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.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

Fair enough. So then it should implode immediately upon starting a turn without anything actively embarked on it. Because if you do anything other than transport a model with the dedicated part of the transport you are very much abusing the rules.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

Fair enough. So then it should implode immediately upon starting a turn without anything actively embarked on it. Because if you do anything other than transport a model with the dedicated part of the transport you are very much abusing the rules.

Attention class: this is a classic example of being intentionally obtuse.

In what world is having a unit not inside its transport at the start of the game "abusing the rules"? That's just mental!

And if GW wanted them to be dedicated transports, then they'd go back to the way it was in editions prior to 8th, where a transport was purchased (READ: dedicated) to a specific unit, and no other unit could ride in it.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

Fair enough. So then it should implode immediately upon starting a turn without anything actively embarked on it. Because if you do anything other than transport a model with the dedicated part of the transport you are very much abusing the rules.

Attention class: this is a classic example of being intentionally obtuse.

Should my Devastators implode if I decide to charge into melee with them? Just wondering.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In what world is having a unit not inside its transport at the start of the game "abusing the rules"? That's just mental!

And if GW wanted them to be dedicated transports, then they'd go back to the way it was in editions prior to 8th, where a transport was purchased (READ: dedicated) to a specific unit, and no other unit could ride in it.

When you're a transport for a unit that can't get into it.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

Fair enough. So then it should implode immediately upon starting a turn without anything actively embarked on it. Because if you do anything other than transport a model with the dedicated part of the transport you are very much abusing the rules.

Attention class: this is a classic example of being intentionally obtuse.

I fundamentally don't see the difference between a empty transport T1 used to do something other than transport a unit and a empty transport T3 used to do something other than transport a unit.

You just have a bad arguement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In what world is having a unit not inside its transport at the start of the game "abusing the rules"? That's just mental!

And if GW wanted them to be dedicated transports, then they'd go back to the way it was in editions prior to 8th, where a transport was purchased (READ: dedicated) to a specific unit, and no other unit could ride in it.

When you're a transport for a unit that can't get into it.

Ghost arks by lore are pressed into service as transports. My 20 man squad gets reduced to less than 11, I embark the squad. Pressing the ark into service as a transport.

Followed lore, followed transport rules, followed dedicated transport rules, added tactical complexity to my strategy of gameplay.

Dudeface wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicated transport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.

I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
so not LS Storms, Razorbacks, Immolators, Chimeras, Tauroxen (prime or vanilla), Duneriders, Chaos Rhinos (combi weapons and havocs make them useful for something other than transport), Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers, Wave Serpents, Ghost arks.

Devilfish is a maybe? Might be able to put too many seeker missiles on there.

So that leaves... loyalist Rhinos, Trukks and Goliath Trucks. Well done.


And that assumes that GW is right to force playstyles on people. There's certainly no valid reason to have a squad in cover at the beginning of the game, then jump in a transport in later turns to get to an objective or act as a mobile reserve on the table. That level of tactical play is just _super_ bad for the game.

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicated transport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.

I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
so not LS Storms, Razorbacks, Immolators, Chimeras, Tauroxen (prime or vanilla), Duneriders, Chaos Rhinos (combi weapons and havocs make them useful for something other than transport), Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers, Wave Serpents, Ghost arks.

Devilfish is a maybe? Might be able to put too many seeker missiles on there.

So that leaves... loyalist Rhinos, Trukks and Goliath Trucks. Well done.


And that assumes that GW is right to force playstyles on people. There's certainly no valid reason to have a squad in cover at the beginning of the game, then jump in a transport in later turns to get to an objective or act as a mobile reserve on the table. That level of tactical play is just _super_ bad for the game.

You're trying a little too hard there. Most of those units still primarily function as a transport, I can't recall the last time I saw someone form a chaos rhino gunline, or chimera, or immolators, or duneriders.

Ironically the ones you call "gunboats" are called and used as such because they transport stuff and shoot out of them.

Ghost arks you have plenty of people in this thread saying they're not a transport, so get them out of the Dedicated Transport slot.

I can recall multiple editions where transports were either the boogeyman or broke the game however.

Apologies for interrupting the Internet slap fight, but here are the Tyranid point changes from reliable sources on the Tyranid & GSC Discords who have leaked previous codex details:

Broodlord -10
Hive tyrants +20 (weapons increased too)
Old one eye +15
Swarmy + 20
Winged tyrant - +20 (weapons increased too)

Warriors - +5 (weapons increased too)

Deathleper - +25
Maleceptor +50
Pyrovore +10
Raveners +5

Carnifex +15
Exocrine +30
Screamer killers +15
Thornback +15
Tyrannofex ***

Tyrannocyte +10
Harpy +15 (weapons increased too)

HVC are +5pts to their current costs

*** Tyrannofex is listed in the preview PDF as 110pts. This is almost certainly a typo for 210pts, which would be a +40pt increase.

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicated transport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.

I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
so not LS Storms, Razorbacks, Immolators, Chimeras, Tauroxen (prime or vanilla), Duneriders, Chaos Rhinos (combi weapons and havocs make them useful for something other than transport), Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers, Wave Serpents, Ghost arks.

Devilfish is a maybe? Might be able to put too many seeker missiles on there.

So that leaves... loyalist Rhinos, Trukks and Goliath Trucks. Well done.


And that assumes that GW is right to force playstyles on people. There's certainly no valid reason to have a squad in cover at the beginning of the game, then jump in a transport in later turns to get to an objective or act as a mobile reserve on the table. That level of tactical play is just _super_ bad for the game.

You're trying a little too hard there. Most of those units still primarily function as a transport, I can't recall the last time I saw someone form a chaos rhino gunline, or chimera, or immolators, or duneriders.

Yeah, people seemed to need this rubbed in their face a little. Other than nitpicking the list for specific vehicles, any comment on GW disallowing tactical play through random rules changes?

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicated transport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.

I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
... Razorbacks, Immolators, Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers...

I've played all those vehicles in multiple editions and not once I deployed them empty.

I like the new rule, maybe fielding empty transports was not really "abuse" but it's definitely a gamey mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.

If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.

I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.

This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicated transport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.

I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
so not LS Storms, Razorbacks, Immolators, Chimeras, Tauroxen (prime or vanilla), Duneriders, Chaos Rhinos (combi weapons and havocs make them useful for something other than transport), Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers, Wave Serpents, Ghost arks.

Devilfish is a maybe? Might be able to put too many seeker missiles on there.

So that leaves... loyalist Rhinos, Trukks and Goliath Trucks. Well done.


And that assumes that GW is right to force playstyles on people. There's certainly no valid reason to have a squad in cover at the beginning of the game, then jump in a transport in later turns to get to an objective or act as a mobile reserve on the table. That level of tactical play is just _super_ bad for the game.

You're trying a little too hard there. Most of those units still primarily function as a transport, I can't recall the last time I saw someone form a chaos rhino gunline, or chimera, or immolators, or duneriders.

Yeah, people seemed to need this rubbed in their face a little. Other than nitpicking the list for specific vehicles, any comment on GW disallowing tactical play through random rules changes?

What are you defining as tactical play? Forcing longer deployment due to taking contents out of the transport? Because that is literally the only thing this stops.

Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.

But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.

Maybe they should just have made you buy the transport with the squad like they did in every other edition than the most recent two instead of any infantry squad unlocks transports.

Then it wouldn't matter how you used the transport for the squad you bought it for.

Feels like there were a lot of better ways to prevent hypothetical wave serpent player from annoying hypothetical person annoyed by empty wave serpent player.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.

But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.

If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.

Dudeface wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.

But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.

If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.

I don't actually play matched play but I used to. But I also don't like other players in my community having their experiences negatively impacted by terrible arbitrary rules. So I'm willing to express support for their concerns.

And once again, you don't have to try so hard to defend this. Its dumb and arbitary and its okay to not relentlessly defend every decision GW makes.
I like when they make the right call and don't when they don't. I'm complex like that lol.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.

But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.

If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.

I don't actually play matched play but I used to. But I also don't like other players in my community having their experiences negatively impacted by terrible arbitrary rules. So I'm willing to express support for their concerns.

And once again, you don't have to try so hard to defend this. Its dumb and arbitary and its okay to not relentlessly defend every decision GW makes.
I like when they make the right call and don't when they don't. I'm complex like that lol.

It's OK not to criticise every decision as well, I quite like the change and feel it better represents the intent of the game. It's has a negative impact for the questionable design scope of ghost arks however, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Those tyranids changes look absolutely absurd on first sight. Typical sledge hammer method when adjusting their power creeped codices.

Dudeface wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.

But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.

If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.

I don't actually play matched play but I used to. But I also don't like other players in my community having their experiences negatively impacted by terrible arbitrary rules. So I'm willing to express support for their concerns.

And once again, you don't have to try so hard to defend this. Its dumb and arbitary and its okay to not relentlessly defend every decision GW makes.
I like when they make the right call and don't when they don't. I'm complex like that lol.

It's OK not to criticise every decision as well, I quite like the change and feel it better represents the intent of the game. It's has a negative impact for the questionable design scope of ghost arks however, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

I don't criticize every decision GW makes, I doubt I criticize a quarter of GW's decisions. But this one is pretty bad so it deserves a criticism.
Having played 40k since the 90s I don't feel this represents the game at all.
I also served in a heavy mechanized division and would have been horrified if my bradley imploded because we were walking next or behind it. So I don't find this change is representative of anything.
Maybe representative of people who started with 7th edition and its free transport rules...but that edition ended and was terrible.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.

But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.

If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.

I don't actually play matched play but I used to. But I also don't like other players in my community having their experiences negatively impacted by terrible arbitrary rules. So I'm willing to express support for their concerns.

And once again, you don't have to try so hard to defend this. Its dumb and arbitary and its okay to not relentlessly defend every decision GW makes.
I like when they make the right call and don't when they don't. I'm complex like that lol.

It's OK not to criticise every decision as well, I quite like the change and feel it better represents the intent of the game. It's has a negative impact for the questionable design scope of ghost arks however, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

I don't criticize every decision GW makes, I doubt I criticize a quarter of GW's decisions. But this one is pretty bad so it deserves a criticism.
Having played 40k since the 90s I don't feel this represents the game at all.
I also served in a heavy mechanized division and would have been horrified if my bradley imploded because we were walking next or behind it. So I don't find this change is representative of anything.

That's fair, I just see it as them trying to get people to use the units in the way they designed, rather than a cheap method to force deployment issues for their opponent before the game starts.

Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

White knight to save the day, and one that doesn't play Necrons to boot!

You ever bothered to actually play Necrons or read the codex, or do you think defending these asinine changes will make GW favor your own army at some point?

Ahh, trolls. Good stuff. Whining about absolutely everything without pause.

I have news for you:

 Blackie wrote:


I like the new rule, maybe fielding empty transports was not really "abuse" but it's definitely a gamey mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.

Ironically deploying outside is one of the most realistic most makes sense ways to use them if you think how transports are used

Dudeface wrote:
Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.

See and there is the issue. It doesn't impact high level competitive play, it doesn't adjust something broken and doesn't impact out of control armies. Its just a feels bad rule for people playing matched play at their LGS and are using out dated tactics or playing niche army concepts. So why do it at all?

Though personally I just think people are beta testing 10th edition. Where this stuff gives my style of enjoying the game concern because if its in the foundation of the next edition...that is going to suck.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

White knight to save the day, and one that doesn't play Necrons to boot!

You ever bothered to actually play Necrons or read the codex, or do you think defending these asinine changes will make GW favor your own army at some point?

Ahh, trolls. Good stuff. Whining about absolutely everything without pause.

I have news for you:

Spoiler:

I don't bring them to tournaments, because they aren't painted yet.

So you haven't bothered to play with your Necrons, got it.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.

See and there is the issue. It doesn't impact high level competitive play, it doesn't adjust something broken and doesn't impact out of control armies. Its just a feels bad rule for people playing matched play at their LGS and are using out dated tactics or playing niche army concepts.

But while the tournament pack is in matched play, matched play is not the tournament pack. They don't have to play these missions or restrictions.

Dudeface wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.

See and there is the issue. It doesn't impact high level competitive play, it doesn't adjust something broken and doesn't impact out of control armies. Its just a feels bad rule for people playing matched play at their LGS and are using out dated tactics or playing niche army concepts.

But while the tournament pack is in matched play, matched play is not the tournament pack. They don't have to play these missions or restrictions.

Except in practice one way is popular because it's easier and faster to show up to flgs/club and play rather than start negotiating game parameters and then start hashing out army lists(which neccesiates spare models being carried)

Dudeface wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.

See and there is the issue. It doesn't impact high level competitive play, it doesn't adjust something broken and doesn't impact out of control armies. Its just a feels bad rule for people playing matched play at their LGS and are using out dated tactics or playing niche army concepts.

But while the tournament pack is in matched play, matched play is not the tournament pack. They don't have to play these missions or restrictions.

But they will because as much as I avocate for people to abandon tournament style play it is the default playstyle because its the thing GW is spending their energy on. Buddy groups can make due but metas and club players will have to adjust.
And as you can see in this thread, "doesn't hurt me so I don't care, or I didn't like you could do that so I don't care" is pretty prevalent so anyone hoping to keep on keeping on will have to contend with TFG just to play as they have been.

Again its a unnecessary feels bad rule for no positive change of game play experience. If it sucked but largely made the game more positive I'd be for it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So you haven't bothered to play with your Necrons, got it.

Yea, I have. A ton. I have lengthy discussions about Necrons on this forum and ran a ton of lists through TTS before buying models.

When's the last time you played again?

Thank you, good sir, for bringing some interesting news in this topic.
It's a shame i almost missed it because of the rants of some trolls. I hope mods do something about it. What i can do is quote you so we give people looking for news two chances of reading something useful and not 50 years old children squabbling.

 xttz wrote:
Apologies for interrupting the Internet slap fight, but here are the Tyranid point changes from reliable sources on the Tyranid & GSC Discords who have leaked previous codex details:

Broodlord -10
Hive tyrants +20 (weapons increased too)
Old one eye +15
Swarmy + 20
Winged tyrant - +20 (weapons increased too)

Warriors - +5 (weapons increased too)

Deathleper - +25
Maleceptor +50
Pyrovore +10
Raveners +5

Carnifex +15
Exocrine +30
Screamer killers +15
Thornback +15
Tyrannofex ***

Tyrannocyte +10
Harpy +15 (weapons increased too)

HVC are +5pts to their current costs

*** Tyrannofex is listed in the preview PDF as 110pts. This is almost certainly a typo for 210pts, which would be a +40pt increase.

pjklan wrote:
Thank you, good sir, for bringing some interesting news in this topic.
It's a shame i almost missed it because of the rants of some trolls. I hope mods do something about it. What i can do is quote you so we give people looking for news two chances of reading something useful and not 50 years old children squabbling.

 xttz wrote:
Apologies for interrupting the Internet slap fight, but here are the Tyranid point changes from reliable sources on the Tyranid & GSC Discords who have leaked previous codex details:

Broodlord -10
Hive tyrants +20 (weapons increased too)
Old one eye +15
Swarmy + 20
Winged tyrant - +20 (weapons increased too)

Warriors - +5 (weapons increased too)

Deathleper - +25
Maleceptor +50
Pyrovore +10
Raveners +5

Carnifex +15
Exocrine +30
Screamer killers +15
Thornback +15
Tyrannofex ***

Tyrannocyte +10
Harpy +15 (weapons increased too)

HVC are +5pts to their current costs

*** Tyrannofex is listed in the preview PDF as 110pts. This is almost certainly a typo for 210pts, which would be a +40pt increase.

I resent that, I'm still very much in my 30's sir!

Although I would add that discussing the transport change is on topic.