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.

So let's pretend tomorrow that GW makes the following rule:

"If a unit is embarked on a TRANSPORT keyword model that does not also have the AIRCRAFT keyword, and that unit did not embark this turn, it may also disembark after the TRANSPORT model has made a normal move in the movement phase. If it does so, follow all the normal rules for disembarking, but the disembarking unit may not make any move during the movement phase."

Assume that the In...cisor, or whatever it is, ugly 80$ primaris brick of smallish size, also gets the current special rule it has removed, so it doesn't just have a worse version of this new universal rule.

What problems does this cause in the game?

The fastest transport I'm aware of that isn't an aircraft is the Wave Serpent, which moves 16", which means Eldar would be able to drop off a unit and have a 5" charge against something deployed directly on the deployment line turn 1. Given that they can already do a more reliable charge with a 1cp stratagem on Shining Spears resulting in both a cheaper and more effective charging unit, I'm not all that worried about them.

Dark Eldar and Primaris Space Marines would be able to drop units off for a 7" charge turn 1, and do have some nastier close combat units like Grotesques and Bladeguards available to take advantage of that. This is however something that has been in the toolkit of all space marines through Raven Guard for a while now, again more reliably than 7" and with any unit, not just units that can go into a capacity 6 infenestrator transport.

And everyone else with 12" move transports can drop units off within range of a 9" charge turn 1.

I actually don't think the main issue that would occur would be from charging first turn, an issue none the less, but I think a significant problem would be extremely durable units capturing nearly all objectives first turn then using psychic powers, stratagems, warlord traits and relics to make said units extremely difficult to move, which would be a significant problem for some armies, especially if the infantry happens to have objective secured also, and good counter melee etc. You end up dedicating your whole army to moving them whilst the owner of said durable units can use the rest of their force to start picking off the most potent threats to said durable units.

Not to mention starting a game inside a transport is so much safer for certain problem units you have than outside of it. Death company and wulfen are a prime example, you can almost guarantee to keep them safe for a turn because you know you aren't limiting yourself by starting in the transport....

It'd certainly be a huge boon for assault armies, unless they added a caveat that you can't charge after (like in older editions).

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I actually don't think the main issue that would occur would be from charging first turn, an issue none the less, but I think a significant problem would be extremely durable units capturing nearly all objectives first turn then using psychic powers, stratagems, warlord traits and relics to make said units extremely difficult to move, which would be a significant problem for some armies, especially if the infantry happens to have objective secured also, and good counter melee etc. You end up dedicating your whole army to moving them whilst the owner of said durable units can use the rest of their force to start picking off the most potent threats to said durable units.

Not to mention starting a game inside a transport is so much safer for certain problem units you have than outside of it. Death company and wulfen are a prime example, you can almost guarantee to keep them safe for a turn because you know you aren't limiting yourself by starting in the transport....

I'm having a tough time getting how either of those two game states are different from what we have right now with the exception of "use psychic powers on the unit".

Let's say I want to lock down an objective with my death guard plague marines in a rhino in the current game state. I take my rhino, and I move it onto that objective, maybe Advancing it to get an average of an extra 3.5" of movement. To take that objective from me my opponent has to kill the rhino, then the marines inside it are on the objective, so they have to kill those marines.

Are you saying what I'd do in the new game state is move the rhino, and then disembark the marines inside onto the objective? Wouldn't that come with the additional disadvantage of my opponent now being able to target those marines immediately, instead of having to kill the transport first?

Also, if the goal is protecting a vulnerable close combat unit and not to try and use them as a risky turn 1 alpha strike, then again...how is that different from taking a unit of death company and putting them in a rhino in the current game state?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jaredb wrote:
It'd certainly be a huge boon for assault armies, unless they added a caveat that you can't charge after (like in older editions).

I'm really not seeing how it's all that much different from the current game state, except that I may choose to use a slower unit, and add a transport to them, rather than using a faster unit with no transport like I do right now.

If in the current game, I would take a squad of shining spears and turn 1 charge them, and instead I can now take a unit of wraithblades, put them in a wave serpent, and charge them, that seems like less of a 'huge boon' and more of a 'I have somewhat more options now instead of being locked into one specific thing and the other thing being so bad comparatively I'd never consider it."

...Also, why would you consider a limitation on charging necessary but not a limitation on shooting? Is it because melee units tend to deal less damage than comparable shooting units with the same target profile, or because using melee units means your opponent may get a chance to strike back on your turn?

The main issue is locking units in combat greatly limits how they function. It's arguably more powerful than whatever damage is dealt from melee. Particularly in an objective scenario, grabbing objectives AND locking the opponent in melee could easily win the game before any combat occurs.

The main change is that some slow moving shooting units might make the choice to leave their transports and shoot rather than staying bunkered up T1.

What changes?

(1) Larger play areas/tables/game mats
(2) Transports become viable for many (but not all) factions *Tyranids* cough *Tyranids* cough
(3) Razorbacks are back baby!
(4) There would probably be some rule capping the amount of transports in an army - after GW has sold a sufficient amount of transport models
(5) The go-first-win-ratio may well spike, but building anti-vehicle shooting armies might be a way to mitigate that.
(6) DakkaDakka would be very.... lively, shall we say, after the rule change.

They should've at minimum let passengers disembark if the transport moved half its movement or less

It's a can of worms.

-transports can now move and disembark.
-everyone starts using transports to launch their assault units up additional 12~14 inches.
-popularity of transports directly increase their threat as perceived.
-more T6/7 weapons are auto-included in all lists.
-light vehicles are now more vulnerable due to proliferation of T6/7+ weapons.
-light vehicles get a new rule to mitigate the unintended consequences.
-everything else gets bumped up, while things that GW can't/don't currently make gets squashed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They should've at minimum let passengers disembark if the transport moved half its movement or less

That could work. Alternatively, they could do something like:

1. Apply a -1 to hit penalty for units disembarking and specify that it is an exception to the +1/-1 stacking limit, i.e. heavy weapons would fire at a -2 to hit
2. Provide either no charges allowed by disembarking units, or that the unit must roll one less die than usual, e.g. 1D6 instead of 2D6 for Marines, Kraken 'nids would roll 2D6 instead of 3D6 and taking the two best.
3. Provide a -1 to hit penalty for units that charge after disembarking

That would allow transports to get units where they are needed fast, but would substantially reduce their effectiveness in the turn in which they disembarked.

Reducing damage output is potentially a non-penalty for a lot of units though. Either launching my fire dragons out of a waveserpent is worth it or it isn't. EIther I suddenly start fielding them more often (worth it) or I don't (not worth it). My melee tarpits that already don'tn kill much will suddenly be way better at their jobs because killing things was never really part of their job in the first place

Which isn't to say that disembarking after a vehicle moves isn't a workable mechanic; just that reducing the damage of the disembarking unit probably isn't the way to balance it.

I think it works fine how it is nowadays.

I wouldn't make it a general rule, but I would love to see it in specialized units like, of course, my beloved Wyches. It fits perfectly with DE.

the_scotsman wrote:
The fastest transport I'm aware of that isn't an aircraft is the Wave Serpent, which moves 16", which means Eldar would be able to drop off a unit and have a 5" charge against something deployed directly on the deployment line turn 1

Measure out a 6" radius circle in the middle of your table. Surround it with parked vehicles. Deploy the rest of your army inside :p

 Denegaar wrote:
I think it works fine how it is nowadays.

I wouldn't make it a general rule, but I would love to see it in specialized units like, of course, my beloved Wyches. It fits perfectly with DE.

Agreed with this. Transports that can disembark after moving should be given a keyword "ASSAULT" or "ASSAULT VEHICLE".

Then, add a new generic stratagem:

Assault Vehicle - X/Y CP
Used during your movement phase, when selecting a TRANSPORT unit with ASSAULT or ASSAULT VEHICLE keyword to move. Units embarked in said transport can disembark after the transport has moved. This stratagem costs X CP if the transport's capacity is less than ## models, if not, it costs Y CP.

Did the impulsor lose its move and disembark ability in the new dex?

 skchsan wrote:

 Denegaar wrote:
I think it works fine how it is nowadays.

I wouldn't make it a general rule, but I would love to see it in specialized units like, of course, my beloved Wyches. It fits perfectly with DE.

Agreed with this. Transports that can disembark after moving should be given a keyword "ASSAULT" or "ASSAULT VEHICLE".

Then, add a new generic stratagem:

Assault Vehicle - X/Y CP
Used during your movement phase, when selecting a TRANSPORT unit with ASSAULT or ASSAULT VEHICLE keyword to move. Units embarked in said transport can disembark after the transport has moved. This stratagem costs X CP if the transport's capacity is less than ## models, if not, it costs Y CP.

I like that proposed stratagem. CP is a rare resource, this would potentially be an excellent way to bring some balance in the game. I'd probably start it at 2CP, otherwise the issue of running transports and charging deadly melee units into your opponents deployment zone could be a thing that further entrenches the who-goes-first-usually-wins thing. Maybe consider it costing an extra 1CP each time it is used in a battle round, e.g. first time is 2CP, 2nd time is 3CP based cost etc.

 XeonDragon wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Denegaar wrote:
I think it works fine how it is nowadays.

I wouldn't make it a general rule, but I would love to see it in specialized units like, of course, my beloved Wyches. It fits perfectly with DE.

Agreed with this. Transports that can disembark after moving should be given a keyword "ASSAULT" or "ASSAULT VEHICLE".

Then, add a new generic stratagem:

Assault Vehicle - X/Y CP
Used during your movement phase, when selecting a TRANSPORT unit with ASSAULT or ASSAULT VEHICLE keyword to move. Units embarked in said transport can disembark after the transport has moved. This stratagem costs X CP if the transport's capacity is less than ## models, if not, it costs Y CP.

I like that proposed stratagem. CP is a rare resource, this would potentially be an excellent way to bring some balance in the game. I'd probably start it at 2CP, otherwise the issue of running transports and charging deadly melee units into your opponents deployment zone could be a thing that further entrenches the who-goes-first-usually-wins thing. Maybe consider it costing an extra 1CP each time it is used in a battle round, e.g. first time is 2CP, 2nd time is 3CP based cost etc.

I could see something along those lines, but you'd probably want to add a few more restrictions to it. As written, my banshees inside a star engines wave serpent have something like a 62" charge range with this strat (before adding in bonus range from certain buffs.) I'm not sure wraith blades with a 24 + 2d6" threat range are good for the game either.

It would certainly make the LR a bit more interesting if it had its assault ramps rule back.

Doesnt theimpulsor already do that?

In ProHammer, for comparison purposes, consider the following and how it might apply to 8th/9th:

* In ProHammer, most normal vehicles can move up to 12" max, with an extra 6" if they go flat out (and can't shoot).

* In ProHammer, units can disembark so long as the transport doesn't move more than 12". The disembarking unit uses up it's normal movement to disembark (so it doesn't get another normal move after).

* In ProHammer, a unit that disembarks can shoot normally AND may still charge (up to 6") in assault. However, units that charge after disembarking from a moving transport lose their +1 bonus attack for charging (unless it's an assault or open-topped vehicle).

One of the the issues with 8th / 9th is that by simplifying the core game mechanics so much, you lose a lot of the levers that could've been used to help balance things out. I.e, units don't get bonus attacks for charging, there is no initiative stat which can be modified to account for different unit actions, etc. Also, with generally faster movement speeds, longer possible change distances, and smaller tables, it's really easy for something to swing into "clearly too powerful" territory. Slower speeds and bigger tables let you balance for this more in classic versions of the game.

All said, you could do something like this for 8th/9th:

* Units may disembark after a vehicles takes a NORMAL move. If it advances, no disembarking.

* Other than disembarking, the unit may make no further moves (including advance moves)

* The unit may shoot as normal.

* The unit may charge as normal. However it loses its advantage for striking first after charging.

That would keep it relatively balanced IMHO.

Bringing back Disorderly Charge in some form would be a good mechanic for these types of interactions to base on.

Mezmorki 796429 11066410f5a008a894a9f201112c86a006599f75.jpg wrote:

* Units may disembark after a vehicles takes a NORMAL move. If it advances, no disembarking.

* Other than disembarking, the unit may make no further moves (including advance moves)

* The unit may shoot as normal.

* The unit may charge as normal. However it loses its advantage for striking first after charging.

That would keep it relatively balanced IMHO.

Totally get I'm necroing a thread a month and a half old yet only 30 or so down (jeez what has happened to Dakka's membership participation over the last 3 years, probably the massive 100+ page mass faction tactics threads thats become the norm and put the most but die hard followers off the site for lack of ability to actually discuss tactics without a 2 day read, but I digress...)
This, I believe would be an excellent move and one I would absolutely endorse. Not being able to disembark after a transports move is one of the most restrictive rules I can think of in multiple editions.

I would furthermore add to this that a unit cannot embark and disembark in the same turn.