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.

Vehicle rules seem like they're evolving into something very similar to MC rules anyway, with the addition of Hull Points in 6th and the tweaked damage table in 7th. Armour Penetration is now more like rolling "to wound" than ever, with a small added bonus of causing extra damage if you roll high enough.

Heck, switching over to a Toughness value isn't even that much of a stretch. Just take the AV of the vehicle and subtract 4 - that should give you the same chance of causing damage in most cases (exceptions being high S weapons vs low AV targets). Then just say that if you beat your required roll to damage (i.e. "wound") by 1 or more, you get to roll on the Vehicle Damage table as normal.

You'd obviously have to tweak a lot of other things (poison, sniper, etc.), but it's doable.

Monstrous Construct: Some engines of war, such as the largest Eldar wraith-constructs and Tau battlesuits are heavily armoured like vehicles, but far more agile and maneuverable. Monstrous Constructs are treated as Monstrous Creatures (and have all respective special rules), with the following exceptions

-Poison weapons or attacks have no effect. Use the weapon (or bearer's) base strength when rolling to wound against a Monstrous Construct.
-to represent the thick armour of a Monstrous Construct, (but reflect that it may have weaknesses that a Vehicle does not) all other attacks that use a flat D6 score for damage (i.e. Dark Eldar Agonizers and Sniper weapons) only Wound a Monstrous Construct on a roll of 6.
-Haywire grenades and weapons may be used against Monstrous Constructs with the following modification: when rolling to resolve the effect of a Haywire attack on a Monstrous Construct, treat glancing hits as a inflicting a Wound with AP -. A penetrating hit causes a Wound to be inflicted at AP 2. Monstrous Constructs may not take cover saves against Haywire wounds caused in close combat. If a Weapon has both a Strength value and the Haywire special rule, i.e. Dark Eldar Haywire blasters and Storm projectors, the weapon's controlling player may decide to resolve the attack using the weapon's base strength and AP or the Haywire rule - they cannot do both, unless the weapon's special rule specifically permits this.

Its been mentioned before but yeah, GW drags rules forward rather than really overhauling them. What I would like to see is new classifications with rules that define the types better.
Something like Walker, Construct, Monsterous Creature. Then by adding modifiers like Heavy or Super-Heavy it layers a few more rules on the base classification.

So a Riptide could be a Heavy Walker, a Wraith Knight a Heavy Construct and Hive tyrant a Heavy MC.

The rules are an abstract to model certain attributes. As far as I know infantry characteristics (jumppack/jetpack) cannot be added to walkers, hence the use of MC.

And every time i see someone say crisis suits as walkers I have to ask "why so you can kill them easier?" Crisis suits are basically tau power armor, but they have not had as long to refine the tech to get it down to space marine size. Do you think a jump marine with a special weapon should be a walker? I doubt it.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
Its been mentioned before but yeah, GW drags rules forward rather than really overhauling them. What I would like to see is new classifications with rules that define the types better.
Something like Walker, Construct, Monsterous Creature. Then by adding modifiers like Heavy or Super-Heavy it layers a few more rules on the base classification.

So a Riptide could be a Heavy Walker, a Wraith Knight a Heavy Construct and Hive tyrant a Heavy MC.

The rules are an abstract to model certain attributes. As far as I know infantry characteristics (jumppack/jetpack) cannot be added to walkers, hence the use of MC.

And every time i see someone say crisis suits as walkers I have to ask "why so you can kill them easier?" Crisis suits are basically tau power armor, but they have not had as long to refine the tech to get it down to space marine size. Do you think a jump marine with a special weapon should be a walker? I doubt it.

Well, Crisis suits aren't an issue with being infantry, it's the Riptide I'm worried about. And I agree with you that there needs to be a middle classification, lie Construct. Since, a vehicle is easily killed with almost no save most of the time, and a MC is much harder to kill, just because of unit type. And also, the Maulerfiend has an ability to where it moves 12 inches a turn, so why not have other walkers with similar abilities, like Jump packs or Jet packs?

Why not have a special rule for robotic in which they are mostly machine so they are resistant or immune to poison but can be harmed by haywire.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
I like having small differences among similar units. It's makes things feel more unique. If anything, 40K needs more classifications, not fewer. A heavy and light Infantry spring to my mind immediately.
I do wish walkers got more of the benefits monstrous creatures have, like AP 2 and maybe Smash. This May just be a byproduct of the models I own. (Compare a Triarch Stalker to a Canoptek Spyder sometime).

I very much disagree, we have too many confusing complicated classes:

- jet packs, jump infantry, cavalry, bikes, jetbikes, beasts, are all pretty much 12" movement infantry with the only difference being how they handle terrain. Could easily be sorted into two categories of fast infantry: grounded and airborne.

Light vs heavy infantry is easily factored in with armor saves, relentless, slow and steady, etc.

I take the opposite of the OP position, walkers would be better as MCs. It'd be much harder to land a decisive hit on a mobile walker than a much more predictable tank. Make walkers into toughness 6 or 7 with 3 wounds. This would also help since it's tough to determine the armor facing on walkers with round bases and rounded armor profiles.

Well I like the Vehicle Damage chart, as it gives some detail of what kind of damage the vehicle has taken. This kind of detail would of course be too extreme to apply to smaller models but apparently also bigger vehicles escape the effects of the Vehicle Damage chart which is odd I think...

We have roughly three sizes: normal, big and super big but it's only the middle size which get specific kinds of damage. Yes they excuse themselves with the Super-Heavies being so large and have so much crew that they ignore the result on the Vehicle Damage chart which I think is a poor excuse.

My guess is that either it'll be too much to note down that if a result has occurred HP/3 times then it occurs for the Super Heavy or that GW actually don't like the Vehicle Damage chart. If the latter is the case then the removal of the Vehicle Damage chart would certainly speak for Walkers should be changed to Monstrous Creatures.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:

And every time i see someone say crisis suits as walkers I have to ask "why so you can kill them easier?" Crisis suits are basically tau power armor, but they have not had as long to refine the tech to get it down to space marine size. Do you think a jump marine with a special weapon should be a walker? I doubt it.

Because they're almost the size of Dreadnoughts, which Assault Marines are not. Other suits are even bigger. Only Stealth Suits are small enough to be considered "armour" and not a vehicle.

A separate "construct" type is unnecessary, because being a construct doesn't dictate anything special about its movement or durability, just that it should be immune to Poison and Haywire. The Walker classification should be expanded, and special rules should be given to several things, primarily Necrons and Wraith units, to distinguish their unique nature. Tau Drones, too. To fix the problem of vehicles being easy to kill, could Walkers have armour saves?

We have rules for chariots in 40k. It's about time we stopped making our mechs out to be monsters.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


We have rules for chariots in 40k. It's about time we stopped making our mechs out to be monsters.

This.