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.

Open top new rules change.

Add: Units embarked in open top vehicles, if the vehicle is in combat the units embarked are now considered in combat. The enemy unit may target them with any melee attacks as a separate unit from the transport. Units embarked in transports gain +1 to their saves (Benefit of cover) in melee.

Stole from AoS.

An actual downside to open topped.

Hmm. While this technically adds a downside to charging a transport containing a melee unit, it's mostly a nerf to those same melee units as they situationally lose the protection the transport was meant to grant.

So with that in mind, I don't think orks (especially mechanized orks), harlequins, or drukhari melee units particularly need to be nerfed. Do you feel differently, Amishprn?

Also, cover doesn't normally help against melee attacks, although you could make an exception here.

Also, it gets messy fast as units in transports aren't considered to be "on the table" meaning they wouldn't be benefitting from various protective rules. For instance, Shadowseers and Haemonculi in a transport with troupers or wracks wouldn't make them harder to wound unless you added a clause saying otherwise. "In combat" isn't a thing in 8th edition, so do things like the wych cult's slashing impact (sort of a hammer of wrath) rule kick in?

Basically, it probably wouldn't be the worst thing ever, but it's messy and would need some elaboration. And I'm not sure the end results warrant the extra complication. What's your end objective?

It's not necessarily a nerf. The proposed rules would be interesting if also embarked units get to attack if their vehicle is locked in combat. If the open topped vehicle successfully charges than all the models embarked get to attack as if they charged normally.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. While this technically adds a downside to charging a transport containing a melee unit, it's mostly a nerf to those same melee units as they situationally lose the protection the transport was meant to grant.

So with that in mind, I don't think orks (especially mechanized orks), harlequins, or drukhari melee units particularly need to be nerfed. Do you feel differently, Amishprn?

Also, cover doesn't normally help against melee attacks, although you could make an exception here.

Also, it gets messy fast as units in transports aren't considered to be "on the table" meaning they wouldn't be benefitting from various protective rules. For instance, Shadowseers and Haemonculi in a transport with troupers or wracks wouldn't make them harder to wound unless you added a clause saying otherwise. "In combat" isn't a thing in 8th edition, so do things like the wych cult's slashing impact (sort of a hammer of wrath) rule kick in?

Basically, it probably wouldn't be the worst thing ever, but it's messy and would need some elaboration. And I'm not sure the end results warrant the extra complication. What's your end objective?

As a DE/Quins player i would like it better. I can charge with the transport has it eat the OW and then be able to melee still, sure they can choose to melee me back but units like Incubi are now 2+ saves and can get into combat without leaving the vehicle. They stand to survive better in the vehicle than out, b.c as soon as combat is ended they can no longer be shot at.

Yes there will be times its a bad idea to charge, or you need to be worried that Orks will wrap it and kill all your guys inside, but isn't that the point of the game? to use tactics with pros and cons, risk and reward for war games.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

As a DE/Quins player i would like it better. I can charge with the transport has it eat the OW and then be able to melee still, sure they can choose to melee me back but units like Incubi are now 2+ saves and can get into combat without leaving the vehicle. They stand to survive better in the vehicle than out, b.c as soon as combat is ended they can no longer be shot at.

Yes there will be times its a bad idea to charge, or you need to be worried that Orks will wrap it and kill all your guys inside, but isn't that the point of the game? to use tactics with pros and cons, risk and reward for war games.

Well, you can already have the transport charge in and eat overwatch for you. The "not being exposed to shooting" part is a good point though. Plus, I guess this would let you use the transport's movement to get into charge range instead of awkwardly disembarking and then jogging forward, so there's that.

To clarify, is the +1 to saves part meant to literally being the benefit of cover? Because if so, it means that it won't benefit things like wracks or harlequins, and there's probably a weird interaction or two if you, for instance, get charged by a unit that "ignores cover."

You'd still need to explain how that rule interacts with various auras and special abilities and such, but the wording for that should be doable. I'm not convinced that the extra complication is worth the change, but I wouldn't mind this change either.

It would be a flat +1 armor save like how cover is, sorry if i wasn't clear, i meant that it wont work on Invuls. It works auras the same way auras work now, if you are in a transport it wont work. If GW decides to make auras work in a vehicle then it would work at that point.

Its just a neat idea and would more so just add more tactic value to open tops, but also some risk

Got to admit, as an ork player, this seems powerful.

Take the Bonebreaka. It does (when on full health) 6+D6 attacks at strength (going by memory here) 8 AP-2 Damage 2. Pretty good, but by no means gamechanging.

Now add a unit of Boys into there. The choppa boys get 3 attacks each, and (IIRC) you can fit 12 of them in there, so that's an extra 36 attacks at S4.

Let's take the normal battlewagon - it's own attacks are meh at best, but then we put 10 meganobs with twin killsaws in there. I think that gives them 5 attacks each, so 50 S10 AP-4 D2 attacks on the charge, from a unit which has (effectively) a 1+ save.

This would be a lot of gain with barely any downsides for orks.


I would make it so that units attacking the embarked unit suffer -1 to hit, due to swinging up and the chance of hitting the vehicles armour instead. it's also more universally useful than +1 armour, as +1 on a 6+ is still gone most of the time!

The bonebreaka isn't open topped though, the battlewagon can be but it has to give up its T8 then.

 Blackie wrote:
The bonebreaka isn't open topped though, the battlewagon can be but it has to give up its T8 then.

my mistake!

nevertheless, Ork open-topped transports with fighty stuff in them have the chance to deal a lot of damage, and there's other interactions to consider.

20 boys charge a chapter master, of which about what, 9 or 10 are in range, and they may or may not kill him.

a battlewagon containing 20 boys charges a chapter master, all are in range so he gets attacked by 20 boys, which will probably kill him.

I would like to see a "countercharge" stratagem, which would allow a unit to disembark immediately after the charge is declared, and be treated as a target of the charge. so you declare a charge on a battlewagon with your thunderhammer wolf guys, and I spend 2CP to disembark a line of boys to stop you reaching the battlewagon, and take the charge instead. That would be a nice utility...

 Blackie wrote:
The bonebreaka isn't open topped though, the battlewagon can be but it has to give up its T8 then.

I've never seen a closed to battlewagon. Open topped is that good.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The bonebreaka isn't open topped though, the battlewagon can be but it has to give up its T8 then.

I've never seen a closed to battlewagon. Open topped is that good.

No, just no. An open topped BW isn't good at all. At T7 it costs like two trukks (which are T6, and against S8+ there's no difference at all, even bolters can't notice the difference) with lesser wounds and forces the player to put all the eggs in the same basket. Open topped BW for shooting units is a common mistake that rookies do. They almost never see the table anyway.

BW where good for shooting units only in previous editions when they were AV14/12/10 anyway, that's where the mistake comes from. Mathwise there's litterally no reason to take a BW over 1-2 trukks for shooting units.

Hopefully 9th has vehicle changes.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The bonebreaka isn't open topped though, the battlewagon can be but it has to give up its T8 then.

I've never seen a closed to battlewagon. Open topped is that good.

No, just no. An open topped BW isn't good at all. At T7 it costs like two trukks (which are T6, and against S8+ there's no difference at all, even bolters can't notice the difference) with lesser wounds and forces the player to put all the eggs in the same basket. Open topped BW for shooting units is a common mistake that rookies do. They almost never see the table anyway.

BW where good for shooting units only in previous editions when they were AV14/12/10 anyway, that's where the mistake comes from. Mathwise there's litterally no reason to take a BW over 1-2 trukks for shooting units.

Just telling you what I've seen. I'd take the extra shots over the T.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
It would be a flat +1 armor save like how cover is, sorry if i wasn't clear, i meant that it wont work on Invuls. It works auras the same way auras work now, if you are in a transport it wont work. If GW decides to make auras work in a vehicle then it would work at that point.

Its just a neat idea and would more so just add more tactic value to open tops, but also some risk

Hmm. I still feel it's weird that wracks sitting next to a haemonculus on a raider are easier to kill than those same units out on the ground. I'm not itching to play with this rule, but I'd be fine with it if it became a thing. Most of my objections are in regards to wonky rules interactions. Being more susceptible to enemy chargers is probably an okay trade-off for being able to stab things without exposing yourself to enemy fire.

Yeah. I always feel rules should be trade off and now what htey are now. But oh well.

How bout this? Open topped allows character auras from in a vehicle to effect everything in range just like it was on foot. It'd solve dark eldar issues of having no leaders on bikes, hellions or with wings. Not fair craftworld get all the neat toys. You'd think if they re-vamped all our old models they could at least give them more options or movement abilities. We don't even have psychic powers so let us have something.

Auras should have worked for units in vehicles if the character was in it with them from day 1.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
How bout this? Open topped allows character auras from in a vehicle to effect everything in range just like it was on foot. It'd solve dark eldar issues of having no leaders on bikes, hellions or with wings. Not fair craftworld get all the neat toys. You'd think if they re-vamped all our old models they could at least give them more options or movement abilities. We don't even have psychic powers so let us have something.

Eh. Vehicle auras are a little iffy. The footprint of something like a raider or even a venom means that you're suddenly buffing a huge area of the table all at once. That said, I'm not sure it really *breaks* drukhari to reliably hand out a captain aura or even a haemonculus aura over a wide area.

Martel732 wrote:


Just telling you what I've seen. I'd take the extra shots over the T.

Two Trukks are more resilient than a BW (20W T6 for two bodies and easier to hide instead of a single 16W T7 vehicle, same save) and ork shooters (Tankbustas and Flash Gitz) all have short range, so having two platforms instead of one for the same points cost helps a lot to get close to juicy targets. Transport capactiy of Trukk allows a large squad of Bustas to ride in it and the max unit of Flash Gitz anyway. It's a win win in every possible way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:


Eh. Vehicle auras are a little iffy. The footprint of something like a raider or even a venom means that you're suddenly buffing a huge area of the table all at once. That said, I'm not sure it really *breaks* drukhari to reliably hand out a captain aura or even a haemonculus aura over a wide area.

Open topped vehicles as big as Land raiders are extremely rare though. Armies with the most overpowered aura dudes don't have open topped transports anyway.

Other than the Tantalus and Battlewagon what are the "big" open top transports? Hmm I guess the new Admech one could be consider big, is there any others?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, here is how i feel about auras aad transports, zoom in you might need.
https://imgur.com/uZuACv7

think trukks, and the KFF.

KFF is slow, or is on a flier which has minimum moves.

put a KFF mek in a trukk, and now everything within 9" of the trukk has a 5++. turn the trukk sideways, and that's a 6" wide x 3" long vehicle with 9" of aura projecting from it. that's gone from a ~20" circle to a 21" long x 24" wide area of 5++. 2 of those and you've covered the whole deployment zone, bar corners.

auras would be fine if they affected the units in the vehicle, but not the vehicle. So you're sat in an open-topped transport with a character giving a reroll aura, the unit inside can reroll, but the vehicle can't.

inspiring your troops to fight harder does not become easier by hopping into a crowded bus!

In 5th edition a KFF big mek inside a BW could extend his aura to two other wagons. I mostly played a list focussed on that combo. It granted 4+ cover, which was even better than the current 5++. Definitely strong, but nothing gamebreaking.

Also note that now you can take 2 KFFs but you're also very limited in HQ slots, otherwise you'll lose CPs, which hurt orks really a lot.

 Blackie wrote:
In 5th edition a KFF big mek inside a BW could extend his aura to two other wagons. I mostly played a list focussed on that combo. It granted 4+ cover, which was even better than the current 5++. Definitely strong, but nothing gamebreaking...

Azrael in a Valkyrie granting a 4+ Invulnerable save to your airborne squadron in 7e pre-allied transport nerf, on the other hand...

 Blackie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:


Eh. Vehicle auras are a little iffy. The footprint of something like a raider or even a venom means that you're suddenly buffing a huge area of the table all at once. That said, I'm not sure it really *breaks* drukhari to reliably hand out a captain aura or even a haemonculus aura over a wide area.

Open topped vehicles as big as Land raiders are extremely rare though. Armies with the most overpowered aura dudes don't have open topped transports anyway.

I meant drukhari raiders. But even with the increased aura size, I'm not sure that would really be OP for drukhari. Letting venoms and ravagers reroll to-hit rolls without awkwardly jogging behind them and clumping up probably isn't too big a deal. Maybe starweavers extending the reach of various shadowseer auras would be a bit much?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
In 5th edition a KFF big mek inside a BW could extend his aura to two other wagons. I mostly played a list focussed on that combo. It granted 4+ cover, which was even better than the current 5++. Definitely strong, but nothing gamebreaking...

Azrael in a Valkyrie granting a 4+ Invulnerable save to your airborne squadron in 7e pre-allied transport nerf, on the other hand...

I can see a problem there, but an old edition related one: that 4++ could be broken because flyers were only hit on 6s. Today the penalty against flyers is just a -1 to hit, so even that 4++ doesn't sound that scary. Effective maybe, overpowered probably not.

 Blackie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
In 5th edition a KFF big mek inside a BW could extend his aura to two other wagons. I mostly played a list focussed on that combo. It granted 4+ cover, which was even better than the current 5++. Definitely strong, but nothing gamebreaking...

Azrael in a Valkyrie granting a 4+ Invulnerable save to your airborne squadron in 7e pre-allied transport nerf, on the other hand...

I can see a problem there, but an old edition related one: that 4++ could be broken because flyers were only hit on 6s. Today the penalty against flyers is just a -1 to hit, so even that 4++ doesn't sound that scary. Effective maybe, overpowered probably not.

Well GW did nerf the most fun i've had with sob, i took 10.. yes 10 tanks! But they all had a 4++ turn 1 and +3" movement in the beta, i guess 1 turn with a 4++ is to good /s

 Blackie wrote:
In 5th edition a KFF big mek inside a BW could extend his aura to two other wagons. I mostly played a list focussed on that combo. It granted 4+ cover, which was even better than the current 5++. Definitely strong, but nothing gamebreaking.

Also note that now you can take 2 KFFs but you're also very limited in HQ slots, otherwise you'll lose CPs, which hurt orks really a lot.

yeah, but KFF was only 6" range back then, and was a special case, having its own rules for being embarked.

I don't like the idea of having a chapter master in an allied >insert baneblade variant with open-topped firing platform here< giving everyone within 6" reroll >insert whichever roll you like here<.

It also won't make any sense for units with FnP auras, EG painboy - IIRC, painboy gives any unit within 3" feel no pain. so now you can load a painboy and a big mek into a trukk, and give out a big old aura to all units within 3" of the trukk, instead of within 3" of one infantry model.

I think it would make the most sense to treat units in one transport as within range of each other, but not to extend it out of the vehicle.

@Some_Bloke: Mostly agree, but what about auras and effects that work on the enemy instead of on yourself? Does the leadership penalty for that coven no one ever fields work on the guys charging your raider? How about the shadowseer's -1 Attacks aura? Can you use strats on units embarked on transports?

I would also dislike the idea of negative auras affecting units outside a transport. I could see some benefit to affecting units inside of transports from outside though.

The issue is in increasing the size and resilience of auras using vehicles. Your character may have a 6" bubble of -1 to hit, but that is tempered by their small base size and the fact that they are not standing front and center, so the start of their aura will contain your own troops, leaving less space for enemy models.

If Auras were to work at half range from open topped vehicles, that would be a good way to increase the utility but not give aura-heavy armies a massive buff. KFF's would need your army to bunch up to use it. most auras would have 3" range from a vehicle, which amounts to about the same range as the model standing in the open. I'd get behind that as an option.