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.

Also, there is zero reason for the game to have 5+ different resolution methods. Especially when multiple of those resolution methods are for doing the exact same thing.

AV is a whole new system that complicates the much simpler to wound roll that in the end does the exact same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
With the exception of AM people that complains about their vehicles already have a powerful army even without them, and improving shooty vehicles would make mid or lower ties armies like dark eldar, orks or tyranids even worse.

Maybe walkers could be improved some way, maybe increasing their movement range.

DE, Orks, and Nids are not bad because other armies have vehicles though. They are bad because of poor internal and external balance. Fixing the issues with vehicles in general might help the internal balance of other codexes while doing nids no favors, but it does over all improve the game. The only way to fix nids/orks etc etc... is to address their specific failings. Which is a whole other topic for discussion.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Why do you consider MCs a problem? Only those with a huge fire power really are, but that's because of their wargear. Make riptides 450 points, wraitknight 600 points and let's see. MCs like the tyranids ones or dark eldar talos/cronos are far from being overpowered, daemons are very good only because the roll 400 dice in the psychic phase, so what do you concern about MCs?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Land Speeders become interesting.
Thunderwolves with ranged weaponry.

That would be disgusting, they should remain AV10. AV for vehicles is ok.

Sorry Blackie, you kind of stepped on a sarcastic comment.
50 points for a Thunderwolf with improved mobility and the options of better ranged weapons...but there is the fact that it has no Strength or Weapon Skill stats and can't actually defend itself or Jink in melee, it can be hurt by Strength 3, that sure doesn't happen with AV10, unless there's something with S3 and a Gauss special rule.

I think my sarcasm was a bit lacking without the voice and the expression.

 Lance845 wrote:


DE, Orks, and Nids are not bad because other armies have vehicles though

You're right, but making shooty vehicle better would affect badly armies like those ones. And seriously threre's not a single vehicle that needs to be fixed IMHO, with the exception of walkers. If a vehicle doesn't shine in its army that's beacuse that faction already has overpowered units, so those vehicles don't underperform because their rules are not good and should be fixed, but because the same armies have other units or formations that are too powerful.

What are the vehicles that underperform? Of course if you have 10+ possible vehicles in a codex you can't assume that they all have an autoinclude status in a possible list. Dark eldar, Orks, necrons, eldars and even AM don't need fixed vehicles rules. Tau vehicles aren't bad either, they just have more powerful options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


Sorry Blackie, you kind of stepped on a sarcastic comment.
50 points for a Thunderwolf with improved mobility and the options of better ranged weapons...but there is the fact that it has no Strength or Weapon Skill stats and can't actually defend itself or Jink in melee, it can be hurt by Strength 3, that sure doesn't happen with AV10, unless there's something with S3 and a Gauss special rule.

I think my sarcasm was a bit lacking without the voice and the expression.

Don't worry, that's probably me that doesn't understand some shades when talking in english.

I think if they abandon AV they would get an entire infantry profile and being SM I bet they would have WS4, S4 and more than a single wound as there are at least two models on a speeder, so they would be actually better than thunderwolves and that would be a shame.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


DE, Orks, and Nids are not bad because other armies have vehicles though

You're right, but making shooty vehicle better would affect badly armies like those ones. And seriously threre's not a single vehicle that needs to be fixed IMHO, with the exception of walkers. If a vehicle doesn't shine in its army that's beacuse that faction already has overpowered units, so those vehicles don't underperform because their rules are not good and should be fixed, but because the same armies have other units or formations that are too powerful.

What are the vehicles that underperform? Of course if you have 10+ possible vehicles in a codex you can't assume that they all have an autoinclude status in a possible list. Dark eldar, Orks, necrons, eldars and even AM don't need fixed vehicles rules. Tau vehicles aren't bad either, they just have more powerful options.

It's not about under or over perform in general. It's not about finding specific examples from specific codexes. Every problem with vehicles can be found in the core rule book.

There is no reason vehicles should function so fundamentally different from every other model in the game. And there are odd ball rules that crop up because of these fundamental differences. There is a whole new resolution method because of AV. There is the loss of a save for the most heavily armored things when we already have a mechanic that represents armor in the form of armor saves. We have a random chart to roll on for penetrating hits that degrade a vehicles ability to function over the course of the game while no other unit types suffer the same things. We gain a number of additional special rules that only impact vehicles, their penetration chart, or their av. We also gain a bunch of additional language that needs to be added to other special rules to specifiy how they effect vehicles and AV differently from the way they impact Toughness and Sv. Tank shocks are weird. Vehicle ramming is a whole new set of rules and resolutions instead of just having Hammer of wraths which amount to the same thing.

just.... why? Why is all this extra needed? Does it add anything to the game? The game isn't more fun or more strategic because of AV and the Pen table. Meanwhile walkers are actively hindered by vehicle rules. So why bother with it?

To be clear, I am not proposing you get rid of the vehicle unit type. I am suggesting there is no reason why the vehicle unit type needs to function completely differently from everything else in the game.

I understand your point, I respect it but I disagree because I like how vehicles work in 40k, including the pen table.

The lack of a save is actually a good thing, they already have the AV that works better that toughness as even the less powerful AV 10 can be wounded only with a 6 if hit by an average S4 shot. AV12-14 with a save would become too resilient.

Switching from AV to T and adding a save could be acceptable only if the most resilient vehicles have T8, not 9 or 10, and of course those saves can't be better than 4+, otherwise some vehicles become impossible to wreck.

I don't want more powerful shooty vehicles in 40k, nor to make them even more resilient than they already are. Many armies currently have a lot of issues when popping a AV14 vehicle even without a save.

 Blackie wrote:
I understand your point, I respect it but I disagree because I like how vehicles work in 40k, including the pen table.

The lack of a save is actually a good thing, they already have the AV that works better that toughness as even the less powerful AV 10 can be wounded only with a 6 if hit by an average S4 shot. AV12-14 with a save would become too resilient.

Switching from AV to T and adding a save could be acceptable only if the most resilient vehicles have T8, not 9 or 10, and of course those saves can't be better than 4+, otherwise some vehicles become impossible to wreck.

I don't want more powerful shooty vehicles in 40k, nor to make them even more resilient than they already are. Many armies currently have a lot of issues when popping a AV14 vehicle even without a save.

So basically you like vehicle-based lists being screwed over. Not very sporting, imo. If there are MCs impossible to kill, why can't there be vehicles that are similarly difficult to wreck?

I typically play lists with lots of vehicles, orks with 5 battlewagons or 8-10 trukks and dark eldars with 3 ravagers, 5 venoms and 2 raiders.

I don't think there are vehicles that need to be improved, especially if they have a strong firepower on them. That would create new overpowered units.

I do love vehicles but I hate highlander units, so I think creating some immortal vehicles is a bad option.

There aren't MCs impossible to kill IMHO, there are some overpowered psykers and shooty units that also are MCs, some of them are tough because they're flyers.

Armies with 40+ grav shots, free vehicles, D weapons, 40+ dice in the psychic phase, 150-200 shots with BS3-4 and S5-10 in a single turn, or a lot of flyers are not very sporting. The only MCs that I play are talos and cronos, far from being impossible to kill and belonging to an army that is considered among the worst.

Human factions don't need other helps, they're just too powerful as they currently are. They also received two immortal overpowered characters just a few weeks ago. AM have some issues but only because they're very static, they still have a huge amount of firepower available.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I understand your point, I respect it but I disagree because I like how vehicles work in 40k, including the pen table.

The lack of a save is actually a good thing, they already have the AV that works better that toughness as even the less powerful AV 10 can be wounded only with a 6 if hit by an average S4 shot. AV12-14 with a save would become too resilient.

Switching from AV to T and adding a save could be acceptable only if the most resilient vehicles have T8, not 9 or 10, and of course those saves can't be better than 4+, otherwise some vehicles become impossible to wreck.

I don't want more powerful shooty vehicles in 40k, nor to make them even more resilient than they already are. Many armies currently have a lot of issues when popping a AV14 vehicle even without a save.

So basically you like vehicle-based lists being screwed over. Not very sporting, imo. If there are MCs impossible to kill, why can't there be vehicles that are similarly difficult to wreck?

I agree with both of you on different elements.
I like the fact that vehicles are different, I like AV as a mechanic but since I play Space Wolves and Tyranids I've never had an issue wrecking them - But I hate the vehicle destruction table, I'd rather see it replaced by a vehicle degradation table.
I do agree that AM need a hand, they're a Tank heavy army and their Tanks are Garbage.
But since this is about fixing MCs I'll stick with the stop putting them in armies they don't belong in armed with powerful, ranged weapons and extended movement. Monstrous Creatures are CLOSE RANGE and belong in melee armies.

One thing that I want to mention... making vehicles have a toughness save is a bad idea. I like vehicles, I really do. I just disagree that your DE skiff has the same toughness as my scythed heirodule.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
One thing that I want to mention... making vehicles have a toughness save is a bad idea. I like vehicles, I really do. I just disagree that your DE skiff has the same toughness as my scythed heirodule.

It already is largely analogous - calling it T6 or AV10 doesn't change much, aside from a slight increase in vulnerability to low S (S3 in this case) and slight increase in resistance to high S (S10 in this case) when using a T value instead of AV.

Beyond that, its a question of whether you have armor saves or not, and the 4+ or 5+ armor save suggested are not much to write home about.

Changing from AV to T would mostly be about removing the veil that currently covers so many eyes - the fact that T and AV themselves (not counting the extras like Vehicle Damage Tables) are already almost entirely the same in terms of resolution.

I dont think this debate gets fixed by nerfing MC's but should be buffing Vehicles

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Beyond that, its a question of whether you have armor saves or not, and the 4+ or 5+ armor save suggested are not much to write home about.

Having not much to write home about is better than nothing to write home about, unless you're a lazy writer with snoopy, helicopter parents

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Changing from AV to T would mostly be about removing the veil that currently covers so many eyes - the fact that T and AV themselves (not counting the extras like Vehicle Damage Tables) are already almost entirely the same in terms of resolution.

Not entirely. The Toughness Chart is a both more flexible and restricted when compared to the AV resolution. With AV, you only have the Str within 6 to affect it. With TAS, Str has to be half T or greater in order to affect it.

That Vehicle Damage Table is also half the point of the AV resolution system. "Organic" units are only ever "Glanced" and never "Penetrated", and really reflects the main issues between the TAS and AV system.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Beyond that, its a question of whether you have armor saves or not, and the 4+ or 5+ armor save suggested are not much to write home about.

Having not much to write home about is better than nothing to write home about, unless you're a lazy writer with snoopy, helicopter parents

Nothing disputed about that, but against the vast majority of the weapons that will be aimed at Tvalue vehicles with 4+ or 5+ armor, it won't make a difference - hence "not much" to write home about rather than "nothing".

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Changing from AV to T would mostly be about removing the veil that currently covers so many eyes - the fact that T and AV themselves (not counting the extras like Vehicle Damage Tables) are already almost entirely the same in terms of resolution.

Not entirely. The Toughness Chart is a both more flexible and restricted when compared to the AV resolution. With AV, you only have the Str within 6 to affect it. With TAS, Str has to be half T or greater in order to affect it.

That Vehicle Damage Table is also half the point of the AV resolution system. "Organic" units are only ever "Glanced" and never "Penetrated", and really reflects the main issues between the TAS and AV system.

First, in regard to the bolded section, I consider that a confusing way to describe the relationship, and inaccurate at higher T levels. S5 and 6 can't affect T10, S5 can't affect T9.

Thus your "within X" is a poor way to describe it, and that's exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about the "veil".

While anything up to 6 under the AV can affect it, that's a quirk of the method of resolution, not really a strong distinction, due to the manner in which that range affects it, because those 6 values are where the effectiveness changes based on where in those 6 values you are - if you're S4 vs AV10, you're "wounding" on a 6+. If you're S8 against the same, you're wounding on 2+. If you're below S4, you can't "wound", if you're above S8, you never fail to "wound".

The analogous RANGE of wounding differentials for SvT is extremely similar to the RANGE of "wounding" differentials for SvAV - The analogous T for AV10 is not 10, it is 6, because it displays almost exactly the same range of values of effectiveness and with roughly the same chance of success (with only the caveats I mentioned in my earlier post, and which you did not quote) - S4 vs T6 is 6+ to wound, S8 vs T6 is 2+, with the oddity that S3 also wounds on 6+ (slightly lower minimum range) and S9+ doesn't become an automatic wound (slightly weakening overkill).

So yes, there are distinctions between AV and T resolution, but the distinctions (if we remove the VDT) are so small that I personally think simplifying them under a single resolution method (T, like everything else in the game that isn't a Vehicle) and losing that distinction is well worth the gain of simplifying resolution methods and removing the veil if confusion about how damn similar T & AV actually are when it comes to resolution despite their superficial lack of similarity by having special snowflake values of 10 to 14 instead of 6 to 10.

Yes, the Vehicle Damage Table is a large part of the AV resolution system, and easily one of the most complained-about mechanical differences between Tanks and MC - that's why I'm all for getting rid of it, though I'm still potentially open to replacing it with a universal AoS degredation table as targets lose wounds.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
I'm so happy to see so many people support the TMCs. Honestly, I think you would get better results arguing that anything not a daemon or a TMC, ie everything that is more metal than flesh or warp dust, be made a walker, and then arguing for fixing vehicle and walker rules. For the record, the only reason people complain about the hive tyrant is because that is the only thing you will see most of the time.

Anyhow, >insert< NidLivesMatter and Save The Tyranids memes

Even then there's only one variant of the tyrant people complain about.... hell it's not even the flyrant in general. People only really complain because of the dakka flyrant with 2x twin-linked Brainleech Devourers and Electroshock Grubs and the only reason for that is because it's by far the best unit in the codex and people spam them like no tomorrow.

Individually they're not that hard to kill and actually prone to killing themselves, but when someone spams 3+ of them in medium sized games they help add fodder to the whole MC's are OP idea.

MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

We can agree that the MC type is overall stronger than the Vehicle Type, taken generally and presuming otherwise equalized stats.

So long as the MC pays sufficient points for that benefit, MCs are not OP. So long as Vehicles are sufficiently cheap in points, a Vehicle can be OP.

(No, PLEASE don't discuss the actual points you want for any particular MC, as I'm not discussing any particular MC and only responding to the over-generalization in your comment - that's off-topic, and I won't respond to it)

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Nothing disputed about that, but against the vast majority of the weapons that will be aimed at Tvalue vehicles with 4+ or 5+ armor, it won't make a difference - hence "not much" to write home about rather than "nothing".

Then you are conflating "not much" with "nothing", as those things usually do that..

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Changing from AV to T would mostly be about removing the veil that currently covers so many eyes - the fact that T and AV themselves (not counting the extras like Vehicle Damage Tables) are already almost entirely the same in terms of resolution.

Not entirely. The Toughness Chart is a both more flexible and restricted when compared to the AV resolution. With AV, you only have the Str within 6 to affect it. With TAS, Str has to be half T or greater in order to affect it.

That Vehicle Damage Table is also half the point of the AV resolution system. "Organic" units are only ever "Glanced" and never "Penetrated", and really reflects the main issues between the TAS and AV system.

First, in regard to the bolded section, I consider that a confusing way to describe the relationship, and inaccurate at higher T levels. S5 and 6 can't affect T10, S5 can't affect T9.

Thus your "within X" is a poor way to describe it, and that's exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about the "veil".

While anything up to 6 under the AV can affect it, that's a quirk of the method of resolution, not really a strong distinction, due to the manner in which that range affects it, because those 6 values are where the effectiveness changes based on where in those 6 values you are - if you're S4 vs AV10, you're "wounding" on a 6+. If you're S8 against the same, you're wounding on 2+. If you're below S4, you can't "wound", if you're above S8, you never fail to "wound".

The analogous RANGE of wounding differentials for SvT is extremely similar to the RANGE of "wounding" differentials for SvAV - The analogous T for AV10 is not 10, it is 6, because it displays almost exactly the same range of values of effectiveness and with roughly the same chance of success (with only the caveats I mentioned in my earlier post, and which you did not quote) - S4 vs T6 is 6+ to wound, S8 vs T6 is 2+, with the oddity that S3 also wounds on 6+ (slightly lower minimum range) and S9+ doesn't become an automatic wound (slightly weakening overkill).

So yes, there are distinctions between AV and T resolution, but the distinctions (if we remove the VDT) are so small that I personally think simplifying them under a single resolution method (T, like everything else in the game that isn't a Vehicle) and losing that distinction is well worth the gain of simplifying resolution methods and removing the veil if confusion about how damn similar T & AV actually are when it comes to resolution despite their superficial lack of similarity by having special snowflake values of 10 to 14 instead of 6 to 10.

I think it is more important to point out that with the AV system, there is only one AV a Str will score a specific roll requirement on. Where as most Str Values will have two values To Wound on a 6+. In the end, the AV system is simpler to use than the TAS system, but the Str system allows for more flexibility in Str range.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yes, the Vehicle Damage Table is a large part of the AV resolution system, and easily one of the most complained-about mechanical differences between Tanks and MC - that's why I'm all for getting rid of it, though I'm still potentially open to replacing it with a universal AoS degredation table as targets lose wounds.

One of the reasons for creating that different system was to know when a Glance and a Penetrate were needed.

To be fair, there are logical reasons to include the VDT, especially when we know that when hitting Vehicles often results in things not working right afterward for one reason or another. The same thing applies to Monstrous Creatures, yet they have more Wounds and no Damage Table. Most other units usually have too few Wounds for them to be in consideration (though that has changed rather recently).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

We can agree that the MC type is overall stronger than the Vehicle Type, taken generally and presuming otherwise equalized stats.

So long as the MC pays sufficient points for that benefit, MCs are not OP. So long as Vehicles are sufficiently cheap in points, a Vehicle can be OP.

(No, PLEASE don't discuss the actual points you want for any particular MC, as I'm not discussing any particular MC and only responding to the over-generalization in your comment - that's off-topic, and I won't respond to it)

So, why does an army like Tyranids that revolves around the Monstrous Creature unit type fall so far behind the standard? It's not the Monstrous Creature type that's OP, it's all the extras that have been tacked onto those MCs - Layered saves, high powered, high RoF, Long Ranged weaponry, long ranged support and formation bonuses all for bargain points costs. You'll find a lot of vehicles have these things but very few have all of them rolled into one cheap, tidy package.

 Charistoph wrote:

I think it is more important to point out that with the AV system, there is only one AV a Str will score a specific roll requirement on. Where as most Str Values will have two values To Wound on a 6+. In the end, the AV system is simpler to use than the TAS system, but the Str system allows for more flexibility in Str range.

Technically you're still rolling for S10 against AV 10, despite never achieving any result other than a Penetrating roll.

But yes, there are minor differences - my argument, and we can agree to disagree about this, is that the distinction is so small that I'd gladly sacrifice those slight differences to get rid of the special snowflake AV system.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yes, the Vehicle Damage Table is a large part of the AV resolution system, and easily one of the most complained-about mechanical differences between Tanks and MC - that's why I'm all for getting rid of it, though I'm still potentially open to replacing it with a universal AoS degredation table as targets lose wounds.

One of the reasons for creating that different system was to know when a Glance and a Penetrate were needed.

To be fair, there are logical reasons to include the VDT, especially when we know that when hitting Vehicles often results in things not working right afterward for one reason or another. The same thing applies to Monstrous Creatures, yet they have more Wounds and no Damage Table. Most other units usually have too few Wounds for them to be in consideration (though that has changed rather recently).

I agree, and the fact we treat MC and other multi-wound infantry different than vehicles in that regard is something I'm very welling to change - either remove the extra distinction between glancing and penetrating hits for all models, or apply such a system towards all multi-wound models (my preference is towards a universalized AoS style table, rather than the VDT).

I think we're fairly close in our understanding here, with minor disagreements on whether the extra flexibility of the S/T vs S/AV system distinctions are worth the extra effort and (IMO) confusion of keeping them distinct. Sound fair?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

We can agree that the MC type is overall stronger than the Vehicle Type, taken generally and presuming otherwise equalized stats.

So long as the MC pays sufficient points for that benefit, MCs are not OP. So long as Vehicles are sufficiently cheap in points, a Vehicle can be OP.

(No, PLEASE don't discuss the actual points you want for any particular MC, as I'm not discussing any particular MC and only responding to the over-generalization in your comment - that's off-topic, and I won't respond to it)

So, why does an army like Tyranids that revolves around the Monstrous Creature unit type fall so far behind the standard? It's not the Monstrous Creature type that's OP, it's all the extras that have been tacked onto those MCs - Layered saves, high powered, high RoF, Long Ranged weaponry, long ranged support and formation bonuses all for bargain points costs. You'll find a lot of vehicles have these things but very few have all of them rolled into one cheap, tidy package.

I'm not arguing that the MC type is OP - I'm arguing, rather, that some MC don't pay enough for the benefits they receive.

See the bolded part of my post. Tyranid MCs, with very few exceptions pay sufficient points for their capabilities, and more often than not, pay far MORE points than they should for the benefits they gain.

You're basically arguing my point, here - we seem to agree entirely.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are OP. At least compared to vehicles. And some MCs are OP compared to everything.

We can agree that the MC type is overall stronger than the Vehicle Type, taken generally and presuming otherwise equalized stats.

So long as the MC pays sufficient points for that benefit, MCs are not OP. So long as Vehicles are sufficiently cheap in points, a Vehicle can be OP.

(No, PLEASE don't discuss the actual points you want for any particular MC, as I'm not discussing any particular MC and only responding to the over-generalization in your comment - that's off-topic, and I won't respond to it)

I don't think you can reduce it simply to points. Look at the guard for example. You can't reduce many of their Russes point cost due to the simple amount of firepower they can unload. One massive ongoing joke however is that an ork warboss on an attack bike with a powerklaw will pretty much automatically hit it's rear armour. Now as hilarious as this example is, why should we be giving CC units advantages in CC against vehicles to this extreme? Surely we should be making sure the only CC units attacking vehicles should at least attempt to be equipped for the job? Added to the fact glancing heavy stuff to death with medium weaponry means you don't even need specialised ranged tank killers to knock out vehicles these days. And don't get me started on D weapon spams some armies can do.

I think the issue always has been specific MC's rather than the class in general. You have the famous MC's that have no business being MC's in the Tau and Eldar Arsenal, the dreadknight cos reasons, the dakka brainleech flyrant because of it's short range extreme firepower is offset by it's manoeuvrability and finally the Demon Prince FMC's because of the amount of psychic dice they throw out!

Look at the flyrant, only one build is really viable and that's mostly because flyers are so rubbish no-one really bother bringing much AA anyway. Concerning the Demon Princes, I think simply rebalancing psychic powers could sort them out seeing that phase by itself is getting out of control anyway. Because of this I don't really think you can blame MC's in general when assigned to the correct units.

"You can't reduce many of their Russes point cost due to the simple amount of firepower they can unload. "

Their firepower isn't that good. Especially for the current cost. One reason this is true is that MCs of ALL types laugh off large blasts, and the other Russ guns are rather inefficient against them.

Martel732 wrote:
"You can't reduce many of their Russes point cost due to the simple amount of firepower they can unload. "

Their firepower isn't that good. Especially for the current cost. One reason this is true is that MCs of ALL types laugh off large blasts, and the other Russ guns are rather inefficient against them.

Compared to what an equivalent MC can arm itself with? Meh it's quite similar if not in russes favour....... just vehicles are much more fragile with guard equivalents having most of their firepower created in 3rd. Walking MC's generally die before getting anywhere and as I stated earlier, those with extreme firepower such as Tau MC's and GMC's simply shouldn't be classified as such. They should be vehicles.

And even then you're pitting MC's vs Tanks, they can both quite easily shred through basic infantry which should be a shared niche. Hell average russes blasts are extremely effective presuming they can hit something, which is more a flaw with blast rules if anything. Do you honestly think russes around the 100 point mark would be a good thing?

Apparently my previous post was taken in a way I did not intend, as if I said that the MC type itself is OP.

Let me be clear: The Type itself is IMO stronger, WHEN STATS ARE EQUALIZED, due to a larger list of special rules and the comparatively fewer weakness/vulnerabilities compared to the Vehicle type.

That doesn't entail that ANY MC is OP - OP is going to be based on whether the Power is appropriate to the Cost. (Yes, Martel, there are OP MCs, including Riptides)

A perfectly normal infantry unit can be more OP than an MC due to the power of the unit compared to its cost, and the same is true for vehicles: I'd rather take my Piranhas than most Tyranid MCs, despite Piranhas having the IMO weaker type, because the Piranhas are dirt-cheap point-wise and most Tyranid MCs are overcosted.


Further, while I think point costing CAN help us find balances, I'm very much a proponent of making the types far more equalized generally. The generalized vulnerability of vehicles to the Instant Death equivalent makes proper costing for stronger vehicles much more difficult and problematic.

I think point adjustments AND type adjustments are both useful for "fixing" the issues people have with the MC and vehicle types.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"You can't reduce many of their Russes point cost due to the simple amount of firepower they can unload. "

Their firepower isn't that good. Especially for the current cost. One reason this is true is that MCs of ALL types laugh off large blasts, and the other Russ guns are rather inefficient against them.

Compared to what an equivalent MC can arm itself with? Meh it's quite similar if not in russes favour....... just vehicles are much more fragile with guard equivalents having most of their firepower created in 3rd. Walking MC's generally die before getting anywhere and as I stated earlier, those with extreme firepower such as Tau MC's and GMC's simply shouldn't be classified as such. They should be vehicles.

And even then you're pitting MC's vs Tanks, they can both quite easily shred through basic infantry which should be a shared niche. Hell average russes blasts are extremely effective presuming they can hit something, which is more a flaw with blast rules if anything. Do you honestly think russes around the 100 point mark would be a good thing?

The usual russ comes in around 170ish. That could stand to be 145.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Technically you're still rolling for S10 against AV 10, despite never achieving any result other than a Penetrating roll.

Never said you weren't. It's a 0+. Pretty hard to fail that.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
But yes, there are minor differences - my argument, and we can agree to disagree about this, is that the distinction is so small that I'd gladly sacrifice those slight differences to get rid of the special snowflake AV system.

Personally, I'd rather reverse the situation, but give everything an Armour Save. It's a lot more intuitive than having to look up a chart, but that's just me. We can then utilize other rules for disabling an MC as well.

But a lot depends on how much detail vs abstraction you want in the game.