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.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that a Rhino is more vulnerable to small arms than the squad that rides inside sort of defeats the transport of an armored battle taxi in the first place.

This.

Half the transports would look so bad on paper if GW wouldn't have screwed up the wounding chart.
Same issue with most tanks without an invul really.

It is kind of mind-boggling to me that the baseline save of most vehicles isn't 2+. it would resolve so much of the problems standard vehicles have, and its not like dedicated antitank weaponry doesn't have enough AP to get thru that anyway.

I am beginning to think that they need to bring back rolling saves on 2d6 (specifically for vehicles) - would also make weapons with ap-5 more interesting and provide more design space.

I really am having a fairly tough time figuring out why a raider actually SHOULD be costed on the same scale as units that see zero competitive play, like Razorbacks, ghost arks, CSM rhinos, etc.

its pretty clear that all those units people have crunched the numbers on and decided 'nope, makes more sense to have 20 orks on foot than 10 orks plus a trukk 100% of the time' or 'nope, looks like 2 5-mans of CSM with 2 chaincannons is always better than 1 and a rhino to transport them.'

A small price bump to make Disintegrators make sense over Dark Lances, 100% understand. a dark lance raider is probably a 100pt model, a Disintegrator raider is probably a 95pt model - youd see them on the tabletop plenty still, but that'd be a good place to hit drukhari from a points perspective, and they clearly need some nerfs.

but is it not just obvious that a 145pt ghost ark or a 130pt lascannon razorback or a 85pt rhino are just blatantly overpriced, and those things should be brought DOWN instead of raiders being balanced against them against whatever 120pt 130pt value where they would be?

Either brought down or buffed.

Make transports faster than the squads they carry, return Fire Points to some degree so open-topped isn't a stupidly good advantage, and make them immune to small arms.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Either brought down or buffed.

Make transports faster than the squads they carry, return Fire Points to some degree so open-topped isn't a stupidly good advantage, and make them immune to small arms.

Here's a crazy idea:

make Assault Vehicle a rule that all transports have, and allow the unit to declare a charge afterwards but the charge roll is automatically 3", you don't get to roll 2d6.

Make Transports Actually Make Units Faster Again.

Strictly speaking, if a Rhino moves 12" on T1 and then on T2 the passengers disembark and move 6", they've still got an extra 6" over footsloggers.

But if you're able to shoot at maximum effectiveness from 24+", there's not much point- especially when, as Unit noted, you're actively hurting yourself by having units out of the fight when they could be shooting.

The thing about Raiders is not only that they increase the speed and durability of their passengers, but also that their passengers are units that really benefit from the increased speed and durability in the first place. Once upon a time Chimeras were faster than Guardsmen, tougher than Guardsmen, and allowed Guardsmen to shoot out of them, but you still didn't generally see regular Guardsmen in Chimeras because it just wasn't all that useful for them.

I think the real problem with transports is that for most armies, extra mobility isn't needed on a board small enough to shoot into the enemy's deployment zone Turn 1, and isn't worth the points or loss of firepower. The most common role you end up seeing transports in is serving as a mobile pillbox for an elite glass hammer unit. It's specifically in the case of Drukhari that, because the whole army fits that profile, army-wide transports become effective.

But for, like, Marines? How do you make putting Tacticals in a Rhino feel worth the points? And if you keep the system GW currently has, where a transport has a fixed price regardless of what goes in it, how do you make it worthwhile for Tacticals without becoming overpowered for more elite units? Or do we just accept that Tacticals and Guardsmen will never be worthwhile to put in transports, and that transports really are just pillboxes for elites?

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Okey but is a huge problem for all the armies that GW updated to new higher point costs, but which didn't get the updated stats.

In a world where killing 2W marines, being a 1W marine is not very fun.

technically they don't have higher point costs. A csm's base cost is 14 to a nearly identical tactical marine's 18 (with the second wound).

GKs and Tsons are 20, because they have weapons/rules that elevate them over a normal W1 space marine. a GK is a space marine with deep strike, twice the ranged firepower, a psychic deny and a mini-smite, and a D3 damage force weapon.

it's clear that CSM are not worth 14pts, and GK and Tsons are not worth 20pts, but GK and Tsons are obviously not 20pts based on tactical marines at 18pts - gw is just overvaluing the stuff they have over a regular W1 marine (and also overvaluing that W1 marine base value, lol)

A sister of Battle is fairly decent at 9pts, a CSM is probably worth like...12. For Bolter Discipline, T4, S4 and Shock Assault, 3pts would probably be about fair. A "Fancy W1 marine" like a strike or tson would probably be fair at about 16-17.

Rubrics are 18 and that's a fair price for them. 2+ vs 1D and 3+/5++ is basically the same durability wise as 3+ 2W and their better boltguns, psychic power, force staff make up for the lack of Doctrines and Chapter Tactics/being elites.

If they only go up 3 pts for an extra wound then they might become insane, they will still be weak to the same things, but they will be impossible to shift with AP- D1 weapons.

This whole theory of GW overvaluing things is silly because GW did not value these units, they just did copy+paste+3 pts on tonnes of SM units.

Have you tried playing other missions than one without Warpcraft secondaries? It is kind of hilarious that nobody has come up with a mission set that works, because this so clearly doesn't. Same thing with terrain, TOs are throwing tonnes of terrain on boards and to get back to the thread's purpose, who does this terrain and these missions benefit? Drukhari. No psykers, okay goodbye psyker-heavy armies. Be the right place, tonnes of movement's got you covered. Durability? No need when you can't be seen because of 10 obscuring ruins. Need to take an objective? Got insane melee units for that.

Meanwhile people are putting the onus on the poor GSC player and telling him to gitgud while helping Drukhari by choosing the GT mission pack and setting up terrain that favours them. I bet playing one of the mission packs from last year and using less terrain would help even the field more than any difference tech makes. The one good thing about people teching into Drukhari is that Harlequins get hit as a side effect and they needed a hit.

Most transports actually do:
1) Not move faster. 12" then disembark next turn is the same as just moving 6" for those two turns, except you lost that unit's shooting turn 1 (which YMMV on the value of).

6+6=12=/=12+3+6=21.

 catbarf wrote:
Strictly speaking, if a Rhino moves 12" on T1 and then on T2 the passengers disembark and move 6", they've still got an extra 6" over footsloggers.

But if you're able to shoot at maximum effectiveness from 24+", there's not much point- especially when, as Unit noted, you're actively hurting yourself by having units out of the fight when they could be shooting.

The thing about Raiders is not only that they increase the speed and durability of their passengers, but also that their passengers are units that really benefit from the increased speed and durability in the first place. Once upon a time Chimeras were faster than Guardsmen, tougher than Guardsmen, and allowed Guardsmen to shoot out of them, but you still didn't generally see regular Guardsmen in Chimeras because it just wasn't all that useful for them.

I think the real problem with transports is that for most armies, extra mobility isn't needed on a board small enough to shoot into the enemy's deployment zone Turn 1, and isn't worth the points or loss of firepower. The most common role you end up seeing transports in is serving as a mobile pillbox for an elite glass hammer unit. It's specifically in the case of Drukhari that, because the whole army fits that profile, army-wide transports become effective.

But for, like, Marines? How do you make putting Tacticals in a Rhino feel worth the points? And if you keep the system GW currently has, where a transport has a fixed price regardless of what goes in it, how do you make it worthwhile for Tacticals without becoming overpowered for more elite units? Or do we just accept that Tacticals and Guardsmen will never be worthwhile to put in transports, and that transports really are just pillboxes for elites?

The single biggest change to help make transports viable is to go back to allowing passengers to exit after moving.
Its with good reason that the only shooting units that get put into transports are those who's transport is open-topped.

Putting a tactical squad in a Rhino means that squad is literally doing nothing for a turn. And shooting units have enough range that you don't need or want to waste turns doing nothing being carted around.

Currently the only use of enclosed transports is turn 1 bunkers for your units to hide in during deployment or melee units that don't normally charge turn 1.
Changing how survivable the transport is helps a little but losing access to the unit inside is, imo, a much bigger blow to their viability.

(note this doesn't mean you should be allowed to charge out of a transport that has moved, most people don't want a return of the ol' Rhino Rush)

ps.
As for things like GK's and Tsons, the suffer from a problem that they have always suffered from. They are more expensive marines that die as easily as marines (and now actually easier). Its not for nothing that when GK's were good in 5th edition is was off the back of nigh invulnerable deathballs or armies full of Inq henchmen and not actual GK marines. All their fancy equipment and rules have a cost but don't alleviate the problem that they die as easily and will always run into a meta designed to kill MEQ models.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
I still don't think a unit + raider for a DE should cost the way it does. I don't know what should go up in points. I am not the game designer. But if something is run at 6, with same weapon load outs and same units inside them. And achives the same very high level efficiency it should at least be looked in to.

a dark lance raider at 85pts is better then a razorback with a lascanon, for damage, transport, resiliance etc And if DE are suppose to be the new normal. Then GW should have put out an update to all the other older books to reflect that.

Or at least for the armies that they haven't updated in 9th ed. There is no reason for a csm rhino to cost as much as it does. Not with the stuff it can carry. And even having different rules for same stuff isn't a problem, because they already have that this edition.

....but it isn't, though. Better than a Razorback with a Lascannon for damage and resilience. Razorbacks have 2 lascannons.

It's better FOR THE POINTS, for sure. a razorback with 2 lascannons costs like 120. Luckily GW does this thing where they update everybody's points every year, so hopefully they reduce the points a razorback costs.

We are coming up on 1 year of the space marine codex being released.

Oop, yep, right you are, stop everything folks we're going to need to put out Space Marine Codex 4.0 and new supplements STAT before we can get to ANYBODY else who might need a rules update.

Sit tight CSM and GK players this should only take 6-7 months.

The point is we are forced to play with bad rules for a long time. Plus there is a good chance after waiting a year they will not address 90% of the issues. I Get it. This slow AF admech release is sucking the life out of me. I literally couldn't give less of a gak about it. It's gonna be have huge errors in balance. They are going to persist for a long time and suck fun out of the game. All the armies should get their rules at the start of the eddition - it is just wrong to do it any other way with the amount of people waiting now. The game is too large to have these gaps. The game is too large to have these egregious balance issues.

... usually the larger a game is, the most egregious balance issues it has. There is a reason most asymmetric strategy games tend to have only 3 factions.

The codex system does suck, but GW is not going to change it because it works for their purposes.

Well then considering the fix of updating stuff GW does not update, is not going to happen. The only way, assuming of course GW does think that DE should be fixed, to fix anything is to fix books that are already out.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I really am having a fairly tough time figuring out why a raider actually SHOULD be costed on the same scale as units that see zero competitive play, like Razorbacks, ghost arks, CSM rhinos, etc.

its pretty clear that all those units people have crunched the numbers on and decided 'nope, makes more sense to have 20 orks on foot than 10 orks plus a trukk 100% of the time' or 'nope, looks like 2 5-mans of CSM with 2 chaincannons is always better than 1 and a rhino to transport them.'

A small price bump to make Disintegrators make sense over Dark Lances, 100% understand. a dark lance raider is probably a 100pt model, a Disintegrator raider is probably a 95pt model - youd see them on the tabletop plenty still, but that'd be a good place to hit drukhari from a points perspective, and they clearly need some nerfs.

but is it not just obvious that a 145pt ghost ark or a 130pt lascannon razorback or a 85pt rhino are just blatantly overpriced, and those things should be brought DOWN instead of raiders being balanced against them against whatever 120pt 130pt value where they would be?

I think the problem is that GW doesn't really have any idea what they want to do with vehicles.

I think we can all agree that overall vehicles and especially transports are not in a good place, but any sort of hamfisted adjustment will unbalance the whole equation. Give them better defensive profiles? That's asking for bloat--using your example of a baseline 2+ armor save on all vehicles, you'll then get people whining about how the landraider should be more armored than a rhino, which leads to more proliferation of invul/FNP saves (unless we start doing wackier things like 1+ saves, 0+ saves, -1+ saves). Make them cheaper so people can take more to beat out all the anti-tank? That increases game lethality because most vehicles mount these things called weapons. Plus most vehicles have a purpose--people generally aren't going to spam more vehicles, they're just going to take more of what's good (whether that's vehicles or whatever, in DE's case, we've already established people aren't taking empty Raiders for funsies).

The more I think on it, the more I'm leaning towards vehicles need their own system rather than just a box shaped infantry model.

 catbarf wrote:
...I think the real problem with transports is that for most armies, extra mobility isn't needed on a board small enough to shoot into the enemy's deployment zone Turn 1...

Hard agree. There just isn't enough space on the field for mechanized units to really get the mobility they need to function (in the sense of "having observable benefits over dismounted infantry plus an armored vehicle for fire support"). It's a bit of a struggle even on 6'x4' boards - 6'x4' might seem like enough, but in many cases you're not trying to cross the entire board (just get to an objective/engage the enemy, who likely aren't on the rear board edge). Even if you were, you might not be able to do so until the last turn.

Altima 797783 11129087 wrote:

I think the problem is that GW doesn't really have any idea what they want to do with vehicles.

I think we can all agree that overall vehicles and especially transports are not in a good place, but any sort of hamfisted adjustment will unbalance the whole equation. Give them better defensive profiles? That's asking for bloat--using your example of a baseline 2+ armor save on all vehicles, you'll then get people whining about how the landraider should be more armored than a rhino, which leads to more proliferation of invul/FNP saves (unless we start doing wackier things like 1+ saves, 0+ saves, -1+ saves). Make them cheaper so people can take more to beat out all the anti-tank? That increases game lethality because most vehicles mount these things called weapons. Plus most vehicles have a purpose--people generally aren't going to spam more vehicles, they're just going to take more of what's good (whether that's vehicles or whatever, in DE's case, we've already established people aren't taking empty Raiders for funsies).

The more I think on it, the more I'm leaning towards vehicles need their own system rather than just a box shaped infantry model.

I think they know very much what they want. And for DE they wanted a fleet of transports supported by fast moving stuff, with all the different raider type units being mounted up. Lore wise makes perfect sense. As a mechanic works too. What they did not, or at least I hope they did not do councious, do is account for how good glass canon type units get when they are put in to a fast moving open topped resilient transport in a world full of LoS blocking terrain. The rest of stuff can be blamed on unintentional interaction, like different cabal stuff being transports for everything or the "infinite" attacks succcubus. Those could be work errors. The fleets of transports are not durning work errors, neither are the stat buffs on the raider weapon. And the last thing is such a big upgrade that even the playtesters say they tested a weaker version, and still thought that DE were very powerful.


And vehicles do have their own specific rules. There are those that fly, or those with invs, and being open topped seems to be a huge outlier for units.
If tomorrow the pick up primaris transport was turned in to an open topped thing, we would be seeing them too. Plus a bunch of units that never see play. Like 5 hellblasters . And God help us if under 2.0 marine codex, someone decides to make the thing open topped and able to carry gravis armour. Or there is a new gravis armour transport which is opened toped in the future. 3 aggressors with dakka guns or flamers doing drivebys out of a transport, deploying on to an objective if the transport is destroy would be magical to expiriance.

Well why shouldn't it be open top? If it is 100pts you still are taking away 1 Intercessor unit to take it to give you a layer of armor, whats wrong with that?

Personally I'll like to see 3-4 Impulsors gun boats as a option to just horde power armor and Attack bikes.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well why shouldn't it be open top? If it is 100pts you still are taking away 1 Intercessor unit to take it to give you a layer of armor, whats wrong with that?

Personally I'll like to see 3-4 Impulsors gun boats as a option to just horde power armor and Attack bikes.

It would be awesome if Impuslors were 85 points like a raider. No fly/ no invune/ slightly more firepower/ slightly tougher vs small arms but weaker vs but guns. Can hold about the same points inside. It is where they should be but like about half the marine vehicals It is between 25% - 40% over costed.

Really tired of it too...this is pretty consistent across all editions. Except for like 7.5 and 8.5 edditions within edditions (which is also becoming pretty consistent) I think If we have a 9.5 where marines get another OP codex during this edition we will have a trend...

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well why shouldn't it be open top?

Because the Impulsors are very clearly fully enclosed vehicles.

Altima wrote:

Spoiler:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I really am having a fairly tough time figuring out why a raider actually SHOULD be costed on the same scale as units that see zero competitive play, like Razorbacks, ghost arks, CSM rhinos, etc.

its pretty clear that all those units people have crunched the numbers on and decided 'nope, makes more sense to have 20 orks on foot than 10 orks plus a trukk 100% of the time' or 'nope, looks like 2 5-mans of CSM with 2 chaincannons is always better than 1 and a rhino to transport them.'

A small price bump to make Disintegrators make sense over Dark Lances, 100% understand. a dark lance raider is probably a 100pt model, a Disintegrator raider is probably a 95pt model - youd see them on the tabletop plenty still, but that'd be a good place to hit drukhari from a points perspective, and they clearly need some nerfs.

but is it not just obvious that a 145pt ghost ark or a 130pt lascannon razorback or a 85pt rhino are just blatantly overpriced, and those things should be brought DOWN instead of raiders being balanced against them against whatever 120pt 130pt value where they would be?

I think the problem is that GW doesn't really have any idea what they want to do with vehicles.

I think we can all agree that overall vehicles and especially transports are not in a good place, but any sort of hamfisted adjustment will unbalance the whole equation. Give them better defensive profiles? That's asking for bloat--using your example of a baseline 2+ armor save on all vehicles, you'll then get people whining about how the landraider should be more armored than a rhino, which leads to more proliferation of invul/FNP saves (unless we start doing wackier things like 1+ saves, 0+ saves, -1+ saves). Make them cheaper so people can take more to beat out all the anti-tank? That increases game lethality because most vehicles mount these things called weapons. Plus most vehicles have a purpose--people generally aren't going to spam more vehicles, they're just going to take more of what's good (whether that's vehicles or whatever, in DE's case, we've already established people aren't taking empty Raiders for funsies).

The more I think on it, the more I'm leaning towards vehicles need their own system rather than just a box shaped infantry model.

There’s no reason toughness needs to stop at 8. There’s already certain anti tank weapons that go to s10-16. Strength that high is pretty useless generally, but that’s only because vehicle toughness is soft capped for no reason at 8.

 the_scotsman wrote:


but is it not just obvious that a 145pt ghost ark or a 130pt lascannon razorback or a 85pt rhino are just blatantly overpriced, and those things should be brought DOWN instead of raiders being balanced against them against whatever 120pt 130pt value where they would be?

How do you do it though, if the necron codex and the marine books are already out? GW doesn't fix problems like that unless they bring out a new book. Worse because of linked costs, there is a huge chance that stuff like rhinos or razorbacks are going to cost similar for armies like GK or CSM. They could maybe change it in a big point adjustment CA. But those happen twice a year. The time for the spring/summer one is gone. So they would have to be working on it right now, considering their 6month update window, to bring it out in december. If now then we are looking at march or may next year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well why shouldn't it be open top?

Because the Impulsors are very clearly fully enclosed vehicles.

Maybe if you buy the resin upgrade kit. Otherwise they are enclosed for the driver, while the dudes at the back get to drive something closer to a Toyota truck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well why shouldn't it be open top? If it is 100pts you still are taking away 1 Intercessor unit to take it to give you a layer of armor, whats wrong with that?

Personally I'll like to see 3-4 Impulsors gun boats as a option to just horde power armor and Attack bikes.

I think some people may not like the idea of a transport with +4inv running around 5 dudes inside with a 3 shot plasma weapon.
And why rules wise it isn't open toped when the model is, I guess that is a question for GW to anwser.

 Tyran wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well why shouldn't it be open top?

Because the Impulsors are very clearly fully enclosed vehicles.

Um.. no its not lol

Karol wrote:

I think some people may not like the idea of a transport with +4inv running around 5 dudes inside with a 3 shot plasma weapon.
And why rules wise it isn't open toped when the model is, I guess that is a question for GW to anwser.

It's a 5++ on the impulsor now.

If weapon ranges were more in the 12-24" range for most stuff and infantry movements value were 4" for normal stuff and 5" for fast and transports moved 12" then most transports would have a place.

Raiders are good because you lose literally nothing for being on one. You gain a good weapon, you gain fly, you gain flexibility, you gain mobility, and you lose 0 firepower.

 Galas wrote:
If weapon ranges were more in the 12-24" range for most stuff and infantry movements value were 4" for normal stuff and 5" for fast and transports moved 12" then most transports would have a place.

Raiders are good because you lose literally nothing for being on one. You gain a good weapon, you gain fly, you gain flexibility, you gain mobility, and you lose 0 firepower.

You lose having Wyches being on the table without a raider lol.

It's okay for the pirate faction to have good transports... Jesus

Quasistellar wrote:

Spoiler:

Altima wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I really am having a fairly tough time figuring out why a raider actually SHOULD be costed on the same scale as units that see zero competitive play, like Razorbacks, ghost arks, CSM rhinos, etc.

its pretty clear that all those units people have crunched the numbers on and decided 'nope, makes more sense to have 20 orks on foot than 10 orks plus a trukk 100% of the time' or 'nope, looks like 2 5-mans of CSM with 2 chaincannons is always better than 1 and a rhino to transport them.'

A small price bump to make Disintegrators make sense over Dark Lances, 100% understand. a dark lance raider is probably a 100pt model, a Disintegrator raider is probably a 95pt model - youd see them on the tabletop plenty still, but that'd be a good place to hit drukhari from a points perspective, and they clearly need some nerfs.

but is it not just obvious that a 145pt ghost ark or a 130pt lascannon razorback or a 85pt rhino are just blatantly overpriced, and those things should be brought DOWN instead of raiders being balanced against them against whatever 120pt 130pt value where they would be?

I think the problem is that GW doesn't really have any idea what they want to do with vehicles.

I think we can all agree that overall vehicles and especially transports are not in a good place, but any sort of hamfisted adjustment will unbalance the whole equation. Give them better defensive profiles? That's asking for bloat--using your example of a baseline 2+ armor save on all vehicles, you'll then get people whining about how the landraider should be more armored than a rhino, which leads to more proliferation of invul/FNP saves (unless we start doing wackier things like 1+ saves, 0+ saves, -1+ saves). Make them cheaper so people can take more to beat out all the anti-tank? That increases game lethality because most vehicles mount these things called weapons. Plus most vehicles have a purpose--people generally aren't going to spam more vehicles, they're just going to take more of what's good (whether that's vehicles or whatever, in DE's case, we've already established people aren't taking empty Raiders for funsies).

The more I think on it, the more I'm leaning towards vehicles need their own system rather than just a box shaped infantry model.

There’s no reason toughness needs to stop at 8. There’s already certain anti tank weapons that go to s10-16. Strength that high is pretty useless generally, but that’s only because vehicle toughness is soft capped for no reason at 8.

Gw really hates the idea of anything being tougher than T8 natively. Did you see what they did to all of the T9 Legion Super Heavys in 8th? They priced them out of existence. Then 9th rolls around and they made all of them save the Mastodon T8, gave them price cuts of as much as 50%, and gave them all access to a 1CP strategem that made them tougher than when they were T9 against everything S7 or less and everything S10 to S15, while making them basically equally tough against S9 and only slightly less durable against S8. Gw are fine with making things tough, but they prefer using gimmicks instead of raw stats to do it.

Karol wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:


but is it not just obvious that a 145pt ghost ark or a 130pt lascannon razorback or a 85pt rhino are just blatantly overpriced, and those things should be brought DOWN instead of raiders being balanced against them against whatever 120pt 130pt value where they would be?

How do you do it though, if the necron codex and the marine books are already out? GW doesn't fix problems like that unless they bring out a new book. Worse because of linked costs, there is a huge chance that stuff like rhinos or razorbacks are going to cost similar for armies like GK or CSM. They could maybe change it in a big point adjustment CA. But those happen twice a year. The time for the spring/summer one is gone. So they would have to be working on it right now, considering their 6month update window, to bring it out in december. If now then we are looking at march or may next year.

The last points update was done for free and available for download online. If they stick with that approach then they can adjust points pretty easily when they want to. And Scotsman is right, you can't balance Raiders against vehicles that everyone knows are overpriced. Raiders are a bit too cheap, but most of the things people compare them to are a bit too expensive themselves.

Can anyone explain the rules regarding troops firing while embarked. My understanding was that ONLY pistols were usable. Am I misinformed ?

 Grimoir wrote:
Can anyone explain the rules regarding troops firing while embarked. My understanding was that ONLY pistols were usable. Am I misinformed ?

Yes you are misinformed.

While the vehicle is within engagement range of enemy models, the occupants can only fire their pistols.
But when the vehicle is outside of engagement range the occupants are free to shoot with their other guns normally.

Example of the open-topped rule:

Open-Topped: In your Shooting phase, units embarked within this transport can be selected to shoot with; measure distances and draw line of sight from any point on this transport when doing so. If this transport made a Normal Move, Advanced or Fell Back this turn, embarked units are considered to have done the same. While this transport is within Engagement Range of any enemy units, embarked units cannot shoot, except with Pistols.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The last points update was done for free and available for download online. If they stick with that approach then they can adjust points pretty easily when they want to. And Scotsman is right, you can't balance Raiders against vehicles that everyone knows are overpriced. Raiders are a bit too cheap, but most of the things people compare them to are a bit too expensive themselves.

But the last update was stuff getting nerfed and going up in points, how is getting nerfed is suppose to help against stuff that is hyper efficient? And GW doesn't do free updates for armies that already have a codex. The bad sm stuff will stay bad, at least till the autum or winter CA, and that is assuming it is being writen right now, with people that work on it seeing the problem.

Theoretically of course, GW could take 4 people make them write 2 PDF updates per day, just slashing some point costs and stuff could get better, without getting anywhere near to changing rule. But GW doesn't do stuff like that. I mean look at GK and CSM still running around with weaker flamers, 1W stuff etc Not a word from GW on when they will, decide to FAQ it. In fact maybe they never will, and those players just have to wait to half of an edition for an update/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sanguine40k wrote:

Karol wrote:

I think some people may not like the idea of a transport with +4inv running around 5 dudes inside with a 3 shot plasma weapon.
And why rules wise it isn't open toped when the model is, I guess that is a question for GW to anwser.

It's a 5++ on the impulsor now.

And this shows how often the thing is used around here. Thought it still had the old rules. At +5inv for 100pts, no open toped not fly transport which loses guns to take the inv it is a horrible option.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If weapon ranges were more in the 12-24" range for most stuff and infantry movements value were 4" for normal stuff and 5" for fast and transports moved 12" then most transports would have a place.

Raiders are good because you lose literally nothing for being on one. You gain a good weapon, you gain fly, you gain flexibility, you gain mobility, and you lose 0 firepower.

You lose having Wyches being on the table without a raider lol.

Ehhh - they are pretty easy to hide and they are really fast too. You could easily get by without the raider and make them work. There is no reason not to take the raider though. At the very least it gives the wyches an additional 3 inch move on turn 1 (not minor at all).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If weapon ranges were more in the 12-24" range for most stuff and infantry movements value were 4" for normal stuff and 5" for fast and transports moved 12" then most transports would have a place.

Raiders are good because you lose literally nothing for being on one. You gain a good weapon, you gain fly, you gain flexibility, you gain mobility, and you lose 0 firepower.

You lose having Wyches being on the table without a raider lol.

Ehhh - they are pretty easy to hide and they are really fast too. You could easily get by without the raider and make them work. There is no reason not to take the raider though. At the very least it gives the wyches an additional 3 inch move on turn 1 (not minor at all).

youre not gonna convince me that 8" movement is fast enough for T3 6++ models that cost...what, 10ppm? to make it across the table versus 9th edition 40k levels of firepower and survive.

Catulle wrote:
It's okay for the pirate faction to have good transports... Jesus

I agree, but you can't nerf other units, because they will become unviable outside of transports. Nerf the transports a bit and you can still maintain the other units as they are. Except perhaps the court - they may need a small bump.