6th ed. Transports, part two

[LordGrise]

This was originally going to be the second half of my post on 6th Ed Transports, but I didn't want to hijack the thread. Thus...

My pet peeve with transports has always been, I blow up the transport, kill the crew deader than Elvis, leave a crater for God's sake, hit everything within x inches... and yet there's the passengers, in the middle of a blast that just turned the toughness 14 hull they were inside of into shrapnel, saving against the hit. Where, pray, did they find cover? Maybe under the crew? Maybe there was a layer of plastic explosive incorporated into the vehicle so that in the event of catastrophic damage the blast directs 95% outwards?

My version: vehicle wrecked, follow current procedure - the passengers are banged up by the impact. Vehicle destroyed, every model inside takes a wound, no save.

[Turner]

First I believe you're thinking of vehicle explodes not vehicle wrecked, but no saved allowed? That's harsh! It's not that they found cover it's that a piece of glass, hunk of metal or basically whatever is on the vehicle went flying at them and hopefully their armour they currently are wearing saved them. I'll admit that it would make more sense to change up they way the embarked unit interacts with the exploding vehicle, possibly all models are automatically wounded regardless of toughness or if they are wounded (same way they suffer a str4 AP- hit) they have to reroll successful armour saves that way high toughness models are paying the same penalties as those with low toughness?

[Kiarr]

It does seem totally rediculous that the people inside the vehicle usually get out with only a couple of casulties but I would say takes a wound but armour saves are allowed - that would signify that only the armour they are wearing saved them not that they were tough - for example terminators are designed for close area fighting so I would imagine that they could survive the shock from a close by explosion but people wearing only a vest for protection - probably should be toast

[Colonel Bindoff]

Wasn't it like that in fourth edition? I totally agree though, the idea of a transport exploding and being removed from the table then the troops emerging totally unscathed is a bit ridiculous.

[LexIcon]

Problem with that is, MEQ already have the best transports. Making it allow armor saves only makes them better than the other races in a new way. Personally, if a transport explodes and it's not open topped, everybody inside should be toast. Open topped guys get a save, not sure if it should roll to wound though.

Consider my DE: if they're standing on the raider when it explodes, they take an S3. If they're outside of it, they take an S4. The only explosion in the world that gets stronger the farther away you are, lol. Maybe it's powered by conversion beamers.

[Thiazi]

how about adding 1 to the strenght of the explsion for every armor point over 10. so av 10 works like it does not but av 14 would be strenght 8 to models inside and strenght 7 to everyone outside.

[DarkLink]

You can't think of this in terms of what makes sense. You have to think of this in what is balanced. In past editions, transports were overpriced, underpowered, and generally not very useful, except holo-falcons. Now they're a bit too good, but they're actually useful for once. That should not change.

And as with any rules, changes to transports should be as simple and easy to play as possible.

[Kawauso]

You can't think of this in terms of what makes sense. You have to think of this in what is balanced.

This a million times.

Too often people forget that the game is an abstraction and try to devise new rules or fixes to rules that make more 'logical sense' from a real-world perspective.

Turning 40k into a simulation would make the game take a lot longer and be a lot less fun.

I also agree with Darklink that transports should remain more or less where they are - if 6th tones them down just a bit that would probably be okay, but we've seen a number of codices in 5th that have made hybrid and on-foot lists just as viable as going fully mechanized, so I think this is something that comes down more to codex design.

[LexIcon]

True, codex design does factor heavily. I remember seeing a breakdown that it takes something like 8-12 missile/darklight hits to reliably down a Rhino. Too good for 35 points.

Make 'em more costly, offer better options at range to handle them, or make 'em easier to frag. Any one of these would work, but softening them is the only realistic option for a new core ruleset. The rest would take a long time to roll out via codices, and cause imbalances during the process.

[LordGrise]

Vehicles are already easy enough to kill - if you have the ordnance. If you don't... well. For myself, the one truly indispensable, must-have, would-not-consider-playing-without unit every single army I build has is the Broadside, simply and purely for that reason. I may or may not take Hammerheads, but if you see me playing without Broadsides, it's because they've been taken off as casualties - and I'm likely in deep, deep trouble.

I want to make transports a bit riskier to use, and conversely, I want a chance of a decent payoff for killing one. As it stands, if that transport makes one round of movement, it's served it's purpose, because it confered de facto invulnerability upon the unit within. I stand by my idea: if a vehicle explodes, then everybody inside takes a wound, no save. I could go along with the idea of a save if the vehicle is open-topped, the pax have a way out, after all... but I still think they ought to take significant casualties.

As an alternative, I'd grudgingly accept being able to blaze on the passengers after their vehicle goes away.

[Taco_Deluxe]

Problem is if you make them riskier to use, then people will just stop using. Its a difficult balance, and "realism" should have nothing to do with making a balanced rule set in the far future with lasers, space elves, and magic. It should just come down to two things, is it fun and is it fair.

[gredert]

Anyone who played in 3rd (maybe earlier, but that is when I started) remembers the old chartS foundly. A chart for glanced, lots of stunned/shaken, chance of weapon destroyed or immobilized, and on a 6 what we call wrecked now. Then you had the pen chart, basically what it is now except both 5 and 6 are wrecks. Then it gets interesting, the almighty Ordenance chart, again like now but the 6 blows the tank to smitereens and all embarked troops are killed. The look on the face of my friend the first time it happened and he watched his wolf lord and termy retinue go up with his landraider was priceless. I truly believe that while this system is slightly more clunky, it is not so hard to understand that we couldnt still be using it and be solving some of the problems we face now.

[bobdole4]

It would make more sense that you get an auto wound and still get a save. Of course this would severely impact high save models over say Space Marines.

[Ironwolf]

I don't have any problems with the tank/transports this is a sci-fi game if you want flat infantry spam there is always WHFB. On a side not id like to see a game wide vehicle upgrade chart like the magic items list from fantasy it levels the playing field for older/newer codexes and could also cut back on AT weapon spam like melta if ceramite plating wear more available(for a price).

[herpguy]

Well I do think that it doesn't make sense that the crew survives, but that would add just too much risk to transporting troops in my opinion. I do think it should be less forgiving though. I don't guess that when a vehicle explodes in a giant fireball the troops caught in the blast suffer a hit from the equivalent of an IG flashlight!

[Ebon Hand]

Sometimes I do miss the awesomeness factor of the ordnance vehicle pen chart. The thing is that now since blasts scatter instead of rolling to hit, they are more accurate and it would lead to a lot of angry players losing said Wolf Lord Termy squads in Land Raiders.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Too often people forget that the game is an abstraction and try to devise new rules or fixes to rules that make more 'logical sense' from a real-world perspective.


Well of course it is an abstraction. In the end it is just a game involving a bunch of pieces of plastic on a table right? Nonetheless it is supposed to be representative of a certain type of reality (a pretty bizarre one admittedly) so at some point everyone has to mentally draw a line at what works for their imagination and what does not. This obviously has to be balanced with playability. For example, the ranges of the 40k weapons are absurdly short but this fact aids playabilty.

If you look at the comments on this thread, I'd say most of the people posting think that with regards to the vehicle damage table, the playabilty factor has been pushed too far to the detriment of the imagination factor.

For the record I tend to play(badly) a heavy mech list and I also think the rules could use amending. I'm not sure I like the idea of a twentyl-ton armored personnel carrier blowing apart so spectaculalry that there is effectively nothing of it left and yet 7 or 8 of its passangers are standing at the bottom of crater in their great coats looking around and thinking "Hmmm, close call." That scenario seems more akin to a Roadrunner Cartoon than to the 40k world I like to imagine.

I could see making termies imune to these explosions and giving power armor very favorable resistance but regular humans, elves, tau, and orcs in softer armor should never walk away from such an event in my humble opinion.

Yes, everyone draws their line in a different place but there is a line.

[gredert]

Sometimes I do miss the awesomeness factor of the ordnance vehicle pen chart. The thing is that now since blasts scatter instead of rolling to hit, they are more accurate and it would lead to a lot of angry players losing said Wolf Lord Termy squads in Land Raiders.

I accept you have a different opinion, but I do argue it. I put Pask in a demolisher and if it was a BS roll and not a scatter, it would be more likely to hit and then cause the ord chart pen. The scatter means I got a 2/3rd chance to scatter off so that the hole is off the tank which is all it takes to stop any chance of a pen on things like LRs.

[robrodgers46]

I actually agree that it is ridiculous that you can blow up a transport and the passengers come out unscathed. Two ideas come to mind:

1) No pinning test, just pinned.
2) No lead test, run like hell in a random direction, to get away from the explosion.

Or some combination of both?

R

[Kawauso]

Well of course it is an abstraction. In the end it is just a game involving a bunch of pieces of plastic on a table right? Nonetheless it is supposed to be representative of a certain type of reality (a pretty bizarre one admittedly) so at some point everyone has to mentally draw a line at what works for their imagination and what does not. This obviously has to be balanced with playability. For example, the ranges of the 40k weapons are absurdly short but this fact aids playabilty.

If you look at the comments on this thread, I'd say most of the people posting think that with regards to the vehicle damage table, the playabilty factor has been pushed too far to the detriment of the imagination factor.

For the record I tend to play(badly) a heavy mech list and I also think the rules could use amending. I'm not sure I like the idea of a twentyl-ton armored personnel carrier blowing apart so spectaculalry that there is effectively nothing of it left and yet 7 or 8 of its passangers are standing at the bottom of crater in their great coats looking around and thinking "Hmmm, close call." That scenario seems more akin to a Roadrunner Cartoon than to the 40k world I like to imagine.

I could see making termies imune to these explosions and giving power armor very favorable resistance but regular humans, elves, tau, and orcs in softer armor should never walk away from such an event in my humble opinion.

Yes, everyone draws their line in a different place but there is a line.

Of course it's odd that troops get away relatively unscathed from such an event.

The alternative, however, would make transports so much of a liability from a gameplay perspective that it would become really hard to justify using them. The risk of losing an entire unit would not be worth it in a lot of cases.

By the by, your icon and username have always been a source of great amusement for me. I want a corgi. :)

[Colonel Bindoff]

The chance of losing men wouldn't make it that much of a risk. Say the 6 on the chart forces a wounding hit but saves allowed: my mech guard chimeras might be a bit of a worse prospect, but hey, life is cheap in the Colonel's regiment. Termies in a Raider get a 2+, so unlikely to lose more than 1. Seems quite reasonable to me, especially as things that can carry them are harder to kill than my chimeras. Knowing my embarked squads would take 2/3rds casualties on an explode wouldn't drastically change my tactics, just as my chaos land raider's ability to transport khorne psychos direct to combat outweighs the risk of losing 3 of the 10 I can squeeze in.

But this has the bonus of suspension of disbelief, and makes transports a little less frustrating as objective holders etc. I'd be for it.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Of course it's odd that troops get away relatively unscathed from such an event.

The alternative, however, would make transports so much of a liability from a gameplay perspective that it would become really hard to justify using them. The risk of losing an entire unit would not be worth it in a lot of cases.

By the by, your icon and username have always been a source of great amusement for me. I want a corgi. :)

You might be right. Being arguably the worst player I know, it is probably stupid to want to nerf myself, but it is just a matter of opinion.

Thanks on the corgi comment:) They are absolutely hilarious dogs. Not only do they look funny, they act it too. Natural comedians.

I have a small corgi (courtesy of corgi toy cars) glued to the base of my IG commander by the way.

[Kawauso]

As a couple people have suggested before, I think an auto-wound on embarked passengers would make a bit more sense/make transports a bit more dangerous without being too powerful - just allow the passengers to take their saves.

Yes it'll favour the 3+ and 2+ models more, but MEQ are already favoured by virtue of the 'hits' inflicted on passengers being S4.

This is pretty heavily opinionated, obviously, but if a Chimera explodes and, on average, 8 of the 12 passengers die, that seems reasonable to me versus losing the whole unit.
Same with a Devilfish going and 6 of 12 Firewarriors dying.
Or a Rhino and 2-3 of 10 Marines.
Or a Landraider and 1 of 6 Terminators.

Solves the problem of transports being a little too prevalent, without turning them into steel deathtraps not worth using. Heavy casualties from an explosion result are enough to make someone want to think about when/how to use transports, but not as cripplingly punishing as straight-up losing a full unit.

My 2 cents.



I have a small corgi (courtesy of corgi toy cars) glued to the base of my IG commander by the way.

I'd like to see that model. :D

[Tepogue]

I'd go for the auto wound if Xenos got an extreme discount on their tranposts. an/or Orks got there old bailing out rules. ( only take a wound on a 6 from trukks blowing up.

Might make Tau, Orks, Eldar basic transports a bit more attractive.

[Kawauso]

The only xenos books in need of discounted transports are those pre-5th.

Just add a rule for bailing out of open-topped transports in the next edition - saves Orks and DE a lot of hurt. Necrons too, actually. Most of the Eldar or Tau units in enclosed transports are going to have 4+ or 3+ saves so they're not much worse-off than marines. The army most likely to lose infantry in transport explosions at that point would be Guard, I would think, and they have the bodies (and tanks) that they can take it.





In fact, for the sake of argument/example, let's say 6th edition changes the Explodes! result on the vehicle damage charge to:
All embarked models take an automatic wound, with normal saves allowed (and Pinning test, etc.).

Furthermore, let's say that when an open-topped vehicle Explodes!, the occupants only take a wound on a 4+, to represent their ability to bail out of the doomed transport. Normal saves apply.

That would lead to an environment that looks like this, to provide a number of examples:

~~~

ENCLOSED TRANSPORTS:

Tau Warriors in Devilfish
Avg. 6 of 12 die

Eldar Dire Avengers in Wave Serpent
Avg. 6 of 12 die

Imperial Guardsmen in Chimera
Avg. 7-8 of 10 die

Imperial Guardsmen w/ Carapace Armour in Chimera
Avg. 5 of 10 die

Sisters of Battle in Rhino
Avg. 2-3 of 10 die

Space Marines in Rhino
Avg. 2-3 of 10 die

Space Marines in Razorback
Avg. 2 of 6 die

Space Marine Terminators in Land Raider
Avg. 0-1 of 5, 1 of 6, or 1-2 of 8 die



OPEN-TOPPED TRANSPORTS (ENCORPORATING WOUNDS ON 4+
TO REPRESENT BAIL-OUT, AS OPPOSED TO AUTO-WOUNDS)

Dark Eldar Kabalite Warriors in Raider
Avg. 3-4 of 10 die

Necron Warriors in Ghost Ark
Avg. 2-3 of 10 die (one of which will likely get up)

Ork Boyz in Battlewagon
Avg. 5 of 12 die

Space Marine Scouts in Land Speeder Storm
Avg. 1-2 of 5 die

~~~

I think that would strike an alright balance between what makes 'sense' and what would be fair/fun in terms of gameplay.

[LexIcon]

That... actually looks remarkably reasonable. Well done, good sir.

[Kawauso]

Hey, I paid for a diploma in game design, I might as well get some more mileage out of it. ;)

[Denzark]

Firstly, with regards to real life, everyone is correct that these are abstract rules and don't reflect real life.

However, those who disagree clearly don't see any figures about how many troops are walking yes WALKING out of armoured vehicles that have been subjected to complete mobility kill in Afghanistan. The troop compartment is deliberately designed to do so, why would STC of the future be any different?

Anyway, as to balance, look at other aspects of vehicles.

When trying to hit them in hand to hand, the Imperium's deadliest assassin has the same odds as a Ratling sniper.

If they do hit it, they could be at the front of the vehicle and yet still hit the rear armour - which would be at least 3-4 metres real life away. I understand this is to reflect the vulnerability to infantry - because really you could post a grenade in a vision slit of something doing 20-25 mph can't you?

A Space Marine Rhino, the staple of the Space Marines armoured assault, won't let you charge out of - but the DE jabba barge rip-offs let your emo elves pop out over the top and charge?

You can drive you armoured box into a formation of soft fleshy troops and with the correct dice roll, they just step aside to no effect?

To be honest, I think the Mathshammer of a 10-man IG squad in a Chimera that explodes is 2 thirds wounded (ie 6-ish) and of those only 1 third will save - ie 4 dead. This is quite reasonable for a unit that then debusses but only can take 2 wounds before it will start falling back on one failed morale check - assuming whatever didn't kill the box is not standing outside for the charge.

If anything maybe unbalanced it would be points costs, and then only maybe ... but that is a simpler fix than all this game dynamic that doesn't fit into current charts etc.

[Rissan4ever]

I have a small corgi (courtesy of corgi toy cars) glued to the base of my IG commander by the way.
Hang on, are you Admiral Drax? (http://admiraldrax.blogspot.com/)

[DarkLink]

Right, the more armor something has the more protected the dudes inside are, not the other way around.

[LordGrise]

Gentles all, let me bring a point back into focus: I was talking about a vehicle that has recieved a six on the dmg roll - it has exploded. Boom. Craters, shrapnel flying in every direction, so on and so forth. In that case ONLY, I say that I think the pax ought to recieve an automatic wound, no save. They have nowhere to go, and their protection has just turned into the casing on an oversized grenade. They are literally inside the explosion.

My metagame justification is this: a unit inside a vehicle is essentially immune to harm, and can still attack. Currently this is dirt cheap to achieve. The chances of actually getting an explosion result on a vehicle is a three or four stage process. I have to score a hit, then make the actual penetration roll, then my opponent has to fail the cover save (almost always there these days) then the damage result has to be a six. Odds? I dunno - Kawauso? But at least it would make folks a bit more wary about sticking all the eggs in the one basket, on the plan that that's the best way to deliver it to me.

[Kawauso]

I think it would make folks too wary.

As in, why risk ever putting unit in a transport if, should the transport explode, you lose both units? Losing 2 units from one shot would be extremely un-fun. That's why, in my opinion, auto-wounds with saves allowed would be the best way to go about changing things. It could also make sense for units in exploding transports to be auto-pinned, or something - I do agree it's odd that it can often be very easy to just 'shrug off' having your ride explode around you.

I also wouldn't be sad to see cover decrease to a 5+ in 6th edition, as it would make AP matter a lot more than it currently does. Invul saves too, actually.

Ultimately you can think whatever you'd like; I'd prefer any updates 6th brings avoid me losing ~200 points of infantry every time one of my vehicles explodes, though.

I could be wrong, mind you. Maybe people would still take vehicles, but just use them for a turn of rapid movement followed by disembarking. In a lot of ways, I think something like that is a roll we should want to push transports towards. But there are other, less punitive ways that could be addressed, I think. Such as preventing embarked units from scoring, and limiting fire points in some way to make vehicles less reliable as mobile bunkers. Unless they're like a Chimera or something.

At the end of the day it's a really multi-faceted 'problem'. I think the more 5th has gone on, though, the more we've seen books designed with making non-mechanized armies viable in mind. Really when you look at BA, DE, GK and Necrons, there are a lot of options for non-mechanized armies that work very well. Heck, I'd argue all the 5th books do it decently enough - but then, I don't play competitively, so I don't have my finger on the pulse of that scene.

[DarkLink]

Last edition no one really used transports, and back then it was only auto-pinning, not automatically killing the entire squad.

Remember, the only major things that changed about vehicles from 4th to 5th was the removal of auto-pinning, the addition of 4+ cover saves, basically a -1 to the vehicle damage chart and a slight decrease in cost of transports. Those handful of very minor tweaks changed transports from being mostly useless to auto-includes.

Any severe changes are almost certainly a knee-jerk reaction. Fine-tuning is required here, not a complete rewrite.


As a general rule, cover should drop down to 5+ and units in transports should not be able to score, and that is probably all that's needed to balance out transports.