Sorry, the Riptide soaking more firepower than a Warhound titan already broke SoD for me.

Martel732 wrote:
Sorry, the Riptide soaking more firepower than a Warhound titan already broke SoD for me.

I'm sorry I bothered responding. Fine, go back to endlessly whining about MCs.

Sorry I was obnoxious. This topic is very troublesome for me.

MCs cannot be fixed with a blanket approach.
No matter how you reduce them the lower end ones (my poor nids) just get even worse.

The higher end ones are still good.


They just need repointing badly.
That's the only real way to fix them properly.

 Jackal wrote:
MCs cannot be fixed with a blanket approach.
No matter how you reduce them the lower end ones (my poor nids) just get even worse.

The higher end ones are still good.


They just need repointing badly.
That's the only real way to fix them properly.

As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

Martel - I'm with you 100% bud.

Blanket approach is hopeless as it'd never work fairly throughout the board.

Repoint all models as they should be and job done.

The turmoil with terminators and some other problems units is that they are VERY difficult to point because of lack of balance of offense/ defense(terminators), hit or miss nature (some Ork units) or other various reasons.

But it's CLEAR that there are several often-spammed units that are clearly undercosted.

Exactly.
Fexs weren't even spammed when you could gear them up at 113 points or less.
That was what, 2 books ago?

Ever since then they have been over costed.


I just find it strange that's nids are the most MC orientated army in the game, yet all bar 1 of them is stupidly over priced for what they do.
(Flyrant being the exception here)

A small tweak that could be made is to remove the smash SR from all MC's and then reduce the cost of the MC's accordingly. The smash rules would then be given on MC CCW profiles instead.

This makes it so if you want a dakka fex, he's actually cheaper because your no longer paying for the AP 2 and Smash USR until you purchase those CCW's at which point he returns to the current value.

Riptide would lose the ap2 but probably still need a point increase.

And if people are concerned this is still an overnerf, we could consider MC's to have a base ap4

There is no overnerf for the Riptide atm. That's how crazy it is compared to say, a Leman Russ.

The issue is people see a problem with the MC type as opposed to a bunch of models that are over powered that just so happen to be MC. You don't fix them by nerfing MC. Attack the actual problems, not the symptoms.

Except making MC's AP4 and binning smash wouldn't work either.

Nids MC's all share CCW types with other models in their range.
So you'd have to create specific rules for the monstrous ones.

Fexs gain AP2 and +1S from smash (providing they don't take claws) So the gain is minimal for them.


The boost in strength really is dependant on the actual MC.


Daemons rarely need AP2 anyway as most of the bigger ones are running gift weapons that provide it no matter what.




It's a blanket coverage that can't work as the MC's vary too much.

Here are some main BRB changes I would be down with to balance Vehicles & MCs.

1) Smash grants AP3 on all attacks, or substitute your attacks for D3 AP1 attacks at 2x Str armourbane. MCs AND Walkers get Smash & Move through Cover

2) Vehicles get armour saves. Either create a system where AV__ equals X+ save, +1 for Tank -1 for Open-topped, or Errata every single vehicle to have specific Armour saves. There is no reason to skip this step just because the "to wound" uses AV rather than a chart.

3) MCs also roll on a Damage chart. I would create a single chart for both Vehicles & MCs and maybe make it a D3 chart with simple effects like Stunned (which works for both). The highest result could outright kill the target, but it needs to be hard to get, like you need +2 on your roll to get it.
AP1 is the only AP that adds +1 to the chart.

That's just a start, but think those 3 changes would instantly create a better balance for MCs, Walkers, etc.

-

With those 3 changes alone not 1 tyranid MC would be close to use able.
You just removed all AP2 or better from the army, so they now can't deal with 2+ except with 1-3 random attacks. (And warp blast Lance shot)

So a fex averages around 0.64 of a wound against terminators.
Then then kill it easily with return attacks.

So, it's crippled nids.
Riptide and dreadknight however still perform perfectly due to one being a shooter and the other accessing AP2 weapons.

They are slightly easier to kill at the expense of another army.
You just recreated grav all over again lol.

Biggest...scrap that.
MCs have two issues.
1. They exist in armies they have no right to exist in.
2. Those same MCs residing in armies they have no right to exist in are also loaded with powerful, ranged weaponry.

 Jackal wrote:

Spoiler:

With those 3 changes alone not 1 tyranid MC would be close to use able.
You just removed all AP2 or better from the army, so they now can't deal with 2+ except with 1-3 random attacks. (And warp blast Lance shot)

So a fex averages around 0.64 of a wound against terminators.
Then then kill it easily with return attacks.

So, it's crippled nids.
Riptide and dreadknight however still perform perfectly due to one being a shooter and the other accessing AP2 weapons.

They are slightly easier to kill at the expense of another army.
You just recreated grav all over again lol

.

Nids need a new codex with
A) all their darn rules in one place and
B) Better rules. Several units being Beasts for starters, including most of the MCs. Can you imagine Monstrous Creature Beast Carnifex? Or just give the army a blanket rule "Tyranid Beasts: all units from this codex add +3" to every move, run or charge"

It is as said, there is no blanket fix for MCs that doesn't screw over Nids, so let's fix the MC rules, then immediately fix Nids

-

Specifically balancing the individual units would be ideal.
Barring that, I've thought about instead of the "double toughness is instant death" mechanic, maybe wounds suffered scale with the to wound chart.

When the chart usually "caps" at 2+ to wound, instead it would deal an additional wound for each point of strength beyond that. So the lascannon vs. TMC (s9 vs. T6) would deal 2 wounds, and a Hammerhead's Railgun would deal 3 wounds.

This wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would help de-emphasize the value of the T4 to T5 jump as well as make single-shot high strength weapons a bit better. It still nerfs TMC's more than ideal, but helps (slightly) vs Riptides, WK, and the other primary offenders.

Thoughts? Would this break something in an unintended way?

 Galef wrote:

 Jackal wrote:

Spoiler:

With those 3 changes alone not 1 tyranid MC would be close to use able.
You just removed all AP2 or better from the army, so they now can't deal with 2+ except with 1-3 random attacks. (And warp blast Lance shot)

So a fex averages around 0.64 of a wound against terminators.
Then then kill it easily with return attacks.

So, it's crippled nids.
Riptide and dreadknight however still perform perfectly due to one being a shooter and the other accessing AP2 weapons.

They are slightly easier to kill at the expense of another army.
You just recreated grav all over again lol

.

Nids need a new codex with
A) all their darn rules in one place and
B) Better rules. Several units being Beasts for starters, including most of the MCs. Can you imagine Monstrous Creature Beast Carnifex? Or just give the army a blanket rule "Tyranid Beasts: all units from this codex add +3" to every move, run or charge"

It is as said, there is no blanket fix for MCs that doesn't screw over Nids, so let's fix the MC rules, then immediately fix Nids

-

Yes.
Yes to Tyranids becoming Beasts.
personally I'd be happy if just Hormagaunts became Beasts, maybe Genestealers as well but blanketing Nids with the Beast rule or even a 3" boost would be amazing.

Talinsin wrote:
Specifically balancing the individual units would be ideal.
Barring that, I've thought about instead of the "double toughness is instant death" mechanic, maybe wounds suffered scale with the to wound chart.

When the chart usually "caps" at 2+ to wound, instead it would deal an additional wound for each point of strength beyond that. So the lascannon vs. TMC (s9 vs. T6) would deal 2 wounds, and a Hammerhead's Railgun would deal 3 wounds.

This wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would help de-emphasize the value of the T4 to T5 jump as well as make single-shot high strength weapons a bit better. It still nerfs TMC's more than ideal, but helps (slightly) vs Riptides, WK, and the other primary offenders.

Thoughts? Would this break something in an unintended way?

A discussion on exactly that sort of rule for your perusal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still can't get over hammerhead railgun deals one wound. Absurd. Suspension of disbelief breaking levels of absurd.

"wound" does not mean "tanked a railgun shot to center mass with no issue". If it helps just assume the shot hit the carapace or something (or hell, that it was a clean miss and the wound was from the round's windshear).

Taking a wound means that you took a wound. It's not "it hit the carapace or something".

Politely disagree. An exarch that loses a wound to a heavy bolter didn't necessarily have half his limbs blown off and just kept going. A space marine captain on a bike that gets wounded by a lascannon isn't necessarily driving around with a new window in his chest (though some fluff suggests he might be!). Wounds, at least in some cases, are partially "plot armor." A troup master isn't physically more resillient than a regular harlequin. He just has more plot armor letting him stay in the fight longer. That first bolter shot always grazes him or narrowly misses him but eats up some of the extra time he stole from the Mora-Heg.

That said, MCs in 40k are often depicted as literally being shot in the guts with lascannons and plasma and continuing to press the attack, so it's not all plot armor in the case of some units. Wounds are abstractions the same way to-hit, to-wound, armor saves are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Jackal wrote:

Spoiler:

With those 3 changes alone not 1 tyranid MC would be close to use able.
You just removed all AP2 or better from the army, so they now can't deal with 2+ except with 1-3 random attacks. (And warp blast Lance shot)

So a fex averages around 0.64 of a wound against terminators.
Then then kill it easily with return attacks.

So, it's crippled nids.
Riptide and dreadknight however still perform perfectly due to one being a shooter and the other accessing AP2 weapons.

They are slightly easier to kill at the expense of another army.
You just recreated grav all over again lol

.

Nids need a new codex with
A) all their darn rules in one place and
B) Better rules. Several units being Beasts for starters, including most of the MCs. Can you imagine Monstrous Creature Beast Carnifex? Or just give the army a blanket rule "Tyranid Beasts: all units from this codex add +3" to every move, run or charge"

It is as said, there is no blanket fix for MCs that doesn't screw over Nids, so let's fix the MC rules, then immediately fix Nids

-

Yes.
Yes to Tyranids becoming Beasts.
personally I'd be happy if just Hormagaunts became Beasts, maybe Genestealers as well but blanketing Nids with the Beast rule or even a 3" boost would be amazing.

Doesn't this invalidate the "gimmick" of a lot of tyranid units and also arguably remove some of their gravitas? Gargoyles, for instance, don't really have much over a regular gaunt now except a blind attack that doesn't kick in until the end of the first round of assault and the ability to deepstrike. Shrikes would be worse warriors. So would raveners if I'm not mistaken? And then you have things like the carnifex who seems to be intended to feel "big, heavy and stompy." Basically a battering ram on legs. Which is cool, but sort of hard to justify when he's running laps around eldar.

Some variation on the +3" idea might fit better. I kind of like the idea of synapse allowing you to issue a "synaptic impulse", basically a buff, at the start of each turn. Letting all 'nids add 3" to their movement, run, and charge might Fit the bill. A carnifex or foot tyrant with such a bonus would cover 13"-18" on turn 1, which isn't awful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while we're on the subject, would anyone be opposed to giving all MCs armor bane as a standard rule again? I never felt it was over the top in 5th, though the abundance of parking lots may have had something to do with that. Smash is a rule seldom used from what I've seen, and is mostly useful as a way of getting AP2. It would help tyranids out against mechanized armies. Tau MCs might have a special rule preventing them from getting armorbane with the justification that "tau don't like punching things."

I wouldn't be opposed to any buffs to MCs as long as their existance is limited back to armies they belong in - Melee armies.

" MCs in 40k are often depicted as literally being shot in the guts with lascannons and plasma and continuing to press the attack"

Then pay for it, absurd as it is.

The problem is the separate vehicles rules.
If you got rid of these and replaced them with a rule set to cover all units in a similar way.You would be able to represent all the units in the game in a logical and proportional way.
And as proportional rules allow much better game balance in the first place.You could just enjoy playing the game rather than obsessing over 'randum' charts and very 'special ' rules.

If you have to keep the current rules I would much prefer vehicles to be treated as M/Cs and every other unit in 40k.(Its easier to implement .)

That's not the problem. The problem is that GW can't appropriately cost units. It might be easier to correctly cost units in your system, or maybe not.

The system is only good as the judgment calls made when pricing units.

@Martel732.
Well if it is not the problem , then we can simply change the unit type between M/C and vehicle, or and it makes no difference to the point values?

As M/Cs and (walking) vehicles have similar functions in lots of cases,why are they treated as different unit types in 40k?

if the system does not give proportional results, you have no hope of arriving at a provable level of (im)balance.

Martel732 wrote:
" MCs in 40k are often depicted as literally being shot in the guts with lascannons and plasma and continuing to press the attack"

Then pay for it, absurd as it is.

Are wraith knights and carnifex not paying enough points for the ability to not be insta-gibbed by a hammerhead?

 Galef wrote:

 Jackal wrote:

Spoiler:

With those 3 changes alone not 1 tyranid MC would be close to use able.
You just removed all AP2 or better from the army, so they now can't deal with 2+ except with 1-3 random attacks. (And warp blast Lance shot)

So a fex averages around 0.64 of a wound against terminators.
Then then kill it easily with return attacks.

So, it's crippled nids.
Riptide and dreadknight however still perform perfectly due to one being a shooter and the other accessing AP2 weapons.

They are slightly easier to kill at the expense of another army.
You just recreated grav all over again lol

.

Nids need a new codex with
A) all their darn rules in one place and
B) Better rules. Several units being Beasts for starters, including most of the MCs. Can you imagine Monstrous Creature Beast Carnifex? Or just give the army a blanket rule "Tyranid Beasts: all units from this codex add +3" to every move, run or charge"

It is as said, there is no blanket fix for MCs that doesn't screw over Nids, so let's fix the MC rules, then immediately fix Nids

-

Most of their Monstrous Creatures shouldn't be Beasts. However, all regular Infantry outside Warriors I'm a fan of becoming beasts as they're supposed to be nimble and stuff. But things like the Carnifex and Mawloc and Tervigon? Too bulky looking to be fast.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" MCs in 40k are often depicted as literally being shot in the guts with lascannons and plasma and continuing to press the attack"

Then pay for it, absurd as it is.

Are wraith knights and carnifex not paying enough points for the ability to not be insta-gibbed by a hammerhead?

Nope. Not at all. Of course, this is beside the point that a hammerhead should cause catastrophic damage with a weapon like that. Not one wound.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" MCs in 40k are often depicted as literally being shot in the guts with lascannons and plasma and continuing to press the attack"

Then pay for it, absurd as it is.

Are wraith knights and carnifex not paying enough points for the ability to not be insta-gibbed by a hammerhead?

Wraithknight? HELL NO! pretty much everyone but Eldar players agree Wraithknights are undercosted in every concievable way.

As for the Carnifex it pays for the instagib ability against double strength and only double strength right across its statline. I2, 3+ save and six toughness is a joke. I've seen a Carnifex brood of three put down by a unit of Assault Marines with Lightning Claws at half the price - it was over in one turn and the Assault Marines didn't take a single wound.

Carnifex is still better than most vehicles. Depressing, that.

Martel732 wrote:
Carnifex is still better than most vehicles. Depressing, that.

Not really.
A base Carnifex costs 120 points and moves slow, so it's double the cost of a lot of Rhino chassis, a Whirlwind or Predator will kill it long before it gets close, I wouldn't be surprised if a Razorback could too.
Since the +2 attacks base FAQ you'd struggle to find a Dreadnought that wouldn't stomp it without suffering scratched paint.
There's plenty of reasons Tyranids are bottom of the Codex heap, Carnifexes are a good example.

Carnifexes are also far from the worst MC tyranids have. I'd actually put them in the upper third of TMCs.
Of the 16-19ish non-gargantuan TMCs in the game, there are maybe 4 or 5 I'd take over a carnifex.

Arson Fire wrote:
Carnifexes are also far from the worst MC tyranids have. I'd actually put them in the upper third of TMCs.
Of the 16-19ish non-gargantuan TMCs in the game, there are maybe 4 or 5 I'd take over a carnifex.

Harpy
Mawlock
Flyrant
Dimachaeron
Hive Crone

At least they'd be my picks.

I despise Harpies for being completely ineffectual, and would never take one aside from maybe in an intro game.
But aside from them, that's my list too.

I'm so happy to see so many people support the TMCs. Honestly, I think you would get better results arguing that anything not a daemon or a TMC, ie everything that is more metal than flesh or warp dust, be made a walker, and then arguing for fixing vehicle and walker rules. For the record, the only reason people complain about the hive tyrant is because that is the only thing you will see most of the time.

Anyhow, >insert< NidLivesMatter and Save The Tyranids memes

Martel732 wrote:


As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

That's exactly what I think, the only general rule that I would change is to bring more range in close combat rolls, I mean the possibility to hit on a 2+ and 6+. There are some models with WS8 or even more, so if they fight against some WS4 they should be able to hit on a 2+ of course, I don't get why BS is considered different than WS when it comes rolling to hit.

About MCs I think they're not a problem at all. To balance the game we have to cripple SM grav and their free vehicles, eldar D weapons, tau firepower and daemons psychic phase. Increasing some point values can fix the entire game.

Arson Fire wrote:
I despise Harpies for being completely ineffectual, and would never take one aside from maybe in an intro game.
But aside from them, that's my list too.

I like them.
They're a bit expensive for their actual damage output but equipped with Stranglethorns they draw attention and shots away from other units, they'd actually be better if they were toughness 4. Not too many S10 weapons can be pointed skywards, S9 and S8 instakill would actually make it more tempting to point bigger weapons at them.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

That's exactly what I think, the only general rule that I would change is to bring more range in close combat rolls, I mean the possibility to hit on a 2+ and 6+. There are some models with WS8 or even more, so if they fight against some WS4 they should be able to hit on a 2+ of course, I don't get why BS is considered different than WS when it comes rolling to hit.

About MCs I think they're not a problem at all. To balance the game we have to cripple SM grav and their free vehicles, eldar D weapons, tau firepower and daemons psychic phase. Increasing some point values can fix the entire game.

I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

That's exactly what I think, the only general rule that I would change is to bring more range in close combat rolls, I mean the possibility to hit on a 2+ and 6+. There are some models with WS8 or even more, so if they fight against some WS4 they should be able to hit on a 2+ of course, I don't get why BS is considered different than WS when it comes rolling to hit.

About MCs I think they're not a problem at all. To balance the game we have to cripple SM grav and their free vehicles, eldar D weapons, tau firepower and daemons psychic phase. Increasing some point values can fix the entire game.

I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Well I think most people tend to disagree with that. MCs are not the problem.

In every discussion where people mention that MC are a problem the comparison is always MC vs vehicles and trying to bring MC in line with Vehicle general weaknesses. MC don't need to be knocked down to Vehicles, Vehicles need to be made like everything else. Super Heavys and GMC are a different bag of BC.

Martel732 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" MCs in 40k are often depicted as literally being shot in the guts with lascannons and plasma and continuing to press the attack"

Then pay for it, absurd as it is.

Are wraith knights and carnifex not paying enough points for the ability to not be insta-gibbed by a hammerhead?

Nope. Not at all. Of course, this is beside the point that a hammerhead should cause catastrophic damage with a weapon like that. Not one wound.

Oops. That was meant to be wraith lords*, not knights. I think we're kind of looking at multiple issues here though. Generally speaking, I absolutely do not feel that a single heavy weapon shot should be able to take down an MC. Things like wraith lords and carnifex already struggle to be useful (despite the latter) being considered relatively good compared to most other MCs in its codex. A single lascannon should not be taking down my expensive MCs in a single lucky shot. Which is why they have multiple wounds. Which are theoretically factored into their points cost. Which means they do pay for it. Unless you feel wraith lords are terribly underpriced for what they get and are thus somehow not paying (enough) for their wounds.

The other issue we're addressing here is the hammerhead. While it's true that most heavy weapons should not be one-shotting MCs, the railhead is paying a lot of points for one really impressive shot. A couple editions ago, it was basically the most powerful weapon around outside of apoc. It's expensive, takes up a (previously limited) heavy support slot, and really wants to have some markerlights lighting up targets for it to make sure its shot lands, but there was gravitas to it. Now days, it struggles to do much against vehicles because of hull points, and it struggles to do much to MCs because it doesn't double them out. I don't think it would be unreasonable to make the railhead's shot strength D or at least give it insta-death on 6s or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

That's exactly what I think, the only general rule that I would change is to bring more range in close combat rolls, I mean the possibility to hit on a 2+ and 6+. There are some models with WS8 or even more, so if they fight against some WS4 they should be able to hit on a 2+ of course, I don't get why BS is considered different than WS when it comes rolling to hit.

About MCs I think they're not a problem at all. To balance the game we have to cripple SM grav and their free vehicles, eldar D weapons, tau firepower and daemons psychic phase. Increasing some point values can fix the entire game.

I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Well I think most people tend to disagree with that. MCs are not the problem.

In every discussion where people mention that MC are a problem the comparison is always MC vs vehicles and trying to bring MC in line with Vehicle general weaknesses. MC don't need to be knocked down to Vehicles, Vehicles need to be made like everything else. Super Heavys and GMC are a different bag of BC.

I agree with Lance here. The average MC does a pretty good job of feeling durable and scary without being impossible to kill or otherwise interact with. There are some notable exceptions that are in fact quite problematically powerful. Though the meta might make it feel otherwise, there are more "balanced" (or underpowered) MCs than problematically powerful MCs. Riptides could stand to be tweaked. The wraith knight is just too cheap. Flyrants are maybe too good, but mostly they're just better than other 'nid options. Storm surges are kind of a problem. Magnus has definitely been causing headaches. But these are specific offenders, and they aren't "OP" because of the MC rules. They're OP because of other issues.

Riptides are insanely durable and have answers to most counters to shooty units. Wraith knights are just too cheap. Flyrants are just pretty solid in general, but they're taken all over the place because of internal balance issues within the 'nid codex. Storm Surges are just insanely shooty and surprisingly good at melee. Magnus is... Magnus. None of these issues are directly related to the MC rules themselves.

The only broad change I might like to make to MCs in general is to possibly up their movement to 9". The game has sped up considerably with the proliferation of transports, bikes, the universal ability to run, etc. Letting MCs cross the table just a little faster seems appropriate considering their large size (long legs means big steps) without making them full fledged beasts.

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

That's exactly what I think, the only general rule that I would change is to bring more range in close combat rolls, I mean the possibility to hit on a 2+ and 6+. There are some models with WS8 or even more, so if they fight against some WS4 they should be able to hit on a 2+ of course, I don't get why BS is considered different than WS when it comes rolling to hit.

About MCs I think they're not a problem at all. To balance the game we have to cripple SM grav and their free vehicles, eldar D weapons, tau firepower and daemons psychic phase. Increasing some point values can fix the entire game.

I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Well I think most people tend to disagree with that. MCs are not the problem.

In every discussion where people mention that MC are a problem the comparison is always MC vs vehicles and trying to bring MC in line with Vehicle general weaknesses. MC don't need to be knocked down to Vehicles, Vehicles need to be made like everything else. Super Heavys and GMC are a different bag of BC.

No way to suppress them short of death is a huge huge advantage that is continually underplayed. They need a damage table at a minimum. Maybe they can also pick up 9" move.

Do you mean in the same way that every multi wound model that is not a vehicle is not suppressed short of death? And also vehicles that have not had any penetrating wounds?

We need to remove all the damage tables. Less rolling on random gak more actual playing the game.

You want to introduce a AoS style sliding stat line that adjusts based on the number of wounds a model has left? Yes. Agree. Great idea for vehicles and MC and multiwound models in general. But actually EXPANDING one of the worst aspects of vehicle rules to apply to other things is asinine. You are not looking to fix the actual problems in the game, you are looking to expand other problems with the game in an attempt to drag the rest of the game down into some crap mechanics medium that makes everything "fair" because everything has bull gak rules.

Getting rid of vehicles' liabilities works as well.

Martel732 wrote:
Getting rid of vehicles' liabilities works as well.

No, it doesn't work "as well". The other suggestion doesn't work at all. Fixing the actual problems with the game is not the same as expanding the problems to cover everybody. Actual productive (in as much as anything here is "productive") proposed rules attack the problems at the source. The MC unit type is not a problem and any blanket change to MC will, in general, break more things than it fixes.

Vehicle rules ARE a problem because pretty much every single one of them is some kind of exception to the basic mechanics the rest of the game runs on. Tau MC are a problem because besides not actually being MC they have a ridiculous set of tools to work with that make them very powerful. Not the MC unit type... but their own wargear options.

"Let's fix MC!" threads all come from the same 2 places. "Why do my vehicles get penetrated but tau robot suits don't!" and "I got walloped by some MC.... I hate that!". Neither addresses the actual issues by attacking the MC unit type.

I object to the cheapness of all the benefits of the unit type monstrous creature. So yeah, nerfing them works a well. They don't need free ap2 on top of no damage chart on top of never immobilizing themselves on top of having no facing. As currently implemented, i think it is a problem.

TIL that my 170 point Keeper of Secrets should be less durable overall and less killy than a Chapter Master, all while costing more.

Good to know.

 Jackal wrote:
With those 3 changes alone not 1 tyranid MC would be close to use able.
You just removed all AP2 or better from the army, so they now can't deal with 2+ except with 1-3 random attacks. (And warp blast Lance shot)

So a fex averages around 0.64 of a wound against terminators.
Then then kill it easily with return attacks.

So, it's crippled nids.
Riptide and dreadknight however still perform perfectly due to one being a shooter and the other accessing AP2 weapons.

They are slightly easier to kill at the expense of another army.
You just recreated grav all over again lol.

Nah a few Nid Mc's would still be ok Mawocks and tyrants come to mind. Also that would gut the riptide in close comabt with 2+ armor save guys like terminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
TIL that my 170 point Keeper of Secrets should be less durable overall and less killy than a Chapter Master, all while costing more.

Good to know.

A CM that can kill a Keeper of Secrets tends to be 200+ points. I mean I am not the best at math but I am pretty sure 170<200.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
TIL that my 170 point Keeper of Secrets should be less durable overall and less killy than a Chapter Master, all while costing more.

Good to know.

Never said that. I think people are just very used to the way MCs work, which hasn't changed much since 3rd, whereas vehicles are at near an all-time low. At least transports aren't death traps. The most viable vehicles are usually the cheapest ones, since they minimize the investment in such terrible models.

As it stands, Riptides can beat nearly any assault unit in my codex by virtue of immortality. That's supposed to be their weakness. But thanks to free AP2, and WS being a garbage-time stat, even DC fall before Riptides in melee. The only realistic thing in my codex vs a Riptide is a force axe. And Tau will murder said force axe long before it can assault. My frickin beatstick chapter master can't even win.

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
TIL that my 170 point Keeper of Secrets should be less durable overall and less killy than a Chapter Master, all while costing more.

Good to know.

Never said that. I think people are just very used to the way MCs work, which hasn't changed much since 3rd, whereas vehicles are at near an all-time low. At least transports aren't death traps. The most viable vehicles are usually the cheapest ones, since they minimize the investment in such terrible models.

As it stands, Riptides can beat nearly any assault unit in my codex by virtue of immortality. That's supposed to be their weakness. But thanks to free AP2, and WS being a garbage-time stat, even DC fall before Riptides in melee. The only realistic thing in my codex vs a Riptide is a force axe. And Tau will murder said force axe long before it can assault. My frickin beatstick chapter master can't even win.

I feel you're conflating the issues though. Most MCs are not innately problematic. Wraith lords aren't shaping the meta. You don't hear a lot of complaints about the exocrine or the keeper of secrets. Yes, MCs have certain rules (like AP2) built in, but they theoretically pay for those benefits as part of their base points cost. It doesn't really fit the niche/fluff/role of a keeper of secrets to be incapable of reliably taking on a squad of tac marines because it lacks AP2 (outside of rending). It does make sense for MCs to have things like move through cover because big stompy things can step over obstacles that smaller creatures have to scurry over or around.

While it does make as much sense for an MC to be "shaken" by shots that mess up its aim or "immobilized" by a blast that hurts its legs or to have one of its claws or swords suffer a "weapon destroyed" result, it also nerfs a bunch of units that don't really need nerfing. The aforementioned wraith lord and keeper of secrets are not problematic. Nerfing them won't improve balance. Adding additional damage tables might help nerf the MCs that are problematic, but it would also add unnecessary complication to the game while also units that don't need to be nerfed.

It kind of sounds like you're saying, "My vehicles have glaring weaknesses in the current rules, therefore so should MCs even though that unnecessarily punishes most of them." So instead of making relatively balanced units bad and bad units worse in the name of bringing them in-line with vehicles, wouldn't it make more sense to simplify the rules by modifying or removing the vehicle damage chart, armor facings, etc, and then addressing the actually problematic MCs individually?

Or we can raise costs on a bunch of stuff. But that puts fewer GW models on the table. Although that's how they handled Chimera and Vendetta spam.

Or, conversely, we can make most vehicles much cheaper to reflect their crappiness. 100 pt base leman russ, anyone? Because that's about what it's worth in 7th. Land Raider is 175 tops given how incredibly dysfunctional its entire concept is.

Martel732 wrote:
Or we can raise costs on a bunch of stuff. But that puts fewer GW models on the table. Although that's how they handled Chimera and Vendetta spam.

Or, conversely, we can make most vehicles much cheaper to reflect their crappiness. 100 pt base leman russ, anyone? Because that's about what it's worth in 7th. Land Raider is 175 tops given how incredibly dysfunctional its entire concept is.

I can't speak to exact points costs, but I think both of those options would be better than unnecessarily nerfing a bunch of MCs because we feel bad about the crummyness of most vehicles.

If we want to fix vehicles, we can have (and have had) a discussion about that separately. Swinging the nerf bat at MCs because of durability envy is a very roundabout way of trying to help vehicles.

Martel just doesn't like how his vehicles function so he lashes out at other unit types.

 Lance845 wrote:
Martel just doesn't like how his vehicles function so he lashes out at other unit types.

Vehicles are the usual comparison because they sit in a similar or identical points bracket and when they're misplaced like the Riptide they have a similar role in carrying guns too big to be dragged around by infantry.
It is a problem that tank/transports are more likely to kill their cargo than their targets and I would like to see MCs lash out in a similar way, but I do agree with you that replecating a problem doesn't solve the problem.

Personally I'd like to see GSC confirmed as part of the Tyranid faction or at least confirmed as Battlebrothers. I think they have the potential to change the Meta for the better.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Martel just doesn't like how his vehicles function so he lashes out at other unit types.

Vehicles are the usual comparison because they sit in a similar or identical points bracket and when they're misplaced like the Riptide they have a similar role in carrying guns too big to be dragged around by infantry.
It is a problem that tank/transports are more likely to kill their cargo than their targets and I would like to see MCs lash out in a similar way, but I do agree with you that replecating a problem doesn't solve the problem.

Personally I'd like to see GSC confirmed as part of the Tyranid faction or at least confirmed as Battlebrothers. I think they have the potential to change the Meta for the better.

I don't disagree that vehicle rules are crap. But that means vehicle rules are crap. The way to fix vehicle rules is to fix vehicles not target other unit types.

-Get rid of the vehicle damage chart.

-Introduce one of the best ideas from AoS and have mult wound models degrade their stat line as they loose health. Don't even remove weapons. It's crap to pay for guns and then not be able to use them. Maybe reduce the number of guns they can fire in a turn? Get slower by reducing movement. Maybe reduce your save by 1 as your armors give out.

-Get rid of AV and give vehicles a save and a T value based on their current AV. T based on highest AV (a tank is a tank regardless of what side you are shooting) and Sv based on facing.
AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+
13 / 9 / 3+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 4+

So a Land Raider would be T10 Sv 2+/2+/2+ while a dreadnaught would be T7 4+/4+/4+

-Get rid of firing arcs, it should be assumed that the driver/pilot of a vehicle is positioning it while driving to make best use of the vehicles weapony.

-Either make it so vehicles have to fire all weapons at the same target like everyone else or make it so each unit has to fire each weapon at a single target. (i.e. a unit with bolters, a plasma pistol, and a lascanon can choose to fire all it's bolters at one target, the plasma pistol at another, and the lascannon at a 3rd.) Then people can get units with good mixes of weaponry and maximize those weapons effectiveness by shooting those guns at the targets they work best against, just like vehicles can now.

Fixed. Vehicles are now decent units and function like everything else in the game. MC unit type didn't even need to be touched. Now Nids need better internal/external balance so more than 5 of their units are worth a damn.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Martel just doesn't like how his vehicles function so he lashes out at other unit types.

Vehicles are the usual comparison because they sit in a similar or identical points bracket and when they're misplaced like the Riptide they have a similar role in carrying guns too big to be dragged around by infantry.
It is a problem that tank/transports are more likely to kill their cargo than their targets and I would like to see MCs lash out in a similar way, but I do agree with you that replecating a problem doesn't solve the problem.

Personally I'd like to see GSC confirmed as part of the Tyranid faction or at least confirmed as Battlebrothers. I think they have the potential to change the Meta for the better.

I don't disagree that vehicle rules are crap. But that means vehicle rules are crap. The way to fix vehicle rules is to fix vehicles not target other unit types.

-Get rid of the vehicle damage chart.

-Introduce one of the best ideas from AoS and have mult wound models degrade their stat line as they loose health. Don't even remove weapons. It's crap to pay for guns and then not be able to use them. Maybe reduce the number of guns they can fire in a turn? Get slower by reducing movement. Maybe reduce your save by 1 as your armors give out.

-Get rid of AV and give vehicles a save and a T value based on their current AV. T based on highest AV (a tank is a tank regardless of what side you are shooting) and Sv based on facing.
AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+
13 / 9 / 3+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 4+

So a Land Raider would be T10 Sv 2+/2+/2+ while a dreadnaught would be T7 4+/4+/4+

-Get rid of firing arcs, it should be assumed that the driver/pilot of a vehicle is positioning it while driving to make best use of the vehicles weapony.

-Either make it so vehicles have to fire all weapons at the same target like everyone else or make it so each unit has to fire each weapon at a single target. (i.e. a unit with bolters, a plasma pistol, and a lascanon can choose to fire all it's bolters at one target, the plasma pistol at another, and the lascannon at a 3rd.) Then people can get units with good mixes of weaponry and maximize those weapons effectiveness by shooting those guns at the targets they work best against, just like vehicles can now.

Fixed. Vehicles are now decent units and function like everything else in the game. MC unit type didn't even need to be touched. Now Nids need better internal/external balance so more than 5 of their units are worth a damn.

I'm not against that.
I like the degradation chart.

-Get rid of AV and give vehicles a save and a T value based on their current AV. T based on highest AV (a tank is a tank regardless of what side you are shooting) and Sv based on facing.
AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+
13 / 9 / 3+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 4+

So a Land Raider would be T10 Sv 2+/2+/2+ while a dreadnaught would be T7 4+/4+/4+

I think, by your method, the Dreadnought would be T8 3+/3+/4+, or T9/3+/3+/4+ for Ironclads, wouldn't it?

That would also make Armored Sentinels T8/3+/4+/4+, which seems a bit much.

Might be worth tweaking that to make its T value based on the average (rounding up?) of all facings, to better represent the vehicle's overall durability (and better distinguish between things like Landraiders and Leman Russes), though that might interfere with existing differentiations (like between Dreadnoughts and Ironclad Dreadnoughts)...

Shifting the save-per-AV value would also be a potential choice.

AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+ rerollable
13 / 9 / 2+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 5+

Landraider: T10 with 2+/2+/2+ all rerollable
Leman Russ: T9 with 2+/2+/5+ front rerollable
Hammerhead: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Ironclad: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Dreadnought: T8 with 3+/3+/5+
Armored Sentinel: T7 with 3+/5+/5+
Sentinel: T6 with 5+/5+/5+

Would Open-Topped reduce the armor save by 1 on all facings?

How would Ramming work, or would that be replaced by something like Hammer of Wrath? How about things like Melta, Armorbane, Haywire, Poison, Fleshbane, etc.?

Edit: I'd rather just get rid of facings entirely, frankly. They seem like they bog the game down more than anything, and put an odd onus/vulnerability on vehicles that by most rights a MC would share (weaker durability against attacks coming from certain angles). The increased need for abstraction seems worth the decrease in complexity to me.

Differentiation between things like an Ironclad and a Dreadnought could be made by individual changes, like an increase in the save to 2+ instead of 3+, or the like.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

-Get rid of AV and give vehicles a save and a T value based on their current AV. T based on highest AV (a tank is a tank regardless of what side you are shooting) and Sv based on facing.
AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+
13 / 9 / 3+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 4+

So a Land Raider would be T10 Sv 2+/2+/2+ while a dreadnaught would be T7 4+/4+/4+

I think, by your method, the Dreadnought would be T8 3+/3+/4+, or T9/3+/3+/4+ for Ironclads, wouldn't it?

That would also make Armored Sentinels T8/3+/4+/4+, which seems a bit much.

Might be worth tweaking that to make its T value based on the average (rounding up?) of all facings, to better represent the vehicle's overall durability (and better distinguish between things like Landraiders and Leman Russes), though that might interfere with existing differentiations (like between Dreadnoughts and Ironclad Dreadnoughts)...

Your numbers might be more accurate. I was going off of what I remember from my old roommates armys about a year ago.

Yes, the individual units could use some tweaks, but it's a good general guide line for rough equivalencies. Also, that highest AV = T means roughly the same str of weapons are wounding on roughly the same dice rolls as they would be currently. A str 8 weapon would need a 6 to glance av 14. A str 8 weapon needs a 6+ to wound T10. Str 9 5+ str 10 4+. The weapons stay the same effectiveness. In return for all facings having the same T a weapon 1 step weaker can also wound on a 6+ (str 7 vs T10). It's pretty well balanced.

Would Open-Topped reduce the armor save by 1 on all facings?

Sure! or reduce T by 1.

How would Ramming work, or would that be replaced by something like Hammer of Wrath?

Why not? Hammer of wrath is already a ram by a big ass model. Base the str of the HoW on the T value of any vehicle that doesn't have a Str and Dozer blades and the like can be +1 str to rams.

Toughness of front facing used in place of a Strength stat. Not without merit.

 Lance845 wrote:

Your numbers might be more accurate. I was going off of what I remember from my old roommates armys about a year ago.

Yes, the individual units could use some tweaks, but it's a good general guide line for rough equivalencies. Also, that highest AV = T means roughly the same str of weapons are wounding on roughly the same dice rolls as they would be currently. A str 8 weapon would need a 6 to glance av 14. A str 8 weapon needs a 6+ to wound T10. Str 9 5+ str 10 4+. The weapons stay the same effectiveness. In return for all facings having the same T a weapon 1 step weaker can also wound on a 6+ (str 7 vs T10). It's pretty well balanced.

True, I'd forgotten about the increased vulnerability to weapons one strength lower. While that also means an increased durability against higher strength weapons (what used to auto-"wound" AV10 now only wounds on a 2+), I think most vehicles become overall more vulnerable as a result of the direct translation change.

Land Speeders become interesting.
Thunderwolves with ranged weaponry.

 Lance845 wrote:

Would Open-Topped reduce the armor save by 1 on all facings?

Sure! or reduce T by 1.

I suppose either method could work, fluffwise. Reducing T would at least somewhat correspond with vulnerability to ID (though that would only really be applicable for AV10 or lower - it would allow Hammerheads to ID Raiders, for instance).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


Shifting the save-per-AV value would also be a potential choice.

AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+ rerollable
13 / 9 / 2+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 5+

Landraider: T10 with 2+/2+/2+ all rerollable
Leman Russ: T9 with 2+/2+/5+ front rerollable
Hammerhead: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Ironclad: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Dreadnought: T8 with 3+/3+/5+
Armored Sentinel: T7 with 3+/5+/5+
Sentinel: T6 with 5+/5+/5+

If by rerollable you mean 2+ 6+ I can start to agree with this. But a 2+ rerollable is bull gak and shouldn't exist in the game at all. In my opinion just about every instance of rerollable in the game should be changed to function like +1 BS. A 3+ becomes 2+ A 2+ can reroll to succeed on a 6+. etc etc... It would fix a ton of the total Bull Crap shenanigans in the current meta.

Edit: I'd rather just get rid of facings entirely, frankly. They seem like they bog the game down more than anything, and put an odd onus/vulnerability on vehicles that by most rights a MC would share (weaker durability against attacks coming from certain angles). The increased need for abstraction seems worth the decrease in complexity to me.

Differentiation between things like an Ironclad and a Dreadnought could be made by individual changes, like an increase in the save to 2+ instead of 3+, or the like.

I don't have a problem with that either. But it also needs to come with a general decrease in T/Sv values on vehicles to bring them better in line with the rest of the models in the game. There is a lot more AV 13 in the game because they have Av 10/11 on the rear to make up for it then there is T9. In the saves are not getting weaker and vehicles just have 1T and 1 Sv like other models then I would reduce all their T values on my chart by 1 as a general rule with further -1s for open topped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Your numbers might be more accurate. I was going off of what I remember from my old roommates armys about a year ago.

Yes, the individual units could use some tweaks, but it's a good general guide line for rough equivalencies. Also, that highest AV = T means roughly the same str of weapons are wounding on roughly the same dice rolls as they would be currently. A str 8 weapon would need a 6 to glance av 14. A str 8 weapon needs a 6+ to wound T10. Str 9 5+ str 10 4+. The weapons stay the same effectiveness. In return for all facings having the same T a weapon 1 step weaker can also wound on a 6+ (str 7 vs T10). It's pretty well balanced.

True, I'd forgotten about the increased vulnerability to weapons one strength lower. While that also means an increased durability against higher strength weapons (what used to auto-"wound" AV10 now only wounds on a 2+), I think most vehicles become overall more vulnerable as a result of the direct translation change.

Except now they have a Save to roll. Mathematically it all balances out I think. No auto wounds, 1 str weaker can wound on a 6+ armor saves are around to offset shots coming at them when vehicles previously had no saves.

Haywire can be changed to auto wounding vehicles on a 3+ with "ap2" or whatever so vehicles don't get a save against it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


Shifting the save-per-AV value would also be a potential choice.

AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+ rerollable
13 / 9 / 2+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 5+

Landraider: T10 with 2+/2+/2+ all rerollable
Leman Russ: T9 with 2+/2+/5+ front rerollable
Hammerhead: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Ironclad: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Dreadnought: T8 with 3+/3+/5+
Armored Sentinel: T7 with 3+/5+/5+
Sentinel: T6 with 5+/5+/5+

If by rerollable you mean 2+ 6+ I can start to agree with this. But a 2+ rerollable is bull gak and shouldn't exist in the game at all. In my opinion just about every instance of rerollable in the game should be changed to function like +1 BS. A 3+ becomes 2+ A 2+ can reroll to succeed on a 6+. etc etc... It would fix a ton of the total Bull Crap shenanigans in the current meta.

Whoops, forgot to make that clear! Yes, I'd grant rerolls exactly as you describe. Good catch.

Edit: tangentially but related to the reroll-as-per-BS, I'd also like to see negative modifiers work along similar lines (at least for matched stat resolution methods like WS/WS and S/T, though if I ever get around to doing a complete rewrite, that would also include BS/Evasion), where what would be worse than a 6+ requires rerolling a successful roll on a 2+, worsening the reroll's requirement for each step down. For example, a Plasma Gun fired at a T10 Landraider would need a 6+, then a 2+, to successfully wound, while a Lasgun would need to roll a 6 then a reroll of a 6.

That way no weapon is entirely useless against almost any target (Except S2 or less against T10, or S1 against T9, or their equivalents in another matched stat comparison), but there are severe diminishing returns to the point that Lasguns don't end up slaughtering Land Raiders left and right.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Haywire can be changed to auto wounding vehicles on a 3+ with "ap2" or whatever so vehicles don't get a save against it.

That would bypass the high T/low wound count of vehicles a bit too much for my taste. Perhaps 2+ to wound, with Rending?

Armorbane/Ordnance/Melta/Tank Hunter could increase the strength of the weapon for to-wound rolls.

I'm in favor of creating a Mecha subtype, so that Riptides/Ghostkeels/Stormsurges and the like could gain more appropriate vulnerabilities (to all of the above) and immunities (to things like Fleshbane and Poison).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I'm in favor of creating a Mecha subtype, so that Riptides/Ghostkeels/Stormsurges and the like could gain more appropriate vulnerabilities (to all of the above) and immunities (to things like Fleshbane and Poison).

Don't really need to. They are Vehicle Walkers. If vehicles function like other models then vehicle walkers suddenly becomes very similar to MC with the exceptions that poison doesn't work on them because they have HP instead of wounds and haywire does.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I'm in favor of creating a Mecha subtype, so that Riptides/Ghostkeels/Stormsurges and the like could gain more appropriate vulnerabilities (to all of the above) and immunities (to things like Fleshbane and Poison).

Don't really need to. They are Vehicle Walkers. If vehicles function like other models then vehicle walkers suddenly becomes very similar to MC with the exceptions that poison doesn't work on them because they have HP instead of wounds and haywire does.

True under your formulation in which a Vehicle type is distinguished. I'm in favor of removing the type entirely (part and parcel with the removal of the facings and the conversion into the T/Sv format), so I'd want some way of distinguishing between the mechanical and the flesh. This would also allow a change to the way we treat Necrons and similar mostly- or entirely-mechanical infantry, not just MC. Poison and Fleshbane being so potent against Necrons is as absurd, if not moreso, than their potency against a Riptide (which is at least piloted by a flesh-and-blood being).

Martel732 wrote:


I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Why do you consider MCs a problem? Only those with a huge fire power really are, but that's because of their wargear. Make riptides 450 points, wraitknight 600 points and let's see. MCs like the tyranids ones or dark eldar talos/cronos are far from being overpowered, daemons are very good only because the roll 400 dice in the psychic phase, so what do you concern about MCs?

I play orks, dark eldar and SW, and never thought MCs as a problem to be fixed, so I'm just curious. I also don't get why people thinks vehicles aren't working, but that's probably beacuse I only consider that vehicles should serve only a purpose, to transport units, nothing else. That's how vehicles in my armies work better, trukks, BWs, drop pods, stormwolf, venoms, raiders, they all have their usage and I like them as they actually are. Wave serpents are also very good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Land Speeders become interesting.
Thunderwolves with ranged weaponry.

That would be disgusting, they should remain AV10. AV for vehicles is ok.

 Blackie wrote:

I play orks, dark eldar and SW, and never thought MCs as a problem to be fixed, so I'm just curious. I also don't get why people thinks vehicles aren't working, but that's probably beacuse I only consider that vehicles should serve only a purpose, to transport units, nothing else. That's how vehicles in my armies work better, trukks, BWs, drop pods, stormwolf, venoms, raiders, they all have their usage and I like them as they actually are. Wave serpents are also very good.

That's not going to be a very widely accepted presumption, since things like Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) are a thing, and are fairly widely represented throughout a lot of codexes (including Dark Eldar and Space Wolves).

There's an underlying preference for all units to be at least moderately relevant, and that can and should include things like Ravagers, Predators, Hammerheads, and the like. If they under-perform, it is worth fixing them so they perform reasonably well.

The differences between AV and T as stats are heavily cosmetic in nature to begin with. One of the most worthwhile aspects of eliminating AV is in its ability to remove the curtain that makes direct comparisons so much more vague.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

I play orks, dark eldar and SW, and never thought MCs as a problem to be fixed, so I'm just curious. I also don't get why people thinks vehicles aren't working, but that's probably beacuse I only consider that vehicles should serve only a purpose, to transport units, nothing else. That's how vehicles in my armies work better, trukks, BWs, drop pods, stormwolf, venoms, raiders, they all have their usage and I like them as they actually are. Wave serpents are also very good.

That's not going to be a very widely accepted presumption, since things like Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) are a thing, and are fairly widely represented throughout a lot of codexes (including Dark Eldar and Space Wolves).

There's an underlying preference for all units to be at least moderately relevant, and that can and should include things like Ravagers, Predators, Hammerheads, and the like. If they under-perform, it is worth fixing them so they perform reasonably well.

The differences between AV and T as stats are heavily cosmetic in nature to begin with. One of the most worthwhile aspects of eliminating AV is in its ability to remove the curtain that makes direct comparisons so much more vague.

In my exprerience ravagers are average vehicles too, many people think they underperform but take kabalite trueborn in venoms instead which are way more expensive (40+ points more) and even less resilient. I don't want a game with even more overpowered shooty units like some heavy vehicles could be. Predators and hammerhead for example are not useless, AM tanks still have a huge amount of firepower.

The point is there are some shooty units that obliterate everything else in comparison like the tau big robots, those ones are needed to be crippled some way. There's no need to improve land raiders, land speeders or predators as SM already are the most competitive army. With the exception of AM people that complains about their vehicles already have a powerful army even without them, and improving shooty vehicles would make mid or lower ties armies like dark eldar, orks or tyranids even worse.

Maybe walkers could be improved some way, maybe increasing their movement range.

Also, there is zero reason for the game to have 5+ different resolution methods. Especially when multiple of those resolution methods are for doing the exact same thing.

AV is a whole new system that complicates the much simpler to wound roll that in the end does the exact same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
With the exception of AM people that complains about their vehicles already have a powerful army even without them, and improving shooty vehicles would make mid or lower ties armies like dark eldar, orks or tyranids even worse.

Maybe walkers could be improved some way, maybe increasing their movement range.

DE, Orks, and Nids are not bad because other armies have vehicles though. They are bad because of poor internal and external balance. Fixing the issues with vehicles in general might help the internal balance of other codexes while doing nids no favors, but it does over all improve the game. The only way to fix nids/orks etc etc... is to address their specific failings. Which is a whole other topic for discussion.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Why do you consider MCs a problem? Only those with a huge fire power really are, but that's because of their wargear. Make riptides 450 points, wraitknight 600 points and let's see. MCs like the tyranids ones or dark eldar talos/cronos are far from being overpowered, daemons are very good only because the roll 400 dice in the psychic phase, so what do you concern about MCs?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Land Speeders become interesting.
Thunderwolves with ranged weaponry.

That would be disgusting, they should remain AV10. AV for vehicles is ok.

Sorry Blackie, you kind of stepped on a sarcastic comment.
50 points for a Thunderwolf with improved mobility and the options of better ranged weapons...but there is the fact that it has no Strength or Weapon Skill stats and can't actually defend itself or Jink in melee, it can be hurt by Strength 3, that sure doesn't happen with AV10, unless there's something with S3 and a Gauss special rule.

I think my sarcasm was a bit lacking without the voice and the expression.

 Lance845 wrote:


DE, Orks, and Nids are not bad because other armies have vehicles though

You're right, but making shooty vehicle better would affect badly armies like those ones. And seriously threre's not a single vehicle that needs to be fixed IMHO, with the exception of walkers. If a vehicle doesn't shine in its army that's beacuse that faction already has overpowered units, so those vehicles don't underperform because their rules are not good and should be fixed, but because the same armies have other units or formations that are too powerful.

What are the vehicles that underperform? Of course if you have 10+ possible vehicles in a codex you can't assume that they all have an autoinclude status in a possible list. Dark eldar, Orks, necrons, eldars and even AM don't need fixed vehicles rules. Tau vehicles aren't bad either, they just have more powerful options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


Sorry Blackie, you kind of stepped on a sarcastic comment.
50 points for a Thunderwolf with improved mobility and the options of better ranged weapons...but there is the fact that it has no Strength or Weapon Skill stats and can't actually defend itself or Jink in melee, it can be hurt by Strength 3, that sure doesn't happen with AV10, unless there's something with S3 and a Gauss special rule.

I think my sarcasm was a bit lacking without the voice and the expression.

Don't worry, that's probably me that doesn't understand some shades when talking in english.

I think if they abandon AV they would get an entire infantry profile and being SM I bet they would have WS4, S4 and more than a single wound as there are at least two models on a speeder, so they would be actually better than thunderwolves and that would be a shame.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


DE, Orks, and Nids are not bad because other armies have vehicles though

You're right, but making shooty vehicle better would affect badly armies like those ones. And seriously threre's not a single vehicle that needs to be fixed IMHO, with the exception of walkers. If a vehicle doesn't shine in its army that's beacuse that faction already has overpowered units, so those vehicles don't underperform because their rules are not good and should be fixed, but because the same armies have other units or formations that are too powerful.

What are the vehicles that underperform? Of course if you have 10+ possible vehicles in a codex you can't assume that they all have an autoinclude status in a possible list. Dark eldar, Orks, necrons, eldars and even AM don't need fixed vehicles rules. Tau vehicles aren't bad either, they just have more powerful options.

It's not about under or over perform in general. It's not about finding specific examples from specific codexes. Every problem with vehicles can be found in the core rule book.

There is no reason vehicles should function so fundamentally different from every other model in the game. And there are odd ball rules that crop up because of these fundamental differences. There is a whole new resolution method because of AV. There is the loss of a save for the most heavily armored things when we already have a mechanic that represents armor in the form of armor saves. We have a random chart to roll on for penetrating hits that degrade a vehicles ability to function over the course of the game while no other unit types suffer the same things. We gain a number of additional special rules that only impact vehicles, their penetration chart, or their av. We also gain a bunch of additional language that needs to be added to other special rules to specifiy how they effect vehicles and AV differently from the way they impact Toughness and Sv. Tank shocks are weird. Vehicle ramming is a whole new set of rules and resolutions instead of just having Hammer of wraths which amount to the same thing.

just.... why? Why is all this extra needed? Does it add anything to the game? The game isn't more fun or more strategic because of AV and the Pen table. Meanwhile walkers are actively hindered by vehicle rules. So why bother with it?

To be clear, I am not proposing you get rid of the vehicle unit type. I am suggesting there is no reason why the vehicle unit type needs to function completely differently from everything else in the game.

I understand your point, I respect it but I disagree because I like how vehicles work in 40k, including the pen table.

The lack of a save is actually a good thing, they already have the AV that works better that toughness as even the less powerful AV 10 can be wounded only with a 6 if hit by an average S4 shot. AV12-14 with a save would become too resilient.

Switching from AV to T and adding a save could be acceptable only if the most resilient vehicles have T8, not 9 or 10, and of course those saves can't be better than 4+, otherwise some vehicles become impossible to wreck.

I don't want more powerful shooty vehicles in 40k, nor to make them even more resilient than they already are. Many armies currently have a lot of issues when popping a AV14 vehicle even without a save.

 Blackie wrote:
I understand your point, I respect it but I disagree because I like how vehicles work in 40k, including the pen table.

The lack of a save is actually a good thing, they already have the AV that works better that toughness as even the less powerful AV 10 can be wounded only with a 6 if hit by an average S4 shot. AV12-14 with a save would become too resilient.

Switching from AV to T and adding a save could be acceptable only if the most resilient vehicles have T8, not 9 or 10, and of course those saves can't be better than 4+, otherwise some vehicles become impossible to wreck.

I don't want more powerful shooty vehicles in 40k, nor to make them even more resilient than they already are. Many armies currently have a lot of issues when popping a AV14 vehicle even without a save.

So basically you like vehicle-based lists being screwed over. Not very sporting, imo. If there are MCs impossible to kill, why can't there be vehicles that are similarly difficult to wreck?

I typically play lists with lots of vehicles, orks with 5 battlewagons or 8-10 trukks and dark eldars with 3 ravagers, 5 venoms and 2 raiders.

I don't think there are vehicles that need to be improved, especially if they have a strong firepower on them. That would create new overpowered units.

I do love vehicles but I hate highlander units, so I think creating some immortal vehicles is a bad option.

There aren't MCs impossible to kill IMHO, there are some overpowered psykers and shooty units that also are MCs, some of them are tough because they're flyers.

Armies with 40+ grav shots, free vehicles, D weapons, 40+ dice in the psychic phase, 150-200 shots with BS3-4 and S5-10 in a single turn, or a lot of flyers are not very sporting. The only MCs that I play are talos and cronos, far from being impossible to kill and belonging to an army that is considered among the worst.

Human factions don't need other helps, they're just too powerful as they currently are. They also received two immortal overpowered characters just a few weeks ago. AM have some issues but only because they're very static, they still have a huge amount of firepower available.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I understand your point, I respect it but I disagree because I like how vehicles work in 40k, including the pen table.

The lack of a save is actually a good thing, they already have the AV that works better that toughness as even the less powerful AV 10 can be wounded only with a 6 if hit by an average S4 shot. AV12-14 with a save would become too resilient.

Switching from AV to T and adding a save could be acceptable only if the most resilient vehicles have T8, not 9 or 10, and of course those saves can't be better than 4+, otherwise some vehicles become impossible to wreck.

I don't want more powerful shooty vehicles in 40k, nor to make them even more resilient than they already are. Many armies currently have a lot of issues when popping a AV14 vehicle even without a save.

So basically you like vehicle-based lists being screwed over. Not very sporting, imo. If there are MCs impossible to kill, why can't there be vehicles that are similarly difficult to wreck?

I agree with both of you on different elements.
I like the fact that vehicles are different, I like AV as a mechanic but since I play Space Wolves and Tyranids I've never had an issue wrecking them - But I hate the vehicle destruction table, I'd rather see it replaced by a vehicle degradation table.
I do agree that AM need a hand, they're a Tank heavy army and their Tanks are Garbage.
But since this is about fixing MCs I'll stick with the stop putting them in armies they don't belong in armed with powerful, ranged weapons and extended movement. Monstrous Creatures are CLOSE RANGE and belong in melee armies.

One thing that I want to mention... making vehicles have a toughness save is a bad idea. I like vehicles, I really do. I just disagree that your DE skiff has the same toughness as my scythed heirodule.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
One thing that I want to mention... making vehicles have a toughness save is a bad idea. I like vehicles, I really do. I just disagree that your DE skiff has the same toughness as my scythed heirodule.

It already is largely analogous - calling it T6 or AV10 doesn't change much, aside from a slight increase in vulnerability to low S (S3 in this case) and slight increase in resistance to high S (S10 in this case) when using a T value instead of AV.

Beyond that, its a question of whether you have armor saves or not, and the 4+ or 5+ armor save suggested are not much to write home about.

Changing from AV to T would mostly be about removing the veil that currently covers so many eyes - the fact that T and AV themselves (not counting the extras like Vehicle Damage Tables) are already almost entirely the same in terms of resolution.

I dont think this debate gets fixed by nerfing MC's but should be buffing Vehicles

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Beyond that, its a question of whether you have armor saves or not, and the 4+ or 5+ armor save suggested are not much to write home about.

Having not much to write home about is better than nothing to write home about, unless you're a lazy writer with snoopy, helicopter parents

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Changing from AV to T would mostly be about removing the veil that currently covers so many eyes - the fact that T and AV themselves (not counting the extras like Vehicle Damage Tables) are already almost entirely the same in terms of resolution.

Not entirely. The Toughness Chart is a both more flexible and restricted when compared to the AV resolution. With AV, you only have the Str within 6 to affect it. With TAS, Str has to be half T or greater in order to affect it.

That Vehicle Damage Table is also half the point of the AV resolution system. "Organic" units are only ever "Glanced" and never "Penetrated", and really reflects the main issues between the TAS and AV system.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Beyond that, its a question of whether you have armor saves or not, and the 4+ or 5+ armor save suggested are not much to write home about.

Having not much to write home about is better than nothing to write home about, unless you're a lazy writer with snoopy, helicopter parents

Nothing disputed about that, but against the vast majority of the weapons that will be aimed at Tvalue vehicles with 4+ or 5+ armor, it won't make a difference - hence "not much" to write home about rather than "nothing".

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Changing from AV to T would mostly be about removing the veil that currently covers so many eyes - the fact that T and AV themselves (not counting the extras like Vehicle Damage Tables) are already almost entirely the same in terms of resolution.

Not entirely. The Toughness Chart is a both more flexible and restricted when compared to the AV resolution. With AV, you only have the Str within 6 to affect it. With TAS, Str has to be half T or greater in order to affect it.

That Vehicle Damage Table is also half the point of the AV resolution system. "Organic" units are only ever "Glanced" and never "Penetrated", and really reflects the main issues between the TAS and AV system.

First, in regard to the bolded section, I consider that a confusing way to describe the relationship, and inaccurate at higher T levels. S5 and 6 can't affect T10, S5 can't affect T9.

Thus your "within X" is a poor way to describe it, and that's exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about the "veil".

While anything up to 6 under the AV can affect it, that's a quirk of the method of resolution, not really a strong distinction, due to the manner in which that range affects it, because those 6 values are where the effectiveness changes based on where in those 6 values you are - if you're S4 vs AV10, you're "wounding" on a 6+. If you're S8 against the same, you're wounding on 2+. If you're below S4, you can't "wound", if you're above S8, you never fail to "wound".

The analogous RANGE of wounding differentials for SvT is extremely similar to the RANGE of "wounding" differentials for SvAV - The analogous T for AV10 is not 10, it is 6, because it displays almost exactly the same range of values of effectiveness and with roughly the same chance of success (with only the caveats I mentioned in my earlier post, and which you did not quote) - S4 vs T6 is 6+ to wound, S8 vs T6 is 2+, with the oddity that S3 also wounds on 6+ (slightly lower minimum range) and S9+ doesn't become an automatic wound (slightly weakening overkill).

So yes, there are distinctions between AV and T resolution, but the distinctions (if we remove the VDT) are so small that I personally think simplifying them under a single resolution method (T, like everything else in the game that isn't a Vehicle) and losing that distinction is well worth the gain of simplifying resolution methods and removing the veil if confusion about how damn similar T & AV actually are when it comes to resolution despite their superficial lack of similarity by having special snowflake values of 10 to 14 instead of 6 to 10.

Yes, the Vehicle Damage Table is a large part of the AV resolution system, and easily one of the most complained-about mechanical differences between Tanks and MC - that's why I'm all for getting rid of it, though I'm still potentially open to replacing it with a universal AoS degredation table as targets lose wounds.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
I'm so happy to see so many people support the TMCs. Honestly, I think you would get better results arguing that anything not a daemon or a TMC, ie everything that is more metal than flesh or warp dust, be made a walker, and then arguing for fixing vehicle and walker rules. For the record, the only reason people complain about the hive tyrant is because that is the only thing you will see most of the time.

Anyhow, >insert< NidLivesMatter and Save The Tyranids memes

Even then there's only one variant of the tyrant people complain about.... hell it's not even the flyrant in general. People only really complain because of the dakka flyrant with 2x twin-linked Brainleech Devourers and Electroshock Grubs and the only reason for that is because it's by far the best unit in the codex and people spam them like no tomorrow.

Individually they're not that hard to kill and actually prone to killing themselves, but when someone spams 3+ of them in medium sized games they help add fodder to the whole MC's are OP idea.

MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

We can agree that the MC type is overall stronger than the Vehicle Type, taken generally and presuming otherwise equalized stats.

So long as the MC pays sufficient points for that benefit, MCs are not OP. So long as Vehicles are sufficiently cheap in points, a Vehicle can be OP.

(No, PLEASE don't discuss the actual points you want for any particular MC, as I'm not discussing any particular MC and only responding to the over-generalization in your comment - that's off-topic, and I won't respond to it)

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Nothing disputed about that, but against the vast majority of the weapons that will be aimed at Tvalue vehicles with 4+ or 5+ armor, it won't make a difference - hence "not much" to write home about rather than "nothing".

Then you are conflating "not much" with "nothing", as those things usually do that..

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Changing from AV to T would mostly be about removing the veil that currently covers so many eyes - the fact that T and AV themselves (not counting the extras like Vehicle Damage Tables) are already almost entirely the same in terms of resolution.

Not entirely. The Toughness Chart is a both more flexible and restricted when compared to the AV resolution. With AV, you only have the Str within 6 to affect it. With TAS, Str has to be half T or greater in order to affect it.

That Vehicle Damage Table is also half the point of the AV resolution system. "Organic" units are only ever "Glanced" and never "Penetrated", and really reflects the main issues between the TAS and AV system.

First, in regard to the bolded section, I consider that a confusing way to describe the relationship, and inaccurate at higher T levels. S5 and 6 can't affect T10, S5 can't affect T9.

Thus your "within X" is a poor way to describe it, and that's exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about the "veil".

While anything up to 6 under the AV can affect it, that's a quirk of the method of resolution, not really a strong distinction, due to the manner in which that range affects it, because those 6 values are where the effectiveness changes based on where in those 6 values you are - if you're S4 vs AV10, you're "wounding" on a 6+. If you're S8 against the same, you're wounding on 2+. If you're below S4, you can't "wound", if you're above S8, you never fail to "wound".

The analogous RANGE of wounding differentials for SvT is extremely similar to the RANGE of "wounding" differentials for SvAV - The analogous T for AV10 is not 10, it is 6, because it displays almost exactly the same range of values of effectiveness and with roughly the same chance of success (with only the caveats I mentioned in my earlier post, and which you did not quote) - S4 vs T6 is 6+ to wound, S8 vs T6 is 2+, with the oddity that S3 also wounds on 6+ (slightly lower minimum range) and S9+ doesn't become an automatic wound (slightly weakening overkill).

So yes, there are distinctions between AV and T resolution, but the distinctions (if we remove the VDT) are so small that I personally think simplifying them under a single resolution method (T, like everything else in the game that isn't a Vehicle) and losing that distinction is well worth the gain of simplifying resolution methods and removing the veil if confusion about how damn similar T & AV actually are when it comes to resolution despite their superficial lack of similarity by having special snowflake values of 10 to 14 instead of 6 to 10.

I think it is more important to point out that with the AV system, there is only one AV a Str will score a specific roll requirement on. Where as most Str Values will have two values To Wound on a 6+. In the end, the AV system is simpler to use than the TAS system, but the Str system allows for more flexibility in Str range.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yes, the Vehicle Damage Table is a large part of the AV resolution system, and easily one of the most complained-about mechanical differences between Tanks and MC - that's why I'm all for getting rid of it, though I'm still potentially open to replacing it with a universal AoS degredation table as targets lose wounds.

One of the reasons for creating that different system was to know when a Glance and a Penetrate were needed.

To be fair, there are logical reasons to include the VDT, especially when we know that when hitting Vehicles often results in things not working right afterward for one reason or another. The same thing applies to Monstrous Creatures, yet they have more Wounds and no Damage Table. Most other units usually have too few Wounds for them to be in consideration (though that has changed rather recently).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

We can agree that the MC type is overall stronger than the Vehicle Type, taken generally and presuming otherwise equalized stats.

So long as the MC pays sufficient points for that benefit, MCs are not OP. So long as Vehicles are sufficiently cheap in points, a Vehicle can be OP.

(No, PLEASE don't discuss the actual points you want for any particular MC, as I'm not discussing any particular MC and only responding to the over-generalization in your comment - that's off-topic, and I won't respond to it)

So, why does an army like Tyranids that revolves around the Monstrous Creature unit type fall so far behind the standard? It's not the Monstrous Creature type that's OP, it's all the extras that have been tacked onto those MCs - Layered saves, high powered, high RoF, Long Ranged weaponry, long ranged support and formation bonuses all for bargain points costs. You'll find a lot of vehicles have these things but very few have all of them rolled into one cheap, tidy package.

 Charistoph wrote:

I think it is more important to point out that with the AV system, there is only one AV a Str will score a specific roll requirement on. Where as most Str Values will have two values To Wound on a 6+. In the end, the AV system is simpler to use than the TAS system, but the Str system allows for more flexibility in Str range.

Technically you're still rolling for S10 against AV 10, despite never achieving any result other than a Penetrating roll.

But yes, there are minor differences - my argument, and we can agree to disagree about this, is that the distinction is so small that I'd gladly sacrifice those slight differences to get rid of the special snowflake AV system.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yes, the Vehicle Damage Table is a large part of the AV resolution system, and easily one of the most complained-about mechanical differences between Tanks and MC - that's why I'm all for getting rid of it, though I'm still potentially open to replacing it with a universal AoS degredation table as targets lose wounds.

One of the reasons for creating that different system was to know when a Glance and a Penetrate were needed.

To be fair, there are logical reasons to include the VDT, especially when we know that when hitting Vehicles often results in things not working right afterward for one reason or another. The same thing applies to Monstrous Creatures, yet they have more Wounds and no Damage Table. Most other units usually have too few Wounds for them to be in consideration (though that has changed rather recently).

I agree, and the fact we treat MC and other multi-wound infantry different than vehicles in that regard is something I'm very welling to change - either remove the extra distinction between glancing and penetrating hits for all models, or apply such a system towards all multi-wound models (my preference is towards a universalized AoS style table, rather than the VDT).

I think we're fairly close in our understanding here, with minor disagreements on whether the extra flexibility of the S/T vs S/AV system distinctions are worth the extra effort and (IMO) confusion of keeping them distinct. Sound fair?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

We can agree that the MC type is overall stronger than the Vehicle Type, taken generally and presuming otherwise equalized stats.

So long as the MC pays sufficient points for that benefit, MCs are not OP. So long as Vehicles are sufficiently cheap in points, a Vehicle can be OP.

(No, PLEASE don't discuss the actual points you want for any particular MC, as I'm not discussing any particular MC and only responding to the over-generalization in your comment - that's off-topic, and I won't respond to it)

So, why does an army like Tyranids that revolves around the Monstrous Creature unit type fall so far behind the standard? It's not the Monstrous Creature type that's OP, it's all the extras that have been tacked onto those MCs - Layered saves, high powered, high RoF, Long Ranged weaponry, long ranged support and formation bonuses all for bargain points costs. You'll find a lot of vehicles have these things but very few have all of them rolled into one cheap, tidy package.

I'm not arguing that the MC type is OP - I'm arguing, rather, that some MC don't pay enough for the benefits they receive.

See the bolded part of my post. Tyranid MCs, with very few exceptions pay sufficient points for their capabilities, and more often than not, pay far MORE points than they should for the benefits they gain.

You're basically arguing my point, here - we seem to agree entirely.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

We can agree that the MC type is overall stronger than the Vehicle Type, taken generally and presuming otherwise equalized stats.

So long as the MC pays sufficient points for that benefit, MCs are not OP. So long as Vehicles are sufficiently cheap in points, a Vehicle can be OP.

(No, PLEASE don't discuss the actual points you want for any particular MC, as I'm not discussing any particular MC and only responding to the over-generalization in your comment - that's off-topic, and I won't respond to it)

I don't think you can reduce it simply to points. Look at the guard for example. You can't reduce many of their Russes point cost due to the simple amount of firepower they can unload. One massive ongoing joke however is that an ork warboss on an attack bike with a powerklaw will pretty much automatically hit it's rear armour. Now as hilarious as this example is, why should we be giving CC units advantages in CC against vehicles to this extreme? Surely we should be making sure the only CC units attacking vehicles should at least attempt to be equipped for the job? Added to the fact glancing heavy stuff to death with medium weaponry means you don't even need specialised ranged tank killers to knock out vehicles these days. And don't get me started on D weapon spams some armies can do.

I think the issue always has been specific MC's rather than the class in general. You have the famous MC's that have no business being MC's in the Tau and Eldar Arsenal, the dreadknight cos reasons, the dakka brainleech flyrant because of it's short range extreme firepower is offset by it's manoeuvrability and finally the Demon Prince FMC's because of the amount of psychic dice they throw out!

Look at the flyrant, only one build is really viable and that's mostly because flyers are so rubbish no-one really bother bringing much AA anyway. Concerning the Demon Princes, I think simply rebalancing psychic powers could sort them out seeing that phase by itself is getting out of control anyway. Because of this I don't really think you can blame MC's in general when assigned to the correct units.

"You can't reduce many of their Russes point cost due to the simple amount of firepower they can unload. "

Their firepower isn't that good. Especially for the current cost. One reason this is true is that MCs of ALL types laugh off large blasts, and the other Russ guns are rather inefficient against them.

Martel732 wrote:
"You can't reduce many of their Russes point cost due to the simple amount of firepower they can unload. "

Their firepower isn't that good. Especially for the current cost. One reason this is true is that MCs of ALL types laugh off large blasts, and the other Russ guns are rather inefficient against them.

Compared to what an equivalent MC can arm itself with? Meh it's quite similar if not in russes favour....... just vehicles are much more fragile with guard equivalents having most of their firepower created in 3rd. Walking MC's generally die before getting anywhere and as I stated earlier, those with extreme firepower such as Tau MC's and GMC's simply shouldn't be classified as such. They should be vehicles.

And even then you're pitting MC's vs Tanks, they can both quite easily shred through basic infantry which should be a shared niche. Hell average russes blasts are extremely effective presuming they can hit something, which is more a flaw with blast rules if anything. Do you honestly think russes around the 100 point mark would be a good thing?

Apparently my previous post was taken in a way I did not intend, as if I said that the MC type itself is OP.

Let me be clear: The Type itself is IMO stronger, WHEN STATS ARE EQUALIZED, due to a larger list of special rules and the comparatively fewer weakness/vulnerabilities compared to the Vehicle type.

That doesn't entail that ANY MC is OP - OP is going to be based on whether the Power is appropriate to the Cost. (Yes, Martel, there are OP MCs, including Riptides)

A perfectly normal infantry unit can be more OP than an MC due to the power of the unit compared to its cost, and the same is true for vehicles: I'd rather take my Piranhas than most Tyranid MCs, despite Piranhas having the IMO weaker type, because the Piranhas are dirt-cheap point-wise and most Tyranid MCs are overcosted.


Further, while I think point costing CAN help us find balances, I'm very much a proponent of making the types far more equalized generally. The generalized vulnerability of vehicles to the Instant Death equivalent makes proper costing for stronger vehicles much more difficult and problematic.

I think point adjustments AND type adjustments are both useful for "fixing" the issues people have with the MC and vehicle types.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"You can't reduce many of their Russes point cost due to the simple amount of firepower they can unload. "

Their firepower isn't that good. Especially for the current cost. One reason this is true is that MCs of ALL types laugh off large blasts, and the other Russ guns are rather inefficient against them.

Compared to what an equivalent MC can arm itself with? Meh it's quite similar if not in russes favour....... just vehicles are much more fragile with guard equivalents having most of their firepower created in 3rd. Walking MC's generally die before getting anywhere and as I stated earlier, those with extreme firepower such as Tau MC's and GMC's simply shouldn't be classified as such. They should be vehicles.

And even then you're pitting MC's vs Tanks, they can both quite easily shred through basic infantry which should be a shared niche. Hell average russes blasts are extremely effective presuming they can hit something, which is more a flaw with blast rules if anything. Do you honestly think russes around the 100 point mark would be a good thing?

The usual russ comes in around 170ish. That could stand to be 145.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Technically you're still rolling for S10 against AV 10, despite never achieving any result other than a Penetrating roll.

Never said you weren't. It's a 0+. Pretty hard to fail that.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
But yes, there are minor differences - my argument, and we can agree to disagree about this, is that the distinction is so small that I'd gladly sacrifice those slight differences to get rid of the special snowflake AV system.

Personally, I'd rather reverse the situation, but give everything an Armour Save. It's a lot more intuitive than having to look up a chart, but that's just me. We can then utilize other rules for disabling an MC as well.

But a lot depends on how much detail vs abstraction you want in the game.