PDA

View Full Version : Tyranid Vehicles!!!



KarlPedder
10-12-2011, 12:55
Now I'm sure that there are many folks who balk at the concept but I actually believe that it is an extremely flawed and outdated ideaology where the armies mechanics are restricted by a pointless fluff justification one that i feel is highly hypocritical (see below).

I can see no reasonable justification for why the Tyranids couldn't for instance have Malefactor transports that utilize pretty much standard vehicle transport rules. I don't see why it's so hard to reconcile them having AV values and using the damage chart mechanically and them still be biological organisms from a fluff perspective.

If you apply the same reasoning then all Necron units should be vehicles but they aren't because it would be ridiculous from a mechanical POV because if you treated their infantry as vehicle squadrons it would (A) be a massive headache making the units overly complicated and difficult to keep track of. (B) Even if you gave them an all round low AV like 8 they would still be too durable.

So for the purposes of game balance they use the infantry mechanics but apparently while the player base possesses the capacity to accept this slight incompatibility between rules and fluff for Necrons we can't do the same for Tyranids.....I mean WTF?!

Rick Blaine
10-12-2011, 14:00
You've got it completely backwards. The Tyranids are the only ones that make sense. There is no reason why tanks shouldn't just use Toughness/Wounds instead of AV.

Threeshades
10-12-2011, 14:14
You've got it completely backwards. The Tyranids are the only ones that make sense. There is no reason why tanks shouldn't just use Toughness/Wounds instead of AV.

This.

It would make more sense for vehicles to be adapted to regular damage mechanics than for tyranids to be adapted to the exception.

It's always been inconsistent especially with weapons with independent S and AP values around. A rupture cannon cuts through a landraider easier than through power armor.

KarlPedder
10-12-2011, 14:39
You've got it completely backwards. The Tyranids are the only ones that make sense. There is no reason why tanks shouldn't just use Toughness/Wounds instead of AV.

I agree on one hand but on the other find myself amazed that I have to even point out the key difference being that one requires a different approach to the rules for a single army list while the other requires changes to every single other army list in the game and changes to the core game mechanics.......

Threeshades
10-12-2011, 14:49
I agree on one hand but on the other find myself amazed that I have to even point out the key difference being that one requires a different approach to the rules for a single army list while the other requires changes to every single other army list in the game and changes to the core game mechanics.......

Yeah but we are talking lots of tedious changes to the better vs one single easy change for worse.

KarlPedder
10-12-2011, 15:16
Yeah but we are talking lots of tedious changes to the better vs one single easy change for worse.

Well having thought about it on my walk to the shop in light of the point you made concerning weapons stats I'm not sure it would be for the better.

The current set up allows for greater unit diversity in that units equipped with high S but low ap weapons allows for units that are anti-vehicle while not being especially good against heavy infantry and vice versa. Switching to a T/W/Sv set up for vehicles would negate this and the immunity to massed small arms fire. Not to mention issues such as poisoned weapons and the like.

The kind of overhaul your talking about is at least 2nd>3rd if not more so and I think saying that giving Tyranids units for vehicle rules would be for the worse is going a little too far not as good as the alternative sure your entitled to that opinion but worse than currently especially considering the nature of the existing rules set and the extreme unlikelyhood of such a massive change is taking it too far.



It's always been inconsistent especially with weapons with independent S and AP values around. A rupture cannon cuts through a landraider easier than through power armor.

Indeed this is the exact kind of flawed reasoning I'm talking about where you allow things like "OMG it can bust a tank but not a suit of armour thats so unrealistic" both reality and fluff should take a back seat to gameplay. It's why things like the inability of a unit to shoot if they are embarked on a transport that moves over 6" but they can shoot if the vehicle moved 12" if they disembark actually make sense from a gameplay perspective but is ludicrous from a realistic one.

Corvus Corone
10-12-2011, 15:16
What gets me is, a dreadnought -an armored, powered skeleton piloted by a fallen warrior- is a vehicle, while a wraithlord -an armored, powered skeleton piloted by a fallen warrior- is not.

And nemesis dreadnights/ sentinels. And so on.

KarlPedder
10-12-2011, 15:49
Unit diversity MCs are weaker than vehicles versus massed low S shooting but multi wound T6 (in many cases even T5) or EW MCs are stronger than vehicles against individual high S shooting.

Bunnahabhain
10-12-2011, 16:12
If I was rebuilding 40k from the ground up, I'd have two types of units.

Anything up to Ogryn/Tyranid warrior size. These can use standard infantry mechanics ( with modifications where appropriate) just fine. They are either at full effectiveness, or dead

Anything bigger. Uses Large Unit rules. These can take disabling damage ( i.e. losing movement, weapons, etc)

This totally abolishes the walker/M.C. division, the organic/mechanical division, etc, etc.

LonelyPath
10-12-2011, 16:33
In the earlier days of Rogue Trader, vehicles could take so much damage before they blew up or fell apart, much like the wounds system. I believe the Land Raider could take about 80 damage before it was taken out, but when you stacked multi-wound weapons like lascannons against them, that damage could soon wrack up. Of course, back then everything about vehicles was over complicated and was pretty much a game in itself in how they worked, lol.

@ Bunnahabhain - GW then replaced the vehicle "wounds" system with datasheets which had lots of locations which could be hit and take damage, it slowed the game down even more. Even in 2nd edition when they'd streamlined that system it was still to over complicated in having to mark down every effect on a vehicle, so they got rid of it for the current system we've seen from 3rd edition onwards. I think to use a system now that has something along the lines of damage effecting overall performance (beyond what we have now) would be a rather large leap backwards down the evolution of 40k.

KarlPedder
10-12-2011, 16:36
If I was rebuilding 40k from the ground up

And that's not really what the thread is about. It's about there really being no reasonable justification for the absense of units that use the vehicle rules in the Tyranid Codex. That within the context of the existing rules and even most likely come 6th ed the lack of such units is a needless restriction that seems to be more grounded in fluff and simple habit that doesn't pan out with units such as Necrons or the Dreadknight or Eldar Wraith units being constructs but still using the T/W/Sv mechanics.

And that the implementation of such a change would require little more than a different mindset when doing the next Tyranid Codex.

zerodemon
10-12-2011, 16:41
To be fair, giving vehicles T and W values instead of armour would be cack, oversimplifying the rules and removing the diversity required in your average army.

Also, making weapons great at destroying both vehicles and infantry, while illogical, would make the game, again less diverse and boring.

Gorbad Ironclaw
10-12-2011, 17:19
And that the implementation of such a change would require little more than a different mindset when doing the next Tyranid Codex.

And would add what, exactly? The whole point of Tyranids is that they are a completely organic enemy. Everything they use and have is based on creatures living in symbiosis to produce effects.

So yes, that restriction is "just" based on the fluff, but it's one of the core defining features of the 'Nids, so why change it? Especially as I don't see what it would actually add to the Codex. Is there any role that vehicles have that couldn't be filled with a creature?

Bunnahabhain
10-12-2011, 17:28
Lonlypath, I know, I've got a fair set of 2nd ed stuff on the shelf. Not as big as the virtually full set I sold off near the end of 2nd ed...

The problem with the 2nd ed one was it had a different set of damage tables for every vehicle. There is a happy medium between that and now...

I've seen and played other games with much better large target damage rules, that manage to be:

Work well on all large targets
Simple
the same for all units.

Best one I've used is very simple. You use a d12, and need a 12+ to kill the vehicle. results 1-11 do nothing to destroying weapons, stopping movement etc.
You get modifiers ( both + and - ) for things like existing damage, hitting it in the rear, etc

@ Karlpedler, if you simply scrapped the MC classification altogether, and made all existing MCs walkers, that would need little more than a change of mind set. All the rules would work perfectly well*.




* by perfectly well, I actually mean get rid of the awful contrast between walkers and MCs, and show up just how bad the vehicle rules are. The existence of both walkers and MCs is just poor game design. The background reasons are simply not enough to have two totally different mechanics in use for very similar units.

Nid players would be howling to have their unstunnable/weapon destroyable MCs back.
Without the MC category in existence, the vehicle rules could be changed to actually work rather better (still not well, without a re-boot), by having more game space in which to work

nedius
10-12-2011, 18:10
I'd rather see the MCs which are actually walkers get changed to as much.

Each type has it's advantages and disadvantages,a ll of whcih can be argued here.

What bugs me, however, is when a unit that is clearly one thing is represented as another. Wraithlords and Dreadnights are walkers. They are not living creatures, and should not be treated as such.

I would not want to see MC vehicles any more than I want to see Walker MCs.

Bunnahabhain
10-12-2011, 18:36
I would not want to see MC vehicles any more than I want to see Walker MCs.

Can I ask why?

If you removed the names, and called them 'large unit class A', and 'large Unit class B', does it make sense to have them take and respond to damage in totally different ways?

From a pure background perspective, you could happily reason that a large organic creature has thick enough armour plates, chitin whatever, that it simply ignores bolters and S4 stuff, but is vulnerable to S5 heavy bolters...i.e an AV11 vehicle.

On the other hand, it makes no sense that one large unit class can have a leg etc damaged enough to stop it walking, or firing a weapon, but the other can't.

stroller
10-12-2011, 18:57
I'm with the fluff balkers on this one. I can see that you could shoehorn the harridan into a vehicle format, since it carries gargoyles. But - if you have to shoehorn it - then it's not a good fit anyway.

I could see that you could make an argument for a carnifex as an armoured walker, but I wouln't agree.

Sorry, but I don't think this is a necessary debate.

Bunnahabhain
10-12-2011, 19:06
Well, they're already shoe-horned into the existing rules:
The Mycentic spore pod into a MC with transport capacity ( just like the Harridin you'd have some problems with, Spurker)
The Dread knight mechanical walker with human pilot into a MC
The Killa kan mechanical walker with humanoid pilot into a walker
The Triad stalker and ( the repair-ry thingy, whatd'gcallit...) mechanical constructs into MCs

Frankly, the existing rules vs fluff problems here are already so big, I can't see how just getting rid of one category make the problems any worse, and it would help with balance and gameplay no end.

LonelyPath
10-12-2011, 19:15
Lonlypath, I know, I've got a fair set of 2nd ed stuff on the shelf. Not as big as the virtually full set I sold off near the end of 2nd ed...

The problem with the 2nd ed one was it had a different set of damage tables for every vehicle. There is a happy medium between that and now...

I've seen and played other games with much better large target damage rules, that manage to be:

Work well on all large targets
Simple
the same for all units.

Best one I've used is very simple. You use a d12, and need a 12+ to kill the vehicle. results 1-11 do nothing to destroying weapons, stopping movement etc.
You get modifiers ( both + and - ) for things like existing damage, hitting it in the rear, etc

Interesting idea, but I doubt GW would do it since they're strict with the d6 system now. However, a 2d6 table is something they might use, but again something I highly doubt we'll ever see.

nedius
10-12-2011, 20:05
Can I ask why?

If you removed the names, and called them 'large unit class A', and 'large Unit class B', does it make sense to have them take and respond to damage in totally different ways?

From a pure background perspective, you could happily reason that a large organic creature has thick enough armour plates, chitin whatever, that it simply ignores bolters and S4 stuff, but is vulnerable to S5 heavy bolters...i.e an AV11 vehicle.

On the other hand, it makes no sense that one large unit class can have a leg etc damaged enough to stop it walking, or firing a weapon, but the other can't.

From a fluff point of view, a good solid lascannon shot to a carnifex head should be enough to take it down in one shot, and a tank that is being damaged would not always loose it's most valuable weapons first, always leaving the sponson storm bolter till last.

It just boils down to game mechanics. The game has vehicles, walkers and tanks. Each unit type has it's own distinct advantages and disadvantages. A tank is immue to small arms fire but vulnerable to one strong shot and CC. A walker is vulnerable to strong shots like a tank, but more durable against CC, but is also slower than a tank. A MC is not going to be taken out by one lascannon shot, but it is vulnerable to massed small arms fire and 'instant death' cc weapons like force weapons.

Each kind of unit is different and distinct, good at some things but poor at others. I don't agree that by making everything the same, you make things better. 'More streamlined' is not always the best option, for either fluff, game mechanics or variety.

It also makes a degree of sense. A tank should behave differently from a big living creature. It will be vulnerable in different ways, and how you would need to approach it might be different.

Oh, and the way to balance Killa Kans vs Dreadnights is the fact that the dreadknight should never have been an MC, but a wlaker all along. As thould the Triarch stalker.

Bunnahabhain
10-12-2011, 20:46
From a fluff point of view, a good solid lascannon shot to a carnifex head should be enough to take it down in one shot, and a tank that is being damaged would not always loose it's most valuable weapons first, always leaving the sponson storm bolter till last.
Fair enough. Shame that at the moment, a lascannon, (assuming it does some damage) does no more damage to a Carnifex than a laspistol (1 wound)


It just boils down to game mechanics. The game has vehicles, walkers and tanks. Each unit type has it's own distinct advantages and disadvantages. A tank is immue to small arms fire but vulnerable to one strong shot and CC. A walker is vulnerable to strong shots like a tank, but more durable against CC, but is also slower than a tank. A MC is not going to be taken out by one lascannon shot, but it is vulnerable to massed small arms fire and 'instant death' cc weapons like force weapons. And 40k has very klunky and counter-intuitive mechanics indeed, so changing them isn't something to be avoided at all costs.


Each kind of unit is different and distinct, good at some things but poor at others. I don't agree that by making everything the same, you make things better. 'More streamlined' is not always the best option, for either fluff, game mechanics or variety.
I disagree. From having played other games, it is clear to me that many problems in 40k arise from a too basic core rules set being stretched too far. The lots of different unit types, each of which have their own patch on the core rules to make them work are a clear example. By removing lots of similar unit types, you can create flexibility within one broad type to do far more things, and do them better and more simply.

Simple and elegant with meaningful options does create variety and good gameplay.


It also makes a degree of sense. A tank should behave differently from a big living creature. It will be vulnerable in different ways, and how you would need to approach it might be different. But why should a big biomechanical walking thingy be two different unit types, depending?



Oh, and the way to balance Killa Kans vs Dreadnights is the fact that the dreadknight should never have been an MC, but a wlaker all along. As thould the Triarch stalker. Agreed. Or not create the abomination of a model(dreadknight) in the first place.
Although here are more marginal cases on the current MC/ walker question...

nedius
10-12-2011, 20:55
Agreed. Or not create the abomination of a model in the first place.
Although here are more marginal cases on the current MC/ walker question...

Things like soul grinders and plague hulks. They are both biological and technological - albeit a demonic form of both and neither (grim-dark aplenty here!). There you have a situation where a RARE excpetion might be made, where they are a MC version of a defiler. Oddly, the defiler is one vehilce where I could also see an arguement for it being a tank rather than a walker... It is less of the 'walker' pattern, more a tank on legs.

Egaeus
10-12-2011, 22:44
First, it's pretty easy to do a simple "Toughness to AV" (or vice versa)...T7 equates with AV10 (both are immune to S3 weapons and require a 6 for S4 weapons to have any effect) and simply add 1 to both values for each step. The only significant problem is that AV14 equates with T11, which is off the scale, so (if I were doing this and was GW :shifty:) you could add some kind of special rule(s) to "fix" this issue. Although I simply propose "Goes to 11: S7 weapons cannot wound this model."

From a mechanical point of view the basic system is the same...you roll to hit, you roll to wound/penetrate...it's the application of these wounds/hits where things diverge.

Vehicles could have wounds (don't Superheavies have Structure points?), Monstrous Creatures could have a damage table (one thing I want to point out is that I didn't see anything in the Monstrous Creature rules about Tougness or Wound requirements...so in theory you could have a T3 1W Monstrous Creature)...I guess I'm with Bunnahabhain on this...that you could have a single comprehensive set of rules that covers everything and deals with things more or less fairly.

Bunnahabhain
10-12-2011, 22:56
It's also to get rid of a load of odd distinctions, none of which have any good reason I can think of to be different, such as:

Shooty walker can use all guns, shooty MC can use 2..

Walkers have to buy a CC upgrade to ignore saves and rip vehicles apart in CC, it's built in to MCs, even if they only have shooty stuff.. Because being trodden on by a marine dread hurts less than being trodden on by a carinfex?

Different interaction with no retreat.

I'm sure there are others, but I'm tired...

KarlPedder
11-12-2011, 02:59
The point being that with the presence of units such as the Triarch Stalker, Canoptek Spyders, Wraithguard (not to mention the whole Necron Army and Wraithguard) all being constructs but using creature stats rather than the more fluffy vehicle rules really negates any reasoning for the lack of vehicle units in Tyranids hell considering the above units the Soulgrinder is perhaps the perfect example it could just as easily have been an MC but it has vehicle rules, that they chose to do this in an army that without it would have no vehicles can't have been by accident.

So Tyranids is pretty much the only army where they enforce this fluff/habit>mechanics mindset when determining what unit classification a unit should be.

It's like how people felt that any Necron transport should be some kind of mobile portal device and thus shouldn't use the standard transport rules. I argued that the using the standard transport rules with a special rule that meant embarked units couldn't shoot (at the time we had been lead to believe that all Necron vehicles except the Monolith were open topped) and had the option if their transport was destroyed to be placed in reserve or to resolve the situation normally. Hello Nightscythe!!!! My version was more generous by giving the option but apart from that it's what we got and IMO a perfect example of how the interaction between fluff and mechanics should be. It is called fluff for a reason.

Rofleupagus
11-12-2011, 03:58
Man, I was gonna quote some people and what good points they have. But there are so many good points in this thread with coherent counter arguments. I feel a disturbance....

Xerkics
11-12-2011, 04:01
I think the main problem with MC is just how vulnerable they are to small arms fire. Carnifexes and the like should cost lot more but be t8 or have at leas 6+ wounds. As it is a squad of guardsmen with flashlights is deadlier to a carnifex than a shot from a Leman rus battletank. Thats just wrong.

Buddha777
11-12-2011, 04:39
You've got it completely backwards. The Tyranids are the only ones that make sense. There is no reason why tanks shouldn't just use Toughness/Wounds instead of AV.

Have to agree. There are countless crawling, walking creatures that use toughness and wounds instead of AV that can be thought up. Hell, you could turn the tervigon into a gaunt carrier even. Just because they may not use AV doesn't mean they shouldn't have some similar options.

Chapters Unwritten
11-12-2011, 04:53
This.

It would make more sense for vehicles to be adapted to regular damage mechanics than for tyranids to be adapted to the exception.

It's always been inconsistent especially with weapons with independent S and AP values around. A rupture cannon cuts through a landraider easier than through power armor.I feel like their should still be a difference, honestly, if only to make it so not every weapon choice is a no brainer.

That being said, I thought a great way to make the Carnifex unique this run was to make it a living tank literally and make it an AV14-13-12 walker.

-Loki-
11-12-2011, 04:56
I think the main problem with MC is just how vulnerable they are to small arms fire. Carnifexes and the like should cost lot more but be t8 or have at leas 6+ wounds. As it is a squad of guardsmen with flashlights is deadlier to a carnifex than a shot from a Leman rus battletank. Thats just wrong.

The problem with that s balancing them against anti vehicle weapons which should deal crippling damage to them like they do to a vehicle.

While that T8, 6 wound Carnifex would be a nightmare to bring down with small arms fire, it's going to take at least 6 lascannons to reliably kill it, assuming every one of them hit, wounded and got past any cover saves. That's a tad too tough, even for what a Carnifex is meant to be.

It also completely ignores the things that balance vehicles - the fact that a single shot can annihilate the vehicle. That lascannon shot that immobilises a Leman Russ, or blows a Lascannon sponson off a Land Raider, or annifilates a Battlewagon should be doing significant damage to a fleshy target. It's big, but not as tough as armour. It's far easier, for example, to blow an arm carring a stranglethorn cannon off than a heavily armoured sponson on a Land Raider.

MC's are a really hard thing to get right without resorting to vehicle type damage tables. Right now, it's about where it should be at least for Tyranid MCs. They're tough, most small arms fire needs a 6 to wound, and they have decent saves. Concentrated anti tank fire can kill them, but not a ludicrous amount of anti tank fire. The main problem with Tyranid MCs is they cost too much.

Egaeus
11-12-2011, 09:19
The problem with that s balancing them against anti vehicle weapons which should deal crippling damage to them like they do to a vehicle.

Well the other thing they need to be balanced against is multi-model units, which make up much of the game.


While that T8, 6 wound Carnifex would be a nightmare to bring down with small arms fire, it's going to take at least 6 lascannons to reliably kill it, assuming every one of them hit, wounded and got past any cover saves. That's a tad too tough, even for what a Carnifex is meant to be.

It also completely ignores the things that balance vehicles - the fact that a single shot can annihilate the vehicle.

I believe one of the issues however is that those Lascannon shots can "reliably" bring it down. For all the vaunted resilience of MCs they still die when all their wounds are removed, while it's possible for a vehicle to only suffer relatively minor damage from multiple strong hits. How many lascannons does it take to "reliably" take down a Land Raider?

And you're making rules judgements based on fluff...I could just as easily argue that it would be much more difficult to shoot the arm of a moving creature whose bio-armour may be better than anything the Imperium could manufacture than the large, slow moving target that is a Leman Russ sponson...of course this is more due to the fact that the game has "flat" to-hit numbers so the difficulty of a shot isn't taken into account.


MC's are a really hard thing to get right without resorting to vehicle type damage tables. Right now, it's about where it should be at least for Tyranid MCs. They're tough, most small arms fire needs a 6 to wound, and they have decent saves. Concentrated anti tank fire can kill them, but not a ludicrous amount of anti tank fire. The main problem with Tyranid MCs is they cost too much.

While I agree that they cost too much that's essentially an admission that something is wrong somewhere in the game, is it not? Alternatively, one could argue that they need better stats to make them "worth their points". I think it's also interesting to note that you feel small arms should be able to take them down, something most vehicles don't have to worry about.

marv335
11-12-2011, 09:25
Personally I think there should be a MC damage table, just as for vehicles.
If I can blow a leg of a dreadnaught and stop it moving, I should be able to do the same thing to a wraithlord.

Bunnahabhain
11-12-2011, 11:44
A damage table for MCs, would fix at least half my complaints about them. Of course, you'd then have walkers with a damage table, and MCs with a damage table, and the fact they're even more similar rules wise only strengthens the case for getting rid of a pointless difference.


If I had my way, I'd simply remove AP altogether, and have a proper anti tank system, with a decent range of values ( say 1- 10 or 12) and typical small arms starting very low on the scale, a bolter being a 1 or 0.


By the way....
T8, 6W creature, vs AV14. No special rules in place. Assume cover saves not different...

Lascannon. 9 hits to drop the MC, Vs AV each hit has a 1/9 chance to kill it, so 9 has a ~65% chance to kill it

Melta (2d6 range) Still 9 hits to drop the MC, the Vehicle is dead ~3 times over.

carldooley
11-12-2011, 13:36
so possibly, T9 W2 5++ FNP, immunity to poison.
possible tyranid rules - lose one embarked model to negate an unsaved wound. . .

Vipoid
11-12-2011, 13:43
With regard to the original question, I don't think that nid MCs should be changed to vehicles. I think it works a lot better to keep them fully organic.

However, I do think that there are some 'Monstrous Creatures' in other armies that should be changed to walkers - primarily because they *are* walkers. My favourite example has got to be the Dreadknight - it's exactly the same as a penitent engine, except with a GK terminator strapped to the front, rather than a SoB. However, while the penitent engine is a walker, the Dreadknight (for some inexplicable reason) is a MC. Why? Having a small, organic pilot does not make a vehicle organic - if it did every vehicle would be a MC.

KarlPedder
11-12-2011, 14:28
Yeah see I think where my view is seriously divergent from most people who have commented is I don't really care how thematic or fluffly or realistic the situation is to me the Dreadknight and the Triarch Stalker etc are MCs to provide unit diversity. MCs and Walkers have different pros and cons and different costing methods and in the case of the DK in paticular GK already have a walker with dreadnoughts so the DK being an MC provided greater unit diversity than doing it as another walker with different stats/weapons would have.

As such to me the lack of vehicles in the Tyranid codex doesn't make them special snowflakes it just reduces the armies potential unit diversity and used other examples of why this restriction is IMO an artificial one grounded in fluff/habit at the expense of gameplay.

Egaeus
11-12-2011, 18:45
Personally I think there should be a MC damage table, just as for vehicles.
If I can blow a leg of a dreadnaught and stop it moving, I should be able to do the same thing to a wraithlord.

This issue to me is that it really doesn't have anything to do with "Monstrous Creatures" specficially but rather the way multiple-wound units work versus Vechicles. I could just as easily argue that if I hit Marneus Calgar with a lascannon it should do more than just remove 1W.


...the Dreadknight and the Triarch Stalker etc are MCs to provide unit diversity. MCs and Walkers have different pros and cons and different costing methods and in the case of the DK in paticular GK already have a walker with dreadnoughts so the DK being an MC provided greater unit diversity than doing it as another walker with different stats/weapons would have.

As such to me the lack of vehicles in the Tyranid codex doesn't make them special snowflakes it just reduces the armies potential unit diversity and used other examples of why this restriction is IMO an artificial one grounded in fluff/habit at the expense of gameplay.

I hadn't thought about it that way. Space Marines have three different "Walkers": the Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought and Ironclad Dreadnought (well they are presented as three different entries in the army list but only one page for description) and I doubt anyone would say that any of them should be an MC instead to make them more diverse. GK Dreadnoughts and Dreadknights have different options so I don't think having them both be vehicles really would have hurt unit diversity all that much, if at all. Tyranids haven't had vehicles since 3rd edition and it's never been an issue before that I am aware of (other than it being a notable "feature" of the army).

To be fair, everything in the game is "artificial". It's not a simulation, it's a fantasy game. I don't think I am convinced that vehicles rules would actually add anything to the Tyranid army that couldn't be done with the Toughness/Wounds/Save system and appropriate special rules (as GW does seem to love their special rules :shifty:). Heck, if we want to go down the route of "bad design decisions that they are sticking with" the significant lack of invulnerable saves in the army is another potential issue.

nedius
11-12-2011, 19:40
To what extent do you think issues with things like th dreadknight is that a few years ago it would have been an apocalypse only model? For example, a DK isn't much less/more massive than an ork megadread. I'd have been happier if the Trygon had remained an apocalypse model. At this rate, give it a couple of decades of creep and you'll have warlords in the IG codex.

I like the fact that there are MCs, walkers and tanks. They provide variety already, and SHOULD allow some armies to field things differently to those of other armies. It allows for army diversity. The problem is being exasperated by what appears to be a growing idea that each new codex should have access to things that earlier codexes had. This means that diversity is being made less diverse by making sure each army has access to the full range of vehicles, walkers and MCs. There's no need for this! Grey Knights would have been a success if the DK was a bigger, badder walker than a dreadnaught.

Anyway, for Nids, I'd have prefered the Tervigon to be what it should have been in the first place; a malefactor - a MC transport. It would have the bonus of not exploding (so no threat to transported units) but the drawback of having a 6" move limit (ok, 7-12" with run).

Notanoob
11-12-2011, 19:41
I think that a good way to solve the problem of durability would be to allow for powerful weapons like Lascannons to inflict multiple wound, while simultaneously increasing the W/T/Sv in some way. Perhaps a roll of 6 to wound and a failed save results in D6 extra wounds being done, or just D3? Perhaps on a 5 as well? Perhaps we make Tyranid MCs all T7 and the Wraithlord T9 or something along those lines and add a wound to each. They're basically immune to regular infantry, but can be taken down rather quickly with some good luck-sort of like vehicles.

KarlPedder
12-12-2011, 01:52
Egaeus I think you misunderstand my use of the term artificial which was to articulate that I feel it is an artificial restriction to to the games mechanics one which has been suspended in other circumstances. Giving a Tyranid AV values and use of the damage chart isn't going to make my head spin because it's just a set of mechanics used in a game, that those mechanic to this point have only been used for hardtech vehicle constucts doesn't mean that they have to be limited to that. Fluff should be a source of inspiration not restriction. Hell there have even been comments about MCs getting their own damage charts I mean WTF?!!! I swear I find myself recalling my 4 year old autistic nephew whose been brought up extremist christian asking me if I wanted to go to heaven or hell and when i said neither he looses it starts yelling at me that it's not an option only one or the other.....

TheCaptain
12-12-2011, 08:34
No vehicles is the Tyranid niche. Do you really want them to be another "copy and paste" army? Personally thats what drew me to them to begin with. Besides the Tervigon is kind of a troop transport.

Col. Tartleton
12-12-2011, 09:07
Nids don't need vehicles. Everyone else needs to lose their vehicles.

Vipoid
12-12-2011, 09:29
Nids don't need vehicles. Everyone else needs to lose their vehicles.

I don't think other races should lose their vehicles entirely (since they essentially create the tyranid niche).

However, it would be nice if mechanised armies were rare and expensive, rather being the standard.

KarlPedder
12-12-2011, 09:41
No vehicles is the Tyranid niche. Do you really want them to be another "copy and paste" army? Personally thats what drew me to them to begin with. Besides the Tervigon is kind of a troop transport.

As i say to me it's just a gameplay mechanic I have no problem seperating from their fluff no more no less. And don't see the potential for the inclusion of greter unit diversity as "copy and paste" as for the niche just translates to snowflake syndrome to me.

Col. Tartleton
12-12-2011, 09:49
I don't think other races should lose their vehicles entirely (since they essentially create the tyranid niche).

However, it would be nice if mechanised armies were rare and expensive, rather being the standard.

I meant that they should streamline vehicles and infantry into one system instead of a hybrid system.

While I think the game is too big a scale for a lot of the content going into it, that's not really something I want to go away. Sure you can't really make use of vehicles in a realistic way, there's no reason why you can't have an armored convoy of chimeras being ambushed by Ork Tankbustas in a city fight or Valkyries dog fighting with falcon tanks. There just isn't room to really move... let alone maneuver.

Egaeus
12-12-2011, 10:02
Egaeus I think you misunderstand my use of the term artificial which was to articulate that I feel it is an artificial restriction to to the games mechanics one which has been suspended in other circumstances. Giving a Tyranid AV values and use of the damage chart isn't going to make my head spin because it's just a set of mechanics used in a game, that those mechanic to this point have only been used for hardtech vehicle constucts doesn't mean that they have to be limited to that. Fluff should be a source of inspiration not restriction. Hell there have even been comments about MCs getting their own damage charts I mean WTF?!!!

I suppose that to me there should be some correlation between the rules and what they are meant to represent. While the game is abstracted in many ways and there are a number of design choices that could be done differently there is still a certain level where suspension of disbelief needs to be maintained. (As an aside there is the oft-mentioned "joke" where, in a game that has so much nonsensical craziness, that certain otherwise mundane details are for different people what breaks that suspension, ala "[insert weapon here] isn't even realistically plausible")

I believe I understand what you are saying: in essence, that by not using the vehicle rules the Tyranids are being deprived of a set of "tools" for representing things in the game. What I am not convinced about is that those tools would make for a better gaming experience.

KarlPedder
12-12-2011, 10:21
I believe I understand what you are saying: in essence, that by not using the vehicle rules the Tyranids are being deprived of a set of "tools" for representing things in the game. What I am not convinced about is that those tools would make for a better gaming experience.

Awesome the only reason I kept posting was I felt nobody was really understanding where I was coming from even though you don't agree you clearly see my point.

Geep
12-12-2011, 11:11
I don't think 'nids need vehicles, but it would be good if they had some other kind of troop transport or something which would fill the heavy shooting vehicle niche (Tyrannofexes being a nice concept, but failing in damage for points and lack of model).
The troop transport replacements 'nids have (with the exception of the mycetic spore) fail IMO- Trygon tunnels are next to useless, Tervigons can only 'carry' basic termagants and you have no guarantee of numbers, and in Apoc a Harridan is almost great for gargoyle transport except that a single blast hit will likely wipe out most of the gargoyle brood. I really see no reason we can't have a regular MC with a transport capability.

Walker style rules for MCs does work, and is actually an old idea- Carnifexes used to be able to lose limbs or various other body parts with varying degrees of lethality.

Vipoid
12-12-2011, 13:16
I don't think 'nids need vehicles, but it would be good if they had some other kind of troop transport or something which would fill the heavy shooting vehicle niche (Tyrannofexes being a nice concept, but failing in damage for points and lack of model).
The troop transport replacements 'nids have (with the exception of the mycetic spore) fail IMO- Trygon tunnels are next to useless, Tervigons can only 'carry' basic termagants and you have no guarantee of numbers, and in Apoc a Harridan is almost great for gargoyle transport except that a single blast hit will likely wipe out most of the gargoyle brood. I really see no reason we can't have a regular MC with a transport capability.

A MC transport could be interesting, but shouldn't really be needed. The main problem with the nid codex isn't that it has no transports - it's that nothing was thought through.

In general, the majority of our units are going to be footslogging across the board. However, wings are atrociously expensive for Tyrants, despite them already being overpriced and fragile. Most units don't even have that option (no idea why the Prime can't take wings), and a lot of units don't even have fleet! Considering we're meant to be running across the board, the latter is unforgivable. The loss of leaping from most of our models has already left our army feeling sluggish, and preventing most of our units from even acquiring fleet just makes us preposterously slow.

Now, this might not be so bad for a resilient army, but most of our units have very poor saves, and many more are killed instantly by S8 weapons. Even our expensive MCs are hurt badly by rockets.

Spores *can* be useful, but they generally turn a unit into a suicide unit (zoans and devilgants are the best examples). It arrives, has 1 turn of shooting to make up its points, then gets killed in the opponent's turn.

Trygon tunnel is not worth mentioning.


Anyway, I think tyranids would be better if the writers kept with the theme of fast, footslogging units, backed up with more lumbering MCs. Having transports and strange movement methods like the aforementioned trygon tunnel seems to be an excuse to slow down a lot of the other units, regardless of whether or not they'll be using spores/tunnels.

Gingerwerewolf
12-12-2011, 13:54
I think there is a reason why MC's exist together with Walkers:

Its down to immunity to poison weapons. Poison is a hideously powerful thing against MC's and by making MC's walkers instead you are taking away this power "Balance"

(Im not saying that it is balanced, Im just saying it may be a thing that the designers have considered when designing the creatures)

Why I would defend the Dreadknight being an MC is that it was designed to take on a Daemon (MC) in toe to toe combat. Thus it is used more like a MC than a Dreadnought. Walkers are lumbering, the dreadknight is not. However on all the other Walkers the crew can be completely covered up. Meaning that it is harder to poison them. The Terminators is sitting on the front of a dread knight, like a large target saying, SHOOT ME!

The Wraithbone of a Wraithlord is living and psychic thus can be poisoned, as is the chitin of a Nid Carnifex (the whole reason that Hellfire Shells were invented)

TLDR

Poison is the reason why MCs exist, and all the justification that is needed for the dual rules.

Bunnahabhain
12-12-2011, 15:47
Poisioned weapons have been as rare as hens teeth until the DE codex. The MC/ walker divide has been around rather longer....

It's also just as fitting for the background to argue that these large creatures/constructs have such thick armour/chitin/whatever the posion simply has no effect on them.

The justification for dreadknights as MCs is circular.... Greater daemons are MCs, MCs rip walkers apart in combat, so the dreadknight has to be a MC too. Scrap the divide between them, and they both become 'Large Unit, walker type'

Shack
12-12-2011, 16:20
Leave out vehicles and make more heavy support units

Vipoid
12-12-2011, 18:57
Leave out vehicles and make more heavy support units

Or just make the current heavy support units actually worth their point costs, and give them clearly-defined niches.

Vepr
12-12-2011, 19:59
Or just make the current heavy support units actually worth their point costs, and give them clearly-defined niches.

I think if they knocked about 40 points off of all the nid MC's except the Trygon and Tervigon it would go a long way to helping them find a place in army lists. As it stands right now most of them are hideously overpriced for what they do especially the Tyrannofexes, Tyrnants, Carnifexs and Harpys.

Torga_DW
12-12-2011, 22:38
I don't think that the cost of tyranid monstrous creatures is entirely the problem (although it is a part), but their synergy with the rules. I can understand the intent of fearless 'no retreat', but the execution is poor imo, and this affects tyranids greatly.

If they changed the rules to: units take wounds based on what they suffered in close combat, and this doesn't apply to other friendly units in the same combat, then tyranid monstrous creatures would immediately see a big boost in performance.

Xerkics
13-12-2011, 03:15
I think people didnt read what i wrote very carefully i suggested making carnifexes either t8 so they are immune to small arms fire OR giving them 6 wounds or more. Not both , t8 6 wounds is rediculous. MC being more vulnerable to ordinary guardsmen than tanks makes me sad.