Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

notredameguy10 wrote:

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.

 vipoid wrote:

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.

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

Adult hippos can actually bite Nile crocodiles in half. With blunt teeth. They're more effective than BA.

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.

 Pouncey wrote:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

And a great white shark, even if 6.4m/21' in length, can still swim at 56 kph/35 mph.

Big things can definitely be fast.

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Bartali wrote:

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?

Bartali wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Bartali wrote:

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.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

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.)

Kastellan > Dreadnaught. Dreadnaughts can't deflect shots.

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 Tl Str 6 shots that it can deliver via flight.
The Dreadnoughts have MM/HF, TL Acx2, or ML/TL LC. 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 Tl Str 7 attacks, but on a slower platform and it's easier to remove their firepower. Or 3 Ml and 3 Tl LC'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.

the_scotsman wrote:

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.

the_scotsman wrote:

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.

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.

notredameguy10 wrote:

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.

Oh, I forgot to add:

9) Tanks don't have saves (except cover in certain specific situations).

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..