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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Check out the Hades Breaching Drill sometime, it'll be a hoot to play with these new rules.

oh, FW stuff with a weird deployment rule already on the datasheet. I think crying about it right now is a bit early, i expect GW will FAQ "Subterranean Assault" to not blow it up

Right but the DT rule in the first place is in a FAQ core rules update.

Are we at the point of FAQing the FAQ? Are we still in the best edition ever?

where is the DT rules change exactly? I thought it was with the new GT pack?

It is in the new GT pack which also includes an errata'd and updated Core Rules document.

Make of that what you will.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are we sure folk haven’t mix-read this rule?

Because it’s really daft. And whilst far from having my finger on the game’s modern pulse, I’ve not really read complaints about people exploiting DTs?

The rule is very clear.

However, I don't think GW is intending for this to be some balancing rule, but as a "how they believe you should play the game" rule. Ie. if people aren't using transports as transports then GW feels like it isn't in the "spirit of the game".

That is at least only reason I can see for this rule. Sadly we will never know as GW isn't upfront about why they do these changes.

It's another kick for Chaos.

Take a heavy weapon to take advantage of doctrines, the transport is toast.

Regular SMs can combat squad their heavy.

Increases value of hybrid vehicles- Stormraven, Falcon, Land Raiders.

That's all I can see. It's a weird rule. Unless they want to penalize movement on smaller boards- phase out the Rhino?

Ooh, getting rid of blocking LoS to foster taking terrain, maybe?

I don't know. Reeks of a Dev's pet peeve.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are we sure folk haven’t mix-read this rule?

Because it’s really daft. And whilst far from having my finger on the game’s modern pulse, I’ve not really read complaints about people exploiting DTs?

The rule is very clear.

However, I don't think GW is intending for this to be some balancing rule, but as a "how they believe you should play the game" rule. Ie. if people aren't using transports as transports then GW feels like it isn't in the "spirit of the game".

That is at least only reason I can see for this rule. Sadly we will never know as GW isn't upfront about why they do these changes.

Unfortunately, part of a mechanized company's tactical utility is it's flexibility. Need tanks? Well, we have some firepower that is armored. Need infantry? Well, we have a few men who are heavily armed.

Do you know what vehicles are called where the troops stay mounted for fighting?
Tanks. (The 'you' in this paragraph isn't referring to anyone specifically. Just a turn of phrase to build the rhetorical question).

GW's opinion of the spirit of the game is clearly not narrative, and that is why I am so infuriated with people who claim 9th is the most narrative edition ever.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

That's unbelievably stupid.

Or, sadly, starting to get believable at this point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are we sure folk haven’t mix-read this rule?

Because it’s really daft. And whilst far from having my finger on the game’s modern pulse, I’ve not really read complaints about people exploiting DTs?

The rule is very clear.

However, I don't think GW is intending for this to be some balancing rule, but as a "how they believe you should play the game" rule. Ie. if people aren't using transports as transports then GW feels like it isn't in the "spirit of the game".

That is at least only reason I can see for this rule. Sadly we will never know as GW isn't upfront about why they do these changes.

Unfortunately, part of a mechanized company's tactical utility is it's flexibility. Need tanks? Well, we have some firepower that is armored. Need infantry? Well, we have a few men who are heavily armed.

Do you know what vehicles are called where the troops stay mounted for fighting?
Tanks. (The 'you' in this paragraph isn't referring to anyone specifically. Just a turn of phrase to build the rhetorical question).

GW's opinion of the spirit of the game is clearly not narrative, and that is why I am so infuriated with people who claim 9th is the most narrative edition ever.

It's clearly 100% narrative. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a narrative rule designed with narrative intent to force narrative accommodating play.

'Transports should be transporting stuff because they're transports', is the exact type of argument narrative players have been making since the dawn of 40k.

It's the EXACT type of rule you've been advocating for the entire time you've been on the forum, you just don't like this SPECIFIC one. Which is a bit hypocritical coming from someone who likes Heresy. Yeah, it's weird that some vehicles blow up if they don't have troops in them; but at least EVERY vehicle doesn't blow up when they touch grass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

That's unbelievably stupid.

Or, sadly, starting to get believable at this point.

Narrative players screwing up the game again. SMH.

Yeah, i'm gonna stick to OnePageRules for a while. (or exclusively tempest of war for actual 40k games)

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

Can someone explain why this is? The whole point of a mechanized company is to be flexible - embarked upon the transports when necessary (say, when conducting a mobile defense or in the offense in open ground) and dismounted when necessary (basically everything infantry is useful for).

What is the logic of this rules change? Have empty transports been a problem?

Because apparently gunboats and multiple deployment drops are a problem, and in true GW fashion they fixed it with the elegance and finesse of a epileptic rhino in shop full of fine china.

It seems now that in the grim darkness of the far future, every transport vehicle driver, be they Human, Eldar, Tau, Ork or Necron, now has abandonment issues and will detonate their transport in a fit of panic if they don't have a buddy holding their hand when the battle starts.

Too bad about dt's that can't start with unit embarked and thus dying by default

ERJAK wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So war zone Nephilim says that if you deploy a Dedicated Transport without anyone in it, the dedicated transport is destroyed.

That's unbelievably stupid.

Or, sadly, starting to get believable at this point.

Narrative players screwing up the game again. SMH.

Yeah. . . no. Narrative players are not at fault for GWs idiocy.

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are we sure folk haven’t mix-read this rule?

Because it’s really daft. And whilst far from having my finger on the game’s modern pulse, I’ve not really read complaints about people exploiting DTs?

The rule is very clear.

However, I don't think GW is intending for this to be some balancing rule, but as a "how they believe you should play the game" rule. Ie. if people aren't using transports as transports then GW feels like it isn't in the "spirit of the game".

That is at least only reason I can see for this rule. Sadly we will never know as GW isn't upfront about why they do these changes.

Unfortunately, part of a mechanized company's tactical utility is it's flexibility. Need tanks? Well, we have some firepower that is armored. Need infantry? Well, we have a few men who are heavily armed.

Do you know what vehicles are called where the troops stay mounted for fighting?
Tanks. (The 'you' in this paragraph isn't referring to anyone specifically. Just a turn of phrase to build the rhetorical question).

GW's opinion of the spirit of the game is clearly not narrative, and that is why I am so infuriated with people who claim 9th is the most narrative edition ever.

It's clearly 100% narrative. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a narrative rule designed with narrative intent to force narrative accommodating play.

'Transports should be transporting stuff because they're transports', is the exact type of argument narrative players have been making since the dawn of 40k.

It's the EXACT type of rule you've been advocating for the entire time you've been on the forum, you just don't like this SPECIFIC one. Which is a bit hypocritical coming from someone who likes Heresy. Yeah, it's weird that some vehicles blow up if they don't have troops in them; but at least EVERY vehicle doesn't blow up when they touch grass.

I think you are either deliberately misreading my arguments to make a point (i.e. strawmanning) or you are incapable of reading.

Either way, I can take to PMs why this isn't a narrative rule (and why tanks touching grass and then exploding isn't my argument) to avoid cluttering up the thread, if you like. Otherwise, I refer you to my first reply to you here, which neatly refutes both of your tired and frankly mistaken points. I am embarrassed on your behalf, since you lack the self awareness to do so yourself evidently.

Really a mod just needs to get ERJAK to can it. It's an incredibly stupid and unreasonable line of argumentation.

Hecaton wrote:
Really a mod just needs to get ERJAK to can it. It's an incredibly stupid and unreasonable line of argumentation.

Feel free to use the yellow triangle. I recommend it

Hecaton wrote:
Really a mod just needs to get ERJAK to can it. It's an incredibly stupid and unreasonable line of argumentation.

He's not wrong though. Notice the defenders have mostly been narrative players that didn't like the "abuse of rules" in the thread we got going for the Nephilim rules.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Really a mod just needs to get ERJAK to can it. It's an incredibly stupid and unreasonable line of argumentation.

He's not wrong though. Notice the defenders have mostly been narrative players that didn't like the "abuse of rules" in the thread we got going for the Nephilim rules.

I wasn't participating in that thread, otherwise you'd have at least one narrative player AGAINST the whole "if you're transporting use transports" thing. Do you mind linking it to me so I can participate, if there was an existing discussion? It sounds like someone doesn't really understand what "narrative" means - or, rather, has a very very narrow view of "narrative" that's unreasonable, imo.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Really a mod just needs to get ERJAK to can it. It's an incredibly stupid and unreasonable line of argumentation.

He's not wrong though. Notice the defenders have mostly been narrative players that didn't like the "abuse of rules" in the thread we got going for the Nephilim rules.

I wasn't participating in that thread, otherwise you'd have at least one narrative player AGAINST the whole "if you're transporting use transports" thing. Do you mind linking it to me so I can participate, if there was an existing discussion? It sounds like someone doesn't really understand what "narrative" means - or, rather, has a very very narrow view of "narrative" that's unreasonable, imo.

It's in the news and rumors section. I'm not saying all narrative/casual players are defending this rule, but the only ones defending it ARE said players.

Daed (The local source for Tournament Statistics) is a narrative player now?

Voss wrote:
Daed (The local source for Tournament Statistics) is a narrative player now?

I mean look how he uses the Ghost Ark and defended said change. He's pure casual and narrative.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Voss wrote:
Daed (The local source for Tournament Statistics) is a narrative player now?

I mean look how he uses the Ghost Ark and defended said change. He's pure casual and narrative.

Yeah. He told people who were quoting the unit fluff to him that they were using it wrong. Very narrative.

Honestly, the number of people defending the change were very small. And those few were going on about objective grabbing in tournaments by land speeder storms with no scout squads.

Voss wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Voss wrote:
Daed (The local source for Tournament Statistics) is a narrative player now?

I mean look how he uses the Ghost Ark and defended said change. He's pure casual and narrative.

Yeah. He told people who were quoting the unit fluff to him that they were using it wrong. Very narrative.

Well, that and the rules kind of encourages you to use it as a support vehicle for big blobs of warriors.
It's not open topped so using it as a taxi is kind of pointless, and 20 warriors + ark + techno is a pretty tanky combo.

For the record, I don't think he's a narrative player nor I think the change is aimed at narrative players. The rule was released in a book that is apparently for tournament play.
It's just that even from a competitive / game design standpoint, it's a silly and heavy handed rule that makes no sense from either a "narrative" / simulation perspective or from a game design perspective.

If they really wanted to fix gunboat spam, they should have changed how the dedicated transport rules work. Like, have an actual slot limit for transports.
If they wanted to fix drop numbers, all they had to do was make it so that you had to deploy an infantry unit and a vehicle at the same time.

The rule as is doesn't actually fix either; gunboat spam will still be a thing because you can still take a transport for each unit of infantry.
Whilst drop numbers are reduced, they chose an inelegant way of going about it that could probably be circumvented by using characters anyway instead of actual infantry squads.

I wouldn't consider Daedalus a narrative player, personally, as he seems more interested in how the game supports competitive play than how the game supports narrative play.

I think he's also a casual player (maybe a tournament player? I shouldn't presume), but we must be careful not to confuse "narrative" and "casual", because casual players often DGAF about narrative - or at least, only give a little F.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Have you seen any Werewolves recently?

No - because they're all in the Hollow Earth! Come on people: we have to take the fight to them!

Sorry, going to have to agree with the idea that this was driven by narrative players. AFAIK there hasn't been a problem list abusing the option to use empty transports, this is purely a "I don't like it" reaction from someone at GW. And it's exactly the kind of rule I would have expected to see in older editions, right next to the requirement that dedicated transports are assigned to a specific unit and only that unit can begin the game in them.

PS: and that ghost ark thing in past editions? Forget it, if a unit had a size of 10-20 models and its transport could only hold 10 buying the transport would only be an option for a 10-model unit.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Yeah. . . no. Narrative players are not at fault for GWs idiocy.

Each time someone from GW says that a rule or entire codex ended up the way it did, because of their focus on the narrative and then we found it to be be either a scourge on playfield or an unplayable mess, I blame it on narrative players.
Design wise a non narrative player cares and plays with and within the rules he is being give, a narrative player doesn't care what the rules are, because the core, from what I understand about narrative play, of the way of playing is breaking and modifying the rules. A narrative player is not going to care that army X is borderline unplayable or makes the game unfun for everyone else, because his goal is to have a few last stand or destroy the fortress games. A ton of problems with w40k come from the fact that GW instead of making a fun and playable game, tries to do the narrative thing. And then we end up with super narrative books with a ton of narrative rules, which are super internaly balanced, but end up either as any eldar or worse, for the players, something like the last GSC book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Sorry, going to have to agree with the idea that this was driven by narrative players. AFAIK there hasn't been a problem list abusing the option to use empty transports, this is purely a "I don't like it" reaction from someone at GW

Ton of other abritary rules like that too. Lets say relics are optional and you don't have to take them. But you have to take a warlord. When CP drop from 12 to 6, losing 1 obligatory is a big thing. Unless of course you have a good special character that can be your warlord, even better if it is a suprem commander. Because then you not only, not lose 1CP, you actually can gain extra CPs.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Sorry, going to have to agree with the idea that this was driven by narrative players. AFAIK there hasn't been a problem list abusing the option to use empty transports, this is purely a "I don't like it" reaction from someone at GW. And it's exactly the kind of rule I would have expected to see in older editions, right next to the requirement that dedicated transports are assigned to a specific unit and only that unit can begin the game in them.

PS: and that ghost ark thing in past editions? Forget it, if a unit had a size of 10-20 models and its transport could only hold 10 buying the transport would only be an option for a 10-model unit.

Well, that person who "doesn't like it" is either not narratively-minded, or has an overly narrow understanding of narrative and what the role of infantry fighting vehicles is on the battlefield. They're wrong, either way, and I'd happily say so to their face.

It's also exactly the kind of rule that was ABSENT from earlier editions, so if you expected to see it then clearly you're badly misinformed about something.(or well-informed but drawing incorrect conclusions, I suppose).

The rule isn't narrative at all though. How is spontaneously combustion narrative?
Wouldn't it be more narrative to not require the units be in the transport, to reflect them getting caught out by a enemy force while scouting or getting ready for an ambush of their own?

With the change there's only one narrative option; the passengers are in the vehicle, because otherwise it'll fething explode. That's not "narrative". That's just being a gak, railroading GM.
That's like, rocks fall, everyone dies level of nonsense.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How is spontaneously combustion narrative?

It's not "spontaneous combustion". It's "you couldn't take this unit in the first place so it doesn't exist", handled in the only way the 40k rules can accommodate it. It's just like how fortifications that can't be deployed or units that don't arrive from reserve before turn 4 are removed as casualties and counted as destroyed. The bastion didn't land on the battlefield and spontaneously combust, it never existed at all.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How is spontaneously combustion narrative?

It's not "spontaneous combustion". It's "you couldn't take this unit in the first place so it doesn't exist", handled in the only way the 40k rules can accommodate it. It's just like how fortifications that can't be deployed or units that don't arrive from reserve before turn 4 are removed as casualties and counted as destroyed. The bastion didn't land on the battlefield and spontaneously combust, it never existed at all.

Well, I paid for it and could take it in my army, so I clearly could take it in the first place. Furthermore, the idea that a unit cannot dismount from its transport at all ever in the entire universe until it is within a hundred yards of the enemy is just laughable.

The other rules are equally dumb, though they exist to address practical problems (terrain placement / people not putting units on the board until late in the game as a gimmick) that this one doesn't address (unless you count "people not being embarked on a transport" as a gimmick).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, that person who "doesn't like it" is either not narratively-minded, or has an overly narrow understanding of narrative and what the role of infantry fighting vehicles is on the battlefield.

This is news? GW has always had narrow views about what the narrative is and expected things to go along with their personal interpretations of the fluff.

(Not like they have a monopoly on that, I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen self-identified narrative players complaining about how someone else's narrative ideas were "not fluffy" because they didn't follow that person's unwritten rules about how the game should be played.)

It's also exactly the kind of rule that was ABSENT from earlier editions, so if you expected to see it then clearly you're badly misinformed about something.(or well-informed but drawing incorrect conclusions, I suppose).

That's odd, because in previous editions you could not take a transport without a legal unit for it to carry and it was assigned to that specific unit. So "if the Rhino isn't carrying something then it was left behind and not participating in this part of the battle" is entirely in line with previous transport rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, the idea that a unit cannot dismount from its transport at all ever in the entire universe until it is within a hundred yards of the enemy is just laughable.

You can dismount earlier. By doing so you decide that the transport has already done its job and is somewhere off the table.

(unless you count "people not being embarked on a transport" as a gimmick).

"People taking transports purely as efficient gun platforms or cheap mobile cover without ever using them as transports."

RIP "take a bunch of empty gatling Taurox Primes to sit in the 5++ bubble", you will not be missed.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, that person who "doesn't like it" is either not narratively-minded, or has an overly narrow understanding of narrative and what the role of infantry fighting vehicles is on the battlefield.

This is news? GW has always had narrow views about what the narrative is and expected things to go along with their personal interpretations of the fluff.

(Not like they have a monopoly on that, I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen self-identified narrative players complaining about how someone else's narrative ideas were "not fluffy" because they didn't follow that person's unwritten rules about how the game should be played.)

GW didn't used to have such a narrow view. This is a recent thing. Want to deploy your guys disembarked from a transport in 4th edition? Go nuts! Want Guardsmen in carapace armor army-wide? Go nuts! Want Eldar tanks to get experience in the edition's campaign system? Go nuts! All of those things (and more!) are absent from 9th.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

It's also exactly the kind of rule that was ABSENT from earlier editions, so if you expected to see it then clearly you're badly misinformed about something.(or well-informed but drawing incorrect conclusions, I suppose).

That's odd, because in previous editions you could not take a transport without a legal unit for it to carry and it was assigned to that specific unit. So "if the Rhino isn't carrying something then it was left behind and not participating in this part of the battle" is entirely in line with previous transport rules.

Yes, I am playing 4th edition as we speak. Dedicated transports exist. However, they aren't left behind because that's nonsensical; IFVs are designed to go forwards with their infantry and support them in the fight. One could argue that the Rhino isn't an IFV, but if the player wants to use it as one, who is GW to force them not to? Strap a second Storm Bolter and an HK missile on it and it's practically a BTR.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, the idea that a unit cannot dismount from its transport at all ever in the entire universe until it is within a hundred yards of the enemy is just laughable.

You can dismount earlier. By doing so you decide that the transport has already done its job and is somewhere off the table.

An IFV has not done its job simply by disgorging its passengers. It's job is also to support them in battle, even while they are dismounted and in fighting positions. That's what sets IFVs apart from APCs. So, no, this is wrong.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

(unless you count "people not being embarked on a transport" as a gimmick).

"People taking transports purely as efficient gun platforms or cheap mobile cover without ever using them as transports."

RIP "take a bunch of empty gatling Taurox Primes to sit in the 5++ bubble", you will not be missed.

Ah, so it's not a narrative problem, it's a balance problem.

weird how we ended up back here.

Yeah, transports just don't bugger off when they drop off units. They'll stay on the battlefield either to provide fire support or evac.
Then we have more esoteric units like the Ghost Ark which is basically an ambulance.

Not being able to share transports was a 5th-7th ed thing, wasn't it?

The change doesn't even stop the gunboat problem, because you can either just put a character in it or, you know, leave the vehicle on the first turn? There's still going to be gunboat spam.
Getting destroyed first turn isn't even that much of a drawback, because the player is only taking the infantry for the transport anyway, and it's a 1/6 chance for a model to be slain by the destroyed vehicle.