There are many calls on dakka for the MC and GMC rules to be nerfed. Personally, as a chaos player, I believe that the MC and GMC rules are perfectly fine and allow models such as greater daemons to show their worth. My belief is that the people claiming that these rules are OP are people who have been over exposed to OP units *every tau model* *cough* *wraithknights* *cough*.
So what is dakka's opinion? Should the rule be nerfed, or become more exclusive?

Here's the issue.

Walkers don't even get Smash for their melee attacks. MC's get a random host of rules and don't have to suffer that stupid table on top of HP's.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here's the issue.

Walkers don't even get Smash for their melee attacks. MC's get a random host of rules and don't have to suffer that stupid table on top of HP's.

Again, is that a problem with MC's or with walkers?

The MC rules are not op, but they are very strong. My personal issue is that the rules limit design space; if every MC is good at melee, then any MC which is good at a range becomes infinitely better. I think simply making smash a rule that certain MCs (Princes, Carnifexes) have, or that come with certain weapons (So Dakkaflyrants also get nerfed in melee.) It would atleast allow the design space to make more MCs who are specialized at shooting without making it so that they still ignore all armor in melee just because.

Its unit specific issues and this comes from GW's game design aspect.

Also your poll is wrong. Its not that the broken units are wrongly given MC, its that some MCs just have better rules and are underpriced. There are plenty of MCs that are bad.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its unit specific issues and this comes from GW's game design aspect.

Also your poll is wrong. Its not that the broken units are wrongly given MC, its that some MCs just have better rules and are underpriced. There are plenty of MCs that are bad.

The point I want to make is that these tau robots should not be MC's. They are walkers not monsters. The tau MC's are a good example of what happens when you give a walker rules for biological being.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its unit specific issues and this comes from GW's game design aspect.

Also your poll is wrong. Its not that the broken units are wrongly given MC, its that some MCs just have better rules and are underpriced. There are plenty of MCs that are bad.

The point I want to make is that these tau robots should not be MC's. They are walkers not monsters. The tau MC's are a good example of what happens when you give a walker rules for biological being.

Thats a fluff issue. Gameplay wise its just that they are undercosted for what they do. If the Riptide was 500 points but the exact same it wouldn't be good.

I have no problem with the MC rule. Giant biological creatures like Greater Demons, Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants should be menacing and powerful. The MC rule becomes a problem when given to a non-biological unit that also happens to have ridiculous firepower and or manuverability. If the model is being piloted/controlled it gets walker rules. Simple as that. People complain about MC rules because they inherently make whatever unit has them pretty dangerous in CC. The models that are the worst offenders of abusing the MC/GMC CC abilities happen to be gunboats that by all accounts SHOULD be walkers.

The biggest issue with MCs are things labelled as MCs by the rules that should not be MCs.

Other than that, MCs currently are too powerful because they simply cannot be one-shotted like almost everything else in the game can. It doesn't matter how thick your vehicle's armour is, once an AP2 or AP1 weapon gets a good shot, you have a chance of being inmobilised, losing your weapons, forced to snap-shot or blown up outright. On the other hand, a MC doesn't care if it gets a S10 AP1 shot to the face, at worst it will suffer a single wound.

This inbalance is taken even further when the MC starts getting pretty good armor and invulnerable saves, while at the same time being able to easily benefit from cover.

If Riptides or Wraithknights were walker vehicles, they would still be scary due to the punch they pack, but at least you would have a chance to cripple or destroy them with a single lucky shot.

Yes, the MC rules are broken. But this is a symptom of all of 40K right now. Fixing one thing creates problems in another area of the rules. The whole thing needs to be burned to the ground.

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with most MC's, the problem is that we've gotten to a point where once you start getting past a certain number of 5's and 6's in a statline, units tend to get rather ridiculous.

That said, the bigger issue is that GW absolutely hammered non-skimmer vehicles, then came out with a grip of new, ridiculously overcapable MC's, and introduced a highly abuseable Jink mechanic for certain units that exacerbates some of these issues, along with cover rules for terrain being highly favorable to MC's and not to vehicles.

I wish to point out that the poll presents a false dichotomy.

I could be perfectly fine with current MC rules, but think that GMC rules are broken.

Traditio wrote:
I wish to point out that the poll presents a false dichotomy.

I could be perfectly fine with current MC rules, but think that GMC rules are broken.

Why would GMC's be OP? Because GW has given the rule to undercosted models that aren't even monsters but rather a robot that has been possessed. (I don't claim to know Eldar fluff).
If you agree that the MC rule is fine on the right model thrn it carries across to GMC's.

Tl : DR
There is no pick and mix option here! MWAHAHAHA!

Stomp, Free FNP and near-uimmunity to Poison, Sniper and Instant-death are the problems with GMCs. None of those are present for MCs

 Swampmist wrote:
Stomp, Free FNP and near-uimmunity to Poison, Sniper and Instant-death are the problems with GMCs. None of those are present for MCs

I share these sentiments.

 Swampmist wrote:
Stomp, Free FNP and near-uimmunity to Poison, Sniper and Instant-death are the problems with GMCs. None of those are present for MCs

And that is why the GMC rule should be restricted to extremely high cost models, which would encourage people to only take them in apocalypse where your opponant will have the necessary weaponary to deal with it.

I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

So the rule isn't the problem but rather the models which are allowed to use them i.e. wraithknights.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
Stomp, Free FNP and near-uimmunity to Poison, Sniper and Instant-death are the problems with GMCs. None of those are present for MCs

And that is why the GMC rule should be restricted to extremely high cost models, which would encourage people to only take them in apocalypse where your opponant will have the necessary weaponary to deal with it.

Sure. On a 1000 points or higher model, GMC or super heavy vehicle is fine. With the additional restriction: "May only be used in an apocalypse game."

 mrhappyface wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

So the rule isn't the problem but rather the models which are allowed to use them i.e. wraithknights.

Pretty much yes.

I've always thought MCs were overpowered for various reasons. They can move and shoot better than vehicles, they usually have armor or invulnerable saves that can protect them against mid-strength, high-ROF weapons that tend to mess up vehicles, they're not subject to losing any capability when a shot does get past their save, and of course they can't be one-shotted except by those very rare (and usually close combat) weapons.

It's kind of a kludgy solution, but one idea I've had is to give certain ranged weapons the Instant Death rule. GW could add a number to the ID rule to indicate that the weapon generates ID on a certain to-wound roll. So, krak missiles could be Instant Death 6, lascannons could be ID 5, melta weapons could be ID 4, and so on.

To see why the problem with MC is centered on certain units rather than the unit type, one must look upon the ancient, bygone age of 2008, during the days of fifth edition. Back then, transports were the thing that everyone use/clambered about/wanted nerfed, while monstrous creatures were dog ****. Too slow to keep up with it's targets, weak to the same weapons that everyone was already using: melta, plasma, and power fists (more so in some cases. A plas vet squad in a chimera may have been a threat to light vehicles and MEQs, but were death on wheels for most MC at the time), and were almost always more expensive than their close comparisons. In fact, I remember the topics on this very forum about how they should just make MCs vehicles to make them ore useful (so really, the more things change the more they seem the same)

What has changed since then? Obviously vehicles took a massive nerf, and monstrous creatures have...changed very little. They gained Smash (half of which is something they already had, and the 2x str attacks were good in 6th but has been since nerfed to only one), Move Through Cover (which is alright), Hammer of Wraith (which is also alright( and Fear (which is currently competing with Soul Blaze for the title of Most Useless Rule Ever). They did get some toughness from being able to more easily gain cover from area terrain, but that still applies to the normal rules (cover is useless to models with a armor save equal to or better than it against high AP weapons, or if you have a inv save equal to or better) and that argument also seems countered by the other argument that Ignore Cover is too prevalent.

What has made ripsides, flyrants, and wraith knights so powerful? Well, it's in increase in toughness and speed from other sources. Flyrants and flying DP are, well, flying, so they get Hard To Hit , making them immune to assault and heavily reduced shooting while their grounded versions are lunch meat. Ripsides and wraith knights have higher movement (from jet and jump unit types respectively), increased toughness: an inv save for both, toughness 8 for the knight and 2+ for the 'sides (although I should point out the Tyrannofex had a 2+ since it's inception, and no one's been calling a good unit even since the vehicle nerf) and powerful, long ranged weapons that keep them out of range of what would normally destroy them (plasma, unless you're playing space marines).

Being criminally underpriced also doesn't help (especially the WK).

However, I also feel the need to point out that when these qualities are also on vehicles (such as the Imperial Knight, or the comparison of flyers and skimmers with jink vs ground vehicles), so also see a similar gap of power.

My issue is the disparity between MCs and Vehicles.

I don't think anything is wrong with MC rules. GMC rules are very powerful, and are maybe undervalued pointswise in many cases?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here's the issue.

Walkers don't even get Smash for their melee attacks. MC's get a random host of rules and don't have to suffer that stupid table on top of HP's.

I really don't think meganobz should be worried about an imperial guard chicken walker stepping on them. The existence of Sentinels is probably the reason why walkers don't receive smash by default?

Likewise, perhaps there are some battle suits which don't deserve smash, so maybe smash should be handed out on a case by case basis for monsters too?

MCs are OP in general, but there are some that are way over the top compared to others.

Your poll doesn't have an option for thinking everything is fine..

my largest problem is the disparity between MCs and vehicles. Why should a Hammerhead's Railgun frighten a Leman Russ more than a Carnifex?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
my largest problem is the disparity between MCs and vehicles. Why should a Hammerhead's Railgun frighten a Leman Russ more than a Carnifex?

It doesn't. This is 7th ed.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
my largest problem is the disparity between MCs and vehicles. Why should a Hammerhead's Railgun frighten a Leman Russ more than a Carnifex?

It doesn't. This is 7th ed.

Yes it does. My Leman Russ is more afraid of a Hammerhead than a Carnifex is.

Not by much. Single shot anti-tank is bad in 7th.

Martel732 wrote:
Not by much. Single shot anti-tank is bad in 7th.

Not any worse than it was in 4th or 5th An AP1 weapon is exactly as likely to kill a tank as it was in 6th edition, and is as effective as every other weapon was in 5th edition.

Besides, Leman Russes don't like being made to snapfire or losing a weapon/being immobilized either, something the carnifex need not fear.

Well, the vehicle table got moved up one notch, so AP 1 explodes on a 5+ instead of 4+.

The railgun needs a 5+ to pen as well. It's more dangerous vs the Russ, but it's not even as scary as melta.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, the vehicle table got moved up one notch, so AP 1 explodes on a 5+ instead of 4+.

The railgun needs a 5+ to pen as well. It's more dangerous vs the Russ, but it's not even as scary as melta.

These are both true, and yet I would rather have an army of carnifexes than an army of russes against hammerheads. I'd just give the 'fexes twin devouerers and put them in pods. (or mycetic spores, whatever).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, the vehicle table got moved up one notch, so AP 1 explodes on a 5+ instead of 4+.

The railgun needs a 5+ to pen as well. It's more dangerous vs the Russ, but it's not even as scary as melta.

These are both true, and yet I would rather have an army of carnifexes than an army of russes against hammerheads. I'd just give the 'fexes twin devouerers and put them in pods. (or mycetic spores, whatever).

Yeah, that's true. Of course, the hammerhead's status as a vehicle and having a single shot weapon means that we never see them. MCs fighting at full strength until they are out of wounds is a crazy good advantage.

Dantes_Baals wrote:
If the model is being piloted/controlled it gets walker rules. Simple as that.

Not really that simple, though. Crisis suits and broadsides are both technically piloted but I would argue are fairly well-represented with the rules and stat lines they currently have. A crisis suit is basically a larger suit of power armor, like what Space Marines wear, and if you compare their stat lines they're pretty similar, too, with the crisis suit having one extra wound being the biggest difference. The way I see it, if you can justify giving a crisis suit walker stats then I see no reason why lowly Tactical Marines shouldn't be made into walkers, too. Broadsides used to be pretty much the same, although the new model made them almost comparable in size to dreadnoughts, so I could probably see an argument being made for that now. Then again, Eldar wraithlords are also comparable in size and were even called dreadnoughts at one point, but still don't have walker rules. In any case broadsides wouldn't be that scary if it weren't for the HYMP, which is something new they came up with in order to try and push sales of the new kit, since every Tau player already had a bunch of broadsides with twin-linked railguns.

The real problem are the newer, larger models that GW have put out, like the ghostkeel, riptide, and the stormsurge: the "gunboats" as you said. The ghostkeel is big enough that it really makes more sense for it to be a walker in my opinion (even though you hardly see people complaining about it as it is), but the riptide/stormsurge especially are basically just walking vehicles, so it really doesn't make sense for them not to have walker rules. And it's not like they wouldn't still be worth taking if they were walkers, either, just not as insanely durable...and they really shouldn't be anyway. A riptide shouldn't be able to tank hits that can cripple or destroy a hammerhead, and a stormsurge with an open cockpit shouldn't be able to tank even more than THAT.

One way you could try to balance MCs out is introducing a mechanic where, like vehicles, MCs start to lose effectiveness after taking damage. The fact that a riptide or a stormsurge is at 100% effectiveness up until it's lost its very last wound is kinda bullgak. But like it was said, making changes to one area of the game often has consequences in others, and if you introduce changes to nerf them mainly because Tau gunboats are too good, then you end up making an army like Tyranids even weaker, who do not benefit nearly as much from the rules that Tau do. In trying to nerf one army you make another one nearly unplayable.

Although yes, it doesn't make much sense that a carnifex can take a railgun slug to the face and still keep going like nothing happened, the carnifex isn't really causing anyone problems right now.

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

40k is Apocalypse now, don't know if you noticed or not. Happened a couple years ago when they realized people liked big models but no one bought them because no one played Apocalypse, and people naturally don't drop major bucks on glorified paperweights. Probably only gonna get worse, since that's how GW do.

Either the game gets more and more bloated to the point where you can't fit your army in your deployment zone, and models just keep getting bigger and more powerful, or GW does a massive "Age of Sigmar"-style reboot of 40k and the game becomes so simplified and the fluff so stupid that no one even wants to play anymore.

Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

Because putting huge holes in things is a pretty universal solution.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
If the model is being piloted/controlled it gets walker rules. Simple as that.

Not really that simple, though. Crisis suits and broadsides are both technically piloted but I would argue are fairly well-represented with the rules and stat lines they currently have. A crisis suit is basically a larger suit of power armor, like what Space Marines wear, and if you compare their stat lines they're pretty similar, too, with the crisis suit having one extra wound being the biggest difference. The way I see it, if you can justify giving a crisis suit walker stats then I see no reason why lowly Tactical Marines shouldn't be made into walkers, too. Broadsides used to be pretty much the same, although the new model made them almost comparable in size to dreadnoughts, so I could probably see an argument being made for that now. Then again, Eldar wraithlords are also comparable in size and were even called dreadnoughts at one point, but still don't have walker rules. In any case broadsides wouldn't be that scary if it weren't for the HYMP, which is something new they came up with in order to try and push sales of the new kit, since every Tau player already had a bunch of broadsides with twin-linked railguns.

The real problem are the newer, larger models that GW have put out, like the ghostkeel, riptide, and the stormsurge: the "gunboats" as you said. The ghostkeel is big enough that it really makes more sense for it to be a walker in my opinion (even though you hardly see people complaining about it as it is), but the riptide/stormsurge especially are basically just walking vehicles, so it really doesn't make sense for them not to have walker rules. And it's not like they wouldn't still be worth taking if they were walkers, either, just not as insanely durable...and they really shouldn't be anyway. A riptide shouldn't be able to tank hits that can cripple or destroy a hammerhead, and a stormsurge with an open cockpit shouldn't be able to tank even more than THAT.

One way you could try to balance MCs out is introducing a mechanic where, like vehicles, MCs start to lose effectiveness after taking damage. The fact that a riptide or a stormsurge is at 100% effectiveness up until it's lost its very last wound is kinda bullgak. But like it was said, making changes to one area of the game often has consequences in others, and if you introduce changes to nerf them mainly because Tau gunboats are too good, then you end up making an army like Tyranids even weaker, who do not benefit nearly as much from the rules that Tau do. In trying to nerf one army you make another one nearly unplayable.

Although yes, it doesn't make much sense that a carnifex can take a railgun slug to the face and still keep going like nothing happened, the carnifex isn't really causing anyone problems right now.

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

40k is Apocalypse now, don't know if you noticed or not. Happened a couple years ago when they realized people liked big models but no one bought them because no one played Apocalypse, and people naturally don't drop major bucks on glorified paperweights. Probably only gonna get worse, since that's how GW do.

Either the game gets more and more bloated to the point where you can't fit your army in your deployment zone, and models just keep getting bigger and more powerful, or GW does a massive "Age of Sigmar"-style reboot of 40k and the game becomes so simplified and the fluff so stupid that no one even wants to play anymore.

You and I are pretty much on the same page. I have no problem with crisis suits, but then again they aren't MCs. I think the simplest fix would be to address the problem on a unit by unit basis. Ghostkeel, stormsurge and riptide should be given walker stats. The first two would obviously be superheavy walkers and I wouldn't mind if the bigger suit walkers like tides got a 4th hullpoint.

The SS and GK can be 14/13/11 with 6HP and IWND. The Tide can be 13/13/11 with 4 HP. Wraith lords would get the same stats as a dreadnought (maybe FA 13 and maybe a 5+ invul for being a wraith bone construct). Same for WKs . They could be 14/14/12 6 or 7 HP, Superheavy Walker (controlled by spiritseers no?). Give it a 5+ invul as well for being a wraith bone construct.

The stats above don't need to stick they're just a suggestion. An example of how GW COULD remove stupidness from the game on a unit by unit basis via errata if they wanted to without impacting other Armies/units.

Personally I don't think MCs are inherently broken but the issue is the divide between MCs and Walkers being so massive that it seems like MCs are op as gak. The walker rules are such hot garbage that they inherited the worst of both infantry (movement) and vehicles (lack of saves, damage table) for the only benefit of being able to melee as a vehicle and AV (if you even consider AV to be a benefit over toughness). Personally I would much rather see Walkers improved to a working level before we start gutting MCs. Also fixing silly things like toe in cover for MCs would help as well. After that adjusting the individual points cost for the worst offenders would go a long way to improving unity diversity. Worst thing that can be done is to completely ruin them and nobody uses the things anymore or it shifts the meta to even more super heavies.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

AoS covers this (but doesn't cover how many Elephants a Howitzer is worth)!

I dont think MC are OP. At least the classic ones. I mean, no one thinks that a demon prince or a carnifex are op!

The probem ws give the MC rule to units already to powerful for their own rules and stats. The funny is that all those are units that should be walkers because the look!
I am talking about TAU MC, the eldar WK and even the grey knight one.

Those are units with a great armor save, great mobility, amazing shot weapons...giving the MC rule make them harder to kill and make them very good at melee.

No mention the antilore....
"oh, a huge tau robot" no no, is a MC.
"oh, a huge human robot with the pilot being visible on the middle!" no no, that is also a MC.
"oh, a huuuge tau robot of 20 meters tall with a cabin for the pilots and lot of missile launchers and big guns!" well, this is funny, but also a MC........

"Oh, a huge demon with mechanic legs!, well, that one is mainly organic, just have some artificial members, like Yarric, a lot of space marines with artificial arms or eyes or like Will Smith on "I robot", for sure is a MC" .......no no, that one is clearly a vehicle..................

nareik wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

AoS covers this (but doesn't cover how many Elephants a Howitzer is worth)!

Yeah, probably where 40k is going, too. They'll balance out MCs by reducing their effectiveness as they take wounds, but then do away with points and structure altogether so you can just take an entire army of elephants or howitzers anyway and completely destroy any semblance of balance.

Then before you know it the local store stops ordering new Warhammer 50k: Age of the Emperor product entirely, and the existing stuff sits on the shelves gathering dust even at 50-60% off, because everyone stopped giving a gak.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

Well clearly the howitzer doubled out the Elephant or at least rolled instant death on that hit. Clearly riptides are tougher than the average elephant

Franarok wrote:
Those are units with a great armor save, great mobility, amazing shot weapons...giving the MC rule make them harder to kill and make them very good at melee.

No mention the antilore....
"oh, a huge tau robot" no no, is a MC.
"oh, a huge human robot with the pilot being visible on the middle!" no no, that is also a MC.
"oh, a huuuge tau robot of 20 meters tall with a cabin for the pilots and lot of missile launchers and big guns!" well, this is funny, but also a MC........

"Oh, a huge demon with mechanic legs!, well, that one is mainly organic, just have some artificial members, like Yarric, a lot of space marines with artificial arms or eyes or like Will Smith on "I robot", for sure is a MC" .......no no, that one is clearly a vehicle..................

Yeah, MC status really puts them over the top. They have great shooting, great mobility, insane durability with MC status combined with FNP and invulnerable saves from wargear, and then on top of that they're actually decent in melee because of Smash, which for the Tau units in particular is really nuts because that's supposed to be our one weakness. The stormsurge is hilarious, it actually ends up being more effective when you charge it straight up the table and actually try to get it into close combat, instead of sitting at the back and trying to anchor with it, which I imagine is not something GW intended.

And like you pointed out, there's no rhyme or reason to any of it. Units are labeled MCs that are clearly vehicles, and others that you would think would make sense as MCs are actually vehicles.

+1

Just giving the stormsurge and riptide the walker status will make them a bit less op and will result on an improvement for the game.
Same for eldar WK.


Just that will make the game a bit more balanced. And if we use the logic and common sense, hell, they are clearly vehicles/robots! xDDDD

Because why a riptide is a MC and a dinobot or a soul grinder are vehicles when on the description they said are half organic? Specially on the soulgrinder case, where all the up part is not metalic xDD

This sounds like a very faction specific problem (specifically xeno). It seems like most factions, or their brothers, have plenty of tools to deal with MCs or GMCs or have their own equally annoying MCs. Unless this is one of those 'I dont want to play those models or take allies' things. Off the top of my head, Orks would seem to be in a bad way fighting GMCs.

Dont get me wrong. Playing against a pile of WKs or Storm Surges wouldn't be too thrilling lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

And how exactly does this make the game better, other than for those who have a lot of howitzers :V
You're talking to a guy who want to get rid of ID via double str, the argument of "realism" means nothing to me

If I am paying 770pts for a AV13 superheavy (stompa) and a ghostkeel or any other Tau cheese/Eldar Cheese GMC or just MC can completely annihilate my superheavy in 1 turn of shooting, then something is wrong.

Someone a few posts ago said make all Tau/Eldar MC/GMC shenanigans into Walkers and Super Heavies, that is a good idea and I agree with it 100%, but because Eldar and Tau are considered OP Cheese he then went ahead and gave them all AV14 or at the very least AV13 and a bunch of other bonuses that are extremely rare for most armies IE IWND and invulnerable saves.

Honestly at this point I am so jaded by GW's rules that I wouldn't be surprised if they finally did this but they gave Tau or Eldar or both special rules that specifically stated that they aren't affected by crew stunned/shaken results, can self repair (IWND), and are -2 on the Damage charts, (IE It will never explode).

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

And how exactly does this make the game better, other than for those who have a lot of howitzers :V
You're talking to a guy who want to get rid of ID via double str, the argument of "realism" means nothing to me

Wait what?

You're saying lots of howitzers isn't how you win a war? Warfare in the 20th century has been artillery, mobile artillery, direct-fire field artillery, direct-fire field artillery on armoured platforms, heavy artillery, light artillery, air defense artillery, small arms, and airplanes. It isn't my fault you want Hannibal's elephants to be viable against Soviet tank formations...

EDIT: I forgot missile artillery, rocket artillery, naval artillery, and naval missile artillery.

I find this kind of thing to be rather hilarious. Every time that I see these things, I suggest that GMCs actually be used RaW but I get stomped on anyway.
GMCs have 2 firing modes -
1. 2 weapons fired at a single target
or
2. Each weapon fired at a different target.
Problem is that everyone has the idea that a GMC should be able to direct its fire like a superheavy walker, which ISN'T RAW!!!!
It is like no one uses gatling psilencers (ranged force weapons) to kill MCs. (Okay I don't, and didn't when I played GKs).
Maybe in 8th they (GW) will strip Hull Points from vehicles and maybe allow a reroll on the damage table for things other than ven dreads or the like.

The problem is that you have many units that are marginalized (dreadnoughts and other walkers) with rules that nerf vehicles, while essentially identical vehicles count as Monstrous Creatures and get a whole host of advantages.

The way the rules are is ridiculously stupid. All the giant Tau and Eldar walkers being Monstrous Creatures is stupid. Either that or having all of the Walkers as Walkers is stupid.

Either way, those rules are counterintuitive, and completely unbalanced.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
If the model is being piloted/controlled it gets walker rules. Simple as that.

Not really that simple, though. Crisis suits and broadsides are both technically piloted but I would argue are fairly well-represented with the rules and stat lines they currently have. A crisis suit is basically a larger suit of power armor, like what Space Marines wear, and if you compare their stat lines they're pretty similar, too, with the crisis suit having one extra wound being the biggest difference. The way I see it, if you can justify giving a crisis suit walker stats then I see no reason why lowly Tactical Marines shouldn't be made into walkers, too. Broadsides used to be pretty much the same, although the new model made them almost comparable in size to dreadnoughts, so I could probably see an argument being made for that now. Then again, Eldar wraithlords are also comparable in size and were even called dreadnoughts at one point, but still don't have walker rules. In any case broadsides wouldn't be that scary if it weren't for the HYMP, which is something new they came up with in order to try and push sales of the new kit, since every Tau player already had a bunch of broadsides with twin-linked railguns.

And even then, HYMP wouldn't be scary if it weren't for the stupid number of shots at S7 AP4 and the fact that you can exchange the lackluster HRR for HYMPs at no points cost. Give HYMPs the same points cost that Guard pay for Autocannons or Missile Launchers and buff HRRs up with Rapid Fire or adding in a Submunitions profile while also making HYMPs a Blast weapon and it makes that no longer such an "OMG YES!" option.

Maybe remove the EWO from HYMP Broadsides as well and see what happens.

The real problem are the newer, larger models that GW have put out, like the ghostkeel, riptide, and the stormsurge: the "gunboats" as you said. The ghostkeel is big enough that it really makes more sense for it to be a walker in my opinion (even though you hardly see people complaining about it as it is), but the riptide/stormsurge especially are basically just walking vehicles, so it really doesn't make sense for them not to have walker rules. And it's not like they wouldn't still be worth taking if they were walkers, either, just not as insanely durable...and they really shouldn't be anyway. A riptide shouldn't be able to tank hits that can cripple or destroy a hammerhead, and a stormsurge with an open cockpit shouldn't be able to tank even more than THAT.

I'm actually okay with Riptides being MCs. I really am. It's the fact that their points cost is so low and that their downside(Nova Reactors) are so easily negated by wargear options and, again, they have access to a better weapon option at such a flabbergastingly low price.

One way you could try to balance MCs out is introducing a mechanic where, like vehicles, MCs start to lose effectiveness after taking damage. The fact that a riptide or a stormsurge is at 100% effectiveness up until it's lost its very last wound is kinda bullgak. But like it was said, making changes to one area of the game often has consequences in others, and if you introduce changes to nerf them mainly because Tau gunboats are too good, then you end up making an army like Tyranids even weaker, who do not benefit nearly as much from the rules that Tau do. In trying to nerf one army you make another one nearly unplayable.

Fun fact: the Tau megasuit from FW was intended to be a SHW per FW themselves prior to the release of the Stormsurge. It got shifted to a GMC instead.

The Stormsurge and Supremacy are the only ones I would argue belong as vehicles, but I'm genuinely less afraid of the Stormsurge than I am of the Supremacy Armour. Stormsurge takes a bit more to kill it, but it's no Wraithknight.

The Riptide just needs a good long look at points costs and availability of Support Systems. Hell, maybe even making the Shielded Missile Drones mandatory and a key part as to how the Riptide Shield Generator works.

But to an extent that's kinda how I feel about the Tau codex as a whole. It's a book which needs to be given a complete overhaul in many regards.

Martel732 wrote:
Not by much. Single shot anti-tank is bad in 7th.

Not when it's BS5 with PE against that Leman Russ, with Tank Hunters, and can be given Ignores Cover.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Not by much. Single shot anti-tank is bad in 7th.

Not when it's BS5 with PE against that Leman Russ, with Tank Hunters, and can be given Ignores Cover.

It's still not that good. Arc rifle drop pod is way scarier.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

And how exactly does this make the game better, other than for those who have a lot of howitzers :V
You're talking to a guy who want to get rid of ID via double str, the argument of "realism" means nothing to me

Wait what?

You're saying lots of howitzers isn't how you win a war? Warfare in the 20th century has been artillery, mobile artillery, direct-fire field artillery, direct-fire field artillery on armoured platforms, heavy artillery, light artillery, air defense artillery, small arms, and airplanes. It isn't my fault you want Hannibal's elephants to be viable against Soviet tank formations...

EDIT: I forgot missile artillery, rocket artillery, naval artillery, and naval missile artillery.

When there are armies that HAVE to use those elephants as the hard hitters of their armies, then yeah I do. All choices that a game gives should be viable, not traps to punish players for picking the wrong one. Unless you seriously want to tell Tyranid and Chaos Daemon players to go feth themselves for not playing a different army.

Both daemons and Tyranids have artillery, and can utilize it effectively.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

And how exactly does this make the game better, other than for those who have a lot of howitzers :V
You're talking to a guy who want to get rid of ID via double str, the argument of "realism" means nothing to me

Wait what?

You're saying lots of howitzers isn't how you win a war? Warfare in the 20th century has been artillery, mobile artillery, direct-fire field artillery, direct-fire field artillery on armoured platforms, heavy artillery, light artillery, air defense artillery, small arms, and airplanes. It isn't my fault you want Hannibal's elephants to be viable against Soviet tank formations...

EDIT: I forgot missile artillery, rocket artillery, naval artillery, and naval missile artillery.

When there are armies that HAVE to use those elephants as the hard hitters of their armies, then yeah I do. All choices that a game gives should be viable, not traps to punish players for picking the wrong one. Unless you seriously want to tell Tyranid and Chaos Daemon players to go feth themselves for not playing a different army.

No, I think that things need to appropriately costed for what they do. As it stands, single shot non-D weapons are horrifically overcosted and not worth the army slot frankly. Even melta is roughly as likely to HP out a 3 hull point vehicle as it is to explode it. And melta is damn useless vs MCs of any type due to low ROF. As are railguns, lascannons, etc. Which makes no sense to me.

 Swampmist wrote:
Both daemons and Tyranids have artillery, and can utilize it effectively.

Erm, what? Nids sure, they have some long range guys like Biovores, the hell that is Flyrants, Dakkafexes, and the Zoanthropes because of Warp Lance.

What do Daemons have? The FMCs that can throw Psychic powers most notably Kairos, the unreliable Lash of Despair on a winged DP, the Skullcannon, and the unreliable Soul Grinders. Oh, and lots of S5 flicker fire with a chance to give people FNP.

Where is this artillery you speak of? Sure, I have some shooty psychic powers, but guess what? Most Daemons are BS3. I'd rather spend my turn Summoning/Casting Cursed Earth and just run up and punch you than bother to shoot you.

Even Orks are better at shooting than Daemons.

Does anyone even read the lore for the Wraithknight? Yes there is a pilot but the entire structure is also the same as a Wraitlord just on a much larger scale. The added pilot is to give the wraith construct improved agility. Its not mechanical. Its a semi living being.

I don't care that the WK is a GMC. I care that it is way, way too cheap.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
Both daemons and Tyranids have artillery, and can utilize it effectively.

Erm, what? Nids sure, they have some long range guys like Biovores, the hell that is Flyrants, Dakkafexes, and the Zoanthropes because of Warp Lance.

What do Daemons have? The FMCs that can throw Psychic powers most notably Kairos, the unreliable Lash of Despair on a winged DP, the Skullcannon, and the unreliable Soul Grinders. Oh, and lots of S5 flicker fire with a chance to give people FNP.

Where is this artillery you speak of? Sure, I have some shooty psychic powers, but guess what? Most Daemons are BS3. I'd rather spend my turn Summoning/Casting Cursed Earth and just run up and punch you than bother to shoot you.

Even Orks are better at shooting than Daemons.

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

 mrhappyface wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

So the rule isn't the problem but rather the models which are allowed to use them i.e. wraithknights.

the problem isnt something that can be equated. GMC's and superheavy walkers shoved out the previous top end units. why have a wraithlord when theres the wraithknight, why have the gorkanaut when you have the stompa, what purpose is there to terminators when you can have a warhound or a sicarian. so many units got shoved out of the game because now theres something on top of them.

i am of the opinion that apocalypse needs to come back and gmc's and superheavies are exclusive to that format. you cant take them below that point without being unbound.

this solves a lot of issues at the top end, and while it wont solve everything it gives those top end units breathing room

Ask a Tyranid player if MC rules are overpowered.... By that logic, Tyranid codex should be waaaay more competitive then it is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
Both daemons and Tyranids have artillery, and can utilize it effectively.

Erm, what? Nids sure, they have some long range guys like Biovores, the hell that is Flyrants, Dakkafexes, and the Zoanthropes because of Warp Lance.

What do Daemons have? The FMCs that can throw Psychic powers most notably Kairos, the unreliable Lash of Despair on a winged DP, the Skullcannon, and the unreliable Soul Grinders. Oh, and lots of S5 flicker fire with a chance to give people FNP.

Where is this artillery you speak of? Sure, I have some shooty psychic powers, but guess what? Most Daemons are BS3. I'd rather spend my turn Summoning/Casting Cursed Earth and just run up and punch you than bother to shoot you.

Even Orks are better at shooting than Daemons.

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing his point that Daemons have shooting and utilize it effectively.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
Does anyone even read the lore for the Wraithknight? Yes there is a pilot but the entire structure is also the same as a Wraitlord just on a much larger scale. The added pilot is to give the wraith construct improved agility. Its not mechanical. Its a semi living being.

Fine. Keep it a GMC, tone it the feth down or bump it's cost.

 ionusx wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

So the rule isn't the problem but rather the models which are allowed to use them i.e. wraithknights.

the problem isnt something that can be equated. GMC's and superheavy walkers shoved out the previous top end units. why have a wraithlord when theres the wraithknight, why have the gorkanaut when you have the stompa, what purpose is there to terminators when you can have a warhound or a sicarian. so many units got shoved out of the game because now theres something on top of them.

Most people would prefer the Gorkanaut or Morkanaut to a Stompa, if they're gonna be honest and not running the broken Mek Stompa that somehow ended up being cheaper than a regular Stompa pointswise.

Terminators have not had a purpose for at least two or three editions now. Their slot wasn't usurped by a Warhound Titan or a Sicarian Battle Tank. Their slot was usurped by literally anything being better than them.

 FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
Ask a Tyranid player if MC rules are overpowered.... By that logic, Tyranid codex should be waaaay more competitive then it is.

The exact nature of MCs vary a great deal. However, if you changed Tyranid MCs for vehicles, the list would be much, much worse. Hell, marine vehicles are only truly competitive when they are FREE.

I don't think MCs or GMCs are OP, by default, really. I just think that when compared to walkers, which are the closest equivalent unit, they are vastly superior. And this is more of a problem with walkers than MCs, really.

The only real issue I have is with flying MCs - I think when swooping, they should have a firing arc, like flyers.

Because it's a little broken for something to fly over a vehicle and hit its rear armor, and to be able to fly anywhere on the table and fire in any direction.

It takes all possible tactical positioning that should come with using flyers out of the equation, and you have a unit that effectively can't be engaged that suffers no limitations whatsoever.

Also, MC characters issuing challenges needs some work. Because any half-assed character MC will curbstomp just about any other non-MC character in a challenge, outside of Lord of wars, which is pretty unfair.

Yet, letting specially armed characters (like nob w/ PK) hit MCs without penalty is a little unfair toward the MC, too.

Maybe, if a non MC character refuses a challenge issued by a MC character, it is treated as WS1, instead of being unable to attack at all?

You can't sum up G/MC's in a single category.

They vary far too much from stupidly useless to pretty OP.
As I primarily play nids, I see this as somewhat funny.

We have the toxicrene sat at the bottom of the scale as useless, with the flyrant at the top end.

Generalising really doesn't work.
Yes, MC's do get a ton of extra rules.
They are however able to fall prey to small arms fire, poisoned weapons and test based weapons/powers.
Vehicles are immune to those things.

So it's not as if they have all the extra rules and 0 drawbacks.


While I agree an AoS style of reduced effectiveness on losing wounds is a good idea.
I doubt GW will throw that in.
Granted it adds some realism (and a great mechanic from AoS)
But it also adds extra rules which they are trying to cut down on.


All in all, I see this entire thread being pointed at wraith knights, storm surge, supremacy and the tide.






Edit:

Krump: why would a living organism function like an aircraft?
They move in a completely different manner.
They are able to turn quickly, take off vertically etc.
So flying over a vehicle and shooting rear armour is possible.

Look at how a bat can move as it flies.
How many aircrafts are that manoeuvrable?

"They are however able to fall prey to small arms fire,"

You will never kill your average T6 3+ MC with small arms before it has stomped all over you.

Martel732 wrote:
You will never kill your average T6 3+ MC with small arms before it has stomped all over you.

MCs cannot stomp.

Why would you try to kill a MC purely with small arms?
You use it for putting a few wounds on or finishing it off.

You don't rely solely on small arms.


However, what will those small arms do to something like a dreadnought?

 carldooley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You will never kill your average T6 3+ MC with small arms before it has stomped all over you.

MCs cannot stomp.

Figuratively, not literally. They still ignore all armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
Why would you try to kill a MC purely with small arms?
You use it for putting a few wounds on or finishing it off.

You don't rely solely on small arms.


However, what will those small arms do to something like a dreadnought?

Shoot at their intended target instead of falling into a trap choice and trying to clear wounds against T6 3+ with a S3 or S4 weapon. Besides, the dreadnought died three turns earlier to being glanced out by S7, and so they never get within small arms range.

Martel732 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You will never kill your average T6 3+ MC with small arms before it has stomped all over you.

MCs cannot stomp.

Figuratively, not literally. They still ignore all armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
Why would you try to kill a MC purely with small arms?
You use it for putting a few wounds on or finishing it off.

You don't rely solely on small arms.


However, what will those small arms do to something like a dreadnought?

Shoot at their intended target instead of falling into a trap choice and trying to clear wounds against T6 3+ with a S3 or S4 weapon. Besides, the dreadnought died three turns earlier to being glanced out by S7, and so they never get within small arms range.

GW just needs to admit that they messed up on hull points for vehicles and just double all hull points on all vehicles.

But that just makes high ROF weapons even MORE desirable.

And low ROF anti-tank would still be bad vs MCs.

Low ROF anti-tank weapons can't generate enough wounds OR explodes results to ever be worth it under the current system.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Yeah, probably where 40k is going, too. They'll balance out MCs by reducing their effectiveness as they take wounds, but then do away with points and structure altogether so you can just take an entire army of elephants or howitzers anyway and completely destroy any semblance of balance.

Did someone just mention the dwarves? 3-4 dragons, a few slayers, and as many cannons as you can muster to shoot into melee....sounds like fun to me. If 40K goes the AOS way I truly will be done with the game.

SemperMortis wrote:

Someone a few posts ago said make all Tau/Eldar MC/GMC shenanigans into Walkers and Super Heavies, that is a good idea and I agree with it 100%, but because Eldar and Tau are considered OP Cheese he then went ahead and gave them all AV14 or at the very least AV13 and a bunch of other bonuses that are extremely rare for most armies IE IWND and invulnerable saves.

Honestly at this point I am so jaded by GW's rules that I wouldn't be surprised if they finally did this but they gave Tau or Eldar or both special rules that specifically stated that they aren't affected by crew stunned/shaken results, can self repair (IWND)

I was trying to be realistic about how I could see GW handling the change. In my suggestion(s) the Tide would literally have the same stats as a soul grinder but with one extra hullpoint. Considering the fluf, and comparing that to what it is now I think is a huge step in the right direction. The Tau superheavies (IMO should be tougher than the IKs at least in regards to armor, hence the AV14 front and IWND.) Even the IK has the shield and much better rear armor despite it being a steampunked creation in the 41st milennium. The WK I gave stats to reflect the fluff. A 5+ save for being made of the hardest substance in the 40k universe seemed appropriate (I mean it's no better than a demon save) as did front and side AV 14. They would still be tougher than IoM and ork walkers because of the despairity in technology and GWS reasons, but they wouldn't be nearly as stupidly resilient and hard to kill as they are now.

I mean we both agree after all that even if GW pulled it's head out of its ass and made them walkers, that's about as much as they would realistically be willing to compromise (because Tau is Tau and Kelly won't let Eldar be anything but the stinker gorgon zola in the room), eh? I'm pretty sure we're on the same page, but the design team is in a different book.

I don't have a problem with monstrous creatures. I have a problem with a giant tau robot and a giant eldar robot being anything but a grot-darn vehicle! WHY? Theres absolutely no reason for those to be gigantic monstrous creatures when gigantic walkers are already a unit type!!!

*cries in a corner holding my morkanaut*

The Tau MCs are getting hit from the balance-minded people and the fluff people. Interesting.

 Don Savik wrote:
I don't have a problem with monstrous creatures. I have a problem with a giant tau robot and a giant eldar robot being anything but a grot-darn vehicle! WHY? Theres absolutely no reason for those to be gigantic monstrous creatures when gigantic walkers are already a unit type!!!

*cries in a corner holding my morkanaut*

You can at least try to justify the Wraithknight being a MC.

pm713 wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I don't have a problem with monstrous creatures. I have a problem with a giant tau robot and a giant eldar robot being anything but a grot-darn vehicle! WHY? Theres absolutely no reason for those to be gigantic monstrous creatures when gigantic walkers are already a unit type!!!

*cries in a corner holding my morkanaut*

You can at least try to justify the Wraithknight being a MC.

Its kinda 50/50. It is a wraithbone structure but it still has a living pilot. The whole thing feels like GW knew that vehicles were garbage so they trolled us with the new models. I don't play orks to win, but there are only so many rugs you can pull out from under me.

@Swampmist: I wasn't saying they didn't (although I agree more with jreilly on this. "artillery" for those two armies is very limited and even then is mostly anti-infantry.), however what I want to avoid a system that the "nerf all MC!" often suggest because they are often designed such that weapons that MIGHT weaken or oneshot a vehicle is guaranteed to do so to a MC. For example:

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

If we're talking about the Tyrannofex specifically, the version with the rupture cannon is 55 point more than your bog standard Russ and a whopping 70 compared to the Vanquisher. I would expect some kind of additional toughness from that, considering that a Russ is already tougher in some cases and the rupture cannon, while it is good at tank hunting with two str 10 shots, with AP 4 make it impossible to one shot vehicles and very weak against non-vehicle targets.

" I would expect some kind of additional toughness from that,"

It gets way too much, though. The rupture cannon is not that amazing, I'll agree.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
@Swampmist: I wasn't saying they didn't (although I agree more with jreilly on this. "artillery" for those two armies is very limited and even then is mostly anti-infantry.), however what I want to avoid a system that the "nerf all MC!" often suggest because they are often designed such that weapons that MIGHT weaken or oneshot a vehicle is guaranteed to do so to a MC. For example:

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

If we're talking about the Tyrannofex specifically, the version with the rupture cannon is 55 point more than your bog standard Russ and a whopping 70 compared to the Vanquisher. I would expect some kind of additional toughness from that, considering that a Russ is already tougher in some cases and the rupture cannon, while it is good at tank hunting with two str 10 shots, with AP 4 make it impossible to one shot vehicles and very weak against non-vehicle targets.

I also said that some are not appropriately costed. The points costs are not up for debate - hell, drop it to below the toughness of the Russ and make it 70 points cheaper (literally half the price). It'd be more realistic and more tyranid-y as a spammable high-firepower unit that suffers massive casualties but is easily replaced.

pretty one sided poll here, no MC are fine as it is period option. so you say are mc overpowered? yes, or yes but only some... no option to select no?

I think all of th MC out right now are either points cost appropriately or are over costed for what they do.

This poll is worthless because of lacking choices... what isf someone thinks the MC rules are fine? so neigther point one or point two of this poll?
The way this poll is set up its worthless bs. try better next time. biased polls won't give you any answer thats worth something

 Don Savik wrote:
The whole thing feels like GW knew that vehicles were garbage so they trolled us with the new models. I don't play orks to win, but there are only so many rugs you can pull out from under me.

You have to wonder where Charlie Brown is in the GW design team. . .

Where's the poll option for 'MC aren't OP'?

Its not the rules for MC that are OP.

Vehicle and especially Walkr rules are crap.

And GMC rules are OP

thats it.

Dantes_Baals wrote:
Considering the fluf, and comparing that to what it is now I think is a huge step in the right direction. The Tau superheavies (IMO should be tougher than the IKs at least in regards to armor, hence the AV14 front and IWND.) Even the IK has the shield and much better rear armor despite it being a steampunked creation in the 41st milennium.

Personally I always felt it should be the other way around, with Tau vehicles having slightly weaker armor than Imperial equivalents but better shielding to compensate for it.

one buff I think MC deserve is a longer movement to represent their larger stride. if a GMC moves 12 then make a MC move 9 to represent this. it would mostly effect some of the less competitive models and really help out Tyranids who could use the boost (I don't play tyranids but the couple of people at my shop who play them have proven they need better movement,

 Sidstyler wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
Considering the fluf, and comparing that to what it is now I think is a huge step in the right direction. The Tau superheavies (IMO should be tougher than the IKs at least in regards to armor, hence the AV14 front and IWND.) Even the IK has the shield and much better rear armor despite it being a steampunked creation in the 41st milennium.

Personally I always felt it should be the other way around, with Tau vehicles having slightly weaker armor than Imperial equivalents but better shielding to compensate for it.

Tau vehicles aren't shielded though? At least not that I can recall.

Tau have no shields at all.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Tau have no shields at all.

The Shield Generator wargear, Shield Drone, and Shielded Missile Drone would all like to have a word with you.

Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

 _ghost_ wrote:
Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

Then maybe you should have said "Tau have no shields at all when talking about vehicles"

 Jackal wrote:
You can't sum up G/MC's in a single category.
Yes, MC's do get a ton of extra rules.
They are however able to fall prey to small arms fire, poisoned weapons and test based weapons/powers.
Vehicles are immune to those things.

MC defenders always bring up these points, but in actuality the likelihood of a MC losing even a single wound to smallarms fire or to poisoned weapons is so infinitesimal it's not ever worth mentioning. It certainly isn't anywhere near enough of a drawback to balance off against the insane amount of extra durability MCs get over vehicles.

 Jackal wrote:
Krump: why would a living organism function like an aircraft?
They move in a completely different manner.
They are able to turn quickly, take off vertically etc.
So flying over a vehicle and shooting rear armour is possible.

Look at how a bat can move as it flies.
How many aircrafts are that manoeuvrable?

The little brown bat is one of the most common bats in North America. An adult weighs 0.2 - 0.5 oz (5-14 grams). It can turn fast because it hardly weighs anything, not because an organism is inherently more maneuverable than an aircraft.

The flipside is that the highest speed reached by a bird in level flight is just above 100mph (169 kph) - the white-throated needletail if you're really interested. Modern fixed-wing combat aircraft, on the other hand, can reasonably be expected to reach speeds of Mach 2 - 1534mph/2470kph. Even the A10 Warthog can reach speeds of up to 460mph/740kph. So, there is absolutely no justification for FMCs to have the same Hard to Hit rule as Flyers, because they are not flying anywhere near as fast, nor are they apt to have enough maneuverability to compensate for the lack of speed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

Then maybe you should have said "Tau have no shields at all when talking about vehicles"

Well i assumed that you don't lose the focus on the topic. witch was vehicles. ... tau vehicles and that the have no shields... im sorry

so, judging by the poll: if we made actual creatures MCs, and things like walkers..... walkers all would be better now if only we got a buff to walkers (or vehicles in general, maybe something like and armour or invuln save?)

 Brennonjw wrote:
so, judging by the poll: if we made actual creatures MCs, and things like walkers..... walkers all would be better now if only we got a buff to walkers (or vehicles in general, maybe something like and armour or invuln save?)

I wouldn't take the poll seriously. It's an awful poll.

MC rule as such is not overpowered, it is how it's implemented. I mean, there is nothing in the rules to stop having an Infantry unit with S10, T10, 10 wounds, armed with Railgun and so on - other than restraint from the designers.

In the past there was set of informal tradeoffs in place between monstrous creatures and vehicles. MC's were vulnerable to Small arms fire and poison, they tended to be slow and generally had little or at best, mediocre firepower compared to vehicles. You could put heavy weapons on Carnifex but they were inferior to most tank guns and limited its other abilities. If you had a jump MC it tended to have limitations in its firepower or durability.

But nowadays there are units like Riptide. It has
2+ armour save, making it nearly invulnerable to Small arms fire or Poison
5 wounds, meaning it can't be killed quickly with most weapons which work on other units
5+ Inv save, meaning that single-shot high-powered weapons are limited effectiveness.
Jump mobility, giving it equal or better mobility than Tanks
Huge big gun which is superior to most Tank guns

When you think about what a tank actually is, it's an armoured shell which surrounds large amount of combustible or unstable material which give it its firepower and mobility. Weak guns do nothing against a tank but If you penetrate its hard shell, you might ignite its power source or ammunition supply, resulting to a catastrophic kill. Even if you don't, you can always achieve a hit on its heavy weapons which are exposed, or snap a track or "grav field projector" resulting to mobility kill. Current vehicle rules in 40k model this very well.

But with a Monstrous creature, none of that applies. Which kinda makes sense on some level - there is nothing inside an elephant which could blow up violently if you shoot it with a howitzer. And if you blow up one leg it still might drag itself forward with only three. But when you strap a big gun on elephants back, then its ammo supply SHOULD possibly blow up. And again we're in Riptide: somehow, same features which exist to justify damage rules on Hammerhead do not apply on Riptide. Its gun cannot be harmed. You can't shoot off its leg or jet pack. Even if you shoot through its armour with your most powerful gun, its ammo supply or power reactor never blows up.

But maybe those rules are just to represent much higher level of technology? No, that can't be it: there are both types of units within a same faction like Riptide and Hammerhead, Dreadnought and Dreadknight etc. Why don't Tau make ALL their vehicles with same uber-technology they apply on Riptide? There is of course always Wraithlord, which is argued a product of superior Eldar wraithbone technology. But Wraithlord represents the old paradigm where MC's and vehicles had respectable tradeoffs. Wraithlord is kinda like a Walker which is immune to certain additional effects. It has high T, only 3 wounds and no Inv save. It is immune to most Small arms, doesn't blow up but just as easy to kill with heavy weapons as an equivalent Walker.

From purely gaming perspective, I find it very tedious to play against tough Monstrous creatures. When I shoot at a tank, I might always get lucky, it might blow up, or at least lose a gun or its mobility, leaving opponent an unit with reduced usefulness but something I still can't ignore. But when I shoot at Monstrous creature, the best result I can expect is that it loses a wound. There are no other effects, it will continue its rampage on 100% combat effectiveness regardless of how powerful gun I shot it at. I have to grind it down wound by wound, and when it finally dies, it just disappears into thin air. It doesn't blow up and doesn't leave a wreck. It is so BORING.

 Brennonjw wrote:
so, judging by the poll: if we made actual creatures MCs, and things like walkers..... walkers all would be better now if only we got a buff to walkers (or vehicles in general, maybe something like and armour or invuln save?)

again, the poll is functionally useless due to the lack of options. Confirmation bias.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
@Swampmist: I wasn't saying they didn't (although I agree more with jreilly on this. "artillery" for those two armies is very limited and even then is mostly anti-infantry.), however what I want to avoid a system that the "nerf all MC!" often suggest because they are often designed such that weapons that MIGHT weaken or oneshot a vehicle is guaranteed to do so to a MC. For example:

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

If we're talking about the Tyrannofex specifically, the version with the rupture cannon is 55 point more than your bog standard Russ and a whopping 70 compared to the Vanquisher. I would expect some kind of additional toughness from that, considering that a Russ is already tougher in some cases and the rupture cannon, while it is good at tank hunting with two str 10 shots, with AP 4 make it impossible to one shot vehicles and very weak against non-vehicle targets.

I also said that some are not appropriately costed. The points costs are not up for debate - hell, drop it to below the toughness of the Russ and make it 70 points cheaper (literally half the price). It'd be more realistic and more tyranid-y as a spammable high-firepower unit that suffers massive casualties but is easily replaced.

Yes, a more appropriate cost usually does make things better, but the thing is that point cost is not a magic cureall for making something useful. FOC slots is also an inherent cost, and an equal points in infantry is almost always better. We have a good case study with this already with Nobs and Tyranid Warriors, who are a lot of points to go up in flames if someone decided to take krak missiles (or equivalent) that day and aren't really any tougher to small arms. Unless they have a way to boost up their toughness that keeps them way from (biker nobs/mega armor), you're better off using the more spamable version. And MC would be to multi wound infantry what multi wound infantry is to normal infantry: a massive point sink into a single model. At least with multiwound infantry it's a waste to fire something like a vanquisher, hammhead railgun, or lascan pred at one because of the inefficiency to do so. where as a mc, even with a massive discount, would still be no reason to not shoot at it and short of having a inv, flying, a cover save (and I assume you'd also want to remove MC getting a cover save from area terrain) being able to outrange you, they will die.

If anything, such a system would encourage taking ripsides, flyrants, and wraith knights.

it's almost like it's the exact same problem when people nerf assault to make deathstars weaker and just make the deathstars better by comparison! But that's it's own topic

Both

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


MC defenders always bring up these points, but in actuality the likelihood of a MC losing even a single wound to smallarms fire or to poisoned weapons is so infinitesimal it's not ever worth mentioning /quote]

What? Lasgun vs. Carnifex is 1/6 x 1/3 = 1/18. 10 Guardsmen with FRFSRF in RF range has a pretty good chance of getting that.

Splinter rifle vs. Carnifex is 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/6!