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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I dunno...battlesuits seem to be about the same size as a dreadnaught. Never had the chance to compare them irl though.

Both riptide and the Holy Baby Carrier are larger than a Dreadnought. Needless to say the Wraithlord is easily twice that.
As for the Battlesuit V. walker debate, a Dreadnought is a mechanical construct that is hard-linked to a Space Marine's mind, and is controlled through impulse and thought. Same with the riptide. The only difference is looks tbh. One has more humanoid form, the other clearly a metal box with feet and guns. That doesn't change the fact that
A) both use mechanical constructs to boost their power well beyond normal.

B) both require fairly massive engines to power (one of which is dangerous)

C) Both have large amounts of armor plating around the body to protect the user.

D) Both are inorganic

It makes no sense to give one wounds and another an AV. Its that way purely based on looks.

Hmm you do see a point. Logically it doesn't make that much sense. I do see why they gave the the tide wounds, but still.
Is there some sort of a detailed distinction between power armored infantry and vehicles? There has to be a line somewhere...

Even in fluff Power Armor is better protection than AV 10

Thatguyhsagun wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I dunno...battlesuits seem to be about the same size as a dreadnaught. Never had the chance to compare them irl though.

Both riptide and the Holy Baby Carrier are larger than a Dreadnought. Needless to say the Wraithlord is easily twice that.
As for the Battlesuit V. walker debate, a Dreadnought is a mechanical construct that is hard-linked to a Space Marine's mind, and is controlled through impulse and thought. Same with the riptide. The only difference is looks tbh. One has more humanoid form, the other clearly a metal box with feet and guns. That doesn't change the fact that
A) both use mechanical constructs to boost their power well beyond normal.

B) both require fairly massive engines to power (one of which is dangerous)

C) Both have large amounts of armor plating around the body to protect the user.

D) Both are inorganic

It makes no sense to give one wounds and another an AV. Its that way purely based on looks.

Hmm you do see a point. Logically it doesn't make that much sense. I do see why they gave the the tide wounds, but still.
Is there some sort of a detailed distinction between power armored infantry and vehicles? There has to be a line somewhere...

Even in fluff Power Armor is better protection than AV 10

Still not much of a distinction :/

If we are to assume that power armor is anything better than AV10, then by that logic land raiders are powered armor.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I dunno...battlesuits seem to be about the same size as a dreadnaught. Never had the chance to compare them irl though.

Both riptide and the Holy Baby Carrier are larger than a Dreadnought. Needless to say the Wraithlord is easily twice that.
As for the Battlesuit V. walker debate, a Dreadnought is a mechanical construct that is hard-linked to a Space Marine's mind, and is controlled through impulse and thought. Same with the riptide. The only difference is looks tbh. One has more humanoid form, the other clearly a metal box with feet and guns. That doesn't change the fact that
A) both use mechanical constructs to boost their power well beyond normal.

B) both require fairly massive engines to power (one of which is dangerous)

C) Both have large amounts of armor plating around the body to protect the user.

D) Both are inorganic

It makes no sense to give one wounds and another an AV. Its that way purely based on looks.

Hmm you do see a point. Logically it doesn't make that much sense. I do see why they gave the the tide wounds, but still.
Is there some sort of a detailed distinction between power armored infantry and vehicles? There has to be a line somewhere...

Even in fluff Power Armor is better protection than AV 10

Still not much of a distinction :/

If we are to assume that power armor is anything better than AV10, then by that logic land raiders are powered armor.

Well if all boltguns are autocannons...
Sorry obscure thread reference
I didn't mean it as a general "everything over AV 10" I meant it as in power armor is better than some tank armor fluff-wise, meaning there cant be much of a distinction aside from "Theres a squishy dude in there."

So, a lot of rules are based loosely on fluff right?

Riptide, looks exactly like a battle suit only bigger, has wounds

Dreadknight, looks exactly like a grey knight only bigger, has wounds.

dreadnought, looks like a tank with legs, has easily definable facings, and armor plating similar to a predator, has armor values.

If dreadnoughts are going to be MCs then surely landspeeders should be jump bikes! lol

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I dunno...battlesuits seem to be about the same size as a dreadnaught. Never had the chance to compare them irl though.

They're about as tall but significantly less massive, they're more on par with Tyranid Warriors really in terms of size while a Dreadnought is similar in size to a Daemon Prince without wings

Wolfnid420 wrote:
So, a lot of rules are based loosely on fluff right?

Riptide, looks exactly like a battle suit only bigger, has wounds

Dreadknight, looks exactly like a grey knight only bigger, has wounds.

dreadnought, looks like a tank with legs, has easily definable facings, and armor plating similar to a predator, has armor values.

If dreadnoughts are going to be MCs then surely landspeeders should be jump bikes! lol

Exactly what I was thinking, but if you were to ignore the aesthetics, functionally the dreadnaught is the same as the riptide.

I guess it really depends on whether or not you think a dreadnaught could be worn like a suit of powered armor. I personally don't think so, but you could class it that way.

 60mm wrote:
It's already moronic that Riptides and Wrathknights are MCs when they aren't Creatures at all. How GW tries to get things done in such non-sensical manners is pretty sad. If a walker/vehicle needs to be more durable, give it better AV. If you're worried about it getting one-shotted, give it a special rule that forces the first pen that wrecks/explodes it to re-roll. MCs still get one-shot, FWs, JotWW, etc. Making it something it isn't at all is back-asswards.

MCs really do not have worlds of durability over vehicles.
Do Kraks strip HPs on a 2+? Only the weakest of vehicles but even the biggest TMC
Do vehicles get hurt by S3? Big MCs do.
Poison?
Etc.

Does this mean Tyranids are gonna get Vehicles now? Maybe ol'Tfex is gonna become an av14 tank, or maybe one of our bugs will become a jetbike for speed. This crap is just sad.

this post sums it up perfectly. just lazy game design. suits said new toys need to be strong/durable to push rales so rather than think up and write special AV rules they just stuck wounds and toughness onto that stuff because it was faster.

Walkers, and vehicles in general, are largely immune to the vast majority of the weapons an opposing army will be fielding.
Special and heavy weapons, while they can be taken in appreciable numbers are still outnumbered heavily by basic weapon troopers.

but you really need the special and heavy weapons to kill the dreadnaught, you can take the hive tyrant down with basic weapons. there are some unusual cases though, largely to do with AP values, A plasma gun at S7 is more likely to wound the hive tyrant than it is to damage the dreadnaught, but an autocannon at S7 is more likely to damage the dreadnaught than it is to wound the hive tyrant (after saves). once you enter the realm of anti tank weapons you see the surviveability of walker decrease compared to MC's, but then you often forget there are lots and lots of weapons, and attacks that the dreadnaught will just ignore completely.

The thing that a lot of people do often compare is walkers v monstrous creatures in CC, and the real deal breaker isn't the strenth or toughness of the MC (a dreadnaught, after all is S10 with CCW) but the fact that the MC can smash, gaining S10, and having a wound pool with the additional caveat that only one good hit is usually enough to wreck the walker completely.

There are lots of advantages and disadvantages to both, but in my mind only one thing needs to change to make dreads much more of a threat.
Dreadnaught close combat weapons (of any variety) should cause instant death. i don't think it matters how big you are when that nasty, massive powerfist grabs your hive tyrant, or carnifex, or trygon, or wraithlord, by the head, and just squeezes. its not a big change, and would only make them better in close combat against MC's (they can pretty much ID anything already)

madtankbloke wrote:

Dreadnaught close combat weapons (of any variety) should cause instant death. i don't think it matters how big you are when that nasty, massive powerfist grabs your hive tyrant, or carnifex, or trygon, or wraithlord, by the head, and just squeezes. its not a big change, and would only make them better in close combat against MC's (they can pretty much ID anything already)

You could really say the same of MCs. Getting stabbed with a sword or talon that's as long as a walker is tall would have a similar effect. But you can't really drive rules like that.

By making dreadnoughts to MC's... all walkers should be it... oh wow see what just happend? orks would be unstopable!

A dreadnought should be a walker, not a MC.

A number of the current MC's need to be turned into walkers (others have posted examples).

Quite frankly GW should hire a group of people to sanity check their entire line before releasing another codex. It's getting a little old reading a unit entry's fluff and seeing that the rules have little to do with it.

Along those lines someone needs to streamline the current rule set. We have several distinct classes of vehicles but the rules try and fit those round pegs into a square hole. The dreadknight by simple definition is a walker. Two legs? check. Walks? yep. Armored? yep. someone rides inside and controls it? yep. If it looks like a walker and quacks like one....

By trade I'm a programmer and one of the main things we do is simplify a set of rules into something logical and, hopefully, intelligible. Although I like 40k and play a LOT of it; from what I can tell the entire community would benefit from a redesign of everything from the physical layout of the codexes (which is akin to a toddler throwing up) to removing a large amount of the layering from one rule to the next.

For example: I shouldn't have to go to 6 different locations in 2 books just to find out how one piece of wargear works that's just ripe for misunderstandings. Never mind that the rules authors themselves seem to include rules on units that quite frankly can't even use them (battle focus on jetbikes being a recent example).

/rant.

tldr; no, don't abolish the walker designation; however it does need fixed.

If Dreadnoughts became MCs, Blood Angels would once more become the scariest army ever.

I don't like the idea of just making them a monstrous creature, simple solution, but a bad one. I think a better idea would be to differentiate in the rules more clearly between walkers (dreadnoughts, sentinels, those big crysis suits, etc.) and vehicles (transports, field guns and tanks). This way the differentiation would apply to all codex's and not just marines. The tau and eldar, for example, also have walkers that the same problem happens to.

Without a complete overhaul i dont think you can do anything to walkers. Simply giving them MC status would make them broken as hell. On the same note, would make some pointless since now they are limited to 2 weapons an they have 3-4 they can shoot.

I think they'd just need to overhaul the Walker rule so its basically MC, but has additional rules and lacks some rules to properly transfer everything.

 Vaktathi wrote:
One will notice MC's on tables quite frequently, one will notice walkers appearing less and less frequently.


While MC's can be wounded by lower S weaponry, and are vulnerable to poison, they also have multiple clear advantages. First and foremost is that they have an armor save, that alone is huge. Second, they can't be insta-killed or crippled by *any* attack where the "to-wound" roll exceeds the minimum required to wound them. They can't lose weapons, they can't be stunned (at least not without certain special abilities and not in the way vehicles can be stunned), and they can at least contest (and in some cases hold) objectives.

Heh this is one of the few times i agree wholeheartedly with Vaktathi. There is no rational explanation why Dreadknights and Riptides are MCs and not walkers as they are completely technology based. The only reason is that the rules for MCs are better than walkers and GW wanted to sell some models.

Making Dreadnoughts T6, W3 and a 2+ save would make them auto takes in a lot of Space Marine armies. THat being said AV 13 walkers tend to fair better because it removes S7 from the penetrate chance. Still not ideal but better than AV12.

Frankly, I would rather see all] vehicles rolled into a single damage mechanic, rather than having the separate AP system.

I'm hoping the introduction of hull points is the start of the slow road back to Rogue Trader's original vehicle damage system (which only lasted until the first few supplements). That is, going back to having vehicles represented with a toughness value, wounds and an armour save. They can even rename 'em to make them more vehicle-y (kind of like how Infinity has Wounds for fleshy targets and structure for mechanical ones).

So call them structure (toughness), hull (wounds) and give 'em an armour save. They can still have all sorts of special rules to make them feel like vehicles (immunity to poison for one).

My outside hope is that they then steal the critical hit system from Epic: Armageddon and use it for Monstrous Creatues and Vehicles (to allow for one hit kills, albeit rarely).

They are so close to unifying the system again, maybe in 7th.

The split damage system was always my least favourite sacred cow of 40k, unfortunately it is proving to be really hard to kill. And I fear that all the bitching about hull points will see that little bit of progress discarded for another back step. It would also require a massive overhaul to do it, which is something GW don't tend to do two editions in a row.

Oh well, I think the relationship between the two damage systems has improved. They just need to dump the AV system and revamp the vehicle damage table to be a semi-occasional bit of flavour for both vehicles and MCs (though a different table for each of course) rather than something that serves to nerf vehicles only. Then I think the overall feel of things will improve.

But I wont hold my breath, the AV system has had its dirty mitts on 40k for a looooooong time.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
So call them structure (toughness), hull (wounds) and give 'em an armour save. They can still have all sorts of special rules to make them feel like vehicles (immunity to poison for one).

They don't need to be immune to poison, for the same reason that Necrons aren't. In the 41st millenium, 'poison' weapons include acids and similar nastiness.

Yea immunity to poison wouldnt make sense in 40k.

They would have to give them all Fearless if they removed the vehicle tag. Even if they arent considered MC but arent a vehicle either, they need Fearless or they will fail in their job (except the 1-3 walkers that are just gun platforms for some reason)

 Vineheart01 wrote:
They would have to give them all Fearless if they removed the vehicle tag. Even if they arent considered MC but arent a vehicle either, they need Fearless or they will fail in their job (except the 1-3 walkers that are just gun platforms for some reason)

MCs don't have fearless by default. I don't see why a "non-vehicle" walker would need it.

Making Dreadnoughts MC is like trying to explain how Necrons (Space robots) can be damaged by poison.

But seriously if you look at at either from the fluff side(Dreads are kept in the hand of TECHmarines) or the pure visual side(it looks like a giant suit of armor with vehicular parts not fleshy limbs), wouldn't it be better if you simply got a new unit that actually resembled a MC.



Then again all these MC may be GW's response to complaints about how "fragile" some vehicles are, especially agsinst a simple gauss weapon.

i said fearless not because MCs have it (in fact, most dont) but because they previously had it since they were a vehicle and it enabled them to fight better since they never fled.

ICME wrote:
But seriously if you look at at either from the fluff side(Dreads are kept in the hand of TECHmarines) or the pure visual side(it looks like a giant suit of armor with vehicular parts not fleshy limbs), wouldn't it be better if you simply got a new unit that actually resembled a MC.

Battlesuits are Infantry.
Riptides are MCs.
Wraithlords are MCs.
Wraithknights are MCs.
Dreadknights are MCs.

GW doesn't care if rules make sense or not.

I dunno, I look at it and think that if it's flesh and blood, it's an MC. If it's metal and needs a pilot of some sort, it's a walker.

I also look at the points costs and think that if people want the average walker on the same level as the average MC, they better be willing to cough up the extra points cost.

No. Again, just because GW is trending toward something (making more walkers into MC's) doesn't mean the trend should continue.

For starters, hull points need to go, and a better way to treat vehicles needs to be developed. Otherwise people will say just tack on more hull points; in other words put frosting on that sh*t cake.

I can see why GW didn't make the riptide or wraithknight a walker. Similar things in the dex aren't, and making em a walkerwould lower their suitability, and people would get annoyed that their super expensive centre piece is punked every game by a single shot

Von Chogg

 AL-PiXeL01 wrote:
Given their mobility walkers should be imun to smash attacks.

Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying because they are so sturdy and solidly grounded they should be immune to smash attacks? Then tanks also should be.

Or are you saying they are nimble enough to avoid smash attacks. But regular troops are not immune to smash attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Honestly, the difference between vehicles in general and MC's at this point is largely academic anyway, as they function largely identically to T6-10 MC's as a result of Hull Points. The big thing is that MC's have armor saves, tanks and walkers oddly enough do not and can be crippled/ID'd on any to-wound roll that exceeds the minimum required to wound them

MC can be IDed by any force weapon. I hate GK like no other army out there, but have not faced Tau yet.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The difference is that 1 AT missile is only going to take off 1 wound at worst on an MC, the MC may even get a save, the walker likely won't and the walker can potentially be ID'd, stunned or crippled.

The MC is also likely going to have a huge advantage in CC over the walker.

Hmm. What if you didn't roll on the vehicle damage chart until all the hull points were gone. Once they were then you roll on the chart. Each time a weapon gets a penetrating hit after that point you get a cumulative +1 on the die roll. Glances give a straight die roll.

Would make vehicles more durable yet would be more vulnerable then they were in 5th.

More things to keep track of and might be issues with tech priests restoring hull points and that "reseting" the bonus for penetrating hits.

The completely different mechanics for vehicles and non-vehicles is actually the thing that bugs me the most in 40K rules. Making Dreads into MC is not a solution, fixing the system is.

As it is now, Wraithknight being a MC doesn't bug me, as eldar wraith constructs are very dissimilar to normal vehicles. Riptide and Dreadknight should be walkers though.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Hmm. What if you didn't roll on the vehicle damage chart until all the hull points were gone. Once they were then you roll on the chart. Each time a weapon gets a penetrating hit after that point you get a cumulative +1 on the die roll. Glances give a straight die roll.

Would make vehicles more durable yet would be more vulnerable then they were in 5th.

More things to keep track of and might be issues with tech priests restoring hull points and that "reseting" the bonus for penetrating hits.

The way to patch the Hull point vehicle system would be similar to the do not roll on the vehicle damage chart until all the hull points are gone method, but make glances strip 1 HP, pen's strip 2 HP's and give all vehicles 1 or 2 more hull points. Also, as you suggested "Each time a weapon gets a penetrating hit after that point you get a cumulative +1 on the die roll. Glances give a straight die roll." added to the changes would work well.

However I would like to see one system for both MC's Infantry, and Vehicles.

Hmm. What if you didn't roll on the vehicle damage chart until all the hull points were gone. Once they were then you roll on the chart. Each time a weapon gets a penetrating hit after that point you get a cumulative +1 on the die roll. Glances give a straight die roll.

Let me get this straight, you want 6th edition rules for damaging vehicles, with the caveat that penetrating hits roll do double damage rather than rolling on the vehicle penetration. Then when said vehicle is reduced to 0 hull points, instead of being wrecked, you go to using a slightly modified version of the 5th edition rules for damaging vehicles. So you'd essentially have to destroy a vehicle twice, under each set of rules, to get rid of it, and this doesn't sound broken as hell to you?