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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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.

I've not read the other thread but are the defenders the same people that defend almost everything GW does?

As for the rule itself I'm beginning to wonder if anyone on the design team has ever taken any sort of game design course or even really thought about how games work beyond a surface level of thinking "We have X problem so we'll just staple on Rule Y to fix it". I know GW likes to promote from within the company and it really feels like they have a team of people who don't understand much about how games work or that they've never played any game EXCEPT GW games. Now in fairness I don't have an official qualification in game design either but I have played a lot of games and I enjoy analysing and breaking down games to see how all the parts fit together, why the designer chose to do what they did, what does and doesn't work for me etc and even with my limited knowledge I can see how cumbersome, awkward and unthematic these recent "fixes" are.

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.

If you didn't try and pare quotes back so far as to lose their context - which could be seen as arguing in bad faith - perhaps you wouldn't miss the woods of the context for the trees of individual sentences.

Let's take the full quote from Unit's post, along with the comment of yours he was replying to:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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").

Bold added for emphasis.

GW Design staff does not automatically mean narrative players. Some of them will be, while other will fall into the baskets Unit used of "casual" and "competitive".

For all we know at this point, having not had the chance to question anyone there about why this change was made, one of the design team got pissed by someone fielding Land Speeder Storms without fielding Scouts, especially after losing a game to them at an event thanks to late game objective grabs by these less-than-dedicated transports.

 Dysartes wrote:
GW Design staff does not automatically mean narrative players. Some of them will be, while other will fall into the baskets Unit used of "casual" and "competitive".

No, but that's not the point. They are statements by narrative players because they match what narrative players, especially narrative players in charge of writing tournament rules, often say. The argument is absolutely not "GW design staff said it therefore narrative". So no, adding the context back doesn't change one bit of the point I was making.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
As for the rule itself I'm beginning to wonder if anyone on the design team has ever taken any sort of game design course or even really thought about how games work beyond a surface level of thinking "We have X problem so we'll just staple on Rule Y to fix it". I know GW likes to promote from within the company and it really feels like they have a team of people who don't understand much about how games work or that they've never played any game EXCEPT GW games. Now in fairness I don't have an official qualification in game design either but I have played a lot of games and I enjoy analysing and breaking down games to see how all the parts fit together, why the designer chose to do what they did, what does and doesn't work for me etc and even with my limited knowledge I can see how cumbersome, awkward and unthematic these recent "fixes" are.

I think you're absolutely correct. 40k's design is completely disjointed and inconsistent and it's very clear that there's no overall plan for what they want the game to be. Whether it's edition to edition changes or balance dataslates it's just someone's first impulsive thought at solving a problem without any apparent thought given to the consequences. It's why we get AP creep followed by ignore AP rules. We get multi-damage weapons followed by damage reduction followed by "ignore damage limit" abilities. We get "this edition has lots more CP" followed by "actually, let's have less CP than 8th". And on a higher level it's how we get still have IGOUGO despite even the people writing GW's other games figuring out that it's a terrible system, or obsessing over the precise details of which melee weapon a sergeant is armed with in the same game as titans that can kill the entire unit in one shot.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 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.

If it doesn't move though, then it's not actually transporting anything now is it?
If I leave a building, is the building a transport? After all, I was "embarked" in the building, and then I "disembarked."

Except it won't have an effect on balance. Venoms and wave serpents will still be strong units. Forcing a player to have a unit in it which they are then allowed to disembark and proceed to use the vehicle as they would have done otherwise changes nothing. It will, however, render Hades drills unusable and limit deployment options for arbitrary reasons.

What other silly "as intended" rules will GW introduce, I wonder?
I can see it now :
- Units that have a move characteristic are intended to move. If they remain stationary it is an abuse of the spirit of the game. As such a unit that remains stationary will suffer a fatal heart attack from lack of exercise.
- Units that have an attack characteristic of greater than 1 and melee weapons are intended for melee. As such, if they aren't always in combat, they will get really mad and cut off their own heads.
- Flyers are intended to fly. During their movement phase, they must be thrown across the table.

I don't know what is worse

GW making stupid rules because they ran out of ideas for the 6 month changes to shake up the meta

GW trying to argument this by "it is for balance reason"

people actually defending the changes

people saying it is the fault of other people instead of GW

those who welcome the idea of "season" coming up that tournaments should just house rules the season rules they don't like for official tournaments (main argument on Reddit) from people who think that the tournament season is the best idea GW ever had (what is the point of using the Season rules for a tournament in the first place if you replace anything anyway)

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

Transports are used to transport over long distances. Not short where they are death traps.

Claiming MATCHED PLAY rule is narrative rule just shows you have zero clue what's narratlve rule. Since you have missed it this isn't used in narrative games. Just matched play.

Its matched play rule. Not narrative.

tneva82 wrote:
Transports are used to transport over long distances. Not short where they are death traps.

Again you are missing the point. That is your narrative, that doesn't make it GW's narrative.

Claiming MATCHED PLAY rule is narrative rule just shows you have zero clue what's narratlve rule. Since you have missed it this isn't used in narrative games. Just matched play.

Its matched play rule. Not narrative.

Sigh. Once again: this is exactly the kind of rule you get when narrative players try to write tournament rules. They see something that "isn't how it works in 40k" and ban it, even if (as in this case) the thing in question isn't a balance problem. We saw it over and over again with comp scoring in previous editions and this rule would be perfectly at home in a 4th-6th edition comp document.

So which is more believable here: that a narrative player something that fits the clearly established history of what narrative players do when put in charge of tournament rules, or that an actual competitive player decided to ban something out of nowhere despite nobody in the actual competitive community considering it a problem.

Then wouldn't the problem be with GW's narrow view of what the narrative should be (effectively making GW into a gak GM that railroads you into playing how HE wants you to play) rather than with narrative players as a whole?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Then wouldn't the problem be with GW's narrow view of what the narrative should be (effectively making GW into a gak GM that railroads you into playing how HE wants you to play) rather than with narrative players as a whole?

Yep. That's absolutely the problem. It's very poor design but it's still coming from a narrative point of view rather than a competitive balance point of view. It's why comp scoring sucked in previous editions, every "narrative" TO with a massively inflated ego had their own personal rules banning all the stuff they thought was "not fluffy" no matter how accurately those lists aligned with established background fiction.

If something is "not fluffy" it isn't an option in a codex.

Using your line of logic, couldn't I just say that the Rule of 3 is narrative? Because it aligns to GW's narrative?

That is a really weird way to determine what is a narrative rule. I could list any rule and say it's narrative.

Armor of Contempt is extremely narrative, because Terminators being more resistant to small arms AP than Custodes matches GW's narrative, it just doesn't match yours.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Then wouldn't the problem be with GW's narrow view of what the narrative should be (effectively making GW into a gak GM that railroads you into playing how HE wants you to play) rather than with narrative players as a whole?

Huh yeah, that sounds like basically the exact opposite of a narrative campaign/group than what I would ever refer to it. In my small circle narrative ends up more inclusive than exclusive if anything. Something like "oh, yeah sure, you want to take a single tac squad with your Guard to show that a small contingent of Space Marines has come to support the operations in the region? Sure, why not seems cool."

Meanwhile this...is just saying that transports can only ever be used if they are occupied at the beginning of the match, which is amusing to me considering outside of some specific instances, transports just aren't that fun to use since the shift from 7th to 8th.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Using your line of logic, couldn't I just say that the Rule of 3 is narrative? Because it aligns to GW's narrative?

No, because rule of 3 was a direct response to spam lists that were a massive balance problem in the early days of 8th. AoC is a direct response to marine factions having very poor win rates in competitive play. This change to transports isn't a response to anything, there was no balance issue with people taking empty transports and winning at a disproportionate rate. The only plausible explanation for its origins is that someone at GW decided that empty transports didn't fit their narrative concept of how things should work and banned them.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Using your line of logic, couldn't I just say that the Rule of 3 is narrative? Because it aligns to GW's narrative?

No, because rule of 3 was a direct response to spam lists that were a massive balance problem in the early days of 8th. AoC is a direct response to marine factions having very poor win rates in competitive play. This change to transports isn't a response to anything, there was no balance issue with people taking empty transports and winning at a disproportionate rate. The only plausible explanation for its origins is that someone at GW decided that empty transports didn't fit their narrative concept of how things should work and banned them.

That's just, like, your narrative, man...

Ro3 was created due to the Supreme Commander Detachment allowing people to bring multiple Winged Hive Tyrants. It is an archaic rule that serves no purpose anymore as it does nothing to stop people bringing multiples of units and it doesn't scale (I can't bring more than 3 Vindicators in a list, but it's totally cool if I bring 11 Leman Russes or 27 Carnifexes). Worse, Hive Tyrants have been paying for that brief moment in 8th ever since.

Arguing that this exploding transports has anything to do with narrative is absolute nonsense because...

1. It doesn't make sense form a narrative perspective, as there are many ways transports are used and just "having people inside at the start of every battle" isn't one of them.

... and, most importantly...

2. They put this rule into a competitive tournament rules update pack!!!

I don't know how point number two can be under or overstated any more than it already has.

This rule simply fits the GW designers' idea of transports: aka vehicles that are taken to support a unit, basically just like any other unit's upgrades.

It's like when they said that flyers were designed as supporting units, rather than models that could be taken in large numbers.

GW simply wants transports as specific options/upgrades to specific units.

It has nothing to do with balance, they just disliked that something that is called "dedicated transport" is taken in association of a unit that would never embark in that vehicle.

An example from an infamous 8th edition build: Guilliman, 2 squads of tacs, one squad of devastators and 3 squads of scouts can unlock 6 razorbacks but just 2 or maybe 3 of such units would actually need the transport. GW didn't support that kind of concept. Now you take transports for units that need a transport.

But on the other hand they wanted to keep the flexibility to allow other units to eventually embark in those transports in later turns, so they didn't lock the transport capacity to the single unit that selects them as dedicated transport. Which is certainly a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Using your line of logic, couldn't I just say that the Rule of 3 is narrative? Because it aligns to GW's narrative?

No, because rule of 3 was a direct response to spam lists that were a massive balance problem in the early days of 8th. AoC is a direct response to marine factions having very poor win rates in competitive play. This change to transports isn't a response to anything, there was no balance issue with people taking empty transports and winning at a disproportionate rate. The only plausible explanation for its origins is that someone at GW decided that empty transports didn't fit their narrative concept of how things should work and banned them.

Exactly that.

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.

Newsflash: every rule in 40K since its inception is this. I mean, that's literally what happens when a specific person or group of people design and publish a set of game rules for others to use.

 Blackie wrote:
GW didn't support that kind of concept.

And used a nonsensical and inelegant blanket measure to fix a extremely niche problem that could be solved in a half dozen other nowhere-near-as-blatantly-stupid ways.

Just like the flyer thing.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

ERJAK 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?

It's the exact type of "narrative" change you've been advocating for for a while now; transports being forced to be used as transports and all. I kind of assumed you wrote the rule considering it fits your 'real wargame' shtick perfectly.

But hey, someone at GW is listening to you! That's great right? Next they'll add back that whole 'small shrubs kill tanks' rule you're so fond of.

Explain how a vehicle spontaneously exploding if it has no passengers when the battle starts, which is also assuming that the soldiers are always in their transport instead of outside of it when the fighting starts, either because they're taken by surprise or getting in position to engage the enemy, is "narrative".

I'm going to guess that he's misconstruing an argument I've seen Unit and others make in the past about how if units have transport vehicles they should be required to utilize it because "narrative"/"realism", instead of what players have been doing of buying the transport but using it as a fully independent gunboat/unit that feths off and does its own thing.

This is a heavy handed solution though, they could have just said that the unit + transport together are a single deployment drop and a unit needs to start the game in the transport or the unit and the transport need to be deployed within 4" coherency of eachother to start the game, etc. Would have fixed the problem adequately without the silliness of the self-destruction clause.

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.

That depends on the transport. IFV's (think: Bradley), correct. APCs (think: M113)/IMVs (think: Humvee)/trucks etc - generally no, typically they are meant to ferry troops to the edge of the battlespace and disembark them there while the vehicles stay to the rear and unengaged as they lack the protection to survive anything more than light small arms fire while rarely packing substantial enough firepower to make it worth the risk OR they disembark troops upon contact and then withdraw to the rear while the infantry continue on foot.

As for the rule itself I'm beginning to wonder if anyone on the design team has ever taken any sort of game design course or even really thought about how games work beyond a surface level of thinking "We have X problem so we'll just staple on Rule Y to fix it". I know GW likes to promote from within the company and it really feels like they have a team of people who don't understand much about how games work or that they've never played any game EXCEPT GW games. Now in fairness I don't have an official qualification in game design either but I have played a lot of games and I enjoy analysing and breaking down games to see how all the parts fit together, why the designer chose to do what they did, what does and doesn't work for me etc and even with my limited knowledge I can see how cumbersome, awkward and unthematic these recent "fixes" are.

My current theory as to why GW fails so hard is because nobody left on the design team understands the "system logic" of 40ks underlying game design philosophy. I.E. the "why" that underlies the "how" of the rules. At this point they just view the mechanics and points values as a bunch of levers that they can push and pull and make changes with freely without consideration for how those levers impact balance or interact with other elements of the game design. Example - lascannons used to be 20 point upgrades but could destroy any vehicle in the game in a single lucky shot - hence the fact that they only fired one shot and weren't necessarily widely available was counterbalanced by the fact that they could do massive damage. They changed the way vehicles take damage etc. but lascannons are still mostly 20 point upgrades even though you now need 3-5 lucky shots to destroy the typical vehicle - but you still don't have access to them in greater quantity than you did before and they still only fire a single shot. Its like they changed the vehicle system without consideration for how it might impact other aspects of the game. Thats just the tip of the iceberg really, as you have more obvious things like the vicious cycle between AP/Damage creep and AP ignore AP/Damage rules, etc. which are more wide-ranging and impactful which speak to a core lack of understanding of how any of this gak works. Over the past two editions there have been lots of changes like this in the same vein, where on the surface you might not even consider it but once you think about it you realize that certain changes "broke" certain mechanical fundamentals that have not been otherwise addressed or that more recent changes fly in the face of what seem to be like near-scriptural fundamentals of the way the game was configured to operate previously. I can't wait to see how the new T9 (10 w/ strategem) land raiders break gameplay, personally. Its good GW is breaking the taboo on toughnesses greater than 8 but after going a few whole editions where T7/8 was recognized as the cap, and the entire points system, weapon interaction, game balance, etc. being built around that idea you can't just suddenly go "okay, things are T9 now" without ramifications to other areas of the game. One unit at T9 probably won't break things too much but there are still going to be aspects of the game that are going to suffer as a result of it.

Another major point of failure of course is that modern comphammer 40k is still built on the bones of an old overgrown narrative skirmish game. 8th/9th probably should have been clean-sheet designed, instead they were built on the shaky foundation of an old rules system designed to do something completely different from what GW is trying to do today. Likewise GW tries hard to make the new competitively focused ruleset to feel like the older narrative ruleset in style, if not in substance, which causes its competitiveness to suffer. GWs rules writing is very poor - you can see where they attempted to modernize the rules in a manner similar to other competitively focused games like warmachine, etc. where they pay more attention to timing and sequence and clearly defined terminology, etc. but GWs implementation is often incomplete and inconsistent with often unclear phrasing/terminology (anything that involves the concept of "wounds" or "wounding" gets messy as similar terminology is used to refer both to a mechanical rules interaction as well as an element of a models statline) that prevents the game from getting out of its own way.

 Blackie wrote:
This rule simply fits the GW designers' idea of transports: aka vehicles that are taken to support a unit, basically just like any other unit's upgrades.

It's like when they said that flyers were designed as supporting units, rather than models that could be taken in large numbers.

GW simply wants transports as specific options/upgrades to specific units.

It has nothing to do with balance, they just disliked that something that is called "dedicated transport" is taken in association of a unit that would never embark in that vehicle.

So...why, exactly, does it affect so many DTs where that isn't true? If what GW 'simply wants' is to stop (I guess) land speeder storms taken without scouts, why does it affect wave serpents taken for dire avengers, or chimeras taken for infantry squads, or... well, the entire span of transports that don't have any such restriction?

Your argument seems shakey, at best. Or baseless speculation on what you think the entire company's nebulous motives are.

Aye, it would've been simple to add a special rule to LSS that modified the general Dedicated Transport rule for them (and any other transport in a similar position) which required you to take a unit of SCOUT INFANTRY per LSS.

If you wanted to make a general modification, you could've modified the DT rule so that it was non-CHARACTER (if it isn't already; I haven't looked).

Making them deploy in the same slot as an eligible transportable unit would also have been a reasonable change, even if you just declared the unit was in the transport.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't know how point number two can be under or overstated any more than it already has.

It's like I've already answered this before:

Sigh. Once again: this is exactly the kind of rule you get when narrative players try to write tournament rules. They see something that "isn't how it works in 40k" and ban it, even if (as in this case) the thing in question isn't a balance problem. We saw it over and over again with comp scoring in previous editions and this rule would be perfectly at home in a 4th-6th edition comp document.

So which is more believable here: that a narrative player something that fits the clearly established history of what narrative players do when put in charge of tournament rules, or that an actual competitive player decided to ban something out of nowhere despite nobody in the actual competitive community considering it a problem.

That isn't an answer, though. That's a random personal opinion on who you believe is making the change and, frankly, looking for a scapegoat. (in the big bad narrative players, of all places. The ones most likely to play in their garage and not interact with a larger community)

Its worth noting that the name on the points doc (and therefor probably associated with the GT pack) is Robin Cruddace, Mr 'CORE is just a mechanical lever, it doesn't mean anything.' That's as far from narrative as you can get.

 Dysartes wrote:


GW Design staff does not automatically mean narrative players. Some of them will be, while other will fall into the baskets Unit used of "casual" and "competitive".

For all we know at this point, having not had the chance to question anyone there about why this change was made, one of the design team got pissed by someone fielding Land Speeder Storms without fielding Scouts, especially after losing a game to them at an event thanks to late game objective grabs by these less-than-dedicated transports.

then they shouldn't have designed the scouts with bad rules and primaris unable to use non primaris transports. Plus in the end it doesn't matter what GW designers think they are, as long as their wierd idea of how the game is being played by the avarge player looks more like the that of narrative games and worse they use it to explain any error they made durning design steps. "We weren't fully happy with how army X played under prior book" which they wrote to not work in a given edition, because of some directories we never get to know. Besides the stupid ones like we wanted people to have fun playing the army. God knows why they give some armies unfun rules then.

Voss wrote:
That isn't an answer, though. That's a random personal opinion on who you believe is making the change and, frankly, looking for a scapegoat. (in the big bad narrative players, of all places. The ones most likely to play in their garage and not interact with a larger community)

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck then it's a narrative player writing comp scoring rules again. Personal opinion may be all we'll ever have on this unless GW decides to talk about their intent directly but it's a personal opinion that aligns precisely with the well established pattern of what it looks like when narrative players write tournament rules.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Voss wrote:
That isn't an answer, though. That's a random personal opinion on who you believe is making the change and, frankly, looking for a scapegoat. (in the big bad narrative players, of all places. The ones most likely to play in their garage and not interact with a larger community)

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck then it's a narrative player writing comp scoring rules again. Personal opinion may be all we'll ever have on this unless GW decides to talk about their intent directly but it's a personal opinion that aligns precisely with the well established pattern of what it looks like when narrative players write tournament rules.

No narrative player would write a rule that just auto-destroys a transport if it were to be deployed empty. Because that A) eliminates any # of narratives of what was going on as the game began, B) eliminates any # of narratives that might develop as the game progresses.

No, someone somewhere got but-hurt by something that happened to them/they saw/they feared happening in competitive play.

Of course it's also possible that with these "Seasons" that they're just selecting random effects to be in play for the next few months. Or using these changes to playtest possible future changes (10th is coming you know)....
Basically throwing poo at the wall & seeing what sticks.

ccs wrote:
No narrative player would write a rule that just auto-destroys a transport if it were to be deployed empty.

As I keep having to tell you: narrative players did exactly that kind of thing with comp scoring in previous editions.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

ccs wrote:
No narrative player would write a rule that just auto-destroys a transport if it were to be deployed empty.

As I keep having to tell you: narrative players did exactly that kind of thing with comp scoring in previous editions.

Also it's only casual/narrative players defending the actual change. I haven't seen a competitive/tournament player support the change ANYWHERE.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

ccs wrote:
No narrative player would write a rule that just auto-destroys a transport if it were to be deployed empty.

As I keep having to tell you: narrative players did exactly that kind of thing with comp scoring in previous editions.

Also it's only casual/narrative players defending the actual change. I haven't seen a competitive/tournament player support the change ANYWHERE.

i am nowadays hardly called competitive, but i fail to see how the feth anyone can defend this rule at all in the vein of the game.

Dedicating a tank specifically to a unit, fine by me (not HQ an actual unit), but deciding how i have to field said unit initially?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

ccs wrote:
No narrative player would write a rule that just auto-destroys a transport if it were to be deployed empty.

As I keep having to tell you: narrative players did exactly that kind of thing with comp scoring in previous editions.

Also it's only casual/narrative players defending the actual change. I haven't seen a competitive/tournament player support the change ANYWHERE.

I think you're mixing up your labels (or simply misjudging people), because the News/Rumor thread looks entirely different to me. The handful of people defending it (from the absolute wave of condemnation) were doing so for tournament reasons.