PDA

View Full Version : Should riding in transports be more dangerous?



Bathawk
31-10-2012, 02:01
I was thinking the other night....an opentopped, AV:10 Dark Eldar raider is about as safe for it's passengers as an Av14 space marine land raider.

True you have to usualy glance the Land Raider to death, and it is "easier" to get a "explode" result on the Raider....but what then? a St:4 Ap - hit on all the passengers? annoying, but you may lose one or two space marines, and maybe 4 kabalite warriors

Yes flying tranport are very dangerous now....well what few there are..an IG vendetta/valkyrie, and the Storm raven (the necron Night scythe dosen't technicaly carry it's unit, so they are safe if the ship goes down)

In the current game, a vehicle is much more like to be wrecked from multiple glancing hits, than get a "explode" result on the vehicle damage chart.....so if it's relatively rare, why not make it more dangerous? something as simple as giving it an ap value (I woudl say 4)...would make using transports more of a tactical decision

just my two cents

MajorWesJanson
31-10-2012, 02:11
No, since Transports are far less beneficial for passengers, especially with the changes to embarkation and assault distances. As for things like making the strength stronger or giving it AP4, that would have disproportionate effects on various races- Tau, Dark Eldar, and Guard transports would be deathtraps, while Necrons and Marines/CSM all would be effectively unaffected.

Transports are easier to kill now, and really don't need a further nerf back to 4th edition levels.

Gaargod
31-10-2012, 02:13
Basically, what Wes said.

They made Transports (a lot) easier to kill, rather than actually having an affect on occupants. I'd have preferred the latter with a bit of the former, but them's the chips.

Gutlord Grom
31-10-2012, 02:25
I was thinking the other night....an opentopped, AV:10 Dark Eldar raider is about as safe for it's passengers as an Av14 space marine land raider.


No. No they're not. That's a ridiculous comparison to begin with. To kill a Land Raider at range you're relying on dedicated anti tank to stop a dedicated assault unit delivery vehicle. A Raider has to fear a lucky volley of Bolters, and is meant as a fast weapons platform.

Two, making an explode result Strength 4, AP 4 would reliably butcher most Guardsmen, Eldar of both varieties and Tau fire warriors. It wouldn't be a tactical decision anymore. It'd violently shift the game even farther away from any kind of mechanized army unless you're Space Marines.

rocdocta
31-10-2012, 02:56
which would result in seeing far more minis on the table and not the 5th ed 6 tank game we used to see. a much better idea.

ehlijen
31-10-2012, 03:01
Basically, what Wes said.

They made Transports (a lot) easier to kill, rather than actually having an affect on occupants. I'd have preferred the latter with a bit of the former, but them's the chips.

Transport damage does have an effect on the passengers:
Shake or stun: affects the shooting of the passengers in their next shooting phase, regardless of how long it is till then and whether they disembark before it. (Confirmed by FAQ)
Wrecked: forces a disembarkation, so unless that didn't prevent charging in the first place (open topped, assault ramp), you can't charge the turn after you get forced out of your rhino by enemy destruction of said rhino, for example. (Confirmed by FAQ)
Immobilised: This takes away most (though not all) of the reasons to be in there in the first place.
Weapon destroyed: This isn't bad, for the passengers at least.
Explodes: Can actually be better than wrecked because you don't disembark, thus allowing charging. The hits and the lack of a 6" disembarkation move are the downside though.

Gutlord Grom
31-10-2012, 03:16
which would result in seeing far more minis on the table and not the 5th ed 6 tank game we used to see. a much better idea.

Again, it's not better. It unfairly penalizes any army that's not Space Marines or a variation there of. It's silly.

AngryAngel
31-10-2012, 05:42
Uh what ? No this is an awfull idea, its already a tactical decision to take a transport. Its already pretty step when it comes to negative effects what would you wish it to be completely worthless to take a transport ? Wait maybe we should make it just suicidal to take a transport ? What point does that serve ? I'd have to say not to this.

ehlijen
31-10-2012, 08:21
Other than maybe allowing the weapon hit to be resolved against a passenger chosen by the defender instead of a weapon on a 'weapon destroyed' result, I see no need for change, and even that is minor.

Radium
31-10-2012, 08:27
annoying, but you may lose one or two space marines, and maybe 4 kabalite warriors


Have you ever played Dark Eldar? Seeing half your army disappear because your paper planes got shot by a couple of heavy bolters is far more than just 'annoying'. Dark Eldar rely on their transports to get them where they need to be, and if you were to take that away form them as well, what's the point of Dark Eldar then? Not every army can just go all infantry and be effective.

adreal
31-10-2012, 08:31
If yuo want to give the explosion a ap value, why not AP2? AP4 would mean this game becomes even more 'marines or don't bother' then it already is.

orkmiester
31-10-2012, 11:57
Have you ever played Dark Eldar? Seeing half your army disappear because your paper planes got shot by a couple of heavy bolters is far more than just 'annoying'. Dark Eldar rely on their transports to get them where they need to be, and if you were to take that away form them as well, what's the point of Dark Eldar then? Not every army can just go all infantry and be effective.

i totally agree... though opponents do not like it when they cannot take the last hull point off a raider, knowing full well that in 5th it would have been dead :p

on the marine point, no offence intended but thats how the game has evolved we all have to deal with it one way or the other. It just means that quite a few players cry cheese when they get outshot and slaughtered by Dark Eldar... and suddenly find that raiders are quite good shooting platforms for the squad inside:evilgrin:

just my humble opinion:angel:

Blinder
31-10-2012, 17:24
which would result in seeing far more minis on the table and not the 5th ed 6 tank game we used to see. a much better idea.

Odd, I was able to put far more models (of all variety) on the table in 5th than in previous editions, and now in 6th they're even more effective when they're moving around. Also, having an open-topped transport blow up (as opposed to break/crash/whatever) is more dangerous now than it has ever been, at least as long as you don't count an "Ordnance 6" result... Yeah, in general transports are safer, but right now your average "basic box" transports are a decent mix of tradeoffs, and the issues with the fancy stuff don't pertain to the basic rules as much as to outdated points values and over-enthusiastic writers.

Vaktathi
31-10-2012, 20:51
Realistically should it be more dangerous? Yes, being in an APC when it goes it is highly lethal.

From a gameplay perspective? Transports are punitive and lacking utility enough as is, with hilariously short lifespans, no need to hit them again.

The_Klobb_Maniac
31-10-2012, 21:02
IMO:
-Penetrating hits could do like 4th and cause some damage to passengers

-Damage should be much meaner to armored guys; maybe re-roll armor results or always wound on a specific number. Right now it obliterates DE but not good armor. Armor should protect you, but the difference is roughly 5-6 DE lost to an explosion and roughly 1.66 marines. Wrecks do nothing to passengers (which is dumb) but it really shouldn't be so brutal against some races and then do nothing to others. Still, just IMO.

-Vehicles could've been a little harder to hit in CC (maybe +1WS per 3" Flat out counts for this, +1WS for being a Skimmer)

-Some sort of mix of the current assaulting rules. I'd have preferred overwatch to be "foregoe your shooting phase to shoot at a single unit in the assault phase (full BS)", sort of a "wait until you see the whites of their eyes!" idea. Then they could keep assaulting from close-topped transports and reserves without people feeling like they got pounced on unfairly. Can't overwatch from a transport/out of a transport, blah blah.

zippy_tang
31-10-2012, 23:53
This is a tricky one. I have found that so far in 6th edition transports are still very much auto includes for infantry worth more than 10 points. cheap guys don't worry too much about getting hit by pie plates in the deployment zone since they gain the same benefits if not more from standing in terrain than expensive troops.

Now Im not sure whether its just our gaming groups current meta but if you are deploying meq units on the ground and not mounted they are a) devastators/ havoks, or b) slow fire magnet that is more than likely gonna be wiped out by some form of battle cannon equivalent.

to answer OP directly I think the exploding damage result is fine as is, however the wrecked result needs something a little more than 'pinning check'. in its current form the image of a waveserpent crashing and dire avengers quickly pouring out completely unhurt, firing and then charging the enemy barely before there is any kind of reaction is just...eh. Maybe not a balance thing but more of a does it make sense thing.

Xerkics
01-11-2012, 00:26
I think open topped vehicles should stay as is since its easier to bail but the others the explosion on troops inside should prob increase by 1 atm it feels dissapointing when massive explosion fails to kill anything. It would be more dramatic if the str was higher. Maybe increase the dmg by 1 for ap2 explosion and by 2 for ap1?

neko
01-11-2012, 00:52
Personally, I would prefer if the passengers of open topped vehicles could be hit by incoming fire, but passengers of enclosed vehicles were more badly effected if the vehicle explodes. This could even be extended so that being trapped in an exploding Land Raider is more deadly than being trapped in an exploding Rhino.
Unfortunately, as 40K has to be usable with the current codices without screwing up the balance too much, I can't see any simple way to rule this in. Hell, the rules needed to cause differing strength explosions depending on the type of vehicle might even be considered too complicated by some players.

AndrewGPaul
01-11-2012, 12:43
Going back aways, in 2nd edition, models transported in vehicles were much more likely to die - those in open transports were simply directly affected by the weapon if it hit the transport compartment, while enclosed transports had damage results which could injure any or all of the transported models.

What this meant in practise was it was generally better for models to advance behind their transports, using them as cover. Now, depending on your opinion of the game, this might be a good thing - at the ranges in most 40k games, you might suggest that troops would already have disembarked from APCs (for example, the final part of Full Metal Jacket where the troops are advancing behind tanks for cover), but at that point, the flimsy APCs would likely have already retreated anyway. YMMV.

Daedalus81
01-11-2012, 15:56
True you have to usualy glance the Land Raider to death, and it is "easier" to get a "explode" result on the Raider....but what then?...

...In the current game, a vehicle is much more like to be wrecked from multiple glancing hits, than get a "explode" result on the vehicle damage chart.....so if it's relatively rare, why not make it more dangerous?


You contradicted yourself here.

And to argue the point...
Chance to glance-death (through glance and pen) on a landraider in cover with a lascannon is 22% per hit; requiring 18 hits to strip it. Chance to explode is 6% per hit - requiring 16 to 17 hits on average for success.

A predator under the same circumstances takes 9 hits to glance-death and 9 hits on average to explode.

I would say that many vehicles probably are on par with chance to explode/glance-death unless you're open topped - then the explode results are favored.

Or my math could be wrong.

Haravikk
01-11-2012, 21:31
In 5th edition sure, but with 6th they've reduced the strength of all vehicles which solves the transport spam issue to a degree (except for Necrons, which can be worse than ever *sigh*). Personally I'd have preferred they simply have some of a vehicle's damage carry over to the passengers, since that would have made vehicle bunkers unviable and prevented troops arriving untouched, but in light of 6th's other changes it wouldn't make sense to do that as well.

Buddha777
02-11-2012, 00:49
A cool rule could be to use the same rules that grenades have on buildings. So a transport blown up by a lascannon would have the passengers take D3 str.9 AP2 where as a plasma cannon would cause D6 hit at its str. and ap. In return give back the ability to assault out of transports. Thus players can risk getting to the battlefield quicker for potentially getting vaped harder.

Rated_lexxx
02-11-2012, 02:51
the problem is we don't want to make them so dangerous no one uses them. I think 6th balances it perfectly.

Dylius
02-11-2012, 11:13
Half of my Ork boyz died when my Battlewagon exploded last game (and that is average dice rolling). Making transports even more dangerous would make them awful.

Blinder
02-11-2012, 13:58
A cool rule could be to use the same rules that grenades have on buildings. So a transport blown up by a lascannon would have the passengers take D3 str.9 AP2 where as a plasma cannon would cause D6 hit at its str. and ap. In return give back the ability to assault out of transports. Thus players can risk getting to the battlefield quicker for potentially getting vaped harder.

While I would LOVE to be able to assault out of transports again I think it would send things a bit sideways without a lot of errata flying around and even then would very easily just go back to the 3rd ed. "skateboard" mechanics, where transports end up useful for little other than rushing forward and hoping they get there (wave goodbye to the DE "gunboat" options, which to me is actually a nice touch... meanwhile it does little to address the seriously offending transports while being quite detrimental to the already iffy status of Land Raiders and arguably even Battlewagons... though your change to what happens to the passengers might take reasonable sting off that). Maybe see if you can get a couple folks to try it out?

Gorbad Ironclaw
02-11-2012, 16:26
Half of my Ork boyz died when my Battlewagon exploded last game (and that is average dice rolling). Making transports even more dangerous would make them awful.

Nah, you are just playing 40k wrong. I mean, your army doesn't have power armour so obviously can't be a real 40k army or something that should be considered for things like this...

KingDeath
02-11-2012, 22:07
Nah, you are just playing 40k wrong. I mean, your army doesn't have power armour so obviously can't be a real 40k army or something that should be considered for things like this...

We can't allow Johnny Xenos to have a decent chance at actualy winning a game against spess muhreens

IrishDelinquent
03-11-2012, 13:54
Two pages in and no METAL BOXES jokes yet? Odd.

Anyways, I feel that the main concern with making transports more vulnerable is that they will still be just as (if not more) dangerous to non-power-armoured armies. While I understand wanting to make transports a little bit worse than the moving bunkers they were in the previous edition, increasing the amount of damage is not the way to go, in my opinion at least. To me, the major flaw with transports (especially in some 5th edition codexes) were the incredibly cheap points costs that you could purchase transports at. Razorback spam became common for armies like Blood Angels due to the cost-effectiveness of their transports. Now that transports are no longer as durable as they once were, it feels like the cost is a little more appropriate to their functionality.

While I agree that transports should be a little more dangerous than they currently are (having your car explode around you shouldn't be as effective as a fart in the wind), the problem is the current balance of transports. Anything done to make them more dangerous to Power Armour also makes them equally dangerous to non-power armour. If new codexes starting making the Xenos transports as useful as the Imperium's, then we might be able to talk.

Dylius
03-11-2012, 14:47
I would also like to point out that being inside an exploding transport is like being shot with a boltgun - a weapon that fires explosive rounds - albeit without the armour piercing capabilities.

OgreBattle
03-11-2012, 14:50
Give people in transport explosions a 4+ cover save, representing them using the not-exploding parts of their vehicle to protect from the exploding parts

This gives zero benefit for power armor.
this makes orks and eldar twice as survivable but still not at the level of a space marine.

Blinder
03-11-2012, 15:23
Give people in transport explosions a 4+ cover save, representing them using the not-exploding parts of their vehicle to protect from the exploding parts

This gives zero benefit for power armor.
this makes orks and eldar twice as survivable but still not at the level of a space marine.

I'm assuming you mean DE?

Really, I think when your transport catastrophically explodes it makes sense that the guys in big armor suits aren't bothered as much as the guys in cardboard. I think the guys in big armor suits possibly get a bit *too* much benefit from their transports (if you're buying a cheap box to drive around dodging AP3 in, you probably should have to get out to shoot... and if your box can only drive 6 guys around because you bought some fairly cheap guns, you probably shouldn't be allowed to bring it if you have more than 6 guys. On the other hand, I'd also like to see a cut-rate option on Land Raiders to ditch some of the armor. most of the guns, and not being able to be dedicated in exchange for a lower point value) and some of the other armies don't get enough (eldar/tau, should be some options for perks when you get out, stuff like an upgrade letting you get out of a wave serpent no matter how fast it moved, but if you use it you can't shoot or run that turn), but that the basic transport mechanics are "ok." They're plenty risky as it is, considering most of the really beneficial ones are pretty heavily punished by the vehicle damage rules and/or their base profiles, so there doesn't need to be *less* incentive to get in most of them, just a better variety of options for some and some more limitations on a couple others.

neko
04-11-2012, 00:59
if your box can only drive 6 guys around because you bought some fairly cheap guns, you probably shouldn't be allowed to bring it if you have more than 6 guys.
If they allow taking 2 razorbacks per marine squad, (as I seem to remember was the case in epic,) possibly.

With the current layout, my mental justification for only being allowed to take one razorback per squad is that the extra marines are being transported on the exterior of the vehicle when travelling between combats. In combat, using the exterior of the vehicle for additional transport is just too dangerous, and so only the internal capacity can be used within the game.

OgreBattle
04-11-2012, 04:02
In combat, using the exterior of the vehicle for additional transport is just too dangerous, and so only the internal capacity can be used within the game.

The funny thing with 40k rules is that a space marine sunbathing on the front of his rhino drastically increases its resilience to autocannon fire.

neko
04-11-2012, 05:31
The funny thing with 40k rules is that a space marine sunbathing on the front of his rhino drastically increases its resilience to autocannon fire.
Which will only get me started again on why tossing out the ASM system was A Bad Thing :shifty: