How are Walkers bad?

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.

**Sparkadia**

Ailaros wrote:

My only hope is that given that walkers have been getting no cheaper or more expensive (cf. CSM defiler), while non-walker (and non-flier) vehicles are getting much cheaper (cf. russes), that the idea is that 7th is going to come by and do something to make walkers a lot better.

That seems a tad farsighted for the monkeys at GW.

Do not hold to hope, Ailaros... It has forsaken these lands.
(Watched Lord of the Rings last night. Apologies.)

**Andilus Greatsword**

Sparkadia wrote:
Ailaros wrote:

My only hope is that given that walkers have been getting no cheaper or more expensive (cf. CSM defiler), while non-walker (and non-flier) vehicles are getting much cheaper (cf. russes), that the idea is that 7th is going to come by and do something to make walkers a lot better.

That seems a tad farsighted for the monkeys at GW.

Do not hold to hope, Ailaros... It has forsaken these lands.
(Watched Lord of the Rings last night. Apologies.)

Holy crap, I was watching The Two Towers as well last night.

But uhhh... yeah. In 5th, walkers were insanely durable simply because they could tarpit entire units with ease (less-so for their ability to actually kill said unit though). An edition change could do them wonders.

**Sparkadia**

Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Sparkadia wrote:
Ailaros wrote:

My only hope is that given that walkers have been getting no cheaper or more expensive (cf. CSM defiler), while non-walker (and non-flier) vehicles are getting much cheaper (cf. russes), that the idea is that 7th is going to come by and do something to make walkers a lot better.

That seems a tad farsighted for the monkeys at GW.

Do not hold to hope, Ailaros... It has forsaken these lands.
(Watched Lord of the Rings last night. Apologies.)

Holy crap, I was watching The Two Towers as well last night.

But uhhh... yeah. In 5th, walkers were insanely durable simply because they could tarpit entire units with ease (less-so for their ability to actually kill said unit though). An edition change could do them wonders.

LotR buddies!

A revamp could work, but it would have to mean a major change in the general application of HPs. Orrr maybe not, I suppose Grenades going back to hitting on 6's would be a big deal for the melee-oriented Walkers, and perhaps a general AV13 for the 'tough' Walkers and AV 12 for the 'light' ones (Deff Dread vs Killa Kanz) so they can at least only be glanced by the vast horde of S7 guns.

I'd still much rather see a rework of the Walker rules into a sort of MC-like state. Not an MC, but something kind of close. There have been a ton of good suggestions on Dakkas Proposed Rules forum alone in this sort of direction.

**kronk**

Give Helbrutes Daemon rule! 5++ invulnerable!

Not great, but would help.

**Evil Lamp 6**

StarTrotter wrote:
I wouldn't quite say fire-support due to the iconic Dreadnought being built to have a CCW and a gun rather than being a gun platform along with the maulerfiend being pure CC. I'm trying to remember all the walkers though... There's the Forgefiend which is plasma shots which can kill elite units, Maulerfiends which are pure CC, Helbrutes which are built to requrie you to have a gun and ccw although have slightly more options for CC than usual, Dreadnoughts which are fluffwise expected to have a gun and CCW (with a few extra gun choices), Defiler which is a schizo monster that is built to fire ordinance at long range and fire lascannons at vehicles close before charging with power fists or flamer before charging (so overall relatively middling), the eldar walker which is a fragile gun of doom, and the IG which is a fragile walker that shoots. So it seems more often than not walkers are somewhat balanced between the roles with more leaning to being shooty support. There's about 3 being fire support, 3 being middling, and 1 being for CC entirely.

Why does nearly everyone forget about Penitent Engines? Anyway, with only 2 DCCW with 2 built in Heavy Flamers, the Penitent Engine is definitely in the CC entirely group. Yet it isn't worth the cost in points nor the wasted HS slot, even for a squadron of three. I'd love to field the 9 of them I have more regularly, feth, I'd even probably pickup the additional 9 I could run @ 2000 points, but they are just such a terrible choice.

**StarTrotter**

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
StarTrotter wrote:
I wouldn't quite say fire-support due to the iconic Dreadnought being built to have a CCW and a gun rather than being a gun platform along with the maulerfiend being pure CC. I'm trying to remember all the walkers though... There's the Forgefiend which is plasma shots which can kill elite units, Maulerfiends which are pure CC, Helbrutes which are built to requrie you to have a gun and ccw although have slightly more options for CC than usual, Dreadnoughts which are fluffwise expected to have a gun and CCW (with a few extra gun choices), Defiler which is a schizo monster that is built to fire ordinance at long range and fire lascannons at vehicles close before charging with power fists or flamer before charging (so overall relatively middling), the eldar walker which is a fragile gun of doom, and the IG which is a fragile walker that shoots. So it seems more often than not walkers are somewhat balanced between the roles with more leaning to being shooty support. There's about 3 being fire support, 3 being middling, and 1 being for CC entirely.
Why does nearly everyone forget about Penitent Engines? Anyway, with only 2 DCCW with 2 built in Heavy Flamers, the Penitent Engine is definitely in the CC entirely group. Yet it isn't worth the cost in points nor the wasted HS slot, even for a squadron of three. I'd love to field the 9 of them I have more regularly, feth, I'd even probably pickup the additional 9 I could run @ 2000 points, but they are just such a terrible choice.

Bah! I defend myself with claims that the Penitent Engine is so overpriced for what it does that it's hard to remember (doesn't help that it's underplayed and I largely only build lists with Sisters themself because Sisters are glorious). Which reminds me, I also forgot the Soulgrinder which kinda can go both ways although I don't think he starts with a ranged weapon so he's either neutral or slightly leaning to CC

**Vaktathi**

Ailaros wrote:

My only hope is that given that walkers have been getting no cheaper or more expensive (cf. CSM defiler), while non-walker (and non-flier) vehicles are getting much cheaper (cf. russes), that the idea is that 7th is going to come by and do something to make walkers a lot better.

The only tanks that have gotten meaningful price drops have been some Russ variants, the Whirlwind, and Lascannon upgrades I think. Others have gotten more expensive or less capable (Hydra, Chimera, Dakkapred, etc) or stayed largely the same.

**Araenion**

The problem is that with the change from 5th to 6th, vehicles got hit because they obviously wanted to do away with the prevalence of all mech armies. In the transition, which, in my opinion, was actually a good idea, the walkers, especially Dreadnoughts, were left greatly weakened. It's not inconceivable that they'll do something specifically for walkers in the next edition. Adding a few special rules and giving them an inv save would go a long way toward fixing them.

**Sparkadia**

Araenion wrote:
The problem is that with the change from 5th to 6th, vehicles got hit because they obviously wanted to do away with the prevalence of all mech armies. In the transition, which, in my opinion, was actually a good idea, the walkers, especially Dreadnoughts, were left greatly weakened. It's not inconceivable that they'll do something specifically for walkers in the next edition. Adding a few special rules and giving them an inv save would go a long way toward fixing them.

I think keeping HP is still a big mistake. I agree that they could plausibly use the existing rules with some changes (as you mentioned, stuff like adding an Invul and supercharged Run moves or something) but I think they would still be sub-par. Some rather big changes need to happen to make them worthwhile, unfortunately, IMO.

**Andy06r**

The only real benefit of a walker is that they can't be hurt by bolters and pulse fire and lascannons need 3s to wound.

In one sense AV12 is T9, but anti tank guns are psuedo s10.

Maybe that is the trick?

AV10 - T7
AV11 - T8
..
AV14 - T11

Leave weapon strengths the way they are, and add the USR High Yield for +1S vs "vehicles"

**StarTrotter**

Andy06r wrote:
The only real benefit of a walker is that they can't be hurt by bolters and pulse fire and lascannons need 3s to wound.

In one sense AV12 is T9, but anti tank guns are psuedo s10.

Maybe that is the trick?

AV10 - T7
AV11 - T8
..
AV14 - T11

Leave weapon strengths the way they are, and add the USR High Yield for +1S vs "vehicles"

I've always thought maybe having vehicles become high toughness low wounds whilst MC became lower toughness high wounds might work out. It'd require some rules to be changed and some other exceptions but in the long run I think it might help to avod av and toughness fighting eachother for dominance like how we went from an edition where AV was god to now where you swear by MC.

**Kain**

Doing away with HP would cripple units that rely on Haywire to kill vehicles, like Tyranid Crones.

It'd also make Gauss weapons largely superfluous once again.

Hence why I'm more in favor of giving vehicles saves.

**StarTrotter**

Alright that would make sense... Although doesn't haywire just basically lead to auto-glances and gauss weaposn would basically just get to wound things that would normally be resistant to guns already?

I'll agree at least they need saves.

**Kain**

StarTrotter wrote:
Alright that would make sense... Although doesn't haywire just basically lead to auto-glances and gauss weaposn would basically just get to wound things that would normally be resistant to guns already?

I'll agree at least they need saves.

A lot of "nerf MC" or "buff vehicles" fixes punish Tyranids for the excesses of other armies, which rustles my jimmies when we've already been punished enough.

But yes, be more liberal in giving saves to vehicles.

**StarTrotter**

honestly my problem comes more from being removed from the game due to college. I can hardly remember what haywire does anymore.

And I agree to nerf mc being too general. Whilst I think Walkers need a buff all around, I don't think vehicles need it as much. Tyranids in general just need a huge buff (especially to their CC)

**Ailaros**

The switch from vehicles as vehicles to vehicles as strange MCs would be easy.

For those fringe cases like meltaguns and gauss weapons, you just rewrite their special rules. They're only special because of said special rules in the first place. You could easily rewrite gauss weapons to cause 2 wounds instead of 1 against vehicular targets, and give meltaguns a modified form of instant death.

**TheCustomLime**

I think flying Monstrous Creatures should get a slight nerf so that they aren't the auto take they are right now. Maybe have them be jump infantry with jink saves?

**Ailaros**

To fix FMCs, you need to fix the rules for fliers in general, which are in desperate need of fixing. That's a discussion for the 7th ed wishlist I guess, though.

**StarTrotter**

TheCustomLime wrote:
I think flying Monstrous Creatures should get a slight nerf so that they aren't the auto take they are right now. Maybe have them be jump infantry with jink saves?

I can't tell if it's because FMC are good or if it's more due to normal MC being way too bad. Lots of ground MCs are just too slow and vulnerable to be taken.

The only real solution is to fix fliers in general as well as assault.

**TheCustomLime**

Yup. Okay, how about this. Walkers gain the Fast USR so that they aren't foot slogging as much.

**Kain**

TheCustomLime wrote:
Yup. Okay, how about this. Walkers gain the Fast USR so that they aren't foot slogging as much.

As I said, Walkers should have hammer of wrath and smash if Monstrous Creatures can have it for free.

**StarTrotter**

Kain wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
Yup. Okay, how about this. Walkers gain the Fast USR so that they aren't foot slogging as much.

As I said, Walkers should have hammer of wrath and smash if Monstrous Creatures can have it for free.

I agree with hammer of wrath but the problem with smash is that many MC basically automatically come with Smash always on. (which is why Daemon Princes sadden me when they get one hit killed. Although not as painful as a riptide doing it)

**AllSeeingSkink**

TheCustomLime wrote:
I think flying Monstrous Creatures should get a slight nerf so that they aren't the auto take they are right now. Maybe have them be jump infantry with jink saves?

I don't think FMC's are that bad, they're only really good when you spam them making them hard to deal with. A couple of FMC's isn't bad at all. If you don't use the Tyranid FMC-spam dataslate and just stick to a regular FOC, the FMC's aren't all that bad.

The reason the Flyrant is an auto-take is more because the walking Tyrant sucks, making the 35pt upgrade a no-brainer. You lose nothing but gain a lot of survivability and a lot of mobility.

**Ailaros**

Yeah, it's kind of always bothered me as well that walkers are slower than regular vehicles as well. 6+D6" only works when the unit is either embarked in a faster unit, or when you have a LOT of them to soak up field position. Walkers do neither.

I mean, at least MCs get MTC, and are more survivable.

**StarTrotter**

Wait what exactly is MTC?

**Ailaros**

move through cover

**TheCustomLime**

Kain wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
Yup. Okay, how about this. Walkers gain the Fast USR so that they aren't foot slogging as much.

As I said, Walkers should have hammer of wrath and smash if Monstrous Creatures can have it for free.

Hammer of Wrath I can agree with but not Smash. Smash should only be for really big walkers like the Imperial Knight or what the Riptide should be. I think having them be fast would at least have them be better suited towards their intended battlefield role as close quarter battle units.

Walkers should also have MTC.

**StarTrotter**

TheCustomLime wrote:
Kain wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
Yup. Okay, how about this. Walkers gain the Fast USR so that they aren't foot slogging as much.

As I said, Walkers should have hammer of wrath and smash if Monstrous Creatures can have it for free.

Hammer of Wrath I can agree with but not Smash. Smash should only be for really big walkers like the Imperial Knight or what the Riptide should be. I think having them be fast would at least have them be better suited towards their intended battlefield role as close quarter battle units.

Walkers should also have MTC.

Gonna agree on MTC. It seems silly for them not to have it.

**PrinceRaven**

Walkers aren't bad in their entirety, it's just that many of the most common Walkers are overpriced.

I doubt many people will say War Walkers or Imperial Knights are bad just because they're Walkers.

**Vaktathi**

TheCustomLime wrote:
Kain wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
Yup. Okay, how about this. Walkers gain the Fast USR so that they aren't foot slogging as much.

As I said, Walkers should have hammer of wrath and smash if Monstrous Creatures can have it for free.

Hammer of Wrath I can agree with but not Smash. Smash should only be for really big walkers like the Imperial Knight or what the Riptide should be. I think having them be fast would at least have them be better suited towards their intended battlefield role as close quarter battle units.

Walkers should also have MTC.

Given that the Imperial Knight sports a D strength melee weapon, and the Riptide is a Monstrous Creature, that would seem to be take it out of the picture completely then wouldn't it?

If a T5 Daemon Prince can smash, I'd say a Forgefiend that's half again as tall, with half again as many limbs, and is probably 4x the mass should probably be able to Smash (though if we're really looking at it, they really should be MC's in the first place, moreso than something like a Riptide which has an actual cockpit and pilot).