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.

Hmm. My knee jerk reaction is to say that I'd be fine with fire points going back onto most vehicles that had them as a rule on the datasheet (similar in wording to Open-Topped). After all, we're not currently seeing rhinos dominating the meta, right?

On the other hand, vehicles were very intentionally made more durable this edition. I worry that a bunch of special/heavy weapons inside of transports might just become yet another form of gunline.

Infantry crossing the table quickly inside of transports and then unloading their short-ranged weapons creates a kind of interesting dynamic. The transports themselves remain vulnerable to attack, so popping some rhinos turn 1 can make it less efficient for the marines to try and get their meltagun or whatever into range. Those who do cross the table and then pop out to fire will theoretically do decent damage, but they're then exposed to retaliation by the enemy's surviving anti-infantry units. There's interesting back and forth there.

If you can shoot out of those rhinos again, then you don't really have a reason to disembark unless you need a few extra bolter shots.

 Galas wrote:
Fire points never made much sense to me for closed vehicles. I think more open topped vehicles should exist.
I understand that the loss of firepower for being on a transport is very punishing, that with transports being more expensive and all of that, made transports not that usefull.

But I dont think having units firing at will from a transport is how things should work.
For example, things like Orks and Dark Eldars, I find totally fine for them to fire from light vehicles, like pirates.
But armies like marines, sisters, imperial guard, should not hide inside vehicles, shooting. They should ride the vehicles disembark and shoot, like the marine primaris rhino.

My favourite army is mech Tau with breachers in devilfish. But for me, mech is not units inside transports, but shooting units using transports for movility.

For Marines, I agree, but the old a couple guys shooting out the top hatch made perfectly reasonable sense to me.

As well for Guard, why wouldn't very squishy regular guys not hide in a much tougher transport and shoot from inside or out of the top if they could ? Now every transport shouldn't be a vehicle for shooting from, some are really designed for that though. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they just had more guns to simulate the troops getting to fire or the transports just be cheaper in points or both.

I'm against fire points for closed vehicles. The idea of firing inside a tank with dangerous weapons that could explode in the bearer's hands like plasma guns sounds really dumb to me.

Gamewise it's also not needed. Armies that could benefit from it don't need more protections for their shooting units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
The removal of fire points is one of the better decisions GW made with 8th. Let all passengers in an open-topped transport fire, sure, but marines hiding in rhinos taking potshots all game is neither good gameplay nor does it make any sense.

Explain why it isn't good gameplay (for units that cost as much as the transport or more to actually contribute under the current garbage Transport rules) or why it doesn't make any sense (seeing as, if Dark Eldar can fire out of a Venom with super high accuracy, a Marine could do that from a slower vehicle).

Take your question this its logical conclusion for the stated army. You are fine with Sternguard or Centurions shotgunning of a Land Raider?

I hate autocorrect. Shotgunning should be 'shooting out'.

Land Raiders never had firing points but what's the problem with either of those units shooting out of a Land Raider at certain amounts besides "I don't like it"?

Multi-meltas and plasma generally. If you can leverage these high-risk weapons without any risk to your model's health from return fire you gain a big advantage. Especially for Astra Militarum, who would be the biggest buff receivers. If I can load up 10 las/plasma/mm devestartors in a land raider and sit them next to your shiny knight, that's at least two rounds of shooting in which I don't risk losing any models. Might as well put in the shield generators from Star Wars Episode I.

I'd be more open to it if the rule was like other systems where shooting infantry doesn't get the protection of the transport. If I can select the squad inside as a target, bypassing the tranport's armor then the problem solves itself. Of course, that's not the result you are hoping for.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
The removal of fire points is one of the better decisions GW made with 8th. Let all passengers in an open-topped transport fire, sure, but marines hiding in rhinos taking potshots all game is neither good gameplay nor does it make any sense.

Explain why it isn't good gameplay (for units that cost as much as the transport or more to actually contribute under the current garbage Transport rules) or why it doesn't make any sense (seeing as, if Dark Eldar can fire out of a Venom with super high accuracy, a Marine could do that from a slower vehicle).

Take your question this its logical conclusion for the stated army. You are fine with Sternguard or Centurions shotgunning of a Land Raider?

I hate autocorrect. Shotgunning should be 'shooting out'.

Land Raiders never had firing points but what's the problem with either of those units shooting out of a Land Raider at certain amounts besides "I don't like it"?

Multi-meltas and plasma generally. If you can leverage these high-risk weapons without any risk to your model's health from return fire you gain a big advantage. Especially for Astra Militarum, who would be the biggest buff receivers. If I can load up 10 las/plasma/mm devestartors in a land raider and sit them next to your shiny knight, that's at least two rounds of shooting in which I don't risk losing any models. Might as well put in the shield generators from Star Wars Episode I.

I'd be more open to it if the rule was like other systems where shooting infantry doesn't get the protection of the transport. If I can select the squad inside as a target, bypassing the tranport's armor then the problem solves itself. Of course, that's not the result you are hoping for.

Yeah if someone wants to spend around 300 points to do that for Devastators what's the problem? You're just going with "I don't like it" again.

 alextroy wrote:
It seems rather simple that GW decided that outside of Transports designed for the occupants to shoot, they were getting rid of the rule. Thus, Rhinos lost their fire point, but not Ork Truks or Drukari Raiders while Chimeras retained their Lasgun Arrays. Its all a matter of making rules to make the game play the way GW wants to to. Apparently Marines firing out of the top of Rhinos is not the way they want the game to play.

IMO, the storm/combi-bolter on the rhino is a marine firing out of the top of rhinos.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

[...]
Yeah if someone wants to spend around 300 points to do that for Devastators what's the problem? You're just going with "I don't like it" again.

Devestators firing out of a Land Raider sound scary to me. Buuuut....

FireDragons/Reapers shooting out of a Serpent.

Nobody wants that.

Fire Points were limited and only on certain vehicles for a reason. Although this was back when Marine troops were supposed to be Tacs carrying 1-2 special/heavy weapons, in a Rhino with 2 firepoints...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
The removal of fire points is one of the better decisions GW made with 8th. Let all passengers in an open-topped transport fire, sure, but marines hiding in rhinos taking potshots all game is neither good gameplay nor does it make any sense.

Explain why it isn't good gameplay (for units that cost as much as the transport or more to actually contribute under the current garbage Transport rules) or why it doesn't make any sense (seeing as, if Dark Eldar can fire out of a Venom with super high accuracy, a Marine could do that from a slower vehicle).

Take your question this its logical conclusion for the stated army. You are fine with Sternguard or Centurions shotgunning of a Land Raider?

I hate autocorrect. Shotgunning should be 'shooting out'.

Land Raiders never had firing points but what's the problem with either of those units shooting out of a Land Raider at certain amounts besides "I don't like it"?

Multi-meltas and plasma generally. If you can leverage these high-risk weapons without any risk to your model's health from return fire you gain a big advantage. Especially for Astra Militarum, who would be the biggest buff receivers. If I can load up 10 las/plasma/mm devestartors in a land raider and sit them next to your shiny knight, that's at least two rounds of shooting in which I don't risk losing any models. Might as well put in the shield generators from Star Wars Episode I.

I'd be more open to it if the rule was like other systems where shooting infantry doesn't get the protection of the transport. If I can select the squad inside as a target, bypassing the tranport's armor then the problem solves itself. Of course, that's not the result you are hoping for.

Yeah if someone wants to spend around 300 points to do that for Devastators what's the problem? You're just going with "I don't like it" again.

Its 300 point capable of killing over a thousand points. There are tons of broken combinations you are hoping to use with this. They all come down to the fact that 8th ed was largely built (and pointed) with the idea that many infantry-mounted weapons are vulnerable to counter-fire. You don't like receiving counter fire, so you want to put a massive, cheap, fast shield but you don't want to pay the points required to balance it out afterwards.

Some rule proposals I like, but some I think are done without consideration for the game's balance if you just randomly shove something in there. I did propose adjusting the rule to allow people to target units inside transports using this new 'firing ports' rule. I noticed that you didn't address that.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Its 300 point capable of killing over a thousand points. There are tons of broken combinations you are hoping to use with this. They all come down to the fact that 8th ed was largely built (and pointed) with the idea that many infantry-mounted weapons are vulnerable to counter-fire. You don't like receiving counter fire, so you want to put a massive, cheap, fast shield but you don't want to pay the points required to balance it out afterwards.

Some rule proposals I like, but some I think are done without consideration for the game's balance if you just randomly shove something in there. I did propose adjusting the rule to allow people to target units inside transports using this new 'firing ports' rule. I noticed that you didn't address that.

How does it kill over 1,000 points?

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

[...]
Yeah if someone wants to spend around 300 points to do that for Devastators what's the problem? You're just going with "I don't like it" again.

Devestators firing out of a Land Raider sound scary to me. Buuuut....

FireDragons/Reapers shooting out of a Serpent.

Nobody wants that.

Fire Points were limited and only on certain vehicles for a reason. Although this was back when Marine troops were supposed to be Tacs carrying 1-2 special/heavy weapons, in a Rhino with 2 firepoints...

I already said that Land Raiders didn't have fire points to begin with, but it somehow didn't stop them from making the post anyway. However, 1-2 Fire Points on a Serpent is not game breaking so I don't see your point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Its 300 point capable of killing over a thousand points. There are tons of broken combinations you are hoping to use with this. They all come down to the fact that 8th ed was largely built (and pointed) with the idea that many infantry-mounted weapons are vulnerable to counter-fire. You don't like receiving counter fire, so you want to put a massive, cheap, fast shield but you don't want to pay the points required to balance it out afterwards.

Some rule proposals I like, but some I think are done without consideration for the game's balance if you just randomly shove something in there. I did propose adjusting the rule to allow people to target units inside transports using this new 'firing ports' rule. I noticed that you didn't address that.

How does it kill over 1,000 points?

Yeah straight up hyperbole with no context. Bad post is bad.

Charger, did you read the OP?

The OP suggested giving every vehicle two firepoints. So, loading up two five-man Dev squads in a Land Raider is a massive waste.

What's NOT suggested is giving everything Open-Topped. That'd be insane. And, while as I said in my first post, there's likely SOMETHING broken with this, for Rhinos and Land Raiders... Not really.

Yeah as much as I want to run Sternguard in a Raider that ain't happening.

Not to mention that models in transports still don't benefit from auras or targeted buffs IRC. So in many cases your sacrificing significant buffs to firepower to have a couple of guns firing out of a vehicle.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Its 300 point capable of killing over a thousand points. There are tons of broken combinations you are hoping to use with this. They all come down to the fact that 8th ed was largely built (and pointed) with the idea that many infantry-mounted weapons are vulnerable to counter-fire. You don't like receiving counter fire, so you want to put a massive, cheap, fast shield but you don't want to pay the points required to balance it out afterwards.

Some rule proposals I like, but some I think are done without consideration for the game's balance if you just randomly shove something in there. I did propose adjusting the rule to allow people to target units inside transports using this new 'firing ports' rule. I noticed that you didn't address that.

How does it kill over 1,000 points?

Let me line up the 24 wound knights and 20 wounds land raider you can one round with an full strength devastator squad, and it'll take at least two rounds (the shooting when your transport drives into range + the shooting round needed to blow up your transport) before I can stop the bleeding and kill the squad. It's a return to the death stars of 7ed where you can sink a bunch of points into something but keep them alive with a low-poin protective model (in this case a transport).

Again. Would you be ok if I could shoot back at the models using these firing ports or are you still hoping they'll be immune inside the transport?

Alaso a design smell is the fact that you'd probably never want the unit to leave the transport. It's not really a transport at that point but protection buff you had to buy a model for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Charger, did you read the OP?

The OP suggested giving every vehicle two firepoints. So, loading up two five-man Dev squads in a Land Raider is a massive waste.

What's NOT suggested is giving everything Open-Topped. That'd be insane. And, while as I said in my first post, there's likely SOMETHING broken with this, for Rhinos and Land Raiders... Not really.

The post I originally replied to was suggesting a far more wide-reaching rule. For the OP, I suggested allowing me to shoot back at the models using the firing ports and I'd be fine with it.

Are you seriously suggesting that a Land Raider with two extra Lascannons for 105 points is somehow amazing against a Knight?

Are we reading the same rules?

They never once said anything to the contrary of the OP's suggestion.

But sure-let's look at a Land Raider with 8 Multi-Meltas in it. (Two minimum Dev squads with 4 Meltas each.)

Turn one, the Knight player foolishly deploys his Knight within 34" of the Land Raider (sometimes, it won't be possible to be further. Other times, it DEFINITELY will be). Say he's got a Gallant he wants to charge in fast. So, the Land Raider trundles up, not getting within 12" (since it's only got a 10" move) and fires 8 shots.

8 shots
4 hit
2 wound
1 failed save

Congrats-you just did 1-6 damage to a Knight for 583 points!

The Knights Player then charges your Land Raider, first with the Gallant (to eat Overwatch) and then with some infiltrated or fast-moving screens (to surround the Land Raider entirely) and swings.

5 attacks
10/3 hits
25/9 wounds
125/54
13.89 wounds on average. But that comes in increments of 6, so it could be only 12. I think he can do 4 wounds to a Land Raider in shooting, though.

Your Land Raider is dead. Your Land Raider is surrounded, meaning the entire occupants just die. And you did around 4 wounds to the cheapest possible Knight.