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.

I DO think that's kind of a bad rule. I could understand "you can't move, shoot, or charge with a unit the turn it disembarks", if they would allow us to Disembark after moving.

Do we really want to be adding a dozen inches to the charge range of half the units in the game? Berzerkers? DE covens?

Ive got my guardsmen, what do i care?

Well, that IS why I suggested that Disembarking denies the unit the ability to Move, Shoot, or Charge that turn. No Move so you can't use Transports to add a dozen or so inches to your movement. No Shoot so you can't get around Open-Topped. No Charge for the reason you just mentioned.

The problem of the transports come directly from the movement rules. As long as an infantry model can keep up with them, there will be no incentive to field them. We will be better off spending those points in more infantry models.

IMHO, a lot could be solved in favor of their usability if the advance rule would be changed to "add half the movement of the model" (instead of + 1d6"). No dice rolled, faster games. No dice rolled, deployment more critical ergo more strategical. An ork walking down the road of death could move 5"+2.5" while a trukk 12"+6".

Maybe those 10.5" extra inches would make them more valuable.

An alternative would be to have a double braket movement profile, but that requires a lot f editing and FAQing.

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
The problem of the transports come directly from the movement rules. As long as an infantry model can keep up with them, there will be no incentive to field them. We will be better off spending those points in more infantry models.

IMHO, a lot could be solved in favor of their usability if the advance rule would be changed to "add half the movement of the model" (instead of + 1d6"). No dice rolled, faster games. No dice rolled, deployment more critical ergo more strategical. An ork walking down the road of death could move 5"+2.5" while a trukk 12"+6".

Maybe those 10.5" extra inches would make them more valuable.

An alternative would be to have a double braket movement profile, but that requires a lot f editing and FAQing.

Removing the randomized advance for evrything would strongly impact balance.
Why not instead have all dedicated transport have a rule increasing their advance? (like 2D6 or a fixed 6" for example)

 krakjen wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
The problem of the transports come directly from the movement rules. As long as an infantry model can keep up with them, there will be no incentive to field them. We will be better off spending those points in more infantry models.

IMHO, a lot could be solved in favor of their usability if the advance rule would be changed to "add half the movement of the model" (instead of + 1d6"). No dice rolled, faster games. No dice rolled, deployment more critical ergo more strategical. An ork walking down the road of death could move 5"+2.5" while a trukk 12"+6".

Maybe those 10.5" extra inches would make them more valuable.

An alternative would be to have a double braket movement profile, but that requires a lot f editing and FAQing.

Removing the randomized advance for evrything would strongly impact balance.
Why not instead have all dedicated transport have a rule increasing their advance? (like 2D6 or a fixed 6" for example)

How does taking out the randomness affect balance? I can't think of any other serious wargame that does random "run" rolls, at least not that I've played. Heck even the new apocalypse went to that. It's a pretty standard fare that your "run" style action gets you 1.5-2x your movement as a flat value.

 flandarz wrote:
Well, that IS why I suggested that Disembarking denies the unit the ability to Move, Shoot, or Charge that turn. No Move so you can't use Transports to add a dozen or so inches to your movement. No Shoot so you can't get around Open-Topped. No Charge for the reason you just mentioned.

But then they'd be getting out of the relative safety of the transport only to be shot at for a turn.

True. I guess you could just wait for it to get exploded instead though. And it's not much different from now. Either get out before it moves and get shot, or stay in and hope it doesn't get exploded before you can Disembark next turn.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 krakjen wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
The problem of the transports come directly from the movement rules. As long as an infantry model can keep up with them, there will be no incentive to field them. We will be better off spending those points in more infantry models.

IMHO, a lot could be solved in favor of their usability if the advance rule would be changed to "add half the movement of the model" (instead of + 1d6"). No dice rolled, faster games. No dice rolled, deployment more critical ergo more strategical. An ork walking down the road of death could move 5"+2.5" while a trukk 12"+6".

Maybe those 10.5" extra inches would make them more valuable.

An alternative would be to have a double braket movement profile, but that requires a lot f editing and FAQing.

Removing the randomized advance for evrything would strongly impact balance.
Why not instead have all dedicated transport have a rule increasing their advance? (like 2D6 or a fixed 6" for example)

How does taking out the randomness affect balance? I can't think of any other serious wargame that does random "run" rolls, at least not that I've played. Heck even the new apocalypse went to that. It's a pretty standard fare that your "run" style action gets you 1.5-2x your movement as a flat value.

It makes things predictable.
A couple of examples from the top of my headL
The advance roll is pretty important when you are trying for a first turn charge with Genestealers. With a fixed value, you have a more restrained but almost certain (you still need to pull off the charge roll) tactic.
Another example is advancing with a Neurothrope to get into position to pull off a targeted Smite. With a fixed value you'll know beforehand if you can do it or not, hence removing risk/reward.
Instead of working with average and potential when planning something, you'll have certainty whether it will work or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to get back on topic, I'd advise fellow AdMech players to NOT look at the Genestealer Cult Goliath Truck.
It's depressing how it's similar as our new Transport, but better.
And actually slightly cheaper at 72 points.
Also let's not even talk about the kit price.

Yeah, as much as I would like to grab one, I think I’ll have to wait until it gets bundled with something else to make the price more palatable. Maybe replacing the Onager in the SC set (transport + troops to fill it, yes please).

I guess this battle has been fought out over the last couple of weeks, but the weird thing about this is this idea that because its T6, it will fold like tissue paper, whereas T7 Rhinos are STRONK.

Playing with Ravagers.. T6 is a blessing most of the time. Okay this transport doesn't have a 5++, but its going to have a 5+ save except versus AP-3 shots. You want to sink a lot of D1 plasma into me to enjoy that no risk S7 shooting? Go right ahead. Its hardly efficient. At the same time those AP-1 autocannons are not exactly bringing the apocalypse as I still have a 4+ save.

As mentioned you can potentially a 2+ save for two turns with shroudpsalm/prepared positions. You can get -1 to hit with Stygies.

You can say 12 S4/AP- shots are not good - but it quite clearly beats having just 2, 3 or 4 such shots. I mean if you were to bring 6 rangers that would knock you back 42 points. 12 would cost you 84. Okay you don't get AP-1 on 6s, but you do get 36" range, a higher toughness, armour save and movement.

I think its very good, and a list with a lot of them in which focused on winning the objective could be interesting, especially as you bring target saturation with other must kill units.

With all that said I can agree with people saying GW asking for both your kidneys is a bit much but that doesn't impact their value on the table.

12 S4 AP - shots is IMHO about right for a transport, it's eneugh to help clear out infantry as you move your infantry into position, but it's not going to set you back points wise too much, nor is it going to make your transport a priority target

Honestly I think the only thing that sucks about this transport is the price point. I would never pay that price. I will gladly wait till it gets bundled with something else. Thanks for deciding for me GW

 fraser1191 wrote:
Honestly I think the only thing that sucks about this transport is the price point. I would never pay that price. I will gladly wait till it gets bundled with something else. Thanks for deciding for me GW

pretty much this. I think I'll just get the termite.

Unfortunately this doesnt bode well for the grav-rhino, it'll probably be $65 which is mothafunkin ridiculous for a troop transport.

at the same time, this explains why we see stuff like the repulsor exist, GW's discovered that we're more likely to pay the big bucks for a transport that can do double duty as a MBT