Should Dreadnoughts become Monstrous Creatures?

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.

**Evileyes**

Easy solution? Make walkers immune to the effect's of the explodes result. That way, they can only be killed via hullpoints, which is still easy, but will make them last a little while longer.

**ComTrav**

I actually love the idea of a "vehicle" that fights in close combat.

I'll bet you GW will end up 'balancing' this by giving new walkers lots of special rules or a lot stronger--this is what they did with cavalry in fantasy.

**Macok**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Hmm. What if you didn't roll on the vehicle damage chart until all the hull points were gone. Once they were then you roll on the chart. Each time a weapon gets a penetrating hit after that point you get a cumulative +1 on the die roll. Glances give a straight die roll.

Let me get this straight, you want 6th edition rules for damaging vehicles, with the caveat that penetrating hits roll do double damage rather than rolling on the vehicle penetration. Then when said vehicle is reduced to 0 hull points, instead of being wrecked, you go to using a slightly modified version of the 5th edition rules for damaging vehicles. So you'd essentially have to destroy a vehicle twice, under each set of rules, to get rid of it, and this doesn't sound broken as hell to you?

It does not sound broken as hell at all.
It would need some tweaking but it would mean that a vehicle will be having some HPs, just like MC have. After those are gone it's very unlikely to live after another 3 penetrations (6+5+4+ or 5+4+3+, maybe even 4+3+2+ to wreck / explode depending on the table). That's not even counting bonuses for AP. It would also mean that the more vehicle survives the more likely it's to explode.
It eliminates the possibility of one-shotting the vehicle while giving it a maximum amount of penetrations it can sustain. With proper HPs and initial damage table it could be quite good. Could be tedious to track all HPs AND penetrations but it's far from the picture you're painting PR.

**PrinceRaven**

I'd support making vehicles immune to being oneshot if MCs get it as well.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Barring a few special cases they already are.

**PrinceRaven**

MCs without Eternal Warrior (all Tyranids, most of everything else):
S10 if Toughness 6>, T 6 if Enfeebled (so that covers the vast majority of MCs already)
The Force USR
Weapons/Wargear (Boneswords/sabres, Cleaving Strike, Axe of Khorne, Suncannon, the list goes on)
Provided they have one of the above weapons, Mindshackele Scarabs
Strength D weapons

MCs with Eternal Warrior:
Death or Glory
Jaws of the World Wolf
Tesseract Labyrinth
Hyperstone Maze
Hexrifle
Shattershard

Yeah, a few...

**Sigvatr**

As soon as all our open-topped vehicles become MC too.

**amanita**

Unfortunately, any vehicle IS capable of being one-shot. I'd never want to take that capability away. I understand the game isn't based on realism, but it can still be intuitive.

**undertow**

AL-PiXeL01 wrote:
Given their mobility walkers should be imun to smash attacks.

Why would mobility affect being hit by a Smash attack? I can Smash anything, even if it has a 10 for Initiative.

Although I recently played someone who thought that you could only trade half your attacks for 2x Strength vs. vehicles.

**Lobokai**

Walkers should just treat an "explodes" as immobilized. That's change enough.

**Chaospling**

A thing which isn't hard to change rule-wise is giving Dreadnoughts and the like the Hammer of Wrath special rule. Seems more logical that a Dreadnought has that rule than the Wraithlord. And what about Killa Kans? No they just tip-toe up to the enemy.

**Nightwolf829**

Keeping in mind that Wraithlords, being nearly solid wraithbone inside and out, have a good reason to be called a monstrous creatures. Their "plating" is more like a living matter than it is metallic or ceramic armor plating to protecting weak mechanical spots. Think of a creature made up almost entirely of Carnifex chitin that regenerates over time.

The Wraithknight and Riptide on the other hand have less purchase on the claim. They both almost undoubtedly have squishy bits on the inside that, once the outer armor is penetrated, will be hurt severely by the impact. In the case of a Wraithknight, while still mostly wraithbone, you have the issue that a living pilot is at a control station in the center mass of the walker. That individual is squishy. The Riptide is similar, although has better outer plating (better armor save) and the thickness of that plating is more of an exoskeleton than a constant of the entire frame (lower toughness).

That said; Games Workshop needs to get their act together on both vehicles vs organic models and shooting vs. close combat. These two dichotomies, from what I can tell, are always somewhat screwy.

**Chaospling**

Nightwolf829 wrote:
Keeping in mind that Wraithlords, being nearly solid wraithbone inside and out, have a good reason to be called a monstrous creatures. Their "plating" is more like a living matter than it is metallic or ceramic armor plating to protecting weak mechanical spots. Think of a creature made up almost entirely of Carnifex chitin that regenerates over time.

Referring to me? Well I'm not talking how tough Wraithlords are. Just that it doesn't seem to be the style of Wraithlords to crash into close combats, using their bulk, the same way Dreadnoughts, Helbrutes and Killa Kans would; those would certainly do it, and in a much more brutish way.

**Nightwolf829**

I was not referring to you in particular. I just skimmed the thread and dreadnoughts/wraithlords are often considered a paired example. I simply felt the desire to elaborate on the difference between the two for those that might not be aware of Eldar fluff.

It also gave me an opportunity to tinker in text with the difference between wraithlords and riptides/wraithknights (which I felt could also be informative).

**Ailaros**

Honestly, they should just scrap the vehicle rules alltogether.

Make each vehicle have W equal to its HP, and give every tank a T equal to its AV -3, and give all vehicles a 3+ armor save. That way things would be virtually the same (S7 still couldn't hurt AV14, for example, and S8 could only do that on a 6, etc.) and you'd give vehicles a slight leg-up which they kind of need right now.

And you'd make the game a lot more simple.

**TheSovereign**

clively wrote:
A dreadnought should be a walker, not a MC.

A number of the current MC's need to be turned into walkers (others have posted examples).

Quite frankly GW should hire a group of people to sanity check their entire line before releasing another codex. It's getting a little old reading a unit entry's fluff and seeing that the rules have little to do with it.

Along those lines someone needs to streamline the current rule set. We have several distinct classes of vehicles but the rules try and fit those round pegs into a square hole. The dreadknight by simple definition is a walker. Two legs? check. Walks? yep. Armored? yep. someone rides inside and controls it? yep. If it looks like a walker and quacks like one....

By trade I'm a programmer and one of the main things we do is simplify a set of rules into something logical and, hopefully, intelligible. Although I like 40k and play a LOT of it; from what I can tell the entire community would benefit from a redesign of everything from the physical layout of the codexes (which is akin to a toddler throwing up) to removing a large amount of the layering from one rule to the next.

For example: I shouldn't have to go to 6 different locations in 2 books just to find out how one piece of wargear works that's just ripe for misunderstandings. Never mind that the rules authors themselves seem to include rules on units that quite frankly can't even use them (battle focus on jetbikes being a recent example).

/rant.

tldr; no, don't abolish the walker designation; however it does need fixed.

This guy knows the score.

**Lobokai**

Ailaros wrote:
Honestly, they should just scrap the vehicle rules alltogether.

Make each vehicle have W equal to its HP, and give every tank a T equal to its AV -3, and give all vehicles a 3+ armor save. That way things would be virtually the same (S7 still couldn't hurt AV14, for example, and S8 could only do that on a 6, etc.) and you'd give vehicles a slight leg-up which they kind of need right now.

And you'd make the game a lot more simple.

From your lips to Ward's ears