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.

They seem to have numerous advantages over infantry and the rules seem to indicate that infantry supported by appropriately armed walkers would be a very effective partnership. Is it purely because of the vehicle damage rules that people don't like walkers? I can't see any other reasonpeople wouldn't take them.

Vehicle rule make it so one shot can kill them or massed small arms fire to fix them they need a save of some sort

 NoPoet wrote:
They seem to have numerous advantages over infantry and the rules seem to indicate that infantry supported by appropriately armed walkers would be a very effective partnership. Is it purely because of the vehicle damage rules that people don't like walkers? I can't see any other reasonpeople wouldn't take them.

Because Godzilla hammer 40k.

Wraithknights ruin everything.

GMCs are just so much better, with all their special rules.

For Orks, the Killa Kans are too slow, die too easily, and run away because of special rules that actually make them worse rather than better.

*orkanauts lacks dakka and are way overcosted compared to other armies GMCs.

It depends. Highly competitive rate them bad due to low output od damage versus points and survivalbility versus points. Hull points make gunning down walkers easy.

However in matches where not everyone spams the best stuff they have their place. Any Tyranid monstrous creature fears a Dreadnought with power fist.

Slow for a vehicle, lack of saves, vehicle damage table makes them weakened from damage, and completely hosed by grav and melta weapons. AV is nice but it basically acts as toughness. Also vehicle rules make it more difficult to get cover saves so walking through ruins isn't going to cut it unless there is actually 25% obstruction from the terrain between the walker and what is trying to shoot it.

Traditio wrote:

 NoPoet wrote:
They seem to have numerous advantages over infantry and the rules seem to indicate that infantry supported by appropriately armed walkers would be a very effective partnership. Is it purely because of the vehicle damage rules that people don't like walkers? I can't see any other reasonpeople wouldn't take them.

Because Godzilla hammer 40k.

Wraithknights ruin everything.

This has nothing to do with wraith Knights. That comment doesn't fit and explains nothing. Walkers have problems with regular infantry let alone a no other elites fast attack or heavy support. Do you play?

 eskimo wrote:
Any Tyranid monstrous creature fears a Dreadnought with power fist.

And so will stomp it into the ground before it has a chance to use it...

Hull Points simply make most walkers too fragile.

 insaniak wrote:

 eskimo wrote:
Any Tyranid monstrous creature fears a Dreadnought with power fist.

And so will stomp it into the ground before it has a chance to use it...

Hull Points simply make most walkers too fragile.

Hasn't stomp being changed to 1 attack made that match up a little riskier for MCs now though?

 Pilau Rice wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 eskimo wrote:
Any Tyranid monstrous creature fears a Dreadnought with power fist.

And so will stomp it into the ground before it has a chance to use it...

Hull Points simply make most walkers too fragile.

Hasn't stomp being changed to 1 attack made that match up a little riskier for MCs now though?

D3 stomps

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 eskimo wrote:
Any Tyranid monstrous creature fears a Dreadnought with power fist.

And so will stomp it into the ground before it has a chance to use it...

Hull Points simply make most walkers too fragile.

Hasn't stomp being changed to 1 attack made that match up a little riskier for MCs now though?

D3 stomps

Darn, I was thinking of Smash attack sorry! But I guess my question still had a point

I was using ' stomp' in a generic sense...

Walkers (actually vehicles in general) have become too weak in the game. If it doesn't have a 3+ or 5++ save its pretty much worthless. They also move just as slow as a standard infantry. What really needs to happen is increase walker and MC speed to 9" instead of 6" and get rid of the hull point system as we know it. Make only penetrations remove a hull point and let glances roll on pen chart -3.

 insaniak wrote:
I was using ' stomp' in a generic sense...

Sorry, but still. If my DP went up against a Dreadnought I would be a bit worried. He could fudge his attack and then get ID. I wouldn't have had second thought about getting into cc with a Dread in 6th.

Way to easy to kill, no real challenge to glance to death.

You have to take 2-3 to ensure one makes it across the board, even a super casual player knows they are a poor investment.

At least with vehicles, they can move 12", more if they Flat Out.

Walkers are restricted to Infantry like movement, can be tarpitted and all in all, have all the downsides of infantry, but none of the upsides (such as an armour save, toe in cover save, weapons are useless, etc etc)

A couple of things are wrong with walkers:

They're vehicles, so they have no armour save and it is more difficult to get them a cover save.
They generally have the weak rear armour that all other vehicles do. This, combined with the fact that walkers generally want to advance and crush things, means it's easy for them to get shot in the back and die even more easily.
They're not usually characters, so when they do reach assault, the plucky sergeant with the meltabomb can cause them great harm while they smash mooks in to the ground.

As an aside, tyranid monstrous creatures tend to be toughness 6, so they've no cause to be scared of a dreadnought. I would expect him to cause about 2 wounds and then get scrapped in short order. In fact, that's another thing that is a problem with walkers. As vehicles, they can be shaken, disarmed and exploded among other things. Monstrous creatures obviously can't.

 NoPoet wrote:
They seem to have numerous advantages over infantry and the rules seem to indicate that infantry supported by appropriately armed walkers would be a very effective partnership. Is it purely because of the vehicle damage rules that people don't like walkers? I can't see any other reasonpeople wouldn't take them.

Essentially they're MC's...but don't get armor saves, usually have crappier stats than MC's, have worse mobility than many MC's (no flying/jump/jet walkers), can be insta-killed or crippled through the damage table in ways MC's cannot, and usually are costed at similar prices to more effective MC's.

They combine all the fun of foot slogging infantry across the board with the exciting vehicle dmg table rules and they can't use the toe in cover rule.

What is not to like.

The best non SHV walker in the game I would say is the Eldar War Walker. 2 Heavy weapons of choice, can upgrade to make +3" run range, 5++ save with battle focus so I can Move shoot and then run behind something after shooting. If it does get hit it will fold like a lawn chair. with its AV 10 all around and open topness.

 Xerics wrote:
Make only penetrations remove a hull point and let glances roll on pen chart -3.

Just wanted to point out that this would effectively make Necron Triarch Stalkers immune to glances. Not that my Necrons would mind, but I don't really need another reason for people to complain about me being OP . I've always advocated for a rule stating that vehicles may only be destroyed by a penetrating hit, but vehicles reduced to 0 HP have AV of all sides reduced by -1 (Or maybe treat them as open-topped instead. +1 to damage chart or +2 if the vehicle was already open-topped).

 Xerics wrote:
The best non SHV walker in the game I would say is the Eldar War Walker. 2 Heavy weapons of choice, can upgrade to make +3" run range, 5++ save with battle focus so I can Move shoot and then run behind something after shooting. If it does get hit it will fold like a lawn chair. with its AV 10 all around and open topness.

Yes, the Eldar get the best infantry, jump infantry, jetpack infantry, bike, transport, monstrous creature, arguably flyer, and walker in the game.

We are aware.

Just waiting for them to come out with the eldar FMC, beast, and cavalry unit to dominate those unit types as well.

The vehicle rules make no sense when compared to the other rules in 40K. Infantry have clear rules about line of sight and movement. When infantry shoot, you roll above a target number directly related to your BS. You then roll to wound, again, directly comparing the strength of your weapon to the toughness of the target. Finally, the target may/may not get a save. If enough models are removed, you may have to take a leadership test.

Compare to vehicles- vehicles have unique movement rules that are totally different from infantry. They have their own unique line of sight rules, they have weapon arc restrictions, what they fire and how they fire both depend on how they moved. Cover is different for vehicles, and assault is different with vehicles. Finally, damage is totally different for vehicles. For infantry, it's roll to hit, roll to wound, take a save. For shooting at a vehicle, it's roll to hit. Then roll to wound- but it's a different roll to wound, compared to a Armor Value, and your roll is modified by certain other factors. If I equal or exceed that AV value of the vehicle, it loses a hull point. THEN you get to roll on the Armor Penetration table, which is modified by the AP value of your gun. That Armor Table can do nothing, or it can catastrophically blow up, not only destroying your vehicle, but infantry nearby as well. You can destroy a vehicle by removing all it's hull points without ever damaging the vehicle. Damage affects how a vehicle acts in the game and requires you to keep track of not only the damage, but how the damage effects the vehicle (unlike infantry, where you at most have to keep track of wounds).

The vehicle rules are a total disconnect from the rest of the game. Walkers occupy this weird area of kind of infantry, kind of a vehicle. It basically gets all the weaknesses of both, with no real advantages. Walker effectiveness is reduced as it takes damage, whereas a monstrous creature is 100% effective until it loses it's last wound. Consequently, walkers suffer greatly in this edition.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
The best non SHV walker in the game I would say is the Eldar War Walker. 2 Heavy weapons of choice, can upgrade to make +3" run range, 5++ save with battle focus so I can Move shoot and then run behind something after shooting. If it does get hit it will fold like a lawn chair. with its AV 10 all around and open topness.

Yes, the Eldar get the best infantry, jump infantry, jetpack infantry, bike, transport, monstrous creature, arguably flyer, and walker in the game.

We are aware.

Just waiting for them to come out with the eldar FMC, beast, and cavalry unit to dominate those unit types as well.

The thing I was getting at is that even though its the best non SHV walker in the game it still isn't used competitively.

Walkers are vehicles, and vehicles are terrible this edition thanks to the introduction of hull points and no saving throw.

Imagine what it would be like if MCs were T6-T10, immune to poison but had no saving throws, had a chance to die instantly and took extra damage from some weapon types. That is what vehicles are now.

In 4th Ed. vehicles (especially transports and their passengers) were a bit too vulnerable. So GW let the pendulum swing way too far and made them far too strong in 5th Ed. So to fix THAT they made them really weak again in 6th where they remain to this day. Tragically, there are still people waiting for GW to 'fix' things at some point.

Not sure why, exactly.

4th edition skimmers were godly though...

 Tarvitz77 wrote:

As an aside, tyranid monstrous creatures tend to be toughness 6, so they've no cause to be scared of a dreadnought. I would expect him to cause about 2 wounds and then get scrapped in short order. In fact, that's another thing that is a problem with walkers. As vehicles, they can be shaken, disarmed and exploded among other things. Monstrous creatures obviously can't.

I disagree, most TMCs have plenty of cause to be scared of dreadnoughts.
S5/6 isn't worth much vs AV12, and nothing vs the AV13 variants. Particularly given that most TMCs only have 3 attacks.
Smash gives them a single attack, usually with a 50% chance to miss (barring tyrants and trygons, all TMCs are WS3). If it hits and pens then, barring a lucky 6, you have dealt a hull point. Lets hope you also manage to hit it in the next two turns of combat...
Meanwhile the dread gets something like 4 attacks, hitting on 3+ and wounding on 2+. Tearing through the TMCs wounds.

The only ones that the dreadnought needs to worry about are carnifexes, due to their high strength, and haruspexes (which you will never see anyone take), due to armorbane.

GW fixed Walkers in how Superheavy Walkers work, which is closer to a monster yet still vehicle-like. They just failed to scale that down to fit regular Walkers (although the Skitarii Walkers seem to be "fixed"). Of course, some people hate how SHWs work, so there's that.

SJ

SHW are still crap compared to GMCs, though. Or even MCs, really. How many feths do your DKs give about melta weapons? Zero, that's how many.