PDA

View Full Version : Have transports lost their fluff? (Little rant)



petribird
15-01-2010, 21:54
First off I'll admit this is abit of a rant, but I can't help but think vehicles have gotten abit silly in 5th edition. More specifically transports. When 5th came out I thought improved survivability, great! Finally we'll see some more transports, not the horde we're seeing now. My playing group is not much of a powergaming group so we kind of missed the mechanized thing, but when one our members went to a tournie I finally 'got it', why everyone has gone mechanized. Some of the armies really looked like they were playing a scaled up version of Dark Future (lets see who the old gamers are, who still has a copy?). So being a mathhammer type of annoying guy, run the numbers and yes I can see why vehicles are mandatory.

Mobility? Great, totally love that addition to the game. Except for the difficult terrain, do not understand how they move full speed while infantry get bogged down.
Survivability? Better, actually I think to good, a BS4 lascannon only has a 15% chance of KOing a Rhino, or it takes 6.75 lascannons a round to take one out on average. Double those numbers if it pops smoke. That is what killed the gunline, you just can't put out enough AT fast enough given armies starting ~24" apart, you have 2-3 rounds of shooting (generally 1 round of popped smoke) before things get close.

Now here comes the rub.
Mobile Pillbox? Yep. No more rushing up to that objective and piling out guns blazing then digging in. Many transports have become, rolling pillboxes. You're far safer staying in a vehicle than getting out for most armies. When you look at what it takes to cause a vehicle to explode compared to shooting troops outside the vehicle no wonder nobody gets out. So here's where my rant comes in, this just drives me crazy. I've never heard of infantry wanting to stay in a transport while getting shot at. Generally they get out as soon as possible, yet in 40k its the safest place to be. I know its a game, but it just looks and plays silly to me.

That lead to what could we house rule to change things. I'm thinking we're going to try something closer to last edition. What about on any penetration each troop takes a S3 AP- hit from spalling/debris etc? So you can still stay in the vehicle, but now there's a good chance of getting shot up even if the vehicle doesn't explode.

Anyone on the same page, or tried something similar?

Vaktathi
15-01-2010, 22:10
Please no, the last edition transport rules were terrible if you weren't in a skimmer. Also, it makes sense fluffwise for many armies to be heavily mechanized. SM's for instance don't walk everywhere.

With your S3 hit idea for each penetrating hit, how would you handle units failing 25% casualty tests? How would they fall back? would the transport have to move? Are they just destroyed? Do they leap out of the vehicle and run away on foot? etc? It's a bit much.

Now, a more heft "explodes" result I could see, as currently it's really only scary for Imperial Guard and Eldar.

Vepr
15-01-2010, 22:14
Yeah the only thing I dislike about the current transport rules is the explode result. Everything inside should be rolling against it's toughness or get turned to paste. If a transport is penetrated and blown up the entire squad should not just come stumbling out coughing like an old A Team episode even if they are space marines.

Stumpy
15-01-2010, 22:17
Troops can't be embarked on a transport when claiming an objective.
You avoid getting immobilised on a 4+ instead of 2+ when trundling through terrain.
This is what I want to see next edition.

Vaktathi
15-01-2010, 22:22
Troops can't be embarked on a transport when claiming an objective.
You avoid getting immobilised on a 4+ instead of 2+ when trundling through terrain.
This is what I want to see next edition.

O_o that makes little sense either in terms of gameplay or fluff. tracked tanks are rather difficult to immobilize in real life (hence treads over wheels), the current 2+ is already testy enough that when it matters it can cause even the best of players to break out in sweat, failing on a 1-3 would see every transport stuck by turn 4 in most games. Not fun. I don't see how a squad can't claim an objective, especially if no enemy is anywhere near it, if they are in their transport.

Bassline
15-01-2010, 23:27
Chain reaction. For every one more S you get above armour pen (Say railgun S10 hits a AV 13 and gets a d6 roll of 5 giving it 15 and 1 more needed then armour pen) then you roll an extra D6 on vechile damage chart.

Remove melta guns / melta bombs 2d6 armour pen and just be S10

This means Landraiders / monilths would still be hard to kill (par MC / railguns / meltas but that is there job to flip tanks / blow holes in tanks / melt tanks )

Also means the normal bolter will not do any more damage as it is now but a lascannon could blow the rhino apart

WinglessVT2
15-01-2010, 23:28
Transports have never been this viable ever previously, and I much enjoy it.

Bassline
15-01-2010, 23:46
Transports have never been this viable ever previously, and I much enjoy it.

tbh i hate the idea, if your going to have super soilders why hide them in a tin box. It probally will get changed to suit the fluff more soon, just like nidzilla did not really suit the fluff and they moved nids back to part swarm part MC

Vaktathi
15-01-2010, 23:56
TMC isn't going anywhere, it's just changing which TMC's are viable for nidzilla. Transports likewise completely fit the fluff of most armies. SM's are, by nature, a heavily mechanized force, as are Tau and Eldar, and there are probably more chimeras in armories of the Imperial Guard than there are aspect warriors, fire warriors, and Space Marines combined.

As they are, transports are finally actually worth taking for something thats not a skimmerspam army, and play the vital role that they should. Now, I'd be on board with explosions doing more than they currently do, an exploding vehicle would do a lot more than it currently does, but other than that there's really no reason to nerf transports or do weird things to armor pen rolls, especially as that would then carry over to guntanks that shouldn't be hit any harder than they already are by the 5E defensive weapons rules.

Corrode
16-01-2010, 00:41
Almost every post in this thread that wasn't written by Vaktathi has been stupid beyond belief. In a game where pretty much every engagement features a few weapons which can literally annihilate squaddies from the face of the earth, people think it's more 'fluffy' for them to jump out of their tough metal boxes and charge blindly? Not claiming objectives in tanks because having ten tons of plasteel on a point isn't as effective as having a few blokes in flak armour? Tanks, developed for mobility, terror, and protecting troops from the stuff that could turn them into poaste, should get bogged down every time they hit a bit of rocky ground? Every army that isn't Orks, Nids or human-wave Guard should be mounted up, and the fact the game reflects that nowadays is a good thing.

Shadowfax
16-01-2010, 00:59
I'm not on board with most of the ideas in this thread.

But personally, I think that the predominance of fire points + the ease of shooting from a transport are ridiculously stupid. I have no idea how it works in real life, but I find it hard to believe a soldier could fire a handheld TOW missile out the port of his armoured vehicle, or even fire his assault rifle with any sort of accuracy from a moving transport.

Transports have good mobility and deployment rules now, but that's where they should begin and end. If you want to bring the firepower of your squad to bear you should have to pile out of mommy's van. I would love it if fire points went away forever, but since that probably won't happen there should at least be a BS penalty for firing from within a vehicle.

gorenut
16-01-2010, 01:01
I rather like 40k to be more transport heavy. This is what has been drawing me back to 40k. Most ground slogging should be left to low-tech, creatures, or Fantasy Battle. Its not so much dependent on list writing to win the game and moreso tactical deployment/usage of your troops and vehicles.

mightymconeshot
16-01-2010, 01:02
i think the whole game should go to something more like necromunda. where weapons have strength values and roll more then one dice per damage. it would also be the start of fixing instant death and the hidden power fist.

mightymconeshot
16-01-2010, 01:03
tbh i hate the idea, if your going to have super soilders why hide them in a tin box. It probally will get changed to suit the fluff more soon, just like nidzilla did not really suit the fluff and they moved nids back to part swarm part MC

actually nidzilla did suit fluff. it happens in the third part of the invasion in which the strongest defense are charged by massive amount of high strength creatures. i agree also that it needed to die

Creeping Dementia
16-01-2010, 01:04
I think the only thing that actually bothers me about the new prevalence of transports is the number of Firepoints the Chimera has. Other than that, IMO mech has really brought more tactical presence to the game. I've always thought that gunline armies were dumb though, especially for armies that value their soldiers.

Havock
16-01-2010, 01:05
Human Wave guard is a silly thing really. How the hell do they even get to a fight?

"O hey, Ican fight this huge pile of guardsmen here, or I could drive to the spaceport here, shoot it to hell and watch the entire thing collapse from lack of supplies."

In case of a million guardsmen sitting on the spaceport:
"Seems the hive is barely defended."

I DO think 40k should perhaps switch to larger tables (as in deeper, the width isn't the problem), with everyone and their grandmother being so damn fast and/or being able to deesptrike/outflank/do something.
Hardly practical, but then the longer ranged armies can actually do something with their 72" ranged weapons (railguns, battlecannons)

Corrode
16-01-2010, 01:23
I'm not on board with most of the ideas in this thread.

But personally, I think that the predominance of fire points + the ease of shooting from a transport are ridiculously stupid. I have no idea how it works in real life, but I find it hard to believe a soldier could fire a handheld TOW missile out the port of his armoured vehicle, or even fire his assault rifle with any sort of accuracy from a moving transport.

Transports have good mobility and deployment rules now, but that's where they should begin and end. If you want to bring the firepower of your squad to bear you should have to pile out of mommy's van. I would love it if fire points went away forever, but since that probably won't happen there should at least be a BS penalty for firing from within a vehicle.

Most of the things with 'fire points' are basically whacking great hatches out of which the soldier (in many cases, genetically-engineered super-soldier with amazing aim and an array of stabilisers and servos to help him) can pop his head and fire. Bear in mind you have to be stationary to fire heavy weapons anyway, so it's not like they're blazing along at 60 miles an hour.

As for 'real life' I believe there are very few situations where one would fire a personal weapon from an APC - most mount a machine gun and are analogous to Rhinos. IFVs have firing ports and work pretty much exactly like Chimeras are supposed to, i.e. with designated guns (see the lasguns on the side).

Vepr
16-01-2010, 01:36
I don't see any problem with the current rules for transports. The scoring and fireports are fine and I don't see them as game breaking but there should be more of an affect with an explosion. A penetrating hit that literally causes the vehicle to come apart in a ball of fire and shrapnel should be more devastating to the occupants.

Edit. I think the effect outside the vehicle is fine but the effect inside should be nastier. If they buffed the external result you would have people using transports as bombs or still shooting the transport the round after the squad gets out in the hopes of turning them to paste outside the transport which would not be right either.

Lord Inquisitor
16-01-2010, 01:39
I've mixed feelings on this subject.

Firstly, while I'm by no means an expert, in real life one does not want to be in an APC in a combat zone. Bad news if it gets hit, and APC drivers are trained to basically bug out at the first sign of trouble. Then again, modern soldiers are not genetically engineered superwarriors encased in power armour and it also makes for a boring game.

The rules in 4th were not satisfying - transports were deathtraps although I did have success with my rhino-mounted CSM force so they weren't impossible to use, particularly with the dirt cheap rhinos worth next to nothing to the enemy. But they were undeniably hard to work with. So a boost to transports was certainly in order. Now GW did something they often do - they found four or five fixes to a problem and implemented them all. Tougher damage tables, more expensive and harder to min-max lascannons in army lists, no damage on wrecked, no more forced disembarkation on penetratings, far less dangerous terrain and much improved dozers ... Oh boy!

Two things then I think went too far. Between the new dozers and the terrain rules, vehicles essentially ignore terrain even when moving at breakneck speed and there's no advantage to careful driving. 1/36 is not any kind of danger. Vehicles should not be able to crash merilly through ruins with virtually no risk! Secondly there's too little risk to passengers because a wrecked result doesn't even have a chance of hurting the passengers, which seems crazy to me - your transport just got popped!

So to me 5th ed are perhaps better than 4th but not much - the problems have just been reversed. Transport needed a boost but this was just a swing of the pendulum that's now getting rather familiar: 2nd ed, deathtraps; 3rd ed, too good; 4th, deathtraps again; 5th, too good. You'd think they could get it right by now!

Nezmith
16-01-2010, 02:13
I always saw popping Transports as the 'Cartoony' element that is still in the game.

You know where the character is driving his tank/truck/car, and it suddenly explodes into a skeletal frame, but the only damage to him is just his clothing and some black soot on his face?

Yep.

totgeboren
16-01-2010, 02:17
That lead to what could we house rule to change things. I'm thinking we're going to try something closer to last edition. What about on any penetration each troop takes a S3 AP- hit from spalling/debris etc? So you can still stay in the vehicle, but now there's a good chance of getting shot up even if the vehicle doesn't explode.

Anyone on the same page, or tried something similar?

I have come to the exact same solution. On a pen, everyone inside gets a S3 Ap - hit.

I was also thinking of just taking the difference between the Armour and the AP roll as a hit to everyone inside, but with an Ap -.

So a lascannon hits a rhino and rolls a 4. 9+4 = 13. Hurray, it got through the Rhinos armour of 11! Roll for Pen, and oh, 13-11 = 2. Everyone inside take a S2 hit too. With a bit of luck, the lasbeam hit one marine inside too.

I realized this would not work, since a meltagun shooting a Rhino or Chimera up close could easily wound everyone inside on a 2+. Maybe too much of a coffin I think?

Say you shot with an autocannon on an ork truck filled to the brim with boyz, wouldn't it be kinda kewl if you could hit some of them, even if you don't manage to destroy the vehicle?

Just imagine it, the autocannon goes thudd thudd thudd, and you hit the gunner and 2 boys, blood, metal and green limbs flying everywhere, but still the gunner fails to stop the trukk!
Quite cinematic if nothing else.


On the other hand, its kinda funny that those I play with don't use transports much (mostly rhinos, and marines generally do more damage outside their rhinos than inside), but I'm gonna get some chimeras when the new ones come out, and then I guess I will have squads that will never even hit the tabletop. Always hidden in their little IFV.

I agree that then the transport has transported their cargo, the cargo should want to get out,

ehlijen
16-01-2010, 03:36
Transports have never been this viable ever previously, and I much enjoy it.

Not accross the board, no, but some 3rd ed armies had it even better than now (which is why 4th ed hit them as hard as it did).

Lord Cook
16-01-2010, 03:53
You avoid getting immobilised on a 4+ instead of 2+ when trundling through terrain.

That's going too far. Driving through any kind of terrain would be totally unviable, especially with the exorbitant cost of dozer blades.


tbh i hate the idea, if your going to have super soilders why hide them in a tin box.

We don't all play super soldiers. Some of us have very normal human soldiers with weak armour and low toughness. Why shouldn't we use vehicles to drive them around in?


Between the new dozers and the terrain rules, vehicles essentially ignore terrain even when moving at breakneck speed and there's no advantage to careful driving. 1/36 is not any kind of danger.

If you pay for the dozer. Who would pay 10 points for a dozer on a 55 point tank? And why should terrain effects become even worse when some armies have skimmers that totally ignore it?

Lord Inquisitor
16-01-2010, 04:13
If you pay for the dozer. Who would pay 10 points for a dozer on a 55 point tank? And why should terrain effects become even worse when some armies have skimmers that totally ignore it?
I always pay for dozers and I'm suprised that you do not! It gives you two big important things - ability to move where you want with reliability to get the job done. However, Guard have perhaps less reason to take them - Space Marines or Orks really can't afford to get jammed in where they don't want to be. Lastly, with transports so durable, it is often a good idea to sit inside your transport if it is still alive at the end of the game to hold an objective - if you fail your DT test trying to get to the objective you can't change your mind and get out and walk and that can cost you the game.

The old Guard dozers for 5 points were a no-brainer because they actually worked for the Guard - you didn't tend to move over 6" with a chimera anyway, and this is why the new dozers for 10 points don't seem such a bargain (but still very much worthwhile!). Conversely for Orks or Space Marines, even at 5 points, the dozer wasn't much use except on a vindicator or razorback as you wanted to be moving 12" in virtually all circumstances. I still don't buy dozers for anything but my chaos vindicators and land raiders - I'm waiting for a new Chaos 'dex to put them on my rhinos. Now with the new SM dozers, they're simply too good to pass up even at 10 points. Almost complete free reign to pass through terrain - that's an important commodity. Ork can basically bee-line towards the enemy with no consideration for terrain stopping them. And yes, skimmers can jump over terrain, but they can't stop in terrain and that's always been their "thing" - it's like saying that just because terminators have power weapons that's okay to give all troops power weapons.

Lord Cook
16-01-2010, 04:23
...the new dozers for 10 points don't seem such a bargain (but still very much worthwhile!).

I disagree. For a very large battle tank (of any description) I can see the utility. But on a low-cost low-quality tank that relies on numerical superiority, increasing the cost of said tank by almost 20% just to get a dozer blade is simply not viable. If dozers were cheaper on low-quality tanks, then fine. But they are a fixed cost, and as such low-quality vehicles pay much more for the same ability. Not only that, they need that ability less because they are, by definition, less vital to your overall army.


...skimmers can jump over terrain, but they can't stop in terrain and that's always been their "thing"...

Not being able to stop in terrain is rarely a disadvantage. Certainly not nearly enough to counter the very tangible advantage of being able to simply fly over it if necessary, giving you mobility as if the board was flat, while still gaining full use of cover.

Lord Inquisitor
16-01-2010, 04:48
I disagree. For a very large battle tank (of any description) I can see the utility. But on a low-cost low-quality tank that relies on numerical superiority, increasing the cost of said tank by almost 20% just to get a dozer blade is simply not viable. If dozers were cheaper on low-quality tanks, then fine. But they are a fixed cost, and as such low-quality vehicles pay much more for the same ability. Not only that, they need that ability less because they are, by definition, less vital to your overall army.
Ah, you're thinking like a guardsman here. As I said, they're of less obvious value to the guard. Problem is, you think that a transport is a light tank, cheap and plentiful. For most armies, however, transports are a cheap vehicle for a very expensive squad inside that needs to get where it wants to go as quickly as possible. The ten points is worth getting your Bezerkers or Orks or veterans where they need to be. Not only that, but your Troops need to take objectives and control the board, and a failed DT really slows them down as you not only get your transport jammed but you can't start walking until next turn. The transports entire raison d'ętre is to get its cargo across the board and the dozer blade helps it fulfil that objective.

Conversely, I wouldn't buy it on a MBT as that gets a lot less use out of it because it's penalised for moving - even Russ are better off staying stationary - and if it does get immobilised it can usually still affect the game unlike an immobilised transport.


Not being able to stop in terrain is rarely a disadvantage.
It can often really limit movement if you have large terrain pieces. It's been quite a difference for Eldar players as they're usually very wary of the risk of immobilisation.


Certainly not nearly enough to counter the very tangible advantage of being able to simply fly over it if necessary, giving you mobility as if the board was flat, while still gaining full use of cover.
That's what I'm saying. These days, Orks and Space Marines can effectively move just as if they were skimmers with the exception of impassable terrain. I don't see a lot of players that have really "got it" outside of competitive circles but its becoming more common as players twig that they can take a dozer and ignore terrain. It's even better than skimmers in many cases as you can still take advantage of terrain by moving into it without risk of immobilisation. I think a major reason we don't see it more is the lack of a dozer blade model for rhinos.

lazy.sarge
16-01-2010, 05:02
Firstly, while I'm by no means an expert, in real life one does not want to be in an APC in a combat zone. Bad news if it gets hit, and APC drivers are trained to basically bug out at the first sign of trouble. Then again, modern soldiers are not genetically engineered superwarriors encased in power armour and it also makes for a boring game.

Really? I can think of a number of situations where I'd love to have a few inches of steel between me and the incoming small arms fire. That's what APCs are designed to do, protect and transport troops through small arms fire to a position where they can close with and kill the enemy. Obviously this all changes when you start talking about RPGs, but let's not get into that.

I play guard, and I can relate to not be a genetically engineered super soldier in power armour, so I think I'd be more than happy to sit in a transport until time to take my bayonet to the enemy.

As for fire-points, I must say I'm biased due to playing guard, but to be realistic, anyone who sticks their head out of their nice warm transport to shoot at someone should be able to be shot at. But that's going to make things even more difficult than they already are.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-01-2010, 07:25
Transports are fine as they are.

shabbadoo
16-01-2010, 09:11
Anyone on the same page, or tried something similar?

I think you may be mostly alone here. Gun line armies have been even more viable ever since the ability to Consolidate into another unit after wiping out an enemy unit was removed from the game. That is as it should be. However, vehicles remained a bit too fragile, and certain weapons worth too much or not enough. The latest damage chart and penalties/bonuses to the roll on that chart fixed many shortcomings of previous editions of the game.

A gun line type army shouldn't be having much trouble with any sort of mechanized army, unless they are not taking the right compliment of special and heavy weapons to deal with the transports.

Pyriel
16-01-2010, 11:04
hey. some of you may remember me, though basic training (military guy now) forced me to stay away from gaming and other things for some time.

first of all, about the dominance of mechanized armies:
that is as should be, really. i cant imagine a guard force without many vehicles (exception: catachans) , or an SM force on foot (duh! fluffwise even devastators should have transport) , etc.

about the use of transports compared to real life: most APCs do not have fire points. HOWEVER, all APCs have great, in some cases even devastating firepower. they usualy have one(if not more) 0.50 cal machineguns, and can add stuff like 40 mm auto-grenade launchers and anti-tank weapons. (yes, even BGM-71 TOW missiles, among others).
plus, most modern transports have small 25 mm to 30 mm chainguns.

example: the bradley has one launcher that and seven TOW missiles, one 7,62 cal machinegun, and one 25 mm chaingun. WHO CARES about its firepoints?

sure, *never* getting out of the transport is insane, but that has mostly to do witht he fact that most non-imperial Troops dont have short-range anti-tank (like, every troop packing a combi-melta or something). if that was the case, then trust, me, the transports would be used, but troops *would* get out when they were ready.

Stumpy
16-01-2010, 11:37
Every single time I play 40k, I'm disgusted at how transports are immune to terrain, including my own. I'm going to zoom through terrain at full speed? 1/36 chance of being immobilised?
Also, I think you guys aren't realising what difficult terrain is. Its not just trees or an area of rocks, that wouldn't slow infantry at all. You're looking at mud, vines, rocks, fallen logs, things getting stuck in tracks, in engines, literally not being able to get through because of a wall of trees, etc etc.
Even a big old APC thing with a dozer blade is going to be a little bit iffy about charging into a swampy forest at full speed.
And as for the whole mechanised thing: fine, but I'm talking about the squads that never get out of their transport. And not just a realistic thing of going for an objective, realising there is too much fire and falling back, they sit on it IN THEIR VEHICLE. If an enemy army is pointing guns at you, you're going to die.
Then think, what is an objective? A hero you're rescuing? A communications centre to call reinforcements? A firing mechanism for a nuke? An ammunition store? All these things you need a unit not sitting in a vehicle to handle. You're men would run out of their vehicle and try to complete whatever their objective is. There is a reason troops have to score objectives rather than vehicles.
I know there are disagreements but I'd like to see units having to get out, that's about all.

RED9335
16-01-2010, 11:42
I cant stand IG chimeras are better than the rhino, they should at least be even lol. Thats just what bugs me a little that my space wolves which being astartes are a precious and not to be squandered fighting force ride around in big pepsi cans while the expendable guardsmen can take a damn nice transport on top of having the rest of their armor being rather above par.

Vaktathi
16-01-2010, 11:48
I cant stand IG chimeras are better than the rhino, they should at least be even lol. Thats just what bugs me a little that my space wolves which being astartes are a precious and not to be squandered fighting force ride around in big pepsi cans while the expendable guardsmen can take a damn nice transport on top of having the rest of their armor being rather above par.

Um, chimera's have *always* been better than Rhino's, even back in 2nd ed. They're supposed to be. Rhino's are APC's designed to deliver super soldiers into the midst of the fight, they don't need to be chimera's, they're just there to get the marines in there to do their nasty stuff. Chimera's are IFV's designed to provide transport and close heavy fire support to light infantry. Your space wolves are already by far the most powerful marine army, you don't need IG fire support infantry fighting vehicles.

RED9335
16-01-2010, 11:53
I should have clarified what I ment instead of haste typing, Well I would pay more points gladly for the rhino to keep the same weapons and just have a chimera AV, I dont think that with the stats of space marines that they should have their cake and eat it, i just think that my rhino should be able to take more than 1 turn or 2 of punishment like the chimera can and keep truckin. Hell I wish we had chimeras in Iraq when i was over.

Havock
16-01-2010, 11:54
I cant stand IG chimeras are better than the rhino, they should at least be even lol. Thats just what bugs me a little that my space wolves which being astartes are a precious and not to be squandered fighting force ride around in big pepsi cans while the expendable guardsmen can take a damn nice transport on top of having the rest of their armor being rather above par.

Then put them in a bloody landraider.
As said, Rhino's are APC's, Chimeras are IFV's.
Rhino's are there strictly for getting the big burly men there.
Chimeras are there to fight with the squad they are carrying.

For their purpose rhino's are better. Side AV11 vs Side AV10 is quite a difference.

Vaktathi
16-01-2010, 11:57
I should have clarified what I ment instead of haste typing, Well I would pay more points gladly for the rhino to keep the same weapons and just have a chimera AV, I dont think that with the stats of space marines that they should have their cake and eat it, i just think that my rhino should be able to take more than 1 turn or 2 of punishment like the chimera can and keep truckin. Hell I wish we had chimeras in Iraq when i was over.

You generally only need 1 turn, sometimes 2. Mine usually last. Between cover and smoke launchers, they usually get there. After that of course, they're usually gone (or not needed) but that's all you really need. The side hatches really make all the difference, that really adds a lot of utility over a chimera or the like, as it gives you a great charge range without exposing rear armor and more options for disembarking, especially after getting shot out (turn them sideways when advancing, enemy pops one, disembark your troops behind a long flank out of LoS and avoid more shots). The rhino's 35pt cost is relatively small, and is a huge force multiplier, even with as relatively vulnerable as they are. Also, the more armor you have (rhino's, dreads, preds, etc) the less likely each individual tank is likely to get popped as your opponents AT becomes stressed. If you've got 140pts worth of rhino (4), you'll probably get 3 across the board into your opponent most of the time.

RED9335
16-01-2010, 12:02
You know Vaktathi, thats absolute genius, and I mean it, maybe i need to reserve mine so my IG friend cant just have his way first turn which he usually gets. You have changed my rhino rage into rhino happiness.

Vaktathi
16-01-2010, 12:05
You know Vaktathi, thats absolute genius, and I mean it, maybe i need to reserve mine so my IG friend cant just have his way first turn which he usually gets. You have changed my rhino rage into rhino happiness.

Glad to hear it :D

Reserving isn't a terrible idea against an army you know will probably shoot the **** out of you first turn, as it denies them two shooting phases and you can come on and pop smoke before they ever get a chance to shoot you. Just be aware that it can hamstring you if you roll bad for reserves, especially if the IG player brought an officer of the fleet (although this can also work against the IG player sometimes too, having a bunch of enemy stuff come in turns 4 and 5 after getting to shoot at almost nothing and having only 1-3 turns to really shoot stuff and keep it all off objectives and the like).

Jaxell
16-01-2010, 12:11
Normally troops in battle only use a transport to transport, and the moment they're engaged they bail out. A lot of you guys are arguing from the "But I would like steel between me and the enemy!" line, but have you guys ever seen what happens in an enclosed space when something like a shaped charge warhead deposits its payload inside? The reason soldiers don't hang around in transports when the heavy fire starts is because in general, they are not fans of chunky salsa.

But, I understand that in this game transports needed to be more protective to get people to use them, and I have no quarrel with that as mobile games tend to be more fun.

What I am bothered by are the fire ports. Those, to me are just ridiculous, military transports do Not do gangsta drive-by's, for very good reasons. The whole fire ports thing messes up the nature of the transports. Like said, they're now more akin to mobile pillboxes, which just looks retarded in action.

Transports should be transports: They drive up, the men bail out at a good location. The transport gets out of sight as the men perform their task. The transport returns when necessary to support or pick up the men.

IFV's should be IFV's: Drive up, men bail out. IFV hangs around to support the men and relocate them when necessary.


The whole mobile pillbox thing is a big thorn in my side.

RED9335
16-01-2010, 12:15
I think the shaken or stunned should have spalling damage to the troops embarked, even wrecked.

DaSpaceAsians
16-01-2010, 12:21
You know that during Vietnam, the ARVN's prefered way of using M113's were to drive right into enemy lines with all guns blazing from the top hatch usually through swamps in order to force the Viet-Cong to come back to the surface or face being drowned or steamrolled rather then use them as battle taxis.

Jaxell
16-01-2010, 12:31
Vietnam was heavily irregular warfare in locations that were rife with footslogger-centric traps. Ofcourse in such a situation soldiers will try that. Vietnam is also very dissimilar to 40k. A better war to look at would be WW2


Look at it this way too:

1) The armour of most transports protect only as well as any concrete wall or sandbag barrier. Anti-material weapons that can chew up cover will chew up a transport too, and it's easier to hide in cover so you won't be targeted.

2) One piece of steel to protect you is good, but two pieces are a whole lot better. You get more protection by getting out of the transport and using the Whole transport as cover between you and the enemy. You'd be better protected behind the transport then inside vs just about everything except perhaps mortar fire. But then again, vehicle top armour tends to be weak.

Bloodknight
16-01-2010, 12:43
most APCs do not have fire points

Russian APCs usually do, and the Chimera seems to be designed after one of the BMP models what with it being amphibious and all.

Corrode
16-01-2010, 12:50
Normally troops in battle only use a transport to transport, and the moment they're engaged they bail out. A lot of you guys are arguing from the "But I would like steel between me and the enemy!" line, but have you guys ever seen what happens in an enclosed space when something like a shaped charge warhead deposits its payload inside? The reason soldiers don't hang around in transports when the heavy fire starts is because in general, they are not fans of chunky salsa.

But, I understand that in this game transports needed to be more protective to get people to use them, and I have no quarrel with that as mobile games tend to be more fun.

What I am bothered by are the fire ports. Those, to me are just ridiculous, military transports do Not do gangsta drive-by's, for very good reasons. The whole fire ports thing messes up the nature of the transports. Like said, they're now more akin to mobile pillboxes, which just looks retarded in action.

Transports should be transports: They drive up, the men bail out at a good location. The transport gets out of sight as the men perform their task. The transport returns when necessary to support or pick up the men.

IFV's should be IFV's: Drive up, men bail out. IFV hangs around to support the men and relocate them when necessary.


The whole mobile pillbox thing is a big thorn in my side.

Will you please do some goddamn reading around the subject? That goes for everyone in this thread who uses APC and IFV interchangeably.

APCs are battle taxis, along the lines of the Rhino. They drive troops to battle, aren't expected to engage in actual combat, and mount relatively few weapons systems (though some have missiles attached to give them a secondary purpose once the troops are on the ground).

IFVs or infantry fighting vehicles are more similar to the Chimera - they mount several weapons of a serious calibre, they're designed and expected to engage in combat, and they have firing ports (though usually they use a specific weapon rather than the standard-issue due to problems with size etc.). These do not 'drive up and drive off' - they are expected to and capable of providing fire support.

40k takes this a little further - the Rhino is an APC (and even called that in places) but obviously isn't driving up and driving off. A few points to bear in mind, though:

1) In the case of Rhinos, Space Marines et. al are genuinely safer in the tank, especially if they're in the open. If someone hits a Marine with a krak missile, it's going to blow them into little bio-enhanced pieces. If you hit a Rhino with one, there's a good chance it'll survive, and even if it does the kind of diffuse explosion the tank undergoes (equivalent to a frag missile) isn't really that troubling for a bloke in an inch of adamantine. Sure, the power armour is meant to be for charging gloriously into battle, but contray to the Black Library portrayal Marines aren't idiots who charge about on foot fighting against the odds. They're supposed to be tactical thinkers and no Marine is going to go 'welp I could sit here and be relatively safe from that incoming fire or I could charge out there and most likely end up dead... better charge!' The nasty things that usually happen to people inside an exploding tank simply don't occur when you are mostly resistant to things like small explosions. Even then, with a ten-man squad between 2 and 3 are likely to die, and that's enough to get them running.

2) Guardsmen are at genuine risk from a tank blowing up. It wounds them on 3s and their dodgy armour isn't likely to save them. To make up for this Chimeras are heavily armoured on the front. The 5 firing ports are supposed to represent the lasguns on the side, though they also have people popping out of a hatch nowadays. That's fine - it's a game mechanic to up utility.

3) Mobile pillboxes may not make too much sense in a world where an exploding tank is srs businezz and you'll struggle to find enough room to swing a lascannon out, but in 40k the tanks are often oversized with large top hatces, and the people doing the heavy-weapons firing are often genetically-engineered super-soldiers. Guard do it too, but that's a conceit of game balance - it sucked when firing from a vehicle and not wearing PA made it open-topped, and it would suck if it were a MEHREEN SPESHUL ROOL that only they could fire heavy weapons from a tank (bearing in mind it has to be stationary anyway).

Jaxell
16-01-2010, 12:55
Russian APCs usually do, and the Chimera seems to be designed after one of the BMP models what with it being amphibious and all.

Yeah but not in the 40k sense. You don't see 5 guys putting out accurate fire on the move while standing in a BMP.

Corrode
16-01-2010, 12:59
It doesn't work that way in 40k, either. If you trundle along slowly your chaps can mostly put out accurate fire. If you're blazing away at full speed, you're stuck clinging on for dear life.

Jaxell
16-01-2010, 13:03
Will you please do some goddamn reading around the subject? That goes for everyone in this thread who uses APC and IFV interchangeably.

APCs are battle taxis, along the lines of the Rhino. They drive troops to battle, aren't expected to engage in actual combat, and mount relatively few weapons systems (though some have missiles attached to give them a secondary purpose once the troops are on the ground).

IFVs or infantry fighting vehicles are more similar to the Chimera - they mount several weapons of a serious calibre, they're designed and expected to engage in combat, and they have firing ports (though usually they use a specific weapon rather than the standard-issue due to problems with size etc.). These do not 'drive up and drive off' - they are expected to and capable of providing fire support.

Man, did you even read what I posted? Because we're pretty much in agreement.

The only things we disagree on are:

That it's okay to use such a mechanic is good to bring utility to guard IFV's. I feel it's clunky and makes for unintuitive gaming. It would be like seeing five men sticking out of a moving BMP and shooting, three of which are firing RPG's. It's just a silly sight. If there were a penalty to hit mechanic for firing from an unstable moving platform, then okay. But as it is no-ones accuracy gets impeded in the game.

40k transport are not oversized. If anything, they're too small compared to the models, except for maybe the chimera and valkyrie.

Corrode
16-01-2010, 13:19
Man, did you even read what I posted? Because we're pretty much in agreement.

The only things we disagree on are:

That it's okay to use such a mechanic is good to bring utility to guard IFV's. I feel it's clunky and makes for unintuitive gaming. It would be like seeing five men sticking out of a moving BMP and shooting, three of which are firing RPG's. It's just a silly sight. If there were a penalty to hit mechanic for firing from an unstable moving platform, then okay. But as it is no-ones accuracy gets impeded in the game.

40k transport are not oversized. If anything, they're too small compared to the models, except for maybe the chimera and valkyrie.

I think we're sort've in agreement and talking at cross purposes. To-hit modifiers for firing from a moving vehicle wouldn't be a bad idea; sadly the dev team doesn't seem to want to give out modifiers for anything ever.

As for transports being oversized - yes and no. They're under-sized for the table-top, but in terms of real-life sensibilities they'd be overly huge, as are most 40k tanks. Most IFVs for the last 50 years or so have been designed to have as low a profile as possible - it makes them harder to see and harder to hit. Rhinos in comparison are pretty tall, especially if they were scaled up to be the correct size to fit 10 power-armoured bodies, and Russes (not a transport but still) and Land Raiders are massively tall compared to the size that would make any sense to current doctrine.

Jaxell
16-01-2010, 13:24
I think we're sort've in agreement and talking at cross purposes. To-hit modifiers for firing from a moving vehicle wouldn't be a bad idea; sadly the dev team doesn't seem to want to give out modifiers for anything ever.

Which is a shame really. Modifiers are a good gaming mechanic and don't slow down games when all players are experienced with the rules.


As for transports being oversized - yes and no. They're under-sized for the table-top, but in terms of real-life sensibilities they'd be overly huge, as are most 40k tanks. Most IFVs for the last 50 years or so have been designed to have as low a profile as possible - it makes them harder to see and harder to hit. Rhinos in comparison are pretty tall, especially if they were scaled up to be the correct size to fit 10 power-armoured bodies, and Russes (not a transport but still) and Land Raiders are massively tall compared to the size that would make any sense to current doctrine.

Ah, I thought you were talking about tabletop sizes.

Szalik
16-01-2010, 14:08
I'd like to come back to some of the things that OP talked about:

Mobility- that's right something is a bit wrong here. In my opinion vehicles should move slower in the difficult terain. I guess treating roll for a difficult terain with 1 being immobilised and the rest showing you how far you can move, would be a good idea.

Survivability- I guess everything here is well balanced even in fluff terms. You can still pop them open but just like in WWI and II it takes a few shots to do so (sometimes it took a lot of them to stop a T34 or something similar).

The only problem occurs in my opinion when the vehicle is destroyed. Penalty for passangers should be higher.Both wrecked and explodes results should wound passangers with S5 ap-. Explodes result should give even higher S7 hit with maybe ap4 but that would probably cause problems with balance.

Lord Cook
16-01-2010, 14:33
Then think, what is an objective? A hero you're rescuing? A communications centre to call reinforcements? A firing mechanism for a nuke? An ammunition store? All these things you need a unit not sitting in a vehicle to handle. You're men would run out of their vehicle and try to complete whatever their objective is. There is a reason troops have to score objectives rather than vehicles.
I know there are disagreements but I'd like to see units having to get out, that's about all.

But in terms of game play, some armies need to use transports and others don't. If you made it so that you can only win by getting out of those transports, then suddenly you've biased the win conditions towards armies that are comfortable having their infantry out in the open. Realism is all very well, but game balance makes or brakes the game.


I cant stand IG chimeras are better than the rhino, they should at least be even lol.

They aren't. A Rhino is a better transport if you just want to transport things. It costs significantly less, has a more consistent spread of armour, and has three access points rather than just one. For expensive Marines who need to be at close range to be effective, the Rhino is preferable. The two vehicles are not comparable because the infantry riding in them are so radically different.


Vietnam is also very dissimilar to 40k. A better war to look at would be WW2

:eyebrows: Actually, there are any number of situations in 40k that are exactly like Vietnam. Similarly there are countless First World War trench duels, Napoleonic cavalry charges, Second World War tank battles, Falkland-esque amphibious assaults, Afghanistan guerrilla campaigns and more besides. 40k cannot be neatly categorised into the space of any real world conflicts.


1) The armour of most transports protect only as well as any concrete wall or sandbag barrier.

2) One piece of steel to protect you is good, but two pieces are a whole lot better. You get more protection by getting out of the transport and using the Whole transport as cover between you and the enemy.

But neither of these apply in the actual game. You can't force infantry to behave in a certain way when in terms of game mechanics, it is disadvantageous for them to do so. In order to make the game work as you suggest, massive changes are required, and in a lot more than just the way vehicles work.


Yeah but not in the 40k sense. You don't see 5 guys putting out accurate fire on the move while standing in a BMP.

It's probably not moving. The game is an abstract system. It specifically states that when troops are not running they may be advancing cautiously, pausing to scan terrain, etc. If moving >6" represents a vehicle moving at full speed, then moving 6" or less indicates a slow crawl forward, with plenty of opportunities for stopping to gain a decent firing solution.

Jaxell
16-01-2010, 14:46
:eyebrows: Actually, there are any number of situations in 40k that are exactly like Vietnam. Similarly there are countless First World War trench duels, Napoleonic cavalry charges, Second World War tank battles, Falkland-esque amphibious assaults, Afghanistan guerrilla campaigns and more besides. 40k cannot be neatly categorised into the space of any real world conflicts.

The enviromental conditions are the same, but the battlefield conditions aren't. Sure you have junglefighting, but in the game both sides are always roughly equal and have full acces to all military gear. This is in no way like vietnam except for the greenery.




But neither of these apply in the actual game. You can't force infantry to behave in a certain way when in terms of game mechanics, it is disadvantageous for them to do so. In order to make the game work as you suggest, massive changes are required, and in a lot more than just the way vehicles work.

It wasn't a game related reply. It was aimed at those with misconceptions about AFV's in combat.




It's probably not moving. The game is an abstract system. It specifically states that when troops are not running they may be advancing cautiously, pausing to scan terrain, etc. If moving >6" represents a vehicle moving at full speed, then moving 6" or less indicates a slow crawl forward, with plenty of opportunities for stopping to gain a decent firing solution.

Perhaps it is that level of abstraction, but its not one I like. It's not implemented intuitively on the tabletop. The end result just looks like buying a squad of infantry is a wargear upgrade for an AFV.

Lord Cook
16-01-2010, 15:21
The enviromental conditions are the same, but the battlefield conditions aren't. Sure you have junglefighting, but in the game both sides are always roughly equal and have full acces to all military gear. This is in no way like vietnam except for the greenery.

Oh, you were talking about the game and not the background I take it? Both sides being perfectly equal is in no way like any war. Vietnam is no exception.

DaSpaceAsians
16-01-2010, 15:30
I forgot to mention that the ARVN's tactic was used in villages, cities, against defensive positions and jungles.

The pestilent 1
16-01-2010, 15:50
Yeah but not in the 40k sense. You don't see 5 guys putting out accurate fire on the move while standing in a BMP.

Yeah, and in the sane world most people got past not covering every square inch of a tanks one weak point (tracks) decades ago.

40K does not, has never and will never run on sensible.
IFV's are cool.
Ergo, 40k Transports are IFV's.

Jaxell
16-01-2010, 15:58
Oh, you were talking about the game and not the background I take it? Both sides being perfectly equal is in no way like any war. Vietnam is no exception.

I'm talking game in this case. The prevalence of anti-tank material on the game field should make any guardsman think twice about hanging around in transport for any longer then he absolutely has to.

But, if the game would ever try to model it, it would have to come up with much better cover rules too, to represent why a soldier would prefer to be too hidden to be shot at more then just some steel protection.




forgot to mention that the ARVN's tactic was used in villages, cities, against defensive positions and jungles.

No need to. Location wasn't the concern.

Kaboof76
16-01-2010, 16:00
Yeah the only thing I dislike about the current transport rules is the explode result. Everything inside should be rolling against it's toughness or get turned to paste. If a transport is penetrated and blown up the entire squad should not just come stumbling out coughing like an old A Team episode even if they are space marines.

What if there was a 7 on the damage chart! Imagine this: chimera w/ vets is penetrated by a melta! A 6 is rolled on the damage chart, being as it was penetrated by melta, it could effectively become a 7! Then making everything mush on the inside, with no save what so ever! That would be a cool rule! Kinda like an incineration!

tuebor
16-01-2010, 16:10
I agree that then the transport has transported their cargo, the cargo should want to get out,

But there are bullets out there!


example: the bradley has one launcher that and seven TOW missiles, one 7,62 cal machinegun, and one 25 mm chaingun. WHO CARES about its firepoints?

I always imagined they'd be nice for keeping things away from this huge, gigantic, flat RPG magnet sides, but I've only ever been around the M3 which doesn't have the firing points.


Every single time I play 40k, I'm disgusted at how transports are immune to terrain, including my own. I'm going to zoom through terrain at full speed?

Except they're not cruising along at "full speed" they're moving at combat speed, normally 15-20 mph. This may sound slow but it's a hell of a lot faster and a lot less tiring than running or walking.

Vepr
16-01-2010, 16:10
What if there was a 7 on the damage chart! Imagine this: chimera w/ vets is penetrated by a melta! A 6 is rolled on the damage chart, being as it was penetrated by melta, it could effectively become a 7! Then making everything mush on the inside, with no save what so ever! That would be a cool rule! Kinda like an incineration!

Might be a little too devastating. :D I just think the explosion rule is a little weak right now but the occupants should still have some chance at survival.

Steel Legion for Life
16-01-2010, 16:23
Bleh, I think this thread is basically Guard players vs. everyone else.

I have an awful feeling that 6th ed will have a savage transport nerf, or failing that, a savage chimera nerf in the next (2014!) guard codex. Basically, enjoy the golden age of the chimera boys, if GW has taught me anything it's that it won't last...

As for all the "BUT REALISM!" comments, come on. 40k bears as much resemblance to real war as monopoly does to real bond trading. It's all about providing a cool atmospheric hollywood movie setting type of war.

carldooley
16-01-2010, 16:32
so basically for those Space Marine Players -
APC is Rhino with Dozer Blades
IFC is Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters and HK Missile.

is this right:confused:

tuebor
16-01-2010, 16:37
so basically for those Space Marine Players -
APC is Rhino with Dozer Blades
IFC is Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters and HK Missile.

is this right:confused:

More or less. An APC is a battle taxi, its only purpose is to get troops from one point to another. An IFV on the other hand is supposed to be capable of fighting alongside the troops its carrying.

Lord Cook
16-01-2010, 17:58
Bleh, I think this thread is basically Guard players vs. everyone else.

I think because exploding vehicles really do hurt Guard squads, and we genuinely can't afford to just throw dozers on everything. For us many of these problems don't exist.

broxus
16-01-2010, 18:15
tbh i hate the idea, if your going to have super soilders why hide them in a tin box. It probally will get changed to suit the fluff more soon, just like nidzilla did not really suit the fluff and they moved nids back to part swarm part MC

Yea I play IG and I dont have super troopers. This really depends on which army you play. Some of the ideas here are good for some armies only. For example making everyone get out to secure and objective is great if your SM's but lets be honest that sucks for an IG squad which dies to spit wads. I think the thing is it has to be codex by codex to figure out the cost of transports. For example, Rhino's are far to cheap because the are so cheap protecting troops that are hard as nails. On the other hand I think I think the Chimera is about 5pts to much, IG troops have to have in order to have some mobility (no jump infantry or bikes(drop pods)) and get annihlated from a squad with a few bolters.

Its all about need. The problem is that SM's dont need transports as cheap as they have them and they play most of the games.

Sildani
16-01-2010, 19:13
So out of curiosity, would the Eldar Wave Serpent be an APC or IFV? And what of the Falcon, which also has a transport capacity?

Steel Legion for Life
16-01-2010, 19:25
The wave serpent is an IFV, and the Falcon is basically a tank with a small transport capacity - something else again!.

APC - Rhino
IFV - (as in, infantry deploy and vehicle fight alongside) - Wave serpent, Razorback


I think the confusion is caused by the Chimera, which is used technically as an LICV (low intensity conflict vehicle). Basically, casualty sensitive armies in the real world (usually the Israelis, but increasingly the Yanks with things like the MRAP) are building fire points into Armoured vehicles, and having the troops fight from within them.

An example is pictured here -

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_X-yAqxTdTcc/RlH-QY6cznI/AAAAAAAABT8/iyalDPIT2Ls/s1600/Kasman.jpg

and here:-

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/m-113/kasman.htm

There's quite a few variants on different hulls, including things like the achzerit, some of the D9 bulldozer varaints and so on. You can fire all sorts of things through those window fire points. I imagine this is what Cruddace was thinking of with the new chimera; hopefully, the new kit design will just have mounting points rather than swivelly lasguns. I mean, I doubt it will have giant armoured glass boxes, but we can only hope...

As for "holding things in tanks" isn't realistic, try telling people in Gaza troops can't hold objectives from inside tanks...

Oh, and some guard armies ARE casualty sensitive. We aren't all Valhallans, you know...

Basically, all three of these tactics (APC, IFV, LICV) have real-life antecedents, and make sense.

The falcon is something there isn't an acronym for - it's more analogous with soviet helicopter doctrine of squads disembarking and being remotely supported by gunships. Still, those useful israelis have sniper fire points on the rear of their MBTs for people to fire .50 cal rifles out of on a 90 degree ball mount...

http://defense-update.com/products/m/merkava-lic.htm

Edit - Yay, 500th post!

tuebor
16-01-2010, 20:07
I think the confusion is caused by the Chimera, which is used technically as an LICV (low intensity conflict vehicle). Basically, casualty sensitive armies in the real world (usually the Israelis, but increasingly the Yanks with things like the MRAP) are building fire points into Armoured vehicles, and having the troops fight from within them.

I think the Chimera was very much inspired by the first true IFV, the BMP-1 which also had fire points.

In fact, I'd say this diagram of the BMP-1 looks an awful lot like a Chimera.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/BMP-1_firing_arcs.png

Stumpy
16-01-2010, 22:02
As for "holding things in tanks" isn't realistic, try telling people in Gaza troops can't hold objectives from inside tanks...


So essentially they're holding onto the objective to deal with it when the fighting is over? I took objectives as being time-sensitive. As in, that guy is dying, there is a countdown timer, the longer this comm network is up the more of our men die.
Hmm, speaking of this makes me think a turn-based objective count would be cool. Very difficult to balance though, or do the whole 'snatching victory' thing. Certainly wouldn't miss the last-turn objective contesting runs though.

Corax
16-01-2010, 22:24
Welcome to the wonderful rules see-saw (teeter-totter for the Americans among us) that is Warhammer 40k; where the rules stagger from one extreme to the other like a drunkard on a ship in heavy seas! Hardly surprising when you consider that GW's central design philosophy from edition to edition is "Why make minor adjustments when you can re-invent the wheel?!"

Personally, I've always found the vehicle rules in 40k slightly ridiculous. The whole idea of vehicles moving (effectively) no faster than a man on foot (or slower in many cases) always seemed like a logical absurdity that reduced vehicles to being little more than motorised mantlets, which seems slightly redundant for genetically-engineered-supermen-wearing-futuristic-powered-armour. Of course when one considers many of other logical absurdities of 40k (such as the range of infantry weapons), this one doesn't seem quite so glaring...

viking657
16-01-2010, 22:41
I'm with whoever said the effect of an exploding tank is like an old A Team episode, I'm still laughing my guard really do just walk away nearly everytime and simply dust themselves off!

the trend towards more mech is great but they are called metal coffins for a reason and I think (despite the fact it would cause IG the most trouble) that the explode result should be a bit more brutal.

Treadhead_1st
16-01-2010, 23:14
Give us the Ordnance 6/chart back (and maybe introduce some nice lower-strength-and-maybe-small-blast Ordnance weapons - sort of like an 88 - a dedicated anti-vehicle weapon that makes pretty good artillery, or equ. for other races).

I miss the days of seeing Grimaldus, his Retinue, Helbrecht and as many Sword Bretheren as possible in a Crusader going splat on the first turn (trusty, trusty Basilisk. Oh how I miss thee) :D

The trouble of buffing the "standard" Explodes result is that it utterly obliterates Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar whilst Marines and Chaos are left virtually immune to the effect - unless you made it AP3 or something.

Whilst some may say "this is fluffy, power armour is protective" it is simply not very balanced - particularly as Mech. Guard and Mech. Eldar are not exactly cheap so don't have the same weight of numbers that their footslogger comparisons have; whereas Marines get either very cheap (Rhino) or very strong (Land Raider) transports so that the total cost doesn't have a huge impact (cheap to mechanise) or are hard to kill (Raiders).

I never took issue with the Ordnance rules before - because that *is* a big, beefy round detonating in a very small space - it's going to make Swiss cheese out of even Terminators. But most anti-tank weapons in the game wouldn't cause internal shrapnel (Lascannons, Meltaguns, Gauss) which makes having an "everything killed" result on the normal table slightly odd.

Don't forget we previously had harsh rules for transported squads, and only Marines were really mechanised - they were simply *too much* of a death-trap for, Guard particularly, to mechanise in any sort of a competitive manner.

Giganthrax
17-01-2010, 01:29
I love seeing lots of transports. This is the 41st millennium, after all. There should be machines everywhere, and having many APCs is the staple of every modern army.

Not to mention it adds more options to the game and makes it go faster (moving a rhino 12" is physically a lot simpler then footslogging 10 marines), as well as makes more money for GW.

Finally, the current explodes result is just fine.

Chem-Dog
17-01-2010, 02:01
I have an awful feeling that 6th ed will have a savage transport nerf, or failing that, a savage chimera nerf in the next (2014!) guard codex.

The Chimera still has the most astounding handicap, side armour 10, the only army in the game that can't expect to damage it with their standard firearm is the one riding about in it! Seriously, you don't have to shred an awful lot of numbers to know a SM Tactical squad/Mob of Shoota Boyz/Brood of Termagants/Pack of Tzeench Flamers/Squad of Kroot ect can rapid fire a Chimera into paste once they get outside it's front 90° arc just by the number of glancing hits they can score. It's a real impediment to the supposed function of the Vehicle.
I mean, even the Valkyrie has side armour 12 and in 40K fliers are supposed to be more lightly armoured than tanks.


I think because exploding vehicles really do hurt Guard squads, and we genuinely can't afford to just throw dozers on everything. For us many of these problems don't exist.

Hm what if A "Vehicle explodes" result (or the suggested 7 on the chart) were ap1, wouldn't hurt Guard much more than it does already, but would even the playing field a little....

I'm not convinced that Transports (as a unit type) have any problems really, the rules could be tidied up a little in general though.

Havock
17-01-2010, 02:13
Oh, we are talking about the old Ordnance/6 eh.

My Vanquishers still cry bitter tears over it.
I use them as normal russes now, only for the looks.

borithan
17-01-2010, 02:29
But personally, I think that the predominance of fire points + the ease of shooting from a transport are ridiculously stupid. I have no idea how it works in real life, but I find it hard to believe a soldier could fire a handheld TOW missile out the port of his armoured vehicle, or even fire his assault rifle with any sort of accuracy from a moving transport.Well, the idea of an infantryman fighting from his transport has been one in use since at least the 70s(?) with the BMP 1 (the vehicle the Chimera is very obviously inspired by) and the idea of the IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle). However, there is some question whether it is very effective. The British army, for example, holds that infantry cannot fight effectively from an IFV, and so do not provide firing ports on their MICV (Mechanised, I think, Infantry Combat Vehicle). Instead units should dismount and the MICV should act as support. The American Bradley has firing ports, but I believe the latest models often have them blocked up by the extra armour packages they have received, so I presume they have fallen out of favour.

I believe the Russians still go for the idea, but then the fire they are meant to deliver is not meant to be accurate, more getting their carried troops to add to general suppressive fire.

Unnecessary but:
Rhinos are APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers, which do not do much other than act as "Battle Taxis" getting units safely to the fight, and then away again, not contributing much during the fight itself). Devilfish may also fit into this category.
Chimeras are IFVs
Wave Serpents, Falcons, Razorbacks and possibly Devilfish (depends whether their weapons are actually meant to lend support or are just minor defensive weapons) are MICVs.
Ork and Dark Eldar vehicles should officially be classed as ISV (Insane Suicide Vehicles) as fighting from a lightly armoured, open-topped platform is just daft...

However, units firing heavy weapons in the game are meant to be firing them from the top hatch, not through firing ports.


Really? I can think of a number of situations where I'd love to have a few inches of steel between me and the incoming small arms fire.APCs don't tend to have a few inches of steel... several millimetres, or even a couple of centimetres, but nothing like inches. Both the Bradley and Warrior are only designed to take 14.5mm heavy machine gun fire as standard. The extra add-on armour that's now standard in combat zones improves this, but they are by no means heavily armoured. The BMP 1 was even worse (I think the side armour could be penetrated by a .50 cal machine gun).



Sure you have junglefighting, but in the game both sides are always roughly equal and have full acces to all military gear.In the 40k universe there will be some battles where power armoured, boltgun armed, space marines face crossbow armed feudal soldiers. Most fights in the Imperium are internal small scale rebellion, many of whom will be poorly equipped compared to Imperial forces.

Skyros
17-01-2010, 03:09
I just want to see an exploded transport do a lot more damage to the guys sitting inside than it currently does.

If you think your transport is going to explode, and you are where you need to be going, you should be outside the transport not in. It doesn't make sense to sit on top of the fuel tanks when you know they are going to be blowing up in your face momentarily. People inside an exploding transport should be taking way more damage than they are. I don't mind the current degree of damage to people outside the transport.

Everyone inside needs to be at risk, no matter what they are wearing (terminators possibly excepted). Definitely if a tac squad chooses to sit inside their transport even though they see a bunch of guys with meltas coming, they should take a lot of damage in the ensuing explosion, not just happily power armor their way through.

tuebor
17-01-2010, 03:43
The American Bradley has firing ports, but I believe the latest models often have them blocked up by the extra armour packages they have received, so I presume they have fallen out of favour

Only one variant, the M2 Bradley has the firing ports, and my understanding is that the vast majority of units equipped with M2s never even had the special M16 variant that was supposed to be fired from the firing port. I worked with the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle version of the Bradley so take my comments on the M2 with a grain of salt.



The BMP 1 was even worse (I think the side armour could be penetrated by a .50 cal machine gun).

Even the BMP-2 can be penetrated by modern APIT rounds from a .50, I've shot up numerous non-functional BMP-1s and BMP-2s and they even penetrate the front slope fairly reliably.

Lord Cook
17-01-2010, 14:33
Even the BMP-2 can be penetrated by modern APIT rounds from a .50, I've shot up numerous non-functional BMP-1s and BMP-2s and they even penetrate the front slope fairly reliably.

Well, it's no secret that the Soviet Union always emphasised quantity. I'm sure they had a lot of BMP-1s to make up for it.

Vaktathi
17-01-2010, 14:38
Can't the M113 APC's also be penetrated by heavy machinegun fire? Or at least the earlier models?

Bunnahabhain
17-01-2010, 15:35
I've wondered about an Initiative test for passengers in a burning etc transport, to detemine if they take wounds, with a modifier for being in an open topped transport, as they are clearly somewhat easier to get out of.

This would partially reflect their speed in getting out, and partially reflect build quality and design standards...
Orks. Vey low on both, high chance of significant casualties
Guard. Bit better on both, medium casualties expected.
Marines. Superhuman reactions, well built and maintained vehicles, chances excellent.
Eldar. Seriously fast, and with properly designed vehicles. Not only do they not have explosive rounds stored in the cabin, they don't have them at at... Casualties probably minimal.

It also gives (some) characters a better chance, as they either push their way to the front, or the rank and file make sure they get the boss out first...

The vehicle rules as a whole make little sense, be it moving, firing, armour or damage tables. Many bits of them can be justified individually, but taken together, they don't give great gameplay, nor do they feel realistic.

You'd need to redesign them totally, with more armour values, better damage tables and sensible moving and firing schemes, to avoid just creating more problems by fixing the current one...

nightgant98c
17-01-2010, 16:11
My only problem with thansports is that I can't afford to buy them. My gaming money is limited, and $30 each is alot to pay for one model. Both my armies (Tau and Eldar) would be better if I could but that's not very feasible.

tuebor
17-01-2010, 16:32
Well, it's no secret that the Soviet Union always emphasised quantity. I'm sure they had a lot of BMP-1s to make up for it.

They were really only designed to protect against 7.62mm fire, which they do quite well. Not even Western IFVs can stand up to .50 APIT fire on their side armor with the possible exception of the Warrior.


Can't the M113 APC's also be penetrated by heavy machinegun fire? Or at least the earlier models?

That's what I'm told. I know they can be penetrated by .50 rifle fire.

As for transports in 40k I'm glad they 5th made them more viable. The metagame is much more mobile these days, which makes for more interesting games (my Guard actually move!) and further differentiates the game from WHFB.

Badger[Fr]
17-01-2010, 18:22
While the 5th Edition ruleset does favour transports a lot, keep in mind many units aren't viable at all without them. Tactical Marines and Aspect Warriors have neither the range, the speed, nor the numbers to footslog their way across the battlefield. They have to strike the enemy at the right time, at the right place.

As a consequence, elite armies tend to favour mechanization and only horde armies, be they Tyranids, IG, or Orks, can afford the luxury of footslogging builds.

Lord Cook
17-01-2010, 20:13
;4307132']Tactical Marines and Aspect Warriors have neither the range, the speed, nor the numbers to footslog their way across the battlefield. They have to strike the enemy at the right time, at the right place.

As a consequence, elite armies tend to favour mechanization and only horde armies, be they Tyranids, IG, or Orks, can afford the luxury of footslogging builds.

Both points which I would argue are not necessarily a bad thing.

Badger[Fr]
17-01-2010, 20:15
Both points which I would argue are not necessarily a bad thing.
Indeed. If anything, mechanized Eldar and SM builds are far truer to the background than the infamous 4th Edition gunlines.

itcamefromthedeep
17-01-2010, 20:57
Vehicles going little faster than infantry does seem odd. The same goes for Bikes. However, the differences in speed between units should be small in order for the game to function on the table sizes that it does. That's a conceit of wargaming.

What's just as strange is vehicles not being slowed by difficult terrain. That makes all kinds of no sense.

---

A Tank shock is essentially an assault with a vehicle. I'm sure a many people here can tell how good an idea it is to drive an armored vehicle into the middle of disciplined infantry. If infantry were allowed to pile in and fight a vehicle that tank shocked them, then that would go a long way to stopping the drive-up-and-contest tactic plaguing the high-end metagame.

While we're on the subject of tanks in assault, infantry should be able consolidate after a vehicle they were fighting either blows up or drives off. That would solve some "gamey" problems you see where infantry walk up to a transport, kill it, and then get torched by the flamers of the troops out of the back.

Going a bit further, if a transport is wrecked then there should be some provision for the assaulting unit to engage passengers. There are times when it doesn't make all that much sense, and there are times when it is absurd that the engagement doesn't happen.

I think those three provisions would be enough to steer the metagame sufficiently far away from fully mechanized lists.

---

As for A-team syndrome, I don't so much mind when it's the A-team in the box to begin with (Marines). A S4 hit to each passenger is not entirely unreasonable. If it went up to S5, I wouldn't really complain (that's what you get for standing in a box that got hit by an artillery shell). If it went down to S3, I wouldn't really complain.

---

Transports cost a lot of money for the points they represent. This means that in a mechanized metagame, people who don't have a lot of money to spend on the hobby are barred from playing with the most effective armies. Being able to buy a win is not conducive to a rewarding hobby experience.

---

For when the calls of anti-transport bias come in, I play Tyranids, Space Marines and Eldar.

tuebor
17-01-2010, 21:16
Vehicles going little faster than infantry does seem odd.

Not really. Unless you're on a relatively smooth surface you really can't go that fast without knocking the crap out of your crew. I knew a guy who lost several teeth because his driver took his M1 a bit too quickly (about 15 mph) off-road in Germany and he smacked his face on the .50 cal.

Vaktathi
17-01-2010, 22:14
A Tank shock is essentially an assault with a vehicle. I'm sure a many people here can tell how good an idea it is to drive an armored vehicle into the middle of disciplined infantry. If infantry were allowed to pile in and fight a vehicle that tank shocked them, then that would go a long way to stopping the drive-up-and-contest tactic plaguing the high-end metagame.

While we're on the subject of tanks in assault, infantry should be able consolidate after a vehicle they were fighting either blows up or drives off. That would solve some "gamey" problems you see where infantry walk up to a transport, kill it, and then get torched by the flamers of the troops out of the back.
If this were the case, vehicles should also be allowed to actually hurt things as well other than those failing death or glory attacks. A 60 ton tank overrunning a position is going to crush and grind enemy troops beneath tracks, gun people down with machine guns, etc. It's a very scary affair. Flames of War handles this rather well. Tank assaults are potentially extremely dangerous for tanks, but very scary for infantry as well in terms of testing morale, and tanks can and will kill infantry in assaults in Flames of War through overruns, close in machine gun fire, etc.





Transports cost a lot of money for the points they represent. This means that in a mechanized metagame, people who don't have a lot of money to spend on the hobby are barred from playing with the most effective armies. Being able to buy a win is not conducive to a rewarding hobby experience.
How is that different from Wraithguard, Ogryns, Tyranid Warriors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc ad nauseum. This shouldn't factor into the gameplay equation. As a full time student currently, between store credit, tournament winnings, and odd jobs, I've managed to accumulate 35 transport vehicles between 4 different armies.

Eldoriath
17-01-2010, 22:27
A small fix that I'd like to see is that the unit take one S check on unmodified S-value when the vehicle is wrecked and if the unit fails it may not make any voluntary action in the following turn. It takes brute strenght to get out of a wreck quickly is the simple reasoning behind this. Not as harsh as old 4th as most armies are at worst 50/50 of failing and a good deal will be passing the test 67% of the times.

But I also liked the idea that the unit inside takes 1d6 S3 AP- hits for every penetrating hit the vehicle takes. I have also found that mechanized is annoyingly good, especially with guard that have cheap chimeras and can have up to 5 weapons shooting out, which will be enough even for a command squad with 4 meltas and a psyker or something.

I do play guard and dislike this since it's no fun to meet. Only way to counter it is to load up on meltas in the transports in the command squads and veteran squads, while the normal infatry squads just stay in the open with a lascannon or something and leave their chimera for a heavy weapon team or special weapon team.

itcamefromthedeep
17-01-2010, 23:34
If this were the case, vehicles should also be allowed to actually hurt things as well other than those failing death or glory attacks.
That's a reasonable idea in principle. It could be made to work.


How is that different from Wraithguard, Ogryns, Tyranid Warriors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc ad nauseum.
Those are different because they are not so undervalued in terms of points that they dominate the metagame. Yes, the competitive metagame would not be inappropriately heavy on transports if they were priced according to their effect on the battlefield. They are not. Transport capacity is undervalued as an asset in terms of vehicle cost.

If Wraithguard were 20 points per model then they would be underpriced to the point where they would be very common, and that would mean that you would have to spend a great deal of money to compete with the winning army lists. At that point I would have the same complaint about them.

---

It's fine for one army to cost more money than another, so long as those armies are still roughly evenly matched on the table. The alternative drives players away.

CommDante
17-01-2010, 23:51
Haven't read much of this topic, but seeing how unlikely it is to make a better armoured tank explode ... it should make/give more damage due all the heavier armour flying around.
If a jeep (very light) explodes it won't have as much lethal shrapnel flying around in comparison to an abrahms (medium/high) I reckon. You'd also need alot heavier weapon to do it to the latter: so the explosion/damage to near units is greater/higher.

My 2 cents (I'll read the other 4 pages later, just had some free time and a thought about this.).

Lord Cook
18-01-2010, 00:26
Those are different because they are not so undervalued in terms of points that they dominate the metagame.

You really think transports are undervalued? I think that the Ogryns, Warriors, etc are too expensive, rather than the other way around.

Lord Inquisitor
18-01-2010, 01:00
I've wondered about an Initiative test for passengers in a burning etc transport, to detemine if they take wounds, with a modifier for being in an open topped transport, as they are clearly somewhat easier to get out of...

Well, how about a "damage table" for passengers? I'm not sure I'd like to see more randomness in the game, but how about something like this off the top of my head? It would allow for more realism regarding the survivability of troops - you're more likely to die crashing at speed, for example.

If a vehicle is destroyed (wrecked or exploded) then roll on the following table and apply the result to the passengers:

1 - Passengers must disembark*, but suffer no other effects
2 - As above, but passengers must make a pinning test
3 - Passengers must disembark*, make a pinning check and each model must make an initiative test or suffer a S3 hit
4 - Passengers must disembark*, make a pinning check and each model suffers a S3 hit.
5 - Passengers must disembark*, make a pinning check and each model suffers a S4 hit.
6 - Passengers must disembark*, make a pinning check and each model suffers a S5 hit.

*If the vehicle explodes, surviving passengers are place in the crater left by the explosion.

The following modifiers apply (and are cumulative):
Vehicle was stationary in last movement phase: -1
Vehicle is open topped: -1
Vehicle moved over 6" in last movement phase: +1
Vehicle moved over 12" in last movement phase: +1
Vehicle exploded: +1
Vehicle was destroyed by an Ordinance weapon: +1

Vaktathi
18-01-2010, 01:08
It might be easier to go with something like "each model must make an initiative test or suffer a wound with no armor saves allowed" for an explode result. I think the wrecked result is pretty ok as is, as it's not necessarily horrific damage to the vehicle, but enough so that the vehicle is no longer functional and of no more use to the passengers (e.g. engine ruined and armor significantly weakened, they decide to ditch it) whereas an explodes result is really more reflective of major spalling, fire, etc.

Lord Inquisitor
18-01-2010, 01:29
Well, it depends. I find it very unsatisfying when a Falcon that just moved 24" is shot down and wrecked and the troops just disembark.

Corrode
18-01-2010, 01:45
That's a reasonable idea in principle. It could be made to work.


Those are different because they are not so undervalued in terms of points that they dominate the metagame. Yes, the competitive metagame would not be inappropriately heavy on transports if they were priced according to their effect on the battlefield. They are not. Transport capacity is undervalued as an asset in terms of vehicle cost.

If Wraithguard were 20 points per model then they would be underpriced to the point where they would be very common, and that would mean that you would have to spend a great deal of money to compete with the winning army lists. At that point I would have the same complaint about them.

---

It's fine for one army to cost more money than another, so long as those armies are still roughly evenly matched on the table. The alternative drives players away.

This is a hobby where the 'best' army changes relatively regularly and optimal builds change between editions. The fact that the optimal build for most armies is currently transport-heavy is no different to when it was expensive-metal-model heavy or tons-of-core-troops heavy or build-six-AC/AC land speeders-heavy. Ultimately there is going to be an optimal build, into which one invests, which is then replaced by another optimal build which very often does not coincide with the former optimal build. Ask all the people with dual-AC Land Speeders how they feel about MM/HF being powerful, or all the guys with six-man las/plas Tactical Squads who just got told they couldn't even field their army list without buying at least another box of Tactical Marines to fill out the numbers.

As for transports being underpriced, that's just not even realistic. Transports are finally costed appropriately; the price of a Rhino in the Witch Hunters book compared to the cost in the modern Marine codices is just absurd. The fact Mech Sisters is so strong is a testament to the value of Sisters, not to their Rhinos being appropriately priced. The fact that Guard can field Chimeras in the numbers they can can only be seen as a good thing.

petribird
18-01-2010, 02:42
Boy, get stuck at work all weekend and I miss all the discussion. Some valid points on a number of sides. For what its worth I play IG, so this wasn't started as an anti IG rant, just that some of the goofiness of the mechanics are buggy (table wargame that doesn't match 'reality', never happens...). IProbably the best example I can think is similar to one mentioned a few back, the Basilisk, kind of similar to the German 88. First the chance of KOing a Rhino IF I hit it is only 15% (88% of penetrating, but only a 1/6 chance of causing it to explode). In other words I have to HIT a Rhino with 3 Basilisks to wreck/explode and 6 to cause it to explode on average (Obviously including hitting makes it worse), without popping smoke. Even if I destroy it I inflict 10 S3 AP- hits, 1.3 marines killed. Marines hit outside the vehicle, what 3-10 casualties? In other words you have to open the tin can to squish the chewy parts inside. That drives me a little nuts.

It seems like alot of games degrade into some weird landship pirate game where both 'ships' cruise by blasting with canons (Melta) until one 'sinks' then one side piles out to charge whoever is left (minus the swinging across ships with sabres drawn). Kind of a strange version of sci fi war.

I really think what the game could use would be a greater number of turns and greater 'depth' (36" center versus 24"?), but I don't think that is a viable option for any of a number of reasons.

Also, what I've seen on the classic IFV tactics (I've never served, but from those I work with who have, so I apologize if I'm wrong) the troops advance with the IFV effectively providing heavy weapons overwatch. Most carry cannon (25mm+) and ATGMs that are not really man portable, so the IFV is kind of a baby tank (Which the Chimera, Razorback, one version of the Devilfish, Waveserpent can ably perform). Again though, the troops lead the IFV, hopefully flushing out ATGM/RPGs so the IFV doesn't get ambushed. If the infantry run into an enemy vehicke/'heavy' position the IFV can be brought up to blast it up. My understanding is the ATGM 'anti tank' capability is more of an ambush function (wait for enemy armor to come to you, then get out of dodge in a hurry). Unfortunately 40k really isn't well suited to the 'fallback' style of warfare (Something like rapidfire, then embark and drive away). The closest version of that being Eldar bikes and Crisis Suits. Again though, to make that work is just not a realistic option for the game.

Apparently I don't have any good ideas, I do like several of the ones suggested hear, maybe I'll suggest them to my group and we'll try some out.

Chem-Dog
18-01-2010, 04:06
My only problem with thansports is that I can't afford to buy them. My gaming money is limited, and $30 each is alot to pay for one model. Both my armies (Tau and Eldar) would be better if I could but that's not very feasible.

I have a Steel Legion army, 11 Chimeras (last count, I might have more....)
I built up the infrantry part first and added the Chimeras as and when I could after, I gave up smoking shortly after and rewarded myself after 6 months after with a job lot.
Added to this there are birthday and christmas presents ect :)
All of which is largely irrelevant in the context of this topic, GW has never worried about the money cost -to- game effectivness ratio.


Vehicles going little faster than infantry does seem odd. The same goes for Bikes. However, the differences in speed between units should be small in order for the game to function on the table sizes that it does. That's a conceit of wargaming.


Walking speed X 1
Walking speed X 2
Walking speed X 3
Or if on a road
Walking speed X4

It makes sense that a vehicle, when being cautious travels at the same speed as the troops it's carrying/supporting.


A Tank shock is essentially an assault with a vehicle. I'm sure a many people here can tell how good an idea it is to drive an armored vehicle into the middle of disciplined infantry. If infantry were allowed to pile in and fight a vehicle that tank shocked them, then that would go a long way to stopping the drive-up-and-contest tactic plaguing the high-end metagame.

Erm... they can, Pass the Ld test and then shoot/assault the thing next turn...


While we're on the subject of tanks in assault, infantry should be able consolidate after a vehicle they were fighting either blows up or drives off. That would solve some "gamey" problems you see where infantry walk up to a transport, kill it, and then get torched by the flamers of the troops out of the back.

OR they can "consolidate" BEFORE the vehicle explodes, just like the "it's gonna blow" rule in the olden days...Of course a crappy roll on the Consolidate dice (or an excellent roll on the explosion dice) will produce pretty much the same results as currently...


Going a bit further, if a transport is wrecked then there should be some provision for the assaulting unit to engage passengers.

Do that and you're inviting the opposite though, 10 ork boys flying headfirst into your ranks is problematic already without adding the fact they haven't even got out of the trukk yet...


metagame...metagame

You bust be extremely well travelled to be able to play this metagame 40k...I only play local :p



I have also found that mechanized is annoyingly good, especially with guard that have cheap chimeras and can have up to 5 weapons shooting out, which will be enough even for a command squad with 4 meltas and a psyker or something.

Cheap Chimeras....Shaken on a penetrating hit of a 2, doesn't take mutch to suppress them.
The 5 meltas and a psyker is a fairly nasty combo but limited to a maximum of two per army, each representing something like a bare bones cost of 195 points and three kill points.



metagame. Yes, the competitive metagame

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]




Haven't read much of this topic, but seeing how unlikely it is to make a better armoured tank explode ... it should make/give more damage due all the heavier armour flying around.
If a jeep (very light) explodes it won't have as much lethal shrapnel flying around in comparison to an abrahms (medium/high) I reckon. You'd also need alot heavier weapon to do it to the latter: so the explosion/damage to near units is greater/higher.

Also, Larger fuel capacity, probably more ammo/more destructive ammo.
I could see a mechanism where a vehicle's armour and weapons are considered in it's explosions, although probably generally less of an issue when discussing transports.


You really think transports are undervalued? I think that the Ogryns, Warriors, etc are too expensive, rather than the other way around.

Certainly agree here.


Well, how about a "damage table" for passengers? I'm not sure I'd like to see more randomness in the game, but how about something like this off the top of my head? It would allow for more realism regarding the survivability of troops - you're more likely to die crashing at speed, for example.

If a vehicle is destroyed (wrecked or exploded) then roll on the following table and apply the result to the passengers:

1 - Passengers must disembark*, but suffer no other effects
2 - As above, but passengers must make a pinning test
3 - Passengers must disembark*, make a pinning check and each model must make an initiative test or suffer a S3 hit
4 - Passengers must disembark*, make a pinning check and each model suffers a S3 hit.
5 - Passengers must disembark*, make a pinning check and each model suffers a S4 hit.
6 - Passengers must disembark*, make a pinning check and each model suffers a S5 hit.

*If the vehicle explodes, surviving passengers are place in the crater left by the explosion.

The following modifiers apply (and are cumulative):
Vehicle was stationary in last movement phase: -1
Vehicle is open topped: -1
Vehicle moved over 6" in last movement phase: +1
Vehicle moved over 12" in last movement phase: +1
Vehicle exploded: +1
Vehicle was destroyed by an Ordinance weapon: +1


Add in a skimmer modifier perhaps? Perhaps one for melee attacks?? A Monsterous Creature one???
Maybe to make it easier, you simply roll a D6 for the strength of the hit and apply modifiers, a vehicle that moved 12" (probably be better to specify speed bands to avoid the benefits of moving at combat speed but only travelling 11") and explode due to a Ord hit are going to suffer a minumum of a S4 hit and as much as a S9. I'd also be tempted to add a negative modifier if the vehicle is WRECKED as a result of a rollover from surplus IMMOBILISED/WEAPON DESTROYED results.


It might be easier to go with something like "each model must make an initiative test or suffer a wound with no armor saves allowed" for an explode result.

I suggested AP1, still gives Invulnerable saves a chance, and they DO get to save Vs Destroyer hits in Apoc, so riding in a tank that crashes shouldn't really more dangerous than getting shot in the face by a volcano cannon...

itcamefromthedeep
18-01-2010, 04:32
Erm... they can, Pass the Ld test and then shoot/assault the thing next turn...
Yeah, next turn. The problem comes up when there isn't a next turn. If you want to use infantry to contest shift an infantry squad off of an objective, you have to assault them, meaning that you have to take their Attacks if applicable. Vehicles have to deal with Death or Glory, but that's about it.


Do that and you're inviting the opposite though, 10 ork boys flying headfirst into your ranks is problematic already without adding the fact they haven't even got out of the trukk yet...
Boyz can usually assault farther than the Trukk can go in a turn, so that nets you no speed. You get something similar with most other transports. Wave Serpents can go really far when tank shocking, but counting on getting your transport blown up in order to deliver a close combat squad is of questionable utility in my mind.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]
Metagaming in the context of a tabletop miniatures strategy game with variable force composition means building an army list with the understanding of what you will likely face.

If you see a lot of mechanized lists around, then you "metagame" (verb) by building a list that can handle them.

The use of "metagame" as a noun is used, perhaps incorrectly, to denote the environment that you are taking into account when you engage in the act of metagaming.

Does that sound about right to you?

borithan
18-01-2010, 08:38
Can't the M113 APC's also be penetrated by heavy machinegun fire? Or at least the earlier models?But then those were never really intended for the infantry to hang about in during a fight. They were intended to just be battle taxis (at least as far as I am aware).


My only problem with thansports is that I can't afford to buy them.Similar problem myself. I would love to get loads of transports for my eldar and Tau (more due to the fact I like having the option to use them, rather than any game thing), but I can't really afford them. My Space Marines are pretty much fully mechanised, but I was able to get about 4 old style rhinos cheap off a friend.


A 60 ton tank overrunning a position is going to crush and grind enemy troops beneath tracks, gun people down with machine guns, etc. It's a very scary affair. Flames of War handles this rather well. Tank assaults are potentially extremely dangerous for tanks, but very scary for infantry as well in terms of testing morale, and tanks can and will kill infantry in assaults in Flames of War through overruns, close in machine gun fire, etc.I believe one tactic occasionally used by the Germans (picked up on the Eastern Front) against close dug in infantry (to close to engage with weapons properly) was to drive tanks in tight circles around foxholes, which could often collapse the foxhole, leaving the occupants with the choice of getting buried alive or getting into the open during the middle of a fight. Tanks should be scary, even if they can't shoot you.

Vaktathi
18-01-2010, 09:07
Yeah, next turn. The problem comes up when there isn't a next turn. If you want to use infantry to contest shift an infantry squad off of an objective, you have to assault them, meaning that you have to take their Attacks if applicable. Vehicles have to deal with Death or Glory, but that's about it. When rolling onto an objective yes, but they also really can't hurt anything themselves, and unless its a walker or a land raider, a sneeze kills even the mightiest battle tank in assaults, especially now that krak grenades, rending, and other such things are nearly ubiquitious now, in addition to normal staples like powerfists and the like.

itcamefromthedeep
18-01-2010, 13:13
When rolling onto an objective yes, but they also really can't hurt anything themselves, and unless its a walker or a land raider, a sneeze kills even the mightiest battle tank in assaults, especially now that krak grenades, rending, and other such things are nearly ubiquitious now, in addition to normal staples like powerfists and the like.
I've had broods of Genestealers bounce off of vehicles often enough. 6s to hit followed by 6s to rend means that a brood of 12 average 1 pen, which then takes a 5 or more to stop that vehicle from contesting. That is not good odds, and 12 assaulting Genestealers are one hell of a lot more than a sneeze. The odds are comparable for a Tactical Squad with krak grenades and a fist.

A Grot dies to a sneeze. Vehicles in close combat die to a concerted effort.