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.

The real problem is that it is symptomatic of 40k being a warGAME and not a WARgame.

The rules are becoming less and less concerned with being a depiction/reflection of warfare in this fun setting, and are instead becoming more and more concerned with being gamey and weird for inscrutable reasons.

But I wouldn't expect the "40k isn't a wargame, doofus" crowd to understand why that is a problem, because they have a more fundamental disagreement with me about what 40k even is.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, today the 'bad dataslate' is the tournament players' fault.

Good times. Its probably the same team with the same lead, but bad book is because narrative players exist, and bad pdf is because tournament players exist.
According to those in the know, of course.

Ah yes well the bad state of 40k is the players' fault, after all.

If only 40k didn't have any players it would be the perfect game.

Honestly even in tournaments where people would take 1 or 2 LSS's without scouts.

Is that really a problem worth fixing? Its not adding all that much to the game other than letting people take a unit they normally would never take. Now people are just not going to play with the LSS's and move onto something else, you know like a NORMAL Land Speeder for 5pts more. This is not fixing any issues just making the game less fun for people that didn't abuse it to save 5pts or a slot that is normally not even being used lol.

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.

Ok, so now they'll just be blocked by slightly more expensive cheap vehicles....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The real problem is that it is symptomatic of 40k being a warGAME and not a WARgame.

The rules are becoming less and less concerned with being a depiction/reflection of warfare in this fun setting, and are instead becoming more and more concerned with being gamey and weird for inscrutable reasons.

But I wouldn't expect the "40k isn't a wargame, doofus" crowd to understand why that is a problem, because they have a more fundamental disagreement with me about what 40k even is.

Flames of War has a rule called "Send Transports to the Rear." When you dismount transported units from a Transport they leave the battlefield. They can come back later (Bring Transports Forward). They have exceptions for "armed" transports like 250s/251s, but then they must remain in command distance.

40K Dedicated Transports are "free chicken" from a force organization perspective. Comparable vehicles take potentially scare Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots. So now the designers are imposing some restrictions on the free chicken. I can live with it.

I also think that the designers try to incorporate competitive and narrative elements. I think they are doing the opposite of what you say. They are trying to remove "gamey" elements like taking Dedicated Transports for reasons other than transporting infantry.

How many transports in Flames of War are similar to, say, Chimeras or Wave Serpents?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How many transports in Flames of War are similar to, say, Chimeras or Wave Serpents?

They have very few Aeldari DTs in FOW. As my post said, they allow some "armed" Half Tracks to remain on the table after dismount but they must then remain in command distance. Team Yankee allows BMPs to operate separately.

If this rule upsets you lets try simply classifying Wave Serpents and Chimeras as Heavy Support. Job's done. Do what you want with them on the table, but no free chicken.

Alternatively, let DTs start empty but they count as part of the unit they are bought for and must remain in coherency. Job's done.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How many transports in Flames of War are similar to, say, Chimeras or Wave Serpents?

They have very few Aeldari DTs in FOW. As my post said, they allow some "armed" Half Tracks to remain on the table after dismount but they must then remain in command distance. Team Yankee allows BMPs to operate separately.

If this rule upsets you lets try simply classifying Wave Serpents and Chimeras as Heavy Support. Job's done. Do what you want with them on the table, but no free chicken.

Alternatively, let DTs start empty but they count as part of the unit they are bought for and must remain in coherency. Job's done.

"Free chicken"?

This is the most permissible and flexible FOC paradigm we've ever seen, and even back with strict 3rd Ed FOCs tranports could be deployed without troops in them.

This rule is gak, plain and simple.

I get that people get mad when their free chicken gets taken away.

So start your Dedicated Transports with infantry on board and keep your free chicken.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
They have very few Aeldari DTs in FOW.

That's cute.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
As my post said, they allow some "armed" Half Tracks to remain on the table after dismount but they must then remain in command distance. Team Yankee allows BMPs to operate separately.

So, you mean to say, that you can have transports operating without the need to have people inside them? How novel...

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If this rule upsets you lets try simply classifying Wave Serpents and Chimeras as Heavy Support. Job's done.

Where they would be outclassed and ignored in favour of actual Heavy Support choices. Why don't we fix the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transports' instead, as that seems to me it would solve far more problems.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Do what you want with them on the table, but no free chicken.

What "free chicken" were they exploiting prior to this sudden and inexplicable rule change?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Alternatively, let DTs start empty but they count as part of the unit they are bought for and must remain in coherency.

That makes even less sense than making them HS slots.

We have units that have to deploy together. Why can't that be expanded? 'A transport must be placed within X" of its transported unit, or begin the game embarked. Once deployed they may act independently.'. Not hard.

So you are OK with Flames of War having the empty armed transports having to stay in coherency with their dismounted platoon but not in 40K?

The free chicken is having vehicles that do not take a FA or Hvy Sp slot. With the Nephilim changes to starting CP those slots suddenly become valuable.

I get that some folks are upset that they have to use their Dedicated Transports as a Dedicated Transport at the start of the game.

I just saw your edit. So I don't think we are all that far apart. I could get behind starting dismounted but within 3". Which wouldn't be functionally all that different than the new rule but could ease some edge cases with certain terrain set-ups.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I get that people get mad when their free chicken gets taken away.

So start your Dedicated Transports with infantry on board and keep your free chicken.

The "free chicken" that one still pays points for, and hasn't taken any FOC spot for . . . 23 years? Why now all of a sudden? Are you so threatened by the "free chicken"?

If you want to do anything, make the transports require units that can actually embark in them. At the moment I think you can take a Primaris transport even when you only have First/true/real/born infantry. I think you can take Rhinos for Terminators. That's the fix, not transport destroyed if troops aren't embarked, ffs.

Flames of War is set in World War II and doesn't have IFVs - it is doctrinally appropriate that the transports do not remain and fight with the troops.

Conversely, the Chimera is designed to fight alongside the troops it carries (and the troops are designed to fight alongside them in some cases, e.g. Armageddon Steel Legion). Chimeras are also similar in look and relative armament to a BMP, which is an IFV (the BMP-1 was the first IFV in the world). Most of the transports in 40k are IFVs, not APCs. Flames of War does not have IFVs.

In other words, saying "world war 2 half-tracks have to go home when their infantry dismount, therefore infantry cannot start dismounted in 40k" is basically as helpful as saying "well, canvas wagons didn't see front line combat in the 1200s so infantry can't start dismounted in 40k"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Flames of War is set in World War II and doesn't have IFVs - it is doctrinally appropriate that the transports do not remain and fight with the troops.

Conversely, the Chimera is designed to fight alongside the troops it carries (and the troops are designed to fight alongside them in some cases, e.g. Armageddon Steel Legion). Chimeras are also similar in look and relative armament to a BMP, which is an IFV (the BMP-1 was the first IFV in the world). Most of the transports in 40k are IFVs, not APCs. Flames of War does not have IFVs.

In other words, saying "world war 2 half-tracks have to go home when their infantry dismount, therefore infantry cannot start dismounted in 40k" is basically as helpful as saying "well, canvas wagons didn't see front line combat in the 1200s so infantry can't start dismounted in 40k"

I offer the FOW rules to show similar design in other wargames. Thanks for the hot tip on the BMP 1 being the first IFV - did you read my post where I mentioned them? I'm an Armour officer in real life for what its worth. Maybe a future Codex will grant dispensation for certain DTs from certain armies in certain situations?

Cool. So have your infantry fight alongside your Chimeras - in squad coherency with them. Or just start them in their Dedicated Transports at the start of a GT Nephilim game? Those scenarios all look like meeting engagements, so it is appropriate that the mech infantry start mounted. See - verisimilitude preserved.

If you are an armor officer in real life, would you force your dismounts to stay within about 15 ft of the vehicle?

And I can buy that sometimes infantry are mounted for a meeting engagement. I can also see cases where they would be dismounted (a meeting engagement in urban terrain would probably be much more collaborative between the track and it's dismounts than just the track going forward with everyone mounted and hoping for the best).

Forcing infantry to stay embarked on their track at the beginning of any battle in any warzone is nonsensical, whether on Earth or on Nephilim.

I hope no real-life armor officer would ever say "wait for the enemy to get roughly within rifle range before dismounting" to mechanized infantry.

"Captain!"
"Sergeant?"
"We've reached the edge of the city. There are no enemy in sight yet."
"No enemy... then what are you doing out of your transport?"
"Sir...? We were setting a defensive position. The men have moved the heavy weapons into elevated position-"
"The men? You're all out of your transports?"
"Well... of course we are sir. We're waiting for-"
"You just said the enemy have not yet been sighted!"
"Yes sir, I did, but-"
"Then get back in your transports until we see them."
"I'm sorry... sir that doesn't make any-"
*distant explosions*
"Damn it! I knew this would happen."
"Are we under attack, Captain?"
"No, you fool! All our transports just exploded! All because you and your foolish men couldn't stay inside until we had seen the whites of the enemy's eyes!"
"I'm so confused..."
"The Commissar will have my head for this!"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I hope no real-life armor officer would ever say "wait for the enemy to get roughly within rifle range before dismounting" to mechanized infantry.

"We've heard reports that the enemy is operating with a sizeable force in this location. It is imperative that nobody gets out of the truck until we are in said enemy's anti-materiel weapon range. Infantry will not do any forward scouting of their vehicles to identify and eliminate ambushes."

It's like the GW rules team looked at the tactics of the Russian forces in Ukraine, where you drive blindly into killzones to be picked off by artillery, aircraft and portable anti-tank weaponry, and decided that was how they wanted their armies to operate.

Flames of War is on a different scale than 40k and a bad comparison therefore

Bolt Action would fit better, but there Transport can do whatever they want

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


I get that some folks are upset that they have to use their Dedicated Transports as a Dedicated Transport at the start of the game.

That's not what they're upset about. They're upset because this rule is a kneejerk reaction to...nothing as far as anyone can tell. It represents nothing from a realism POV and doesn't deal with an in-game problem. It's the very definition of a rule for its own sake. Even if we accept there is a genuine reason to make DT act more like real life there are a whole bunch of ways to do it that make more sense and aren't as stupidly punishing. You could force DT to only be allowed to be bought by units that can actually use them, for example. Or you could make a DT's parent unit have to deploy within a certain distance of their transport. You could give the DT some small buff when it's within a certain range of its parent unit. All of these either provide incentives or actually line up with the background. Instantly exploding vehicles don't.

The DT issue seems like it could be resolved with a few lines added to each book.

1. A DT is purchased as part of an infantry unit, and thus must be deployed at the same time. The infantry either start deployed or in unit coherency with the DT. One game starts, DT can go do what it wants separate from the infantry. It is no longer a separate entity when building the list and is included as an option on the infantry's datasheet. This gives the DT "unlock requirements" like squad size and unit type. So you couldn't buy a Trukk for a mob of 20 Boys, but you can buy a Speeder Storm if you take a unit of scouts.

2. A model with the "dedicated transport" tag can't hold objectives unless it has infantry embarked. It can only contest objectives if it has more wounds remaining than the opposing unit.


The "gunboat" issue seems to be something entirely different that needs a unit-to-unit rework if it even needs one.

I also don't know how Ghost Arks work, but it sounds like they shouldn't be DT's anyway from what I'm reading. Maybe GA's can have a little "I'm the exception" rule or something.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I get that people get mad when their free chicken gets taken away.

So start your Dedicated Transports with infantry on board and keep your free chicken.

Ah yes. The most unfluffy solution. With transports destroyed automatically because they literally cannot avoid it.

Gw white knights are funny. "gw can do no wrong, all is good". And then when gw reverts suddenly the　rule they defended was always bad :lol:

And free chicken. You have point therb when dt cost 0 and doesn't require infantry taken. Until then your claim is　non-sense.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
The DT issue seems like it could be resolved with a few lines added to each book.

1. A DT is purchased as part of an infantry unit, and thus must be deployed at the same time. The infantry either start deployed or in unit coherency with the DT. One game starts, DT can go do what it wants separate from the infantry. It is no longer a separate entity when building the list and is included as an option on the infantry's datasheet. This gives the DT "unlock requirements" like squad size and unit type. So you couldn't buy a Trukk for a mob of 20 Boys, but you can buy a Speeder Storm if you take a unit of scouts.

2. A model with the "dedicated transport" tag can't hold objectives unless it has infantry embarked. It can only contest objectives if it has more wounds remaining than the opposing unit.


The "gunboat" issue seems to be something entirely different that needs a unit-to-unit rework if it even needs one.

I also don't know how Ghost Arks work, but it sounds like they shouldn't be DT's anyway from what I'm reading. Maybe GA's can have a little "I'm the exception" rule or something.

I for the most part agree with these changes.
And yeah, Ghost Arks really shouldn't be a Dedicated Transport option. It doesn't fit the fluff nor reflect their role as healing support for warrior hordes.
You can't even shoot out of them anymore as they aren't open topped, so you can't use that old drive by tactic. Which is probably for the best, really.
They should really just be an upgrade choice for warriors (with limitations) or have their own FOC rules to reflect their idiosyncrasies.

If they weren't DT options, then using them as a support choice for a warrior blob woulnd't instantly kill them, like what is happening with the Nihilim rules.

It's just that as is, you either have to buy an extra squad of warriors or do the cheesy thing and put a single character in it.
Which is fairly ironic, really; in an attempt to get rid of "cheese", GW just encouraged a new form of cheese where you put a single character in a transport and disembark.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
The DT issue....
[...]
The "gunboat" issue seems to be something entirely different....

the problem is, there is no DT issue but only a Gunboat issue and while it is something different it was tried to be solved with something that was not an issue in the first place

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I get that people get mad when their free chicken gets taken away.

When all bar, what, three armies* in the game can do something, it isn't "free chicken" - it's "standard operating procedure".

* - I make it as Chaos Daemons, Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights with no DT at this time, with Tyranids being limited to their Drop Pod equivalent.

Yeah I don't fully understand the free chicken comment. Like if GW published a rule saying "Infantry without a Heavy weapon cannot shoot" people would turn around and say "yeah serves you right, all you people wanting free chicken by not putting Heavy weapons in your squads"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you are an armor officer in real life, would you force your dismounts to stay within about 15 ft of the vehicle?

And I can buy that sometimes infantry are mounted for a meeting engagement. I can also see cases where they would be dismounted (a meeting engagement in urban terrain would probably be much more collaborative between the track and it's dismounts than just the track going forward with everyone mounted and hoping for the best).

Forcing infantry to stay embarked on their track at the beginning of any battle in any warzone is nonsensical, whether on Earth or on Nephilim.

I hope no real-life armor officer would ever say "wait for the enemy to get roughly within rifle range before dismounting" to mechanized infantry.

I suppose this in the internet and you are free to doubt that I am an armour officer in real life. The decision to dismount in real life is made on an estimate of the situation. In a hasty attack the infantry commander will give the order to debus over the radio or give the conditions to debus as part of the radio orders. If you are assaulting a platoon position, for instance, the infantry might dismount their LAVs short of the objective but almost assuredly within rifle range in that case -this could be quite close to the enemy trenches/positions. This is the most common in my experience. Its a combined arms fight with the panzers up front, perhaps with a troop of tanks in intimate support to the infantry with other tanks in a fire base and still others having breached the obstacle belt. The infantry might dismount right on top of the position - this is awkward at the moment of dismount but it could be course of action based on how the enemy is laid out/equipped. They might even go through/past the position mounted and then dismount. This last one would be quite rare. Perhaps the enemy have a weak obstacle plan and by dismounting past the objective the infantry can assault the fighting positions from an angle the enemy is not prepared for, but it is an option.

As I said a few pages ago there are certainly tactical situations where the infantry would start the engagement dismounted. A defence, for instance, or a deliberate attack with infantry assaulting on a converging axis that is impassible to vehicles. This would involve a dismounted approach and the disposition of their vehicles would again depend on the situation. In those cases the Zulu Vehicles (infantry carriers without infantry) may well be cut away for other tasks. I would call a defence or deliberate attack a narrative play game, though, where you are free to use such rules as you see fit to bring your story to life. Match play scenarios, on the other hand, certainly look like meeting engagements to me.

In a meeting engagement both sides are usually advancing, and I am trying to imagine a mechanized combat team advancing with the infantry dismounted (I've been a mechanized combat team commander). Platoons might dismount episodically to clear chokepoints/defiles, but as a rule they will be in the LAVs at least a couple of bounds behind the panzers. So all this to say I am comfortable with Dedicated Transports having to begin the game with infantry embarked. Contact is made (Turn 1) and the commander can then dispose of his forces as he sees fit to include dismounted all or some of the infantry and sending the Zulu vehicles off to do things like fire support, flank security etc.

I am not saying that the infantry unit should stay within a certain distance of its Dedicated Transport. I was simply offering that as another route at the rules writers could have gone, and pointing out that Flames of War has its armed halftracks that stay on the board after dismount need to stay in command distance of their platoon that they were transporting.

So if we are playing a Nephilim game we need to use our DTs can were free slots as DTs at the start of the game. I'm OK with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah I don't fully understand the free chicken comment. Like if GW published a rule saying "Infantry without a Heavy weapon cannot shoot" people would turn around and say "yeah serves you right, all you people wanting free chicken by not putting Heavy weapons in your squads"

DTs are free force organization slots. That is why I referred to them as free chicken. Your analogy doesn't really compare.

Now the DTs have a restriction linked to their battlefield role. So they are not quite as free anymore from an FOC perspective.

 Insectum7 wrote:
This is the most permissible and flexible FOC paradigm we've ever seen, and even back with strict 3rd Ed FOCs tranports could be deployed without troops in them.

True but in 3rd edition, no one else could embark on a dedicated transport. If you bought a Transport for Squad A, then no one else was allowed in it, even if Squad A was dead.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah I don't fully understand the free chicken comment. Like if GW published a rule saying "Infantry without a Heavy weapon cannot shoot" people would turn around and say "yeah serves you right, all you people wanting free chicken by not putting Heavy weapons in your squads"

DTs are free force organization slots. That is why I referred to them as free chicken. Your analogy doesn't really compare.

Now the DTs have a restriction linked to their battlefield role. So they are not quite as free anymore from an FOC perspective.

Well, no. They're still entirely free from a FOC perspective. FOC isn't really an issue for most armies, and this doesn't change the amount or restrictions when it comes to dumping DTs onto the battlefield
The restriction is on deployment, and it affects the unit (well, a unit or model somewhere in the army) far more than it affects the transport.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I suppose this in the internet and you are free to doubt that I am an armour officer in real life. The decision to dismount in real life is made on an estimate of the situation.

In my somewhat more limited experience, the amount of buildings on the average 40k board would be the outskirts of a town/village and the troops would be out as I assume these urban areas we are entering/fighting over aren't already belonging to one side or the other. Being ambushed while riding through an urban area seems more like the narrative stuff you are espousing. Unless you have a force which has a doctrine of disembarking only under contact, are poorly manned (witness Russian BTGs and their inability to have both crew and dismounts for a vehicle), or are simply poorly disciplined and no one really wants to walk if they can avoid it, especially if they have a false sense of security from the (thin) metal walls around them. British troops are kicked out with regularity, especially when approaching a built up area that is assumed to be hostile.

Saying all that it would be neat if some scenarios stipulated whether troops have to be mounted or not in line with the scenario to add to the narrative of the actual games.