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:
wait, thats a thing? What were the problematic datasheet?

I believe the following have been considered problematic in that you would take them even without ever seeking to put anything in them:

- Wave Serpents
- Venoms
- Raiders

While none of these are exactly an issue at the moment, these three have consistently been problematic.

Wave Serpents - Tougher than most main line tanks, and able to mount serious firepower all their own. Most players would be happy with this unit even if it didn't have any kind of transport feature. Indeed, in 7th edition, their Serpent Shield was also one of their main weapons, giving them firepower that often even exceeded the Falcon Grav Tank. Add to that impressive speed and their ability to get places due to being a hovering vehicle model, and they have spent a long time as the perfect transport in the game.

Venoms - For all intents and purposes, this guy has the EXACT same problem Wave Serpent, just expressed very differently. For their cost, these little guys have usually been a challenge to kill due to some intrinsic defensive buff, carry a potent weapon, are very quick, and can hover. Again, it's a unit most armies would be happy to play with, even if it didn't also have the ability to carry units.

Raiders - Similar problems again, except they've only more recently acquired the Rhombus of Ruin's sinister 4th side. They are fast, they hover, they carry a potent gun, and in their most recent iteration they also received a toughness boost. For their points, they were very strong. Even more recently, their costs were adjusted so you couldn't take quite as many of them.


Honestly, I think this decision is fine, just changes a bit of how things play around, and isn't that big a deal. If the fluff of it matters to you, then don't play competitive games. Casual gamers can just ignore this and play the game they'd like to anyways. That said, I don't think this rule is as required as just being cognizant of the Rhombus of Ruin. You've never seen Chimeras being complained about, because they don't Hover, nor do Land Raiders. Their inability to really traverse the field is a huge limiting factor. Devilfish and Impulsors don't have the firepower to really get people peeved off. Monoliths are slow as molasses. Until Raiders had some defensive survivability, they were pretty much never even seen. There are some exceptions to the rule (like Kill Rigs), but even those usually are in support of a very specific build, rather than a uniquitous selection that just makes your army better.

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.

Yup. And the GW design team seems idiosyncratic enough to be saying "I don't like it" when players of certain factions are having fun, or when certain factions start winning games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, ironically, as a matched play change.... this doesn't affect narrative play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
GW didn't used to have such a narrow view.

They didn't have such a narrow view on this one topic. They certainly had narrow views on other things. Remember having to take an entire platoon if you wanted a single infantry squad, because only veterans are capable of being present without an officer and command squad and a second squad to keep them company? Remember Baneblades being Apocalypse-only and de facto banned? Remember only troops being able to score, including the weird situation where a heavy weapon squad in a troops slot platoon could score but a heavy weapon squad in a heavy support slot couldn't?

You can talk all you like about real-world doctrine but the reality is that this is exactly the kind of rule you get when someone at GW decides that a particular thing is against their personal opinion of how things work in the 40k universe and bans it.

 Yarium wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
wait, thats a thing? What were the problematic datasheet?

I believe the following have been considered problematic in that you would take them even without ever seeking to put anything in them:

- Wave Serpents
- Venoms
- Raiders

While none of these are exactly an issue at the moment, these three have consistently been problematic.

Wave Serpents - Tougher than most main line tanks, and able to mount serious firepower all their own. Most players would be happy with this unit even if it didn't have any kind of transport feature. Indeed, in 7th edition, their Serpent Shield was also one of their main weapons, giving them firepower that often even exceeded the Falcon Grav Tank. Add to that impressive speed and their ability to get places due to being a hovering vehicle model, and they have spent a long time as the perfect transport in the game.

Venoms - For all intents and purposes, this guy has the EXACT same problem Wave Serpent, just expressed very differently. For their cost, these little guys have usually been a challenge to kill due to some intrinsic defensive buff, carry a potent weapon, are very quick, and can hover. Again, it's a unit most armies would be happy to play with, even if it didn't also have the ability to carry units.

Raiders - Similar problems again, except they've only more recently acquired the Rhombus of Ruin's sinister 4th side. They are fast, they hover, they carry a potent gun, and in their most recent iteration they also received a toughness boost. For their points, they were very strong. Even more recently, their costs were adjusted so you couldn't take quite as many of them.


Honestly, I think this decision is fine, just changes a bit of how things play around, and isn't that big a deal. If the fluff of it matters to you, then don't play competitive games. Casual gamers can just ignore this and play the game they'd like to anyways. That said, I don't think this rule is as required as just being cognizant of the Rhombus of Ruin. You've never seen Chimeras being complained about, because they don't Hover, nor do Land Raiders. Their inability to really traverse the field is a huge limiting factor. Devilfish and Impulsors don't have the firepower to really get people peeved off. Monoliths are slow as molasses. Until Raiders had some defensive survivability, they were pretty much never even seen. There are some exceptions to the rule (like Kill Rigs), but even those usually are in support of a very specific build, rather than a uniquitous selection that just makes your army better.

Then why not change those units instead of introducing a rule that affects everything?
Sounds like it's a specific problem that demands a specific solution. Also, if the issue is the vehicle itself, does this change even affect anything? Those vehicles will still be strong, its just that a unit has to get out of it first. I'm pretty sure transports aren't affected by units leaving it, just the unit disembarking is affected.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
GW didn't used to have such a narrow view.

They didn't have such a narrow view on this one topic. They certainly had narrow views on other things. Remember having to take an entire platoon if you wanted a single infantry squad, because only veterans are capable of being present without an officer and command squad and a second squad to keep them company?

No; I remember the Imperial Guard being a rigid organization that follows doctrine to the letter, including attempting to follow the mandated force structure. In some ways, this "narrow view" is actually quite narratively focused, as a single infantry squad operating on its own outside of a platoon is either attached to a different element for some special duty (i.e. Armored Fist squads outside of mechanized regiments) or is called a "kill team" and has its own game.

Forcing infantry squads into platoons in a company-scale game is 100% narrative, especially since there were ways around it if you wanted to field other, more esoteric regimental organizations - but they came with costs (e.g. Stormtroopers doctrine).

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Remember Baneblades being Apocalypse-only and de facto banned?

No, and I played Baneblades back then. They had rules to play in regular 40k games since their inception and steadily through every edition. The fact that they were "de facto" banned by the players is irrelevant, given that we're discussing GW's view of the narrative. Allowing them in regular games (indeed, allowing a company in regular games should the points permit) has always been the case. Indeed, I just played one in the climax of a 4th edition campaign with a buddy - a normal 2500 point 4th edition 40k game.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Remember only troops being able to score, including the weird situation where a heavy weapon squad in a troops slot platoon could score but a heavy weapon squad in a heavy support slot couldn't?

I do remember that weird situation, and it's why 4th is my favorite rather than 5th. This was one of many very strange changes made in the 4th-5th changeover that imho were changes for the worst.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
You can talk all you like about real-world doctrine but the reality is that this is exactly the kind of rule you get when someone at GW decides that a particular thing is against their personal opinion of how things work in the 40k universe and bans it.

*shrug* I agree? I mean, like I said, that's probably the case. But I have a problem with this decision and will explain my reasoning to their face - and I bet the reply won't be "well, we carefully considered it from a narrative perspective." They will say something like "armies didn't look the way we wanted" or "we felt people were abusing dedicated transports." Which slaps right back to my original point: this isn't the fault of "narrative" players. It's the fault, at best, of casual players (army aesthetics / "how they should look") or competitive players ("abusing X").

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No; I remember the Imperial Guard being a rigid organization that follows doctrine to the letter, including attempting to follow the mandated force structure. In some ways, this "narrow view" is actually quite narratively focused, as a single infantry squad operating on its own outside of a platoon is either attached to a different element for some special duty (i.e. Armored Fist squads outside of mechanized regiments) or is called a "kill team" and has its own game.

This is exactly my point. You were fine with rigid rules because they aligned with your personal view of how things work in the narrative. Now someone at GW has done the same thing and made a rigid rule that aligns with their version of the narrative.

a normal 2500 point 4th edition 40k game

2500 points is hardly a "normal 4th edition 40k game" when the standard game size was 1500 or 1750 points and GW running their tournaments at 2000 points was seen as a ridiculous cash grab to convince people to buy 250 more points of stuff at the expense of having an enjoyable game. Finding some obscure 3rd edition rule about taking LoW detachments in large games, a rule which most people didn't even know existed, is also not a normal game. And by 5th edition those rules were gone and Baneblades were Apocalypse-only.

They will say something like "armies didn't look the way we wanted" or "we felt people were abusing dedicated transports."

Both of which are statements by narrative players. They don't have to directly say the word "narrative" for it to be coming from that point of view.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No; I remember the Imperial Guard being a rigid organization that follows doctrine to the letter, including attempting to follow the mandated force structure. In some ways, this "narrow view" is actually quite narratively focused, as a single infantry squad operating on its own outside of a platoon is either attached to a different element for some special duty (i.e. Armored Fist squads outside of mechanized regiments) or is called a "kill team" and has its own game.

This is exactly my point. You were fine with rigid rules because they aligned with your personal view of how things work in the narrative. Now someone at GW has done the same thing and made a rigid rule that aligns with their version of the narrative.

The difference is that I can back up my argument with how things work in the universe (with some anchors in IRL because the universe is meant to be fairly close in certain aspects, esp. the Imperial Guard), and this particular decision is indefensible through a narrative lense.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

a normal 2500 point 4th edition 40k game

2500 points is hardly a "normal 4th edition 40k game" when the standard game size was 1500 or 1750 points and GW running their tournaments at 2000 points was seen as a ridiculous cash grab to convince people to buy 250 more points of stuff at the expense of having an enjoyable game. Finding some obscure 3rd edition rule about taking LoW detachments in large games, a rule which most people didn't even know existed, is also not a normal game.

What defines a "normal game" then? Especially given that the points cost is one of the things the players just decide, rather than being mandated by the rules. Again, if you're just saying "the players' choices when building the game precluded including baneblades" that's different from "The rules banned Baneblades".

And I do recall that in 5th, actually, come to think of it. Another reason to throw on the "why I don't like 5th" pile.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

They will say something like "armies didn't look the way we wanted" or "we felt people were abusing dedicated transports."

Both of which are statements by narrative players. They don't have to directly say the word "narrative" for it to be coming from that point of view.

No?

What is narrative about armies "looking" right? If my paint scheme is badly executed and someone disagrees with my aesthetic choices, have I made a narrative mistake?
And "abusing X" isn't a narrative argument at all. At this point you're just bending over backwards to prove "it's those dirty narrative players". If someone uses a greatsword because it does 2d6 while a greataxe does d12 in DnD, they're not playing narratively. Similarly, someone using a transport because of its good rules relative to other choices is not making the choice because of narrative.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The difference is that I can back up my argument with how things work in the universe (with some anchors in IRL because the universe is meant to be fairly close in certain aspects, esp. the Imperial Guard), and this particular decision is indefensible through a narrative lense.

I've already given you defenses from a narrative point of view, you just don't like them because they don't align with your version of the narrative.

What defines a "normal game" then?

The game most commonly played. It's silly to mention 2500 point games when the vast majority of games are at 1750 points or less.

Again, if you're just saying "the players' choices when building the game precluded including baneblades" that's different from "The rules banned Baneblades".

Again, if you're just saying "the players' choices when building the game precluded including empty transports" that's different from "The rules banned empty transports".

If you don't like the current rules you can always play Open Play where no such restriction exists.

What is narrative about armies "looking" right?

Because "looking right" in this context is defined according to the viewer's version of the narrative.

And "abusing X" isn't a narrative argument at all. At this point you're just bending over backwards to prove "it's those dirty narrative players". If someone uses a greatsword because it does 2d6 while a greataxe does d12 in DnD, they're not playing narratively. Similarly, someone using a transport because of its good rules (the equivalent case) is not making the choice because of narrative.

It's absolutely a narrative argument because the abuse in question is against the narrative concept of the game. A bunch of empty transports blobbed up around a buff officer while the units that those transports are supposedly carrying go in Valkyries instead is not a plausible narrative scenario, it's breaking the narrative for a rules benefit.

(Remember that the list in question still sucks at winning games.)

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The difference is that I can back up my argument with how things work in the universe (with some anchors in IRL because the universe is meant to be fairly close in certain aspects, esp. the Imperial Guard), and this particular decision is indefensible through a narrative lense.

I've already given you defenses from a narrative point of view, you just don't like them because they don't align with your version of the narrative.

No, you just haven't bothered to back them up aside from "that's like, your opinion, man". Which is exactly what I mean by "indefensible."

CadianSgtBob wrote:

What defines a "normal game" then?

The game most commonly played. It's silly to mention 2500 point games when the vast majority of games are at 1750 points or less.

Again, if you're just saying "the players' choices when building the game precluded including baneblades" that's different from "The rules banned Baneblades".

Again, if you're just saying "the players' choices when building the game precluded including empty transports" that's different from "The rules banned empty transports".

If you don't like the current rules you can always play Open Play where no such restriction exists.

True, though I'm arguing the rule makes no sense in Matched Play, as well. Interestingly enough - and there's probably no room for this commentary here - but earlier editions didn't need this awkward split between play modes. I wonder if we should speculate about why...

CadianSgtBob wrote:

What is narrative about armies "looking" right?

Because "looking right" in this context is defined according to the viewer's version of the narrative.

Is it? I'd be curious to hear the argument beyond "that's like, your opinion, man" when someone says an army doesn't look right, and I say it does.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And "abusing X" isn't a narrative argument at all. At this point you're just bending over backwards to prove "it's those dirty narrative players". If someone uses a greatsword because it does 2d6 while a greataxe does d12 in DnD, they're not playing narratively. Similarly, someone using a transport because of its good rules (the equivalent case) is not making the choice because of narrative.

It's absolutely a narrative argument because the abuse in question is against the narrative concept of the game. A bunch of empty transports blobbed up around a buff officer while the units that those transports are supposedly carrying go in Valkyries instead is not a plausible narrative scenario, it's breaking the narrative for a rules benefit.

Except that the only reason this occurs is a balance failure - empty transports shouldn't be so effective when executing that tactic. If the rule was changed because empty transports were overly effective in a competitive setting, then the rule was changed for competitive reasons. If someone is running that without it being a balance problem, then that person is running an uncommon and silly gimmick list, I'll bet. The only reason to run a list like that if it isn't winning well is to be silly, which clearly isn't a good basis for balance decision - because as you yourself say, it's not a narrative list.

Though again, that particular example sounds more like a failure of the Taurox Prime specifically rather than an example that requires the wholesale tearing apart of the dedicated transport rules in 40k.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, you just haven't bothered to back them up aside from "that's like, your opinion, man". Which is exactly what I mean by "indefensible."

You haven't either. You've just declared that it's your opinion that things should follow modern IFV doctrine. And you're ignoring the point here: it's not about whether or not a particular change aligns with your narrative, it's that this kind of change comes directly from the narrative mindset where "does this match my vision of how things work in the fluff" is the priority and not balance concerns.

Is it? I'd be curious to hear the argument beyond "that's like, your opinion, man" when someone says an army doesn't look right, and I say it does.

I'm not sure why you don't get the idea that narrative is exactly that: personal opinion.

If the rule was changed because empty transports were overly effective in a competitive setting, then the rule was changed for competitive reasons.

But it wasn't, and that's the point I keep trying to get you to understand. There was no balance issue here, empty transports weren't winning at a disproportionate rate. Someone at GW just didn't like it from a narrative point of view and now they banned it.

 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?

probably for people like me? i've been using a T.Prime sort of like a light tank, though i typically put at least one commissar in it...often all my commissars, just because it's fun.

I am OK with the rule.

In real life Company Commanders don't get to pick their forces and min-max things in a balanced setting with their opponent. This is a game with balance being at least a consideration. Dedicated Transports let players take vehicles without taking up a force org slot that a similar vehicle would have to take in either Fast Attack or Heavy Support. The changes to starting CPs and its effect on extra detachments highlights the value of free slots.

Taking DTs expressly to send around the board empty to move block/screen/hold objectives may be one reason why the change was made. Some DTs being particularly powerful like Raiders/Wave Serpents is likely another. So if you are going to take DTs they want you to at least start with them in their intended game role. Nothing stopping you debussing Turn 1 and then sending your DTs off as you please.

Would folks be happier if Raiders/Wave Serpents/Chimeras were assigned the Heavy Support role but could be used as you wish? I get that Chimeras right now seem like collateral damage, but we will see what the future brings.

For a real-life mechanized combat team in a meeting engagement or offensive operation it would be odd to start the operation with the infantry dismounted. You are usually advancing mounted, although of course you can dismount for certain areas or situations. During an attack upon dismount we used to send the "Zulu" M113s off to a "Zulu Harbour" until the attack was over. With LAVs they are often left in the assault, but the infantry certainly started the attack mounted. Since most Matched Play games look like a meeting engagement my verisimilitude is more or less intact if DTs need to start the game with infantry mounted.

In the defence then yes, the infantry would be dug-in and the disposition of the LAVs can vary (many options). For a deliberate attack you might see infantry dismount before the battle and infiltrate through close country while the vehicles support from another axis. I think in those scenarios, though, we are well away from Matched Play games and are instead seeking to "recreate" certain battles or types of battles without as much concern to balance. In which case players can do as they please!

But if you are rocking up to an event using GT 2022 Nephilim be ready to play by those rules.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Taking DTs expressly to send around the board empty to move block/screen/hold objectives may be one reason why the change was made. Some DTs being particularly powerful like Raiders/Wave Serpents is likely another. So if you are going to take DTs they want you to at least start with them in their intended game role. Nothing stopping you debussing Turn 1 and then sending your DTs off as you please.

Then what was even the point of the change then? You're still going to use an empty transport to do that, even with the first turn disembarking. All it does is add more busy work to the game, with the added effect of affecting transports that had certain esoteric rules or roles, such as ghost arks or hades drills.
How is getting out of a transport vehicle on the first turn before it even moved it's "intended role"? Isn't the point of a transport to move personnel from point A to B? If it doesn't move and just drops off a unit that would have been there otherwise, then has it really fulfilled it's role? That's not even getting into Ghost Arks, which are less APCs and more ambulances.

And it prevents mechanized companies from starting behind prepared positions (e.g. aegis line segments or ruins).

EviscerationPlague wrote:
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.

Yeah he is. Dumb rules are dumb rules regardless of how you play.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Sorry, going to have to agree with the idea that this was driven by narrative players.

Which is why it showed up in GW's bi-yearly tournament update that doesn't impact narrative play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why it showed up in GW's bi-yearly tournament update that doesn't impact narrative play.

Exactly what we'd expect from a company that is only grudgingly acknowledging tournament play. It's just like how we used to see all kinds of comp rules before ITC and GW standardized things, "competitive" players would add rules about spamming "too much" of units they didn't personally like and banning armies that "weren't fluffy" even when those things weren't even close to being balance issues. It may be in the tournament update but it's driven by the narrative mindset.

This rule was clearly intended as a balance decision because it appears only in a Matched Play book, and not only does it only apply to Matched play games, it specifically only applies to Nephilim Matched Play games.

If it had been intended for narrative reasons, it would instead have appeared in the first Crusade Mission pack, which will probably start previewing in about two weeks. It's theoretically possible for the rule to appear in BOTH mission packs, but it's unlikely.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Taking DTs expressly to send around the board empty to move block/screen/hold objectives may be one reason why the change was made. Some DTs being particularly powerful like Raiders/Wave Serpents is likely another. So if you are going to take DTs they want you to at least start with them in their intended game role. Nothing stopping you debussing Turn 1 and then sending your DTs off as you please.

Then what was even the point of the change then? You're still going to use an empty transport to do that, even with the first turn disembarking. All it does is add more busy work to the game, with the added effect of affecting transports that had certain esoteric rules or roles, such as ghost arks or hades drills.
How is getting out of a transport vehicle on the first turn before it even moved it's "intended role"? Isn't the point of a transport to move personnel from point A to B? If it doesn't move and just drops off a unit that would have been there otherwise, then has it really fulfilled it's role? That's not even getting into Ghost Arks, which are less APCs and more ambulances.

Well, with this rule the Dedicated Transport actually has to transport something for a portion of the game, even if it doesn't move before the infantry disembark. From a practical game balance perspective it is making the non-transport roles a little less optimal by tying the DT to the infantry to which it is supposedly dedicated.

I'm confused. How is this silly rule the fault of narrative players?

A DT being forced to remain within 3-6” of the unit it was bought for seems like a better fix as most transports are IFVs (though some like the rhino are an exception)

johnpjones1775 wrote:
A DT being forced to remain within 3-6” of the unit it was bought for seems like a better fix as most transports are IFVs (though some like the rhino are an exception)

Yeah, that would have been a more elegant solution.

 kurhanik wrote:
I'm confused. How is this silly rule the fault of narrative players?

It isn't. Its an overcompensation change for a tournament exploit that most people weren't even aware of.
A couple people are misrepresenting the discussion in another thread to blame 'narrative players' as some sort of hivemind (or in one case a specific narrative player) responsible for the game state.

If you're baffled by this, you probably should be. Its quite bizarre.

Did this actually effect anyone posting here? Has anyone had to change their main list they are playing for this?

blaktoof wrote:
Did this actually effect anyone posting here? Has anyone had to change their main list they are playing for this?

What does that matter? Stupid rules are stupid rules whether they impact me directly or not.

Voss wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
I'm confused. How is this silly rule the fault of narrative players?

It isn't. Its an overcompensation change for a tournament exploit that most people weren't even aware of.
A couple people are misrepresenting the discussion in another thread to blame 'narrative players' as some sort of hivemind (or in one case a specific narrative player) responsible for the game state.

If you're baffled by this, you probably should be. Its quite bizarre.

There was no exploit though....

blaktoof wrote:
Did this actually effect anyone posting here? Has anyone had to change their main list they are playing for this?

I'm sure it WILL affect me the next time I play Matched.
Because offensively stupid rules like this degrade my enjoyment of the game as a whole.
Doesn't even matter if they apply to what I'm running.

And come August, when I pack an army to take with me to GenCon, it's going to affect what I choose to take.

blaktoof wrote:
Did this actually effect anyone posting here? Has anyone had to change their main list they are playing for this?

It was pretty common that I'd run Razorbacks but not necessarily deploy units in them. That would effect me.

But also this:

ccs wrote:
Because offensively stupid rules like this degrade my enjoyment of the game as a whole.
Doesn't even matter if they apply to what I'm running.

^This rings true.

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.

Except narrative players don't want this anti-narrative rule. It's polar opposite of narrative. On whole different galaxy.

It's the kind of rule tournament try hards want.

As is rule enforces playing transports in illogical non-narrative way...

tneva82 wrote:
Except narrative players don't want this anti-narrative rule. It's polar opposite of narrative. On whole different galaxy.

It's the polar opposite of your narrative. It's exactly in line with what "narrative" TOs used to do with comp rules and banning/penalizing a bunch of stuff that wasn't a balance issue in true competitive play but went against their idea of how things are "supposed to be done" in the 40k setting.

tneva82 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.

Except narrative players don't want this anti-narrative rule. It's polar opposite of narrative. On whole different galaxy.

It's the kind of rule tournament try hards want.

As is rule enforces playing transports in illogical non-narrative way...

Not all narrative/casual players defend the rule, but its only defenders ARE those players.