Well the AP thread took off and sidetracked into Charge. I started a Charge thread and now it is sidetracking into Tank Drop. So I says to me "Let's just start a Tank Drop thread and see what happens.".
I think most if not all the problems could be handled with a single line in the FAQ.

"Vehicles may not fire in the same turn they are unloaded from a transport."

What do you think of that solution for Tank Drop?
I think it is very simple and does not hamper any of the other things that transports are good for.

Lets draft it into the rules today, release the FAQ tomorrow, and call it a done deal. You can still haul your tanks around and set them up into a firing position. Only instead of being able to whallop on your target the same turn, you force your opponent's hand. Push to get away or get into minimum range, or take some nasty damage.

Let me say that I too want to tone down tank drop...but I don't want to nerf it totaly either.

Along with you idea I give you two more.

1) Any vehicle unloaded from a tranpost comes out with a token. Any action taken results in a push.

2) Vehicles are actually towed and hence are not "removed from the game" when transported and are therefore target-able by your opponent. The front arc of the tank (facing forward) must be in contact with the rear arc of the transport at all times and only armor SE's, on towed vehicles, are considerd on.

Just to add some more choices.

I am of the mindset that tankdrop is not a terribly huge problem. Using towed arty (if Dan43's rules were to come into effect) would essentially be gifting points to the enemy, even when running them with transports. Large tanks would become even less viable.

Seriously guys, when someone drops a Schmitt out of that Maxim that's been on the board all game, are you ever really surprised? You know it's there from turn one. It's a huge liability and it is easily countered.

I vote for no change in tankdrop.

I have (outside of transporting arty) never used TD in an offensive manner, so I don't want to hear any accusations of my being a "cheese-monger."

This isnt the nature of the problem. The nature of the problem is that because we know it is possible (and sometimes likely, depending on the quality of local players) someone will field tankdrop, we dont dare field any mech that cant outrange Maxim:Schmitt via charging (although the DF Garrot makes tankdrop chargeproof with no significant drawback). Any combo that adds 1-3 tanks to the game in exchange for a large percentage of mechs is bad because it makes the gene pool smaller.


Tankdrop is obviously a problem. Has been since FFE.

Fixing tankdrop is easy.

The question is, why has Wizkids not only failed to fix it, but opted instead to make it MORE effective?

Both opinions.

A fact is that tankdrop is apparent from the moment one sees one's opponent's army. If a player cannot deal with that concept, I have no pity for them.

Why doesn't everyone become up in arms about TAC drop? It's arguably much more effective for fewer points and risk.

How, pray tell, is TD MORE effective now than before?

What would be the effect of the transport's speed being reduced to whichever of the two units had the slower speed during the time the transport was carrying/towing the other vehicle (unless the other vehicle had "towed" in the name and/or has 0 movement speed)?

I like to put in a few things I like:

1. Transports may tow only vehicles that are salvaged or have a movement of zero.

2. The vehicle is towed behind the transport and is a viable target.

You are again missing the point. It can be dealt with, but doing so means a significant portion of mechs are not playable.

Only does 3 damage, cant move once it is dropped, and more logically consistent.

Did you even read my post?

One of the major weaknesses of old Maxim tankdrop was that some units can outrange it via a charge. New flying tankdrop cannot be charged if the VTOL is at cruising altitude. Yes, I know it can be targetted by AA guns. AA vulnerability in exchange for charge invulnerability is not an even tradeoff.

yes your right it is not even tradeoff... as aa guns don't need to go right next to it middle of your other units to blast the vtol to pieces like a charging mech would.

That seems fine to me (fixes most everything, in fact), but I have a couple of questions:

1) I suppose the towed vehicle cannot attack while it's being towed, correct? (just checking :) )

2) Do transported vehicles lose tokens they already have while being towed? That's my main problem with it right now.

I can't believe just putting things in transports removes the stupid token - this is why tank-drop is messed-up.

Personally, I don't see major problems with TankDrop.

If you restricted the vehicle from firing on the round that it is disembarked, one of several things would happen:

1) Target would run away.
2) Target would close in order to get within the minimum range (for most powerhouse tanks like the Marksman and Schmitt tanks).
3) Target (if it is a mech) would fire or charge the tank and disable it.

TankDrop, if you think about it, relies on the following conditions to be effective:

1) Target must be within range of the firing tank after it is dropped.
2) Player owning the target is not aware of the significance of the tankdrop potential.
3) Player owning the transport must make sure that the transport is not based, grappled, stopped from breaking away from its attackers. If the transport is charged (sorry, but I have to mention 'charge' in this fashion), the transport COULD be salvaged or destroyed, which would result in damage to the tank inside the transport.

With infantry that can grapple, coupled with the increase in army totals to 450, infantry like Fa Shih that have grapple can now slow down Hovering transports to the point where their attempts to disembark could be thwarted if done correctly (i.e. if the Fa Shih grapples from rear-arc with supporting troops, there would be nowhere to drop a tank.

I've used tankdrop in the past, but I've never been satisfied that it is a devastating tactic. When Infiltration for vehicles was still in force, the combo of the SW J37 Transport and a DF DI Schmitt tank was a scary thought for anyone facing it...but with the end of double movement infiltration for all but Infantry, that scare has been reduced to a concern.

I'm not convinced that Tankdrop NEEDS to be changed, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider it in the future should it become evident that the tactic has become broken...such as if there is a transport that can move farther, or a heavy tank that can fire further than 14".

Troy Light

A significant portion of 'Mechs aren't "playable" even if this was dropped simply because of their designs!

"Only" does 3 AP damage for less than 60 points? How about 9 AP damage if they all take individual shots? What does anything in the game have to do with logic?

....and in regard to logic, you're telling me that it takes less time to set up 3 huge cannon emplacements than it does to unhitch a trailer?

I always do.

I would disagree. It's still vulnerable to arty and dies much more quickly than any Maxim ever did. Putting an AA gun in an army is smart playing to begin with. If I were to ever run a Garrot, it would NEVER leave the ground. The defense is truly abysmal.

This is a game of combined arms. Already WizKids has, with the 450/3 and arty changes, made 'Mechs dominant over other unit types, point per point. I want this game to remain combined arms. If it becomes Battletech in clicky form, guess what I am going to be dropping (it's not going to be BT)?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since it is obvious I'm not going to convince you. I would like to add that I am strongly opposed to the idea of a mech-only game. Combined arms is good, it is what I want. But combined arms in this universe means mechs need to be viable. If eliminating tankdrop makes even a FEW mechs more viable, it is worth the exchange.

As for AA being more effective than charging, that doesnt mesh at all with what I've seen. In the months since VTOLs and AA came out, I've seen exactly 3 AA shots at VTOLs. And in all of those 3 instances the shot was made because the VTOL player knew the odds were unlikely on the shot. Too easy to outmaneuver, outgun, or neutralize AA from what I've seen. Maybe the new units will change that, and I would heartily approve.

As a player, you should familiarize yourself with the units and strategies available and formulate counterstrategies accordingly. Charging a Maxim is not the only way to counter tankdrop, contrary to Warflail. It's the most direct route, yes. But it's not the only.

Assuming you as a player tier your forces properly, a tankdropped Schmitt should only get off one shot. A single shot from a 94-point tank, even for 5 Armor Piercing, is not a great use of points. Once the Schmitt is dropped, you base it with infantry, it's done.

The problem with the "tankdrop is broken" line of thought is that you feel beating tankdrop means that it never gets a shot off. Not realistic. Any decent tankdrop army will ensure that its charge gets off at least one shot. You have to figure out the best way to counter it. Isn't that the joy of the game? Isn't the possibility of facing hard-to-beat tactics and counterstrategizing part of the fun?

Oh, right. I forgot. Winning is the only fun part about the game. Pssh. What was I thinking?