dptdexys wrote:
Ginger wrote:
Paraphrasing 3.1.3, it says that the transported troops and the (independent) WE are considered to be a single formation until the end the turn in which the troops disembark (to assault / shoot with the WE).
here is the actual rule from 3.1.3
3.1.3 wrote:
In both cases, the war engine and the transported units are treated as a single formation until the shooting attack or assault has been resolved. The war engine and the formation that disembarked are treated as being separate formations once the war engine has completely resolved its action
so it does not say until the end of the turn
Quote:
If so, it will take the combined DC + current formation size in BMs to break the ‘single formation’, no?
As it is not so then No, it will not take combined DC + the formation in BMs to break as it is clearly not a "single formation" when playing using the rule as it is actually written.
Ok, first, thanks for quoting the actual text, and with apologies for the length of the reply.
This latest version of E:A has been played with WE transports (of both types) for in excess of twenty years. I started playing over 10 years ago, and my first series of discussions with Neal Hunt, 'Sotec' and Greg (the original E:A rules committee) revolved around the use of Thunderhawks and how they might be used to transport formations around the table. (At the time my id was 'Biggles', owing to my interest in WWI aviation
).
My recollection of the discussions, was that this same question arose because the wording of 3.1.3 when an 'independent' WE transport carried a separate formation, was not totally sufficient to cover all cases. Neal Hunt ruled that the two were treated as a single formation until the onboard formation disembarked, and
this has been the accepted practice ever since.
Other discussions at the time included whether the onboard formation could use any special abilities during the WE action, the difference between WE transports on-table and off-table, whether an off-table WE could use character special abilities during its action test etc.
However, Neal's ruling caused problems because, when off-table the onboard formation was subsequently required to be separate (I think because onboard leaders being used to remove BMs made air assaults too reliable), but that in turn removed the SC reroll ability.
Sadly, these threads were lost with the old forums, so cannot be presented here. However, some of the intent can be inferred from the original FAQ on special abilities, which specifically refers to characters in "a Transport" (generic) and an onboard formation that is off-table in an air-transport.
Hence the following
from here:Quote:
Q: Can units in a Transport use their special abilities (e.g. Ork Nobz in a Transport use their Leader ability to remove Blast Markers?)
A: Yes. Additionally, Characters or units with Special Abilities in broken formations can also use their abilities. The only time a Special Ability can not be used is when the unit or Character in question is offboard, either in Reserve or in a Spacecraft or Transport waiting to be deployed.
Q: If a formation is offboard (awaiting teleport, in a transport aircraft, etc.) can any special abilities of units in that formation be used?
A: No. Special abilities of offboard units may not be used.
A specific exception is made for abilities used to affect the activation of the formation they are in. For example, an Eldar formation with a Farseer is held offboard in reserve and the Eldar player retains the initiative to activate this formation. Even though the formation is offboard the Eldar player can use the Farsight ability of the Farseer in that formation to negate the penalty for retaining the initiative. Similarly, a Space Marine Supreme Commander may use the Supreme Commander ability to re-roll the command check to activate the formation they are in if it was offboard but could not be used to apply that same re-roll to a formation that was onboard or to another offboard formation
In the intervening years, as far as I am aware we have always followed that accepted practice and played WE transports and the troops they carry as a single formation, and there have been many tens, even hundreds of tournaments in the UK and elsewhere and possibly thousands of games, during which time I am unaware of any complaints or even adverse comments on this situation, either from other players or on this forum (and I have been a reasonably active member, as you are aware).
- Until now.
dptdexys wrote:
THIS IS NOT A RULES CHANGE IT IS TRYING TO CLARIFY THE RULE SO EVERYONE PLAYS IT THE SAME WAY. PLAYERS COUNTING TROOPS MOUNTED ON BOARD AN INDEPENDENT WAR ENGINE TRANSPORT ARE CHANGING THE RULES TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE
I don't know how this discussion came about since I have not been able to get to any UK tournaments due to ongoing health issues and other reasons, but since the game has been played for so long without complaint about 'independent' WE transports and onboard troops being counted as a single formation, with the greatest respect it actually feels like
this revised definition of an independent WE is being pushed through to gain an advantage.
-
And I insist it is a revised definition -
Having said this, as I said before, the timing of this proposal with the THawk Spam list is too much of a coincidence, despite protests to the contrary.
I can also understand possible reasons why this course of action is being proposed;
- this revised rules definition makes it easier to suppress and break air transports (THawks), thus significantly nerfing the problematic list without actually making any changes to the codex marine list. This change might possibly be sufficient to break the 3k version - the 4K version would be an interesting challenge
However, I insist that the revised definition also causes more problems than it solves because it overrides previously accepted practice whilst potentially raising confusion. In short, it feels to me that it actually introduces gameyness rather than removing it. Worse, it also affects many lists other than the marines, which is obviously very undesirable given the apparent aim to counteract the specific effect of the THawk spam list.
While I applaud the aim of trying to avoid changing the codex marine list, in this case I think that this approach is misguided, both because of the impact on the rules and the game, and also because ultimately I believe the THawk spam list is more detrimental to the game as a whole than this misguided revision.
Recent tournaments have tended towards a form of "scissors, paper, stone", where particular armies are brilliant against some races and crap against others. Yes, skill does play a huge part in the game, ( along with the luck of the dice, or absence in my case
) but increasingly the army match-up is overriding these elements. Witness Richard-L s comments about Necrons and others races facing this THawk list.
My point is that certain lists should be banned or nerfed to avoid skewing the tournament meta, which is broadly agreed to be balanced in the UK. However, since the codex marine list is the archytipal core list, we can neither ban it nor make significant changes to it. So the next best thing is to ban this particular manifestation in some way,
see my post here :-