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.

Everyone has been griping about how walkers have taken a hit in 6th Edition and, frankly, they kind of have, but I don't think it's as bad a hit as people have been letting on. Why? Mainly because they went from ridiculously overpowered to just slightly underpowered. Well I came up with a few rules ideas that should hopefully bring Walkers back up at least to a comfortable "balanced" area.

Firstly, give all walkers Move Through Cover. The whole design philosophy for even creating a walker, at least by current military standards, is to traverse terrain which tracked and wheeled vehicles find difficult to traverse.

Second, give all walkers Hammer of Wrath. If a bike has the potential to run somebody over than you can damn well be assured that a walker is going to make an easy time stepping on some lowly enemy soldier (and turning them into paste) or just smashing it's weight into whatever it sees fit. Its a huge hunk of metal running at you, odds are its bulk in and of itself is going to be a weapon.

Lastly, all walkers have the Fear special rule on the turn they charge into close combat. Having that much unstoppable metal charging into you is going to be a mentally traumatic experience, especially if said highly mobile piece of metal has an amped-up voxcaster that's shouting aggressively as it does so.

Well that's all I got, nothing fancy or overly complicated, just a simple solution to what I view as a simple problem. Lemme know what you think.

Fear is a good idea but ATSKNF makes it pretty much pointless. Mind, that's not a problem with Fear but with ATSKNF. Move through cover and HoW would make them pretty sweet though.

So pretty much make them MC's with hull points and AV?

Don't the siege and ironclad dreadnoughts already have move through cover? As I recall, they are specialized machines for such work. And wraithlirds and war walkers would probably be more nimble, but less likely to be that resilient in rougher terrain. Most walkers make me think of the AT-ST and its failures in ROTJ.

Wraithlords are Monstrous Creatures, they already get Move through Cover.

The AT-ST's problem was that it was... well... an AT-ST? The theory behind walking vehicles and rough terrain is sound, but the AT-ST's fragile legs and limited-traverse fixed weapon mountings made it basically useless. Not to mention the fact it was made out of paper with an insanely high centre of gravity. AT-STs are a bad, bad example of how to build a walking tank.

I like it!!

I personally dont think walkers are over or under powered. They are better this time around thats for sure. I actually play with my warwalkers now.

And I agree that the fear thing versus marines is a little useless, but thats just cuz marines know no fear.. Against most other armies, that would be handy..

Good ideas, not too much but it gives them a little "bump"...Nice.

Andyman

I think probably the simplest solution is to go back to having grenades only hit walkers on a 6. The biggest problem I've seen with Walkers, at least in 6th, is that they tend to get mauled by models with Krak Grenades in CC, and that by making grenades harder to use against them, it will greatly increase their durability.

RegalPhantom wrote:
I think probably the simplest solution is to go back to having grenades only hit walkers on a 6. The biggest problem I've seen with Walkers, at least in 6th, is that they tend to get mauled by models with Krak Grenades in CC, and that by making grenades harder to use against them, it will greatly increase their durability.

I think the solution to that has to be Codex-based at this point. Any CC-oriented Walker shouldn't have a front and side AV of less than 13. AV 13 solves the problem of Krak Grenades whilst still keeping them weak against enough ranged fire, melta bombs, and S8 strikes in close combat. While we saw things like regular Dreadnoughts take a hit with 6th, Ironclads became far, far more attractive because of their Front and Side AVs of 13.

"Solves the problem with Krak Grenades" is it really a problem? Having anything that wishes to attack you back forced to a single attack at init 1?

I think that this problem needs an analysis rather than the rather irrational statement "we need to plug all weaknesses".

The OP approaches it right, though, suggesting lesser buffs rather than simply removing all that gives a chance of killing them.

 Mahtamori wrote:
"Solves the problem with Krak Grenades" is it really a problem? Having anything that wishes to attack you back forced to a single attack at init 1?

Krak Grenades in close combat strike at normal WS and Initiative and the entire squad can use them, you're thinking of meltabombs. So typically that's 10 Krak Grenade attacks, adding a meltabomb in there just pretty much guarantees two Hull Point losses on the first round of combat alone to anything with AV12 and that's not including any hull points the Dreadnought has lost just getting into close combat (unless the walker can score enough wounds to get the pesky character out of there...and with only 2 Attacks, 3 on the charge, that's not likely to happen unless you have Furioso in your name).

I do agree with your basic sentimentality though, grenades aren't the problem, it's the Walkers themselves that are the issue. As I said before, CC-oriented walkers should all be AV 13 on the Front and Side from now on and even a few of the original additions I mentioned would bring Walkers up to where they should be, not overpowered but not useless in CC (barring AV 13 that is).

But what would they need to be priced at in order to merit AV13/13/X?

What price would you have to pay for a model which is completely immune to a very, very, large portion of the enemy's possible models?

Why would side armour need to be improved?

This is a symptom of writing rules exclucivley rather than inclusivley.40K has only 2 unit types from a game mechanic point of view.And ALL units could have a unified statline.However GW plc write rules exclusivley to sell toy soldiers .Thats why the rules are far more complicated than the game play needs.And units are much harder to ballance when they all use different stats and reslution method s.

 Mahtamori wrote:
But what would they need to be priced at in order to merit AV13/13/X?

What price would you have to pay for a model which is completely immune to a very, very, large portion of the enemy's possible models?

Why would side armour need to be improved?

Thankfully a lot of assault-oriented walkers are already AV 13 so it's not a major issue across the board currently. Even Maulerfiends, who only have AV 12, mitigate "Kraking to Death" with It Will Not Die. This special rule may not make them as durable as a Furioso or Ironclad, it does at least help mitigate the damage of being glanced to death somewhat (frankly most of the "vehicles" in the Chaos Marine codex shouldn't have even been vehicles, but that's for another post).

I like your solutions in the original post. I always feel like they don't have enough attacks to demonstrate the likelyhood that they can just walk all over most enemy troops.

I also just feel like they aren't worth their points in a world where grenades, bombs, fists and strength 7 weaponry are so plentiful. Not so much of a question of whether they would be worth their points at a better profile, more that the close combat plan for them is just unrealistic or not as exciting as expected. Riflemen on the other hand.

I think Melta Bombs should be unwieldy.

Aren't they kinda already?

Meltabombs are unwieldy. Krak are not.

But the question remains, why would the walkers need better side armour? That would only protect them from tactically positioned shooting - i.e. it would discourage what the game is about in order to justify taking some sort of Red Alert 1 tank-rush unit sort of thing.

Also, having AV13 isn't the best thing ever, either, since you can no longer lock people in close combat if you're stacked that high. Getting quality-of-life rules is a better option I'd say. A basic (5+) invulnerable save, maybe? This is on the older walkers, not the cheaper and newer, of course

Eldercaveman wrote:
So pretty much make them MC's with hull points and AV?

To my understanding, that is what a walker is supposed to be anyway.

Smash wasn't included however, and I could easily see that one too.

Jefffar wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
So pretty much make them MC's with hull points and AV?

To my understanding, that is what a walker is supposed to be anyway.

Smash wasn't included however, and I could easily see that one too.

Yeah I think that's what they are supposed to be, but it doesn't come across all that well in the rules.

I second the OP, those small rules do make sense! Hammer of wrath works for massive biological beasts, why not massive mechanical beasts?
I am a touch hesitant about the fear effect. But making it only on the first assault turn is 'okay' tame, fair fluffy... And then I picture an ork deff dread charging infantry with all its 'uge buzzsaws and scary metal skulls. Right, fear is well deserved there... Arguably the blocky imperial dreadnoughts or sentinels, or eldar walkers aren't near that scary and might not deserve fear (other discussion). But ork deff dreads? Definitely!

I disagree totally with 13 side armor on walkers, they are not main battle tanks! The design (having legs, more surface area, requiring lighter materials) or walkers prevents them being as tough as metal boxes with threads and high surface contact, so don't go too high with armor on walkers, ever.
And 13 front armor need not be 'the only way' to make an assault dread. High speed (Fleet? Fast? Tricks to hit melee quick?) and decent initiative are also fair answers to the existence of krak, without making krak grenades useless - which they shouldn't be!

I'll admit I play orks, and feel that the poor deff dread with 12/12/10 armor no trick to reach assault fast and being only usable in an assault role does feel a little outdated. Maybe a fair reduction in price for AV12 assault walkers would also be a cool thing. (-Squadrons- of deff dreads, hmmm )

To be honest, Fear could apply to most things in 40k outside of the Imperial Guard (even then, seeing a hundred...thousand or so men screaming and running straight at you when you know quite well you don't have enough bullets or bombs to kill em' all would still be pretty scary. Maybe not to Space Marines, but still). As, im not sure if it's just me, but most everything in this game if it came running at me with the intent to stab/burn/slice/main/kill/DESTROY/etc. me I would be pretty terrified.

Alas, but then comes balance hahahaha. I wouldn't mind most of these changes, hahaha my Sentinels deserve a bit of basic love hahaha (well, Scout version. The Armored Version does pretty well, but they just are too flimsy in a higher point game to be effective. But a 3 Out-Flanking Scout Sentinels with Multi-Lasers or AC's is a pretty nice rear-armor hitter)

It would also be really swell if walkers had some sort of minimum AP. A guardsman's bodyarmor saving him from a real kick from a war walker or being stepped on by a Triarch stalker seems hilarious. It would at least put the poor guy out of commission.