PDA

View Full Version : What if Riptides, Dreadknights, and more were walkers?



Fangschrecken
11-01-2014, 19:53
If GW fixed their blatant error, and made riptides and Dreadknights walkers, what stats would they have? I can't think of any others right now.

I figure the dreadknight should look like a contemptor dreadnought statwise.

Not quite sure about the riptide. I'd think 12/12/10 but with the invulnerable save still there. Maybe add a nova charge option to try and use engine heat to fuse cracks in the hull and restore a hull point. *Edit admittedly you'd risk losing a hp to gain one.

bork da basher
11-01-2014, 20:07
in what way is it an error. they were made MC's because they are meant to be tough to kill and larger than your average walker by a good amount. they are also usually designed to be the premier piece of the army so why on earth would they make them walkers who would be glanced to death or otherwise crippled. make them walkers and they wouldn't see the table and thus wouldn't be the must have selling pieces they are now.

i personally would like to see dreadnoughts and their like be reworked as MC's because they are pretty much garbage in this edition yet such an iconic miniature. in the fluff they can withstand so much punishment, in game they drop like flies.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2014, 20:22
If GW fixed their blatant error, and made riptides and Dreadknights walkers, what stats would they have? I can't think of any others right now.

I figure the dreadknight should look like a contemptor dreadnought statwise.

Not quite sure about the riptide. I'd think 12/12/10 but with the invulnerable save still there. Maybe add a nova charge option to try and use engine heat to fuse cracks in the hull and restore a hull point. *Edit admittedly you'd risk losing a hp to gain one.

Well, it wasn't so much of an error as an admittance that the current vehicle rules are totally pants.

I think they would have to cut the points values down by about 30% for starters, the whole reason why these units were made MCs was because the vehicle rules just don't work properly enough to represent them in the way that GW wanted to.

The dreadknight is blatantly an open topped walker, making it A13 front and side would have been ok, but GW correctly realised that when you've spent that much money and painting hours on a model its a little demoralising to see it go pop the first time it sees a meltagun.

insectum7
11-01-2014, 20:30
The dreadknight is blatantly an open topped walker, making it A13 front and side would have been ok, but GW correctly realised that when you've spent that much money and painting hours on a model its a little demoralising to see it go pop the first time it sees a meltagun.

Land Speeders aren't open-topped because the crew are in Power Armor, the Dreadknight would likely be the same.

Fangschrecken
11-01-2014, 20:56
It was an error in that both units are no different from any other walker. Both are just one guy in an exoskeleton with guns and ccw. Same as a the dreadnought, sentinel, war walker, killa-kan, deff dread, and more. Thematically any of these can have their guns shot off, engines damaged, crew shaken or stunned and explode. The riptide should certainly explode.

Sure the new ones are bigger, but that could've just required a better armor value.

Vehicles used to do just fine last edition. Now somehow a few good dents in the armor are enough to take one down. If 6th hadn't introduced hull points vehicles as a whole would have been better. Dreads used to be a big deal. Small arms fire would bounce off them and you'd need dedicated AT weapons to take them down. In CC they would eventually tear units apart because nobody could easily latch a grenade onto them. Now three big dents in the armor are enough to take them down. (If 7th is this summer I hope they roll back the clock on hull points).

Actually I'd have it so some walkers (dreads, riptides) could ignore crew stunned/shaken unless the weapon has the concussive special rule.

Personally I think MCs should also have a damage chart.

IcedAnimals
11-01-2014, 21:08
Dreadknights are basically penitent engines with a power armored pilot. Remove open topped and its fine.

If the riptide was to become a vehicle id like to see it get the same rules that the super heavys get. Give it 5 HP or so and an explodes does d3. Still keeps it immune to 1 melta shot killing it. Keep its invuln.

Of course in the switch to walkers they would need to have their points adjusted as well. Its something id like to see happen but its not exactly a top priority.

OuroborosTriumphant
12-01-2014, 06:42
Right off the top of my head?

For the Dreadknight: AV 14/13/12 and retaining it's 5+ invulnerable save.

For the Riptide: AV 13/13/13 with it's invulnerable save improved to 4+ (but still 3+ when Nova Shielding).

I think these would have durability comparable to what they have now. They'd become flat-out-immune to small arms fire in exchange for being more vulnerable to Lascannons and Meltas. The Riptide would, I think, still be a PITA to kill, with it's ability to flee out of melta-range. There is plenty of unused design space for "extremely tough Walkers" where the Riptide and Dreadknight could slot in nicely.

Mack
12-01-2014, 14:28
Land Speeders aren't open-topped because the crew are in Power Armor, the Dreadknight would likely be the same.

Isn't this an outdated rule? I have been looking for if Landspeeders would not count as open topped due to marines being in power armor, but I haven't found it in this edition. I think they did away with that.

Back on topic, I don't think MC's are the broken part of this, but rather walkers are...they are just too susceptible in 6th edition rules. The Glancing rule could work if worded different or doubled or tripled the number of glances, but 2 or 3 glances should not blow up a vehicle. In fact, the definition of a glance would suggest that it should never destroy a vehicle...it is a superficial wound.

Merriam's definition: "to strike a surface obliquely so as to go off at an angle" How can something that scratches a vehicles exterior twice or three times destroy it?

:shifty:

mughi3
12-01-2014, 14:36
Back on topic, I don't think MC's are the broken part of this, but rather walkers are...they are just too susceptible in 6th edition rules. The Glancing rule could work if worded different or doubled or tripled the number of glances, but 2 or 3 glances should not blow up a vehicle. In fact, the definition of a glance would suggest that it should never destroy a vehicle...it is a superficial wound.

Merriam's definition: "to strike a surface obliquely so as to go off at an angle" How can something that scratches a vehicles exterior twice or three times destroy it?

:shifty:

Welcome to one of my biggest pet peeves about 6th edition, tickling my dread(or land raider) should not kill it. id be fine with loosing hull points on penetrating hits, but not pen, glance and the possibility of instant death all rolled up with the idea that if your vehicle gets assaulted the enemy "deserves" to hit you.

nerull1025
12-01-2014, 20:34
I was just having this conversation with a friend of mine, although he was the one to bring it up since I barely have enough painted to play any games.

Either dreads should change to MCs or Dreadknights and Riptides need to change to walkers. The latter seems more logical, but either way at least it would be consistent, not like this blatant double standard we have now.
DKs and Riptides are vehicles by definition, they should have the risk of hitting vital systems, not be basically Tyranids with a different paint job.
Rather than fix the whole glancing hit issue, GW just put a band-aid on their new kits to help them sell, big surprise.

I'm not going to guess at what would be a fair armour value and HPs, but it seems a very easy correction/house rule.
But then even if the conversion was totally balanced, you'd have a tough time getting anyone to agree to changing one of their best units into something more manageable.

AngryAngel
12-01-2014, 20:38
If they made riptides and dread knights and such walkers ? Those armies would take a pretty fierce hit and I think we'd see them dump off in use pretty heavily. The unit that is, maybe not the army as a whole, but eventually who knows.

As for size making it an MC, a stomp is much bigger then either and yet it is a super heavy walker and not a MC or a GC to be more appropriate. I think the fact they aren't a walker, is admission even if they are terrible at choosing to fix things properly, they do know walkers are awfully weak and no one would be overly excited to pick them up if they were such.

Walkers need to be more merged with MCs and we won't have these issues and see a rise In their use as well.

Nubl0
12-01-2014, 20:45
Maybe the dreadknight would see alot less use. The riptide would still see plenty of use thanks to its amazing weaponry, tau have plenty of ways to defend from suicide metla pods and the like with all the interceptor stuff they can get.

AngryAngel
12-01-2014, 20:52
You wouldn't need suicide melta to kill an av 12 walker. As if it has the HPs of even a LR and there is no reason it should have more, it wouldn't be hard to glance away with long range fire power even with an invuln, let alone get just one lascannon through and send it up in flames.

Yes its fire power would still be good, but when you can pen and make it snap shoot ? It wouldn't have near the teeth it does now.

KR3LL
13-01-2014, 00:51
I have the mega dread, meka dread, 2 deff dreads and 9 kans that never see any use.

FredrikR
13-01-2014, 08:07
I would probably give the Riptide and Wraithknight a -1 or -2 on the damage chart roll, to account for their massive size and resilience. This would also mean you need things like a lascannon, melta or similar to pop them with one shot.

Spiney Norman
13-01-2014, 08:47
I would probably give the Riptide and Wraithknight a -1 or -2 on the damage chart roll, to account for their massive size and resilience. This would also mean you need things like a lascannon, melta or similar to pop them with one shot.

I don't really see why the Riptide deserves a -1 on the damage chart more than a Landraider does for example, if they just fixed the rules for all vehicles the game would doubtless be better for everyone. Explodes results happen far too much as it is thanks to the damage chart modifiers afforded by AP1/2, if you just removed those modifiers everything would be much more equitable.

Corvus Corone
13-01-2014, 09:01
This is always an interesting topic. Why is a Dreadnought (essentially a dead warrior entombed in a walking killing machine) treated as a completely different unit type to a Wraithlord (essentially a dead warrior entombed in a walking killing machine)?

I've thought about this a lot and I've come to the conclusion that the distinction lies in the extent of artificiality through which the guiding intelligence (e.g. dead space marine, Shas 'Vre, grey knight, Ork or Grot, Guardsman etc. depending on the unit) experiences piloting the construct.

To explain, this means that where piloting the construct is subject to a very low degree of artificiality, the piloting consciousness can drive the machine with such ease that the machine is essentially a body. This is the case with wraithlords, who literally possess their shell, and Riptides, where the pilot is neurologically interfaced with a machine that has been precisely designed to mirror his own anatomy so that walking and moving are as simple as they would be for a naked tau.

By contrast, Ork deffdreads and imperial guard sentinels are clearly subject to a higher degree of distance and artificiality between the pilot and the vehicle. The machines have non-natural joints and are controlled by throttle levers and crude mechanical controls. Space marine dreadnoughts also fall into this category because even though the pilot is grafted into the machine, the form of a dreadnought is very different to the form of a man; it has very artificial joints and restrictive arcs of motion that would not move with the sub-consciously competent nature of a living form.

Yes, it's a very hazy distinction, but honestly I think it works and I think that the design team have it right with almost all units at the moment.

Denny
13-01-2014, 10:37
I know power level is usuaslly considered the reason for Riptides being designated as Monstrous Creatures, but I always assumed it was simply because Tau battle suits are not considered vehicles.

If a Riptide is a vehicle, shouldn’t a Crisis suit also be a vehicle?

Bubble Ghost
13-01-2014, 13:36
Dreadknights probably "should" be walkers by any relevant precedent - I imagine the reason they're not is purely so they can fight (read: swat like flies) greater daemons, rather than any power thing in a more general sense. I think the whole concept of Grey Knights building big daemon-sized robots to fight daemons with is fundamentally absurd, but given that GW in their infinite wisdom decided that Wile E. Coyote tactics were appropriate for the most arcane and po-faced faction in existence, they really had to be MCs, because walkers would have been pummelled by the things that they were supposedly designed to fight. Which is not innately a flaw. It just would have been in this case.

But Riptides and Wraithknights are fine as MCs all round, I think, both in a background sense and because of precedents within their own codexes. I just think that in all three cases, they made the stats too high - their combinations of wounds and invulnerable saves are just too much to make any sense compared with units that are ostensibly comparable in background terms.

A general rule that Smash attacks gave you, say, +2 Strength rather than doubling it against walkers and other MCs, owing to the unique nature of having to fend off something your own size rather than take time to wind up for an Apollo Creed punch on puny infantry or an inanimate object, would be interesting.

FredrikR
13-01-2014, 13:58
I don't really see why the Riptide deserves a -1 on the damage chart more than a Landraider does for example, if they just fixed the rules for all vehicles the game would doubtless be better for everyone.

Agreed, my suggestion was intended as a "fix" for the existing situation. A slight rework of the entire walker/vehicle/MC ruleset would certainly be preferable...

Sureshot05
13-01-2014, 13:59
I think it should be the other way. Get rid of dreadnoughts, killer cans, and the like as Walkers and make them monstrous creatures. Then the walker rules can be dropped completely from the BRB.

Toughness 6, 2+ save, 3 wounds for a dread straight off makes it a natural successor to the Centurion and not put it above many of the other vehicles. Killer cans could be toughness 5 with 4 or 5 wounds and 4+ save. The few walkers left should just go monstrous and then you can have vehicles solely for things with wings and wheels ;)

FredrikR
13-01-2014, 14:18
If a Riptide is a vehicle, shouldn’t a Crisis suit also be a vehicle?

And if a Crisis suit is a vehicle, shouldn't a Space Marine also be one? :-)

I guess you just have to draw the line somewhere, and the Crisis is too small...

Hal'jin
13-01-2014, 14:21
If you blow an arm off a Space Marine he's probably going to be down and out of battle. If you blow an arm off a Crisis Suit I see no issue with it still running around and using the other one - I'd expect the pilot's actual arm to be just fine.

Snake Eyes
13-01-2014, 14:36
And if a Crisis suit is a vehicle, shouldn't a Space Marine also be one? :-)

I guess you just have to draw the line somewhere, and the Crisis is too small...

A Crisis suit is a similar size to a Killa Kan. Should a Killa Kan not be a Vehicle?

daveNYC
13-01-2014, 14:38
This is always an interesting topic. Why is a Dreadnought (essentially a dead warrior entombed in a walking killing machine) treated as a completely different unit type to a Wraithlord (essentially a dead warrior entombed in a walking killing machine)?

I've thought about this a lot and I've come to the conclusion that the distinction lies in the extent of artificiality through which the guiding intelligence (e.g. dead space marine, Shas 'Vre, grey knight, Ork or Grot, Guardsman etc. depending on the unit) experiences piloting the construct.

To explain, this means that where piloting the construct is subject to a very low degree of artificiality, the piloting consciousness can drive the machine with such ease that the machine is essentially a body. This is the case with wraithlords, who literally possess their shell, and Riptides, where the pilot is neurologically interfaced with a machine that has been precisely designed to mirror his own anatomy so that walking and moving are as simple as they would be for a naked tau.

This holds water, barely, for Wraith units. It fails to account for Riptides, and it dies a painful death when considering Dreadknights.

MC vs. vehicle is a choice made purely for the additional resilience. For it to be otherwise, you'd have to account for why DE splinter weapons suddenly are loaded with a poison that murderize a giant armored robot and yet are completely ineffective against even the flimsiest vehicle.

zoodog
13-01-2014, 17:59
I agree with others appraisals , walkers are fairly weak at the momment (coming from a BA player who has some of the most fieldble dreads)

Personally I think vehicles in general should have gotten at least a 4+ armor save. I would reduce the glancing silliness from weapons which are not antitank. Vehicles are getting all sorts of other saves so why did someone decide they didn't get armor?

A critical hit system for multi wound models would be another fix to reduce the disparity, as they could lose limb functionality or have ability reduced, but would likely just overly complicate things.
Edit: they actully already have rules for several types of effects that only matter to multi wound models, they should start appling these more generally to the higher strength weapons.

Chem-Dog
13-01-2014, 18:22
I think it should be the other way. Get rid of dreadnoughts, killer cans, and the like as Walkers and make them monstrous creatures. Then the walker rules can be dropped completely from the BRB.

Or man up and drop the Vehicle mechanic altogether. Give Vehicles a Toughness and Wounds characteristic backed up by an Armour save.


And if a Crisis suit is a vehicle...

Apparently it was toyed with when the Tau were first being developed and was felt to be too clunky.

maze ironheart
13-01-2014, 18:24
I don't see why riptides are not walkers a monstrus creature is made of fleash and bone not some guy hiding in a suite.But this comes from my hatred of them as too often it is 3 riptides or 2 riptides and a Ravaner riptide.

DoctorTom
13-01-2014, 19:52
I have the mega dread, meka dread, 2 deff dreads and 9 kans that never see any use.

At least until a version of the mega dread and meka dread (probably with different names) show up as MCs in the next Ork codex. ;)

Fangschrecken
14-01-2014, 00:46
At least until a version of the mega dread and meka dread (probably with different names) show up as MCs in the next Ork codex. ;)

Dear Mork no! Ork things should explode!

omegoku
14-01-2014, 09:26
The reason Crisis Suits are not vehicles was mentioned in WD back when they were first introduced.
Initially they tried them as basically sentinels with skimmer or something but they didn't feel right so they changed them to jump infantry.
That still wasn't right as they were really fast but were getting close, shooting and then getting killed.
So they stole the Jetbike move in the assault rule.
Then the Suits were too fast, Flying anywhere they wanted with impunity.
So they toned back their normal move to 6" and the jet pack infantry was born!

It would be weird that a bigger suit did not match the Toughness, Armour Save style of the smaller suits.

The fix is to improve dreadnoughts, not hurt Riptides and Dreadknights.

A dreadnought that is the same price as a MC should have a decent chance of killing the thing before it is killed. Between shooting and combat.

How about.
A Dreadnought with a Combat Weapon knows how to defend itself against enemies both big and small. As long as the CCW is functional:
-Grenades used against a Dread must roll to hit on a 6+
-Smash attacks do not get to reroll AP rolls

That way the mighty dreadnought can still fend of Space marines with kraks and hold his own against MC who will still be able to strike at S10 but only get 1 dice for AP whereas a poor sentinel would not.

lantzkev
14-01-2014, 09:35
yeah popping nearly 300pts for a monsterous dreadknight is soo op. with 4 wounds a 2+ armor and 5+ invul

OuroborosTriumphant
14-01-2014, 10:29
yeah popping nearly 300pts for a monsterous dreadknight is soo op. with 4 wounds a 2+ armor and 5+ invul

You're not forced at knife-point to buy every single upgrade, you know.

DoctorTom
14-01-2014, 18:35
Dear Mork no! Ork things should explode!

I'm sure they'd write special 'spody rules for them still - it's not like they don't already do that for Ork units. :p

InstantKarma
14-01-2014, 18:47
If GW fixed their blatant error, and made riptides and Dreadknights walkers, what stats would they have? I can't think of any others right now.

I figure the dreadknight should look like a contemptor dreadnought statwise.

Not quite sure about the riptide. I'd think 12/12/10 but with the invulnerable save still there. Maybe add a nova charge option to try and use engine heat to fuse cracks in the hull and restore a hull point. *Edit admittedly you'd risk losing a hp to gain one.

I'm assuming you'll continue to let the Riptide also have the JetPack movement?

There is a much simpler reason why the Riptide is an MC AND for it to stay that way. Regular Battlesuits are Jetpack Infantry & Very Bulky. Making a larger/super Battlsuit? Monstrous Creature is a logical jump, give it the Jetpack rule and you are done. I actually see very little reason to make it into a walker given how Battlesuits have always functioned in the Tau Codex. We don't have Dreadnoughts or Warwalkers etc to begin with, so why would our largest Battlesuit magically become one? If nothing else, back in 5th Ed with my Jump Pack Moving Furioso Librarian Dread, I got some major rage from some opponents. Can't imagine a Jetpack moving Walker making anyone who doesn't play Tau feel better about the Riptide.

OuroborosTriumphant
14-01-2014, 19:06
I'm assuming you'll continue to let the Riptide also have the JetPack movement?

There is a much simpler reason why the Riptide is an MC AND for it to stay that way. Regular Battlesuits are Jetpack Infantry & Very Bulky. Making a larger/super Battlsuit? Monstrous Creature is a logical jump, give it the Jetpack rule and you are done. I actually see very little reason to make it into a walker given how Battlesuits have always functioned in the Tau Codex. We don't have Dreadnoughts or Warwalkers etc to begin with, so why would our largest Battlesuit magically become one? If nothing else, back in 5th Ed with my Jump Pack Moving Furioso Librarian Dread, I got some major rage from some opponents. Can't imagine a Jetpack moving Walker making anyone who doesn't play Tau feel better about the Riptide.

Can't speak for anyone else, but it's not that the Riptide is really powerful or really durable that makes me say it ought to be a Walker. I think there are plenty of ways to write rules for a Walker that would make it tough-as-nails, especially if you give out Invulnerable Saves to it. I don't want to see the Riptide nerfed, I just want to see things make sense.

You really think that it makes sense for the Riptide to be vulnerable to Poison and immune to Haywire? That Force Weapons should be scarier to it that Meltaguns? It just makes more sense for me for a Riptide to be vulnerable to kind of things that kill a Land Raider, not the kind of things that kill a Carnifex.

Corvus Corone
14-01-2014, 19:35
This holds water, barely, for Wraith units. It fails to account for Riptides, and it dies a painful death when considering Dreadknights.

MC vs. vehicle is a choice made purely for the additional resilience. For it to be otherwise, you'd have to account for why DE splinter weapons suddenly are loaded with a poison that murderize a giant armored robot and yet are completely ineffective against even the flimsiest vehicle.


I referred to Riptides and why I think it works for them. Dreadknights are a low degree of artificiality because they are closely analogous to power armor and essentially just an extension thereof (centurion plus, if you like). It works for me, I'm sorry it doesn't for you (but I did say it was hazy at best).

It's just how I rationalise the way things are at the moment, and I think it's a little more elegant and fleshed out than 'it's a rules choice for additional durability'. Do you think the design team just roll a dice each time they release something with legs on a large base? There must be more to the criteria they use, and I'd be interested to hear what you think they might be; my version is above and it focuses on the form and lore mechanics of the units.

As for poison, that's long been a tough rule to justify in certain circumstances and I remember them talking about why it affects necrons once (I think it was in white dwarf back when it was good) - it basically concluded with, use your imagination, which honestly, I don't mind. But I digress.

Essentially, I think that if the pilot is wearing the construct, it's an MC. If he's driving it (which to me applies to dreadnoughts because they're too unwieldly in form and construction to 'wear') then its a vehicle. By my reckoning, contemptor dreads should be MCs because they're human in form and articulate enough for a pilot to use like an extension of his body, so there's one they got wrong according to me.

EDIT: Ouroboros, I think your distinction above is based on 'is it living tissue or machine'; hence the weirdness created by how the rules affect these units (force weapons you mentioned etc.). I like this way of looking at it too, it's way simpler than mine and makes a lot more sense within the context of interacting with other rules.

bad dice
14-01-2014, 19:54
WAY WAY WAY back when wraithlords where chanced from eldar dreadnoughts to thier current mc status, one of the reasons given was that wraith tech did not work in the same way as dread tech.

The idee was that the suit was sort of possed byt the spirit of the dead eldar and thus would not stop functioning if a piece got shot of cause it had not critical parts. So the wraith knight beeing mc does make sense to me
I gues the same can't be said for the ripetide.

But the white dwarf that came whit the original tau release staited that, the gameplay reason that tau suits worked diffrently then other driven untis (aka bikes) was that they where to hard to balance other wise. In the same articale they do briefly mention that tau technologie is verry advanced and a suit comes whit many backup options, This beeing the fluf reason that they work diffrently. Maby you could applie the same reason to the riptide Saying that it has so manny back up systems that it is imposible to take it out whit one critical hit.


For the rule side of it. Obviusly 12/12/10 weapon platforms sux balls in the current rules.
And appart from that makeing the ripetide a walker would have made it not feel like a suit. Same for the wraithknight i gues it would not feel wraith.

Now why the dreadknight is not a walker. The only think i can come up whit is to make it feel diffrend then the dreadnougth.
It looks a hell of a lot diffrend so i gues GW tougth it should fell diffrend to play whit to

(also the english version of my spell checker seems to have uninstalled its self so sorry about the manny errors. I can only gues at how bad it must be)

Gungo
14-01-2014, 19:58
Most of the walkers(including wraiths and riptides) should be vehicles with special saves such as void shields, invulnerable saves, jink saves, disruption fields, etc. It really doesnt make any sense to make any of them monestrous creatures and was done simply because the vehicle damage rules are junk and walkers are crappy low armor vehicles in a system where low armour values die quickly to small arms fire. In reality hull points probably could be raised across the board and the vehicle damage chart can be used for penetrating hits still. This way all the lower av10-11 vehicles wont be overpriced cannon fodder and while still susceptible to small arms fire. Most of the walkers can then be given a special save that makes sense, such as invulnerable saves for tau, disruption fields for orks, jink saves for eldar, void shields for larger imperial walkers.

bad dice
14-01-2014, 20:09
Most of the walkers(including wraiths and riptides) should be vehicles with special saves such as void shields, invulnerable saves, jink saves, disruption fields, etc. It really doesnt make any sense to make any of them monestrous creatures and was done simply because the vehicle damage rules are junk and walkers are crappy low armor vehicles in a system where low armour values die quickly to small arms fire.

This is not true see my post. I don't think it was ever done for those reasons i know 100% that wraith units wher made mc to make eldar wraith tech feel suppirior . I am 90% sure that the riptide is a mc because they wanted to make it feel like a suit unit (they should not have made it mc tough but just a normal unit) And i am also 90% sure that dreadknight are mc because they wanted to distance them from dreadnoughts.

GW realy doesn't give a flying **** about game strength in a way that they would pick mc rules over vehicle rules. They just want untis to feel " right".

DoctorTom
14-01-2014, 21:05
Now why the dreadknight is not a walker. The only think i can come up whit is to make it feel diffrend then the dreadnougth.
It looks a hell of a lot diffrend so i gues GW tougth it should fell diffrend to play whit to

It's because the Dreadknight's controller/ pilot can make it dance to Puttin' On the Ritz, but dreadnoughts never got the hang of how to dance to it. (Wraithknights are still the ones that look the best when dancing to it, however.)

Seriously, though, it does boil down to survivability, but maneuverability might play into it somewhat as well - knights having a much more maneuverable "feel" than a mere walker stumbling around the battlescape.

bad dice
14-01-2014, 21:15
It's because the Dreadknight's controller/ pilot can make it dance to Puttin' On the Ritz, but dreadnoughts never got the hang of how to dance to it. (Wraithknights are still the ones that look the best when dancing to it, however.)

Seriously, though, it does boil down to survivability, but maneuverability might play into it somewhat as well - knights having a much more maneuverable "feel" than a mere walker stumbling around the battlescape.


NO that is what ppl seem to think. Unless you have some sort of psycic power i am not aware of, there is no way you can know that they did it to make the model more survivable. In fact that's whole assumsion is a bit of a strech if they wanted to make it a more surviable walker they could have made it armour 13 or 14 or give it a better inv save. They did not do that. Why? unless they tell us we will never truly know.

But since there are a milion options to make a more surviable but only limted options to make it feel like a diffrend type of unit. The prime option beeing giveing it a other unit type. I am going to role whit the reason beeing the feel and flavour of the unit.

In fact i am about 90% *********** certain that is the reason. Go search trough your old white dwarfs. Go to the one where they reveal it, and it states that they wanted to make a more bad ass terminator right there in black and white.

DoctorTom
14-01-2014, 21:58
NO that is what ppl seem to think. Unless you have some sort of psycic power i am not aware of, there is no way you can know that they did it to make the model more survivable. In fact that's whole assumsion is a bit of a strech if they wanted to make it a more surviable walker they could have made it armour 13 or 14 or give it a better inv save. They did not do that. Why? unless they tell us we will never truly know.

Gee, who twisted your panties out of shape? Yes, people seem to think that is why they did it, because they've seen the results about them being far more survivable. It's an assumption no doubt, but based upon measured results in games. Yes, they could have made it armour 13 or 14, but they didn't. Why? You could still glance AV 13 - AV14 into oblivion a lot faster than you can a tough Monstrous Creature.

The "feel and flavor" of the unit? Having the unit survive to do it's job certainly affects its "feel and flavor."

But since there are a milion options to make a more surviable but only limted options to make it feel like a diffrend type of unit. The prime option beeing giveing it a other unit type. I am going to role whit the reason beeing the feel and flavour of the unit.

In fact i am about 90% *********** certain that is the reason. Go search trough your old white dwarfs. Go to the one where they reveal it, and it states that they wanted to make a more bad ass terminator right there in black and white.[/QUOTE]

Gungo
14-01-2014, 22:09
This is not true see my post. I don't think it was ever done for those reasons i know 100% that wraith units wher made mc to make eldar wraith tech feel suppirior . I am 90% sure that the riptide is a mc because they wanted to make it feel like a suit unit (they should not have made it mc tough but just a normal unit) And i am also 90% sure that dreadknight are mc because they wanted to distance them from dreadnoughts.

GW realy doesn't give a flying **** about game strength in a way that they would pick mc rules over vehicle rules. They just want untis to feel " right".
If gw didn't care about game strength they wouldn't play test thier rules for game strength.
you talk about assumptions on everyone else's posts and yet everything you wrote is your assumption. No one knows why they made them a mc but we do know they play test rules for game strength.

IcedAnimals
15-01-2014, 01:35
Isn't this an outdated rule? I have been looking for if Landspeeders would not count as open topped due to marines being in power armor, but I haven't found it in this edition. I think they did away with that.

While it is an outdated rule it has been kept up in spirit when designing the actual vehicles. So instead of the vehicle being marked as open topped and then there being a special clause in the rule book. If the crew are in power armor the author just doesn't give the vehicle the open topped rule. Its why land speeders don't have the rule despite clearly being open topped.

The only part that has actually gone away fully is passengers firing out of vehicles making it count as open topped if they werent in power armor.

Hawkkf
15-01-2014, 05:16
Differences between the two:

Base Rules
MC: Fires up to 2 weapons w/ relentless, Move through cover, Hammer of wrath and Smash
Walker: Fires all weapons w/ relentless, Difficult terrain moving through cover, No impact hits and requires a dreadnought-ccw for a smash equivalent.
So far the two look pretty decently balanced against each other as different flavors. I would probably give walkers Hammer of wrath though as an unweildy giant machine crashing into a unit seems just as dangerous as a more graceful monstrous creature. The edge goes to th MC with more mobility and ability to HoW and Smash without paying for (or having built in) upgrades.

AV vs T
MC: T5-T8, vulnerable to small arms fire S2-5+respectively, fleshbane and posion are problems
Walker: AV 10-13, only vulnerable to weapons S4-7+ respectively, armourbane, and melta are problems, lower rear (and sometimes side) armour.
Again its relatively a wash between the two. The edge goes to the Walker as it requires dedicated weaponry to take down even though it has to be aware of its facing.

HP/Wounds
MC: 3-4 wounds
Walker: 2-3 hull points
This is easily in the favor of the MC as more wounds are always better than less.

Armour Pen/Glance vs Armour Save
MC: Has an armour save that is all or nothing, but is a chance of negating some damage. Only weapons with Instant Death can take it out in one shot.
Walker: Glances (which really are just successful rolls to wound) automatically do 1 hull point (wound) no save. Penetrating hits do additional effects and can instant death the vehicle.
Here is the truly defining issue between the two. Everything in this category favors the MC greatly and is the root of the debate.

1) I would suggest that Walkers (and probably most vehicles) gain a hull point to bring them in line with MC.
2) I would also suggest that Walkers (and again vehicles in general) be given an Armour Save. A land speeder not being open topped because marines are driving makes a lot of sense if it has a 3+ or 4+ Armor Save itself.
3) I would just remove the vehicle damage chart and add a chance that it explodes when killed. The only other way to make it even is to give a similar chart to MC or some other debilitating effect to level the field. While it is cinematic to blow off treads and guns while shaking the machine carriage, without applying it to other large things on the battlefield, it is just a handicap.

bad dice
15-01-2014, 10:24
Gee, who twisted your panties out of shape? Yes, people seem to think that is why they did it, because they've seen the results about them being far more survivable. It's an assumption no doubt, but based upon measured results in games. Yes, they could have made it armour 13 or 14, but they didn't. Why? You could still glance AV 13 - AV14 into oblivion a lot faster than you can a tough Monstrous Creature.

The "feel and flavor" of the unit? Having the unit survive to do it's job certainly affects its "feel and flavor."
.

For starters result does not equal reason. So what ppl conclude out of the effect that it has on the game says nothing about why they did it. Secondly glancing things to death certenly doesn't apply to the dreadknight or eldar wraith untis cause those rules did not even excist when the models came out. In fact when the wraithlord first came arround untis wht armour could suffer 20 weapon detroyed results and still be active and not give up VP. So the whole its pure for surviability argument is BS. Thirdly while ppl might use the in game effects as proof me and some other ppl have stated that GW acctuly spoke out on the matter in the white dwarf. Wraith tech has been stated as beeing made T based to give it a more advanced feel then dreadnoughts. And for the dreadknight they stated that they wanted to make a bigger terminator so it would also have been T based( like the terminator) So you can assume that GW was lying to us and just didn't want to say they did it to make the units tougher. But isn't that a bit of a strech?

lantzkev
15-01-2014, 10:36
You're not forced at knife-point to buy every single upgrade, you know.

Yeah but it's the most effective use of it. Footslogging it across a board or letting it get pelted then assaulted the first round it deepstrikes just doesn't work well for 200pts.

wilsonian
15-01-2014, 10:53
my only complaint with this 2super MC's" is if I fire a lascannon at one it knocks a wound off, while you have the chance of popping a walker. :(

Spiney Norman
15-01-2014, 11:04
While it is an outdated rule it has been kept up in spirit when designing the actual vehicles. So instead of the vehicle being marked as open topped and then there being a special clause in the rule book. If the crew are in power armor the author just doesn't give the vehicle the open topped rule. Its why land speeders don't have the rule despite clearly being open topped.

The only part that has actually gone away fully is passengers firing out of vehicles making it count as open topped if they werent in power armor.

Which doesn't make very good sense at all, because the modifier for being Open topped is predicated on the idea that the vehicle is lighter in structure than closed vehicles, I don't see how the models inside in any way effect the strength of the vehicle's construction.

Besides, its not like I can claim my venom isn't open topped just because it contains incubi and not kabalites.

omegoku
15-01-2014, 14:06
It is the case though, as the Scout Speeder is piloted by Scouts and is open topped.
One can imagine that Marine armour is almost as tough as the speeders armour, so its crew are not as fragile as the dark eldar driving the venom. He is still only wearing 5+ armour, even if the incubi are safer. (Which is reflected in their save when they come tumbling out)

As for HP vs W.
If you want to even them up, you could increase the number of hull points but keep the vehicle chart.
A vehicle can take more punishment but is prone to having parts break, before finally collapsing. And there is always a chance that a lucky shot will fry it.
A MC can take less punishment but is so tough that it can continue to fire and move and fight until it collapses from the damage it took.

As it vehicles are too weak and need to be toughened up, but you have to be careful not to make them too tough either!
I would increase HP by 2 across the board, and then remove the rule that says they are hit on back armour in combat.
In combat Stationary vehicle is hit on a 2+, combat speed 3+, cruising speed 5+, flat out 6+, if it is a skimmer gets jink save in combat too
Then I would let Flying MCs, jumppack troops, jetbikes and jet pack troops attack fliers in combat(hit on a 6+, gets jink save)

Spiney Norman
15-01-2014, 17:05
It is the case though, as the Scout Speeder is piloted by Scouts and is open topped.
One can imagine that Marine armour is almost as tough as the speeders armour, so its crew are not as fragile as the dark eldar driving the venom. He is still only wearing 5+ armour, even if the incubi are safer. (Which is reflected in their save when they come tumbling out)

As for HP vs W.
If you want to even them up, you could increase the number of hull points but keep the vehicle chart.
A vehicle can take more punishment but is prone to having parts break, before finally collapsing. And there is always a chance that a lucky shot will fry it.
A MC can take less punishment but is so tough that it can continue to fire and move and fight until it collapses from the damage it took.

As it vehicles are too weak and need to be toughened up, but you have to be careful not to make them too tough either!
I would increase HP by 2 across the board, and then remove the rule that says they are hit on back armour in combat.
In combat Stationary vehicle is hit on a 2+, combat speed 3+, cruising speed 5+, flat out 6+, if it is a skimmer gets jink save in combat too
Then I would let Flying MCs, jumppack troops, jetbikes and jet pack troops attack fliers in combat(hit on a 6+, gets jink save)

I still don't really see what difference passenger protection makes to how much damage the vehicle itself takes from any given penetrating hit, it just sounds like one of those lame excuses to make space marines more awesome than they have a right to be...

Furthermore, I'd go as far as to say that hull points is only half the issue, the bigger problem is that the ever present meltagun gets +2 on the damage chart and causes 'explodes' from exactly 50% of its pen hits. If the explodes result were moved to 7 on the damage chart and AP1/2 just gave a flat +1 on the chart then I feel the chart is still workable.

omegoku
16-01-2014, 11:06
But it is the pilot rather than the passengers that cause the rule. I can see your point though.

Meltaguns are supposed to turn tanks to slag so it makes sense that they would be effective. The weakness being you need to get up close. Not as much of an issue as it used to be a few editions ago.

What if instead of explodes result being part of the damage chart. you instead change it to
Glancing Hit removes a HP
Penetrating hit removes d3 HP and roll on Damage chart.
If the model is reduced to 0 HP it is wrecked
If the model is reduced to less than 0 HP by a penetrating hit, it explodes

Damage chart would be 1-2 Shaken 3-4 stunned, 5 weapon destroyed, 6 immobilized.
Rolling a 5 when a vehicle has no weapons counts as rolling a 6
rolling a 6 when a vehicle is already immobilized takes off an extra HP

Combined with increased HPs

Spiney Norman
16-01-2014, 16:35
But it is the pilot rather than the passengers that cause the rule. I can see your point though.

Meltaguns are supposed to turn tanks to slag so it makes sense that they would be effective. The weakness being you need to get up close. Not as much of an issue as it used to be a few editions ago.

What if instead of explodes result being part of the damage chart. you instead change it to
Glancing Hit removes a HP
Penetrating hit removes d3 HP and roll on Damage chart.
If the model is reduced to 0 HP it is wrecked
If the model is reduced to less than 0 HP by a penetrating hit, it explodes

Damage chart would be 1-2 Shaken 3-4 stunned, 5 weapon destroyed, 6 immobilized.
Rolling a 5 when a vehicle has no weapons counts as rolling a 6
rolling a 6 when a vehicle is already immobilized takes off an extra HP

Combined with increased HPs

I you're taking off D3 hull points per any penetrating hit then you need to double the hull points of most vehicles, because that will actually result in more 1 hit kills than the current armour system.

Slayer-Fan123
17-01-2014, 02:33
If they were walkers they would die easier to Melta.

doloth
17-01-2014, 03:35
I really feel riptides should have a rule removing the smash rule from them, would make them much more balanced, while keeping the resilience of a MC

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Fangschrecken
17-01-2014, 22:03
That's a step in the right direction, but is there a reason you can't shoot the weapons off of a Riptide?

AngryAngel
17-01-2014, 22:20
So a vehicle we're saying is more prone to breaking down then a body ? I'm pretty sure if you shoot through a MC's shoulder you've taken out that weapon. If you blow its head off or shoot through its heart, its going down as well. There is plenty that could happen to a living creature that can also happen to a vehicle. I don't see why if one has a damage chart the other can not. Why can't you for a round blind a creature with a blast to the eyes ? ( shaken ) Or hit it with a large shell and stagger it ( stunned ) Just make their rolls on the chart be for if they get hit and wounded from a weapon of say Str 8 and up lets say. As really it makes as much sense of penning a vehicle and sending it up with one shot.

Spiney Norman
17-01-2014, 23:06
That's a step in the right direction, but is there a reason you can't shoot the weapons off of a Riptide?

I don't think it would make much difference really, the last time Is as a riptide in combat was... Never, they are far more likely to do something useful by firing their weapons than by trying to smash somebody in combat.

Lord Blood the Hungry
17-01-2014, 23:38
hmmm...representing all the big robots using the rules designed to represent big robots does make a lot of sense.

the dreadnought is mostly robot with a mortal pilot in the middle somewhere, just like the riptide.

the mechanics as they stand, to increase the durability of a vehicle you add an extra hull point then start upping the armour.
saving throws are ridiculous on vehicles, should be 5+ at the most.

there is absolutely no reason at all why dreadknights, wraithknights, wraithlords and riptides are monsters yet defilers, maulerfiends, soulgrinders, and helldrakes, and dreadnoughts, etc. are vehicles.

both could be adequately represented by either rules set.

to anyone saying "but the riptide costs lots of money and lots of points and is a huge model that takes lots of assembly and painting"
the defiler is a similar size, points cost, weapon load out, and the only reason the riptide is more expensive is that it was released later (seriously every wave is more expensive than the last one. look at the tyranids 35 for a tyrannofex, 44 for a smaller weaker exocrine because it is in a later wave)

so if a riptide was a vehicle it'd be 12/12/10 4 HP with a 5++save i.e. a defiler. and there would be no points change what so ever.

the only reason wraith constructs are toughness 8 monsters instead of walkers is... Gav Thorpe.
he supercharged the 3rd Ed eldar codex and added all sorts of stupidly overpowered game breaking weapons and units.
it was so OP that the next codex kicked the eldar to touch, and the current one brought them back out onto the playing field.

however, throughout the entire design process through 2 editions of the codex, no one though to reverse the big stupid changes that made it a mess in the first place: like walkers becoming T8 monsters and all the heavy weapons being S6 :wtf: they just accepted it as standard and kept fiddling with the padding around it. basically continually rewrapping the present and ignoring the the fact that there is crap in the box!

also the wraith constructs are flimsy and skinny so why do they hit so hard?

as for the daftness that is the dreadknight, it was entirely Matt Ward doing a Gav Thorpe. (look at the whole stupid book; space marines that gain force weapons, psychic powers, storm bolters and psychic defence all for +5pts per squad....squads of psykers that are immune to anti psyker weapons despite them being one shot one per army....2 wound FNP terminators....flying land raiders....and so on...and they let him do it!!!)

there is virtually no difference between a dreadnought and a dreadknight except that with the dreadknight the vulnerable squishy bit, the pilot, is exposed on the outside instead of safely behind layers of armour.
so if anything, the dreadknight should be an open topped dreadnought.
and its Definitely not a daemon so should not have an invulnerable save.
its special daemon nerfing spell, "dark excommunication", should level the playing field.

its already got dreadnought close combat weapons. (which should do nothing for a monster because they only double the strength of walkers... the only way to double its strength is with the hammer! that is the only reason why it is there as an option, they screwed up in the battle report and didn't want to admit it, so released a contradictory FAQ.)
its a dreadnought, and of course it should be able to be killed by a single lucky anti tank shot, the pilot is completely exposed and isn't even wearing a helmet!!

but of course once people have had a stupidly powerful monster that can used dreadnought weapons like a dreadnought, they don't want to go back to having a plain old dreadnought again!

instead of being a hybrid flier, with hover mode that has vector strike the helldrake should just be a flying monstrous creature. T6, 4 wounds, 4+ save (3+ if you want it to be really tough), and daemon.
then it doesn't need the daft special rules, it can just use the rules in the rule book. job done!
but no, they had to make it tougher than the toughest flier out there.
ridiculous!!


in short; OF COURSE THEY SHOULD BE WALKERS INSTEAD OF MONSTERS!! :mad:

OuroborosTriumphant
18-01-2014, 12:44
to anyone saying "but the riptide costs lots of money and lots of points and is a huge model that takes lots of assembly and painting"
the defiler is a similar size, points cost, weapon load out, and the only reason the riptide is more expensive is that it was released later (seriously every wave is more expensive than the last one. look at the tyranids 35 for a tyrannofex, 44 for a smaller weaker exocrine because it is in a later wave)

so if a riptide was a vehicle it'd be 12/12/10 4 HP with a 5++save i.e. a defiler. and there would be no points change what so ever.

You tried using a defiler? It is not worth it's points and is far more fragile than it feels like it ought to be, based on the model.

If you want to compare the Riptide to a Walker, try the Soul Grinder. People actually use the Soul Grinder. A decked out Soul Grinder has Front Armour 13, a 5++ is pretty comparably shooty to a Riptide, a fair bit better in CC and a little bit cheaper. It's on that basis I think AV 13 all round and a 4++ would be a pretty good fit for the Riptide trading cheapness and CC prowess for additional durability.

I think it's really important to separate "Riptides and Dreadknights ought to be Walkers; there are tons of stuff that just doesn't make sense with them being Monstrous Creatures" and "Riptides and Dreadknights are too good/too cheap/too durable". As it stands, the Riptide and the Dreadknight are really tough MCs with 2+ armour and invulnerable saves. If they were Walkers (and they should be!) they'd be really tough Walkers, with high AVs and invulnerable saves.

I think trying to argue for making them AV 12/12/10 Walkers is arguing in bad faith- it belies a desire to nerf the units of an army you don't play, rather than make the game make more sense. If my enemy has a really tough giant robot that blows up my **** left and right, fair enough, it's a powerful unit, other armies have powerful units too. What grinds my gears is that the giant robot is vulnerable to poison and not to EMP grenades. That just makes no sense.

Lord Blood the Hungry
18-01-2014, 16:10
I think a lot of people are missing the glaringly obvious.

dreadknights, wraithknights, wraithlords and riptides are piloted vehicles that walk. i.e. walkers
they consist of a pilot (be it space marine, alien or soul stone) ensconced in an armoured construct with motive and weapon systems.

these systems should be vulnerable

they are NOT autonomous organic organisms of monstrous size, commonly shortened to monstrous creature.


amusingly, since the wraithknight arrived with its heavy D cannon monsters are no way near as tough anymore and can be dropped in one shot like a vehicle.
(its not the designer's fault if everyone pays the points to downgrade the most powerful gun in the game to a medium strength anti infantry weapon)

13/13/11 5HP with a 5++ save is pretty damn tough.

negative modifiers on the damage table just heavily penalizes armies that don't have access to melta guns.
if they have to be tougher, then the "explodes causes D3 additional hull points instead" rule is the way to go.
its the only good rule for the revised super heavies.

(why can't we damage the weapon and motive systems? its the size of 5 tanks we should be able to target individual systems! if we could then apocalypse would be much more fun, tactical, and much fairer.)

Lord Blood the Hungry
18-01-2014, 16:49
You tried using a defiler? It is not worth it's points and is far more fragile than it feels like it ought to be, based on the model.

If you want to compare the Riptide to a Walker, try the Soul Grinder. People actually use the Soul Grinder. A decked out Soul Grinder has Front Armour 13, a 5++ is pretty comparably shooty to a Riptide, a fair bit better in CC and a little bit cheaper. It's on that basis I think AV 13 all round and a 4++ would be a pretty good fit for the Riptide trading cheapness and CC prowess for additional durability.

the difference between the defiler and the soul grinder is 1pt of armour on the front.
the defiler has the same invulnerable save but it also has "It will not die".

AV13 all round and a 4++ save is ridiculous! what are you on?

you said "here is an example of something with a similar role and equipment to my unit, but I like my unit so it should be MASSIVELY tougher."

its a walker, they all have thicker front armour because that is the bit that faces the enemy.
its a jet unit so needs to be as light as possible, so where do you save weight? on the bit facing away from the enemy.
the only vehicles that are the same armour all the way round are either weak and flimsy or armoured boxes. (and the armoured boxes should be more vulnerable on the rear because that is where the reactor/engines are on the model)

as to the 4++ save
rubbish! armour 13 is difficult to touch without specialist anti tank weapons and you want cancel 50% of the damage?
makes it tougher than a land raider, but "jetpack" lets it hide and "walker" lets it fight, so should be around 300pts minimum.

the only reason the riptide currently has an invulnerable save is because average anti tank weapons wound it on 2+ and ignore its armour.
at AV13 the same anti tank weapons need 5+ to hurt it. so it is already vastly more durable!


currently your T6 riptide can get shot or smacked down by a mob of enough infantry from ANY army.
AV 13 is immune to ALL basic weapons and attacks. it is even immune to krak grenades, the general infantryman's anti tank upgrade.

everything, roughly 50 models in the average army, can hurt a T6 monster.
around 6-10 things in the same army can hurt an AV13 vehicle, because it takes specialist equipment.

Fangschrecken
21-01-2014, 04:00
AV 13 on Front and side would keep these big walkers from getting glanced to death by small arms, or even medium guns like heavy bolters and multi-lasers. With four hull points, it would take four missile hits, (who takes las anymore?) that would only glance/penetrate on a 5. SM devs would have 1/3 odd per shot to take a hull point. As a MC, a missile launcher has odds of 5/9 to wound and after the save it's waaaay down to 5/54 or ~9% per shot. So yes, it would be easier to kill by dedicated AT weapons but bolters, lasguns, heavy bolters, multi-lasers and such wouldn't touch them. Grav-guns would also have a tougher time. Plasmaguns too.

I think that's a fair trade.

AngryAngel
21-01-2014, 04:23
Someone can say the AV 13 would be stronger, I doubt it though. Especially when it would likely take a couple armor pens with meltas or the like, or even a lascannon then have either a 50 50 or slight worst chance to explode with a single pen getting through. Which is far more everywhere then a ranged weapon capable of insta killing an MC. Oddly enough being an MC protects the riptide much better from even Str D then being a vehicle as well. It is what it is, and wouldn't have sold as much without being an MC.

I do think people should try it out as the walker variation and get a good number of games in to see how it works.

DoctorTom
21-01-2014, 16:50
I think a lot of people are missing the glaringly obvious.

dreadknights, wraithknights, wraithlords and riptides are piloted vehicles that walk. i.e. walkers
they consist of a pilot (be it space marine, alien or soul stone) ensconced in an armoured construct with motive and weapon systems.

these systems should be vulnerable

they are NOT autonomous organic organisms of monstrous size, commonly shortened to monstrous creature.

So is there really that big a difference between a soulstone "piloting" a large armored body made of wraithbone with musculature systems to allow movement and a brain "piloting" a large armored body made of bone with musculature systems to allow movement?

OuroborosTriumphant
21-01-2014, 18:15
OK. Let's do a comparison of the Riptide-as-it-exists and the AV 13/13/13 4++ hypothetical Riptide-as-a-Walker.

Obviously MC-Riptide is more vulnerable to bolters (that is, it is vulnerable to bolters at all), grav weapons, plasma, poison and anything that causes Instant Death. Equally obviously, Walker-Riptide is more vulnerable to Armourbane weapons, meltas, high-Str high AP weapons like autocannons and haywire weapons.

So let's compare like-to-like. Lascannons are the kind of weapon you'd shoot at both a MC and an AV 13 vehicle. Assuming neither Riptide has it's nova-shield up, it takes an average of 9 lascannon hits to kill an MC-Riptide (2+ to wound, 5+ to save, 5 wounds). It takes an average to 16 lascannon hits to take 4 hull-points off a Walker-Riptide (4+ to glance, 4+ save, 4 hull points) and an average of 18 lascannon hits to get an Explodes! result (5+ to penetrate, 4+ save, 5+ to Destroy). The counter balance to this is that there are two possible ways to destroy it and that it's ability to fight degrades as it takes hits.

I think those are pretty comparable.


the difference between the defiler and the soul grinder is 1pt of armour on the front.
And the sides and the back.


you said "here is an example of something with a similar role and equipment to my unit, but I like my unit so it should be MASSIVELY tougher."

1. I don't play Tau or Grey Knights.

2. A Khornate Soul-Grinder with Phlegm Bombardment is 155 points. Riptides start at 180. The Soul Grinder is also much better in CC. It's reasonable for the Riptide, being more expensive and worse in CC to be a little tougher (a better invulnerable and AV 13 all round instead of just the front). That's not really "massively tougher". It's a bit tougher.

3. Lastly, as I said, if you turn Riptides and Dreadknights into Walkers, it ought to be to try and make them make more sense. Not to nerf them. Otherwise, it just smacks of being mean-spirited.

Rumbleguts
21-01-2014, 19:29
in what way is it an error. they were made MC's because they are meant to be tough to kill and larger than your average walker by a good amount. they are also usually designed to be the premier piece of the army so why on earth would they make them walkers who would be glanced to death or otherwise crippled. make them walkers and they wouldn't see the table and thus wouldn't be the must have selling pieces they are now.

i personally would like to see dreadnoughts and their like be reworked as MC's because they are pretty much garbage in this edition yet such an iconic miniature. in the fluff they can withstand so much punishment, in game they drop like flies.

But Titans are AV models, surely they should have been made into gargantuan creatures following that logic.

GW did some really strange things. Instead of making good walker rules, they just made walkers with MC rules instead.

Fear Ghoul
21-01-2014, 20:35
They should just eliminate the Walker rules and turn all current Walkers into Monstrous Creatures with stats to match.

=Angel=
21-01-2014, 20:52
My 2 coppers-

Drop every toughness and strength stat in the game by 1 point.
Grots are now toughness 1- a fine starting point.
guard are now toughness 2 and so are their lasguns.

Now if we want to stick to the existing 1-10 toughness strength range we have a little more room to maneuver- we can make a firm deliniation between Antitank and anti infantry.
For me thats strength 6- the autocannon.
Anything less (assaultcannons etc) wont be able to damage toughness 10 armour.

Give vehicles high toughness and a save, ensuring that antitank gets used against them.
For example a strength 6 autocannon could damage a toughness 10 Land Raider on a 6, but then then it would get its 2+ save.
The same autocannon would be better employed to damage the toughness 7 rhino on a 5- which would then be able to take a 3+ save.
A strength 7 missile launcher would punch right through the rhino armour on a 4+ though, and a strength 8 lascannon would damage the landraider on a straight 6 with no save.

Weapons values can then be rejigged for effect- introduce critical hits to roll on the damage chart and you are golden.

Lord Krungharr
21-01-2014, 20:53
Maybe vehicles should just have wounds rather than making Walkers have Hull Points?

Land Raiders for example could be T10. Str 8 would only hurt them on a 6, just like now. And then different vehicles/walkers could get various armor saves depending on how awesomely armored they actually are, the LRs getting a 2+. Do away with glancing and penetrating hits altogether. So a Str 8 AP1 melta gun within 6" could add +D6 to its Str for wounding purposes.
Or a Dreadnought could be T8, which requires S6 to get a 6 to wound. That's nearly the same as now.

After being wounded, a vehicle/walker would maybe need to roll to see if a weapon falls off, or if it can't move as fast. It would be similar but make it even across the board, do away with the glancing hits automatically wrecking something. Vehicles have armor, why should a Space marine in power armor get a 3+ save when the Rhino doesn't? Aren't Rhinos made of similar stuff to power armor?

leopard
21-01-2014, 21:16
Never really understood the move the to AV system, 1st edition vehicles had toughness, wounds and armour. Weapons had the ability to modify that armour save and the ability to do multiple wounds.

You didn't have the ability to shoot off weapons, but with the number of vehicles about these days it would be a lot easier to have three states maximum "fine", "stunned" and "dead", take say more than one wound in a turn and you are stunned for the next turn.

call it a day at that

---

No reason not to have toughness and strength go above 10 either, and wounds can be a higher number. Allow superheavies etc to have multiple locations, pick a target location and shoot at it - do you try and stop it moving/make it fall over or just pull the claws?

bhusus
22-01-2014, 00:03
I was really hoping to see some kind of consensus here, but unsurprisingly there isn't...gives me a lot to think about though - I fall under the idea of keeping Walkers and making Riptides, Dreadknights, Wraithknights, etc. into said units AND changing the way the damage tables work. Lots of great ideas here though.

Baaltor
22-01-2014, 05:12
I think trying to argue for making them AV 12/12/10 Walkers is arguing in bad faith- it belies a desire to nerf the units of an army you don't play, rather than make the game make more sense. If my enemy has a really tough giant robot that blows up my **** left and right, fair enough, it's a powerful unit, other armies have powerful units too. What grinds my gears is that the giant robot is vulnerable to poison and not to EMP grenades. That just makes no sense.

I disagree, I think in walker stats those MCs would be on the Mid-Low level of vehicle durability. Which highlights the problem with vehicles, since that would make them unusable, hence their classification as MCs.

DoctorTom
22-01-2014, 22:38
guard are now toughness 2 and so are their lasguns.


Why would you give a toughness score to lasguns - are you planning on letting models shoot the lasguns from the guards' hands? :p

Rowenstin
23-01-2014, 09:44
Vehicles have armor, why should a Space marine in power armor get a 3+ save when the Rhino doesn't? Aren't Rhinos made of similar stuff to power armor?

It's been mentioned many times and not only in this thread, but it's a consequence of the rules not making much sense anyway. There are weapon that will do serious harm to vehicle but not personal armor, and other that will ignore personal armor but deal almost no damage to vehicles. A GI sergeant with a power sword will shred power armor, but have a hard time harming the flesh beneath.

Also, do we need 3 or 4 ways to measure how tough a model is? You check to see if he's tough enough to not be seriously harmed by the shot, then check if the armor is tough enough to stop the shot, then if he's tough enough to not feel pain from the shot and perhaps later if he heals the shot. I'm amazed all those games over there manage without distinguishing between those subtle nuances of why isn't he removed from the table.

Xerkics
23-01-2014, 17:33
IMO The main problem with riptide and dread night is the save riptide should either have no invuln save or no 2+ save something this fast shouldn't be that well armoured last ed tyrant was perfectl example of this walking tyrant could be 2+'but a flying one only 3+ which was balanced. And overcharging makes riptide ++ even more absurd.

gwarsh41
23-01-2014, 17:46
I think the big issue is that you want the walker to be able to be hurt on 6s from the weapons that can damage it with the wound table. At the same time you want to be able to one shot it with a lucky roll. So really, I feel like this whole thread is "lets make MC walkers easier to kill". Not to discredit this thread, there are some awesome ideas in it.
I really don't think this topic has a solution though. We chance one to a vehicle, and it becomes easy to one shot, so we try to fix that with an invul save, but then it is immune to small arms fire, which is also bad.
Then you also have to look at poison, which works in favor of the knights and tides being MCs. Several, if not most armies have easy access to some sort of poison, or "wound on a #" Poison hormagaunts will do terrible things to high T MCs, with or without a good save. However, the poison vehicle counterpart is Haywire and Gauss. Both of which are easily found in the necron army, but rare in the rest of the game.

Fangschrecken
24-01-2014, 02:21
I think a lot of the divide stems from people wanting good units in the current edition and people wanting thematic/realistic units.

If walkers, or vehicles as a class, were as durable as they were in the last few editions, this would never have happened and both would be equally durable. (MCs always more so, but that's the lots of small arms vs. good AT weapons debate.)

If HMS Hood exploded when a lucky AP shell pieced the hull and detonated the magazine, why can't that happen to a Riptide getting hit in the power pack? If a lucky French mortar can roll into the magazine inside the castle situated within the fortress of Almeida, why can't a dreadknight's pilot get hit by a lascannon/melta and kill the vehicle?

I admit that I've always liked the randomness that has run through 40K. There is an important balance between the two, but if you take away rolling on tables then you take away luck. A vehicle turned into a MC will keep fighting until it loses it's last wound. Every missile strike is equal to the last. It doesn't mater where they hit or if one hits the fuel. It's all the same, and to me that is boring. Some things shouldn't be random (psykers for one), but if you have to roll to hit a vehicle then you should roll to see what part was hit. A rifle can take down a man with one good shot, but a missile needs to hit the right part of a vehicle to kill it. Else it just damages one system or another. A person/ork/tau losing a single system is out of action, but a battle tank can keep doing something.

I remember weaponless vehicles having nothing else to do but try and ram the enemy. Legless dreadnoughts impotently shooting at a foe who knows to avoid hand to hand with them. Explosions that kill everyone nearby except the guy who made the shot.

I want 40K to be tactical, but I also want it to be fun. To look back on a game and say, "well, I lost, but if he hadn't gotten lucky I would've won."

All else enters upon a world where the dice gods are further and further removed from the table top until they are but phantoms in the sky. When statistics is made king and a tank dies by weight of fire and not favor from upon high.

The Emperor
24-01-2014, 03:11
I'd prefer it if they junk the Vehicle rules entirely, particularly the Vehicle Damage Table, and give Vehicles and Walkers normal stats. A Toughness score, Wounds, etc. A Land Raider could be T 10, W 4, a Dreadnought could be T 8, W 3, and so on. It gets annoying having one set of units in the game having rules which causes them to have secondary effects which cripple their effectiveness, or for them to have an option to be one-shotted, but the rest of the units in the army don't have that rule. Why don't Infantry have similar rules? Why can't you shoot Commander Dante in the leg and make him hobble about the rest of the battle? Why can't you blow up Eldrad's staff, causing him to lose the effects of that weapon? Why can't the Avatar's Wailing Doom be sucked into a vortex pit? Why can't a Wraithknight break a Carnifex's arms, causing it to lose the benefits from those arms?

There's just as good a reason to have an "Infantry Damage Table" or "Monstrous Creature Damage Table", to pile on secondary effects to units and creatures who've been damaged, but doing so would be time consuming and pointless. We can accept that someone with 3 Wounds can operate at full effectiveness right up until the moment when they lose their last Wound, so why not do the same with Vehicles? Have everybody use the same rules, instead of putting Vehicles in their own little ghetto with a separate rules system. That'd make for a better game, IMO.

Baaltor
24-01-2014, 10:49
I agree, The Emperor.

I see where Fang's coming from, and frankly I agree in a lot of ways. Regularity to the degree of MCs is kind of a buzzkill in my mind, but I've not yet found a solution to that which I'm satisfied with. The fact is in war somethings go down with frightening speed. I'd like there to be a critical damage mechanic that makes it possible to do more wounds, or damage the machine's/Walker's systems, but not to the degree of 1/6 you lose the machine to a standard AT round. If it works, maybe even have chances of repeating the critical process, so even an 8 wound landraider can go down to that 1/10,000 rocket.

But yes, why not have a table with things like 'Officer Killed!', 'Pinned!', 'Hvy Weapons detonation', 'Friendly fire', 'failed target priority'?, 'Route' (squad destroyed), or 'frenzied retreat' (damage nearby squads)? A weapon's shots aren't actually the number of rounds it fires in a turn, so do we need to represent the fact that the 20 Guardsmen can be gunned down by one marine with a lot of luck?

Actually that infantry damage table doesn't sound that bad if applied correctly. As in not like how GW did the vehicles. Infantry damage tables.... Would you believe I was going to bring that up before reading The Emperor's post? I swear.

If it helps, and I know it's not concrete, but it helps me: I like to imagine the resolved attacks of a round or even multiple rounds aren't solid, straight up 'damage' to vehicles, and that the damage, or hits are nebulous. A single wound might've been the results of multiple hits from a rocket to a Wraithlord, a penetrating hit to a tank might have been the rocket that sheered open a repair-seam which'd have been superficial damage if it had not been for sister Calthia who lobbed a grenade into the once impregnable behemoth. Similarly eight rocket hits may have been 30 actual missiles fired, with 4 actual hits, which destroyed the dreadnaughy, the other four 'hits' were pinning it down, or suppressing other enemies to allow the killing shots. Maybe your commander went down to a single bullet, it might've been a fussilade of rapid firing guardsmen that brought him down, but he was unharmed; only after they captured him, and the officer executed him in the field did he get wounded.

lantzkev
24-01-2014, 11:07
and the officer executed him in the field did he get wounded.

Clearly it wasn't an imperial officer that did the execution... they tend not to be "wounded" when executed.

=Angel=
24-01-2014, 17:18
Infantry damage tables would be cool.
Make access to critical hits ballistic skill related- make a difference between an ork rokkit slamming into a monster's carapace and an Eldar exarch lining up a fire pike shot with a carnifex's brainstem.

A space marine captain could lose a leg or sword arm just as easily as a dreadnought can lose his lascannon mount.

A plasmagun shot might take off a tau commander's jetpack or a riptide's main armament.

The Emperor
24-01-2014, 22:40
The problem I have with that is the same as the Vehicle Damage Table. It adds needless complication. Sure, it makes things more realistic, but do we really need that level of specificity? Especially with the number of models per army constantly ballooning upwards? IMO, the game should be sped up, not slowed down. Something like that is great at Necromunda scale, and a big part of the fun, but at the 40k level it's just needless complication. Personally, I think it'd be better using the same rules for everything. You have X Wounds, and so long as X > 0, then your model continues to operate at full effectiveness. If it drops to 0 or less then it dies. Simple.

The only addition I'd make to that is adding a "Vehicle" USR. Any model with that USR is immune to Poison attacks but has a chance to explode when it loses its final Wound on a 6. And done.

Spiney Norman
25-01-2014, 00:01
I'd prefer it if they junk the Vehicle rules entirely, particularly the Vehicle Damage Table, and give Vehicles and Walkers normal stats. A Toughness score, Wounds, etc. A Land Raider could be T 10, W 4, a Dreadnought could be T 8, W 3, and so on. It gets annoying having one set of units in the game having rules which causes them to have secondary effects which cripple their effectiveness, or for them to have an option to be one-shotted, but the rest of the units in the army don't have that rule. Why don't Infantry have similar rules? Why can't you shoot Commander Dante in the leg and make him hobble about the rest of the battle? Why can't you blow up Eldrad's staff, causing him to lose the effects of that weapon? Why can't the Avatar's Wailing Doom be sucked into a vortex pit? Why can't a Wraithknight break a Carnifex's arms, causing it to lose the benefits from those arms?

There's just as good a reason to have an "Infantry Damage Table" or "Monstrous Creature Damage Table", to pile on secondary effects to units and creatures who've been damaged, but doing so would be time consuming and pointless. We can accept that someone with 3 Wounds can operate at full effectiveness right up until the moment when they lose their last Wound, so why not do the same with Vehicles? Have everybody use the same rules, instead of putting Vehicles in their own little ghetto with a separate rules system. That'd make for a better game, IMO.

I totally disagree, one of the strengths of the current armour system is that it allows different weapons to be viable vs different targets. High strength guns with a poor AP are still useful because you can shoot them at vehicles, if you suddenly just change vehicles to high toughness models with a 2+ or 3+ armour save you nerf entire swathes of weaponry at a stroke. What can I fire my tesla destructor or scatter laser at if I actually want to kill something... well anything with a crap armour save, so maybe guardsmen, or termagaunts or Eldar guardians? Likewise you may as well ditch gauss if vehicles are suddenly getting an armour save, another characterful element of the game straight down the toilet.

Bland homogenisation is never the way forward, if you give everything worth killing a 3+AS or better then you basically just make AP worse-than-that guns useless.

Do away with the damage chart if you must, or tone it down so the explodes result is removed and you can only actually destroy a vehicle by removing its last HP, but having a class of unit that never has an armour save is a great way to promote variety in weapon profiles.

leopard
25-01-2014, 00:08
Oh I don't know, there is no reason the toughness and strength scales need to cap at 10, and no reason you cannot have a 1+ armour save or better with the concept that a 1+ is automatically successful, thus without at least a -1 you have no chance.

Put to hit modifiers in, your anti tank guns are now inaccurate, say -2 or -3 to hit as they are not designed to hit a man sized target, they will kill if they do of course, no hitting a tank is easy, its huge, so you get a +2/+3 to hit the thing to negate the penalty, but it has toughness of 10 or more so you had better have a high strength weapon, and its armour save may be a -2 or better, so unless you have a modifier of -3 or more then forget it.

in effect just extend the scales, your AP:2 laser cannon will wipe out the armour of an infantryman easily, but that Land Raider still has its save.

Add 'critical hits' perhaps, roll a six to wound, re-roll it, a vehicle specific number causes a critical hit which does double damage or something

---

Edit: Point I make is that the game has a different system for hitting armour as an artefact of the clumsy d6 system, break out of the raw constraints of that and you can drop a lot of the special rules

Spiney Norman
25-01-2014, 01:42
From the other thread

What'd be needed beyond a Toughness value, Wound value, and Armor Save, for the most part? Check out Page 134-137 in the rulebook where you can find stats for everything in game, and Vehicles have Hull Points added to their profiles and possibly some Type changes. Just do the same, only instead of adding Hull Points, restat them. For example:

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

Simple


Its anything but simple, you don't just need to rewrite profiles, you need to come up with pages of special rules to denote different types of vehicles, how fire-arcs will work with your new unit types, figuring out how to treat poison in relation to vehicles, etc.

All of this and you're remaining conveniently blind to the effect that giving all vehicles an armour save would have on the rest of the game. Any weapon that currently has a fairly high strength, but poor AP value would be virtually unusable, weapons like the tesla destructor, shuriken cannon and scatter laser would basically just become hugely overpriced light-infantry killers, forcing even more Lascannon/melta spam as players gradually realise that you now need low AP weapons to damage absolutely anything in the game. Likewise Haywire and gauss weapons, which typically have poor AP values, would immediately become worthless as anti-vehicle tools, a 2/3 chance of hitting, followed by a 1/6 chance of putting a wound on a vehicle followed by a 1/3 chance of getting through its AS, no thanks.

As it becomes progressively harder to even put a single wound on a vehicle (let alone destroying it) the volume of >AP3 weapons would have to increase making infantry of all flavours even more of an irrelevance than they already are.

The Emperor
25-01-2014, 01:45
Its anything but simple, you don't just need to rewrite profiles, you need to come up with pages of special rules to denote different types of vehicles, how fire-arcs will work with your new unit types,

Keep it the same. Fire arcs and vehicles being transports aren't the issue.


figuring out how to treat poison in relation to vehicles, etc.

I posted on that above. Vehicle USR. You're Immune to Poison. Again, simple.


All of this and you're remaining conveniently blind...

Huh? Why would it be "convenient" on my part if every army has their vehicles equally adjusted? I'm not saying only those armies which I play should have their vehicles converted to Toughness/Wound units, but all of them. Which means that everyone would likewise benefit. Where's the convenience there?


...to the effect that giving all vehicles an armour save would have on the rest of the game. Any weapon that currently has a fairly high strength, but poor AP value would be virtually unusable, weapons like the tesla destructor, shuriken cannon and scatter laser would basically just become hugely overpriced light-infantry killers, forcing even more Lascannon/melta spam as players gradually realise that you now need low AP weapons to damage absolutely anything in the game. Likewise Haywire and gauss weapons, which typically have poor AP values, would immediately become worthless as anti-vehicle tools, a 1/6 chance of putting a wound on a vehicle followed by a 1/3 chance of getting through its AS, no thanks.

You're overcomplicating it. Those anti-tank weapons, for instance, could likewise be updated with a simple USR stating that, against something with the Vehicle USR, they're AP2. And not everything would have a 3+ Save. They could just as easily have vehicles with 4+ or 5+ Saves. I don't see Sentinels or Land Speeders being more heavily armored than a Dreadnought, for instance.

Spiney Norman
25-01-2014, 01:50
I just don't think that making all vehicles function like the riptide or wraith knight would be in any way good for the game. We'd be in a situation where vehicles were almost all (other than the obvious lighter vehicles: Landspeeders, raiders, sentinels etc) universally high toughness, low AS, making them even more resilient than the transport-hammer days of 5th edition.

I don't think that the vehicle-infantry balance is right, but what you're talking about is swinging the pendulum way too far in the other direction. I'm not interested in making rhinos into T6, 3W space marines.

lantzkev
25-01-2014, 02:00
I'm not interested in making rhinos into T6, 3W space marines.

They'd be alot easier to take out =D

Tebrey
25-01-2014, 02:02
It seems that the most elegant solution that would cause the least disruption, would be to simply rewrite the vehicle damage table.

1: Shaken
2-3: Stunned
4: Weapon Destroyed
5: immobilized
6: Minor explosion, remove an additional hull point, reroll on this table. If this removes last hull point, vehicle explodes.

The Emperor
25-01-2014, 02:02
Hmm. Off the top of my head...

ARMOURBANE: If a model has this special rule, or is attacking with a Melee weapon that has this special rule, they always wound on a 2+ in close combat. Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, they always wound on a 2+. In either case, this special rule has no effect against models without the Vehicle USR.

HAYWIRE: When a weapon with this special rule hits a model with the Vehicle USR, roll a D6 to determine the effect. On a 2+ the target automatically suffers a wound, regardless of Toughness, which is resolved at AP 2.

LANCE: If a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Lance special rule, it always wounds on a fixed number (generally shown in brackets), unless a lower result would be required. if no number is shown in brackets, the rule is Lance (4+). This special rule has no effect against models without the Vehicle USR.

TANK HUNTERS: A model with this special rule rerolls failed To Wound rolls against models with the Vehicle USR.

VEHICLE: A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of Fear, Fleshbane, Force, and Poisoned.

Spiney Norman
25-01-2014, 02:07
They'd be alot easier to take out =D

With what? They'd be about as easy to take out with a Lascannon or meltagun, but far, far harder with anything that was not AP3 or better.


Hmm. Off the top of my head...

ARMOURBANE: If a model has this special rule, or is attacking with a Melee weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 To Wound in close combat. Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 To Wound. In either case, this special rule has no effect against models without the Vehicle USR.

HAYWIRE: When a weapon with this special rule hits a model with the Vehicle USR, roll a D6 to determine the effect. On a 2+ the target automatically suffers a wound, regardless of Toughness, which is resolved at AP 2.

LANCE: If a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Lance special rule, it always wounds on a fixed number (generally shown in brackets), unless a lower result would be required. if no number is shown in brackets, the rule is Lance (4+). This special rule has no effect against models without the Vehicle USR.

TANK HUNTERS: A model with this special rule rerolls failed To Wound rolls against models with the Vehicle USR.

VEHICLE: A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of Fear, Fleshbane, Force, and Poisoned.

What about gauss, what about high str, poor ap weapons like tesla destructor/scatter lasers/shuriken cannons/flak, blacksword & skyhammer missiles/avenger bolt cannons etc.

The problem is that using the same armour save mechanic for vehicles as you do for everything else basically means that all weapons are either amazing against everything (low AP) or crap against everything (high or no ap).

The great strength of the current armour system is that it allows guns to be strong against certain units whilst being weak against others. You wouldn't choose to fire your tesla destructor against terminators, but you'd happily turn it on a rhino, likewise you wouldn't shoot your disintegrators cannons at a rhino if you had any other targets, but that same weapon would shred the aforementioned terminator unit.

The Emperor
25-01-2014, 02:11
What about gauss, what about high str, poor ap weapons like tesla destructor/scatter lasers/shuriken cannons/flak, blacksword & skyhammer missiles/avenger bolt cannons etc.

Well, I wrote all of that while I was sitting on the can, so next time I go to the bathroom I'll make sure to address those issues. :p

Fangschrecken
25-01-2014, 03:46
The vehicle rules worked fine in 4th and 5th. Never perfect but for 40K they worked. 6th added hull points and increased the damage modifiers; both made it a lot easier to kill vehicles.


It seems that the most elegant solution that would cause the least disruption, would be to simply rewrite the vehicle damage table.

1: Shaken
2-3: Stunned
4: Weapon Destroyed
5: immobilized
6: Minor explosion, remove an additional hull point, reroll on this table. If this removes last hull point, vehicle explodes.

This would be a step in the right direction. In terms of modifiers I would go back to the 5th ed damage chart with -2 for glance -1 for AP - and +1 for AP 1.
That way it would be harder to blow-up a vehicle in one go, but still possible, and it would still be possible to disable or damage a vehicle without killing it.

MCs ought to have a similar chart.
1 staggered - ld to shoot
2-3 stunned - ld test to move, shoot, charge (synapse could offer immunity to these as the hive mind pushes the creature on)
4 arm crippled - lose a gun/ccw or something
5 leg crippled - move as if in difficult terrain
6 critical hit - lose a second wound. I wouldn't go for a reroll on this.

I would also add a repair rule.
Ex: "vehicle can choose not to move OR not to shoot, as the crew frantically attempts to make repairs. Roll a D6, on a 5+ get rid of a damage result (fix a gun, no longer immobilized, add a hull point)"

So a Russ could stay still and in exchange would get to roll to repair, but still be able to shoot. Or move into cover and not shoot so it can attempt to repair.

Furthermore I'd bring back the rule that walkers can only be hit with grenades on a 6.

Tebrey
25-01-2014, 05:07
I'd go for that. I'd been thinking about an MC chart. Grin.

Spiney Norman
25-01-2014, 09:22
I would also add a repair rule.
Ex: "vehicle can choose not to move OR not to shoot, as the crew frantically attempts to make repairs. Roll a D6, on a 5+ get rid of a damage result (fix a gun, no longer immobilized, add a hull point)"

So a Russ could stay still and in exchange would get to roll to repair, but still be able to shoot. Or move into cover and not shoot so it can attempt to repair.

Furthermore I'd bring back the rule that walkers can only be hit with grenades on a 6.

I'd be fine with a repair rule, but it would want stronger terms
1. Repairing means the vehicle cannot do anything that turn, no moving or shooting - it takes the whole crew's full attention
2. Lost hull points cannot be repaired, jury-rigging a damaged weapon is one thing, but a tank crew are hardly going to waste their time trying to patch up actual structural damage in the middle of a firefight.

I think it would be interesting to modify the result by the kind of damage you were trying to fix, it strikes me that trying to 'unimmobilise' your tank might be a bit more tricky that trying to jury-rig a weapon to keep it shooting, maybe 5+ to fix a weapon destroyed and 6+ to fix an immobilised result. Gain a +1 modifier for every consecutive previous turn you have attempted the same repair.

For what its worth I think glances are fine as they are now, they don't need anything 'extra' by being allowed to roll on the table. Part of the problem with 5th was that it was almost impossible to destroy a vehicle by glancing it, but you could often stop it from doing anything useful, just by keeping it stunned.

MajorWesJanson
25-01-2014, 10:03
It seems that the most elegant solution that would cause the least disruption, would be to simply rewrite the vehicle damage table.

1: Shaken
2-3: Stunned
4: Weapon Destroyed
5: immobilized
6: Minor explosion, remove an additional hull point, reroll on this table. If this removes last hull point, vehicle explodes.

I would rather see the table expanded a tad, with a couple more options and modifiers:
Anything that causes a roll on the damage chart also removes 1 hull point
0 or less: no effect
1: Shaken- same as now
2: Stunned- same as now
3: Weapon Destroyed- same as now
4: Breached- any passengers take d6 S3 hits, distributed as desired by the transport's owner. Additionally, vehicle suffers a stunned result
5: Immobilized- same as now
6: Wrecked- all passengers take a S3 hit and then must take a strikedown check.
7: Explodes- all passengers and models within d6" take a S4 hit. Passengers must then take a pinning check.
8+: Catastrophic explosion- all passengers and models within d6" take a S6 hit with the rending USR. Passengers are automatically pinned, units that suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds must take a strikedown test.

Glancing Hit: -3 on the chart
AP - : -1 on the chart
AP2: +1 on the chart
AP1: +2 on the chart
Open-topped: +1 on the chart

Baaltor
25-01-2014, 22:43
With what? They'd be about as easy to take out with a Lascannon or meltagun, but far, far harder with anything that was not AP3 or better.



What about gauss, what about high str, poor ap weapons like tesla destructor/scatter lasers/shuriken cannons/flak, blacksword & skyhammer missiles/avenger bolt cannons etc.

The problem is that using the same armour save mechanic for vehicles as you do for everything else basically means that all weapons are either amazing against everything (low AP) or crap against everything (high or no ap).


I don't really have a problem with what is essentially: Low AP is good. AP matters. Why is it that strength should be like that, but AP needs to be on an island of only occasional pertinence? Similarly why doesn't this issue matter for MCs? For example, autocannons are notted in like every codex as being used to kill MCs, but in the game they're quite ineffective against them because of the same problems you outlined for vehicles.

This all comes with the caveat that in my houseruled game we have armour mitigation, so AP matters regardless.


The problem I have with that is the same as the Vehicle Damage Table. It adds needless complication. Sure, it makes things more realistic, but do we really need that level of specificity?

Yeah, I feel you there. If I went through with it it'd be with a ton of caveats, and I'd try to use it as a multipurposed change, specifically to remove wound allocation from the game, and maybe other things.


I'd be fine with a repair rule, but it would want stronger terms
1. Repairing means the vehicle cannot do anything that turn, no moving or shooting - it takes the whole crew's full attention
2. Lost hull points cannot be repaired, jury-rigging a damaged weapon is one thing, but a tank crew are hardly going to waste their time trying to patch up actual structural damage in the middle of a firefight.


I'll commend you on this. I like that idea, and it's always bugged me how all work is repairable to be honest. Personally I'd rather that most vehicles can't repair, but if there were rules for damage that isn't 'damage' like a vehicle getting stuck/immobilised, or a weapon jammed, I'd be cool with that. I think the better way would be to determine the extent of the damage at the time of the incident, like seeing if the gunner got killed for the turret, or if the autoloader needs to be fixed.

Lord Blood the Hungry
16-02-2014, 18:10
I'd prefer it if they junk the Vehicle rules entirely, particularly the Vehicle Damage Table, and give Vehicles and Walkers normal stats. A Toughness score, Wounds, etc. A Land Raider could be T 10, W 4, a Dreadnought could be T 8, W 3, and so on. It gets annoying having one set of units in the game having rules which causes them to have secondary effects which cripple their effectiveness, or for them to have an option to be one-shotted, but the rest of the units in the army don't have that rule. Why don't Infantry have similar rules? Why can't you shoot Commander Dante in the leg and make him hobble about the rest of the battle? Why can't you blow up Eldrad's staff, causing him to lose the effects of that weapon? Why can't the Avatar's Wailing Doom be sucked into a vortex pit? Why can't a Wraithknight break a Carnifex's arms, causing it to lose the benefits from those arms?

because if you could cripple weapons systems, lock arms and throw things around...you'd be playing warmachine :D

and TBH this does seem to be what most of you want. give it a go, you only need 4 models for a small warmachine/hordes force...


There's just as good a reason to have an "Infantry Damage Table" or "Monstrous Creature Damage Table", to pile on secondary effects to units and creatures who've been damaged, but doing so would be time consuming and pointless. We can accept that someone with 3 Wounds can operate at full effectiveness right up until the moment when they lose their last Wound, so why not do the same with Vehicles? Have everybody use the same rules, instead of putting Vehicles in their own little ghetto with a separate rules system. That'd make for a better game, IMO.

but then you get the stupid situation that is the new apocalypse. your titan can "explode" a number of times but is still fully functional until it takes that final hit.
being able to blow bits off gives you hope when facing something like this.

no reason not to pile on secondary effects other than;
1) it all takes time to work out,
2) how do you mark each different effect,
3) it massively prolongs the game.

its fine having lots of book keeping and tables etc in small scale games when players only have a few models each, but GW are pushing for more and more models on the table (so people buy more and more models from them), which means that they have to abstract and simplify the rules mechanics to improve the flow of the game.

in second edition each vehicle had a separate damage table for each facing. each weapon rolled a selection of different dice for its penetration rolls so had to be rolled individually.
but you only had a couple of vehicles and a unit or 2.

now everything works on a D6 system and all you need is 2-3 colours of dice and you can roll the whole lot together to speed up the game.


With what? They'd be about as easy to take out with a Lascannon or meltagun, but far, far harder with anything that was not AP3 or better.

so give them a bonus against vehicles.


What about gauss,

gauss is a misplaced remnant from previous editions when necrons had virtually nothing in the way of anti tank weapons.
back in 5th edition all their ability to glance vehicles just meant that they had a chance to nullify them for a turn or at best damage a weapon or immobilize the vehicle.
but it is ridiculously powerful under the new vehicle rules, I'd be massively surprised if they retain it in the next codex.


what about high str, poor ap weapons like tesla destructor/scatter lasers/shuriken cannons/flak, blacksword & skyhammer missiles/avenger bolt cannons etc.

high strength is what makes an anti vehicle weapon, the problem is the unfair bonuses gained by AP1 and 2. remove them and everything else becomes more viable.

if the AP1 and AP2 had no other bonus, or the bonus was to the penetration roll it'd be a much better rule. (and you could just drop "melta" all together)

then if you remove the ability for high strength to cause instant death but add in the option for certain weapons to cause 2 wounds per hit, you get a much more interesting game.



The problem is that using the same armour save mechanic for vehicles as you do for everything else basically means that all weapons are either amazing against everything (low AP) or crap against everything (high or no ap).

The great strength of the current armour system is that it allows guns to be strong against certain units whilst being weak against others. You wouldn't choose to fire your tesla destructor against terminators, but you'd happily turn it on a rhino, likewise you wouldn't shoot your disintegrators cannons at a rhino if you had any other targets, but that same weapon would shred the aforementioned terminator unit.


I would rather see the table expanded a tad, with a couple more options and modifiers:
Anything that causes a roll on the damage chart also removes 1 hull point
0 or less: no effect
1: Shaken- same as now
2: Stunned- same as now
3: Weapon Destroyed- same as now
4: Breached- any passengers take d6 S3 hits, distributed as desired by the transport's owner. Additionally, vehicle suffers a stunned result
5: Immobilized- same as now
6: Wrecked- all passengers take a S3 hit and then must take a strikedown check.
7: Explodes- all passengers and models within d6" take a S4 hit. Passengers must then take a pinning check.
8+: Catastrophic explosion- all passengers and models within d6" take a S6 hit with the rending USR. Passengers are automatically pinned, units that suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds must take a strikedown test.

Glancing Hit: -3 on the chart
AP - : -1 on the chart
AP2: +1 on the chart
AP1: +2 on the chart
Open-topped: +1 on the chart

this is your problem, as this makes AP1 or AP2 weapons far too good against vehicles.
the modifiers should just be:
+1 per hull point already lost (i.e. the more damage it has taken, the more likely it is to fall apart or explode)

open topped is a style of vehicle, why does it make it weaker? all it does it leave the crew/passengers more exposed. it should be:
open topped:
if the vehicle takes a glancing hit 1 passenger is also hit. roll a D6 on a 2 the crew are shaken, on a 6 the crew are stunned
if the vehicle takes a penetrating hit D3 passengers are also hit (D6 if it was a blast). roll a D6 on a 2 the crew are shaken, on a 6 the crew are stunned.




The vehicle rules worked fine in 4th and 5th. Never perfect but for 40K they worked. 6th added hull points and increased the damage modifiers; both made it a lot easier to kill vehicles.

This would be a step in the right direction. In terms of modifiers I would go back to the 5th ed damage chart with -2 for glance -1 for AP - and +1 for AP 1.
That way it would be harder to blow-up a vehicle in one go, but still possible, and it would still be possible to disable or damage a vehicle without killing it.

MCs ought to have a similar chart.
1 staggered - ld to shoot
2-3 stunned - ld test to move, shoot, charge (synapse could offer immunity to these as the hive mind pushes the creature on)
4 arm crippled - lose a gun/ccw or something
5 leg crippled - move as if in difficult terrain
6 critical hit - lose a second wound. I wouldn't go for a reroll on this.


again, this is introducing MASSIVE amounts of book keeping a 6 wound monster could now need up to 5 separate markers upon it from this table. oh yes and could be suffering from concussive and soul blaze and....
so now you need a whole pile of tokens for each monster.
now my 15 monster nidzilla army needs to bring a bag of 120 tokens with it. that noone actually produces because GW just didn't bother. so instead the games are massively confusing as everything ends up with a pile of dice next to it and no one can remember what means what.
this is definitely an easy and elegant solution.

how about introducing critical hits:

if you wound a monster on the roll of 3+ or 2+ roll a D6 on a 5+ the shot causes 2 wounds instead of 1.


I would also add a repair rule.
Ex: "vehicle can choose not to move OR not to shoot, as the crew frantically attempts to make repairs. Roll a D6, on a 5+ get rid of a damage result (fix a gun, no longer immobilized, add a hull point)"

So a Russ could stay still and in exchange would get to roll to repair, but still be able to shoot. Or move into cover and not shoot so it can attempt to repair.

Furthermore I'd bring back the rule that walkers can only be hit with grenades on a 6.

again daft!
grenades are finally useful again!
and Krak grenades need a 6 to glance dreadnoughts.
so you are suggesting making marines massively vulnerable to dreadnoughts.
they can't fall back due to "our weapons are useless" but they need 6's followed by 6's to do anything.

also why can grenades only hit walkers on 6's when they hit monsters using normal WS?