I don't think you can word such a rule for extraction missions as well.
How about as its a light transport saying each THT must start the game at least part loaded, leaving buying transports for hot extractions to landing craft or thawks.
Of course I don't think a list should have both formations of 3 and Landing craft in it. Straight formation of 1 costed at x. Then a formation of 2 costed at x (since it seems from peoples reports there is not a linear cost for them). Maybe 200 for 1, 300 for 2, with people remembering they are for mobility not launching assaults

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I don't think you can word such a rule for extraction missions as well.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

But when you land you are sucked into the WE to touch you and these things have a coherency of 10cm. Are you saying you may have to take extra flak fire and similar and try and manoever both to touch even amount of units? What if you make a mistake when placing the units on the table, you undo the move and try again? Or just say the marines refuse to board?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Uh, you fudge it.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Actually I'm sure just like real wargamers with the shells bursting around them the marines would get the codex out and argue about the sacred advice that they must always spread themselves over the THT's and so will take an additional turn motoring over to the other one and boarding in an orderly fashion

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

What about some varient of the SM transport rule? Just say they can't buy more transporters than they need transport slots.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

So no buying empty formations for extraction missions?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Of transporters? Best not. Marines dropped by transporters are less in need of extraction than those dropped by normal thunderhawks, since they are much more manouverable once on the ground.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Umm, I have been thinking that we ought to treat THT as a form of transport upgrade for a single formation. That way it has to start with at least that formation on board. The trouble is that if you fail to take vehicles, you end up with a lot of spare slots (and a cheap shield) - so I then wondered whether we should stipulate that the THT must be bought as an upgrade to a formation with vehicles (which is the intention after all).

To some extent this whole exercise is aimed at restricting abuse, and as has been pointed out, by extracting formations into the 'nearest' THT, you automatically get a shield for disengaging and for the following turn. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this is 'only the tip of the iceberg'.

Logically 275 points is a reasonable compromise for a 'cheap' transport formation - but there are so many ways that the 'spare' transport can be used to absorb hits that it will make this an unintentionally formidable formation to try to deter let alone destroy. For example, a formation of aircraft attack on CAP scoring 3x hits. Unless they are Nightwings with Lance, the first THT has ~1:12 chance of being destroyed (by a critical), while the other is something like 1:24. Given that ground fire can be manipulated by the attacker positioning the THTs, this makes them effectively impervious to anything but a lucky hit (which is more likely to be on the less important THT!)

The nub of the issue is that this is a formation of multiple airborne WE, and the air-game is not designed to cater for them - and I am not sure we have appropriate answers yet.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

So - and this is very radical - perhaps an answer is to make THT DC1 4+RA.

What this is saying is that the transport is tough, but much more vulnerable to AA than the normal TH. We might then reconsider the price to be 200 the pair, because this is effectively splitting a TH into two parts with the ability to carry a limited amount of Vehicles.

PS, I suspect that this may have been suggested some time ago, but I cannot find the thread or responses

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Actually that's a very interesting idea. Okay the points might not be 200 for 2 as there are other variables, but only one hit certainly makes it hammered home that its not an assault transport and gets round the extra models thing.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

DC1 WEs is getting into all kinds of edge cases, and IIRC it's been rejected for Knights and Tau aircraft in the past.

Since we're bending rules either way, why not make them simple AVs and make the formation behave as a War Engine for transport purposes (with as equal as possible distribution of units inside and other issues to be detailed later)?

Hmm, well I understand the point vytzka. An AV would be a simpler idea, but the reason for going with a DC1 WE is to reflect the fragility of the beast, while still retaining the various elements perculiar to WE in general and describing a THawk:- It can be separately targetted, Blocks LoS because of its size, and can use FF despite having enemy in B-B (mind you, I should also be FF 5+, so no great loss either way). IIRC the other candidates were rejected as being inappropriate, while IMHO it is entirely appropriate here.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt