Tactical Command

Transport Capacities - Terminology?
Page 1 of 1

Author:  IJW Wartrader [ Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Transport Capacities - Terminology?

Following on from viewtopic.php?f=82&t=31890 ...

Describing what transports can carry which units always gets a bit longwinded, and often leads to inconsistencies between lists.

Would something like this work?

  • Transports have Transport (X) as they mostly do now.
  • Units that take up more than one space get a new label, Bulk (Y), saying how many transport slots they take up.
  • Transports that can only take human-size troops get Transport (X), Small which shows that they can't fit troopers that up more than one slot.

Thoughts? There would still be transports that would need exceptions, for example Thunderhawks being able to carry Dreadnoughts as Bulk (2).

Author:  kyussinchains [ Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

I think right now it's okay, the transport unit should have a list of all the units it can transport in the 'may transport' section on the datasheet/quickref, the units have a 'counts as X slots' rule, cross reference the two, if your unit is not on the 'may transport' list then regardless of how big/small it is, it can't be transported, people need to be rigorous at list writing time, but even with a 'bulky/slender' rule, there are still exceptions, I think ACs should be as explicit as possible what can be transported in what :)

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

I'm all for the above in the OP. Even where we're adding to the stat line, it's almost always at the benefit of removing long winded notes from other units. There are some "holes" like dreadnoughts where they cannot be transported, even by units that can be with terminators (same bulk(2) story) but that's still easy enough to simply put into the dread notes. There's also the possibility of using small, large, huge where marine==small, termi==large, huge==dread (or the faction specific comperables).

I'm sorry but the giant paragraph in the stike cruiser and tbrick, for example, is just terrible, period. It's even worse as soon as you have custom units (e.g. Whitescar bike) you are either answering questions that "yes white scar bikes are able to be counted as regular bikes" caused by rules lawyers, have to put a note on every custom unit "counts as X" which is just verbose and easy to mess up (though admittedly better than the mess we have now), or requires duplicated CMS entries to outline the specific combos.

Author:  Kyrt [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

But it's simply not enough as different transports are able to transport different units. Thunderhawks, drop pods and rhinos for example

Author:  Ginger [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

Off the top of my head I tend to agree with Kyrt on this.

Scouts were excluded from Drop Pods when they were found to be OTT, Warp Spiders cannot be carried in Wave Serpents or Falcons for similar reasons, to name two units that are likely to cause problems with this approach. Equally Grots are often included in addition to the maximum load of other Ork units and many include a single Big Gun, so these would also need some additional wording.

By all means, let's try working through some form of streamlined wording, but I have a horrible feeling that this could end up being rather complicated and confusing.

Author:  kyussinchains [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

agreed, there are so many exceptions and clauses that there is no easy way to streamline it IMO, I've been guilty of it myself but I maintain that having a paragraph in the unit entry listing explicitly all the units that can be transported is the most effective way

Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

If writing the system from scratch, it'd probably be more elegant to give each transport unit a "transport capacity (x)" stat and each transportable unit a "size (x)" stat plus another stat noting exceptions, eg: "This unit may not use Drop Pods".

At this point it'd be a pretty hefty re-write of all the army lists and unit cards and core rules, for little functional benefit though, I feel.

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

^thank you E&C^
My points exactly. There's NO, again let me state NO restriction on Scouts taking drop pods as function of the unit itself. There's no scouts in drop pods as a function of list design (I've actually got a list where they can drop but scouts are a very different role in there and justifiably cost a crap ton more too).

Author:  IJW Wartrader [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

Question - are there any transports (other than Thunderhawks) that can carry Jump Troops?

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

I assume you mean assault marines / raptors in your post. Yes there's plenty though all accept one is a flyer (the raven is a skimmer, odd beast that is).

Author:  IJW Wartrader [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

I actually meant units with Jump Packs. Thanks.

Author:  kyussinchains [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?


vampires, landas, slavebringers, executioners, orcas, mantas can all carry troops with jump packs

Author:  IJW Wartrader [ Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

Thanks again.

Author:  Ginger [ Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

I think we need to indicate all those troops that can be transported (to distinguish from those that may not be transported) as well as whether they are bulky or not.
So let's consider how this would work with the Marines. If I have understood you correctly we need additional definitions to cover vehicles and infantry, and the transports that carry them. So we would get something like the following
  • Tactical marine, Inf, TI(1) = transportable infantry (1) slot
  • Assault marine, Inf, TI(1), except Drop Pods
  • Terminators, Inf, TI(2), except Drop Pods
  • Dreadnought, AV, TI(2)
  • Land Speeders -
  • Predator Anahilator TV(1),
  • Land Raider TV(1.5),
  • Drop Pods, Transport a formation of TI units
  • ThunderHawk, Transport capacity TI(6)
  • Landing Craft, Transport Capacity TI12, TV(6)

If I have understood the principle correctly, E&C is correct that this will require rewriting virtually every entry of each list, a vast undertaking. It will have an impact on the layout on the quick reference sheets, and even this approach needs further refinement to cater for Spaceships, which do not have the same space constraints as ground vehicles, and can also carry vehicles capable of planetfalling.

Colour me 'unconvinced' on this whole exercise, on the grounds that the existing approach may be a tad long-winded but it does work, while this alternative is arguably at least as long-winded and clunky IMHO.

Author:  DaR [ Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Transport Capacities - Terminology?

Maybe I'm missing something, but the current tournament pack for all approved lists seem to be pretty close to minimal. "Transport two infantry units except those with Jump Packs or Mounted" or similar entries appear in almost every list. The exceptions that need to exist do. The biggest remaining source of clarification are Dreads, Attack Bikes, and similar units which are LV and thus may or may not be transportable on any given transport (often in the context of X infantry (also including these LV) and Y Vehicles (except those LV).

None of the existing approved lists had the classic "may carry 20 of Tactical, Devastator, Assault, Scout..." style paragraphs anymore.

I admit I haven't looked at every developmental or experimental list, but a random sampling of the ones I've got downloaded right now are about 50/50 on having old-style explicit types where not necessary versus the more modern style.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group