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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

You could argue the Riptide isn't worn, but the Dreadknight is just an extension of regular terminator armor.

And I could argue that my Renault Clio is just extension of my boots, making me a pedestrian while I drive it.

I understand its frustrating that some walkers use walker rules, and others use MC rules, but I think they should just make all walkers MCs. IMO it fits the concept of a Walker better to be more durable like MCs.

Might even make Walkers (meaning Dreadnaughts) relevant again. To be honest the only really effective Dread I've come across in the past few years has been Rifleman varients. And is that all we want Walkers to be? Slightly mobile turrets? Every other Dread type I've come up against usually just amounts to a suicide unit, they drop in, maybe flame or melt something, and then get popped right away. Not exactly the fear-inducing armored 'Dreadnaught' marine players wish they were.

The Walker rules don't work (as currently written), the MC rules do. IMO the real problem is they are fixing some of them (Riptides, Dreadknights), but haven't fixed others (Dreadnaughts).

dreadknights are a bad way to argue this, since the concept of their model is a tiny bit silly just like the penitent engine (and by that i mean, why is the pilot exposed?) Im going to run on the idea that walkers having facings is a bit silly, because of their size and their ambiguity in sides. Dreadnoughts just happen to be boxy enough to have easily defined "sides". I almost think when they built the dreadknight they thought....crap, how are we going to do side armor on this thing?" which im sure also happened with the wraithlord waaay back in the day. I actually hope they do away with walkers or at least give them more distinct advantages. The MC rule really lends well to large, tough, and mobile things that can carry large weapons and are not limited by terrain like a tracked vehicle would be. Plus the make awesome models, sorry little dreadnought.

Davor wrote:

Killingspree wrote:

Davor wrote:
The answer is quite simple. It allows the SM players to have MC now.

SM have to have what everyone else has. So that is why GK and now Tau have them so SM can have them through allies. I am sure when SM codex comes out, they will have a MC for themselves.

First it was, everyone moves 6", because heaven forbid, SM move 4" per turn. Then it was, Fleet. Heaven forbid SM don't get to have fleet for free. Then it was free grenades and not be able to think to pick either krak or frags. Then it's overwatch. Heaven forbid SM need to have it easier in Assault.

Now it's MC. What else are SM missing? MC.

I started in 4th so maybe I don't understand what you're saying but this is completely left field to me. Fleet for free? Who pays for it? Grenades are standard for a lot of armies, GK went overboard IMHO. Overwatch? How is overwatch skewed to marines? If I'm missing the point, which is quite possible, please tell me because right now I feel like your post was just a rant. (By the by, xenos seem to be doing incredibly well right now. Daemons and Nids are kicking butt in non-fw games. At least from what games I've seen. In the Northeast USA area.)

To the OP: I agree with jmurph. If these things were vehicles they would never get taken unless they had av13-14 and at least 3hps and some nifty extra save. I don't really mind though. MCs have their own weaknesses and no MC seems too ott to me right now.


K/S

Yeah it was a rant but I thought it had a point because SM has to have what everyone else had that made them unique. In Rouge Trader, everyone had movement stats. Guess what taken away because it made SM too slow. Now they get a 2" boost for free. Ok haven't been around for 2nd edition, but think it holds water. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So in 3rd edition, SM had to choose before the game to use either Krak or Frag grenades, and HAD to PAY for them. I forget what happened in 4th. In 5th edition, they get them for FREE and SM did not have to think about what to take. So again, it was easier to play SM. In 4th edition Tyranids and Eldar got Fleet, but had to pay for it. Instead of firing, they get to run. So in 5th edition, SM could fleet or "run" for free, which Eldar and Tyranids had to pay for while SM got it for free. Well everyone got it for free, but for Tyranids, and Eldar got rules that they couldn't use while others got them that made them unique.

Now in 6th, CC got weaker, shooty armies got stronger. Just saying it's easier to play SM that is all. So while it was a rant, I ment to say, SM keeps getting things that made other armies unique, which are not unique anymore. So SM having MC is just another nail in the coffin making other armies not unique anymore.

A reason not to play SM is to play something unique. Thing is that uniqueness is being taken away. So basically the unique armies will just look like SM in 5 or 10 years from now. Just look as I said, 20 years ago, everyone had movement stats. A lot of armies were faster than SM. Now everyone is the same speed as SM. No uniqueness there now. So now SM having MC (for now using allies with GK or Tau) is another less unique feature about playing a different army.

I think you are over obsessing about SM. The infantry movement rate is not the only thing that determines how fast an army moves. As far as uniqueness goes, well there are myriad ways to make different armies but players tend to gravitate to only a small portion of units that they think are the best. With allies, people cherry pick the best units so allies in a strange way also makes armies more similar if nearly every one is running an IG squad and a vendetta.

I think maybe you are taking things too seriously.

You said it yourself.

 Aleph-Sama wrote:
its a suit of armour! They have 2+

Not a vehicle.

Terminators are suits of armour. Space marines are suits of armour. Aspect warriors are suits of armour.

Vehicles are vehicles.

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, this has bugged me too since the GK codex was released.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kinratha wrote:
Why not?

Because there are rules for vehicles, and I'd expect things that are obviously vehicles to use those rules.

Tau suits have always behaved unlike walkers in the fluff. They aren't so much piloted as they are worn by the person inside. IT connects to the nervous system and the pilot percieves and operates via the suit rather than themselves.It makes decent sense to rule it as an MC for fluff, and it makes it tough enough to warrant a single suit per slot in the force org unlike the broadsides.

Point of order: The Wraithlord is a mechanical MC and essentially has been since 3rd. It was a vehicle in 2nd.

In short, mechanical MC's have been around since before MC was a unit type.

The Riptide and Dreadknight move and operate more like giant warriors rather than lumbering metal coffins that can barely move without toppling over.

 davou wrote:
Tau suits have always behaved unlike walkers in the fluff. They aren't so much piloted as they are worn by the person inside. IT connects to the nervous system and the pilot percieves and operates via the suit rather than themselves.It makes decent sense to rule it as an MC for fluff, and it makes it tough enough to warrant a single suit per slot in the force org unlike the broadsides.

Space Marine dreadnaughts are piloted in exactly this fashion. They have to be due to the fact that the piloting Space Marine might be missing both legs, an arm and half of his head. Kind of hard to operate something like a dreadnaught without that kind of interface.

In short, your logic says Space Marine Dreadnaughts should be Monstrous Creatures, and should have been ever since 3rd edition.

What is treated as an MC strictly comes down to how they want it to play in game, not based on fluff.

Just by looking at the models, it's the level of sophistication that matters. A Wraithlord, DK, or Riptide are all very sleek, agile, mobile large constructs.

A Deff Dredd, Killa Kan, Dreadnaught are all stubby, gear/actuator driven "low" tech. The focus more on the 'eavy metal aspect versus heightened design and power that are the other similar items.

The definition of Walker vs. MC is made up what GW hopes to achieve with the model. It's a rules function. I'd love to see all walkers become MCs, honestly, but I don't think that'll happen.

 -Loki- wrote:


Space Marine dreadnaughts are piloted in exactly this fashion.

They also carry 9 of their 11 tons of mass above the waist; They don't strike me as being an easy analogue for a pilot to control as an extension of his own body, and even if the pilot could easily slip into its walker as if it were his body, it wouldn't be much maneuverable.

If you wanna ignore fluff, then why would GW make a giant robot kit for tau, and then give it gakky walker rules? as they did it; they can peddle 3 of these to the same person and they're happy about it.

In theory MCs are more resilient than Walkers.

In practice I've never, ever seen bolter fire kill a Walker (something bigger than a Sentinel) but I've lost dozens of MCs to bolter - and lasgun - fire.

I've seen Kanz, Deffdreads and SM Dreads die to bolter fire or it's equivalent plenty of times. Shooting them from behind works...

YMMV of course.

Lasgun fire just bounces off them though I've lost my Taloi/Cronoi far too many times to small arms fire..

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All walkers should have a T value and wounds rather than an AV.

I disagree. 40K is clearly designed to only have Toughness and Wounds for living, biological things. Like Necrons.

Er...





Having said that, frankly the different system for vehicle armour has always bugged me. I would rather see everything just use Toughness and Wounds, and stick with the one system. Vehicles could still have a damge roll when they lose a wound, but the actual attacking process would be universal for everything.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:
The Dreadknight and Riptide are worn, as opposed to being piloted.

That is a dubious distinction to made, not to mention absurd one. By this logic if we chop of arms and legs of the Riptide pilot and hook his nervous system to the control mechanism, Riptide suddenly becomes a dreadnought and its rules utterly change. How the hell can a thing like this radically affect to what kind of weapons the giant robot is vulnerable to?

You could argue the Riptide isn't worn, but the Dreadknight is just an extension of regular terminator armor.

Not really, especially considering the pilot is *outside* the main body of the vehicle, all he's got around him is a harness to keep him in the damn thing, nothing about it is actually *armoring* him, except maybe the chestplate on the harness at best. The Grey Knight has control sticks and pedals, it is clearly a piloted vehicle.

 insaniak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All walkers should have a T value and wounds rather than an AV.

I disagree. 40K is clearly designed to only have Toughness and Wounds for living, biological things. Like Necrons.

Er...





Having said that, frankly the different system for vehicle armour has always bugged me. I would rather see everything just use Toughness and Wounds, and stick with the one system. Vehicles could still have a damge roll when they lose a wound, but the actual attacking process would be universal for everything.

With the addition of HP's it's effectively where we're at, only Vehicles don't get armor or invul (in 99% of cases anyway) saves and are practically auto-killed in CC.


Every other game system out there manages to handle this sort of thing better than 40k does, it routinely boggles me why GW just so often mangles these things.

rigeld2 wrote:
In theory MCs are more resilient than Walkers.

In practice I've never, ever seen bolter fire kill a Walker (something bigger than a Sentinel) but I've lost dozens of MCs to bolter - and lasgun - fire.

To be fair, its impossible to lose a Wraithlord to bolters or lasguns. And dreadknights can die to it but its very unlikely. It takes 216 bolter or lasgun rounds to fell a Dreadknight on average.

There is some logic to what GW tried to do in separating vehicles and other models rules wise and things like the damage table are both cinematic and realistic. The problem is that it really breaks down for the Walker category because they tried to make vehicles that fight like regular models. It would have been easier and simpler to just make them regular models (ie Monstrous Creatures) instead.

We've seen a few steps in this direction lately. Artillery is no longer a vehicle and a number of should be vehicles are now monstrous creatures. Artillery should probably go back to being vehicles IMHO though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Poison in 40k =/= to actual biological toxins. It also includes highly corrosive acids and other things that can just as easily rend metal and flesh.

But by that logic it should be affecting Land Raiders and Baneblades also. I guess we have to assume that poison weapons work like acid blood from Alien, and tanks are made out of the only substance it doesn't burn through. But they ran out of it before they got around to building these new-fangled Dreadknights.
That should be a sufficiently 'cinematic' explanation.

Reading Mechanicum at the moment and one of the main characters is frequently described as experiencing his Warlord Titan as an extension of his own body, Monstrous Creature because it's a suit?

Walker and MC rules are a cluster**** to be sure

Who cares.

Just house-rule the Riptide into a Walker or the Dreads into MC's or the Dreadknight to poison-immunity as you see fit?

The beauty of (still?) having those different rules for Walkers, MCs, etc.. is that you can use em as you see fit.

Dreadknight is a Monstrous Creature, Forgefiend is a vehicle.
You can't explain this.

 insaniak wrote:

Having said that, frankly the different system for vehicle armour has always bugged me. I would rather see everything just use Toughness and Wounds, and stick with the one system. Vehicles could still have a damge roll when they lose a wound, but the actual attacking process would be universal for everything.

Agreed. I think the biggest reason why it isn't like this already, is that to change it they'd need to invalidate all the existing codices, and they don't want to do that. They haven't done that since the release of 3rd edition.

Jefffar wrote:
There is some logic to what GW tried to do in separating vehicles and other models rules wise and things like the damage table are both cinematic and realistic. The problem is that it really breaks down for the Walker category because they tried to make vehicles that fight like regular models. It would have been easier and simpler to just make them regular models (ie Monstrous Creatures) instead.

I don't think separation between regular Vehicles/tanks/monstrous creatures is problematic as long as there is consistency in modelling the fiction and each unit types still have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Problem is that some Monstrous creatures perform in traditional vehicle roles, without traditional vehicle weaknesses. This "breaks" the fiction.

There are two criteria in how an unit is modelled in-game: internal and external. 'Internal' means how the unit is described within the fiction of the game universe (in historical games it's the real world history), 'external' means how the unit is balanced in points, organization etc so it will be balanced against other units. Ideally, game is modelled 'internally' so well that the units are also perfect 'externally' without needing of superfluous 'extermal' balancing, this is of course generally never achieved but it's something should be aspired to.

Within the game fiction, vehicles for example are supposed to have number of inherent advantages and disadvantages: they can carry really powerful weapons and powerplant packs, giving them firepower and mobility superior to foot units. They can carry armour which wholly protects them from certain weapons which would kill the crew inside if they were unprotected. Down side is that all that power packed in small space makes their insides highly vulnerable. Shooting one guy from infantry squad isn't probably going to cause him to blow up and kill the whole squad, but single penetrating hit can easily blow up entire vehicle. Then there is also consideration of operating in difficult terrain where agile footmen are more flexible, etc. Walkers and Monstrous Creatures are supposed to fit within that framework, making different tradeoffs for different abilities and weaknesses. Walking or flying is less energy-efficient than driving or floating, also standing creature or vehicle is less ideal from armouring standpoint than regular vehicle. (Admittably, for example Tyranid MC's tend to already break this fiction, but Tyranids have no vehicles so we let that fly on external balancing).

If you look at for example Space Marines army, they are generally pretty well modelled from internal viewpoint. Tactical Marine-Terminator-Dreadnought-Predator, each of those units offer a different set of tradeoffs which perfectly fit how those units perform within the fiction. Problem comes when you start to add Monstrous creatures to vehicle armies, especially Monstrous creatures which have vehicle strengths without their weaknesses. Most notably, Wraithord, Dreadknight and Riptide. Dreadknight for example can take Heavy weapons just like a Walker, but without Walker weaknesses. Only difference is that it can't take exact same weapons than Dreadnought, but no reason is given and there doesn't seem to be any. Why can't you have Psyrifleman Dreadknight? It would be real powerful, why don't GK use it? Immediate explanation is that it would be too powerful, but this is an external explanation. Game should be primarily designed from internal viewpoint.

Riptide is even worse. If you compare Riptide to Hammerhead w/ Ion cannon, then Riptide is better in every aspect. It's main gun is same but more powerful, it's secondary weapon capability is similar or better, it's mobility is better, it is much tougher against nearly all threats save some rare niche ones (mass Poison/Lasgun fire, Force weapons). No internal explanation is provided why Riptide is so much more capable. Why does Tau even have Hammerhead? Why not just take Riptides for Heavy Support too and dispense whole tank concept? Why doesn't Riptide wield Railgun? No reason why it shouldn't. Well, again explanations are that then nobody would play Hammerhead, or that Hammerhead is cheaper in points. But these are external explanations. There should be internal explanations too, but there aren't any.

This is why units like Riptide and Dreadknight are poor game design.

Both units might be a 'fudge' in the game design of 40k but GW obviosuly feels that these units require the MC status, regardless of what we think...

arguably it makes a mess of the rule set to an extent, but then there are a few issues that arise, the riptide (and all Tau suits for that matter) ever so slightly fubar the rules as they could be classed as walkers or vehicles (as was mentioned..) so it had to be one or the other, on that GW have been consistent. It might be a little 'wtf' with the riptide but it is consistent with the battlesuits, and partly allows the space for vehicles as it is an elite choice, GW saw that one coming and dealt with it accordingly.

just my humble opinion

Another reason why it's probably not a vehicle is that they wanted a sexy giant robot; one that'd never get a cover save. Without making it FA13 or FA14, that thing would get popped turn one EVERY GAME.

I'm not seeing the issue. Monstrous creature is a mechanics term, not a fluff description. They don't overlap nor do they need to.

 Griddlelol wrote:
I'm not seeing the issue. Monstrous creature is a mechanics term, not a fluff description. They don't overlap nor do they need to.

It's an issue, because it results to units and mechanisms which violate the fluff.

Functionally most walker vehicles are essentially T8-T10 MCs anyway with a separate damage chart and 3 wounds. You wound a Dread with Str 10 on a 2+, with just the additional benefit of being able to strip additional wounds. What's the big huff?

Just because they are called 'vehicles' or have an armour value doesn't detract from the fact they still function in essentially the same way.

Well a S10 weapon can't one shot a MC to start with, and an MC can still take a 2+ armor save, granted it's not AP2/AP1.
And walkers can be immobilized, can be stunned and shakened etc...

And most of those mechanical ish MCs all have an invul of somesort for some reason whilst none of the Walkers I recall really have a Invul save, except the guys that are Daemons and that's because of the Daemon rule.

Poison also doesn't work on walkers which is a big plus for them.

Functions similarly but not always true. Really depends on the situation.



I'd rather have my Maulerfiends and Forgefiends to be MCs instead and it makes sense since they living mechanical monsters.
Think of how hard it would be to kill a T8-10 5+ invul 3 wounds, It will not die, swooping only heldrake.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Functionally most walker vehicles are essentially T8-T10 MCs anyway with a separate damage chart and 3 wounds. You wound a Dread with Str 10 on a 2+, with just the additional benefit of being able to strip additional wounds. What's the big huff?

Just because they are called 'vehicles' or have an armour value doesn't detract from the fact they still function in essentially the same way.

No they don't. AV12 walker getting targeted by massed S8 missile fire will likely be destroyed or at least severely damaged. Dreadknight and Riptide, by contrast, are nearly immune to that. Against Lascannon fire, three direct hits from Lascannon will likely either destroy or at least signifantly reduce combat capability of a walker. By contrast, similar Monstrous creature can operate with no reduction whatsoever to their combat capability. It's a huge difference.