PDA

View Full Version : What if Dreadnoughts were Monstrous Creatures?



The Emperor
08-01-2014, 07:16
Let's say that the "Walker" category is done away with and that all Dreadnoughts (Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought, Ironclad Dreadnought, Helbrute, etc.) is recreated as a Monstrous Creature. What stats do you think they should have?

CommissarMagoo
08-01-2014, 07:31
This is a tough question, I personally think that they are fine as being walkers but the vehicle damage chart weakens their survivability. If they were to become monstrous creatures I would say WS 4 BS 4 T5 W3 SV 2+ (5++). With this, we should definitely see an increase in point costs.

IcedAnimals
08-01-2014, 07:36
Id really rather they just fix the vehicle damage chart. But if a dreadnaught became a MC, id say T6 4 wounds 3+ save. Venerables get an invuln save, Ironclads become 2+ save.

Freman Bloodglaive
08-01-2014, 07:38
In 2nd they were roughly equivalent to Wraithlords, so that's a good place to start. Like gargantuan creatures sniper weapons should only wound on a 6.

Standard Dreadnought
WS4 BS4 S6(10) T8 W4 I4 A2 Sv 3+/5++
Ironclad Dreadnought
WS4 BS4 S6(10) T8 W5 I4 A2(3) 3+/5++
Venerable Dreadnought
WS5 BS5 S6(10) T8 W4 I4 A3 3+/5++ FnP

To make them slightly less vulnerable Space Marine Dreadnoughts get a 5+ invulnerable (like Terminators). Ironclads get an extra wound over normal dreadnoughts. Venerable Dreadnoughts get the improved stat line and FnP to represent the resilience that has kept them around for millennia.

Points cost would have to be increased (a little) as this should be a reasonable increase in durability. I'm thinking about 130 points for a Standard Dreadnought, 160 for an Ironclad, and 190 for a Venerable. Equipment options and prices would be as they are now.

OuroborosTriumphant
08-01-2014, 09:13
I don't like the idea, for the same reason I don't like that Riptides and Dreadknights are MCs. Dreadnoughts shouldn't get Poisoned or Sniped. Haywire weapons ought to have an effect on them. Meltas should be useful against them. Walkers are what they ought to be.

But, if we assume that we have to make the Dreadnought into an MC;

1. It ought to be immune to bolters, which means T8.

2. As a space marine unit, it'd look plain weird if it didn't have a 3+.

3. It ought to be less durable than a Wraithlord. Based on the two things above, I think that means 2 Wounds.

So I guess Toughness 8, 2 Wounds, 3+, Ld 10, Fearless, otherwise as current stats. The big effect would be to make Rifleman and other Mortis Dreadnoughts much deadlier in CC which is, I suppose....certainly a thing? I don't really buy into the "All Walkers are useless because they are Walkers" meme.

Freman Bloodglaive
08-01-2014, 09:47
Walkers are weak because armour dies much easier than something with toughness and wounds (except to force weapons). One successful penetrating hit can destroy a walker, and armour 12 is very thin.

Basically there are two forms of taking damage in 40k, toughness/save and armour. As in Fantasy there should only be one.

I suggest that in half range melta does D6 wounds and D3 over half range, weapons designated anti-tank (like lascannons and bright/dark lances) do D3 wounds, and D equivalent do D6. Lance weapons never wound on worse than a 4+.

Dreadnoughts were, if I recall correctly, tougher in 2nd than Wraithlords. 2 wounds is too low for any adamantium armoured 18 foot tall walking tank. 4 feels about right.

mughi3
08-01-2014, 09:55
Id really rather they just fix the vehicle damage chart. But if a dreadnaught became a MC, id say T6 4 wounds 3+ save. Venerables get an invuln save, Ironclads become 2+ save.

They worked fine in 5th, just get rid of hull points entirely or make vehicles only loose them on a penetrating hit-problem solved.

OuroborosTriumphant
08-01-2014, 10:19
Walkers are weak because armour dies much easier than something with toughness and wounds (except to force weapons). One successful penetrating hit can destroy a walker, and armour 12 is very thin.

It's swings and roundabouts. If you compare, say, Dreadnoughts and Talos Pain Engines (a T6, 3W, 3+ Monstrous Creature that costs a similar amount of points), the Dreadnought is totally immune to bolters and most infantry close combat attacks and it doesn't care about low APs or Instant Death. The Talos is much less likely to die to a single Melta shot, but is vulnerable to a Librarian with a Force Axe or being shot to death by a big mob of Guard using FRFSRF. MCs like Taloses, Carnifeces, and their ilk aren't any more invincible than Dreadnoughts.

Yes, Riptides and Dreadknights are very tough, because they have big piles of wounds and a 2+ save with an invulnerable backing it up. They are much harder to kill than Dreadnoughts. But so are Soul Grinders, which use the Walker rules. Dreadnoughts aren't (comparatively) easy to kill because they are Walkers, they are easy to kill because they are (comparatively) flimsy Walkers, at AV12 and no save.


Basically there are two forms of taking damage in 40k, toughness/save and armour. As in Fantasy there should only be one.

I suggest that in half range melta does D6 wounds and D3 over half range, weapons designated anti-tank (like lascannons and bright/dark lances) do D3 wounds, and D equivalent do D6. Lance weapons never wound on worse than a 4+.

I quite like that the ideal anti-tank weapon and the ideal anti-monster weapon are different weapons. I like that Poisoned shots can do a number on a big monster but do didly against a giant robot.


Dreadnoughts were, if I recall correctly, tougher in 2nd than Wraithlords. 2 wounds is too low for any adamantium armoured 18 foot tall walking tank. 4 feels about right.

They may have been tougher in 2ed, but Wraithlords have been tougher for a long time. Wraithlords are more expensive, the model is bigger, they use a Heavy Support slot rather than an Elite slot; I'm happy with Dreadnoughts being less tough than Wraithlords.

I'm not saying Dreadnoughts don't need a bit of a buff but their problems don't stem from being Walkers (I don't even think they stem from being overly flimsy; which could be addressed by making them AV13/12/10 or giving them an Invulnerable save; I think they stem from their close combat abilities being less useful than giving them a second gun).

Losing Command
08-01-2014, 10:41
They worked fine in 5th, just get rid of hull points entirely or make vehicles only loose them on a penetrating hit-problem solved.

That would actually create the problem of Eldar Waveserpents becoming unkillable for real. Their shield makes penetrating hits glancing, so glancing them to death is kinda the only way to destroy one.

It are things like Gauss, haywire by the numbers, AP 1 weapons being unable not to disable a vehicle on a penetrating hit and krak-grenades on everybody that make dreadnoughts so sub-par. If walkers were hit only on a 6 with grenades in CC again they might be a little better. It's mostly the rediculus survivability of high-toughness good save mosterous creature's that make vehicles look so bad. If you shoot a tank with a meltagun you can hit a critical part and shut it down in one shot, but for some reason you can't with something that is made of living tissue, wraithbone or has an experimental powersource :shifty:

Mandragola
08-01-2014, 11:11
I don't like the idea, for the same reason I don't like that Riptides and Dreadknights are MCs. Dreadnoughts shouldn't get Poisoned or Sniped. Haywire weapons ought to have an effect on them. Meltas should be useful against them. Walkers are what they ought to be.

I do think this sums up the problem. The division between what's a walker and what's an mc is entirely arbitrary, and a mess. There are loads of things in 40k where you've got a guy driving a walking thing about. Some are walkers, some are MCs and there's no obvious reason for the distinction. A triarch stalker is a walker and a dreadknight an mc why? No reason. But the in-game effect is huge. As a walker, the stalker doesn't get smash and is far softer than a riptide which, despite having no apparent close combat weapons and certainly no skill, can stomp on it without any bother at all.

So my suggestion is to reform how 40k works, and go back to warhammer. One system for everything. By all means still have a vehicle "type", which is vulnerable to haywire and immune to poison. Reintroduce hit modifiers and multi-wound weapons and ditch clumsy stuff like cover saves and instant death - so that a better shot has more chance of hitting a guy in cover, so cover still protects a marine from a lasgun shot, so a Krak missile doesn't blow up a dreadnought but ping off a terminator and so t6 doesn't make you fantastically more tough than t5.

Hull points are basically half way to this already, going back to a system where vehicles have wounds.

duffybear1988
08-01-2014, 12:38
What would happen to the humble sentinel?

Spiney Norman
08-01-2014, 12:54
Let's say that the "Walker" category is done away with and that all Dreadnoughts (Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought, Ironclad Dreadnought, Helbrute, etc.) is recreated as a Monstrous Creature. What stats do you think they should have?

There are two ways they could go on this
1. Turn all vehicles into 'MC' equivalents, basically do away with the armour system entirely and give vehicles a toughness and save (obviously non-walker vehicles would have a 0 attack & WS stat)
2. Overhaul the vehicle rules so they actually work for all vehicle types.

Seriously we have enough walkers masquerading as MCs already, either do away with the difference entirely or make the rules for walkers viable. I actually really like that vehicles have a different way of resolving damage, it keeps the game interesting and adds a layer of depth that you just don't otherwise get.

Saves is the other issue, what they did with power weapons this ed effectively meant that the only saves that matter when you're in combat are 2+ and from shooting 3+ or better (though with helldrake and tau that is fast becoming 2+ or go home as well). I think we're actually at the limit of what the game can cope with in terms of weapon AP, if things escalate any more than we're going to be in a situation where armour saves hardly ever matter ingame and it just becomes all about who has the best invun.

Camman1984
08-01-2014, 13:01
We should make vehicles better and then make the knights and tides of this world vehicles. What is the difference between a riptide and dreadnaught? They are both big armoured battlesuits and should be treated as such. Just like the dreadknight is similar to the old baby carrier war walkers.

Sotek
08-01-2014, 13:01
Things just need a few more hull points. LR should be about 6 Rhino 4, dark eldar venom 2 but raider 3 and so on

vlad78
08-01-2014, 13:34
This is a tough question, I personally think that they are fine as being walkers but the vehicle damage chart weakens their survivability. If they were to become monstrous creatures I would say WS 4 BS 4 T5 W3 SV 2+ (5++). With this, we should definitely see an increase in point costs.

So you would make of them mere terminators? tons of adamantium and merely T5? Eldar Wraithlord is T8. just saying.

The Emperor
08-01-2014, 17:26
They may have been tougher in 2ed, but Wraithlords have been tougher for a long time. Wraithlords are more expensive, the model is bigger, they use a Heavy Support slot rather than an Elite slot; I'm happy with Dreadnoughts being less tough than Wraithlords.

To be fair, Wraithlords may be taller than Dreadnoughts, but their mass isn't proportional. They're tall and spindly while Dreadnoughts are short and bulky. Back when they had pewter models I held both and the Dreadnought was clearly the heavier of the two, as the model had more mass. The Wraithlord is designed the way it is for speed, mobility, and avoiding damage by presenting a low profile, while the Dreadnought is obviously designed to take heavy amounts of punishment (which, sadly, isn't reflected in the rules at present).


I'm not saying Dreadnoughts don't need a bit of a buff but their problems don't stem from being Walkers (I don't even think they stem from being overly flimsy; which could be addressed by making them AV13/12/10 or giving them an Invulnerable save; I think they stem from their close combat abilities being less useful than giving them a second gun).

That Rear AV 10 is part of the problem. A basic Space Marine can potentially punch a Dreadnought to death in hand-to-hand thanks to always hitting the rear armor in close combat. How would a Wraithlord play if he was T8 most of the time, but if he was T6 when someone shot him in the back or got in hand-to-hand with him? Because that's pretty much how the Dreadnought plays. It's effectively got multiple Toughness values, and the weakest one is always used when it's in close combat.

DoomedToRepeatIt
08-01-2014, 17:38
...you only hit Walkers in CC on their rear armor if they're Immobilized. Still, you make a good point about mixed armor values compared to MC Toughness.

OuroborosTriumphant
08-01-2014, 17:40
That Rear AV 10 is part of the problem. A basic Space Marine can potentially punch a Dreadnought to death in hand-to-hand thanks to always hitting the rear armor in close combat. How would a Wraithlord play if he was T8 most of the time, but if he was T6 when someone shot him in the back or got in hand-to-hand with him? Because that's pretty much how the Dreadnought plays. It's effectively got multiple Toughness values, and the weakest one is always used when it's in close combat.

Unless it is Immobilized, Walkers are struck on the front armour in close combat, not the rear armour like other vehicles.

Edit: Ninjaed.

MajorWesJanson
08-01-2014, 17:41
Id really rather they just fix the vehicle damage chart. But if a dreadnaught became a MC, id say T6 4 wounds 3+ save. Venerables get an invuln save, Ironclads become 2+ save.

I agree mostly, but I would say Venerable getting the 2+ and Ironcalds being T7 instead.

IcedCrow
08-01-2014, 17:53
I also think that even if a dread got T6 or T7 with a 3+ save, until it has 5 or 6 attacks plus special rules people will still say its not worth taking.

Voss
08-01-2014, 17:58
I'd be happy if all vehicles went back to the Rogue Trader system of Toughness and Damage Points (wounds). T8 and 3-4 W would be roughly equivalent. That legacy is what has kept the wraithlord a T8 MC anyway.

Ruination Drinker
08-01-2014, 18:18
Id really rather they just fix the vehicle damage chart. But if a dreadnaught became a MC, id say T6 4 wounds 3+ save. Venerables get an invuln save, Ironclads become 2+ save.

I'd rather they get rid of the damage chart. The game needs to slim down its processes. Vehicles already have wounds, they can't take armor saves so why should there be an added layer of jeopardy for them?

Or sure, keep the chart and reduce the cost of all vehicles by 20% to offset the disadvantage of getting a damage chart.

Andy089
08-01-2014, 18:46
Personally I think it should be handled like this:
anything where the driver can get out of = walker.
anything where the driver is permanently bound or any single creature = monstrous creature

So Dreadknights and Riptides should be walkers while dreadnoughts and some other stuff should be monstrous creatures.

Also I think damaging vehicles should work differently: Penetrating hit = hull point stripped + roll on damage chart, glancing hit = only roll on damage chart.

ntw3001
08-01-2014, 20:31
I think the game would benefit from losing the distinct statline for vehicles. The range of possible outcomes on the damage chart is kind of cute, but in practice it gives the developers two separate damage systems to balance for no real reason. Plus, we've got a game where critical existence failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure) (sorry) applies to one class of combatant and not the other, again for no real reason. Why not just give vehicles the same statline as other units, have them follow the same damage rules, but count mechanical units as a distinct subtype with inbuilt resistance or weakness to certain attack types?

the gribbly
08-01-2014, 20:59
Let's say that the "Walker" category is done away with and that all Dreadnoughts (Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought, Ironclad Dreadnought, Helbrute, etc.) is recreated as a Monstrous Creature. What stats do you think they should have?
Id prefer if they just gave dreads a decent statline.. AV13 all sides, 5+ invuln, 4 attacks ws 5. Our weapons cant do sh1t addresses infantry not being able to damage it and the change might encourage people to bring melta bombs, PF etc. They would definitely be more inspiring then they are currently.

If the dread class ceased to exist I would guess the MC dreads stats would actually look similar to a dreadknight moreso than a wraithknight.

Edit- hmm another cool idea might be to give dreads some form of advantage vs. monstrous creatures, like maybe no smash attacks vs walkers, or walkers gain instant death vs MC.

tychii
08-01-2014, 23:03
I like that their is a difference between monstrous creatures and vehicles.
I think the HP system is great for them, but we could get rid of the damage table completely, or go to 1-5 = -1hp 6 = wrecked 7= explode
then give walkers 4-5 hp.
That would make them much more survivable and keep the difference between armour and MC's

with that being said I think all vehicles should have 1 more hp then they currently have.

But that would make 14 armour tougher then MC's, but I'm ok with that.

AndrewGPaul
08-01-2014, 23:15
I'd be happy if all vehicles went back to the Rogue Trader system of Toughness and Damage Points (wounds). T8 and 3-4 W would be roughly equivalent. That legacy is what has kept the wraithlord a T8 MC anyway.

Nah, the Eldar Dreadnought (and War Walker, for that matter) were vehicles. Once the amended vehicle rules (as eventually published in the Vehicle Manual, with the clear targeting template), and on through 2nd edition, they used the same Armour Value system as Space Marine and Ork Dreadnoughts (and Tyranid Screamer-Killers in 1st edition, for that matter).

I agree, though, that a single hit-damage system is better than the two systems there are at present. Citadel Journals 9 and 10 had a set of playtest vehicle rules for 2nd edition which did just that - gave every vehicle a normal M, WS, BS, etc statline. Big, bulky vehicles had a lot of Wounds. Tough, heavily-armoured vehicles (like Imperial Guard tanks) had a high Toughness and those with high-tech superior armour systems (like SPace Marines and Eldar) had a good save (and something which was a combination of both like a Land Raider, had a high Toughness and a good save). There were also "critical hit" rules to cause additional damage - which could be applied to any model with more than one Wound - like a hero, for example.

There's no reason why vehicles couldn't have a normal Toughness and armour save and also still have rules for disabling sub-systems like we do now. Any Wound roll which beats its required score by more than two points is a Penetrating Hit, for example.

Retrospectus
08-01-2014, 23:49
what about a damage chart for monstrous creatures?
say if you exceed an MC's toughness value you get to roll on the chart, ( so shooting a wraithknight with a melta takes a wound, shooting with a lascannon or railgun blasts of an arm or blinds it)

The Emperor
09-01-2014, 01:36
Basically there are two forms of taking damage in 40k, toughness/save and armour. As in Fantasy there should only be one.

Agreed. It'd be preferable if everything just operated the same way, rather than quarantining vehicles into their own separate category. I've honestly had enough of the Vehicle Damage Table, at least. Do we really need a table like that when nothing else in the game can be similarly affected? Why can a Dreadnought's arm be blown off but not a Carnifex's arm, or an Ork Warboss's arm? We don't have that level of specificity in damage effects when dealing with infantry models or Monstrous Creatures, so why with vehicles? Just like the Chapter Master can operate at full effectiveness even though he's only got 1 Wound left, why not allow vehicles to be just as effective? If vehicles in Warhammer Fantasy can operate just fine with the Toughness/Wound mechanic, then they can do the same in 40k.

Voss
09-01-2014, 02:47
Nah, the Eldar Dreadnought (and War Walker, for that matter) were vehicles. Once the amended vehicle rules (as eventually published in the Vehicle Manual, with the clear targeting template), and on through 2nd edition, they used the same Armour Value system as Space Marine and Ork Dreadnoughts (and Tyranid Screamer-Killers in 1st edition, for that matter).
Well, yes, they were vehicles. Monstrous creatures didn't exist for quite a while. My point was ALL vehicles originally had Toughness values, damage points (equivalent to wounds) and saving throws. The amended vehicle rules with the grid targeting and armor values came later. The land raider in the RT book was T8 with 50 damage points (so could soak roughly 7 lascannon hits, since they did 2d6 wounds). Dreads averaged T8 and 20 damage points, which worked out to about 3 lascannon hits (which turned into 3 wounds, once the multiple wound dice were dropped in favor of instant death). And that is where the T8 3W wraithlord comes from.

I don't remember the page numbers offhand for the RT book, but you can still find the old vehicle profiles with toughness and damage in Slaves to Darkness on page 257, and it is pretty easy to find via a google search. And includes land raiders, dreadnoughts, bikes, rhinos, bullock jet cycles and land speeders and robots.

Aside from the kludgy acceleration/deceleration and turning radius, the Toughness, Wounds and Save system for vehicles is far superior than the AV and damage value nonsense, and far more internally consistent with the rest of the system. As others have pointed out (and quite well, right above this post) nothing else suffers for being smacked about some on the battlefield.

Freman Bloodglaive
09-01-2014, 03:35
Actually what we're discussing now is quite in accord with what Jervis Johnson described in his article about "murdering your darlings."

Put it another way, KISS, keep it simple stupid.

Toughness/Armour/Invulnerable/Feel no Pain/Wounds is something we're familiar with from every game GW makes, we don't need to think about Strength 9 lascannon, toughness 10 Land Raider, 5+ to wound, we just remember it.

Armour, well sure glance, penetrate, roll on table, something more to remember, something extra to remember that doesn't have to be there.

TAIFW adds a layer of nuance to the procedure too. You can distinguish between a very tough vehicle and a moderately tough vehicle (Land Raider and Leman Russ for example) by simply adjusting the number of wounds and the armour save it has. Both might be toughness 10 (just as an example) but the Land Raider might have a 2+ armour save and 8 wounds, while the Leman Russ has a 3+ armour save and 6 wounds.

If we want to represent the degradation of performance as wounds accumulate then just at half wounds (for vehicles and monstrous creatures) only half of its ranged weapons (rounding fractions up) can fire, and it halves its attack stat (rounding fractions up) losing the ability to smash if it had it (of course we might want to get rid of smash KISS).

Voss
09-01-2014, 04:06
TAIFW adds a layer of nuance to the procedure too. You can distinguish between a very tough vehicle and a moderately tough vehicle (Land Raider and Leman Russ for example) by simply adjusting the number of wounds and the armour save it has. Both might be toughness 10 (just as an example) but the Land Raider might have a 2+ armour save and 8 wounds, while the Leman Russ has a 3+ armour save and 6 wounds.

This was exactly the case in the RT setup. Land Raider and Rhino had the same toughness, but the land raider had more wounds and 2+ save vs the rhino's 4+ save.

Ruination Drinker
09-01-2014, 05:44
Actually what we're discussing now is quite in accord with what Jervis Johnson described in his article about "murdering your darlings."

Put it another way, KISS, keep it simple stupid.

Toughness/Armour/Invulnerable/Feel no Pain/Wounds is something we're familiar with from every game GW makes, we don't need to think about Strength 9 lascannon, toughness 10 Land Raider, 5+ to wound, we just remember it.

Armour, well sure glance, penetrate, roll on table, something more to remember, something extra to remember that doesn't have to be there.

TAIFW adds a layer of nuance to the procedure too. You can distinguish between a very tough vehicle and a moderately tough vehicle (Land Raider and Leman Russ for example) by simply adjusting the number of wounds and the armour save it has. Both might be toughness 10 (just as an example) but the Land Raider might have a 2+ armour save and 8 wounds, while the Leman Russ has a 3+ armour save and 6 wounds.

If we want to represent the degradation of performance as wounds accumulate then just at half wounds (for vehicles and monstrous creatures) only half of its ranged weapons (rounding fractions up) can fire, and it halves its attack stat (rounding fractions up) losing the ability to smash if it had it (of course we might want to get rid of smash KISS).

Thank you. I was beginning to think no one remembered when it was simpler game that actually made sense.

The Emperor
09-01-2014, 06:10
Actually what we're discussing now is quite in accord with what Jervis Johnson described in his article about "murdering your darlings."

Put it another way, KISS, keep it simple stupid.

Toughness/Armour/Invulnerable/Feel no Pain/Wounds is something we're familiar with from every game GW makes, we don't need to think about Strength 9 lascannon, toughness 10 Land Raider, 5+ to wound, we just remember it.

Yep, and when a vehicle rams something it could be treated simply as a Hammer of Wrath hit using its Strength value (which, for tanks and such, would just be an indication of how much mass the vehicle possesses, and so how hard it hits when it rams into a target).


TAIFW adds a layer of nuance to the procedure too. You can distinguish between a very tough vehicle and a moderately tough vehicle (Land Raider and Leman Russ for example) by simply adjusting the number of wounds and the armour save it has. Both might be toughness 10 (just as an example) but the Land Raider might have a 2+ armour save and 8 wounds, while the Leman Russ has a 3+ armour save and 6 wounds.

Agreed. That wouldn't be a bad way of handling things at all, and would account for the fact that, while the Leman Russ traditionally has front armor equal to the Land Raider, its side and rear armor isn't so tough.

AngryAngel
09-01-2014, 06:37
I also think that even if a dread got T6 or T7 with a 3+ save, until it has 5 or 6 attacks plus special rules people will still say its not worth taking.

I think your wrong, if they get the MC stats, and weapon load outs they currently maintain, they'd be fine. Of course players wouldn't turn away some special rules, as most every MC has some, but that aside they'd be much improved.

budman
09-01-2014, 08:46
What if Dreadnoughts were Monstrous Creatures?
I may use Dreadnoughts in my army :-)

Baaltor
09-01-2014, 09:28
In 2nd they were roughly equivalent to Wraithlords, so that's a good place to start. Like gargantuan creatures sniper weapons should only wound on a 6.

Standard Dreadnought
WS4 BS4 S6(10) T8 W4 I4 A2 Sv 3+/5++
Ironclad Dreadnought
WS4 BS4 S6(10) T8 W5 I4 A2(3) 3+/5++
Venerable Dreadnought
WS5 BS5 S6(10) T8 W4 I4 A3 3+/5++ FnP

To make them slightly less vulnerable Space Marine Dreadnoughts get a 5+ invulnerable (like Terminators). Ironclads get an extra wound over normal dreadnoughts. Venerable Dreadnoughts get the improved stat line and FnP to represent the resilience that has kept them around for millennia.

Points cost would have to be increased (a little) as this should be a reasonable increase in durability. I'm thinking about 130 points for a Standard Dreadnought, 160 for an Ironclad, and 190 for a Venerable. Equipment options and prices would be as they are now.

I was coincidently working on something related to this thread. Freman's suggestion is similar to what I had. The difference is that I'd personally lower the Toughness to 6 (way too low under the current system) and increase the armour to 2+. I'm not sure about wounds, but I think I'd go with 5. It should be noted that the system we use has armour mitigation, which I highly reccomend trying, and inv. saves may be taken as well as armour saves. The pricing hasn't been worked out on these yet.

Standard Dreadnought
WS4* BS4* S6(10) T6 W5 I4 A2 Sv 2+/5++
Ironclad Dreadnought (I'm not sure on this)
WS4* BS4* S6(10) T7 W6 I4 A2(3) 2+/5++
Specialist Dreadnought (Librarian, Chaplain etc.)
WS4 BS4 S6(10) T6 W5 I4 A2(3) 2+/5++
Venerable Dreadnought
WS5 BS5 S6(10) T6 W6 I5 A3 2+/4++ Eternal Warrior
Ancient Dreadnought (HQ)
WS6 BS6 S6(10) T6 W7 I6 A4 2+/4++; Eternal Warrior

*Dreadnaughts are picked from exceptional heros, and have skills to match. One of these numbers is a five depending on arms.


What would happen to the humble sentinel?

I'd guess...

Scout Sentinel
WS3 BS3 S5 T5 W3 I3 A1 Sv 5+

Armoured Sentinel
WS3 BS3 S5 T5 W4 I3 A1 Sv 4+

AndrewGPaul
09-01-2014, 10:53
Well, yes, they were vehicles. Monstrous creatures didn't exist for quite a while. My point was ALL vehicles originally had Toughness values, damage points (equivalent to wounds) and saving throws. The amended vehicle rules with the grid targeting and armor values came later. The land raider in the RT book was T8 with 50 damage points (so could soak roughly 7 lascannon hits, since they did 2d6 wounds). Dreads averaged T8 and 20 damage points, which worked out to about 3 lascannon hits (which turned into 3 wounds, once the multiple wound dice were dropped in favor of instant death). And that is where the T8 3W wraithlord comes from.

But doesn't explain why the Wraithlord reverted back to a normal stat line while the other Dreadnoughts didn't; that was my point. Other than that, we're agreeing. :)

Some people have argued - and I think I agree - that the fundamental difference between "creatures" and "vehicles" is that one operates at full effectiveness until it dies and the other suffers degrading effectiveness. You could still keep that while going back to a stat line. The suggestion I made in my last post, for example, or a modified damage chart; make it a 2D6 roll, make half the results "no additional effect" and roll once on that chart for each Wound suffered.

If you're going to play with the rules like this, though, make sure you have a good idea of what you're wanting to achieve. Too many suggestions are just changing something for the sake of change, with no good idea of what they're trying to model.

Mandragola
09-01-2014, 12:04
I think one thing you'd want to do, if turning all walkers into MCs, is take smash away as a default ability. I think riptides already shouldn't have it. Sentinels obviously shouldn't. Maybe defilers should. Not sure about dreads, but probably not as then ccws do something.

Actually though, there's no real reason these things have to be MCs. A sentinel could basically just be infantry.

The Emperor
09-01-2014, 16:43
I'm thinking their save should be 2+/5++. After all, Terminator Armor is called "Tactical Dreadnought Armor", so one would think they'd offer similar protection. I also agree with Baaltor that Eternal Warrior would make great sense for the Venerable Dreadnought, so how about the following?

DREADNOUGHT
WS: 5, BS: 4, S: 6, T: 8, W: 3, I: 4, A: 2, Ld: 10, Sv: 2+/5+

VENERABLE DREADNOUGHT
WS: 6, BS: 5, S: 6, T: 8, W: 3, I: 5, A: 3, Ld: 10, Sv: 2+/5+
Eternal Warrior

IRONCLAD DREADNOUGHT
WS: 5, BS: 4, S: 6, T: 9, W: 4, I: 4, A: 2, Ld: 10, Sv: 2+/5+

I also have a problem with the normal combat stats. I get the impression that GW's impression here of what constitutes a 'great hero' worthy of being interred into a Dreadnought is a Veteran Sergeant, hence WS/BS/I 4 and 2 Attacks. IMO, those great heroes should at least be on the level of a Chaplain, with WS 5, while the Venerable Dreadnought is more on the level of a Captain, with WS 6, BS 5, I 5, and 3 Attacks.

AngryAngel
09-01-2014, 17:34
What would a sentinel smash look like ? A big head butt ? Or a kung fu kick ?

Freman Bloodglaive
09-01-2014, 19:31
I'm thinking their save should be 2+/5++. After all, Terminator Armor is called "Tactical Dreadnought Armor", so one would think they'd offer similar protection. I also agree with Baaltor that Eternal Warrior would make great sense for the Venerable Dreadnought, so how about the following?

DREADNOUGHT
WS: 5, BS: 4, S: 6, T: 8, W: 3, I: 4, A: 2, Ld: 10, Sv: 2+/5+

VENERABLE DREADNOUGHT
WS: 6, BS: 5, S: 6, T: 8, W: 3, I: 5, A: 3, Ld: 10, Sv: 2+/5+
Eternal Warrior

IRONCLAD DREADNOUGHT
WS: 5, BS: 4, S: 6, T: 9, W: 4, I: 4, A: 2, Ld: 10, Sv: 2+/5+

I also have a problem with the normal combat stats. I get the impression that GW's impression here of what constitutes a 'great hero' worthy of being interred into a Dreadnought is a Veteran Sergeant, hence WS/BS/I 4 and 2 Attacks. IMO, those great heroes should at least be on the level of a Chaplain, with WS 5, while the Venerable Dreadnought is more on the level of a Captain, with WS 6, BS 5, I 5, and 3 Attacks.

I'm just averse to combining high toughness with a really good armour save. Toughness 6 with a 2+ save? Sure. Toughness 8 with a 2+ save means that things like krak missiles (which should in theory be good at killing Dreadnoughts) just bounce off most of the time. Actually that's probably an argument for reducing the number of 2+ save monstrous creatures in the game, restricting such an advantage to creatures of legendary toughness (Carnifex) or HQ monsters (Hive Tyrant). For Ironclads I'd say either an extra point of toughness or an extra wound, not both.

With the current reduced stats for Chaplains and the like bumping their WS up by 1 doesn't seem too bad (it would have been bad under rules where Chaplains had the full hero stats), however the limitation of their initiative to 4 seems more to do with the limitations of being a Dreadnought rather than the character incased within.

With a suggested move to anti-tank weapons doing D3 wounds rather than 1 we can probably get rid of the Instant Death rule. A lascannon doing D3 wounds has the potential to kill many characters much of the time, but with the chance of a 1 means that even a 2 wound character could survive. Toughness 4 doesn't become such a liability either. Eternal Warrior would prevent a unit taking multiple wounds from such a weapon. Force weapons would get the D3 wounds rule as well.

frikandel speciaal
09-01-2014, 20:10
This is a tough question, I personally think that they are fine as being walkers but the vehicle damage chart weakens their survivability. If they were to become monstrous creatures I would say WS 4 BS 4 T5 W3 SV 2+ (5++). With this, we should definitely see an increase in point costs.

Toughness 5? Really? I think toughness 7 is far more interesting(6would be acceptable). I'd also prefer 4 wounds. No increase in points.

Sgt John Keel
09-01-2014, 20:30
Toughness 5? Really? I think toughness 7 is far more interesting(6would be acceptable). I'd also prefer 4 wounds. No increase in points.

I'd say at T7 minimum. Lasguns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all (except by Pratchettian one-in-a-million shots). I can see bolters bringing them down by hitting vulnerable points, so I'm not necessarily advocating T8, but T7 is really the minimum in my opinion.

Decent points have been made on the effectiveness of krak missiles, so Sv 3+/5++ seem reasonable

So, in summary: BS4 WS4 S6 T7 W3 I4 A2 Sv3+/5++

(Possibly) Mechanical Monstrosity: Wounds from Melta weapons within half their maximum range cause Instant Death versus Dreadnoughts. Dreadnoughts also have the Feel No Pain rule. Haywire weapons count as Fleshbane and ignore Feel No Pain. Armourbane counts as Fleshbane. Immune to Poison and Fleshbane. (And yes, this is ridiculous.)

As per usual in these situations, I will advocate something like the Crippled rule from BFG for multi-wound models: when reduced to half its starting number of wounds (rounding down), a model will halve its attacks (rounding up), move as in difficult terrain and only be able to fire one ranged weapon (and possibly also make psychic tests on 3D6, pick the two highest).

Spiney Norman
09-01-2014, 21:33
I'm just averse to combining high toughness with a really good armour save. Toughness 6 with a 2+ save? Sure. Toughness 8 with a 2+ save means that things like krak missiles (which should in theory be good at killing Dreadnoughts) just bounce off most of the time. Actually that's probably an argument for reducing the number of 2+ save monstrous creatures in the game, restricting such an advantage to creatures of legendary toughness (Carnifex) or HQ monsters (Hive Tyrant). For Ironclads I'd say either an extra point of toughness or an extra wound, not both.


Its more than that though, the way damage resolves against vehicles is the only thing that keep high strength, high AP guns even slightly useful. I'm talking about guns like tesla destructors and scatter lasers that are the 'anti-light vehicle' weapons. If everything worth killing, including most vehicles and transport tanks suddenly has a 3+ Armour save or better those guns become effectively worthless.

You'd be migrating to a system where all anti tank weaponry is realistically going to need AP2 to do its job, which will have serious implications for elite infantry and MC with high armour saves as well.

Conversely, if you intentionally under-armour flyers, making most of the 4+AS maximum suddenly the Nephilim's missile loadout becomes not so ridiculous after all.

T10
09-01-2014, 21:33
Those are a lot of rules to make the MC Dreadnought pretty much count as a vehicle...

insectum7
09-01-2014, 21:57
I honestly think the biggest issue people have with walkers is that they can be killed in one good shot, unlike a Wraithlord or other MC.

Seems to me a much simpler solution is to just make Dreadnoughts modify the damage chart roll by -1 or -2. Just that would give it 3 "wounds", and it retains near immunity to Poison and all the other outliers. Though a lucky meltagun could zap it on a 6, rather than a 4+.

Sgt John Keel
09-01-2014, 22:04
Those are a lot of rules to make the MC Dreadnought pretty much count as a vehicle...

I think the end result is pretty decent, but it is messy. Still, a lot shorter than the vehicle section of the rulebook.

If the problem is that Dreadnoughts are too easily killed by too many weapons, that they can't stand up in combat against Monstrous Creatures and that grenades are too good against them, I think it solves all of those while still keeping the fluffiness of specialised anti-vehicle weapons being useful against them.

But somehow it feels more like a rule from Magic than 40k.

gwarsh41
09-01-2014, 22:05
It is much harder to kill a walker in a single shot than it used to be, however it is still worlds easier than taking down an MC. The downside to MCs has always been that lighter weapons can still hurt you, while walkers can ignore bolters, heavy bolters, and even auto cannnons only have a 1/3 chance to glance. While all of that can potentially harm an MC.

Ruination Drinker
09-01-2014, 22:24
It's funny that this hasn't even been mentioned yet, but a dreadnought, being a vehicle and all, should be able to break out of melee whenever it liked. Yes, it has a WS but what about that fact forces this vehicle type to get locked in combat by gangs of worthless units? Shouldn't a massive behemoth like a dreadnought be able to storm out of combat whenever it chose?

Baaltor
09-01-2014, 22:25
For Ironclads I'd say either an extra point of toughness or an extra wound, not both.

I'm inclined to agree, but thinking about it results in me thinking that just one of those doesn't cut it. Not for a whole unit, with markedly better resilience.



With a suggested move to anti-tank weapons doing D3 wounds rather than 1 we can probably get rid of the Instant Death rule. A lascannon doing D3 wounds has the potential to kill many characters much of the time, but with the chance of a 1 means that even a 2 wound character could survive. Toughness 4 doesn't become such a liability either. Eternal Warrior would prevent a unit taking multiple wounds from such a weapon. Force weapons would get the D3 wounds rule as well.

Not really related, but in my homebrew instant death has been replaced with increasing damage dice for every two point of excess strength. Example: A lascannon hits a dreadnought (T9) and does 1d2 wounds. The same lascannon versus a T5 Sentinel would instead do 1d3 wounds. I guess a good thing for venerables in my system would be no improved save/whatever, but eternal warrior since it makes it immune to taking more than one wound.

AndrewGPaul
09-01-2014, 23:59
It's funny that this hasn't even been mentioned yet, but a dreadnought, being a vehicle and all, should be able to break out of melee whenever it liked. Yes, it has a WS but what about that fact forces this vehicle type to get locked in combat by gangs of worthless units? Shouldn't a massive behemoth like a dreadnought be able to storm out of combat whenever it chose?

The same would apply for things like Carnifexes, Wraithlords and even Ork Warbosses and Terminators, I suppose. It should be a characteristic of a big, poweful model, not a vehicle per se.

frikandel speciaal
10-01-2014, 00:05
I'd say at T7 minimum. Lasguns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all (except by Pratchettian one-in-a-million shots). I can see bolters bringing them down by hitting vulnerable points, so I'm not necessarily advocating T8, but T7 is really the minimum in my opinion.

Decent points have been made on the effectiveness of krak missiles, so Sv 3+/5++ seem reasonable

So, in summary: BS4 WS4 S6 T7 W3 I4 A2 Sv3+/5++

(Possibly) Mechanical Monstrosity: Wounds from Melta weapons within half their maximum range cause Instant Death versus Dreadnoughts. Dreadnoughts also have the Feel No Pain rule. Haywire weapons count as Fleshbane and ignore Feel No Pain. Armourbane counts as Fleshbane. Immune to Poison and Fleshbane. (And yes, this is ridiculous.)

As per usual in these situations, I will advocate something like the Crippled rule from BFG for multi-wound models: when reduced to half its starting number of wounds (rounding down), a model will halve its attacks (rounding up), move as in difficult terrain and only be able to fire one ranged weapon (and possibly also make psychic tests on 3D6, pick the two highest).

I like your ideas and i think toughness 7 is the way to go. Toughness 8 is an Eldar thing, so 7 is nice. T7 would also be apropiate for Daemonprinces and Maulerfiends.

KhornateLord
10-01-2014, 00:30
In 2nd they were roughly equivalent to Wraithlords, so that's a good place to start. Like gargantuan creatures sniper weapons should only wound on a 6.

Standard Dreadnought
WS4 BS4 S6(10) T8 W4 I4 A2 Sv 3+/5++
Ironclad Dreadnought
WS4 BS4 S6(10) T8 W5 I4 A2(3) 3+/5++
Venerable Dreadnought
WS5 BS5 S6(10) T8 W4 I4 A3 3+/5++ FnP

To make them slightly less vulnerable Space Marine Dreadnoughts get a 5+ invulnerable (like Terminators). Ironclads get an extra wound over normal dreadnoughts. Venerable Dreadnoughts get the improved stat line and FnP to represent the resilience that has kept them around for millennia.

Points cost would have to be increased (a little) as this should be a reasonable increase in durability. I'm thinking about 130 points for a Standard Dreadnought, 160 for an Ironclad, and 190 for a Venerable. Equipment options and prices would be as they are now.

Frankly, that would cost a lot more!

They have 3 HP now, which is equivalent to 3 wounds.
Now at T8, they are similar to the resilience of a dreadnought, if they have no armour save.
If you give them a 3+, they are actually much tougher than a dreadnought.
So I would suggest that a T6, with a 3+ and 3 wounds is about as good as they should get at this point cost.

Freman Bloodglaive
10-01-2014, 01:07
Toughness 6 is the toughness of flesh and blood creatures (or whatever Tyranids are made of). Dreadnoughts are made of metal. Toughness 6 would be too low, toughness 7 maybe.

They need to be tougher than a current dreadnought, because the current dreadnought is rather weedy. The points may need to be increased a bit from my example, but then the current Tyranid rumours suggest that the points for Carnifexii have been dropped a fair bit too. Whatever Carnifexii are now the revised dreadnought should be more expensive than, but not too much more.

Mandragola
10-01-2014, 01:15
I actually think wraithlord toughness is about right. T8, 3+ save, no invulnerable. Terminators have a 5++ because of a power field. Venerable then get iwnd, FNP, EW or something. 2+ for ironclads but no more wounds.

KhornateLord
10-01-2014, 01:19
Toughness 6 is the toughness of flesh and blood creatures (or whatever Tyranids are made of). Dreadnoughts are made of metal. Toughness 6 would be too low, toughness 7 maybe.

They need to be tougher than a current dreadnought, because the current dreadnought is rather weedy. The points may need to be increased a bit from my example, but then the current Tyranid rumours suggest that the points for Carnifexii have been dropped a fair bit too. Whatever Carnifexii are now the revised dreadnought should be more expensive than, but not too much more.

Sure.
My point is, that if you make the dreadnought too tough, then it's going to cost upwards of 200pts instead of upwards of 110pts.

In regard to "metal vs carapace", biological structures are tougher by weight than metal.
Further, machines tend to fail catastrophically (hence the vehicle damage table) rather than failing as gracefully as a biological being. While a machine is metal, it's also covered in weak joins and exposed cables. It's weapons can jam simply from fouling, let alone damage, as can every joint on it, including things like power fists. Being "destroyed" in 40k doesn't only represent death, it represents disablement. Dreadnoughts are awesome machines, and their armour plates is probably tougher than nids chitin, however they are covered in vulnerabilities. So overally, perhaps they are the same.

In any event, 40k isn't a game where stats in general represent the "fluff". Look at how "weak" a marine is.
Dreadnoughts should be given a power level based on their points cost, the cool factor, and the fact they have to balance against other vehicles like tanks.
Should a walker be much much tougher than a battle tank, at taking shots? Probably not. Walkers in general in 40k, sacrifice armour for close combat ability.

insectum7
10-01-2014, 02:07
In regard to "metal vs carapace", biological structures are tougher by weight than metal.
. . .
Further, machines tend to fail catastrophically (hence the vehicle damage table) rather than failing as gracefully as a biological being.

Those are two very interesting statements to make, and seem like exceedingly broad generalizations. I have a tough time imagining a battlefield medic considering biological failure "graceful".

Freman Bloodglaive
10-01-2014, 02:49
Sure.
My point is, that if you make the dreadnought too tough, then it's going to cost upwards of 200pts instead of upwards of 110pts.

In any event, 40k isn't a game where stats in general represent the "fluff". Look at how "weak" a marine is.
Dreadnoughts should be given a power level based on their points cost, the cool factor, and the fact they have to balance against other vehicles like tanks.
Should a walker be much much tougher than a battle tank, at taking shots? Probably not. Walkers in general in 40k, sacrifice armour for close combat ability.

No, a Dreadnought should not be much tougher than a battle tank at taking wounds, that's why I want all armoured vehicles to operate on the same lines. I will let the comment about close combat ability pass with a mere chuckle.

Marines are somewhat tough relative to a mere human, unfortunately the game writers have designed every army to kill them. That is a definite weakness.

KhornateLord
10-01-2014, 03:15
Those are two very interesting statements to make, and seem like exceedingly broad generalizations. I have a tough time imagining a battlefield medic considering biological failure "graceful".

Rubbish.
They are not exceedingly broad generalisation.
By weight, bone is five times stronger than steel.
Chitin is even stronger, and that's just chitin as it is used IRL.

It doesn't take much damage to cause a joint to lock up. Plus a dreadnought has what, two legs and two arms? On most, only one arm is capable of manipulation.

I'm guessing that based on your post, you have no experience in engineering or robotics?
Ask a battlefield medic what happens when you run arteries on the outside of the human body instead of on the inside. In the field of robotics, a creature like the dreadnought is similar to this: exposed joins, and external power cables. Have some bullets flying around and see what happens.

Battlefield medics see horrific stuff. But if you had a robot of equivalent mass and volume, would they be any better off?

My point is, you trip up on a battlefield (or get hit by something, say a punch or similar, equivalent to your mass) and what happens?
If you floor a dreadnough, it's own mass would grievously damage it. It's cables would snag. And it couldn't get itself up. Is that a problem for a living creature?

What if the dreadnought is the mass of the tyranid?

KhornateLord
10-01-2014, 03:16
No, a Dreadnought should not be much tougher than a battle tank at taking wounds, that's why I want all armoured vehicles to operate on the same lines.

Fair enough then, I agree with that :)

The Emperor
10-01-2014, 08:08
If you give them a 3+, they are actually much tougher than a dreadnought.

Doesn't pretty much every weapon which can reliably wound a T8 unit almost universally have AP3 or better, anyway?

Spiney Norman
10-01-2014, 10:36
Doesn't pretty much every weapon which can reliably wound a T8 unit almost universally have AP3 or better, anyway?

That depends what you mean by 'reliably wound', Splinter weapons and tesla destructors are less than AP3

T10
10-01-2014, 10:46
I think vehicles in general would benefit from having an Armour save (in addition to the AV). This would allow AP to have an effect on damaging vehicle without having to be included as modifiers to the damage table. The damage table itself would perhaps be better off without any modifiers at all.

-T10

Spiney Norman
10-01-2014, 10:58
I think vehicles in general would benefit from having an Armour save (in addition to the AV). This would allow AP to have an effect on damaging vehicle without having to be included as modifiers to the damage table. The damage table itself would perhaps be better off without any modifiers at all.

-T10

If you want to nerf the gauss and haywire rules at a stroke, this is the way to do it, almost no gun with these abilities has an AP of better than 4 unless it has a high enough strength to not need the rule in the first place (heavy gauss cannon). It also makes guns like tesla destructors and scatter lasers virtually useless except for mowing down guardsmen.

Giving every vehicle a high toughness AND a 3+/2+ armour save is really not going to make the game any better in my view. MCs are already too resilient because of the combination of high toughness and good saves, making vehicles that hard to damage as well would skew the game even further away from infantry and more in favour of big impossible to kill models.

T10
10-01-2014, 12:06
Who said vehicles should automatically lie in the 3+ to 2+ armour save range?

If vehicles were to have an armour save, I would assume a baseline of 4+, improve by 1 for a tank, reduce by 1 for open-topped. Vehicles already have a faux Toughness value of (AV minus 4) and Hull Points, so allowing their bulk or "badassness" to further inflate their survivability seems unnecessary.

For vehicles that are considered extra durable (I am sure most players feel Land Raiders deserve extra consideration), a 5+ invulnerable save seems more appropriate than a 2+ armour save.

The down side with introducing armour saves for vehicles is of course that AP 2 and AP 1 weapons become more or less indistinguishable. But then again: the purpose of AP as introduced back in 3rd edition was solely to negate armour saves: There was no benefit back then to having AP 1 compared to AP 2.

And as for "nerfing" certain weapons: The day armour saves makes it into the rule book, there will also be new haywire grenades in there and a shiny new update for Necrons available online.

-T10

Baaltor
10-01-2014, 12:24
If vehicles were to have an armour save, I would assume a baseline of 4+, improve by 1 for a tank, reduce by 1 for open-topped. Vehicles already have a faux Toughness value of (AV minus 4) and Hull Points, so allowing their bulk or "badassness" to further inflate their survivability seems unnecessary....

The down side with introducing armour saves for vehicles is of course that AP 2 and AP 1 weapons become more or less indistinguishable. But then again: the purpose of AP as introduced back in 3rd edition was solely to negate armour saves: There was no benefit back then to having AP 1 compared to AP 2.


I'm not too resolved on the tank thing, but I'm not sure tankhood would neccesarily increase armour. If I were to guess, I think it's more likely the Wounds/Hullpoints that would increase. Obviously armour's useful to a tank and all...

And as for the 'downside', I think of that as more being a nuetral effect. The AP2/1 thing seems more like a symptom than a feature of GW's system.


If you floor a dreadnough, it's own mass would grievously damage it. It's cables would snag. And it couldn't get itself up. Is that a problem for a living creature?


Yes. Pick up and drop a mouse 1 metre in an uncontrolled fall, then do the same to an elephant. One suffers possibly lethal damage while the other isn't even phased.

I know what you mean, and you're right in a lot of ways, I just don't think it applies to a game with an army of Arnold Swarzeneggers. The terminator was a machine, not a fleshling after all. XD

Sgt John Keel
10-01-2014, 14:55
Rubbish.
They are not exceedingly broad generalisation.
By weight, bone is five times stronger than steel.
Chitin is even stronger, and that's just chitin as it is used IRL.

What is the materials data for bone? Google is unhelpful.

Charistoph
10-01-2014, 15:33
I'm not too resolved on the tank thing, but I'm not sure tankhood would neccesarily increase armour. If I were to guess, I think it's more likely the Wounds/Hullpoints that would increase. Obviously armour's useful to a tank and all...

I think it would work a little, but what would classified as a Tank may have to change. The Rhino/Razorback would be a good example of this. Both are Tanks, currently, but I think most would agree that the Autocannon should still AP at least one of them, but it really shouldn't be so easy on a Predator.

Of course, the only purpose Tank provides right now is the ability to run people over or ram vehicles which is a little :wtf:.


Yes. Pick up and drop a mouse 1 metre in an uncontrolled fall, then do the same to an elephant. One suffers possibly lethal damage while the other isn't even phased.

But a mouse is designed to drop, an elephant is not. Heck, the ability for an elephant to jump has been in question for most.

Mandragola
10-01-2014, 15:37
Hang on. Since when is bone tougher than steel? Hasn't the reverse been proved really quite often by people with swords and things?

Anyway it's only a relevant discussion if the weights are identical. They aren't - or we don't know what they are. A dreadnought has great big thick metal plating on nearly all of it. Yes it has vulerable bits but so does a creature. Chitin is tough, but anything that can penetrate through a 4" steel plate would make a hell of a mess of any living thing I can imagine.

On an entirely different point, actually when vehicle manual came out and gave all vehicles an armour rating and those template things, carnifexes got a template and an armour rating as well. You could even get a really spectacular head shot that killed it dead in one go and boosted the morale of everyone nearby (can't quite remember how, think broken units might have rallied or something). So back then you still had a consistent damage system covering big monsters as well as vehicles.

Vaktathi
10-01-2014, 19:06
Personally I'd just wish they drop the HP mechanic altogether and, if it's felt vehicles really need changes, adjust the damage table. Not only does it make more sense from a realism perspective (you kill tanks by penetrating the armor and making something go BOOM or making the crew dead, they aren't really defeated by lots of small hits), but it would make them functional again and we wouldn't have to worry about armor saves, and they'd be a notably distinct unit type again.

insectum7
10-01-2014, 19:45
Rubbish.
They are not exceedingly broad generalisation.
By weight, bone is five times stronger than steel.
Chitin is even stronger, and that's just chitin as it is used IRL.


But a bone-saw is made of steel. :)

Titanium is much lighter than steel, and is strong stuff. Bone has the benefit of fibrous structure, but I think experiments have been done with foamed aluminum that have been extremely resilient. There are plenty of artificial materials to choose from, and a near infinite number of ways to combine them.



It doesn't take much damage to cause a joint to lock up.


Human or machine? Both fail under stress all the time.



I'm guessing that based on your post, you have no experience in engineering or robotics?


Do you have any engineering experience in the 41st millenium?



Ask a battlefield medic what happens when you run arteries on the outside of the human body instead of on the inside. In the field of robotics, a creature like the dreadnought is similar to this: exposed joins, and external power cables. Have some bullets flying around and see what happens.

Battlefield medics see horrific stuff. But if you had a robot of equivalent mass and volume, would they be any better off?


Depends on the design, and maybe we're not there with the technology yet. But another relevant question might be: Why do humans in battle protect themselves in armor?.



My point is, you trip up on a battlefield (or get hit by something, say a punch or similar, equivalent to your mass) and what happens?


If it's steel, and sharp, I die. Or my joint fails, or my "fuel line" gets ruptured and I bleed out, or it gets into my skull and rattles around a bit making my brain mush. There are a million ways for both systems to fail because both systems bio or mechanical have their weaknesses and weak points. If it doesn't do immediate lethal damage I might simply fall over and get back up though, however machines are also getting very very good at recovery.



If you floor a dreadnough, it's own mass would grievously damage it. It's cables would snag. And it couldn't get itself up. Is that a problem for a living creature?

What if the dreadnought is the mass of the tyranid?

If you're merely pointing out flaws in dreadnougt design that's a little more specific that bio>machine. If you flip a turtle on it's back though, it's got troubles. Both living and non-living things can have glaring weaknesses.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2014, 01:11
Who said vehicles should automatically lie in the 3+ to 2+ armour save range?

If vehicles were to have an armour save, I would assume a baseline of 4+, improve by 1 for a tank, reduce by 1 for open-topped. Vehicles already have a faux Toughness value of (AV minus 4) and Hull Points, so allowing their bulk or "badassness" to further inflate their survivability seems unnecessary.
-T10

So we're going to give a 2+ AS to an ironclad dreadnought but a Landraider only gets 3+/5++?

It sounds like this would be one of the few things you could to actually make the current vehicle rules even more unwieldy than they currently are...

Losing Command
11-01-2014, 05:52
Invulerable saves on vehicles also don't sound like a very good idea. A meltagun firing at close range is suppose to at least cripple whatever vehicle it shoots at when it hits.
I don't see how a Landraider could have a 5+ miracle save against that, without any powerfields or other gadget involved :rolleyes: Maybe just bring back the rule that you only hit walkers on a 6 in CC and make them work the same as Infantery when deciding the coversafe (benefit from standing in area terrain and such) and leave it at that, because really vehicles seem about ok how they are right now. It are just some excesses like certain monsterous creatures or weapons that make vehicles look bad if you ask me.

Vaktathi
11-01-2014, 07:43
Maybe just bring back the rule that you only hit walkers on a 6 in CC and make them work the same as Infantery when deciding the coversafe (benefit from standing in area terrain and such) and leave it at that, because really vehicles seem about ok how they are right now. They're way too easy to kill, particularly medium vehicles (for instance, it takes less than half the average number of autocannon shots to kill an AV12 vehicle in 6E that it did in 5E) and in assaults (where they can't fire on overwatch and it's statistically easier for a charging tac squad to kill a flat out moving holofield falcon or moving Leman Russ tank than it is to kill 2 other basic marines). One will notice that tracked tanks have gone largely back to 4E rarity status for most armies/players, while the ones most commonly fielded tend to be either Flyers, or Skimmers with huge survivability boosts (e.g. Eldar and Tau can run their vehicles with 3+ cover saves in the open, Necrons get AV13 shielding and reinforced rear armor to protect from assaults, etc).

Mandragola
11-01-2014, 11:34
Personally I think that vehicles and MCs should be roughly equally hard to kill, and the best way to achieve that would be to use the same system for both.

I don't think that would be the full story though. I would want to see weapons that did D3 or even maybe (in very rare cases) D6 wounds. To compensate for this, I would give vehicles quite a lot of wounds. If a wraithknight has 6 wounds then I think a land raider should have at least that many.

H3L!X
11-01-2014, 12:25
The main issue i see for vehicles is the CC.
Change the rules for CC against vehicles and we already have a boost.
That means you hit the armor you are actually In base contact with. No more always the rear.
Let them also do overwatch with weapons that have LoS.
(Why wouldn't the crew try to defend themself)
Give moving Vehicles a better WS (3)
No Autohits when stationary (WS1)

Just as an example:
I had a match against grey knights with Tau allies.
They had a huge amount of firepower.
I boosted my nightspinner right in front of his army behind a ruin. His whole Army shot at it...Riptide, Adl, Dreadnoughts, Psybolters. .etc, and didn't even scratch it. But then the Riptide charged it and kicked my pilot in the face immobilising it...?!? wtf
They can't hit me with bullets, but that slow moving baby is able to kick me!!!

To balance the fact that you can disable vehicles for a while just bring in a damage table fir MCs aswell.
When you roll higher than the minimum you need to wound roll on the WoundTable:
1. It hurts but it is nothing critical
2. Something hit your leg! -3 on your next movement
3. You got head git hit and blood is running down your face into your eyes!
-1 WS/BS for the next round
4. Leg crippled. roll 1d6-3 for your Movement for the rest of the game.
5. Arm Crippled. Roll to see which one.
If you use 2 handed weapons you now have -2 BS/WS fir the rest of the game
If you use 1 handed weapons, you will lose the benefit for closecombat and also have -2 BS/WS fir hitting with it
6. Headshot...lose an addional wound. roll a d6, on a 1-2 you are stunned and cant act in your next round.


That was just an idea, feel free to change.

Sgt John Keel
11-01-2014, 19:40
The main issue i see for vehicles is the CC.
Change the rules for CC against vehicles and we already have a boost.
That means you hit the armor you are actually In base contact with. No more always the rear.
Let them also do overwatch with weapons that have LoS.
(Why wouldn't the crew try to defend themself)
Give moving Vehicles a better WS (3)
No Autohits when stationary (WS1)

Nothing of this helps Dreadnoughts or other Walkers, though.

Commissar Davis
11-01-2014, 19:55
Have forward AV values changed to SV using the following 10 = 4+ . 11 = 4+ / 6++ . 12 = 3+ . 13 = 3+ / 6++ . 14 = 2+ .Then use majority AV to work out toughness and wounds 10 = t6 w3 . 11 = t6 w4 . 12 = t7 w3 . 13 = t7 w4 . 14 = t8 w3

Have venerable / extra armour better the invul save by 1, and add what special rules seem fit.

Fangschrecken
11-01-2014, 20:11
Titanium is much lighter than steel, and is strong stuff. Bone has the benefit of fibrous structure, but I think experiments have been done with foamed aluminum that have been extremely resilient. There are plenty of artificial materials to choose from, and a near infinite number of ways to combine them.

Foamed metals are good under compression but don't work too well when you pull on them.



Do you have any engineering experience in the 41st millenium?


Oooh I do! lots of experience! (cackles madly)

I regularly talk to my car to encourage the alarm not to go off. And I light incense in front of my printer to prevent paper jams.


What is the materials data for bone? Google is unhelpful.

The yield strength of structural steel is 2.27 times that of bone, but bone is much less dense. ~1.7g/cm3 compared to steel at ~7.3g/cm3

kafrique
11-01-2014, 21:57
I think it makes a hell of a lot more sense for all models to use roughly the same stats. You can still make vehicles immune to poison and such, and it works better thematically- why can plasma, shurikens, or power weapons melt straight through terminator armor but remain mediocre to useless against dreadnought armor, and conversely, why can scatter lasers and autocannons punch straight through a dreadnought's shell but bounce off terminators? Of course, changing that reveals a whole lot of 40k's other awful rules, hence high strength, bad AP weapons or gauss suddenly becoming far less useful.

If we've got to stick with the division, IMHO, the dividing line should be this: does the pilot sit in a cockpit with buttons and triggers and joysticks, or is he mounted/psychically attuned/literally plugged in/whatever in such a way that the walker essentially functions as his body? So battlesuits, riptides, knights, dreadnoughts, hellbrutes, deff dreads, wraiths, etc. would be MCs, but sentinels, war walkers, etc. would be vehicles. Basically, if the pilot can make the walker punch by either thinking it or by literally punching, he's an MC. If he does it by pushing a button, he's a walker.

H3L!X
11-01-2014, 22:23
Nothing of this helps Dreadnoughts or other Walkers, though.

You should read my whole post!
I did bring a new table to balance MCs to vehicles and walkers!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9000 mit Tapatalk 2

Freman Bloodglaive
12-01-2014, 03:53
The other thing I want is less tables, no tables in fact.

That's the other benefit of switching to toughness/wounds/save. Simply state that any vehicle or monstrous creature that loses half its starting wounds halves its attacks and can only fire one, non-ordinance ranged weapon. It represents crippling damage without having to reference some table and is pretty easy to remember.

Grand Master Raziel
12-01-2014, 16:33
There's nothing inherently wrong with the AV mechanic per se. It's essentially the same math as Toughness, just approached in a different way. AV10=Toughness 6, AV11=Toughness 7, AV12=Toughness 8, and so on. The problems in 6th edition come from MCs having saves and vehicles largely not. A lot of the weaponry that is a significant threat to vehicles (mid-strength, multiple-shot weapons like autocannons, scatter lasers, etc) isn't as much of a threat to an equivalent-toughness MC because they'll generally get saves against those weapons, whereas vehicles likely will not. Used to be, the balancing factor was that vehicles might absorb any number of hits and survive the game, but with the addition of Hull Points that is significantly less likely, so the difference in durability between vehicles and MCs is even more glaring. The solution, fortunately, is simple - give saves to vehicles. Then, you could preserve the AV mechanic for units you'd want to be completely invulnerable to smallarms fire.

Spiney Norman
12-01-2014, 17:30
There's nothing inherently wrong with the AV mechanic per se. It's essentially the same math as Toughness, just approached in a different way. AV10=Toughness 6, AV11=Toughness 7, AV12=Toughness 8, and so on. The problems in 6th edition come from MCs having saves and vehicles largely not. A lot of the weaponry that is a significant threat to vehicles (mid-strength, multiple-shot weapons like autocannons, scatter lasers, etc) isn't as much of a threat to an equivalent-toughness MC because they'll generally get saves against those weapons, whereas vehicles likely will not. Used to be, the balancing factor was that vehicles might absorb any number of hits and survive the game, but with the addition of Hull Points that is significantly less likely, so the difference in durability between vehicles and MCs is even more glaring. The solution, fortunately, is simple - give saves to vehicles. Then, you could preserve the AV mechanic for units you'd want to be completely invulnerable to smallarms fire.

Hmmm, I get what you are saying, but the problem is that if you give vehicles an armour save then shooting skews even further towards AP 2/3. Currently the only thing keeping Str 6/7 guns with poor APs useful is the fact that vehicles don't have armour, what you would effectively do is make the only viable target for a tesla destructor a unit of light infantry, and reduce scatter lasers to a sort of Eldar version of marker lights.

What the current AV system does is ensure that some weapons are good at shooting vehicles, but bad at shooting at troops and MCs (tesla destructor, scatter laser) and some weapons are good vs troops, but not vehicles (disintegrators, D-scythes), what you would effectively do would be to make every high strength gun with poor AP almost totally irrelevent, not to mention gauss and haywire, which typically have extremely poor AP values.

We already have armies where very non-vehicle unit has a 3+, giving that to vehicles as well would just make the game a tremendous bore IMHO and all of a sudden 40K just becomes about who can spam the most AP 1/2 guns.

nerull1025
12-01-2014, 21:13
It's interesting how there's now a thread for Dreads to go to MCs and a thread for Riptides and Dreadknights to be vehicles.

Seeing how the latter ones are vehicles in theory, just not in practice, that option seems more logical.
I can sympathize with everyone saying, "That still leaves Dreads next to useless".
So really either correction would be better than the way things stand now, but the chances of GW doing anything about it themselves seems highly unlikely (unless 7th edition really does come sooner than we expect).

So since I highly doubt trying to get players to change their MCs into armour would be anything but an exercise in futility, I'd say Dreads changing to MC's as a house rule would be an easier/ faster solution (even though it seems the less logical solution of the two).

Something like
T8 W3 for the standard, W4 for ironclad, and either an 5+ Inv save or It Will Not Die for venerables
Now technically for a straight conversion dreads wouldn't get an armour save, but then ALL the other MCs have them. So I'd say a 3+ for all versions of the Dread.
Point values may have to be adjusted.

Ruination Drinker
12-01-2014, 21:32
Seeing how the latter ones are vehicles in theory, just not in practice...

I know I'm cherrp picking here, but a Dreahought is a battle suit for a marine that was mortally injured, so in theory, a dread should have just as much right to be an MC as a WK any other "dude inside of a bipedal mecha-suit". If anything, the Dreadknight should be a vehicle because in theory, he's just a dude riding an open topped walker.

nerull1025
12-01-2014, 21:41
I wasn't saying Dreads couldn't be viewed as MC's, quite the contrary, just that (like you said) Dreadknights and Riptides have actual pilots. So them not being armour/vehicle seems like the bigger error of the two.

Ruination Drinker
12-01-2014, 21:43
I wasn't saying Dreads couldn't be viewed as MC's, quite the contrary, just that (like you said) Dreadknights and Riptides have actual pilots. So them not being armour/vehicle seems like the bigger error of the two.

My bad. That's the danger of cherry picking.

Charistoph
13-01-2014, 01:29
If anything, things like the Dreadknight, Riptide, etc, are odd as MCs, when we already had the Penitent Engine as a Walker, and is little different from them, except that the pilot is even more vulnerable.

Walkers should be literally walking tanks, focusing on guns, guns, and more guns. Assault should be an afterthought instead of a focus for them.

Monstrous Creatures should be the exact opposite and be beatsticks in Assault, while being outgunned by Walkers. They can outgun Infantry, but shouldn't be outgunning Walkers.

Baaltor
13-01-2014, 02:23
Hmmm, I get what you are saying, but the problem is that if you give vehicles an armour save then shooting skews even further towards AP 2/3. Currently the only thing keeping Str 6/7 guns with poor APs useful is the fact that vehicles don't have armour, what you would effectively do is make the only viable target for a tesla destructor a unit of light infantry, and reduce scatter lasers to a sort of Eldar version of marker lights.

What the current AV system does is ensure that some weapons are good at shooting vehicles, but bad at shooting at troops and MCs (tesla destructor, scatter laser) and some weapons are good vs troops, but not vehicles (disintegrators, D-scythes), what you would effectively do would be to make every high strength gun with poor AP almost totally irrelevent, not to mention gauss and haywire, which typically have extremely poor AP values.

We already have armies where very non-vehicle unit has a 3+, giving that to vehicles as well would just make the game a tremendous bore IMHO and all of a sudden 40K just becomes about who can spam the most AP 1/2 guns.

Mhm. Fear Ghoul a while ago enlightened me to the fact that a lack of armour mitigation causes special weapon values to be inherently more important. This fact is in addition to some of the other issues you brought up. The fact is that while AP exists, there can be no balance between weapons or armies. The list of issues is monumental.

But despite that, you cannot just try and account for the problems of a rule like that by changing the way another rule that is affected by the first. It just doesn't work. You have to fix AP, not fix the way fixing vehicles doesn't interact well with a rule that doesn't work in the first place.


There's nothing inherently wrong with the AV mechanic per se. It's essentially the same math as Toughness, just approached in a different way. AV10=Toughness 6, AV11=Toughness 7, AV12=Toughness 8, and so on.

Wow, I never thought of it that way. By contrast though, what is the benefit to having AV instead of having toughness go above 10, or having rules that change the way units take damage by shifting poison and adding EMP? Would the game be better served by having a special rule for vehicles and that's it? The added complication of a whole section of a book with explaination of why vehicles are exceptions to everything in the whole game is especially futile in the light of other units not even using said rules because they suck.

Edit: I was wondering about maybe a damage table that is not used to destroy the vehicle, but instead to represent critical damage. In essence the vehicle/MC has wounds, and will die by those inflicted upon it ONLY, but it can take damage to a weapon, or leg if unlucky. The chart would be unlikely to do damage, but add a risk similar to a squad with different weapons losing a heavy weapon.

So maybe:

-An armour save of a '1' on a vehicle causes a critical hit (with a mitigation system, this could include modifiers)
or
-A roll to wound/penetrate in excess of a certain value can cause a critical hit
or
-a roll of a '6' to wound or penetrate causes a critical hit (maybe only if a '6' wasn't required)

Roll on a chart:
1-3 nada
4. Weapon destroyed
5. Movement damaged; maybe variable amounts (roll 1d6, 1-3:halved speed~;4-6: Immobilized)
6. Critical damage! And extra wound is taken. MAYBE another roll on this table. MAYBE. or maybe resolve another attack against the creature/vehicle representing unprecedented damage, and allowing for one shot kills with exhaustively powerful weapons. Like a railgun on a speeder.

The point of the chart is to add some spice into the ordeal, and make vehicles/creatures interesting, not a sure thing like currently creatures are. As they stand they're far too reliable, while vehicles are the reverse. At least stylistically, in terms of rules these things vary. This means that the chart is meant to be intentionally forgiving in comparison to the draconian vehicle rules.

"what, my landraider, a fabled engine of unrelenting power and durability died in one hit to your lascannon?"
"Yes, Ops, my Keeper of Secrets one got railgunned, guess I take may save... then maybe a wound... and it's one of the WEAKEST creature in the GAME"

...Not how the game is sold to us.

Minsc
13-01-2014, 03:36
Back in the day a Wraithlord was quite comparable to a Dreadnaught, but they had different weaknesses. The Wraitlord was vulnerable to poison and snipers. The Walker could be killed in one shot.

This is still true, but with the HP-system the walkers have become easier to destroy. Imo just change the HP-system from 2-4 to 3-5 or 3-6.