Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 5
  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

SM Transport Rule
nealhunt
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:00 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(jb1 @ Oct. 05 2007,10:55)
QUOTE
I was just at the "SG" forums last night looking specifically for this "item". I couldn't find anything about it.

After a brief search...

Discussion about deployment options allowed at Dragon Slayer.

Question about when the transport options may be taken.

More discussion on timing of options with respect to deployment.

Yet another thread about transport/deployment options.

A recent question thread by a veteran marine player.   Mike's been playing marines on a weekly basis for at least 3 years and games regularly with Greg Lane, the Rules Champion, yet he still had a question about the rule.

Another

I think the oldest of those links is only a few months old.  There were also a horde of question threads going back to 2 previous iterations of the forums that led to the actual FAQs.

These are not noob questions.  Many of the people involved in those threads are not just Epic veterans but grognards.  They have long histories of dealing with multiple rule sets.  These are not stupid people without experience "rules lawyering."  Nor is it a case like the regular question about IG upgrades v support formations from people who simply haven't read the rules closely enough.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
I quite like the gist of the revised text Neal.

Regarding the "complication" on the Razorbacks; the rules currently allow you 'add' Landraiders to the Devastator formation that has already upgraded it's Rhinos to Razorbacks. I have never heard of it being done and it would be terribly expensive and slow; do we actually need to prohibit it??

Following the debate about SM transport on the SG forums, I am slightly surprised to see the clarification about dropping transport to garrison etc and the added restriction about the timing of exchanging vehicles. I thought the majority of opinion was generally against the former and actually for the latter (provided it was paid for up front). Although the added flexibility would match the background and possibly give the Marines a slight boost, discarding vehicles for either reason potentially causes problems with the Tournament scenario.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
As an experiment, I think Neal's proposed army list modification would look something like this:

Codex Astartes armylist

Yes I did sneak an Attack Bike proposal in there too. :D

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Razorbacks
Add any number of Razorbacks, up to the number required to transport the formation.
25 each


Huh? With this i can add 4 Razorbacks to the Devastators and still can add LandRaiders as well.
It depends what i will purchase first.  Only if i purchase LandRaiders first, then the Razorbacks-slots coud be already used up.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mephiston
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
My problem is that Marines must chose to air assault at list creation time and Eldar can chose to do this at deployment time.

From the new Marine text
Choosing transport options is part of the army selection process.  Portions of a formation may be left behind during deployment (to garrison, for example) the decision to exchange options, even ?free? ones, must be determined when the army list is determined


From the Eldar text
In the GT scenario reserve formations with multiple deployment options must be designated as to deployment method during setup ? webway, air transport or teleport

Sorry, but to my mind if one faction must chose at list time to air deploy then it should be a standard rule for all.

So any none ground based deployment is selected at list time, but formations can drop units to allow them to garrison at deployment time.

Thoughts?

Top
 Profile  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(BlackLegion @ Oct. 05 2007,17:53)
QUOTE
Razorbacks
Add any number of Razorbacks, up to the number required to transport the formation.
25 each


Huh? With this i can add 4 Razorbacks to the Devastators and still can add LandRaiders as well.
It depends what i will purchase first. ?Only if i purchase LandRaiders first, then the Razorbacks-slots coud be already used up.

Not quite BL. The way it is written in the book, Land Raiders are "Added", while Razorbacks are "Replacements", so it does not matter which you do first.

I suspect it was put this way because Terminators have no Rhinos to use as replacements, so the wording had to be different. What Neal has currently presented does not change this, so you could still replace all the Rhinos with Razorbacks and add the Landraiders (but at a huge cost; 750 points minimum!!!). Add Dreadnoughts, Hunter and Supreme Commander for a laugh, and it is 1025 points and 15 units - now I dare anyone to field that baby ?:p ?:D ?:devil:

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:13 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
*sigh*

Obviously, I need to edit the text to be more clear.  Those are 2 separate issues - choice of formation composition v choice of deployment options.

The marine transport rule refers to the units in the formation - the force org.  Those must be chosen at army selection in the same way you choose any other upgrade to take in a particular formation.  Choosing force org has consequences for the deployment options but choosing force org is not the same as determining deployment options in advance.

The reference in the Eldar list refers to deployment options, not formation composition.  Choosing among various deployment options is done in the set up sequence in the GT scenario.

Both restrictions apply to all armies.

The transport rule gives the Marines a different force org selection option than other armies, so that text is supposed to make it clear that it's a force org choice.  The Webway rules give Eldar a different choice for reserve deployment, so that text is supposed to make it clear where that option fits into the deployment options.

===

I know there is a debate on whether the Drop Pod option is a force org choice or a deployment choice.  As it's written, it is a force org choice.  I've been thinking about it off and on since the debate heated up a few weeks ago.  Even though I can see the argument for making it a deployment option, I think it should remain as a force org choice.  Among the top reasons is that I think pods being a force org choice is the original intent.  I think that's why Jervis wrote all the SM transport stuff in terms of trading things out - every other list in the game that allows choice of units is strictly force org.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:30 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
BL and Ginger:  Yet more confusion generated by the transport rule... The FAQ states you do it in this order:
1. Add any LRs to the formation.
2. Add enough Rhinos to carry any Devastators that won?t fit into the
LRs.
3. Convert any Rhinos to Razorbacks.

That caps all transport capacity at no more than 1 more than the infantry allowed.  As an example, 1 LR, 1 Razorback, and 1 Rhino would be 5 transport slots for 4 Devs.

The rule/list as I edited would allow you to simply buy LRs and Razorbacks with minimal reference to the transport capacity of the formation.  Rhinos are still based on remaining needed transport capacity.  You could buy the Land Raiders straight out and then buy Razorbacks based on total transport capacity required, not the capacity needed after Land Raiders were bought.  That's what my commentary above was in reference to.  The Devs could buy 4 LRs, then 4 Razorbacks as "transport" if you wanted both.

Basically, if you buy both Land Raiders and Razorbacks it becomes possible to buy "spare" transport capacity for the SMs, but that's the only way to do it and Devs are the only formation that can do so.

Is that a problem?

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I know there is a debate on whether the Drop Pod option is a force org choice or a deployment choice.  As it's written, it is a force org choice.  I've been thinking about it off and on since the debate heated up a few weeks ago.  Even though I can see the argument for making it a deployment option, I think it should remain as a force org choice.  Among the top reasons is that I think pods being a force org choice is the original intent.  I think that's why Jervis wrote all the SM transport stuff in terms of trading things out - every other list in the game that allows choice of units is strictly force org.
Well, that would seem to preclude giving a cost to Rhinos, unless you wrote in a new (admittedly less complex) special rule to replace the one that had just been taken out.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK

(Mephiston @ Oct. 05 2007,19:44)
QUOTE
From the Eldar text
In the GT scenario reserve formations with multiple deployment options must be designated as to deployment method during setup ? webway, air transport or teleport


Sorry, but to my mind if one faction must chose at list time to air deploy then it should be a standard rule for all.

So any none ground based deployment is selected at list time, but formations can drop units to allow them to garrison at deployment time.

Thoughts?

Aside from the webway these choices would still be allowed at deployment for the marines.  

As an example there is nothing in the force org that says terminators have to garrison, teleport or be in thawks.  All options are open assuming they dont have LR.  

To my mind tac or dev marines should operate in the same way- if you dont assign unit specific transport then you can use any of the other deployment options available, exactly as with the Eldar.  And thats what neals rules changes do.  Yay  :) .

As to drop pods I think this should also be taken at the force org point to avoid unrealistic changes to the marine list dependent upon the player being faced.  After all with drop pods its not just deployment that changes but you also get the deathwind attacks which are a real bonus.

_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
@neal- I wouldn't say it is a big issue. If someone wants to waste the points, let them.  I just know where my gargant ill be heading :D

_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:34 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 05 2007,20:30)
QUOTE
Well, that would seem to preclude giving a cost to Rhinos, unless you wrote in a new (admittedly less complex) special rule to replace the one that had just been taken out.

Different proposals. We've cross-threaded about 3 different topics...

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
The topic's drifted, as I mentioned. :)

I'm happily ignoring the syntax debate on the current Rhinos rule revision, as I regard it as pretty easy to fix, if that's the most desirable option.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:43 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Gah.  Normally on Friday afternoon this place is a ghost town.  Suddenly we have a virtual post pile-up.  What gives with that?
:;):

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mephiston
 Post subject: SM Transport Rule
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Ok, I can live with the fact that the only limit on marines at list time is rhinos or drop pods. I still think allowing them to chose this a game time is not  as heinous as everyone seems too though.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 5
  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net