So with the advent of the riptide, I've been kinda miffed about GWs "grey area" with the definitions of things. Specifically Monstrous Creatures. What do you think of when you think Monstrous Creature? Nids, Daemons, and Wraithguard? Or Dreadknight and Riptide?

Really? Why don't the dreadknight or riptide use walker rules?! It's a fething suit of ARMOUR that is PILOTED!!! It's not a writhing mass of organic (or in the case of daemons chaotic) flesh with little to no armour, its a suit of armour! They have 2+ (The tyrannofex has a 2+ too, but it's organic) 5++ with teleportation/jetpack, alongside some serious fire power! And they're... Monstrous creatures... Every other MC can be put down fairly reliably with krak missiles, as well as other anti MEQ weapons, but those 2 need anti tank weapons aimed at it just to negate the 2+, and then they still ignore a third of those as well. Why the are they not walkers? Why are dreadknoughts, penitence engines, scout sentinels, war walkers, soulgrinders, hellbrutes, triarch stalkers, deff dreads, and killa kans all walkers, but not the dreadknight and riptide??? Why does my dreadknought lose a weapon, when the riptide takes a wound that passes though it's feel no pain???

End rant

Why not?

Yeah, this has bugged me too since the GK codex was released.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kinratha wrote:
Why not?

Because there are rules for vehicles, and I'd expect things that are obviously vehicles to use those rules.

Just more sloppy game mechanic design. Realisticaly, they should have AV values, but since the advent of hulll points (another poor choice- they already have one vehicle damage tracking mechanic), they apparently wanted to make these big machines more resilient and so went with the MC angle (even though Defilers, daemon engines, are vehicles) since it can't be one shotted or whittled so easilly.

Because they'd have AV 14, 3 hull points and probably a void shield.
Plus it's too hard to determine armour facings with them

I would say that it is a single person with a suit as an extension of his/her body much like a larger terminator. A vehicle is many times crewed with multiple crew members and has no close combat ability. That seems to be the best course of logic, however, shouldn't they also extend a similar treatment to penitent engines and dreadnoughts then?

I wouldn't be surprised if Penitent Engines become MCs if and when the new Sisters codex comes out.

As for why, the Dreadknight and Riptide are really just a giant suit of armor. Not a vehicle proper. Thus it makes just as much sense to make them have a toughness value instead of an armor value.

They're a little too mobile to be a walker, which evokes something a little less agile.

I'm curious what distinction you draw between the wraithlord (wraithguard are just infantry) and the dreadknight. Both are technological constructs controlled by a single pilot, they just use vastly different technology bases.

I kind of like the idea of walkers representing less agile examples of mecha. It holds pretty universally true of the ones I can think of (dreadnoughts and their variants, defilers, kans, sentinels). I do however wonder if the prevalence of non-creature MCs lately has more to do with the fact that walkers are terrible in 6th and they are addressing this not by fixing the rules, but by reclassifying walkers as MCs.

Bludbaff wrote:
I'm curious what distinction you draw between the wraithlord (wraithguard are just infantry) and the dreadknight. Both are technological constructs controlled by a single pilot, they just use vastly different technology bases.

I kind of like the idea of walkers representing less agile examples of mecha. It holds pretty universally true of the ones I can think of (dreadnoughts and their variants, defilers, kans, sentinels). I do however wonder if the prevalence of non-creature MCs lately has more to do with the fact that walkers are terrible in 6th and they are addressing this not by fixing the rules, but by reclassifying walkers as MCs.

I doubt it. If there's one thing we can rely on GW for, it's consistency.

It could be that GW is taking the exposure of the pilot into consideration, although this doesn't quite explain the Riptide. But then it is just an upscaled battlesuit.

Ok, they are like vehicles.
Now look at the way they move and fight.
Not very walker like is it?

They are more of a blend of a MC and vehicle and i guess it was easier to design the rules using the MC as a base for them.
Rather than having to change too much with vehicle rules.

I think they realized that walkers are not too hot this edition and wanted to make it so they could make awesome expensive models and make them sellable. If they made dreadnoughts MCs i wouldnt mind one bit, although they would be susceptible to small arms fire, which is where the line is drawn with walkers and MCs

When Tau were originally released, in the notes published in WD they said that crisis and broadside suits were originally treated as vehicles, but with the number of suits tau could field, most armies heavy weapons were terribly overstretched, if you imagine they may originally have been AV11 for crisis suits, and 12 for broadsides, its not a terrible stretch of the imagination to believe that would have been exactly the case, so they made the decision to give them infantry stats.
given that Riptides are simply battlesuits, but larger, and very distinct from Tau vehicles (devilfish/hammerhead) i can see why they would want to keep them seperate, and have all battlesuits follow the same general pattern. It also means that as a monstrous creature they can follow most of the rules that crisis suits can, whereas if riptides were walkers, they would break a lot of the walker rules.
Being a MC also means that weapons that wont scratch a rhino can certainly kill it, but at the same time, its more durable against weapons that will one shot a rhino and leave a smoking crater. Its a tradeoff between immunity to the majority of weapons, and durability against the strongest weapons.

There is some sense to it, and when you look at it, biological and mechanical MCs have somewhat different statlines.

The mechanical ones tend to have fewer wounds, lower toughness, but better armour and invulns. Truth be told, I have no issue with the riptide being a MC, it makes sense given the precedent of battlesuits being heavy infantry, and the riptide's just a bigger one. Wraithlords, again, make sense as MCs. The only one I dislike is the Dreadknight, because it's a stupid model, I'd rather it just not exist.

As I've said before, this is the artefact of 40K having completely different rules for vehicles and non vehicles. It is my dream that in some future edition they fix this somehow, making the rules work in more similar manner for both.

The answer is quite simple. It allows the SM players to have MC now.

SM have to have what everyone else has. So that is why GK and now Tau have them so SM can have them through allies. I am sure when SM codex comes out, they will have a MC for themselves.

First it was, everyone moves 6", because heaven forbid, SM move 4" per turn. Then it was, Fleet. Heaven forbid SM don't get to have fleet for free. Then it was free grenades and not be able to think to pick either krak or frags. Then it's overwatch. Heaven forbid SM need to have it easier in Assault.

Now it's MC. What else are SM missing? MC.

So I'm guessing, OP, you don't like Tomb Spiders either. They are mechanical AND a Monstrous creature.

To be honest, they should probably ditch the Walker mechanic completely at this point and make all such models into Monsterous or Gargantuan Creatires depending. The idea for the walker mechanic was pretty much a vehicle that fights like models, but the result was a model that dies like a vehicle.

The MC mechanic suits the 'cinematic' and 'narrative' style of agile bipeds and multipeds that can run, shoot and fight.

Davor wrote:
The answer is quite simple. It allows the SM players to have MC now.

SM have to have what everyone else has. So that is why GK and now Tau have them so SM can have them through allies. I am sure when SM codex comes out, they will have a MC for themselves.

First it was, everyone moves 6", because heaven forbid, SM move 4" per turn. Then it was, Fleet. Heaven forbid SM don't get to have fleet for free. Then it was free grenades and not be able to think to pick either krak or frags. Then it's overwatch. Heaven forbid SM need to have it easier in Assault.

Now it's MC. What else are SM missing? MC.

I started in 4th so maybe I don't understand what you're saying but this is completely left field to me. Fleet for free? Who pays for it? Grenades are standard for a lot of armies, GK went overboard IMHO. Overwatch? How is overwatch skewed to marines? If I'm missing the point, which is quite possible, please tell me because right now I feel like your post was just a rant. (By the by, xenos seem to be doing incredibly well right now. Daemons and Nids are kicking butt in non-fw games. At least from what games I've seen. In the Northeast USA area.)

To the OP: I agree with jmurph. If these things were vehicles they would never get taken unless they had av13-14 and at least 3hps and some nifty extra save. I don't really mind though. MCs have their own weaknesses and no MC seems too ott to me right now.

Edit: jeffar, I like that idea but I feel like it needs serious play testing to find a happy medium.
K/S

Ever since GK got their MC I've been super annoyed about it, the model is the same style to the Penitent Engine with an exposed pilot strapped into a walker, only mine are easier to kill than Killa Kans.

All I can say is I look forward to my SoB update and fielding 3-strong units of penitent engine monstrous creatures.

Killingspree wrote:

Davor wrote:
The answer is quite simple. It allows the SM players to have MC now.

SM have to have what everyone else has. So that is why GK and now Tau have them so SM can have them through allies. I am sure when SM codex comes out, they will have a MC for themselves.

First it was, everyone moves 6", because heaven forbid, SM move 4" per turn. Then it was, Fleet. Heaven forbid SM don't get to have fleet for free. Then it was free grenades and not be able to think to pick either krak or frags. Then it's overwatch. Heaven forbid SM need to have it easier in Assault.

Now it's MC. What else are SM missing? MC.

I started in 4th so maybe I don't understand what you're saying but this is completely left field to me. Fleet for free? Who pays for it? Grenades are standard for a lot of armies, GK went overboard IMHO. Overwatch? How is overwatch skewed to marines? If I'm missing the point, which is quite possible, please tell me because right now I feel like your post was just a rant. (By the by, xenos seem to be doing incredibly well right now. Daemons and Nids are kicking butt in non-fw games. At least from what games I've seen. In the Northeast USA area.)

To the OP: I agree with jmurph. If these things were vehicles they would never get taken unless they had av13-14 and at least 3hps and some nifty extra save. I don't really mind though. MCs have their own weaknesses and no MC seems too ott to me right now.


K/S

Yeah it was a rant but I thought it had a point because SM has to have what everyone else had that made them unique. In Rouge Trader, everyone had movement stats. Guess what taken away because it made SM too slow. Now they get a 2" boost for free. Ok haven't been around for 2nd edition, but think it holds water. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So in 3rd edition, SM had to choose before the game to use either Krak or Frag grenades, and HAD to PAY for them. I forget what happened in 4th. In 5th edition, they get them for FREE and SM did not have to think about what to take. So again, it was easier to play SM. In 4th edition Tyranids and Eldar got Fleet, but had to pay for it. Instead of firing, they get to run. So in 5th edition, SM could fleet or "run" for free, which Eldar and Tyranids had to pay for while SM got it for free. Well everyone got it for free, but for Tyranids, and Eldar got rules that they couldn't use while others got them that made them unique.

Now in 6th, CC got weaker, shooty armies got stronger. Just saying it's easier to play SM that is all. So while it was a rant, I ment to say, SM keeps getting things that made other armies unique, which are not unique anymore. So SM having MC is just another nail in the coffin making other armies not unique anymore.

A reason not to play SM is to play something unique. Thing is that uniqueness is being taken away. So basically the unique armies will just look like SM in 5 or 10 years from now. Just look as I said, 20 years ago, everyone had movement stats. A lot of armies were faster than SM. Now everyone is the same speed as SM. No uniqueness there now. So now SM having MC (for now using allies with GK or Tau) is another less unique feature about playing a different army.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Penitent Engines become MCs if and when the new Sisters codex comes out.

As for why, the Dreadknight and Riptide are really just a giant suit of armor. Not a vehicle proper.

Considering the pilot on the Riptide could fit inside a single thigh, I'd say this is a wee bit off. That's not armor, that's a piloted vehicle. There's no way something like a Riptide or Dreadknight are just "big armor". That's Terminator armor. Crisis suits push that distinction, anything larger and the distinction between them really disappears.




The problem that I see is that Walkers are generally rather poor, while MC's generally are superior in just about every way (especially against any of the weapons that can hurt a vehicle) except being able to be hurt by small arms fire in very rare circumstances, and the justifications between the two different types are apparently completely random. A Wraithlord is a machine possessed of a Soul and is a Monstrous Creature, while a Defiler or Forgefiend practically identical except that the "soul" is a Daemonic entity, but they are Walkers. A Sentinel is a robotic walking machine with a pilot and it's a Walker, while a Riptide is a robot walking machine with a pilot and is a Monstrous Creature...

The addition of Hull Points as another vehicle kill mechanic narrow the distinction between the two in the worst way, largely by making Walkers simply far easier killed Monstrous Creatures.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Penitent Engines become MCs if and when the new Sisters codex comes out.

As for why, the Dreadknight and Riptide are really just a giant suit of armor. Not a vehicle proper.

Considering the pilot on the Riptide could fit inside a single thigh, I'd say this is a wee bit off. That's not armor, that's a piloted vehicle. There's no way something like a Riptide or Dreadknight are just "big armor". That's Terminator armor. Crisis suits push that distinction, anything larger and the distinction between them really disappears.




The problem that I see is that Walkers are generally rather poor, while MC's generally are superior in just about every way (especially against any of the weapons that can hurt a vehicle) except being able to be hurt by small arms fire in very rare circumstances, and the justifications between the two different types are apparently completely random. A Wraithlord is a machine possessed of a Soul and is a Monstrous Creature, while a Defiler or Forgefiend practically identical except that the "soul" is a Daemonic entity, but they are Walkers. A Sentinel is a robotic walking machine with a pilot and it's a Walker, while a Riptide is a robot walking machine with a pilot and is a Monstrous Creature...

The addition of Hull Points as another vehicle kill mechanic narrow the distinction between the two in the worst way, largely by making Walkers simply far easier killed Monstrous Creatures.

I can live with defilers and souls grinders being walkers due to their massive sizes, but even the riptide is really pushing the envelope when it comes to that distinction. Dont get me wrong, i love that it is a MC, but from a rules standpoint it really does not belong. I think if models like sentinels counted as MCs people would actually play them......but there would be no reason for a fragile walker to ever be able to "smash," and if they ever did do that i would hope that it would get that taken away. Because im pretty sure if that chicken tried to kick anyone it would probably fall over.

What I still don't get is why some of these monstrous creatures are still so vulnerable to poison and similar biological effects. Canoptek Spiders, Wraithlords, and to some extent Riptides and Dreadknights. If they're so keen on making the game more 'cinematic' then why are giant mechanical monsters now getting killed by Space Anthrax?

 generalchaos34 wrote:

I can live with defilers and souls grinders being walkers due to their massive sizes, but even the riptide is really pushing the envelope when it comes to that distinction. Dont get me wrong, i love that it is a MC, but from a rules standpoint it really does not belong. I think if models like sentinels counted as MCs people would actually play them......but there would be no reason for a fragile walker to ever be able to "smash," and if they ever did do that i would hope that it would get that taken away. Because im pretty sure if that chicken tried to kick anyone it would probably fall over.

Maybe what GW probably should do in the next edition is redefine the Walker unit type by making it similar to an MC with wounds and toughness values, and give them an immunity to Poison and remove Smash / HoW / Fear. Having armour facings on highly mobile units like walkers is a bit silly - most can physically turn to shoot a totally different way to where their legs are taking them anyway. After the sweeping changes to vehicles this edition I don't think it's unfeasible to reclassify a few units next time around.

Because Poison in 40k =/= to actual biological toxins. It also includes highly corrosive acids and other things that can just as easily rend metal and flesh.

The Riptide just exposes a huge flaw in 40K's base rules:

"I'z a vehikle!!! WAAAAGH!"
"Me too, xenos scum!"

"I'm not a vehicle, in accordance with the Greater Good!"
"Neither am I! For the Emperor!

All walkers should have a T value and wounds rather than an AV.

The Dreadknight and Riptide are worn, as opposed to being piloted.

 Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:
The Dreadknight and Riptide are worn, as opposed to being piloted.

That is a dubious distinction to made, not to mention absurd one. By this logic if we chop of arms and legs of the Riptide pilot and hook his nervous system to the control mechanism, Riptide suddenly becomes a dreadnought and its rules utterly change. How the hell can a thing like this radically affect to what kind of weapons the giant robot is vulnerable to?

The Wraithlord set the precedent back in 3rd edition. And yes, the reason they gave was exactly 'we wanted it to be more resilient than a regular Dreadnaught'. So it's a bit hard to claim they're doing it now because of Hull Points. Monstrous Creatures have always been more resilient than vehicles due to the inability to one shot them with regular anti tank weapons and the inability to blow weapons off/immobilise them/stunlock them, though at the expense of being vulnerable to small arms fire.

And GW have used this, albeit only once, before 5th edition on a mechanical model purely because they wanted it to be more resilient.

It's not a new thing, it's just becoming more common.

 Crimson wrote:

 Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:
The Dreadknight and Riptide are worn, as opposed to being piloted.

That is a dubious distinction to made, not to mention absurd one. By this logic if we chop of arms and legs of the Riptide pilot and hook his nervous system to the control mechanism, Riptide suddenly becomes a dreadnought and its rules utterly change. How the hell can a thing like this radically affect to what kind of weapons the giant robot is vulnerable to?

You could argue the Riptide isn't worn, but the Dreadknight is just an extension of regular terminator armor.

 Grey Templar wrote:

You could argue the Riptide isn't worn, but the Dreadknight is just an extension of regular terminator armor.

And I could argue that my Renault Clio is just extension of my boots, making me a pedestrian while I drive it.

I understand its frustrating that some walkers use walker rules, and others use MC rules, but I think they should just make all walkers MCs. IMO it fits the concept of a Walker better to be more durable like MCs.

Might even make Walkers (meaning Dreadnaughts) relevant again. To be honest the only really effective Dread I've come across in the past few years has been Rifleman varients. And is that all we want Walkers to be? Slightly mobile turrets? Every other Dread type I've come up against usually just amounts to a suicide unit, they drop in, maybe flame or melt something, and then get popped right away. Not exactly the fear-inducing armored 'Dreadnaught' marine players wish they were.

The Walker rules don't work (as currently written), the MC rules do. IMO the real problem is they are fixing some of them (Riptides, Dreadknights), but haven't fixed others (Dreadnaughts).

dreadknights are a bad way to argue this, since the concept of their model is a tiny bit silly just like the penitent engine (and by that i mean, why is the pilot exposed?) Im going to run on the idea that walkers having facings is a bit silly, because of their size and their ambiguity in sides. Dreadnoughts just happen to be boxy enough to have easily defined "sides". I almost think when they built the dreadknight they thought....crap, how are we going to do side armor on this thing?" which im sure also happened with the wraithlord waaay back in the day. I actually hope they do away with walkers or at least give them more distinct advantages. The MC rule really lends well to large, tough, and mobile things that can carry large weapons and are not limited by terrain like a tracked vehicle would be. Plus the make awesome models, sorry little dreadnought.

Davor wrote:

Killingspree wrote:

Davor wrote:
The answer is quite simple. It allows the SM players to have MC now.

SM have to have what everyone else has. So that is why GK and now Tau have them so SM can have them through allies. I am sure when SM codex comes out, they will have a MC for themselves.

First it was, everyone moves 6", because heaven forbid, SM move 4" per turn. Then it was, Fleet. Heaven forbid SM don't get to have fleet for free. Then it was free grenades and not be able to think to pick either krak or frags. Then it's overwatch. Heaven forbid SM need to have it easier in Assault.

Now it's MC. What else are SM missing? MC.

I started in 4th so maybe I don't understand what you're saying but this is completely left field to me. Fleet for free? Who pays for it? Grenades are standard for a lot of armies, GK went overboard IMHO. Overwatch? How is overwatch skewed to marines? If I'm missing the point, which is quite possible, please tell me because right now I feel like your post was just a rant. (By the by, xenos seem to be doing incredibly well right now. Daemons and Nids are kicking butt in non-fw games. At least from what games I've seen. In the Northeast USA area.)

To the OP: I agree with jmurph. If these things were vehicles they would never get taken unless they had av13-14 and at least 3hps and some nifty extra save. I don't really mind though. MCs have their own weaknesses and no MC seems too ott to me right now.


K/S

Yeah it was a rant but I thought it had a point because SM has to have what everyone else had that made them unique. In Rouge Trader, everyone had movement stats. Guess what taken away because it made SM too slow. Now they get a 2" boost for free. Ok haven't been around for 2nd edition, but think it holds water. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So in 3rd edition, SM had to choose before the game to use either Krak or Frag grenades, and HAD to PAY for them. I forget what happened in 4th. In 5th edition, they get them for FREE and SM did not have to think about what to take. So again, it was easier to play SM. In 4th edition Tyranids and Eldar got Fleet, but had to pay for it. Instead of firing, they get to run. So in 5th edition, SM could fleet or "run" for free, which Eldar and Tyranids had to pay for while SM got it for free. Well everyone got it for free, but for Tyranids, and Eldar got rules that they couldn't use while others got them that made them unique.

Now in 6th, CC got weaker, shooty armies got stronger. Just saying it's easier to play SM that is all. So while it was a rant, I ment to say, SM keeps getting things that made other armies unique, which are not unique anymore. So SM having MC is just another nail in the coffin making other armies not unique anymore.

A reason not to play SM is to play something unique. Thing is that uniqueness is being taken away. So basically the unique armies will just look like SM in 5 or 10 years from now. Just look as I said, 20 years ago, everyone had movement stats. A lot of armies were faster than SM. Now everyone is the same speed as SM. No uniqueness there now. So now SM having MC (for now using allies with GK or Tau) is another less unique feature about playing a different army.

I think you are over obsessing about SM. The infantry movement rate is not the only thing that determines how fast an army moves. As far as uniqueness goes, well there are myriad ways to make different armies but players tend to gravitate to only a small portion of units that they think are the best. With allies, people cherry pick the best units so allies in a strange way also makes armies more similar if nearly every one is running an IG squad and a vendetta.

I think maybe you are taking things too seriously.

You said it yourself.

 Aleph-Sama wrote:
its a suit of armour! They have 2+

Not a vehicle.

Terminators are suits of armour. Space marines are suits of armour. Aspect warriors are suits of armour.

Vehicles are vehicles.

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, this has bugged me too since the GK codex was released.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kinratha wrote:
Why not?

Because there are rules for vehicles, and I'd expect things that are obviously vehicles to use those rules.

Tau suits have always behaved unlike walkers in the fluff. They aren't so much piloted as they are worn by the person inside. IT connects to the nervous system and the pilot percieves and operates via the suit rather than themselves.It makes decent sense to rule it as an MC for fluff, and it makes it tough enough to warrant a single suit per slot in the force org unlike the broadsides.

Point of order: The Wraithlord is a mechanical MC and essentially has been since 3rd. It was a vehicle in 2nd.

In short, mechanical MC's have been around since before MC was a unit type.

The Riptide and Dreadknight move and operate more like giant warriors rather than lumbering metal coffins that can barely move without toppling over.

 davou wrote:
Tau suits have always behaved unlike walkers in the fluff. They aren't so much piloted as they are worn by the person inside. IT connects to the nervous system and the pilot percieves and operates via the suit rather than themselves.It makes decent sense to rule it as an MC for fluff, and it makes it tough enough to warrant a single suit per slot in the force org unlike the broadsides.

Space Marine dreadnaughts are piloted in exactly this fashion. They have to be due to the fact that the piloting Space Marine might be missing both legs, an arm and half of his head. Kind of hard to operate something like a dreadnaught without that kind of interface.

In short, your logic says Space Marine Dreadnaughts should be Monstrous Creatures, and should have been ever since 3rd edition.

What is treated as an MC strictly comes down to how they want it to play in game, not based on fluff.

Just by looking at the models, it's the level of sophistication that matters. A Wraithlord, DK, or Riptide are all very sleek, agile, mobile large constructs.

A Deff Dredd, Killa Kan, Dreadnaught are all stubby, gear/actuator driven "low" tech. The focus more on the 'eavy metal aspect versus heightened design and power that are the other similar items.

The definition of Walker vs. MC is made up what GW hopes to achieve with the model. It's a rules function. I'd love to see all walkers become MCs, honestly, but I don't think that'll happen.

 -Loki- wrote:


Space Marine dreadnaughts are piloted in exactly this fashion.

They also carry 9 of their 11 tons of mass above the waist; They don't strike me as being an easy analogue for a pilot to control as an extension of his own body, and even if the pilot could easily slip into its walker as if it were his body, it wouldn't be much maneuverable.

If you wanna ignore fluff, then why would GW make a giant robot kit for tau, and then give it gakky walker rules? as they did it; they can peddle 3 of these to the same person and they're happy about it.

In theory MCs are more resilient than Walkers.

In practice I've never, ever seen bolter fire kill a Walker (something bigger than a Sentinel) but I've lost dozens of MCs to bolter - and lasgun - fire.

I've seen Kanz, Deffdreads and SM Dreads die to bolter fire or it's equivalent plenty of times. Shooting them from behind works...

YMMV of course.

Lasgun fire just bounces off them though I've lost my Taloi/Cronoi far too many times to small arms fire..

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All walkers should have a T value and wounds rather than an AV.

I disagree. 40K is clearly designed to only have Toughness and Wounds for living, biological things. Like Necrons.

Er...





Having said that, frankly the different system for vehicle armour has always bugged me. I would rather see everything just use Toughness and Wounds, and stick with the one system. Vehicles could still have a damge roll when they lose a wound, but the actual attacking process would be universal for everything.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:
The Dreadknight and Riptide are worn, as opposed to being piloted.

That is a dubious distinction to made, not to mention absurd one. By this logic if we chop of arms and legs of the Riptide pilot and hook his nervous system to the control mechanism, Riptide suddenly becomes a dreadnought and its rules utterly change. How the hell can a thing like this radically affect to what kind of weapons the giant robot is vulnerable to?

You could argue the Riptide isn't worn, but the Dreadknight is just an extension of regular terminator armor.

Not really, especially considering the pilot is *outside* the main body of the vehicle, all he's got around him is a harness to keep him in the damn thing, nothing about it is actually *armoring* him, except maybe the chestplate on the harness at best. The Grey Knight has control sticks and pedals, it is clearly a piloted vehicle.

 insaniak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All walkers should have a T value and wounds rather than an AV.

I disagree. 40K is clearly designed to only have Toughness and Wounds for living, biological things. Like Necrons.

Er...





Having said that, frankly the different system for vehicle armour has always bugged me. I would rather see everything just use Toughness and Wounds, and stick with the one system. Vehicles could still have a damge roll when they lose a wound, but the actual attacking process would be universal for everything.

With the addition of HP's it's effectively where we're at, only Vehicles don't get armor or invul (in 99% of cases anyway) saves and are practically auto-killed in CC.


Every other game system out there manages to handle this sort of thing better than 40k does, it routinely boggles me why GW just so often mangles these things.

rigeld2 wrote:
In theory MCs are more resilient than Walkers.

In practice I've never, ever seen bolter fire kill a Walker (something bigger than a Sentinel) but I've lost dozens of MCs to bolter - and lasgun - fire.

To be fair, its impossible to lose a Wraithlord to bolters or lasguns. And dreadknights can die to it but its very unlikely. It takes 216 bolter or lasgun rounds to fell a Dreadknight on average.

There is some logic to what GW tried to do in separating vehicles and other models rules wise and things like the damage table are both cinematic and realistic. The problem is that it really breaks down for the Walker category because they tried to make vehicles that fight like regular models. It would have been easier and simpler to just make them regular models (ie Monstrous Creatures) instead.

We've seen a few steps in this direction lately. Artillery is no longer a vehicle and a number of should be vehicles are now monstrous creatures. Artillery should probably go back to being vehicles IMHO though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Poison in 40k =/= to actual biological toxins. It also includes highly corrosive acids and other things that can just as easily rend metal and flesh.

But by that logic it should be affecting Land Raiders and Baneblades also. I guess we have to assume that poison weapons work like acid blood from Alien, and tanks are made out of the only substance it doesn't burn through. But they ran out of it before they got around to building these new-fangled Dreadknights.
That should be a sufficiently 'cinematic' explanation.

Reading Mechanicum at the moment and one of the main characters is frequently described as experiencing his Warlord Titan as an extension of his own body, Monstrous Creature because it's a suit?

Walker and MC rules are a cluster**** to be sure

Who cares.

Just house-rule the Riptide into a Walker or the Dreads into MC's or the Dreadknight to poison-immunity as you see fit?

The beauty of (still?) having those different rules for Walkers, MCs, etc.. is that you can use em as you see fit.

Dreadknight is a Monstrous Creature, Forgefiend is a vehicle.
You can't explain this.

 insaniak wrote:

Having said that, frankly the different system for vehicle armour has always bugged me. I would rather see everything just use Toughness and Wounds, and stick with the one system. Vehicles could still have a damge roll when they lose a wound, but the actual attacking process would be universal for everything.

Agreed. I think the biggest reason why it isn't like this already, is that to change it they'd need to invalidate all the existing codices, and they don't want to do that. They haven't done that since the release of 3rd edition.

Jefffar wrote:
There is some logic to what GW tried to do in separating vehicles and other models rules wise and things like the damage table are both cinematic and realistic. The problem is that it really breaks down for the Walker category because they tried to make vehicles that fight like regular models. It would have been easier and simpler to just make them regular models (ie Monstrous Creatures) instead.

I don't think separation between regular Vehicles/tanks/monstrous creatures is problematic as long as there is consistency in modelling the fiction and each unit types still have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Problem is that some Monstrous creatures perform in traditional vehicle roles, without traditional vehicle weaknesses. This "breaks" the fiction.

There are two criteria in how an unit is modelled in-game: internal and external. 'Internal' means how the unit is described within the fiction of the game universe (in historical games it's the real world history), 'external' means how the unit is balanced in points, organization etc so it will be balanced against other units. Ideally, game is modelled 'internally' so well that the units are also perfect 'externally' without needing of superfluous 'extermal' balancing, this is of course generally never achieved but it's something should be aspired to.

Within the game fiction, vehicles for example are supposed to have number of inherent advantages and disadvantages: they can carry really powerful weapons and powerplant packs, giving them firepower and mobility superior to foot units. They can carry armour which wholly protects them from certain weapons which would kill the crew inside if they were unprotected. Down side is that all that power packed in small space makes their insides highly vulnerable. Shooting one guy from infantry squad isn't probably going to cause him to blow up and kill the whole squad, but single penetrating hit can easily blow up entire vehicle. Then there is also consideration of operating in difficult terrain where agile footmen are more flexible, etc. Walkers and Monstrous Creatures are supposed to fit within that framework, making different tradeoffs for different abilities and weaknesses. Walking or flying is less energy-efficient than driving or floating, also standing creature or vehicle is less ideal from armouring standpoint than regular vehicle. (Admittably, for example Tyranid MC's tend to already break this fiction, but Tyranids have no vehicles so we let that fly on external balancing).

If you look at for example Space Marines army, they are generally pretty well modelled from internal viewpoint. Tactical Marine-Terminator-Dreadnought-Predator, each of those units offer a different set of tradeoffs which perfectly fit how those units perform within the fiction. Problem comes when you start to add Monstrous creatures to vehicle armies, especially Monstrous creatures which have vehicle strengths without their weaknesses. Most notably, Wraithord, Dreadknight and Riptide. Dreadknight for example can take Heavy weapons just like a Walker, but without Walker weaknesses. Only difference is that it can't take exact same weapons than Dreadnought, but no reason is given and there doesn't seem to be any. Why can't you have Psyrifleman Dreadknight? It would be real powerful, why don't GK use it? Immediate explanation is that it would be too powerful, but this is an external explanation. Game should be primarily designed from internal viewpoint.

Riptide is even worse. If you compare Riptide to Hammerhead w/ Ion cannon, then Riptide is better in every aspect. It's main gun is same but more powerful, it's secondary weapon capability is similar or better, it's mobility is better, it is much tougher against nearly all threats save some rare niche ones (mass Poison/Lasgun fire, Force weapons). No internal explanation is provided why Riptide is so much more capable. Why does Tau even have Hammerhead? Why not just take Riptides for Heavy Support too and dispense whole tank concept? Why doesn't Riptide wield Railgun? No reason why it shouldn't. Well, again explanations are that then nobody would play Hammerhead, or that Hammerhead is cheaper in points. But these are external explanations. There should be internal explanations too, but there aren't any.

This is why units like Riptide and Dreadknight are poor game design.

Both units might be a 'fudge' in the game design of 40k but GW obviosuly feels that these units require the MC status, regardless of what we think...

arguably it makes a mess of the rule set to an extent, but then there are a few issues that arise, the riptide (and all Tau suits for that matter) ever so slightly fubar the rules as they could be classed as walkers or vehicles (as was mentioned..) so it had to be one or the other, on that GW have been consistent. It might be a little 'wtf' with the riptide but it is consistent with the battlesuits, and partly allows the space for vehicles as it is an elite choice, GW saw that one coming and dealt with it accordingly.

just my humble opinion

Another reason why it's probably not a vehicle is that they wanted a sexy giant robot; one that'd never get a cover save. Without making it FA13 or FA14, that thing would get popped turn one EVERY GAME.

I'm not seeing the issue. Monstrous creature is a mechanics term, not a fluff description. They don't overlap nor do they need to.

 Griddlelol wrote:
I'm not seeing the issue. Monstrous creature is a mechanics term, not a fluff description. They don't overlap nor do they need to.

It's an issue, because it results to units and mechanisms which violate the fluff.

Functionally most walker vehicles are essentially T8-T10 MCs anyway with a separate damage chart and 3 wounds. You wound a Dread with Str 10 on a 2+, with just the additional benefit of being able to strip additional wounds. What's the big huff?

Just because they are called 'vehicles' or have an armour value doesn't detract from the fact they still function in essentially the same way.

Well a S10 weapon can't one shot a MC to start with, and an MC can still take a 2+ armor save, granted it's not AP2/AP1.
And walkers can be immobilized, can be stunned and shakened etc...

And most of those mechanical ish MCs all have an invul of somesort for some reason whilst none of the Walkers I recall really have a Invul save, except the guys that are Daemons and that's because of the Daemon rule.

Poison also doesn't work on walkers which is a big plus for them.

Functions similarly but not always true. Really depends on the situation.



I'd rather have my Maulerfiends and Forgefiends to be MCs instead and it makes sense since they living mechanical monsters.
Think of how hard it would be to kill a T8-10 5+ invul 3 wounds, It will not die, swooping only heldrake.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Functionally most walker vehicles are essentially T8-T10 MCs anyway with a separate damage chart and 3 wounds. You wound a Dread with Str 10 on a 2+, with just the additional benefit of being able to strip additional wounds. What's the big huff?

Just because they are called 'vehicles' or have an armour value doesn't detract from the fact they still function in essentially the same way.

No they don't. AV12 walker getting targeted by massed S8 missile fire will likely be destroyed or at least severely damaged. Dreadknight and Riptide, by contrast, are nearly immune to that. Against Lascannon fire, three direct hits from Lascannon will likely either destroy or at least signifantly reduce combat capability of a walker. By contrast, similar Monstrous creature can operate with no reduction whatsoever to their combat capability. It's a huge difference.

They shouldn't be classed as MCs. They're not creatures like a carnifex. They should make a new class like monstrous suits. Riptides and dredknights are suits not creatures

 xttz wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Poison in 40k =/= to actual biological toxins. It also includes highly corrosive acids and other things that can just as easily rend metal and flesh.

But by that logic it should be affecting Land Raiders and Baneblades also. I guess we have to assume that poison weapons work like acid blood from Alien, and tanks are made out of the only substance it doesn't burn through. But they ran out of it before they got around to building these new-fangled Dreadknights.
That should be a sufficiently 'cinematic' explanation.

Or maybe a vehicle's hull is thicker than the armor on a dreadknight or riptide and so isn't effected fast enough to matter for the battle.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Poison in 40k =/= to actual biological toxins. It also includes highly corrosive acids and other things that can just as easily rend metal and flesh.

But by that logic it should be affecting Land Raiders and Baneblades also. I guess we have to assume that poison weapons work like acid blood from Alien, and tanks are made out of the only substance it doesn't burn through. But they ran out of it before they got around to building these new-fangled Dreadknights.
That should be a sufficiently 'cinematic' explanation.

Or maybe a vehicle's hull is thicker than the armor on a dreadknight or riptide and so isn't effected fast enough to matter for the battle.

It's probably because the dreadknight has a dude dangling outside of it's armor...

And Tau probably doesn't have that technology for suits yet.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Functionally most walker vehicles are essentially T8-T10 MCs anyway with a separate damage chart and 3 wounds. You wound a Dread with Str 10 on a 2+, with just the additional benefit of being able to strip additional wounds. What's the big huff?

They don't get saves (at least not armor ever and invuls only very rarely), can be insta-killed or crippled (lose weapons, become immobilized, etc) by any "to-wound" roll that exceeds the minimum required to hurt them, none of which apply to Monstrous Creatures, and Walkers typically have a range of AV depending on facing, MC's are the same resilience no matter what direction you shoot them from.

Just because they are called 'vehicles' or have an armour value doesn't detract from the fact they still function in essentially the same way.

Purely from a "to hit-to wound' aspect, after that, the Walkers are markedly inferior in almost every way.

Backfire wrote:
Riptide is even worse. If you compare Riptide to Hammerhead w/ Ion cannon, then Riptide is better in every aspect. It's main gun is same but more powerful, it's secondary weapon capability is similar or better, it's mobility is better, it is much tougher against nearly all threats save some rare niche ones (mass Poison/Lasgun fire, Force weapons). No internal explanation is provided why Riptide is so much more capable. Why does Tau even have Hammerhead? Why not just take Riptides for Heavy Support too and dispense whole tank concept? Why doesn't Riptide wield Railgun? No reason why it shouldn't. Well, again explanations are that then nobody would play Hammerhead, or that Hammerhead is cheaper in points. But these are external explanations. There should be internal explanations too, but there aren't any.

There are internal explanations, though. The Riptide is a rare experimental prototype that is in many respects dangerous for the pilot. Many of its capabilities are unreliable. For instance, its movement, while theoretically faster than that of a Hammerhead, is actually quite random. In order to operate at full power, it risks damaging itself. Further, just as there are many advantages provided by the Riptide's unit type, there are many disadvantages as well. A Hammerhead can't be locked in assault by Conscripts or Gretchin, for instance.

Overall, the Hammerhead and Riptide are very distinct in terms of capabilities. The Hammerhead is a frontline tank with good mobility, weapons, and armor. It also has a wide suite of available upgrades, including the disruption pod, which grants a reliable 4+ save regardless of position. The Riptide is an experimental "ultimate unit" with good (but unreliable) mobility, great (but unreliable) weapons, and great (but unreliable) defenses.

Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

the riptide are the same as any other battle suit. your plugged into the suit.(think like matrix, ghost in the shell or evangelion)

if you read fire warrior. it talks about how the commander shot his battle suit's lag off during training and when he got out of the suit he couldn't walk for a week, due to the lag.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Riptide just exposes a huge flaw in 40K's base rules:

"I'z a vehikle!!! WAAAAGH!"
"Me too, xenos scum!"

"I'm not a vehicle, in accordance with the Greater Good!"
"Neither am I! For the Emperor!

All walkers should have a T value and wounds rather than an AV.

I'm Kronk and I approve the underlined message above.

 Kingsley wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Riptide is even worse. If you compare Riptide to Hammerhead w/ Ion cannon, then Riptide is better in every aspect. It's main gun is same but more powerful, it's secondary weapon capability is similar or better, it's mobility is better, it is much tougher against nearly all threats save some rare niche ones (mass Poison/Lasgun fire, Force weapons). No internal explanation is provided why Riptide is so much more capable. Why does Tau even have Hammerhead? Why not just take Riptides for Heavy Support too and dispense whole tank concept? Why doesn't Riptide wield Railgun? No reason why it shouldn't. Well, again explanations are that then nobody would play Hammerhead, or that Hammerhead is cheaper in points. But these are external explanations. There should be internal explanations too, but there aren't any.

There are internal explanations, though. The Riptide is a rare experimental prototype that is in many respects dangerous for the pilot. Many of its capabilities are unreliable. For instance, its movement, while theoretically faster than that of a Hammerhead, is actually quite random. In order to operate at full power, it risks damaging itself. Further, just as there are many advantages provided by the Riptide's unit type, there are many disadvantages as well. A Hammerhead can't be locked in assault by Conscripts or Gretchin, for instance.

Overall, the Hammerhead and Riptide are very distinct in terms of capabilities. The Hammerhead is a frontline tank with good mobility, weapons, and armor. It also has a wide suite of available upgrades, including the disruption pod, which grants a reliable 4+ save regardless of position. The Riptide is an experimental "ultimate unit" with good (but unreliable) mobility, great (but unreliable) weapons, and great (but unreliable) defenses.

But these are all really crappy reasons. Why they didn't put that experimental reactor to a tank? I mean, challenging things like cooling, radiation shielding etc. should be much easier in a tank which has lots more internal space than a Battlesuit. And Riptide is equal or better in all the respects you list for Hammerhead, so what is that different role you mention, other than seemingly totally artificial ones, like different FOC slot or inability to take Railgun?

 Kingsley wrote:

Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

Why not? People play tanks which can be killed by Meltaguns too.
And see, I was and am supportive of separate unit classes. Problem comes when they start giving obvious capabilities of one class to another. If Tactical Marines gain Relentless and ability to move 12" in one turn, that would probably cause some complaints as well.

Backfire wrote:

There are internal explanations, though. The Riptide is a rare experimental prototype that is in many respects dangerous for the pilot. Many of its capabilities are unreliable. For instance, its movement, while theoretically faster than that of a Hammerhead, is actually quite random. In order to operate at full power, it risks damaging itself. Further, just as there are many advantages provided by the Riptide's unit type, there are many disadvantages as well. A Hammerhead can't be locked in assault by Conscripts or Gretchin, for instance.

Overall, the Hammerhead and Riptide are very distinct in terms of capabilities. The Hammerhead is a frontline tank with good mobility, weapons, and armor. It also has a wide suite of available upgrades, including the disruption pod, which grants a reliable 4+ save regardless of position. The Riptide is an experimental "ultimate unit" with good (but unreliable) mobility, great (but unreliable) weapons, and great (but unreliable) defenses.

But these are all really crappy reasons. Why they didn't put that experimental reactor to a tank? I mean, challenging things like cooling, radiation shielding etc. should be much easier in a tank which has lots more internal space than a Battlesuit. And Riptide is equal or better in all the respects you list for Hammerhead, so what is that different role you mention, other than seemingly totally artificial ones, like different FOC slot or inability to take Railgun?

I suggest rereading the Codex fluff for the Riptide. To me, the Riptide very clearly fills a different gameplay role than the Hammerhead. The Riptide is huge (both in size and points cost) and demands attention from the enemy. It features a wide range of weapons but is unfortunately not very reliable. On the other hand, the Hammerhead is cheap, efficient, and effective. The Hammerhead also laughs off some weapons the Riptide is scared of (and vice versa: Hammerheads don't care about plasma guns or splinter weapons, Riptides don't care about missile launchers). Overall, I take a Riptide as more of a "centerpiece" unit, and a Hammerhead as a reliable core piece.

Backfire wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

Why not? People play tanks which can be killed by Meltaguns too.

Tanks and Monstrous Creatures play very differently, though-- which comes back to my argument in the first place! The existence of Tanks and Monstrous Creatures as separate types provides a lot of flexibility in design and causes players to consider different sorts of threats.

FW Tomb Stalker is a MC as well.

But i think it fits as they are clearly not vehicles but autonomous......nasties.

Jayo'r wrote:
They shouldn't be classed as MCs. They're not creatures like a carnifex. They should make a new class like monstrous suits. Riptides and dredknights are suits not creatures

Why? It's a mechanics description not a fluff description. Adding a whole extra class of what is essentially the same thing is unnecessary. It's not an issue because the fluff describes each unit individually. The title "MC" is there only to provide a context for the rules.

So, my 2 pennies.

How many MCs can be taken in squads? Arent fexes the only one?

The(mostly imperium) walkers that "should" be MC are designed to fight differently on the battle field and i agree with the current separation as they are using "older" clunkier tech. Take the game Dawn of War. Watch a Dread fight, and watch a Wraithlord fight. They move and act VERY differently because of their design. Just the way we currently have them.

Riptides being vehicles? Are Crisis and Broadsides going to be next?? They are almost identical in shape, design, and function. If you are going to argue the riptide should be a vehicle then you should make that argument for all similar things in the dex.

Dreadknight? Isnt the pilot wearing Terminator armor? Which is also what the rest of the suit is made of right? It was designed to fight just like an agile badass warrior, who is also huge. Of course he fights and acts like a big guy instead of a clunky slow vehicle.

In case you cant tell i think the rules seperation is fine and the units are where they should be. Should walkers be tweaked with some goodies? Yes. Maybe just not being able to lose thier weapons, and always being able to fire regardless of immobilization as the guns are usually on sepearate pieces i think would suffice.

Will C: SM get a MC? Probably something very similar to the dreadknight with out the shunt move or force weapons. And they will only get one if GW pays attentions to threads like this and wants to shut up the whiners lol

The Riptide can be taken in squads. Albeit the rest of the members are Drones.

I meant multiples of the same MC thankyouverymuch, and i feel like you knew that templar lol

Wolfnid420 wrote:
So, my 2 pennies.

How many MCs can be taken in squads? Arent fexes the only one?

Necron Spiders

Isn't there mention of Dreadknights being made of a living metal or something like that? I could be completely wrong here. Maybe it was a self repairing metal alloy or something like that. The point being, such constructs would seem to be a lot closure to monstrous creatures then vehicles with stagnate metal slabs protecting the gubbins inside.

No, there is mention of possible alien technology in their construction, but no specifics.

The GKs do have Tesserects from the Necrons.

 Kingsley wrote:
Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

LOLWHUT? Duplicative mechanics (AV+HP + Cover v. T+W + AS/Invuln) is good design? Also, why would you shift to one hitting as oppossed to just making all "massive" units (vehicles, monsters, etc.) have multiple wounds and generally a low AS?

I believe the revisement was to make vehicles T8-10, invouln only and x wounds

 jmurph wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

LOLWHUT? Duplicative mechanics (AV+HP + Cover v. T+W + AS/Invuln) is good design? Also, why would you shift to one hitting as oppossed to just making all "massive" units (vehicles, monsters, etc.) have multiple wounds and generally a low AS?

Duplicate mechanics can be good design when they open interesting chunks of design space, yes. Tanks with multiple wounds and a low armor save would make the game less balanced and substantially more bland.

Dreadnought: 100pts, MC
WS4 BS4 S6 T? W3 I4 A2 Ld9 3+

T? 8? LC and AC still need 3's and 5's to wound, assault cannons need 6's still with rending bypassing armour. 8 just seems... high though.

And you're also exposing them to LDR based attacks (Doom of Malantai, Psychic Shriek) that they're immune to now.

Wraithlords are living. Dredknight and riptide are just suits of armor. The drednaught is also a suit of armor, but i dont see anyone calling that a MC.

Wraithlords have no pilot per say. They are grown from wraithbone and inhabited by the souls of dead aspect warriors during a craftworld's time of need.

EMPs would do nothing to a wraithlord, but would cripple a dredknight and riptide. Similarly a lascannon through any part of the pilot would kill the dredknight or riptide in one shot. The wraithlord's consciousness is spread between multiple spirit stones dotting the exoskeleton of the wraithlord. Wraithlord would be much, much harder to kill with one shot.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're also exposing them to LDR based attacks (Doom of Malantai, Psychic Shriek) that they're immune to now.

As pointed out, they're piloted. The pilot can easily be affected.

So you're making them MCs to make them less vulnerable, but opening them up to a whole new class of attack at the same time.

Makes sense.

The question is, why would you attempt to apply any internal logic to 40k at all?

T8 is fine for walkers. We've been using Marine/Chaos/Ork Dreads as T8 creatures since the start of 4th Ed. Never had a problem with it.

 Blaggard wrote:
Dreadnought: 100pts, MC
WS4 BS4 S6 T? W3 I4 A2 Ld9 3+

T? 8? LC and AC still need 3's and 5's to wound, assault cannons need 6's still with rending bypassing armour. 8 just seems... high though.

My stern guard like that idea. Lets do this

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
The question is, why would you attempt to apply any internal logic to 40k at all?

You have to. I mean, why don't for example Terminators carry Battle cannons? Or Demolisher cannons? They'd be real useful to them, why can't they take them?

terminators are piloted exoskelitons too...

its just done so we have two options for rules when dealing with

big @$$ models

The difference does seem to be fairly arbitrary at this point. I'd rather they revised the rules for walkers and monstrous creatures or merged them somehow, but that's bias from someone that remembers the Eldar Dreadnought long before it became a "Wraithlord" (don't get me wrong, I think it works well as a Monstrous creature.) Having vehicles the count as creatures (Riptide) and creatures that count as vehicles (Forgefiend) just seems to be muddying the waters considerably.

Having monstrous creatures as a separate category made sense when we were considering Tyranids, but a Carnifex functioned pretty well when they were just classified as really, really big infantry. The introduction of the Monstrous Creature unit type is just convenient shorthand for a collection of special rules they now have.

The big issue I see with this is it is creating artificial differences between units that don't really need to be there. It won't be long before regular Space Marines have a monstrous creature, which feels wrong to me. They already have a man-in-a-can. Dreaming up a small Dreadnought or a really big Terminator would just be silly from my point of view.

Flame Boy wrote:
The big issue I see with this is it is creating artificial differences between units that don't really need to be there. It won't be long before regular Space Marines have a monstrous creature, which feels wrong to me. They already have a man-in-a-can. Dreaming up a small Dreadnought or a really big Terminator would just be silly from my point of view.

Grey Knights beat them to it.