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.

With the advent of the Wraithknight and the Riptide, Dreadnoughts are hardly the fearsome constructs they once were. GW clearly recognized the weakness of low AV walkers and made their new toys MC's to avoid that one shot death.

I feel the only way to make Dreads attractive and viable again is to make them MCs. What say you?

Where is the "keep your damn dirty power armored hands off my MCs" option

I don't understand why they don't have eternal warrior, they literally are eternal warriors.

2x210 wrote:
I don't understand why they don't have eternal warrior, they literally are eternal warriors.

What effect would that have on a Walker?

I don't think dreadnoughts should become monstrous creatures as they are far too cheap points wise for that.

Riptides and Wraithknights (and other MC's like Greater Daemons and TMC's) pay a lot of points for the pleasure.

They should only explode when they die. That would be a neat buff and not too OP imo.

I haven't read the 6th ed rules yet (I know I'm behind the curve, but as I don't have a FLGS I play at... ), but one thing that comes to mind that would remove this usefulness is poisoned shooting. I play against DE, and the thought of a dreadnought going down to masses of poisoned glass shards that should simply shatter off the hull doesn't appeal to me. I don't know if the new MCs are vulnerable to poisoned shooting or not, but if a dread becomes a MC, it needs a rule to nullify poisoned weapons, or dreads will be useless against armies that take them.

tommse wrote:They should only explode when they die. That would be a neat buff and not too OP imo.

And happens quite often in fluff.

They could just make them AV13, I don't like the idea of them becoming MC really. Could even give them some sort of FNP or save similar to War Walkers to represent their ability to shrug off heavy fire.

All venerables should have a 5++.

Given their mobility walkers should be imun to smash attacks.

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

At this point the line between MCs and Vehicles makes little sense. I think a better system, which obviously will never happen, would be homogenizing the classes so that Vehicles are a special type of MC. Then everything in the game would have the same stat-line.

Make it so a Critical Hit is triggered when a Vehicle is "wounded" on a 6 by a weapon that goes through its armor value. Then add a special critical hit table similar to the current vehicle damage table, minus the results that destroy vehicles outright.

Now your Dreadknights and Dreadnoughts can operate the same way, and vehicles in general get tougher - more likely to survive the battle, less likely to be rendered impotent every turn, and having a reasonable armor save makes it harder for low AP weapons to glance transports to death.

Autocannons would still be king though.

A better question would be: "Should mechas like DreadKnights, Wrathknights & Riptides be made Walkers?" I'd say yes, or alternatively create a vehicle subtype or new unit type for them. Monstrous Creature status should be reserved for things like Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes, you know, actual creatures that are monstrous. As far as Dreadnoughts are concerned they are clearly Walkers and should remain so, regardless of balance issues, I wouldn't call for a Carnifex to be made a Jetbike to fix its balance issues.

I think the issue is, should vehicles even be treated the way they are? Hull points blur the line between vehicles and creatures, and the trend of making walkers into MCs highlights how extremely vulnerable vehicles are compared with MCs. I'm not saying vehicles should be called creatures, I'm saying unifying the mechanics would make sense. Vehicles and monstrous creatures could each have a critical hit table to highlight the differences between them, and the removal of the armor value system for vehicles would streamline the game.

However since that will never happen, we're going to be stuck with super-durable walker MCs and the occasional one-shotted land raiders.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
... ... ... I wouldn't call for a Carnifex to be made a Jetbike to fix its balance issues.

THE GALAXY SHALL QUAKE AT ITS FURY!!!!

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.

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.

Before the Riptide and Wraithknight I would have said no. However, now that that seems to be the way things are going I say sure. They've already remade the Chaos Dreadnought into the Hellbrute so in the new Space Marines Codex I say make the Dreadnought bigger and tougher and turn him into a Monstrous Creature.

On to the serious reply...

I am a firm believer that things like wraithknights, riptides, and dreadknights should become walkers and not MC.

And on to the whole 'MC are sooo much better than walkers" thing... most MC never get to use their armor save anyway, as AT weapons/PF/TH are spammed at them to kill them, and 9 times out of 10 said things succeed in murdering the crap out of them turn 1 or 2.
As has been already stated, MC have to deal with things like poison, most maledictions, are succeptible to the plethora of powers, abilities, and wargear that lower toughness now, sniper and poison weapons, force weapons... the list goes on. 10 Krak grenades vs a deadnought? a glance or 2. same thing against most MC? 2-3 wounds on average. In all honesty most people's view that vehicles are so terribly fragile is merely because in 5th they were stupidly hard to kill. the whole purpose of the HP system being introduced was to stop the nonsense of a vehicle being hit by 50 krak missiles, and just getting shaken/stunned ad-infinium, so it just sat there being an annoyance. EVERY army has reliable ways to drop MC at range and in CC. The same cannot be said about high AV vehicles. Every tried to kill a land raider when the best AT weapon you have at your disposal is a couple of krak missiles? Did you have the same issue against the riptide from the other game?

The mere fact that almost every "how do I kill MC heavy list thread" is started with the same 3 steps:
1. Poison weapons, if not
2. Any AT weapons, if not
3. Plasma weapons (guns, cannons, pistols, etc) if not
4. Force weapons and/or thunderhammers/powerfists
5. Krak grenades/meltabombs en mass, if not
6. This large list of psychic powers, if not
7. Just use volume of fire, it's bound to fail 3-4 armor saves if you dump enough lasguns/bolters into it


The same about AV13/14 in high numbers?
1. Railguns/Lance weapons
2. Meltaguns
3. Meltabombs
If none.. well you cant hurt it Jim, yurr gunna die lots hurr.

I realize there is a fair bit of hyperbole in that example, but the point is pretty clear. Yes, your 12/12/10 3 HP walker is not quasi-invincible anymore. Yes, when 5-6 Anti-Tank missiles hit said walker, there is a fair chance he is going explode, or at least cease to be a functional weapons platform. Want to know a secret? When 5-6 Anti-Tank missiles hits most monstrous creatures... THEY DIE TOO!!!
And to anyone who says "Landraiders are sooo unpopular they suck so hard," Of the 8 or 9 various space marine players in my area, every single person includes at least one land raider of some flavor in their list in games of 1500 points or higher. Failing that, they usually have a line of vindicators and/or predators, and AV13 is just slightly less annoying to get through than 14.

When all is said and done, people just need to stop listening to "the Internetz" and figure out ways on their own to make their things work.

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.

 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.

True, but a walker is immune to small arms fire* and poison, MC's generally aren't.

Besides, I would expect an anti-tank missile to be good at killing vehicles


* Unless they are gauss

To me, it makes sense that Riptides and Wraithknights are MCs.

A Riptide is just big battlesuit, and a Wraithknight is just a big Wraithlord afterall.

Both are giant mechanical walkers however, neither are organic or daemonic beings, they are piloted machines

 Vaktathi wrote:
Both are giant mechanical walkers however, neither are organic or daemonic beings, they are piloted machines

Battlesuits are also piloted machines. Those are not vehicles either.

Wraithknights have a pilot? I thought they used the same principles of the wraithlord; a spirit or several spirits inhabiting a wraithbone construct.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


To me, it makes sense that Riptides and Wraithknights are MCs.

A Riptide is just big battlesuit, and a Wraithknight is just a big Wraithlord afterall.

A dreadnought is a big battle-suit for a near-dead Space Marine.

Thatguyhsagun wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


To me, it makes sense that Riptides and Wraithknights are MCs.

A Riptide is just big battlesuit, and a Wraithknight is just a big Wraithlord afterall.

A dreadnought is a big battle-suit for a near-dead Space Marine.

Not really. Its a bit too mechanical to be compared to a battle suit. I know its odd, but to me there's a clear distinction.

Let me put it this way - When I see a dreadnaught, I think "That's a walker." When I see the riptide, I think "That's an oversized battlesuit." I do not think "That's an oversized space marine" when I see a dreadnaught.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Both are giant mechanical walkers however, neither are organic or daemonic beings, they are piloted machines

Battlesuits are also piloted machines. Those are not vehicles either.

They're not really big enough to function under 40k's vehicle rules, much like bikes.

Wraithknights have a pilot? I thought they used the same principles of the wraithlord; a spirit or several spirits inhabiting a wraithbone construct.

They have an Eldar pilot and their deceased spirit twin.

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

 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.

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...