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.

They shouldn't be classed as MCs. They're not creatures like a carnifex. They should make a new class like monstrous suits. Riptides and dredknights are suits not creatures

 xttz wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Poison in 40k =/= to actual biological toxins. It also includes highly corrosive acids and other things that can just as easily rend metal and flesh.

But by that logic it should be affecting Land Raiders and Baneblades also. I guess we have to assume that poison weapons work like acid blood from Alien, and tanks are made out of the only substance it doesn't burn through. But they ran out of it before they got around to building these new-fangled Dreadknights.
That should be a sufficiently 'cinematic' explanation.

Or maybe a vehicle's hull is thicker than the armor on a dreadknight or riptide and so isn't effected fast enough to matter for the battle.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Poison in 40k =/= to actual biological toxins. It also includes highly corrosive acids and other things that can just as easily rend metal and flesh.

But by that logic it should be affecting Land Raiders and Baneblades also. I guess we have to assume that poison weapons work like acid blood from Alien, and tanks are made out of the only substance it doesn't burn through. But they ran out of it before they got around to building these new-fangled Dreadknights.
That should be a sufficiently 'cinematic' explanation.

Or maybe a vehicle's hull is thicker than the armor on a dreadknight or riptide and so isn't effected fast enough to matter for the battle.

It's probably because the dreadknight has a dude dangling outside of it's armor...

And Tau probably doesn't have that technology for suits yet.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Functionally most walker vehicles are essentially T8-T10 MCs anyway with a separate damage chart and 3 wounds. You wound a Dread with Str 10 on a 2+, with just the additional benefit of being able to strip additional wounds. What's the big huff?

They don't get saves (at least not armor ever and invuls only very rarely), can be insta-killed or crippled (lose weapons, become immobilized, etc) by any "to-wound" roll that exceeds the minimum required to hurt them, none of which apply to Monstrous Creatures, and Walkers typically have a range of AV depending on facing, MC's are the same resilience no matter what direction you shoot them from.

Just because they are called 'vehicles' or have an armour value doesn't detract from the fact they still function in essentially the same way.

Purely from a "to hit-to wound' aspect, after that, the Walkers are markedly inferior in almost every way.

Backfire wrote:
Riptide is even worse. If you compare Riptide to Hammerhead w/ Ion cannon, then Riptide is better in every aspect. It's main gun is same but more powerful, it's secondary weapon capability is similar or better, it's mobility is better, it is much tougher against nearly all threats save some rare niche ones (mass Poison/Lasgun fire, Force weapons). No internal explanation is provided why Riptide is so much more capable. Why does Tau even have Hammerhead? Why not just take Riptides for Heavy Support too and dispense whole tank concept? Why doesn't Riptide wield Railgun? No reason why it shouldn't. Well, again explanations are that then nobody would play Hammerhead, or that Hammerhead is cheaper in points. But these are external explanations. There should be internal explanations too, but there aren't any.

There are internal explanations, though. The Riptide is a rare experimental prototype that is in many respects dangerous for the pilot. Many of its capabilities are unreliable. For instance, its movement, while theoretically faster than that of a Hammerhead, is actually quite random. In order to operate at full power, it risks damaging itself. Further, just as there are many advantages provided by the Riptide's unit type, there are many disadvantages as well. A Hammerhead can't be locked in assault by Conscripts or Gretchin, for instance.

Overall, the Hammerhead and Riptide are very distinct in terms of capabilities. The Hammerhead is a frontline tank with good mobility, weapons, and armor. It also has a wide suite of available upgrades, including the disruption pod, which grants a reliable 4+ save regardless of position. The Riptide is an experimental "ultimate unit" with good (but unreliable) mobility, great (but unreliable) weapons, and great (but unreliable) defenses.

Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

the riptide are the same as any other battle suit. your plugged into the suit.(think like matrix, ghost in the shell or evangelion)

if you read fire warrior. it talks about how the commander shot his battle suit's lag off during training and when he got out of the suit he couldn't walk for a week, due to the lag.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Riptide just exposes a huge flaw in 40K's base rules:

"I'z a vehikle!!! WAAAAGH!"
"Me too, xenos scum!"

"I'm not a vehicle, in accordance with the Greater Good!"
"Neither am I! For the Emperor!

All walkers should have a T value and wounds rather than an AV.

I'm Kronk and I approve the underlined message above.

 Kingsley wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Riptide is even worse. If you compare Riptide to Hammerhead w/ Ion cannon, then Riptide is better in every aspect. It's main gun is same but more powerful, it's secondary weapon capability is similar or better, it's mobility is better, it is much tougher against nearly all threats save some rare niche ones (mass Poison/Lasgun fire, Force weapons). No internal explanation is provided why Riptide is so much more capable. Why does Tau even have Hammerhead? Why not just take Riptides for Heavy Support too and dispense whole tank concept? Why doesn't Riptide wield Railgun? No reason why it shouldn't. Well, again explanations are that then nobody would play Hammerhead, or that Hammerhead is cheaper in points. But these are external explanations. There should be internal explanations too, but there aren't any.

There are internal explanations, though. The Riptide is a rare experimental prototype that is in many respects dangerous for the pilot. Many of its capabilities are unreliable. For instance, its movement, while theoretically faster than that of a Hammerhead, is actually quite random. In order to operate at full power, it risks damaging itself. Further, just as there are many advantages provided by the Riptide's unit type, there are many disadvantages as well. A Hammerhead can't be locked in assault by Conscripts or Gretchin, for instance.

Overall, the Hammerhead and Riptide are very distinct in terms of capabilities. The Hammerhead is a frontline tank with good mobility, weapons, and armor. It also has a wide suite of available upgrades, including the disruption pod, which grants a reliable 4+ save regardless of position. The Riptide is an experimental "ultimate unit" with good (but unreliable) mobility, great (but unreliable) weapons, and great (but unreliable) defenses.

But these are all really crappy reasons. Why they didn't put that experimental reactor to a tank? I mean, challenging things like cooling, radiation shielding etc. should be much easier in a tank which has lots more internal space than a Battlesuit. And Riptide is equal or better in all the respects you list for Hammerhead, so what is that different role you mention, other than seemingly totally artificial ones, like different FOC slot or inability to take Railgun?

 Kingsley wrote:

Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

Why not? People play tanks which can be killed by Meltaguns too.
And see, I was and am supportive of separate unit classes. Problem comes when they start giving obvious capabilities of one class to another. If Tactical Marines gain Relentless and ability to move 12" in one turn, that would probably cause some complaints as well.

Backfire wrote:

There are internal explanations, though. The Riptide is a rare experimental prototype that is in many respects dangerous for the pilot. Many of its capabilities are unreliable. For instance, its movement, while theoretically faster than that of a Hammerhead, is actually quite random. In order to operate at full power, it risks damaging itself. Further, just as there are many advantages provided by the Riptide's unit type, there are many disadvantages as well. A Hammerhead can't be locked in assault by Conscripts or Gretchin, for instance.

Overall, the Hammerhead and Riptide are very distinct in terms of capabilities. The Hammerhead is a frontline tank with good mobility, weapons, and armor. It also has a wide suite of available upgrades, including the disruption pod, which grants a reliable 4+ save regardless of position. The Riptide is an experimental "ultimate unit" with good (but unreliable) mobility, great (but unreliable) weapons, and great (but unreliable) defenses.

But these are all really crappy reasons. Why they didn't put that experimental reactor to a tank? I mean, challenging things like cooling, radiation shielding etc. should be much easier in a tank which has lots more internal space than a Battlesuit. And Riptide is equal or better in all the respects you list for Hammerhead, so what is that different role you mention, other than seemingly totally artificial ones, like different FOC slot or inability to take Railgun?

I suggest rereading the Codex fluff for the Riptide. To me, the Riptide very clearly fills a different gameplay role than the Hammerhead. The Riptide is huge (both in size and points cost) and demands attention from the enemy. It features a wide range of weapons but is unfortunately not very reliable. On the other hand, the Hammerhead is cheap, efficient, and effective. The Hammerhead also laughs off some weapons the Riptide is scared of (and vice versa: Hammerheads don't care about plasma guns or splinter weapons, Riptides don't care about missile launchers). Overall, I take a Riptide as more of a "centerpiece" unit, and a Hammerhead as a reliable core piece.

Backfire wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

Why not? People play tanks which can be killed by Meltaguns too.

Tanks and Monstrous Creatures play very differently, though-- which comes back to my argument in the first place! The existence of Tanks and Monstrous Creatures as separate types provides a lot of flexibility in design and causes players to consider different sorts of threats.

FW Tomb Stalker is a MC as well.

But i think it fits as they are clearly not vehicles but autonomous......nasties.

Jayo'r wrote:
They shouldn't be classed as MCs. They're not creatures like a carnifex. They should make a new class like monstrous suits. Riptides and dredknights are suits not creatures

Why? It's a mechanics description not a fluff description. Adding a whole extra class of what is essentially the same thing is unnecessary. It's not an issue because the fluff describes each unit individually. The title "MC" is there only to provide a context for the rules.

So, my 2 pennies.

How many MCs can be taken in squads? Arent fexes the only one?

The(mostly imperium) walkers that "should" be MC are designed to fight differently on the battle field and i agree with the current separation as they are using "older" clunkier tech. Take the game Dawn of War. Watch a Dread fight, and watch a Wraithlord fight. They move and act VERY differently because of their design. Just the way we currently have them.

Riptides being vehicles? Are Crisis and Broadsides going to be next?? They are almost identical in shape, design, and function. If you are going to argue the riptide should be a vehicle then you should make that argument for all similar things in the dex.

Dreadknight? Isnt the pilot wearing Terminator armor? Which is also what the rest of the suit is made of right? It was designed to fight just like an agile badass warrior, who is also huge. Of course he fights and acts like a big guy instead of a clunky slow vehicle.

In case you cant tell i think the rules seperation is fine and the units are where they should be. Should walkers be tweaked with some goodies? Yes. Maybe just not being able to lose thier weapons, and always being able to fire regardless of immobilization as the guns are usually on sepearate pieces i think would suffice.

Will C: SM get a MC? Probably something very similar to the dreadknight with out the shunt move or force weapons. And they will only get one if GW pays attentions to threads like this and wants to shut up the whiners lol

The Riptide can be taken in squads. Albeit the rest of the members are Drones.

I meant multiples of the same MC thankyouverymuch, and i feel like you knew that templar lol

Wolfnid420 wrote:
So, my 2 pennies.

How many MCs can be taken in squads? Arent fexes the only one?

Necron Spiders

Isn't there mention of Dreadknights being made of a living metal or something like that? I could be completely wrong here. Maybe it was a self repairing metal alloy or something like that. The point being, such constructs would seem to be a lot closure to monstrous creatures then vehicles with stagnate metal slabs protecting the gubbins inside.

No, there is mention of possible alien technology in their construction, but no specifics.

The GKs do have Tesserects from the Necrons.

 Kingsley wrote:
Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

LOLWHUT? Duplicative mechanics (AV+HP + Cover v. T+W + AS/Invuln) is good design? Also, why would you shift to one hitting as oppossed to just making all "massive" units (vehicles, monsters, etc.) have multiple wounds and generally a low AS?

I believe the revisement was to make vehicles T8-10, invouln only and x wounds

 jmurph wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Also, it's important to note that Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles being separate is good design, not bad design. The existence of these different classes of models opens up a lot of design space that helps make units and armies unique. If Monstrous Creatures could be killed in one hit by meltaguns, nobody would ever play Tyranids.

LOLWHUT? Duplicative mechanics (AV+HP + Cover v. T+W + AS/Invuln) is good design? Also, why would you shift to one hitting as oppossed to just making all "massive" units (vehicles, monsters, etc.) have multiple wounds and generally a low AS?

Duplicate mechanics can be good design when they open interesting chunks of design space, yes. Tanks with multiple wounds and a low armor save would make the game less balanced and substantially more bland.

Dreadnought: 100pts, MC
WS4 BS4 S6 T? W3 I4 A2 Ld9 3+

T? 8? LC and AC still need 3's and 5's to wound, assault cannons need 6's still with rending bypassing armour. 8 just seems... high though.

And you're also exposing them to LDR based attacks (Doom of Malantai, Psychic Shriek) that they're immune to now.

Wraithlords are living. Dredknight and riptide are just suits of armor. The drednaught is also a suit of armor, but i dont see anyone calling that a MC.

Wraithlords have no pilot per say. They are grown from wraithbone and inhabited by the souls of dead aspect warriors during a craftworld's time of need.

EMPs would do nothing to a wraithlord, but would cripple a dredknight and riptide. Similarly a lascannon through any part of the pilot would kill the dredknight or riptide in one shot. The wraithlord's consciousness is spread between multiple spirit stones dotting the exoskeleton of the wraithlord. Wraithlord would be much, much harder to kill with one shot.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're also exposing them to LDR based attacks (Doom of Malantai, Psychic Shriek) that they're immune to now.

As pointed out, they're piloted. The pilot can easily be affected.

So you're making them MCs to make them less vulnerable, but opening them up to a whole new class of attack at the same time.

Makes sense.

The question is, why would you attempt to apply any internal logic to 40k at all?

T8 is fine for walkers. We've been using Marine/Chaos/Ork Dreads as T8 creatures since the start of 4th Ed. Never had a problem with it.

 Blaggard wrote:
Dreadnought: 100pts, MC
WS4 BS4 S6 T? W3 I4 A2 Ld9 3+

T? 8? LC and AC still need 3's and 5's to wound, assault cannons need 6's still with rending bypassing armour. 8 just seems... high though.

My stern guard like that idea. Lets do this

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
The question is, why would you attempt to apply any internal logic to 40k at all?

You have to. I mean, why don't for example Terminators carry Battle cannons? Or Demolisher cannons? They'd be real useful to them, why can't they take them?

terminators are piloted exoskelitons too...

its just done so we have two options for rules when dealing with

big @$$ models