Cause them's the rules they wrote. Wouldn't call it cheesy, but I would call it odd. Let's see, how would I change it. How about it can move combat speed and the unit inside can fire, but since it stopped to let you shoot, it cannot move on it's next turn? I know why they changed the rhino rush, errrrr, assaulting after disembarking rule.
40K: Col Mondovi, 13th ARkiv'l IG Regiment
Real World: SFC, US Army, Retired
http://www.ironfistleague.com
Why do you feel that the vehicle would be unable to move furthur next turn don_mondo? Right now, a transport can move 12", the squad can disembark, shoot, and in the subsequent turn re-embark onto the vehicle, the vehicle can then move another 12" if you want it to, or, if you want to fire at the same target again, can move 6" and the squad inside can use fire points. So either way, the vehicle can be moving at combat speed for a total of 24", and mid strike, a unit can hop off, shoot, and hop back on without a seeming hickup in the vehicle's movement. So penalizing the movement of the vehicle for a squad inside to shoot out while the vehicle is moving at combat speed is kind of silly.
Also, a fast skimmer such as the dark eldar venom has 2 weapon systems on it that can both fire when the vehicle moves 12". Is it actually any harder to fire a hand held weapon from a moving vehicle than it is to fire a pintle mounted one (like the one that is on the top of the venom)? Just saying, the Dark Eldar would be used to moving around at such high velocities, and also used to fireing weapons at their poor victoms whilst doing so (whether it is from a pintle mounted weapon or not). Fluff wise anyways.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.Originally Posted by IJW
I would propose it as a game balance issue. You want to get close quickly and still be able to shoot, you're gonna pay some sort of penalty. In this case, the vehicle had to come to a complete stop so the passengers could shoot and it's going to take a moment for them to get strapped/buckled back in before it can move again. Alternative, put a negative modifier on shooting if the vehicle moved over combat speed. But i don't write the rules so none of it matters anyways. The rules are what they are for now and when they change, we'll change with them.
40K: Col Mondovi, 13th ARkiv'l IG Regiment
Real World: SFC, US Army, Retired
http://www.ironfistleague.com
True that, I hope that 6th edition brings with it a new view on how to play 40K. I really can't wait! For now, I will just have to deal with some of the cheesy rules that come with 5th edition.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
maybe when you disembark you take an int test for the unit to fire? i was going to say ld but int sounds better, if your more sure footed then you have a better chance of jumping out and firing than if your not
marines can do it
orkz not so much
What are your orders Lord Kharn?
KILL! BURN! MAIM! DESTROY! OBLITERATE!
So pretty much the same old thing is it?
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
At any rate, it still makes more sense to me than jump infantry having relentless.
Last edited by Dralith; 19-02-2012 at 00:55.
Good news!
Jump infantry do not have relentless!
Jet pack infantry do though....
Win/Ties/Loss:
Tau 27/2/8 2009, 5/0/2 2012, 1/0/0 2013
Greyknights 17/3/4 2011, 47/4/11 2012
It's because of the jet pack's ability to stabalise the fireing model.
As for cheesy not meaning what I think it means. Yes, it does. Just because you don't feel that the act of disembarking troops from a transport that moved 12" and then fireing with said unit is cheesy doesn't mean that I can't feel the opposite.
This isn't a matter of right vs wrong here. This is my opinion and yours. They're different. Accept it.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
Especially on a gaming forum where you're talking about rules, blundering around with a poorly thought out and insufficiently supported opinion about certain rules is going to get people to disagree with you.
Man, I've seen this all before, and there's only one way it can end. In blood, tears, and the limp-wristed flailing of nerd-slaps.
How To Fight a Striking Scorpion: Do not make eye contact, if you do, you have been shot in the face.
Posting anything on a rules forum will get people to disagree with you.
Just to prove my case there is some one somewhere disagreeing with this post as you read it... It might even be you.
I dissagree Stonerhino, I find your post is compleatly valid.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
Well, I disagree with your disagreement, I'm sure someone will disagree with the post.I dissagree Stonerhino, I find your post is compleatly valid.
Do you have and RAW evidence to back up your claim?Well, I disagree with your disagreement, I'm sure someone will disagree with the post.
I think that this thread has met its end. It should probably be closed.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
Well, it's an argument based on the game designers feeling that it was to overpowered for vehicles to move faster then the vehicle could move and still have embarked troops shoot. And then most likely overlooking an overrule clause for fast vehicles.
The designers didn't feel that troops disembarking and shooting was as overpowered and so did not limit it.
I agree that if troops didn't suffer any real negative effect of being embarked then they would never disembark. And you would have pseudo-fast vehicles that are really just non-fast transports.
Which are the types of arguments that should be closed after the 2nd post answered the question.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote