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.

Formosa wrote:

Exergy wrote:no, rifleman dreads would suddenly ignore armor saves and penetrate vehicles all the time.

There is a reason they dont have it.

no they wouldn't, only DCCW would add MC

why? needlessly complicated. dreads already glance another dread on a 2 and pen on 3+. That seems be be effective enough.

Because twelve tons of angry armoured Ork with buzzsaws, chainsaws and giant snippy things ought to be able to hit as hard against armour as a giant bug with chitin pincers.

I think it's more representative of the fact that an MC has more control over it's own body than some dude piloting a giant metal can with legs using levers and prayers.

Well, they don't really need monsterous, they just need a way to COMBAT monsterous creatures.

str 10 power weapons do the trick. And all the heavy ranged weapons they can take.

Kevin949 wrote:str 10 power weapons do the trick. And all the heavy ranged weapons they can take.

same as MC's

my bigest gripe with MC is that they are fully effectiive all the way to there last wound. but thats another argument.

adding 2d6 pen to the DCCW wouldn't even slightly over complicate things at all, it would just make it more effective vs land raiders lol.

Many MC's don't have str 10 and not all of them can customize their ranged weapons.

So...you want walkers to auto-glance each other, auto-pen MOST vehicles in the game and have the ability to get a glance AV 14 like 75% of the time?

How about you just make walkers CC attacks follow the ordnance rule in CC instead. 2d6 pick the highest.

That, actually would be pretty good.


Oh, and yes, I'd love it for Dreds to do all that. They're giant, terrifying walking machines. Most of the time you'll only ever see one or maybe two in an army list. YES!

Heck, I'd like my tomb stalker to have the necron rule, str 10, WS 5, AV 12 that has to be penned before it can be wounded (yes, armor AND wounds) and have options for better ranged weapons (the bolters it comes with are a joke).

Kevin949 wrote:Heck, I'd like my tomb stalker to have the necron rule, str 10, WS 5, AV 12 that has to be penned before it can be wounded (yes, armor AND wounds) and have options for better ranged weapons (the bolters it comes with are a joke).

Sarcasm aside, this is actually quite funny, Matt ward if you are reading this... Don't... just Don't..

this is a good idea but i dont think it would work
i dont get AV14... it would have to be like T9 or somthhing
and then AV 10 would be like T5
would the nightbringer have amour 14 or somthing??

mcs and walkers are fine just how they, good idea, i just dont think it would work

Anvildude wrote:Because twelve tons of angry armoured Ork with buzzsaws, chainsaws and giant snippy things ought to be able to hit as hard against armour as a giant bug with chitin pincers.

They do. Most MC are Str 6. the average of 2d6 is 7. 7+6= 13

DCCW are strength 10. The average of 1d6 is 3 (to simplify) 10+3= 13


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anvildude wrote:That, actually would be pretty good.


Oh, and yes, I'd love it for Dreds to do all that. They're giant, terrifying walking machines. Most of the time you'll only ever see one or maybe two in an army list. YES!

No, they're walking tanks, and have the armor to match. I regularly see 11 walkers in armies for Orks, and we have a BA player that likes to run a dread list for fun from time to time.

The distinction between walkers and MC is fine

I do kinda wish walkers had a better chance against MC tho
I mean a Dread should be able to kill a fex in combat (and vice versa)
there is even a pic in the rulebook showing a dread smacking
a fex across the face . (page 38 in the AoBR book)

I usually run 2 or 3 DPing dreads which works fine against my
usual opponents however I feel like I would be owned by nids.
or Daemons with lots of big guys.

luckily I dont often have to play against loads of MCs.

Formosa wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:str 10 power weapons do the trick. And all the heavy ranged weapons they can take.

same as MC's

my bigest gripe with MC is that they are fully effectiive all the way to there last wound. but thats another argument.

adding 2d6 pen to the DCCW wouldn't even slightly over complicate things at all, it would just make it more effective vs land raiders lol.

In some ways it might actually make things less complicated. Me and my friends still have to remind eachother that only Wraithlords get the 2D6 penetration, and not SM dreads.

NO they should not.

What about keeping walkers and MCs seperate, but giving assault-focused walkers a rule so that MCs only add 1d6 for armor penetration against them. That should allow something like a dreadnought better survivability against MCs. I'd rather see that rule than adding 2d6 for DCCWs.

From a fluff standpoint, monstrous creatures are monstrous . Yes, a clanking machine of metal death driven by Brother Spaminacanius is pretty impressive, but then you have friggin baby Godzillas out there, some of them with arcane waepons of nasty soul-suction.

A good player should be able to figure out how to fight one with the other with a decent chance of smiting the foe. While you can always figure out ways to improve a bit on certain units, some of the suggestions I've seen here, while good points, bring up a pretty old can of rules worms, which will sit there and wriggle. Until somebody gets out the concrete donkey and goes back to smiting the foe.

200 wound titans. No. 'Sides, resin ain't all that tough.

Still, from a fluff perspective, a Monstrous creature is a creature, made (usually) from Flesh and Blood- and you're telling me they can rip through tank armour better than giant buzzsaws and enormous energy claws? Not to mention that, yeah, against tanks they'll have the time to wind up and deliver a crushing blow directly to the most vulnurable parts, but against a Walker, it's going to be fighting back and dodging around.

So yeah, either give DCCWs better Armour Penning abilities, or else reduce MC effectiveness against Walkers. Or both, if you wish. I wouldn't mind paying five or ten points more for a Deffdread that had a decent chance when going toe-to-hoof with a Scytal-fex or Avatar, and I bet other players would appreciate any sort of drop in points for that 'weakness' in their MCs.


Honestly, you don't even need to change MC rules. Just give the 'Walker' unit type an extra d3 against armour, and 'Monstrous Creatures only roll a single d6 when calculating Armour Penetration in melee against a Walker' rule. (Hmm, might have to see if anybody'd be willing to try that...)

Anvildude wrote:Still, from a fluff perspective, a Monstrous creature is a creature, made (usually) from Flesh and Blood- and you're telling me they can rip through tank armour better than giant buzzsaws and enormous energy claws? Not to mention that, yeah, against tanks they'll have the time to wind up and deliver a crushing blow directly to the most vulnurable parts, but against a Walker, it's going to be fighting back and dodging around.

So yeah, either give DCCWs better Armour Penning abilities, or else reduce MC effectiveness against Walkers. Or both, if you wish. I wouldn't mind paying five or ten points more for a Deffdread that had a decent chance when going toe-to-hoof with a Scytal-fex or Avatar, and I bet other players would appreciate any sort of drop in points for that 'weakness' in their MCs.


Honestly, you don't even need to change MC rules. Just give the 'Walker' unit type an extra d3 against armour, and 'Monstrous Creatures only roll a single d6 when calculating Armour Penetration in melee against a Walker' rule. (Hmm, might have to see if anybody'd be willing to try that...)

Most MC are only strength 6. 1d6 pen means they could only glance most walkers on a 6 and couldn't touch BA dreads. This would be silly. I understand you have some sort of love affair with walkers and want them to be WTFBBQ, but they're fine as is.

Well then, don't take away the 2d6 pen, but add something like 1d3 Armour Pen to DCCWs, for maybe a point or two increase in the cost of them. ('member, this'd be across all walkers, including IC sentinals, Eldar Warwalkers, Dreadnaughts, and Deffdredds.) DCCWs can be taken away, after all.

The +1d3 would mean (for a Str5 or greater walker with DCCW) , of course, the Auto Pen on AV10, 11, and 12, and then a much, much better chance to hit and pen AV13 and 14.

MC, with Str. 6, are going to usually get a roll of 7 on their 2d6, meaning they almost always will at least glance AV13, and at least a quarter of their attacks will be penning AV14. (though don't quote my mathhammer on this)

That means, where a MC would have an incredibly easy time slaughtering walkers and tanks of all kinds, Walkers will not only have only a 1 in 2 chance of getting through AV14, but will also have trouble with other walkers. Not to mention, Monstrous Creatures have multiple wounds, which can often be saved or regenerated (I'm thinking 'nids here, primarily) so can easily, EAsily rip through Walkers in CC, whether or not they get the charge, while a Walker wouldn't have the same luck, even on the charge.


Thinking this through, yeah, it's a lot less cut-and-dried than I thought (depending on the actual cost of the units- I figure that as-is they should generally be fairly even points-wise) but I'd love to see the mathhammer for a Walker vs MC fight, like a Deffdredd vs. Scytal Carnifex, or a Dreadnaught vs. an Avatar of Khaine, or a Sentinel vs a Tomb Spyder, or Warwalker vs. that Dark Eldar scorpion thingy.

Anvildude wrote:Still, from a fluff perspective, a Monstrous creature is a creature, made (usually) from Flesh and Blood- and you're telling me they can rip through tank armour better than giant buzzsaws and enormous energy claws? Not to mention that, yeah, against tanks they'll have the time to wind up and deliver a crushing blow directly to the most vulnurable parts, but against a Walker, it's going to be fighting back and dodging around.

So yeah, either give DCCWs better Armour Penning abilities, or else reduce MC effectiveness against Walkers. Or both, if you wish. I wouldn't mind paying five or ten points more for a Deffdread that had a decent chance when going toe-to-hoof with a Scytal-fex or Avatar, and I bet other players would appreciate any sort of drop in points for that 'weakness' in their MCs.


Honestly, you don't even need to change MC rules. Just give the 'Walker' unit type an extra d3 against armour, and 'Monstrous Creatures only roll a single d6 when calculating Armour Penetration in melee against a Walker' rule. (Hmm, might have to see if anybody'd be willing to try that...)

Kevin949 wrote:I think it's more representative of the fact that an MC has more control over it's own body than some dude piloting a giant metal can with legs using levers and prayers.

^^^

No, walkers don't need extra dice to pen vehicles in CC, as it stands they're already able to auto pen 10 and glance 11. That's enough. I still think they should get to follow the ordnance rule though, that would make more sense. Also, keep in mind that most MC's are Str 6-8 now and just about every walker is Str 10...so, there's your benefit. Sure, you can lose the DCCW and MC's can't but I'm sure any decent walker would have at least some ranged capability as well. But, those are the breaks, it's always a gamble when fielding either as both are going to be priority targets.

Why weren't Space Orks gifted with a monstrous creature? Wasnt there some magic mushroom monster in their fluff?

Only one we got's da Squiggoth, which is Apoc only. We ain't got no cavalry, nor Beasts eiva, even dough we's got plenny a' fluff fer 'em, like Boarboyz an' Squig 'earders.

Hi all.
Why not simply make all vehicle and MCs have the same profile?

Either all have wounds and toughness, or all have AV and damage chart?

Why have a completley seperate rule set for vehicles , when it totaly unesissary?

TTFN

Because there has to be some definition of difference between vehicles and meaty flesh.

Though Nurgle Dreadnaughts ought to have the option to go for the Meaty Flesh route, really.

Kevin949 wrote:Because there has to be some definition of difference between vehicles and meaty flesh.

Exactly. If you make MC & Walkers one class, you'd have the same argument for Pykers & other shooty models, maybe an even stronger argument. But won't you want to keep the gothic fantasticalness?

Plus if vehicles become MC's then they can't transport troops. Or all MC's can transport troops. Or only some can and some can't. You open up all new rules debates. Can units in an MC be targeted now since it's no longer a vehicle? Do MC's explode and force a disembark? Are the units inside removed when an MC is killed? What about speed restrictions? Are the transported units locked in combat if your MC transport is in CC?

It's not as simple as you (lanrak) think it would be.