Monstrous Creatures and Walkers - do we need both?

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.

**Chaospling**

Okay, so we know the obvious differences:

Walkers can get specific damage before they die or die outright to a single shot and Monstrous Creatures can only die outright by weapons which either by it's Strength or special rule causes Instant Death.

But couldn't a Carnifex or Wraithlord have their arms and thereby their weapons blown off?
In 6th edition Walkers didn't have Hammer of Wrath but that was one of those things I was curious about and now they have it.
Monstrous Creatures causes Fear but aren't Walkers huge fearsome foes as well?
Shouldn't Walkers be able to make a single Smash attack if they needed to do so?

I would think that some bigger creatures have some kind of life blood or whatever which makes them vulnerable to the Instant Death weapons but that could be added to their rules.

A Wraithlord could have Armour 12 all around. It could still die outright by Instant Death attacks which penetrate it (though I don't think it should). It could still have Fear, Smash, same Strength, weapons and options.

I actually don't need that one of the types disappeared from the rule book, but I just can't see why the answers above shouldn't all be answered by a clear "Yes".

**stopcallingmechief**

.

**Slaanesh-Devotee**

stopcallingmechief wrote:
AV 12 in my current local meta is a complete joke and rarely seen on the field anymore. If your trying to hurt eldar from 6th edition, nerf wave serpents. as it is now, i like having the two different model types. If there was no monstrous creatures and just walkers, why have sniper weapons or poison weapons in the game?

That's a fallacious argument. Clearly if the rules were being shaken up to blend the types of unit, other weapons that are particularly effective against one or the other would have to be changed as well.

Saying change is impossible because some things would need to change does nothing.

I agree that the two types overlap in many ways. Combining the two makes a certain amount of sense, but the distinction between vehicles seems something that will remain and I don't think removing some vehicles from the catagory (or adding some new ones!) is very helpful in a broader sense. As part of a completely vehicle rejig, I'm totally onboard.

**stopcallingmechief**

.

**Yonan**

He was referring to this sentence: "If there was no monstrous creatures and just walkers, why have sniper weapons or poison weapons in the game?"

**Slaanesh-Devotee**

I didn't mean to say your judgment that AV12 was useless is wrong. As you say, your local area may very well deal with it.

However, if the discussion is around blending Monstrous Creatures and Walkers, the point about weapons effective against either category makes the assumption that such things aren't addressed.

You are right, if they weren't addressed, the whole exercise would be pointless. I am saying that, therefore, they would have to be.

**Fafnir13**

I like having small differences among similar units. It's makes things feel more unique. If anything, 40K needs more classifications, not fewer. A heavy and light Infantry spring to my mind immediately.
I do wish walkers got more of the benefits monstrous creatures have, like AP 2 and maybe Smash. This May just be a byproduct of the models I own. (Compare a Triarch Stalker to a Canoptek Spyder sometime).

**JubbJubbz**

I can only see eliminating one type as a narrowing of variety. Problems with specific units are just that, and not problems with the unit type.

**Vaktathi**

Previously, there was a pretty clear distinction, as MC's were big monsters, and Walkers were piloted vehicles. There was a clear distinction between piloted and non piloted.

Now that distinction has largely gone out the window, and Walkers generally have had the worst of the bargain for quite a while.

**Jefffar**

I think that 40K needs a rule that can be applied to a model to denote it is a construct instead of a living being. There is something similar in the HH series if I recall.

It could be applied to virtually everything Necron, Tau Drones, Riptides, Dreadknights, Wraiths and similar.

**zedsdead**

Vaktathi wrote:
Previously, there was a pretty clear distinction, as MC's were big monsters, and Walkers were piloted vehicles. There was a clear distinction between piloted and non piloted.

Now that distinction has largely gone out the window, and Walkers generally have had the worst of the bargain for quite a while.

+1 this.

There no reason for Walkers to be classified differently than many of these new MC's. I was hoping to see 7th roll them all into one. You would see more on the table...... and imho thats a good thing.

**Tamwulf**

Jefffar wrote:
I think that 40K needs a rule that can be applied to a model to denote it is a construct instead of a living being. There is something similar in the HH series if I recall.

It could be applied to virtually everything Necron, Tau Drones, Riptides, Dreadknights, Wraiths and similar.

Not sure what rule you are referring to Jefffar. I've looked in my HH books, and the closest I came was "Paragon of Metal" which is a specific option for some of the Taghmata Omnissiah models.

The Vehicle rules for 40K DO NOT FIT with the rest of the game. GW painted themselves into a corner a long time ago with vehicle rules that don't match or mesh with the rest of the game.
1. every attack is derived from weapon or ballistic skill
2. roll to hit
3. then compare the strength of the weapon to the toughness of the target
4. roll to wound
5. then take saves if applicable
6. Resolve anything else (Pinning test, Morale test, etc)

The vehicle rules follow the first and step for shooting at them, but follow a different rule for close combat. Step three is totally different requiring the attacker to add his strength to a d6, roll it, and compare it to the Armor Value of the target. The AV changes with the facing, special rules (like Walker), etc. If the attacker equals the AV value, you lose a hull point. Huh? What's a Hull Point and what is that supposed to represent? If the attacker exceeds the AV value, you get to roll on another chart, this time using the AP of the weapon as a bonus to the roll. Any "Saves" from step 5 are resolved BEFORE damage is even rolled, and must be decided before rolls to hit are even made. Cover is figured totally different for vehicles and has it's own special rule- Obscurement.

It just goes on and on from there. It's like you are playing two different games with very different play mechanics. In other words, the fundamental rules are broken by vehicles in 40K. How does this relate to walkers and monstrous creatures? Just to illustrate that GW can't write rules to save their lives and that they have hopelessly complicated their own rule set by adding in Walkers- a sort of vehicle sort of not-vehicle and Monstrous Creatures which are, for all intents and purpose, infantry with some special rules.

**Vaktathi**

Also with vehicles, there's no "1's always fail" rule that applies to everything else in the game.

If you have a weapon of sufficient strength, (e.g. S9 vs AV10), a 1 succeeds in stripping a "wound" whereas S9 vs any T value will always fail on a 1.

Likewise, the damage chart doesn't have any fail options either, even in situations where modifiers could take the result below 1.

**MajorStoffer**

GW wanted to diversify things back in the day (when vehicles were T based), and it's created the mess we have now.

Almost every other game in existance, however, uses something equivalent to a T based system for vehicles.

For instance, Bolt Action (seeing as it's designed by Priestly and Calvatore), each class of vehicle ranges from "T" 6, being light trucks, to 9, which is King Tigers and the like. AT weapons (not small arms like rifles) gain +1 to hurt vehicles from the side (unless the target has specific protection or rules ignoring or modifying that, like Schurtzen), and +2 for the rear. If you match the T value with your D6 roll to wound, you do superficial damage, basically a glance, and can damage components like treads, optics, etc, and if you exceed it, you pen, and in BA there's a very high probability of killing a tank with a single pen, unlike 40k. Generally speaking, rockets, tank shells and the like inside a tank is a bad thing. Of course, in this game, AT weapons are far less common than 40k.

The end result? You've got vehicles which follow the same rules as everything else, while still able to differentiate between various unique configurations of armour, which is the one strength of an AV system. You can still represent a Land Raiders all-around durability, or a Russes higher-than-average durability. It would also allow them to normalize MCs and Vehicles; after all, shouldn't a demolisher cannon have a chance of taking the head off a Carnifex?

**JubbJubbz**

I enjoy the variety in having different mechanics for vehicles vs infantry and the like. Afterall, damaging each is different from the other. The MC vs Walker rules made a lot more sense when a typical walker was akin to a dreadnaught and a typical MC was akin to a Daemon Prince. With the advent of Riptides and Wraithknights it definitely makes less sense, but that's a failing of those units, not the core rules.

**PrinceRaven**

I want to go back to early 5th when the monstrous Creature/Walker division was clear, making Dreadknights, Riptides and Wraithknights Walkers, Forgefienfds and Maulerfiends MCs, and Heldtrakes FMCs.

**majendie**

I look at it like this -

Walkers are robotic gun platforms; they are not designed to be agile combatants, they are designed to be things with guns that can walk instead of drive. The way they are modeled and the way they are used generally reflects this. Yes there are exceptions, but this is how I think of it.

MCs are far more than just a robot - look at a Wraithknight or a Riptide - these are piloted suits so sophisticated they are effectively as agile and dangerous as a living being, so they are treated as such. Whether they are mechanical or not is not relevant; it's the role they fill on the battlefield.

I'm obviously more familiar with the Eldar line, but look at a Warwalker vs a Wraithknight. Warwalker is very much a gun platform designed for greater and more flexible mobility at the expense of durability vs a tank. Wraithknight is designed as an agile, capable, flexible robotic suit as at home in close combat as at range.

**PrinceRaven**

Then why is the Revenant a Super-Heavy Walker, the Maulerfiend a Walker, and the Heldrake a Flyer?

**vipoid**

Chaospling wrote:

But couldn't a Carnifex or Wraithlord have their arms and thereby their weapons blown off?

By the same logic, couldn't you blow the arms off a Warboss, SM captain etc.?

**Frozen Ocean**

Riptides and Wraithknights can be hurt by poison, but Dreadnoughts and War Walkers can not. These units that are neither monstrous nor creatures of any sort can be soul-sucked, but the pilots and drivers of vehicles can not, and neither can Daemon Engines.

I must echo the idea that 40k should have more unit types, not fewer. Something that clears nonsense like robots getting poisoned, among other things.

**vipoid**

Frozen Ocean wrote:
I must echo the idea that 40k should have more unit types, not fewer. Something that clears nonsense like robots getting poisoned, among other things.

Well, you also have stupidity like poison working on Necrons - effectively an entire race of robots.

Now, granted, you could say that races fighting Necrons would replace their poisons with acid (I'm sure they carry barrels of the stuff around just in case some Necrons show up). However, in that case, shouldn't poison weapons work against vehicles too? Or, is every race so afraid of Necrons that they refuse to use any of their precious acid against anything else - even Necron vehicles?

**Frozen Ocean**

Necrons are part of my point, yes. Also, acid does not work that way. I know it's a common enough trope to have acid that eats through everything in seconds, but it's stupid, even for 40k. This also brings the silly situation of a unit shooting "acid" at a Dreadknight while being completely useless against a Dreadnought in the same game.

Of course, these changes would require something to prevent Necrons becoming practically immune to the Dark Eldar.

**krodarklorr**

I think we should have both unit types, but the fact that GW isn't consistent makes me angry. A Carnifex or a Hive Tyrant, or even a Daemon Prince should all be monstrous creatures because, you know, they're MONSTROUS, and they happen to be CREATURES. But why the hell is a Canoptek Spyder, whisch is a MACHINE, a Monstrous creature? Or a Riptide. It's a freaking battlesuit with a pilot inside. That's essentially what a Dreadnought is, so why does a Dreadnaught just take a Gauss shots to the face and die, where Gauss does nothing to Riptide because it has a "2+ armor save". And the Dreadknight. The Penitent Engine from Sisters of Battle is a walker, and is made by the Imperium. The Dreadknight is essentially the same thing, but nope, it's a monstrous creature. GW needs to be consistent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vipoid wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote:
I must echo the idea that 40k should have more unit types, not fewer. Something that clears nonsense like robots getting poisoned, among other things.

Well, you also have stupidity like poison working on Necrons - effectively an entire race of robots.

Now, granted, you could say that races fighting Necrons would replace their poisons with acid (I'm sure they carry barrels of the stuff around just in case some Necrons show up). However, in that case, shouldn't poison weapons work against vehicles too? Or, is every race so afraid of Necrons that they refuse to use any of their precious acid against anything else - even Necron vehicles?

Yeah, Necrons are supposed to be composed of super advanced metal that makes them immune to a lot of organic and living stuff, poison included. But that aside, Gauss can demolecularize a Land Raider, but cannot scratch a Wraithknight. Hmmmm.....

**vipoid**

Frozen Ocean wrote:
Also, acid does not work that way. I know it's a common enough trope to have acid that eats through everything in seconds, but it's stupid, even for 40k.

True enough, though I believe 40k already has various weapons that squirt acid - so apparently it's just stupid enough for 40k.

I guess it's a bit like acid always being portrayed as a viscous, green substance - whilst most acids are just clear liquids resembling ordinary water.

**Frozen Ocean**

Most acid weaponry (of which there is little) are Tyranid biomorphs like Acid Blood and Acid Spray, which are also described with terms like "digestive fluids", implying enzymes. Both weapons can also be considered as great waves of fluid, whereas having "acid ammo" for the splinter rifle just doesn't work. Not to mention that acid and toxins are not interchangeable, even though they're both treated the same in fiction a lot of the time.

Other weapons include Hellfire rounds, which inject extremely strong acids inside their targets (never healthy), and the Shrieker Cannon, which actually causes some sort of chemical reaction with the victim's blood (finally some acknowledgement that acids react with things) and makes them expand, rather than melting them. They also throw around the term "mutagenic" in conjunction with acid, as if this would matter.

What would living metal react with, anyway?

EDIT: There's also the problem that every poison used in the game works on all targets equally, regardless of the differences in Ork, human, and Tyranid physiology (or even one Tyranid and another). That's easily forgiveable, though.

**evildrcheese**

MajorStoffer wrote:
...snip...after all, shouldn't a demolisher cannon have a chance of taking the head off a Carnifex?

I've always thought ordinance/big guns should be more effective against MCs, maybe something like D3 wounds if you score a hit on the scatter dice, and a single wounds if it scatters but still 'hits' the target. This might make these big guns that can blast massive holes in vehicles a little more viable vs MCs rather than them feeling useless vs MCs.

D

**majendie**

I think with the poison thing - as much as it's frustrating having my ridiculously enormous Wraithknight felled by a bee sting, having too many extra rules defining which things these are effective against bogs down the game.

I think that does come down to the extra unit types though - perhaps if there was a middle ground - Walker, Monstrous Creature, Robocop, or something... A robotic creature definition, where it has MC stats but is immune to things like poison, but still vulnerable to things that affect the pilot, like soul sucky things...

**Frozen Ocean**

Could just be a unit type, like "Agile Walker", or something. "Robotic creature" implies cyborg, which would not be immune to poison.

EDIT: It's just difficult to work this without accidentally making all Wraith units immune to poison and haywire (because neither make sense for them).

**majendie**

Wraithlords and Guard/Blades yes, but not necessarily the Wraithknight. Should be immune to poison, but not haywire I guess...

**Frozen Ocean**

Why not Haywire? The thing hardly runs on electricity, as a wraith construct. The problem with making it immune to both poison and haywire is that it makes it harder for certain armies (mostly Dark Eldar) to deal with, and it's already quite tough. Maybe it wouldn't be that much of a problem.

The Riptide and Dreadknight should definitely both be Walkers. The Riptide, a giant mech, is immune to EMP, is vulnerable to poison, and can resist damage by injecting its pilot with stimulants. I'd also like to see Crisis Suits as Walkers.