We're unlikely to get new errata and the rules are clear (errata normally clears up unclear rules not changes them). There are also planetfalling units of Land Speeders in the Raven Guard list and each unit scatters separately there, but this is the way the list is meant to work apparently. They can easily move back into coherency when they activate should they be out though, which isn't the case with immobile landed THTs.

The Epic-UK THTs are overpriced but personally I think 2 THT for 250 or 3 for 350 is a good option myself.

I'd like to apply reason on this and say I think given that they're piloted vehicles they could come down in coherency (and the rules were largely written for the Drop Pod IMO) but TBH, short of a special ruling (perhaps in a data sheet both THTs count as a single Landing Craft for Planetfall purposes etc) for the THTs I can't see this going away because it seems the rules are set in stone (for good or bad) and there seems a lack of drive to adjust the rules, and for a single unit type that's a lot of effort as well.

If we can't agree on a special rule for them being inserted, then the THT player may just have to wear the problem and hope for the best, or just fly them in dodging flak etc. It's not the best option in a drop list of course and I would prefer to see the issue rectified.

no other piloted vehicles that planetfall can adjust their course. even self planetfalling valkyries have to live with the scatter, and those vehicles are all clearly more manueverable in descent (since, unlike aircraft, upon completing a planetfall, they're not immobile)

maybe just accept that planetfalling is not what thunderhawk transporters are for.
Honestly, the transporter is the most "kitchen sink"ish model i've come across in the marine lists lately, and I don't see why it needs to exist at all. It fills no niche that is not already filled better by standard units, and it is already a needlessly complex rule clusterhug by being a multi-warengine-transport aircraft formation. If this was in any list other than a marine one, people would be clamouring to abstract it out.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Good to see you chipping in Hena, I was hoping you'd comment what you'd done with yours.

This surprises me, particularly given your list has weaker statted Thunderhawk Transporter than other lists, with underarmoured 5+ reinforced. Flying on makes sense with Thunderhawks where you're best off air assaulting, but with THTs Planetfalling looks potentially better to me because the formation you drop off, say Predators, can sustain fire for greater effect and if you're lucky with where it lands possibly get crossfire to their THTs.

For starters I didn't say they can adjust their course. They would just come down in 5cm coherency.... It's not a massive jump from a single LC. You're also neglecting to mention Valks have the Scout coherency ability.


Well the Scions list might need a cheaper transporter to keep the list balance, but, I think you could look at a number of lists in the game using this particular personal view and draw the same parallel....


Excepting the cost issue vs an army's balance of unit function (i.e Scions as mentioned above), this is probably your best argument so far...


... And then you go and say this.

BTW, don't get me wrong here I'm not angling in a specific way to change these, just exploring points of view.

That's how we played it yes as that's how Neal said to do it when I was playtesting planetfalling Speeders in the RG. It's all done linearly, however.

So THawk one comes down, you move it 15cm and scatter it 2d6cm.
THawk two would come down next, I'd probably use the 15cm move to put it right on top of the other, and scatter it 2d6cm.
THawk three I'd but right between the two with the 15cm move and then scatter it the 2d6cm.

The chances of one of them being outside of 10cm (b/c they're 2DC WEs) of the others is pretty low.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

them being able to planetfall into a tighter or more controlled formation would, in the case of aircraft, be due to them being able to adjust their course. there's no reason why they would be able to land in closer formation and land speeders could not.



I again, don't see any instance when i would want transporters instead of a lander, unless i was doing shennanigans like a multi barge FF sniping assaults (which is a whole different can of worms that should be disallowed but thats another arguement)
I don't think that scions (and definitely not templars) have any army balance function for the transporter. they're not replacing either of the other existing units, so both lists already have air capable transports for their various needs



all i'm saying is that marine lists more than any other faction, are rife with "forgeworld put out a new variant of a vehicle we already have that functions in a marginally different way so lets add it to list X" style thinking. orks get all their cool battlewagon/gunwagon variants abstracted down to 3 types, but marines seem to get, what are we up to now, 7 different types of land raider spread across the various lists?

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

We're obviously coming at it from different perspectives but I don't get your dislike of them. In 40k and the background Thunderhawk Transporters are a standard SM unit used by all chapters. A Landing Craft is good for deploying 3-4 formations at once in an area at great cost, while smaller THT(s) can deploy a single formation at a lesser overall cost. Both have their uses and roles and regardless of your dislike of them they exist. To my eyes the kitchen sink moniker applies a lot more aptly to the Landing Craft than the THT too. Many of us have a number of the models and want to use them in our battles anyway. There being Epic THTs isn't up for debate, they have existed in epic lists for 5-6 years.

Nope. Planetfalling down to the planet to deploying their cargo safely is a key part of how SM flyers can operate generally. Planetfalling is more key to a Thunderhawk Transporter than a Landing Craft since the Landing Craft is twice as tough and a bit more able to risk AA.

We're not talking about having them adjust their course as such (their landing target would drift as normal), just stay in formation with each other as they fall. We're doing it to fix the auto-die if out of formation glitch though not for it's own sake.

SM Drop Pods land in a cluster when launched from orbit (the one in the middle is just a marker in game terms but each formation drop actually consists of around 3-5 Drop Pods), similar tech could be used in THT drops to keep them near to each other. Their background does describe them as being “amongst the most advanced and technologically sophisticated machines in use by the Imperium...packed with advanced targeting, sensory, communication, avionics, and navigational equipment”.

Good to see you exploring fixing the issue Dobbsy. Saying 'treat the formation as one war engine for planetfalling' is unclear as to exactly how it would work in practice and also problematic (if there's just a single drop target and they all scatter the same then all THTs would land on top of each other and they must be moved to the nearest allowed area of the opponents choice as per the wording of the planetfall rule).

I don't think scattering one and then the SM player placing the other 1-3 in 5cm is the quite the best approach either. If they land near to an enemy then with the size of the models there is more potential to place one(s) angling off at just the right angles to get crossfire to the THTs with the deployed units which would then sustain fire. Neither always advantaging the SM player or the enemy about the exact positioning is ideal or necessary.

It's a lot better IMO to stick with the first part of the planetfalling rules which clearly state specifying plotting drop coordinates for each unit separately. The THT's notes can then state “When planetfalling plot each unit separately but scatter the formation the same direction and amount.”

Dave's solution seems the most practical. Your chance of losing the second Thunderhawk is about 8%. Less than that, actually, since coherency is measured from the edge of the unit, not the middle. Probably closer to 2% or 3%.

If you want to avoid the risk of scattering completely, use a Landing Craft or fly on. Dropping things from orbit isn't an exact science.

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

FWIW, I believe the wording in Planetfall is unchanged from the time where each unit in a Marine formation was assumed to be transported in it's own drop pod and scattered separately. Then the planetfall wording on the Drop Pod definition was changed to be more workable, allowing the marines to maintain their formation coherency.

If we are uncomfortable with auto-killing the transports (like assault gliders in WWII), then perhaps we should follow the precedence set by the Drop pods and add more appropriate planetfalling wording to the affected WE transport units to allow them to move the minimum amount needed to remain in coherency when they scatter. Though I do also like Dave's suggestion which also carries a slight chance of auto-kill.

It was just a brainstorm. It wasn't a hard and fast position on a rule.

I'm also feeling like Dave's is the easiest method of deployment with this issue.