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.

Serious, this question has come to me when i saw the new "daemon things" of chaos, and discoverd they use Vehicle rules...

So, please, tell me how this:

Is an Mountrous Creature

And those

Are a vehicles...

Thank you

If the stats have an armour value, the vehicle is a unit?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but when you consider that Wraithguard and Wraithlords have technically had the same issue as the Dreadknight since 3rd edition, it's something 40k players just get used to.

The hilarious side is it means the Dreadknight and Wraithlord can be exploded by a Tyranid implant attack. It's hilarious watching peoples faces when that happens.

Or mowed down by poisoned needles

Not as funny, but highly effective

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:
Serious, this question has come to me when i saw the new "daemon things" of chaos, and discovered they use Vehicle rules...

So, please, tell me how this:

Is a Monstrous Creature

And those

Are vehicles...

Thank you

The Dreadknight has an exposed operator, and is essentially an "exoskeleton" for a Terminator armored Grey Knight.

The Maulerfiend/Forgefiend both utilize a Daemon bound within a body, which they animate and use to interact with the environment around them. There are no exposed "organic" components.

Of course, that brings to question why Wraithlords can be affected by Tyranid weapons but my own theory is that bioweapons can affect Wraithbone like they can other organisms.

Ok. Your subject line and thread content really have nothing ro do with each other, anyway....

Vehicles have hull points and armor values. That is how 6e defines them. Remember rhat the GK codex was written before the new edition, so that's not the issue.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Ok. Your subject line and thread content really have nothing ro do with each other, anyway....

Of course the subject and content are related. Everyone knows what the vehicle rules are, the question is how GW defines what makes a unit a vehicle instead of a MC. IOW, what is the defining essence of "vehicle" that allows the GK walker to be a MC while a similar looking unit is a vehicle.

Whooooosh!

Off to the 40 k forum!

What does it matter? Unless the OP is designing a new unit or has a rules issue, there is nothing here. GW designed and published the rules, that is that. So what is the OP's point?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
What does it matter? Unless the OP is designing a new unit or has a rules issue, there is nothing here. GW designed and published the rules, that is that. So what is the OP's point?

What's the point in discussing anything about GW's choices ever? GW has made their choices and we have no input, so let's just lock every thread that ever questions something GW has done.

Wasted electrons in cyberspace...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Wasted electrons in cyberspace...

Is there any other kind?

Not on any interwebs I know of.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Wasted electrons in cyberspace...

The electrons still exist, they were not wasted

To be fair, with Hull Points, there really isn't a difference, except that vehicles are bad just because

Ok them... wasted electrons...

The problem is, based on this, the definition of what is a Monster Creature and what is a Walker end up "mixed".

I always think in Wraithlords as Golens, creatures made from a rare material, and animated using some type of magic. They are not machines, but something ELSE.

Exactly what those beast chaos things are.

What im saying is, at the first moment a put my eyes on one of the "daemon things", i thought "nice, chaos is getting some monstruous creatures", just to find later that they are the new Chaos Defiler...

I had a similar issue with the Dreadknight, but inversed, when i first saw it, i thought "hey a new walker". At that time i found it strange that he was some type of MC, but just "dont worried".

This will not change the life of anyone, we know what is a vehicle and what is a MC in the rules, the problem is what is a MC or a Vehicle conceptualy. There is more important matters in the world, but think about it, tyranids can have vehicles in their new codex... "higly armored beyings with no organic parts showing"... that is a 2+ save, not a 11+ FAV, well, not anymore.

The reason the DK is a MC is because that is what GW deemed best for balance. It also makes it something different from normal Imperial units.

Similarly, the Forge and Maulerfiends made more sense as vehicles from a game mechanics perspective.


The DK wouldn't have worked well with its Teliporter if it was a walker.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The reason the DK is a MC is because that is what GW deemed best for balance.

Hrm, that's quite an assumption. Generally models and the idea they operate around are done before rules, so it's much more likely they started with the idea of a GK MC.

Similarly, the Forge and Maulerfiends made more sense as vehicles from a game mechanics perspective.

It is very difficult indeed to tell them apart from an MC at this point, the primary thing being basically they have a 5+ invul instead of something like a 3+ armor.

In terms of function, they're almost perfectly identical to a T8 W3 MC, except they're immune to stuff that affects things with a T or Ld value, have no armor save, and are crippled or killed on any to-wound roll exceeding the minimum required to wound them.


Certainly, it makes one wonder why GW bothered with a distinction anymore

40k discussions belong in their namesake forum.

I would say that the choice between MC and Vehicle is determined by how the fluff is best representative by the rules.

I can't give hard evidence as I don't play either chaos or GK, but it may be the case that they way the designers wanted the DreadKnight to 'feel' on the tabletop was best suited to a MC profile, whereas the FF/MF's 'feel' was best suited to a walker.

I suppose it also keeps it tough while conveying how exposed the pilot is. Open topped isn't something you really want on a somewhat melee focused walker.

Landspeeders aren't open-topped because the marines are wearing PA; I'd say TDA would have a similar effect

If you're asking "why ____ in the GK codex," the answer is "because Ward."

Arturius wrote:
If you're asking "why ____ in the GK codex," the answer is "because Ward."

This.

Well, DK as a concept is closer to Wraithlord than Dreadnought, so DK being MC is completely understandable that way.
Why was Wraithlord made MC in 3e, that is the question you should ask.

Luide wrote:
Well, DK as a concept is closer to Wraithlord than Dreadnought, so DK being MC is completely understandable that way.
Why was Wraithlord made MC in 3e, that is the question you should ask.

So it could be immune to bolters

Either way, I fail to see how 6e defined the Dreadknight as a monstrous creature...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Either way, I fail to see how 6e defined the Dreadknight as a monstrous creature...

I told you, because Ward.

Arturius wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Either way, I fail to see how 6e defined the Dreadknight as a monstrous creature...

I told you, because Ward.

Not because Ward-whining went out a while ago?

Don't mistake a lapse in release for a going out of style. There hasn't been a Ward release in year for 40k, prepare again once DA's come out

 Vaktathi wrote:
Don't mistake a lapse in release for a going out of style. There hasn't been a Ward release in year for 40k, prepare again once DA's come out

QTF