhino, only faster infantry.

They already have that, its called assault Marines of course the problem is that the rhino also provides protection from SAF and Jump packs don't do that.

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...and back in 3rd edition 40k was written as a two-dimensional game where the battlefield was strictly separated into layers ...

I think you're mis-remembering 3rd edition.

Don't be silly. TLOS only came into being in 5th ed...

SemperMortis wrote:
They already have that, its called assault Marines of course the problem is that the rhino also provides protection from SAF and Jump packs don't do that.

Exactly. The Rhino is not just a buff for your infantry. It is a transport vehicle.

MrMoustaffa wrote:Not super happy about the grenade thing, it really defeats the purpose of buying grenades for a unit, at least IG always have it as an option. I'd be a lot more annoyed having to pay for Krak grenades as a space marine player for example. It really gave infantry a fall back plan for dealing with monstrous creatures and makes no sense that only one guy would bother with a grenade. It also calls into question why on earth a guard player would take demolitions to get melta bombs on a squad when only one guy can throw one per turn..

In all honesty many people already read it as one grenade per unit per assault anyway. Otherwise for 10 points you're equipping an entire unit with S6 AP4 hits, where a single normal power weapon only costs 15 points.

Gamgee wrote:You can shoot from transports again ie no snap shots. DE are happy and my breachers.

*snip found it mentioned*, however fast skimmers that move more than 6" still have to have their occupants fire snap shots as per page 9. It seems to be more at appeasing butt hurt DE players rather than an rationale on any rule consistency. Now Raiders can return to becoming flying bunkers via a rule loophole without addressing the issues the DE dex actually has. Bad decision imo, if the DE codex wasn't so poor it would of been a complete non-issue.

Edit: found it....