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.

Good lord that thing is huge

Still unconvinced on the bulging chest though.....

 Ratius wrote:

Spoiler:

Good lord that thing is huge

Still unconvinced on the bulging chest though.....

That makes more sense as an armored cockpit than the completely unnecessary codpiece.

But it lacked a bullet trap

Can we take the Forgeworld discussion to the Forgeworld thread? This thread is bad enough without duplicating another thread.

 Ratius wrote:


Good lord that thing is huge

Still unconvinced on the bulging chest though.....

I don't see the chest as being any more bulging, in proportion to the main structure, than the chest on any of the other battlesuits, I think it's just that by retaining the tiny head, it LOOKS more prominent.

Valid point.

A read of the rules says its made to compete with Imperial Knights. Not titans. A poster over at the ATT forums suggest the above picture is the model at its maximum height, and not its walk as it would be on a battlefield.

So there is now more confusion if it's going to be a SH or Gargantuan creature.

The things cannons are about the size of a knight.
That's like saying the HRR Broadside is designed to take down standard Guardsmen.

 Gamgee wrote:
A read of the rules says its made to compete with Imperial Knights. Not titans. A poster over at the ATT forums suggest the above picture is the model at its maximum height, and not its walk as it would be on a battlefield.

So there is now more confusion if it's going to be a SH or Gargantuan creature.

There shouldn't be any. The guy who initially reported everything about this Supremacy suit made it clear that it is a Superheavy Walker crewed by three individual Earth Caste Pilots.

This Walker/monstrous creature stuff is so convoluted at this point... Just pick an option and stick to it.

 Mymearan wrote:
This Walker/monstrous creature stuff is so convoluted at this point... Just pick an option and stick to it.

Well, in a perfect world, each faction should have something Imperial Knight sized from GW (an "affordable" giant stompy), Cerastus and Reaver sized from FW, and a giant vehicle from one of 'em.

Failing that, they should have at least a GW-class giant stompy and one FW class stompy -- since the flying vehicles like thunderhawks are not really practical for gaming anyhow.

When I get mine I think I'm gonna put the ions on the shoulders leave the middle pulse rail gun thing then put the other two on the arms then I feel like it will be a little more balanced ascetic wise. Go with the armored core wing style laser rifles from 4.

 Talys wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
This Walker/monstrous creature stuff is so convoluted at this point... Just pick an option and stick to it.

Well, in a perfect world, each faction should have something Imperial Knight sized from GW (an "affordable" giant stompy), Cerastus and Reaver sized from FW, and a giant vehicle from one of 'em.

Failing that, they should have at least a GW-class giant stompy and one FW class stompy -- since the flying vehicles like thunderhawks are not really practical for gaming anyhow.

I'm pretty sure they just meant how some things are walkers rules wise and some are monstrous creatures, even when they should be walkers or vice versa. Like the Riptide being a MC when it's basically a walker. Things like that.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
This Walker/monstrous creature stuff is so convoluted at this point... Just pick an option and stick to it.

Well, in a perfect world, each faction should have something Imperial Knight sized from GW (an "affordable" giant stompy), Cerastus and Reaver sized from FW, and a giant vehicle from one of 'em.

Failing that, they should have at least a GW-class giant stompy and one FW class stompy -- since the flying vehicles like thunderhawks are not really practical for gaming anyhow.

I'm pretty sure they just meant how some things are walkers rules wise and some are monstrous creatures, even when they should be walkers or vice versa. Like the Riptide being a MC when it's basically a walker. Things like that.

Ahhhh I see. I misread the question!

In that case, I'm all for the two being different (because walkers and tanks look and work differently), but one shouldn't be so superior to the other as to make the latter undesirable. It shouldn't be that there are no disadvantages to one over the other.

That is indeed what I meant. Walkers and vehicles are fine, but when you throw monstrous creatures into the mix and there's no clear distinction between them, to the point where one "walker" is a Monstrous Creature and the other is a Walker... It just seems arbitrary. The Tau Titan is a Walker, but the Riptide, a smaller version that looks very similar, is a monstrous creature? Why exactly?

 Mymearan wrote:
That is indeed what I meant. Walkers and vehicles are fine, but when you throw monstrous creatures into the mix and there's no clear distinction between them, to the point where one "walker" is a Monstrous Creature and the other is a Walker... It just seems arbitrary. The Tau Titan is a Walker, but the Riptide, a smaller version that looks very similar, is a monstrous creature? Why exactly?

To make one more survivable in game to be exact, you need to ignore the title 'monsterous creature and walker' when comparing it to the model themselves.

It's in how the vehicle moves. If it moves like an animal or humanoid with some sort of agility and naturalness to it then it's a MC/GC. If it's slow and clunky and clearly more robotic it gets slapped with walker.

A riptide makes no sense to be a walker. In the lore its described as being fully as agile as a Crisis suit.

This big walker we know it has thrusters on the back to compensate for the guns recoil. That doesn't scream agility to me.

Then why are Maulerfiends not MC?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Then why are Maulerfiends not MC?

If you want consistency, you're playing the wrong game from the wrong company.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Then why are Maulerfiends not MC?

Good question. Again how agile are they? Are they more vehicle like. Like a possessed carzilla or do they move around like an animal. If the former then it could be said walker makes sense, but if the later then it doesn't make sense. I don't know Chaos well so I can't say any more than that. In the game DoW they certainly weren't all that agile. Still it could be argued they could be changed to MC.

 Gamgee wrote:
It's in how the vehicle moves. If it moves like an animal or humanoid with some sort of agility and naturalness to it then it's a MC/GC. If it's slow and clunky and clearly more robotic it gets slapped with walker.

That's not strictly true.

It was explained a very long time ago to me at a Games Day when I asked why a Dreadnought was a Walker and a Wraithlord was a Monstrous Creature that the difference between Monstrous Creatures and Walkers has to do with how they, effectively, are able to be wounded/harmed.

A Monstrous Creature/Gargantuan Creature can still feel pain and it will have something akin to a nervous system(a Wraithlord, for example, has a kind of nervous system inside its Wraithbone skeleton to allow the consciousness within to actually operate it)--or an exposed operator of some kind(the Dreadknight).
Walkers are fully enclosed and the pilot/operator has some form of protection(armored cockpit for a Sentinel, force field for an Eldar War Walker).

Something like the Maulerfiend/Forgefiend, while operated by a consciousness(the Daemon bound within) could not exist without its vehicle body--hence, it gets Walker rules because if you destroy the vehicle hosting the Daemon then it ceases to be.

The Wraithknight is an interesting one to think about, but when it comes down to it? It's two Eldar consciousnesses sharing the Wraithbone construct. The living twin is there to balance out the dead twin, who controls the Wraithbone construct itself, and both feel what the other would feel--thus, GMC.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Then why are Maulerfiends not MC?

Good question. Again how agile are they? Are they more vehicle like. Like a possessed carzilla or do they move around like an animal. If the former then it could be said walker makes sense, but if the later then it doesn't make sense. I don't know Chaos well so I can't say any more than that. In the game DoW they certainly weren't all that agile. Still it could be argued they could be changed to MC.

Maulerfiends weren't in DoW.
Nor were Forgefiends or Helbrutes.

Defilers and Dreadnoughts were there, but that was it. It's a daemonically possessed construct--but again, movement has nothing to do with it. It has to deal with how the thing could potentially be wounded/harmed:
The Daemon bound within doesn't give a flip about the 'pain' being inflicted upon what it is bound within. It just wants to wreak havoc and get freed to return to the Warp.

Interesting. I didn't know that. That will come in handy in the future.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
It's in how the vehicle moves. If it moves like an animal or humanoid with some sort of agility and naturalness to it then it's a MC/GC. If it's slow and clunky and clearly more robotic it gets slapped with walker.

That's not strictly true.

It was explained a very long time ago to me at a Games Day when I asked why a Dreadnought was a Walker and a Wraithlord was a Monstrous Creature that the difference between Monstrous Creatures and Walkers has to do with how they, effectively, are able to be wounded/harmed.

A Monstrous Creature/Gargantuan Creature can still feel pain and it will have something akin to a nervous system(a Wraithlord, for example, has a kind of nervous system inside its Wraithbone skeleton to allow the consciousness within to actually operate it)--or an exposed operator of some kind(the Dreadknight).
Walkers are fully enclosed and the pilot/operator has some form of protection(armored cockpit for a Sentinel, force field for an Eldar War Walker).

Something like the Maulerfiend/Forgefiend, while operated by a consciousness(the Daemon bound within) could not exist without its vehicle body--hence, it gets Walker rules because if you destroy the vehicle hosting the Daemon then it ceases to be.

The Wraithknight is an interesting one to think about, but when it comes down to it? It's two Eldar consciousnesses sharing the Wraithbone construct. The living twin is there to balance out the dead twin, who controls the Wraithbone construct itself, and both feel what the other would feel--thus, GMC.

How does a riptide it in with this then since it has a pilot ans armored cockpit?

 agnosto wrote:

How does a riptide it in with this then since it has a pilot ans armored cockpit?

I would assume in the same way that Crisis Suits are considered Jet Pack Infantry rather than a Walker with the ability to JSJ--the pilot has a neural linkage to the armor and gets 'feedback'--or that the armor just isn't all that thick, compared to vehicle armor.

That's my own take on it, in the framing of the context I was given and dipping into the example of Terminator Armor(a suit of armor which is said to have the same thickness plate as battle tanks, yet has a flat 2+ armor save rather than AV) or Centurion Suits.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

How does a riptide it in with this then since it has a pilot ans armored cockpit?

I would assume in the same way that Crisis Suits are considered Jet Pack Infantry rather than a Walker with the ability to JSJ--the pilot has a neural linkage to the armor and gets 'feedback'--or that the armor just isn't all that thick, compared to vehicle armor.

That's my own take on it, in the framing of the context I was given and dipping into the example of Terminator Armor(a suit of armor which is said to have the same thickness plate as battle tanks, yet has a flat 2+ armor save rather than AV) or Centurion Suits.

That was my thought as well and then I remembered Knights and Titans where the pilots are neurally linked to the system.

Sorry, off-topic here.

Maulerfiends are walkers despite being so fast and nimble that they have a 12'' move and are stated in the fluff to be able to climb vertical surfaces. Dreadknights are Monstrous Creatures despite explicitly being a stompy robot with a guy strapped to the front of it with no protection. Penitent engines meanwhile are walkers despite functioning in the exact same way as Dreadknights.

The reason why one unit is a walker and the other is a monstrous creature is because Games Workshop's writers are idiots. There is no consistency and there is no pattern or metric put into how they designate one versus the other.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Maulerfiends are walkers despite being so fast and nimble that they have a 12'' move and are stated in the fluff to be able to climb vertical surfaces. Dreadknights are Monstrous Creatures despite explicitly being a stompy robot with a guy strapped to the front of it with no protection. Penitent engines meanwhile are walkers despite functioning in the exact same way as Dreadknights.

The reason why one unit is a walker and the other is a monstrous creature is because Games Workshop's writers are idiots. There is no consistency and there is no pattern of metric put into how they designate one versus the other.

Exalted for truth.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Maulerfiends are walkers despite being so fast and nimble that they have a 12'' move and are stated in the fluff to be able to climb vertical surfaces. Dreadknights are Monstrous Creatures despite explicitly being a stompy robot with a guy strapped to the front of it with no protection. Penitent engines meanwhile are walkers despite functioning in the exact same way as Dreadknights.

The reason why one unit is a walker and the other is a monstrous creature is because Games Workshop's writers are idiots. There is no consistency and there is no pattern or metric put into how they designate one versus the other.

To be fair, when the Penitent Engine was written as a Walker--the Dreadknight didn't exist and it was considered an aberration.

Since then the only updates to the Sisters of Battle/Witch Hunters books have more or less been copy/pastes.

 pretre wrote:
Can we take the Forgeworld discussion to the Forgeworld thread? This thread is bad enough without duplicating another thread.

This. Right now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It was explained a very long time ago to me at a Games Day when I asked why a Dreadnought was a Walker and a Wraithlord was a Monstrous Creature that the difference between Monstrous Creatures and Walkers has to do with how they, effectively, are able to be wounded/harmed.

A Monstrous Creature/Gargantuan Creature can still feel pain and it will have something akin to a nervous system(a Wraithlord, for example, has a kind of nervous system inside its Wraithbone skeleton to allow the consciousness within to actually operate it)--or an exposed operator of some kind(the Dreadknight).
Walkers are fully enclosed and the pilot/operator has some form of protection(armored cockpit for a Sentinel, force field for an Eldar War Walker).

Something like the Maulerfiend/Forgefiend, while operated by a consciousness(the Daemon bound within) could not exist without its vehicle body--hence, it gets Walker rules because if you destroy the vehicle hosting the Daemon then it ceases to be.

The Wraithknight is an interesting one to think about, but when it comes down to it? It's two Eldar consciousnesses sharing the Wraithbone construct. The living twin is there to balance out the dead twin, who controls the Wraithbone construct itself, and both feel what the other would feel--thus, GMC.

Ok, so they came up with a fluff justification for a rules abstraction. It still doesn't make the walker rules any better. They should all be MC's.