As above, which units would you say qualify as Monstrous Creatures and why? I thought I'd ask after Forge World have rather oddly, classified the Ta'unar Supremacy suit as a GMC..
Soul grinder, because it's not really a vehicle, it is a daemon for a big part.
EDIT: I mean, it should be. Is that what you want ? We say which unit we think should be MC or just which MC deserve it ?
Soul Grinder and Defiler should both be GC's. Especially the Soul Grinder, the Defiler is debatable, but considering its a daemon spirit trapped in a mechanical body, I think that would qualify more as a 'creature' than a 'vehicle'. Also considering that things like battlesuits, the various admech mechanical robot things, etc. are all classified as creatures, rather than vehicles, etc.
Only if it's a CREATURE. Which means, if it has actually been BORN or SPAWNED in this form. Squiggoths, Demon Princes, all things Tyranid. Definitely not some huge ass battle suit piloted by a little dude, this is not a CREATURE. Also not a wraithbone contruct driven by a dead soul encased in a gem or whatevers.
SGTPozy wrote: So how is a Space Marine not a vehicle when they're in a suit?
A space marine has a suit alright, but Tau suits are actually exoskeletons, not suits. Think of the space marine suit as a more powerful equivalent of a Kevlar body armor. That's something that you wear but you are the one doing the movement and it is moving along with you. An exoskeleton on the other hand has its own motors/jetpacks etc so it moves itself. You may be giving the orders, but it is the one moving and you are following along.
I think that's the difference you are looking for.
In my opinion, something should qualify as a MC/GC if it's got one body, one consciousness operating it.
If it's a pilot (or crew) inside a mechanical suit (2+ bodies - the suit and the pilot/crew), than it should be a walker. It's not any different than any other vehicle - a machine operated by a pilot or crew.
So, a carnifex, has one consciousness (if you don't count the hive mind) and one body.
Wraithstuff also have one consciousness (a dead eldar) piloting one body. That makes sense for a MC/GC to me.
By that definition, I'd probably support soul grinders, and perhaps even defilers as a MC.
Things like deff dreads and dreadnoughts almost straddle the line. There is a pilot inside, but the pilot cannot use his body - it's been wired or crippled to the point where the organic body is unusable, so it completely relies on its mechanical body.
Things like riptides, new tau superheavy, or the suppression suit make zero sense as a MC/GC. They're mechanical suits operated by pilots who can easily get in and out, just like any other vehicle.
Hell, I'd be amazed if that FW suit doesn't have several pilots in it like voltron. It's about as much a GC as a stompa is a GC - both are robotic bodies operated by a crew.
But making big tau battlesuits walkers might make them reasonably balanced and potentially defeatable, so that certainly can't be allowed.
SGTPozy wrote: So how is a Space Marine not a vehicle when they're in a suit?
A space marine has a suit alright, but Tau suits are actually exoskeletons, not suits. Think of the space marine suit as a more powerful equivalent of a Kevlar body armor. That's something that you wear but you are the one doing the movement and it is moving along with you. An exoskeleton on the other hand has its own motors/jetpacks etc so it moves itself. You may be giving the orders, but it is the one moving and you are following along.
I think that's the difference you are looking for.
Space Marines wear power armor. Power armor is an exoskeleton, it has hydraulics, servos etc. to facilitate movement and enhance the marines stregnth. Try again.
SGTPozy wrote: So how is a Space Marine not a vehicle when they're in a suit?
A space marine has a suit alright, but Tau suits are actually exoskeletons, not suits. Think of the space marine suit as a more powerful equivalent of a Kevlar body armor. That's something that you wear but you are the one doing the movement and it is moving along with you. An exoskeleton on the other hand has its own motors/jetpacks etc so it moves itself. You may be giving the orders, but it is the one moving and you are following along.
I think that's the difference you are looking for.
Space Marines wear power armor. Power armor is an exoskeleton, it has hydraulics, servos etc. to facilitate movement and enhance the marines stregnth. Try again.
So anyone wearing power armor, Terminator armor, etc. should be statted as a vehicle?
SGTPozy wrote: So how is a Space Marine not a vehicle when they're in a suit?
A space marine has a suit alright, but Tau suits are actually exoskeletons, not suits. Think of the space marine suit as a more powerful equivalent of a Kevlar body armor. That's something that you wear but you are the one doing the movement and it is moving along with you. An exoskeleton on the other hand has its own motors/jetpacks etc so it moves itself. You may be giving the orders, but it is the one moving and you are following along.
I think that's the difference you are looking for.
Space Marines wear power armor. Power armor is an exoskeleton, it has hydraulics, servos etc. to facilitate movement and enhance the marines stregnth. Try again.
It does. But it does not have go/stop pedals, the marine inside actuall has to move his leg forward if he wants to go forward. He has to raise his arms if he wants to raise his weapon and shoot. The marine is not driving the power armor, to make it simpler. He moves and the armor makes it easier and stronger to do so. With tau battle suits this is a different thing altogether. The tau inside is not actively moving the suit, it is piloting it. Can you understand the difference now?
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. It's not a couple of joy sticks or something in tau suits, it's a complete neural link. They "become" moving it as if they were moving their bodies, and even feeling pain if the suit it damaged. A crisis suit being a creature definitely makes sense. Riptides are a bit iffy, but was made a MC because, quite frankly, walkers are gak. This new suit is probably an expansion on that theme, although it could have really been either. Personally, I think that it being GMC instead of a SHW isn't really that big of a deal, it just has to be balanced correctly.
angelofvengeance wrote: As above, which units would you say qualify as Monstrous Creatures and why? I thought I'd ask after Forge World have rather oddly, classified the Ta'unar Supremacy suit as a GMC..
Gazkhull Thraka needs to be an MC that can be attached to squads, and fit in a transport. He's bigger than a Dreadnought in fluff.
Melissia wrote: So... what about a Penitent Engine, which is a fast-moving metal monstrosity that isn't really even piloted by the poor schmuck strapped to it?
Then maybe we can make it like this: If it bleeds (anything, from acid to goo) then it has wounds and it can get wounded ergo it's a MC. If it has engine parts and metal and cannot be wounded but instead it can break down, then it's a Walker/Vehicle. How about that?
I think that's looking at it backwards. A Riptide should be considered a Walker, not a creature. I don't care that it's got a pilot wired into it, so does an Imperial Titan. It's a non-biological machine with mechanical and electronic components that enable its functions.
There's really nothing to justify it being considered a Creature over a Walker.
SGTPozy wrote: So how is a Space Marine not a vehicle when they're in a suit?
A space marine has a suit alright, but Tau suits are actually exoskeletons, not suits. Think of the space marine suit as a more powerful equivalent of a Kevlar body armor. That's something that you wear but you are the one doing the movement and it is moving along with you. An exoskeleton on the other hand has its own motors/jetpacks etc so it moves itself. You may be giving the orders, but it is the one moving and you are following along.
I think that's the difference you are looking for.
Space Marines wear power armor. Power armor is an exoskeleton, it has hydraulics, servos etc. to facilitate movement and enhance the marines stregnth. Try again.
Power armor is fancy body armor. Tau battlesuits are mechs piloted by the Tau inside. Try again.
Personally, I'd just do away with the walker designation and make all walking big things monstrous creatures.
SGTPozy wrote: So how is a Space Marine not a vehicle when they're in a suit?
A space marine has a suit alright, but Tau suits are actually exoskeletons, not suits. Think of the space marine suit as a more powerful equivalent of a Kevlar body armor. That's something that you wear but you are the one doing the movement and it is moving along with you. An exoskeleton on the other hand has its own motors/jetpacks etc so it moves itself. You may be giving the orders, but it is the one moving and you are following along.
I think that's the difference you are looking for.
Space Marines wear power armor. Power armor is an exoskeleton, it has hydraulics, servos etc. to facilitate movement and enhance the marines stregnth. Try again.
It does. But it does not have go/stop pedals, the marine inside actuall has to move his leg forward if he wants to go forward. He has to raise his arms if he wants to raise his weapon and shoot. The marine is not driving the power armor, to make it simpler. He moves and the armor makes it easier and stronger to do so. With tau battle suits this is a different thing altogether. The tau inside is not actively moving the suit, it is piloting it. Can you understand the difference now?
Power armor is fancy body armor. Tau battlesuits are mechs piloted by the Tau inside. Try again.
If what you said was accurate, yes. What you're missing is that its a neural link to the suits. He's not sitting in a gundam cockpit pushing joysticks and pedals, hes interfaced into the suit controlling it with his mind. The "pilot" of the suit might or might (ala pacific rim) be moving along with the suit, or could simply be thinking of himself as moving, and those thoughts are translated to the suits movements while he remains stationary, but either way, tau suits have more in common with marine power armor, than they do with an IG sentinel.
What does the method of piloting the vehicle have to do with having a T characteristic versus AV? Also, Nobles pilot Imperial Knights through neural interface but they are classified as walkers. So that's not even the way GW makes the distinction.
The point I'm trying to make (and I think others) is that the categorization isn't really consistent, nor does it seem to be based on any real amount of fluff consideration.
To me it seems like it is about how they move in a way. Things classified as creatures tend to have more fluid movement compared to things classified as vehicles.
chaos0xomega wrote: The point I'm trying to make (and I think others) is that the categorization isn't really consistent, nor does it seem to be based on any real amount of fluff consideration.
Nope, it's just based off how many dollies GW wants to sell. They made the Riptide a MC because a walker designation would've made it a poorer unit and thus less models sold.
If that tau k139 is a GMC and a Wraith Knight is a GMC then an Imperial knight should be a GMC with 2++ invul and 2+ fnp because that should feel absolutely no pain.
chaos0xomega wrote: The point I'm trying to make (and I think others) is that the categorization isn't really consistent, nor does it seem to be based on any real amount of fluff consideration.
Nope, it's just based off how many dollies GW wants to sell. They made the Riptide a MC because a walker designation would've made it a poorer unit and thus less models sold.
I think this is a logical distinction we can all agree on.
Filch wrote: If that tau k139 is a GMC and a Wraith Knight is a GMC then an Imperial knight should be a GMC with 2++ invul and 2+ fnp because that should feel absolutely no pain.
NO. Re-rollable 2++ should never be allowed.
Tau GC is a mistake. Wraithknight I can accept, but is seriously undercosted as it is now.
Filch wrote: If that tau k139 is a GMC and a Wraith Knight is a GMC then an Imperial knight should be a GMC with 2++ invul and 2+ fnp because that should feel absolutely no pain.
That would be horrible for the game, and I wouldn't even consider playing an opponent that had one.
Big biological things = Monstrous Creatures or Gargantuan Creatures.
Big mechanical things = Walker or Super Heavy Walkers.
Simple, even if GW doesn't seem to be able to grasp it.
CrashGordon94 wrote: Big biological things = Monstrous Creatures or Gargantuan Creatures.
Big mechanical things = Walker or Super Heavy Walkers.
Simple, even if GW doesn't seem to be able to grasp it.
Im sure they grasp it. its that i dont think they care.
I think it's blurrier than that. An Imperial big walker is very much a machine. A tyranid very much a creature. Tau big suits are probably closer to imperial stuff than nid stuff. Eldar big stuff is closer to nid than Tau are. There is a continuum and no exact place to draw a line. Some machines behave more like organics and may even incorporate organic systems.
What I'm saying is that if something has significant organic components and/or behaves like an organic it makes sense to classify it as a creature rather than machine, but figuring out where to draw that line is tricky. Titans and dreadnoughts seem very clunky and machine like. Wraith_______ seem more organic in construction and movement. Tau stuff I would say is closer to mechanical, but still has a more organic feel than imperium stuff.
I think the reason the Tau suits are MCs is because they're closer to a suit of power armour than they are a walker like the Imp Guard's Sentinels which look nothing like the pilot.
So yea, the suits for the Tau and others are an extension of the pilot, not really a walker like Superman's Justice Jogger, look it up D: !
Tinkrr wrote: I think the reason the Tau suits are MCs is because they're closer to a suit of power armour than they are a walker like the Imp Guard's Sentinels which look nothing like the pilot.
So yea, the suits for the Tau and others are an extension of the pilot, not really a walker like Superman's Justice Jogger, look it up D: !
The reason Tau suits are MCs is because MCs have better rules => they sell better.
If they are unable to craft a system where one isn't drastically superior (MC/GMC) than they should just switch everything to a T based system.
It was one of the things I immediately liked about WMH's approach. Everything uses Def and Armor. squishy things seem squishy and armored behemoths seem really tough.
Helbrutes should be a MC. They are distinguished from their loyalist counterparts by actually becoming one with the walker. I like that Dreadnoughts are walkers. They can't feel what happens to their armor the way a Helbrute can. Still,Dreadnoughts should come with immunity to Crew Stunned and possibly an Invulnerable Save, since they are so well protected and short of destroying the Dreadnought body, they can and will keep trying to kill you. Helbrutes should have FNP to go with their MC, since they are so crazed that it should be downright impossible to keep one down.
I don't have problems with Tau having MC and GC since their pilots are wired directly in. There should be a hard limit on the number of weapons a GC can fire though. Same goes for the Wraithknight. The Wraithknight is statically bound to the pilot, it is their new body. Still should have some limitations to what they can do since it doesn't have the subsystems that would allow the body to fire all its weapons.
As a few others have said, it should depend on how a unit moves. If its movements are clunky and mechanical, it is a walker. If its movements are fluid and graceful, it's a monstrous creature. By which logic Nemesis Dreadknights should probably be walkers, but Tau suits are okay being creatures (except probably the new giant FW one), and probably Eldar ones as well. Soul Grinders are kind of iffy, but I would lean toward making them a MC. By this logic, Maulerfiends should probably be MCs as well, as a clunky machine shouldn't have the Fleet special rule.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: To me it seems like it is about how they move in a way. Things classified as creatures tend to have more fluid movement compared to things classified as vehicles.
The Maulerfiend is a vehicle and its movement is just as fluid as a creature.
Really with GW there's no reason for one being an MC over one being a walker except $$$.
If a Riptide deserves to be an MC, so does a Maulerfiend, Forgefiend, Heldrake, Soulgrider and arguably Defilers and Helbrutes.
However, that's mainly because I can't imagine any other Sisters of Battle unit that could be a Monstrous Creature. Maybe a Living Saint if they made them larger and more powerful like a magical angelic being of the Emperor's wrath instead of human-sized beings who go squish at the first graze from an Autocannon. (and upped the points cost accordingly)
I felt like this was gonna be another "cry about tau things" thread when i clicked it, i was not wrong. Aren't there enough of these right now?
would like to request a single stickied thread to contain the multitudes of butthurt so i don't have to search the whole GD forum and can just go to one place for my entertainment.
-monsters wearing armour (Ghazkull, deamon prince, pain engines) -> Monsters
-large machines piloted by infantry sized models (Penitent Engines, killa kans, dreads, dread knights, tau riptide sized and larger suits) -> Vehicles
-Constructs that are monstrous sized-> (Wraith constructs, Necron tomb stalker, daemon forged constructs) -> Vehicles
//Ideally I would like the following additional rules changes //
-Dmg tables for all multi wound models when you exceed the to wound with x. Like the vehicle dmg table for vehicles now, you would still be able to wound kill a monster. I would really like it if we could blow off a leg with a melta bomb or hack off an arm with a power sword and do some other cinematic dmg to it.
-Constructs should have an other dmg table then vehicles or monsters. There could even be codex specific dmg tables, to represent the difference between ork scrap and dark eldar craftsmanship, deamon constructs and eldar constructs or human commissars and tyranid monsters.
-Cover rules should be fixed. There should be no difference in cover of same sized monsters or walkers, and huge monsters should not be able to claim cover if they can only hide their toe in it. Ideally cover should be a cover modifier.
-Shooting to hit rules should be fixed. Bring back the fantasy to hit system for shooting including large target and 7+ to hit rules.
-Close combat to hit should be more like the to wound table, the current 3+ 5+ to hit range is ridicules. Penal legionaires should never hit 1/3 of their blows against the best dark eldar sword fighter nor should khorne bloodthirsters miss ws2 squiggoths 1/3th of the time.
Veering off topic a little, but one thing I really despise is this weird idea that when a unit reaches a certain size, it's movement suddenly doubles (so, GC, Super-heavies and many big MCs have 12" moves or JSJ just... because).
Frankly, I'd like to see big things move more slowly than standard infantry and such. To emphasize that being the size of a three-story house might diminish one's acceleration a little.
But no, massive things can accelerate from a standing start to full speed, and then come to a complete stop with no difficulty whatsoever. I guess many are helped by being 3-story bipeds, easily the most configuration. Oh wait.
-monsters wearing armour (Ghazkull, deamon prince, pain engines) -> Monsters
-large machines piloted by infantry sized models (Penitent Engines, killa kans, dreads, dread knights, tau riptide sized and larger suits) -> Vehicles
-Constructs that are monstrous sized-> (Wraith constructs, Necron tomb stalker, daemon forged constructs) -> Vehicles
//Ideally I would like the following additional rules changes //
-Dmg tables for all multi wound models when you exceed the to wound with x. Like the vehicle dmg table for vehicles now, you would still be able to wound kill a monster. I would really like it if we could blow off a leg with a melta bomb or hack off an arm with a power sword and do some other cinematic dmg to it.
-Constructs should have an other dmg table then vehicles or monsters. There could even be codex specific dmg tables, to represent the difference between ork scrap and dark eldar craftsmanship, deamon constructs and eldar constructs or human commissars and tyranid monsters.
-Cover rules should be fixed. There should be no difference in cover of same sized monsters or walkers, and huge monsters should not be able to claim cover if they can only hide their toe in it. Ideally cover should be a cover modifier.
-Shooting to hit rules should be fixed. Bring back the fantasy to hit system for shooting including large target and 7+ to hit rules.
-Close combat to hit should be more like the to wound table, the current 3+ 5+ to hit range is ridicules. Penal legionaires should never hit 1/3 of their blows against the best dark eldar sword fighter nor should khorne bloodthirsters miss ws2 squiggoths 1/3th of the time.
The Age of Sigmar rules for monsters are a pretty good starting off point. Very similar to your ideas.
The biggest issues with MCs is they remain effective till they die, while walkers suffer extra outside of hull points.
Make wounds losr effect number of attacks or modify the to hits of a GMC or MC sounds decent as a jumping off point.
die toten hosen wrote: The Age of Sigmar rules for monsters are a pretty good starting off point. Very similar to your ideas.
I don't like those rules at all, and they are quite different.
-Age of sigmar monsters drop efficiency as soon as they get wounded and all wounds affect it just as much. And there is no toughness to shield them. This would probbaly mean that a wounded blood thirtster would lose a lot off attacks and str before it even got a chance to hit you just from lasgun fire. I would not like that at all.
-I would like them to be more like vehicles, wounds will just wound them with no loss of stats.
While serious wounds might do some things like lose a weapon, drop to I 1 for a turn or be killed if you roll high enough and have modifiers such as high str or force weapons.
I'm not sure why the AoSMC system is a bad idea. Makes sense that something becomes less effective after sustaining wounds in battle... and no different from a vehicle losing weapon systems after taking damage.
The reason I don't like the monsters get weaker when they get hurt by normal guns is that I don't like my 200+ model to running at 1/2 capacity most of the time just because it got hit by some random shots that hurted it on a 5+ or 6+. I know it would be more realistic but it feels really unsatisfactory to me while I'm perfectly fine by it being hurt by lass cannons.
I think oldzoggy's problem is the AoS wounding system, which makes it so weapons wound everything on a fixed role. Keeping the current 40K wounding system and introducing the AoSMC system would allow them to be tough against small arms, but slowly lose effectiveness as chunks get blown out of them.
So if GW is willing to admit that some of their models are walkers and are able to make good walkers.This makes less sense the more I try and think about it.
Why are Kastelan robots MC? They are robots. It says so in their name.
MC should diminish in power output as they take more damage. Why should MC fire at full power when they have been critically wounded, such as having a massive slug blow off their arm?
Anyone trying to claim that they made the Riptide an MC because they knew MC rules were superior and wanted it to sell are either being willfully obtuse or have very short memories.
When the Ork codex was re-released, the big new kit being promoted was the Gorka/Morkanaught. It's a walker - why (assuming GW wanted to sell the kit and lots of it) wouldn't GW have made it a Monstrous Creature to sell better? This is just following your logic.
The clear reason some things are MCs and some things aren't is pretty clear: design continuity.
Back when the Tau were first being released, the design team had an article in WD describing their development process. Part of this article detailed their plans for the Crisis and Broadside battlesuits.
They originally planned on both being walkers, but they couldn't make either unit work the way they wanted under the walker/vehicle rules at the time, so they gave them wounds and a decent armour save instead.
When the Riptide came about, the Design Team had a choice - either make it a vehicle(walker), of which the Tau army had none, or make it a monstrous creature - and demonstrate a clear continuity and progression from the small Crisis/Broadside suits and the Riptide suit.
Crisis suits have wounds -> Broadsides have wounds -> Riptide has wounds -> Stormsurge will (most likely) have wounds -> Supremacy has wounds. Do you see the clear progression?
Eldar can be seen in much the same way:
Wraithguard have wounds -> Wraithlords have wounds -> Wraithknights have wounds.
To interrupt either progression with the sudden introduction of vehicles would be jarring to say the least, even if it might represent the fluff of the model better.
In contrast, Orks never had any monstrous creatures outside of the squiggoth, and the Gorka/Morkanaught clearly shares more design features with deff dreads than with a squiggoth, so it becomes a vehicle (walker).
In a broader sense, Imperial Knights as members of the Imperium need to follow a similar pattern. Imperial armies (Space Marines, Imperial Guard, etc) don't really have monstrous creatures, they have vehicles. To have a single Gargantuan Creature amongst a sea of vehicles and walkers would also be jarring.
That's why some things are vehicles and some things aren't. Nothing to do with rules or sales or any of that gak - GW have proven time and again they don't know what balance is, thus deliberately making a new unit powerful to sell more kits is surely beyond them.
Frozocrone wrote: MC should diminish in power output as they take more damage. Why should MC fire at full power when they have been critically wounded, such as having a massive slug blow off their arm?
Because that would mean that this would be killable:
The wounding system of AoS is just plain stupid, but I also am no fan of the all dmg is equall and hp / wounds = effectiveness of the monster table of age of sigmar.
I like the penetration vehcilce damage rules but I don't like my monster vehicle losing attacks, str and special abilities linear to the dmg it In the way they do in AoS.
To put it in verry simple words that can not be mistaken
Head shoting or paralysing a monster on a 6+ with lots of ap low str high modifiers I like.
Slowly draining powers from a monster so that 50% of the time its a crappy excuse of of a monster, whatever shot at it I don't like.
Frozocrone wrote: MC should diminish in power output as they take more damage. Why should MC fire at full power when they have been critically wounded, such as having a massive slug blow off their arm?
Because that would mean that this would be killable:
Anyone trying to claim that they made the Riptide an MC because they knew MC rules were superior and wanted it to sell are either being willfully obtuse or have very short memories.
When the Ork codex was re-released, the big new kit being promoted was the Gorka/Morkanaught. It's a walker - why (assuming GW wanted to sell the kit and lots of it) wouldn't GW have made it a Monstrous Creature to sell better? This is just following your logic.
The clear reason some things are MCs and some things aren't is pretty clear: design continuity.
Back when the Tau were first being released, the design team had an article in WD describing their development process. Part of this article detailed their plans for the Crisis and Broadside battlesuits.
They originally planned on both being walkers, but they couldn't make either unit work the way they wanted under the walker/vehicle rules at the time, so they gave them wounds and a decent armour save instead.
When the Riptide came about, the Design Team had a choice - either make it a vehicle(walker), of which the Tau army had none, or make it a monstrous creature - and demonstrate a clear continuity and progression from the small Crisis/Broadside suits and the Riptide suit.
Crisis suits have wounds -> Broadsides have wounds -> Riptide has wounds -> Stormsurge will (most likely) have wounds -> Supremacy has wounds. Do you see the clear progression?
Eldar can be seen in much the same way:
Wraithguard have wounds -> Wraithlords have wounds -> Wraithknights have wounds.
To interrupt either progression with the sudden introduction of vehicles would be jarring to say the least, even if it might represent the fluff of the model better.
In contrast, Orks never had any monstrous creatures outside of the squiggoth, and the Gorka/Morkanaught clearly shares more design features with deff dreads than with a squiggoth, so it becomes a vehicle (walker).
In a broader sense, Imperial Knights as members of the Imperium need to follow a similar pattern. Imperial armies (Space Marines, Imperial Guard, etc) don't really have monstrous creatures, they have vehicles. To have a single Gargantuan Creature amongst a sea of vehicles and walkers would also be jarring.
That's why some things are vehicles and some things aren't. Nothing to do with rules or sales or any of that gak - GW have proven time and again they don't know what balance is, thus deliberately making a new unit powerful to sell more kits is surely beyond them.
While design continuity should be taken into consideration, there comes a point when you have to accept that these things should be classified differently. GW has shown that they are willing to mix MCs and walkers into a codex (Kastellan robots and Onagers in AdMech).These robots have surpassed the "it's a pilot in a suit" argument and become full blown titan robots with giant gears and exhaust ports. If GW feels that they should still be consistent with suits after they become walkers, maybe they should revisit the fundamental design of a suit, making them into walker squadrons which independent character walkers can join.
Finally, I did not forget the orkanaughts, I am purposefully ignoring them in the hope that they will turn out to be a bizarre fever dream the next time I open my codex.
Dr. Delorean wrote: When the Riptide came about, the Design Team had a choice - either make it a vehicle(walker), of which the Tau army had none, or make it a monstrous creature - and demonstrate a clear continuity and progression from the small Crisis/Broadside suits and the Riptide suit.
Sorry, but your logic is just nonsensical. Why is that a clear progression in any way?
You could just as easily write:
"When the Riptide came about, the Design Team had a choice - either make it a Monstrous Creature, of which the Tau army had none, or make it a vehicle(walker) - and demonstrate a clear continuity and progression from the small Crisis/Broadside suits and the Riptide suit." It makes exactly as much sense. Probably more, in fact.
Also, by that logic, the Triarch Stalker should clearly be a MC because Necrons have only had MCs in the past, not vehicles.
Whether or not an army has had walkers or MCs in the past should not relate in any way to the classification of future units.
The Riptide is a bloody machine. Same goes for the Dredknight. Both of them have pilots for crying out loud. How much more evidence do you need that they're vehicles, not creatures?
How many of the people "certain" that their (almost always) OP war machine should remain a Monsterous Creature would argue the same if it had different rules or suffered from the same degredation as it was damaged or ability to be one shoted as vehicles...... I think we all the know the answer.
What would really be best is to change all vehicles to use the Toughness/Armor Save system instead of the Armor Value system. Give vehicles different toughness values and armor saves depending on the arc you are in.
Grey Templar wrote: What would really be best is to change all vehicles to use the Toughness/Armor Save system instead of the Armor Value system. Give vehicles different toughness values and armor saves depending on the arc you are in.
Do we even need to keep vehicle facings?
It's not like anything else in the game takes facing into account.
I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.
If we're doing that, perhaps we should also change Jink so that it's based on armour value.
e.g. AV10 4+ Jink, Av11-12 5+ Jink, AV13-14 6+ Jink
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.
My problem with this particular incarnation is that for each AV class, anything with enough S to hurt it will typically ignore the save. For example, most weapons capable of hurting AV12 (or at least anything potentially capable of penetrating) is almost always going to have at least AP4, and likewise for AV14, it will *usually* have AP2 (e.g. Lascannons, Meltaguns, Railguns), etc.
I still really think going back to the 5E damage table is probably the best thing. One can look at vehicles under that system as basically W1 models with AV corresponding to a T value, but with the caveat that any roll that was only on the minimum possible to hurt them could not kill them, and anything that exceeded the minimum roll to hurt them they got a 3++ against, but if they passe it they were instead disabled or crippled in some way. The damage table effectively *was* the save.
Yeah, I thought 5th worked rather well. And high AP (1+2) were modifiers to the table, making high strength-low AP weapons the things for killing vehicles, instead of med strength, high ROF weapons like it is now.
TBH, my dream rulebook would a combo of 5th and 6th, just take the good parts from each.
I'd be largely fine with SH's still ignoring most of the damage table except Structure Point stripping results (destroyed/explodes), but there definitely needs to be more restrictions put on them (along with GC's), and some serious rebalancing of SH/GC points costs.
Vaktathi wrote: Jink has so many issues that need to be fixed...
*shudder*
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.
My problem with this particular incarnation is that for each AV class, anything with enough S to hurt it will typically ignore the save. For example, most weapons capable of hurting AV12 (or at least anything potentially capable of penetrating) is almost always going to have at least AP4, and likewise for AV14, it will *usually* have AP2 (e.g. Lascannons, Meltaguns, Railguns), etc.
Yeah, I can't really think of a good way to deal with that part. Making it an Invulnerable Save would probably be way too powerful. I suppose if AV10 and AV11 had a 6++ save, AV12 and AV13 had a 5++ save, and AV14 had a 4++ save it might work, though that is still pretty potent. AP1 and AP2 would still serve just as much purpose against vehicles as they do now.
I really think MCs and GCs need to be unable to benefit from a Cover Save(really, your Wraithknight has his toe in a ruin therefore he is Obscured?!) and shooting attacks should be done at +1BS against them. They are a lot bigger, they should be much easier to hit.
Well, I agree with them not getting cover (aside from special abilites/being physicaly obscured by cover i.e. behind a large building), but I'd draw the line at the +1BS, it's really unnecessary, and just creates another thing to balance around.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well, I agree with them not getting cover (aside from special abilites/being physicaly obscured by cover i.e. behind a large building), but I'd draw the line at the +1BS, it's really unnecessary, and just creates another thing to balance around.
Ideally points would make for a good balancing point, but look at how that turned out. Perhaps just +1 BS against GCs and SHs. But really, the inability to benefit from cover would work well enough for me.
And someone mentioned Jink upthread. I think they need to bring back the movement requirement to Jink. It should still require Snap Shots too.
Well, while we're on the subject of Jink, I'll throw out that Flyers should have 4+ Jink all the time (maybe upgraded to 3+ if they move over a certain distance), but shots against them should be at normal BS.
That ones even in an army i own, i probably forgot because its actually good 
