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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
Strangely there is nothing on the Rhino sheet about the actual transport capacity and which units can embark, only the Firing Deck ability for how many can shoot

I wouldn't be shocked if that's an element of the "Dedicated Transport" bit.

Maybe there is no listed transport capacity because it has been simplified down to something crazy like 1 unit and X Characters? Or they could have hidden that part of the datasheet for another day? We shall see.

People might not like 1 to remove a model, but it keeps people from skewing into heavier units exclusively. There's a trade-off to be made.

I don't know what the "correct" rule would be without knowing all the other details of this edition though.

It's not reasonable because players will rarely transport high-cost units as the loss of one or two of them when the transport explodes is too high.

Mchagen wrote:
It's not reasonable because players will rarely transport high-cost units as the loss of one or two of them when the transport explodes is too high.

Right, but then if say it only causes a wound then the cost is too low as they'd never care.

Ideally it becomes something mechanically limiting rather than damage based.

And if there's no real penalty danger everybody just loads up on those. Some armies have little tools beside go hack in melee and then die in return. 40 pts transport giving easy trade

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
It's not reasonable because players will rarely transport high-cost units as the loss of one or two of them when the transport explodes is too high.

Right, but then if say it only causes a wound then the cost is too low as they'd never care.

Ideally it becomes something mechanically limiting rather than damage based.

This is the right answer.

They could go real old school and require a Morale Test!

 alextroy wrote:
They could go real old school and require a Morale Test!

Pedalshock

Something as simple as being pinned, or not allowed to attack in the round after you get blown out of your vehicle might do the trick, we'll need to see the whole rules before making any coherent judgement. These super-small snippets are more frustrating than enlightening.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I am surprised a transport was given WS 4+ though. I'm curious how they'll do Landraiders, mine have languished for some time now.

Yea the "tank shock" is more useful than never bothering to roll for it ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kkehno wrote:
I have this faint memory of there being big show of how the tanks and vehicles are back being good starting at 9th ed. When they announced them being able to shoot even when in close combat. Lets see if this time it will stick.

For posterity - it helped, but dreadnoughts were still more interesting with -1D.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/09/tanks-are-back-on-trackgw-homepage-post-1/

There would still be some care about the transport being destroyed, or models lost if they were single wound, or being left in the open, etc. But obviously less so that several models in the squad were wiped out on an unlucky 1 in 6 dice roll. I've seen games where players have failed 3 out of 5 and it was devastating.

Even if transports are made tougher (which we don't know by how much--we haven't seen all the weapon profiles and we haven't seen if the points costs are changing, it's all assumtions at the moment), if the current rule remains there's still too high a penalty for models inside when that transport is destroyed.

I wouldn't mind there being 'mechanically limiting' consequences instead. Reduction in movement or statline, or some other penalty to the disembarked unit after the transport is destroyed.

 alextroy wrote:
They could go real old school and require a Morale Test!

Actually with the new leadership rules an auto-failed morale test on the turn you're shuffling out of the destroyed vehicle might be an alternative to killing models. Keeps models on the table, which seems to be a goal of the edition, but would still be pretty harsh with those models unable to score and unable to interact tactically until they've gotten their gak together.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
They could go real old school and require a Morale Test!

Actually with the new leadership rules an auto-failed morale test on the turn you're shuffling out of the destroyed vehicle might be an alternative to killing models. Keeps models on the table, which seems to be a goal of the edition, but would still be pretty harsh with those models unable to score and unable to interact tactically until they've gotten their gak together.

That would also entail 'automatic' scaling in that elite or generally well-trained troops would regain their composure faster than some random rabble, and would generally increase the importance of morale and morale-enhancing or -debuffing skills and equipment. Certainly an interesting option to increase interactions on the table.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 xttz wrote:
They don't want captains & lieutenants hiding at the back of the table. Hellblasters are (typically) more likely to be a mid-board unit like intercessors.

Maybe they should stop giving them Marksman Rifles as an option if they didn't want Captains and Lts in the backfield.

Only the Phobos Captain and Lieutenant have anything approaching a marksman rifle.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 xttz wrote:
They don't want captains & lieutenants hiding at the back of the table. Hellblasters are (typically) more likely to be a mid-board unit like intercessors.

Maybe they should stop giving them Marksman Rifles as an option if they didn't want Captains and Lts in the backfield.

Only the Phobos Captain and Lieutenant have anything approaching a marksman rifle.

The basic Primaris Captain has an option for the Stalker Bolt Rifle.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 xttz wrote:
They don't want captains & lieutenants hiding at the back of the table. Hellblasters are (typically) more likely to be a mid-board unit like intercessors.

Maybe they should stop giving them Marksman Rifles as an option if they didn't want Captains and Lts in the backfield.

Only the Phobos Captain and Lieutenant have anything approaching a marksman rifle.

The basic Primaris Captain has an option for the Stalker Bolt Rifle.

As does the Lt.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 xttz wrote:
They don't want captains & lieutenants hiding at the back of the table. Hellblasters are (typically) more likely to be a mid-board unit like intercessors.

Maybe they should stop giving them Marksman Rifles as an option if they didn't want Captains and Lts in the backfield.

Only the Phobos Captain and Lieutenant have anything approaching a marksman rifle.

The basic Primaris Captain has an option for the Stalker Bolt Rifle.

As does the Lt.

And Storm Bolters are a thing too, at least compared to how they used to be.

Storm Bolters aren't a marksman rifle though...?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Storm Bolters aren't a marksman rifle though...?

More referring to it being a range Captain weapon for being backfield. Hell, if you're doing a Terminator Captain he gets the four shots all the time.

Mchagen wrote:
In order to bring transport vehicles out of trash tier, the main step would be to change the terrible remove a model for each 1 rolled when the vehicle explodes rule.

Dudeface wrote:
This is the right answer.

Ultimately "remove a model" style rules simply shouldn't be part of the game.

Much like the "morale" system we have in 9th, it's a method of destroying models that completely circumvents the entire strength/save/wounds vs toughness/AP/damage systems, and has an inherently greater effect the more wounds a model has.

If they want to show something being deadly and largely unavoidable but that also scales correctly and doesn't kill off multi-wound characters without any way to stop it, then they already have a system for that in the game: Mortal Wounds!

 Platuan4th wrote:
Maybe they should stop giving them Marksman Rifles as an option if they didn't want Captains and Lts in the backfield.

They should increase the amount of ranged weapon options. The fact that some Primaris characters can get decent ranged weapons is a good thing. Not every character needs to be charging into combat.

"Brother Matthius, is the defensive line set?"
"It is, Sergeant Callimus."
"Good. I shall inform Lieutenant Adoni... wait... where is the Lieutenant."
"Apologies, Sergeant, the Lieutenant screamed 'For Dorn!' and ran headlong towards the enemy's position."
"But... this is a defensive line. We're meant to be holding against the next greenskin attack. The citizens of this world are relying on us."

No...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
In order to bring transport vehicles out of trash tier, the main step would be to change the terrible remove a model for each 1 rolled when the vehicle explodes rule.

Ultimately "remove a model" style rules simply shouldn't be part of the game.

I don't heavily disagree but a transport exploding seems fine for it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
In order to bring transport vehicles out of trash tier, the main step would be to change the terrible remove a model for each 1 rolled when the vehicle explodes rule.

Ultimately "remove a model" style rules simply shouldn't be part of the game.

I don't heavily disagree but a transport exploding seems fine for it.

I think it should depend on the unit inside the transport. Group of Guardsmen should basically almost all die; meanwhile your lord general should have a much greater chance of surviving a blown up transport.

That way blowing up transports has an impact, but it also means that your most powerful units that you were transporting and represent a key part of your points and army; aren't so easily lost.


I think easy loses in transports would work if it was like Epic, where you might have a dozen transports in a squad charging forward instead of one or two.

Everyone in the transport takes a S8, AP0 hit. They get their armour save. Then they take a Pinning check. That's how a good gw game does it.

 Overread wrote:
I think it should depend on the unit inside the transport. Group of Guardsmen should basically almost all die; meanwhile your lord general should have a much greater chance of surviving a blown up transport.

Which is my point. "Remove model" doesn't scale, so whilst you or I might think that Guardsmen should be blasted to pieces, the same shouldn't be said for a bunch of Terminators, or MANZ, or whatever. Which is why using systems that already exist within the games (the Mortal Wound system being a great leveller, as it impacts everyone in the same way and there are only a few ways to avoid it) would be a far better solution than "Lolz ur Captain just died on a 6!".

With ghaz in a battlewagon you can lose 300 points on a bad roll

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Maybe they should stop giving them Marksman Rifles as an option if they didn't want Captains and Lts in the backfield.

They should increase the amount of ranged weapon options. The fact that some Primaris characters can get decent ranged weapons is a good thing. Not every character needs to be charging into combat.

I agree, hence my statement aimed at what I was replying to: that GW means for Marine characters to always be up front. Clearly GW disagrees with that assessment and started giving Primaris Officers backfield weapons to keep them backfield and commanding while giving them additional melee characters to take that role.

If the game is getting 'less' deadly, then yeah, destroying models because a transport got crumped needs to go away.

I could absolutely see a unit suffering from whatever the new battleshock system is for a turn or phase when they are scrambling out of the transport.

That is going to be the thing that makes or breaks leadership and many other things. We just don't know enough about other parts of the game that has changed.

drbored wrote:
I could absolutely see a unit suffering from whatever the new battleshock system is for a turn or phase when they are scrambling out of the transport.

That's why I'm looking forward to finding out what this new Battleshock stuff is. Anything is better than the "More guys die" nonsense we have masquerading as a "morale" system right now, but I'm really hoping that GW gets this and have made "Battleshock" be the kinds of things that:

1. Result from being blasted out of a transport/taking heavy fire during a turn.
2. Reduce your capacity to effectively control or take objectives.
3. Make you harder to command via Character-shared buffs.

Unfortunately, in the case of point 3, given how binary GW is often with their rules, this might end up with battleshocked units being unable to receive benefits from things such as psychic powers and area force fields, which wouldn't make much sense, but still. It's a start.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

drbored wrote:
I could absolutely see a unit suffering from whatever the new battleshock system is for a turn or phase when they are scrambling out of the transport.

That's why I'm looking forward to finding out what this new Battleshock stuff is. Anything is better than the "More guys die" nonsense we have masquerading as a "morale" system right now, but I'm really hoping that GW gets this and have made "Battleshock" be the kinds of things that:

1. Result from being blasted out of a transport/taking heavy fire during a turn.
2. Reduce your capacity to effectively control or take objectives.
3. Make you harder to command via Character-shared buffs.

Unfortunately, in the case of point 3, given how binary GW is often with their rules, this might end up with battleshocked units being unable to receive benefits from things such as psychic powers and area force fields, which wouldn't make much sense, but still. It's a start.

Could be as simple as changing an order/psychic power/etc from being guaranteed to being a 3+ or even 4+ on a unit that is suffering from battleshock.
There could also be halving (rounding down) of OC
And of course the ever prevalent -1 to hit for range and melee, but I wouldn't be surprised if we get another situation where negatives to hit and wound are unstackable, though it'd be flavorful if a debuff from Battleshock DOES stack with other debuffs, so a max of -2 to hit (with of course 6's always hitting). Could be interesting way to remove a unit from relevancy in a battle - hit them with a spell/ability and then ruin their leadership. Would be very Night Lordsy.

Do with think character Wounds will stay the same or go down this edition?

It already feels pretty weird for an infantry guy to have 70% of the wounds of a tank, but the amount of damage output currently requires that kind of buffer.

If most special attacks top out at 2 damage and -2AP, then hopefully we won't need 7W marine characters....

Given powerfists and chainfists are D2 AP-2 and are historically considered pretty powerful, and characters can't be targeted unless they're alone or the closest unit, I'm hoping we go back to a slightly lower set of wounds.

Ie

Marine 2W
Terminator 3W
lieutenant 3W
Captain 4W
termie captain 5W

guardsman 1W
Lieutenant 2W
Captain/commissar 3W
Colonel/lord commissar 4W

guardian 1W
warlock/exarch 3W
Autarch/farseer 4W


Something like that

 Hellebore wrote:
Do with think character Wounds will stay the same or go down this edition?

It already feels pretty weird for an infantry guy to have 70% of the wounds of a tank, but the amount of damage output currently requires that kind of buffer.

If most special attacks top out at 2 damage and -2AP, then hopefully we won't need 7W marine characters....

Given powerfists and chainfists are D2 AP-2 and are historically considered pretty powerful, and characters can't be targeted unless they're alone or the closest unit, I'm hoping we go back to a slightly lower set of wounds.

Ie

Marine 2W
Terminator 3W
lieutenant 3W
Captain 4W
termie captain 5W

guardsman 1W
Lieutenant 2W
Captain/commissar 3W
Colonel/lord commissar 4W

guardian 1W
warlock/exarch 3W
Autarch/farseer 4W


Something like that

I'd be surprised to see them go down. Maybe some characters will get an adjustment of 1 wound but in general I'd expect most character stats to be the same as they are now. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the 6W and 7W characters lose a Wound though. Vehicles are getting much tougher so, relatively speaking, characters are becoming weaker than they currently are. GW seem to want a less lethal game so it would make sense to keep defensive stats where they are and rein in the offense a litte, which the previews seem to be showing so far.