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.

I and a friend had a long discussion, and we both agreed that we feel that certain things that are classified as monstrous creatures, shouldn't be. He and I also agreed, to a certain extent, that it's somewhat debatable whether or not they would rightfully be classified as walkers.

So, we came up with some rules for what we're currently calling "Mechs."

Mechs have a full stat-line for a standard infantry model. However, instead of 'toughness' they have an Armour Value, and instead of wounds, they have Hull Points.

The important thing to note is that, unlike walkers, they would also have a Leadership score, and an Armor Save. Like monstrous creatures, they could not choose or be forced to go to ground. Other than that, they follow the same rules for anything else with a leadership score.

Having hull points instead of wounds means they are immune to rules that affect wounds, or that only inflict wounds, such as Instant Death and Poison. However, they are vulnerable to anything that inflicts glancing or penetrating hits. In addition, Mechs are allowed to take Armor Saves and Feel No Pain rolls in order to prevent glancing or penetrating hits, as though they were wounds. However, you roll to penetrate their armor value in the same way you would to penetrate a vehicle's armor value. When its hullpoints are reduced to zero, the Mech is removed from the table as a casualty.

However, on the result of a penetrating hit, you do not use the Vehicle Damage table. Instead, Mechs have their own damage table. On a penetrating hit, you roll for damage on the Mech damage table. This roll is never modified.

In addition, Mechs do not have armor facings. Whatever angle you fire at them from, you always roll against the same armor value.

Mechs also have primary wargear, and secondary wargear. A 'primary' piece of wargear is assigned to a limb. (Ex. Bright Lance; Primary, left arm). When damage is inflicted to that limb by a penetrating hit, all primary wargear attached to that limb ceases to function, and the Mech looses all benefits for having it. Secondary wargear are not assigned to any given limb, and are not affected by penetrating hits. Mechs may fire up to two weapons instead of one.

Mechs have the following special rules: Move through Cover, Fear, and Felling Strike.
Felling Strike: All attacks made by this model are AP 4, unless their weapon has better AP. Any model with this rule may opt to forgoe its usual attacks, and instead make a single attack at double its strength score, at AP 2.

Mechs move like Infantry. In addition, a mech can be classified as any type of infantry, and will follow the rules for movement for that infantry type and gain any special rules granted by it. For example, a Mech can be a Jump Mech, a Jetpack Mech, or a Beast Mech.

Mech Damage Table:
1.) Pilot Stunned: Until the end of its next turn, a Mech that suffers a Pilot Stunned Result can only fire Snap Shots, and can not move during the movement phase, nor make Jet Pack moves. It may still run, make consolidation moves, and fall back, as normal. It can not, however, declare an assault.
2.) Left Leg Damaged: The Mech immediately looses any benefit from Primary wargear attached to this limb. In addition, it reduces any voluntary movement by half. This does not restrict fall back moves.
3.) Right Leg Damaged: The Mech immediately looses any benefit from Primary wargear attached to this limb. In addition, it reduces any voluntary movement by half. This does not restrict fall back moves. If the Left Leg Damaged result has also been suffered by that mech, the Mech may not make any voluntary movement at all. This still does not restrict fall back moves.
4.) Left Arm Damaged: The Mech immediately looses any benefit from Primary wargear attached to this limb. In addition, the model reduces its attack characteristic by 1, to a minimum of 1.
5.) Right Arm Damaged: The Mech immediately looses any benefit from Primary wargear attached to this limb. In addition, the model reduces its attack characteristic by 1, to a minimum of 1. If the Mech has also suffered the Left Arm Damaged result, it looses the benefit of the Felling Strike special rule.
6.) Cockpit Destroyed: The Mech is removed from the table as a casualty. The player controlling the Mech may choose to have the pilot perform a self destruct, in which case, when the Mech is destroyed, it suffers an 'Explodes' result, as described in the Vehicle Damage section of the core rule book.

If any results of a 2, 3, 4, or 5 are scored multiple times against a Mech, instead of the usual result, the penetrating hit inflicts two hull points instead of one.
_______________________

These rules were intended to be applied to things such as Wraith Knights, Riptides, Dread Knights, and even Dread Naughts. For easy conversion, simply change any walkers to Mechs, adjusting their rules as needed. Do not assign an Armor Save. For monstrous creatures, change their type to Mech, adjusting any rules as needed. They have an equal number of Hull Points as they do wounds. Their armor value is equal to four plus their toughness.

Any one think they would be interested in trying these rules? If so, please tell me how they work for you, and what you think of them.

Why do Mechs deserve to get a saving throw but tanks don't?

A regular vehicle that is stunned twice does not loose additional hull points, seems a bit harsh that a mech does. In 7th the damage chart goes up to 7 making it impossible to instantly explode a vehicle without an AP 1 or 2 (or it being a flimsy open topped vehicle), mech damage chart should probably go up to 7 too. Dreadnoughts already loose arms to weapon destroyed with similar results to your chart, I guess I just don't see how there needs to be a special chart for mechs.

I get there's a few Monstrous Creatures that better suit Walker status (Eldar and Tau, maybe Chaos idk). Not too sure on complicating it further with a new unit type. I do agree that something should change though. Whenever I play against my friends Eldar, I load up on scouts (sniper) which seem to do well against his MCs cheaply (but useless against real walkers).

However, I would be an advocate of making (Robotic) Monstrous Creatures into Vehicle Walkers, or making Vehicle Walkers into Monstrous Robotic Creatures.

---

Monstrous Robotic Creature = generally the same as MC but immune to Poison but vulnerable to Haywire (maybe some etcs...) and rear facing Armour Save is one lower (seems the way walkers work).

The first problem I'm seeing is that you're giving armor value AND a save? What sort of stats are you looking at then? If you make the riptide anything other armor 10 you've just made it immune to bolter fire, and if you make it stronger (armor 11 or up) anything that can wound it is probably AP1 or 2 anyways.

It'll genuinely just make riptides even harder to kill than they already are, and I don't think that's something that needs to be done. Making a middle ground between walker and MC just gives you all the benefits of either class with none of the setbacks it seems.

If anything is added it should just be a damage chart for all monstrous creatures. Why make a mech chart, saying you can shoot an arm off a riptide, when it'd be just as easy to shoot the arm off a nid?

wtnind wrote:Why do Mechs deserve to get a saving throw but tanks don't?

A regular vehicle that is stunned twice does not loose additional hull points, seems a bit harsh that a mech does. In 7th the damage chart goes up to 7 making it impossible to instantly explode a vehicle without an AP 1 or 2 (or it being a flimsy open topped vehicle), mech damage chart should probably go up to 7 too. Dreadnoughts already loose arms to weapon destroyed with similar results to your chart, I guess I just don't see how there needs to be a special chart for mechs.

The idea was to make something that was mechanically different from a walker, thus emphasizing the fact that they aren't walkers. In theory, they function more like a monstrous creature. However, where a monstrous creature has muscle and bone protected by an armor save, a mech has gears and wiring.

Mechs don't suffer an additional hull point from two stuns. They only suffer additional damage from loosing a limb more than once. The reason they have their own chart is, again, to reinforce that they are different from tanks and walkers through mechanics.

Evil Party Girl wrote:I get there's a few Monstrous Creatures that better suit Walker status (Eldar and Tau, maybe Chaos idk). Not too sure on complicating it further with a new unit type. I do agree that something should change though. Whenever I play against my friends Eldar, I load up on scouts (sniper) which seem to do well against his MCs cheaply (but useless against real walkers).

However, I would be an advocate of making (Robotic) Monstrous Creatures into Vehicle Walkers, or making Vehicle Walkers into Monstrous Robotic Creatures.

---

Monstrous Robotic Creature = generally the same as MC but immune to Poison but vulnerable to Haywire (maybe some etcs...) and rear facing Armour Save is one lower (seems the way walkers work).

The point of making the new unit type was to emphasize how Mechs are different from standard vehicles and monstrous creatures. To do this, something would have to be changed, so why not make it something completely new and exciting, in a game which is constantly changing anyway.

kingbobbito wrote:The first problem I'm seeing is that you're giving armor value AND a save? What sort of stats are you looking at then? If you make the riptide anything other armor 10 you've just made it immune to bolter fire, and if you make it stronger (armor 11 or up) anything that can wound it is probably AP1 or 2 anyways.

It'll genuinely just make riptides even harder to kill than they already are, and I don't think that's something that needs to be done. Making a middle ground between walker and MC just gives you all the benefits of either class with none of the setbacks it seems.

If anything is added it should just be a damage chart for all monstrous creatures. Why make a mech chart, saying you can shoot an arm off a riptide, when it'd be just as easy to shoot the arm off a nid?

If you read my suggestions for conversion, then the riptide would end up being AV 10. As far as strength goes, my system would only end up making them immune to things that were barely able to hurt them to begin with, i.e. a riptide being hurt by a lasgun, or a wraith knight being hurt by a pulse rifle. In exchange, any shot that can hurt them significantly has a 1-in-6 chance to completely destroy them.

And, actually, the majority of the changes from these rules would hinder a monstrous creature. The primary benefits are that it becomes immune to poison and sniper weapons, but gains vulnerability to haywire and the like. They gain no benefit against krak grenades and metla bombs, as they can be used on monstrous creatures and vehicles both. They are now invulnerable to instant-death weapons, but again, any weapon that can severely damage them can potentially destroy them in one go. In fact, there really is no benefit gained for anything to become a mech. All the primary benefits of being a walker aren't given, and all the primary benefits of being a monstrous creature aren't given. The entire concept was, in fact, made with the idea in mind that it Not be a boon for anything it applied to.

And, yes, a monstrous creature damage table may be a very good idea. However, giving monstrorous creatures a damage table was not the point of this suggestion. The point was to make a mechanical representation of things that don't really fit either category of 'walker' or 'monstrous creature.'
After all, when it gets right down to it, the game would likely be made a great deal more balanced by simply removing vehicle mechanics all together, and just make them more like monstrous creatures; i.e, mechanically almost the same as infantry, but with a few special rules to make them unique. However, no one really seems interested in that idea.

Added a poll. I'd like to see how much interest there is in the idea.

I've thought for a while that some sort of 'Construct' subtype needs to be added to the game to cover models that are not vehicles, but are artificial life forms or are piloted.

The Riptide and Dreadknight are the obvious choices, but this could be applied to a host of other things like most Necron units, Tau Battlesuits and Drones, Space Marine Centurions andanything Eldar with the word Wraith in it.

Basic rule would reduce vulnerability to poison, fleshbane and instant death style attacks while providing added vulnerability to Armourbane, Haywire, Lance and Melta.

I really cant see the difference (fluff wise) between a dread knight and an eldar war walker. Or for that matter any of the dreadnoughts.


What is it that differentiates (fluff wise) between a walker and a mech?

wtnind wrote:
I really cant see the difference (fluff wise) between a dread knight and an eldar war walker. Or for that matter any of the dreadnoughts.


What is it that differentiates (fluff wise) between a walker and a mech?

For me, it's really a matter of concept. In theory, a mech is something designed to basically be a monstrous creature, but that still has a pilot. The goal for a mech should be as close to direct one-to-one interaction as is possible between the pilot and the machine.

A walker, by contrast, is simply a vehicle with legs instead of treads or wheels. Where a mech is an attempt to basically create something that moves, fights, and responds like a monstrous creature, or even just a bigger version of the intended pilot, a walker is a vehicle that uses legs as an alternative movement system.

The key differences between them, that are most easily pointed out, are fairly obvious. Mechs have arms and legs, and some even a distinguishable 'head', where a walker just has legs. A mech has a single pilot, where a walker can-though doesn't always-have multiple. In theory, a mech should be more inclined towards melee combat, where a walker would be more intended as a shooting platform. A mech should also constitute a greater level of engineering, where a walker is likely more in line with a mobile turret.

In essence; A walker is a tank with legs. A mech is what happens when the concept behind power armor is taken to the extreme.

Or, to put it another way; If tanks and monstrous creatures were put on some kind of sliding scale, a walker would be more akin to a tank, where a mech would be closer to a monstrous creature, just one made of machinery.

Necroes wrote:

wtnind wrote:
I really cant see the difference (fluff wise) between a dread knight and an eldar war walker. Or for that matter any of the dreadnoughts.


What is it that differentiates (fluff wise) between a walker and a mech?

For me, it's really a matter of concept. In theory, a mech is something designed to basically be a monstrous creature, but that still has a pilot. The goal for a mech should be as close to direct one-to-one interaction as is possible between the pilot and the machine.

A walker, by contrast, is simply a vehicle with legs instead of treads or wheels. Where a mech is an attempt to basically create something that moves, fights, and responds like a monstrous creature, or even just a bigger version of the intended pilot, a walker is a vehicle that uses legs as an alternative movement system.

The key differences between them, that are most easily pointed out, are fairly obvious. Mechs have arms and legs, and some even a distinguishable 'head', where a walker just has legs. A mech has a single pilot, where a walker can-though doesn't always-have multiple. In theory, a mech should be more inclined towards melee combat, where a walker would be more intended as a shooting platform. A mech should also constitute a greater level of engineering, where a walker is likely more in line with a mobile turret.

In essence; A walker is a tank with legs. A mech is what happens when the concept behind power armor is taken to the extreme.

Or, to put it another way; If tanks and monstrous creatures were put on some kind of sliding scale, a walker would be more akin to a tank, where a mech would be closer to a monstrous creature, just one made of machinery.

So all dreadnoughts would become mechs?
1. as close to direct one-to-one interaction between pilot and machine (yes)
2. Moves fights and responds like a monsterous creature (yes)
3. Has arms and legs (yes)
4. Is a tank with legs (no - fitting your definition of mech)
5. Constitutes a greater level of engineering (yes - dreadnoughts are like a mini versions of the golden throne of terra)
6. Is power armour taken to the extreme (yes)

Guess all that also applies to centurions too.

wtnind wrote:So all dreadnoughts would become mechs?
1. as close to direct one-to-one interaction between pilot and machine (yes)
2. Moves fights and responds like a monsterous creature (yes)
3. Has arms and legs (yes)
4. Is a tank with legs (no - fitting your definition of mech)
5. Constitutes a greater level of engineering (yes - dreadnoughts are like a mini versions of the golden throne of terra)
6. Is power armour taken to the extreme (yes)

Guess all that also applies to centurions too.

I don't know about centurions, but...

Necroes wrote:...These rules were intended to be applied to things such as Wraith Knights, Riptides, Dread Knights, and even Dread Naughts. For easy conversion, simply change any walkers to Mechs, adjusting their rules as needed. Do not assign an Armor Save. For monstrous creatures, change their type to Mech, adjusting any rules as needed. They have an equal number of Hull Points as they do wounds. Their armor value is equal to four plus their toughness....

The rules were intended to be applied to anything that constitutes a mech. I never indicated otherwise. Honestly, I've always thought it was odd that dread naughts had the same vehicle classification as sentinels, when I'm 99% certain if you said something like that to an ad mech, at best they'd facepalm.

As for centurions, I wouldn't classify them as mechs because they're still just people in armor. It may be incredibly bulky armor, but the point of the armor is still to protect them, not the machinery that makes up the suit. So far as I'm aware, centurions manipulate all the machinery in their suits manually. It's not a matter of using a control system of some sort that commands the rest of the suit to function. In other words, a mech is still piloted, while armor is only worn.

Why not simply make MC damage table with all the arms, legs, etc.

So the only walkers in the entire GW range would be:
sentinel
war walker
soulgrinder
defiler
maulerfiend/forge fiend

And possibly Gorkanaught / Morkanaught?

wtnind wrote:
So the only walkers in the entire GW range would be:
sentinel
war walker
soulgrinder
defiler
maulerfiend/forge fiend

And possibly Gorkanaught / Morkanaught?

There would also be the necron walker, the name of which escapes me. As well as any of the larger titans, though I'm not certain how many are produced by GW.

Though, I feel it's important to point out, that list encompasses all the current walkers in the game, that aren't some variant of dread naught.

Why not just make them Walkers?

That said, deciding where to draw the line between an MC and a Walker (or Mech) won't be much easier.

Its still a continuum. Not only can most people not agree where the line should be drawn, but also where different models actually fit. And then there are things that are just plain wonky.

For instance, seems like a lot of people want Wraith constructs to be labeled as Walkers. I could see that for the Wraithknight, but how does that fit the Wraithlord? Its less mechanical than a Tyranid monster (redundant organs are easier to cripple than non subsystems/organs at all).

The continuum I see is probably like this:

Wraithlord - large Demon - Nid monster - Squiggy! - Wraithknight - Soul Grinder/Demon Engine - Riptide/Dreadknight - War Walker - Dreadnought - Sentinal.

(Missing any categories?)

Currently, the MC/Walker line is drawn between Wraithknight and Demon Engine, with a few ugly offenders on the wrong side.

With this change, instead of arguing over one line, we get to argue over two. And where would those two be placed?

If we go this route, looks to me that the optimal place to separate mechs/MCs would be on either side of the Wraithknight (could be argued either way). With the mech/Walker line being clearly between War Walkers and Dreadknights.

Does fit the data better, but adding another degree always does.

The way I see it, there's no need to argue for simplicity. Warhammer 40k has been increasing in how complicated it is during the entirety of its existence. So, I see no issue in making it more complicated to help the rules better reflect the differences between models.

For me, I see no real debate. Monstrous creatures have brains, mechs have pilots. Every example I mentioned had something piloting it.

The only real issue I see, at least for categories as broad as 'monstrous creature' and the like, would be any kind of possessed vehicle. However, I'd be happy to leave them as walkers, as I have no idea how finite the control a demon possessing a tank has over it.

And wraithlords are monstrous creatures. They're not piloted, they're literally just a big wraithblade. And, I feel it's just easier to leave smaller models (i.e infantry) out of this range, as it's somewhat debatable where that line should be drawn.