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.

So with the new Open-Topped Monstrous Creature release, the Tau Stormsurge, do you think GW is indirectly confirming their vehicle rules are awful by making something MORE obviously a vehicle than the Riptide a monstrous creature rather than giving it hull points? Inquiring minds demand to know!

Doubtful, while the Vehicle Rules are quite lacking it is more likely just a continuation of a very poor concept to begin with.

Tau Battlesuits have always been viewed as 'living entities,' as opposed to Vehicles, even if they are up-scaled to ridiculous sizes. This is because the fluff describes the pilot as operating the Battlesuit directly with neural links, granting it heightened mobility. There are even a few Units that the Eldar have granted the same treatment, those which have a soul operating the walker as if it was a second body. Game Workshop clearly views these few Units as different enough to Vehicles to be granting them a non-Vehicle Unit Type.

Of course, there are some Walkers out there that are also controlled by a direct neural link or other similar technology within their fluff but are still considered Vehicles.
No one ever accused Game Workshop of being consistent....

No, considering other recent codex releases, such as Space Marines, ahvent done away with the vehicle rules.

It's just a continuation of the already nonsensical Riptide rules. The "fluff" explanation about neural links is bunk, by the way. Aside from being 100% illogical, and inconsistent with other units, its not some official explanation from what I remember. It's a fan theory repeated ad nauseum until some people took it as gospel. I don't think we know at all why they made the Riptide and Dreadknight MCs but I imagine it was for game effectiveness moreso than anything else. I think it was en vogue in the design studio for a few years back there to make stompy robots with none of the downsides, which they have since moved away from, except when maintaining continuity within a race. There's certainly no logical distinction between a Contemptor and a Riptide and a Mutilator in terms of agility or how well the "pilot" is connected in.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
It's just a continuation of the already nonsensical Riptide rules. The "fluff" explanation about neural links is bunk, by the way. Aside from being 100% illogical, and inconsistent with other units, its not some official explanation from what I remember. It's a fan theory repeated ad nauseum until some people took it as gospel. I don't think we know at all why they made the Riptide and Dreadknight MCs but I imagine it was for game effectiveness moreso than anything else. I think it was en vogue in the design studio for a few years back there to make stompy robots with none of the downsides, which they have since moved away from, except when maintaining continuity within a race. There's certainly no logical distinction between a Contemptor and a Riptide and a Mutilator in terms of agility or how well the "pilot" is connected in.

Deff dreads are literally Orks who are shoved into the Dread and then bolted in for the rest of their lives. They have to have their food put through straws FFS . But apparently not as good as "Neural Links"

My Joke unit I made about a "Boss Dread" being a MC and some other incredibly OP stuff actually made a lot of sense, even though I was being facetious and for some reason people ran with it.

Tau battlesuits were originally play-tested as vehicles, but that was found to be too strong against certain armies. Using the wound mechanic was a compromise that allowed the units to be tough (with a decent save), but also made them capable of being hurt by small arms fire like lasguns. Since then the set precedent has been followed -- even with ridiculous scaling.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
Tau battlesuits were originally play-tested as vehicles, but that was found to be too strong against certain armies. Using the wound mechanic was a compromise that allowed the units to be tough (with a decent save), but also made them capable of being hurt by small arms fire like lasguns. Since then the set precedent has been followed -- even with ridiculous scaling.

And the biggest problems with that is that the Rule mechanic that they were using at the time that made Tau vehicles WAY to OP has now changed and done a complete 180. Now Vehicles are less durable then MCs and such but instead of making them vehicles they left them as Giant infantry or MC's because to do otherwise would wipe tau out

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
Tau battlesuits were originally play-tested as vehicles, but that was found to be too strong against certain armies. Using the wound mechanic was a compromise that allowed the units to be tough (with a decent save), but also made them capable of being hurt by small arms fire like lasguns. Since then the set precedent has been followed -- even with ridiculous scaling.

And the biggest problems with that is that the Rule mechanic that they were using at the time that made Tau vehicles WAY to OP has now changed and done a complete 180. Now Vehicles are less durable then MCs and such but instead of making them vehicles they left them as Giant infantry or MC's because to do otherwise would wipe tau out

WH40K as a game is quickly heading towards legacy status in Games Workshop's eye. While I agree that a rules overhaul to create cross-line consistency would be nice.. I wouldn't hold my breath.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
Tau battlesuits were originally play-tested as vehicles, but that was found to be too strong against certain armies. Using the wound mechanic was a compromise that allowed the units to be tough (with a decent save), but also made them capable of being hurt by small arms fire like lasguns. Since then the set precedent has been followed -- even with ridiculous scaling.

And the biggest problems with that is that the Rule mechanic that they were using at the time that made Tau vehicles WAY to OP has now changed and done a complete 180. Now Vehicles are less durable then MCs and such but instead of making them vehicles they left them as Giant infantry or MC's because to do otherwise would wipe tau out

WH40K as a game is quickly heading towards legacy status in Games Workshop's eye. While I agree that a rules overhaul to create cross-line consistency would be nice.. I wouldn't hold my breath.

If that is so, then that is the end of GW, since it's their primary bread-winner.

All I know is that I'm gonna have fun poking at tau players for awhile over their open topped mc. While i can see that since its SUPPOSED to be artillery suit and not frontline, the lack of roof might fit the fluff. What I'm seeing from the rules though makes me think of the IG tank shocking in a Basilisk.

Fluff-wise Tau are weak to psykers.

That's probably the reason

Purely some sort of aesthetic they were going for imo. Nothing to do with rules or cross pollinating units or suchlike.

I would like to see the inclusion for a kill shot rule... If the owning player rolls a one for a save it outright kills the model as the shot struck the pilot.

How about instead of outright killing, that D6 determines whether you hit the suit or pilot (who has his saves as appropriate )

If it's instant death to T3 then it should be an outright kill imo.

I think Fire Warriors have 1 W each so a Bolter would effectively kill the pilot.

That would be great to see to be honest

It's GWs way of building a narrative with the rule of cool. See how many threads and posts are on this? It built a narrative! Sucsess!

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I would like to see the inclusion for a kill shot rule... If the owning player rolls a one for a save it outright kills the model as the shot struck the pilot.

Y'know, I think I know now why the Stormsurge is a GMC rather than MC.

It has two operators not one. It seems to be 'driven' rather than the operator being hooked in(and before someone tries to dismiss the Neural Linkages as "fanmade", on p 12 of the current Codex: Tau Empire it specifically makes mention of "integrated interface armour"). So a killshot on one person(assuming you could even SEE the guy ) will not necessarily disrupt its operation.

Just my thoughts here.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If it's instant death to T3 then it should be an outright kill imo.

You'd better keep your fun and fluffy AoS rules out of 40k!

I know what you're up to!

Edit: Come to think of it, a Krak grenade is S6

A better way to look at it is that Tau, with all their talk about the Greater Good, are really all about overcompensating with their suits. It's kind of like a holy man in a pointy hat, he's not a walking cathedral, he's just dressed up that way.