So this topic came up in the now-locked Stormsurge thread. I think that MCs and GMCs are quite overpowered in the current game. Brokenly overpowered, in fact. But one defense for the current rules is that MCs/GMCs can theoretically take wounds from small arms. My contention is that they are functionally immortal to small arms instead of being absolutely immune. I think that trying to shoot small arms at them is a poor decision and that the fact that it is theoretically possible but practically inefficient is just another one of their advantages in terms of offering out false hope to opponents.
As was shown previously, the storm surge takes about 26 bolter shots before it suffers a wound.
So, at rapid fire range, it's about ~180 points of bolters to cause a single wound assuming marines. At long range, this becomes 360. Certain chapter tactics will help this, though not by much (most of the damage disappears from needing a 6 to wound and the armor save).
This doesn't include a delivery mechanism, and considering the range of the guns and the amount of interceptor Tau has, you will likely need a transport.
I believe we showed in another thread that the wraithknight is even worse. I think we were running dominions against the wraithknight and riptide, and it took about 7-8 squads armed with meltas+combi melta to kill a knight, and 3 to kill a riptide.
I can't imagine how anyone thinks most MCs and GMCs (the latter especially) are weak against small arms fire. PGs, scat bikes, fire dragons, spiders, destroyers, and grav weapons cause a lot more wounds and are much most cost effective for the points. Lascannons and meltas don't seem to have enough shots to be effective, and with meltas, the short range doesn't help.
Naw wrote: Are you saying that you will not play your BA against anyone who fields an MC/GMC in any variant?
No, just the Stormsurge. Or anyone trying to fire more than two weapons a turn with a GMC. I've already faced the WK more times than I care to recount. I'm so sick of that fething thing. I've had dreams about going marauder heavy in a 40K game just to lay the hurt on WKs. Yea, that bad.
The question includes all under those typings, so let me give some examples: a stormsurge, a wraithknight, a GUO, a daemon prince, and a tervigon. Do you believe all of these models have an unfair advantage because of their type? Or do you think certain ones are simply strong, and happen to abuse the typing to make themselves stronger then they should be?
Yep. Outside of the Daemon Prince (which is moderately strong unless tooled out, I mean T5 and a 5++ Invuln??) the only thing MCs/GCs have to fear is Instant Death, and that's rare as it is.
Compared to equivalently costed vehicles, they absolutely have an advantage. The tervigon, guo, and daemon price are not as undercosted as the WK and Stormsurge, but they are still undercosted compared to their vehicular counterparts. And most ICs as well. Those ICs without EW for sure.
If there was a way in the game other than Str D to reduce their wounds faster than one at a time, I would be a lot less bitter. That was one of the few things that 2nd did right: lascannon inflicted 2D6 wounds for example, so MCs just couldn't laugh at lascannons. LIke they do now. I pay massive points for weapons that MCs just laugh at.
autumnlotus wrote: The question includes all under those typings, so let me give some examples: a stormsurge, a wraithknight, a GUO, a daemon prince, and a tervigon. Do you believe all of these models have an unfair advantage because of their type? Or do you think certain ones are simply strong, and happen to abuse the typing to make themselves stronger then they should be?
Tyranid MCs are still fairly strong, especially the Flyrants.
autumnlotus wrote: The question includes all under those typings, so let me give some examples: a stormsurge, a wraithknight, a GUO, a daemon prince, and a tervigon. Do you believe all of these models have an unfair advantage because of their type? Or do you think certain ones are simply strong, and happen to abuse the typing to make themselves stronger then they should be?
Tyranid MCs are still fairly strong, especially the Flyrants.
Out of this list, I would think the Daemon Prince is probably the only one that isn't really good. The Tervigon would probably be next, but can still be considered pretty good, although they both suffer from ID fear.
Compare this to tanks, where if I listed all the tanks even the eldar dex could take, a lot of them would be bad or inferior to the wraith lord/knight. Same with the Tau codex.
autumnlotus wrote: The question includes all under those typings, so let me give some examples: a stormsurge, a wraithknight, a GUO, a daemon prince, and a tervigon. Do you believe all of these models have an unfair advantage because of their type? Or do you think certain ones are simply strong, and happen to abuse the typing to make themselves stronger then they should be?
Tyranid MCs are still fairly strong, especially the Flyrants.
Out of this list, I would think the Daemon Prince is probably the only one that isn't really good. The Tervigon would probably be next, but can still be considered pretty good, although they both suffer from ID fear.
Compare this to tanks, where if I listed all the tanks even the eldar dex could take, a lot of them would be bad or inferior to the wraith lord/knight. Same with the Tau codex.
Eh, Dp's can be good, but they get really expensive fast.
The question was general power, not comparing it to vehicles. We all know vehicles are kinda trash. Take Repentent Engines: they would be a lot better as MCs, likely with T5 and 3-4 wounds. But they would still be pretty awful
All of those models completely ignore the main hallmark of a marine army in melee: the power armor. So yeah, they all seem pretty damn powerful to me. The WK/Riptide/Stormsurge being the worst, but the rules MCs/GMCs get are just nuts.
Okay, so how about a Dreadnought? It also ignores the rules marines get for a measley 95 points it gets 5 attacks on the charge! Also it is COMPLETELY IMMUNE to bolters from the front (WHAT???)
The weakness of MCs is supposed to be that you get less stats for the points, not that you can hurt them with small arms.
Let's take, off the top of my head because they're similar, a Dreadnought with assault cannon vs a Kastelan Robot with Phosphor gun.
It's not a perfect comparison but the Kastelan is pretty close to a MC dread, released about the same time. He costs 35 points more (100 vs 135 if I'm remembering right.)
MCs do NOT get less stats for the points. They get an armor save, which is a huge upgrade over a dreadnought. That dreadnought might be immune to boltguns, but a few autocannons or scatterlasers shot its way will HP it out. MCs laugh at autocannons and scatterlasers. Relatively speaking.
Even with four attacks, dreadnoughts are still terrible.
autumnlotus wrote: The question was general power, not comparing it to vehicles. We all know vehicles are kinda trash. Take Repentent Engines: they would be a lot better as MCs, likely with T5 and 3-4 wounds. But they would still be pretty awful
A clunky robot walker whose only organic components are the highly vulnerable "pilot" and the tanks of drugs being fed into him/her would seem extremely bizarre as a monstrous creature...
autumnlotus wrote: The question was general power, not comparing it to vehicles. We all know vehicles are kinda trash. Take Repentent Engines: they would be a lot better as MCs, likely with T5 and 3-4 wounds. But they would still be pretty awful
A clunky robot walker whose only organic components are the highly vulnerable "pilot" and the tanks of drugs being fed into him/her would seem extremely bizarre as a monstrous creature...
Let's not get into this. Let's just stick with what is currently typed in the rules.
the_scotsman wrote: Okay, so how about a Dreadnought? It also ignores the rules marines get for a measley 95 points it gets 5 attacks on the charge! Also it is COMPLETELY IMMUNE to bolters from the front (WHAT???)
The weakness of MCs is supposed to be that you get less stats for the points, not that you can hurt them with small arms.
Let's take, off the top of my head because they're similar, a Dreadnought with assault cannon vs a Kastelan Robot with Phosphor gun.
It's not a perfect comparison but the Kastelan is pretty close to a MC dread, released about the same time. He costs 35 points more (100 vs 135 if I'm remembering right.)
autumnlotus wrote: The question was general power, not comparing it to vehicles. We all know vehicles are kinda trash. Take Repentent Engines: they would be a lot better as MCs, likely with T5 and 3-4 wounds. But they would still be pretty awful
A clunky robot walker whose only organic components are the highly vulnerable "pilot" and the tanks of drugs being fed into him/her would seem extremely bizarre as a monstrous creature...
Let's not get into this. Let's just stick with what is currently typed in the rules.
Okies then. Dropping it and changing subject to be more on-topic.
One of the early posts in this thread talked about the points cost of the number of Marines with Bolters needed to take a wound off of it.
Does that comparison mean that Sisters of Battle (being the same BS and using the same weapon as those Marines, but costing fewer points per model) would be better at dealing with a MC/GMC, since they require fewer points of models to deal the same damage?
Also, taking a squad of Marines and not giving them at least a Special Weapon seems bizarre.
And for a third point, someone talked about the number of Melta-Dominions needed to take out a particular GMC in one round of shooting. I imagine that GMCs aren't meant to be taken out in a single volley, but worn down and hopefully finished off before the end of the game.
the_scotsman wrote: Okay, so how about a Dreadnought? It also ignores the rules marines get for a measley 95 points it gets 5 attacks on the charge! Also it is COMPLETELY IMMUNE to bolters from the front (WHAT???)
The weakness of MCs is supposed to be that you get less stats for the points, not that you can hurt them with small arms.
The placement of large walkers in the MC category seems to have been done for the sake of unit diversity throughout a codex, and by connection to increase sales. From a game point of view it makes little sense. You could justify something liike a riptide having toughness instead of AV if it had weak points or large amounts of exposed wiring and inner workings that could be damaged by small arms fire... but as you pointed out why then is a dreadnought not also in that category?
It's as though 2 different philosophies for vehicle design were thrown into the game and to me it feels shabby and illogical. It should be fairly clear cut. Large battle suits, i.e. those that have a pilot -as opposed to a wearer like TDA- should be walkers, without exception.
autumnlotus wrote: The question was general power, not comparing it to vehicles. We all know vehicles are kinda trash. Take Repentent Engines: they would be a lot better as MCs, likely with T5 and 3-4 wounds. But they would still be pretty awful
A clunky robot walker whose only organic components are the highly vulnerable "pilot" and the tanks of drugs being fed into him/her would seem extremely bizarre as a monstrous creature...
Let's not get into this. Let's just stick with what is currently typed in the rules.
Okies then. Dropping it and changing subject to be more on-topic.
One of the early posts in this thread talked about the points cost of the number of Marines with Bolters needed to take a wound off of it.
Does that comparison mean that Sisters of Battle (being the same BS and using the same weapon as those Marines, but costing fewer points per model) would be better at dealing with a MC/GMC, since they require fewer points of models to deal the same damage?
Also, taking a squad of Marines and not giving them at least a Special Weapon seems bizarre.
And for a third point, someone talked about the number of Melta-Dominions needed to take out a particular GMC in one round of shooting. I imagine that GMCs aren't meant to be taken out in a single volley, but worn down and hopefully finished off before the end of the game.
You can't let them live that long. If they are around for too long, they will have done too much damage.
autumnlotus wrote: The question was general power, not comparing it to vehicles. We all know vehicles are kinda trash. Take Repentent Engines: they would be a lot better as MCs, likely with T5 and 3-4 wounds. But they would still be pretty awful
A clunky robot walker whose only organic components are the highly vulnerable "pilot" and the tanks of drugs being fed into him/her would seem extremely bizarre as a monstrous creature...
Let's not get into this. Let's just stick with what is currently typed in the rules.
Okies then. Dropping it and changing subject to be more on-topic.
One of the early posts in this thread talked about the points cost of the number of Marines with Bolters needed to take a wound off of it.
Does that comparison mean that Sisters of Battle (being the same BS and using the same weapon as those Marines, but costing fewer points per model) would be better at dealing with a MC/GMC, since they require fewer points of models to deal the same damage?
Yes and no.
If MCs and GMCs were actually vulnerable to small arms fire, then yes, sisters would be better. Especially with the AoF the basic troop choice gets and being cheaper (the extra toughness marines get tend not to make a difference in this case, while the invul save sisters gets actually comes into play!).
However, small arms are actually really awful and you'd much rather take plasma guns or grav weapons. Sisters don't get access to these, and thus are much worse at dealing with them.
For example, compare dominions loaded to bear against sternguard with combi plas or centurions. You'll find the SM are much more efficient at removing MCs and GMCs off the table, because their platform for delivering the weapons that are actually useful is strictly superior. And their weapon choices are strictly superior.
And for a third point, someone talked about the number of Melta-Dominions needed to take out a particular GMC in one round of shooting. I imagine that GMCs aren't meant to be taken out in a single volley, but worn down and hopefully finished off before the end of the game.
It would take 1 dominion squad longer than a game to wipe out a wraith knight (the original claim was that a single squad could wipe out a wraith knight).
It would take 2 squads (and I believe the cost is comparable) about 4 turns to wipe out a wraith knight, assuming nothing was done to stop this from happening.
It would take 3 squads 2-3 rounds, though closer to 3, to wipe out a knight. That's still half the game where the wraith knight gets to do things.
The reality, for Dominion squads at least, is that they lack the range and toughness to take multiple rounds to remove a wraith knight. A wraithknight can just move away, or kill the squad, way faster than it can be killed by an equivalent amount of points in dominions.
Most GMCs cause so much damage, and for some reason are reasonably fast, that you can't allow them to survive 4+ turns. You need to remove them by turn 2-3 or they will earn their points back, if only in how many shots they are absorbing.
Vipoid,
Are you sure? Does the SS get FnP or something? I'm not looking at the book, so I went off of the T6 and 3+ save alone.
I'm showing 2/3*1/6*1/3=2/54, or ~1/27.
Honestly the line for monstrous / walker creatures is all but gone at this point. Either they balance them to be equal but different, or just remove one and add a modifier to the other whenever it's a "walker" or "monster". There's a reason I don't have any vehicles in my armies that aren't AV 13 or more, mine just being Plague Hulk's and Land Raider Crusaders
Definitely, but that is mainly because the stats and abilities behind them seem to be meant for that level of play. A GMC with space marine stats would be amusing. I do hope more GMC are made, but don't replace others. As a daemon player I want them to make a generic daemon lord for every god, just not to be underpriced like the wraithknight as that would cause everyone to suddenly become a daemon player xD
Naw wrote: Are you saying that you will not play your BA against anyone who fields an MC/GMC in any variant?
No, just the Stormsurge. Or anyone trying to fire more than two weapons a turn with a GMC. I've already faced the WK more times than I care to recount. I'm so sick of that fething thing. I've had dreams about going marauder heavy in a 40K game just to lay the hurt on WKs. Yea, that bad.
I wish I could just throw void rays at it. Alas. :(
autumnlotus wrote: The question was general power, not comparing it to vehicles. We all know vehicles are kinda trash. Take Repentent Engines: they would be a lot better as MCs, likely with T5 and 3-4 wounds. But they would still be pretty awful
A clunky robot walker whose only organic components are the highly vulnerable "pilot" and the tanks of drugs being fed into him/her would seem extremely bizarre as a monstrous creature...
Let's not get into this. Let's just stick with what is currently typed in the rules.
Okies then. Dropping it and changing subject to be more on-topic.
One of the early posts in this thread talked about the points cost of the number of Marines with Bolters needed to take a wound off of it.
Does that comparison mean that Sisters of Battle (being the same BS and using the same weapon as those Marines, but costing fewer points per model) would be better at dealing with a MC/GMC, since they require fewer points of models to deal the same damage?
Yes and no.
If MCs and GMCs were actually vulnerable to small arms fire, then yes, sisters would be better. Especially with the AoF the basic troop choice gets and being cheaper (the extra toughness marines get tend not to make a difference in this case, while the invul save sisters gets actually comes into play!).
However, small arms are actually really awful and you'd much rather take plasma guns or grav weapons. Sisters don't get access to these, and thus are much worse at dealing with them.
For example, compare dominions loaded to bear against sternguard with combi plas or centurions. You'll find the SM are much more efficient at removing MCs and GMCs off the table, because their platform for delivering the weapons that are actually useful is strictly superior. And their weapon choices are strictly superior.
You're making me wish that my friend's custom Marine faction that I like to ally my Sisters with, didn't strongly dislike the use of plasma weapons due to their tendency to overheat and kill or critically injure their users...
At least I have Exorcists...
And at least I only play games against my mom, who prefers to play Orks and doesn't have a Squiggoth.
Also, taking a squad of Marines and not giving them at least a Special Weapon seems bizarre.
While I agree, the original claim made in another thread was that MC's and GMC's are weak against small arms fire, not special weapons.
Fair point. But it seems like that discussion would be over as quickly as it started, because yeah, while the GMC will go down eventually if subjected to enough small arms, I imagine the process in practice would be like trying to take down a Leman Russ in Dawn of War 1 using nothing but Battle Sister Squads with no upgrades (or even with Heavy Bolters). It works, but it takes for-bleeping-ever and you'd be better off using an anti-tank unit. Particularly since a squad of 10 Sisters or Marines rapid-firing their 10 bolters into a GMC or MC would remove, on average, a fraction of a single wound.
Massed small arms works against heavily armored infantry like Terminators and Meganobz because their Toughness is no better than a standard Ork or Space Marine, so you're scoring a lot more Wounds than you would against a MC/GMC. It's also more effective because every wound (or every 2 in the case of MANz) reduces the squad's ability to fight back by killing off a model, denying them any shots or melee attacks that model would've had, so even if you don't finish off the last guy, you've probably reduced the unit's effectiveness significantly, to the point where a lone survivor probably wouldn't be able to destroy a squad of Guardsmen. But a MC/GMC keeps 100% of its damage-dealing power until it dies.
And for a third point, someone talked about the number of Melta-Dominions needed to take out a particular GMC in one round of shooting. I imagine that GMCs aren't meant to be taken out in a single volley, but worn down and hopefully finished off before the end of the game.
It would take 1 dominion squad longer than a game to wipe out a wraith knight (the original claim was that a single squad could wipe out a wraith knight).
It would take 2 squads (and I believe the cost is comparable) about 4 turns to wipe out a wraith knight, assuming nothing was done to stop this from happening.
It would take 3 squads 2-3 rounds, though closer to 3, to wipe out a knight. That's still half the game where the wraith knight gets to do things.
The reality, for Dominion squads at least, is that they lack the range and toughness to take multiple rounds to remove a wraith knight. A wraithknight can just move away, or kill the squad, way faster than it can be killed by an equivalent amount of points in dominions.
Most GMCs cause so much damage, and for some reason are reasonably fast, that you can't allow them to survive 4+ turns. You need to remove them by turn 2-3 or they will earn their points back, if only in how many shots they are absorbing.
Ouch. An Exorcist probably wouldn't fare much better, considering that it has the same strength and AP as a meltagun, but gets fewer shots on average. Plus side is it can do it from 48" away.
Dealing with GMCs seems really annoying, and now I'm even more glad that I only play at home against my mom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tactical_Spam wrote: Real life physics would say a grav weapon should ID a GMC, but alas, no such luck.
GMC's are OP in non-apoc games.
Real life physics also say that a Conversion Beamer, if it managed to convert the target humanoid's entire body into antimatter, would cause an explosion large enough to put an end to life on that planet from the resulting environmental effects.
Or so I heard from a guy on a different forum who claimed to be a physicist when I asked him what would happen if an amount of antimatter equal to the mass of a human body mixed with an equal amount of regular matter.
Though I seem to recall that he said I was misunderstanding how a WH40k Conversion Beamer works.
autumnlotus wrote: The question was general power, not comparing it to vehicles. We all know vehicles are kinda trash. Take Repentent Engines: they would be a lot better as MCs, likely with T5 and 3-4 wounds. But they would still be pretty awful
A clunky robot walker whose only organic components are the highly vulnerable "pilot" and the tanks of drugs being fed into him/her would seem extremely bizarre as a monstrous creature...
Let's not get into this. Let's just stick with what is currently typed in the rules.
Okies then. Dropping it and changing subject to be more on-topic.
One of the early posts in this thread talked about the points cost of the number of Marines with Bolters needed to take a wound off of it.
Does that comparison mean that Sisters of Battle (being the same BS and using the same weapon as those Marines, but costing fewer points per model) would be better at dealing with a MC/GMC, since they require fewer points of models to deal the same damage?
Yes and no.
If MCs and GMCs were actually vulnerable to small arms fire, then yes, sisters would be better. Especially with the AoF the basic troop choice gets and being cheaper (the extra toughness marines get tend not to make a difference in this case, while the invul save sisters gets actually comes into play!).
However, small arms are actually really awful and you'd much rather take plasma guns or grav weapons. Sisters don't get access to these, and thus are much worse at dealing with them.
For example, compare dominions loaded to bear against sternguard with combi plas or centurions. You'll find the SM are much more efficient at removing MCs and GMCs off the table, because their platform for delivering the weapons that are actually useful is strictly superior. And their weapon choices are strictly superior.
You're making me wish that my friend's custom Marine faction that I like to ally my Sisters with, didn't strongly dislike the use of plasma weapons due to their tendency to overheat and kill or critically injure their users...
At least I have Exorcists...
And at least I only play games against my mom, who prefers to play Orks and doesn't have a Squiggoth.
I'm not really a sisters player, so I couldn't say how they handle a Wraithknight. I've suggested exorcists before, but was told that is a bad decision and proves I'm not a sisters player.
Sorry I can't provide an alternative that might help you.
Fair point. But it seems like that discussion would be over as quickly as it started, because yeah, while the GMC will go down eventually if subjected to enough small arms, I imagine the process in practice would be like trying to take down a Leman Russ in Dawn of War 1 using nothing but Battle Sister Squads with no upgrades (or even with Heavy Bolters). It works, but it takes for-bleeping-ever and you'd be better off using an anti-tank unit. Particularly since a squad of 10 Sisters or Marines rapid-firing their 10 bolters into a GMC or MC would remove, on average, a fraction of a single wound.
I agree. For the record, a plasma gun does
2/3*2/3*2/3 (cover save, 5+) 8/27, so every ~3 shots does a wound. 2 Pgs and a combi will inflict 2 wounds on the SS at rapid fire range, unless I'm missing something. Equivalent points in drop pods can kill it if everything goes well, though it'll be close since it can do a lot of damage in return and won't be one rounded.
Grav, especially on a centurion with their re-rolls, is a lot better. I think a CentStar can 1 round a SS, though that's just a gut feeling and not based on math. They might need divination to make it happen.
Massed small arms works against heavily armored infantry like Terminators and Meganobz because their Toughness is no better than a standard Ork or Space Marine, so you're scoring a lot more Wounds than you would against a MC/GMC. It's also more effective because every wound (or every 2 in the case of MANz) reduces the squad's ability to fight back by killing off a model, denying them any shots or melee attacks that model would've had, so even if you don't finish off the last guy, you've probably reduced the unit's effectiveness significantly, to the point where a lone survivor probably wouldn't be able to destroy a squad of Guardsmen. But a MC/GMC keeps 100% of its damage-dealing power until it dies.
Pretty much. One of the reason tanks were so strong in 5th was for similar reasons. It was very hard to reduce their damage at all, and they could absorb a ton of firepower before dying. I've seen games where predators took an entire armys firepower and only ended up immobilized, which is insane given its cost.
Let's not forget that termies and meganobz also have garbage ranged fire power and are slow, so they usually don't start influencing the game until rounds 3-4 at the earliest. Maybe 2 if they are dropped in and are lucky. GMCs are destroying targets every turn.
And for a third point, someone talked about the number of Melta-Dominions needed to take out a particular GMC in one round of shooting. I imagine that GMCs aren't meant to be taken out in a single volley, but worn down and hopefully finished off before the end of the game.
It would take 1 dominion squad longer than a game to wipe out a wraith knight (the original claim was that a single squad could wipe out a wraith knight).
It would take 2 squads (and I believe the cost is comparable) about 4 turns to wipe out a wraith knight, assuming nothing was done to stop this from happening.
It would take 3 squads 2-3 rounds, though closer to 3, to wipe out a knight. That's still half the game where the wraith knight gets to do things.
The reality, for Dominion squads at least, is that they lack the range and toughness to take multiple rounds to remove a wraith knight. A wraithknight can just move away, or kill the squad, way faster than it can be killed by an equivalent amount of points in dominions.
Most GMCs cause so much damage, and for some reason are reasonably fast, that you can't allow them to survive 4+ turns. You need to remove them by turn 2-3 or they will earn their points back, if only in how many shots they are absorbing.
Ouch. An Exorcist probably wouldn't fare much better, considering that it has the same strength and AP as a meltagun, but gets fewer shots on average. Plus side is it can do it from 48" away.
Dealing with GMCs seems really annoying, and now I'm even more glad that I only play at home against my mom.
Don't the exorcist get d6 shots and are relatively inexpensive? I thought you could get nearly 2 for a 10 man tricked out dominion squad, but I could be wrong of course.
The extra range helps a lot, since the GMCS or riptide can't just move out of the way, like they can against melta weapons or weapons that require rapid fire range.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Real life physics would say a grav weapon should ID a GMC, but alas, no such luck.
GMC's are OP in non-apoc games.
Real life physics also say that a Conversion Beamer, if it managed to convert the target humanoid's entire body into antimatter, would cause an explosion large enough to put an end to life on that planet from the resulting environmental effects.
Or so I heard from a guy on a different forum who claimed to be a physicist when I asked him what would happen if an amount of antimatter equal to the mass of a human body mixed with an equal amount of regular matter.
Though I seem to recall that he said I was misunderstanding how a WH40k Conversion Beamer works.
It doesn't convert a target's body into antimatter. It fires a tight beam of the stuff and the explosion is from the beam hitting another object. I am baffled the thing has to scatter...
"Alright... Lets kill that Stormsurge"
"Sir, its T6..."
"Don't worry, Conversion beamers are good at killing anything"
"Its only S10 at that range... You don't get instant death"
Tau break brains being some special god damn snowflake when GW dictates what is and isnt considered a Monstrous Creature.
When will my Defiler be considered a MC? Makes about as much damn sense as my Stormsurge or Riptides... fething thing is piloted by a Warp Entity, isnt that the same as being piloted by a bunch of fish bowls?
It all comes down to Moving Product. GW doesnt give 2 shakes about rules anymore as they dictated with their blatant disregard for FAQs and terribly written Walker Rules vs MCs.
MCs by all means are just always better and Walkers and Vehicles suffer for it. Armies like CSM who literally run on the backbone of over expensive jack of all trade walkers and vehicles, masters of USR EXPLODES! will never see that kind of love because of 3.5ED.
Akiasura wrote: I'm not really a sisters player, so I couldn't say how they handle a Wraithknight. I've suggested exorcists before, but was told that is a bad decision and proves I'm not a sisters player.
Sorry I can't provide an alternative that might help you.
S'okay, I'm unlikely to face a Wraithknight or and GMC at any point in the near future anyways.
I agree. For the record, a plasma gun does
2/3*2/3*2/3 (cover save, 5+) 8/27, so every ~3 shots does a wound. 2 Pgs and a combi will inflict 2 wounds on the SS at rapid fire range, unless I'm missing something. Equivalent points in drop pods can kill it if everything goes well, though it'll be close since it can do a lot of damage in return and won't be one rounded.
Grav, especially on a centurion with their re-rolls, is a lot better. I think a CentStar can 1 round a SS, though that's just a gut feeling and not based on math. They might need divination to make it happen.
Well, I do have a trio of Centurions with those grav-weapons. They're a little pricey on points, but if I'm facing a Stormsurge or whatnot, odds are good I'm no longer playing at home, so I'll probably have higher points values to play with.
Pouncey wrote: Pretty much. One of the reason tanks were so strong in 5th was for similar reasons. It was very hard to reduce their damage at all, and they could absorb a ton of firepower before dying. I've seen games where predators took an entire armys firepower and only ended up immobilized, which is insane given its cost.
Let's not forget that termies and meganobz also have garbage ranged fire power and are slow, so they usually don't start influencing the game until rounds 3-4 at the earliest. Maybe 2 if they are dropped in and are lucky. GMCs are destroying targets every turn.
Last game I played was on a dining table. Not a board laid on top of a dining table, but just a dining table. To say that melee came swiftly is an understatement.
But again, ouch.
Don't the exorcist get d6 shots and are relatively inexpensive? I thought you could get nearly 2 for a 10 man tricked out dominion squad, but I could be wrong of course.
The extra range helps a lot, since the GMCS or riptide can't just move out of the way, like they can against melta weapons or weapons that require rapid fire range.
Exorcist gets d6 shots per turn, the average of which is 3.5 but can be anywhere from 1 to 6. A squad of Dominions with maxed-out meltaguns carries 4 meltaguns and 1 combi-melta. And also I don't think one would take a full 10-woman Dominion Squad, typically you'd stick with 5 and max out their meltaguns.
And clearly I don't know how to play Sisters either, since I thought Exorcists would be the solution (earlier you said you'd heard it wasn't). I'm not surprised, I'm pretty terrible at figuring out how to counter stuff with list-building.
Martel732 wrote: Compared to equivalently costed vehicles, they absolutely have an advantage. The tervigon, guo, and daemon price are not as undercosted as the WK and Stormsurge, but they are still undercosted compared to their vehicular counterparts.
Really lol? You think the Stormsurge is UNDERcosted? It is 435 points with upgrades! That is 1/4 of your army. Of course it should be good. but undercoated? I don't think so
Tactical_Spam wrote: It doesn't convert a target's body into antimatter. It fires a tight beam of the stuff and the explosion is from the beam hitting another object. I am baffled the thing has to scatter...
"Alright... Lets kill that Stormsurge"
"Sir, its T6..."
"Don't worry, Conversion beamers are good at killing anything"
"Its only S10 at that range... You don't get instant death"
"But... it fires antimatter..."
"No instant death"
Edit: Somehow I missed quoted...
And it gets more powerful as the beam travels.
I wonder what would happen if you fired it at a nearby moon...
Vipoid,
Are you sure? Does the SS get FnP or something? I'm not looking at the book, so I went off of the T6 and 3+ save alone.
I'm showing 2/3*1/6*1/3=2/54, or ~1/27.
Am I right in thinking it's a Gargantuan Creature?
If so, it gets FNP via the Gargantuan Creature rules.
Vipoid,
Are you sure? Does the SS get FnP or something? I'm not looking at the book, so I went off of the T6 and 3+ save alone.
I'm showing 2/3*1/6*1/3=2/54, or ~1/27.
Am I right in thinking it's a Gargantuan Creature?
If so, it gets FNP via the Gargantuan Creature rules.
Oh, I thought it was an MC.
Then yes, that means your number is correct.
I wouldn't say it's undercosted, I would say it's about right. It certainly takes a ton of firepower to kill the thing compared to its point cost, and it's damage output is incredible, even with only 2 weapons being able to fire.
Quite literally the only "small arms" that GMCs should fear is the Rad Carbine.
RAW? Even though its Strength cannot Wound anything above T7, and it's wounding anything above T4 on 6s...
Codex Skitarii; page 74 wrote:Rad Poisoning: When firing a weapon that has this special rule, a To Wound roll of 6 causes 2 Wounds on the target unit, regardless of the target's Toughness. Each Wound is allocated and saved against separately.
Why would you use the wrong tool for the job then complain it doesn't work?
S4 vs T6+ isn't a great choice. This shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Yeah, you can slowly pink off wounds, but it's a very strange basis to call them overpowered on a whole.
I was a bit confused by the comment that scatter lasers are useless against MCs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Quite literally the only "small arms" that GMCs should fear is the Rad Carbine.
RAW? Even though its Strength cannot Wound anything above T7, and it's wounding anything above T4 on 6s...
Codex Skitarii; page 74 wrote:Rad Poisoning: When firing a weapon that has this special rule, a To Wound roll of 6 causes 2 Wounds on the target unit, regardless of the target's Toughness. Each Wound is allocated and saved against separately.
NamelessBard wrote: Why would you use the wrong tool for the job then complain it doesn't work?
S4 vs T6+ isn't a great choice. This shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Yeah, you can slowly pink off wounds, but it's a very strange basis to call them overpowered on a whole.
I was a bit confused by the comment that scatter lasers are useless against MCs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Quite literally the only "small arms" that GMCs should fear is the Rad Carbine.
RAW? Even though its Strength cannot Wound anything above T7, and it's wounding anything above T4 on 6s...
Codex Skitarii; page 74 wrote:Rad Poisoning: When firing a weapon that has this special rule, a To Wound roll of 6 causes 2 Wounds on the target unit, regardless of the target's Toughness. Each Wound is allocated and saved against separately.
Martel732 wrote: So this topic came up in the now-locked Stormsurge thread. I think that MCs and GMCs are quite overpowered in the current game. Brokenly overpowered, in fact. But one defense for the current rules is that MCs/GMCs can theoretically take wounds from small arms. My contention is that they are functionally immortal to small arms instead of being absolutely immune. I think that trying to shoot small arms at them is a poor decision and that the fact that it is theoretically possible but practically inefficient is just another one of their advantages in terms of offering out false hope to opponents.
This is largely true. Nobody intentionally fires small arms at MC's if they have any other choice, it's usually just a "well, we'll see if we get lucky" thing when the rest of the squad tosses a Lascannon at the MC.
Yes, in theory while MC's are vulnerable to small arms, in practical terms, they're a minor annoyance factor at best. Even a relatively squishy MC, like a Carnifex, will take 108 BS4 bolter shots to kill, a really tough MC, like an FNP'd Riptide, will require over 400 BS4 bolter shots to kill.
The idea that "well they're vulnerable to small arms" is any sort of balancing factor just does not work once one actually quantifies the miniscule threat they actually present.
They are really hard to kill with only small arms fire before it kills everything that is a real threat.
If you rely on lasguns or bolters of course some MCs, all FMCs and (F)GMCs are very hard, if not impossible, to kill. Try Eldar. They don't have any issues but then they completely lack small arms
Martel732 wrote: So this topic came up in the now-locked Stormsurge thread. I think that MCs and GMCs are quite overpowered in the current game. Brokenly overpowered, in fact. But one defense for the current rules is that MCs/GMCs can theoretically take wounds from small arms. My contention is that they are functionally immortal to small arms instead of being absolutely immune. I think that trying to shoot small arms at them is a poor decision and that the fact that it is theoretically possible but practically inefficient is just another one of their advantages in terms of offering out false hope to opponents.
I don't know if MCs are brokenly overpowered as there are simple counters. Imperials have Grav Centurions either natively or via allies, and they have their own MC who's pretty good at killing other MCs, the Dreadknight.
Pre-empting you - yes, i'm aware BA suck. It's a shame the Lib Dread doesn't have old style wings.
GMCs (along with super heavies) of course shouldn't have any place in regular 40K outside of Apocalypse.
With regard to the game in general, I think there are far too many 'good at everything' units. Units with no real downside that just excel at everything - basically the model equivalent of Mary Sues.
As an example, do you remember when Hive Tyrants had to choose between mobility (wings) or defence (2+ save, bodyguards)?
Then we had stuff like the DK, WK and Riptide. MCs that had mobility, but did't have to trade anything for it. In fact, all of those are more resilient than a Hive Tyrant who chose defence. And, even the Hive Tyrant basically ignores this choice - because it's mobility also comes with ridiculous defence (can only be hit on 6s, can also Jink for 4+ cover).
Basically, mobility should require a trade-off - it shouldn't just be a standard addition or pitifully cheap upgrade. In fact, I'd argue that stuff like GCs, Super Heavies, IKs and even most MCs should *never* be able to move more than 6". It might even be better if they were slower still (and had to sacrifice some shooting or defence to move 6"). Basically, these are not units that should be zipping around the field - they should be great, lumbering things that need to rely on smaller, more agile units around them.
Martel732 wrote: So this topic came up in the now-locked Stormsurge thread. I think that MCs and GMCs are quite overpowered in the current game. Brokenly overpowered, in fact. But one defense for the current rules is that MCs/GMCs can theoretically take wounds from small arms. My contention is that they are functionally immortal to small arms instead of being absolutely immune. I think that trying to shoot small arms at them is a poor decision and that the fact that it is theoretically possible but practically inefficient is just another one of their advantages in terms of offering out false hope to opponents.
I don't know if MCs are brokenly overpowered as there are simple counters. Imperials have Grav Centurions either natively or via allies, and they have their own MC who's pretty good at killing other MCs, the Dreadknight.
"Imperials" don't have the Dreadknight, Grey Knights have the Dreadknight.
Talking about "X isn't broken because Imperials have allies to counter it" is silly. You don't hear people say that Dark Eldar are amazing because they have Eldar allies.
Additionally, this thread is regarding the idea that "MCs/GMCs aren't broken because they can still be hurt by a unit's basic, unupgraded weapon". That might be true for a MC or GMC like the Stormsurge or Riptide, but it's not really true for anything higher than that.
In reality, large things tend to be pretty fast, such as elephants and hippos. "Big and slow" is not a standard thing in nature and is noit "realistic" at all.
Alcibiades wrote: In reality, large things tend to be pretty fast, such as elephants and hippos. "Big and slow" is not a standard thing in nature and is noit "realistic" at all.
It also tends to be true for a lot of naval vessels in real life. That extra size lets them pack on more powerful engines, to the point where a US aircraft carrier can outrun its entire group if it needs to.
Alcibiades wrote: In reality, large things tend to be pretty fast, such as elephants and hippos. "Big and slow" is not a standard thing in nature and is noit "realistic" at all.
Yeah, how could anything hope to match that speed?
It really doesn't matter what happens in real life, this is a war game. A game should put balance first, and then fluff as a second.
Especially in this game, where most of the fluff involves everyone wiping out whatever enemy they happen to be facing without trying very hard (unless you are guard). Bolters go from barely causing wounds to detonating bodies and opening up tanks, depending on the writer.
Martel732 wrote: Compared to equivalently costed vehicles, they absolutely have an advantage. The tervigon, guo, and daemon price are not as undercosted as the WK and Stormsurge, but they are still undercosted compared to their vehicular counterparts.
Really lol? You think the Stormsurge is UNDERcosted? It is 435 points with upgrades! That is 1/4 of your army. Of course it should be good. but undercoated? I don't think so
Yes, it's undercosted because GMCs have stupid good rules. It's 1/4 of an army that never dies, except to very, very specific units.
Alcibiades wrote: In reality, large things tend to be pretty fast, such as elephants and hippos. "Big and slow" is not a standard thing in nature and is noit "realistic" at all.
Yeah, how could anything hope to match that speed?
Walking. The video name says they're walking. Not running.
I've seen a video of a giraffe chasing a car along a dirt road, and keeping up.
There's also a phenomenon I've noticed in video games where a small character feels like it's moving faster than a large character, even if they''re both going the same speed. In World of Warcraft, some people have trouble playing the Tauren race because they feel like they're moving slowly, even when going at the same speed as any other character that person's ever played. Tauren, for reference, are the bulkiest, largest playable characters.
We humans seem to perceive speed in proportion to the object''s size. Houseflies and ants seem to be zipping along, but a human walking at a steady pace moves faster, yet seems slower.
Kanluwen wrote: You don't hear people say that Dark Eldar are amazing because they have Eldar allies.
Depressingly, you do indeed hear people saying just that.
Let's rephrase that:
You don't hear people with common sense saying that Dark Eldar are amazing because they have Eldar allies.
vipoid wrote: Yeah, how could anything hope to match that speed?
Ever seen videos of elephants or hippos fleeing/reacting to predators?
Those things are scary fast for their bulk.
And hippos? Hippos are just MEAN. Male hippos that have claimed a stretch of river have been known to remove Nile crocodiles from their territory; by killing them.
Akiasura wrote: It really doesn't matter what happens in real life, this is a war game. A game should put balance first, and then fluff as a second.
Especially in this game, where most of the fluff involves everyone wiping out whatever enemy they happen to be facing without trying very hard (unless you are guard). Bolters go from barely causing wounds to detonating bodies and opening up tanks, depending on the writer.
Sisters of Battle also seem to take heavy casualties on any venture they embark upon. The Schola trainers should really start instilling the lesson that martyring oneself as a strategy should be used sparingly and only as absolutely needed, because more heretics can be righteously incinerated the longer each Battle Sister stays alive.
Ever seen videos of elephants or hippos fleeing/reacting to predators?
Those things are scary fast for their bulk.
A couple of points:
1) Yes, they can put on a turn of speed, but there's a reason they rarely do so - in that they can't maintain that speed.
2) Even at the most optimistic estimates, I think it's reasonable to state that large creatures wouldn't realistically be able to keep pace with fast skimmers and the like. So, having them more more than 6" still seems silly. I mean, 6" is how far most tanks move. MCs keeping pace with tanks I can accept, MCs moving twice as fast as tanks... no. Just, no.
3) Most MCs that have mobility are actually Jump MCs. Do you know how much energy that would take? Now you're not just moving them forward at speed, but you've also got to first get their entire bulk off the ground. And, we're talking here about creatures that can be as big as a house and so heavily armoured that their carapace can literally deflect missiles.
4) The final problem -especially with GCs and SHs - is momentum. It was brought up earlier that large battleships and such are fast. They are, but not from a standing start. They can't just go from stationary to maximum speed in no time at all. Likewise, they can't turn on a dime and nor do can they just bring themselves to an immediate stop. Basically, there's no way they could possibly move like they do in 40k.
Bear in mind, it's not just about maximum speed - it's also about acceleration, deceleration and turning while at speed.
Ever seen videos of elephants or hippos fleeing/reacting to predators?
Those things are scary fast for their bulk.
A couple of points:
1) Yes, they can put on a turn of speed, but there's a reason they rarely do so - in that they can't maintain that speed.
2) Even at the most optimistic estimates, I think it's reasonable to state that large creatures wouldn't realistically be able to keep pace with fast skimmers and the like. So, having them more more than 6" still seems silly. I mean, 6" is how far most tanks move. MCs keeping pace with tanks I can accept, MCs moving twice as fast as tanks... no. Just, no.
3) Most MCs that have mobility are actually Jump MCs. Do you know how much energy that would take? Now you're not just moving them forward at speed, but you've also got to first get their entire bulk off the ground. And, we're talking here about creatures that can be as big as a house and so heavily armoured that their carapace can literally deflect missiles.
4) The final problem -especially with GCs and SHs - is momentum. It was brought up earlier that large battleships and such are fast. They are, but not from a standing start. They can't just go from stationary to maximum speed in no time at all. Likewise, they can't turn on a dime and nor do can they just bring themselves to an immediate stop. Basically, there's no way they could possibly move like they do in 40k.
Bear in mind, it's not just about maximum speed - it's also about acceleration, deceleration and turning while at speed.
Tanks can actually move up to 12", unless they changed the rules at some point.
Showing acceleration and deceleration in a turn-based game is difficult, especially in WH40k's case where you only get a maximum of 6 chances to do a move... err... move.
In terms of showing momentum, I think you'd have to have something similar to the flyer rules - with a minimum distance and limited turning arc.
But, I think it would be easier and better for the game to just make them slow.
Oh, one other thing - large animals like elephants are quadrupeds, whilst GW's MCs are almost universally bipeds. It makes a big difference in terms of speed, not to mention stability.
Martel732 wrote: So this topic came up in the now-locked Stormsurge thread. I think that MCs and GMCs are quite overpowered in the current game. Brokenly overpowered, in fact. But one defense for the current rules is that MCs/GMCs can theoretically take wounds from small arms. My contention is that they are functionally immortal to small arms instead of being absolutely immune. I think that trying to shoot small arms at them is a poor decision and that the fact that it is theoretically possible but practically inefficient is just another one of their advantages in terms of offering out false hope to opponents.
I don't know if MCs are brokenly overpowered as there are simple counters. Imperials have Grav Centurions either natively or via allies, and they have their own MC who's pretty good at killing other MCs, the Dreadknight.
"Imperials" don't have the Dreadknight, Grey Knights have the Dreadknight.
Talking about "X isn't broken because Imperials have allies to counter it" is silly. You don't hear people say that Dark Eldar are amazing because they have Eldar allies.
Additionally, this thread is regarding the idea that "MCs/GMCs aren't broken because they can still be hurt by a unit's basic, unupgraded weapon". That might be true for a MC or GMC like the Stormsurge or Riptide, but it's not really true for anything higher than that.
Long gone are the days of codexes, at least for Imperials. It's all supplements (including the campaign books) for the Imperium of Man faction.
You can play mono codex if you like, but you're intentionally handicapping yourself
A possible solution for Tactical units v MCs & GMCs? get into CC. A GMC in CC cannot shoot. A riptide in combat cannot shoot. And how many have Hit&Run?
Maybe something with a large unit size and High Ld (or fearless). That classic tarpit solution?
Then the GMC stomps the infantry, I know of few of my units in my codex that could stand up to that for more than a round, and even if their weapon skill is bad the GMC is still decent at CC and has fear.
carldooley wrote: A possible solution for Tactical units v MCs & GMCs? get into CC. A GMC in CC cannot shoot. A riptide in combat cannot shoot. And how many have Hit&Run?
Maybe something with a large unit size and High Ld (or fearless). That classic tarpit solution?
That is a viable tactic for MC, not so much for GMC (Stomp)
this thread could be titled how to deal with GMCs with infantry. What is going to cause more damage to your army? d3 SD blast templates, or every ranged weapon (or 2 of them, depending on your reading of the GMC shooting rules OR the firing mode selected) on the model?
Martel732 wrote: So this topic came up in the now-locked Stormsurge thread. I think that MCs and GMCs are quite overpowered in the current game. Brokenly overpowered, in fact. But one defense for the current rules is that MCs/GMCs can theoretically take wounds from small arms. My contention is that they are functionally immortal to small arms instead of being absolutely immune. I think that trying to shoot small arms at them is a poor decision and that the fact that it is theoretically possible but practically inefficient is just another one of their advantages in terms of offering out false hope to opponents.
I don't know if MCs are brokenly overpowered as there are simple counters. Imperials have Grav Centurions either natively or via allies, and they have their own MC who's pretty good at killing other MCs, the Dreadknight.
"Imperials" don't have the Dreadknight, Grey Knights have the Dreadknight.
Talking about "X isn't broken because Imperials have allies to counter it" is silly. You don't hear people say that Dark Eldar are amazing because they have Eldar allies.
Additionally, this thread is regarding the idea that "MCs/GMCs aren't broken because they can still be hurt by a unit's basic, unupgraded weapon". That might be true for a MC or GMC like the Stormsurge or Riptide, but it's not really true for anything higher than that.
Long gone are the days of codexes, at least for Imperials. It's all supplements (including the campaign books) for the Imperium of Man faction.
You can play mono codex if you like, but you're intentionally handicapping yourself
I decline to pay to win. There is no intentional handicapping. All I ask is that if Eldar can rock the house monodex, then everyone else should be able to as well. I reject the supplement format. Which means this might be my last edition.
The cost of adding even a single Imperial Knight to a list is insane. Plus, IK are so much inferior to GMCs that it's a slap in the face to Imperial armies; especially for the monetary cost. I don't see anything cost effective to add to BA to make them any good.
carldooley wrote: this thread could be titled how to deal with GMCs with infantry. What is going to cause more damage to your army? d3 SD blast templates, or every ranged weapon (or 2 of them, depending on your reading of the GMC shooting rules OR the firing mode selected) on the model?
Please just stop trying to rekindle the argument from the other thread, there is no need to keep trying to sneak the comments in. It would be easy to simply say d3 SD blast templates, or shooting on it's turn.
Most of the time they will kill enough to be shooting on their turn again anyways with space marines it's hard to lock them down long enough to make a large difference.
the_scotsman wrote: Okay, so how about a Dreadnought? It also ignores the rules marines get for a measley 95 points it gets 5 attacks on the charge! Also it is COMPLETELY IMMUNE to bolters from the front (WHAT???)
The weakness of MCs is supposed to be that you get less stats for the points, not that you can hurt them with small arms.
Let's take, off the top of my head because they're similar, a Dreadnought with assault cannon vs a Kastelan Robot with Phosphor gun.
It's not a perfect comparison but the Kastelan is pretty close to a MC dread, released about the same time. He costs 35 points more (100 vs 135 if I'm remembering right.)
Yes, the kastellan is more durable vs non-AP3 weaponry being an MC. My point was MCs (well designed MCs) get less offensive power for the points.
You want an HP3 S10 AP2 heavy thing with a medium strength gun? If it's a walker, it's 95 points, if it's an MC, it's 135 points. I HOPE it's more durable-I paid 40% more for it!
Hm, that's true and not true at the same time. Compare a Tyrant or Riptide to a Walker...the MCs tend to have better offensive power, defensive power, and mobility as well (which is weird, but whatever).
In theory, you would expect that to be the case. In practice, the MCs tend to be better in nearly everyway.
Akiasura wrote: Hm, that's true and not true at the same time. Compare a Tyrant or Riptide to a Walker...the MCs tend to have better offensive power, defensive power, and mobility as well (which is weird, but whatever).
In theory, you would expect that to be the case. In practice, the MCs tend to be better in nearly everyway.
Riptide is also ~200 points, so it should be better than something half the points. I agree MC are better than walkers, but that is because of the rules for vehicles in this edition, not because of firepower, etc
You have to actually compare things at the same price points, from the same design period.
Is a kitted out Dakka flyrant better in every way than a dread? I hope so, the thing costs 285 points! Three Dreadnoughts however, that gives you more, and flexible firepower and drastically better melee ability.
Instead of comparing a riptide (a model that pays for mobility and durability) with a walker (which almost universally pay for melee power) why not try a walker and an MC trying to do similar things in a similar way? Because saying Riptide>2 dreads is just saying "range and mobility > .melee" which , in 7th edition ? Yes. Absolutely. But that doesn't prove MC > walker.
I propose this:
Dreadnought, Maulerfiend, Deff Dread vs Carnifex, Wraithlord, Talos. Three units, none of which are considered "balance anomalies" which all try to do a similar thing: advance forward with small arms immune durability to attack with high strength melee and who use some ranged weaponry to try and make up for the time they spend closing the gap.
Is there a price tag for the already-discussed MC advantages? Do the walkers get more bang for the buck in exchange for less durability? I'm curious I actually don't know the full stats of most of these I just know they're all in the same general range.
the_scotsman wrote: You have to actually compare things at the same price points, from the same design period.
Is a kitted out Dakka flyrant better in every way than a dread? I hope so, the thing costs 285 points! Three Dreadnoughts however, that gives you more, and flexible firepower and drastically better melee ability.
Let's actually explore this.
The Dakka flyrant is much more mobile than the 3 dreads. The best the dreads can hope for is to pod (which not every walker has...most don't) and then it is effectively moving 6" a turn. The Dakka Flyrant meanwhile is going where it needs to be and nothing except firepower stops it from doing so. Firepower also effects the dreads, so mobility wise the flyrant wins. If you pod the dreads that increases the point cost quite a bit as well.
As far as toughness is concerned, this is a little harder to measure. The Flyrant is an MC that can only be hit on 6's and can move around enough to get out of LoS or gain some sort of save (and it does have a 3+ save naturally). The Dreadnoughts have 9 HP between them, and can benefit from cover saves to an extent (but then you lose the melee ability). It is probably equally hard to kill 1 flyrant as it is to kill 3 dreads for most armies, unless they spam haywire or melee deathstars.
However, the flyrant only loses firepower when it dies. Every 3 HP the dreadnoughts suffer, they lose a significant amount of shooting. Overall, the Flyrant is much tougher.
For output at ranged, the Flyrant has 12 TlStr 6 shots that it can deliver via flight.
The Dreadnoughts have MM/HF, TL Acx2, or ML/TLLC. Some of the options are more expensive (To the point where I don't think you can compare 3 anymore to one flyrant, but no big deal).
The autocannons allow 12 TlStr 7 attacks, but on a slower platform and it's easier to remove their firepower. Or 3 Ml and 3 TlLC's, the MM/HF isn't really comparable.
Here it is a tie, though the speed of and toughness of the flyrant allows it to deliver it's firepower a lot better.
For melee, the dreadnoughts win at output. The problem is they are incredibly slow, so they'll only melee units that the enemy wants them to melee, or you are already winning. They lack a gap closer like beast units or jump MCs do.
The flyrant doesn't want to see melee at all.
Instead of comparing a riptide (a model that pays for mobility and durability) with a walker (which almost universally pay for melee power) why not try a walker and an MC trying to do similar things in a similar way? Because saying Riptide>2 dreads is just saying "range and mobility > .melee" which , in 7th edition ? Yes. Absolutely. But that doesn't prove MC > walker.
Doesn't it?
The MC is superior at the most effective form of fighting in this edition. How does that not make it better?
Unless you build a deathstar, for most armies melee is right out. Having good CC abilities doesn't amount to much.
I'm also not sure if most walkers are designed for melee fighting. Dreadnoughts certainly, but a lot of MCs and GMCs can fight very well, while plenty of walkers (sentinels, war walkers) will lose to a squad of marines.
Dreadnought, Maulerfiend, Deff Dread vs Carnifex, Wraithlord, Talos. Three units, none of which are considered "balance anomalies" which all try to do a similar thing: advance forward with small arms immune durability to attack with high strength melee and who use some ranged weaponry to try and make up for the time they spend closing the gap.
Is there a price tag for the already-discussed MC advantages? Do the walkers get more bang for the buck in exchange for less durability? I'm curious I actually don't know the full stats of most of these I just know they're all in the same general range.
Well, out of the walkers, you don't commonly see any of them. At all.
Out of the MCs, Carnies and the Talos are occasionally seen at least. Wraithlords would get some exposure if it wasn't for wraithguard and the wraithknight being better buys. So that does tell you something right there.
Akiasura wrote: Hm, that's true and not true at the same time. Compare a Tyrant or Riptide to a Walker...the MCs tend to have better offensive power, defensive power, and mobility as well (which is weird, but whatever).
In theory, you would expect that to be the case. In practice, the MCs tend to be better in nearly everyway.
Riptide is also ~200 points, so it should be better than something half the points. I agree MC are better than walkers, but that is because of the rules for vehicles in this edition, not because of firepower, etc
But the gulf is too large. The amount of firepower Riptides can absorb is truly broken. They are one of the most broken units in the game.
Melee utility has very little value in 7th ed. That's another place that walkers are suffering.
You don't commonly see them in competitive play because none of them are broken. My purpose is to test the merits of the Walker stat set and the Monstrous Creature stat set on three relatively balanced, stable units that seek to accomish the same thing.
Arguing that Monstrous Creatures are inherently OP requires you to prove that Smash, Firing two weapons a turn, and being unable to be joined by ICs is inherently undercosted. That's what MCs do that Infantry doesn't.
Saying "certain MCs are overpowered and are currently dominating the game?" Totally 100% agree. Saying "the rules that FLYING MCs get are overpowered" agree, 100%. Jink is pretty much the stupidest universal rule in the game currently and should be scrapped from the ground up, and skyfires nerf from 6th ed was ludicrous. Gargantuan MCs? Again I completely agree.
But standard MCs vs Standard Walkers? I think the point cost you pay for MC status tends to be pretty ok with a few riptide shaped exceptions. I have no problem, for instance, with the new Ghostkeel, or with Broadsides, or with walking Nid creatures. They may be superior in terms of durability but they pay points to do that.
The rules disparity between MCs and Tanks is staggering.
Take a tank and subtract 4 from its armour value. You'll get a value that approximates the toughness of the tank if it was an MC (For example, lascannons need a 5+ to wound T10 and glance/pen armour 14).
Then, now that you've discovered the tanks toughness, take into account these differences from an MC:
1) The tank's 'toughness' is lower when firing at it from certain directions. 2) The tank will be shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed/ immobilized or even instantly killed for every Wound it suffers which rolls at least 1 higher than the needed value. 3) The tank cannot fight back in close combat 4) The tank (if it has the misfortune of having an ordnance weapon) must snapfire most of its shots if it fires its main gun. 5) The tank can only fire one gun if it moves 6" (unless it also has another unit type such as fast). 6) The tank does not get cover for simply touching it 7) The tank can wreck itself on difficult terrain, and doesn't even have the option of moving slower to avoid that fate. 8) The tank does not outright ignore dangerous terrain.
the_scotsman wrote: You don't commonly see them in competitive play because none of them are broken. My purpose is to test the merits of the Walker stat set and the Monstrous Creature stat set on three relatively balanced, stable units that seek to accomish the same thing.
Arguing that Monstrous Creatures are inherently OP requires you to prove that Smash, Firing two weapons a turn, and being unable to be joined by ICs is inherently undercosted. That's what MCs do that Infantry doesn't.
Saying "certain MCs are overpowered and are currently dominating the game?" Totally 100% agree. Saying "the rules that FLYING MCs get are overpowered" agree, 100%. Jink is pretty much the stupidest universal rule in the game currently and should be scrapped from the ground up, and skyfires nerf from 6th ed was ludicrous. Gargantuan MCs? Again I completely agree.
But standard MCs vs Standard Walkers? I think the point cost you pay for MC status tends to be pretty ok with a few riptide shaped exceptions. I have no problem, for instance, with the new Ghostkeel, or with Broadsides, or with walking Nid creatures. They may be superior in terms of durability but they pay points to do that.
I agree with Unit above. Standard MCs crush standard walkers/tanks. They don't pay enough points for their insane grab bag of benefits.
Warhammer Fantasy has some particularly unkillable lords as well. Having 1+ rerollable armor saves that if failed allow a 3++ ward save (which for Tzeentch lords means re-rolling 1s) can be rather hard to wound for most units, especially when the common Strength is 3. One advantage there is that no matter the Toughness you can always wound on a 6. But that doesn't come into play too much in 40k unless a Wraithknight is on the table. Considering Fantasy lords can have 9 attacks at S7 that hit on 3s, wound on 2s, possibly 4+ FNP, and have ways to HEAL midbattle, they're just as impossible to kill.
The difference is in what you're allowed to bring in Fantasy. More attacks, for one thing, as units can easily be 40 guys strong, don't usually lose any attacks until they've lost a rank or two of guys, and get most of their attacks in combat regardless of any pile-in requirements. Weak units have access to superior weapons that let them stand against tough enemies, like +2 Strength Flails that give the whole squad S5 attacks. Likewise, there are lots of strong Heros, Lords, and Monsters that can stand against the most devastating enemies on somewhat equal ground. Not to mention how powerful Magic is with spells from Lord of Metal and Lore of Death not caring how powerful your armored warrior really is. You think D-weapons are bad.... try losing an 800+ model to a single Purple Sun cast.
I don't think MCs being strong is the problem. I think our infantry need more options to face them if they want to and every codex needs more badass heroes that annihilate worlds. Paying 25 pts for a Powerfist means you probably aren't taking a Powerfist. That's what's wrong... holding the rank and file troops back in terms of power potential with prohibitive costs while allowing the top tier units to have oodles of undercosted nonsense.
The problem is MC/GC sell for GW. They are money makers as they are arguably the nicest looking models. So then they make the rules for them better than they should be, so they can sell even more.
Unit1126PLL wrote:The rules disparity between MCs and Tanks is staggering.
Take a tank and subtract 4 from its armour value. You'll get a value that approximates the toughness of the tank if it was an MC (For example, lascannons need a 5+ to wound T10 and glance/pen armour 14).
Then, now that you've discovered the tanks toughness, take into account these differences from an MC:
1) The tank's 'toughness' is lower when firing at it from certain directions.
2) The tank will be shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed/ immobilized or even instantly killed for every Wound it suffers which rolls at least 1 higher than the needed value.
3) The tank cannot fight back in close combat
4) The tank (if it has the misfortune of having an ordnance weapon) must snapfire most of its shots if it fires its main gun.
5) The tank can only fire one gun if it moves 6" (unless it also has another unit type such as fast).
6) The tank does not get cover for simply touching it
7) The tank can wreck itself on difficult terrain, and doesn't even have the option of moving slower to avoid that fate.
8) The tank does not outright ignore dangerous terrain.
Martel732 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote: You don't commonly see them in competitive play because none of them are broken. My purpose is to test the merits of the Walker stat set and the Monstrous Creature stat set on three relatively balanced, stable units that seek to accomish the same thing.
Arguing that Monstrous Creatures are inherently OP requires you to prove that Smash, Firing two weapons a turn, and being unable to be joined by ICs is inherently undercosted. That's what MCs do that Infantry doesn't.
Saying "certain MCs are overpowered and are currently dominating the game?" Totally 100% agree. Saying "the rules that FLYING MCs get are overpowered" agree, 100%. Jink is pretty much the stupidest universal rule in the game currently and should be scrapped from the ground up, and skyfires nerf from 6th ed was ludicrous. Gargantuan MCs? Again I completely agree.
But standard MCs vs Standard Walkers? I think the point cost you pay for MC status tends to be pretty ok with a few riptide shaped exceptions. I have no problem, for instance, with the new Ghostkeel, or with Broadsides, or with walking Nid creatures. They may be superior in terms of durability but they pay points to do that.
I agree with Unit above. Standard MCs crush standard walkers/tanks. They don't pay enough points for their insane grab bag of benefits.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Oh, I forgot to add:
9) Tanks don't have saves (except cover in certain specific situations).
I was going to type a long reply but the above quotes have pretty much covered all the points which I wanted to make. Thanks guys, have an exalt each.
In short though MC/GMC's are far to powerful for what they cost and need a nerfhammer pronto.
notredameguy10 wrote: The problem is MC/GC sell for GW. They are money makers as they are arguably the nicest looking models. So then they make the rules for them better than they should be, so they can sell even more.
Of course they're the best selling models - GW gave them stupidly good rules. Also, not unlike SMs, GW takes every opportunity to force them down our throats.
It's a positive feedback cycle - MCs get the best rules and the most advertising, so they sell a lot of models, so they get even better rules and even more advertising, so they sell even more models etc..
Arkaine wrote: Warhammer Fantasy has some particularly unkillable lords as well. Having 1+ rerollable armor saves that if failed allow a 3++ ward save (which for Tzeentch lords means re-rolling 1s) can be rather hard to wound for most units, especially when the common Strength is 3. One advantage there is that no matter the Toughness you can always wound on a 6. But that doesn't come into play too much in 40k unless a Wraithknight is on the table. Considering Fantasy lords can have 9 attacks at S7 that hit on 3s, wound on 2s, possibly 4+ FNP, and have ways to HEAL midbattle, they're just as impossible to kill.
This is a little misleading in fantasy. There are a ton of spells and warmachines that can kill a lord on its own, or cavarly unit, quite easily. You can also charge in the flank try to ignore the hero if you have to, or throw in a sacrifical champ challenge (though he will get overkill) while your hero attempts to kill as many troops as possible. The armies that have really excellent champs tend to have horrible shooting, though their magic still tends to be quite strong.
Strength reduces armor saves as well. Against standard guns, that lord will have a 3+ save, and is most likely mounted to get it that low (or has expensive armor).
In fantasy, the most OP thing is magic. Mindrazor can turn elves into Str 8-9 monsters capable of destroying any unit, Purple Sun can wipe some armies (dwarves, ogres, undead, lizzies) off the board in 1-2 castings. Even the lore of beasts can turn a regular human lord into a powerful combat monster with the right spells. Combat lords aren't nearly as good as caster lords, usually 1 hero level character is taken for combat outside of a few armies (VC, WoC if Tzeentch). This may no longer be true in AoS, but in the last few editions magic lores ruled the roost of OP stuff. Especially suicide IF spamming casters who were guaranteed a spell.
The difference is in what you're allowed to bring in Fantasy. More attacks, for one thing, as units can easily be 40 guys strong, don't usually lose any attacks until they've lost a rank or two of guys, and get most of their attacks in combat regardless of any pile-in requirements. Weak units have access to superior weapons that let them stand against tough enemies, like +2 Strength Flails that give the whole squad S5 attacks. Likewise, there are lots of strong Heros, Lords, and Monsters that can stand against the most devastating enemies on somewhat equal ground. Not to mention how powerful Magic is with spells from Lord of Metal and Lore of Death not caring how powerful your armored warrior really is. You think D-weapons are bad.... try losing an 800+ model to a single Purple Sun cast.
Well, only the front rank can fight for most units, so for most armies this is 6 guys. 2 ranks is for spears, and spears are considered decent but not amazing (+2 Str weapons are commonly taken, since they lower armor and help with wounding, or shields are taken) outside of high elves and lizzies, who get additional bonuses for spears. Plus magic.
CR is what has traditionally helped most armies against combat lords. 5 ranks with a banner and a hero killing 2 guys and another unit charging the flank causing 2 more wounds can destroy a unit that did 8-9 wounds (Outnumber, Banner, Ranks, Flank, enemy doesn't get flank). This became less important when magic started buffing units to the point where they could score 8-9 kills on their own (High elves with ASF re-rolling hits fighting in 3 ranks with mind razor, for example) but traditionally that is what helped.
Monsters have always been hit or miss in fantasy. Some of them are very good, like the hydra, while the majority are just cannon fodder. Sometimes a rider helps but usually this just makes them way too expensive. Recently a lot of the monsters got better though.
I don't think MCs being strong is the problem. I think our infantry need more options to face them if they want to and every codex needs more badass heroes that annihilate worlds. Paying 25 pts for a Powerfist means you probably aren't taking a Powerfist. That's what's wrong... holding the rank and file troops back in terms of power potential with prohibitive costs while allowing the top tier units to have oodles of undercosted nonsense.
I think if tanks were stronger, or more weapons were handed out to basic infantry that could damage MC's or GMCs, you'd start seeing less of them. As it is, they are way too good for the points. I'm not sure if we should go back to the days of the hidden powerfist (because right now, a character MC will just kill the power fist guy via challenge). People were very upset about their wraithlord being bogged down and slowly plinked to death by a single marine with a fist that they couldn't do anything to stop (and with only 2 attacks, it was a very slow death).
Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.
T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.
It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.
So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.
the_scotsman wrote: Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.
T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.
It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.
So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.
Um, as a Necron player, vehicles are much more underpowered. A Wraithlord is wounded on 6s by Gauss, and has a 3+ save. Vehicles/Dreads are glanced on 6s, with no saves unless they manage to finagle a cover save somehow. I'm not afraid of a Dreadnaught. I am afraid of Riptides and Dreadknights...
the_scotsman wrote: Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.
T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.
It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.
So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.
But with the Wraithlord only technically needs to hit and damage once to kill dread, dread needs to hit 3 times and wound 3 times to kill the wraithlord. Then for shooting, put toe of wraitlord in cover. Immediate cover save, a dread needs to be obscured.
the_scotsman wrote: Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.
T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.
It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.
So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.
But with the Wraithlord only technically needs to hit and damage once to kill dread, dread needs to hit 3 times and wound 3 times to kill the wraithlord. Then for shooting, put toe of wraitlord in cover. Immediate cover save, a dread needs to be obscured.
Dread vs Wraithlord
Both move 6" a turn
Both ignore cover
Both pretty close in points
Both do S10 AP2
Both have 5/6th chance of wounding each other in CC
One is weaker vs grav.
One is weaker vs Lascannons.
Anyone saying MCs are too strong are clearly not taking the entirety of the meta in mind. If you're having trouble with MCs, you probably aren't competitive to begin with, and aren't taking optimal lists.
the_scotsman wrote: Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.
T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.
This is where the MCs tend to shine. While you can argue that the toughness is the same, the 3+ save makes a world of difference against weapons like scat bikes.
Not to mention that the Dread is very weak against haywire, which more armies have access to than poison.
You're also glancing over the fact that, every time the dreadnought takes a wound, a damage table is rolled that can result in instant death, a weapon destroyed, or some other result that makes it useless for the entire game. The wraithlord keeps going at full speed until it dies.
It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.
The Wraithlord has 2 flamers for clearing infantry, and the glaive and melee to take on anything else. The dread has slightly better offensive output (one heavy weapon is terrible, you will always buy another) but you'll be upgrading them both. Or buying a pod for the dread (most likely will do this regardless).
After upgrades, the Wraithlord is more expensive, but it has only a bit weaker firepower and is considerably tougher. The Dreadnought can be removed by one lucky shot after all, the wraithknight can only say the same in the case of ID.
So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.
It's not a pretty decent offensive benefit. Slightly less attacks but with a re-roll, and two flamers compared to a single HW, is not a significant difference. Its target dependent. Neither one will reach melee unless the enemy wants to fight you for some reason anyway, since they are incredibly slow.
You are really under selling the difference in toughness. Lords can easily get a cover save, and are very resistant to the Str 6-7 Ap 4-6 weapons that we see dominating many lists right now.
Lords are also better against necron gauss weapons, haywire, melta (especially from dragons, a melta nearly auto wounds a dread but needs a 4+ to wound the lord, and fire dragons will kill a dread nearly automatically, while cover might keep the lord alive) that the better dexes can bring to the table. A melta or firedragon weapon can also 1 shot a Dreadnought, which won't happen against the lord. Even without that, a lot of the rolls on the damage table are horrible for the dread (losing a weapon, immobilized) while the wraithlord keeps on trucking until it dies.
Frankly, I'm surprised you don't see the advantages of no damage table, an armor save (in an era where gauss weapons and scat bikes exist), easier access to terrain, and being more resistant to more commonly seen weapon types.
Is it a good idea to give the Wraithlord a Ghostglaive?
I could be wrong, but I thought the main use of Wraithlords was as weapon platforms? They still hit hard in combat, but can also shoot in the meantime.
Though, admittedly, that was before the WK made them obsolete.
vipoid wrote: Is it a good idea to give the Wraithlord a Ghostglaive?
I could be wrong, but I thought the main use of Wraithlords was as weapon platforms? They still hit hard in combat, but can also shoot in the meantime.
Though, admittedly, that was before the WK made them obsolete.
Well, Ghostglaive is only 5 points and and ups its str from 8 to 9 and gives it master-crafted... and it does not limit you taking other weapons either
No, it's a pretty terrible idea to use the Dreadnought or Wraith Lord as a melee beast. Both are very slow, and neither is likely to see melee with anything that doesn't think it can win...like say wraiths or TWC. Or a GMC.
They both are used as shooting platforms.
Here the toughness of the Wraithlord makes it a lot better than the Dreadnought. Keep in mind that the Wraith Lord is not even a great MC, while the Dreadnought is most likely one of the better walkers out there...and still doesn't see any play.
Scotsman, the melee strength of the dread isn't in question. Sadly, melee strength of a very slow defensively weak model doesn't really come into the equation when we are discussing model strength.
I do see the benefit...and also the associated point cost. And I think for a mobile weapons platform and other roles, Wraithlords, Carnifexes (and other nid beasties), and daemon monsters are all perfectly fine.
When you're looking at balancing a game system you have to consider which balance levers are making a unit overpowered, and which you can pull to get the most bang for your buck while not causing unintended consequences.
Taking "bikes are currently overpowered" and changing them so that all units that move 12" now move 8" does nerf bikes...and it also craters already underpowered jump infantry.
So maybe you think "huh, looks like FMCs and bikes AND skimmers are doing really well right now...so maybe you should change Jink instead of the movement rate thing. Or maybe you get rid of +1T, or re-institute the 4(3) thing from 5th when bikes were fine.
Do I think there are some really egregious MC units right now? Totally. But I think it's because of FMC, GMC rules and slapping ridiculous mobility on things in 6th that then get crazily strong in 7th, not MC rules.
the_scotsman wrote: I do see the benefit...and also the associated point cost. And I think for a mobile weapons platform and other roles, Wraithlords, Carnifexes (and other nid beasties), and daemon monsters are all perfectly fine.
When you're looking at balancing a game system you have to consider which balance levers are making a unit overpowered, and which you can pull to get the most bang for your buck while not causing unintended consequences.
Taking "bikes are currently overpowered" and changing them so that all units that move 12" now move 8" does nerf bikes...and it also craters already underpowered jump infantry.
So maybe you think "huh, looks like FMCs and bikes AND skimmers are doing really well right now...so maybe you should change Jink instead of the movement rate thing. Or maybe you get rid of +1T, or re-institute the 4(3) thing from 5th when bikes were fine.
Do I think there are some really egregious MC units right now? Totally. But I think it's because of FMC, GMC rules and slapping ridiculous mobility on things in 6th that then get crazily strong in 7th, not MC rules.
Agreed. And in the case of the Wraithknight for example, he was already considered great in the previous codex. Then for a 55 point increase in the new codex, he went from a MC to a GC and his guns went from Str 10 to Str D. THATS what makes him so undercosted.
the_scotsman wrote: I do see the benefit...and also the associated point cost. And I think for a mobile weapons platform and other roles, Wraithlords, Carnifexes (and other nid beasties), and daemon monsters are all perfectly fine.
Sure, MCs are perfectly fine in this role.
Walkers, however, are terrible for this role.
When you're looking at balancing a game system you have to consider which balance levers are making a unit overpowered, and which you can pull to get the most bang for your buck while not causing unintended consequences.
True. For anything using HP, it's the lack of a save and the damage table when compared to MCs.
Taking "bikes are currently overpowered" and changing them so that all units that move 12" now move 8" does nerf bikes...and it also craters already underpowered jump infantry.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Bikes are strong because of jink, +1 save (for eldar), +1 toughness, relentless, and the fact most of them make better special weapon platforms. These are the things people complain about, not their movement.
Jetbikes are the only bikes people complain about anymore, and this is for the 1:1 scat bikes and battlefocus.
So maybe you think "huh, looks like FMCs and bikes AND skimmers are doing really well right now...so maybe you should change Jink instead of the movement rate thing. Or maybe you get rid of +1T, or re-institute the 4(3) thing from 5th when bikes were fine.
Flip this question around.
Walkers are doing terrible, and have been for a very long time now (even in 3rd, Wraith Lords were better than Dreadnoughts by far). Why is that?
Lack of saves, too expensive for their damage output, very weak against a lot of commonly seen weapons in the better dexes, way too slow.
It's not like GMCs killed the walkers. Walkers have been bad for a very long time now, outside of a few rare exceptions.
Do I think there are some really egregious MC units right now? Totally. But I think it's because of FMC, GMC rules and slapping ridiculous mobility on things in 6th that then get crazily strong in 7th, not MC rules.
If you disagree, that's fine. The vast history, and current state of the game, disagree with you however.
The problem is that a vehicle, translated into an MC, even with a higher points cost, is fething awesome.
Consider the following: A Leman Russ is 150 points standard, it comes with a battlecannon and a heavy bolter.
Translating front armour to toughness makes it T10, and giving it average 'mental' stats for the faction makes it WS3, BS3, I3, LD7.
I'd say strength 5 is conservative, and we won't even give it an armour save. I think A1 is also appropriately conservative.
keep 3 wounds = hull points.
The Leman Russ is now identical, except:
It can fire it's main gun and heavy bolter without snap firing.
It can now fire overwatch.
It now is less vulnerable to instantaneous destruction.
It is now able to fight back in close combat.
It is now able to move through terrain without immobilizing itself, ever.
It is now able to claim cover simply for touching it.
It no longer has any vulnerable facings which must be protected.
It now gets the extra mobility for being able to declare charges.
It can now smash and has AP2 close combat attacks.
It now has Hammer of Wrath.
40% more points translates to 60 more points (out of 150, if I am not mistaken that's roughly the case). So 210 points for all that improvement!
garden snail top speed 0 mph, feels like 1.7 mph. Does it feel sliding over rotating Earth?
Anywayz, back to topic. MC used to be pretty meh when they had 4+ armor at best. It's the power escalation and vehicle rule change that ended up with mc having generally better rules: no damage table, easier cover access, armor saves. This issue can be usually be addressed by simple point adjustment. However, this point adjustment will inevitably get screwed the next time they change core rules for mc and vehicles. So, GW just gives your naughts +2 extra attacks.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is that a vehicle, translated into an MC, even with a higher points cost, is fething awesome.
Consider the following: A Leman Russ is 150 points standard, it comes with a battlecannon and a heavy bolter.
Translating front armour to toughness makes it T10, and giving it average 'mental' stats for the faction makes it WS3, BS3, I3, LD7.
I'd say strength 5 is conservative, and we won't even give it an armour save. I think A1 is also appropriately conservative.
keep 3 wounds = hull points.
The Leman Russ is now identical, except:
It can fire it's main gun and heavy bolter without snap firing.
It can now fire overwatch.
It now is less vulnerable to instantaneous destruction.
It is now able to fight back in close combat.
It is now able to move through terrain without immobilizing itself, ever.
It is now able to claim cover simply for touching it.
It no longer has any vulnerable facings which must be protected.
It now gets the extra mobility for being able to declare charges.
It can now smash and has AP2 close combat attacks.
It now has Hammer of Wrath.
40% more points translates to 60 more points (out of 150, if I am not mistaken that's roughly the case). So 210 points for all that improvement!
feth YES!
Weapon stabilizers are a thing that exist right now. Tanks can move and fire with accuracy.
Why shouldn't it be able to fire at least the heavy bolters/sponson weapons in Overwatch? After all, there are people/servitors/targeting systems inside the tank operating those weapons.
It's a tank. There should be very, very few things that are able to one-shot it.
A tank should definitely be able to fight back in CQC. How? Throw that SOB into reverse and floor it. CRUNCH! Mount anti-personnel mines on the hull (like we do IRL). BOOM! Electrify the outer hull. ZAP! Poison gas canisters. Hull-mounted flamers. There's a hundred ways a tank could engage enemy forces in close combat.
Most anything on tracks doesn't give much of a feth about terrain unless said terrain is a minefield or heavy forest. You could easily append a rule to terrain (or to tracked vehicles) to make this distinction from things that actually walk (though an MC should also be affected by certain terrain). Same thing with cover (though a tank in a forest has both Cover and Concealment, and a low wall is protecting the tank's tracks, arguably the weakest area in their construction).
Tanks can charge things. Again, point the tank in the direction you want to go and floor it.
You can append rules to tanks to remove Smash and AP2 CC attacks, instead replacing them with "Defensive Systems" or something that permits it to attack in CC using the profiles of its sponson-mounted weapons, or a base number of S whatever attacks to represent the crew firing out of gun-ports or whatever.
It's a multi-ton armored vehicle. If it runs into you at high speed? That's brutal. HOW only makes sense.
Psienesis wrote: There should be very, very few things that are able to one-shot it.
Not sure about that. This is the 41st millennium we're talking about, so I'd expect to see quite a lot of powerful weapons flying around.
That being said, it is rather weird that units in melee always get to hit the rear armour. Especially when they cause damage that seems impossible from the side they were on.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is that a vehicle, translated into an MC, even with a higher points cost, is fething awesome.
Consider the following: A Leman Russ is 150 points standard, it comes with a battlecannon and a heavy bolter.
Translating front armour to toughness makes it T10, and giving it average 'mental' stats for the faction makes it WS3, BS3, I3, LD7.
I'd say strength 5 is conservative, and we won't even give it an armour save. I think A1 is also appropriately conservative.
keep 3 wounds = hull points.
The Leman Russ is now identical, except:
It can fire it's main gun and heavy bolter without snap firing.
It can now fire overwatch.
It now is less vulnerable to instantaneous destruction.
It is now able to fight back in close combat.
It is now able to move through terrain without immobilizing itself, ever.
It is now able to claim cover simply for touching it.
It no longer has any vulnerable facings which must be protected.
It now gets the extra mobility for being able to declare charges.
It can now smash and has AP2 close combat attacks.
It now has Hammer of Wrath.
40% more points translates to 60 more points (out of 150, if I am not mistaken that's roughly the case). So 210 points for all that improvement!
feth YES!
Weapon stabilizers are a thing that exist right now. Tanks can move and fire with accuracy.
Why shouldn't it be able to fire at least the heavy bolters/sponson weapons in Overwatch? After all, there are people/servitors/targeting systems inside the tank operating those weapons.
It's a tank. There should be very, very few things that are able to one-shot it.
A tank should definitely be able to fight back in CQC. How? Throw that SOB into reverse and floor it. CRUNCH! Mount anti-personnel mines on the hull (like we do IRL). BOOM! Electrify the outer hull. ZAP! Poison gas canisters. Hull-mounted flamers. There's a hundred ways a tank could engage enemy forces in close combat.
Most anything on tracks doesn't give much of a feth about terrain unless said terrain is a minefield or heavy forest. You could easily append a rule to terrain (or to tracked vehicles) to make this distinction from things that actually walk (though an MC should also be affected by certain terrain). Same thing with cover (though a tank in a forest has both Cover and Concealment, and a low wall is protecting the tank's tracks, arguably the weakest area in their construction).
Tanks can charge things. Again, point the tank in the direction you want to go and floor it.
You can append rules to tanks to remove Smash and AP2 CC attacks, instead replacing them with "Defensive Systems" or something that permits it to attack in CC using the profiles of its sponson-mounted weapons, or a base number of S whatever attacks to represent the crew firing out of gun-ports or whatever.
It's a multi-ton armored vehicle. If it runs into you at high speed? That's brutal. HOW only makes sense.
I completely agree with you. My post was meant to illustrate the power disparity between vehicles and MCs.
Psienesis wrote: There should be very, very few things that are able to one-shot it.
Not sure about that. This is the 41st millennium we're talking about, so I'd expect to see quite a lot of powerful weapons flying around.
That being said, it is rather weird that units in melee always get to hit the rear armour. Especially when they cause damage that seems impossible from the side they were on.
A tank should definitely be able to fight back in CQC. How? Throw that SOB into reverse and floor it. CRUNCH!
Honestly though, I have similar feelings when something manages to charge one of my DE vehicles. Could the crew not just zip away?
Said weapons one-shotting a 90-ton tank should have similar effects against a giant bug, a giant suit of mecha-transformer-armor, a ghost-driven suit of magic plastic, or anything else, really. Anti-armor weapons are actually pretty damned good at killing lightly-armored targets, too.
Said weapons one-shotting a 90-ton tank should have similar effects against a giant bug, a giant suit of mecha-transformer-armor, a ghost-driven suit of magic plastic, or anything else, really. Anti-armor weapons are actually pretty damned good at killing lightly-armored targets, too.
It'd be nice if the rules reflected that to some extent. As it is, you need a lot more melta to kill a MC then you will against most tanks (unless they jink).
So you don't like that the S9 AP2 weapon doesn't always get an auto wound against a Riptide who gets what, a 5+ cover tops? When there's a more then even chance the same S9 AP2 weapon wont even effect a yellow Lemon Russ?
Or that MCs get overwatch when vehicles don't?
How about the fact I can take 15 hormagaunts and charge a riptide, making it useless the rest of the game. Hey Lemon Russ, what do you do to a tarpit unit? SQUISH. IGNORE.
Oh no! it has AP2! and worthless smash that only lets you make one attack when at best you need a 3+ to hit to begin with! I'm sure the riptide cares about that! Or are you worried about the Carnifex who will take 3 turns to cross the table with his 4 wounds?
Remember 2 months ago before Skyhammer, when combi weapon meltas were the dropunit of choice? What else did that unit have? Oh yeah, poison 4+ rapid fire bolters. Have fun with your 3+ save against 10 wounds at a time.
Both these unit types have their advantages and disadvantages. Someone saying one is significantly better then the other just lost to a list with some MCs in it. Probably Riptides.
Datastream wrote: So you don't like that the S9 AP2 weapon doesn't always get an auto wound against a Riptide who gets what, a 5+ cover tops? When there's a more then even chance the same S9 AP2 weapon wont even effect a yellow Lemon Russ?
The riptide can also get FnP and has many wounds.
So effectively two 5+ saves and then you need to do it many times. You could fire that weapon every turn over the course of the game and not kill the riptide. The same is not true for tanks, since you could get lucky and blow off a weapon or just destroy it.
How about the fact I can take 15 hormagaunts and charge a riptide, making it useless the rest of the game. Hey Lemon Russ, what do you do to a tarpit unit? SQUISH. IGNORE.
The riptide is much faster than gaunts are if it needs to be, and has the shooting required to obliterate such a squad before it reaches CC. Not to mention this is Tau, an army that has markerlights to remove cover, and 30" Str 5 guns. Removing such a squad isn't exactly a challenge for them.
Gaunts are not a threat to the riptide, or most MCs who often have a ton of attacks (DPs) or shots (see Tyrants, who have 12 TLStr 6 attacks and could eliminate this squad as a threat in one turn of shooting, and the vast majority of MCs).
Oh no! it has AP2! and worthless smash that only lets you make one attack when at best you need a 3+ to hit to begin with! I'm sure the riptide cares about that! Or are you worried about the Carnifex who will take 3 turns to cross the table with his 4 wounds?
Neither Riptides or Carnifexes need to see melee to be effective.
I don't know why everyone is commenting on the melee abilities of MCs. Most MCs do not overly care about reaching melee, and serve as gun platforms because, unless they have wings, they are slow. Off hand I think only Daemons, GK, and Chaos have MCs that need to reach CC to be effective.
Remember 2 months ago before Skyhammer, when combi weapon meltas were the dropunit of choice? What else did that unit have? Oh yeah, poison 4+ rapid fire bolters. Have fun with your 3+ save against 10 wounds at a time.
A squad of ten with rapid fire poison bolters does the following against the tide;
20 shots, ~13 hits, ~6.5, ~ 2 past armor. If it has FnP, it's just over one wound on average
For ten wounds, every shot would need to hit, and it won't. Poison isn't exactly common.
Both these unit types have their advantages and disadvantages. Someone saying one is significantly better then the other just lost to a list with some MCs in it. Probably Riptides.
Are their advantages and disadvantages the same?
It certainly doesn't seem that way when you line them up. My armies tend to run as many MCs as I can get (cept eldar, because obvious reasons) while the only tanks I run are transports, skimmers, or flyers.
Looking at most competitive lists, that trend seems to follow. Maybe there is a reason for that instead of someone losing to riptides
Datastream wrote: So you don't like that the S9 AP2 weapon doesn't always get an auto wound against a Riptide who gets what, a 5+ cover tops? When there's a more then even chance the same S9 AP2 weapon wont even effect a yellow Lemon Russ?
Or that MCs get overwatch when vehicles don't?
How about the fact I can take 15 hormagaunts and charge a riptide, making it useless the rest of the game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 15 Hormagaunts with adrenal glands has a not-insignificant chance of destroying a LRBT.
60 attacks, 40 hits, ~7 glances. That's more than twice as many hit points as the Russ has.
So I think the riptide is better off being charged by hormagaunts than the Russ.
And a riptide being charged by poison gaunts gets 15 wounds to save on the first turn alone. Not to mention subsequent rounds in which they will continue to deal damage.
But that's not the point of the unit.
If 15 gaunts reach a riptide, he is effectively gone. 200+ points that will no longer influence the game.
Unless you think his 2 attacks per turn on a 4+ can kill 15 gaunts in less then 8 rounds of combat?
Tarpit is a wonderful tactic to use on MCs.
Edit: Oh and 15 gaunts? 75 points to mitigate a 200 point model.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 15 Hormagaunts with adrenal glands has a not-insignificant chance of destroying a LRBT.
60 attacks, 40 hits, ~7 glances. That's more than twice as many hit points as the Russ has.
So I think the riptide is better off being charged by hormagaunts than the Russ.
And a riptide being charged by poison gaunts gets 15 wounds to save on the first turn alone. Not to mention subsequent rounds in which they will continue to deal damage.
But that's not the point of the unit.
If 15 gaunts reach a riptide, he is effectively gone. 200+ points that will no longer influence the game.
Unless you think his 2 attacks per turn on a 4+ can kill 15 gaunts in less then 8 rounds of combat?
Tarpit is a wonderful tactic to use on MCs.
Edit: Oh and 15 gaunts? 75 points to mitigate a 200 point model.
15 wounds to save is chump change for the Riptide, and will quickly drop lower as the Hormies lose their charge bonus and what few models are killed.
Also, it's worth noting that both the Riptide and the Russ are part of an army. A unit alive, but locked and combat, is more useful than a destroyed unit because you can save it. Charge them with allied Death Company! Heck, Kroot wouldn't be too bad against Hormies either.
Now tell me what I can do to save my Russ squadron that just lost 7 hull points? (That's 300 points killed, not neutralized, by 15 hormagaunts).
If you don't see the problem with the difference between MCs and Vehicles here then I have no idea what could possibly convince you.
15 wounds with a 2+ save and a fnp is not going to kill a riptide. Probably do 2 wounds.
Assuming you even get there, because tau have marker lights and supporting fire. Not to mention the actual firepower of the riptide itself.
Meanwhile, you've cause 7 hp damage to a leman Russ, killing it. If you multi charge you can likely kill 2 of them.
If that doesn't illustrate the differences not strength i don't know what will.
15 wounds to save is chump change for the Riptide, and will quickly drop lower as the Hormies lose their charge bonus and what few models are killed.
Also, it's worth noting that both the Riptide and the Russ are part of an army. A unit alive, but locked and combat, is more useful than a destroyed unit because you can save it. Charge them with allied Death Company! Heck, Kroot wouldn't be too bad against Hormies either.
Now tell me what I can do to save my Russ squadron that just lost 7 hull points? (That's 300 points killed, not neutralized, by 15 hormagaunts).
If you don't see the problem with the difference between MCs and Vehicles here then I have no idea what could possibly convince you.
Chump change he says! Wonderful to know a riptide that will never leave assault was tarpit for the rest of the game because of their "Incredible ability to charge and be locked in combat"
Ah! But now we bring in screening units! Protection against the scary things that can harm and neutralize us if they get too close! The best part? Both of them need it!
Ok so through basic tactics we can mitigate the CC threat by using the same tactics for both unit types.....
How about ranged?
Well, Vehicles need to be shot by the strongest weapons you have, or they won't effect them at all. No chance.
MCs? I can fire S4 weapons at most MCs and still wound it. 6s sure, but luckily most basic troop weapons are rapid fire, So most are going to cause a wound to the average MCs. So 10 marines in rapid fire range, can pretty reliably cause a wound after saves to an MC.
Average vehicle doesn't care. Even if we lowball it to a rhino with 11 armor in front, bolters wont do anything.
The fact basic troops can effect and damage MCs is huge. Weight of fire is a thing in this game.
So Vehicles vs ranged will be less susceptible or flat out ignore small arms fire, while MCs have to worry about it.
While MCs have a little more durability to single shot High S low AP weapons, but just about everything can try and wound them.
"The fact basic troops can effect and damage MCs is huge. Weight of fire is a thing in this game. "
No it's not. Because they are functionally immune. You will never meaningfully threaten a Riptide or DK with boltguns. It's not even remotely fair. But keep believing that it is.
Let's also be realistic here. No Riptide will allow itself to be caught by gaunts.
Martel732 wrote: "The fact basic troops can effect and damage MCs is huge. Weight of fire is a thing in this game. "
No it's not. Because they are functionally immune. You will never meaningfully threaten a Riptide or DK with boltguns. It's not even remotely fair. But keep believing that it is.
Facing the 200+ point models and crying when its tougher to kill them makes complete sense to me. Its like if you take a monolith or landraider and its a pain to kill them too! Amazing how that works!
Martel732 wrote: "The fact basic troops can effect and damage MCs is huge. Weight of fire is a thing in this game. "
No it's not. Because they are functionally immune. You will never meaningfully threaten a Riptide or DK with boltguns. It's not even remotely fair. But keep believing that it is.
Facing the 200+ point models and crying when its tougher to kill them makes complete sense to me. Its like if you take a monolith or landraider and its a pain to kill them too! Amazing how that works!
Land Raiders are trivial to kill compared to a Riptide. The Riptide is far too durable for a 200 pt model. 200 isn't that much anymore in 40K. In the case of the Riptide, it's dirt cheap. Too cheap, in fact.
It doesn't sound like you have enough experience with the full range of weaponry that people are deploying in 7th ed. MCs and GMCs are far, far superior to vehicles.
Hmm, so its not that the MCs are too strong.... but there are certain units within that type that maybe are too good for their points? Maybe its not the type! Maybe its the fault of the unit itself!
Again. Amazing how that works!
Lets take my Nids as example. I have 18 different MCs. Of those, 1 would be considered a powerful problem unit. The Flyrant. Is a carnifex out of line with vehicles? Trygon? Mawloc? Not really. But **** flyrants amiright?
Don't let your hate of a handful of units taint your view into thinking MCs are stronger generically then vehicles.
Tyranid MCs are better than any vehicle in my inventory. Including Land Raiders. It's the type. While they are not as crazy overpowered as a Riptide or WK, they are consistently better than any vehicle I can think of. Including things like Sicarans or IKs.
15 wounds to save is chump change for the Riptide, and will quickly drop lower as the Hormies lose their charge bonus and what few models are killed.
Also, it's worth noting that both the Riptide and the Russ are part of an army. A unit alive, but locked and combat, is more useful than a destroyed unit because you can save it. Charge them with allied Death Company! Heck, Kroot wouldn't be too bad against Hormies either.
Now tell me what I can do to save my Russ squadron that just lost 7 hull points? (That's 300 points killed, not neutralized, by 15 hormagaunts).
If you don't see the problem with the difference between MCs and Vehicles here then I have no idea what could possibly convince you.
Chump change he says! Wonderful to know a riptide that will never leave assault was tarpit for the rest of the game because of their "Incredible ability to charge and be locked in combat"
In what way is the Riptide keeping a squad of melee units locked into combat for 5 phases (so half the game...probably the rest of the game after it happens) worse than allowing you to destroy 1-2 tanks a turn?
Remember, the discussion is "Are vehicles worse than MCs?".
Here we see that they are, because getting tarpitted is a lot better than just dying.
You are also discounting the fact that the riptide can move 4d6" away, or take a SMS and do some serious damage to this little squad in one turn.
Ah! But now we bring in screening units! Protection against the scary things that can harm and neutralize us if they get too close! The best part? Both of them need it!
Not really?
Markerlights with supporting fire are enough to stop the hormaguants from being effective. No screen needed, the firewarriors are likely there anyway, and all Tau armies take Markerlight support. Overwatch with Markerlights, combined with the Riptide being able to fire once before hand with some MLs is good enough to stop the gaunts.
LRBT can't really say the same. It most likely will need to be bubble wrapped to prevent its death, which isn't cheap. It's very hard to prevent the LRBT from being in melee range on its own without investing another 1-2 units to protect it. And some armies can just pod in or jump past the screening units...or kill the screening units (Wraiths).
How about ranged?
Well, Vehicles need to be shot by the strongest weapons you have, or they won't effect them at all. No chance.
Uh, that's not remotely true.
Your gaunts kill cause 7HP a turn. They cause 1-2 wounds against an MC. The MCs are tougher because they have armor saves, invuls, and sometimes FnP
Compare Scatbikes firing at a Dreadnought versus a Wraithlord. The Wraithlord lives a lot longer, due to an armor save. MCs also have an easier time getting cover saves as well.
That is not even including the fact that many of the strongest/most common weapons (Grav, Melta) are extra effective against vehicles, and the vehicles have to roll on a damage table.
MCs? I can fire S4 weapons at most MCs and still wound it. 6s sure, but luckily most basic troop weapons are rapid fire, So most are going to cause a wound to the average MCs. So 10 marines in rapid fire range, can pretty reliably cause a wound after saves to an MC.
20 shots, 13 hits, ~2 wounds, 1/3 after save (Riptide) 2/9 after FnP.
Let's say 10 bolters at rapid fire range will cause 1/3 of a wound on average to a riptide.
Granted, that's 1/3 more than it'll cause to a tank, but the 3 Melta/Plasma to the rear armor will cause a lot more damage to the tank then it will to the riptide.
Average vehicle doesn't care. Even if we lowball it to a rhino with 11 armor in front, bolters wont do anything.
The fact basic troops can effect and damage MCs is huge. Weight of fire is a thing in this game.
I have a feeling you never calculated how much firepower is needed.
Small arms aren't threats in this game. You need 30 marines w/bolters in rapid fire range to cause 1 wound to a riptide. Marines are often podded (and do more damage against the Av 10/11 most armies have in the back with their special weapons than they do to MCs in cover), Firewarriors are Str 5, Scat bikes are Str 6, Necrons have gauss...none of the better armies are afraid of light tanks. Most aren't afraid of heavy tanks either.
So Vehicles vs ranged will be less susceptible or flat out ignore small arms fire, while MCs have to worry about it.
While MCs have a little more durability to single shot High S low AP weapons, but just about everything can try and wound them.
Seems fair to me
Probably because you haven't done the math.
Once you do, you will see that MCs are much tougher for the points paid, and are often better in nearly every way, outside of rare exceptions (skimmers, flyers, 35pt transports).
Martel732 wrote: Tyranid MCs are better than any vehicle in my inventory. Including Land Raiders. It's the type. While they are not as crazy overpowered as a Riptide or WK, they are consistently better than any vehicle I can think of. Including things like Sicarans or IKs.
Saying they are stronger inherently and providing reasons for this are two separate things.
EX:
Monstrous creature average toughness is 6, save 3+, 4W.
Average vehicle armor is 12, 3HP.
A krak missile is a guaranteed wound against average joe MC.
krak missile is a 50/50 chance of glancing/penning average joe vehicle.
6 missiles to kill the vehicle.
4 to kill the MC.
Lets say the MC is in cover, which is not guaranteed at all. And saves one. Still just 5 missiles.
Pretty close. But vehicles still have the vehicle damage chart. So you're looking at ~16% chance a missile will knock off a weapon or immobilize it.
Pretty fair to me. Eyeballing it puts it pretty damn close. Nothing I would call significant.
Yeah, a lucky lascannon shot can down a vehicle in one go. But flip it and an instant death weapon can kill an MC in one go. Not mentioning T5 MCs can be doubled out same as infantry.
Martel732 wrote: Tyranid MCs are better than any vehicle in my inventory. Including Land Raiders. It's the type. While they are not as crazy overpowered as a Riptide or WK, they are consistently better than any vehicle I can think of. Including things like Sicarans or IKs.
Saying they are stronger inherently and providing reasons for this are two separate things.
EX: Monstrous creature average toughness is 6, save 3+, 4W. Average vehicle armor is 12, 3HP.
A krak missile is a guaranteed wound against average joe MC. krak missile is a 50/50 chance of glancing/penning average joe vehicle. 6 missiles to kill the vehicle. 4 to kill the MC. Lets say the MC is in cover, which is not guaranteed at all. And saves one. Still just 5 missiles.
Pretty close. But vehicles still have the vehicle damage chart. So you're looking at ~16% chance a missile will knock off a weapon or immobilize it. Pretty fair to me. Eyeballing it puts it pretty damn close. Nothing I would call significant.
Yeah, a lucky lascannon shot can down a vehicle in one go. But flip it and an instant death weapon can kill an MC in one go. Not mentioning T5 MCs can be doubled out same as infantry.
Consider your same example with a different weapon:
EX: Monstrous creature average toughness is 6, save 3+, 4W. Average vehicle armor is 12, 3HP.
An autocannon is a 66% chance to wound against average joe MC. Autocannons are is a 33% chance of glancing/penning average joe vehicle. 18 shots at BS3 to kill the vehicle. 36 shots at BS3 to kill the MC. Lets say the vehicle is in cover, which is not guaranteed at all. And saves one. Still just 10 hits.
Not close at all. But vehicles still have the vehicle damage chart. So you're looking at ~10% chance for an autocannon knock off a weapon or immobilize it. This isn't fair at all. Eyeballing it shows a wide disparity. That armour save is significant.
The stupidity of the current situation is so bad. No one would build vehicles that are this vulnerable to weapons that aren't even anti-tank weapons. Autocannons are more dangerous to tanks than to troops in power armor. WTF?
I'm saying a Carnifex is overpowered compared to every vehicle in the BA inventory. Overpowered comapared to Riptide? No, not at all. But that's a high bar to reach.
Oh, I agree. But the MC vs vehicle paradigm contributes a lot to wanting to burn the Riptide. The 200 pt Riptide is better than anything BA can field for 300 pts. Maybe 400.
Consider your same example with a different weapon:
EX:
Monstrous creature average toughness is 6, save 3+, 4W.
Average vehicle armor is 12, 3HP.
An autocannon is a 66% chance to wound against average joe MC.
Autocannons are is a 33% chance of glancing/penning average joe vehicle.
9 hits to kill the vehicle.
18 hits to kill the MC.
Lets say the vehicle is in cover, which is not guaranteed at all. And saves one. Still just 10 hits.
Not close at all. But vehicles still have the vehicle damage chart. So you're looking at ~10% chance for an autocannon knock off a weapon or immobilize it.
This isn't fair at all. Eyeballing it shows a wide disparity. That armour save is significant.
Consider your same example with a different weapon.
EX:
Monstrous creature average toughness is 6, save 3+, 4W.
Average vehicle armor is 12, 3HP.
A gravcannon is a 88% chance to wound against average joe MC.
Gravcannon is a 33% chance of glancing average joe vehicle.
9 hits to kill the vehicle.
4.25 hits to kill the MC.
Lets say the MC is in cover, which is not guaranteed at all. And saves one. Still just 5.25hits.
Vehicles do get immobilized after the first shot. So that sucks. But it lasts twice as many shots.
How about any ID weapon? Kills an MC in one blow. Poison. Debuff Psycher powers. Moral checks. None faze a vehicle. Who would have thought. Different, but each has its advantages.
Hey m8, I play Guard. I recognize that vehicles are in a bit of a bad place right now, as are Blood Angels. But you can't say that when you have access to one of the best (for its price) transports in the game in the Rhino.
Hey m8, I play Guard. I recognize that vehicles are in a bit of a bad place right now, as are Blood Angels. But you can't say that when you have access to one of the best (for its price) transports in the game in the Rhino.
I'd still rather have a carnifex. Rhino is good for a vehicle, but it's still bad in the scheme of the game. Guard are only slightly less hosed than BA because you have the Wyvern and some FW stuff that's actually good.
Hey m8, I play Guard. I recognize that vehicles are in a bit of a bad place right now, as are Blood Angels. But you can't say that when you have access to one of the best (for its price) transports in the game in the Rhino.
Man you want best vehicle look at a marine drop pod. First turn deepstrike, 12 on all side, can never mishap, objective secured, pillar of annoyance. Sure, shoot at the 12Ar 3HP rock that's 35 points. I'll kill you with the rest of my army while it earns objective points without doing anything!
Hey m8, I play Guard. I recognize that vehicles are in a bit of a bad place right now, as are Blood Angels. But you can't say that when you have access to one of the best (for its price) transports in the game in the Rhino.
Man you want best vehicle look at a marine drop pod. First turn deepstrike, 12 on all side, can never mishap, objective secured, pillar of annoyance. Sure, shoot at the 12Ar 3HP rock that's 35 points. I'll kill you with the rest of my army while it earns objective points without doing anything!
Drop pods are very overrated. I've never had problems with generic drop lists. Skyhammer and SW, yes. But the drop pod itself is pretty easy to defend against. It's all in the deployment. Complaining about drop pods is very 5th ed. And MCs are still better hand down, because they will kill the squad that comes out and then kick over the drop pod.
Drop pods can mishap. That statement shows your lack of understanding.
Also realize troops in drop pods are stranded after they drop. Stranded on foot = dead in 7th ed.
Hey m8, I play Guard. I recognize that vehicles are in a bit of a bad place right now, as are Blood Angels. But you can't say that when you have access to one of the best (for its price) transports in the game in the Rhino.
Man you want best vehicle look at a marine drop pod. First turn deepstrike, 12 on all side, can never mishap, objective secured, pillar of annoyance. Sure, shoot at the 12Ar 3HP rock that's 35 points. I'll kill you with the rest of my army while it earns objective points without doing anything!
Drop pods are very overrated. I've never had problems with generic drop lists. Skyhammer and SW, yes. But the drop pod itself is pretty easy to defend against. It's all in the deployment. Complaining about drop pods is very 5th ed. And MCs are still better hand down, because they will kill the squad that comes out and then kick over the drop pod.
Drop pods can mishap. That statement shows your lack of understanding.
If the pod lands next to my MC, the MC is dead before it gets back to my turn again. But lets charge my somehow alive MC into 10 marines. Well I'm not going anywhere for 2-3 turns if i'm lucky. 4+ to hit 2+ to wound with only 2-3 attacks is rough. But hey, I bet once their dead I can spend another full turn killing an immobile heavy bolter. That's a good way to earn back points.
Hey m8, I play Guard. I recognize that vehicles are in a bit of a bad place right now, as are Blood Angels. But you can't say that when you have access to one of the best (for its price) transports in the game in the Rhino.
Man you want best vehicle look at a marine drop pod. First turn deepstrike, 12 on all side, can never mishap, objective secured, pillar of annoyance. Sure, shoot at the 12Ar 3HP rock that's 35 points. I'll kill you with the rest of my army while it earns objective points without doing anything!
Drop pods are very overrated. I've never had problems with generic drop lists. Skyhammer and SW, yes. But the drop pod itself is pretty easy to defend against. It's all in the deployment. Complaining about drop pods is very 5th ed. And MCs are still better hand down, because they will kill the squad that comes out and then kick over the drop pod.
Drop pods can mishap. That statement shows your lack of understanding.
If the pod lands next to my MC, the MC is dead before it gets back to my turn again. But lets charge my somehow alive MC into 10 marines. Well I'm not going anywhere for 2-3 turns if i'm lucky. 4+ to hit 2+ to wound with only 2-3 attacks is rough. But hey, I bet once their dead I can spend another full turn killing an immobile heavy bolter. That's a good way to earn back points.
Don't let them land next to your MC. YOU determine where the pods can land and what they can shoot when you set up. Don't suck. Don't let them beat you with a half-assed alpha strike. Force them to risk deviating off the table edge.
Also, 10 tac marines can't kill any MC in the game. 10 sternguard? Maybe, but that gets really inefficient really fast. Grey Hunters are maybe the worst non-Skyhammer units that MCs can see.
As for hand to hand, 2-3 attacks are worth 6-9 attacks that don't ignore marine armor. I have to pay for overpriced power weapons to get to ignore power armor and that's a S4 loser with one wound.
Hey m8, I play Guard. I recognize that vehicles are in a bit of a bad place right now, as are Blood Angels. But you can't say that when you have access to one of the best (for its price) transports in the game in the Rhino.
Man you want best vehicle look at a marine drop pod. First turn deepstrike, 12 on all side, can never mishap, objective secured, pillar of annoyance. Sure, shoot at the 12Ar 3HP rock that's 35 points. I'll kill you with the rest of my army while it earns objective points without doing anything!
Drop pods are very overrated. I've never had problems with generic drop lists. Skyhammer and SW, yes. But the drop pod itself is pretty easy to defend against. It's all in the deployment. Complaining about drop pods is very 5th ed. And MCs are still better hand down, because they will kill the squad that comes out and then kick over the drop pod.
Drop pods can mishap. That statement shows your lack of understanding.
If the pod lands next to my MC, the MC is dead before it gets back to my turn again. But lets charge my somehow alive MC into 10 marines. Well I'm not going anywhere for 2-3 turns if i'm lucky. 4+ to hit 2+ to wound with only 2-3 attacks is rough. But hey, I bet once their dead I can spend another full turn killing an immobile heavy bolter. That's a good way to earn back points.
Don't let them land next to your MC. YOU determine where the pods can land and what they can shoot when you set up. Don't suck. Don't let them beat you with a half-assed alpha strike. Force them to risk deviating off the table edge.
You're right. They'll just beat me with their NON half assed alpha strike. I face drop cent lists in my meta. They point and that flank dies. "Misshaping off the table edge" is only likely if your opponent is an idiot, I assumed that was obvious. Interesting how the crux of that powerful meta is reliant on VEHICLES. What is reliant on MCs? ummm tau? kinda? Yeah, one army is your problem but its all MCs that are absurd!
Consider your same example with a different weapon:
EX:
Monstrous creature average toughness is 6, save 3+, 4W.
Average vehicle armor is 12, 3HP.
An autocannon is a 66% chance to wound against average joe MC.
Autocannons are is a 33% chance of glancing/penning average joe vehicle.
9 hits to kill the vehicle.
18 hits to kill the MC.
Lets say the vehicle is in cover, which is not guaranteed at all. And saves one. Still just 10 hits.
Not close at all. But vehicles still have the vehicle damage chart. So you're looking at ~10% chance for an autocannon knock off a weapon or immobilize it.
This isn't fair at all. Eyeballing it shows a wide disparity. That armour save is significant.
Consider your same example with a different weapon.
EX:
Monstrous creature average toughness is 6, save 3+, 4W.
Average vehicle armor is 12, 3HP.
A gravcannon is a 88% chance to wound against average joe MC.
Gravcannon is a 33% chance of glancing average joe vehicle.
9 hits to kill the vehicle.
4.25 hits to kill the MC.
Lets say the MC is in cover, which is not guaranteed at all. And saves one. Still just 5.25hits.
Vehicles do get immobilized after the first shot. So that sucks. But it lasts twice as many shots.
How about any ID weapon? Kills an MC in one blow. Poison. Debuff Psycher powers. Moral checks. None faze a vehicle. Who would have thought. Different, but each has its advantages.
Grav is one weapon type that not all armies can access. Consider the following statement:
"Barring special rules, Vehicles are about equal to monstrous creatures when being fired at by weapons that ignore the Monstrous Creature's armour."
Drop pods don't make grav cents good. Grav cents are actually better off in a Draigo gate unit. At least with with drop pods, you can get away from the grav cents once they drop. With a gating unit, you are just hosed.
In your drop pod counter example, it's not important that the drop pod is a vehicle at all. It doesn't matter if it lives or dies because it's primary purpose is to deliver a unit. The drop pod could be an MC and nothing would change.
Furthermore, your example requires a very specific unit to be put in said drop pod. If drop pods alone were good, Flesh Tearers would be awesome, because they can take so many. Turns out, they aren't because BA units are fething gakky. Including the drop pod, because in this case, there's nothing to load in them worth a dman.
Every MC has multiple wounds backed up by an armor save. Every MC ignores all armor in hand to hand. Every MC can abuse the cover rules. Every MC is virtually immune to small arms fire. Every T6 MC is impossible to double out with any weapon in the game, no matter how expensive that weapon is.
Martel732 wrote: I'm saying a Carnifex is overpowered compared to every vehicle in the BA inventory. Overpowered comapared to Riptide? No, not at all. But that's a high bar to reach.
Well yeah because a Carnifex can destroy a Super Heavy purely with Hammer of Wrath attacks. Nevermind its actual claws.
Vehicles have too many restrictions to be as effective as an MC. They can't easily move and fire, have issues with terrain, suffer crew effects on every pen, and die in one hit quite often. Every tough vehicle can only be harmed by AP2ish weapons so it's almost like they have a second To Wound roll that Instant Deaths on 6s. Melta does it on 5s and 6s.
This can be fine if they were inexpensive and brought the firepower to match their vulnerability. Glass cannons are okay and we're in a world where virtually everything has access to some sort of anti-tank level weapon, even if it's close combat krak grenades against rear armor. But most vehicles are overpriced and don't do anywhere near their point value in offense while often being rendered useless for a turn by even a single pen. MCs and even infantry don't have that issue, a single wound or a single lost soldier doesn't affect the ability to shoot.
Look at a Predator... 75 pts for an Autocannon. The same cost as a troop of five Havocs. The Havocs can take THREE Lascannons for 60pts. The Predator can swap and get sponsons for three Lascannons, one of which is twin-linked. Havocs = 135 pts, Predator = 140 pts. Granted, it's harder to kill the predator than a bunch of infantry but the infantry is guaranteed five wounds and doesn't snap shoot if it loses a guy. The tank can move and fire a single weapon but the infantry snap shoots its heavy stuff UNLESS you give them Relentless somehow, which things like Centurions, Bikers, and Terminators get already. Considering the Havocs can take a fourth Lascannon and upgrade their squad with even more wound buffers, I'd take them over the Predator any day. There's no point having three Lascannons that might not get to even fire every turn with the possibility of losing all of them to a single lucky Lascannon from the other team.
It's worse if you're using a melee walker with how vulnerable to Immobilize you are. Immobilize is one of the most common results because of AP2, AP1, and open-topped rules pushing the Vehicle Damage rolls toward exploding. Anything that doesn't explode almost always ends up immobilized or weapon destroyed. For something like a Maulerfiend or Dreadnoughts with melee and storm shields that's basically death right there. Add to that Grav weapons autoglancing and immobilizing on 6s and it's just pointless to run a melee-based non-super heavy competitively.
Honestly, I'm all for getting rid of the Vehicle Damage chart. I think that monstrosity is what's keeping vehicles from being useful and Super Heavies prove it by being usable due to ignoring it almost entirely. Keep the explosion result as instant death makes it interesting if a bit vulnerable (or heck argue for why even explodes should be removed and vehicles should be guaranteed their hull points). But everything else? Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed, Immobilized, these things are relics from a time when vehicles were unkillable and are no longer needed to balance the point costs. Vehicles are fairly good in price already and the simplest way to make them on the level of MCs is to remove the major disadvantages caused by penetrating hits.
Grav is one weapon type that not all armies can access. Consider the following statement:
"Barring special rules, Vehicles are about equal to monstrous creatures when being fired at by weapons that ignore the Monstrous Creature's armour."
Do you are or disagree?
Barring special rules, Vehicles are about equal to monstrous creatures. End
The both fill a multitude of roles (vehicles more then MCs), and interact to the game in different ways, but neither is inherently stronger then the other.
Grav is one weapon type that not all armies can access. Consider the following statement:
"Barring special rules, Vehicles are about equal to monstrous creatures when being fired at by weapons that ignore the Monstrous Creature's armour."
Do you are or disagree?
Barring special rules, Vehicles are about equal to monstrous creatures. End
The both fill a multitude of roles (vehicles more then MCs), and interact to the game in different ways, but neither is inherently stronger then the other.
You are so very wrong. 85% of vehicles are unusable garbage.
Grav is one weapon type that not all armies can access. Consider the following statement:
"Barring special rules, Vehicles are about equal to monstrous creatures when being fired at by weapons that ignore the Monstrous Creature's armour."
Do you are or disagree?
Barring special rules, Vehicles are about equal to monstrous creatures. End
The both fill a multitude of roles (vehicles more then MCs), and interact to the game in different ways, but neither is inherently stronger then the other.
Nice dodge. Also, if we add special rules in, MCs beat vehicles, so even with your statement there MCs are better
Vehicles:
gakky relentless with a single weapon if they limit their movement.
Monstrous Creatures:
Relentless, period.
Smash
Move Through Cover
Unit1126PLL wrote: Vehicles:
gakky relentless with a single weapon if they limit their movement.
Monstrous Creatures:
Relentless, period.
Smash
Move Through Cover
And fires TWO weapons after moving.
And frequently has an invulnerable save.
And has 360 degree firing arc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Even if you got rid of the damage table, vehicles would still suck.
LIES! Try it out, play some games where you basically ignore the Vehicle Damage table. They still wouldn't be as good as MCs but they'd actually be pretty decent artillery.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Vehicles:
gakky relentless with a single weapon if they limit their movement.
Monstrous Creatures:
Relentless, period.
Smash
Move Through Cover
And fires TWO weapons after moving.
And frequently has an invulnerable save.
Well those aren't special rules but if we are listing things:
Can defend itself in combat.
Has any save period.
Has an easier time getting saves thanks to cover rules.
Doesn't have specific defensive 'facings' to worry about.
Doesn't have fire arcs to worry about.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Vehicles:
gakky relentless with a single weapon if they limit their movement.
Monstrous Creatures:
Relentless, period.
Smash
Move Through Cover
And fires TWO weapons after moving.
And frequently has an invulnerable save.
And has 360 degree firing arc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Even if you got rid of the damage table, vehicles would still suck.
LIES! Try it out, play some games where you basically ignore the Vehicle Damage table. They still wouldn't be as good as MCs but they'd actually be pretty decent artillery.
I don't need to try it out. Most of my vehicles die without ever rolling on table. I functionally already play with that rule. Almost all marine vehicles are functionally AV 11, and three glances are easy to come by.
Barring special rules, Vehicles are about equal to monstrous creatures. End
The both fill a multitude of roles (vehicles more then MCs), and interact to the game in different ways, but neither is inherently stronger then the other.
Nice dodge. Also, if we add special rules in, MCs beat vehicles, so even with your statement there MCs are better
Vehicles:
gakky relentless with a single weapon if they limit their movement.
Monstrous Creatures:
Relentless, period.
Smash
Move Through Cover
Hey when I see a statement specifically designed to play "gotchya!" I say what I mean.
You forgot MCs Needing to take morale checks, psycher debuffs such as life leech affecting them, Can be doubled out (Yes, T5 MCs exist and more are being made with each release!)
Vehicles being completely immune to small arms fire, the ability to transport other units, ability to move 12" at will, can avoid taking slots in force org. Can fire ALL weapons when stationary
But no, keep only saying what's bad about them. I'll correct you.
Hey when I see a statement specifically designed to play "gotchya!" I say what I mean.
You forgot MCs Needing to take morale checks, psycher debuffs such as life leech affecting them, Can be doubled out (Yes, T5 MCs exist and more are being made with each release!)
Vehicles being completely immune to small arms fire, the ability to transport other units, ability to move 12" at will, can avoid taking slots in force org. Can fire ALL weapons when stationary
But no, keep only saying what's bad about them. I'll correct you.
But you're still dead wrong. The advantages for vehicles don't translate into table top efficacy. For example, being able to fire all weapons when stationary is not a good ability, because movement is very important in 7th ed.
Dude, we don't care what you think because you obviously don't care what we think. Martel has been very patient along with several other posters, you have contradicted yourself multiple times. You're arguing just to be difficult at this point.
Martel732 wrote: I don't need to try it out. Most of my vehicles die without ever rolling on table. I functionally already play with that rule. Almost all marine vehicles are functionally AV 11, and three glances are easy to come by.
I'd be fine with that though. Fantasy warhammer already has siege weapons as well as monstrous creatures. The MCs are clearly better but also way more expensive. The siege weapons are great long range support that sits on a back line somewhere. If a Rhino gets glanced to death and doesn't make it to the enemy, who cares? It cost you 35 pts and took 3 shots to the face. That's cheaper than the equivalent in Space Marines albeit they may or may not have gotten saves out of it.
What really stops me bringing any vehicles to the table is knowing that all it takes is a single lucky hit to invalidate bringing them in the first place. Would you bring MCs or super beefy Characters if every unit in the game carried Instant Death weapons?
Martel732 wrote: I don't need to try it out. Most of my vehicles die without ever rolling on table. I functionally already play with that rule. Almost all marine vehicles are functionally AV 11, and three glances are easy to come by.
I'd be fine with that though. Fantasy warhammer already has siege weapons as well as monstrous creatures. The MCs are clearly better but also way more expensive. The siege weapons are great long range support that sits on a back line somewhere. If a Rhino gets glanced to death and doesn't make it to the enemy, who cares? It cost you 35 pts and took 3 shots to the face. That's cheaper than the equivalent in Space Marines albeit they may or may not have gotten saves out of it.
What really stops me bringing any vehicles to the table is knowing that all it takes is a single lucky hit to invalidate bringing them in the first place. Would you bring MCs or super beefy Characters if every unit in the game carried Instant Death weapons?
The odds of one-shooting vehicle in 7th are now insanely low. Even with AP 1.
The sources of instant death in 40K are a damn joke at this point with things like the WK running about with ranged Str D.
Martel732 wrote: I'm saying a Carnifex is overpowered compared to every vehicle in the BA inventory. Overpowered comapared to Riptide? No, not at all. But that's a high bar to reach.
Well yeah because a Carnifex can destroy a Super Heavy purely with Hammer of Wrath attacks. Nevermind its actual claws.
Vehicles have too many restrictions to be as effective as an MC. They can't easily move and fire, have issues with terrain, suffer crew effects on every pen, and die in one hit quite often. Every tough vehicle can only be harmed by AP2ish weapons so it's almost like they have a second To Wound roll that Instant Deaths on 6s. Melta does it on 5s and 6s.
This can be fine if they were inexpensive and brought the firepower to match their vulnerability. Glass cannons are okay and we're in a world where virtually everything has access to some sort of anti-tank level weapon, even if it's close combat krak grenades against rear armor. But most vehicles are overpriced and don't do anywhere near their point value in offense while often being rendered useless for a turn by even a single pen. MCs and even infantry don't have that issue, a single wound or a single lost soldier doesn't affect the ability to shoot.
Look at a Predator... 75 pts for an Autocannon. The same cost as a troop of five Havocs. The Havocs can take THREE Lascannons for 60pts. The Predator can swap and get sponsons for three Lascannons, one of which is twin-linked. Havocs = 135 pts, Predator = 140 pts. Granted, it's harder to kill the predator than a bunch of infantry but the infantry is guaranteed five wounds and doesn't snap shoot if it loses a guy. The tank can move and fire a single weapon but the infantry snap shoots its heavy stuff UNLESS you give them Relentless somehow, which things like Centurions, Bikers, and Terminators get already. Considering the Havocs can take a fourth Lascannon and upgrade their squad with even more wound buffers, I'd take them over the Predator any day. There's no point having three Lascannons that might not get to even fire every turn with the possibility of losing all of them to a single lucky Lascannon from the other team.
It's worse if you're using a melee walker with how vulnerable to Immobilize you are. Immobilize is one of the most common results because of AP2, AP1, and open-topped rules pushing the Vehicle Damage rolls toward exploding. Anything that doesn't explode almost always ends up immobilized or weapon destroyed. For something like a Maulerfiend or Dreadnoughts with melee and storm shields that's basically death right there. Add to that Grav weapons autoglancing and immobilizing on 6s and it's just pointless to run a melee-based non-super heavy competitively.
Honestly, I'm all for getting rid of the Vehicle Damage chart. I think that monstrosity is what's keeping vehicles from being useful and Super Heavies prove it by being usable due to ignoring it almost entirely. Keep the explosion result as instant death makes it interesting if a bit vulnerable (or heck argue for why even explodes should be removed and vehicles should be guaranteed their hull points). But everything else? Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed, Immobilized, these things are relics from a time when vehicles were unkillable and are no longer needed to balance the point costs. Vehicles are fairly good in price already and the simplest way to make them on the level of MCs is to remove the major disadvantages caused by penetrating hits.
As a Guard player the vehicle rules sadden me. My Leman Russ usually gets glanced to death before it can kill anything. Nice knowing you 170+ points. I don't play against MC's enough to comment on their rules, so I'll stay out of that.
War Kitten wrote: As a Guard player the vehicle rules sadden me. My Leman Russ usually gets glanced to death before it can kill anything. Nice knowing you 170+ points. I don't play against MC's enough to comment on their rules, so I'll stay out of that.
All you need to know is that you can't glance MCs to death. And they shoot more weapons on the move.
War Kitten wrote: As a Guard player the vehicle rules sadden me. My Leman Russ usually gets glanced to death before it can kill anything. Nice knowing you 170+ points. I don't play against MC's enough to comment on their rules, so I'll stay out of that.
All you need to know is that you can't glance MCs to death.
War Kitten wrote: As a Guard player the vehicle rules sadden me. My Leman Russ usually gets glanced to death before it can kill anything. Nice knowing you 170+ points. I don't play against MC's enough to comment on their rules, so I'll stay out of that.
All you need to know is that you can't glance MCs to death.
lol isn't that called a "wound"
Yes, but vehicles are dying to hits that don't even penetrate their armor. Ie, non-wounds.
I don't mind penetrating hits having a chance to kill me, it's just frustrating that I can be glanced to death by enough firepower going into my side and rear armor.
Martel732 wrote: I'm saying a Carnifex is overpowered compared to every vehicle in the BA inventory. Overpowered comapared to Riptide? No, not at all. But that's a high bar to reach.
A predator ( 140p) will kill a carnifex (150p) before it ever even gets close. 3 TL Lascannons at 48". Wounding on 2 with no save it dies in 2 turns. Say it runs the max every turn it will take 4 turns to get close enough to charge so you can kill it twice in that time. Its devourers can't hurt your armor 13 not that they would ever come in range with 18"range.
If you are getting charged by a mc that only moves 6 a turn you made a tactical error and got outplayed. Nothing overpowered about a carnifex.
Martel732 wrote: I'm saying a Carnifex is overpowered compared to every vehicle in the BA inventory. Overpowered comapared to Riptide? No, not at all. But that's a high bar to reach.
A predator ( 140p) will kill a carnifex (150p) before it ever even gets close. 3 TL Lascannons at 48". Wounding on 2 with no save it dies in 2 turns. Say it runs the max every turn it will take 4 turns to get close enough to charge so you can kill it twice in that time. Its devourers can't hurt your armor 13 not that they would ever come in range with 18"range.
If you are getting charged by a mc that only moves 6 a turn you made a tactical error and got outplayed. Nothing overpowered about a carnifex.
You're ignoring terrain cover saves, Malanthrope cover saves, and FNP. Also, your vehicle has to remain stationary to get those 3 full BS shots, only ONE of which is TL. This vastly changes things. Also, Carnifex has 5 Wounds.
Martel732 wrote: I'm saying a Carnifex is overpowered compared to every vehicle in the BA inventory. Overpowered comapared to Riptide? No, not at all. But that's a high bar to reach.
A predator ( 140p) will kill a carnifex (150p) before it ever even gets close. 3 TL Lascannons at 48". Wounding on 2 with no save it dies in 2 turns. Say it runs the max every turn it will take 4 turns to get close enough to charge so you can kill it twice in that time. Its devourers can't hurt your armor 13 not that they would ever come in range with 18"range.
If you are getting charged by a mc that only moves 6 a turn you made a tactical error and got outplayed. Nothing overpowered about a carnifex.
Well, one never sees Predator Annihilators or Carnifexes that often anymore. Pitting them against each other in a vacuum is a race to the bottom.
It's not just a heads-up match up. It's each unit vs the field. Outflanking the carnifex means nothing. Outflanking the predator gives you AV 11 to shoot at, which is tissue paper. That's just one huge difference. The Carnifex does a lot slower to most incoming fire than the predator.
Bear in mind that Predator vs Carnifex goes to the carnie because the Predator doesn't WANT to get into close combat and has the tools to avoid it. This is exactly what Eldar Jetbikes are capable of.
Meanwhile, the Imperial Knights definitely want to get into close combat and are frequently within Carnifex assault range.
A dakka fex can take the amazing brain leech weapons that makes the tyrant so good, just on a worse platform.
That's a lot better firepower than the predator is capable of putting out, imo.
A predator is likely to only hit with 2 Lascannons a turn, And with a 5+ Cover save It's going to take 3 turns to kill one. So it can still put out 36 TLStr 6 shots before it dies, which, IMO, is fine. Not to mention the venomthrope, if its nearby, will help a bit.
The Heavy venom cannon of the Carnifex is also a pretty good weapon, though not amazing against tanks. I don't think the carni would win against the Predator (thought it's not a horrid matchup), but the predator can't kill the carnifex before it earns its points back against most forces.
Edit,
You have the stats on a predator wrong as well.
If the carnie sees the side armor of the predator for any reason, it will cause 3 HP in one round of shooting. (9 hits on average, 5+ to cause a HP).
Akiasura wrote: The Heavy venom cannon of the Carnifex is also a pretty good weapon, though not amazing against tanks. I don't think the carni would win against the Predator (thought it's not a horrid matchup), but the predator can't kill the carnifex before it earns its points back against most forces.
The Carnifex has a chance of killing it if he rides a "drop pod" (Tyrannocyte) into the side or rear armor of the Predator then unleashes hell. If the Predator doesn't pop that turn from shooting, it literally cannot kill the Carnifex next turn (3 shots vs 4 wounds) and will die to a close combat assault with its multiple Hammer of Wraths and insanely high Strength. The only way the Predator is surviving is if it turns tail and runs 12" away through whatever terrain is in its way (taking dangerous rolls) and then prays the Carnifex cannot make the charge distance.
This thread is hilarious. There is someone actually comparing rhinos to MCs. The rhino isn't a battle tank, but it was never supposed to be one. If you try to use it as such, you'll just get more sore. Please, consider this: when the vehicle rules approach parity with the MC rules, those riptides that everyone hates is going to get replaced with the hammerhead, and we'll hear all these complaints again, only about its railgun.
Martel732 wrote: The more I play against IK, the worse and worse I find them. Because assault is bad in 7th ed.
So you would agree that IK are eash to take down in cc?
I will agree with you. So many tjmes when a cheap MC smashes, penetrate, then gets a total of 7 on the dmg chart and procedes to take away 1+d3 hp frkm my knight.
Or a freaking tau fire warriors with emp grenades get into cc and glance off all 6 hp eas uh peasy because i wiff on attacks and get only 1 stomp.
Imperial Knights aren't hard to take down. Its just that they shut out everything S5 and below from even participating in the game. That is why they have the rep they do now, imagine showing up with only 10 melta weapons and seeing 3 AV13/12/12 Walkers coming at you.
Quickjager wrote: Imperial Knights aren't hard to take down. Its just that they shut out everything S5 and below from even participating in the game. That is why they have the rep they do now, imagine showing up with only 10 melta weapons and seeing 3 AV13/12/12 Walkers coming at you.
Fortunately for enemy armies, there are entire lists of S6 or higher. IK just die against those lists.
Quickjager wrote: Imperial Knights aren't hard to take down. Its just that they shut out everything S5 and below from even participating in the game. That is why they have the rep they do now, imagine showing up with only 10 melta weapons and seeing 3 AV13/12/12 Walkers coming at you.
That's my big annoyance with them. I don't really mind, at this point, that their rules, but the fact that it makes a good 65%+ of my attacks useless is so annoying. It basically means that the only chance my infantry have in contributing to battle is grabbing objectives.
Quickjager wrote: Imperial Knights aren't hard to take down. Its just that they shut out everything S5 and below from even participating in the game. That is why they have the rep they do now, imagine showing up with only 10 melta weapons and seeing 3 AV13/12/12 Walkers coming at you.
That's my big annoyance with them. I don't really mind, at this point, that their rules, but the fact that it makes a good 65%+ of my attacks useless is so annoying. It basically means that the only chance my infantry have in contributing to battle is grabbing objectives.
I agree that this is currently the worst part about the game for most of the dexes.
Making a list with my eldar or necrons is an enjoyable experience. I can pick a wide range of units and still feel like I can play the game.
Sm and tau can do the same, though to a lesser extent by a wide margin.
Hey m8, I play Guard. I recognize that vehicles are in a bit of a bad place right now, as are Blood Angels. But you can't say that when you have access to one of the best (for its price) transports in the game in the Rhino.
Man you want best vehicle look at a marine drop pod. First turn deepstrike, 12 on all side, can never mishap, objective secured, pillar of annoyance. Sure, shoot at the 12Ar 3HP rock that's 35 points. I'll kill you with the rest of my army while it earns objective points without doing anything!
Drop pods are very overrated. I've never had problems with generic drop lists. Skyhammer and SW, yes. But the drop pod itself is pretty easy to defend against. It's all in the deployment. Complaining about drop pods is very 5th ed. And MCs are still better hand down, because they will kill the squad that comes out and then kick over the drop pod.
Drop pods can mishap. That statement shows your lack of understanding.
Also realize troops in drop pods are stranded after they drop. Stranded on foot = dead in 7th ed.
+1. I've never understood why people take drop pods lists outside of the odd pod for a suicide squad. I can only think they play against lists that never move and set up poorly.
A few are certainly useful, but I rarely see more than 3 taken locally by most armies. Usually used to alpha strike something with plasma/grav off the table that's dangerous.
It's effective, but spamming it and winning is usually the mark of a weak meta imo.
Martel732 wrote: No one where I play lets you alpha anything worthwhile. Because they can see your list.
We play the same. I still manage to target an MC, GMC, or tank (rarely the latter...they are rare), or useful unit off the table with my SM.
SM have a lot better choices for what to pod then BA though. I can put a few grav weapons or spam combi plas, along with the cent star, allowing me to kill 2-3 units right off the bat. Depends on my opponent, but usually
Against eldar, I target Windriders or Wraith Knight. I'm usually capable of removing 15 windriders pretty reliably, or 1 wraith knight. I don't target warp spiders because they will flicker away, though if they deploy poorly I will target them over wind riders. Wraith knights are obscene, with 2 grav units I should really be able to kill 2 but whatever.
Against SM, I try to kill their grav cents quickly. Whoever keeps their grav cents alive longer usually wins, imo.
Against Necrons, I target destroyers with grav cents and plasma goes into the wraiths/spyders. Necrons give me the most trouble.
Against Tau I target the Riptide. I haven't played against the newer models yet however, so I might target the storm surge.
Against Nids the cents target the Flyrants, combi-plasma targets a carni. Usually I can remove one of each.
