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.

Think about it:

Grey Knight Dread, T value
Wraith Knight, Wraithlord, Wraithguard, T value
Ghostkeel, Broadside, Crisis Suits, Riptidel, T value


There are just as many examples of similar vehicles:

Penitent Engine, Dunecrawler, Dragoon, etc.

But the armour 12 and 6" movement just does not hold up in battle. They're not worth their points as a weapon platform and just never get into combat as a CC unit. If they had a T value of like 7 or 8 with 4 or 5 wounds they would be able to take more of a beating I feel like...

It's a long, sore subject.

That's what she said.

Well, but what if having a T were garbage and having AV were good? There is nothing about the unit itself that suggests it isn't a vehicle. I think it would be cool if vehicles were good, because dreadnoughts would be good.

The ability to multi-wound against high T, and actually low T as well, would make the difference a lot less notable. It's really weird that you could shoot a las pistol or bolter at a T3 autarch or inquisitor, and even if you have bs8 and nail him right in the head on a 6 the first time, you do only one wound.

I think that all the things that have a T should clearly have T and that AV should clearly have AV. If you take dread knight vs penitent engine for example, the difference is very solid.

Like it just doesn't impress me and I think that it must be some kind of intractable problem on the part of people who complain about it.

So I think if you let people shoot the limbs off of a riptide with one super-accurate shot, then they won't be so sad about dreadnoughts being comparatively fragile.

My daemons would really love if walkers went to a toughness value. Then their S6 base on MCs would be useful. My nurgle daemons would especially be happy.

I see where your coming from, but to solution to OP monstrous creatures is NOT making more things monstrous creatures.

pelicaniforce wrote:
I think that all the things that have a T should clearly have T and that AV should clearly have AV. If you take dread knight vs penitent engine for example, the difference is very solid.

No. Just no. I would love to hear the detailed physical explanation for why a dreadknight is more like a carnifex than a penitent engine. Why a Riptide is more like a greater daemon than a dreadnought. And on the flipside, why a living daemon engine like a Soulgrinder is more like a piloted mechanical vehicle than the new gargantuan creature Tau walker, which is actually a piloted mechanical vehicle.

But there isn't an explanation, you couldnt possibly give a "very solid" one, so don't bother trotting out this entirely indefensible little chestnut. These units have these rules for gameplay purposes, not fluff-based logic. It's perfectly valid to change them for gameplay purposes too.

Yep, that's what I would argue too, CPH. There are a few undeniable cases - a Hive Tyrant is definitely not a walker, an Armored Sentinel is definitely not a monstrous creature - but there are so many grey areas out there that it makes more sense to pick one or the other for crunch reasons than fluff ones.

I could see the argument for doing away with AV altogether and making everything - including tanks - have T/W/Sv like Infantry or MCs. I can't really see a good argument for the inverse.

That said, I think the problem right now is two things - MC/GC get cover like Infantry, and vehicles are mostly too squishy. They're in this weird spot of "totally immune, or else dies way too fast", that gets really strange on the margins. AV13/14 vehicles mostly work as intended, weaker AVs mostly don't. (Consider why, when you do see Dreads, they're almost always Ironclads!)

The real issues here is having 2 separate damage resolution systems in the same game which work in completely different ways.

The only difference between organic and meccanoid targets should be in the specialized weapon effects, EG poison only effects organic targets,(with wounds) and EMP only effects meccanoid targets.(With structure points.)IMO.

However this would need a bit of a re-write and remove the need for so many special snowflake rules GW depend on to up sell releases in the short term.

I could show an example if you like?

Having two different structures does have some benefits; lets say my grey knights fail to cast hammerhand, but succeed in casting force. With an AV, the dread walks over their corpses unharmed. With a T value, dread is a mangled wreck.

I know it isn't perfect, but this solution is no better.

making more monsters is not a solution, its instead making things that have buisness being monsters other then to sell more models.. well monsters.

we can start with the stormsurge, riptide, ghostkeel, dreadknight, and we can go from there.

@JamesY.
Having 2 similar systems that resolve damage in a similar way, has benefits .
Having 2 completely different systems that treat damage resolution in a completely different way , just causes issues with balance.
And this is the real issue 40k has.

Having ONE resolution method that could cover the current range of units in 40k would be a better solution.
Unfortunately none of the systems 40k uses is capable of this.

 ionusx wrote:
making more monsters is not a solution, its instead making things that have buisness being monsters other then to sell more models.. well monsters.

we can start with the stormsurge, riptide, ghostkeel, dreadknight, and we can go from there.

The Dreadknight is NOWHERE near the levels of those or the Wraithknight.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
I think that all the things that have a T should clearly have T and that AV should clearly have AV. If you take dread knight vs penitent engine for example, the difference is very solid.

No. Just no. I would love to hear the detailed physical explanation for why a dreadknight is more like a carnifex than a penitent engine. Why a Riptide is more like a greater daemon than a dreadnought. And on the flipside, why a living daemon engine like a Soulgrinder is more like a piloted mechanical vehicle than the new gargantuan creature Tau walker, which is actually a piloted mechanical vehicle.

But there isn't an explanation, you couldnt possibly give a "very solid" one, so don't bother trotting out this entirely indefensible little chestnut. These units have these rules for gameplay purposes, not fluff-based logic. It's perfectly valid to change them for gameplay purposes too.

I'm not sure that is very convincing. I am still pretty happy with the differences.

It definitely isn't perfectly valid to swap them, and I don't think it's any kind of valid at all. You still have a hypothetical av12 walker that is garbage, even if the dreadnought started behaving inaccurately by having a complete fire arc, no armor facings, and no separate hull. The shooting and damage rules would still be the problems.

It would be nice if Walkers got an armor save as well as there AV, or a standard invul save. about 1/5th my codex is walkers so it would be nice if I could field them and not know right off the bat that I am at a disadvantage for taking my favorite units

The Dreadknight doesn't even have access to FNP, and has to get close so poison is remotely viable. The Riptide? Good luck, commander.

Please. No. Don't let in the madness, fight it. Just because GW somehow feels that a Kastelan robot should have anything but AV doesn't mean that we should accept it.

There was a reason a lot of units had AV; because that meant that a lucky hit could reduce the effectiveness of pretty powerful weapons and units, and Monstrous Creatures would be the exception to that rule, needing more bullets and hits but less powerful hits, so Tyranids and Daemons would have something to fight with. That was also why many of the MCs of the Tyranids have low saves to compensate.

It was NOT to let some way-past-cool mechsuit be way too hardcore for its cost, and was never meant to be used for regular mechs like Dreadnought. MC rules are generally only added to units who GW really want to push as "cooler", so the half-fleshy Forgefiend is a Walker, while the 5% fleshy Riptide is an MC.

Keep dreadnoughts as they are, similar point cost, give them a 4++ save, 3++ if a Venerable (might increase cost to upgrade). Vehicles should still have some form of armour save, either a regular or invulnerable save. Then, any mech like monster should be made a vehicle with similar saves appropriate to their power/point cost. Walkers should have 12" movement as standard etc.

Of course, this results in the current weak armies that struggle with high AV already having even more of an issue, but then again, this is the problem with having staggered releases of codices and not having balance of the game as the core focus when designing it.

No it would be cool it it was the other way around and If all those fake monsters finally got an AV.

I think it would be cooler if MCs rolled on the damage table.

Nomeny wrote:
I think it would be cooler if MCs rolled on the damage table.

7+ Spontaneous Combustion.