Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

Here's the issue.

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

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here's the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 mrhappyface wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I share these sentiments.

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

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

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

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

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

 mrhappyface wrote:

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

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

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

 mrhappyface wrote:

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

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

Pretty much yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My issue is the disparity between MCs and Vehicles.

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

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here's the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't. This is 7th ed.

Martel732 wrote:

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

It doesn't. This is 7th ed.

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

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