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.

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I guess so. Your transport crew still has 3" advantage on the enemy troops, so position yourself at 16" instead of 12". You charge on a 6 now, they charge on a 9.

That actually sounds like a pretty good plan. Might steal this.

Whilst this will work in some circumstances, it relies on the opponent staying static. It also has the downside of if the opponent makes their charge they have still incapacitated your transport and unit/s inside with no recompense whilst if you make the charge, the opponent still gets overwatch and ability to fight back.

There have been posts about using screening units, which will obviously help, but aside from the point that I mentioned earlier about elite armies being highly outnumbered and having to invest a huge amount to be able to actually use each individual transport, there is another point this suggestion (about screening units) overlooks. That being that if the opponent wipes out the screening unit, they can effectively invalidate not just the screening unit itself but the transport and it's passengers as well. You only need to wipe out that 200point jp unit and then charge the transport with a cheap chaff unit and you will have also effectively have negated another 300+ points, for merely destroying one unit. So now to ensure that doesn't happen, you play it safe and take 2 screening units, now we are looking at spending 1/3 to 1/2 of your points (including the rhino + passengers) on ensuring a single rhino and its crew is protected enough so that it doesn't get 'locked in'. (Talking about elite, lower model count armies like marines here.)

Btw I'm glad people have realised this could be a big issue and started to discuss this and try and come up with answers, rather than the earlier condescending 'Learn to play' and Lobotomy comments earlier in the thread.

That is in general a problem of elite armies, Every unit has to do multiple tasks to make it worthwile. You can't ,for example, use 2 grey knight strike squads as just screening units but you can try and position them so they also do that. I still think if you get a sizable chunk of your army disabled like this you simply got massively outmanoeuvred by your opponent.

And to people saying it should be impossible: The reason I currently no longer play CSM is that it feels like fighting the rules more so than my actual opponent.
Rules that enable tactics are by and large more fun than rules that disable tactics. Sometimes ( okay a lot of the time ) you need those for balance but if my tactic is swarm your vehicles with a horde and you have a rule that straight up makes my tactic invalid well that's no fun. Whereas if you have tactic (clever positioning, speed manoeuvres, a wall of overlapping firepower) that's a lot more fun.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

theocracity wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Especially with the extra 9 inches of help sadly :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.

Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?

You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.

The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.

I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.

They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.

Claiming 8th is broken because 4 gretchin and surround and immobilize a baneblade is a lot like claiming 5th is broken because your opponent might roll a 6 for every VDT roll and one-shot all your vehicles, or that melee in 7th is broken because you play a pure fire warrior army and move+run straight at the enemy every game.

If you don't factor in how unlikely an event is, or how stupid a player would have to be to allow it to happen, you can break pretty much ANY game system with zero effort. Chess is broken imba because if I move my Queen to the space directly in front of a line of pawns it dies EVERY TIME.

They may not want to fix it in their same way some folks want it fixed. From a fluff point of view mix hammer fits well with many army's. Now Orks can loot anything! Choas can subvert anything! If point costs are truly individualy balanced by unit it doesn't matter what units you bash together. People wanted freedom, people wanted balance, here it is. If everyone adopts the same perfect keyword list at least everyone's army will look different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow, wrong thread. Wtf

the_scotsman wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

theocracity wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Especially with the extra 9 inches of help sadly :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The scalpel taken to detail in general this edition is hard to ignore at this point. Too early to call it the gandalf edition but grots and drones getting the full you shall not pass is one of many bridges too far.

Or - get this - don't ignore chaff and be aware of your positioning. You know - like how people clamored that tanks are weak to infantry in a city or up close?

You have to do something about that grot scrambling all over before it shoves something where it doesn't belong.

The loss of immersion for me is too great. Is there a vehicle class or size for you at which point you might think its a bit silly that a grot could stop it cold in its tracks? A rhino is one thing, a baneblade is pushing it.

I'm pretty sure Baneblades have rules that let them keep shooting when they're locked in combat.

They actually don't. They have rules that let them shoot after *withdrawing* from combat...which is easier said than done when surrounded completely.

Claiming 8th is broken because 4 gretchin and surround and immobilize a baneblade is a lot like claiming 5th is broken because your opponent might roll a 6 for every VDT roll and one-shot all your vehicles, or that melee in 7th is broken because you play a pure fire warrior army and move+run straight at the enemy every game.

If you don't factor in how unlikely an event is, or how stupid a player would have to be to allow it to happen, you can break pretty much ANY game system with zero effort. Chess is broken imba because if I move my Queen to the space directly in front of a line of pawns it dies EVERY TIME.

False analogies. The initial discussion wasn't about statistical improbability, and the second point compares a unit that was at best a tax/objective camper with an entire class of units, some whose very purpose was driving into the very center of the board in order to deliver said troops; even with the changes to Twin Link, I seriously doubt people will content themselves using Land Raiders to camp cover for example. You can't use chess as an analogy in this situation as I doubt there is a fairy-piece variant that mixes both range and normal captures in the same game.

It also does bring up weirdness: For example, how come the Baneblade is the only tank that can fire its flamers point-blank at units engaging it, while other tanks that might actually be specialized for the role (you know, like Hellhounds or Baal Predators) can't? You know, the types of tanks that are "supposed" to specialize in shock tactics.

If retreating was "a free round of melee attacks against the retreating unit" and retreating units could fire at a -1 BS penalty (on top of any normal "Heavy weapons" penalty), it would still be simple, would benefit both melee units (stuff like Hormagaunts/Boyz/etc don't get as much mileage from a free round of shooting), and would give some in-game flexibility to tanks, by letting them "kite" other squads. Or maybe tank shock does extra Battleshock when it does inflict casualties ("Sarge got run over!") or something rather than treating every unit as an impassible wall.

It's so much more believable that a entire unit of 30 gaunts miraculously dodge out of the way of a baneblade going full speed without taking a single casualty than grots climbing onto the hull and covering up the view slits/distracting the driver/gunner/tank commander. Treads never get choked up with bodies, mud, or foliage either.

Tanks should have infantry support and infantry should have tanks. If you only have one or the other you're probably gonna have a bad time.

I thought tank shock was ridiculous. Why try to run over squishys when it allows them to surround your tank and shoot you in the rear and it has basically zero effect on them. Choose one guy to make a heroic stand? Did anyone actually ever do that?

Tank Shock had very specific rules for displacing models. "Closest legal distance possible." This could be gamed for several purposes.

In one game versus an opponent running a Renegade Knight and Hounds of Abaddon, I summoned a unit of Daemonettes. They landed super close to the Knight, and ran to completely surround it. The AT on said Knight was out of LOS so I was able to run the rest of the Rhinos in a convoy to Tank-shock his units into inverted U formations, that screwed up his ability to Overwatch or Pile in when the supporting Bikers went to work. In another, I used Ramming to damage a Tantalus that had Invisibility cast on it by a nearby Seer Council.

As for Death or Glory, it's amazing what turbo-boosting Screamers would do versus a Gladius in scenario play. Don't forget that movement comes before shooting, so even if he kills said Screamers by focusing them down (still takes quite a few Lascannons thanks to Jink & re-rolling 1s), you're still maintaining positional advantage. Reaver-spam armies could hem carparks in to a lesser extent doing this.

The FAQ crapped all over the abuse of tank shock, though. I don't miss it at all.

What is the specific complaint at this point?

That charging a transport stops it from moving and forces it to retreat from combat for a turn? Or is it that the 8th edition rules don't function how people think they should if the game were a battle simulation?

If you feel the fact that charging a vehicle, forcing it to retreat from combat, creates an imbalance and weakens vehicles, relative to where they were in 7th, please make your case. I can't imagine someone seriously claiming that vehicles are less useful in 8th. It seems like after reading this thread the entire argument is predicated upon driving your rhino, or what have you, across the table to get in charge range. Consider, for a brief moment, that this wasn't possible in 7th edition unless you had a spam of free transports. Try taking your land raider and driving it across the table to be in enemy charge range. It would die before this even happened. Your argument against this change should take into account the massive buffs that have been handed out to vehicles as well. You can't look at one specific vehicle rule change in a vacuum.

If your argument is "that's not how it works in real life," then there's really no argument to be had. Everyone can take a different interpretation of what era battles this is designed to loosely mimic, but regardless, it's hard to imagine any significant battle happening without the support of strong artillery, placed miles away from the actual fighting, which would render pretty much any scenario we could realistically model in 40k, completely moot. If we can teleport people wearing armor down to the surface within 9" (roughly 1.5 seconds of time spent sprinting, so pretty close) away from the enemy, why don't we just teleport down some bombs, and be done with it? 9" away from their commander a bomb explodes. GG. Stuff gets real silly real fast.

Modern, computerized warfare is a rather silly, boring, deadly affair. No real heroes at all.

 Marmatag wrote:
What is the specific complaint at this point?

That charging a transport stops it from moving and forces it to retreat from combat for a turn? Or is it that the 8th edition rules don't function how people think they should if the game were a battle simulation?

If you feel the fact that charging a vehicle, forcing it to retreat from combat, creates an imbalance and weakens vehicles, relative to where they were in 7th, please make your case. I can't imagine someone seriously claiming that vehicles are less useful in 8th. It seems like after reading this thread the entire argument is predicated upon driving your rhino, or what have you, across the table to get in charge range. Consider, for a brief moment, that this wasn't possible in 7th edition unless you had a spam of free transports. Try taking your land raider and driving it across the table to be in enemy charge range. It would die before this even happened. Your argument against this change should take into account the massive buffs that have been handed out to vehicles as well. You can't look at one specific vehicle rule change in a vacuum.

If your argument is "that's not how it works in real life," then there's really no argument to be had. Everyone can take a different interpretation of what era battles this is designed to loosely mimic, but regardless, it's hard to imagine any significant battle happening without the support of strong artillery, placed miles away from the actual fighting, which would render pretty much any scenario we could realistically model in 40k, completely moot. If we can teleport people wearing armor down to the surface within 9" (roughly 1.5 seconds of time spent sprinting, so pretty close) away from the enemy, why don't we just teleport down some bombs, and be done with it? 9" away from their commander a bomb explodes. GG. Stuff gets real silly real fast.

The complaint is that if you have enough models to ensure unit coherency, charging a vehicle will always result in it being surrounded due to the 6" worth of extra move once you've reached assault. Then the vehicle cannot retreat from combat at all and neither can any passengers disembark. Even if the vehicle could retreat from combat when surrounded with an FAQ ruling - the passengers still cannot disembark if it is a transport as that needs to happen at the start of the movement phase. It means that vehicles cannot approach within 14" of any reasonable sized unit - every unit has a threat bubble of being able to automatically invalidate any vehicle by locking them in combat with no recourse.

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
What is the specific complaint at this point?

That charging a transport stops it from moving and forces it to retreat from combat for a turn? Or is it that the 8th edition rules don't function how people think they should if the game were a battle simulation?

If you feel the fact that charging a vehicle, forcing it to retreat from combat, creates an imbalance and weakens vehicles, relative to where they were in 7th, please make your case. I can't imagine someone seriously claiming that vehicles are less useful in 8th. It seems like after reading this thread the entire argument is predicated upon driving your rhino, or what have you, across the table to get in charge range. Consider, for a brief moment, that this wasn't possible in 7th edition unless you had a spam of free transports. Try taking your land raider and driving it across the table to be in enemy charge range. It would die before this even happened. Your argument against this change should take into account the massive buffs that have been handed out to vehicles as well. You can't look at one specific vehicle rule change in a vacuum.

If your argument is "that's not how it works in real life," then there's really no argument to be had. Everyone can take a different interpretation of what era battles this is designed to loosely mimic, but regardless, it's hard to imagine any significant battle happening without the support of strong artillery, placed miles away from the actual fighting, which would render pretty much any scenario we could realistically model in 40k, completely moot. If we can teleport people wearing armor down to the surface within 9" (roughly 1.5 seconds of time spent sprinting, so pretty close) away from the enemy, why don't we just teleport down some bombs, and be done with it? 9" away from their commander a bomb explodes. GG. Stuff gets real silly real fast.

The complaint is that if you have enough models to ensure unit coherency, charging a vehicle will always result in it being surrounded due to the 6" worth of extra move once you've reached assault. Then the vehicle cannot retreat from combat at all and neither can any passengers disembark. Even if the vehicle could retreat from combat when surrounded with an FAQ ruling - the passengers still cannot disembark if it is a transport as that needs to happen at the start of the movement phase. It means that vehicles cannot approach within 14" of any reasonable sized unit - every unit has a threat bubble of being able to automatically invalidate any vehicle by locking them in combat with no recourse.

So stay 16" away. Plenty safe. You have 3" charge advantage from being in the tank, so play with numbers so you can make a fairly easy charge and they have to make a fairly hard one.

Also, support your tanks. nearby, un-charged tanks can unload their troops to free stuck ones.

I don't know about you, but I'm not super excited about charging and surrounding a BA tank, as there are probably plenty of BA lurking around that would love to counter charge.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
What is the specific complaint at this point?

That charging a transport stops it from moving and forces it to retreat from combat for a turn? Or is it that the 8th edition rules don't function how people think they should if the game were a battle simulation?

If you feel the fact that charging a vehicle, forcing it to retreat from combat, creates an imbalance and weakens vehicles, relative to where they were in 7th, please make your case. I can't imagine someone seriously claiming that vehicles are less useful in 8th. It seems like after reading this thread the entire argument is predicated upon driving your rhino, or what have you, across the table to get in charge range. Consider, for a brief moment, that this wasn't possible in 7th edition unless you had a spam of free transports. Try taking your land raider and driving it across the table to be in enemy charge range. It would die before this even happened. Your argument against this change should take into account the massive buffs that have been handed out to vehicles as well. You can't look at one specific vehicle rule change in a vacuum.

If your argument is "that's not how it works in real life," then there's really no argument to be had. Everyone can take a different interpretation of what era battles this is designed to loosely mimic, but regardless, it's hard to imagine any significant battle happening without the support of strong artillery, placed miles away from the actual fighting, which would render pretty much any scenario we could realistically model in 40k, completely moot. If we can teleport people wearing armor down to the surface within 9" (roughly 1.5 seconds of time spent sprinting, so pretty close) away from the enemy, why don't we just teleport down some bombs, and be done with it? 9" away from their commander a bomb explodes. GG. Stuff gets real silly real fast.

The complaint is that if you have enough models to ensure unit coherency, charging a vehicle will always result in it being surrounded due to the 6" worth of extra move once you've reached assault. Then the vehicle cannot retreat from combat at all and neither can any passengers disembark. Even if the vehicle could retreat from combat when surrounded with an FAQ ruling - the passengers still cannot disembark if it is a transport as that needs to happen at the start of the movement phase. It means that vehicles cannot approach within 14" of any reasonable sized unit - every unit has a threat bubble of being able to automatically invalidate any vehicle by locking them in combat with no recourse.

So stay 16" away. Plenty safe. You have 3" charge advantage from being in the tank, so play with numbers so you can make a fairly easy charge and they have to make a fairly hard one.

Also, support your tanks. nearby, un-charged tanks can unload their troops to free stuck ones.

I have already addressed these points previously.
The only one I haven't - some tanks can't stay 16" away, such as the Flamestorm Baal, whilst others lose a huge amount of efficiency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I guess so. Your transport crew still has 3" advantage on the enemy troops, so position yourself at 16" instead of 12". You charge on a 6 now, they charge on a 9.

That actually sounds like a pretty good plan. Might steal this.

Whilst this will work in some circumstances, it relies on the opponent staying static. It also has the downside of if the opponent makes their charge they have still incapacitated your transport and unit/s inside with no recompense whilst if you make the charge, the opponent still gets overwatch and ability to fight back.

There have been posts about using screening units, which will obviously help, but aside from the point that I mentioned earlier about elite armies being highly outnumbered and having to invest a huge amount to be able to actually use each individual transport, there is another point this suggestion (about screening units) overlooks. That being that if the opponent wipes out the screening unit, they can effectively invalidate not just the screening unit itself but the transport and it's passengers as well. You only need to wipe out that 200point jp unit and then charge the transport with a cheap chaff unit and you will have also effectively have negated another 300+ points, for merely destroying one unit. So now to ensure that doesn't happen, you play it safe and take 2 screening units, now we are looking at spending 1/3 to 1/2 of your points (including the rhino + passengers) on ensuring a single rhino and its crew is protected enough so that it doesn't get 'locked in'. (Talking about elite, lower model count armies like marines here.)

Btw I'm glad people have realised this could be a big issue and started to discuss this and try and come up with answers, rather than the earlier condescending 'Learn to play' and Lobotomy comments earlier in the thread.

Poly Ranger wrote:


I have already addressed these points previously.
The only one I haven't - some tanks can't stay 16" away, such as the Flamestorm Baal, whilst others lose a huge amount of efficiency.

And? The question here is transport tanks carrying assault units. Transport tanks carrying shooting units dropped their cargo off before they became threatened by enemy counter-chargers.

That flamerstorm tank got to fire it's flamer into the unit that's charging it twice before it got charged. Once when it moved into range, and again in overwatch when it gets charged. It the Flamestorm Cannon is anything like my Immolation Flamers, and it and the Predator's Heavy Flamer sponsons failed to delete the enemy, then I'm fairly certain the tank is now tying up more than it's own value in combat, and is the one winning here.

In fact, I think the Flamestorm tank is achieving maximum efficiency being charged by GEQ looking to tie it up!

Note to self: Flamestorm Baal Predators are probably going to be really, really scary.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:

Whilst this will work in some circumstances, it relies on the opponent staying static. It also has the downside of if the opponent makes their charge they have still incapacitated your transport and unit/s inside with no recompense whilst if you make the charge, the opponent still gets overwatch and ability to fight back.

There have been posts about using screening units, which will obviously help, but aside from the point that I mentioned earlier about elite armies being highly outnumbered and having to invest a huge amount to be able to actually use each individual transport, there is another point this suggestion (about screening units) overlooks. That being that if the opponent wipes out the screening unit, they can effectively invalidate not just the screening unit itself but the transport and it's passengers as well. You only need to wipe out that 200point jp unit and then charge the transport with a cheap chaff unit and you will have also effectively have negated another 300+ points, for merely destroying one unit. So now to ensure that doesn't happen, you play it safe and take 2 screening units, now we are looking at spending 1/3 to 1/2 of your points (including the rhino + passengers) on ensuring a single rhino and its crew is protected enough so that it doesn't get 'locked in'. (Talking about elite, lower model count armies like marines here.)

Btw I'm glad people have realised this could be a big issue and started to discuss this and try and come up with answers, rather than the earlier condescending 'Learn to play' and Lobotomy comments earlier in the thread.

Of course. If the opponent retreats, though, that's usually good for you.

The opponent doesn't get overwatch. The Rhino charges first, blocking it. Then your shock troops charge, safe from overwatch.

Good point on the Flamestorm.

The overwatch was a small point in the grand scheme of things but would have been one additional irritant, charging with the rhino is a good way of getting around that.

The other wider points still stand though.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Good point on the Flamestorm.

The overwatch was a small point in the grand scheme of things but would have been one additional irritant, charging with the rhino is a good way of getting around that.

The other wider points still stand though.

I think that the tanks at risk of having problems with being in melee are also the tanks that you don't want to charge.

Tanks like the Leman Russ have the range to remain well out of threat from assault.
You don't want to charge Hellhounds and Flamestorm Predators. They don't care if they're close, because they roll up, burn, and then burn again when the enemy tries to charge them, and are cheaper than anything they won't outright incinerate.
Transports for shooting units aren't worried. Immolators for Dominions, Chimerae for Veterans, etc. will have unloaded their troops well before they're in danger of being charged. They don't have to worry about getting within enemy charge range until after they've unloaded, and after that they might find new life as an anti-charge barricade for the unit they unloaded.

That just really leaves assault transports as the only tanks worried about being surrounded. And there, they still have a 3" advantage over potential counterchargers, which is pretty fair, all things considered. A fair risk and a fair reward, I think. And of course, you can always bring the armed transport version with heavy flamers, which are at least a fairly decent deterrent to assault.

And even then, if I'm rolling up with Immolators and Razorbacks, and they they still get stuck, I can always free them with Celestine or Bran or a squad of Seraphim [or charge them with my Shadowsword, because that works for some reason].

I'm not really concerned about getting my tanks locked in battle. The units that can actually reach the tanks and hurt the tanks, like Seraphim, are also as or more expensive than they are and will falter without support.

As an Iron Hands player, I am kinda concerned about my army and my ability to use my beloved vindicator. Vehicles seem tougher this edition, but that won't matter when singular models can lock down my tanks and other short range stuff. Points costs are an issue too now. Forget Razorbacks and rhinos ect. I kinda feel like I am being forced into things that really aren't Iron Hands. Worse yet, I have not been able to find any of the Iron Hands specific rules. My entire army may be invalid at this point. I kinda get the feeling my whole army will only get half a page to a page in the new SM book. Sorry if I went off topic a bit. I kinda agree with MagicJuggler on his solution. It should not be so easy to shut down a vehicle simply by charging it with a single model. These rules really are not very good for vehicles with short engagement distances where they are forced into charge range.

 NorseSig wrote:
As an Iron Hands player, I am kinda concerned about my army and my ability to use my beloved vindicator. Vehicles seem tougher this edition, but that won't matter when singular models can lock down my tanks and other short range stuff. Points costs are an issue too now. Forget Razorbacks and rhinos ect. I kinda feel like I am being forced into things that really aren't Iron Hands. Worse yet, I have not been able to find any of the Iron Hands specific rules. My entire army may be invalid at this point. I kinda get the feeling my whole army will only get half a page to a page in the new SM book. Sorry if I went off topic a bit. I kinda agree with MagicJuggler on his solution. It should not be so easy to shut down a vehicle simply by charging it with a single model. These rules really are not very good for vehicles with short engagement distances where they are forced into charge range.

Forgive me, but opening my "codex", which I have to share with such "factions" as the Imperial Navy and their 2 units and the Astra Telepathica and their 3, I didn't even see a single one of our Orders referenced by name. In the precisely one page of background and one page of art my entire faction was allocated, they didn't even mention George Vandire or Alicia Dominica.

The Vindicator will be fine. It has 24" of gun range, so if your Space Marines can stay out of close combat so can the Vindicator.

Okay, I lied, the Vindicator won't be fine if the Leman Russ Demolisher is anything to go by, but that has nothing to do with getting caught in melee combat. The Demolisher Cannon just isn't worth the points.


I don't think a vehicle should be permitted to fire at units in close combat with them, but I also think tanks should be allowed to move over hostile infantry in melee with them. A tank can't bring most of its guns to bear on troops close to it, and while it's not likely to succeed in running someone over, I don't think the driver of a Leman Russ would worry about crushing an Ork underneath the tank as he backs up. The Ork would just get out of the way.

I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.

Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know about you, but I'm not super excited about charging and surrounding a BA tank, as there are probably plenty of BA lurking around that would love to counter charge.

Well, that is how it would work in an actual game. But in this specific thread, the BA player's only recourse is to lament GW's horrible rules. And feel shame for playing 8th at all.

 andysonic1 wrote:
I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.

Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).

"Blood for the Blood God!"

"Um, Wulfbad, there's nothing here that bleeds...just this Land Raider."

"Err, uh...Car Parts for the Repoman God!"

 andysonic1 wrote:
I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.

Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).

What if those were gretchin? Ork boyz? Conscripts?
Jump troops? Scouts?
Shutting down a heavy vehicle with foot troops regardless is not a good thing.
Right?

 jeff white wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.

Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).

What if those were gretchin? Ork boyz? Conscripts?
Jump troops? Scouts?
Shutting down a heavy vehicle with foot troops regardless is not a good thing.
Right?

If only there was some way to visualize the problem

I have a related ingame story. I was playing a friend's Tyranids and his winged Hive Tyrant charged my Razorback. He failed to wound but my Razorback hit twice and wounded once. He made his save but it was so embarrassing for the tyrant that when I fell back to do something else he flew off in a different direction never to mention that "battle" again.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
All games are an abstract representation of some scenario, real or imaginary. As such, the mechanics of the game are occasionally going to create odd interactions that aren't "realistic". We accept those interactions to be able to play a game within a reasonable time frame.

With the size of the armies used in an average 40K games, we need a fair bit of abstraction so a 1500pt game doesn't take all day. So, we will see some odd interactions crop up. So yes, a single Grot being able to make a Land Raider stop moving is "unrealistic", but I can live with it if in return vehicles have a level of durability appropriate to their cost, which seems to be the case with 8th.

If you want a realistic game, go play Advanced Squad Leader. It's got rules for every possible scenario. However, be aware it's got a set of rules the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you'll spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time looking up things on graphs.

That rationalization could be used for anything. This is easily fixed, and it currently leads to laughable levels of reality suspension.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Spoiler:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I played a game of 8th, my world eaters against my friends iron warriors. He moved his shooting platform land raider halfway up the field and i managed to charge and surround it with berzerkers. Over two rounds of combat where the berzerkers went twice, they did three wounds to it and he couldn't get away.

Moral of the story: I have better things to do with my berzerkers and your shooting platforms should stay the hell away from my melee units. If you give me the chance to lock you down I will, but I won't if there are better targets (which there weren't).

What if those were gretchin? Ork boyz? Conscripts?
Jump troops? Scouts?
Shutting down a heavy vehicle with foot troops regardless is not a good thing.
Right?

If only there was some way to visualize the problem

Spoiler:

Uh huh.
Korne berserkers are nonviolent citizen protesters for civil rights and are anti- corruption to the core.
They stop tanks with pure virtue.
That or they are so darn playful.
And silent...absolutely silent.

Gretchin Climbing all over the tank, Droping things down exhaust pipes. Pulling off bits and peaces, and blocking the weapons with a wrench

It actually Kinda cool

xmbk wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
All games are an abstract representation of some scenario, real or imaginary. As such, the mechanics of the game are occasionally going to create odd interactions that aren't "realistic". We accept those interactions to be able to play a game within a reasonable time frame.

With the size of the armies used in an average 40K games, we need a fair bit of abstraction so a 1500pt game doesn't take all day. So, we will see some odd interactions crop up. So yes, a single Grot being able to make a Land Raider stop moving is "unrealistic", but I can live with it if in return vehicles have a level of durability appropriate to their cost, which seems to be the case with 8th.

If you want a realistic game, go play Advanced Squad Leader. It's got rules for every possible scenario. However, be aware it's got a set of rules the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you'll spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time looking up things on graphs.

That rationalization could be used for anything. This is easily fixed, and it currently leads to laughable levels of reality suspension.

The game always had laughable levels of reality suspension. The question is why should vehicles get exemption to rules that effect everyone else?

Or why are other units exempt in the first place?

I understand that for infantry, things like model arcs would slow things down even further, but for things like Flyrants, Riptides, or Scatbikes, 360* shooting is weird and positioning shouldn't slow the game down considerably. They aren't swarmy models after all.