Why aren't Riptides walkers?

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.

**Hunam0001**

It just seems like they have more in common with Dreadnoughts than a monstrous creature.

For that matter, the Wraithknight does too.

I can see Wraithlords as MCs because of the whole "union between soulstone and wraithbore" thing they got going on, but I just kinda feel like Wraithknights and Riptides are more like vehicles with a pilot and such.

**Wayniac**

Wraithknights have the same soul thing going on as a Wraithlord if I'm not mistaken (only its twins), but I agree with the Riptide.

From what I've read (keep in mind I don't actually play yet, if at all again) I don't get why they didn't just get rid of Walkers period.

**Icculus**

Why indeed.

**Guitarquero**

because then no body would buy them.

**AtoMaki**

The answer is quite obvious: because Walkers represent the clumsy "basic" bipedal things while Monstrous Creatures represent the agile "dynamic" bipedal things. So if you can interact with your environment like a humanoid being then you are a MC. Otherwise, if your interaction with your environment is limited (for example, you can't jump) then you are a Walker.

The Riptide and the Wraithknight are clearly Category 2. Their structural build-up is too nimble to pass as a Walker. It isn't just about being "organic" or "mechanical".

**Hunam0001**

I donno, vehicles to me always represented models who could survive having one of their weapons, or wheels, or legs, or whatever ripped off, and keep on going. Toughness based models where more things that would bleed out if you cut an arm or leg off.

Also, MCs have most of the same restrictions to movement as walkers iirc.

**AtoMaki**

Hunam0001 wrote:
Also, MCs have most of the same restrictions to movement as walkers iirc.

With "agility" I didn't mean just "movement". But also stuff like dodging hits and such.

**Hunam0001**

Isn't that covered by the presence of a WS?

**minigun762**

Hunam0001 wrote:
Isn't that covered by the presence of a WS?

Or I value.

But by that logic, a Great Unclean One or some Tyranid MCs should be walkers.

I've always thought it was organic = MC, inorganic = walker but even that isn't clear.

Reality is both classifications should be consolidated into a new category

**TheCustomLime**

Because Jeremy Vetock and Phil Kelly didnt want the big new kits to be one shotted by a Vanquisher. Or any good at for that matter.

**BlaxicanX**

Riptides are monstrous creatures because MC's have better rules.

That's it. There is no in-universe explanation.

**soomemafia**

My big question is about Dreadknight.

Spoiler:

Why do we have rules for walkers if this isn't one?

**Idolator**

soomemafia wrote:
My big question is about Dreadknight.

Spoiler:

Why do we have rules for walkers if this isn't one?

That was the "canary in the coal mine". It lived and sold really well. Hence they kept mining. It's all about the $$$.

And everyone with a Penitent Engine wept as a walker.

**Hunam0001**

Yeah, I can see Deamon Princes and Tyranid MCs being considered something other than vehicles for the simple fact that it'd be pretty hard to immobilize/destroy their weapons without straight killing them.

Dreadknights however, not so sure.

I kinda figured they where supposed to be an anti Deamon Prince. So maybe, I donno, have them be a psychic construct? Kinda like Armor from the X-Men?

Also, having them all considered vehicles is exactly how DOW 2 handles it.

**McGibs**

Mauler and Forgefiends are inexplicably walkers, despite obviously being 'metal monsters'. Riptides are inexplicably monsterous creatures, despite obviously being a piloted mech.

Really, there's no rhyme or reason, just whatever the author of the book felt like.

**welshhoppo**

You don't tend to see as many walkers in 'newer' books. They changed with the arrival of the Riptide.

Why was the Riptide a MC? Because they are better than walkers.

**kb305**

AtoMaki wrote:
The answer is quite obvious: because Walkers represent the clumsy "basic" bipedal things while Monstrous Creatures represent the agile "dynamic" bipedal things. So if you can interact with your environment like a humanoid being then you are a MC. Otherwise, if your interaction with your environment is limited (for example, you can't jump) then you are a Walker.

The Riptide and the Wraithknight are clearly Category 2. Their structural build-up is too nimble to pass as a Walker. It isn't just about being "organic" or "mechanical".

you should work for GW. you'd be great at spinning things and informing people of "great news" and such.

**PrinceRaven**

welshhoppo wrote:
Why was the Riptide a MC? Because they are better than walkers.

I disagree, Wave Serpents have shown us that supposedly inferior vehicles can be made more powerful than Monstrous Creatures.

**welshhoppo**

PrinceRaven wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Why was the Riptide a MC? Because they are better than walkers.

I disagree, Wave Serpents have shown us that supposedly inferior vehicles can be made more powerful than Monstrous Creatures.

I didn't say vehicles in general, I said walkers.

Find me one (non-superheavy) walker that is anywhere near as good as a Riptide or a Wraithknight?

**PrinceRaven**

Currently in existence? Doesn't exist. Doesn't mean you couldn't give them AV 14 all around and a 2+ invulnerable and that wouldn't be more broken than the current rules.

**yukondal**

I can see the wraith knight barely passing as a monstrous creature because the baby carrier leaves thesspace marine vulnerable to small arms fire??

But the riptide don't make a lick of sense other than da monies.

**Co'tor Shas**

yukondal wrote:
I can see the wraith knight barely passing as a monstrous creature because the baby carrier leaves thesspace marine vulnerable to small arms fire??

But the riptide don't make a lick of sense other than da monies.

"da monies"?

**Rotary**

Just because the mc rules were better. They were worried tau would be underpowered, in the same way they were worried tyranids would be overpowered.

**PrinceRaven**

Rotary wrote:
Just because the mc rules were better. They were worried tau would be underpowered, in the same way they were worried tyranids would be overpowered.

The sad thing is both of those statements could actually be true.

**Luke_Prowler**

To offer a less cynical theory: They wanted to keep the Jet Infantry feel of the Crisis Suits for the Riptide so chose the MC rules because they're more infantry like than Walkers. I don't particularly believe that myself, but just throwing it out there.

**Jadenim**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
To offer a less cynical theory: They wanted to keep the Jet Infantry feel of the Crisis Suits for the Riptide so chose the MC rules because they're more infantry like than Walkers. I don't particularly believe that myself, but just throwing it out there.

I think it's probably this; no dark power build conspiracy*, just that they were being consistent with existing Tau units. They've always been treated as infantry in suits rather than walkers, a bizarre historical quirk that I guess comes from not wanting to give walkers jet pack abilities etc. three editions ago.

* Bear in mind that the power curve is all over the shot (Tau or DA flyers anyone?), I just don't see that GW can actually recognise good units from bad sufficiently to have any power build conspiracy.

**PrinceRaven**

Still, comparing Crisis Suits to Riptides is like comparing Iron Man to a Gundam. Iron Man is justifiably not a walker, you couldn't say the same for a Gundam.

**Vulgar**

Because it would make the model less desirable. The hull point system needs to do-over.

**welshhoppo**

I think the Hull point system is a good idea. It is just how you cause hull points that is the problem.

**PrinceRaven**

Vulgar wrote:
Because it would make the model less desirable. The hull point system needs to do-over.

The problem isn't hull points, the problem is the proliferation of cheap high strength low AP shooting. It's the same problem I have with my TMCs (you know, the ones without fancy things like invulnerable saves, Toughness 8 or 2+ armour). They're simply too easily vaporised by the ridiculous shooting capacity of armies like Tau and Eldar.