Let me assume you are correct so that I can understand it from your perspective.
I think your argument is that the restriction in question is "only being able to target those units in engagement range" is what would then be applied to the passengers (but correct me if I'm misunderstanding your point)
I think you're saying that would therefore allow the units in the transport to fire non-pistol weapons at their enemies. (but again, if I am misunderstanding you do correct me).
If that is the case, what makes you think the restriction for infantry to only be able to shoot with pistol weapons within engagement range is removed by them being in the transport? I think that may be what I'm missing in the point you're making.
The rule says that the restrictions or modifiers also apply to the passengers. It doesn't say that it replaces their existing modifiers and restrictions.
Rodi Sikni Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 136 Join date : 2017-12-09
Subject: Re: 40k 9th Editon Sun Jul 12 2020, 16:14
This is my little contribution to this discussion.
The 9th rule book sais this: "Units cannot do anything, or be affected in any way, while they are embarked within a Transport." Units embarked are removed from the battlefiled.
Open topped rule sais this: "Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers"
Big guns never tire says: "A Vehicle or Monster model can make attacks with ranged weapons even when its unit is within Engagement Range of enemy units, but it can only make such attacks against enemy units that it is within Engagement Range of."
So, in the shooting phase you can make the unit attack, but you can only shoot to the unit that it is within engagement. But the problem is that the unit never is going to have enemy units in it's engagment range because it has been removed from battlefield, the one who has the unit in engagement range is the vehicle, not the embarked unit.
I wish I never answered in this topic. When I started to write I was full convinced that the unit could shoot to the unit in engagement range with the vehicle xD
If that is the case, what makes you think the restriction for infantry to only be able to shoot with pistol weapons within engagement range is removed by them being in the transport? I think that may be what I'm missing in the point you're making.
The rule says that the restrictions or modifiers also apply to the passengers. It doesn't say that it replaces their existing modifiers and restrictions.
Because...
Rodi Sikni wrote:
The 9th rule book sais this: "Units cannot do anything, or be affected in any way, while they are embarked within a Transport." Units embarked are removed from the battlefiled.
The passengers are not restricted to using only pistols because they are not in engagement range, The transport is. In 8th ed that meant they and the transport were restricted to pistols. That is not the case in 9th, because of Big Guns Never Tire.
FWIIW, you could also argue that the wording on Open Topped also grants your transport the ability to fire after a Fall Back move. Again, aged rules in an edition change.
Rodi Sikni wrote:
So, in the shooting phase you can make the unit attack, but you can only shoot to the unit that it is within engagement. But the problem is that the unit never is going to have enemy units in it's engagment range because it has been removed from battlefield, the one who has the unit in engagement range is the vehicle, not the embarked unit.
They can shoot because the transport is within 1 inch. Open Topped says all measurements are taken from the transport. Because the transport is within 1 inch it gets to shoot at models within engagement range by way of Big Guns Never Tire, and so do the passengers by way of Open Topped.
Jeez, with all the naysayers on here, you'd think they made Drukhari unplayable.
Personally, I don't think the points are too bad - sure, we took a few hits (Voidravens are fairly dead now imo), but I'm optimistic that other changes to this edition will benefit us. I don't see these changes as a bad thing - on the contrary, it's just another challenge we have to face in making our armies as good as they can be.
So everything important went up in points. Guess what - that happened to EVERY OTHER FACTION! We are not being singled out in any way - every army is going through this!
So why don't we quit with the negativity - we have enough of that in the world as it is - and start looking at the positives, few as they may be. Moaning about anything and everything will not get anyone anywhere.
Its interesting what happened, and I', wondering whether increases will also translate to effectiveness. +20 for a Voidraven (+30, but Missiles are also -10 now) might not be too baad given new Aircraft rules. I'll need to see actual play before I can tell on that. It looks like overall increases across the board (pun) for most armies, so it might not be all too bad. I'm just reluctant to try Alliance of Agony, cause that looks useful now but I've always played pure Kabalite.
Good to see that the Succubus went up significantly in cost.
I'd hate to see a garbage model be allowed to maintain the only trait that made it remotely worthwhile (cheapness/efficiency).
I'm assuming that they wanted to make most weapons cost multiples of '5', but it's still depressing to see already-crap weapons increase in cost, even if it's only by a few points. Who was taking Scissorhands even at 8pts? Well, I'm sure they'll be even more attractive at 10pts! On the other end of the spectrum we have the Electrocorrosive whip - which now costs exactly the same number of points as the Agoniser, in spite of outclassing it in every way.
The only nice thing I've seen thus far is that Blast Pistols are down to 5pts. Maybe they'll finally see play?
harlokin Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 142 Join date : 2013-07-24 Location : London
venoms (stock) are 10 points higher than before, and Raiders (stock) are 10 points higher as well. reaver jetbikes, unit of 4 with a heat lance are 14 points higher, 5 stock hellions are 15 points higher, beastmasters are 15 higher with agonizer.... blast pistols are a little nice but needed gift... if they only had a range better than 6 freaking inches!
harlokin Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 142 Join date : 2013-07-24 Location : London
venoms (stock) are 10 points higher than before, and Raiders (stock) are 10 points higher as well. reaver jetbikes, unit of 4 with a heat lance are 14 points higher, 5 stock hellions are 15 points higher, beastmasters are 15 higher with agonizer.... blast pistols are a little nice but needed gift... if they only had a range better than 6 freaking inches!
I thought that Venoms are now 60, down from 65?
Well, Bast Pistols technically have a range of 7 inches....if you measure from the hull of a Venom.
Base cost of a Venom was 55 at the end of 8th, not including weapons.
I'm pretty saddened by the changes here, and my initial reaction is that our lists are going to need to skew very strongly towards Covens to keep up with other factions. That was already a trend but this just exacerbates it.
This whole points disaster just shows again that the GW rules team can't handle numbers to save their lives. Venomblade up 3 pts just to be at a number divisible by 5, and therefore it is equal to the much superior huskblade, makes sense? To the rules team obviously yes. I wonder is it really that hard to get some good, objective people on the team to make reasonable balance changes, and maybe, just maybe a health game enviroment balancewise?
megatrons2nd likes this post
harlokin Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 142 Join date : 2013-07-24 Location : London
Base cost of a Venom was 55 at the end of 8th, not including weapons.
I'm pretty saddened by the changes here, and my initial reaction is that our lists are going to need to skew very strongly towards Covens to keep up with other factions. That was already a trend but this just exacerbates it.
Hmmm, my Battlescribe may be playingup...
I was leaning toward Coven too, but their points hikes are pretty painful too
Base cost of a Venom was 55 at the end of 8th, not including weapons.
I'm pretty saddened by the changes here, and my initial reaction is that our lists are going to need to skew very strongly towards Covens to keep up with other factions. That was already a trend but this just exacerbates it.
Hmmm, my Battlescribe may be playingup...
Battlescribe includes mandatory weapon values automatically in points costs, so it lists a Venom as 65 because it's 55 (vehicle) + 10 (splinter cannon). It'll show them as 75 in 9th.
The points cost changes feel very much like the sweeping and very basic set up of the 8th Ed Index, with the intention to balance points individually codex by codex. It seems that we might be coming out less well in said rebalance, but we have survived worse and will eventually get our codex.
I would point out that technically this is better than the old process of having to wait codex to codex with no points amendments between. It's not great, but it is what we have, and I assume many other factions are going to be in equally difficult positions.
Crazy_Ivan Wych
Posts : 515 Join date : 2012-04-10 Location : Wellingborough
From reading the points increase of all the armies it looks like everyone got kicked pretty badly, sometimes in different areas, it will take a few games at the new points to see how it's really affected everyone. We will all just end up writing slightly different lists and adjusting, same as we have with every new edition. I do agree that there has been little thought from GW though, has anyone seen any of the play testers comment on the increases? surely they must have said something if they were that bad.
Subject: Re: 40k 9th Editon 
Fri Jul 10 2020, 16:47
