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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.

This is demonstrating my point: "it's not that MCs are OP, it's just that Tau and Eldar have units that have the more powerful MC rules instead of the weaker vehicle/walker rules". If giving those units the MC rules makes them clearly better than if they were walkers the MC unit type is broken.

The MC unit type wasn't broken though. Look at Nids.
It's just these super under costed MCs that are broken. All those Tau and Eldar units wouldn't be broken is they were walkers (as they should be), and MCs wouldn't be broken is undercoated super weapon wielding walkers weren't classified as them.

 Rippy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
The problem is that the Tau and Eldar have "walkers" (IE wraithknight and Tau suits) that are walkers for all intents and purposes, except they have the rules of MCs, making them OP.

This is demonstrating my point: "it's not that MCs are OP, it's just that Tau and Eldar have units that have the more powerful MC rules instead of the weaker vehicle/walker rules". If giving those units the MC rules makes them clearly better than if they were walkers the MC unit type is broken.

The MC unit type wasn't broken though. Look at Nids.
It's just these super under costed MCs that are broken. All those Tau and Eldar units wouldn't be broken is they were walkers (as they should be), and MCs wouldn't be broken is undercoated super weapon wielding walkers weren't classified as them.

Take away the big guns and nobody would have an issue. They'd die before they got into bolter range.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
There are a few things that would make bringing back 5th's vehicle damage system a problem, chief amongst them being that vehicles can now score. Well, ALL models can score, but this would make those scoring vehicles even harder to remove, since there would be no eventuality you'll remove them, it's be based entirely on luck. Obsec drop pods are already a pain.

Well, drop pods are another issue entirely, an empty pod shouldn't count for squat except as terrain, but otherwise vehicles wouldn't be too much of an issue, particularly with the firepower available now, and the fact that stun-locking would be an option again.

My point is that because they can score, the stun locking becomes less useful. Because it increases the importance of destroying the vehicles, not mearly stopping them

I get that, but that's also why I pointed out that the issue with the the drop pod being allowed to be used in ways that don't reflect what it is and what its role is, not vehicles as a whole, and, while potentially annoying, is one exception to fixing an entire class of unit.

Drop pods are pretty much fair when they are paid for, as AV 12 open topped isn't the paragon of durability. However, for free they are obnoxious.

Honestly I just want them the same rules so we don't get 5th edition stronk vehicles or 7th edition "Why is this not a walker?" with Riptides and the like.

Just simplify the rules down.

 Rippy wrote:
All those Tau and Eldar units wouldn't be broken is they were walkers (as they should be), and MCs wouldn't be broken is undercoated super weapon wielding walkers weren't classified as them.

Again, this is just proving my point. If a unit becomes broken if it's an MC instead of a walker then the MC unit type is too good compared to vehicles.

Nothing to base this on, but I am betting Vec's get major buffs in 8th. Its all about the cycle to keep us buying.

 CrownAxe wrote:

If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?

Not everything can be fixed with points though.

 koooaei wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?

Not everything can be fixed with points though.

No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points

 CrownAxe wrote:
No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points

Not entirely. The balance issue can be fixed, but the conceptual issue can't. Increasing the point cost of MCs still leaves the problem that walkers and MCs are conceptually the same thing, but one of them is considerably more powerful (and more expensive) than the other. Nothing about the models or fluff justifies the difference in power level, and completely arbitrary power differences like that are bad game design.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points

Not entirely. The balance issue can be fixed, but the conceptual issue can't. Increasing the point cost of MCs still leaves the problem that walkers and MCs are conceptually the same thing, but one of them is considerably more powerful (and more expensive) than the other. Nothing about the models or fluff justifies the difference in power level, and completely arbitrary power differences like that are bad game design.

This is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact

 CrownAxe wrote:
This is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact

An argument which adds nothing to the discussion.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?

Not everything can be fixed with points though.

No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points

The big issue, though, it's not points.

Let's look at the most glaring problem is this: assume a vehicle has 3HP, an MC has 3w. The vehicle is 100pts and the MC is 200pts.

The vehicle, should, say, a lascannon get lucky, will get annhilated in one shot. MCs? This thing won't happen unless you bring ID-weapons... which are 99% meelee based, which is where most MCs want to be.

Even if you make them more expensive, the problem still remains that that "just" portion of points gets erased with a single marginally lucky shot.

The issue isnt MC rules. It;s crap vehicle rules. AV and the VDC are extra rules that break the mold from the rest of the game. If vehicles just functioned like everything else it wouldn't be an issue.

You don't fix that by making MC work like vehicles. You fix it by making vehicles function like every other damn unit in the game.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?

Not everything can be fixed with points though.

No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points

The big issue, though, it's not points.

Let's look at the most glaring problem is this: assume a vehicle has 3HP, an MC has 3w. The vehicle is 100pts and the MC is 200pts.

The vehicle, should, say, a lascannon get lucky, will get annhilated in one shot. MCs? This thing won't happen unless you bring ID-weapons... which are 99% meelee based, which is where most MCs want to be.

Even if you make them more expensive, the problem still remains that that "just" portion of points gets erased with a single marginally lucky shot.

Lets not forget that most of the MC's people are upset about have 2-3+ invul saves when buffed and multiple wounds. Meaning the amount of firepower you have to dedicate to bring down that MC is just absurd. The consensus here on dakka for months regarding riptides for example was simply to "just kill pathfinders and ignore riptide the whole game." Even without pathfinders, riptides are more devastating at range than most units in any army. So that whole "just ignore them" strategy is utter nonsense. I think most people don't have issues with MC's in general, like Tyranid MC. They should be tough. People have issues with units that should be walkers being designated as MC in order to sell models.

Some of the particular MCs being created in recent years are ridiculously powerful.

People then blame this on the MC unit type, instead of the particular unit itself.

Commissar Benny wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

If the dreadnaught cost 10 point would it be overpowered?

Not everything can be fixed with points though.

No. But the complaint that MCs are broken and vehicles are bad CAN be fixed by points

The big issue, though, it's not points.

Let's look at the most glaring problem is this: assume a vehicle has 3HP, an MC has 3w. The vehicle is 100pts and the MC is 200pts.

The vehicle, should, say, a lascannon get lucky, will get annhilated in one shot. MCs? This thing won't happen unless you bring ID-weapons... which are 99% meelee based, which is where most MCs want to be.

Even if you make them more expensive, the problem still remains that that "just" portion of points gets erased with a single marginally lucky shot.

Lets not forget that most of the MC's people are upset about have 2-3+ invul saves when buffed and multiple wounds. Meaning the amount of firepower you have to dedicate to bring down that MC is just absurd. The consensus here on dakka for months regarding riptides for example was simply to "just kill pathfinders and ignore riptide the whole game." Even without pathfinders, riptides are more devastating at range than most units in any army. So that whole "just ignore them" strategy is utter nonsense. I think most people don't have issues with MC's in general, like Tyranid MC. They should be tough. People have issues with units that should be walkers being designated as MC in order to sell models.

It's hardly just the saves.
Space Wolves Shield Dreads have the re-roll to potentially shrug off an explodes result and that's after they get through the 3++ save. Nobody is worried about them.
Harpies are FMCs and they're hardly terrifying.
It's the combination of durability, speed, melee capability, efficient points costs and Really. Big. Guns.

I think we are coming around to the real question of what is the difference between a walker and a non-TMC. Let's be honest, it's what it is.

I really hate the way GW does vehicles. Just give them a regular profile and toss the damage table and all that garbage out the window.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.

Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.

Anything with a D weapon can one-shot a Wraithknight.

Wraithknights are GMCs(which means the "Unstoppable" special rule, Instant Death becomes D3 Wounds instead and Sniper/Poisoned weapons are only wounding on 6+s, unless the Strength of the weapon would let you wound on a lower value).

So no, things with D weapons cannot one-shot a Wraithknight.

That's true in ITC, but you can roll a "6" in a normal game which smokes them in one shot.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.

Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.

Anything with a D weapon can one-shot a Wraithknight.

Wraithknights are GMCs(which means the "Unstoppable" special rule, Instant Death becomes D3 Wounds instead and Sniper/Poisoned weapons are only wounding on 6+s, unless the Strength of the weapon would let you wound on a lower value).

So no, things with D weapons cannot one-shot a Wraithknight.

Unless you're using some kind of homebrew rules, a '6' on the D table causes 6+d6 wounds.

And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?

Because balance still sucks in ITC, it just sucks a little less. I still can not believe the didn't put the hammer down on scatbikes.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
MC's have Move Through Cover and automatically pass Dangerous Terrain tests.

Upping the points costs of MC's won't do anything to fix the problem of how much better an MC is over a vehicle. I'd take a Wraithknight over any single vehicle in the game, because a Wraithknight can destroy that vehicle with one attack, while there is literally no vehicle in the game that can one shot a Wraithknight. That's not a points problem, that's a rules problem.

Anything with a D weapon can one-shot a Wraithknight.

Wraithknights are GMCs(which means the "Unstoppable" special rule, Instant Death becomes D3 Wounds instead and Sniper/Poisoned weapons are only wounding on 6+s, unless the Strength of the weapon would let you wound on a lower value).

So no, things with D weapons cannot one-shot a Wraithknight.

Unless you're using some kind of homebrew rules, a '6' on the D table causes 6+d6 wounds.

How many wounds is a Wraithknight?

I mean if you want to pretend that rolling a 6 with a D weapon is somehow "balance", we can play that game too.

And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?

Doesn't matter realistically whether it's house rules or forgetting about D weapons having a 6+D6 wounds. It's the simple fact that there is no guaranteed way to remove a GMC because they have a protection that removes the most effective stuff against MCs(Poison).

Throw Haywire at a SHV and see what happens though.

SHV are magically vulnerable to haywire. Almost like SHV and SHW are inferior to GMCs or something.

 Kanluwen wrote:

How many wounds is a Wraithknight?

I mean if you want to pretend that rolling a 6 with a D weapon is somehow "balance", we can play that game too.

A Wraithknight is 6 wounds. So any roll of '6' with a D weapon will obliterate it.

And yeah, D weapons have balance issues of their own, but when people start throwing out ultimatums that fly in the face of the actual rules of the game, I have to wonder if their complaints are legitimate, or if they just don't understand how to play the game they're complaining about, or if they just like complaining.

And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?

Doesn't matter realistically whether it's house rules or forgetting about D weapons having a 6+D6 wounds. It's the simple fact that there is no guaranteed way to remove a GMC because they have a protection that removes the most effective stuff against MCs(Poison).

Throw Haywire at a SHV and see what happens though.

No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.

Martel732 wrote:
SHV are magically vulnerable to haywire. Almost like SHV and SHW are inferior to GMCs or something.

And melta - G/MC reduce the effective strength of all weapons by 3 for Reasons (S4 vs T7 = 6s, S4 vs A10 = 6s), and in return there is nothing or next to nothing in the armory universal that specialises in damaging G/MC, that can't then be countered natively. The Instant Death USR is the only consistent one shot kill ability, to which, outside of double strength weapons, ( most of which don't apply on G/MC anyway) only a handful of factions have access before we factor in counters. Comparatively there are 3 dedicated anti vehicle abilities ( Armour bane/Melta and haywire) which most if not all factions have access to at least 2 - even if it may not be the most effective TAC option, the option *exists*.

On top of that Vehicles are subject to the greater portion of ranged weapons, specialist anti vehicle weapons, specialist close combat weapons, and - in turn - G/MC.

The standard game has left vehicles behind, except those that are so cheap (points wise) as to render their survivability irrelevant. Almost like it was intentional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.

But, lets be realistic, a WK is going to be invisible a greater portion of the time, and with a highly limited range of countermeasures, because Eldar. Tau don't qualify, and i'd suiggest Nids are entirely acceptable as a consequence of neither of them getting invis.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

How many wounds is a Wraithknight?

I mean if you want to pretend that rolling a 6 with a D weapon is somehow "balance", we can play that game too.

A Wraithknight is 6 wounds. So any roll of '6' with a D weapon will obliterate it.

And yeah, D weapons have balance issues of their own, but when people start throwing out ultimatums that fly in the face of the actual rules of the game, I have to wonder if their complaints are legitimate, or if they just don't understand how to play the game they're complaining about, or if they just like complaining.

Either way, it still comes down to you needing to roll a 6 on a D weapon.

So pretending that one specific situation, whereby a vehicle with a D weapon rolls a 6 on the D weapon table is somehow evidence that Wraithknights can be one-hit killed by vehicles is disingenuous at best.

Especially when one sits back and actually looks at how many vehicles in the game have D weapons. You have Knights with melee D weapons, the Baneblade chassis has at least one ranged D weapon, and I'm sure there are more that I don't know off the top of my head...

But that's not exactly a resoundingly common tactic to use, unless someone starts throwing in lots of FW.

And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?

Doesn't matter realistically whether it's house rules or forgetting about D weapons having a 6+D6 wounds. It's the simple fact that there is no guaranteed way to remove a GMC because they have a protection that removes the most effective stuff against MCs(Poison).

Throw Haywire at a SHV and see what happens though.

No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned.

The counter to MCs is supposed to be Poison and Sniper weapons(they wound on a set value rather than v. Toughness).

Much like how the counter to vehicles is meant to be Haywire, where weapons with a low S value can still deal damage to a vehicle.

And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.

Sure, they can be stopped.

But that's not the point that you ignored or seemingly didn't grasp.
"Unstoppable" literally strips the thing that is supposed to counter MCs of its effectiveness. Compare a SHV facing Haywire to a GMC facing Poison or Sniper. One of those is going to get wrecked, the other is going to be just fine.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Especially when one sits back and actually looks at how many vehicles in the game have D weapons. You have Knights with melee D weapons, the Baneblade chassis has at least one ranged D weapon, and I'm sure there are more that I don't know off the top of my head...

But that's not exactly a resoundingly common tactic to use, unless someone starts throwing in lots of FW.

You've about covered it. Imperial vehicle mounted D ranged weapons are limited to:
Titans (750+pts)
The Shadowsword (450+)
Taghmata Ordinatus (980+)
and the Thunderhawk (800~+ depending on variant)

In nearly every case, equivalent points of WK win. This is including the Warlord.

Vehicles are easy to destroy, because of the damage table, and also extra rules that just make them so much easier to destroy.

A vehicle with 50,000 hull points, and AV15, can be 1-shotted by a melta gun.

8 strength. extra D6. base D6. Roll an 8 or higher and you're rolling on the pen table with melta rules. Suddenly that vehicle has a very good chance to flat out explode. 1 melta shot is capable of doing all 50,000 hull points worth of damage.

1. most vehicles should probably have their cost slightly reduced.
2. Monstrous creatures should have their costs increased.