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.

Voss wrote:

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.

I haven't seen a single tournament reason listed in that thread.

Since you aren't looking...

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...

A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?

δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transportsthat could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.

Less gunboat transports (although I'm sure those are a factor as well), more using Land Speeder Storms as a cheap objective holder/grabber in armies with no scouts. It showed up in a lot of top table Space Marine lists. Basically it sits safely out of line of sight on a backfield objective for most of the game, then hops on a safe objective in the mid to late using its 18+1d6" movement. Not quite as cheap of a backfield objective holder as Cyberwolves or Servitors, but a lot more durable against non-LoS shooting and more capable of actually hopping out and doing something.

there you go. 'Top tables' and 'spamming.'

Narrative players:

Being blamed for ruining the game.

The 'rules' for which were originally designed to be used as interpretive source material to fight funky battles with your diddy Space Bros.

The corrupted heart of 40k is firmly for the narrative play camp.

What the current exterior is is killing both Comp and narrative play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Since that sledgehammer of a rule arrived I've had people tell me with a straight face that:

1. There is no other reason to bring transports than to move troops up the table to objectives, so if you're not doing that you don't need transports.

2. That having empty transports is "abusing the rules".

3. IFVs do not support infantry lines, they only transport troops, and its proper tanks that support infantry.

4. That fixing the rules for specific problematic transports would be like playing "whack a mole" and that, as a result, it is just far easier to apply this rule to all transports.

Apparently this massive epidemic of killer abusive empty transports got by all of us!

Those people will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to convince themselves that GW did a wonderful job with the rules changes.

Voss wrote:
Since you aren't looking...

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...

A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?

δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transportsthat could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.

Less gunboat transports (although I'm sure those are a factor as well), more using Land Speeder Storms as a cheap objective holder/grabber in armies with no scouts. It showed up in a lot of top table Space Marine lists. Basically it sits safely out of line of sight on a backfield objective for most of the game, then hops on a safe objective in the mid to late using its 18+1d6" movement. Not quite as cheap of a backfield objective holder as Cyberwolves or Servitors, but a lot more durable against non-LoS shooting and more capable of actually hopping out and doing something.

there you go. 'Top tables' and 'spamming.'

That's not support for it though, which is what I was asking for originally.

ccs wrote:

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.

There are other games to play at GenCon...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

So it's the "badwrongfun" crowd, not narrative players.

And again, this was an update made in a tournament rules pack. It has nothing to do with narrative gaming.

Why is this even a discussion?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And again, this was an update made in a tournament rules pack. It has nothing to do with narrative gaming.

Why is this even a discussion?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 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.

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:

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.

There are other games to play at GenCon...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

So it's the "badwrongfun" crowd, not narrative players.

Do narrative players NOT fit in that crowd typically?

Sheesh, kids these days and their ridiculous online witch hunts. Burn the narrative player, ruining tabletop war gaming, the well know non narrative and competitvely balanced hobby experience!

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:

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.

There are other games to play at GenCon...

Yes and every now & then I sign up for a 40k game. What of it?

Why is there actually even a discussion about who to blame when we all know GW just saw empty transports at tournaments and hit the giant red NO button without thinking about how it effects anything at all besides stopping people from fielding empty transport or why it might just be a per model issue. Its easier to just punish everyone rather than apply any sort of measured response or look into whether or not there's a problem in the base rules that could fix it.

The assumption (I assume, I l'm not reading 6 pages of bickering) that GW thinks about the game in terms of narritive/competitive is probably misguided. All they do is squeeze models rules into the 40k framework until they kinda sorta fit, the concept of narrative or competitive never enters the equation because that would require too much effort. As long as models aren't obnoxiously broken in a 2000pts game they think their job is done until the tournament beta testing results come back.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Do narrative players NOT fit in that crowd typically?

Not really.

They may (i have atleast) an issue with singular charachters picking transports on their own, but certainly they don't expect mechanised infantry to start IN their vehicles.
Afterall not every battle with mechanised forces is an all out armored spearhead, and mechanized forces are often first to dig in in a key area ergo they would need to be able to leave their tanks in deployment.

ALAS GW probably saw something it didn't like, cue storm speeders, and instead of rechecking their dedicated transport rules and access to that for specific datasheets or even in general, decided to pull a GW.

10 / 10 GW's


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why is there actually even a discussion about who to blame when we all know GW just saw empty transports at tournaments and hit the giant red NO button without thinking about how it effects anything at all besides stopping people from fielding empty transport or why it might just be a per model issue. Its easier to just punish everyone rather than appl

The assumption (I assume, I l'm not reading 6 pages of bickering) that GW thinks about the game in terms of narritive/competitive is probably misguided. All they do is squeeze models rules into the 40k framework until they kinda sorta fit, the concept of narrative or competitive never enters the equation because that would require too much effort. As long as models aren't obnoxiously broken in a 2000pts game they think their job is done until the tournament beta testing results come back.

This.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Yeah, we should be familiar with this way of handling things at this point .

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Yeah, we should be familiar with this way of handling things at this point .

Considering CSM player bought after 4th edition codices all the following.. no we are the definition of insanity.

some of us just get lucid moments and decide that enough is enough.

Voss wrote:

 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.

Because it's easier to say "every dedicated transport now does...." instead of "Vehicle X, Y and Z now have to....". And for the majority of players this new rule doesn't change anything anyway.

Every argument is shakey and baseless speculation here, no one spoke to the game designers to ask the reason behind this change. It's just my opinion about those nebulous motives, I can't think of any other logical reason.

 Blackie wrote:
Because it's easier to say "every dedicated transport now does...." instead of "Vehicle X, Y and Z now have to....". And for the majority of players this new rule doesn't change anything anyway.

I'm morbidly curious - why do you think the majority of players won't be affected by this - because they'll not be using the pack, because they weren't using DTs anyway, or because they were deploying troops in DTs already?

I mean when I play I usually have my transports full, even though it's strictly worse then having my troops as a screening line for my army.

But this is a silly ass ruling

 Dysartes wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Because it's easier to say "every dedicated transport now does...." instead of "Vehicle X, Y and Z now have to....". And for the majority of players this new rule doesn't change anything anyway.

I'm morbidly curious - why do you think the majority of players won't be affected by this - because they'll not be using the pack, because they weren't using DTs anyway, or because they were deploying troops in DTs already?

Because I believe only a very small number of players field empty transports. The ghost arks are probably the only real exceptions here, those I think they were played empty more often than with something inside. But it's a vehicle that was taken for something that's kinda unique.

 Blackie wrote:
Because I believe only a very small number of players field empty transports. The ghost arks are probably the only real exceptions here, those I think they were played empty more often than with something inside. But it's a vehicle that was taken for something that's kinda unique.

My Chimera sometimes start empty, depending on what I need the infantry to do.

 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?

The only thing I'm aware of was some people using the scout transport landspeeder. That's it.

The rule itself is very annoying for Scions. Taurox Primes are the closest thing they have to "Tanks" and now you can't even keep one back for firesupport unless it starts with a unit inside it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And again, this was an update made in a tournament rules pack. It has nothing to do with narrative gaming.

Why is this even a discussion?

Because lots of people (like me) go to clubs where all the 40k players play tourney rules in preparation of the 2-3 tourneys they attend a year (mostly locally). So it is in effect tourney rules or bust if you want a game.

Probably one of the reasons so much BFG has been played in the last month, necro before that, Blood Bowl before that and it seems with the May the 4th buys Star Wars is next then heresy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:


The only thing I'm aware of was some people using the scout transport landspeeder. That's it.

The rule itself is very annoying for Scions. Taurox Primes are the closest thing they have to "Tanks" and now you can't even keep one back for firesupport unless it starts with a unit inside it.

Well at least its consistent. Scions seem to be getting the short end of every Guard bonus stick currently.

Talking to the tourney players at club they like the rule, apparently Knight players hated cheap vehicles being used to block their movement, especially drop pods, and scout landspeeders had 'popped up' as an issue as no scouts were bought to go with them.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Because lots of people (like me) go to clubs where all the 40k players play tourney rules in preparation of the 2-3 tourneys they attend a year (mostly locally). So it is in effect tourney rules or bust if you want a game.

Ok then... sure... . Not totally sure why you're quoting me, but ok then!

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Talking to the tourney players at club they like the rule, apparently Knight players hated cheap vehicles being used to block their movement, especially drop pods, and scout landspeeders had 'popped up' as an issue as no scouts were bought to go with them.

If the LSS is such an issue... amend the LSS to require a SCOUT INFANTRY squad to be taken per LSS, then review the situation.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for Knight players complaining that people are using cheap vehicles to block their movement.

That is complaining that your skew list can be countered by a basic movement tactic. It comes across as "You should just let our massive stompy robots walk wherever we want them to and shoot whatever we want to!" No gak your opponent is going to use cheap units to block you off.

How dare a player uses tactics to counter his opponents' oversized warmachines that should have stayed in Apocalypse.

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Talking to the tourney players at club they like the rule, apparently Knight players hated cheap vehicles being used to block their movement, especially drop pods, and scout landspeeders had 'popped up' as an issue as no scouts were bought to go with them.

Sounds like you're describing a feature there, and not a bug...

This is what we get when modern 40k has just descended into "Guns go brrrrr!" and these tourney tryhards are thinking this change of removing a tactical element against them is a good thing.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Do narrative players NOT fit in that crowd typically?

"badwrongfun" is a behavior pattern typical to designers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Talking to the tourney players at club they like the rule, apparently Knight players hated cheap vehicles being used to block their movement, especially drop pods, and scout landspeeders had 'popped up' as an issue as no scouts were bought to go with them.

Sounds like you're describing a feature there, and not a bug...

This is what we get when modern 40k has just descended into "Guns go brrrrr!" and these tourney tryhards are thinking this change of removing a tactical element against them is a good thing.

Yup. People got outplayed and are salty about it.

Hecaton wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Do narrative players NOT fit in that crowd typically?

"badwrongfun" is a behavior pattern typical to designers.

GW designers maybe. Most other designers are competent enough to not design a system with more holes in it than a particularly holey wall and the only way they know how to fix it is to take a sledgehammer and knock down the entire wall.

 Grimtuff wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Talking to the tourney players at club they like the rule, apparently Knight players hated cheap vehicles being used to block their movement, especially drop pods, and scout landspeeders had 'popped up' as an issue as no scouts were bought to go with them.

Sounds like you're describing a feature there, and not a bug...

This is what we get when modern 40k has just descended into "Guns go brrrrr!" and these tourney tryhards are thinking this change of removing a tactical element against them is a good thing.

I mean that great but has no bearing on deploying empty transports. Knights would be impacted the same even if the transports were deployed with contents?

This is really a "one of those things" change with no wider reasoning or impact but people are bending over backwards to be angry about something they seemingly doesn't matter that much.

It prevents:
- creating extra deployment drops
- getting the cheapest option for blocking/capping/gunboats
- fluff based players doing what they want using tournament rules