If it is better then make it more expensive. Yes it is that easy.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I'm of the opinion that the Epic-UK version looks a bit over-costed. I may not be the only one that thinks so either - of the 10 Black Templars lists used in Epic-UK tournaments none of them chose to take THTs.

The Epic-UK version has 4 twin-linked bolters per aircraft, split between the left and the right fire arcs. The version in the Net-EA lists has half as many shots but with an all-round fire arc. Consequently it's not unreasonable for it to cost less.

I think I probably will start testing THTs at 275 for 2 or 375 for 3. There would be no point in having the option for a single one as the Net-EA Black Templars list has no formations that can be carried by a single transporter (Scouts are an upgrade to Tacticals with BTs and BT in the current 40k BT codex they have no Devestators in their entire chapter so it's odd they were included in the Epic-UK list).

...They occasionally give it missiles to clear landing zones.

Yeah, that actually kinda DOES sound like a vehicle that could be used for air assaults.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

[Gets big stirring tool out . . ]

The descriptions provided by Hena suggest a function that is outside the E:A principles of coherency for battlefield formations.

Basically it sounds like the Marines use Drop pods and THawk gunships loaded with troops to assault and secure the Landing Zone, and only use the THawk Transports to bring in the support vehicles for those formations after the initial battle is over. In this respect the Transports are not operating in a "hot" LZ in the same fashion as the Landing Craft, but rather to retrieve and replace damaged vehicles much like WWII tank transporters.

If this is true - and bear in mind I am a "fluffy-phobe" - then it is a completely different role that would require special rules to cover the conditions under which vehicles could be ferried to formations that have landed without them, and possibly even additional costs for 'spare' vehicles to replace those lost in combat.

Both concepts are quite appealing, and seem to match the Marines image, but they do stray outside the E:A principles, and raise questions for similar abilities in other races; the thin end of a sizeable wedge (but house-rules and campaigns are quite another matter . . . )

So a shorter version of what I said - LoL

However, the initial act of landing a formation on the battlefield separated from its vehicles would cause them to be 'destroyed' under the coherency rules. Equally the rules do not allow players to add vehicles mid-game nor do they allow formations to combine (both of which seem eminently reasonable under the appropriate conditions).

To some extent, the SM transport rule *does* simulate this by allowing the player to choose whether the troops arrive with or without transport, and thus what style of deployment is being represented - they just don't allow you to simulate the act of supplying the vehicles at a different point in time from dropping the troops in - - -
- - - - - at the moment (without some changes or special ruling) .

= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ok, if we are to represent this, how about the following thoughts.

THT and LC may transport empty vehicles and upgrades to SM formations provided

1. That the vehicles have been paid for as part of the cost of the formation.
2. That the air transport lands and disembarks the vehicles into coherency with the intended formation.
3. That THT *only* transports vehicles, not the associated troops

Basically this would allow a little more scope for Marines to land vehicles and then use the additional mobility to capture objectives later in the game.

However I suspect this will cause more problems than it solves, and as such should probably only be a "house-rule".

Wouldn't a dedicated lander (hot LZ or not) simply have no AP/AT and instead potentially a good / Decent FF and only AA shots then? Just seems easier to do than all these special rules and non-standard statistics debate or gaming armor values to make it "work" the way you want.

Doing that would be reinforcing the fact that this is an armored lander used to get tanks into forward battle position and not to be a gunship but does reflect that it has some defensive capabilities for AA. Also note that the Planet Strike rules for Deep Striking Land Raiders is basically that there is a THawk dropping that tank into battle. It just doesn't require a 250GBP model to play (an admittedly rare case of restraint for GW )

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Agree with Jimmy, if you don't want it to shoot, simply giving the bolters AA only and keeping the FF attacks (for clearing a hot LZ) seems to be the easiest way.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Occasionally a Thunderhawk Transporter drops a Land Raider or two Rhinos just a few feet in front of a Battle Titan....at least in Apocalypse games

Nut actually the AA and FF only idea has merit.

Defensive Twin Heavy Bolters 4 x 15cm AA4+

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Jimmy's idea makes lots of sense.

Hena


Yeah, having only a bunch of heavy bolters will probably take care of that just fine.

They drop things in safe landing zones because dropping things under fire isn't healthy. Doesn't mean they can't (as the whole "rockets" thing suggests).

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

I don't see any call for this? I think you may be misunderstanding Ginger and thinking THTs don't carry infantry? (they do, just not internally but inside the vehicles they carry). With the exception of a Land Raider formation a THT formation can deploy any SM formation, plus upgrades, ready to go when they land e.g. a Tactical formation aboard their Rhinos* and a Hunter can be deployed by 2 THTs. *Strictly speaking the Epic WE transport rules disallows transporting transport vehicles with troops inside, the method the THT uses, but the way the Epic THT unit is written avoids the issue by stating it transports the allowed number of vehicles “plus any infantry that can be carried inside them”.

It's a dedicated transport and logistical support aircraft, transporting vehicles and supplies down and back from the planet and reclaiming Drop Pods after a successful battle. Unlike the fighty SM units most of it's work would take place before and after an epic battle (the many vehicles a SM player has on at the start would mainly have been deployed by THT).

That's not to say it doesn't have a place in Epic, just that the more logistical side of it's duties is not something we would cover in Epic. The passage I quoted above from the Imperial Armour book before last describes THT as being used to deploy and redeploy vehicles around hot warzones and comments their armour and armament is key to them doing this. Flicking through the recent Imperial Armour books there are 4 depictions of THTs active in hot drop zones, deploying vehicles that are firing at their enemy and coming under fire themselves.

Thanks, that's useful information to know.


Thanks a lot for this suggestion! Dropping the ranged attack is a simple fix that would prevent the THT from being used offensively. I think I'm going to adopt it. In fact I'm probably going to go further and drop the FF to 6+ also to focus their role on transport and to discourage players from launching assaults with empty THTs.


I agree they should not be being used to strafe the enemy. Air assaulting with vehicles is appropriate IMO, representing the THTs drawing fire while they deploy their vehicles into a good position. Ground attacks by empty THTs are not appropriate but are possible in both the BT and SoI lists.

Adopting no ranged attack and FF6+ avoids any need for a special rule, makes the THT impossible to strafe with and offensively poor in an assault, making it appropriate to the background by reducing and removing the units offensive capabilities rather than making it considerably less tough than it should be (requiring an average of 4.125 hits to kill rather than 7.333). The armour to enable it to get the vehicles safely into position is the important bit of the two as the unit is meant to be transport focussed and not offensive.

I ran some numbers to do a comparison. Taking a hypothetical air assault by 3 empty THTs on a small enemy formation they might have a chance against, say 4 Black Legion Chaos Predators and assume all models are placed in range. 3 Scions THT would on average kill 1.33 Chaos Predators with their FF4+ and would take on average (taking into account the possible critical) 1.04 points of damage in return, giving a +1.29 advantage to the SoI THTs due to outnumbering, but still overall being risky as if they lose as landed aircraft they auto-die. 3 BT THT with 4+ Reinforced and FF 6+ in the situation would on average kill 0.5 Chaos Predator and would on average take 0.58 damage (taking into account criticals) in return, winning the combat by on average of 0.92 due to outnumbering. Situations will vary but in this situation at least the BT player would be less likely to want to air assault with the THT despite their 4+ armour.

I now plan to go with:
Thunderhawk Transporter Armour 4+ Reinforced CC6+ FF6+
Heavy Bolter Array 2 x 15cm AA5+
Testing to start at 250 for 2 and 350 for 3 initially with the reducing firepower.