Multiple Choice, Should these Models be vehicles instead of MC/GMC?

The non-MC/GMC models mentioned are up their because they are robotic/mechanical in some way and are roughly the same size as dreadnoughts/Killa Kanz.

You cant change Crisis Suits and Broadsides from Monsterous Creature to Walker because they are Infantry and not Monsterous Creatures.

Merellin wrote:
You cant change Crisis Suits and Broadsides from Monsterous Creature to Walker because they are Infantry and not Monsterous Creatures.

Yeah that was meant to mean they become vehicles, they can stay troops for all I care, but they are roughly the same size as my Killa Kanz, so why aren't they vehicles?

Same as above, but including wraithguard too.
None of those are MC's to begin with and are nowhere close to being a vehicle.

IMO, the only ones that should be changed to a walker are the wraith knight, stormsurge and riptide.



The rest are either not MC's to begin with or are very minor as it is.
A wraith lord is nowhere near as good as it used to be, and has been a MC for countless years now.
Makes no sense to make it a walker.

.

The Wraithlord, Wraithknight, Riptide, Stormsurge, and other models like the Dreadknight really should be vehicles. These are MC's only to make them more impressive to sell models really, they really should be vehicles, they're manufactured constructs, and the MC rules for most of these units just make them far and away more powerful than a vehicle equivalent. In fact, the Wraithlord was once known as an Eldar Dreadnought and *was* a vehicle, though it's also probably the only one of the group where it probably makes the least difference.

The smaller guys like Broadsides & Wraithguard are fine as infantry.

I like how you can have a open topped vehicle and still call it a "monster" : P


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Dread knight should also be a walker.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I like how you can have a open topped vehicle and still call it a "monster" : P


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Dread knight should also be a walker.

Can't believe I forgot about that stupid Dread Knight. I tried adding it in, but unfortunately the poll isn't smart enough to move votes around and I have CDO ( Alphabetical order) and can't put it at the bottom

The baby carrier should be a walker - all of the baove should be except Wraith Lord and Wraith Guard which are the only ones that are not plioted machines............. at least one of the tau ones should be open topped.

Unless the vehciles rules are made to match the GMC / MC rules, anothign else is just wanting cheese for your own army..............

It doesn't matter because it's all arbitrary. The only reason people have such issue with it is because of the disparity in effective rules between Walkers and MCs. If the rules were balanced or even if the shoe was on the other foot your wouldn't see so much complaining about it.

 CrownAxe wrote:
It doesn't matter because it's all arbitrary. The only reason people have such issue with it is because of the disparity in effective rules between Walkers and MCs. If the rules were balanced or even if the shoe was on the other foot your wouldn't see so much complaining about it.

I agree 100% with you. But since GW is doing this specifically to enhance the effectiveness of their new toys, it becomes a problem that the community has to deal with at some point. I for one really hope GW unfeths itself in the near future, but until then it boils down to house ruling and what not. A number of players have boycotted Eldar/Tau players, not because those players are necessarily TFG/WAAC but because they just don't like the fact that so much of the Eldar codex is cheese and a large amount of the Tau codex is either cheese or garbage, so you either are super competitive or you get wiped.

Semper - you hit the nail on the head.
Currently there is no middle ground as it were.
Units are either overly strong or completely useless.

Meaning it's impossible to achieve a regular army without hindering yourself on unit selection.

What Semper said, ill play eldar and tau, if there is no one else, but i pretty much accept its already over.

Tau and eldar problems boil down to to much AP 2, and to much warp fethery taking place. No one enjoys playing them.

I really wish GW would outsource the rule making to a company like WotC, or just anyone who has a much better track record at making rules.

Is not just because the rules, is because the logic.

The same no one is asking to make a chaos predator a monster creature to make it better because is not logic, is a vehicle.

Now tell me the difference between a Riptide and a Soul Grinder. Why is the riptide a MC and the Soul Grinder a vehicle?

Not just that, half of the Soul Grinder is "alive" haha


Or better, the difference between a stormsurge and a tau piranha: bot are not live, bot use electronic systems to work, both have visible pilots.....But one is vehicle and the other is a MC xD. Then why not the tau piranha are flying MC?

I'd also like to turn Ferrus Manus in to a vehicle.

His captured head would have made a great Helbrute.

The Stormsurge is the weirdest moment for GMCs because it's clearly piloted by multiple crewmen. For the Riptide, Wraithknight and even Dreadknight you can argue that you'd need to whittle down the wounds to put their singular pilot to death to stop it. I highly doubt a Stormsurge would still function as well with 2 dead crewmen as with it's full crew, or does all crewmen remain alive until it takes the last wound, upon which all of them spontaniously combust?

On the subject of Wraith Units, call me crazy but I think they should have no armor saves instead of being turned into vehicles. Wraithbone is suppose to be super-tough, but it's not armor at all; Wraith Constructs are effectively walking into combat naked. It would be a good mechanics chance too if they just had incredibly high Toughness compared to models of similar class, but no armor.

The Riptide and SS no doubt. I'd argue the Knight and MAYBE the lord.

Riptide and Stormsurge should probably be walkers, as should the Wraithknight. Wraithknights were fine as MC's actually, but now that they are GC's...

I would agree with some others and say that really the Nemesis Dreadknight should also be a walker.

The suits larger than XV9 should probably be vehicles at that point
Wraithknight kind of makes sense that it's a GMC at least, going by the wraithguard and wraithlord stuff, but it's initiative should probably be a bit lower. Really they just need to define the walker rules a bit more, probably bring them more in line with the MC rules but have them still susceptible to stuff like melta and haywire. I don't really feel like the damage table should fit with them that much, they need their own one to represent them a bit more than the catch all table and whats more likely to happen than giving them a new table is to just make them ignore it.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
On the subject of Wraith Units, call me crazy but I think they should have no armor saves instead of being turned into vehicles. Wraithbone is suppose to be super-tough, but it's not armor at all; Wraith Constructs are effectively walking into combat naked. It would be a good mechanics chance too if they just had incredibly high Toughness compared to models of similar class, but no armor.

I think they tried to balance the toughness of it with both the toughness and the armour value rather than outright make them impossible to wound for most small arms fire. I look at it getting through both as the shot managed to find a weakpoint like a joint.

None of the above. I'd prefer to see walkers turned into MCs.

Once upon a time the Writhlord was called the Eldar Dreadnaught... I agree that everything from the Riptide up should be a walker, and the Stormsurge should be an open topped super heavy walker. Sadly, I don't see it happening any time soon.

 insaniak wrote:
None of the above. I'd prefer to see walkers turned into MCs.

This. Everything being on the toughness,wounds,saves system would be far preferable. Use keywords and weapons tailored against them to deliniate between the two. (Against models with the vehicle keyword... Etc)

 Eldarain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
None of the above. I'd prefer to see walkers turned into MCs.

This. Everything being on the toughness,wounds,saves system would be far preferable. Use keywords and weapons tailored against them to deliniate between the two. (Against models with the vehicle keyword... Etc)

No. Vehicles are fun. They can get stunned, lose their weapons or mobility, blow up...monstrous creatures just lose a wound and when the last wound is gone, they vanish. Boring,

Backfire wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
None of the above. I'd prefer to see walkers turned into MCs.

This. Everything being on the toughness,wounds,saves system would be far preferable. Use keywords and weapons tailored against them to deliniate between the two. (Against models with the vehicle keyword... Etc)

No. Vehicles are fun. They can get stunned, lose their weapons or mobility, blow up...monstrous creatures just lose a wound and when the last wound is gone, they vanish. Boring,

Right, so because that is so boring, i feel the eldar and Tau have been left out of the fun. So were going to change all of their MC and GMCs to become Vehicles

Everything that is not a creature should be a vehicle.

It was bad enough when they changed the Wraithlords. With the Tau, it's ridiculously out of control.

I'm not seeing many reasons for things being changed here.

If we went back to old school vehicle rules (no hull points) then it would be a bit different.

Backfire wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
None of the above. I'd prefer to see walkers turned into MCs.

This. Everything being on the toughness,wounds,saves system would be far preferable. Use keywords and weapons tailored against them to deliniate between the two. (Against models with the vehicle keyword... Etc)

No. Vehicles are fun. They can get stunned, lose their weapons or mobility, blow up...monstrous creatures just lose a wound and when the last wound is gone, they vanish. Boring,

AoS (despite what you might think of it) has a great system in place for the diminishing capabilities of multiwound creatures. Warmachine does as well. Plenty of inspiration to improve the inherent imbalance of the two mechanics.

Wraith units should be MC/GC, but should be appropriately costed or have an AoS-esque system for MC applied. They are spirit beings piloting bone constructs, hardly mechanical constructs (unless you make them immune to Haywire or something like that).

Dreadknight and Riptide/Stormsurge/Supremacy Suit should be Walkers. Possibly the Canoptek Spyder too (honestly, since when has that been a living being).

This is a weird poll to have when the argument is for Walkers to be MCs and GMCs. It's like the OP is deaf to the general complaint against vehicles in 40k.

SJ

I find it hilarious that people apparently now believe crisis suits should be vehicles, but bike/jetbike units are still being conveniently ignored. I don't see much of a difference between them, honestly.

I tell you what, I'll accept vehicle stats for crisis suits if bike and jetbike units are also given vehicle stats, specifically the lowest possible AV all around, 1 HP, and with open-topped status on top of that (because their riders are obviously exposed and vulnerable). Makes sense, right? Or would you seriously argue that a battlesuit is a vehicle but a fething motorcycle somehow isn't? Another alternative I like would be to leave them all as they are, but just introduce a new rule that makes them all vulnerable to haywire weapons instead. Something easier and more reasonable than just redesigning these units from the ground up.

Also, as I've said before, I would argue that if crisis suits should have vehicle stats then so too should literally all Space Marine infantry that aren't scouts (including centurions), as a crisis suit behaves more like a slightly larger, less-sophisticated suit of power armored infantry with a jet pack (which is actually very well-represented with its stat line, being comparable to a Marine but with an extra wound) than it does a piloted vehicle. I'm not convinced that Marines are functionally all that different from crisis suits, other than a somewhat minor size difference, which shouldn't really have an effect on the game rules anyway, and I won't ever be convinced that they're different, either. Scooters and mopeds don't stop being vehicles just because they're smaller than cars or tanks, likewise a Marine's armor being smaller and more form-fitting than the Tau equivalent doesn't warrant it being a completely different unit type. They're either both infantry or they're both vehicles, doesn't make much sense to change one but not the other. Unless, as I've said before, your entire logic for doing so has less to do with game balance or consistency and everything to do with "feth Tau!"

Also, hilariously, the Tau ghostkeel isn't on the poll, despite actually having MC rules and enjoying all the same benefits, but the crisis suit and broadside are.

Anyway, I think it's obvious that the riptide, stormsurge and wraithknight should be walkers, and we all know that. These units are obviously broken and one of the main reasons for that is because they were given the wrong unit type. They are literally walking fething tanks. Picking on these smaller units however, most of which have been the way they are since they were introduced into the game (with the exception of the Eldar wraithlord, which isn't really a problematic unit as it is anyway), doesn't make any sense to me, and comes off more as people being sour and just wanting to dole out nerfs to half the Tau or Eldar codex just because it dares to exist. Let's just concentrate on fixing what's actually broken, why don't we?

Actually, the opposite. I'd like to see dreadnaughts, killa kans, and penitent engines turned into monstrous creatures. I think that making walkers a subset of MCs would be better than making them vehicles.

Further, I think the one and only good thing that appeared in Age of Sigmar was dwindling ability on monsters. Every Monstrous Creature should have an AoS like wound table, with their stats vanishing as they get injured.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
This is a weird poll to have when the argument is for Walkers to be MCs and GMCs. It's like the OP is deaf to the general complaint against vehicles in 40k.

SJ

Or I am just pointing out how Eldar/Tau don't want their precious MC/GMC turned into Vehicles but at the same time deny that their is any reason for Walkers to be turned into MC themselves. What is the difference between a Killa Kan and a Tau Crisis Suit/Broadside? There isn't much, both mechanical, both piloted, both about the same size as one another. And yet one is significantly more resilient then the other. How about the difference between my Morkanaut and a broadside? same argument.

GW needs to either fix the game (IE nerfing MCs/GMCs or Buffing Vehicles) or allow a 3rd party to write the rulebook.

Lore wise the Wraithknight is the only "walker" with a pilot in this list. All the Tau units you mentioned are all "suits" literal Iorn man suits that they just keep making bigger. but as a GK player i preffer them being MC over Walkers because that means my force weapons do D3 wounds. haha and i dont have any good Ranged anti armor anyways.

Necrons should be walkers.

Yeah, you heard me, I said Necrons - big whoop, wanna fightaboudit?

The only tau unit I don't think should be what it now is the storm surge (you can see the dam guys and the fluff is they are taken from the tank drivers not suits pilots)

But I think dreads should be MC as with soul grinders / defilers.

Non of them should be walkers. It's the walkers that should become MCs.

The reason these new toys are MCs really is partly to sell models, because walkers honestly suck as a type with little way to redeem them, and the only reason dreadnoughts keep the Walker type is due to historical reasons.

GW tried making new walkers with the maulerfiend/forgefiend, it didn't work. The walker type us a relic of old days that needs to be put out I'd it's misery.

Only "decent" walkers are Knights, and that's due to being superheavy.

Kind of hilarious to see Crisis, Broadsides and Wraith Guard in the list. If you make those vehicles you can continue with making Terminators, Centurions and Obliterators vehicles as well

Even though I voted for Knights, Riptide and Stormsurge to become walkers I also like the idea of doing away with the walker category and make everything MCs. Or giving MCs a damage chart, I don't see why there is an explodes result for vehicles but no headshot! result for MCs...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Kind of hilarious to see Crisis

This thing?

Broadsides

This right here?

in the list. If you make those vehicles you can continue with making Terminators

You mean this guy?

Centurions

This guy?

and Obliterators vehicles as well

Him?

You don't see a clear difference between terminators, centurions and obliterators, on the one hand, and space aliens piloting gundams/robots, on the other hand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm just saying. Those robots look like they have mechanical legs. Pretty sure that's not a tau leg doing the walking.

Traditio wrote:

I'm just saying. Those robots look like they have mechanical legs. Pretty sure that's not a tau leg doing the walking.

You could make a similar argument for Centurions at least. The space marine pilots arms are actually tucked inside the front of the suit.

Centurions are definitely vehicles, going by the same logic that makes a crisis suit a vehicle. If you disagree then it's an obvious anti-xenos (or just anti-Tau) bias and your opinion should be ignored.

Also Traditio, while you're here, how do you justify Marine bikers and Eldar jetbike units not having vehicle stats? Last time I checked motorcycles were fething vehicles.

 insaniak wrote:
None of the above. I'd prefer to see walkers turned into MCs.

I support your theory and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I just think we should have a unified damage mechanics for all type of units, from infantry to MC to vehicles to GMCs, including bikes and jetbikes.

It's the 41st millenium with technological capabilities capable of throwing plasma bolts and obliterate planets. Whether you're hiding in ceramite or ferrocrete or chitinous appendages or flesh with unnatural toughness thanks to warp exposure, it is still that material that protects the bearer inside.

Right now we have units that have 2 protection values (toughness, and armour saves, as if a Space Marine's flesh was capable of withstanding a bolt that pierced the armour) and units that only have one (vehicles, because logic ?).

Because the system is inconsistent within itself, imbalances occur. Toughness makes little sense when the strength of a Marine's punch is the same as his main gun, and that Eldars are as vulnerable to lasguns as they are to punches from a Guardsman (because logic ?).

Having Toughness and Armour being 2 separate damage systems, with Toughness managing close combat damage (you take advantage of the short range to strike vulnerable points in the armour) and Armour being used to defend against ranged attacks, and each unit having both values, the system would be not only easier to balance (every unit would have the same damage mechanics)but would also make a lot more sense.

So the one on the left is an infantry model with a toughness value and a 3+ save. Not to mention 2 guns.
The one on the right is a vehicle model with an armor value and no saves of any kind. Not to mention 1 gun and a CCW.

So please explain to me why one is an infantry model with a toughness value, more guns, good armor save; while the other is a vehicle with an AV and garbage weapon options?

Ohh lets do a side by side comparison of a couple of things.

3 Crisis suits, with double plasma (Doesn't get hot) and that bonding knife shenanigans gives you 3 HIGHLY mobile JSJ models with 3+ saves, T4 S5 and BS3 running around the table for 159pts or thereabouts (i am not great with tau)

3 Killa Kanz upgraded with Grotzookas (The only weapon worth taking) with no other upgrades are the only vehicles in the game with pseudo morale checks (if you lose one you take a cowardly grot check, on a 1 or 2 the others become shaken ruining your chance to fire that grotzooka) AV 11/10/10 S7 CCW and all of that comes in at 165pts.

Which would you take?

But more importantly please explain to me why two robots of almost exact similar size are completely different unit types?

 Sidstyler wrote:
I find it hilarious that people apparently now believe crisis suits should be vehicles, but bike/jetbike units are still being conveniently ignored. I don't see much of a difference between them, honestly.

The Crisis is a walker vehicle, with a little guy inside piloting it, and the other is a guy riding a motorbike.

Having the walker vehicle be treated as a walker vehicle for games purposes seems fine to me, and having the bike be treated as a bike for games purposes also seems fine to me.

What is the issue here?

Crisis suits are power armor with jet packs. Space Marines and Meganobz should be vehicles then as well.

Traditio wrote:
I'm just saying. Those robots look like they have mechanical legs. Pretty sure that's not a tau leg doing the walking.

Basically every model in the Admech/Skitarii line should be vehicles then if having mechanical legs disqualifies you from being infantry

OTOH I am fine with Crisis staying infantry.

Just get rid of those MCs.

Arson Fire wrote:

Traditio wrote:

I'm just saying. Those robots look like they have mechanical legs. Pretty sure that's not a tau leg doing the walking.

You could make a similar argument for Centurions at least. The space marine pilots arms are actually tucked inside the front of the suit.

Source?

The most I'm seeing in the codex is that the centurion war-suit is an exoskeleton battle suit.

For the sake of comparison:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vankraken wrote:Basically every model in the Admech/Skitarii line should be vehicles then if having mechanical legs disqualifies you from being infantry

I'm pretty sure that those mechanical legs aren't attached to the little green man who's piloting the crisis suit, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:Also Traditio, while you're here, how do you justify Marine bikers and Eldar jetbike units not having vehicle stats? Last time I checked motorcycles were fething vehicles.

Bikes are their own separate unit type.

And it's not just eldar and marines who have them. Chaos Space Marines and Orks have bikes too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In contrast, let us look at the little green men in comparison to the robots that they're piloting:

 insaniak wrote:
None of the above. I'd prefer to see walkers turned into MCs.

Vehicles have facings, should operate differently and when wrecked they leave a prominent footprint on the battlefield. Turning them into monstrous creatures is lazy and stupid.

 amanita wrote:

when wrecked they leave a prominent footprint on the battlefield.

Perfectly true, but by that logic, so do MCs and GMCs.

IMO (with exception to Tyranids/Daemons, for obvious reasons) anything Wraithknight sized (or equivalent) should be treated as a heavy walker (vehicle).

Ignoring balance concerns completely, it makes sense to me for the Wraithknight, Riptide and Stormsurge (and Ghostkeel, conspicuously absent) to be walkers. They're big robots with pilots hitting pedals/steering wheels/whispering instructions to their dead siblings to make them move about.

I feel Crisis suits and Broadsides are small enough to justify being infantry. Wraithguards/Wraithlords can justifiably be called infantry/MCs I think. Bearing in mind they seem like big animated statues, it makes more sense to me that the statues effectively ARE their bodies, so they would react more like a living (lol) creature to damage to them, rather than a vehicle.

This of course ignores the big disparity between how powerful each of these unit types is. Maybe if a change to balance were made, people wouldn't care so much about what unit type their thingie was.

If it has a driver, it's a walker. Otherwise, they need to just get rid of Walkers. The disparity between Walkers and Monstrous creatures is ridiculous. This coming from a guy who doesn't play Eldar without a Wraithknight.

The bigger Tau suits (Riptide, Stormsurge, and Ghostkeel) should all be walkers. Crisis suits and Broadsides should remain infantry.

Dreadknighta should definitely become walkers.

Wraith units make more sense as MCs.

Tarvitz77 wrote:I feel Crisis suits and Broadsides are small enough to justify being infantry.

Did you see the comparative images I posted above?

The smaller crisis suits? Arguable. [But by the same argument, dreadnoughts should become infantry.]

Broadsides? The suggestion that they are "small enough," relative to their pilots, to justify their being infantry is positively ridiculous.

please make my riptides SHWs! then I can thrust forward to my opponents and die to their CC. . . and have colossal explosions when they die.

and the stormsurge! please make it a SHW; I want to be able to have no firing restrictions on my firing, shooting like a SHW.

Traditio wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:

Traditio wrote:

I'm just saying. Those robots look like they have mechanical legs. Pretty sure that's not a tau leg doing the walking.

You could make a similar argument for Centurions at least. The space marine pilots arms are actually tucked inside the front of the suit.

Source?

The most I'm seeing in the codex is that the centurion war-suit is an exoskeleton battle suit.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Centurion

Once connected into the warsuit, the accepted battle position is for a Space Marine's hands to be crossed against the front of his chest, behind the torso-plate and the suit's secondary weapons, for he controls the vehicle with his thoughts.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The bigger Tau suits (Riptide, Stormsurge, and Ghostkeel) should all be walkers. Crisis suits and Broadsides should remain infantry.

Dreadknighta should definitely become walkers.

Wraith units make more sense as MCs.

This minus the Wraith part. Wraith knights and up should all be vehicles.

I'm envisioning a total rewrite of the rules that condenses all of the unit types into a "core type" and then applies modifiers.

For example, the core types could be Infantry, Beasts, Artillery and Vehicles. All core types would have Toughness and Wounds with each getting extra special rules. Infantry, Beasts and Artillery would be more or less unchanged. Vehicles would need to have more wounds and maybe an AoS style damage table that reduces capability as the vehicle takes damage. In other words, a Rhino might have T7 and 8W with a 4++ invuln save on the front and sides and 5++ on the rear. (just making up numbers). Work it out so they're about as hard to kill as they are now. Imagine that as they take wounds, they lose movement inches or lose the ability to fire weapons. Exactly like most big critters in AoS. Melta weapons might do d3 wounds versus vehicles instead of the current set up.

Now add unit type modifiers. Jet Pack, Jump, Massive, Gargantuan, etc. Jet Pack and Jump work more or less the same as they do now. Massive and Gargantuan would grant extra rules and maybe more durability. Maybe Infantry gets 6" to move with Massive being a +3" and Gargantuan being +6". Just spit balling.

So... you might have a situations like these...

Tau Crisis Suits are Jet Pack Infantry.
A Rhino is a Vehicle.
A Land Raider is a Massive Vehicle.
A Stormlord is a Gargantuan Vehicle.
Killa Kans are Infantry. (albeit, higher than average wounds and toughness).
Deff Dreads/SM Dreadnoughts are Massive Infantry.
Tyranid Carnifexes are Massive Infantry (or maybe Massive Beasts?)
Eldar Wraith Knights would become Gargantuan Infantry.

Most Walkers would become Massive Infantry. Most MCs would become either Massive Infantry or Massive Beasts. Most GCs would become either Gargantuan Infantry or Gargantuan Beasts.

As it stands, the rules are too fragmented and you need to memorize way too many different unit types. The above could be summarized on a couple of double sided playing cards.

Arson Fire wrote:

Once connected into the warsuit, the accepted battle position is for a Space Marine's hands to be crossed against the front of his chest, behind the torso-plate and the suit's secondary weapons, for he controls the vehicle with his thoughts.

Yeah. I could see centurions becoming AV 10 walkers.

Terminators? Not so much.

That said, it seems like it would be difficult to put black/white smoke cotton ball things on top of them.

So, why isent the Grey Knights Dreadknight on the list? It's a giant robot with a babycarrier! Is it just because it is part of the Imperium of Man and they are allowed to do what ever they want?

Merellin wrote:
So, why isent the Grey Knights Dreadknight on the list? It's a giant robot with a babycarrier! Is it just because it is part of the Imperium of Man and they are allowed to do what ever they want?

Pretty much. Wouldn't want to nerf GW's poster boys.

Tau hate is in full swing again.

Edit
I think it has to do with the fact that they want Tau battlesuits to be more durable than the Imps stuff. In lore it makes sense as the Damocles Gulf truly showed the disparity in technology levels of their battlefield weaponry with the Tau mostly decimating the Imperium until the Tech Priests turned to super exterminatus. Tau technology just seems to be more durable and agile that their Imperial counterparts. At one point a Riptide flies and lands on top of an Imperial Knight to try and deal damage to it. These are clearly agile suits that are being piloted by one person.

The only one I could see having an argument for it to be a vehicle is the Stormsurge. Except we know that's not true. It can stomp like any other GMC and in tournaments that's its most effective usage as a unit of two can stomp gak to death in melee better than it can shoot stuff. It's a Tau melee unit essentially. In lore and fluff it hasn't been used like that but it is durable enough to go up against Imperial Knights and survive and even reap heavy tolls on them in the Damocles Crusade. So clearly MC seems to be reserved for vehicles that behave in a distinct way. I would love to see a dreadnought fly around stomping stuff and jumping on their enemies except its way too clunky and slow to do that.

I do wish the Surge had a cover included though since the open topped is silly. This is just Space Marine/Imperial spank that another faction could possibly beat them and have superior technology in some ways.

So is the Eldar hate.

Traditio wrote:

Tarvitz77 wrote:I feel Crisis suits and Broadsides are small enough to justify being infantry.

Did you see the comparative images I posted above?

The smaller crisis suits? Arguable. [But by the same argument, dreadnoughts should become infantry.]

Broadsides? The suggestion that they are "small enough," relative to their pilots, to justify their being infantry is positively ridiculous.

Then by that logic the dreadnought is just fine with vehicle rules, because the broadside model is comparable in size to the dreadnought model (they're on the same size base and take up about as much "space", only appearing bigger if they're equipped with the insanely long rifles). If it's "positively ridiculous" for broadsides to have infantry stats then so too is it for dreadnoughts to have them.

So yeah, broadsides are arguable now because GW made the new design so massive, but crisis suits aren't nearly as large as broadsides/dreadnoughts are, and so being classed as infantry makes sense (as much sense as centurions being classed as infantry, anyway). And if you want to push the issue with crisis suits in particular then I insist centurions should also have vehicle rules, because looking at the model comparisons for those the centurion is to the crisis suit what the dreadnought is to the broadside (if I'm not mistaken centurions and crisis suits even come on the same bases now, and likewise seem to take up a similar amount of space). And also because the machine is controlled by the Marine's thoughts, not his limbs, so the fluff supports the argument that it's a battlesuit piloted in a similar fashion to Tau battlesuits. Case in point:

40k wiki wrote:An XV8 Crisis Battlesuit pilot sits in a foetal position within the central torso section of the Battlesuit, and pilots the Battlesuit through a neural link that connects the Fire Warrior’s brain to the Battlesuit's control interface through a monofilament needle inserted through the back of the head. This disrupts the nervous system of the pilot and temporarily disconnects the body from the pilot's brain from the neck down. The Battlesuit control system then interprets movement signals from the pilot’s brain as the movements of the Battlesuit’s body, effectively making the Battlesuit the pilot’s new ‘body’.

In theory, damage to the Battlesuit unit, whether it be through the lopping off of limbs, the firing of bullets into the chassis, electrocution, burning, or the "beheading" of the primary optic sensor, will not cause pain or discomfort to the pilot inside. However, veteran Battlesuit pilots have been known to develop ho’or-ata-t’chel, which are sympathetic ghost pains and phantom reactions to external damage. This condition is also known as Battlesuit Neurosis, and can cause serious problems in the lives of Battlesuit pilots outside their Battlesuit. Fire Warriors have been known to be so traumatised at losing their Battlesuit's sensor cluster "head" that they have spent months in a psychosomatic coma. Some Battlesuit veterans at the end of their careers may also develop quirks such as trying to fly without their Battlesuit, or not being able to understand why they walk or move properly in normal life when their Battlesuit was damaged.

Personally I always thought the battlesuit neurosis thing was interesting. I wonder if stuff like that is even in the new codices anymore, I haven't looked.

Merellin wrote:
So, why isent the Grey Knights Dreadknight on the list? It's a giant robot with a babycarrier! Is it just because it is part of the Imperium of Man and they are allowed to do what ever they want?

Pretty much, yeah. Oh, and because supposedly it isn't overpowered like the Tau/Eldar offenders so it doesn't "need" to be fixed, which means this whole thing isn't about achieving some sort of consistency within the game rules, either, and is more about amateur game balance.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The bigger Tau suits (Riptide, Stormsurge, and Ghostkeel) should all be walkers. Crisis suits and Broadsides should remain infantry.

Dreadknighta should definitely become walkers.

Wraith units make more sense as MCs.

This minus the Wraith part. Wraith knights and up should all be vehicles.

See, I disagree. Aren't WK possessed by the pilot (if there even is a pilot), literally becoming their body? That to me screams MC. Tau just pilot a suit. It does not become their body any more than a Dreadnought does to a Marine (the marine doesn't feel the armor get scraped or punctured).

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Tau just pilot a suit. It does not become their body any more than a Dreadnought does to a Marine (the marine doesn't feel the armor get scraped or punctured).

Except it does, though. Refer to the snippet from the wiki I quoted above. The pilot's brain is wired into the suit and the suit effectively becomes their "body", they control the suit's movement with their brain. And it then goes on to say that pilots do indeed end up developing ghost pains and phantom reactions to battle damage sustained when in the suit, which makes life outside the suit weird or difficult. Pilots who have lost their suits "head" go into a coma, etc.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Tau just pilot a suit. It does not become their body any more than a Dreadnought does to a Marine (the marine doesn't feel the armor get scraped or punctured).

Except it does, though. Refer to the snippet from the wiki I quoted above. The pilot's brain is wired into the suit and the suit effectively becomes their "body", they control the suit's movement with their brain. And it then goes on to say that pilots do indeed end up developing ghost pains and phantom reactions to battle damage sustained when in the suit, which makes life outside the suit weird or difficult. Pilots who have lost their suits "head" go into a coma, etc.

How is that any different from a Dreadnought? And is this at all backed up by actual codex fluff?

Sidstyler wrote:Except it does, though. Refer to the snippet from the wiki I quoted above. The pilot's brain is wired into the suit and the suit effectively becomes their "body", they control the suit's movement with their brain. And it then goes on to say that pilots do indeed end up developing ghost pains and phantom reactions to battle damage sustained when in the suit, which makes life outside the suit weird or difficult. Pilots who have lost their suits "head" go into a coma, etc.

Therefore dreadnoughts should be monstrous creatures.

The simple fact is that suits are mechanical constructs which require a pilot. Therefore, vehicles.

Oh look... its this again

I would draw the MC distinction at the neural level. Does the pilot directly "become" the suit and is able to react like it's his own body. Then MC. Or should be except GW is dumb.

Is it just a suit/vehicle with no direct neural connection to the whole vehicle/suit/whatever? Then no.

So a Deadnought should be an MC in my opinion.

I then think the next distinction is how fast and capable is the neural link in a Dreadnought? Maybe they are too slow and clumsy to be true MC? Maybe the technology of the mind is there but the technology of the dreadnought is too slow for it to properly react like a MC and act like one.

So it could be the Dreadnoughts mechanical construction is limiting the neural link of its pilot from becoming a true MC. That's my theory anyway for how GW make the distinction. If they even care as much as us. More likely its arbitrary and they don't give it much thought except to sell models.

Sidstyler wrote:Then by that logic the dreadnought is just fine with vehicle rules

Yes. I agree with this. Dreadnoughts should be vehicles. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTS. Since dreadnoughts and broadsides are roughly equivalent, broadsides should be vehicles also.

Especially given the fact that little green men are much smaller than 8 foot tall space marines.

because the broadside model is comparable in size to the dreadnought model (they're on the same size base and take up about as much "space", only appearing bigger if they're equipped with the insanely long rifles). If it's "positively ridiculous" for broadsides to have infantry stats then so too is it for dreadnoughts to have them.

Dreadnoughts DON'T have infantry stats.

So yeah, broadsides are arguable now because GW made the new design so massive, but crisis suits aren't nearly as large as broadsides/dreadnoughts are, and so being classed as infantry makes sense (as much sense as centurions being classed as infantry, anyway). And if you want to push the issue with crisis suits in particular then I insist centurions should also have vehicle rules, because looking at the model comparisons for those the centurion is to the crisis suit what the dreadnought is to the broadside (if I'm not mistaken centurions and crisis suits even come on the same bases now, and likewise seem to take up a similar amount of space). And also because the machine is controlled by the Marine's thoughts, not his limbs, so the fluff supports the argument that it's a battlesuit piloted in a similar fashion to Tau battlesuits. Case in point:

I'll grant that crisis suits are probably roughly equivalent to centurions. Whatever rules hold for the one should hold for the other.

They should probably both be walkers.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The bigger Tau suits (Riptide, Stormsurge, and Ghostkeel) should all be walkers. Crisis suits and Broadsides should remain infantry.

Dreadknighta should definitely become walkers.

Wraith units make more sense as MCs.

This minus the Wraith part. Wraith knights and up should all be vehicles.

See, I disagree. Aren't WK possessed by the pilot (if there even is a pilot), literally becoming their body? That to me screams MC. Tau just pilot a suit. It does not become their body any more than a Dreadnought does to a Marine (the marine doesn't feel the armor get scraped or punctured).

Wraithknights also have a pilot in the walker. Without this pilot they don't work.

pm713 wrote:Wraithknights also have a pilot in the walker. Without this pilot they don't work.

This is what it comes down to for me:

Are wraithknights organic or mechanical?

If they are mechanical, then vehicles.

If organic, then MC.

I could realistically see a WK as being a GMC. That said, it should have a much higher points cost.

Mechanical vs organic doesn't work because you can build a machine out of organic parts. One is an attribute of designed complexity the other is an attribute of material composition. Apples and oranges.


I think the difference between Monstrous Creature and vehicle Walker, should come down to how removed the operation of the weapon is from the "pilot." Dreadknight and Dreadnought should be walkers because there is a distinct pilot who is jostled and impacted by the vehicles damage the same way a tank driver is effected when their tank is struck. Wraith Lords and such, and daemon engines should be Monstrous creatures because there is no divisible way to physically separate the element that controls the construct from the construct... when an element is damaged the controlling entity is damaged.

pm713 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The bigger Tau suits (Riptide, Stormsurge, and Ghostkeel) should all be walkers. Crisis suits and Broadsides should remain infantry.

Dreadknighta should definitely become walkers.

Wraith units make more sense as MCs.

This minus the Wraith part. Wraith knights and up should all be vehicles.

See, I disagree. Aren't WK possessed by the pilot (if there even is a pilot), literally becoming their body? That to me screams MC. Tau just pilot a suit. It does not become their body any more than a Dreadnought does to a Marine (the marine doesn't feel the armor get scraped or punctured).

Wraithknights also have a pilot in the walker. Without this pilot they don't work.

Ok, then make them walkers! I was under the impression they were something like a soulstone jammed in a big scary body. Chalk this up to me not being totally familiar with their fluff. Thanks for the clarifications !

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think the difference between Monstrous Creature and vehicle Walker, should come down to how removed the operation of the weapon is from the "pilot." Dreadknight and Dreadnought should be walkers because there is a distinct pilot who is jostled and impacted by the vehicles damage the same way a tank driver is effected when their tank is struck. Wraith Lords and such, and daemon engines should be Monstrous creatures because there is no divisible way to physically separate the element that controls the construct from the construct... when an element is damaged the controlling entity is damaged.

All of this is utterly irrelevant for the purposes of whether or not something is a vehicle or a monstrous creature.

A dinosaur is a monstrous creature. It is a living, organic thing. If you stab it in the butt, it will heal over time. No mechanics are needed to fix it up.

My car is a vehicle. It is a mechanical construct. It doesn't display the various properties of life (as Aristotle says, growth, self-nourishment and reproductive capacities).

If it breaks down, it won't naturally heal over time. A mechanic has to fix it.

Traditio wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think the difference between Monstrous Creature and vehicle Walker, should come down to how removed the operation of the weapon is from the "pilot." Dreadknight and Dreadnought should be walkers because there is a distinct pilot who is jostled and impacted by the vehicles damage the same way a tank driver is effected when their tank is struck. Wraith Lords and such, and daemon engines should be Monstrous creatures because there is no divisible way to physically separate the element that controls the construct from the construct... when an element is damaged the controlling entity is damaged.

All of this is utterly irrelevant for the purposes of whether or not something is a vehicle or a monstrous creature.

A dinosaur is a monstrous creature. It is a living, organic thing. If you stab it in the butt, it will heal over time. No mechanics are needed to fix it up.

My car is a vehicle. It is a mechanical construct. It doesn't display the various properties of life (as Aristotle says, growth, self-nourishment and reproductive capacities).

If it breaks down, it won't naturally heal over time. A mechanic has to fix it.

That makes the Wraithknight a mc as wraithbone regenerates itself. As to your previous post about what the WK should be I'd make it a SHV as without the pilot it stops working.

It's much better to determine whether things are vehicles or mc by how they work rather than construction material. Otherwise all the Necron vehicles are mc despite the fact they clearly seem to be vehicles.

pm713 689446 wrote:That makes the Wraithknight a mc as wraithbone regenerates itself. As to your previous post about what the WK should be I'd make it a SHV as without the pilot it stops working.

It's much better to determine whether things are vehicles or mc by how they work rather than construction material. Otherwise all the Necron vehicles are mc despite the fact they clearly seem to be vehicles.

No, no, no.

My points have nothing to do with construction material.

Imagine the following flowchart:

Is it alive?

Yes? Move on to the next question.
No? Vehicle.

Do you need a mechanic to fix it?

Yes? Vehicle.
No? Monstrous Creature.

Necron vehicles aren't alive.
I might be willing to admit that wraith constructs are alive.
Wave serpents are obviously not alive.

To make sure that we got the right answer, simply ask the following question:

If you hit it with a lascannon, will it blow up?

Yes? Probably a vehicle.
No? Probably a monstrous creature.

Just make all vehicles and MCs work under the same rules. Drop the whole divide between vehicles and MCs and we eliminate the fluff contradictions and only have to be concerned with one set of rules governing all the large gribblies on the table top.

Traditio wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think the difference between Monstrous Creature and vehicle Walker, should come down to how removed the operation of the weapon is from the "pilot." Dreadknight and Dreadnought should be walkers because there is a distinct pilot who is jostled and impacted by the vehicles damage the same way a tank driver is effected when their tank is struck. Wraith Lords and such, and daemon engines should be Monstrous creatures because there is no divisible way to physically separate the element that controls the construct from the construct... when an element is damaged the controlling entity is damaged.

All of this is utterly irrelevant for the purposes of whether or not something is a vehicle or a monstrous creature.

A dinosaur is a monstrous creature. It is a living, organic thing. If you stab it in the butt, it will heal over time. No mechanics are needed to fix it up.

My car is a vehicle. It is a mechanical construct. It doesn't display the various properties of life (as Aristotle says, growth, self-nourishment and reproductive capacities).

If it breaks down, it won't naturally heal over time. A mechanic has to fix it.

I don't think its irrelevant at all. Necron machines heal. Eldar machines heal. Daemon Engines heal. They have means of self repair despite their being mechanical. Mechanical means it just has a complexity of design it has no relationship to the distinct movement and operation of these different weapons.

I think it comes down to whether damaging the construct damages the entity piloting it. You shoot a dreadnought, you blow off armor or a gun, but the marine inside is still in the same relative condition as before. You shoot up a wraithlord's arm its as if you cut off the piloting entities arm.

aka_mythos wrote: I don't think its irrelevant at all. Necron machines heal. Eldar machines heal. Daemon Engines heal. They have means of self repair despite their being mechanical. Mechanical means it just has a complexity of design it has no relationship to the distinct movement and operation of these different weapons.

I think it comes down to whether damaging the construct damages the entity piloting it. You shoot a dreadnought, you blow off armor or a gun, but the marine inside is still in the same relative condition as before. You show off a wraithlord's arm its as if you cut off the piloting entities arm.

See the following flowchart, as per above:

Imagine the following flowchart:

Is it alive?

Yes? Move on to the next question.
No? Vehicle.

Do you need a mechanic to fix it?

Yes? Vehicle.
No? Monstrous Creature.

Necron vehicles aren't alive.
I might be willing to admit that wraith constructs are alive.
Wave serpents are obviously not alive.

To make sure that we got the right answer, simply ask the following question:

If you hit it with a lascannon, will it blow up?

Yes? Probably a vehicle.
No? Probably a monstrous creature.

Traditio wrote:

aka_mythos wrote: I don't think its irrelevant at all. Necron machines heal. Eldar machines heal. Daemon Engines heal. They have means of self repair despite their being mechanical. Mechanical means it just has a complexity of design it has no relationship to the distinct movement and operation of these different weapons.

I think it comes down to whether damaging the construct damages the entity piloting it. You shoot a dreadnought, you blow off armor or a gun, but the marine inside is still in the same relative condition as before. You show off a wraithlord's arm its as if you cut off the piloting entities arm.

See the following flowchart, as per above:

Imagine the following flowchart:

Is it alive?

Yes? Move on to the next question.
No? Vehicle.

Do you need a mechanic to fix it?

Yes? Vehicle.
No? Monstrous Creature.

Necron vehicles aren't alive.
I might be willing to admit that wraith constructs are alive.
Wave serpents are obviously not alive.

To make sure that we got the right answer, simply ask the following question:

If you hit it with a lascannon, will it blow up?

Yes? Probably a vehicle.
No? Probably a monstrous creature.

Define alive.

Then ask what happens to things that fulfil some but not all the conditions for it.

pm713 wrote:Define alive.

In the most common sense understanding of the term.

More particularly:

If you're claiming it's a MC, you're claiming that it's an ANIMAL.

Is a tau battle suit an ANIMAL in any sense of that term?

You want to claim that a Necron Ghost Ark is an animal?

Ok. Are there little baby ghost arks somewhere?

Do they get old and die?

Do they have sex? Or do they reproduce asexually?

What is a ghost ark's favorite food?

Then ask what happens to things that fulfil some but not all the conditions for it.

It's a flowchart. If it's either not alive, does require a mechanic or would indeed explode if I hit it just right with a lascannon, it's a vehicle.

In order to be an MC it must be alive AND not require a mechanic to fix it AND not be able to explode if I hit it just right with a lascannon.

Tau suits are clearly vehicles by all counts.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The bigger Tau suits (Riptide, Stormsurge, and Ghostkeel) should all be walkers. Crisis suits and Broadsides should remain infantry.

Dreadknighta should definitely become walkers.

Wraith units make more sense as MCs.

This minus the Wraith part. Wraith knights and up should all be vehicles.

See, I disagree. Aren't WK possessed by the pilot (if there even is a pilot), literally becoming their body? That to me screams MC. Tau just pilot a suit. It does not become their body any more than a Dreadnought does to a Marine (the marine doesn't feel the armor get scraped or punctured).

So then Dreads should become MCs, as they are hardwired into the Dreadnought. They can no sooner leave their Dreadnought then a Wraith Knight can.

Should every Daemon enginge then become a MC as well? Helbrute, Fiends, Heldrake, Soul Grinder? They are living machines, they are exactly like tyranid monsters, just with a mechanical body instead of an organic one (if you look at the Helbrute model, it's not even fully mechanic). They might be more consciuos depending on how we interpet the Daemons inside...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Should every Daemon enginge then become a MC as well? Helbrute, Fiends, Heldrake, Soul Grinder? They are living machines, they are exactly like tyranid monsters, just with a mechanical body instead of an organic one (if you look at the Helbrute model, it's not even fully mechanic). They might be more consciuos depending on how we interpet the Daemons inside...

Clearly not. Because they are MACHINES and not ANIMALS, they need a mechanic to fix them and can blow up if I hit them just right with a lascannon.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Should every Daemon enginge then become a MC as well? Helbrute, Fiends, Heldrake, Soul Grinder? They are living machines, they are exactly like tyranid monsters, just with a mechanical body instead of an organic one (if you look at the Helbrute model, it's not even fully mechanic). They might be more consciuos depending on how we interpet the Daemons inside...

Clearly not. Because they are MACHINES and not ANIMALS, they need a mechanic to fix them and can blow up if I hit them just right with a lascannon.

Well it's alive and therefore an MC.

Anything about the same size as a Dread with a pilot, be it Eldar, Human, Ork, Tau, Soul, or Demon, should be a walker.

things Centurion Sized or smaller like Killa Kans, Crisis Suits, Stealth Suits, Wraithguard, Hive Guard, ect should be Regular Infantry, because they are for the most part just a little bigger than regular infantry.

Riptides, The Baby Carrier, , Helbrutes, Dreads,Defilers, Soul Grinders, Dinobots, Ghostknells, Wraithlords, Stormsurges, Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, ect should be walkers/SHW. They have a Pilot and they are bigger than normal infantry.


Demon Princes, Big Bugs, Greater Demons,Squiggoths, ect Should be MC/GMC. They are actual Creatures that are Monstrous.

On the Fence about Broadsides because the Original XV88 was just a Crisis Suit with Railguns hot glued to the shoulders and SMS stapled to the arms. Could honestly see that one going as Infantry or a Walker.

But that'll never happen, barring this they need to wrap all walkers into MC/GMC and/or add a chart in the BRB for all MCs as they take damage to lose effectiveness ala AoS and increase all hull points by half rounded up( 3 hull on a Speeder, 5 on a Rhino, 6 on a Land Raider, 9 on a Typhon, 12 or whatever on a Knight)


I think the Chart would be best IMO because it would give us some fun opportunities for nids.

Lets say for the time being the chart was: -1 to all stats except LD and Armor every time you lose 25% wounds. They could put a Biomorph in the Tyranid Codex for certain MCs that Reverses the effect of the chart for 30 points, or whatever,

Except not all those have pilots. Also why is a Centurion infantry but not a Dreadnought? They are very similar in size.

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Should every Daemon enginge then become a MC as well? Helbrute, Fiends, Heldrake, Soul Grinder? They are living machines, they are exactly like tyranid monsters, just with a mechanical body instead of an organic one (if you look at the Helbrute model, it's not even fully mechanic). They might be more consciuos depending on how we interpet the Daemons inside...

Clearly not. Because they are MACHINES and not ANIMALS, they need a mechanic to fix them and can blow up if I hit them just right with a lascannon.

Well it's alive and therefore an MC.

Doesn't follow. I gave a 3 stage flow-chart.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Should every Daemon enginge then become a MC as well? Helbrute, Fiends, Heldrake, Soul Grinder? They are living machines, they are exactly like tyranid monsters, just with a mechanical body instead of an organic one (if you look at the Helbrute model, it's not even fully mechanic). They might be more consciuos depending on how we interpet the Daemons inside...

Clearly not. Because they are MACHINES and not ANIMALS, they need a mechanic to fix them and can blow up if I hit them just right with a lascannon.

Well it's alive and therefore an MC.

Doesn't follow. I gave a 3 stage flow-chart.

You also said use the "most common sense understanding of the term." I took that to be the definition from Google.. Make up your mind and come back.

pm713 wrote:You also said use the "most common sense understanding of the term." I took that to be the definition from Google.. Make up your mind and come back.

Again. Three stage flow-chart.

"Is it alive?" or "Is it an animal?" was only the first stage of that flowchart. It could fail to be an MC if it fails the other 2 requirements.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:You also said use the "most common sense understanding of the term." I took that to be the definition from Google.. Make up your mind and come back.

Again. Three stage flow-chart.

"Is it alive?" or "Is it an animal?" was only the first stage of that flowchart. It could fail to be an MC if it fails the other 2 requirements.

So you've moved your goalposts then.

pm713 wrote:So you've moved your goalposts then.

I didn't move my goalposts. I gave a three stage flowchart to roughly the following effect:

1. Is it alive? Is it an animal?

If yes: go to question 2.
If no: vehicle

2. Does it require a mechanic to fix it?

If yes: vehicle
If no: go to question 3.

If I hit it just right with a lascannon, does it go boom?

If yes: vehicle.
If no: MC.

The whole everything needs a fix.

im honestly not sure how in the world a giant mech suit which obviously has just as many complicated electical equipment isnt affected by haywire which tends to disrupt or damage those systems.

like wise are also generally made of the same armor as tanks but melta doesn't get an additional bonus (though in most cases doesn't really mater with T6 or so MC.) also doesn't have a save for some reason.

vehicles are in a super gaky spot.

its should just be infantry, vehicles, larges (bio and mechanical). all of them should be T based to keep everything similar. give extra rules for vehicles flanks and rears and Close combat rules. Bio should only be for things like daemons and tyranides. Mechanicals should be all dreads and things that are made of metal even if its being piloted. fix haywire poison and the likes and it should be ok.

if eldar want to be special snowflakes then give them a special large classification.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:So you've moved your goalposts then.

I didn't move my goalposts. I gave a three stage flowchart to roughly the following effect:

1. Is it alive? Is it an animal?

If yes: go to question 2.
If no: vehicle

2. Does it require a mechanic to fix it?

If yes: vehicle
If no: go to question 3.

If I hit it just right with a lascannon, does it go boom?

If yes: vehicle.
If no: MC.

Which shifted your goalposts from the previous is it mechanical or organic argument.

 Sidstyler wrote:


Also, as I've said before, I would argue that if crisis suits should have vehicle stats then so too should literally all Space Marine infantry that aren't scouts (including centurions), as a crisis suit behaves more like a slightly larger, less-sophisticated suit of power armored infantry with a jet pack (which is actually very well-represented with its stat line, being comparable to a Marine but with an extra wound) than it does a piloted vehicle.

I beg your fething pardon. Less sophisticated? Space Marine power armor doesn't let them see in the dark.

pm713 689446 wrote:Which shifted your goalposts from the previous is it mechanical or organic argument.

Demon engines aren't mechanical?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also wish to point out that there's no comparison between power armor and a crisis suit.

Power armor is just a suit of armor which is battery powered. The space marine isn't piloting his armor. The marine is moving because he's actually moving his legs and walking.

@Traditio : Your Lascannon question doesn't really hold for the flowchart because this is in itself dependent on the game mechanics rather than a proper quality of the object. Maybe Exocrines would blow up with a Lascannon shot to their bioplasma reservoirs ?

Your two other questions I agree with.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 689446 wrote:Which shifted your goalposts from the previous is it mechanical or organic argument.

Demon engines aren't mechanical?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also wish to point out that there's no comparison between power armor and a crisis suit.

Power armor is just a suit of armor which is battery powered. The space marine isn't piloting his armor. The marine is moving because he's actually moving his legs and walking.

It's a mix. They have mechanical and organic bits. Not that it matters your chart doesn't help your point much either considering your view of Wraithknights.

GreyCrow wrote:
@Traditio : Your Lascannon question doesn't really hold for the flowchart because this is in itself dependent on the game mechanics rather than a proper quality of the object. Maybe Exocrines would blow up with a Lascannon shot to their bioplasma reservoirs ?

Your two other questions I agree with.

It's not really a game mechanics question.

Is there any reason why a Riptide shouldn't explode if it's hit in just the right spot under just the right conditions?

There's a compelling reason why a carnifex shouldn't explode (other, perhaps, than in a shower of gore, bones and flesh...and even then, not really) if it's hit by a lascannon.

At any rate, exocrines vs. tau battle suits: different kind of explosion. I'm talking about the kind that goes KABOOM.

If it KABOOMS, it's a vehicle.

Traditio wrote:

GreyCrow wrote:
@Traditio : Your Lascannon question doesn't really hold for the flowchart because this is in itself dependent on the game mechanics rather than a proper quality of the object. Maybe Exocrines would blow up with a Lascannon shot to their bioplasma reservoirs ?

Your two other questions I agree with.

It's not really a game mechanics question.

Is there any reason why a Riptide shouldn't explode if it's hit in just the right spot under just the right conditions?

There's a compelling reason why a carnifex shouldn't explode (other, perhaps, than in a shower of gore, bones and flesh...and even then, not really) if it's hit by a lascannon.

At any rate, exocrines vs. tau battle suits: different kind of explosion. I'm talking about the kind that goes KABOOM.

If it KABOOMS, it's a vehicle.

Flawed logic. Some Tyranids will explode but are not vehicles.

pm713 wrote:It's a mix. They have mechanical and organic bits.

Thus the need for a flowchart!

Not that it matters your chart doesn't help your point much either considering your view of Wraithknights.

Wraith constructs potentially could go either way.

My chart mainly rules out obvious bull excrement like dreadknights and riptides being MCs.

The wraithknight is a hard case.

You could go through the flowchart and say that the wraithknight is an MC.

Is it alive? Yes. It is a composite of a wraithbone body and eldar soul ("located" in the soul stone).

Does it require a mechanic to fix it? No. Wraithbone heals itself.

Does it go boom if a lascannon hits it just right? No. It isn't made up of mechanical bits, nor does it have an engine or any kind of combustible power source.

Note, I'm not giving these answers positively. I don't know what the actual answers are.

It could be that a wraithknight is a complex machine and has a combustible power source which goes KABOOM if you lascannon it just right.

I don't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:Flawed logic. Some Tyranids will explode but are not vehicles.

Which tyrranids KABOOM?

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:It's a mix. They have mechanical and organic bits.

Thus the need for a flowchart!

Not that it matters your chart doesn't help your point much either considering your view of Wraithknights.

Wraith constructs potentially could go either way.

My chart mainly rules out obvious bull excrement like dreadknights and riptides being MCs.

The wraithknight is a hard case.

You could go through the flowchart and say that the wraithknight is an MC.

Is it alive? Yes. It is a composite of a wraithbone body and eldar soul ("located" in the soul stone).

Does it require a mechanic to fix it? No. Wraithbone heals itself.

Does it go boom if a lascannon hits it just right? No. It isn't made up of mechanical bits, nor does it have an engine or any kind of combustible power source.

Note, I'm not giving these answers positively. I don't know what the actual answers are.

It could be that a wraithknight is a complex machine and has a combustible power source which goes KABOOM if you lascannon it just right.

I don't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:Flawed logic. Some Tyranids will explode but are not vehicles.

Which tyrranids KABOOM?

Your flowchart is bad. Is it alive. Kinda. Well where do we go from here?

Literally any of them that use a flammable gas. Which could be a lot. Tyranids make creatures as they need them. Plus Spore Mines.

@Traditio : Explosions are really dependent on whether the vehicle shot at carries containers of explosive/flammable substance. Who's to say a Riptide carries that ? Maybe its power source is purely electrical with a plastic/ceramite composite for the armour. I may be wrong, but I don't think lead or lithium batteries explode when exposed to intense heat or energy (even if they catch on fire).

That's why the Lascannon question is a bit unnecessary, because we don't have enough info to rightfully assess the reaction of a 40k unit to a lascannon shot.

GreyCrow wrote:
@Traditio : Explosions are really dependent on whether the vehicle shot at carries containers of explosive/flammable substance. Who's to say a Riptide carries that ? Maybe its power source is purely electrical with a plastic/ceramite composite for the armour. I may be wrong, but I don't think lead or lithium batteries explode when exposed to intense heat or energy (even if they catch on fire).

That's why the Lascannon question is a bit unnecessary, because we don't have enough info to rightfully assess the reaction of a 40k unit to a lascannon shot.

In all fairness, it is somewhat important for the game. If I roll a 7+ on the vehicle damage table, it KABOOMs.

I also wish to note that wave serpents and Ghost Arks KABOOM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, that's a compelling consideration. Is there that big of a difference, mechanically, between a wave serpent and a wraith construct?

If not, then if one is a vehicle, then all should be, and if one is monstrous, then all shoot be.

If wave serpents can KABOOM, then so can all wraith constructs.

But you're going away from your flowchart and thinking comparatively here, so what good is there to have a flow chart in the first place ? :p

Just trolling a bit !

___

How about the following change to how High Strength (S8+) weapons inflict wounds ?
If the Strength of the weapon is double the Toughness, then it causes instant death.
If a weapon has a Strength of S8 or over, any unsaved wounds inflicts 2 wounds.
If a S8+ weapon has an AP2 or an AP1, it inflicts 3 wounds instead.

Considering these weapons have higher chances to set vehicles ablaze, they should do more damage to living creatures.

GreyCrow wrote:
But you're going away from your flowchart and thinking comparatively here, so what good is there to have a flow chart in the first place ? :p

Just trolling a bit !

___

How about the following change to how High Strength (S8+) weapons inflict wounds ?
If the Strength of the weapon is double the Toughness, then it causes instant death.
If a weapon has a Strength over S8, any unsaved wounds inflicts 2 wounds.
If a S8+ weapon has an AP2 or an AP1, it inflicts 3 wounds instead.

Considering these weapons have higher chances to set vehicles ablaze, they should do more damage to living creatures.

Why shouldn't krak missiles deal 2 wounds? Meltaguns?

Krak Missiles in that framework deal 2 wounds. Lascannons and Meltas would deal 3 (because they're AP2 and AP1).
It would give an interesting twist to high strength weapons vs high rate of fire weapons. If a Melta has a good chance to slag a Land Raider, it should seriously damage a Carnifex or a Wraithknight.
It's also a nod to 2nd ed rules where high strength weapons inflicted a variable number of wounds (2d6 wounds for A Lascan when Carnifexes had 10 wounds).

For "fairness", we could extend that AP2 adding +1 wound to D weapons, so they would deal 2 to 4 wounds per roll of 2 to 5.

EDIT : Sorry, I reread my post and I had a typo. I meant S8 not S>8. Fixed !

Traditio wrote:


Why shouldn't krak missiles deal 2 wounds?

Imperial technology sucks ass.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Should every Daemon enginge then become a MC as well? Helbrute, Fiends, Heldrake, Soul Grinder? They are living machines, they are exactly like tyranid monsters, just with a mechanical body instead of an organic one (if you look at the Helbrute model, it's not even fully mechanic). They might be more consciuos depending on how we interpet the Daemons inside...

Clearly not. Because they are MACHINES and not ANIMALS, they need a mechanic to fix them and can blow up if I hit them just right with a lascannon.

OK, let's split the difference. They can stay vehicles like they are now, except poisoned weapons glance them on a 4+ and when they take enough damage they have to take a Morale/Instability test or run away/lose more hull points. Sound good?

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:OK, let's split the difference. They can stay vehicles like they are now, except poisoned weapons glance them on a 4+ and when they take enough damage they have to take a Morale/Instability test or run away/lose more hull points. Sound good?

Fluff reasons aside:

That seems like a big nerf, no?

Traditio wrote:

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:OK, let's split the difference. They can stay vehicles like they are now, except poisoned weapons glance them on a 4+ and when they take enough damage they have to take a Morale/Instability test or run away/lose more hull points. Sound good?

Fluff reasons aside:

That seems like a big nerf, no?

The point of the thread is to nerf every non-Imperial faction.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

The point of the thread is to nerf every non-Imperial faction.

Obviously, our master plan has been revealed. Abort now !

But yeah, it's not like MCs/GMCs were purely balanced either.

Merellin wrote:
So, why isent the Grey Knights Dreadknight on the list? It's a giant robot with a babycarrier! Is it just because it is part of the Imperium of Man and they are allowed to do what ever they want?

No, as I said, earlier it is because I completely forgot about that horrendous model, as well as the Tau Ghostkeel

Traditio wrote:

GreyCrow wrote:
@Traditio : Explosions are really dependent on whether the vehicle shot at carries containers of explosive/flammable substance. Who's to say a Riptide carries that ? Maybe its power source is purely electrical with a plastic/ceramite composite for the armour. I may be wrong, but I don't think lead or lithium batteries explode when exposed to intense heat or energy (even if they catch on fire).

That's why the Lascannon question is a bit unnecessary, because we don't have enough info to rightfully assess the reaction of a 40k unit to a lascannon shot.

In all fairness, it is somewhat important for the game. If I roll a 7+ on the vehicle damage table, it KABOOMs.

I also wish to note that wave serpents and Ghost Arks KABOOM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, that's a compelling consideration. Is there that big of a difference, mechanically, between a wave serpent and a wraith construct?

If not, then if one is a vehicle, then all should be, and if one is monstrous, then all shoot be.

If wave serpents can KABOOM, then so can all wraith constructs.

There is a difference in construction between a wave serpent and a wraithknight. The wave serpent has a pilot and controls. On th emodel itself there is a control panel and targeting system etc. There are no souls contained withing the structure of a wave serpent. In the lore a wraithknight has the soul of a twin that died. The other twin is put into a near permanent trance (much like a coma) to become one with the construct. The combination of the interred Eldar and the soul of his twin (and all the souls of the eldar who previously made use of the suit) allow the still alive Eldar to move the contruct as if it were his own body. This is why they are so fast and agile. The entire contruct becomes the Eldar's extremities. Also there is no power source on a wraithknight that would make it go boom. Even the weapons are charged using psychic energies.

Xerics wrote:There is a difference in construction between a wave serpent and a wraithknight. The wave serpent has a pilot and controls. On th emodel itself there is a control panel and targeting system etc. There are no souls contained withing the structure of a wave serpent. In the lore a wraithknight has the soul of a twin that died. The other twin is put into a near permanent trance (much like a coma) to become one with the construct. The combination of the interred Eldar and the soul of his twin (and all the souls of the eldar who previously made use of the suit) allow the still alive Eldar to move the contruct as if it were his own body. This is why they are so fast and agile. The entire contruct becomes the Eldar's extremities. Also there is no power source on a wraithknight that would make it go boom. Even the weapons are charged using psychic energies.

I am going to ask a simple question:

What is it about the construction of a wave serpent that facilitates it KABOOMing, and what is it about the construction of a wraithknight that prevents it from KABOOMing?

Telling me that the wave serpent has a control panel, a pilot, etc. doesn't really explain the mechanical features or lack thereof which either facilitate or prevent KABOOMs.

I'm assuming the following:

The wraithknight is a wraithbone construct. That means that some pointy eared space elf built the thing.

Saying that it's animated by an eldar spirit doesn't prove that it should be an MC instead of a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It just occurred to me:

If wraithguard were walkers, they couldn't ride in wave serpents.

Roflcopter!

pm713 wrote:
Except not all those have pilots. Also why is a Centurion infantry but not a Dreadnought? They are very similar in size.

I could be Wrong with Centurions and Wraithguard since I've never actually seen those models IRL, just in videos, but I assumed they were smaller than a Dread, but larger than a Termie.

But outside of literal Monstrous Creatures( Demons, Bugs), there is no reason anything else should be a Monstrous Creature.

If a Demon Bound to a Robot is a Walker, a Magic Space Elf Golem with a Space elf soul bound to it is a Walker.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:I could be Wrong with Centurions and Wraithguard since I've never actually seen those models IRL, just in videos, but I assumed they were smaller than a Dread, but larger than a Termie.

But outside of literal Monstrous Creatures( Demons, Bugs), there is no reason anything else should be a Monstrous Creature.

If a Demon Bound to a Robot is a Walker, a Magic Space Elf Golem with a Space elf soul bound to it is a Walker.

I'm basically in agreement with this, but I do have my doubts.

Are golems really to be considered walkers?

And what about necrons?

Traditio wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:I could be Wrong with Centurions and Wraithguard since I've never actually seen those models IRL, just in videos, but I assumed they were smaller than a Dread, but larger than a Termie.

But outside of literal Monstrous Creatures( Demons, Bugs), there is no reason anything else should be a Monstrous Creature.

If a Demon Bound to a Robot is a Walker, a Magic Space Elf Golem with a Space elf soul bound to it is a Walker.

I'm basically in agreement with this, but I do have my doubts.

Are golems really to be considered walkers?

And what about necrons?

Anything Infantry Sized should just be Infantry, for the sake of Simplicity.

But as long as we have two classes of Giant Walkers, Vehicle Walker and Monstrous Creature, we need to have firm rules on what is what. If it bleeds, It's a Monstrous Creature. If it doesn't, it's a Vehicle.

That being said Life would be so much easier if anything using the Walker Profile was just changed into a Monstrous Creature and Vehicles pretty much just covered Tanks, Fliers, and APCs.

Here is my criteria between walkers/MC

1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .

2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion.Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.

fine, make Crisis, Broadsides, Riptides, but oddly NOT the Stormsurge should be walkers. Why? Poison and Force weapons. Is the controlling organism exposed and able to be damaged by Poison or Force Weapons? No to the first three, but yes to the second.

But, if you take that to the logical conclusion:
Powered Armor Space Marines with a helmet, by the same definition are vehicles (AV8?). PASM without helmets, scouts, guard, etc would be infantry.

The dreadknight by this definition? is the PAGK in the babycarrier helmeted? It is a hell of a thing to base vehicle\MC status on, and brings to question whether the choice is truly modeling for advantage. . .

Just to throw a wrench into the works:

1) The Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines have machine-spirits, and the crew that run them aid the machine spirits and hardwired brains, and are arguably hardwired themselves.

2) Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines' machine spirits are powerful enough to repair them over time - this means that if left alone long enough a damaged but not-yet-destroyed Macro-Engine will fully 'heal'. Mechanic not required.

3) Ordinatus engines have no chance of exploding from a single lascannon shot.


What other criteria are being thrown around again? Because it looks to me like the Ordinatus engines should be MCs. *giggles*

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:


Also, as I've said before, I would argue that if crisis suits should have vehicle stats then so too should literally all Space Marine infantry that aren't scouts (including centurions), as a crisis suit behaves more like a slightly larger, less-sophisticated suit of power armored infantry with a jet pack (which is actually very well-represented with its stat line, being comparable to a Marine but with an extra wound) than it does a piloted vehicle.

I beg your fething pardon. Less sophisticated? Space Marine power armor doesn't let them see in the dark.

Have you read the fluff on power armor? That stuff comes with every option but a happy ending (and I'm pretty sure that come standard in the Mark IV).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
Here is my criteria between walkers/MC

1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .

2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion. Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.

1. This is for the most part a good assessment. The only real flaw with the logic is that neither Dreadnaughts nor Imperial Knights use controls. They are wired directly into the pilot's nervous system. You could possibly make an argument for Dreads being MCs, but I don't think you'll find anyone willing to call an IK a GMC with a straight face.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Except not all those have pilots. Also why is a Centurion infantry but not a Dreadnought? They are very similar in size.

I could be Wrong with Centurions and Wraithguard since I've never actually seen those models IRL, just in videos, but I assumed they were smaller than a Dread, but larger than a Termie.

But outside of literal Monstrous Creatures( Demons, Bugs), there is no reason anything else should be a Monstrous Creature.

If a Demon Bound to a Robot is a Walker, a Magic Space Elf Golem with a Space elf soul bound to it is a Walker.

They seem pretty similar to me.

That's assuming the Daemon things should be vehicles. Which they really shouldn't.

 Xerics wrote:
.

We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.

Traditio wrote:

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:OK, let's split the difference. They can stay vehicles like they are now, except poisoned weapons glance them on a 4+ and when they take enough damage they have to take a Morale/Instability test or run away/lose more hull points. Sound good?

Fluff reasons aside:

That seems like a big nerf, no?

It's Chaos isn't it?

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
If it bleeds, It's a Monstrous Creature.

If it bleeds, we can't kill it...

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
.

We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.

Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.

So many xenon players crying in this thread lol.

The basic question should be does it have a organic circulation system.

Riptide, no
Stormsurge, no
Daemon walkers, no
Kills Kan, no

They cannot be poisoned, they require a metal body to exist in their base form.

Wraithknight, yes
Tyranids MC, yes
Dreadknight, yes

They can be poisoned, etc. Maybe the Tau should learn a bit from the GK... oh wait they did with the Stormsurge and it's a GMC.

Seriously xenos get over yourselves you act like we took your mother and deported her back to whatever Sept or Craft world they came from. It's alright to break party lines, I promise you won't be kicked from the faction.

Riptides and Dreadknights don't have circulatory systems...

unless you count oil and coolant, in which case the Ordinatus Macro-Engine still counts as an MC as well in your definition.

I said organic check it.

 Quickjager wrote:
I said organic check it.

Organic [adj.] = carbon-based

If oil isn't carbon based then I don't know what is. It's predominantly from petroleum hydrocarbons, which are organic.

Or, with the other definition of organic:

"Made or derived from organic matter."

Then the hydrocarbons in motor oil come from (that is to say, are 'derived from') organic matter.

 Xerics wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
.

We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.

Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.

At least I'd be losing to a new model, then.

Franarok wrote:

Now tell me the difference between a Riptide and a Soul Grinder. Why is the riptide a MC and the Soul Grinder a vehicle?

Not just that, half of the Soul Grinder is "alive" haha


Or better, the difference between a stormsurge and a tau piranha: bot are not live, bot use electronic systems to work, both have visible pilots.....But one is vehicle and the other is a MC xD. Then why not the tau piranha are flying MC?

It's a question of turning radius, really. A piranha in motion is banking and jinking and not pivoting like a crisis suit does, it moves faster, lacks the same degree of control.

The stormsurge on the other hand is kind of a runaway train on the subject. The crisis suit makes sense as infantry because it's described as sufficiently nimble in fluff, it is nowhere near as lumbering as say, a dreadnought. The broadside is infantry because it's a heavy gunner built on the crisis suit frame with that performance in mind. Then the Riptide rolls in and it's a monstrous creature mostly because it's a giant crisis suit, and the crisis suit isn't a walker- but you can still reasonably argue that it can twist and jump and generally be more nimble than any large walker like the soul grinder.

I'm fine with all of this, because the way GW seems to differentiate walkers to MCs is whether or not the 45 degree fire arc makes sense on that model.

Ghostkeel makes sense since it's a smaller riptide, but the stormsurge is characterized as being unusually immobile for a Tau suit. I could see it being a stationary tank-like vehicle or walker when it puts its tripod down.

SemperMortis wrote:
What is the difference between a Killa Kan and a Tau Crisis Suit/Broadside?

SemperMortis wrote:


So the one on the left is an infantry model with a toughness value and a 3+ save. Not to mention 2 guns.
The one on the right is a vehicle model with an armor value and no saves of any kind. Not to mention 1 gun and a CCW.

So please explain to me why one is an infantry model with a toughness value, more guns, good armor save; while the other is a vehicle with an AV and garbage weapon options?

One is a staple unit in a high-tier codex. The other is an extremely niche unit in what is arguably the very worst codex.

Strip everything else out, that's the difference.

Lore wise? One is the product of a species meticulously studying and refining a mobile walker-type weapon with intent to have it behave like a nimble infantry unit. The other is a can with legs because legs is right proppa. One is described in lore as being able to turn around and follow a target trying to outflank it with notable dexterity, the other can be reasonably expected to be able to turn around fast enough to take a thunder hammer to the face rather than the back.

One is also being refined over time from fighting the other, too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I said organic check it.

Organic [adj.] = carbon-based

If oil isn't carbon based then I don't know what is. It's predominantly from petroleum hydrocarbons, which are organic.

Or, with the other definition of organic:

"Made or derived from organic matter."

Then the hydrocarbons in motor oil come from (that is to say, are 'derived from') organic matter.

Lol you are pointless to talk to.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
.

We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.

Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.

At least I'd be losing to a new model, then.

Actually its an old model >.>

It's new to me.

Also if you watch the Dawn of War 3 trailer it has wraithknights in it. The way they move is not machine like AT ALL. It sliced an imperial knight in half with speed that only a creature could perform.

 Xerics wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
.

We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.

Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.

Xerics, you are the definition (at least to me) as to why so many people hate the Eldar Faction and hate a lot of the players who play that faction even before getting to know them.

"Ohh I can't take my OP cheese unit? Ok Then I'll take this other OP Cheese unit. What? I can't play that OP cheese unit anymore? alright then I'll bring these other OP cheese units".

Instead of admitting that your entire codex is atrociously broken and OP you instead show complete disdain for the idea that your units need nerfs and when someone brings up the topic of something even remotely close to a nerf for a unit (proposed because we don't get to make changes) you run to its defense.

Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.

That line just about sums up my experience with you.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
.

We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.

Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.

Xerics, you are the definition (at least to me) as to why so many people hate the Eldar Faction and hate a lot of the players who play that faction even before getting to know them.

"Ohh I can't take my OP cheese unit? Ok Then I'll take this other OP Cheese unit. What? I can't play that OP cheese unit anymore? alright then I'll bring these other OP cheese units".

Instead of admitting that your entire codex is atrociously broken and OP you instead show complete disdain for the idea that your units need nerfs and when someone brings up the topic of something even remotely close to a nerf for a unit (proposed because we don't get to make changes) you run to its defense.

Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.

That line just about sums up my experience with you.

I play Eldar. The bad choices in my codex are better than some other codex's good choices. It doesn't matter what I take it will be cheese. War walkers with +3" run speed jumpin in and out of BLOS with twin Scatter Lasers. Falcons Deepstriking next to your imperial knight only to unload a bunch of angry fire dragons to melta the out of it. Vypers with a bunch of heavy weapons. BS5 Dark Reapers and Warp Spiders. Psyker shenanigans. Eldar are full of good stuff. I don't NEED to take the cheesiest army available but its nice to play what I WANT to play and not what YOU tell me I should be playing.

 Xerics wrote:
Also if you watch the Dawn of War 3 trailer it has wraithknights in it. The way they move is not machine like AT ALL. It sliced an imperial knight in half with speed that only a creature could perform.

So it can move in a fancy way? Ow wow, and no advanced machine ever can do so. The damnable thing should be a walker, not an MC. But oh no, Eldar have to have their fancy gear once again, and how dare we peasants not just bow down and accept our fate.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Also if you watch the Dawn of War 3 trailer it has wraithknights in it. The way they move is not machine like AT ALL. It sliced an imperial knight in half with speed that only a creature could perform.

So it can move in a fancy way? Ow wow, and no advanced machine ever can do so. The damnable thing should be a walker, not an MC. But oh no, Eldar have to have their fancy gear once again, and how dare we peasants not just bow down and accept our fate.

Not in the 40K setting does any machine move in that way. Anything that moves like that would have to be a creature or fully automated which, last I checked, the IoM outlawed after the Iron Men nearly destroyed humanity.

Yes. Any large non-organic construct / mecha should be a vehicle. Specifically, if it's so big that the occupant sits in a cokpit and/or his limbs don't fit inside the limbs of the machine, then the occupant is clearly piloting something and not wearing a suit of armour. That should be where the rules draw a line. It makes no logical sense that a dreadnought is a vehicle but a riptide isn't. The current categorisation of thse units seems have been done for the sake of unit diversity; it doesn't adhere to logic.

The exception I'd suggest is to leave wraithguard, crisis and broadside suits with infantry statlines because while they technically fit the above criteria, they are relatively small, responsive suits that are fielded in larger numbers - as with bikes, If they were vehicles they would be fragile due to neccessarily very low Hull points. Damage tables would make things a bit messy...though logically, if you can blow a weapon off a dreadnought, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do the same to a broadside suit. As always, there's a nice middle ground between playability and strict logic.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Yes. Any large non-organic construct / mecha should be a vehicle. Specifically, if it's so big that the occupant sits in a cokpit and/or his limbs don't fit inside the limbs of the machine, then the occupant is clearly piloting something and not wearing a suit of armour. That should be where the rules draw a line. It makes no logical sense that a dreadnought is a vehicle but a riptide isn't. The current categorisation of thse units seems have been done for the sake of unit diversity; it doesn't adhere to logic.

But the unit designation isn't strictly a case of what the unit is in the fluff, but what category best represents its behaviour, in much the same way that poison rounds work against necrons not because they're actually poison.

A dreadnought and a crisis suit represent different design philosophies, forcing them to occupy the same category implies there's a common denominator in how their performance works which does not exist. A crisis suit is as survivable as it is for reasons other than armour, a dreadnought can not be reasonably expected to turn around fast enough to shoot at a drop pod that landed behind him.

Walker vehicles are awful, and that's a problem. Pushing for the suits to be recategorized because you hate Tau so much they should be relegated to that trash heap is shortsighted and cruel: foisting a pile of bad rules onto the army just because they proved those rules are bad.

Dreadnoughts are awesome, and walker vehicles need a buff. But even if they were buffed to the point where dreadnoughts and killa kanz with their current statline could measure up as well as GW thinks they do, or even if they got buffed up out into the stratosphere, it still wouldn't make sense for crisis suits or riptides to be in that category, they are not walking tanks.

... Except the stormsurge, once again, that sucker is a walking tank

How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

Same way terminators are described as walking tanks

 Desubot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

Same way terminators are described as walking tanks

Except that one is a powered suit of armor that literally fits around the wearer and he physically moves the armor as opposed to a riptide which is piloted. But it doesn't matter because no matter what Tau/Eldar will never admit their units should be Vehicles unless vehicles get a HUGE buff and MC"s get a huge nerf.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

Same way terminators are described as walking tanks

Except that one is a powered suit of armor that literally fits around the wearer and he physically moves the armor as opposed to a riptide which is piloted. But it doesn't matter because no matter what Tau/Eldar will never admit their units should be Vehicles unless vehicles get a HUGE buff and MC"s get a huge nerf.

Lol who wants their army nerfed? *looks around for any hands up but of course there are none* That's what I thought.

As an Eldar player, Wraithguard/blades and Wraithlords should not be vehicles - there are no pilots. Wraithknights are a combination pilot and MC and could theoretically be re-classed as a Super Heavy Walker. Dreadknights, which are exactly the same as Penitent Engines should be Walkers, as well as Riptides, Stormsurges, and that other big Tau thing.

Careful Happyjew. This thread is full of Tau and Eldar hate. You can try and reason with them all you want but the hate is strong with these ones.

Give MCs and GMCs reasonable rules and costs, and you can have as many as you like.

Another approach is to make all walkers and vehicles MCs with the subtype mechanical.

It's easy to hate Eldar when their netlists table you with no effort and even their suboptimal units can thrash your best stuff soundly.

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

None of those things describe what a vehicle (walker or otherwise) is in the game though.

In the game, a walker is a vehicle with legs. It defends itself by means of its armour primarily and the legs are its motive system. It has weapons fixed in a forward position and can only fore within a 45 degree angle ahead of it (unless it has a turret somehow). Its enhanced mobility allows it to to move around in combat enough to avoid a lethal hit in its most vulnerable parts (represented by all melee hits resolving against front armour) but can't turn around or react fast enough to keep from being hit from behind (can it even overwatch outside that arc? I can't remember)

This does not describe the riptide, which is described as being limber and agile despite its size, aiming and shooting at targets other than what is directly ahead and wielding its primary armament on its arm instead of fixed on its body.

 Desubot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

Same way terminators are described as walking tanks

Terminator armor is actual armor though, it is worn, a Riptide is piloted from a cockpit.

 Happyjew wrote:
As an Eldar player, Wraithguard/blades and Wraithlords should not be vehicles - there are no pilots. Wraithknights are a combination pilot and MC and could theoretically be re-classed as a Super Heavy Walker. Dreadknights, which are exactly the same as Penitent Engines should be Walkers, as well as Riptides, Stormsurges, and that other big Tau thing.

Keep in mind the Wraithlord *was* a vehicle, it used to specifically be called an Eldar Dreadnought. It's a mechanical construct, not coherent biological entity the way say, a Carnifex is. A Defiler has no pilot either, and in fact if anything has an even greater soul/construct meld, but its still not an MC.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

None of those things describe what a vehicle (walker or otherwise) is in the game though.

In the game, a walker is a vehicle with legs. It defends itself by means of its armour primarily and the legs are its motive system. It has weapons fixed in a forward position and can only fore within a 45 degree angle ahead of it (unless it has a turret somehow). Its enhanced mobility allows it to to move around in combat enough to avoid a lethal hit in its most vulnerable parts (represented by all melee hits resolving against front armour) but can't turn around or react fast enough to keep from being hit from behind (can it even overwatch outside that arc? I can't remember)

This does not describe the riptide, which is described as being limber and agile despite its size, aiming and shooting at targets other than what is directly ahead and wielding its primary armament on its arm instead of fixed on its body.

This is a somewhat complex description that only works within a narrowly defined context, if you look at say, a Soul Grinder or Maulerfiend, this paradigm breaks down.

Anything Dreadnought sized and upwards that's not a living creature (so Tyranids and to and Daemons) I would class as walkers. Yes, the walker rules need a bit of a fix, but I think it would be smart to re-draw the line nice and clearly.

I remember back when Tau were first introduced there was a wonderful "how we came up with this race" issue of White Dwarf that talked about how they experimented with Crisis Suits being AV 11/11/10 (and then 11/10/10) walkers, but they found that immunity to S3 at all ranges and immunity to S4 in melee was too powerful when spammed in large numbers. By giving Crisis Suits T4 and a few wounds, they were hard to kill with basic weapons, but not invulnerable. Based on that reasoning, I would keep Crisis Suits, Wraithguard etc as models with a T value.

 Vaktathi wrote:

This is a somewhat complex description that only works within a narrowly defined context, if you look at say, a Soul Grinder or Maulerfiend, this paradigm breaks down.

Mainly because I ramble, but you're right.

The point I'm trying to make is that the unit designation 'walker' describes a vehicle that behaves a certain way, it does not necessarily encompass everything that could be described by people as 'a vehicle that can walk'.

In the same way, you could have a tyranid monster that is better represented by walker rules than by monstrous creature rules, you won't because the walker rules are garbage, but you could do it.

 Xerics wrote:
Careful Happyjew. This thread is full of Tau and Eldar hate. You can try and reason with them all you want but the hate is strong with these ones.

Xerics your the only one who thinks this is hatred. It is people wanting fair rules across the board. If my Killa Kan is a walker, why aren't crisis suits? If a SM's dreadnought is a Walker why aren't riptides?

Wraithknights are utter garbage when it comes to rules. It is such a blatant attempt to create an easy mode army.

Again though, please continue to respond with your sarcasm without realizing that your army is broken. Just gives more fuel to the crowd who want to ban eldar from events (BTW I am not one of those people, though I would never play you for obvious reasons)

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

This is a somewhat complex description that only works within a narrowly defined context, if you look at say, a Soul Grinder or Maulerfiend, this paradigm breaks down.

Mainly because I ramble, but you're right.

The point I'm trying to make is that the unit designation 'walker' describes a vehicle that behaves a certain way, it does not necessarily encompass everything that could be described by people as 'a vehicle that can walk'.

In the same way, you could have a tyranid monster that is better represented by walker rules than by monstrous creature rules, you won't because the walker rules are garbage, but you could do it.

I get the point your driving at, its just that the rules themselves have historically separated along mechanical vs biological lines, not on intended functionity, and, like everything with GW, the "new paradigm" is more implied than explicit is painfully inconsistent, and theres a huge capability gap in unit types to boot, with weird results like Riptides being vulnerable to poison attacks and Daemon Engines with as much flesh as steel being completely immune

 Vaktathi wrote:
I get the point your driving at, its just that the rules themselves have historically separated along mechanical vs biological lines, not on intended functionity, and, like everything with GW, the "new paradigm" is more implied than explicit is painfully inconsistent, and theres a huge capability gap in unit types to boot, with weird results like Riptides being vulnerable to poison attacks and Daemon Engines with as much flesh as steel being completely immune

That same poison works on necron warriors (also infantry ), because it isn't actually necessarily poison, it's just a nebulously defined - something- that has a specific effect on the target, possibly one of a set of different substances the shooters pick from depending on that target, the poison rule is there for our benefit, so we don't have six extra rules for all the different types of sternguard ammunition.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Careful Happyjew. This thread is full of Tau and Eldar hate. You can try and reason with them all you want but the hate is strong with these ones.

Xerics your the only one who thinks this is hatred. It is people wanting fair rules across the board. If my Killa Kan is a walker, why aren't crisis suits? If a SM's dreadnought is a Walker why aren't riptides?

No a lot of it IS hatred. Some of it is just pure bitter hatred and fairness doesn't come into it. There's no point pretending otherwise.

It's hard to deconvolute that when eldar are consistently the most unfair army. I sure don't see many dark angel haters or csm haters.

 Quickjager wrote:
Lol you are pointless to talk to.

Good counter-argument with clear and well-defined paradigms about what differentiates a vehicle from an MC.

Really a joy to read. We should use this plan in future editions of 40k.

kambien wrote:
Here is my criteria between walkers/MC

1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .

2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion.Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.

I vehemently reject these criteria. On your criteria, if a dreadnought or a laindrader were guided solely by AI, they should be monstrous creatures, which is, of course, utterly silly.

What you're doing is trying to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on efficient causality, i.e., on the source of the thing's motion.

I reject this. We have to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on formal causality (i.e., WHAT it is) and material causality (what it's made of).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just to throw a wrench into the works:

1) The Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines have machine-spirits, and the crew that run them aid the machine spirits and hardwired brains, and are arguably hardwired themselves.

2) Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines' machine spirits are powerful enough to repair them over time - this means that if left alone long enough a damaged but not-yet-destroyed Macro-Engine will fully 'heal'. Mechanic not required.

3) Ordinatus engines have no chance of exploding from a single lascannon shot.


What other criteria are being thrown around again? Because it looks to me like the Ordinatus engines should be MCs. *giggles*

The engines fail the first criteria of the flow chart: they are not alive; they are not animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Organic [adj.] = carbon-based

The problem with this definition is that this definition is solely in terms of material causality (i.e., what something is made of).

The other problem is that many things are carbon based which are not organic. The gasoline in my car, for example, is clearly not an organism.

Or, with the other definition of organic:

"Made or derived from organic matter."

In addition to the above problem (defining solely through material causality), the definition is circular: it places the term to be defined in the definition.

For "organic," the Greek term organon comes to mind, which means instrument. A body is organic if and only if it has a plurality of parts which act as its "instruments" for the various operations of life. Note that this holds true even in single-celled organisms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to deconvolute that when eldar are consistently the most unfair army. I sure don't see many dark angel haters or csm haters.

I think that the dark angel ravenwing formation is patently unfair. Between 2+ rerollable jink saves and overwatch shenanigans, I refuse to play Dark Angels, just as I refuse to play Tau.

I mean historically unfair. Can you name me one OP thing from the 2nd ed DA codex? I can name you a dozen from the Eldar codex.

Traditio wrote:

kambien wrote:
Here is my criteria between walkers/MC

1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .

2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion.Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.

I vehemently reject these criteria. On your criteria, if a dreadnought or a laindrader were guided solely by AI, they should be monstrous creatures, which is, of course, utterly silly.

What you're doing is trying to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on efficient causality, i.e., on the source of the thing's motion.

I reject this. We have to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on formal causality (i.e., WHAT it is) and material causality (what it's made of).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just to throw a wrench into the works:

1) The Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines have machine-spirits, and the crew that run them aid the machine spirits and hardwired brains, and are arguably hardwired themselves.

2) Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines' machine spirits are powerful enough to repair them over time - this means that if left alone long enough a damaged but not-yet-destroyed Macro-Engine will fully 'heal'. Mechanic not required.

3) Ordinatus engines have no chance of exploding from a single lascannon shot.


What other criteria are being thrown around again? Because it looks to me like the Ordinatus engines should be MCs. *giggles*

The engines fail the first criteria of the flow chart: they are not alive; they are not animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Organic [adj.] = carbon-based

The problem with this definition is that this definition is solely in terms of material causality (i.e., what something is made of).

The other problem is that many things are carbon based which are not organic. The gasoline in my car, for example, is clearly not an organism.

Or, with the other definition of organic:

"Made or derived from organic matter."

In addition to the above problem (defining solely through material causality), the definition is circular: it places the term to be defined in the definition.

For "organic," the Greek term organon comes to mind, which means instrument. A body is organic if and only if it has a plurality of parts which act as its "instruments" for the various operations of life. Note that this holds true even in single-celled organisms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to deconvolute that when eldar are consistently the most unfair army. I sure don't see many dark angel haters or csm haters.

I think that the dark angel ravenwing formation is patently unfair. Between 2+ rerollable jink saves and overwatch shenanigans, I refuse to play Dark Angels, just as I refuse to play Tau.

Wraithknights, Riptides, Dreadknights, and Crisis Suits are not animals either. Clearly that isn't a criterion.

As for your instruments thing, you don't consider the secondary weapons on an Ordinatus to be "instruments" through which its machine spirit acts, since they're not controlled by the crew? Or the treads to be the 'instruments' by which it traverses the ground, much like human feet would be for humans?

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to deconvolute that when eldar are consistently the most unfair army. I sure don't see many dark angel haters or csm haters.

That's because their units are . . . well not balanced, that's for sure. Maybe we should just say that DA and CSM don't have nearly as many undercosted/broken/overpowered/however-the-hell-else-you-want-to-say-it units

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wraithknights, Riptides, Dreadknights, and Crisis Suits are not animals either. Clearly that isn't a criterion.

No. They aren't. Therefore, they are not monstrous creatures: they should be walkers.

QED.

As for your instruments thing, you don't consider the secondary weapons on an Ordinatus to be "instruments" through which its machine spirit acts, since they're not controlled by the crew? Or the treads to be the 'instruments' by which it traverses the ground, much like human feet would be for humans?

No. In order for something to be organic, it has to be alive. An organism is organic because its parts are instruments for the operations of life. My heart is an instrument that keeps me alive by pumping blood.

 Captain Joystick wrote:


But the unit designation isn't strictly a case of what the unit is in the fluff, but what category best represents its behaviour, in much the same way that poison rounds work against necrons not because they're actually poison.

A dreadnought and a crisis suit represent different design philosophies, forcing them to occupy the same category implies there's a common denominator in how their performance works which does not exist. A crisis suit is as survivable as it is for reasons other than armour, a dreadnought can not be reasonably expected to turn around fast enough to shoot at a drop pod that landed behind him.

Walker vehicles are awful, and that's a problem. Pushing for the suits to be recategorized because you hate Tau so much they should be relegated to that trash heap is shortsighted and cruel: foisting a pile of bad rules onto the army just because they proved those rules are bad.

Dreadnoughts are awesome, and walker vehicles need a buff. But even if they were buffed to the point where dreadnoughts and killa kanz with their current statline could measure up as well as GW thinks they do, or even if they got buffed up out into the stratosphere, it still wouldn't make sense for crisis suits or riptides to be in that category, they are not walking tanks.

... Except the stormsurge, once again, that sucker is a walking tank

What in my comment gave you the notion that I have any disposition whatsoever towards Tau? I want consistent rules, that's all.

I stated that Crisis, Broadsise and Wraithguard should retain an infantry profile for my aforementioned reasons. But taking some of the other units, consider this:

Agility and design philisophy notwithstanding, tanks, aircraft, walkers and mecha all have propulsion and weapon systems. In tanks, aircraft and walkers, these can be destroyed, and the crew can be stunned. In Riptides Dreadknights and Wraithlords, they cannot. The vehicle suffers no deterioration in performance until it is destroyed outright. This makes no sense to me. If I can blow the gun off a predator or dread, then I should be able to blow the gun off a riptide.

Give them a suitaby good walker profile. If the rules for walkers are too bad to allow for that, then those rules need to be changed. I just don't think models that are clearly vehicles should be treated otherwise.

Traditio wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wraithknights, Riptides, Dreadknights, and Crisis Suits are not animals either. Clearly that isn't a criterion.

No. They aren't. Therefore, they are not monstrous creatures: they should be walkers.

QED.

As for your instruments thing, you don't consider the secondary weapons on an Ordinatus to be "instruments" through which its machine spirit acts, since they're not controlled by the crew? Or the treads to be the 'instruments' by which it traverses the ground, much like human feet would be for humans?

No. In order for something to be organic, it has to be alive. An organism is organic because its parts are instruments for the operations of life. My heart is an instrument that keeps me alive by pumping blood.

Your first part I agree with, but the second part I don't understand.

When you have artificial intelligence and growing metal, what does it mean to be alive? Is not that AI's processor core and memory module akin to the instrument of a 'brain?' Is the coolant pump so different from a heart? Is the armour so distinguishable from skin?

SemperMortis wrote:
But it doesn't matter because no matter what Tau/Eldar will never admit their units should be Vehicles unless vehicles get a HUGE buff and MC"s get a huge nerf.

If that ever did happen, and GW made all these units vehicles to appease you, only to hand vehicles a huge buff and nerf the gak out of MCs/GMCs with the update to the next edition, then people like you would be right back here on Dakka starting threads called "Should these models be MCs/GMCs?", and making the same argument us guys are making now.

"It makes no sense for crisis suits to be vehicles anymore! I mean yeah, they're obviously mechanical, but the pilot is hardwired into the suit and moves with the same kind of agility that a living creature would! The pilot is the suit! They should all be nerfed into pansy-ass infantry again!"

 Xerics wrote:
Lol who wants their army nerfed? *looks around for any hands up but of course there are none* That's what I thought.

Yeah, no gak.

Tell me Semper, would you and the others be this "passionate" about nerfing stuff if it were your own army on top, or would we have pages and pages of arguing about how it all makes perfect sense for things to be as they are, with reams of badly-written Imperial fluff posted to try and back it up? Because I'm not at all convinced it would be any different.

And for the record, I was all for fixing units that were obviously broken, like the riptide, etc. I didn't start to push back until you guys went gunning for gak that wasn't. Give someone an inch they'll ask for a mile.

And if MCs were weaker than walkers the Tau/Eldar players would be arguing about how Wraithknights are mechs with pilots rather than living beings. It's kind of how these things go.

The distinction between MCs and Walkers are completely arbitrary anyway.

..its either have robots as Infantry/MC/GMC or have all robots as vehicles not some here and some there ...Straight forward and simple.

Unit1126PLL wrote:]When you have artificial intelligence and growing metal, what does it mean to be alive? Is not that AI's processor core and memory module akin to the instrument of a 'brain?' Is the coolant pump so different from a heart? Is the armour so distinguishable from skin?

It's sophistical even to ask these questions. It should be perceptually obvious. A mechanical dog with very advanced AI is not a dog. Dogs are dogs.

An android with very advanced AI that looks and acts like Socrates is not Socrates. Socrates is Socrates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:If that ever did happen, and GW made all these units vehicles to appease you, only to hand vehicles a huge buff and nerf the gak out of MCs/GMCs with the update to the next edition, then people like you would be right back here on Dakka starting threads called "Should these models be MCs/GMCs?", and making the same argument us guys are making now.

I would not. You are conflating two very different things:

1. Correct classification
2. Balance.

Even if a riptide were substantially nerfed and had its points increased (and so were properly balanced), it would still be incorrectly classified. As you yourself note:

they're obviously mechanical

Personally, I love the fact that my sternguard wound dreadknights on 2s with hellfire rounds.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheCustomLime wrote:The distinction between MCs and Walkers are completely arbitrary anyway.

It really shouldn't be. It's the distinction between "is an animal" and "is not an animal."

Traditio wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:]When you have artificial intelligence and growing metal, what does it mean to be alive? Is not that AI's processor core and memory module akin to the instrument of a 'brain?' Is the coolant pump so different from a heart? Is the armour so distinguishable from skin?

It's sophistical even to ask these questions. It should be perceptually obvious. A mechanical dog with very advanced AI is not a dog. Dogs are dogs.

An android with very advanced AI that looks and acts like Socrates is not Socrates. Socrates is Socrates.

Nice strawman you have there, mind if I have a go?

I never said AIs were replacements - I never claimed that a robot dog was a dog. I merely said it might be alive. Call it a mog or a pog or a tog - it certainly isn't a dog, but that does not stop it from being alive.

Similarly, you could call such an AI Mockrates. I never said I was -replacing- life, or trying to build an exact copy. I was asking why, fundamentally, such a construct isn't alive even if it isn't identical to the person upon which it is based.

I am not identical to you, yet we are both alive. See the question now? Proving that I am not identical to you in no way means that I am not alive. Proving that an AI construct that is mechanical is not a dog does not prove that it is not alive.

Unit:

If you want to say that it's corporeal and alive, then I'll tell you that all embodied living things are either:

1. Plants (or roughly equivalent; e.g., bacteria)

or

2. Animals

Is it a plant or an animal?

Traditio wrote:
Unit:

If you want to say that it's alive, then I'll tell you that all living things are either:

1. Plants (or roughly equivalent; e.g., bacteria)

or

2. Animals.

Is it a plant or an animal?

Animal, according to google's definition: "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."

One might rephrase it "a mechanical device which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sensor apparatuses and computerized system able to respond rapidly to stimuli." But the rephrase is, of course, unnecessary.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Animal, according to google's definition: "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."

One might rephrase it "a mechanical device which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sensor apparatuses and computerized system able to respond rapidly to stimuli." But the rephrase is, of course, unnecessary.

I understand an animal as a sensate living thing. I understand living as the highest difference in bodies, i.e., living vs. non-living bodies. In animals, there is the further subdivision of rational vs. non-rational. (Porphry's tree comes to mind.)

You're focusing on the question of whether the machine is alive because of its alleged cognitive faculties. I'd prefer to look at the more basic instance of life (i.e., that plants), and note that animal life ultimately builds upon what's already present in plants.

A dog is alive in a sense analogous to that in which a rose bush is.

AI Socrates is not.

Traditio wrote:

kambien wrote:
Here is my criteria between walkers/MC

1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .

2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion.Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.

I vehemently reject these criteria. On your criteria, if a dreadnought or a laindrader were guided solely by AI, they should be monstrous creatures, which is, of course, utterly silly.

How are you misreading this so easily . There are only 2 criteria , and neither a landraider or a dreadnought fulfills the 2nd.
If you put the pilot of what ever controls the construct in , shrunk it down and put it on the basketball court , would you perform just as well or better ? No ? So they don't have a full range of motion and can't perform simple tasks.

Traditio wrote:
What you're doing is trying to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on efficient causality, i.e., on the source of the thing's motion.

How do you ignore criteria 2 in the previous statement , then ignore criteria 1 with this statement ? Its not just abut the motions it performs , see criteria 1

Traditio wrote:
I reject this. We have to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on formal causality (i.e., WHAT it is) and material causality (what it's made of).

I reject your rejection. It doesn't matter what its made of , or did you forget you in the a sci-fi universe set 38,000 years in the future where they have all sorta of things that can't even be classified.

Traditio wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Animal, according to google's definition: "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."

One might rephrase it "a mechanical device which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sensor apparatuses and computerized system able to respond rapidly to stimuli." But the rephrase is, of course, unnecessary.

I understand an animal as a sensate living thing. I understand living as the highest difference in bodies, i.e., living vs. non-living bodies. In animals, there is the further subdivision of rational vs. non-rational. (Porphry's tree comes to mind.)

You're focusing on the question of whether the machine is alive because of its alleged cognitive faculties. I'd prefer to look at the more basic instance of life (i.e., that plants), and note that animal life ultimately builds upon what's already present in plants.

A dog is alive in a sense analogous to that in which a rose bush is.

AI Socrates is not.

You don't understand my argument, I don't think.

I'm arguing that a sufficiently advanced machine can be indistinguishable from a living thing.

What would be the difference between an AI Socrates with a stomach chemical reactor that can process human food, an evolved brain and CNS electrical computer and sensor system, synthfibre muscles motive bits, a hydraulic system that uses a heart pump to send blood fluid around its body form, self-repairing skin armour, the ability to grow improve upon its physical capabilities, and a living thing?

Obviously when GW classified the units in question as monstrous creatures, that was purely a rules-based classification. They're not trying to impart to us that a riptide is in fact an actual creature! In real life terms, the classification is fairly simple: If it's mechanical / not organic, it's not a creature. If it's partially organic and partially mechanical its a cyborg. If it's fully organic its a creature. There's not much grounds for arguement there really.

Tau suits should all be walkers. If you can't determine a facing based on the model give them the same AV on all sides - same thing. All their weapons should be considered turret to reflect their agility. Except the Stormsurge. That thing's got less arms than Abaddon.

Wraithguard and wraithlord can be infanty and monstrous creature with GMC-type immunity to poison. Wraithknight should be SHW.

Centurions should be walkers.

Dreadknight should be walker chariot (that's a chariot that walks). Karamazov too. Soulgrinder should be walker chariot and the rider is a monstrous creature.

No more bikes. Bikes should be chariots. Hate to break it to you, but bikes only make you look tougher. Until you crash. Then you don't look so tough anymore. Go ahead, put my bolter shots on your AV10 bike and see what happens...

Obviously pt costs would need to be adjusted.

Arson Fire wrote:

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Centurion

Once connected into the warsuit, the accepted battle position is for a Space Marine's hands to be crossed against the front of his chest, behind the torso-plate and the suit's secondary weapons, for he controls the vehicle with his thoughts.

That has to be the most fething ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. So he's hard-wired in so he can control it like a Dreadnought, but he is also absolutely free to get out and do whatever else he needs to do/ feels like? A little bit of best of both worlds, no? This firmly cements my decision to never buy Centurions for my Crimson Fists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Lol you are pointless to talk to.

Good counter-argument with clear and well-defined paradigms about what differentiates a vehicle from an MC.

Really a joy to read. We should use this plan in future editions of 40k.

lol I don't need to prove you wrong, I just need to ignore the 11-year old lines you spout. When you can contribute to that discussion under reasonable expectations and fairness then you can criticize me.

Looks like this one has run its course then?