Not here to create a storm, but dakka likes it that way
I'm a Nid player and feel MCs get an unjustified bad name on here. We have 17 MCs not including FW and GCs. That's (at a guess) more than the rest of 40k factions put together, possibly or damn close cause Daemons have a good few.
Nids are slow, few attacks and can't stand up to Dreds whatsoever. It's only really the flying ones who can be a difficult to kill, which are essentially mostly Daemon ones or the Flyrant, and Daemon ones are really only a large pain when abusing psychic powers.
Because they're just plain better than vehicles most of the time now that vehicles have HP too. Better durability, much better melee ability (even for Tau MCs!), and they don't lose anything as they take damage.
Peregrine wrote: Because they're just plain better than vehicles most of the time now that vehicles have HP too. Better durability, much better melee ability (even for Tau MCs!), and they don't lose anything as they take damage.
Peregrine wrote: Because they're just plain better than vehicles most of the time now that vehicles have HP too. Better durability, much better melee ability (even for Tau MCs!), and they don't lose anything as they take damage.
What he said.
MCs should have at least a similar table.
No not this, you break Nids even more.
The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.
It's anything but the ground bound tyranid mcs, really, that is th problem.
Here's hoping for an Age of Sigmar style table, but they would either have to make a generic one that overly hurts some more than others, or go back and release a FAQ/errata with a table for each.
Peregrine wrote: Because they're just plain better than vehicles most of the time now that vehicles have HP too. Better durability, much better melee ability (even for Tau MCs!), and they don't lose anything as they take damage.
What he said.
MCs should have at least a similar table.
No not this, you break Nids even more.
The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.
Same rules as tyranid MCs. The thing is that their units are bad, but the problem still remains that all MCs are more powerful than vehicles. Daemons, Tau, Eldar, the necron MCs... feth, even the imperium ones! (Looking at you Cawl, mister NOT!MC)
It isn't nid monsters who are to blame, its the TAU, Grey knights and Eldar ones. Who should not only vehicles but are all also faster than regular nids monsters and suffer none of the walker disadvantages.
stroller wrote: I'm a Nid player, so I'm not sure, but locally, I think it's when I DO get into combat, it hits HARD.
People can be good at remembering the times the carnifexes rolled up the line, not remembering the times they never got to the line in the same way.
People don't complain about carnifexii. People complain about wraithknights, riptides, dreadknights, daemon princes and greater daemons. ANY MC that has rules above mediocre.
To OP, yes there's a bad apple. And it's called Codex: tyranids. The rest is cheddar.
stroller wrote: I'm a Nid player, so I'm not sure, but locally, I think it's when I DO get into combat, it hits HARD.
People can be good at remembering the times the carnifexes rolled up the line, not remembering the times they never got to the line in the same way.
People don't complain about carnifexii. People complain about wraithknights, riptides, dreadknights, daemon princes and greater daemons. ANY MC that has rules above mediocre.
To OP, yes there's a bad apple. And it's called Codex: tyranids. The rest is cheddar.
Nids deserve MC as there creatures.
and overcosted too! i don't thing anyone has issue with those.
a mechancial machine like a riptide, wraith and dreadkight... its a machine,,,, a deadnought is a machine and its a walker.
I don't think that MCs are bad, but FMCs can be, and a couple of specific MCs happen to be OP.
In short, being an MC is actually a drawback - No joining squads, no transports, and all you get back is a few USRs, firing two weapons, and AP2. Not bad, but not great either.
FMCs, though? They get all the benefits of being a flier, with none of the drawbacks. Hard to hit and Skyfire, but they can also be on the board turn one, and often can get a very good save on top of that, making them nigh impossible to kill for many armies, completely impossible to assault, and - If they have good Psychics or good shooting - Impossible to ignore, too. With Jink saves also being available, that's icing on the OP cake.
(I'm not saying that all FMCs are completely unstoppable, just that their core rules make them.head-and-shoulders stronger than their grounded counterparts, usually for very little downside. There's a reason why wings are an autotake on DPs and Hive Tyrants.)
stroller wrote: I'm a Nid player, so I'm not sure, but locally, I think it's when I DO get into combat, it hits HARD.
People can be good at remembering the times the carnifexes rolled up the line, not remembering the times they never got to the line in the same way.
People don't complain about carnifexii. People complain about wraithknights, riptides, dreadknights, daemon princes and greater daemons. ANY MC that has rules above mediocre.
To OP, yes there's a bad apple. And it's called Codex: tyranids. The rest is cheddar.
This is the first time I've ever heard daemon princes were above mediocre The word you're looking for is "Flying" daemon princes and greater daemons. Because one that has to walk is dead meat. Same as Nid Tyrant. Squiggoths aren't very good either (althoguth to fair to it, being FW means not many people have experience with it) and despite the anger towards Eldar when's the last time you've seen wraith lords or an avatar of khaine? (oh yeah, and insert joke here about "Dark Eldar have MCs?")
The problem child is rather specificly the wraith knight, dread knights, and the tau "walkers", while the rest are laughable.
And considering the situation with MC and vehicles was flipped in 5th edition, there needed to be some sort of balance and I think the treadheads are just annoyed they're no longer godkings of the battlefield
Tau, Eldar, and Grey Knight are at varying degrees of being too good compared to actual vehicles. Generally can't be instant killed by anything other than force/ID weapons (which are relatively rare) and don't have reduced shooting from being damaged. Personally I think these models where given this rule set because of how bad the alternative is.....
Then we have Walkers which is what these units should be but Walkers get the worse end of both being a Vehicle while having the movement of a foot slogging infantry model. AP2 or better has the potential to instantly destroy them while they generally lack saves, have hull points, and penetrating hits negatively impacts their shooting, movement, or both. Being these rather large waddling things they tend to run into terrain which slows them down to rolling 2D6 take the highest movement so its not hard to end up with your melee focused walker going something like 3 inches a turn. Grav being the dumb mechanic that it is can turn them into lawn ornaments if it doesn't outright destroy them.
Chop all of them down to 3 wounds, get rid of their armour saves entirely, give them a damage table that offered a chance to one hit kill them, give them a 1 in 6 chance to immobilize themselves and lose a wound when they go into difficult terrain, take away the ability for the flying ones to start on the table instead of reserves, take away their ability to fire more than one weapon normally after moving, give their weapons defined firing arcs instead of 360 shooting, take away the AP 2 at initiative, and allow for them to be shot while they're engaged in close combat.
They're fine. Most of them. The ones that aren't are the reason people complain. There's only a very few that people complain about:
#1 - Flyrant. No one complains about a walking Tyrant, just about the one flying up in the air. This is because it puts out a ton of very mobile dakka.
#2 - Riptide and variants. They have a ton of guns that are also very mobile.
#3 - Dreadknight. They have some very powerful flamers and some good close combat ability, and are very mobile.
See the pattern? The real problem people have are things that have a lot of power that are very mobile. People are more okay with vehicles being like this because you can one-shot a vehicle, and the vehicles often don't get a save. However, for a long time, people really complained about Wave Serpents. Take a guess why.
(hint: it could move very quickly, had a lot of firepower, and could jink for a save)
The only reason people complain about the flyrant is due to the twin linked brainleech devourers that you'd equip it with. The CC variant is much more balanced.
Even with flying demon princes, of chaos marine or demon variety most people don't have too much issue outside of psychic shenanigans. The only reason they don't complain about the tyrants psychic shenanigans is their psychic powers are complete gak.
The main problems is the dreadnight, tau MC's & GMC's, Wraithknights etc. They just get ridiculously OP using MC rules.
Then look at the poor sods who are stuck using Walker rules.... it gets massively unbalanced.
The vehicle rules in 40K are bad. Plain and simple. They are dis-congruent from any other rules in 40K. They have variable movement rules that are totally different from non-vehicle models (Stationary, Combat, Cruise, All Out). Terrain affects them in a different way- roll a d6, if you roll a 1, you are immobilized. For some bizarre reason, this applies to skimmers and flyers as well. How far you move affects what your vehicle can do- shoot at full BS, snap shot, or no shot at all. Moving all out gives some vehicles a cover save. Shooting is different as well. Sure, they have a Ballistic Skill, but how fast they move affects the shot. Each weapon on the vehicle as it's own arc of fire and line of sight, and even if the vehicle has multiple weapons and multiple crew/spirit stones/technomages/advanced technology or whatever, it may only be able to shoot one, some, or none, again, based on how far it moved. Vehicles can't charge. In close combat, they can't fight- unless they have some wargear that does auto hits or something. They can't even Overwatch- despite some having the weapons or crew that could. They have a Weapon Skill of 1, but can't make attacks. You check to "wound" a vehicle not by rolling to wound based on your strength and the target's toughness, but your strength vs. the side armor value of the vehicle- this is totally different from the way close combat works for every other model/unit in the game. Vehicles have Hull Points, kinda like wounds, but if you take a Hull Point of damage, something has happened to your vehicle to reduce it's effectiveness- can't shoot next turn, can't move next turn, can't move or shoot next turn, lost a weapon, or even blow up. Which brings me to the vehicle damage table- WTF. So I roll to hit against a vehicle, I roll to wound against the side armor value, causing a possible Hull Point, and on top of that I roll on a table that could outright blow up the vehicle. If the vehicle survives the close combat, close combat ends. There is no leadership test, no morale, no "winner" or "loser", no consolidation- the vehicle can just... move away next turn if it can. And if it can't- it violates the "no enemy models within 1" unless you are engaged" rule.
To complicate things even further, we add in a sub-class of vehicles known as Walkers, and to really muddy things up, Chariots (don't get me started on Chariots).
Monstrous Creatures are basically giant infantry models with better rules- far, far better rules then any vehicle. The biggest advantages- movement doesn't effect the MC. How they move, where they move, difficult terrain, whatever. It has no effect on their movement, shooting or charging in close combat. Here is the one single advantage most (not all!) vehicles have: They can move pretty far, some as much as 18"+. But it comes with all kinds of restrictions. MC's always shoot at full effectiveness, and can Overwatch. Close Combat is where they really shine. They are just so much better then vehicles.
Just changing a couple unit types from MC to Vehicle will not fix the overall problem of vehicles in 40K.
The Vehicle rules need to be completely gutted and reworked to flow into the mainstream rules better.
I'm personally fine with the way the two rule-sets work. I just think the higher-end monstrus creatures need a points rebalance or nerf (either would work).
They're all taken regularly because they're just very good for what the points allow. They also ALL have additional mobility that puts them further above regular monstrous creatures or walkers.
Even the lowly carnifex doesn't immobilize itself on a fething shrub. Vehicles are absurdly crippled in 7th ed.
Of course, if your vehicles are free, who cares how crappy they are. But for those of us who have to try to play with purchased vehicles, it gets tedious quickly.
Carnifex absolutely has fewer liabilities than a predator.
As others have said over and over, It is the Not-MCMCs that are problematic as well as the flying folk. Flying MCs should revert to Jump MC rules and the Vehicle-MCs should get walker rules and Jump-Walker rules. How hard could it be?
.... I want Jump Walkers that I can model as Mechwarriors, that'd be tight. I want Mechwarriors, plain and simple.
It makes sense that MCs, Nidz/Deamons, don't get crippled by things that could cripple a vehicle in difficult terrain because they aren't mechanical and run on algorithms and servos. They are extremely flexible. I do not know off the top of my head if MCs get hurt by dangerous terrain, but they should if they don't and that would be perfectly sensible.
Vehicles used to be kinda absurd, which I appreciated even as a Green Tide player. Melta-Vetmeras was also super dominant in the previous edition right (Mobile Dakka)?
Chop all of them down to 3 wounds, get rid of their armour saves entirely, give them a damage table that offered a chance to one hit kill them, give them a 1 in 6 chance to immobilize themselves and lose a wound when they go into difficult terrain, take away the ability for the flying ones to start on the table instead of reserves, take away their ability to fire more than one weapon normally after moving, give their weapons defined firing arcs instead of 360 shooting, take away the AP 2 at initiative, and allow for them to be shot while they're engaged in close combat.
That's why I hate MCs.
Take the fact that every single weapon on the table can damage your run of the mill MC (average toughness of 6) and lets start talking about it again. A squad of guardsmen shooting at 12 inches to a carnifex can hope to remove one wound from it with a bit of luck and that's without an order to increase their firepower or their almost mandatory special and heavy weapons. Poison weapons and snipers are also very cheap and efficient ways to deal with most monstruous creatures. A dreadnough is a rather mediocre walker, but it's more survivable and powerful than a carnifex. Strength 7 and 8 weapons with low AP like krak missile or plasma shots are much more dangerous to MCs than to vehicule who have 12 or more of armor (which is most tank). Being possibly hurt by all weapons on the table is a significant drawback. It makes the use of special weapons within squads of normal soldiers a lot easier and allow the ennemy to simply finish off big monsters (their last wound or two) with much lighter weapons and not rely on their anti-tank weapons up until the very end.
Over half the monstruous creature of the game are in a single army and over half of them struggle to be as dangerous as a simple dreadnought. Did you ever feared a toxicrene, a haruspex, a trygon (even the prime version), tyrannofex or a maleceptor? I never really did. All those creature are not that hard to kill or not all that devastating. Even carnifex, walking hive tyrants, tervigon, mawlock, harpy and hive crones aren't that dangerous. They are pretty average in my opinion. Avatars of Khaine and wraithlords aren't that bad either. They certainly aren't weak, but neither are they OP. Cronos and Talos pain engins are not really big powerhouse even in a Haemonculus Coven force. This pretty much leaves us with Gigantic monstruous creatures like the wraithknight and the stromsurge or high firepower highly mobile monstruous creature like the riptide, a flying hive tyrant and the nemesis dreadknight. Some would place the Ghostkeel amongst that group, but outside of his special stealth formation I didn't found him that impressive, even if still very good. The big problem with MC's is that all the sucky ones are all design fore close combat and are moving at infantrie pace while all the powerful ones are faster than that (or fliying), armed with tank sized weapons, have 2+ saves and, frequently, an invulnerable saves. They combine the firepower of tanks with the resilience of wound models that cannot be killed outright. What really changed MCs was the addition of high firepower models at long range AKA mini-titans. If you were to make MCs more vulnerable to firepower, most of them, who are already subpar or pretty Most MCs would become unusable in any competitive play should MCs be nerf further. The only logical solution to me would be to make Tau battlesuits above the XV88 walkers (or jump walkers) and price more heavily the gargantuant monstruous creatures.
If you want to create a degrading table for MCs they need to be a lot more powerful (or cheaper) since most of them are design for close combat and will not intervene in the battle before turn three or so more than enough for them to take some heavy damage. It's a rare day where you will see a Screamer Killer Carnifex hit the ennemy line at full health or almost. Currently, you would be lucky to see a Screamer Killer carnifex on the tabletop at all. A tank can kill from turn one with very powerul weapons and ignore completly most weapons on the tabletop. It requires more careful ressource allocation to be dealt with than a normal MCs. The problem of MCs is due to the fact that the most dominant model in the games are from them, yet want makes them so dominant, like for all dominant models is their highfirepower and high resistence. Centurions, wraithguards, tomb blades, wraiths and thunderwolf cavalry all possess the same qualities of speed, resistence and firepower/close combat dominating strength.
MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
Tamwulf wrote: MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
If the wraithknight was 2000 points would it still be a problem?
Tamwulf wrote: MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
If the wraithknight was 2000 points would it still be a problem?
It makes the Wraithknight less of a problem, but it doesn't make the Dreadnaught's lack of durability less of a problem. It fixes part of the problem, not the whole problem.
Tamwulf wrote: MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
If the wraithknight was 2000 points would it still be a problem?
It makes the Wraithknight less of a problem, but it doesn't make the Dreadnaught's lack of durability less of a problem. It fixes part of the problem, not the whole problem.
If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?
Tamwulf wrote: MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
If the wraithknight was 2000 points would it still be a problem?
It makes the Wraithknight less of a problem, but it doesn't make the Dreadnaught's lack of durability less of a problem. It fixes part of the problem, not the whole problem.
If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?
Normally I try to keep in mind that game balance isn't the only consideration with points and army composition rules; you also don't want to force one army to have to buy a lot more models than another, and you want to make sure there's some rational sense to how you're constructing your army rather than plonking a random assortment of dudes on the table.
If a Dreadnaught cost 10pts it'd be better. If a Wraithknight cost 2,000pts it'd be worse. But then the Space Marine player (in an imaginary and grossly oversimplified version of events where those are the only two things around) is spending $8,000 to put 2,000pts of models on the table and the Eldar player is spending $120.
In the ideal situation you pick out a chunk of units that you expect to be roughly comparable in game role/army composition spot (say, a Dreadnaught, a Carnifex, and a Wraithlord) and you try to keep them within some relatively narrow band of each other in cost, so you're not creating a massive imbalance in the quantity of stuff you need to play one army over another.
Tamwulf wrote: MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
Anything with a D weapon can one-shot a Wraithknight.
Take the fact that every single weapon on the table can damage your run of the mill MC (average toughness of 6) and lets start talking about it again. A squad of guardsmen shooting at 12 inches to a carnifex can hope to remove one wound from it with a bit of luck and that's without an order to increase their firepower or their almost mandatory special and heavy weapons. Poison weapons and snipers are also very cheap and efficient ways to deal with most monstruous creatures. A dreadnough is a rather mediocre walker, but it's more survivable and powerful than a carnifex. Strength 7 and 8 weapons with low AP like krak missile or plasma shots are much more dangerous to MCs than to vehicule who have 12 or more of armor (which is most tank). Being possibly hurt by all weapons on the table is a significant drawback. It makes the use of special weapons within squads of normal soldiers a lot easier and allow the ennemy to simply finish off big monsters (their last wound or two) with much lighter weapons and not rely on their anti-tank weapons up until the very end.
A squad of Guardsmen, assuming they're within 12" of the Carnifex, is getting 1.52 wounds against that Carnifex. 1.52. A squad of Marines does slightly better on account of the BS4 and the fact that the sergeant has a bolter instead of just a pistol, they're getting through 2.11 wounds. With a 3+ save, a Carnifex needs, on average, 3 wounds for something to get past the armour save. The argument that MCs are vulnerable to small arms is total hogwash, the amount of them you need to actually do something to MCs is astronomical and even if you bring enough, getting them all in range to do their thing is pretty damn hard too.
In what universe is a Dreadnought more survivable than a Carnifex? The Carnifex has a 3+ save to get through and, unlike the Dreadnought, can easily get FNP if one of your synapse creatures rolls that result on the psyker table. The Dreadnought has no defensive countermeasure at all. Plasma weapons and krak missiles are not more dangerous to MCs than to vehicles, neither of those do anything to diminish the effectiveness of the MC but they sure as hell can cost the vehicle a whole turn if they roll on the damage chart (in the case of the plasma weapon they could even die to ONE shot, which MCs never have to worry about).
Over half the monstruous creature of the game are in a single army and over half of them struggle to be as dangerous as a simple dreadnought. Did you ever feared a toxicrene, a haruspex, a trygon (even the prime version), tyrannofex or a maleceptor? I never really did. All those creature are not that hard to kill or not all that devastating. Even carnifex, walking hive tyrants, tervigon, mawlock, harpy and hive crones aren't that dangerous. They are pretty average in my opinion. Avatars of Khaine and wraithlords aren't that bad either. They certainly aren't weak, but neither are they OP. Cronos and Talos pain engins are not really big powerhouse even in a Haemonculus Coven force. This pretty much leaves us with Gigantic monstruous creatures like the wraithknight and the stromsurge or high firepower highly mobile monstruous creature like the riptide, a flying hive tyrant and the nemesis dreadknight. Some would place the Ghostkeel amongst that group, but outside of his special stealth formation I didn't found him that impressive, even if still very good. The big problem with MC's is that all the sucky ones are all design fore close combat and are moving at infantrie pace while all the powerful ones are faster than that (or fliying), armed with tank sized weapons, have 2+ saves and, frequently, an invulnerable saves. They combine the firepower of tanks with the resilience of wound models that cannot be killed outright. What really changed MCs was the addition of high firepower models at long range AKA mini-titans. If you were to make MCs more vulnerable to firepower, most of them, who are already subpar or pretty Most MCs would become unusable in any competitive play should MCs be nerf further. The only logical solution to me would be to make Tau battlesuits above the XV88 walkers (or jump walkers) and price more heavily the gargantuant monstruous creatures.
I fear EVERY MC because for every edition I've played they've been the most lavishly rewarded unit type in the rulebook. They have SO many perks for seemingly no reason, and the gap in efficacy between them and vehicles has only gotten wider as the game has evolved. I won't argue that some MCs are better than others, this has been true for years, but that's not what i'm getting at. The unit type as a whole is incredibly obnoxious when their mechanized equivalent, vehicles, are so much weaker and less resilient.
If you want to create a degrading table for MCs they need to be a lot more powerful (or cheaper) since most of them are design for close combat and will not intervene in the battle before turn three or so more than enough for them to take some heavy damage. It's a rare day where you will see a Screamer Killer Carnifex hit the ennemy line at full health or almost. Currently, you would be lucky to see a Screamer Killer carnifex on the tabletop at all. A tank can kill from turn one with very powerul weapons and ignore completly most weapons on the tabletop. It requires more careful ressource allocation to be dealt with than a normal MCs. The problem of MCs is due to the fact that the most dominant model in the games are from them, yet want makes them so dominant, like for all dominant models is their highfirepower and high resistence. Centurions, wraithguards, tomb blades, wraiths and thunderwolf cavalry all possess the same qualities of speed, resistence and firepower/close combat dominating strength.
Turn 3 or 4 offers them plenty of time to get their damage done. There's 2 assault phases every game turn, which means you're looking at 6 to 10 player turns (depending on game length) of them vaporizing whatever it is they're in combat with. Tanks most certainly cannot ignore most weapons on the tabletop, they don't have an armour save to protect them and, unlike MCs, it's very rare to see one that has more than 3 wounds. I also totally disagree with the assertion that MCs need to be made more powerful if they degrade, they're plenty powerful as it is and the players who have been using them are just used to having all these awesome perks for that unit type.
Baldeagle91 wrote:The only reason people complain about the flyrant is due to the twin linked brainleech devourers that you'd equip it with. The CC variant is much more balanced.
Sadly that is the only option available that is "worth" taking. The CC variant is no way much more balance. The way I take this statment, is, it's easier for THE OPPONENT to kill or not take on as much damage and makes the game easier for THE OPPONENT to play against.
A squad of Guardsmen, assuming they're within 12" of the Carnifex, is getting 1.52 wounds against that Carnifex. 1.52. A squad of Marines does slightly better on account of the BS4 and the fact that the sergeant has a bolter instead of just a pistol, they're getting through 2.11 wounds. With a 3+ save, a Carnifex needs, on average, 3 wounds for something to get past the armour save. The argument that MCs are vulnerable to small arms is total hogwash, the amount of them you need to actually do something to MCs is astronomical and even if you bring enough, getting them all in range to do their thing is pretty damn hard too.
Hogwash?
Lets see, 36 lasgun shots deals 1 wound to a T6 3+ save MC 18 lasgun shots kills a tactical marine. Two marines per MC wound, seems clear enough.
That carnifex costs 120 points. A tactical marine costs 14 points. So 8.57 marines for a carnifex.
154.26 lasgun shots to kill 120 points of tactical marines. 144 lasgun shots to kill 120 points of carnifex.
Point for point you're doing more damage shooting your lasguns at a carnifex than you are at tac marines.
Functionally immune because its so hard to bring that many small arms to bear and its a waste of firepower. It takes 27 bs 4 bolter shots to inflict a single wound vs t6 3+. It's a losing play to go that route.
Lasguns have a special niche vs t6 making the above example cherrypicked data. S4 non rending weapons get bent over by t6 3+ and that's super powerful.
A squad of Guardsmen, assuming they're within 12" of the Carnifex, is getting 1.52 wounds against that Carnifex. 1.52. A squad of Marines does slightly better on account of the BS4 and the fact that the sergeant has a bolter instead of just a pistol, they're getting through 2.11 wounds. With a 3+ save, a Carnifex needs, on average, 3 wounds for something to get past the armour save. The argument that MCs are vulnerable to small arms is total hogwash, the amount of them you need to actually do something to MCs is astronomical and even if you bring enough, getting them all in range to do their thing is pretty damn hard too.
Hogwash?
Lets see, 36 lasgun shots deals 1 wound to a T6 3+ save MC 18 lasgun shots kills a tactical marine. Two marines per MC wound, seems clear enough.
That carnifex costs 120 points. A tactical marine costs 14 points. So 8.57 marines for a carnifex.
154.26 lasgun shots to kill 120 points of tactical marines. 144 lasgun shots to kill 120 points of carnifex.
Point for point you're doing more damage shooting your lasguns at a carnifex than you are at tac marines.
Immune to small arms fire. Absolute hogwash
Oh yeah, sure, if you're gonna read the point costs of the model as solely a representation of how resilient it is to kill and literally nothing else, then sure you can turn this around and try to make the tactical marine sound like it's more resilient than a Carnifex. That's an absolutely absurd way to look at this, but yeah you can do it. How often are you getting 36 las gun shots on a single MC though? And inside rapid fire range, you better pray you have those 154.26 las gun shots ready because you're only going to get that one last chance to kill that thing before it charges you and becomes totally immune to all of your shooting.
Oh yeah, sure, if you're gonna read the point costs of the model as solely a representation of how resilient it is to kill and literally nothing else, then sure you can turn this around and try to make the tactical marine sound like it's more resilient than a Carnifex. That's an absolutely absurd way to look at this, but yeah you can do it. How often are you getting 36 las gun shots on a single MC though? And inside rapid fire range, you better pray you have those 154.26 las gun shots ready because you're only going to get that one last chance to kill that thing before it charges you and becomes totally immune to all of your shooting.
The point is not that someone is going to throw 154.26 lasgun shots at a carnifex and kill it. That's silly.
The point is that you're doing more damage with those shots against the carnifex, than against the infantry you would logically consider the appropriate target for small arms.
Forget cherrypicking, then. But it remains that lasguns have a special niche vs t6. You are paying far fewer points per shot than for s4 shooting and getting the exact same effect.
The point is not that someone is going to throw 154.26 lasgun shots at a carnifex and kill it. That's silly.
The point is that you're doing more damage with those shots against the carnifex, than against the infantry you would logically consider the appropriate target for small arms.
Except that las guns don't do more damage against the Carnifex. You need a lot more of them, twice as many in fact, to get that single wound through.
Oh yeah, sure, if you're gonna read the point costs of the model as solely a representation of how resilient it is to kill and literally nothing else, then sure you can turn this around and try to make the tactical marine sound like it's more resilient than a Carnifex. That's an absolutely absurd way to look at this, but yeah you can do it. How often are you getting 36 las gun shots on a single MC though? And inside rapid fire range, you better pray you have those 154.26 las gun shots ready because you're only going to get that one last chance to kill that thing before it charges you and becomes totally immune to all of your shooting.
The point is not that someone is going to throw 154.26 lasgun shots at a carnifex and kill it. That's silly.
The point is that you're doing more damage with those shots against the carnifex, than against the infantry you would logically consider the appropriate target for small arms.
Eh, except that Space Marines are NOT the ideal target for small arms, not by a longshot. What game are you playing? Space Marines' whole shtick is that they wear armor that offers protection against small arms. Space Marines are, point for point, one of the worst things you can fire a Lasgun at.
You also assume that the Marine player took no special/heavy weapons, gear, or upgrades on their Sergeant, which is absurd - A stock Carnifex is plausible. Stock Marines are terrible.
Martel732 wrote: Forget cherrypicking, then. But it remains that lasguns have a special niche vs t6. You are paying far fewer points per shot than for s4 shooting and getting the exact same effect.
Fair point. In that fex example, the fex is almost exactly 40% tougher against bolters than tac marines.
27 bolter shots to wound it. Would you say 19.28 bolter shots is still too much?
Eh, except that Space Marines are NOT the ideal target for small arms, not by a longshot. What game are you playing? Space Marines' whole shtick is that they wear armor that offers protection against small arms. Space Marines are, point for point, one of the worst things you can fire a Lasgun at. You also assume that the Marine player took no special/heavy weapons, gear, or upgrades on their Sergeant, which is absurd - A stock Carnifex is plausible. Stock Marines are terrible.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
90 lasguns to kill 70 points of marines. 84 lasguns to kill 70 points of guardsmen.
The marines are just 7% tougher.
I consider a stock carnifex just as plausible as a squad of stock tac marines. I.E. not very. Both are terrible.
I'm leaving most common gear out of it, because overall I don't think it's going to change things significantly. Plus then you have to start considering optimal loadouts vs various targets, different units roles and slots in each army, disagreement over what a most common loadout actually is, etc, etc. Basically it's a headache I don't need at this time in the morning. Someone else can figure it out if they really want to drill that deeply into it.
Peregrine wrote: Because they're just plain better than vehicles most of the time now that vehicles have HP too. Better durability, much better melee ability (even for Tau MCs!), and they don't lose anything as they take damage.
What he said.
MCs should have at least a similar table.
Or just remove HPs entirely. They make the armour feel so spongy.
An easy fix for vehicle would just be to go back to the 5E damage table and Skimmer effects, add in 7E snapshots and passenger effects, and you'd fix the major problems with vehicles. Vehicles become hardier, cheap transports have some more downsides while gun tanks and combat walkers become a bit more capable and the viability gap between Skimmers and Non-skimmers becomes dramatically lessened.
Rippy wrote: The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.
This is demonstrating my point: "it's not that MCs are OP, it's just that Tau and Eldar have units that have the more powerful MC rules instead of the weaker vehicle/walker rules". If giving those units the MC rules makes them clearly better than if they were walkers the MC unit type is broken.
Vaktathi wrote: An easy fix for vehicle would just be to go back to the 5E damage table and Skimmer effects, add in 7E snapshots and passenger effects, and you'd fix the major problems with vehicles. Vehicles become hardier, cheap transports have some more downsides while gun tanks and combat walkers become a bit more capable and the viability gap between Skimmers and Non-skimmers becomes dramatically lessened.
But that would be too easy
There are a few things that would make bringing back 5th's vehicle damage system a problem, chief amongst them being that vehicles can now score. Well, ALL models can score, but this would make those scoring vehicles even harder to remove, since there would be no eventuality you'll remove them, it's be based entirely on luck. Obsec drop pods are already a pain.
Vaktathi wrote: An easy fix for vehicle would just be to go back to the 5E damage table and Skimmer effects, add in 7E snapshots and passenger effects, and you'd fix the major problems with vehicles. Vehicles become hardier, cheap transports have some more downsides while gun tanks and combat walkers become a bit more capable and the viability gap between Skimmers and Non-skimmers becomes dramatically lessened.
But that would be too easy
I agree! Apart from a few things such as wound allocation shenanigans, 5th edition was a very good rulebook.
Vaktathi wrote: An easy fix for vehicle would just be to go back to the 5E damage table and Skimmer effects, add in 7E snapshots and passenger effects, and you'd fix the major problems with vehicles. Vehicles become hardier, cheap transports have some more downsides while gun tanks and combat walkers become a bit more capable and the viability gap between Skimmers and Non-skimmers becomes dramatically lessened.
But that would be too easy
I agree! Apart from a few things such as wound allocation shenanigans, 5th edition was a very good rulebook.
5e also existed before the modern age of S6-7-spam, so the mono-build Rhino-rush armies that dominated 5th would be easier to deal with these days.
Rippy wrote: The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.
This is demonstrating my point: "it's not that MCs are OP, it's just that Tau and Eldar have units that have the more powerful MC rules instead of the weaker vehicle/walker rules". If giving those units the MC rules makes them clearly better than if they were walkers the MC unit type is broken.
If you left them at the same points cost. Better rules cost more points.
Rippy wrote: The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.
This is demonstrating my point: "it's not that MCs are OP, it's just that Tau and Eldar have units that have the more powerful MC rules instead of the weaker vehicle/walker rules". If giving those units the MC rules makes them clearly better than if they were walkers the MC unit type is broken.
Broken is a strong word. "Worth more points" seems more accurate.
Edit: whoops, need to read the thread to the end before I post. See directly above.
Maybe what happened is that MCs were "never a problem" because until recently... MCs never were given noteworthy guns and forced to assault. Now that MCs have guns, people are seeing that Shooty MCs are pretty darn good. Not to mention Flying MCs that used to be jump infantry.
Rippy wrote: The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.
This is demonstrating my point: "it's not that MCs are OP, it's just that Tau and Eldar have units that have the more powerful MC rules instead of the weaker vehicle/walker rules". If giving those units the MC rules makes them clearly better than if they were walkers the MC unit type is broken.
Well in that case the Bike, Jet, Jump, Beast, Cavalry etc. types are broken because there are units that would be broken if they were made that type rather than their current type.
All Nid MCs (not FMCs, those are a different type, and even then only one of them is considered powerful) are underpowered.
For Daemons, people only really claim about the D-Thirster and that an FMC. Skarbrand, Ku'gath, GUO, KoS and Walking Princes are all weak. Sure, grav doesn't instantly evaporate them like it does most MCs, but I've lost my KoS to boltguns more than I have to melta guns and tunderhammers.
For Chaos Space Marines, again walking princes are just so, so bad. You only ever see them Flying and up until the combos Traitor Legions gave they weren't even that good still. Even now unless you give them the Black Mace they aren't super-killy for their ~300pt cost.
The problem is 3 undercosted MCs: Riptides, Dreadknights and Ghostkeels. Even then Riptides are the main problem-causer out of the 3, simply because they are good at everything while the DK and GK are only really good at 2 things.
If 3 are broken and the rest are not, the type isn't the problem.
Unless of course you want to claim that jet infantry/bikes/jetbikes/etc. all need to get nerfed across the board because of Warpspiders/Smashfesther/Scatbikes/etc.
I would contest the claim that nid mcs are underpowered. Make gaunts beasts and see how that works out. Other parts of the nids suck, not the big bugs.
Martel732 wrote: I would contest the claim that nid mcs are underpowered. Make gaunts beasts and see how that works out. Other parts of the nids suck, not the big bugs.
There can be varying degrees of "underpowered" in that being underpowered is not a binary condition. Carnifex can be more powerful than gaunts while still being under the appropriate power curve, in the same way you could be a better chess player than I am without either of us reaching the average level of chess playing acuity.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Well in that case the Bike, Jet, Jump, Beast, Cavalry etc. types are broken because there are units that would be broken if they were made that type rather than their current type.
Well yes, but those units have different roles compared to normal infantry. Walkers and MCs, on the other hand, are the exact same thing in concept, as demonstrated by the "walker or MC" game where you can look at a picture of one and have no idea which unit type it has. The only difference is that, rules-wise, MCs are just plain better than walkers. And there's no fluff or conceptual reason for them to have those advantages, it's just bad design.
As others have touched upon, Monstrous Creatures are typically harder to deal with than Vehicles.
With the right weapon, and a bit of luck, any non-Superheavy can be taken out with a single shot - and even if you don't, they can lose weapons, be immobilised or simply stunned and shaken out of the game. MC's don't have those drawbacks, and keep fighting at full efficiency until they're dead, and unless you're packing D (titter) you can't really one shot them off the board.
I too am an advocate for vehicles and MC's being given the AoS treatment. In that game as big stuff takes wounds, it loses efficiency. It can of course still be deadly until it's properly dead, but can quickly be prevented from simply wading through units with impunity.
I've attached a pic to show an AoS Warscroll for a big gribbly so you can see what it's about.
The wound table shows how it's profile changes as it's wounds go up and down (because healing is possible!) Don't worry about the rest of the scroll - this is just to show what I mean
So this beasty gets slower as it's wounded, gets less punchy, and it's ranged attack is weakened as it takes wounds. It's still quite thoroughly nasty for the most part, but the variable stats give its opponent a choice of wiping it out, or trying to weaken it. A choice missing from MC in 40k
Vaktathi wrote: An easy fix for vehicle would just be to go back to the 5E damage table and Skimmer effects, add in 7E snapshots and passenger effects, and you'd fix the major problems with vehicles. Vehicles become hardier, cheap transports have some more downsides while gun tanks and combat walkers become a bit more capable and the viability gap between Skimmers and Non-skimmers becomes dramatically lessened.
But that would be too easy
There are a few things that would make bringing back 5th's vehicle damage system a problem, chief amongst them being that vehicles can now score. Well, ALL models can score, but this would make those scoring vehicles even harder to remove, since there would be no eventuality you'll remove them, it's be based entirely on luck. Obsec drop pods are already a pain.
Well, drop pods are another issue entirely, an empty pod shouldn't count for squat except as terrain, but otherwise vehicles wouldn't be too much of an issue, particularly with the firepower available now, and the fact that stun-locking would be an option again.
Vaktathi wrote: An easy fix for vehicle would just be to go back to the 5E damage table and Skimmer effects, add in 7E snapshots and passenger effects, and you'd fix the major problems with vehicles. Vehicles become hardier, cheap transports have some more downsides while gun tanks and combat walkers become a bit more capable and the viability gap between Skimmers and Non-skimmers becomes dramatically lessened.
But that would be too easy
I agree! Apart from a few things such as wound allocation shenanigans, 5th edition was a very good rulebook.
5E had it's issues, wound allocation and KP's in particular, but man was it so much easier to play than 7E.
Martel732 wrote: Forget cherrypicking, then. But it remains that lasguns have a special niche vs t6. You are paying far fewer points per shot than for s4 shooting and getting the exact same effect.
Fair point.
In that fex example, the fex is almost exactly 40% tougher against bolters than tac marines.
27 bolter shots to wound it.
Would you say 19.28 bolter shots is still too much?
Eh, except that Space Marines are NOT the ideal target for small arms, not by a longshot. What game are you playing? Space Marines' whole shtick is that they wear armor that offers protection against small arms. Space Marines are, point for point, one of the worst things you can fire a Lasgun at.
You also assume that the Marine player took no special/heavy weapons, gear, or upgrades on their Sergeant, which is absurd - A stock Carnifex is plausible. Stock Marines are terrible.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
90 lasguns to kill 70 points of marines.
84 lasguns to kill 70 points of guardsmen.
The marines are just 7% tougher.
I consider a stock carnifex just as plausible as a squad of stock tac marines. I.E. not very.
Both are terrible.
I'm leaving most common gear out of it, because overall I don't think it's going to change things significantly. Plus then you have to start considering optimal loadouts vs various targets, different units roles and slots in each army, disagreement over what a most common loadout actually is, etc, etc.
Basically it's a headache I don't need at this time in the morning. Someone else can figure it out if they really want to drill that deeply into it.
I'm surprised no one else pointed out that the MCs in your various examples will still be at 100% strength all the way until the final wound is removed, whereas the various marine squads will be ebbing away as the wounds get stripped off. That renders MCs strictly better, in the bizarre scenario constructed here.
In reality, there are advantages unique to either unit, and I don't think you're wrong in the overall point you're making: there is nothing inherently superior to MCs; just some notably poor implementations.
And specifically, there: the combination of awkwardly high toughnesses, special rule mobility elements, and standard infantry-style armor/cover saves make a unit particularly resilient to the standard rule system for wounding results.
Vehicle rules have provided an alternative rock/paper/scissors system that allows interaction between otherwise difficult to wound models (due to high AV) and the rest of the game's units. Even here, however, re-introduction of infantry-style cover/invulnerability saves has frequently proven problematic, e.g., jinking wave serpents.
Interestingly, for both types, the introduction of flying has proven even more troublesome. This forks, however, into even greater issues with FMCs, with relevance depending on model utility.
Generally, and this is true game-wide, saves are becoming increasingly more effective--which has inured to the benefit of models that are entitled to them. Meanwhile, changes to vehicle damage have made their destruction more accessible to more types of fire. The bifurcation of vectors on these has likely lead to a perception of "MCs versus Vehicles (and sometimes Walkers specifically" however I don't think this is a useful axis for consideration.
Here's food for thought: what if getting a 2+ cover/armor/invulnerable save wasn't possible?
I am surprised nobody mentioned fire arcs. The fact that vehicles have them means that when they get stunned or immobilized the enemy can sit right next to them and be immune to them since they can't shoot them. This is not the case with a MC. If you are behind it it can still shoot you. So when you introduce flight the MCs really take the lead since they can overshoot their targets and still be good whereas with flyers if you aren't the right distance away then the 45 degree arc saves the enemy and that's before taking into account the whole elevation arcs that most people ignore because they are tedious.
For the love of god don't bring back 5e vehicle damage. That was randomness at it's worse (Last i remember people hated the random factor of this game)
Instant death is still a problem for MC, sure there isn't much around but it's still a thing
MC used to be mostly CC oriented, but with the changes in 7th edition MC basically became only viable via one option
The OP isn't because that MC shooting is soo good, but CCMC are just soo crap.
5e was incredibly stale in terms of a meta, most armies were just the same army with very few if not at all modifications
5e was the equivalent of a dead professional series of chess, nothing new, all the same crap
MC rules represent something that is bigger and scarier than most things on the battlefield, and 7th edition made vehicles both harder to kill through luck and easier to kill through tactics
a person who knows their opponents army better than their opponent has a distinct advantage in any setting, because of the power of knowledge
Most CCMC never see the gun line unless your opponent is rolling a really bad game, tactically speaking your MC are more of a distraction than a viable threat
Remember, the MC or FMC is there either cause of utility or because of shock factor, and that is the role it fits into perfectly.
MC arent the problem, salty people who dont read up on these things are the problem
Luke_Prowler wrote: There are a few things that would make bringing back 5th's vehicle damage system a problem, chief amongst them being that vehicles can now score. Well, ALL models can score, but this would make those scoring vehicles even harder to remove, since there would be no eventuality you'll remove them, it's be based entirely on luck. Obsec drop pods are already a pain.
Well, drop pods are another issue entirely, an empty pod shouldn't count for squat except as terrain, but otherwise vehicles wouldn't be too much of an issue, particularly with the firepower available now, and the fact that stun-locking would be an option again.
My point is that because they can score, the stun locking becomes less useful. Because it increases the importance of destroying the vehicles, not mearly stopping them
Rippy wrote: The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.
This is demonstrating my point: "it's not that MCs are OP, it's just that Tau and Eldar have units that have the more powerful MC rules instead of the weaker vehicle/walker rules". If giving those units the MC rules makes them clearly better than if they were walkers the MC unit type is broken.
The MC unit type wasn't broken though. Look at Nids.
It's just these super under costed MCs that are broken. All those Tau and Eldar units wouldn't be broken is they were walkers (as they should be), and MCs wouldn't be broken is undercoated super weapon wielding walkers weren't classified as them.
Rippy wrote: The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.
This is demonstrating my point: "it's not that MCs are OP, it's just that Tau and Eldar have units that have the more powerful MC rules instead of the weaker vehicle/walker rules". If giving those units the MC rules makes them clearly better than if they were walkers the MC unit type is broken.
The MC unit type wasn't broken though. Look at Nids.
It's just these super under costed MCs that are broken. All those Tau and Eldar units wouldn't be broken is they were walkers (as they should be), and MCs wouldn't be broken is undercoated super weapon wielding walkers weren't classified as them.
Take away the big guns and nobody would have an issue. They'd die before they got into bolter range.
Luke_Prowler wrote: There are a few things that would make bringing back 5th's vehicle damage system a problem, chief amongst them being that vehicles can now score. Well, ALL models can score, but this would make those scoring vehicles even harder to remove, since there would be no eventuality you'll remove them, it's be based entirely on luck. Obsec drop pods are already a pain.
Well, drop pods are another issue entirely, an empty pod shouldn't count for squat except as terrain, but otherwise vehicles wouldn't be too much of an issue, particularly with the firepower available now, and the fact that stun-locking would be an option again.
My point is that because they can score, the stun locking becomes less useful. Because it increases the importance of destroying the vehicles, not mearly stopping them
I get that, but that's also why I pointed out that the issue with the the drop pod being allowed to be used in ways that don't reflect what it is and what its role is, not vehicles as a whole, and, while potentially annoying, is one exception to fixing an entire class of unit.
Honestly I just want them the same rules so we don't get 5th edition stronk vehicles or 7th edition "Why is this not a walker?" with Riptides and the like.
Rippy wrote: All those Tau and Eldar units wouldn't be broken is they were walkers (as they should be), and MCs wouldn't be broken is undercoated super weapon wielding walkers weren't classified as them.
Again, this is just proving my point. If a unit becomes broken if it's an MC instead of a walker then the MC unit type is too good compared to vehicles.
CrownAxe wrote: No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points
Not entirely. The balance issue can be fixed, but the conceptual issue can't. Increasing the point cost of MCs still leaves the problem that walkers and MCs are conceptually the same thing, but one of them is considerably more powerful (and more expensive) than the other. Nothing about the models or fluff justifies the difference in power level, and completely arbitrary power differences like that are bad game design.
CrownAxe wrote: No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points
Not entirely. The balance issue can be fixed, but the conceptual issue can't. Increasing the point cost of MCs still leaves the problem that walkers and MCs are conceptually the same thing, but one of them is considerably more powerful (and more expensive) than the other. Nothing about the models or fluff justifies the difference in power level, and completely arbitrary power differences like that are bad game design.
This is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact
If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?
Not everything can be fixed with points though.
No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points
The big issue, though, it's not points.
Let's look at the most glaring problem is this: assume a vehicle has 3HP, an MC has 3w. The vehicle is 100pts and the MC is 200pts.
The vehicle, should, say, a lascannon get lucky, will get annhilated in one shot. MCs? This thing won't happen unless you bring ID-weapons... which are 99% meelee based, which is where most MCs want to be.
Even if you make them more expensive, the problem still remains that that "just" portion of points gets erased with a single marginally lucky shot.
The issue isnt MC rules. It;s crap vehicle rules. AV and the VDC are extra rules that break the mold from the rest of the game. If vehicles just functioned like everything else it wouldn't be an issue.
You don't fix that by making MC work like vehicles. You fix it by making vehicles function like every other damn unit in the game.
If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?
Not everything can be fixed with points though.
No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points
The big issue, though, it's not points.
Let's look at the most glaring problem is this: assume a vehicle has 3HP, an MC has 3w. The vehicle is 100pts and the MC is 200pts.
The vehicle, should, say, a lascannon get lucky, will get annhilated in one shot. MCs? This thing won't happen unless you bring ID-weapons... which are 99% meelee based, which is where most MCs want to be.
Even if you make them more expensive, the problem still remains that that "just" portion of points gets erased with a single marginally lucky shot.
Lets not forget that most of the MC's people are upset about have 2-3+ invul saves when buffed and multiple wounds. Meaning the amount of firepower you have to dedicate to bring down that MC is just absurd. The consensus here on dakka for months regarding riptides for example was simply to "just kill pathfinders and ignore riptide the whole game." Even without pathfinders, riptides are more devastating at range than most units in any army. So that whole "just ignore them" strategy is utter nonsense. I think most people don't have issues with MC's in general, like Tyranid MC. They should be tough. People have issues with units that should be walkers being designated as MC in order to sell models.
If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?
Not everything can be fixed with points though.
No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points
The big issue, though, it's not points.
Let's look at the most glaring problem is this: assume a vehicle has 3HP, an MC has 3w. The vehicle is 100pts and the MC is 200pts.
The vehicle, should, say, a lascannon get lucky, will get annhilated in one shot. MCs? This thing won't happen unless you bring ID-weapons... which are 99% meelee based, which is where most MCs want to be.
Even if you make them more expensive, the problem still remains that that "just" portion of points gets erased with a single marginally lucky shot.
Lets not forget that most of the MC's people are upset about have 2-3+ invul saves when buffed and multiple wounds. Meaning the amount of firepower you have to dedicate to bring down that MC is just absurd. The consensus here on dakka for months regarding riptides for example was simply to "just kill pathfinders and ignore riptide the whole game." Even without pathfinders, riptides are more devastating at range than most units in any army. So that whole "just ignore them" strategy is utter nonsense. I think most people don't have issues with MC's in general, like Tyranid MC. They should be tough. People have issues with units that should be walkers being designated as MC in order to sell models.
It's hardly just the saves.
Space Wolves Shield Dreads have the re-roll to potentially shrug off an explodes result and that's after they get through the 3++ save. Nobody is worried about them.
Harpies are FMCs and they're hardly terrifying.
It's the combination of durability, speed, melee capability, efficient points costs and Really. Big. Guns.
Tamwulf wrote: MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
Anything with a D weapon can one-shot a Wraithknight.
Wraithknights are GMCs(which means the "Unstoppable" special rule, Instant Death becomes D3 Wounds instead and Sniper/Poisoned weapons are only wounding on 6+s, unless the Strength of the weapon would let you wound on a lower value).
So no, things with D weapons cannot one-shot a Wraithknight.
Tamwulf wrote: MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
Anything with a D weapon can one-shot a Wraithknight.
Wraithknights are GMCs(which means the "Unstoppable" special rule, Instant Death becomes D3 Wounds instead and Sniper/Poisoned weapons are only wounding on 6+s, unless the Strength of the weapon would let you wound on a lower value).
So no, things with D weapons cannot one-shot a Wraithknight.
Unless you're using some kind of homebrew rules, a '6' on the D table causes 6+d6 wounds.
And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?
Tamwulf wrote: MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.
Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.
Anything with a D weapon can one-shot a Wraithknight.
Wraithknights are GMCs(which means the "Unstoppable" special rule, Instant Death becomes D3 Wounds instead and Sniper/Poisoned weapons are only wounding on 6+s, unless the Strength of the weapon would let you wound on a lower value).
So no, things with D weapons cannot one-shot a Wraithknight.
Unless you're using some kind of homebrew rules, a '6' on the D table causes 6+d6 wounds.
How many wounds is a Wraithknight?
I mean if you want to pretend that rolling a 6 with a D weapon is somehow "balance", we can play that game too.
And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?
Doesn't matter realistically whether it's house rules or forgetting about D weapons having a 6+D6 wounds. It's the simple fact that there is no guaranteed way to remove a GMC because they have a protection that removes the most effective stuff against MCs(Poison).
Throw Haywire at a SHV and see what happens though.
I mean if you want to pretend that rolling a 6 with a D weapon is somehow "balance", we can play that game too.
A Wraithknight is 6 wounds. So any roll of '6' with a D weapon will obliterate it.
And yeah, D weapons have balance issues of their own, but when people start throwing out ultimatums that fly in the face of the actual rules of the game, I have to wonder if their complaints are legitimate, or if they just don't understand how to play the game they're complaining about, or if they just like complaining.
And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?
Doesn't matter realistically whether it's house rules or forgetting about D weapons having a 6+D6 wounds. It's the simple fact that there is no guaranteed way to remove a GMC because they have a protection that removes the most effective stuff against MCs(Poison).
Throw Haywire at a SHV and see what happens though.
No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.
Martel732 wrote: SHV are magically vulnerable to haywire. Almost like SHV and SHW are inferior to GMCs or something.
And melta - G/MC reduce the effective strength of all weapons by 3 for Reasons (S4 vs T7 = 6s, S4 vs A10 = 6s), and in return there is nothing or next to nothing in the armory universal that specialises in damaging G/MC, that can't then be countered natively. The Instant Death USR is the only consistent one shot kill ability, to which, outside of double strength weapons, ( most of which don't apply on G/MC anyway) only a handful of factions have access before we factor in counters. Comparatively there are 3 dedicated anti vehicle abilities ( Armour bane/Melta and haywire) which most if not all factions have access to at least 2 - even if it may not be the most effective TAC option, the option *exists*.
On top of that Vehicles are subject to the greater portion of ranged weapons, specialist anti vehicle weapons, specialist close combat weapons, and - in turn - G/MC.
The standard game has left vehicles behind, except those that are so cheap (points wise) as to render their survivability irrelevant. Almost like it was intentional.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaaghpower wrote: And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.
But, lets be realistic, a WK is going to be invisible a greater portion of the time, and with a highly limited range of countermeasures, because Eldar. Tau don't qualify, and i'd suiggest Nids are entirely acceptable as a consequence of neither of them getting invis.
I mean if you want to pretend that rolling a 6 with a D weapon is somehow "balance", we can play that game too.
A Wraithknight is 6 wounds. So any roll of '6' with a D weapon will obliterate it.
And yeah, D weapons have balance issues of their own, but when people start throwing out ultimatums that fly in the face of the actual rules of the game, I have to wonder if their complaints are legitimate, or if they just don't understand how to play the game they're complaining about, or if they just like complaining.
Either way, it still comes down to you needing to roll a 6 on a D weapon.
So pretending that one specific situation, whereby a vehicle with a D weapon rolls a 6 on the D weapon table is somehow evidence that Wraithknights can be one-hit killed by vehicles is disingenuous at best.
Especially when one sits back and actually looks at how many vehicles in the game have D weapons. You have Knights with melee D weapons, the Baneblade chassis has at least one ranged D weapon, and I'm sure there are more that I don't know off the top of my head...
But that's not exactly a resoundingly common tactic to use, unless someone starts throwing in lots of FW.
And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?
Doesn't matter realistically whether it's house rules or forgetting about D weapons having a 6+D6 wounds. It's the simple fact that there is no guaranteed way to remove a GMC because they have a protection that removes the most effective stuff against MCs(Poison).
Throw Haywire at a SHV and see what happens though.
No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned.
The counter to MCs is supposed to be Poison and Sniper weapons(they wound on a set value rather than v. Toughness).
Much like how the counter to vehicles is meant to be Haywire, where weapons with a low S value can still deal damage to a vehicle.
And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.
Sure, they can be stopped.
But that's not the point that you ignored or seemingly didn't grasp.
"Unstoppable" literally strips the thing that is supposed to counter MCs of its effectiveness. Compare a SHV facing Haywire to a GMC facing Poison or Sniper. One of those is going to get wrecked, the other is going to be just fine.
Especially when one sits back and actually looks at how many vehicles in the game have D weapons. You have Knights with melee D weapons, the Baneblade chassis has at least one ranged D weapon, and I'm sure there are more that I don't know off the top of my head...
But that's not exactly a resoundingly common tactic to use, unless someone starts throwing in lots of FW.
You've about covered it. Imperial vehicle mounted D ranged weapons are limited to:
Titans (750+pts)
The Shadowsword (450+)
Taghmata Ordinatus (980+)
and the Thunderhawk (800~+ depending on variant)
In nearly every case, equivalent points of WK win. This is including the Warlord.
Vehicles are easy to destroy, because of the damage table, and also extra rules that just make them so much easier to destroy.
A vehicle with 50,000 hull points, and AV15, can be 1-shotted by a melta gun.
8 strength. extra D6. base D6. Roll an 8 or higher and you're rolling on the pen table with melta rules. Suddenly that vehicle has a very good chance to flat out explode. 1 melta shot is capable of doing all 50,000 hull points worth of damage.
1. most vehicles should probably have their cost slightly reduced.
2. Monstrous creatures should have their costs increased.
Marmatag wrote: Vehicles are easy to destroy, because of the damage table, and also extra rules that just make them so much easier to destroy.
A vehicle with 50,000 hull points, and AV15, can be 1-shotted by a melta gun.
8 strength. extra D6. base D6. Roll an 8 or higher and you're rolling on the pen table with melta rules. Suddenly that vehicle has a very good chance to flat out explode. 1 melta shot is capable of doing all 50,000 hull points worth of damage.
1. most vehicles should probably have their cost slightly reduced.
2. Monstrous creatures should have their costs increased.
Do those vehicles exist?
No. No they do not.
In fact, I can't think of any vehicles with more than 5 Hull Points that can be one-shotted.
In regards to the D weapon discussion above... Most Psykers have access to a D weapon via powers, meaning that a 65pt Librarian or a 55pt ML1 Inquisitor could potentially one-shot a Wraithknight.
Marmatag wrote: Vehicles are easy to destroy, because of the damage table, and also extra rules that just make them so much easier to destroy.
A vehicle with 50,000 hull points, and AV15, can be 1-shotted by a melta gun.
8 strength. extra D6. base D6. Roll an 8 or higher and you're rolling on the pen table with melta rules. Suddenly that vehicle has a very good chance to flat out explode. 1 melta shot is capable of doing all 50,000 hull points worth of damage.
1. most vehicles should probably have their cost slightly reduced.
2. Monstrous creatures should have their costs increased.
Do those vehicles exist?
No. No they do not.
In fact, I can't think of any vehicles with more than 5 Hull Points that can be one-shotted.
In regards to the D weapon discussion above... Most Psykers have access to a D weapon via powers, meaning that a 65pt Librarian or a 55pt ML1 Inquisitor could potentially one-shot a Wraithknight.
So, are you prepared to argue that it's as easy to 1 shot a monstrous creature as it is to 1 shot a vehicle? Do you know how much better dreadnoughts would be, for instance, if they were toughness/wound/save based?
And comparing psychic powers - which not all armies have easy access to - to a special weapon - is disingenuous.
I'm not calling for the rules to be totally re-written here, but if you made vehicles toughness/wound/save based, and changed melta rules so that they could potentially one shot ANYTHING, that would be interesting wouldn't it? Suddenly that land raider is a T10, 3W juggernaut with a 3+ save. Not worthless.
Marmatag wrote: Vehicles are easy to destroy, because of the damage table, and also extra rules that just make them so much easier to destroy.
A vehicle with 50,000 hull points, and AV15, can be 1-shotted by a melta gun.
8 strength. extra D6. base D6. Roll an 8 or higher and you're rolling on the pen table with melta rules. Suddenly that vehicle has a very good chance to flat out explode. 1 melta shot is capable of doing all 50,000 hull points worth of damage.
1. most vehicles should probably have their cost slightly reduced.
2. Monstrous creatures should have their costs increased.
Do those vehicles exist?
No. No they do not.
In fact, I can't think of any vehicles with more than 5 Hull Points that can be one-shotted.
In regards to the D weapon discussion above... Most Psykers have access to a D weapon via powers, meaning that a 65pt Librarian or a 55pt ML1 Inquisitor could potentially one-shot a Wraithknight.
So, are you prepared to argue that it's as easy to 1 shot a monstrous creature as it is to 1 shot a vehicle? Do you know how much better dreadnoughts would be, for instance, if they were toughness/wound/save based?
And comparing psychic powers - which not all armies have easy access to - to a special weapon - is disingenuous.
I'm not calling for the rules to be totally re-written here, but if you made vehicles toughness/wound/save based, and changed melta rules so that they could potentially one shot ANYTHING, that would be interesting wouldn't it? Suddenly that land raider is a T10, 3W juggernaut with a 3+ save. Not worthless.
When did I say that? Go back in the thread and point out where I said that a MC was as easy to kill as a vehicle.
I was specifically arguing against the statement that a Wraithknight was impossible to one-shot. That statement is patently false.
I get sick of people throwing out completely untrue ultimatums and absolutes to try and make a point, and then moving the goalposts whenever somebody points out that they're wrong.
Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.
HANZERtank wrote: Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.
As per the FAQ, MCs need 25% as well now. Small victories.
I've said it before, and being slightly vulnerable to small arms is actually a benefit, as it encourages your opponent to be dumb. 27 BS 4 bolter shots to clear a single wound vs T6 3+? Go for it!
Sonic Keyboard wrote: Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.
Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.
You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.
You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.
Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.
We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.
People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.
Sonic Keyboard wrote: Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.
Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.
You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.
You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.
Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.
We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.
People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.
You can also one-shot an MC with Frost weapons, which strike at range.
Sonic Keyboard wrote: Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.
Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.
You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.
You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.
Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.
We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.
People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.
You can also one-shot an MC with Frost weapons, which strike at range.
Hellfrost one-shotting is highly unlikely from a probability standpoint and is only available to what, space wolves?
Sonic Keyboard wrote: Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.
Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.
You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.
You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.
Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.
We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.
People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.
You can also one-shot an MC with Frost weapons, which strike at range.
Hellfrost one-shotting is highly unlikely from a probability standpoint and is only available to what, space wolves?
Sure. It's a 6+ if you get a wound, instead of a 5+ if you get a penetrating hit. But these kinds of 'One-hit-kill' rules aren't bound only to Space Wolves, Space Wolves just happen to have one that I can easily remember the name of.
HANZERtank wrote: Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.
As per the FAQ, MCs need 25% as well now. Small victories.
I've said it before, and being slightly vulnerable to small arms is actually a benefit, as it encourages your opponent to be dumb. 27 BS 4 bolter shots to clear a single wound vs T6 3+? Go for it!
I thought it was only for GMC the 25% was changed for. But that might just be the draft one im remembering.
Sonic Keyboard wrote: Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.
Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.
You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.
You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.
Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.
We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.
People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.
You can also one-shot an MC with Frost weapons, which strike at range.
Hellfrost one-shotting is highly unlikely from a probability standpoint and is only available to what, space wolves?
Sure. It's a 6+ if you get a wound, instead of a 5+ if you get a penetrating hit. But these kinds of 'One-hit-kill' rules aren't bound only to Space Wolves, Space Wolves just happen to have one that I can easily remember the name of.
Special rules shouldn't be the only rock to MC's scissors, or MC's should be costed appropriately relative to vehicles.
It's hard to be sympathetic to that argument when people want that same unrockness for their vehicles, ontop of the special rules they're already getting
Luke_Prowler wrote: It's hard to be sympathetic to that argument when people want that same unrockness for their vehicles, ontop of the special rules they're already getting
What special rules do vehicles have, really?
Yes, they can only be 'wounded' by weapons with a certain Strength value.
How is that different from MCs?
Read the Strength v Toughness table sometime. There comes a certain point where you can no longer inflict a Wound, barring some of the wonky stuff like Radium weapons.
"MCs can lose their Armor Save if something is the right AP"
So what? Most vehicles(Skimmers and Flyers can Jink) can't get a save without special wargear or being 25% obscured.
And that doesn't take into account that a "Glancing Hit"(read: what would be essentially a passed save for a MC/GMC) can still destroy a vehicle.
The ability to walk out of assault, faster movement speed, fire more than 2 weapons, generally better selection of weapons, immunity to morale/anything to do with leadership, immunity to small fire, access to Fast and Skimmer rules. And before you say "but those aren't very good right now", I'm saying that people want to take the best of both for vehicles and leave MC with jack all. How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves? Or make common anti-tank weapons also cause multi wounds, even though that would make it actually easier to kill MC than it does to the equivalent vehicle?
People want vehicles and MC to be more equivilant? Fine, but unless vehicles get an equivilant price jump I have no reason to believe balance was ever a concern
HANZERtank wrote: Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.
As per the FAQ, MCs need 25% as well now. Small victories.
I've said it before, and being slightly vulnerable to small arms is actually a benefit, as it encourages your opponent to be dumb. 27 BS 4 bolter shots to clear a single wound vs T6 3+? Go for it!
I thought it was only for GMC the 25% was changed for. But that might just be the draft one im remembering.
I mean if you want to pretend that rolling a 6 with a D weapon is somehow "balance", we can play that game too.
A Wraithknight is 6 wounds. So any roll of '6' with a D weapon will obliterate it.
And yeah, D weapons have balance issues of their own, but when people start throwing out ultimatums that fly in the face of the actual rules of the game, I have to wonder if their complaints are legitimate, or if they just don't understand how to play the game they're complaining about, or if they just like complaining.
And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?
Doesn't matter realistically whether it's house rules or forgetting about D weapons having a 6+D6 wounds. It's the simple fact that there is no guaranteed way to remove a GMC because they have a protection that removes the most effective stuff against MCs(Poison).
Throw Haywire at a SHV and see what happens though.
No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.
The Wraithknight is W6 3+/optional 5++ which you are taking/5+++. Forgot about that last bit didn't ya?
Luke_Prowler wrote: The ability to walk out of assault, faster movement speed, fire more than 2 weapons, generally better selection of weapons, immunity to morale/anything to do with leadership, immunity to small fire, access to Fast and Skimmer rules. And before you say "but those aren't very good right now", I'm saying that people want to take the best of both for vehicles and leave MC with jack all. How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves? Or make common anti-tank weapons also cause multi wounds, even though that would make it actually easier to kill MC than it does to the equivalent vehicle?
People want vehicles and MC to be more equivilant? Fine, but unless vehicles get an equivilant price jump I have no reason to believe balance was ever a concern
Yeah vehicles walk out of combat as a smouldering pile of rubble, they can't defend themselves. Everyone and their mother wants to get in melee with a vehicle lol.
All the pros and cons of vehicles don't matter when you can deepstrike 1 shot any vehicle with melta weapons.
I mean seriously, if vehicles weren't bad compared to MCs, there would be a genuine debate between which is better, land raider or wraithknight.
I feel like I'm communicating with a parallel universe that was way more satisfied with 5th edition than mine was... I see way more dreadnoughts now than I did back then...
Anyway, greetings bizzaro-dakka, I'm speaking to you from Universe A.
Prior to April 2011 the distinction between a monstrous creature and a walker was generally clear. With exceptions MCs were an alternative to walkers, ones that would logically still try to move around even after breaking a leg. Even at the time people bemoaned the balance difference between them but we at least understood the line, monstrous creatures were creatures, walking armatures were walkers.
All that changed when the Grey Knights codex dropped, and with it the Dreadknight.
After that, the rationale for what constituted an MC vs a Walker split. Now there are those insist the unit type still describes what a unit is in the fluff sense and that vehicles like the dreadknight, wraithknight, riptide, or even crisis suits are mislabeled for the sake of unit performance in game; and those like myself who would argue the unit type represents how the unit behaves in a relative sense.
It makes sense to me that a Riptide would be evenly armored and nimble enough to turn and fire in such a way that firing arcs and armour facing wouldn't be relevant- because that's the way the Tau would design it and they wouldn't be mass producing it if it couldn't do that. It makes sense to others that GW would not have sold as many Riptide models if it could immobilize itself after doing a jump-move out of terrain, or explode after one very unlikely shooting attack. Both are valid arguments, neither really apply seamlessly to things like the dreadknight or stormsurge.
I honestly don't see a solution that still involves MCs and Walkers being distinct things anymore. While I've heard the arguments for reclassifying the gundams into walkers the dreadknight is so frequently omitted from the list it just comes across as grousing over the filthy Xenos players having better toys. I'd rather see vehicles brought in line to what monstrous creatures are and reinvent how they want to make them distinctly mechanical in nature.
Luke_Prowler wrote: How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves? Or make common anti-tank weapons also cause multi wounds, even though that would make it actually easier to kill MC than it does to the equivalent vehicle?
What exactly is your problem with either of these suggestions?
Against MC: I roll to hit, then wound, then it gets saves. 3 gateways before any damage is done. Doesn't even include ubiquitous FnP rolls on all the serial offenders.
Against Vehicle: I roll to hit, then to penetrate, then we see how much damage I did, or even if it's still on the table. 2 gateways with the potential to instant kill
Heavy weapons would need to do D6 wounds before it has the same chance (1/6) of one-shotting a Wraithknight as they currently have of one-shotting a vehicle.
Luke_Prowler wrote: How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves? Or make common anti-tank weapons also cause multi wounds, even though that would make it actually easier to kill MC than it does to the equivalent vehicle?
What exactly is your problem with either of these suggestions?
Against MC: I roll to hit, then wound, then it gets saves. 3 gateways before any damage is done. Doesn't even include ubiquitous FnP rolls on all the serial offenders. Against Vehicle: I roll to hit, then to penetrate, then we see how much damage I did, or even if it's still on the table. 2 gateways with the potential to instant kill
Heavy weapons would need to do D6 wounds before it has the same chance (1/6) of one-shotting a Wraithknight as they currently have of one-shotting a vehicle.
AP 3 or less Heavy Weapons have a 0% chance of one shotting a vehicles, and the vast majority of monstrous creatures have 4 wounds (which is, last I checked, is a 50% chance). Dishonestly is not a good argument for anything.
My problem with the suggestions is that it takes the best from both systems. AV 11 is equivalent to T7 (requires 4+ from a str 7 weapon to wound) except it's also immune to str 4 or less), meaning that a basic rhino with a 3+ save is TOUGHER than a carnifex or daemon prince, despite being a third of the cost of either.
The other suggestion, assuming that weapons need to be at least +2 str, means that a carifex will lose two wounds from krak missiles, at +2 chance to wound. vs a vehicle only ever losing 1 against the same weapon, because you'd need to roll a 7 on a six sided die a with anything other than plasma or meltaguns
On the subject of rationalizing things like Wraithknights and Riptides as MCs, the way I have always thought of it is the pilot is part of the machine. Wraithknights are piloted by the souls of dead Eldar, and Riptides are piloted by Tau who are hard-wired into battlesuits with little difference between the machine and the pilot.
I know this does nothing from a rules perspective, but it's different from a Dreadnought, for instance, where there's a sarcophogus plugged in. The separation from pilot and machine is what differentiates the kind of damage it takes.
I have a recent game that shows a large difference between GMCs and SHVs. I recently fought a warhound titan with tempestus scions. 4 melta shots later and it was dead.... A wraithknight is much cheaper and wouldn't even be potentially dead. The whole S10 combat argument against MCs would be more valid if the MC didn't normally strike first and at ap2 to ignore saves. Another example is the gork/morkanaut. They cost almost as much as a wraithknight but are much worse especially since they can be one shotted. There is a lot more durability that comes from having a T value and an armor save. For the most part the tyranid MCs aren't bad and I personally think the only MCs should be with the tyranids, DE, and the poor squiggoths.
techsoldaten wrote: I know this does nothing from a rules perspective, but it's different from a Dreadnought, for instance, where there's a sarcophogus plugged in. The separation from pilot and machine is what differentiates the kind of damage it takes.
But that's exactly how a Riptide works. The marine in a dread isn't driving it like a vehicle, they're wired into it and controlling it by thought.
No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.
The Wraithknight is W6 3+/optional 5++ which you are taking/5+++. Forgot about that last bit didn't ya?
Uh, no? I didn't? Because I mention that the Wraithknight might have a 5++? And no, I didn't explicitly mention the FNP, but that's because I was specifically listing its weaknesses, not generalities about GMCs. The Wraithknight has low wounds for a GMC and a mediocre armor save, with an equally mediocre invuln. That was my point.
cranect wrote: I have a recent game that shows a large difference between GMCs and SHVs. I recently fought a warhound titan with tempestus scions. 4 melta shots later and it was dead.... A wraithknight is much cheaper and wouldn't even be potentially dead. The whole S10 combat argument against MCs would be more valid if the MC didn't normally strike first and at ap2 to ignore saves. Another example is the gork/morkanaut. They cost almost as much as a wraithknight but are much worse especially since they can be one shotted. There is a lot more durability that comes from having a T value and an armor save. For the most part the tyranid MCs aren't bad and I personally think the only MCs should be with the tyranids, DE, and the poor squiggoths.
No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.
The Wraithknight is W6 3+/optional 5++ which you are taking/5+++. Forgot about that last bit didn't ya?
Uh, no? I didn't? Because I mention that the Wraithknight might have a 5++? And no, I didn't explicitly mention the FNP, but that's because I was specifically listing its weaknesses, not generalities about GMCs. The Wraithknight has low wounds for a GMC and a mediocre armor save, with an equally mediocre invuln. That was my point.
It absolutely is not low wounds for being T8 and being immune to Poison for all intents and purposes on top of the FNP. You know how many Space Marine Lascannons it takes to kill it? 21 shots. You want to include the 5++ it is going to have? 27.
That is including Grav shots too because they're wounding it on the same number.
techsoldaten wrote: I know this does nothing from a rules perspective, but it's different from a Dreadnought, for instance, where there's a sarcophogus plugged in. The separation from pilot and machine is what differentiates the kind of damage it takes.
But that's exactly how a Riptide works. The marine in a dread isn't driving it like a vehicle, they're wired into it and controlling it by thought.
Controlling a huge, lumbering metal box with pistons and gears, which is designed for siege more than mobility. Sure, no one is pulling levers or pushing buttons, but it's not like the thing was built for hairtrigger responses.
techsoldaten wrote: Controlling a huge, lumbering metal box with pistons and gears, which is designed for siege more than mobility. Sure, no one is pulling levers or pushing buttons, but it's not like the thing was built for hairtrigger responses.
And this thing is built for hair-trigger responses and agility?
Only if they don't have a WS. That also implies they survive the assault being hit on rear armor in 85% of cases (meaning AV10 in 95% of those) on never worse than a 3+ with only 2 or 3 "wounds" in most cases and no saves.
, faster movement speed
Depends on the vehicle & MC type, but most vehicles also don't get assault moves either.
fire more than 2 weapons,
Which is minimally valuable as almost no MC's have more than 2 weapons anyway and very few vehicles have more than 2 (especially more than 2 "real" guns, not just the odd Stormbolter) and half of those that do still have a main armament that precludes the effective use of the others or can only actually bring all those weapons to bear at certain specific and narrow angles while MC's don't have to worry about it.
generally better selection of weapons,
That's...debatable.
immunity to morale/anything to do with leadership
Ok, we'll grant this.
immunity to small fire
Depends on the vehicle and angle.
access to Fast and Skimmer rules
And there aren't Jump, Jet, and Flying MC's and MC's with other fast movement modes?
. And before you say "but those aren't very good right now", I'm saying that people want to take the best of both for vehicles and leave MC with jack all.
MC's don't have to deal with a damage chart or degrading functionality.
MC's don't have to worry about armor angle facings.
MC's don't have to worry about weapons arcs and LoS through their own body.
MC's don't risk immobilization and the loss of a wound every time they touch terrain.
MC's can actually fight in close combat unlike the overwhelmingly vast majority of vehicles which are effectively auto-killed if anything with even just a little bit of oomph (like a hidden powerfist and a krak grenade) makes it into base contact.
Lots of MC's have not only armor but Invul saves which are exceedingly rare on vehicles.
MC's can get cover with just a toe, vehicles have to rely on weird TloS percentage coverage. (unless they fixed that in the FAQ, I may have missed that if they did).
MC's can overwatch unlike most vehicles.
MC's still have lots of advantages even if you fix vehicle resiliency by doing something like returning to an older system or giving them saves to go with HP's.
How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves?
Given that they have wounds and what effectively is Toughness, and fewer "wounds" than most MC's have (most vehicles have 2 or 3 HP's, most MC's have 4-6), that would make perfect sense given that their only source of resiliency is a relatively high average Toughness. There's a reason that the only armies that run vehicle heavy that do particularly well are armies that either get their vehicles for free and spam lots of light vehicles, or vehicles that have or can get decent saves (Knights & Jinking Skimmers).
No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.
The Wraithknight is W6 3+/optional 5++ which you are taking/5+++. Forgot about that last bit didn't ya?
Uh, no? I didn't? Because I mention that the Wraithknight might have a 5++? And no, I didn't explicitly mention the FNP, but that's because I was specifically listing its weaknesses, not generalities about GMCs. The Wraithknight has low wounds for a GMC and a mediocre armor save, with an equally mediocre invuln. That was my point.
It absolutely is not low wounds for being T8 and being immune to Poison for all intents and purposes on top of the FNP. You know how many Space Marine Lascannons it takes to kill it? 21 shots. You want to include the 5++ it is going to have? 27.
That is including Grav shots too because they're wounding it on the same number.
Yeah, but Lascannons suck. That's pretty much universally agreed on. That's a whole other problem that doesn't really matter right here, but yeah, there it is: You're comparing a really terrible weapon to an above-average enemy.
21 Grav shots is not hard to get. A single squad of Devestators can get 23 if their sergeant takes a Grav cannon. Heck, a squad of Gravcannon Devestators with Devestator Doctrine or Prescience kicked in will put 10 wounds on a Wraithknight or 7 on a Wraithknight with an invuln. Yes, most armies don't have Grav, but that's still a fairly common counter.
If you assault a WK in close combat with an actual CC-dedicated unit, chances are you're going to obliterate it. Sure, it hits fast and with high strength (Or D,) but it only has four attacks and WS4, so it's not going to be all that impossible to take down. A PK Warboss on a bike and 5 Bully Boyz will kill a Wraithknight in close combat, even if it has an invuln. (The Warboss is just there to tank damage. If it has the D CCW, just taking more Meganobz is probably the better route. Or just swarm it with Boyz and don't worry about killing it.)
6 Wulfen with a TH/SS combo will also beat a Wraithknight pretty easily, and there are many-a psychic power that will put a huge chunk in one without too much difficulty.
My point is not that Wraithknights are underpowered, but that your complaints are overdone: It's strong, but you're making it out to be nigh unbeatable.
techsoldaten wrote: I know this does nothing from a rules perspective, but it's different from a Dreadnought, for instance, where there's a sarcophogus plugged in. The separation from pilot and machine is what differentiates the kind of damage it takes.
HANZERtank wrote: Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.
As per the FAQ, MCs need 25% as well now. Small victories.
I've said it before, and being slightly vulnerable to small arms is actually a benefit, as it encourages your opponent to be dumb. 27 BS 4 bolter shots to clear a single wound vs T6 3+? Go for it!
Here, I need to disagree.
Whilst you're spot on about the probability to reliably drop that final wound, it still stands that a single Bolt Pistol can take the last wound off say, a Hive Tyrant, but not be able to finish off an ailing Landraider.
The chances might be quite small, but that they exist means that cheeky bolt pistol, perhaps from the last member of a squad, can have a big affect on the battle. And when it comes to probability, we're simply not going to chuck enough dice in a lifetime of gaming to really tickle it So I'll take that risk!
Once you factor in Sods Law, it becomes apparent such desultory fire is typically far more deadly than it has any right to be.
No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.
The Wraithknight is W6 3+/optional 5++ which you are taking/5+++. Forgot about that last bit didn't ya?
Uh, no? I didn't? Because I mention that the Wraithknight might have a 5++? And no, I didn't explicitly mention the FNP, but that's because I was specifically listing its weaknesses, not generalities about GMCs. The Wraithknight has low wounds for a GMC and a mediocre armor save, with an equally mediocre invuln. That was my point.
It absolutely is not low wounds for being T8 and being immune to Poison for all intents and purposes on top of the FNP. You know how many Space Marine Lascannons it takes to kill it? 21 shots. You want to include the 5++ it is going to have? 27.
That is including Grav shots too because they're wounding it on the same number.
Yeah, but Lascannons suck. That's pretty much universally agreed on. That's a whole other problem that doesn't really matter right here, but yeah, there it is: You're comparing a really terrible weapon to an above-average enemy.
21 Grav shots is not hard to get. A single squad of Devestators can get 23 if their sergeant takes a Grav cannon. Heck, a squad of Gravcannon Devestators with Devestator Doctrine or Prescience kicked in will put 10 wounds on a Wraithknight or 7 on a Wraithknight with an invuln. Yes, most armies don't have Grav, but that's still a fairly common counter.
If you assault a WK in close combat with an actual CC-dedicated unit, chances are you're going to obliterate it. Sure, it hits fast and with high strength (Or D,) but it only has four attacks and WS4, so it's not going to be all that impossible to take down. A PK Warboss on a bike and 5 Bully Boyz will kill a Wraithknight in close combat, even if it has an invuln. (The Warboss is just there to tank damage. If it has the D CCW, just taking more Meganobz is probably the better route. Or just swarm it with Boyz and don't worry about killing it.)
6 Wulfen with a TH/SS combo will also beat a Wraithknight pretty easily, and there are many-a psychic power that will put a huge chunk in one without too much difficulty.
My point is not that Wraithknights are underpowered, but that your complaints are overdone: It's strong, but you're making it out to be nigh unbeatable.
Pretty much all Imperial heavy weapons suck then. That's not a common counter if most armies lack it. Even then, youre mot considering other armies that cannot get access to it (what reliable means do Skitarii and CSM have? Essentially very little that is actually reliable). Eldar are the only ones that can reliably deal with it because they're special snowflakes that get D Weapons out of the wazoo.
Pretty sure your math is wrong on the Bully Boyz and a Warboss doing anything reliably. The Wraithknight can more reliably get the charge, and that's going to be 2 dead right there, with an average of over one dead per turn. That's not including stomps.
Wulfen are obviously a completely different story as they're hardly balanced themselves. Still better balanced than a Wraithknight though.
Many a Psyker power? You mean Shriek and almost nothing else?
Nothing is nigh unbeatable, but you're the one defending the Wraithknight as though we should get over how stupidly powerful it is.
I dunno about Skitarii, because I rarely play against them.
CSM can tie it down in Melee forever using fearless Cultists or zombies.
As for the Bully Boyz, my math is just fine. The boss is on a bike and the Meganobz are in a trukk, so the WK charging is by no means a given. Unless he took the D CCW, the Warboss will tank both wounds since the Ork player gets to allocate. Then, the Bully Boyz inflict 5 wounds, and the Warboss inflicts 1 more.
And yeah, Stomps will cause more damage if the WK rolls a 6, but by that point he's already dead.
Many a Psychic Power, yes. Enfeeble can combo with other things to kick him in the teeth. There's the sanctic D weapon, or the Tzeentchy D weapon. The Divination Malediction that gives everyone Rending.
And yeah, Psychic Shriek, because it's a Primaris Power that almost every army can take automatically.
A PK Warboss on a bike and 5 Bully Boyz will kill a Wraithknight in close combat, even if it has an invuln. (The Warboss is just there to tank damage. If it has the D CCW, just taking more Meganobz is probably the better route. Or just swarm it with Boyz and don't worry about killing it.)
PK Warboss on a Bike = 110pts 5 MegaNobz = 200pts total = 310pts
Wraithknight is 295pts
To get the Warboss on Bike into CC isn't that hard because the speed of bikes teamed with Jink means he has a good shot of getting their, of course the Meganobz...not so much, they need a Trukk MINIMUM to get into CC, so thats another 35pts (Ram). So lets say that the ork player saturates the field with targets and the Eldar player is unable to shoot an AV10 vehicle to death for whatever reason and the Nobz get the charge off joined by the warboss on a bike.
Overwatch the WK has a 1/3rd chance to disintegrate one of the Meganobz. So lets say they miss because thats likely and they all get into B2B.
Wraithknight swings at I5 and has 2 hits and 2 dead Meganobz or 2 wounds off the Warboss (T6)
5 Meganobz = 20 attacks on the charge at S9. so 10 hits and 7wounds. The warboss swings and has 5 attacks 2-3 hit and 1-2 more wounds. Total? 8-9wounds. If its the model without the 5++ that is 5-6wounds, so probably a dead WK. It gets to stomp and will reliably kill the rest of the Nobz/Warboss no problem. So HOORAY! Orks spent 345pts to kill a 295pt model. they have a 35pt trukk left thats it.
Now if the WK has a Scattershield then those 9 wounds become 6 and those 6 wounds become 4 (5++ and 5+++) So now the Orks have wasted all of those points and achieved nothing but most of the wounds off a WK.
NOW if the WK had the Glaive as well as the shield you just lost even worse because the Warboss can't tank Strength D. Since the weapon is Master Crafted he will more likely hit times which means 3 Dead Mega Nobz. So on the ork turn instead of 20 S9 attacks its 8 S9 attacks. which means 4 hits and 3ish wounds. Teamed with the warboss not nearly enough.
Waaaghpower wrote: I dunno about Skitarii, because I rarely play against them.
CSM can tie it down in Melee forever using fearless Cultists or zombies.
As for the Bully Boyz, my math is just fine. The boss is on a bike and the Meganobz are in a trukk, so the WK charging is by no means a given. Unless he took the D CCW, the Warboss will tank both wounds since the Ork player gets to allocate. Then, the Bully Boyz inflict 5 wounds, and the Warboss inflicts 1 more.
And yeah, Stomps will cause more damage if the WK rolls a 6, but by that point he's already dead.
Many a Psychic Power, yes. Enfeeble can combo with other things to kick him in the teeth. There's the sanctic D weapon, or the Tzeentchy D weapon. The Divination Malediction that gives everyone Rending.
And yeah, Psychic Shriek, because it's a Primaris Power that almost every army can take automatically.
And what Fearless Cultists or Zombies are going to catch a Wraithknight? Ya know, a unit that's actually fast enough to choose its targets? And that still isn't good because stomp still exists.
Someone else told you how your math was bad for the Bully Boyz so I don't need to tackle that.
You're also talking about powers you actually have to roll. Psychic Shriek is the only one you're actually able to guarantee.
Waaaghpower wrote: I dunno about Skitarii, because I rarely play against them.
CSM can tie it down in Melee forever using fearless Cultists or zombies.
As for the Bully Boyz, my math is just fine. The boss is on a bike and the Meganobz are in a trukk, so the WK charging is by no means a given. Unless he took the D CCW, the Warboss will tank both wounds since the Ork player gets to allocate. Then, the Bully Boyz inflict 5 wounds, and the Warboss inflicts 1 more.
And yeah, Stomps will cause more damage if the WK rolls a 6, but by that point he's already dead.
Many a Psychic Power, yes. Enfeeble can combo with other things to kick him in the teeth. There's the sanctic D weapon, or the Tzeentchy D weapon. The Divination Malediction that gives everyone Rending.
And yeah, Psychic Shriek, because it's a Primaris Power that almost every army can take automatically.
And what Fearless Cultists or Zombies are going to catch a Wraithknight? Ya know, a unit that's actually fast enough to choose its targets? And that still isn't good because stomp still exists.
Someone else told you how your math was bad for the Bully Boyz so I don't need to tackle that.
You're also talking about powers you actually have to roll. Psychic Shriek is the only one you're actually able to guarantee.
Let's see... Maybe the Zombies are bubble wrap, and the WK can't get close to a good target without getting close to them? Maybe they're using one of the multiple mobility-boosting relics that CSM have access to? Maybe there's a nearby Psyker who knows Soulswitch or Worldwrithe?
And yeah, a lot of those powers have to be rolled for, but... So what? Pretty much everyone can get Shriek anyways if they need it, on top of the many other good powers available.
Finally, what's wrong with my math? I already explained how it works. If facing a sword/board WK, more Bully Boyz will do the trick in place of the Warboss.
A PK Warboss on a bike and 5 Bully Boyz will kill a Wraithknight in close combat, even if it has an invuln. (The Warboss is just there to tank damage. If it has the D CCW, just taking more Meganobz is probably the better route. Or just swarm it with Boyz and don't worry about killing it.)
PK Warboss on a Bike = 110pts 5 MegaNobz = 200pts total = 310pts
Wraithknight is 295pts
To get the Warboss on Bike into CC isn't that hard because the speed of bikes teamed with Jink means he has a good shot of getting their, of course the Meganobz...not so much, they need a Trukk MINIMUM to get into CC, so thats another 35pts (Ram). So lets say that the ork player saturates the field with targets and the Eldar player is unable to shoot an AV10 vehicle to death for whatever reason and the Nobz get the charge off joined by the warboss on a bike.
Overwatch the WK has a 1/3rd chance to disintegrate one of the Meganobz. So lets say they miss because thats likely and they all get into B2B.
Wraithknight swings at I5 and has 2 hits and 2 dead Meganobz or 2 wounds off the Warboss (T6)
5 Meganobz = 20 attacks on the charge at S9. so 10 hits and 7wounds. The warboss swings and has 5 attacks 2-3 hit and 1-2 more wounds. Total? 8-9wounds. If its the model without the 5++ that is 5-6wounds, so probably a dead WK. It gets to stomp and will reliably kill the rest of the Nobz/Warboss no problem. So HOORAY! Orks spent 345pts to kill a 295pt model. they have a 35pt trukk left thats it.
Now if the WK has a Scattershield then those 9 wounds become 6 and those 6 wounds become 4 (5++ and 5+++) So now the Orks have wasted all of those points and achieved nothing but most of the wounds off a WK.
NOW if the WK had the Glaive as well as the shield you just lost even worse because the Warboss can't tank Strength D. Since the weapon is Master Crafted he will more likely hit times which means 3 Dead Mega Nobz. So on the ork turn instead of 20 S9 attacks its 8 S9 attacks. which means 4 hits and 3ish wounds. Teamed with the warboss not nearly enough.
I said Bully Boyz, not Meganobz. Bully Boyz hit on 3s. That means another couple wounds, so even on an Invuln-protected WK, it's still dead.
Secondly, you somehow think that Stomps will obliterate anything, which is patently untrue. With an average of two stomps, there's only a 1/3rd chance of getting a 6. Any other result will bounce harmlessly off Meganob armor. If we're going to pretend that anyone can magically roll 6s all the time, then we may as well not bother doing the math at all - Everyone rolls all 6s. Nobody with an invuln ever dies.
And yeah, the D weapon is stronger, but it's getting 2.5 hits, which amounts to 2.2 wounds or so - Enough to make a single dead enemy unlikely, but it's not magically getting three wounds.
Waaaghpower wrote: I dunno about Skitarii, because I rarely play against them.
CSM can tie it down in Melee forever using fearless Cultists or zombies.
As for the Bully Boyz, my math is just fine. The boss is on a bike and the Meganobz are in a trukk, so the WK charging is by no means a given. Unless he took the D CCW, the Warboss will tank both wounds since the Ork player gets to allocate. Then, the Bully Boyz inflict 5 wounds, and the Warboss inflicts 1 more.
And yeah, Stomps will cause more damage if the WK rolls a 6, but by that point he's already dead.
Many a Psychic Power, yes. Enfeeble can combo with other things to kick him in the teeth. There's the sanctic D weapon, or the Tzeentchy D weapon. The Divination Malediction that gives everyone Rending.
And yeah, Psychic Shriek, because it's a Primaris Power that almost every army can take automatically.
And what Fearless Cultists or Zombies are going to catch a Wraithknight? Ya know, a unit that's actually fast enough to choose its targets? And that still isn't good because stomp still exists.
Someone else told you how your math was bad for the Bully Boyz so I don't need to tackle that.
You're also talking about powers you actually have to roll. Psychic Shriek is the only one you're actually able to guarantee.
Let's see... Maybe the Zombies are bubble wrap, and the WK can't get close to a good target without getting close to them? Maybe they're using one of the multiple mobility-boosting relics that CSM have access to? Maybe there's a nearby Psyker who knows Soulswitch or Worldwrithe?
And yeah, a lot of those powers have to be rolled for, but... So what? Pretty much everyone can get Shriek anyways if they need it, on top of the many other good powers available.
Finally, what's wrong with my math? I already explained how it works. If facing a sword/board WK, more Bully Boyz will do the trick in place of the Warboss.
A PK Warboss on a bike and 5 Bully Boyz will kill a Wraithknight in close combat, even if it has an invuln. (The Warboss is just there to tank damage. If it has the D CCW, just taking more Meganobz is probably the better route. Or just swarm it with Boyz and don't worry about killing it.)
PK Warboss on a Bike = 110pts 5 MegaNobz = 200pts total = 310pts
Wraithknight is 295pts
To get the Warboss on Bike into CC isn't that hard because the speed of bikes teamed with Jink means he has a good shot of getting their, of course the Meganobz...not so much, they need a Trukk MINIMUM to get into CC, so thats another 35pts (Ram). So lets say that the ork player saturates the field with targets and the Eldar player is unable to shoot an AV10 vehicle to death for whatever reason and the Nobz get the charge off joined by the warboss on a bike.
Overwatch the WK has a 1/3rd chance to disintegrate one of the Meganobz. So lets say they miss because thats likely and they all get into B2B.
Wraithknight swings at I5 and has 2 hits and 2 dead Meganobz or 2 wounds off the Warboss (T6)
5 Meganobz = 20 attacks on the charge at S9. so 10 hits and 7wounds. The warboss swings and has 5 attacks 2-3 hit and 1-2 more wounds. Total? 8-9wounds. If its the model without the 5++ that is 5-6wounds, so probably a dead WK. It gets to stomp and will reliably kill the rest of the Nobz/Warboss no problem. So HOORAY! Orks spent 345pts to kill a 295pt model. they have a 35pt trukk left thats it.
Now if the WK has a Scattershield then those 9 wounds become 6 and those 6 wounds become 4 (5++ and 5+++) So now the Orks have wasted all of those points and achieved nothing but most of the wounds off a WK.
NOW if the WK had the Glaive as well as the shield you just lost even worse because the Warboss can't tank Strength D. Since the weapon is Master Crafted he will more likely hit times which means 3 Dead Mega Nobz. So on the ork turn instead of 20 S9 attacks its 8 S9 attacks. which means 4 hits and 3ish wounds. Teamed with the warboss not nearly enough.
I said Bully Boyz, not Meganobz. Bully Boyz hit on 3s. That means another couple wounds, so even on an Invuln-protected WK, it's still dead.
Secondly, you somehow think that Stomps will obliterate anything, which is patently untrue. With an average of two stomps, there's only a 1/3rd chance of getting a 6. Any other result will bounce harmlessly off Meganob armor. If we're going to pretend that anyone can magically roll 6s all the time, then we may as well not bother doing the math at all - Everyone rolls all 6s. Nobody with an invuln ever dies.
And yeah, the D weapon is stronger, but it's getting 2.5 hits, which amounts to 2.2 wounds or so - Enough to make a single dead enemy unlikely, but it's not magically getting three wounds.
Stop twisting the math so you sound right.
Ok Lets go off Bullyboyz then. That means a guaranteed dead wraithknight. But since your taking Bullyboyz you have to take 5 meganobz in 3 units. So 15 total at 40pts a pop = 600pts, Give them all Trukkz with Rams and now your looking at 705pts invested in 3 FRAGILE trukkz. Add in the Warboss on a bike, and lets assume using common sense your giving him a Warbiker squad with Nob/PK and probably a painboy to escort him and your looking at around 328pts for your command squad. Grand total 1033pts for 3 Trukkz full of Bullyboyz and a Bike Command squad. Leaving you with 467pts to spend on Troops. In a Normal cad you can get away with just 2 units of grots But realistically you don't have many points left over for to many threats.
So what you are telling me is that in your supposed list against an Eldar List that has a single Wraithknight in it, you don't think the Eldar player will prioritize 3 AV10 Trukkz with Bully Boyz inside which account for almost 1/2 of your army? Really?
Turn 1 a Wraithknight can delete a trukk no problem. 2 left. Lets say he has 3 units of Min Scat Bikes as well because realistically thats whats going to happen, that or some Warp spiders. 3 Scat bikes can KILL a trukk every turn as well. 12 Shots, 8 hits, at S6 = 4 Glances/pens on average. So now your Bully Boyz are walking up the field.
I can keep going on with this nonsensical situation but it doesn't really prove much because we all know that when the dice hit the table all bets are off. However, from a theory hammer perspective you have little to no chance of reaching the wraithknight with 3 units of Bully Boyz and realistically you just wasted all your points on units that an Eldar player looks forward to facing because of how easy it is to kill them with their plethora of Strength D weapons, rapid firing high strength weapons and hell even bladestorm shuriken weapons.
No, Bullyboyz won't beat an Eldar list nor will they ever beat a Wraithknight when the Eldar player has even basic common sense.
Plus the fact that orks are probably not the best match up currently against eldar...
(the only mc's I have problems with are the tide, and flying tyranids and demon princes)
And demon princes only when doing crazy relic/psyker shenanigans.
Chariots).
