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.

Here's hoping that ork vehicles are 'assault vehicles', and so they can either charge out of a vehicle that's in combat, or charge out of a vehicle after it's moved.

Either of those would be nice and fluffy as well.

Hell, I'd even dust off the boyz if I could plow a battlewagon into a gunline and then have boyz come screaming out of every nook and cranny

 ross-128 wrote:
Interesting, though only being able to disembark at the start of the movement phase means that transports can't actually be used to facilitate a turn-1 charge (because you'd either be dropping your passengers off in the deployment zone, or waiting for the start of the next movement phase).

Or maybe it can though bit risky if standard distance between armies in scenarios are 12". You start in rhino. You deploy 3" from rhino. 3"+6"+2d6"=you can reach up to 22".

Any foot unit with 9" will be able to charge 1st turn on 24" gap between armies.

Albeit not very likely so in practice not used most likely. Well except for M9 kind of units if they can have transport and distance between armies is 18". That way you have 3"+9"+2d6"+1"=20" average reach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Now that transports are a viable participant in close combat when their own attacks, I expect them to go up in cost as well. Maybe not Land Raiders, but I think we may have seen the end of 35 point Rhino's and Drop Pods. Or even "free" Transports.

For the Ork players: You did read how if the vehicle is opened topped, all the models get to shoot in close combat, right? So Trukk charges in and starts close combat, and all the Boy's in the back with pistols get to fight as well? Or how about all those Dark Eldar open topped skimmers? Oh yeah!

"Fight" as in shoot with their 5+ to hit pistols. I think most orks will prefer to unload before and try to get into combat themselves. Staying in trukk risks enemy surrounding your fraqile truck and blowing when troops can't get outside.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:


Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.

Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.

You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.

Please stop insinuating otherwise. Sure, you could roll poorly and lose half or more of a unit with a lot of 1's coming up, but the odds of rolling 5 or more 1's is pretty small, don't you think?

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

If everything has identical rules, can transports ride transports? I'd love to charge those mehreenz with a bunch of trukks disembarking from trukks disembarking from trukks. Russian trukk-doll-style.

Sounds great, you should start that project now.

You might want to read that article again. There was thing about Keywords.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

I like this, transport moves up nice and close, enemy moves away in their turn, dudes get out, move up and charge next turn.

Just have to be careful of your transport getting charged.

See, this it what I am unsure of, tactically. In order to get close enough for the turn 2 charge, you have to get close enough to be charged
It's going to be way too easy for opponents to either assault your transport, or move safely away.

-

You can move and then assault the turn you disemark- on a 6'' move unit that's therefore a 13'' threat range with average rolls on the charge 2d6.

Exactly how fast do you think most units move? If I get within 3'' of you, and then on your turn you move away, on my next turn you're only 9'' inches away. I disembark my models, move them 6'' and my charge distance is only 3''.

Don't forget that disembarking is now 'within 3"s from transport exit', so that is an extra three inches

 koooaei wrote:
If everything has identical rules, can transports ride transports? I'd love to charge those mehreenz with a bunch of trukks disembarking from trukks disembarking from trukks. Russian trukk-doll-style.

Yo dawg. I heard you like trukks. So I put some trukks in yo trukks so you can trukk while you trukk.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:


Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.

Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.

I'm not sure if this was what you were getting at but actually a lascannon can now blow up that star weaver with one lucky shot if it rolls 6 for damage. Which I think means it is statistically more fragile towards anti-tank weapons like that.

Basic troop passengers inside transports seem more durable to the exploding vehicle now.

Prices for transports should honestly stay the same.

Tetsu0 wrote:

Basic troop passengers inside transports seem more durable to the exploding vehicle now.

highly variable. Orks? Yeah, probably. Their sweater vest wasn't doing much to help them survive a blown up trukk anyway. Terminators? They are now waaaaay more susceptible to damage from a blown up vehicle than they used to be.

My Ork buggies can finally do more than roll around Immobilizing themselves! Could this be the edition where I don't kick myself for taking Trukkz instead of bikers? I hope so!

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:


Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.

Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.

You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.

Please stop insinuating otherwise.

"It's been pretty well established based on how I subjectively read the article that you're wrong".

I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may not be correct, in which case, great! But the wording is ambiguous and that's how it came across to me reading it. I mentioned it a grand total of two times, and you're the first person to talk about it being otherwise in this thread. If other people elsewhere have come to some sort of other consensus, fine, but don't make it out like I'm going around intentionally misrepresenting something counter to some sort of widespread established understanding.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:


Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.

Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.

You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.

Please stop insinuating otherwise.

"It's been pretty well established based on how I subjectively read the article that you're wrong".

I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may not be correct, in which case, great! But the wording is ambiguous and that's how it came across to me reading it. I mentioned it a grand total of two times, and you're the first person to talk about it being otherwise in this thread. If other people elsewhere have come to some sort of other consensus, fine, but don't make it out like I'm going around intentionally misrepresenting something counter to some sort of widespread established understanding.

... you don't see how unreasonable a reading it would be if everything in the transport dies on a single roll of 1? That would be a dumber rule than anything in 7th.

"Land Raider blew up? Guess those 600 points of termies goes with it. Yahtzee! Let's pack up!"

Models inside a wrecked Transport will now die on the roll of a 1.

Seems pretty reasonable that it's models, not units.

 Purifier wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:


Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.

Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.

You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.

Please stop insinuating otherwise.

"It's been pretty well established based on how I subjectively read the article that you're wrong".

I'm willing to admit that my interpretation may not be correct, in which case, great! But the wording is ambiguous and that's how it came across to me reading it. I mentioned it a grand total of two times, and you're the first person to talk about it being otherwise in this thread. If other people elsewhere have come to some sort of other consensus, fine, but don't make it out like I'm going around intentionally misrepresenting something counter to some sort of widespread established understanding.

... you don't see how unreasonable a reading it would be if everything in the transport dies on a single roll of 1? That would be a dumber rule than anything in 7th.

This *is* GW we're talking about, and "everyone dies on a bad roll" with transports has absolutely been possible in previous editions before.

I'm entirely willing to accept my reading may be wrong, but given GW's track record it wasnt an entirely unreasonable conclusion.

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:


Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.

Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.

You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.

Please stop insinuating otherwise. Sure, you could roll poorly and lose half or more of a unit with a lot of 1's coming up, but the odds of rolling 5 or more 1's is pretty small, don't you think?

He's still not wrong even if it is per model. There is potential for an entire unit to be rolling 1's on the Wrecking of a Transport. The smaller the unit, the more likely it is. I've seen enough 1s at a time that killed off a 5 man Terminator unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:


Edit: Well I should say they will definitely be more durable than before since it seems like they can no longer explode from a lucky shot.

Their contents however can now potentially all die on a lucky shot.

You keep saying this, but it's been pretty well established that, at least based on how most people are reading it (myself included), you don't roll 1d6 for the entire squad in a destroyed transport, but 1d6 per model inside and on a 1, a model (owning player's choice) dies.

Please stop insinuating otherwise. Sure, you could roll poorly and lose half or more of a unit with a lot of 1's coming up, but the odds of rolling 5 or more 1's is pretty small, don't you think?

He's still not wrong even if it is per model. There is potential for an entire unit to be rolling 1's on the Wrecking of a Transport. The smaller the unit, the more likely it is. I've seen enough 1s at a time that killed off a 5 man Terminator unit.

That's an extreme outlier though. Even getting 5 at once is highly unlikely, but sure. It can happen. Not even near the same thing as getting a single and losing it all.

 Purifier wrote:
That's an extreme outlier though. Even getting 5 at once is highly unlikely, but sure. It can happen. Not even near the same thing as getting a single and losing it all.

Potentiality includes outliers. Probability ignores outliers. A Grot unit could potentially shoot an Imperial Knight to death on its own, but it is probably not going to happen.

Note the differences.

 Rippy wrote:
Don't forget that disembarking is now 'within 3"s from transport exit', so that is an extra three inches

I did not see that in the article. Where is that at? If true, then yeah this is great.

EDIT: rereading the article it only says that units can Disembark and move normally, but does not give a clear distance of how far they first disembark.
It could be Base contact to the Transport only, then your move. Granted that is still your base size worth of movement forward, but that not quite as much as 3" from the door.

-

 Charistoph wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
That's an extreme outlier though. Even getting 5 at once is highly unlikely, but sure. It can happen. Not even near the same thing as getting a single and losing it all.

Potentiality includes outliers. Probability ignores outliers. A Grot unit could potentially shoot an Imperial Knight to death on its own, but it is probably not going to happen.

Note the differences.

More like note the semantics. You're defending a post mentioning it as a probability. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that your scenario is unlikely as all hell at its best.

personally I am looking forward to seeing how all the transports end up.

as for jink I would not mind its inclusion, but think the implementation was just bad. I shoot at full BS trhen when the opponent shoots I choose to at that point jink. would have preferred jink or the equivilant to be be declared during the player's movement phase and then defense is up during the following player's shooting phase at a set penalty to ballistic skill rather than just snap shots. that way they could have fired blasts at full BS but then again that is now not a thing so we shall see. it did make sense for fast skimmers to be able to make themselves harder to hit the penalty just happened at the wrong point

 G00fySmiley wrote:

as for jink I would not mind its inclusion, but think the implementation was just bad. I shoot at full BS trhen when the opponent shoots I choose to at that point jink. would have preferred jink or the equivilant to be be declared during the player's movement phase and then defense is up during the following player's shooting phase at a set penalty to ballistic skill rather than just snap shots. that way they could have fired blasts at full BS but then again that is now not a thing so we shall see. it did make sense for fast skimmers to be able to make themselves harder to hit the penalty just happened at the wrong point

I like the way it was handled in a previous edition (although I forget which). Your armour became Invulnerable if you turbo-boosted.
Something similar could work in 8E in that if a bike or skimmer makes an advance move (thereby forgoing any shooting that turn) they can gain +2 Armour save.

The extra armour represents the damage just grazing off because you are moving so fast. Weapons that have AP modifiers are better at causing damage even when the target is moving fast
A Melta shot isn't as likely to "bounce off" as a Bolter round, for example

-

Jink kinda fundamentally always hass issues. Even when it was called SMF or other such things, it's never been handled well in 40k. It inevitably ends up being a very powerful defensive bonus that's rarely properly accounted for, and often without having much of a necessary gameplay reason for inclusion. It's why Skimmers have paradoxically been dramatically more resilient than nonskimmer vehicles in 4 of the last 5 editions.

the thing about jink, SMF etc, has been GW trying to replicate the fact that some units are zipping fast about the battlefield in a game without a move stat. now with a move stat there is a lot less need for jink, because bikes, jetbikes etc will be able to move across the board so much faster they will be exposed to fire for shorter periods of time, in effect speed can be armor in 8th edition. jet bikes can zip from cover to cover etc.

Purifier wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
That's an extreme outlier though. Even getting 5 at once is highly unlikely, but sure. It can happen. Not even near the same thing as getting a single and losing it all.

Potentiality includes outliers. Probability ignores outliers. A Grot unit could potentially shoot an Imperial Knight to death on its own, but it is probably not going to happen.

Note the differences.

More like note the semantics. You're defending a post mentioning it as a probability. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that your scenario is unlikely as all hell at its best.

Semantics are part of the written word. Every time you read you are operating under semantics. Look up the definition of the term.

And no, he did not say, "probably", he said, "potentially". I do think that the odds of an Boyz unit all dying when their Battlewagon gets wrecked is so unlikely that I would actually bet against it happening. But I have seen a player roll enough 1s that caused that 5 man Terminator unit to all fail their Armour Saves on 8 Wounds. Not likely to happen very often, but the capacity it still there.

 Charistoph wrote:
Semantics are part of the written word. Every time you read you are operating under semantics. Look up the definition of the term.

Couldn't sound more pretentious if you tried.

It's an outlier and mentioning that it's a nonsensical argument because it is an outlier is not wrong. The fact that it was stated as a potential outcome was done so in order to show that it was something that you might come up against in a game, which is stupidly unlikely and not worth considering.

Could you explain to me what the whole point of your original "note the differences" besserwisser-remark was? It in no way invalidated what I said, all you did was try to show off that you had read a dictionary?

 Purifier wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Semantics are part of the written word. Every time you read you are operating under semantics. Look up the definition of the term.

Couldn't sound more pretentious if you tried.

It's an outlier and mentioning that it's a nonsensical argument because it is an outlier is not wrong. The fact that it was stated as a potential outcome was done so in order to show that it was something that you might come up against in a game, which is stupidly unlikely and not worth considering.

Yelling at someone that is recognizing the possibility of something happening when you are only focusing on the probability of something happening is equally pretentious.

It's quite possible the person notes that they are very good at rolling 1s to save their units and they tend to operate in MSU, and plan on continuing that operation. For them, that is more likely than a player who favors larger units operating in higher capacity Transports. A Razorback-nut would have more to worry about here than a Battlewagon-nut, as an example. If the guy is a Razorback runner, and tends to roll 1s more than 5s and 6s, they have every right to be concerned about their Transports being metal death boxes for their units. There are people who operate on the outliers, so please be cognizant of that factor.

 Purifier wrote:
Could you explain to me what the whole point of your original "note the differences" besserwisser-remark was? It in no way invalidated what I said, all you did was try to show off that you had read a dictionary?

You want to know why I told you to note the differences between potentiality and probability? Because you seemed to have a problem recognizing that difference exists and then proceeded to try and lambast a person for recognizing the differences.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Semantics are part of the written word. Every time you read you are operating under semantics. Look up the definition of the term.

Couldn't sound more pretentious if you tried.

It's an outlier and mentioning that it's a nonsensical argument because it is an outlier is not wrong. The fact that it was stated as a potential outcome was done so in order to show that it was something that you might come up against in a game, which is stupidly unlikely and not worth considering.

Yelling at someone that is recognizing the possibility of something happening when you are only focusing on the probability of something happening is equally pretentious.

It's quite possible the person notes that they are very good at rolling 1s to save their units and they tend to operate in MSU, and plan on continuing that operation. For them, that is more likely than a player who favors larger units operating in higher capacity Transports. A Razorback-nut would have more to worry about here than a Battlewagon-nut, as an example. If the guy is a Razorback runner, and tends to roll 1s more than 5s and 6s, they have every right to be concerned about their Transports being metal death boxes for their units. There are people who operate on the outliers, so please be cognizant of that factor.

 Purifier wrote:
Could you explain to me what the whole point of your original "note the differences" besserwisser-remark was? It in no way invalidated what I said, all you did was try to show off that you had read a dictionary?

You want to know why I told you to note the differences between potentiality and probability? Because you seemed to have a problem recognizing that difference exists and then proceeded to try and lambast a person for recognizing the differences.

Oh jesus christ, you're trying way too hard. Stop trying to sound smart, it only comes off as pretentious. On top of that, you're just rambling. You're making up differences where there are none. The semantics doesn't change the facts, and people don't "operate on the outliers" like they are some sort of high risk high reward gamblers. The scenario is so unlikely that it can be safely ignored, and you defending it with this kind of rambling is silly in the extreme. I'm done with this.

Drop the plasma and start walking boys, there's ones on them thar dice.

 Purifier wrote:
Oh jesus christ, you're trying way too hard. Stop trying to sound smart, it only comes off as pretentious. On top of that, you're just rambling. You're making up differences where there are none. The semantics doesn't change the facts, and people don't "operate on the outliers" like they are some sort of high risk high reward gamblers. The scenario is so unlikely that it can be safely ignored, and you defending it with this kind of rambling is silly in the extreme. I'm done with this.

Not so unlikely that I've seen it happen several times to small units over the years in regards to Armour Saves with the same failure rate as the survivability of a Transport Wreck noted here.

Again, I did say that the smaller the unit, the more likely it is. The probability is still extremely low enough that it is not a significant risk to the unit over-all. It is probably the same risk you have running a unit through Dangerous Terrain. I wouldn't think twice for a large unit at full strength, but I might reconsider it for that Crisis Suit squad which has been whittled down.

Is it panic-worthy? No, nor did I say it was. But then, neither was the comment worth the fit you seem to be throwing regarding this, either.

I know plenty of people, both in store and on forums, who won't consider taking a Gets Hot! Weapon because it has tended to fry their wearers more often than it fried their enemies. Those are the same odds, if not worse, of it happening that what is being discussed here (we don't know if Saves are allowed against the Transport Wreck).