PDA

View Full Version : Walkers becoming Monstrous Creatures.



jason_sation
20-06-2013, 18:02
Just wondering why models that seem like they'd be prime candidates to used the walker rules have been getting the Monstrous Creature rule instead. (Dreadknight, wraith knight, riptide) Is it because the rules better reprent their fluff? Is it to make them tougher? Am I just wrong in thinking they look like they should use walker rules, like Dreadnoughts and Sentinels? Do you think the walker rules should be dropped and Dreadnoughts and Sentinels and the like just get armor saves or become monstrous creatures? I'm just wondering why GW has gone in this direction instead of maybe just making them walkers with more hull points. Not a criticism, just curious.

Menthak
20-06-2013, 18:33
Monstrous creatures are arguably better. Which IMO is why the Dreadknight isn't a walker (It'd be to easy to kill).

As for the other two, I think it's a size thing, plus the Wraithlord is a Monstrous creature, so that's probably why the Wraithknight is.

The Riptide is probably a Monstrous creature because unlike other walkers, it's not that static, I suppose, maybe. I dunno. I reckon it might be a survival issue.

I hope the rest of the walkers stay as they are.

Losing Command
20-06-2013, 19:43
The Wraithknight (and lord) are Monstrous Creatures to represent the more organic nature of Eldar Technology. Wraithbone slowly regrows when damaged, so it actually makes quite some sense that stuff made out of it gets a more creature-ish statline. The Riptide might be a Monstrous creature to represent that it can still be damaged by small arms fire, unlike a Dreadnought, but that you can't make it go boom with a meltagun when the thing has 2 quite exposed reactors, one of them being experimental, is rather odd. The Dreadnight was made a monstrous creature because of the enormous amounts of anti-vehicle weapons people brought (and needed) back in 5th would just shut the Dreadknight down before it could do anything usefull. There was a weak attempt in its unitdescribtion to justify it with a 'forcefield' protecting the terminator wearing it, but a 13/13/13 walker with a Inv save would have been more logical. It even has Dreadnought close combat weapons, and it is still the only non-walker that has them ! It needed its own erreta rule in 5th to show how it worked :shifty:

It might be interesting too see if the next main rulebook update merges the Walker and MC unit types, with walkers getting Smash and Move Through cover from MC's (a huge beast can smash its way through terrain, but a just as large mechanical construct can't :eyebrows:) and MC also being able to get one-shot with anti-tank weaponry when very lucky, maybe something like a roll of 6 to hit means a headshot ?

AngryAngel
20-06-2013, 19:46
I honestly would love it if walkers were more like MCs. They are just in most ways harder to kill. Walkers just don't really work. Hence why I see, none ? In most of the games I play. People only use them now because they really love them or just feel like a change.

wyvirn
20-06-2013, 22:46
I would hate to see Walkers become MCs and vice versa. It's kinda funny; I think I remember a thread talking about the opposite (MC's becoming walkers) last edition. Back then Walkers were considered better because of they were much, much more survivable. With the advent of Hull Points, I suppose the shoe is on the other foot. I suppose right now it boils down to being immune to small arms fire versus unable to be taken down by a lucky shot.

Nurgling Chieftain
20-06-2013, 22:51
I've always felt that all Monstrous Creatures should be vehicles. You should be able to blow arms and legs off of them.

Hellebore
20-06-2013, 22:57
It also produces the strange occurance of indestructible weaponry. Put a powerfist on a dreadnought and you can blow it off, put one on a wraithlord and it's indestructible...

The whole vehicle system is flawed. In 1st ed vehicles just had profiles like everything else in the game. They've even done that with support weapons and eldar weapon platforms.

Vehicle rules are also the only ones where a 1 isn't an auto fail. Roll a 1 to wound with a demolisher cannon and a grot survives. Roll a 1 to penetrate with a demolisher cannon and a trukk is still glanced (EDIT: still penetrated as trukks are AV10...).

Adding hull points is just shifting them closer to using normal unit rules without actually admitting it.

You should be able to cripple monstrous creatures. A carnifex has as much chance of getting their venom cannon shot off as a dreadnought has getting its assault cannon shot off.

Hellebore

Baragash
20-06-2013, 23:31
Yeah, at the moment there's a performance disconnect in that Monstrous Creatures and characters don't suffer a reduction in performance as the accumulate damage, unlike vehicles and squads.

One simple house rule we occasionally throw down is once reduced to half wounds or less the ability to shoot two weapons is lost and attacks are halved.

Hendarion
21-06-2013, 04:46
Balance comes from point costs, not from house rules or MCs losing arms/legs when being shot at. Their weak point are snipers and poison with which you can't harm a Walker at all - or Hellfire Rounds, boy, Wraith-units of all kind hate Hellfire Rounds.

wyvirn
21-06-2013, 05:02
Yeah, at the moment there's a performance disconnect in that Monstrous Creatures and characters don't suffer a reduction in performance as the accumulate damage, unlike vehicles and squads.

I think that's part of the point. I also don't think it's really that big a deal until you start dealing with 4+ wound creatures/characters.

Hellebore
21-06-2013, 05:03
And vehicles suffer additonal affects from AP1/2 hits. To infantry AP1 means nothing.

When something becomes big enough to play the same role as a tank in the game and it carries the same weapons as the tank, then they should both have those affects applied to them.

Wraithlords/knights are not organic, so poison shouldn't have an affect on them at all. If you argue this with 'but they use special acid rounds' or whatever, then the same argument holds true for vehicles - they use special acid rounds on vehicles that mean they always get pentrated on a 4+.

The fact that it only takes 3" of height to turn an eldar wraithknight MC into an eldar revenant walker shows just how bogus the distinction is. They are virtually identical machines, there is nothing so drastically different between their constructions that becoming slightly smaller suddenly makes revenants ultra vulnerable to poison, but making a wraithknight slightly larger makes it vulnerable to instant death via penetration cascades.

There is no reason that an MC should be able to maintain its full capacity until it loses its last wound, or be incapable of losing weapons.

Hellebore

Hendarion
21-06-2013, 05:24
There is no reason that an MC should be able to maintain its full capacity until it loses its last wound, or be incapable of losing weapons.
Well, except one of course: Game Design. You might not like it, I do. And I think it is a great idea game-design wise instead of having only infantry and vehicles.
People always ask for *more* different things in a game to make the ruleset deeper and the experience wider. But if they get it, some others start yelling that it should be crunched into a single type.

You just can't satisfy people. Ever.

ehlijen
21-06-2013, 05:40
Well, except one of course: Game Design. You might not like it, I do. And I think it is a great idea game-design wise instead of having only infantry and vehicles.
People always ask for *more* different things in a game to make the ruleset deeper and the experience wider. But if they get it, some others start yelling that it should be crunched into a single type.

You just can't satisfy people. Ever.

But when you make two things that are so very similar (big things with arms and legs that smash things in combat) and then bend and break what little line of distinction there is between them, you don't make the game deeper, you just make it less coherent.

A dreadnaught is a big armoured slab of metal on two legs. A carnifex is a big living monster. Ok, those two are different, no problem. A dreadknight is a big slab of metal with a terminator strapped in where the armoured sarcophagus would be on a dreadnaught...it's also treated as a living monster. Ok.....? I guess the terminator could be hit by the poison darts...
The fully enclosed big slab of armour that is a riptide is...a living monster. Why? Meanwhile, the sentinel with the pilot protected by nothing but a few roll bars is a walker, completely unpoisonable...
The wraithlord, which is a dreadnaught but made of wraitbone and even less living tissue...is a poisonable monster?

There seems little rhyme or reason as to what can be poisoned and what cannot. That's not deep, that's just wierd.

I'm all for keeping the two seperate, but they should be made more distinct not in how they can be attacked, but also in what they achieve. And there needs to be more coherence in what is a monster and what isn't. Especially now that they are blurring the lines even more with hull points emulating wounds and invul saves being given to walkers.

Spiney Norman
21-06-2013, 06:55
Just wondering why models that seem like they'd be prime candidates to used the walker rules have been getting the Monstrous Creature rule instead. (Dreadknight, wraith knight, riptide) Is it because the rules better reprent their fluff? Is it to make them tougher? Am I just wrong in thinking they look like they should use walker rules, like Dreadnoughts and Sentinels? Do you think the walker rules should be dropped and Dreadnoughts and Sentinels and the like just get armor saves or become monstrous creatures? I'm just wondering why GW has gone in this direction instead of maybe just making them walkers with more hull points. Not a criticism, just curious.

Its nothing to do with fluff, if the rules we based on fluff then the dreadknight would be an open topped walker and the riptide would use walker rules as well. I think they could still use the fluff about wraith one tech to justify the wraith knight as an MC, but not so much for any of the other large scale walkers.

Its entirely because a monstrous creature is more resilient than a vehicle, a walker using the vehicle rules can be blown up in a single shot, often with pretty good odds, a monstrous creature cannot (as long as it is T6 or greater) which means it survives longer. GW correctly realised that no-one wants to see their 300 pt Demi-Titan go pop to a single lascannon or dark lance on T1.

IMHO this is the first step towards a proper overhauling the vehicle rules because they have effectively admitted that the vehicle rules are not fit for purpose for some vehicles. I have high hopes for next edition that they manage to come up with a set of rules for vehicles that works for all vehicles, not just the kind with tracks and wheels.

Hendarion
21-06-2013, 08:53
But when you make two things that are so very similar (big things with arms and legs that smash things in combat) and then bend and break what little line of distinction there is between them, you don't make the game deeper, you just make it less coherent.That is what game-design does. Would you call Monopoly incoherent, just because there are some streets that have only 2 in pair instead of the typical 3? Or that stations and powerplants (sorry for the names, I have no clue how these are called in the English version) are spread across the entire board instead of being grouped together? Or maybe that you can't field houses and hotels on stations? It doesn't make it incoherent, it makes it different.
Game-design isn't about reflecting fluff, it is about giving a unit a specific gameplay-feel and -purpose or different weak or strong spots.

Personally I believe a Wraithlord is more a living monster than a Warwalker is and exactly that is what the rules also represent. It could be both walkers or both monsters, sure. But the game-designers chose differently.

Mauler
21-06-2013, 08:57
And vehicles suffer additonal affects from AP1/2 hits. To infantry AP1 means nothing.

When something becomes big enough to play the same role as a tank in the game and it carries the same weapons as the tank, then they should both have those affects applied to them.

Wraithlords/knights are not organic, so poison shouldn't have an affect on them at all. If you argue this with 'but they use special acid rounds' or whatever, then the same argument holds true for vehicles - they use special acid rounds on vehicles that mean they always get pentrated on a 4+.

The fact that it only takes 3" of height to turn an eldar wraithknight MC into an eldar revenant walker shows just how bogus the distinction is. They are virtually identical machines, there is nothing so drastically different between their constructions that becoming slightly smaller suddenly makes revenants ultra vulnerable to poison, but making a wraithknight slightly larger makes it vulnerable to instant death via penetration cascades.

There is no reason that an MC should be able to maintain its full capacity until it loses its last wound, or be incapable of losing weapons.

Hellebore

Sorry man, but this is mostly nonsense. Wraith contrstucts, titans, tanks, weapons...all Eldar wargear is organic; wraithbone is grown and repairs itself. Almost everything space elves have is constructed of wraithbone & crystal with hardly any metals and no plastics. Wraithlords/Knights may not have organs but they are about as organic as you can get without being a Tyranid in the 40k universe.

Have you seen a Revenant? You say three inches like it's next to nothing but it's a third of the Wraithknight's height. Take three inches off and the Knight is suddenly half the size of the smallest titan so yeah, that height difference is quite important along with a Revenant have more mass as a heavier construct. It's not just about height. A Revenant is a far, far more capable unit, which is why it's over three times the base cost. The distinction is very relevant.

General blithering:

I do agree that the mixing of MC rules into what should be a walker class has upset the apple cart somewhat. To work out the reasoning behind this we need to look at the Apoc rules for gargantuan creatures and the super-heavy walkers based on them. GCs have a whole ton of special rules attached to them to do with further movement, firing, being fired at, assault, psyonics & psychology which also apply to SHWs, but SHWs can be slowed by damage and GCs cannot. Given vehicles' vulnerability via the damage table order of power seems to be Walkers -> MCs -> HVs -> SHWs -> GCs. The Riptide & Wraithknight are clearly heavier units than 5E walkers like Wraithlords, Dreadknights, Dreadnoughts and the like so stepping them up to MC status without a table reducing their effectiveness per hit makes sense and is far more convenient than either developing a new class of 'heavy walker' to fit between Ws & SHWs or keeping them as walkers with a list of special rules appended when there's already the MC class to cover it.

The Wraithlord I'm a bit mystified about, but I can only surmise that it's classed as an MC to reflect it's fluid organic nature and is more 'alive' rather than having a pilot, distinct from the more mechanical walkers like Sentinels, Dreadnoughts, Helbrutes, even War Walkers. While I do think that it's slightly unfair to have a War Walker/Dreadnought lose weapons or be immobilised and a Wraithlord not it is worth noting that the new MC walkers have a higher base cost vs Dreadnoughts & Helbrutes, are hideously vulnerable to the Fleshbane USR where their high T is useless & can be pinned in assault. It also opens a big can of worms where one multi-wound infantry-profile unit loses weapons and becomes useless with damage (MCs) and others do not (characters/heavy/specialist inf). For their cost I think that walker MCs are alright.

Hendarion
21-06-2013, 09:00
Almost everything space elves have is constructed of wraithbone & crystal with hardly any metals and no plastics.
No. Eldar make heavy use of a lot of different plastics.

Mauler
21-06-2013, 09:01
No. Eldar make heavy use of a lot of different plastics.

Not in the Gav Thorpe books they don't and that's not mentioned in the codex either?

Hendarion
21-06-2013, 09:04
Not in the Gav Thorpe books they don't and that's not mentioned in the codex either?
It isn't mentioned they do use it in the newer books, but the newer books also don't say they don't. Older books speak of "various different psycho-plastics" though.

Mauler
21-06-2013, 09:05
The term 'psychoplastic' is a moniker to suggest that the material that Eldar use for armour plating can be softened and shaped like plastic by a trained psyker, but isn't actually plastic as we know it.

Can't have plastic tanks flying about in the 41st millennium! ;)

Hendarion
21-06-2013, 09:08
I didn't say it is plastic as we know it. I said they do use plastics. And that's what the books say.

Mauler
21-06-2013, 09:12
Not really going to argue semantics with you so I'll just respectfully disagree. :P

Hellebore
21-06-2013, 09:36
Sorry man, but this is mostly nonsense. Wraith contrstucts, titans, tanks, weapons...all Eldar wargear is organic; wraithbone is grown and repairs itself. Almost everything space elves have is constructed of wraithbone & crystal with hardly any metals and no plastics. Wraithlords/Knights may not have organs but they are about as organic as you can get without being a Tyranid in the 40k universe.


:eyebrows: do you actually know what organic means? You've decided that because wraithbone grows and repairs itself, it is constructed with the same stuff an organism is constructed with and is therefore 'organic'. Crystals 'grow' as well, but quartz is not organic. Poisons don't work on something because it 'grows and repairs itself', they pretty much just block ion channels/bind enzymes to shut down cellular processes. Which requires the poisoned thing to actually POSSESS said structures.

That you believe eldar don't use plastic, yet organic chemistry revolves around hydrocarbons, which is what plastic is made of, is rather ironic.

Wraithbone is congealed warp energy. Last time I checked, warp energy isn't even 'matter' let alone organic.

You've taken metaphorical organic as literal, and literal 'plastic' as metaphorical. I can see how you could take the simile/metaphor descriptions of eldar technology literally, but they are just that.

"In some respects"
"more like"
"similar way"
pg 12 6th ed eldar codex

Do not equate to 'are actually organic'.




Have you seen a Revenant? You say three inches like it's next to nothing but it's a third of the Wraithknight's height. Take three inches off and the Knight is suddenly half the size of the smallest titan so yeah, that height difference is quite important along with a Revenant have more mass as a heavier construct. It's not just about height. A Revenant is a far, far more capable unit, which is why it's over three times the base cost. The distinction is very relevant.


A role change or capability has no effect on what something is made of or how that material is treated by weapons.



Wraithlords were just eldar dreadnoughts in 2nd ed and used exactly the same characteristics as marine dreadnoughts. There were no monstrous creatures in 40k; carnifexes, avatars and greater daemons used the same profile as normal infantry, they just had higher values.


Hellebore

Cheeslord
21-06-2013, 09:45
Not read the current Eldar codex but I'm pretty confident that in the previous ones Guardians had armour explicitly made out of plastic (albeit psycho-reactive Plastic or something).

I find it ironic that plastic is largely valued for its elasticity. The problem with metals is that the are often more prone to deform plastically than plastics under strains.

Also in inorganic chemistry the term "poisoned" can apply to a number of processes, often involving a reaction being stopped by an unwanted contaminant, so you could talk about the "poisoning" of inorganic Wraithbone in that context.

Anyway thats digressing a bit. Or maybe a lot. Maybe I should get back to work...

Mark.

Mauler
21-06-2013, 11:37
:eyebrows: do you actually know what organic means? You've decided that because wraithbone grows and repairs itself, it is constructed with the same stuff an organism is constructed with and is therefore 'organic'. Crystals 'grow' as well, but quartz is not organic. Poisons don't work on something because it 'grows and repairs itself', they pretty much just block ion channels/bind enzymes to shut down cellular processes. Which requires the poisoned thing to actually POSSESS said structures.

That you believe eldar don't use plastic, yet organic chemistry revolves around hydrocarbons, which is what plastic is made of, is rather ironic.

Wraithbone is congealed warp energy. Last time I checked, warp energy isn't even 'matter' let alone organic.

You've taken metaphorical organic as literal, and literal 'plastic' as metaphorical. I can see how you could take the simile/metaphor descriptions of eldar technology literally, but they are just that.

"In some respects"
"more like"
"similar way"
pg 12 6th ed eldar codex

Do not equate to 'are actually organic'.




A role change or capability has no effect on what something is made of or how that material is treated by weapons.



Wraithlords were just eldar dreadnoughts in 2nd ed and used exactly the same characteristics as marine dreadnoughts. There were no monstrous creatures in 40k; carnifexes, avatars and greater daemons used the same profile as normal infantry, they just had higher values.


Hellebore

The actual textbook definition of 'organic' may not apply, but then I'm not a chemist or biologist, I'm an engineer. As far as I'm concerned, wraithbone is just that - bone. It grows, it heals, it's not a crystal, nor is it sentient, but it behaves as if it's part of a living organism so to me, for all intents and purposes for Warhammer, it's as close to organic as you can get without it actually being alive. Which is strange, because daemons are about as alive as you can get without being organic, and they're manifestations of raw warp energy. In fluff-terms psykers channel warp energy into the material world where it manifests in various ways depending on the nature of it's channelling and the intent of the channeller: matter can be converted to energy and it appears that in 40k energy can be converted into matter. Can a skilled psyker with the correct tools manipulate warp energy into a form of bone on the physical plane? Can poison weapons damage this form of bone? Games Workshop think so. It's also worth mentioning that the new codex says that Eldar use 'ectoplastics' for applications where damage resistance is required; that term in it's basic meaning can be made of something that's not hydrocarbon plastic as we know it. The rough latin for ecto is 'outside' & plasticus means 'moldable' which is where the modern term derives it's name.

Unfortunately, you're (or we're, if you like) taking real-world principles in a rigid form and applying them to a fictional wargame system that is a constantly attempting to balance streamlined gameplay against suspension of disbelief. While that works if the game is based on a highly configurable framework like Rogue Trader or the following editions with their Vehicle & Battle Manuals, it doesn't work so well with later editions which use an increasingly streamlined ruleset. Most people want ease of use which boils down to less 'work' and more play; 'work' in this case being creating units, generating stats and profiles, rolling to see where a shot lands on a vehicle with a crosshair on a clear piece of plastic (yes, I still have my old rulebooks too), looking up rules...the more detailed or granular you get with a set of rules the less simple it becomes and the longer a game takes to both play and develop.

The funny thing is, you're pointing out that I might've confused metaphorical and literal descriptors but you're doing the same with your poison-effect reasoning. As Cheeslord says, 'poison' effect weapons may not literally just be affecting living things or biological matter: if you look at MCs like the Riptide that are rather inorganic then clearly this is the case. Game mechanics are not always based on real-world principles. The mechanics are what make playing the game worthwhile for most people, the terms and reasoning behind how the game plays are a means to an end. Taking any sci-fi/fantasy too seriously is daft. The distinction between two similar units being very different types is purely down to gameplay mechanics, as I stated in a previous post.

BooTMGSG
21-06-2013, 12:10
I think perhaps the difference between a Walker and a monsterous creature, is the ability to touch their toes, and pick up their weapon.

The difference between a super suit and a vehicle with legs.

Consider TDA, ok some weapons are pretty well mounted, but there is the sense that it is a guy in a suit, The Wraith Knight is similar, it has flexible legs and grabable arms, it can move like a person.

WraithLords, pretty much the same setup as necron warriors, living machines.

Now the Eldar war walker. Weapons are on pods, that the driver would have to get out to fix if they were broken, or perhaps the feed was jammed/ gimbal was stuck.

Now Marine Drednaughts seem to be on the border, but I guess they get pushed into the walker teritory, by being relatively unflexable, and their closeCombat weaponsystems, being wreaking balls, and not just big swords.

Xenthick
21-06-2013, 12:20
Honestly I think the reasoning behind the riptide being a MC instead of a walker is pretty simple. Because all of the other tau battle suits arent walkers, and tau doesnt use walkers. The battle suits are more like a suit of armor. It increases the toughness, strength and wounds of the pilot. If they were to make the riptide a walker then they would have to change the other battle suits to be something similar. When it comes right down to it, poison weapons make no more sense wounding a crisis suit or a broadside, yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

Angelwing
21-06-2013, 12:28
Can't have plastic tanks flying about in the 41st millennium! ;)

as an extension on this point, its mentioned in the 2nd ed wargear book that some knives and swords are made of plastic. If you can have a sword to chop armoured foes up, why not vehicle armour?

On topic: yes i do think its time the mc and vehicle rules had a bit of an overhaul.

infamousme
21-06-2013, 14:18
Honestly I think the reasoning behind the riptide being a MC instead of a walker is pretty simple. Because all of the other tau battle suits arent walkers, and tau doesnt use walkers. The battle suits are more like a suit of armor. It increases the toughness, strength and wounds of the pilot. If they were to make the riptide a walker then they would have to change the other battle suits to be something similar. When it comes right down to it, poison weapons make no more sense wounding a crisis suit or a broadside, yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

I'm glad I read through the thread before posting as my post would have been very redundant after reading yours.

Gingerwerewolf
21-06-2013, 15:40
Honestly I think the reasoning behind the riptide being a MC instead of a walker is pretty simple. Because all of the other tau battle suits arent walkers, and tau doesnt use walkers. The battle suits are more like a suit of armor. It increases the toughness, strength and wounds of the pilot. If they were to make the riptide a walker then they would have to change the other battle suits to be something similar. When it comes right down to it, poison weapons make no more sense wounding a crisis suit or a broadside, yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

I really think that you have hit the nail on the head there. And the same goes for the Wraith Constructs of the Eldar.

I still dislike everyone getting MCs - as Ive said before in various other threads - and I personally would like it if the only things to have MC status were Nids and Chaos as it makes "Sense" for them. (though I think Nurgle should be immune to poison like the Avatar is immune to fire, though it in turn should also be immune to Plasma, and Lasguns too)

Id like the rules to be logical, and to me, the MC divide doesnt quite make sense. Though Mauler had a good point about Apoc, maybe the whole MC thing will get put into perspective when Apoc Drops :D

Oh and Forge/Maulerfiends? Why the hell are they Walkers? They should be MCs! (As should the Helldrake be a FMC)

Poseidal
21-06-2013, 15:44
Mayne they need to make a vehicle 'eternal warrior' for some of the larger ones as they can be killed with one hit. Maybe it reduces the 6 result to just losing an additional hull point, apart from against weapons that cause Instant Death.

Vaktathi
21-06-2013, 16:26
At this point, with the inclusion of "wounds" in the form of Hull Points, the differences between the two aren't huge but serve to make Walkers distinctly inferior. Walkers are immune to small arms (though MC's also aren't exactly super vulnerable to it) fire but have no armor save and are generally much easier to kill with heavier weapons and can be ID'd or crippled on any "to-wound" roll exceeding the minimum required to hurt them. As a result, the Walkers are much less capable than the MC's typically.

Vedar
21-06-2013, 16:46
I play Chaos and Eldar.

When they came out with the Forgefiend I went "Hey that looks cool, I wonder what the rules are?" When I found out it was an AV12/12/10 walker (same thing as a dread) I went Meh it is really just an expensive dread with different shooting options for more points that takes up a heavy slot. I did not buy one.

When they came out with the Wraithknight it was a MC, a Jump MC no less with 6 wounds and new deadly weapons. You can't pop it with one shot (unless it has an insta kill rule). The Jump part of this moves it from too expensive to playable. I like it, I bought one.

Maybe GW learned to not put out units that are crappy that people don't want.

Vedar
21-06-2013, 17:11
The other thing I'm thinking is how are they going to make these thing good as walkers. A bunch of AV13/14 walkers is going to make the game top heavy with needed heavy weapons to take them down, though the Soulgrinder is a solid choice but they only Vehicle in the Daemons list so you can't spam vehicles. AV 10/11/12 walkers as "big" kits are just not going to sell when your cool new walker bites the dust to the first missile that hits it.

The "easy" fix is make them MC. They live longer, don't auto blow up in CC or with 1 melta shot and you feel like they are worth taking.

The smarter fix might have made them something like the Waveserpent shield where all pens are turn into glances. If the Forge fiend had that rule it might be worth taking.

Fithos
21-06-2013, 17:22
Honestly I think the reasoning behind the riptide being a MC instead of a walker is pretty simple. Because all of the other tau battle suits arent walkers, and tau doesnt use walkers. The battle suits are more like a suit of armor. It increases the toughness, strength and wounds of the pilot. If they were to make the riptide a walker then they would have to change the other battle suits to be something similar. When it comes right down to it, poison weapons make no more sense wounding a crisis suit or a broadside, yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

Let me just start off by saying that I believe that GW thinks that a "poison" is an inhibitor that effects the regulatory system of its target.

Basing off of that here is my problem with most of these big walkers being monstrous creatures. If I shoot a monstrous creature in the leg with a poison weapon it should have a chance of wounding the creature because, assuming the weapon can get through the skin/armor/hide/whatever, there is a good chance that the inhibitive chemical will get into the regulatory system and work to shut it down. Even if it just gets on the skin/hide/whatever, there is a chance it can get absorbed into the body system of the creature (diffusion) and still do its job as long as it gets through their armor (read fails their armor save).

Contrast this to a walker where if you get the poison on the metal of the leg it will not be absorbed into a regulatory system because there isn't one. If it gets through the metal plating it could still do damage (glance or pen) but the poison wont have an effect.

Now lets say you shot a walker in the leg with a melta gun. If you get through the armor (which you should be able to) you might damage a critical system and, presumably, there isn't enough redundancy in walkers to deal with those sorts of system failures so the legs might break and the walker would be immobilized.

If you shoot an MC in the leg with a melta gun then it might hurt the leg, but the MC probably has enough redundancy in its design to compensate such as limping, using alternate muscle groups, or hopping(hilarious to imagine a dreadknight going monty python black knight on its target when it's limbs start getting blown off). As such this is represented with them taking a wound. I would agree it would be better represented if they had some statline reductions but the game is streamlined and as it is I am ok with the distinctions.

The problem then getting to the Riptide and viewing it from this stance is where should it fall... I can't imagine that the pilots legs really extend all the way down to ground so I wouldn't think if you shot it in the leg with a poison weapon the pilot would die and the suit itself shouldn't be vulnerable to poison based on the definition of poison I am using. I also would think that if you shot it in the leg with the meltagun it would not have the necessary system redundancy to continue walking (although this is surely debatable because I have no idea how anything in these factions are made.) Therefore I would have to assume it is a walker based on that analysis as a contrast to the regular suits where I assumed they were legitimately suits of armor that just covered the whole body but didn't extend. If I am wrong about these assumptions please let me know.

Edit*** From a game balance perspective I can understand why they are MCs, but I really feel like that is just lazy writing on GWs part.

Vaktathi
21-06-2013, 17:26
it's usually not so much that it explodes on the first missile, but rather that they're AV corresponds to roughly the same thing as T6-8 in most cases, and being of roughly similar toughness they lack an armor save and now have "wounds" on top of a damage table mechanic.

Lord Inquisitor
21-06-2013, 17:31
Well the criteria for being a MC seems to be more of a factor of what was scaled up to make the new unit rather than any real consideration of the mechanics of the unit itself.

Eldar wraithlords were dreadnoughts once, but when the fluff changed they decided to make them MC, presumably to represent their more organic nature and to match wraithguard, who couldn't practically be vehicles. Going one further for the new knight, they decided to continue this idea.

With the dreadknight and the riptide, these are larger suits of battle-armour that already follow a pattern on the smaller equivalents. So the riptide just enhances the tau's stats. Why exactly this same logic doesn't apply to things like sentinels I don't know.

Ultimately the whole concept of vehicles and non-vehicles is a design ethos that is anachronistic. Now that vehicles have Wounds (which is all that Hull Points really are) and just take additional effects from wounding hits, the difference has become absurd.

Really to fix this you would simply give vehicles Toughness values instead of Armour Values and Wounds instead of Hull Points and some kind of general "damage" system that could apply to both vehicles and non-vehicles. You could destroy a weapon from a MC as well as a walker. There's no real requirement for vehicles to have a seperate damage system.

Ozendorph
21-06-2013, 17:40
I could see getting rid of "vehicles" all together and instead letting keywords (flyer, tank, transport, etc) dictate any differences in movement, durability, etc. This would clean up peculiarities like MCs that act as transports (squiggoth, malefactor...erm...probably some other unseen bugs), tanks with WS or I (Khornate things covered in saw blades, most likely) and other "gray area" units. RT was like that, initially, but messy with weapons having damage dice and such.

Xenthick
21-06-2013, 17:43
I completely agree with what you're saying fithos. The riptide really feels like it should be a walker. And most likely, the pilot just sits in the chest of the riptide and drives it around, probably with some kind of direct neural interface rather then a series of buttons and knobs. However, i would say the same is true of the broadside. Theres no way that a fire warrior wears that thing like an actual suit. Its like 3 times the height of a normal tau. Yet, it too has a toughness value and wounds.

Someone had mentioned earlier that they wanted consistency in the rules. If a dreadnought is a walker, then a riptide and a wraith knight should be walker. The thing is, GW is giving us consistency, just not between factions. The consistency exists within each individual faction. A riptide is a MC because all of the other battle suits have toughness characteristics and wounds. A wraith knight is a MC because all other bi-pedal wraith constructs (outside of FW) have toughness characteristics and wounds. It's inner codex consistency rather then cross codex consistency. As for the dread knight...I honestly have no idea. You can say its because the terminator is completely exposed, so he just takes hits like any other terminator, but by that logic...he's completely exposed...why does he get more toughness? i recall reading something about some kind of shield, but that sounds kind of weak to me.

AndrewGPaul
21-06-2013, 18:03
I could see getting rid of "vehicles" all together and instead letting keywords (flyer, tank, transport, etc) dictate any differences in movement, durability, etc. This would clean up peculiarities like MCs that act as transports (squiggoth, malefactor...erm...probably some other unseen bugs), tanks with WS or I (Khornate things covered in saw blades, most likely) and other "gray area" units. RT was like that, initially, but messy with weapons having damage dice and such.

Which is how the rules worked in the original Rogue Trader rulebook (before they introduced the "damage grid" rules later on which are the antecedent of the current vehicle rules - and which made the Carnifex a vehicle), and in the playtest vehicle rules in Citadel Journals 10 and 11 (at the tail end of 2nd edition). Those rules removed the distinction between a vehicle and any other multi-Wound model (with the exception of rules for wheeled, tracked, etc, movement, and giving vehicles a save on 2D6 like Terminators). All vehicles had a "M, WS, BS, S, T,..." stat line like everything else, and they also suggested you could use the critical hit rules against any model with more than one Wound - Space Marine captains, Ripper swarms, Ogryns, ...

The rules in the Journal - written by Jervis and the rest of the design studio - mentioned that the impetus for their creation was the disrepancy between a weapon's effectiveness against infantry and its effectiveness against vehicles. A Terminator and a Dreadnought are basically very similar - thick armour plate around a squishy Space Marine. However, in 2nd edition a multi-melta was better at killing the dreadnought than a lascannon while the lascannon was better at killing the Terminator. The rules in the Journal were intended to resolve this, among other things.

Grand Master Raziel
21-06-2013, 18:20
I wouldn't waste time looking for any kind of logical justification for anything in any of the fiction GW publishes. The game developers aren't very good writers, and the half-decent writers who write Black Library books probably don't know or care too much about game design.

As far as why the Wraithknight and the Riptide are MCs - pretty much already been said. The Wraithknight is the next step up from the Wraithlord, and the Wraithlord is an MC. Whether it should have been or not is another matter entirely, but it is, so making the Wraithknight an MC is just being consistent with its older, smaller cousin.

The Riptide is an MC because it's a scaled up version of a Crisis Suit, and Crisis Suits have Toughness and Armor Save. So, they went bigger and better, and that brought the thing into MC territory. T6 seems to be the threshold where multi-wound creatures become MCs. Crossing that threshold confers certain benefits - ignoring armor saves in close combat, and bonus armor pen dice in CC vs vehicles. The Riptide's profile brought it into MC territory, so GW made it a MC, which confers those benefits, despite the fact that for the Tau having close combat advantages is counter-fluff.

I'm in the camp that it doesn't particularly make sense that Walkers can suffer from disabling hits and MCs can't. Sure, you can hit a critical part of a Walker, but the same could be said of any kind of living organism as well. Even alien organisms like TMCs must have circulatory pumps, nerve clusters, and so on that would really eff up the thing if they were hit, particularly by a big enough weapon. Heck, Tau Railgun projectiles probably go front-to-back through TMCs without slowing down and suck out a lot of important stuff as they go. So, MCs shouldn't be immune to being instantly killed by a lucky shot, but they are. This makes them and has since 3rd edition made them superior to vehicles.

The "balancing" drawback of being susceptible to smallarm fire isn't much of a tradeoff. With most smallarms needing 6s to wound most MCs and said MCs having good armor saves (and sometimes the ability to grow back wounds), the amount of times I've seen MCs brought down by smallarms fire alone could probably be counted on one hand and still have fingers left over to hold my teacup. That's assuming they're even vulnerable to smallarms fire at all - Wraithlords are immune to most, and any T7 MCs would be immune to S3 guns like IG lasguns. So, if smallarm vulnerability is the balancing point between MCs and Walkers, then no MCs should be more than T6. If they're T7+, then they're rendering that supposed balancing factor moot against at least some armies, and once you get to T8 you're talking most armies except Tau, Dark Eldar, and maybe still Necrons?

Getting rid of the whole AV system and going with Toughness, Wounds, and appropriate Saves seems like the only solution that would fix the disparity. GW would have to come up with rules for disabling hits on multi-wound models, but then those rules could apply across the board as appropriate. So, a hit that would insta-kill a Predator could also insta-kill a Carnifex.

Megad00mer
21-06-2013, 18:32
Walkers should be things like War Walkers and Sentinels. 2 legged vehicles with an obvious pilot. Dreadnoughts, Hellbrutes and Mauler/Forgefiends should all be treated as MC's. Not only would it make them much more attractive units to actually take, it makes much more sense rules wise as well.

Lord Inquisitor
21-06-2013, 18:38
I could see getting rid of "vehicles" all together and instead letting keywords (flyer, tank, transport, etc) dictate any differences in movement, durability, etc. This would clean up peculiarities like MCs that act as transports (squiggoth, malefactor...erm...probably some other unseen bugs), tanks with WS or I (Khornate things covered in saw blades, most likely) and other "gray area" units. RT was like that, initially, but messy with weapons having damage dice and such.

Exactly. There's no need for a vehicle section at all, the things we like about the vehicle rules could easily be subsumed into universal special rules and unit types.

Blinder
21-06-2013, 20:06
I was going to type up a bit of a defense of the vehicle rules assuming the AP mods get thrown out the window- ordnance getting the "explode a transport, win a prize" rule/result back would be "fun," but with HPs I don't really think that the weapons which are already several times as likely as anything else to damage the vehicle and possibly break something need to be 2+ times as likely as anything else to make it explode.

Then I realized that most of the things *I* at least like about the vehicle rules have already been largely written out (and are what it seems the "Mechanical Creatures" are being typed to avoid)-

More and more vehicles have uniform armor, between that and assault hitting the rear (and hitting easily) there isn't as much to maneuvering on either side (there's no reason for me to try to get side-shot on a land raider or barges, there isn't even all *that* much reason to try to get a side-shot on much else because anything maneuverable enough to pick a facing is probably packing melta, which doesn't *really* care about a 1-point difference (until you inevitably come up 1 short on a terrible roll), and you are *always* either going to die, or invincible to something that assaults you, so you either stay out of range or sacrifice the tank- there's no more gambling that your front/side armor can stand up to claws/fists, and things like chainfists are much less significant a consideration unless you're using a land raider or monolith).

More and more high-end ranged firepower is available from non-vehicle (and especially "non-tank") sources, particularly from the new MCs (which up until somewhat recently were pretty well restricted to mediocre shooting in return for smashing the hell out of stuff, even the shooty tyranid creatures typically were closer to "medium" vehicles/walkers threat-wise), so it isn't like vehicles are *the* source for serious shooty mayhem (and you don't have to deal with your obscene firepower being on a potentially fragile platform, in terms of possibly dying to the first "wound").

As it is... if the end result is that my heavily armored mechanical box of guns and my opponent's heavily armored mechanical gun-puppet follow the same base rules I'd probably be a lot happier, especially if it means "MC's for everybody and damn the sense of it all" can come to a halt.

Spiney Norman
21-06-2013, 20:12
I think perhaps the difference between a Walker and a monsterous creature, is the ability to touch their toes, and pick up their weapon.

The difference between a super suit and a vehicle with legs.

Consider TDA, ok some weapons are pretty well mounted, but there is the sense that it is a guy in a suit, The Wraith Knight is similar, it has flexible legs and grabable arms, it can move like a person.

WraithLords, pretty much the same setup as necron warriors, living machines.

Now the Eldar war walker. Weapons are on pods, that the driver would have to get out to fix if they were broken, or perhaps the feed was jammed/ gimbal was stuck.

Now Marine Drednaughts seem to be on the border, but I guess they get pushed into the walker teritory, by being relatively unflexable, and their closeCombat weaponsystems, being wreaking balls, and not just big swords.

I think a squiggoth might have a little difficulty touching its toes does that mean it should be a walker?
There are so many inherent contradictions in the way vehicles and MCs are distinguished, tomb spiders are MCs but forge fiends are vehicles, both are essentially artificial constructions with implanted sentience, a dreadknight is a MC and a penitent engine is an open topped walker even though they are both basically just a pilot strapped on to the front of a walking machine. I think it would have made a whole lot more sense for a forge fiend to be a MC (and into the bargain, chaos players might actually use them rather than moaning about them), and they could have made the heldrake a FMC instead of a flyer while we're at it.

I also think we need to define the difference between a suit of armour and a vehicle. A suit of armour implies to me to be plates of varying thickness which a applied to various parts of your body. I.e I would assume that there is a leg somewhere inside the leg of a suit of armour (thousand sons notwithstanding), is that the case for a riptide? No of course not, the legs move because there is a guy inside pressing buttons making them move, not because deep inside the artificial leg there is an organic leg that is moving it. The riptide is no more a suit of armour than a Landraider or monolith.

I'm happy with the wraithknight being an MC on the grounds that wraithbone is "different" to the mundane building materials used to construct the vehicles of other races and that the machine is effectively "possessed" by the spirit of a dead Eldar, and actually I think giving the riptide and dreadknight MC status when they should so obviously be walker vehicles is a massive stab against the uniqueness of the larger wraith constructs.

Within the current rules I would make the difference that anything with a secondary mechanical interface between pilot and vehicle it is a vehicle, anything that functions with only a primary interface (mechanical or natural) i.e. an Eldar spirit controlling a wraith construct or a daemon possessing a forgefiend. So basically if I have to think "move arm" in order to push a button or throw a switch in order to move the arm, leg etc of my walker that is a secondary interface. A daemonic machine that just moves its legs and fires its weapons without having to "press the fire button" should be an MC.

In terms of game-play the only relevant difference between MC and walker profiles is that walkers can be one-shotted and (largely speaking) MCs can't. While its true that MCs have armour saves and vehicles don't, the vast majority of weapons that can damage a T8-10 MC are going to have AP values that will ignore it anyway (death rays, Lascannons, bright/dark lances etc), if they just wanted to give walkers a save there is nothing to stop them giving it an invun as many of the Mc walkers have access to anyway. Poison is perhaps the other unknown quantity, but unless you are fighting Tyranids or dark Eldar it is comparatively rare.

Sami
21-06-2013, 20:27
One of the big differences between a model being a MC rather than a walker is that it becomes a scoring/denial unit depending on force org slot, whereas Walkers in general are stuck not being able to contest anything. I understand GW stopping "normal" vehicles from being able to contest/score, but slapping those restrictions on walkers too felt a bit harsh.

gwarsh41
21-06-2013, 20:34
I would be pretty sad to see my soul grinders become MCs. I like having a few MCs and a few AV13 walkers trudging up the field.

AngryAngel
21-06-2013, 21:02
I'd be content to leave walkers be, should MCs also get worn down by what damage they can take. As opposed to the way they have double thunderstruck vehicles with both hull points as a tiny amount of wounds, really regardless of how sturdy they should be, and the possibility of much more reliable one shot kills. Giving them ability to get cover saves is good, but its not really a matter of debate. MCs are better then walkers. The only ones that even really compete have AV 13 and of those, the soul grinder is the best with a built in invuln, ability to ignore shaken and stunned, ability for awesome cover save, good amount of Hps, as far as that goes anyways.

Try and justify the new huge things being MCs all you want. They were made that way because MCs are just better right now then walkers. They know it, as does most anyone else who plays. Its why aside from people taking them just because they love them, you don't see dreads or their ilk on the board.

Spiney Norman
21-06-2013, 21:02
I think removing the vulnerability of larger vehicles to being one-shotted would make high cost vehicles a lot more viable
A 'heavy' vehicle type that treats a 6 on the damage chart as "make two further rolls on the damage chart, rerolling further results of 6 and apply both results, in addition the vehicle loses a second hull point".

AngryAngel
21-06-2013, 21:06
They also need more variance in HP number. As right now its very hamfisted, and makes most all vehicles the same, which is bonkers. A rhino is not as sturdy as a Leman Russ, A land raider isn't just a little bit tougher then an Ork trukk, an armored sentinel isn't less sturdy then a dark elder raider, etc. The system is new and I can only think not well thought out or play tested and pretty lame. Just my opinion there of course.

Fithos
21-06-2013, 22:33
I completely agree with what you're saying fithos. The riptide really feels like it should be a walker. And most likely, the pilot just sits in the chest of the riptide and drives it around, probably with some kind of direct neural interface rather then a series of buttons and knobs. However, i would say the same is true of the broadside. Theres no way that a fire warrior wears that thing like an actual suit. Its like 3 times the height of a normal tau. Yet, it too has a toughness value and wounds.

Someone had mentioned earlier that they wanted consistency in the rules. If a dreadnought is a walker, then a riptide and a wraith knight should be walker. The thing is, GW is giving us consistency, just not between factions. The consistency exists within each individual faction. A riptide is a MC because all of the other battle suits have toughness characteristics and wounds. A wraith knight is a MC because all other bi-pedal wraith constructs (outside of FW) have toughness characteristics and wounds. It's inner codex consistency rather then cross codex consistency. As for the dread knight...I honestly have no idea. You can say its because the terminator is completely exposed, so he just takes hits like any other terminator, but by that logic...he's completely exposed...why does he get more toughness? i recall reading something about some kind of shield, but that sounds kind of weak to me.

Yeah, I just saw the new broadsides for the first time a couple days ago and I had forgotten how big they are now. The old ones looked like they were well proportioned to be mostly filled by a pilot. With the new ones it really stops making sense. I'm just going to have to go with Grand Master Raziel on this one and say it probably isn't worth time trying to make sense of anymore.

Hendarion
22-06-2013, 07:35
As right now its very hamfisted, and makes most all vehicles the same, which is bonkers.That's because you ignore AV.


A rhino is not as sturdy as a Leman RussAnd that's why it is AV11 and not 14.


A land raider isn't just a little bit tougher then an Ork trukkThat's why it is AV14 and not 10.


an armored sentinel isn't less sturdy then a dark elder raiderIt isn't? Well, that's debatable.

Fear Ghoul
22-06-2013, 12:11
Vehicles and monstrous creatures once did have the same rules, and they still do have the same rules in Fantasy. There is no effective difference between them - one just achieves mechanically what the other does organically. They could easily merge the two types together so that the two would have a shared critical damage table, and give them both three T or armour save values to represent their front, side, and rear. Make Transport, Flyer, Chariot, etc special rules that can be tacked on to represent everything else. That way the Tervigon can have the Transport rule, which quite clearly makes more sense than its current rules.

Sephillion
22-06-2013, 12:23
The problem I think is that vehicles have a lot of caveats - their weaponry can be damaged, a lucky shot can destroy them in one hit, they can become immobilized, etc. - because they were supposed to be tougher to destroy. Now, we see much more weapons able to glance vehicles to death or penetrate them with a lucky shot. 1s on the dice to see if you pen AV should be a miss, and vehicles should have saves. Strength 6 no AP weapons can blow rhinos in one hit, but will have trouble penetrating Terminator Armor and even Power armor.

MC are vulnerable to Instant Death, but those weapons are rarer than AT, and they have a high enough T that they don't fear to be one-shot by high-S weaponry.

Spiney Norman
22-06-2013, 13:18
The problem I think is that vehicles have a lot of caveats - their weaponry can be damaged, a lucky shot can destroy them in one hit, they can become immobilized, etc. - because they were supposed to be tougher to destroy. Now, we see much more weapons able to glance vehicles to death or penetrate them with a lucky shot. 1s on the dice to see if you pen AV should be a miss, and vehicles should have saves. Strength 6 no AP weapons can blow rhinos in one hit, but will have trouble penetrating Terminator Armor and even Power armor.

MC are vulnerable to Instant Death, but those weapons are rarer than AT, and they have a high enough T that they don't fear to be one-shot by high-S weaponry.

I think this is the crucial point, with the introduction of hull points vehicles became much, much easier to remove and so it became much more desirable to be a high toughness MC than a vehicle with an AV. In 4th/5th vehicles and high T MCs (such as the wraithlord) were probably not that different in terms of which would survive longer, now the balance has swung so decisively away from vehicles they had to make this transition to make riptides/dread knights (although I think the wraithknight was made an MC to be a viable counter to greater daemons, which a walker could never be) etc viable, heck if they'd had the wit to realise this properly when they were writing the chaos marine codex maybe the fiends would be more popular if they we MCs.

Grand Master Raziel
22-06-2013, 14:32
I think this is the crucial point, with the introduction of hull points vehicles became much, much easier to remove and so it became much more desirable to be a high toughness MC than a vehicle with an AV. In 4th/5th vehicles and high T MCs (such as the wraithlord) were probably not that different in terms of which would survive longer, now the balance has swung so decisively away from vehicles they had to make this transition to make riptides/dread knights (although I think the wraithknight was made an MC to be a viable counter to greater daemons, which a walker could never be) etc viable, heck if they'd had the wit to realise this properly when they were writing the chaos marine codex maybe the fiends would be more popular if they we MCs.

Walkers could be a viable counter to MCs if walkers negated the bonus armor pen MCs get in close combat with vehicles. Give MCs Rending vs Walkers instead of the current open-them-up-like-a-can-of-tuna rules, and the balance would be fairly even.

And yes, I imagine the CSM Fiends probably would be more popular if they were MCs.

Poseidal
22-06-2013, 18:05
Walkers could be a viable counter to MCs if walkers negated the bonus armor pen MCs get in close combat with vehicles. Give MCs Rending vs Walkers instead of the current open-them-up-like-a-can-of-tuna rules, and the balance would be fairly even.

And yes, I imagine the CSM Fiends probably would be more popular if they were MCs.

It's better now as they don't get 2D6 anymore. They attack at regular strength (usually 5 or 6, not much greater than what an infantry hero can get) or try to smash cutting their attacks in half, which gets the S10 they want but is much more like a Meltabomb instead.

Thrax
22-06-2013, 19:01
We used to use a house rule table for any model with multiple wounds. Each wound was debilitating in some manner, such as lowering the WS, number of attacks or Initiative, etc. We dropped it due to the bookkeeping involved, but a variation on that would work. As it is now, simply giving hull points to vehicles is a pretty silly attempt at correcting the way vehicles are damaged and simply makes them weaker versions of MC's.

Mit Gas
22-06-2013, 23:28
Can't have plastic tanks flying about in the 41st millennium! ;)

No, no, no, you can't have finecast tanks flying around. They'd be full of holes before the first round hits em! :chrome:

Charistoph
23-06-2013, 00:15
Walkers could be a viable counter to MCs if walkers negated the bonus armor pen MCs get in close combat with vehicles. Give MCs Rending vs Walkers instead of the current open-them-up-like-a-can-of-tuna rules, and the balance would be fairly even.

And yes, I imagine the CSM Fiends probably would be more popular if they were MCs.

The previous rules gave Monstrous Creatures the nuclear can opener, now they just have a big axe

What if weapons that are AP: 1 (and/or 2) are able to inflict ID on a Wounding roll of 6? Or make it a special rule that can be applied to the Lascannon, Meltaguns, and Railguns, etc, for that same affect?

Baaltor
23-06-2013, 01:27
That's because you ignore AV.

And that's why it is AV11 and not 14.

That's why it is AV14 and not 10.

It isn't? Well, that's debatable.

You're missing his point. He's not saying they have the same armour value, he's saying they have the same hullpoints. It'd be like MCs having a wound counts that's almost always 3, and rarely 2, or very rarely 4

Lord Squidar
23-06-2013, 17:47
For the the difference between walkers and monsterous creatures has always been about movement and agility. If you compare our list of walkers: deff dread, dreadnought, killakans, sentinals, soul grinders, hellbrutes. To me they are all clanking machines, very little mobility and relying on brute strength to get over obstacles, a dreadnought can break through a wall instead of going around it.

The new machine MCs to me are agile. Look at the artwork for the wraith knight, one of them is sitting on top of a column in a spiderman like pose, pretty agile for a 20 foot tall machine of war. Same with the rip tide, its running around, aiming with its arms freely (dreadnoughts need to pivot on axis to aim in a different direction). Dreadknights carry swords and hammers and are designed to use them in close combat against greater daemons, like the thirster, which is the ultimate warrior, the knight better be able to parry and thrust properly because a thirster would go through a regular clunky dread in a second.

The only flaw in this idea is the soul grinder, which according to my logic, should fit into category two above, but pobody's nerfect.

stonehorse
23-06-2013, 19:50
IMHO this is the first step towards a proper overhauling the vehicle rules because they have effectively admitted that the vehicle rules are not fit for purpose for some vehicles. I have high hopes for next edition that they manage to come up with a set of rules for vehicles that works for all vehicles, not just the kind with tracks and wheels.

This.

As they are the vehicle rules are in need of a bigger change. I'd do away with the damage table, double up the Hull points on all vehicles, and make penetrating hits remove 2 Hull Points. Or throw away armour values, add high toughness & number of wounds, and add a new rule, Immune to poison. Simple, and will make Vehicles fit into the game a lot better I think.

Mauler
25-06-2013, 11:18
No, no, no, you can't have finecast tanks flying around. They'd be full of holes before the first round hits em! :chrome:

Or in a droopy heap if left in magnified sunlight...like my R'alai :'(

Hendarion
25-06-2013, 12:16
You're missing his point. He's not saying they have the same armour value, he's saying they have the same hullpoints. It'd be like MCs having a wound counts that's almost always 3, and rarely 2, or very rarely 4
I did understand him very well. They don't need a difference in hull points, because they have different AV values already. Just because a tank does have thicker armour, that shouldn't mean it is less vulnerable once that armour was penetrated. There is a big difference between a Vehicle having AV 10 or AV 14, a much bigger one than between a monster having T3 or T7. An AV10 vehicle is roughly equal to a T7 monster. AV14 is... roughly like T10. So the "number of wounds" shouldn't be more than 4 anyway or it would kind of turn to a Super Heavy... those do exist after all.

Vaktathi
25-06-2013, 14:52
I did understand him very well. They don't need a difference in hull points, because they have different AV values already. Just because a tank does have thicker armour, that shouldn't mean it is less vulnerable once that armour was penetrated. There is a big difference between a Vehicle having AV 10 or AV 14, a much bigger one than between a monster having T3 or T7. An AV10 vehicle is roughly equal to a T7 monster. AV14 is... roughly like T10. So the "number of wounds" shouldn't be more than 4 anyway or it would kind of turn to a Super Heavy... those do exist after all.Monstrous Creatures range from 3-6 wounds, vehicles only 2-4 for non-Forgeworld units (and even then...only one non-superheavy FW unit has 5), ~80% are 3. AV10 is also more akin to T6 aside from S3 weapons. The big thing is that MC's typically have a 3+ armor save, often a 2+ and/or an invul save, vehicles have no armor save.

So we've not only got lower average "wounds", but no save to deflect shots as well, on top of having an overlapping damage table :P

Voss
25-06-2013, 19:16
Plus MCs that vary between T5 and T8, and a 2+ save and a 4+. That is a lot more granular than 3hp, (sometimes 2 or 4) and AV 10-14. And with wounds increasingly going to 6, it is pretty clear that walkers are really in a strictly inferior category these days (especially as very few make it to AV13, even on the front) and I can't think of anything outside of FW that hits 14 as a walker.

And if the rumour about a tyranid creature that is even bigger than a tervigon/tyrranofex is true (which it may not be, given that it showed up on BOLS), I don't have any guess as to where that profile is going to go. T8 with 8 wounds? Who knows.

Hendarion
25-06-2013, 19:34
Except one class of weapon is totally useless against vehicles - S3 rending, poison, sniper, hellfire rounds, etc. We all know those are the bane of stuff like Wraithlords and alike.

Vaktathi
25-06-2013, 20:47
True, but tend to be specialized weapons (and often reliant on CC), it's relatively minor next to the much smaller range of "wounds", lack of saves, and an additional overlapping damage/kill mechanic in the form of the Vehicle Damage Table. S3 rending can also harm up to AV12.

Charistoph
25-06-2013, 20:57
Except one class of weapon is totally useless against vehicles - S3 rending, poison, sniper, hellfire rounds, etc. We all know those are the bane of stuff like Wraithlords and alike.

Certain unit types (aka Vehicles, Buildingd, and Fortifications) become Immune to Poison. Simple.


True, but tend to be specialized weapons (and often reliant on CC), it's relatively minor next to the much smaller range of "wounds", lack of saves, and an additional overlapping damage/kill mechanic in the form of the Vehicle Damage Table. S3 rending can also harm up to AV12.

S3 Rending could Wound a T10 or T14 (if it existed), too.

MajorWesJanson
26-06-2013, 02:16
Except one class of weapon is totally useless against vehicles - S3 rending, poison, sniper, hellfire rounds, etc. We all know those are the bane of stuff like Wraithlords and alike.

Barring Instant Death, weapons generally cannot kill a model with multiple wounds in a single hit. Things like melta and AP1 are the bane of vehicles.

The hull point system is not a bad idea, but could use a bit more range- say add an additional hull point to everything base, then maybe take extra armor and turn it into say a 25 point upgrade that adds a hull point, as with the marginalization of the damage table, it is far less useful.

Hendarion
26-06-2013, 04:40
Ha, know what's funny? Last edition, people were moaning that vehicles were too good and need to be toned down. Now they complain they are too easy to pop. And this, although glances can no longer insta-kill a vehicle. Even S10 needs a 5+ on AV14 to get a pen and S10 is much less around than it used to be.
I guess it will never end in a situation where nobody complains.

Vaktathi
26-06-2013, 05:11
Ha, know what's funny? Last edition, people were moaning that vehicles were too good and need to be toned down. *Some* people were. And generally it was in regards to cheap transport vehicles really, I don't really recall people complaining about Leman Russ tanks, Falcons, Land Raiders, Predators, Ravagers, Hellhounds, Wave Serpents, Hammerheads, etc.


Now they complain they are too easy to pop. And this, although glances can no longer insta-kill a vehicle. Even S10 needs a 5+ on AV14 to get a pen and S10 is much less around than it used to be.
I guess it will never end in a situation where nobody complains.Nothing will ever please everyone, it's impossible :p However, the only reduction in S10 we've seen is with Tau Broadside suits, Eldar got a whole slew of new S10.

That said they really did go overboard between HP's, reduction in Smoke Launcher viability, vehicle CC changes, transport changes, scoring/contesting changes, etc.